Exactly what does "winning" mean in data-driven cities?

Mayor Walsh of Boston did a great job laying out his priorities in Tuesday night's State of the City Address. The positive response to the speech reflects the rhetoric that propelled Mayor Walsh into office last year. Rather, I'm more concerned with the data-driven culture that he is building within the city's governance, which is mentioned in this January 6th Boston Globe article.

Cities and metros have had a difficult time gather, tracking, analyzing, and responding to data throughout their histories. Some cities have been more successful than others, though departmental silos oftentimes hinder information sharing that could lead to more comprehensive planning and decision making. Walsh's "Moneyball" approach (based on the book by Michael Lewis, now a motion picture with Brad Pitt), however, seems to put data and statistics above that of local knowledge. Relying on data to measure whether your city is "winning" or not really depends on your strategy. Does winning mean increasing luxury sector developments with "poor doors" for affordable residents (I won't go into the ridiculous thresholds for "affordability" in this post)? Increasing foreign investment and improving prospects for investors? Or is it improving quality of life for all city residents?

Data and local knowledge should work together as part of ongoing performance evaluation for metros. Only through a combination of quantitative measures of project and program success coupled with qualitative feedback systems and case studies can cities like Boston address quality of life. Cities are for people: not just rich people, investors, and consumers in the luxury market, but all people. 

As Carolyn Steele points out in her book Hungry City, urban centers should bring together people from all walks of life. Inclusive quality of life cannot be reduced to statistics (though many are trying desperately to do so). Let's hope that Walsh's Moneyball approach to governance doesn't increase marginalization and exclusion like much of the urban revitalization driven by economics and data have done to date (aka gentrification). Moderate, low, and fixed income residents should count, too.