As part of the Edge 50 list, Apolitical is publishing a series of articles exploring a selection of these bold initiatives to learn more about the stories and strategies behind them.

Created by Apolitical in partnership with the Mohammed Bin Rashid Centre for Government Innovation, this list is an invitation to look beyond the usual playbook and ask what becomes possible when governments are willing to think boldly about today’s biggest problems.

Apolitical spoke with Eunji Kang, Mission Lead for Permissioning the City at Dark Matter Labs, an organisation working to create institutions, instruments and infrastructures for a more equitable, caring and sustainable future.

Cities are dynamic, but rigid licensing and complex permissions processes can leave spaces unused and community needs unmet. Permissioning the City changes that, making it easy for residents to request and vote on how vacant spaces are used, from pop-up restaurants on abandoned rooftops to community gardens in disused car parks. In Daegu, South Korea, a pilot project is already showing results: faster permissions, more active spaces, lower operational costs and reduced crime.

When you developed Permissioning the City, what core challenge were you trying to address, and how did your understanding of that challenge evolve once the work began?

Initially, we started with underutilised urban spaces within the city. The city has a great opportunity in that it has spatial assets, but over the years, those spaces haven’t been utilised properly. I think this became more accelerated during the pandemic and afterwards.

When the city tried to use the space through digital tools like Airbnb or Booking.com, those commercial tools weren’t really meeting their needs because they’re yes-or-no binary platforms. We needed something more community-led and that gave citizens a voice so they could really be part of the space allocation decision-making process.

Once we started developing a digital tool, we faced criticism that the platform was similar to Airbnb, with people asking how our platform would be different. So the challenge became about explaining that this is not another, more advanced booking platform. It’s a genuine invitation for citizens to reimagine how spaces might be utilised.

What felt most uncomfortable, risky or counterintuitive about shifting the decision-making power from traditional bureaucracy towards citizen-led governance?

The core aspect is making decisions together around space allocation. In a way, you need to share your decision-making power with citizens.

A lot of the risk came from questions such as: “If I’m a space owner and something goes wrong, who’s responsible?” Or: “If I share decision-making power with citizens, how does the incentive mechanism work?”

So we spent time explaining why we need an intermediary role. Not only a space owner or host, but also someone who genuinely cares about the space and wants to do something different in it. We call this role a space steward, and it’s a kind of stewardship of the space for public good; building the right balance between economically driven decisions and publicly led decisions.

Which early design or delivery decisions turned out to matter most once the initiative moved from a concept into a real-world project? And were there any assumptions that you had to revisit?

Initially, we described this as a new form of urban licensing innovation, sometimes called dynamic licensing for the city. Cities change all the time, but our permission systems are binary. We asked how digital infrastructure could adapt to those changes. We focused on this dynamic permission system, but we came to see that identity systems were also crucial.

To take a simple example: if you’re selling ice cream in the park, you need to apply for a permit. The permit checks your identity: Are you eligible to sell ice cream in the park? But there’s also your right: How long and when you can sell ice cream once you get permission.

We focused too much on innovation in the permission itself, but came to realise that how identity is formed, especially social identity on the platform, was also really important.

We introduced a blockchain-based identity system to ensure technical security, but identity should also evolve socially. Through use of the platform and social interaction, people gain more rights through validation from others.

Another assumption we revisited was the interface design. We experimented with making the whole platform conversational, thinking that natural language would make it easier for people to search for and access space. But users tended to prefer the form-based interface because it felt faster, clearer and more direct. That didn’t make us give up on conversational interfaces altogether, but it showed us they aren’t always the right route for every part of the experience. So for now, we are keeping the user-facing tools simple and form-based, while using AI more in the backend.

Who needed to be involved, inside and outside government, for this initiative to work? And how did you share roles, ownership and decision-making power in practice?

Typical space platforms have two users: a participant who wants to access space and a host who provides it. We wanted to introduce a third role in between those two.

This role is the space steward or place maker. Someone who knows the neighbourhood well and wants to activate the space creatively, even if they don’t own it or have the resources to rent it.

