The Lincoln Institute provides a variety of early- and mid-career fellowship opportunities for researchers. In this series, we follow up with our fellows to learn more about their work.

How do you get people to consider drinking recycled wastewater? That was the challenge Marisa Manheim sought to address as a doctoral student at Arizona State University. With the help of a Babbitt Center Dissertation Fellowship, Manheim worked with 15 tap-water skeptics to conceive and codesign an exhibit aimed at inspiring curiosity about—and perhaps even acceptance of—a concept that many people reflexively reject.

While all water is recycled, in a sense—that’s how the water cycle works—some communities in arid areas, such as Scottsdale, Arizona, have been piloting direct potable reuse (DPR) systems, using advanced purification processes to treat wastewater to standards that exceed those of bottled water. Manheim decided to investigate the public’s response to such programs, bringing theories of embodied cognition to her research and exploring how emotions and bodily sensations contribute to decision-making.

Before pursuing her PhD, Manheim earned a master’s degree in experience design, and worked in corporate design research roles she found less than fulfilling. “A detour into activism” led her into urban agriculture just as the movement gained national momentum in the early 2000s.

Now an assistant professor of environment and sustainability at the University at Buffalo in New York, Manheim continues to take an interdisciplinary approach to her research. In this interview, which has been edited for length and clarity, Manheim explains how good music can influence our choices, why urine makes great fertilizer, and what she’s learned about challenging social norms.

JON GOREY: What was the focus of your dissertation research?

MARISA MANHEIM: I was always trying to answer the question, why is urban agriculture such an amazing launching point for environmental awareness building and intersectional justice and civic participation and all these pieces that have a really hard time getting traction otherwise? And I eventually landed on embodied cognition and activism, which are ideas from cognitive philosophy and psychology about how we process the world around us. It’s very much trying to reintegrate ideas about the body and sensation and social situations into how we conceptualize consciousness and cognition, decision-making, and so forth. I wanted to study something that helped me to explore those ideas further, but didn’t know what it would be.

When I found the concept of recycling wastewater as a drinking water supply, it was basically love at first sight. It’s just such an interesting topic, because it’s about water policy, it’s about food policy, and it’s about novel technologies and the way we tend to be very distrustful or suspicious of them. And because it really comes down to this moment of disgust and reaction, and the way that all manifests, it allowed me to ask a lot of questions about embodied cognition.

The research itself looks at how we are responding to the idea of introducing recycled water into the drinking water supply in central Arizona, how the people in charge of that from a policy and instrumentation side are anticipating and responding to those consumer perceptions, and also how we can apply lessons from design practice and design research to help inform and improve how the decision-making plays out around that topic.

I recruited people who are specifically going out of their way to secure alternative drinking water—so they don’t drink their tap water. I worked very closely with this group of 15 water skeptics to understand and cocreate ways to help other people become curious about the possibilities of incorporating advanced purified water into the drinking water supply . . . and then turned that into an exhibit that engaged 1,100 people in three public festivals.

It starts at the entrance, where there are panels teaching you about water scarcity and the changing climate and the uncertain future of the water supply. Then you go through this inflatable tunnel with this big display about direct potable reuse and how it works. And then you go out of the tunnel, and you’re in this circle where people are standing around drinking water, and there’s lots of fun colors and greenery and music, and you’re invited to sample the water and share your responses to it.

At the entrance to the exhibit, which is called the Future Taste of Water, we had people vote by dropping a marble into one of three water bottles, so they were able to say whether they would support the use of recycled water as a drinking water supply. Something like 77 percent said they wouldn’t support it at the entrance. And then at the exit, they had the same question, and almost everybody supported it.

So the concept is, what works to promote curiosity about a topic with a group of extreme skeptics is highly likely to work with people who are more neutral or who haven’t made up their mind yet.

JG: Many solutions to our biggest challenges hinge on some kind of shift in human behavior. Has your research revealed any strategies that can help reshape people’s attitudes and actions?

MM: Mainly it’s bringing in materiality. It’s very easy to do with recycled water, because we have this artifact, this thing, the water itself. Taking it out of this conceptual, speculative space and making it about something that people can directly interact with completely changes the dynamics.

It’s also social setting; that’s the other ingredient. We did this in a very public space and did things to make it really cool and celebratory—[provided] good music, good aesthetics—and people were almost always surrounded by other people doing the same activity. So there was an opportunity to calibrate your response based on how you think others are responding around you. And that’s the other part of it—we’re constantly calibrating in relationship with the people around us, especially around things that challenge social norms.

Social norms are so important because they reduce the transaction costs of social exchanges. We don’t have to think about, ‘How should I respond to this?’ because social norms have shaped and patterned those responses. When we’re confronted with something and asked to actually slow down and consider responding differently, we can’t rely on those social norms anymore. We have to look around, and think about what we actually feel, the sensations that we’re getting from this beverage, and how we see other people responding.

So if you can make it material for people and if you do it in a social way . . . you can really move things into a space of positivity. . . . My suspicion is that, across almost all of these difficult sustainability transitions that we’re trying to overcome—why is it so hard to get people to ride public transportation? why is it so hard to get people to eat differently, in a more low-carbon way?—if there are opportunities to experience what it would mean on a daily basis, and how it would feel over time, it can provide an experiential foundation for larger changes.

JG: What have you been working on more recently?

MM: I was invited to sign on to a [National Science Foundation] grant as part of the Convergence Accelerator program . . . and the project that I’m a part of is about urine recycling using source separation. So rather than combining feces and urine into a flow and then having to treat them and separate out the things that are valuable for reuse later, the idea is that we can work upstream—literally—and separate the urine and then recycle it as a fertilizer. The piece that I’m responsible for on that project is drawing on my user experience and design research methods, doing a lot of exploratory user and stakeholder interviews and codesign sessions.

If we’re successful in phase two, we’re going to be building out a fully functional mobile demonstration unit with toilets equipped with urinals, female urinals, and potentially a source-separating toilet, where people can go and use the facilities. So it’ll help demystify what it’s going to feel like from a toilet user perspective, but then also you can see how the treatment system works, so it’ll help to demystify what it will look like from an operator’s perspective if you’re a building engineer, architect, or municipal decision-maker.

A big part of the other side of this research, in terms of the design work that I’m involved in, is to work with farmers, extension educators, and other people involved in the agricultural system to inform the product design for the granular fertilizer created by the dehydration process. What is the packaging and labeling? What kind of certification would be necessary? How important is it that it doesn’t have any smell? It has to be a certain size so that it can fit into farm equipment, and obviously the nutrient makeup has to be very consistent and accurately communicated. But there’s a lot more that we don’t really know.

JG: What’s the most surprising thing you’ve found in your research?

MM: Disgust is different when you give people the actual thing instead of the speculative thing. When I worked with this group of water skeptics in the Phoenix region, one person in particular thought that she would never, ever allow her municipal drinking water to pass her lips. They use it for cleaning in her household, and that’s it, because of the taste.

When we gave her the opportunity to try actual DPR water, because we went to the Scottsdale water treatment facility and she got to sample their advanced purified water, she thought it was so good. She had been skeptical about DPR, and she became a huge proponent: “I want that water. Why don’t I have that water now?”

JG: When it comes to your work, what keeps you up at night? And what gives you hope?

MM: The thing that keeps me up at night is the polarization in our society. I see it as a positive feedback loop—the more polarization we have, the more echo chamber and social division, people are only listening to people they already agree with. There’s not this cross-pollination and constructive debate that goes on in a society that isn’t polarized and divided. So it just increases, because you’re surrounded by people who share your viewpoint, and anybody who doesn’t is an “other” and is demonized, or at least not afforded respect.

