Digital Layers, Local Voices: Co-Creating Urban Futures

The other day, I attended a seminar on digital layers for urban participation at Media Evolution in Malmö, an increasingly timely topic as AI and digital platforms receive growing attention to support how we plan and build our cities.

Participation, at its core, means taking part or being involved. In urban planning, this often refers to including people in shaping the city’s development, hearing diverse perspectives, and responding meaningfully to them. But participation isn’t only top-down or formal, it also happens through bottom-up, self-driven initiatives, where urban citizens reshape the city from the ground up. With rapid digital development, one critical question stands out: Can digital layers truly enhance urban participation and what are the barriers to making that happen?

From Closed Doors to Shared Platforms

One highlight of the seminar was a talk by Navid Christiansen, Architect and Methodology Lead at White Arkitekter, who introduced the concept of a generative district, a digitally enabled urban space designed to enhance transparency and invite meaningful collaboration (watch full presentation here).

Imagine a public platform where ongoing projects, needed skills, and shared visions are made visible. Where individuals, companies, and civic organizations can interact, build on one another’s work, and form unexpected alliances. Where knowledge flows freely, not just within professional circles, but across entire communities.

This idea resonated deeply with me. Visibility isn’t just about data, it’s about opportunity. Imagine what this could mean for job seekers, grassroots initiatives, or local innovators who are often excluded from planning conversations.

But as inspiring as this vision is, two critical questions stayed with me:

1. Will Companies Truly Share?

Open data and digital platforms promise transparency. But in practice, competition still prevails. During a recent project at the World Maritime University, we explored how data sharing and collaborative digital platforms could improve the seamless flow of goods and reduce emissions in the freight logistics sector. A key challenge, however, was companies’ reluctance to share data due to concerns about losing their competitive advantage.

So, how different will it be in a digital innovation district? Will companies share valuable knowledge, or just surface-level PR content? Can we design digital spaces that build trust and reciprocity, not just visibility?

I remain hopeful, but cautious. If our economic systems remain grounded in scarcity and competition, we’ll need more than new technology, we’ll need a cultural shift.

2. Who Really Benefits?

The proposed generative district in Malmö’s Western Harbour is an exciting concept - home to startups, innovation hubs, and universities - it is fertile ground for digital participation. But this also raises a critical question: Who is truly included in these new forms of collaboration, and who is left out?

While central districts receive visibility and resources, community-led initiatives in Malmö’s marginalized neighborhoods struggle to gain support. Projects focused on social inclusion, circular economies, or grassroots regeneration often operate with minimal funding, even though they are vital to the city’s resilience and well-being. So, how do we ensure these digital tools don’t just serve the well-connected, but bridge the gaps?

One key lies in recognizing and listening to silent data, as all speakers noted—the insights, stories, and lived experiences that don’t show up in metrics. It can be unasked questions, missed connections, or unspoken words.

To build truly inclusive cities, we must tune into what’s absent, not just in datasets, but in conversations. Reflective participation means noticing who isn’t at the table, whose voices go unheard, and what truths remain unspoken. Besides silent data, I also believe it is crucial to address uncomfortable data—data that may show inequities, discrimination, etc., and learn how we can co-create more inclusive digital layers.

Shifting the Lens Through Digital Tools

Digital tools have the potential to help us surface this silent data, if we design them with empathy and reflection. One inspiring example from the seminar was GEHL’s Public Live App. It invites people, especially underrepresented groups, to document their experiences of public space through photos. These images are then analyzed collaboratively, surfacing patterns around feelings of safety, belonging, exclusion, or joy. This tool is very powerful because it helps us city planners, to see urban spaces through the eyes of others.

As speaker Clara McNaira, Creative Technologist at Gehl, emphasized that storytelling is central. It's not just about collecting experiences, it’s about sharing them back with participants and communities. This helps ensure their contributions are seen, felt, and carried forward into decision-making (watch full presentation here).

But it also requires sensitivity. Marginalized urban communities are often the focus of studies or planning initiatives, often in ways that feel extractive or stigmatizing. Instead of fostering empowerment, Elena Malakhatka, Postdoctoral Researcher at Chalmers University of Technology, observes that this can result in participation fatigue, where people disengage because the process feels one-sided (watch full presentation here).

If we truly want digital layers to support regenerative urbanism, they must not only invite participation, they must offer agency, respect, and reciprocity.

A Call for Regenerative Digital Urbanism

So here’s a thought: what if every district had its own digital layer, open, adaptable, co-created by locals? Digital tools that not only demand or invite participation but also offer agency, give a voice to initiatives on the ground, and make visible the agency already existing in communities.

Imagine digital maps that don’t just show real estate or infrastructure, but the knowledge, dreams, and initiatives of communities. Platforms that draw on the ambitions of the generative district allow initiatives to share the resources offered and needed to create interconnected, supportive, and sustainable neighborhoods. Platforms like SmartaKartan or CoGrow already let people map out community assets (Read more about these initiatives in my previous blog post). Why not build on them, layer by layer, based on local needs and encouraging regenerative living?

Of course, we need digital maps for different needs, and the Malmö generative district is a promising start to explore how digital layers can influence collaboration across sectors. But we also need to look beyond that, beyond the innovation districts. We need a network of regenerative digital spaces, each one reflecting the wisdom, belonging, and community of its place.

It could help connect neighbors in and beyond districts. It could help, especially in societies where loneliness is a problem and where we’ve become increasingly afraid to know our neighbors. A way to connect and build stronger community ties and enhance regenerative practices.

I’m not an IT expert, but I believe this is possible. With the right frameworks, communities could shape their own digital tools, highlight what they value, and become agents in their own regenerative futures.

This is the kind of future I want to contribute to: One where digital participation means everyone has a voice, we welcome every voice, and every district has a story worth telling.

Seminar Digital Urban Layer for Participation at Media Evolution, Malmö

Prototype of Malmö Generative District by White Aritects Malmö