Margot Roose: The City That Dared to Test – Tallinn’s Urban Innovation Mission
Tallinn has become a real-world testing ground for innovation through the ‘Test in Tallinn’ initiative. By opening up public spaces and infrastructure for pilot projects, Tallinn offers startups and tech companies a real-life laboratory, something many cities struggle to operationalize beyond theory. How do you envision this program evolving to foster international collaborations and scale innovative solutions beyond Estonia? Do you think Tallinn’s ‘Test in Tallinn’ initiative provides a strong template for other cities looking to build innovation ecosystems?
We see Test in Tallinn not just as a local initiative, but as a steppingstone toward a broader, international sandbox for innovation. The aim is to position cities as active enablers of innovation, not just regulators. That starts with real-world testing and it means opening up urban infrastructure, lowering bureaucratic barriers, and creating space for experimentation.
It’s important to note that over 70% of EU policies are ultimately implemented at the city level. This means the success of Europe’s goals whether in climate, innovation, or security, will largely depend on how effectively cities can adopt and scale new solutions. Therefore, cities are not only execution points but key drivers of innovation. That’s the scale of the opportunity and the challenge we’re facing over the next decade.
In the past cities have been quite traditional, even sort of protectionist, focused primarily on the local companies or at national scale, but in today’s interconnected world, that model is no longer sufficient. We need to be more open to welcome innovation wherever it comes from, and to actively share experiences and data across borders with other cities and ideally experiment at the same time in several cities.
My vision for Test in Tallinn is to become part of a wider network of cities that test and iterate on innovations simultaneously. By doing this, we can provide companies with diverse feedback more quickly, help them adapt and scale, and also accelerate public procurement of innovative solutions. It’s not just about Tallinn, it’s about building a collaborative model that others can replicate and participate in.
To make this work across borders, we also need to address some practical challenges. For example, project formats are often tied to local languages or administrative processes, which makes sharing difficult. But we’re working on solving that – for instance, by exploring tools like testincity.com, an Estonian-built platform originally designed for grant applications but adaptable for innovation testing. The goal is to have a simple, shared platform that cities can use to manage and share pilot projects reducing friction and making collaboration easier.
In short, I do believe that Test in Tallinn offers a strong template for other cities. But the next step is scaling that template beyond Estonia by building shared tools, common standards, and a network of open cities willing to innovate together.
With the rapid integration of AI in city services, how does Tallinn navigate the balance between embracing technological advancements and ensuring ethical standards and citizen trust? Tallinn is already a front-runner in smart governance. How close are we to seeing a virtual Tallinn – where citizens, planners, and entrepreneurs can co-create in real time using digital twins or metaverse platforms?
When it comes to digital twins and the broader concept of virtual cities, Tallinn has certainly been a pioneer. We’ve built an impressive digital infrastructure and collected a vast amount of data, so much, in fact, that we’re currently using only a fraction of its potential. Technologically, many of the building blocks are already in place: we manage construction permits and supervision entirely paper-lessly, we’re developing a Green Twin to help mitigate urban heat islands through better green space planning, and we’re actively exploring predictive AI solutions. However, the challenge now lies in integrating these elements into a cohesive, fully functioning ecosystem. This isn’t just a technical hurdle, it also involves regulatory barriers and, more critically, bold decision-making to bring everything together on a shared platform. The reality is that reaching a fully operational digital city or metaverse-ready environment may not happen all at once. Different components may evolve at different speeds.
Circular economy principles are central to your agenda. Can you share specific examples of how these principles have been integrated into Tallinn’s urban planning and what impact they’ve had?
Thank you so much for this question, it is very important for us.
First of all, we are currently finalizing Tallinn’s Circular Economy Strategy 2035, positioning ourselves ahead of the national government, which has not yet begun drafting its own strategy. This highlights a broader trend: cities are often leading the way on innovation and climate-related topics. The reason is simple — we are on the frontlines. We are directly exposed to the urgency of environmental and societal challenges, and we feel the pressure of citizen expectations every day. Cities often act as buffers between these complex issues and national institutions, which are sometimes more removed from day-to-day realities.
In developing our strategy, we’ve identified key umbrella themes — such as raising city-wide awareness and embedding circularity into public procurement. As a major purchaser, the city has significant influence over the market. By integrating circular principles into procurement, we can stimulate demand for more sustainable goods and services.
We have also prioritized high-impact sectors, like construction including demolition which generates the majority of urban waste. This includes rethinking how we develop the city. For example, instead of defaulting to new construction in empty urban spaces, we now carefully assess whether existing buildings can be repurposed — such as converting older structures into schools or public facilities. This approach not only saves resources but also reduces environmental disruption. We’re also promoting urban intensification, such as adding floors to existing buildings, to make more efficient use of limited space.
