At the same time, urban spaces are where many of the great challenges of our times arise and manifest: demographic shifts, technological changes, the effects of climate change, social inequalities, polarisation, and many more.

It was against this backdrop that Media Evolution, in collaboration with DigIT Hub Sweden, invited people to a Collaborative Foresight cycle on ‘Futures of Digital Urban Layers’, during the spring of 2025 in Malmö. This cycle took as its point of departure the question “how might we use digital systems to support resilient and thriving urban communities in southern Sweden in 2035?”

Participants with professional and personal interest in the question were invited to an opening seminar, an open community signal scanning workshop, and a community critique session. In addition, we held an in-depth series of workshops with a group of 24 professionals and researchers who were working with digital systems and/or engaging people to participate in the (re)making of urban environments. During these workshops, the participants shared and made sense of forces of change that are visible today, imagined possible futures, re-imagined alternatives, and envisioned desirable futures of how our digital systems might support communities in the future.

What you find in this book are some of the fruits of this collaborative endeavour: four possible futures imagined by the core-group participants. These future scenarios, set in 2035, are situated in different locations around southern Sweden: Österlen, Lomma, Malmö’s Sofielund neighbourhood, and Lund. The scenarios are based on current trends and trajectories, combined with signals of change that surface uncertainties around how digital systems might be used by—or on—communities in our urban environments. The scenarios are brought to life in four stories written by worldbuilder and author Paul Graham Raven. Paul sat in on the workshops, and his stories feature some of the key tensions, possibilities, hopes and fears that the core group considered. The illustrations by Jon Koko offer a visual layer into these future worlds and the commentary by Martijn de Waal explores the meeting of the urban and digital through the metaphor of 'the city as a license'.

These scenarios and the stories are not predictions. Rather, they should be read as provocations to help us imagine and explore, and even to rehearse, different futures; they shed light on possible developments—some which are already unfolding; some which might be just around the corner; some which we might hope to realise; and others we want to make sure to avoid.

Peeling off the layer

As it is currently used, the concept of “digital layers” is an umbrella term that refers to the various digital tools and systems which support the design and maintenance of our urban spaces. These systems include, among others: geographic information systems (GIS); remote sensing technologies (such as satellite imagery); building information modelling (BIM); sensors and accompanying “internet of things” (IoT) platforms; land use and zoning management systems; environmental and climate data systems; “digital twins”; and public participation platforms. These systems help with tasks including data collection; analysis and decision-making for urban design; infrastructure planning; disaster and risk management; monitoring; optimisation; and the inclusion of stakeholders, including citizens, in these processes.

Perhaps due to its very breadth, the tighter we tried to grip the concept the more it kept slipping through our fingers. We found that the central metaphor of the “layer” was repeatedly contested—and for a good reason. A layer is something that is either placed on top of something else, or grows there: in this case, the “something else” is urban space itself. However, as we already know from experience, the digital is not (only) an additional, separate layer in our lives, but manifests in many different forms: as an integral tool, as a hostile organism, as a supporting wall, and so on. The metaphor of the layer became yet more constraining once it was projected into the future—as you will discover when reading the stories, in which the idea of a “digital layer” hardly makes sense to the characters: in these imagined worlds, these systems are not “layers”, they’re just how things are.

Into the woods

As flawed as the metaphor may have been, the focus on the use and impact of digital systems in urban spaces was like a tiny acorn that grew into not just one mighty oak, but rather a forest full of oaks, pines and other trees. This ecosystemic outcome is partly due to these systems and their applications being closely linked to developments in digital technologies more broadly (including, but not limited to, artificial intelligence), and to the ways that data is collected and used. It is also due to urban spaces being crucibles for the social, political, economic and environmental developments of our times, and of their intensification: challenges such as climate impacts, food security, housing crises, safety and resilience. As we started unpacking the topic and following these different threads, we found ourselves in a deep forest of entangled issues linked to the future of our societies.

We started off by mapping out a number of forces that are shaping the future of the topic at hand: from signals of change, through trends and drivers, and on to so-called “weights of the past”¹.

We considered the backlashes and crises of democratic ideals and systems around the world. We noted that wars on and around the continent, the Covid-19 and future pandemics and climate-related risks, to name just a few examples, are realities that we cannot wish ourselves out of: these challenges, and the resulting necessity of preparedness, security and resilience, are (re)shaping how we relate to urban spaces, food systems and our communities. A persistent theme was the observation that we tend to drop the ball of the environmental agenda when focusing on security; at the same time, we are presented with a window of opportunity in which to shift towards resilient practices that can enhance planetary and community wellbeing and resilience, such as local food-security initiatives. Then there are the vulnerabilities of our digital systems, in relation to not only our personal data, but their integration into the environments we have built. The heyday of digitalisation, when we assumed “the more the better”, is long gone; the erosion of our privacy in urban spaces due to well- and not-so-well-intentioned surveillance technologies shows every sign of being amplified by the relentless roll-out of AI.

