What If the Future of Cities… Wasn’t Cities?

That was a tweet I posted the other day thinking about how it looked like the demand for office-centric cities was about to drop through the floor. And how the Internet had made so many features of the 20th century American city obsolete — libraries, shopping centers, banks, movie theaters, government services and office buildings. Meanwhile, access to the internet, and the features of this nascent technology are getting better every minute. Now with the promise of AI peaking above the horizon like the morning sun on a new day, we think it’s time to seriously consider the Internet’s affect on the built environment.

If you designed a city today, knowing that most of the services that were only a short time ago exclusive to cities — banking, high paying jobs, news, information, culture, entertainment, etc — were now primarily online, what would that city look like? What’s at the heart of the City? Why do we come together if not for movie premiers, shopping, sharing the news, visiting the bank, talking to our colleagues? If we took a fresh look at places where we come together, would they look anything like what cities do today?

“What if the future of cities wasn’t cities?”

Matai fed my tweet to ChatGPT — what it said stopped me in my tracks:

“If the future of cities wasn’t cities, it could mean that there is a shift towards more decentralized living arrangements, with people choosing to live in smaller, more self-sufficient communities. This could be driven by a variety of factors such as the desire for more sustainable living, the availability of technology that allows for remote work and communication, or a desire for more personal space and independence.

In such a scenario, it is possible that people would be more connected through digital means than physical proximity, and the way we define “city” and “urban” might need to change. Rather than a single, centralized urban area, there might be a network of smaller communities linked together by digital communication and transportation infrastructure.

This shift could have both positive and negative impacts. On the one hand, it could lead to more sustainable living, with smaller communities able to produce their own food, generate their own energy, and reduce their carbon footprint. It could also lead to a greater sense of community and local identity, with people more connected to their neighbors and the places they live.

On the other hand, it could also lead to greater inequality and fragmentation, with some communities thriving while others struggle. It could also make it more difficult to provide services and infrastructure at scale, as smaller communities may not have the resources or expertise to provide certain amenities.

Overall, the future of cities is uncertain, but it is clear that the way we live and work is changing rapidly. Whether or not cities as we know them today will continue to be the dominant form of human settlement remains to be seen.”

I don’t think I could have said it better myself — Which I guess is the point, and maybe means I might not have a job for long :)

Would we need massive subway and commuter rail systems? Huge parking garages and faceless office buildings? 5,000 person night clubs and dangerous car-laden street? Or could we live more intimately and connected. Would we be served better to invest in local agriculture, community spaces? Maybe prioritizing joy and belonging over production and efficiency?

Chat GPT’s concern for inequality and fragmentation is important and touching. But as we’ve been studying the trend towards decentralized cities for several years, I look at this as potential for choice and better equality than we have now.

The old system is that everyone gets the same thing on the federal level, or on the state level — healthcare, guns, education, funding for social services — it’s a one size fits all approach. And it’s creating a lot of tension. Why are we trying to force a single ideology and push a bill onto someone who doesn’t want it. Why can’t we have communities — either in smaller groups, perhaps unbound by geography- bond together and have the services that they collectively fund follow their group ethos? If one group wants to pay low taxes and have no healthcare and limited education, and another group wants to collectivize and share resources for common healthcare and education, why wouldn’t we let that happen? The internet has made it possible to find each other, get to scale, and collectivize outside of geography. The important thing to make this work is individual agency and the fluidity to move between groups.

This goes with my strong belief that the best solution, the equitable, diverse and caring community based on love will win in the end. Trying to force people into this viewpoint wont work, but living our best lives will create something so compelling that it becomes undeniable and brings others in.

So as cities continue to get unbundled, and as the aging urban infrastructure gets less appealing, don’t forget why we are here, why we came together in the first place. We are believers in communities but not attached to urban infrastructure. We dream of cities designed for chance encounters, deep conversations, intangible connection, and somatic experiences you can’t find online.

The city of the future might look more like a bespoke community-development ensconced in nature, holding a dynamic, digitally-connected, educated polis. Perhaps based in one place, but with an online citizenry continuously assembling and reassembling, based on affinity, desire, or purpose. Maybe the city will be distributed across many places with people from around the world, living locally, but sharing culture, connection, and a sense of belonging globally. With conferences, hacker houses, festivals, work-cations and projects like Afropolitan, Zazalu, Kift and Cabin, — maybe it’s happening already.

As GPT said, maybe it’s time to redefine “urban” and “city” and to question what we have assumed is the only way to live, turning what could be a dark and scary time for cities into a moment of rebirth and a daring dream of what’s possible.