INSIGHTS
Creating a Smarter City
Mobilized spent some quality time speaking with Fanni Melles, the Host of the “What is the Future For Cities Podcast.“
Mobilized: From your unique vantage point, do you witness the pivotal role of community leaders in shaping the future of their cities, enhancing urban experiences, and fostering a sense of belonging?
Fanni: Well, it is a yes-and-no answer. There are great examples where the decision-makers try to achieve magnificent things for the community and the city, but this is not the general approach. A good example for a collaborative approach is Amsterdam. This city constantly develops its future vision with its community based on urban experiments, or Christchurch, where the Smart Christchurch is the R&D department of the Christchurch City Council, trialing specific solutions before broader adoption. On the other hand, questionable solutions jeopardize the community’s future and urban resources.
What are the biggest obstacles to rolling this out?
Some of the obstacles are the need for the understanding that a city needs to evolve with us humans – that is why I talk about more innovative approaches. This means there is always room for improvement, there is always a next step, and our approach can be more innovative first (then we can turn to the environment to make it brighter).
This also brings in the understanding that without more intelligent people, there is no more innovative approach. The urban vision needs to involve the community because if they are not part of it, they will not participate – sometimes even actively harming efforts and sowing discord (not maliciously but inadvertently).
What are the first steps in planning a smarter city?
I aim to find a long-term vision to guide short-term strategies, trials, and experiments. The vision could/should be over the 50-year horizon, flexible enough to allow evolution to happen in the different fields, and understood by the stakeholders (and it does not matter what the name is as long as the involved parties agree on the meaning).
People need to be involved in this vision creation – that creates individual ownership and responsibility, allowing grass-roots movements to start alongside the top-down approaches. With this vision, strategies, and tactics can be implemented, always informing each other and creating a self-reinforcing feedback loop – the Smarter City Flywheel.
What are some of the mistakes you have seen?
- A Smart city is usually associated with technology or a technologically advanced city. Technology does not matter without people using it. So, technology needs to be the aim to create better futures through smarter approaches.
- There is resistance to the continuous evolution piece. However, if a city stops evolving, it will die because we humans evolve, and if a place does not serve our needs, we will abandon it and find a better one (hopefully).
Remembering that what works in one place may not work in another is crucial. Each urban area is unique, and solutions must be tailored and translated to fit the specific needs and characteristics of the region and city. Never underestimate the power of people’s input. Cities are ultimately for the people; their thoughts, experiences, challenges, and opportunities are invaluable in shaping the urban landscape. We can influence our environment and the decisions that shape our future.
Can you provide some examples to “newbies” who want to know how to improve the quality of life where they are now?
I recommend starting with your environment (apartment, building, street, metro station, office, etc.):
- What does work?
- What infuriates you?
- What do you especially like?
Talk with people about it and let the owners or decision-makers know. If we are conscious of our environment and what works and what doesn’t, we can change for the present and start consciously influencing the future.
There have been campaigns against 4G, 5G–etc. What is the reality of this situation?
If I want to be straightforward, they are fear-mongering campaigns for me, but that is my opinion, as I am not familiar with all the campaigns. However, no urban futures are here to make our lives worse – the same with technology. It is not the urban future idea (or technology) that is bad or threatening, but how people (we and our decision-makers) utilize them. So, we return to the piece on our influence: we can ask for better solutions.
(On the other hand, I encourage everyone not to play expert in fields they are not expert in. Some have spent years understanding how to solve a specific problem; we need to provide them with the challenge and let them find the most appropriate solution.
In urban design/planning and architectural terms, that means that the designer/planner needs to investigate the original brief and find the root causes to provide the client with the best spatial solution – although for that to happen, they also need the allowance from the client to happen. This requires trust in experts, which might be lost, but that is another separate issue.)
In closing, what new possibilities can you discuss that could inspire ethical community leaders?
