Over time, the expression “smart city” has been used to define different phenomena of innovation and urban redesign (we cite, by way of example, the so-called smart-from-the-start cities, the retrofitted smart cities and the social cities). It is a multipurpose and multifaceted concept whose connotations still appear, in part, ambiguous, also due to the lack of a widely shared legislative definition.

According to the European Commission, the smart city can be defined as “a place where traditional networks and services are made more efficient thanks to the use of digital solutions for the benefit of the inhabitants and the businesses that inhabit it.”

Such a theorization requires considering the smart city starting from the efficient use of available natural and economic resources, from the provision of adaptive and effective urban services, from the introduction of new methods of interaction between citizens and public administration and from the possibility of satisfying the needs of an aging population.

From the perspective of the European Commission, therefore, the application of innovative technologies (e.g. artificial intelligence, IoT devices, 5G) within urban borders appears to be functional to achieving objectives closely related to improving the quality of life of citizens.

Following this definition, the role of new technologies appears to be essential but useful, as it is teleologically oriented to the pursuit of “higher” ends.

A second interpretation breaks down the concept of smart city into six different sub-components, which today constitute the main guidelines for the development of various territorial regeneration projects. These elements are:

— smart economy;

— smart mobility;

— smart environment;

— smart people;

— smart life;

— smart governance.

Following this perspective, the characterizing aspect of the concept of smart city seems to be the dimension of “smartness”, declined in its various sub-components.

Both of these definitions emphasize the presence of a 'double soul' within smart cities: the technological one and that of the innovative development of the territory.

Both of these dimensions (the technological dimension and that of smartness) presuppose the use and sharing of information within the city limits, as I will immediately explain.

Let's start with the first one.

With the term “technological dimension of the smart city” we refer to two different aspects: (i) the hardware/software solutions used within or as a function of an urban space and (ii) the information that is collected or processed by these devices — the so-called “urban data”.

The first aspect is, in my opinion, intuitive and easily understandable: I am referring to all those hardware and software solutions (e.g. artificial intelligence, IoT devices, 5G) present within the urban space that interact with it to achieve key objectives, such as greater speed and efficiency in the provision of public services, the security of citizens, the improvement of interaction with the Public Administration and so on.

By “urban data”, on the other hand, we mean the information collected within the city limits, both through public sensors (e.g. IoT devices, sensors on the road surface, etc.) and through devices owned by residents or tourists - used by them to interact with the city's infrastructure - and through additional touchpoints installed on the territory (e.g. CCTV cameras and other devices for monitoring public spaces or technologies that allow the collection of data within the city).

It can be either personal data or non-personal data, the difference from which derives the obligation or not to comply with national and European legislation on the protection of personal data.

It may also be public data or private data depending on the person who holds the ownership of such information, namely the Public Administration or private entities such as companies, associations, foundations.

Regardless of the nature and characteristics of urban data, this information is necessary for the development of any urban redesign initiative from a “smart” perspective. What constitutes a common trait of all smart city development models is in fact the need to collect, analyze, classify, process, store and share the information collected within the city context in order to ensure a more efficient organization of public services and the improvement of the quality of life of the inhabitants.

The second fundamental and founding element of the smart city concept is that of smartness.

In common parlance, the term 'smartness' is associated with an object considered intelligent, fast, intuitive or easy to use. However, this association is an understatement.

The term “smartness” indicates the ability of a good or service to perform correctly through a simplification of the activities connected to it, to adapt to the needs of its user and to support the latter in the adoption of rational decisions.

The constituent elements of “smartness” are therefore: (i) simplification, (ii) personalization, (iii) support for decision-making processes.

These characterizing traits also occur in the concept of smartness referring to the city.

Urban smartness presupposes the ability of innovative projects to simplify activities for citizens and businesses resident in a given territory, the maximization of the interests of the latter, the personalization of the goods and services offered by the Public Administration through a deeper understanding of the needs of the reference community, the adoption of better decisions through greater knowledge of the various stakeholders involved.

In light of these premises, I hope it is clear that the two fundamental dimensions of the smart city - technological and smartness - are both focused on the use and sharing of urban data.

New technologies require large volumes of information to work properly. Think of IoT devices or AI systems, which would be completely useless and worthless if they were separated from the data they must collect or analyze.

On the other hand, the concept of smartness also presupposes the free availability and circulation of information that is easily transmitted and reusable within the urban context by all stakeholders. Otherwise, it would be impossible to simplify and personalize the services offered to citizens or to guide decision-making processes.

The circulation of information, its sharing and its reuse within the city is therefore the cornerstone of any smart city project.

However, ensuring access or provision of large volumes of data can represent an enormous technological challenge for the PA due to the poor interoperability of the technological systems used and the lack of shared guidelines between it and the technological partners involved.

In addition, the management of this amount of data requires a powerful, solid and secure urban infrastructure, capable of protecting this information against possible cyberattacks. As is well known, the probability of the occurrence of such threats increases with the number of “smart” devices connected within the city and therefore must be taken into due consideration.

Finally, the lack of European reference legislation dedicated to the topic of sharing and reuse of data in the smart city poses a further obstacle for the initiation of similar initiatives, given the difficulty of identifying a legislative framework of reference for the definition and protection of the legal situations involved.

Because of this regulatory vacuum, it is necessary to refer to sectoral provisions to define a legal model for data sharing within the smart urban context.

Among these, the most important is certainly represented by Regulation EU/2022/868 (so-called. Data Governance Act) that introduced the data intermediary or data intermediary model. This is defined as the person who performs intermediary activities in the exchange of information, relating those who wish to share or make available the data at their disposal (whether personal or non-personal data) and those who intend to use them.

This is a newly minted regulatory framework that can offer a reference for numerous initiatives for the sharing and reuse of data within the urban context.

However, such a regulatory framework cannot be considered sufficient in and of itself.

It constitutes the starting point for the development of a larger and more structured data strategy that takes into account the nature of the urban data processed, the risks underlying similar initiatives (some of which have already been mentioned above) and the interests vaunted by the various stakeholders, in order to promote an urban redesign initiative from a smart perspective that is truly effective.

It is therefore necessary to adopt an approach devoted to “smartness by design” that, right from the design phases, can contain the potential dangers underlying urban data sharing and urban data reuse, creating a reliable legal and technological model, repeatable on a large scale.

‍