At the same time, we see an aging population, immigration, and fierce debates around integration and inequalities. Deepening polarisation, the erosion of trust and social cohesion, exacerbated by filter bubbles and AI-powered fake news; the resurgence of populism—perhaps even fascism—in Europe and elsewhere; these dynamics were also very much on our minds. The prevailing context of a sustained economic downturn is widening existing inequalities, and creating new ones.

Even here, though, the role of technology is not so clear-cut: rapid changes in access to the tools required to make and distribute media have allowed the emergence of voices that have historically been excluded or ignored, but some groups are less than happy to be sharing the virtual town square with others they deem undeserving. And while access may be wider, it is by no means universal: media literacy and the capability to use the latest tools are not evenly distributed. Nor is the possibility of consciously limiting your use of the digital realm, or withdrawing from it entirely: for example, the rise (or rather the return) of the "dumbphone" has its own distinct demography.

Technological trends—most prominently the rise of generative AI—were identified as a key factor shaping how we might interface with our urban spaces. In a moment when the prevailing narrative seems entirely focussed on the desire to “win” AI, many feel that they need to adopt and adapt just to stay in the game (as in the case of writing job applications). It is becoming more and more difficult to opt out of digital systems, but some seem keen to dive straight in and harness new technologies in the most private spheres of their lives, using apps and devices to monitor their health, sleep and general activity. We considered emerging signs of the social affinity that people, particularly youth, are developing towards AI agents, and the biases and histories of inequalities baked into the data that these systems are built on.

We pondered over the shifting relations and importance of physical and virtual spaces: the post-Covid work-from-home revolution, for example, or the various online communities where folks can find like-minded people regardless of where they live; the so-called para-social relationships people develop with influencers and others “content creators” online, or the longing many feel for the non-digital, as indicated by the Youth Barometer in Sweden in the wake of 2025. Crucially, it’s not merely an issue of digital and cities, but also more rural locations, which are likewise shaped by the digital systems in play, but in different ways and to different degrees.

We observed the impacts of crossing multiple planetary boundaries upon not only our region but other places around the world, and anticipated growing effects in the years to come. Many participants expressed frustration at the deprioritisation of the climate and environmental agendas in the face of economic and security crises – a sense of hopelessness that is coupled with a growing awareness of the other species in our urban spaces². Many have come to realise our interdependence in terms of growing food, fostering biodiversity and adapting to climate change, and with the plants and animals who share our cities. At the same time, we witness a spike in the consumption of energy and other resources linked to the training and use of AI models.

More hopefully, perhaps, we also observed a plethora of sustainable practices, many of which are connected to the “circular economy” concept, that have been enabled by digital platforms. One local example would be Smarta Kartan Malmö³, where one can find initiatives that enable renting, sharing, exchanging, borrowing, giving and receiving various resources. The EU Digital Product Passport directive, alongside other initiatives enabling the care and repair of our digital products, are steps in the right direction when it comes to addressing resource use and waste in the ways our digital tools are produced, consumed and disposed of.

We also observed different signals of change that might indicate new possibilities in the use of digital technologies in our urban spaces: from capturing and monitoring important data (to be used, for instance, in the AI-driven predictive maintenance of urban infrastructure⁴) to the use of digital twins for urban resilience; from the increased monitoring of environmental effects to making visible (and thus more important) the value provided for us by other species, such as trees.

Someone also brought up movements around different ways of dwelling, such-as co-living and multi-family households, that speak to both the economic and environmental benefits of sharing and the longing for community. But even as we seek to transform our ways of living, we feel the weight of tradition and the cage bars of our current economic structures, and we struggle to overcome the business-as-usual and bridge over to regenerative or simply more sustainable systems.

Finally, when it comes to the way we design our urban spaces, we see participatory thinking seeping into traditional urban planning processes, in citizen assemblies, in collaborations between universities and municipalities, in community hubs and local farming programs. In many cases, these efforts make use of digital tools and platforms, whether for collecting inputs and data, showcasing future alternatives, or communicating results⁵. These practices exist in the context of existing democratic and bureaucratic traditions, legal systems, and culture that values expertise above all else.

Growing in different directions

Out of these different observations, we could start to see multiple directions in which the futures of digital urban layers might develop.

With an attitude of holding on to hope, even as many trends pointed towards failure, we discussed whether these digital systems might help us transition into a more sustainable and circular economy, or whether they will turn out to simply elongate the life of degenerative and exploitative industries. Will the tools for more accurate and timely monitoring, oversight and transparency of environmental impacts lead to holding companies accountable and making them transition? Might they support us as we break away from our linear production and consumption patterns, and help us share knowledge and resources more effectively and at larger scales?

With regard to participation in urban design and development, we asked whether we might move towards a paradigm in which AI and data analytics would enable human participation in urban planning and governance, or instead replace it entirely with predictive models based on historical behaviour. We also asked whether AI might actually enhance the rights and representation of other species.

