On the 10th of December, the Centre for BOLD Cities hosted the symposium “Urban Digital Twins and Municipal Politics in Practice” in Delft. The discussions went beyond technical possibilities to critically examine the implications of Urban Digital Twins (UDTs) for cities, governance, and citizens. UDTs are often presented as neutral tools for visualising and optimising urban processes, but this symposium challenged that assumption, asking: What do UDTs really represent? Who benefits from them? And who is left out?
The symposium opened with a welcome and introduction by professor Jiska Engelbert, strategic director of the Centre for BOLD Cities. Her remarks set the stage for a day of dynamic discussions about UDTs and their implications for urban governance. The Centre for BOLD Cities has always aimed to go beyond data. It is a space for “brave cities,” concerned not only with how technology functions but with its broader societal implications. UDTs, as digital representations of cities, provide a powerful lens to explore how urban technologies shape—and are shaped by—politics, inclusivity and governance.
Dr. Achilleas Psyllidis presented a research project that laid the foundation for the discussions. Case studies from Rotterdam and The Hague demonstrated how UDTs are being implemented in practice, from decision-making processes to addressing political and social implications. Isa Sánchez Cecilia moderated the panels, ensuring an engaging and thought-provoking atmosphere throughout the event.
Promise and reality of UDTs
UDTs promise a lot: better resource allocation, improved urban planning and tools for public engagement. However, as panelists discussed, these promises often obscure important questions:
- Are UDTs truly new, or do they simply digitise older planning practices?
- Do they enable meaningful citizen engagement, or are they just tools to gather input?
- How inclusive are the data and assumptions underlying these models?
Case studies from Gemeente Rotterdam and Gemeente Den Haag highlighted how early adopters are experimenting with UDTs. Rotterdam, with its roadmap and vision, offers a structured approach, while The Hague revealed gaps in addressing social dimensions. Both cities underscored a broader challenge: UDTs often reflect organisational silos and municipal priorities, leaving little room for cross-domain collaboration or public dissent.
Participation and politics
The panel discussions featured contributions from Stefan Los (Gemeente Den Haag), Bruno Ávila (City of Amsterdam), and researchers including dr. Roy Bendor (TU Delft), Arthur De Jaeger (ESSB), dr. Thomas Swerts (ESSB), and dr. Annelieke van den Berg (TNO). Their insights enriched the dialogue, exploring how UDTs can align with public values and foster collaboration across municipal silos.
Participation in UDTs can mean two things: citizens contributing to decision-making or citizens being involved in developing the tools themselves. These are fundamentally different processes, yet they are often conflated. Panelists pointed out that interactive platforms are only as good as the participatory processes they are embedded in. Without meaningful participation, UDTs risk becoming top-down tools that reinforce existing power dynamics rather than challenging them.
Normative assumptions and exclusions
Maps have long reflected the biases of their creators, and UDTs are no different. They shape how we see the world and who gets to participate in it. Symposium participants highlighted the lack of reflection on the political assumptions embedded in UDTs:
- Who decides what data is included?
- Whose voices are amplified or excluded?
- Are these systems truly open to critique, or do they suppress dissent?
The discussions revealed a need for a more critical, interdisciplinary approach to UDTs. Municipalities like Rotterdam and Utrecht have started developing roadmaps, but a broader vision is required—one that prioritises public interest, inclusivity, and transparency. UDTs must be more than tools for efficiency; they must serve as platforms for dialogue, contestation and co-creation.
The symposium underscored that brave cities are not defined by their technology but by their willingness to ask hard questions about its implications. At the Centre for BOLD Cities, we remain committed to fostering these critical conversations and ensuring that technologies like UDTs reflect and respect the diverse needs of urban residents.
We thank all speakers and participants for their invaluable contributions and look forward to continuing this conversation in future events.
When using the photos below, please include the following credit: Martijn van Leeuwen.