What I think about a lot is, what can we, as individuals, as universities, as people involved in nonprofit organizations, be doing to help to pull people out of that cycle of polarization and positive reinforcement, and into a space of engagement and interplay and deliberation?

What gives me hope is the work that people are doing and all the intersections I can find. Even though we’re in this moment of crisis and it feels very hopeless, and things are headed in the wrong direction, I don’t know why I’m such an optimist. But I just feel like if enough of us are finding the kernel of truth that we feel motivated by, and if we are doing it in a way that helps us find each other, we can be building alternative futures.

JG: What’s the best book you’ve read lately?

MM: It’s called Disabled Ecologies: Lessons from a Wounded Desert, by Sunaura Taylor, who graduated from the University of Arizona. It’s about the TCE pollution [trichloroethylene, a carcinogen] in South Phoenix related to the aeronautics industry. I picked it up because I’m teaching a Water and Society course this semester, and I was looking for texts that might be worth including. She’s telling a really important story about environmental injustice and persistent pollution, but because she’s a disability scholar, she’s telling it from this embodied perspective that I think is often really missing in these narratives around the environment and injustice.

Forever chemicals and things that are consistently present in our environment—if they’re in our environment, then they’re in our bodies. And this has been borne out by a lot of research, that we are actually part of the disabled ecologies that we’re so concerned about. When we’re trying to restore an ecosystem because it’s an important site for waterfowl or something like that, we’re actually trying to restore our own bodies as well, because we rely on those ecosystems. And so pollutants really help to bring all that into focus. It’s a great way of pulling that all together for people, and I’m definitely going to be using it in my class.

Jon Gorey is a staff writer at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Lead image: Visitors to an interactive Future Taste of Water exhibit sample recycled wastewater. Credit: Marisa Manheim.

“Solo quiero decirle una palabra.
Solo una palabra”.
“Sí, señor”.
“¿Está escuchando?”
“Sí”.
“Plásticos”.
“¿A qué se refiere exactamente?”.
“Hay un gran futuro en los plásticos.
Piénselo. ¿Lo pensará?”.

Me disculpo con mis amigos millennials, pero es inevitable delatar mi edad con este ejemplo emblemático de consejo no solicitado que le dio McGuire a Benjamin en El graduado. Captura lo que más me molesta de los think-tanks sobre políticas: el hábito de proporcionar consejos no solicitados al por mayor. Los think-tanks a menudo evocan preguntas que presumen relevantes, las analizan y, luego, distribuyen recomendaciones de políticas a audiencias desconocidas.

No hay nada menos atractivo que un consejo no solicitado, y los consejos no solicitados sobre políticas, incluso cuando tienen buenas intenciones, socavan el trayecto de resolución de problemas del destinatario y, a menudo, generan frustración. El consejo se suele centrar en el resultado deseado, no en el proceso que se debe emprender para llegar allí. Incluso peor, quien da el consejo no tiene ninguna responsabilidad por el resultado. Al ofrecer soluciones sin inversión, quien da el consejo no arriesga nada, mientras que el receptor lidia con las posibles consecuencias de actuar según el consejo. ¿Cómo se esperaba exactamente que Benjamin manifestara el potencial de los plásticos?

Se nos conoce por hacer esto en el Instituto Lincoln. Tomemos el ejemplo de la recuperación de plusvalías del suelo: Durante décadas, hemos aconsejado a los gobiernos locales que utilicen esta herramienta de financiamiento basada en el suelo para movilizar renta que pueda ayudar a pagar la infraestructura urbana. Hemos sugerido a los financiadores municipales que suscriban préstamos contra la renta futura capturada de los incrementos del valor del suelo. Hemos escrito documentos para presentarles el concepto a los gobiernos y los financiadores, descrito múltiples herramientas de recuperación de plusvalías del suelo que pueden usar y producido estudios de casos de buenas prácticas en lugares como San Pablo. Pero, a menudo, no nos hemos acercado a los profesionales para ayudarlos a decidir qué herramientas de recuperación de plusvalías del suelo son las mejores para sus circunstancias y aprender con ellos a medida que las adoptan y las implementan. Eso está por cambiar.

Antes de explicar cómo, permítanme señalar que otro tipo de consejo inútil son las “buenas prácticas”. Defender “buenas prácticas” para resolver problemas sociales, económicos o medioambientales complejos ignora el contexto del desafío en cuestión, no tiene en cuenta los recursos o capacidades de las personas y organizaciones que intentan adaptar el enfoque exitoso de alguien más y, a menudo, genera frustración e ineficiencia cuando la solución prescrita no se alinea con la realidad. La idea de las buenas prácticas ahoga la innovación y la creatividad, desalienta la exploración y la experimentación y suele pasar por alto soluciones más apropiadas y eficaces. Y, en todo caso, ¿quién sabe si la práctica es “buena“?

El mundo es dinámico y el contexto importa. Confiar solo en las normas establecidas promueve la aceptación pasiva en lugar de fomentar un entorno en el que las personas cuestionan las suposiciones y se involucran de forma activa en la resolución de los problemas. En lugar de adherirse ciegamente a las “buenas prácticas”, una mejor estrategia para abordar problemas complejos radica en comprender el contexto y adoptar un enfoque basado en principios. Esto defiende la adaptabilidad y fomenta soluciones personalizadas para abordar los matices únicos de cada desafío. Obliga a las personas a sopesar varias opciones y tomar decisiones informadas basadas en la evidencia y la lógica.

Entonces, ¿cómo se relaciona esto con el trabajo del Instituto Lincoln? Este otoño, con nuestro socio Claremont Lincoln University (CLU), lanzamos el programa Lincoln Vibrant Communities. Este nuevo proyecto encarna nuestras mejores ideas sobre cómo atravesar la brecha entre la teoría y la práctica. Prioriza el liderazgo, la acción, la colaboración y los resultados tangibles. Es una iniciativa audaz e innovadora que busca transformar la forma en que trabajamos, aprendemos y actuamos juntos para resolver los desafíos apremiantes que enfrentan las ciudades de todos los tamaños.

Muchas comunidades, en particular las que enfrentan dificultades económicas, carecen de la capacidad (recursos financieros y humanos) para implementar planes de desarrollo ambiciosos. La burocracia, las regulaciones obsoletas y las estructuras de poder muy arraigadas impiden el progreso y reprimen la innovación. Con frecuencia, la falta de confianza entre los residentes y los dirigentes locales, junto con las limitadas oportunidades de participación significativa, socavan la eficacia de las iniciativas de desarrollo. La mayoría de las veces, la presión para producir resultados inmediatos hace que los profesionales se centren en soluciones rápidas en lugar de soluciones sostenibles a largo plazo.

En las próximas décadas, capacitaremos a una nueva generación de dirigentes y los equiparemos con las habilidades, las herramientas y los recursos para transformar sus ciudades. Ayudaremos a estos dirigentes a involucrar a equipos intersectoriales en sus comunidades que puedan trabajar con los residentes a fin de ser dueños de su propio futuro mediante la resolución colectiva de problemas complejos. Lincoln Vibrant Communities proporcionará la capacitación, las herramientas, los recursos y el apoyo necesarios para convertir las ideas en realidad. Y tenemos la intención de realizarlo a escala.

