Deconstructing Urban Resilience: Ten Global Voices on the Future of Our Cities

In the historic heart of Vienna, the SMU City Dialogues convened a diverse panel of global experts to tackle one of the most pressing questions of our time: What is the value of urban resilience? Moderating the discussion, Professor of Geography Orlando Woods, who is concurrently Director of the SMU Urban Institute, framed resilience as a ‘boundary object’ - a term that unites disparate stakeholders but also reveals deep-seated tensions. What happens, he asked, when tangible values like return on investment collide with intangible ones like social justice?

The ensuing conversation revealed a rich tapestry of perspectives. To deconstruct this complexity into a more digestible format, the panellists' diverse viewpoints can be understood and loosely grouped through four key lenses that moderator Professor Orlando Woods used to frame the discussion: Planning, Housing, Financing, and Catalysing. Each lens offers a unique perspective on how to build the thriving, adaptable, and equitable cities of the future.

The Planning Perspective: Designing for the Long Game

For the urban planners on the panel, resilience is a balancing act between long-term strategic vision and the unpredictable nature of modern shocks. Mr Thomas Madreiter, Director of Planning for the City of Vienna, began by establishing a foundational principle: a city must be understood first and foremost as a ‘social system’, not just a collection of houses. Acknowledging that crises can derail even the best-laid plans, he wryly quoted Mike Tyson: "Everyone has a plan till he gets punched in the mouth". For Vienna, the defence against such shocks is long-term, strategic investment, which has proven that cities can be the solution to their own problems.

Building on this theme of foresight, Mr Lim Eng Hwee, Chief Executive Officer, Urban Redevelopment Authority, Singapore, detailed the pragmatic strategies his city-state employs to navigate an uncertain future. He explained how Singapore meticulously plans for optionality by setting aside reserve land to meet future needs and uses innovative policy to create over 400 hectares of vertical greenery. This highly structured, forward-looking approach is a masterclass in building resilience into the very DNA of a city's development.

Complementing this practical view with a philosophical one, Dr Cathy Oke, Director for the Melbourne Centre of Cities (University of Melbourne), argued that resilience is ultimately a reflection of a city's core values. She challenged the panel to look beyond simple livability metrics and make decisions with a focus that extends far beyond political cycles. This means centring the well-being of future generations and recognising the intrinsic value of biodiversity in creating a truly sustainable urban ecosystem.

The Housing Perspective: Securing the Social Core

The housing experts brought a grounded, human-centric focus, arguing that a city can only be as resilient as its most vulnerable residents. Professor Loretta Lees, Faculty Director for the Initiative on Cities (Boston University), set a critical frame for the discussion, questioning whether resilience itself has become a policy buzzword that may reinforce an unequal status quo. She urged a shift in focus toward survivability for marginalised communities, advocating for a more compassionate and caring city that is not just for the elite.

This on-the-ground reality was brought into sharp focus by Mr Hakim Ouansafi, Executive Director of the Hawaii Public Housing Authority, who recounted the tragic lessons from the Lahaina wildfire in Hawaii. When official systems failed—with emergency sirens staying silent amidst 60 mph winds - the ultimate safety net was the social fabric and human connection forged between neighbours. His story served as a powerful, real-world testament to Professor Lees’ point: when the hardware of a city breaks, it is the software of human trust that determines its ability to endure.

So how is this trust built? Professor Phang Sock Yong, Celia Moh Chair Professor of Economics (SMU), provided the answer from a policy perspective, explaining that housing resilience has three dimensions: the physical, the economic, and the social. She described how Singapore's public housing policies are a deliberate investment in building social trust. The essence of this, she noted, can be seen in something as simple as a public housing playground, where children from all backgrounds “just gather to play", organically building the community bonds that are the bedrock of a resilient society.

The Financing Perspective: A New Calculus of Value

The financiers on the panel tackled the crucial question of how to pay for resilience, arguing for a broader definition of value. Mr Eric Pedersen, Head of Responsible Investments, Nordea Asset Management, provided the ‘why’ with his insurance perspective on responsible investment. He argued that when a company invests in its community's stability, it is also mitigating its own long-term financial risks, because a factory is useless if a crisis prevents its workers from getting to work.

Building on this, Ms Fang Eu-Lin, Sustainability Lead of PwC Singapore offered the ‘what’ with the triple dividend framework, a tool for calculating the benefits of resilience through avoided losses, new development opportunities, and invaluable social co-benefits. She highlighted a significant investment opportunity, noting that current global financing for climate adaptation ($76 billion in 2022) is a mere fraction of the projected need (up to $500 billion annually by 2050). Together, their perspectives create a compelling case that resilience is not an expense, but a sound, long-term investment.

The Catalysing Perspective: Enabling and Convening Change

Highlighting the enabling role that technology and institutions play was Mr Kirk Arthur, Worldwide Government Solutions Lead of Microsoft. He framed technology not as a panacea, but as a practical tool to solve concrete civic problems, and pointed to the power of AI to eliminate administrative bottlenecks, citing a Canadian case where it reduced building permit backlog from years to weeks.

This focus on practical application was emphasised by Professor Alan Chan, Provost of SMU, who discussed the University's role as a critical catalyst. Beyond education, he argued that the University’s unique value lies in its role as a neutral ‘convener’. By providing a trusted platform for government, industry, and communities to find common ground, universities can facilitate the very partnerships that are essential for building a resilient future.

Analysis: The Human-Centric Shift

While the panellists hailed from different disciplines and continents, a common thread united their perspectives: the definition of urban resilience is undergoing a profound shift. The dialogue revealed a clear movement away from a vocabulary dominated by infrastructure and technology, and toward a new paradigm centred on human and social capital. The conversation consistently demonstrated that while technical systems are critical tools, they are not the foundation of a resilient city. 

That foundation, as speakers from Vienna to Hawaii passionately argued, is built from social cohesion, mutual trust, and a collective sense of belonging.

This human-centric shift forces a radical re-evaluation of how we measure success. If trust is the bedrock of resilience, then traditional KPIs focused on efficiency and ROI are no longer sufficient. The Dialogue made it clear that a new calculus of value is needed - one that can account for the co-benefits of well-being and community stability. This is the challenge for city leaders today: not merely to build resilient things, but to cultivate resilient societies.

Conclusion

This roundtable at the City Dialogues Vienna made clear that while the path for each city will be unique, the foundation is universal. It requires aligning stakeholders, empowering communities, and moving from top-down authority to a more collaborative model of governance - all with a commitment to building futures that are not only robust, but also kind, inclusive, and fair.