Our platform therefore has three user journeys. One is government or a space provider. The second is the space steward or place maker. The third is general citizens who participate in events or activities. Introducing this third actor helped create a more coherent incentive system and encouraged creativity around how neighbourhood spaces can be used.

What kinds of resistance or scepticism did you encounter in developing and delivering this project, and how did you navigate these challenges?

We’ve faced some scepticism. We’ve been asked things like “Who would use the platform? Who’d register their own space but share decision-making power with strangers?” But the main criticisms have come from people’s perception that this was just another booking platform or an efficiency tool for managing space.

What we’re proposing isn’t about technical efficiency; it’s about rethinking our urban space. Traditionally, decisions about space were made by a few people, but in a time of dynamic change, citizens can also be part of those decision-making processes. We started framing the platform as civic operational infrastructure for the 21st century city.

“We’ve tried to convey that this is not permission, this is not booking; this is an invitation for your city.”

We’ve been fortunate to start in a relatively safe environment, working with metropolitan and regional governments under a grant, beginning with around 80% government-owned property such as community gardens, community kitchens and publicly-owned spaces. Starting in a safe environment has allowed us to test the distributed decision-making mechanism with citizens and government before we scale to other cities.

What tangible changes have you seen so far as a result of this project for cities and communities, but also for how government makes decisions, manages risks or thinks about public space?

We’re still building a strong evidence base. We’re preparing a five-month pilot across three places, with around 50 sites and 50 local champions, and I think we’ll learn a lot from it. One thing that’s already surprised me is how well funders, civil servants and government officers — some of whom were initially quite sceptical — have come to understand what we’re trying to do.

We’ve seen other meaningful shifts. One has been in how we think about the space registry itself. Rather than only registering static specifications like size or time availability, we started registering the outcomes we wanted to create within a space. It’s ‘future tense’ thinking.

And we’ve seen shifts in how partners think about rules and identity. Instead of ‘thin’ static rules about how space must be used, we’re exploring ‘thick’ contextual rules that evolve through experience. There’s growing interest in concepts like peer deliberation and shared decision-making around space use. We’re seeing people adopt this vocabulary and approach in conversations with city partners.

Finally, we’re thinking about identity not simply as an account or usability feature on the platform, but as a way of translating your reputation into a capability to take risks and access space. Access itself becomes a kind of currency.

Is there a particular type of use case that you are most excited to see come to life in the pilot project?

The initial ‘Trojan horse’ use case is to activate underutilised government spaces, such as community kitchens, offices, or spaces for start-ups and small businesses. But we’re also interested in broader possibilities, for example, using the licensing mechanism to support climate responses such as cooling shelters during extreme heat, or housing support during an emergency.

We’re also interested in micro-spaces that change use throughout the day. A space might be used for loading materials in the morning, serving as a coffee stand at lunchtime, and hosting a gathering in the evening. I’d love to see how this mechanism can support dynamic changes in urban needs and competing needs.

We also talk about something more radical within our team and with our city partners: what if the permission power extended beyond humans? Imagine a tree in the street sending an invitation to neighbours to come out and see a beautiful rainbow in the sky, or a busy city park requesting quiet time for itself. Extending the concept to non-human actors could create entirely new forms of urban licensing.

How do you think the initiative would need to be adapted so that it worked equally well in other countries or contexts?

We’re designing the system as modular building blocks. For example: space registries, deliberation tools, risk assessment and dynamic pricing. These components can be adapted to different cities depending on their needs. But it’s also essential to involve local voices because every city has different social and cultural contexts.

Capturing lessons from South Korea and sharing them with other cities is an important part of the process, so others don’t have to repeat the same mistakes. What advice would you give a public servant or civic leader who feels inspired to try something similar?

One important point to convey is that we’re not talking about cutting-edge technology here. It’s a simple digital solution. The real question is what technology is actually necessary, and for which audience. Cities don’t always need heavy technical solutions because maintenance costs and data risks can become very high.

“When I look at what we’re building, I always ask myself: are we really allowing citizens to imagine what is possible? Are we helping them to take risks, and then sharing those responsibilities together, so we can be brave and creative about it?”

That deeper shift, from control to enabling and imagining new potential, is what I would most want civic leaders to take away.