Nuestra nueva iniciativa se inspira en los mejores programas de capacitación de desarrollo del liderazgo y basados en desafíos que hemos visto, incluidos los programas Fulcrum Fellow y Community Catalyst del Centro para la Inversión Comunitaria y el programa Achieving Excellence de NeighborWorks America. Se basa en los superpoderes tanto de CLU como del Instituto Lincoln, ya que adapta el plan de estudios de formación para el liderazgo de CLU y se sustenta en la vasta fuente de investigación, herramientas políticas y experiencia del instituto.

Lincoln Vibrant Communities comienza con la identificación y la capacitación de dirigentes emergentes de diversos orígenes y sectores. Estas personas completarán un programa intensivo de desarrollo para el liderazgo de seis meses centrado en comprender las complejidades de los desafíos urbanos, potenciar las habilidades para el liderazgo colaborativo, desarrollar capacidades de planificación e implementación estratégica y aprender a aprovechar los activos y recursos de la comunidad. Después de completar la capacitación, estos dirigentes regresarán a sus respectivas ciudades y reclutarán equipos diversos de personas que representen a los sectores público, privado y ciudadano. Esta colaboración intersectorial es vital para abordar desafíos complejos que exigen soluciones multifacéticas.

Cada equipo identificará un desafío importante al que se enfrenta su ciudad. Esto podría abarcar una gama de problemas, desde la revitalización económica y la vivienda asequible hasta la sostenibilidad medioambiental y la seguridad pública. Luego, los equipos regresarán para recibir capacitación integral en equipo durante seis meses adicionales, lo cual les dará herramientas y políticas desarrolladas por el Instituto Lincoln. Esta capacitación proporcionará un marco para enfrentar sus desafíos y construir soluciones sostenibles. Con la guía de formadores experimentados, los equipos elaborarán planes de acción detallados. Luego, los equipos regresarán a sus comunidades y se embarcarán en la aventura de implementar sus planes. A lo largo de este proceso de 18 meses, los equipos recibirán apoyo continuo y, lo más importante, asesoramiento del programa para garantizar que no se desvíen y que superen cualquier obstáculo que puedan encontrar.

Lincoln Vibrant Communities tiene el potencial de revolucionar el campo del desarrollo comunitario y económico. Al atravesar el espacio entre la teoría y la práctica y empoderar a los dirigentes locales para que actúen, el programa está diseñado para producir mejoras concretas en las ciudades participantes. Al enfrentar los principales desafíos con determinación, los equipos harán una diferencia real en las vidas de los residentes locales. Además, el programa desarrollará la capacidad de los dirigentes y las comunidades locales para diseñar soluciones para desafíos complejos que puedan implementarse una y otra vez. Las habilidades y el conocimiento adquiridos a través de Lincoln Vibrant Communities tendrán un impacto duradero, lo que permitirá a las comunidades continuar progresando mucho después de que concluya el programa.

Este programa culminará en una red creciente y curada de solucionadores especializados de problemas comunitarios. Nuestro enfoque cultiva la innovación al priorizar la comprensión y la adaptación sobre la implementación de memoria. Fomenta un espíritu de aprendizaje continuo al incitar a las personas a reflexionar sobre sus experiencias y perfeccionar sus estrategias de resolución de problemas. Lincoln Vibrant Communities no se trata solo de resolver problemas, sino de construir un movimiento de dirigentes empoderados que se comprometan a crear ciudades vibrantes, sostenibles y equitativas. Al cerrar la brecha entre teoría y práctica, podemos liberar todo el potencial de nuestras comunidades y crear un futuro más próspero para todas las personas.

George W. McCarthy es presidente y director ejecutivo del Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo.

Imagen principal: El programa Lincoln Vibrant Communities está diseñado para dotar a los responsables de la formulación de políticas locales de la capacidad y la convicción para abordar problemas sociales, ambientales y económicos complejos. Crédito: Claremont Lincoln University (CLU).

Municipios grandes y pequeños, desde Florida hasta Nueva Inglaterra, y desde Canadá hasta Australia, han anunciado proyectos piloto relacionados con la IA centrados en las tareas cotidianas que mantienen a nuestras ciudades en constante movimiento.

“Se trata de acelerar estos procesos realmente mundanos, y luego permitir que expertos con un alto nivel de formación y especialización se centren en lo que en realidad necesita concentración”.

No va a reemplazar a las personas. Nunca vamos a emitirle un permiso de construcción de un bot de IA”.

En el animado debate cultural sobre los riesgos y las posibilidades de la inteligencia artificial, las ventajas y desventajas imaginadas se han inclinado hacia lo sensacionalista. Se le ha prestado poca atención masiva al potencial impacto de la tecnología en las tareas cotidianas que mantienen a nuestras ciudades en movimiento, como las revisiones de permisos de construcción, los procesos de solicitud de urbanización y el cumplimiento del código de planificación. Pero las necesidades en esas áreas son bastante reales, y resulta que los experimentos para aplicar los últimos avances de la IA en este tipo de operaciones ya están en marcha. Municipios grandes y pequeños, desde Florida hasta Nueva Inglaterra, y desde Canadá hasta Australia, han anunciado proyectos piloto relacionados con la IA y otros esfuerzos exploratorios.

Si bien los enfoques varían, los desafíos son prácticamente universales. Determinar si los proyectos de construcción o urbanización propuestos cumplen con todos los códigos de suelo y edificación es un proceso detallado, a menudo lento: puede ser confuso para los solicitantes y requerir un extenso trabajo de fondo para los municipios y otras autoridades. La esperanza es que la IA pueda ayudar a que ese proceso, o “las partes tediosas del planeamiento de las ciudades”, como lo expresó sin rodeos la publicación Government Technology, sean más rápidos y eficaces, así como más precisos y comprensibles. Lo ideal sería que incluso permitiera a los departamentos de planificación racionalizar y reasignar recursos.

Pero, según explicaron con claridad los funcionarios de la ciudad que en verdad están trabajando con la nueva tecnología, hay un largo camino por recorrer para llegar a ese punto. Y, dado que algunos de los momentos más publicitados de la IA hasta la fecha han involucrado fracasos avergonzantes (como la herramienta de búsqueda de IA de Google que asesora a los usuarios sobre los beneficios de comer rocas y agregar pegamento a la pizza), la mayoría está procediendo con cuidado.

Suele haber un “ciclo de exageración” entre la promesa temprana de una nueva tecnología y la eventual realidad, advierte Andreas Boehm, el gerente de ciudades inteligentes de Kelowna, Columbia Británica, una ciudad de alrededor de 145.000 habitantes. El equipo de Boehm se encarga de buscar nuevas oportunidades para aprovechar las innovaciones tecnológicas para la ciudad y sus residentes. Aunque se dice mucho, aún no hemos visto muchos “ejemplos concretos y tangibles” de la IA como una fuerza “transformadora” en los sistemas de planificación, dice Boehm. Pero es posible que pronto comencemos a ver resultados reales.

Boehm señala que Canadá está experimentando una escasez de viviendas, y un avance más rápido en las nuevas construcciones podría ayudar. El proceso para obtener permisos tiene incluso más obstáculos con las consultas de los propietarios actuales sobre la zonificación y los problemas de código para proyectos más rutinarios. Durante algunos años, Kelowna ha usado un chatbot para responder preguntas comunes, dice Boehm. Eso ha ayudado a liberar un poco de tiempo, pero la versión generativa más reciente de la IA puede manejar una gama mucho más amplia de consultas, redactadas en lenguaje natural, con respuestas precisas y específicas. Así que Kelowna comenzó a trabajar con Microsoft para crear una versión nueva y mucho más sofisticada de la herramienta que incorpora la funcionalidad de IA Copilot de Microsoft, que la ciudad utiliza hoy en día como ayuda para quienes solicitan permisos.