Another key focus is industrial symbiosis. While many cities push factories and production facilities out of urban areas, we are working to keep them within the city, integrating residential development nearby. This helps reduce commuting, promotes mixed-use areas, and supports a more resilient local economy.
We’re also investing in the physical infrastructure needed to support the circular transition. For example, we’ve opened one Circular Economy Centre and are building a larger one. These centers do more than collect waste — they visualize the concept of circularity for citizens, hosting repair studios and creating a sense of public commitment. When people see these centers, they understand that the city is serious about change.
All of this work began with pilots and experimentation from innovative renovations to construction methods that are less disruptive and more sustainable. We are now moving from experimentation to scaling guided by a clear strategy, strong city leadership, and growing public engagement.
These efforts show how cities can be powerful agents of change, not only responding to challenges but actively shaping more sustainable and circular urban futures.
In your role, how do you leverage policy to create an environment that nurtures entrepreneurship and innovation within Tallinn? Are there any recent policy changes that have significantly impacted the startup ecosystem?
Policy change is a crucial driver of innovation, and we’ve been fortunate in Tallinn to have bold decision-making both at the city and national levels. For instance, Estonia allowed autonomous mobility already several years ago — a move that many other cities and countries still haven’t adopted. This early regulatory clarity enabled us to become a testbed for self-driving vehicles, such as autonomous minibuses, and attracted relevant companies to set up operations here, fostering a new innovation ecosystem.
Another good example is our 2023 policy requiring only reusable cups, dishes, and cutlery at public events. Again, this decision was made ahead of similar national regulations and immediately sparked innovation. Startups began developing return systems and user-friendly tech solutions, such as machines that refund deposits via mobile phone scans. A simple municipal regulation catalyzed the emergence of an entirely new industry and these solutions are now being scaled and exported internationally.
Building on this success, we are now considering extending the requirement to indoor venues like cinemas, sports arenas, and other year-round facilities. This would help create a stable, all-season market, which is essential for businesses that can’t survive on seasonal demand alone.
At the same time, I believe strongly that every municipal decision must consider its impact on entrepreneurs and the business environment. Too often, a single department might introduce a well-meaning regulation without fully assessing the consequences. One recent case involved updated street safety rules that affected outdoor media placements — new limits on screen brightness and placement near intersections inadvertently threatened the viability of nearly all outdoor advertising in the city. This created significant uncertainty for an industry that had long-term contracts with the city.
Situations like this highlight the need for cross-departmental coordination and a balancing perspective within city governance. Someone must represent the entrepreneurial viewpoint in city decision-making — to challenge assumptions, flag unintended consequences early, and ensure policies support innovation without destabilizing key industries. In Tallinn, I’ve taken it upon my department to play that role, and I see this kind of coordination as essential for any city striving to lead in innovation.
Tallinn has engaged in partnerships with cities like Heidelberg and Helsinki. What have been the most valuable lessons from these collaborations, and how do they influence Tallinn’s approach to innovation?
What’s essential in such partnerships is that they are mutually beneficial. Both sides need to put in the effort and share equally in the value created. That’s especially true when scaling efforts globally — real cooperation demands commitment on both ends.
Another key factor is the governance structure of the partner cities. There’s often strong political will to collaborate, but you quickly realize that cities are organized very differently. For example, in Tallinn, we co-own a smart city hub Tehnopol together with the state and a university. In contrast, another city may only have a small municipal department handling innovation. The legal and operational frameworks in such cases differ dramatically, which can affect the speed and nature of collaboration. Financing public projects can also vary significantly, and it’s crucial to understand what’s possible and realistic on both sides. So, aligning on governance models and expectations is one of the most important lessons we’ve learned.
A great example of successful cross-border collaboration was our joint hackathon with the city of Valencia. It began following the severe floods they experienced last autumn. I happened to be in Valencia just days before the crisis, which made it a very personal and urgent topic. Afterward, we offered to help, together with Estonia’s e-Residency program, by contributing some of our digital expertise. While they didn’t have the capacity to explore new tools during the crisis itself, we agreed to organize a hackathon afterward, combining their challenges with our digital know-how.
