In ancient times, cities used to compete for access to natural assets such as rivers, waterfronts and mountains. Farmable and fertile lands, protection and access to trade routes all represented critical resources to survive. Therefore, competition against other cities to control these resources was often unavoidable. While times changed, the quest for resources did not, especially for those cities that lead economic development. Smooth access to trade corridors is now relevant more than ever, and, in light of this, mobility infrastructures play a pivotal role in shaping competitiveness.

Today, Global cities require for a different set of critical inputs and, in fact, the competition shifted from controlling natural physical resources to attracting talent, capital and firms.  As a consequence, they also became incubators where innovation flourished and, through clusterised approaches and specific frameworks, was nurtured and translated into tangible outcomes. In this light, infrastructures represent a key enabler of that competition.

International hubs are not born, they are built through forward looking policies that consider both present and future issues to provide the best possible services and environment conditions for citizens and businesses. While not being a completely zero-sum game, companies’ location decisions, which create jobs, talents preferences that drives innovation and investment decisions which provide funding are all simultaneously necessary and closely linked to the quality and quantity of services available in a particular geographical location. Of course, the social dimension is increasingly becoming an important variable in relocation decisions highlighting how the “human” component of a city can tip the scales.

For those cities that sit on the edge of innovation and strive for further economic development, these three factors (talents, companies and investments) are not optional but constitute the fundamental inputs they must attract in order to stay in the race and lead economic and social growth.

In this competition, infrastructures represent a critical enabler for growth which becomes central in accessing and providing services. In this light, physical and digital infrastructures play different but complementary roles: mobility infrastructures, for example, allow for a larger talent catchment area in the region surrounding Global Cities and also reduce constraints in terms of relocation preferences for the inward flow of foreign workers. Meanwhile, the adoption and implementation of digital infrastructure can enable the improvement and expansion of  services by reducing negative externalities.

Infrastructure investments play different roles depending on urban scale, complexity and infrastructure endowment. In medium sized cities, physical mobility development mainly addresses accessibility gaps and generates direct economic effect, positive externalities and sustainability effects. In advanced and more complex urban environments such as Global Cities, the adoption of digital technologies increasingly supports both planning through real time data gathering and infrastructure performance through system wide optimisation. The need for infrastructural development was also underlined by McKinsey in their 2025 report. They estimate that by 2024 $106 trillion will be required to meet the need for new and updated infrastructures broken down in 7 sectors: transport and logistics ($36 trillion), energy and power ($23 trillion), digital ($19 trillion), social ($16 trillion), waste and water infrastructures ($6 trillion), agriculture ($5 trillion) and defense (2 trillion).

Unfortunately, progress is not homogeneous and the process of urbanisation is uneven. High income economies show degrees or urbanisation close to 80% and continents like Europe benefit from long historical infrastructure inheritance: the road and water networks the Roman empire spread throughout the continent has been further expanded and integrated with a relatively high density rail system which connects most cities and that has been recognised by the EU, through the TEN-T Regulation,  as a fundamental backbone of European freight and citizens mobility . Nonetheless, in 2025, expanding public transport was the single biggest mobility priority for 60% of European mayors, according to Eurocities Pulse survey, alongside developing multimodal integrated systems. Economic issues such as insufficient funding aside, aging or inadequate infrastructure represented one of the main challenges for European mayors. These trends highlight the continued importance of investment in urban mobility infrastructure, particularly in cities where accessibility gaps remain significant.

Thessaloniki provides a contemporary example of how major transport infrastructure can reshape a medium-sized urban ecosystem. Historically characterised by high car dependency and limited public transport capacity, the city experienced a structural shift with the opening of its first metro line in 2024. As a fully automated rapid transit system connecting key areas along an east-west axis, the metro introduced a significant accessibility improvement reducing travel times of trips that required 40 minutes by car to 17 minutes, increasing the reliability of urban mobility while also having a positive impact on car use (15% reduction in downtown traffic) and emissions (estimated decrease of about 212 tonnes per day).

