Cities must act now to understand the transformative power of AI on cities

A few years ago, the debate on AI was a nice add-on to the programmes of conferences, and the first webinars were dedicated to the subject. Because of limited evidence on AI impact on our lives, discussions often focused on the expectation weather AI would always be a tool controlled by humans and with limited impact, or if General Artificial Intelligence someday soon would take the helm and even replace humans. Meanwhile, that phase is over.
Today, there is an overwhelming stream of news, papers, and discussions about hopes, fears, and facts regarding AI arriving in all spheres of life. One easily gets overwhelmed by following the development of this new wave of technology in all its dimensions. And all this comes on top of other challenges we are facing locally, nationally and globally. It's a perfect storm.
What makes the situation specific for cities:
· Cities are sidelined from the beginning: Neither AI frontier platforms nor most AI applications are developed specifically for cities and urban researchers, planners and their demands. Cities are usually not involved in global and national AI dialogues and decision-making on AI governance. Actually, nobody asked cities and citizens how they would like to benefit or what to prevent before the development of AI gained strength. In the early years, only a few cities took the subject seriously and established their own local strategies and guidelines to govern AI. Importantly, the new technology is basically supply- and not demand-driven. Big Tech develops it and hopes to generate demand for its products and services.
· Cities, together with others, are moving in the fog where they have limited information. For instance, in the field of the economy. A highly diverse group of 200 leading economists, AI researchers, including 16 Nobel Laureates, just launched a statement on AI’s transformation of the economy where they write:
'1. AI may become radically more powerful over the next 10 years
2. This could drive unprecedented transformation of our economy, larger than the Industrial Revolution, but unfolding over a vastly shorter time frame. It could bring risks, including large-scale job displacement, as well as opportunities such as major gains in living standards.
3. Economists, policymakers and technology leaders must act now to understand the economics of transformative
AI and to build incentives, guardrails, and institutions needed to steer AI in a direction that complements humans and benefits society’ (wemustactnow.ai)
‘…must act now to understand …’ Well, if economists and AI researchers don’t understand yet, how do you act as a city leader, considering that you are most often sidelined as an actor and move in the thick fog of a seemingly uncontrolled development that is beginning to impact the life of all your citizens?
The first reaction is the usual reflex cities and their networks applied in situations before: exchange in city networks like UCLG, Metropolis, C40, ICLEI, etc, organize seminars, dialogues, and attend conferences of UN-Habitat, OECD, ISOCARP, GPAN, or one of the many other local, national, and international academic and professional organizations concerned with urban issues.
That’s a good step, but watch out: As interface manager, I often observe that it takes time to develop a common understanding and to agree on common actions. In the case of Large Language Models like ChatGPT, Gemini and Claude, there is the additional challenge that they are trained on existing data. Accordingly, the training informs them about the past, but not about the future.
As an interim result, I sum up that cities are mostly sidelined in AI debates; they move in the thick fog of a seemingly uncontrolled AI development with all its insecurity, and they can exchange only with partners in a similar unclear situation. To continue with business as usual doesn't seem to be the appropriate approach.
Instead and leaning on the above statement by economists and AI researchers, I would recommend that cities must act now to understand the transformative power of AI on cities.
However, they should start with a careful review of where they start:
1. AI is more than a technical tool. It also challenges our moral action.
According to the philosopher Markus Gabriel ‘Artificial intelligence has moved beyond the realm of mere efficiency gains and penetrated the inner sanctum of the human experience: our subjectivity, our relationships, and our societies. Its defining effect is no longer performance, but resonance; data streams transform into reflections of our emotions, and machines become conversational partners.’ (M. Gabriel. Ethische Intelligenz. Ullstein. 2026; own translation). You may have observed part of this already in the case of social media. Now think what it means in the case of the new wave of AI technology? Can this be handled by AI regulation alone, or do we need to grow up to the challenge also in a moral and emotional sense? And what does that mean for urban societies?
2. The city as collective actor or chorus of diverging opinions
In articles like the one of 14 July 2026 by Aaron Mak in Politico ‘Cities enter the AI debate’ cities are described as collective actors. https://www.politico.com/newsletters/digital-future-daily/2026/07/14/cities-enter-the-ai-debate-00997109
You may also recall Benjamin R. Barber’s 2013 book ‘If Mayors Ruled the World-Dysfunctional Nations, Rising Cities’. Many urban experts like the argument that cities and their mayors are better suited as partners than national governments because they would be closer to the problems, and more experienced in participatory processes and thus, more likely to identify the best solutions.
This is possible, but there is no guarantee, and is that true for the case of AI too? I have no final answer. Certainly, cities don't have a bird's-eye view but work closely with many stakeholders at the local level. However, the role of the cities as actors needs some reflection: If you take, for instance, the above understanding by Markus Gabriel on AI and add the often highly diversified stakeholder composition in urban contexts, you see a very complex setting. Therefore, it may take a lot of time until cities are ready to contribute in a coordinated way to the dialogue on AI that goes beyond presenting different stakeholder concerns and positions. In return, if they were to manage to consult and coordinate internally, they might become specifically suited to contribute to the development and identification of solutions.
What should be prevented as an outcome is a patchwork of local approaches and regulations. After all, we need global agreements and a common approach to build incentives, guardrails, and institutions to steer AI in a direction that is not all about data streams but complements humans and benefits society- guardrails and policies.
We need a sustainable AI that puts the human and not data streams at the center. And Cities must act now to understand their own transformative power in the age of AI. If they leave no citizen behind, their voice may find more open ears at national and international levels.
.
Policies and Governance for Resilient and Sustainable Cities and Regions