We also pondered over polarisation, and whether the divisions in our digital spaces might be overcome by physical proximity in our urban spaces, whether we’ll see more polarisation in both worlds in parallel, or whether we’ll somehow be able to reverse the separation trend and start to bridge these divides in the physical and the digital alike. We wondered what increased securitisation, threats of war and climate disasters might do to our sense of community and belonging in the places we inhabit, both physically and digitally. Will we see unity and solidarity, or further division? What might be the geographical limits of these phenomena: our neighborhoods, cities, regions, nations, continents or beyond?

The digital infrastructures in our urban spaces: will these systems be centralised, controlled by the city governance with democratic oversight, or by private companies? Or will they be decentralised and fractured, whether in the more democratic sense of open-source systems or the competitive sense of the market? What level of human control, oversight and understanding will remain in the midst of the optimisation and automatisation of the city? And who might those humans be – the citizens themselves, whether directly or through democratically elected local politicians, or city administration, or privately-owned entities? (See Martijn de Waal’s commentary chapter here on The city as a license: rights to the city in the era of platform urbanism as an example of a possible future of a decentralised, market-led system with little citizen oversight and power over these systems).

There was a strong sense throughout the process that our views on the present and futures of our digital systems and urban spaces are very dependent on our personal perspectives, experiences and positions. This question was with us, right from the get-go until the very final moments of the sessions: who gets to speak for whom? Who are we to imagine, re-imagine,and even envision futures that might have impact on groups and individuals with very different needs and interests to our own? We were pushed to consider who we were—and how we as a group, as a collection of individuals, come with certain perspectives and are blinded to others. We came to understand and appreciate that spaces (like this Foresight Cycle!) for imagining together, for being in dialogue with others and debating futures are limited; they are a privilege, which means they come with responsibility.

Trust thyself, trust ourselves

As we started to unpack what could be next for digital urban layers, we began to see that a lot hangs on trust: trust in technology, trust in institutions, and trust in each other.

The nature of digital layers foregrounds the trust placed in technology. There are a multiplicity of unresolved questions regarding data ownership and governance, and around who profits from the employment of more and more advanced digital systems in our urban spaces. There is an asymmetrical sense of trust in these systems used to monitor and optimise services, spaces or responses: the technology is trusted, but the people it monitors are not. Furthermore, the reliance upon (and even the often demanded transparency of) digital systems can lead to vulnerabilities in times of geopolitical tensions.

Trust in technology, especially as used in our public spaces, is closely connected to trust in public authorities and our systems of governance. We are witnessing ever greater fears related to the future of our democratic system and institutions, and seeing that many already feel discriminated against or wrongly targeted by these systems. This mistrust and feeling of unsafety goes against the promises of some urban digital technologies in creating better living environments for all.

This took us, at last, to trust between the people we share our urban spaces with – people we don’t know, people who are different from us. With this last step came the realisation that tackling the erosion of trust is what the future of our urban spaces really depends upon—and this should come from a starting point of acknowledging the different experiences, ‘realities’ and dreams different people have in those spaces.

Technology is frequently presented as a 'solution' to these problems and others: more participatory platforms where everyone can rate or vote for what they prefer; blockchain tech that can secure transactions and information; AIs that can synthesise, advise, or even decide what should be done. Following this path took us to an insight posed by a participant in the community critique workshop: why not a future in which we just talk to one another, rather than one in which a technology—whether it’s an app or an AI—solves problems for us? Why does it feel so preposterous to imagine that we could co-exist despite our differences, and meet the challenges we’re up against without having to have a digital layer put on top of us to guide, police or monitor ‘us’ (or ‘them’)?

As tempting it might be, we could be calling for a future that is more like the past: a future in which we reverse, return to a pre-digital world. But we challenged the false dichotomy of a choice between, on the one hand, no technology, and technoutopian visions addicted to a destructive sense of progress and disruption on the other. Instead, we envisioned technology that no longer divides us, technology that helps us in building trust toward one another and trust in ourselves—technology that is informed by real needs, that communities can benefit from, and that everyone can feel safe with. It is a future where technology helps us make decisions for the long term, accounting for environmental impacts, and holding ourselves and one other accountable; a future where technology can help us build and share knowledge, and where we make meaning from that knowledge together. And yes, that means a future in which, sometimes, we actively choose to leave technology out all together.

This is a future in which we cannot engineer our way out of time-consuming or uncomfortable encounters with the people who share our urban spaces. This is not a future without friction, nor one where we can entirely outsource connection to digital systems. It is one in which we need to both listen and act with our hearts, minds and hands; a future in which we must learn, in Ralph Waldo Emerson’s words, to “trust thyself”, to rely on our own intuition and judgement, as well as to discover our collective judgement and shared intuition. This will not be one grand narrative, but rather one filled with differences, disagreements and debates—but also one that is united by the recognition that ‘we’ are all on this boat together.

There are many working on this future already. Their work, and the work of this Collaborative Foresight cycle, should be seen as an invitation to re-imagine and re-consider, to stay and reflect, to see our urban spaces and our digital tools in new ways, and to put those insights into use for a more inclusive, just, peaceful and sustainable future—for the people physically close to us, and for those furthest away.