Boehm dice que el equipo de Ciudades Inteligentes y sus asesores trabajaron con varios residentes (incluidos aquellos sin conocimientos de permisos) y con constructores experimentados para desarrollar la herramienta, que puede dar respuestas de alto nivel o señalar disposiciones específicas del código. Ha agilizado y acelerado el proceso de solicitud de forma notable. “Libera el tiempo del personal” dado que el personal debe hacerse cargo de menos preguntas al principio del proceso, dice Boehm. “Así que ahora pueden centrarse en el procesamiento de las solicitudes que están llegando. Y, a menudo, la calidad de estas es bastante mejor porque las personas utilizan estas herramientas de IA a la hora de crear las solicitudes y, así, obtienen toda la información que necesitan”.

En otra parte de Canadá, la ciudad de Burlington, Ontario, cerca de Toronto, ha estado desarrollando herramientas de IA generativa en colaboración con Archistar, la firma australiana de tecnología y bienes raíces. Chad MacDonald, director de información de Burlington (y antes director ejecutivo de servicios digitales), dice que Burlington, con una población de 200.000 habitantes, también enfrenta una crisis de vivienda. Con poco espacio disponible para la construcción de viviendas unifamiliares, su enfoque está en mejorar el proceso de manejo de proyectos más grandes, que incluyen propuestas industriales y comerciales, con una perspectiva hacia la creación de una plataforma única que funcione para todo tipo de proyectos. El sistema que la ciudad está desarrollando tiene como objetivo integrar no solo la zonificación y los estatutos locales, sino también el Código de Edificación de Ontario, que afecta a todas las estructuras de la provincia.

Probar este sistema implica verificar si realiza una evaluación correcta de planes ya presentados cuyo resultado se conoce. Este proceso también entrena a la IA. “Cada vez que corregimos una inexactitud en el algoritmo, en realidad lo hace más inteligente”, explica MacDonald. “De este modo, cada vez se volverá más preciso”. Y si la solución propuesta a un problema de permiso podría crear dos problemas más en la solicitud, el sistema está diseñado para señalarlo de inmediato, y así evitar un largo proceso de reenvío. En mayo, se completó una ronda de pruebas “extremadamente exitosa”, dice MacDonald, y espera que el uso de la tecnología por parte de la ciudad se expanda.

MacDonald prevé que la tecnología avance hasta el punto de crear diseños que cumplan con el código. ¿Eso no dejará a ingenieros y arquitectos fuera del negocio? Él responde que, en realidad, es vital que haya personas en el proceso. “Se trata de acelerar estos procesos realmente mundanos”, dice, “y luego permitir que estos expertos con un alto nivel de formación y especialización se centren en lo que en realidad necesita concentración”.

En Honolulu, ampliar el uso de herramientas de IA es parte de un plan más amplio para usar la tecnología a fin de abordar una importante acumulación de permisos. En 2021, el alcalde de la ciudad declaró que el proceso estaba “roto” y se comprometió a una revisión. En 2022, un proceso de preselección de permisos implicó “una espera intolerable de seis meses” hasta alcanzar un revisor, dice Dawn Takeuchi Apuna, directora del Departamento de Planificación y Permisos de Honolulu. La ciudad agregó un bot de IA que pudo revisar algunos de los elementos de la lista de preselección en un proceso recientemente simplificado y ayudó a reducir la espera a dos o tres días. Ese éxito ayudó a dar paso a un piloto de IA generativa más expansivo con CivCheck, la empresa emergente con sede en Chicago, una relación que Takeuchi Apuna espera que continúe.

“Hemos aprendido que las posibilidades para la IA en nuestros procesos de negocio son enormes”, dice, “y que la pieza más importante es la gente que la usa”. Enfatiza que esto es solo parte de una revisión que también incluye una mejor capacitación del personal y una mejor comunicación con los solicitantes. “Es un valor que uno debe aportar y seguir aplicando como parte de la IA a fin de obtener los mejores resultados”.

Si bien estos primeros resultados son prometedores, quedan muchos desafíos de y cuestiones inciertas de la IA. Algunas de las empresas emergentes que prometen poderosas herramientas de IA generativa no se han probado. Y, como señala MacDonald, la tecnología no es barata. También es necesario establecer estándares en torno a la recopilación de datos y la privacidad. (Kelowna, por ejemplo, está trabajando en cuestiones de políticas y orientación con el Montreal AI Ethics Institute, una organización sin fines de lucro). Y, por supuesto, existen preocupaciones públicas más generales sobre cederle demasiado control a una herramienta automatizada, por muy inteligente y capaz de recibir entrenamiento que sea. “No va a reemplazar a las personas”, dice Boehm. “Nunca vamos a emitirle un permiso de construcción de un bot de IA”.

De hecho, añade, esa preocupación podría considerarse una oportunidad, si las ciudades usan la IA de manera reflexiva y transparente. Aunque el gobierno a menudo es opaco y, por lo tanto, muchas personas lo tratan con escepticismo, la IA “es una gran oportunidad para desmitificar al gobierno”, comenta Boehm. “[Puede ampliar la] comprensión de que, al final del día, en realidad se trata de las personas y de apoyarlas”. En otras palabras, en el mejor de los casos, la IA podría mejorar un proceso burocrático complicado pero vital al darle un toque más humano.

Rob Walker es periodista; escribe sobre diseño, tecnología y otros temas. Es autor de Tecnociudad: 20 aplicaciones, ideas e innovadores que cambian el panorama urbano. Publica un boletín en robwalker.substack.com

Imagen principal: Crédito: Phonlamai Photo vía iStock/Getty Images Plus.

This essay appears in the Lincoln Institute book City Tech: 20 Apps, Ideas, and Innovators Changing the Urban Landscape.

So, what have we learned? Because the conflicts and collaborations compiled in this book are a mere dress rehearsal for the next wave of disruptions poised to crash upon cities, led by AI and climate change (which are increasingly entwined). More important than the legacy of any single project contained within these pages are the overarching lessons ensuring we won’t get fooled again.

First, governments must build their capacity to assess, deploy, and regulate urban tech. They should become comfortable with forecasting the impacts of nascent technologies before they pose a problem—or potentially hold the solution to pressing needs. For example, consider the contrast between the way Uber and Lyft ran roughshod over regulators for more than a decade and cities’ far more proactive stance toward autonomous vehicles. Having internalized the former’s externalities through increased congestion, reduced transit ridership, and higher pedestrian fatalities, cities have rightly kept a tighter grip on the wheel this time around.

Demonstrating this kind of hard-won wisdom, New York City passed a law overseeing the use of AI in hiring decisions just months after the launch of ChatGPT. The mayor’s office quickly followed that by announcing a Department of Sustainable Delivery, which would be the first agency of its kind devoted to tackling the thorny issues raised by the skyrocketing number of e-bikes and e-commerce deliveries—including curb congestion and an epidemic of battery fires. But employers have overwhelmingly shirked the AI law, while even designated battery charging hubs have been fined for unsafe practices. There are still limits to what one city can do.

Which is why cities must work together to share tough lessons, find strength in numbers, and scale promising technologies. With more than 200 members in 40-plus states, Next Century Cities was a model for joint advocacy on behalf of public infrastructure. Over time it was joined by new peer networks such as the Open Mobility Foundation, an international city-led developer of open-source standards and software for managing vehicles and curbs. “You cannot negotiate with an Amazon or an Uber city by city,” former Paris Deputy Mayor Jean Louis Missika once told me. “You have to say the rules of the game are the same in Singapore and Paris.”

