With the government keen to build, build, build, it is imperative that investment in smart infrastructure within our proposed new towns – especially smart streetlighting – is not kicked into the long grass. Postponing smart is always the most expensive choice.
When cities and developers plan new areas, the priority, we’re all aware, is usually to deliver the basics on time and within budget.
Roads, utilities, housing and lighting all need to be in place before people can move in. Under pressure, the temptation is strong to stick with standard solutions and leave smart systems – software platforms, smart sensors and adaptive lighting controls – for a future upgrade.
It can feel like a safe compromise: get people housed now, and worry about the digital backbone later.
But the reality is more complicated. Retrofitting certainly has an important role to play, especially in existing towns, but in new developments waiting often proves the most expensive choice – not only in money, but in missed opportunities.
Retrofitting is essential in established cities. No authority can afford to rip out and replace every streetlight, lamppost, substation, or every cable at once.
Adding smart streetlighting controls to older lanterns, for example, has already helped many councils cut energy use and improve maintenance without wholesale replacements.
But new-build projects are different. If a housing estate is fitted with LED lanterns that cannot accept control nodes, the upgrade path is short.
Within a few years, the lanterns must be replaced well before the end of their useful life. Each replacement requires truck rolls, crews, and often traffic management – costs that eat away at the savings a smart lighting system is supposed to provide.
The same applies to other systems. Adding electric vehicle (EV) charging once the roads are finished may require fresh ducting and cabling.
Rolling out fibre broadband after residents have moved in means digging up pavements that were only just laid. These are not theoretical concerns – they are real costs that have already been borne in developments where future needs were underestimated.
Even if retrofit is feasible, the years between installation and upgrade come with their own hidden price tag. These can include:
Every year without these systems is not neutral – it’s actively more expensive, because the city is missing out on the efficiencies and data that would otherwise be saving it money and improving services.
Perhaps the clearest reason not to postpone lies in the lived experience of citizens. Residents don’t think in terms of lifecycle costs or retrofit projects; they simply notice whether their neighbourhood feels modern, efficient, and responsive. For example,
in 2025, many (probably most) people now expect:
When these elements are missing at move-in, residents notice. And when they are added later, the disruption is deeply unpopular: cherry pickers at night, pavements dug up, or streets reconfigured.
Communities that were promised ‘smart upgrades’ often wait years, leading to frustration and mistrust.
Planners often worry about buying too early. Technology does evolve, and no one wants to be tied to a system that feels outdated in five years.
But most smart platforms – whether CMS systems, broadband networks, or EV charging hubs – are designed to evolve.
Software can be updated, sensors can be replaced, and standards are moving toward interoperability. The real difficulty comes when the physical layer is missing.
If lanterns are installed without sockets for control nodes, if ducts aren’t laid for fibre, or if power capacity isn’t planned for EV chargers, then no software update can fix the gap. Retrofitting later will always cost more.
Much of the hesitation comes down to budgeting. Developers are rewarded for minimising upfront capital costs, while municipalities focus on short-term affordability. But the bigger picture is lifecycle economics.
A smart lighting network, for example, costs more upfront to install, but energy and maintenance savings begin immediately.
EV-ready infrastructure, too, may seem like an extra expense, but it avoids the far greater costs of tearing up roads later. Fibre ducts are cheap when laid alongside other utilities but expensive once the ground has been finished.
Viewed over 15 or 20 years, the case for smart-from-day-one is consistently stronger than the case for ‘install first, upgrade later’.
None of this is to say retrofitting is inherently bad. It remains the only viable option for legacy assets, and in many cases, it has proven transformative. But for new developments, waiting for an upgrade is rarely the most efficient choice.
The real discussion is about balance. Where retrofitting is unavoidable, it should be done with a plan to minimise repeat interventions. Where a clean slate exists, smart capability should be designed in at the outset.
Cities are built for decades, not for short budget cycles. A housing estate or business park designed today will still be standing in 2050. Every time infrastructure is installed without smart capability, it bakes in tomorrow’s disruption, higher costs, and lost opportunities.
For citizens, it also shapes how their neighbourhood feels. A place that is EV-ready, well-lit, digitally connected, and sustainably managed meets modern expectations and builds trust. A place that has to be dug up and reworked a few years later does not.
Ultimately, smart infrastructure is not about chasing the latest technology trend. It’s about laying the right foundations, so cities can adapt without paying twice.
Retrofitting has its role, but in new areas, the cheapest moment to build smart is always the first.
Articles sourced from Lighting Journal (https://flickread.com/edition/html/index.php?pdf=691202a19c3b4#1), authored by David Orchard.