A Study on City-University Partnerships for Smart City Technologies By Benjamin J. Preis BS in Physics, Peace and Justice Studies Tufts University Medford, MA (2011) Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in City Planning at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY June 2019 © 2019 Benjamin Preis. All Rights Reserved The author hereby grants to MIT the permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of the thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created. Author________________________________________________________________________ Department of Urban Studies and Planning May 23, 2019 Certified by____________________________________________________________________ Professor Lawrence Susskind Department of Urban Studies and Planning Thesis Supervisor Accepted by___________________________________________________________________ Professor of the Practice, Ceasar McDowell Co-Chair, MCP Committee Department of Urban Studies and Planning A Study on City-University Partnerships for Smart City Technologies By Benjamin J. Preis Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning on May 23, 2019 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in City Planning at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Abstract On September 14, 2015, the Obama Administration announced its Smart Cities Initiative, a $160 million investment in a range of research and development activities focused on “Smart Cities.” The MetroLab Network, a consortium of partnerships involving cities and their universities, was announced as part of the Initiative. In order to join the Network, university-city partners had to agree to follow a set of rules and procedures to govern their partnership. This research explores the history, governance, goals, and outcomes of two such partnerships: Carnegie Mellon University and Pittsburgh, PA and the University of Chicago, and Chicago, IL. Although these two partnerships work under the same MetroLab Network umbrella, the type and breadth of the activities each university undertook on behalf of their city partner varied greatly. The structure of the partnerships, project selection; deliverables and outcomes; data sharing and data ownership; levels and forms of community engagement; funding; technology transfer; and engagement with and impact of MetroLab were quite different in the two cases. Levels of satisfaction among the city partners, commitments to protect citizens’ rights, and the level of control granted to each of the partners varied markedly. These two cases are presented in the context of the history of city- university partnerships, university-community partnerships and the emergence of interest in Smart Cities in the United States. The thesis offers seven recommendations for MetroLab, cities, and universities involved in this type of research moving forward: 1) formalize expectations for every project; 2) Negotiate with funders to prioritize local needs; 3) Mitigate negative impacts of experiments; 4) Develop expertise and allies throughout city government; 5) Seek involvement throughout the university; 6) Engage citizens in the partnership, not just the projects; and 7) Develop revenue sharing agreements for projects that commercialize. Thesis Advisor: Lawrence Susskind Professor of Environmental and Urban Planning Thesis Reader: Sarah Williams Associate Professor of Technology and Urban Planning Acknowledgements I would first like to thank Larry Susskind for his support and mentorship over these past two years at DUSP. I have learned so much working with him, and am grateful for the time and help he has given me as I pursued this project. I would also like to thank my reader, Sarah Williams, for her advice and feedback on this thesis. Other faculty and staff, at DUSP, MIT, Harvard, Tufts, and beyond have given me invaluable insight, and shaped my intellectual journey in bringing me here. Thank you to my interviewees, for their time and openness during the research process. I quite literally could not have conducted this research without them, and I am thankful to have learned so much from them, about the specific partnerships, about academia, and about local government. It has been a pleasure learning from them, and I am happy that I was able to visit Chicago, Pittsburgh, and Atlanta to speak with so many local leaders. I would also like to thank my former colleagues in Washington, DC. If it were not for them, and for my introduction to the Smart Cities Initiative, I may not have found urban planning, and certainly could not have written this thesis. Thank you as well to the innumerable students, faculty members, professionals, and others who spoke with me as I was considering, and applying to, graduate school (both times!) Your advice, ideas, connections, and kindness made this degree possible. Finally, I would like to thank my mom, Annie Preis, for all she has done, always, to help me. Thank you to my other family members for their love and support. Thank you to Hannah Seigel for her support and belief in me. Thank you to my friends within and beyond DUSP for bringing me joy, helping me through the difficulties, and everything in between. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. DGE-1745302. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The William Emerson Travel Grant also provided financial support for travel for this research. 3 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT ........................................................................................................ 6 HISTORICAL CONTEXT .......................................................................................................................... 6 The University and the City ............................................................................................................. 6 University Service to the City .........................................................................................................10 SMART CITIES .....................................................................................................................................17 Universities and Smart Cities .........................................................................................................20 Federal Interest in Smart Cities ......................................................................................................23 METROLAB NETWORK ........................................................................................................................26 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................31 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ........................................................................................................................31 CASE SELECTION .................................................................................................................................32 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................33 PITTSBURGH ........................................................................................................................................35 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................35 Antecedents to the Current Partnership ..........................................................................................36 The “21s” at CMU .........................................................................................................................37 Description of the Projects .............................................................................................................39 University of Pittsburgh and the Western Pennsylvania Regional Data Center (WPRDC) ................44 METRO21 & INNOVATION AND PERFORMANCE: THE PARTNERSHIP .......................................................46 Partnership Structure: Formal Agreements.....................................................................................46 Partnership Structure: City Structure .............................................................................................47 Partnership Structure: University Structure ....................................................................................48 Partnership Structure: Project Selection .........................................................................................50 Partnership Structure: Deliverables & Check Ins............................................................................51 MetroLab and Pittsburgh ...............................................................................................................52 Partnership and Project Funding ...................................................................................................53 PROJECT ANALYSIS: PREDICTIVE ANALYTICS, ROAD MONITORING, AND OPERA ..................................54 Project Benefits and Goals .............................................................................................................54 Project Data ..................................................................................................................................58