The only way for cities to set those rules is to invest in building digital infrastructure themselves. One reason Sidewalk Toronto’s cautionary tale still resonates is that the public-private partnership overseeing the project failed to define what it wanted from its Alphabet-backed vendor. While privacy concerns grabbed headlines, Waterfront Toronto’s dereliction of duty is more troubling. When public agencies lack technical sophistication, they risk ceding control of public assets and data to private companies, which may prioritize profitable enclaves over inclusive deployment. Building public-sector capacity is critical to ensuring urban tech innovations benefit all residents, not just a privileged few.

But it’s also essential to do so democratically, in conjunction with residents, and this is where public officials and agencies have repeatedly stumbled—whether folding in the face of implacable NIMBYs or failing to persuade marginalized communities their best intentions aren’t stalking horses for gentrification. CoUrbanize and pandemic-era virtual planning meetings hinted at the potential for new forms of cocreation, now being realized through generative AI tools such as UrbanistAI and Betterstreets.ai, which enable nonexperts to visualize exactly (more or less) what they want. Whether the matter at hand is new bus routes or bike lanes or berms against flooding, assuring public buy-in is crucial to meeting cities’ climate goals in time for them to matter.

If the last decade of urban tech has been a dress rehearsal, then the curtain is now rising on the most momentous decade of change most cities have ever had to face. “Technology is the answer, but what was the question?” the British architect Cedric Price famously asked. Finally it is our turn to formulate what we demand from our technologies, versus the other way around.

Greg Lindsay is a nonresident senior fellow of MIT’s Future Urban Collectives lab, Arizona State University’s Threatcasting Lab, and the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Strategy Initiative. He was the founding chief communications officer of AlphaGeo and remains a senior advisor. Most recently, he was a 2022–2023 urban tech fellow at Cornell Tech’s Jacobs Institute, where he explored the implications of AI and AR at urban scale.

Lead image: A fleet of electric buses waits to be exported from China to Chile. Credit: Yutong Bus Co., Ltd.

That we need more affordable housing—a lot more of it—is hardly in dispute. Attainable housing is the foundation of economic and social stability for American families, and by most estimates, the shortage of available, affordable homes in the US numbers in the millions.

And yet actually building more of the affordable housing that everyone seems to agree we need remains a challenge in communities across the country, as theoretical support crashes headlong into real-world resistance and constraints.

In a December webinar hosted by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, experts dove into the devilish details to address two of the thorniest questions that tend to haunt housing discussions: Where can we locate affordable housing? And how do we pay for it?

Mapping Public, Buildable Lots

In the first of two sessions, Jeff Allenby, director of geospatial innovation at the Lincoln Institute’s Center for Geospatial Solutions (CGS), shared how CGS is leveraging technology to help local policymakers get the data they need to act on housing.

“We’ve developed a unique, rapid, and robust method to unlock critical information about America’s housing stock,” Allenby said, describing Who Owns America, a unique analysis CGS developed to help local leaders understand and act on emerging issues like out-of-state investor ownership or locating underutilized lots in parcel-by-parcel detail. “It’s the same type of sophisticated insights the private sector uses to profit from residential housing, but instead we put these insights in the hands of policymakers so they can protect and preserve affordability.”

CGS cleans and standardizes parcel-level ownership data, fusing it “with authoritative sources like deed information, corporate structures, and census data to fill in gaps and paint a richer picture all in one place,” Allenby explained. “There’s never been such a severe shortage of homes in the United States,” Allenby said. “To address it, we need more housing—affordable housing—built close to where people work and where they want to live. But the big question we’re trying to answer is, where do we build it?” he added. “For us, the answer starts with data—building an inventory of available land in your area.”

Researchers and officials from across the political spectrum have expressed a growing interest in siting new housing on city- or government-owned property. That prompted CGS to evaluate all the government-owned lots across the country and their potential to support new housing, explained Reina Chano Murray, associate director at CGS. “We were curious: How much land is government owned, and how much of an impact can it truly have?” she said.

Murray demonstrated how the CGS team identified over 270,000 acres of buildable, transit-served lots owned by government agencies in major metro areas—enough acreage to support nearly two million homes at the relatively low density of seven units per acre. Most of that land, Murray noted—237,000 acres—is controlled by local governments, making them uniquely positioned to act. “Ultimately, the ability to turn these housing opportunities into reality rests with local policymakers,” she said.

The process began with identifying publicly owned land at all levels of government and scouring parcel records for keywords that would indicate government ownership, such as “Department of Transportation.” Many records are not so straightforward or standardized, though. Murray said her team has encountered “over 50 different ways to spell USA or United States of America, and the variations in naming conventions only increase” at the local level.

From there, the team winnowed the data further to include only census tracts in urban areas and economic centers — where the most housing demand exists — and further still, to areas within a quarter-mile of a transit stop with hourly service or better at rush hour. Murray’s team then removed parks and other green spaces, vital infrastructure, and public buildings, such as administrative offices, schools, community colleges, and hospitals.

To narrow it down to truly buildable lots, they excluded places located in flood hazard areas and chose parcels of at least 20,000 square feet where any existing structures occupied no more than 5 percent of the lot. “We now have a clear and data-backed answer that indicates significant opportunity for addressing the affordable housing crisis using government-owned land,” Murray said. “Our analysis identified over a quarter of a million acres of prime, development-ready land in transit-accessible, urban neighborhoods.”

Murray then presented findings from another inquiry. In response to so-called “YIGBY” laws (Yes In God’s Backyard) passed in California and Arizona—which make it easier for churches, temples, mosques, and other faith-based organizations to build housing on their properties—the Boston-based Lynch Foundation commissioned CGS to determine how much affordable housing could be built on land owned by faith-based organizations in Massachusetts.

After identifying about 7,000 properties owned by faith-based organizations statewide, a team of 15 students at Boston College “virtually visited” each site through a custom application, using Google Street View to examine each parcel and answering basic survey questions, such as whether there was developable space on-site or additional buildings not used for worship. CGS confirmed 1,973 faith-based parcels deemed to have over 203 million square feet of total developable space. At seven homes per acre, Murray said, “That’s enough land to build over 140,000 units of affordable housing in Massachusetts alone.”

The effort took less than two months to complete, from start to finish—showing plenty of potential for religious institutions to alleviate the housing shortage and for technology to help policymakers quickly and accurately identify buildable land that has been hiding in plain sight.

Funding the Future

If locating land is the first step, finding the financing to build housing on those lots is the next challenge. Lincoln Institute Senior Fellow R.J. McGrail welcomed three partners affiliated with Lincoln’s Accelerating Community Investment (ACI) initiative to discuss funding strategies for affordable housing development.

Laura Brunner, president and CEO of the Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority, kicked things off on a positive note. She explained how Cincinnati, like other Midwestern cities, has been a prime target for institutional investors whose playbook involves outbidding first-time buyers to purchase single-family homes, then renting them out, often at inflated rates, locking residents out of homeownership opportunities.

But in 2022, the Port learned about a portfolio of almost 200 investor-owned rental houses that were being auctioned out of receivership. With a goal of restoring homeownership opportunities for the city’s low- and middle-income residents, the Port issued both taxable and tax-exempt bonds to enter a $15.5 million bid on the portfolio—and won.

“We first went to our nonprofit partners to ask if they would support us, and what we heard back was, ‘Yes, you have a mandate, a moral imperative to do this. We have to save these homeownership opportunities,’” Brunner said.

The plan was to rehab the vacant homes and sell them at prices affordable to buyers earning 80 percent of the area median income (AMI), while stabilizing the existing tenants and getting them prepared for eventual homeownership through home-buying education and financial counseling.