These accessibility gains are already generating early economic effects. Improved connectivity to central districts has increased footfall and accessibility for businesses, particularly in retail, hospitality and service sectors. Areas surrounding metro stations are beginning to attract new investment, reflecting typical patterns of transit-oriented development. At the same time, enhanced mobility supports broader urban productivity by expanding labour markets’ catchment area and facilitating agglomeration effects. The metro has also strengthened the city’s attractiveness for tourism and external investment, reinforcing its role as a regional hub.

The long-term economic transformation of the city will depend on future network extensions, integration with other transport modes and complementary urban policies. However, this case illustrates how mobility infrastructure can act as a catalyst for economic change by fundamentally improving accessibility and enabling wider urban dynamics to unfold.

While the Thessaloniki case underlines the role of physical infrastructure in addressing accessibility gaps and generating local economic effects, such approaches become less effective in larger and more complex urban systems, where the challenge shifts from expanding capacity to increasing performance efficiency of existing networks.

Singapore provides a contrasting example of how infrastructure contributes to economic performance in large and highly complex urban systems. Unlike medium-sized cities where physical accessibility remains a primary constraint, Singapore’s challenge lies in managing density, limited land and the increasing complexity of interconnected urban systems. In this context, the development of a digital twin platform, often referred to as “Virtual Singapore”, represents a shift from expanding infrastructure to increasing its performance efficiency through data-driven technologies.

The digital twin integrates real-time and geospatial data across multiple domains, including transport networks, land use, environmental conditions and population dynamics. This enables authorities to simulate urban scenarios, test infrastructure interventions before implementation and monitor system performance continuously. In the mobility sector, such capabilities support traffic optimisation and demand forecasting and more efficient allocation of resources, reducing congestion and improving network reliability. More broadly, the platform enhances planning precision and reduces uncertainty, allowing for faster and more informed decision-making.

These improvements translate into indirect but significant economic benefits. By increasing the efficiency of existing infrastructure and minimising planning errors, digital systems contribute to higher urban productivity and better use of scarce resources. At the same time, Singapore’s leadership in smart city technologies reinforces its attractiveness for global investment, innovation and high-skilled labour.

However, the effectiveness of such systems depends on strong institutional capacity, data governance and continuous technological investment. The Singapore case therefore illustrates how, in large urban systems, digital infrastructure plays an increasingly important role in enhancing the performance and economic value of existing physical networks through system-wide optimisation.

Both examples show how infrastructures represent a critical enabler of economic growth. In urban environments where accessibility gaps are still relevant, even basic mobility infrastructure and investment can have significant impacts in increasing citizens’ life quality, by reducing congestion, emission and increasing social inclusion. In Global Cities, where basic infrastructures often already exist, the challenge for urban planners is how to optimise the service and improve efficiency. In this context, the rationale must shift from technology oriented to goal oriented: adoption and integration of digital tools is useful only if it has a real measurable impact on service performance. These effects also shape the urban environment and its competitiveness not only in absolute terms but also in comparison to other urban environments, determining the attractiveness a Global City can project.

This Dossier aims to analyse the fields where competition between cities can determine a model’s success or its demise. On this journey, even the concept of competition between Cities will be challenged, highlighting how, nowadays, it narrows the narrative, missing three focal points: (i) while pursuing talent and tourist attraction, competition without holistic planning might create negative externalities for citizens, with perceived successes that may in fact be short lived, as highlighted in different guises by Steven Pedigo, Bo Nielsen & Christian Amussen and Harold Goodwin; (ii) Cities’ governance, as underlined by Francesco Billari, is still inadequate to address the scale of the challenges ahead, in a geopolitical context where national governments, while struggling, do not delegate decision making to urban policymakers; (iii) Cooperation is not optional in light of an increasing need for resources that no one can really access alone, as argued by Paolo Glisenti, and becomes paramount to imagine the future of cities in a world where the boundaries of urban environments continue to grow every day.

The novelty of this analysis is rooted in its challenge to mainstream competition narrative. The pursue of economic and status gains cannot happen at the expense of citizens, especially in times when cities increasingly find themselves facing challenges they are not capable of withstanding alone.

.

.