A Colombian city is the smartest in all of Latin America. It is not Buenos Aires, nor São Paulo. It is Medellín, the city that at the time was one of the most violent in the world in the 80’s and that now appears as the most intelligent and innovative in Latin America.
It is a title that surprises, that makes some people uncomfortable and that reveals something deeper: cities are changing and not necessarily where one expected, it is a very interesting case study that has been analyzed by experts around the world.
From violence to urban intelligence
By: Gabriel E. Levy B.
No one would have bet three decades ago that Medellín, known in the 90s as the most dangerous city in the world, would end up leading the Latin American ranking of smart cities. The same place that grew with the stigma of drug trafficking, today ranks 118th in the IMD Smart City Index 2025, above giants such as Mexico City (119) or Santiago de Chile (120). This transformation did not happen overnight, nor was it the product of a single brilliant administration. It was cooked slowly, with mistakes, with risky bets and with an increasingly involved citizenry.
The index that positions it as the one that has been leading this process regionally, does not only measure technological advances, it focuses mainly on the perception that inhabitants have about the infrastructure of the city in general, mobility around human beings, digital development, sustainability and, something key in this region: equity.
In other words, being a smart city does not mean having many sensors, but having a city that thinks, that understands its problems and that faces them with innovation and humanity, but above all, that places the human being at the center of everything.
Santiago, Mexico City and the Challenge of Size
Although Medellín is at the top of the region, it is not alone. It is closely followed by Mexico City, with 119th place, which is no less important considering its size, complexity and historical inequalities.
Further down are the cities of Santiago de Chile, Brasilia, Buenos Aires and São Paulo. Each of them with its own routes and paths towards urban modernization, but also with similar challenges: unbearable traffic, areas with very little connectivity, widespread institutional corruption and a citizenry that always distrusts the data that promises progress.
In cities like São Paulo, Brazil, for example, implementing a smart policy can become a bureaucratic nightmare. It’s not enough to have the technology; Agile governance, a clear vision and, above all, political will are needed. Something that, at times, is diluted in the bureaucracy of the Rio de Janeiro offices.
A dynamic concept
The expression «Smart City» refers specifically to a complex interconnected system of technologies, which allow managing all relevant aspects of the operation of a city, from the optimization of public transport, through the efficient use of energy resources, daily commercial activities, the beautification and accessibility of public spaces, to the mechanisms of citizen participation.
«A smart city detects the needs of its inhabitants, and reacts to these demands by transforming citizens’ interactions with public service systems and elements into knowledge. Thus, the city bases its actions and management on this knowledge, ideally in real time, or even anticipating what may happen,» Juan Murillo, Head of Territorial Analysis at BBVA Data & Analytics
However, in order to achieve a successful implementation model of «Smart Cities», it must be dimensioned from a comprehensive perspective, that is, it is not only a matter of devices or technology as many rulers of the day have tried in Latin America, but a long-term, complex policy that must incorporate at least these five key aspects:
The concept of Smartcity emerged in the 90s, but it was from 2010 when it began to gain strength in the political discourse of Latin America. And it is no coincidence. By then, there was already talk of climate change, the collapse of transport systems and the urgent need to reinvent cities.
But there was also talk of marketing. Because many times, cities call themselves «smart» without being so.
Just because they have a bike app or a network of surveillance cameras. Many rulers focus on devices and not on public policies, they believe that by buying technology they can already create smart cities.
The mirage of the intelligent
The truth is that in Latin America, talking about Smartcities is treading on slippery ground. There is a notable distance between discourse and reality.
A clear example is Bogotá, which is ranked 134th. Although the Colombian capital has made significant efforts in terms of sustainable mobility and digital government, citizen perception remains critical. Insecurity, congestion and inequality overshadow technological advances.
In Buenos Aires, one of the cities most watched by urban planners in the region, the digitization of procedures and the implementation of urban sensors have had an impact.
But there are still neighborhoods where public lighting is deficient and garbage collection works badly, really very badly. In other words, the city can have very smart areas and others that seem trapped in the twentieth century. An unforgivable asymmetry.
Something similar happens in San Juan, Puerto Rico, which appears in 132nd place. His case is curious, because although he belongs politically to the United States, he has the same basic infrastructure problems as many Latin American cities. The island has suffered the ravages of hurricanes and economic crises that have affected urban and technological development.