“We issued these bonds really confident that we were going to be able to take 200 homes and put them back into homeownership from rental without any subsidy, which is unheard of—all the new home construction we do requires a significant amount of subsidy,” Brunner said.

But while the receiver had claimed 10 of the properties were vacant, at least 60 of them turned out to be unoccupied—and in very bad shape. The Port has thus spent more money than expected to get the vacant houses ready for resale (and, at a local appraiser’s suggestion, to perform essential upgrades that most low-income homebuyers can’t afford to do themselves, like installing air conditioning). “When we found out the condition the houses really were in, we did need subsidy,” Brunner said. “But we’ve been successful . . . raising a number of grants that allow us to continue to keep the price down as much as possible.”

To date the Port has rehabbed and sold half of the 60 vacant homes at an average price of $150,000. “These are low- and moderate-income Black and brown neighborhoods [where residents] have basically not had an opportunity to purchase a home because such a high percentage were owned by these investors, and so we’re suppressing the sales price as much as we can,” she said.

The Port, which has also created affordable housing through a local land bank it’s managed since 2011, requires homebuyers to occupy its homes for at least five years before reselling. And after more than a decade of doing so, their efforts are creating real neighborhood wealth, Brunner said.

“We’ve done it long enough now that we’ve had about 30 people that have subsequently sold their house, and what we found is that those homeowners had a profit of 52 percent,” Brunner said. “So it proves that, even in these deeply distressed neighborhoods, we are making a market and . . . there’s wealth creation opportunity, which is what we’re all about.”

Plugging Gaps with Flexible Funding

MassHousing, the state housing finance agency for Massachusetts, also views homeownership as a way to help close the racial wealth gap, said Executive Director Chrystal Kornegay. “We sell tax-exempt and taxable bonds and use the proceeds of those bonds to lend to low- and moderate-income homebuyers,” she explained, as well as to developers of rental housing to ensure they keep a portion of their units affordable.

But when MassHousing conducted a study on where people of color were buying homes in Massachusetts, the organization noticed a pattern: Not only was new housing not being built at the pace it was two decades ago, Kornegay said, “but where it was being built was not the places in which people of color lived.” In response, the agency is trying to ensure some of its programs, such as down payment assistance for first-time buyers and incentives for affordable housing developers, are used more often in communities where people of color want to live.

Kornegay then discussed how zoning is often perceived as the primary obstacle to getting more affordable housing built but said that financing has become an even bigger hurdle in recent years, due to higher interest rates and other market conditions.

“Getting access to capital has become a huge barrier,” she said, noting that over 20,000 already-permitted units in Massachusetts have stalled out in development “because the capital stack for those deals just didn’t make sense anymore.”

Most large-scale, multifamily buildings in Massachusetts are permitted through the state’s comprehensive permit law, known as 40B, Kornegay said. And since those projects require at least 20 percent of the units to be affordable, at 80 percent of AMI, “they have affordability built into them,” she said. So Massachusetts created a flexible financial product geared specifically toward such projects, available through MassHousing, called “Momentum Equity.” While not a subsidy, it’s designed to blend with private financing and inject the extra capital needed—up to 25 percent of a project’s equity—to get more of those developments off the sidelines and into production. (Equity financing refers to an investment-style ownership stake, as opposed to a loan that is paid back at agreed-upon terms.)

A second new product, which can be paired with Momentum Equity funding, is called the FORGE loan. “We’ve created this product along with Freddie Mac, in which MassHousing as a lender would put up 10 percent of the total loan amount and serve in the first loan-loss position,” Kornegay explained, thereby securing more favorable lending terms. “These products together really can make an impact in the capital stack and get a bunch of units into construction in the next six to 12 months.”

Tapping Federal Funds Outside of HUD

Greg Heller, director of housing and community solutions at the global consulting firm Guidehouse, described how the two major pandemic relief acts passed by Congress provided a huge influx of federal money that could be used for housing over the past few years—and how more funding exists, if communities know where and how to look for it (and if the funds survive possible freezes or cuts enacted by the Trump administration).

Federal pandemic relief funding provided “new sources of capital that could be applied for things like eviction prevention programs, for things like housing and counseling, and first and foremost for gap financing for either tax-credit projects or non-tax-credit projects,” he said. “Everybody all over the country was trying to figure out how to harness and use these new financing sources.” About 10 percent of the $350 billion that cities and counties received in local recovery funds through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) went to housing, he added—money that needs to be spent by 2026.

What’s interesting, Heller added, is that none of that money came through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). “Obviously, HUD continues to play a leading role . . . but all of these sources came through Treasury, and Treasury started to play a significant role in creating guidance around these programs and understanding how to blend and braid and layer this financing with conventional HUD entitlement sources.”

With ARPA funds hitting their obligation deadlines in 2026, Heller said, “the question is what comes next? And the answer is the funds in the Inflation Reduction Act.”

While ARPA funds were very flexible and could be used for a broad range of activities, he said, the IRA funds are funneled through specific programs at different agencies, including the US Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Treasury, as well as HUD.

“They all have different program guidelines, they all have different definitions of things like low-income disadvantaged communities, and so again it falls on cities, states, counties, to figure out how to harness these programs and use them to fill capital gaps for affordable housing, because it’s one-time funding,” he said. But the scale of the funding makes it worth wrestling with the complexity of the programs, he added.

The EPA, for example, has made $27 billion in funding available through three sources: the $7 billion Solar for All program, the $6 billion Clean Communities Investment Accelerator, and the $14 billion National Clean Investment Fund. “The latter two are flowing through awardees which are coalitions of green banks and CDFIs who are developing their product and starting to close loans and get those funds out on the street, and a lot of that is going to affordable housing,” he said.

The Solar for All program works through designated state entities and regional nonprofits, who aren’t as accustomed to housing finance. But Guidehouse has been working with state housing finance agencies to find ways to also tap into these funds, which can be used to help cover costs associated with rooftop solar installations and building electrification, for example.

“There’s a huge opportunity, for not just financing [on-site] energy generation, but also a range of other costs within the projects to get them solar-ready,” he said. “So those are tremendous opportunities for gap financing for affordable housing projects.”

Heller also urged attendees not to overlook home energy rebates from the Department of Energy, even if they’re more commonly associated with single-family homeowners who want to install a heat pump or insulate their attic, for example.

“These are actually huge opportunities for financing affordable multifamily [housing],” he said. “It’s $8.8 billion, and 10 percent of every state’s rebate assistance has to go to low-income multifamily . . . so there’s a huge focus on low-income multifamily, and there’s categorical eligibility for a whole range of subsidized affordable housing programs, including LIHTC, public housing, HUD and FHA multifamily programs, and a variety of others.”

“Then finally there are a range of tax credit programs that were amended through the IRA to make them more flexible and more available for affordable multifamily projects,” he said.

Of course, Heller acknowledged, some of those programs could see cuts or changes in the Trump administration. “There’s uncertainty [about] how that’s going to impact the programs and their guidance and availability moving forward, and I don’t think anybody has the answer on all of that quite yet,” he said. But the administration has shown an interest in financing more affordable housing, so there could be new opportunities as well, he added. “There will continue to be new programs that everyone has to sort of, in real time, figure out how to pivot and harness those funds and get them into projects that need them.”

Where There’s a Way, There’s a Will?

