Age-Friendly Smart Cities
Age-Friendly community initiatives can feel, at times, nebulous and niche.
In my own Age-Friendly design work across industries and sectors, and conversations with friends outside the industry, I find it necessary to begin by laying a foundational explanation of the framework, the how and the why. Age-Friendly community frameworks are not currently a salient concept for everyone. There is, I have found, one notable exception and a network of invaluable thought partners in the smart cities ecosystem. There is much overlap in the small- and large-scale realities of these two concepts for community design.
Chelsea Collier, Editor-at-Large and Managing Partner at Smart Cities Connect writes:
“One of the best aspects of smart cities is the diversity of perspectives, experiences, and motivations that each person brings.” Same.
“Becoming a smart city is a process, not a destination.” Same.
Smart cities work “can often take many months, if not years. In these extended cycles, cities and technologies may change, making it difficult to build confidence in long-term solutions.” Same.
Age-Friendly and smart cities concepts require a diverse, inclusive ecosystem in which champions are convened for change.
Same. Same. Same.
If you are an Age-Friendly community leader, I urge you to connect with your local smart cities leaders, and vice versa. In my experience, the potential for synergy here is unmatched.
Age-Friendly is more than health. It’s community.
Age-Friendly communities are built upon a social determinants of health framework. However, the quality of life of any citizen is not measured by health outcomes alone. What we need are Age-Friendly systems that serve to keep us from falling through civic cracks as we get older. This requires Age-Friendly design thinking across sectors — transportation, healthcare, housing, parks, business, workforce, digital access — arguably everything.
Smart cities similarly operate across sectors to serve large civic systems. There are tangible benefits to partnerships with Age-Friendly community leaders, in addition to emotional support as we navigate similar barriers and celebrate mutual understanding of slow-but-steady wins along the path to long-term community improvement.
AgeTech at the Intersection of Smart Cities and Age-Friendly Communities
As a consultant for AgeTech companies, I often receive requests for connections with pilot hosts for scaling and trialing go-to-market strategies. If Age-Friendly community initiatives are niche, AgeTech is niche-niche and there aren’t enough champions currently. One possible solution for this problem could come from partnership with the network of smart cities testbeds. Creation and implementation of an AgeTech-specific testbed would serve us all as we age in place in smart cities. It would increase economic vitality by supporting entrepreneurship and job creation while also serving to support scalable solutions for aging-in-community. There are additional economic, social, and health benefits to intergenerational livable communities. Win, win.
We also know from the work of thought leaders like Changing the Narrative and prominent ageism researchers like Becca Levy, Tracey Gendron, and Mahzarin Banaji that implicit ageist bias continues to cloud our individual and collective awareness. Couple that with the risk of scaling any implicit bias through generative AI, use of Digital Twins, or Internet of Things, and I have to conclude that an Age-Friendly lens is imperative for smart cities projects. Smart cities leaders and Age-Friendly leaders can and should work together to combat the negative impact of bias in this collaborative civic space.
I am excited about the bright future of opportunities for Age-Friendly Smart Cities. In Age-Friendly work that feels nebulous and niche, collaboration with smart cities leaders, to me, feels crystal clear and universal.