Don’t be afraid to start something to improve your environment. Governments are playing catch-up with the latest solutions (as they should), so we shouldn’t wait for them to provide the best solutions. We must create a better future—not easy, but challenging. Still, if the responsibility is on us, then not just the challenges but the opportunities are ours to grasp. Technology, which can be understood as applied knowledge, is part of the better future, but it is a tool, not the aim. We need to utilise technology for conscious evolution, but at the same time we also need to focus and broadcast its benefits instead of being sidetracked by its newness.
Some of What is the Future for Cities Podcast, hosted by Fanni Melles:
- WTF ep 003 – Interview with Frans-Anton Vermast, International Smart City Ambassador at Amsterdam Smart City, about their program and approaches
- WTF ep 120 – Interview with Matt Ferrell, Youtube creator specialising in renewable energy, about renewable technologies and hope
- WTF ep 165 – Interview with Michael Healy, Innovation and Improvement Manager at Christchurch City Council, about how smart city is the R&D department for the council
- WTF ep 274 – Interview with Richard Gill, CEO of RethinkX, about change
- Smart city? Smarter City! – Youtube video by Fanni Melles, PhD
COP must evolve with the times, or go down the abyss of irrelevancy.
COP 30 lands in Belém, a vulnerable Amazon city, Nov 10–21, 2025. The host nation hopes to spotlight deforestation, Indigenous rights, and climate inequity. Brazil plans to launch the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF)—a proposed $125 billion blended‑finance fund to reward forest conservation.
What’s at risk
- Affordability crisis: Belém has ~18,000 hotel beds for ~45,000 expected attendees. Room rates surged to $700–$2,000/night. Developing nations may be shut out.) Brazil has deployed cruise ships and capped rates for poorer countries—but gaps remain.
- Credibility gap: A new highway cutting through protected rainforest (Avenida Liberdade) contradicts the summit’s conservation message—even though officials deny federal involvement.
- Fossil fuel influence: COP media deal awarded to PR firm Edelman, which also represents Shell—sparking conflict concerns.
Why it may just “kick the can”
- Progress stalled in Bonn: Critical texts—like the Just Transition Work Programme and the Gender Action Plan—are underpowered, with weakening language on Indigenous and gender justice. Negotiations postponed to Belém.
- Ambitious goals, low political will: The annual climate finance scale-up roadmap to $1.3 trillion by 2035 lacks binding commitments. Most countries’ updated NDCs remain underwhelming.
- Logistical chaos: Thousands of civil society, women groups, and youth may be excluded by cost and infrastructure constraints, undermining representation.
Why it still matters
- Location is symbolic: Holding COP in the Amazon aims to humanize climate action, not sanitize it in luxury venues.
- TFFF could deliver: If fully funded by COP or 2026, the forest conservation fund could redefine climate finance.
- Health in focus: A WHO-led Climate & Health conference in Brasília is shaping a Health Action Plan for COP, embedding public health in climate policy.
Bottom line
COP 30 has the potential for impact—but so far, optics risk overshadowing outcomes. High costs, diluted ambition, fossil-fuel influence, and delayed mechanisms could make Belém another kickoff, not a game changer. Unless financial pledges and rights-centered action materialize, COP 30 may merely defer real climate solutions to the next summit.
As people in America–and worldwide–are rethinking their residencies, Brazil offers a unique opportunity.
Why it matters
Brazil’s investor visa (VIPER), launched in 2018 and expanded in 2025, offers straight to permanent residency, family inclusion, and a path to citizenship in ~4 years. Designed to attract foreign capital, it’s one of Latin America’s most competitive options.
✅ Pros
- Low investment threshold: BRL 700K (~USD 140K) in the North/Northeast; BRL 1 M (~USD 200K) in other regions.
- Fast processing: Approval typically in 3–6 months.
- Minimal stay requirement: Spend just ~14 days every 2 years in Brazil to maintain residency.(
- Path to citizenship: Apply after 4 years of residency; dual nationality allowed.