Wrapping up the webinar, Lincoln Institute President and CEO George W. McCarthy reflected on how a huge national challenge—such as building an extra million homes per year on top of the 1.4 million a year we’re already constructing—can feel unassailable. “[And yet] we produced 2.4 million units of housing in 1972—a much smaller economy, a much smaller population,” McCarthy noted. “So it’s not that we can’t do it.”

As the presenters made clear, he said, buildable lots and funding options do exist—it’s a matter of showing people how to put the pieces together. “We have CGS ready to map it out for you, we have R.J. ready to show people how to blend public, private, and civic capital,” he said. “If we have the money, we have the land, we have the financing, what is missing? And what’s missing, of course, is the political will.”

And even that may not be the immovable obstacle it once was. Citing 12 states from across the political spectrum that have stepped in to preempt local zoning “to make sure that it’s possible to build housing where people have been preventing it from being built,” McCarthy said, “it’s not as if we don’t have some kind of bipartisan support for taking this on.”

With the land, money, and knowledge necessary to address our housing shortage, McCarthy concluded, “we just have to summon the real political will to get it done—and that’s a less daunting task than people would have you believe.”

Jon Gorey is a staff writer at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Lead image: The Boston Housing Authority’s Old Colony redevelopment project has used federal funding to convert distressed public housing into safe, affordable, energy-efficient rental units. Credit: Andy Ryan Photography via BHA.

For years, a certain resident of New Orleans, someone who drives a lot for work, would turn one corner or another and encounter an all-too-familiar sight: a road pocked with potholes and broken pavement. “Look at this freakin’ street,” he would say to himself. Actually, he said something a little more salty than “freakin’,” and eventually converted his repeated utterance into the handle of an Instagram account devoted to documenting, and venting about, the many flaws of the Crescent City’s infrastructure.

Today the account (we’ll just call it LATFS) has more than 125,000 followers—including employees of city and water utility agencies whose accounts it tagged in some snide posts. “I figured I’d just get blocked,” says the account’s creator, who has chosen to remain anonymous. Instead, those agencies started to pay attention to the account—and, in some cases, problems flagged (and mocked) on LATFS promptly got fixed. Today the account’s creator mostly curates submissions from others, and while the account quite clearly is not an official part of New Orleans’ infrastructure maintenance system, it’s hard to deny that it’s part of the conversation. And there may be lessons in that for cities looking to harness citizen input to manage infrastructure maintenance.

The use of technology to strengthen government-citizen communication is of course a long-established practice. The Federal Communications Commission designated 311 for non-emergency government service in 1996. Baltimore was the first city to implement a 311 system that year, and other cities followed, offering an easy way for citizens to report potholes, graffiti, malfunctioning stoplights, and so on. This early version of crowdsourcing soon moved online, evolving into web- or app-based systems that can (depending on the municipality) respond to texts, accept photo or video submissions, and incorporate back-end software that can collect and consolidate service data.

Along the way, private-sector services emerged to develop and provide cities with more efficient and consumer-friendly citizen-connection platforms. SeeClickFix, a pioneer in that category, was created by New Haven entrepreneur Ben Berkowitz and partners in 2007, and acquired in 2019 by CivicPlus, a public sector tech firm with over 10,000 municipal clients. CivicPlus offers a variety of software and services from local government software to websites to an emergency alert system. One of its clients’ top priorities across categories is making these systems work together as seamlessly as possible, says Cari Tate, solutions director at CivicPlus.

For 311-style products, that means getting user concerns to the right part of city government smoothly, and making sure people feel heard. “Residents ultimately want to see their communities improved,” says Tate, a SeeClickFix veteran who came to CivicPlus with the acquisition. “And want to partner with their local governments to do so. But they often don’t know how, or they feel like their comments go into the void.”

Partly that’s a matter of improving functionality. The publication Government Technology surveyed app-store reviews for 75 city and county 311 apps and identified Improve Detroit as one of the most praised. The app, which uses SeeClickFix software, is regularly updated with relevant new features—for example, after flooding in 2021, the city added a tool to file water damage claims.

But partly the effectiveness of a citizen-to-government tech connection may also be a matter of meeting residents where they are, which is increasingly on social media. Over the years, some municipalities have publicized hashtags—like #502pothole for Louisville residents, as an example—that citizens could use to flag problems via popular social platforms like Twitter (now X) and Instagram.

Not surprisingly, users of such platforms don’t need an invitation to sound off about the flaws or blemishes of their local infrastructure. And sounding off in public digital spaces often feels more satisfying than going through official channels. New Orleans, for example, has a 311 service, but it can feel like a “black box” compared to the buzzy camaraderie of Instagram, the creator of LATFS points out. When the latter actually gets results, that fact just heightens the attention. A recent example: A series of images of a fallen stop sign and its citizen-painted replacement caught the attention of a city council member who leaned on city services to make a real fix—and credited LATFS to local media. (A spokesperson for the city’s sewer and water utility says as an entity it does not “actively follow” LATFS in a formal way, but is aware of the account; often the utility is aware of issues before they show up on social media, the spokesperson added, pointing to the official “robust” customer contact phone number as the best way to report an issue.)

One challenge with making practical use of social media accounts is that reactions to fleeting problems may lack context. For actual infrastructure planning, social data is “actually really muddy, not specific,” says Julia Kumari Drapkin, CEO and founder of ISeeChange, a climate risk data and community engagement platform that works with New Orleans, Miami, and other municipalities and utilities. Its approach takes in social media data and uses AI to help craft bigger-picture solutions. As it happens, it has worked with LATFS, asking it to direct followers to the ISeeChange app during flood events, enabling residents to upload real-time reports and photos.

ISeeChange’s software can take in that information and combine it with data from its municipal and utility clients to deliver insights with tangible impacts, Drapkin says. In one recent project with engineering and design firm Stantec, ISeeChange collected firsthand, citizen-provided flood data that helped improve a flood infrastructure project in New Orleans. This resulted in the reallocation of $4.8 million in federal funding, more than doubling stormwater capacity in one low-income neighborhood. On the ground residents, she maintains, can provide the best data.

Social media’s role in reporting infrastructure issues may be somewhat messy, but its sheer popularity makes it hard to ignore. Last year, Tulane University sociology PhD candidate Alex Turvy published an article in the journal Social Media + Society closely analyzing LATFS posts and comments provided to him by the account’s founder, and concluding that it is “an effective and powerful participatory platform for exposing a broad range of systemic problems and their causes.” Boiling user strategies down into categories (shaming, mocking, and exposing), he contends that the account allows residents, through humor, connection, and “in-group knowledge,” to “take back the narrative of their city’s infrastructure challenges” and who is responsible for them. And while there is plenty of anger and snark, resident users also swap explanations and practical information.

Turvy acknowledges both the utility of 311-style systems and the challenge an actual city government would face in trying to corral the disgruntled and profane discourse of something like LATFS. And while similar citizen-driven accounts have popped up elsewhere—Pittsburgh’s PWSA Sinkholes on Instagram is a notable example—many fizzle out if they fail to attract submissions and followers. But even if LATFS is an outlier, cities might still learn from it, Turvy argues.

“The core lesson is that cities need to move beyond treating citizen reports as individual service requests and instead view them as part of a collective narrative on infrastructure issues,” he says. While traditional systems feel transactional, LATFS feels like a shared story. Its success, he continues, “highlights the power of storytelling over service processing.” To encourage that “organic, citizen-driven” feel, cities could work with community groups, communicate more proactively, and clearly demonstrate how citizen feedback is being put to work.

