This is first part of BLOG series on “WHAT REALLY SHOULD MATTER IN CITIES”

Cities are often evaluated based on various indicators such as economic growth, innovation, digital adoption, tourism, and unfortunately, environmental impact—particularly carbon emissions. A city is considered distressed or on its path to revitalization if its performance drops below certain thresholds in these areas. As early as the 1990s, Wolman et al. (1994) noted that success in American cities was typically measured by improvements in economic, social, and physical conditions, including increased business investment, urban redevelopment, reductions in crime and infant mortality, and higher educational achievements. However, these measures often overlooked a crucial element: the well-being of residents.

Later, with globalization, the success of cities is now measured by their ability to be more trade-friendly, have institutional openness, foster innovation, and demonstrate smartness as indicators of success. For example, measuring smart city success using the three main frameworks British Standards Institute (BSI), International Standards Organization (ISO), and International Data Corporation IDC—reveals many gaps in measurement. BSI’s maturity model tracks progress from “Lagging” to “Excelling,” little to do with well-being. ISO 37120 provides 100 standardized indicators across 17 themes, enabling benchmarking, yet its refusal to judge results risks reducing progress to just data collection. IDC’s MaturityScape guides cities through five stages from Ad Hoc to Optimized, but its focus on technology and self-reporting can overstate maturity. There is little understanding of actual ground processes and a heavy emphasis on performance.

SUCCESS ≠ GROWTH

“Growth could mean number of employees, or number of projects, or total revenue. But no matter how you define it, just because there is more of something doesn’t mean it is a success. And it certainly doesn’t always equate to happiness. This is where defining what success means to you is incredibly important.” (Landau, 2015)

Now, this blog is not about debating whether growth should be considered when evaluating the success of cities, but about shifting our attention to equally important factors like resilience and adaptability. The true success story of cities lies in how they have gracefully navigated through various cycles of growth and decline. It lies in the underlying internal processes and arrangement both formal and informal that improving the quality of life and happiness of staying in a place.

Let’s consider the following examples: which city do you think is more successful?

City 1 is driven by rapid economic growth, measuring its success through rising GDP, job creation, and innovation. While these dynamics have boosted household income for some, many residents still struggle, as high-paying jobs push up rental prices and the overall cost of living. The booming sectors generate greater willingness to pay, attracting more investments and revenue but also widening inequality.

 In contrast, the City 2 shows only modest GDP growth, yet its residents face less anxiety over job loss or sudden price hikes. Instead of chasing rapid expansion, this city prioritizes social and environmental well-being alongside the economy, steadily stabilizing its internal systems and pursuing a slower, more deliberate path toward resilience and inclusivity.

What ever might be your choice, the upcoming blogs with share this journey on what really should matter to the cities?

Activity: Please comment below what matric is your city following