The event attracted over 100 participants, many strong teams, and several promising solutions. However, we learned an important lesson: we hadn’t defined the challenge statements from Valencia clearly enough. As a result, many of the proposed solutions were quite generic and didn’t fully address the real crisis management needs. So now, we know that if you want meaningful results, you must clearly define the problems you’re trying to solve through collaboration or innovation programs. Still, some excellent ideas emerged. For instance, the winning solution tackled the issue of moisture in buildings — not just from floods, but due to the Mediterranean climate more broadly. An Estonian company had developed a smart ventilation pipe powered by solar energy. It’s already in use here in Estonia, but now they’re adapting it to Valencia’s climate, where solar panels need additional protection from overheating. That project is now entering its next phase: three teams will work on-site in Valencia over the coming months, and the results will be presented at the Valencia Digital Summit in October. If successful, this could be scaled across the Mediterranean and beyond — even to places like Ireland, where moisture also causes building and health issues.
Another valuable insight from this collaboration was the experience of joint evaluation. As members of the jury from different cities, we each had different perspectives. Some ideas seemed brilliant to me but weren’t applicable in Valencia due to existing infrastructure or policy limitations. That back-and-forth showed how much context matters and how fruitful joint evaluation can be. I’m not sure if many collaborative hackathons between cities exist yet, but this was definitely an eye-opener for me.
In broader terms, I always emphasize at startup events that cities must be seen as key players in the innovation ecosystem. We are major buyers, we can fund pilots, and we can act as true partners. Unfortunately, many startups hesitate to work with cities because they perceive us as bureaucratic, slow, and full of red tape. That’s a myth we need to dismantle – and not just with words. We need to prove it with action.
That’s one reason our Test in Tallinn program has been so successful. We intentionally removed most bureaucratic barriers. Since we don’t offer public money, we can dramatically reduce regulation — in some cases, by as much as 99%. That makes us an attractive testbed for startups and innovators.
We’ve seen other cities follow our lead, Heidelberg and Valencia are both adopting similar models. More cities are expressing interest, and we’re currently finalizing a collaboration agreement with Seoul, South Korea. They’ve already visited us and now some of their projects are being chosen to be tested in Tallinn, tested in Europe.
To manage this growing interest, we’re also expanding our innovation team. But we’ve been very selective, we don’t want to overpromise. Eventually, we believe this shouldn’t be about one-on-one agreements. That approach isn’t scalable. Instead, we aim to create a shared platform that many cities can join. The initial bilateral agreements help us build and pilot that model but the long-term goal is a collaborative, open ecosystem for urban innovation.
Looking ahead, what is your vision for Tallinn in the next decade concerning innovation, sustainability, and citizen engagement? If you could fast-forward to the year 2035 and stand inside a fully realized digital twin of Tallinn alive with real-time data, citizen interaction, and climate-responsive design, what do you hope people will say it helped the city achieve that wouldn’t have been possible otherwise?
So, looking ahead 10 years from now, I imagine we’ll have a full digital twin of the city. And honestly, I’ve often joked that people might be next, everything else already has a digital twin, often with predictive capabilities. So, humans are kind of the last frontier in that sense. But ultimately, we need to ask: What are we trying to achieve with all of this?
At the core, it’s about increasing effectiveness, both in terms of financial resources and human resources and delivering better public services. That, I believe, is the number one objective from a city leadership perspective.
Another key goal is creating added value, not just maintaining what we have, but unlocking new opportunities. Tasks like maintenance, construction, and urban operations will be far more automated and precise, minimizing human error. For example, as you mentioned, managing trees or infrastructure or even broader areas like urban greenery and climate action, will increasingly rely on smart, data-driven tools.
We’re already using simulations to support city planning. Previously, only experts could fully grasp what a redesign meant for a particular area. But now, with these visualizations, everyone can understand what their street will look like after changes. This makes it easier for residents to provide feedback and truly participate in shaping their environment.
There are also more playful, but still valuable, aspects. For instance, there’s a project of creating a car racing game set in an authentic 3D model of Tallinn. Sure, we don’t need that, but it’s fun, engaging, and can even support tourism. People could virtually “drive” through our city before visiting. And for younger generations, who may not be interested in traditional public meetings or urban planning presentations, these tools are a meaningful way to connect and involve them.
Engaging young people is one of our biggest challenges. They’re not necessarily vocal or active in city discussions, but we still need to find ways to positively involve them. For them, features like digital twins and gamified interactions are not just nice-to-have, they’re essential. It’s a way to bring the next generation into the fold, whether that’s through urban planning games or circular economy activities like waste-sorting apps.
So, when we reflect 10 years from now, I’m sure some of these ideas will seem amusing in hindsight – no one knows exactly how things will evolve. But I sincerely hope that by then, we will have become more efficient, that people’s lives will have improved, and that we’ve brought some joy and creativity into city life through digital innovations.
And yes, those city-related 3D and digital identity solutions are not only important for youth, they’re crucial for the city as a whole. They help project a vision of the future and demonstrate that city leadership is not only focused on solving immediate problems, but is also strategically oriented, offering direction and inspiration for the entire community.