- Family included: Spouse and dependents can join under the same investment.
- Access to MERCOSUR: Freedom to live/work across South America and access public services locally.
❌ Cons & caveats
- Capital-intensive: Though cheaper than many EU programs, still requires upfront investment.
- Low liquidity: Must hold qualifying property or business for residency status.
- Complex documentation: Must transfer funds through formal Brazilian banks; property deed must be fully registered.
- Tax implications: Residents become Brazilian tax-liable; must file global income.
- Risk & bureaucracy: Mistakes in property purchase or application can lead to denial.
⚙️ How it works
- Choose investment route:
- Real estate: BRL 1M (~USD 200K), or BRL 700K in North/Northeast.
- Business investment: As low as BRL 150K (~USD 30K) if it creates jobs or invests in tech.
- Acquire property or company with clean title in urban region.
- Transfer funds via central‑bank‑approved channels.
- Apply via MigrantWeb and attend a brief visit (~30 days in-country).
- Receive temp residency (2–4 years), then upgrade to permanent if holding the investment.
- Citizenship after residency plus Portuguese proficiency and clean record.
Real-world impact
- Stimulates foreign investment into Brazilian real estate and startups.
- Helps diversify global mobility: Dual citizens gain visa-free access to ~171 countries.
- Competitive edge: Lower thresholds than Spain, Portugal, and others, with faster timelines and better climate
Who should consider it
- Remote workers or retirees seeking affordable residency in Latin America
- Investors looking for second passports or access to Mercosur markets
- Entrepreneurs or families seeking global mobility and alternate residency options
Bottom line
Brazil’s Golden Visa isn’t just another residency-by-investment program—it’s a strategic gateway to permanent residency, citizenship, and regional access, at competitive cost and with minimal residency obligations.
Whether you’re buying property in Recife or launching a startup in São Paulo, Brazil offers a forward-facing bridge for global citizens—without the EU price tag.
America’s public media system is stuck in a time warp — built for a world that no longer exists.
Back then…
When the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) was founded in 1967, there was:
- ❌ No internet
- ❌ No YouTube
- ❌ No MP3s or MP4s
- ❌ No smartphones
- ❌ No TikTok, file sharing, livestreams, or global DIY distribution
NPR, PBS, and local community stations were born in the age of vinyl and rabbit ears — and many still operate like it’s 1975.
The old model
- Broadcast licenses → transmit radio/TV signals
- Federal subsidies + pledge drives → fund operations
- Audience = passive receivers
All built for one-to-many media when the internet has made everyone a node.
The new reality
Welcome to media in motion:
- Creators self-distribute across platforms
- Real-time news spreads peer-to-peer
- Audiences expect participation, not programming
- Livestreams, podcasts, and video-on-demand rule attention
It’s horse and buggy vs the electric car, and too much of public media is still shoveling hay.
Why it matters
| Then | Now |
|---|---|
| Top-down | Peer-to-peer |
| Static schedules | On-demand, everywhere |
| Centralized stations | Decentralized communities |
| Annual pledge drives | Micro-giving, crowdfunding, subscriptions |
We can’t build the future with our minds in the past. Yet too much of public media clings to legacy systems, dated org charts, and siloed content.
What’s being lost
- Entire generations under 40 have no relationship with public radio or TV
- Community voices, diverse stories, and local impact are drowned out by outdated delivery
- Opportunity for global collaboration, multilingual content, and co-creation is missed
Public media could be a participatory ecosystem — but instead, it’s often a museum exhibit of what media used to be.
What’s next
✅ Shift from broadcast to networked ecosystems
✅ Enable community-owned media nodes
✅ Train creators in digital-first storytelling
✅ Embrace open-source, global collaboration
✅ Reimagine the CPB as a commons infrastructure, not a broadcast subsidy
Bottom line
We don’t do that anymore.
Public media must evolve—or become irrelevant. This is not business as usual. It’s time to flip the script—before the last station fades to static.