So what really makes a city smart? For the IMD, the answer lies in the daily experience of citizens. It is not enough for the mayor to announce the installation of solar panels if people do not feel that their lives are improving. An electric transport system is useless if it is still unpunctual or unsafe. In short, urban intelligence is not in the hardware, but in the social fabric that is built around technology.
Medellín, an exception or a model
Medellín, including its rulers, academics and businessmen, apparently understood this message better than other cities on the continent. Since the early 2000s, they began a process of urban transformation based on social inclusion and planning with innovation as the central axis.
It was not just about building libraries or escalators in the poorest communes. It was about connecting the city, physically and symbolically. Programs such as «Medellín Digital» or «Ruta N» promoted the development of a knowledge-based economy. Today, instead of being known for its kingpins, the city is associated with innovation.
One of its greatest achievements is the integrated transport system that connects the metro, cable cars and buses in a scheme designed for those who live in the highest and most marginalized areas. In addition, Medellín was one of the first to incorporate citizen laboratories where residents can propose technological solutions to their daily problems. This active participation partly explains why their public perception is so positive.
And yet, Medellín is not a perfect city. It still faces serious security and unemployment issues. There are neighborhoods where technology is barely noticeable. But what distinguishes her is her ability to imagine herself differently and turn that imagination into public policy.
That, in this region, is already a lot, without the slightest doubt, much more than any other city in the southern hemisphere.
«Technology without inclusion is just decoration»
The biggest risk is not that Latin America will be left behind in the technological race, that has already happened. What is really dangerous is to settle for copying models that do not fit with their reality.
A city doesn’t get smart by filling corners with sensors or launching an app to report potholes. Urban intelligence should also be measured by its ability to be inclusive.
And that’s where the problem appears. Many cities in the ranking have ambitious projects, yes, but in several cases they function more as a showcase than as a profound transformation.
Mexico City, for example, set up the largest video surveillance network in the region, working with open data and smart tolls. But how many peripheral neighborhoods have decent connectivity, how many citizens really know how to use those services, that’s another story.
Santiago de Chile, for its part, bet heavily on electric public transport. It has one of the largest fleets of electric buses outside of China. But that has not yet solved territorial inequality or bottlenecks in the most complex areas.
Medellín stands out for its innovation, yes, but poverty is still concentrated in the same neighborhoods as decades ago. And although the aerial cable that connects high communes with the center was a much admired solution, it is not enough to connect, if it is not truly integrated.
So, the question remains, for whom are these smart cities being made?
«Everyone wants to go up in the ranking»
Other cities also appear on the list, although further down. Brasilia, Buenos Aires, San Juan, Bogotá and São Paulo move between positions 130 and 137. These are not brilliant cases, but they should not be ruled out either.
Buenos Aires developed digital platforms for citizen participation that, although they do not always work as they should, marked a change in the face of the vertical logic of the State. Public consultations, participatory budgeting, real-time maps of services and emergencies, all of that adds up, even if it sometimes fails.
São Paulo chose another path, the mass adoption of fintechs and proptechs to move its urban ecosystem. The former streamline money without banks, the latter digitize property and rental management. It is more economic than social logic, but in a city of 22 million inhabitants, anything that brings order to the chaos a little, helps.
Bogota, on the other hand, tried to implement an integrated mobility network that still struggles with overflowing traffic. And San Juan, in Puerto Rico, works with disaster prevention tools, which is key in a territory exposed to hurricanes.
None of these cities is a perfect model, not even close. But they are testing, and testing is already a first step.
In conclusion, the IMD ranking not only reveals which cities are smarter, but which cities are really trying to change. Medellín leads because it knew how to translate its wounds into innovation. But the rest of the continent still has a long way to go, not in sensors, but in will. Because a smart city is not the one that has the most technology, but the one that thinks the most about its people.
References
IMD. (2025). Smart City Index 2025. International Institute for Management Development. Retrieved from https://www.imd.org/smart-city-index/
UN-Habitat. (2023). Inclusive and Smart Cities: The Challenge of Latin America. United Nations.
IDB. (2022). Smart Cities Study: International study on the situation of ICT, innovation and knowledge in cities. Inter-American Development Bank.