Some of this may seem a bit utopian, but it also overlaps with trends and aspirations for 311-style systems. Cities are looking “to provide a way for residents to actually hear back and to see all of the other things that they’re doing,” says Tate of CivicPlus. Too often, “you see all of the problems, but we don’t see what the city is actually doing.” Cities are increasingly looking for systems with strong data analytics that also “provide visibility, and actually shift that mindset and build trust.”

While LATFS remains a highly irreverent forum focused more on complaints and jokes than on civics or the complexities of infrastructure planning, the city’s engagement with the account has probably softened its original oppositional feel. “We try not to post things that are in the middle of repair, which I get a lot of,” says its founder. “We can’t shame the city for repairing things.” That said, he is also quick to point out that he’s a citizen, not a stealth urban planner or city activist. As he put it: “I’m just a guy posting on Instagram.” But sometimes, that’s exactly the person the city needs to hear from—and wants to engage.

Rob Walker is a journalist covering design, technology, and other subjects. He is the author of City Tech: 20 Apps, Ideas, and Innovators Changing the Urban Landscape. His newsletter is at robwalker.substack.com.

Lead image: This photo of a hand-painted New Orleans stop sign held up with plastic wrap gained notoriety—and inspired the city to install a proper replacement—after it appeared on a citizen-led Instagram account dedicated to flagging necessary infrastructure repairs. Credit: LATFS.

“I just want to say one word to you. Just one word.”
“Yes, sir.”
“Are you listening?”
“Yes, I am.”
“Plastics.”
“Exactly how do you mean?”
“There’s a great future in plastics. Think about it. Will you think about it?”

With apologies to my millennial friends, I can’t help but date myself with this iconic example of unsolicited advice given by Mr. McGuire to Benjamin in The Graduate. It captures the thing that bugs me the most about policy think tanks—their habit of providing wholesale unsolicited advice. Think tanks often conjure questions they presume to be relevant, analyze them, and then dispense policy recommendations to unknown audiences.

There’s nothing less appealing than unsolicited advice—and unsolicited policy advice, even when well-intentioned, undermines the recipient’s problem-solving journey and often results in frustration. The advice typically focuses on the desired outcome, not the process one must undertake to get there. Even worse, the adviser bears no responsibility for the outcome. Offering solutions without investment, the adviser risks nothing while the recipient grapples with the potential consequences of acting on the counsel. How exactly was Benjamin supposed to manifest the potential of plastics?

We’ve been known to do this at the Lincoln Institute. Take the example of land value capture: For decades, we’ve advised local governments to use this land-based financing tool to mobilize revenue that can help pay for urban infrastructure. We’ve suggested to municipal funders that they should underwrite loans against future revenue captured from land value increments. We’ve written papers to introduce governments and funders to the concept, described multiple land value capture tools they can use, and produced case studies of best practices in places like São Paulo. But we haven’t often dug in with practitioners to help them decide which land value capture tools are best for their circumstances and learn with them as they adopt and deploy them. That is about to change.

Before I explain how, let me suggest that another useless kind of advice is the “best practice.” Advocating “best practices” to solve complex social, economic, or environmental problems ignores the context surrounding the challenge at hand, does not account for the resources or capacities of people and organizations trying to adapt someone else’s successful approach, and often leads to frustration and inefficiency when the prescribed solution doesn’t align with reality. Best practice thinking stifles innovation and creativity, discourages exploration and experimentation, and often overlooks more appropriate and effective solutions. And who knows if the practice is “best” anyway?

The world is dynamic, and context matters. Relying solely on established norms promotes passive acceptance rather than fostering an environment where individuals question assumptions and actively engage in solving problems. Rather than blindly adhering to “best practices,” a better strategy for tackling complex problems lies in understanding context and adopting a principles-based approach. This champions adaptability and encourages customized solutions to address the unique nuances of each challenge. It compels individuals to weigh various options and make informed decisions grounded in evidence and logic.

So how does this relate to the work of the Lincoln Institute? This fall, with our partner Claremont Lincoln University (CLU), we launched the Lincoln Vibrant Communities program. This new undertaking embodies our best thinking about how to traverse the gap between theory and practice. It prioritizes leadership, action, collaboration, and tangible results. It is a bold and innovative initiative that seeks to transform the way we work, learn, and act together to solve the vexing challenges that cities of all sizes face.

Many communities, particularly those facing economic hardship, lack the capacity (financial and human resources) to implement ambitious development plans. Bureaucratic red tape, outdated regulations, and deeply ingrained power structures impede progress and stifle innovation. Frequently, a lack of trust between residents and local leaders, coupled with limited opportunities for meaningful participation, undermines the effectiveness of development initiatives. More often than not, pressure to produce immediate results leads practitioners to focus on quick fixes rather than long-term, sustainable solutions.

Over the coming decades, we will train a new generation of leaders and equip them with the skills, tools, and resources to transform their cities. We will help these leaders engage cross-sector teams in their communities that can work with residents to take ownership of their futures by solving complex problems collectively. Lincoln Vibrant Communities will furnish the training, tools, resources, and support needed to turn ideas into reality.

And we intend to deliver at scale. Our new initiative draws inspiration from the best leadership development and challenge-based training programs we’ve seen, including the Center for Community Investment’s Fulcrum Fellow and Community Catalyst programs and NeighborWorks America’s Achieving Excellence program. It draws on the superpowers of both CLU and the Lincoln Institute—adapting CLU’s leadership training curriculum and relying on the institute’s deep well of research, policy tools, and expertise.

Lincoln Vibrant Communities begins by identifying and training emerging leaders from diverse backgrounds and sectors. These individuals will complete an intensive six-month leadership development program focused on understanding the complexities of urban challenges, building collaborative leadership skills, developing strategic planning and implementation capabilities, and learning how to leverage community assets and resources. After completing their training, these leaders will return to their respective cities and recruit diverse teams of people representing the public, private, and civic sectors. This cross-sector collaboration is vital for addressing complex challenges that demand multifaceted solutions.

Each team will identify a major challenge their city faces. This could encompass a range of issues, from economic revitalization and affordable housing to environmental sustainability and public safety. The teams will then return for comprehensive team-based training over an additional six months that will equip them with tools and policies developed by the Lincoln Institute; this training will provide a framework for addressing their challenges and building sustainable solutions. With the guidance of experienced coaches, the teams will develop detailed action plans. The teams will then return to their communities and embark on the journey of implementing their plans. Throughout this 18-month process, the teams will receive ongoing support and, most important, coaching from the program to ensure they stay on track and overcome any obstacles they may encounter.

Lincoln Vibrant Communities has the potential to be a game-changer in the field of community and economic development. By traversing the space between theory and practice and empowering local leaders to act, the program is designed to produce concrete improvements in participating cities. By tackling major challenges head on, the teams will make a real difference in the lives of local residents. Additionally, the program will build the capacity of local leaders and communities to design solutions for complex challenges that can be deployed again and again. The skills and knowledge gained through Lincoln Vibrant Communities will have a lasting impact, enabling communities to continue making progress long after the program concludes.

This program will culminate in a growing, curated network of dedicated community problem-solvers. Our approach cultivates innovation by prioritizing comprehension and adaptation over rote implementation. It nurtures a spirit of continuous learning, prompting individuals to reflect on their experiences and refine their problem-solving strategies.

Lincoln Vibrant Communities is not just about solving problems; it is about building a movement of empowered leaders who are committed to creating vibrant, sustainable, and equitable cities. By bridging the gap between theory and practice, we can unleash the full potential of our communities and create a brighter future for all.

George W. McCarthy is president and CEO of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Lead image: The Lincoln Vibrant Communities program is designed to equip local policymakers with the capacity and conviction to address complex social, environmental, and economic issues. Credit: CLU.