Uffer argues a “Cyber-Physical Social System”[1] within a city creates and distinguishes it as a smart city. For example, he believes “deploying sensors in buildings is relatively cheap and time effective.”[2]Sensors would be useful for a smart city because it would be effective feedback, and by controlling more information, society could live in a cost-effective way for monitoring costs like electricity. Housing would need to be innovated so it keeps track of these types of data. Algorithms would be able to run within one’s home to provide daily essentials more efficiently.

In order to promote the common good there needs to be housing that is least involved with financial capitalists. This means that major banks should not be allowed to monopolize the real estate market. Fields calls this “financialisation” which is due to the “global expansion of finance capital and favourable market conditions created through the roll-back of affordable housing regulations.”[3] The public state needs to implement more regulation in the housing market in order to promote housing for the common good. This is needed, because the housing market creates incentives to buy lower-value estates since it has lower prices. In order to maximize profits in a real estate investment, the firm could prevent owners from receiving loans. If the housing market is not regulated by the public sector, it incentivizes firms to “pocket the money that should have gone to repairs and upkeep…[which] effectively destroy[s] the building and establishe[s] a rent gap”[4] By doing so, the firms have been able to create an opportunity to capitalize on a new real estate investment. Thus creating new establishments for people that could afford it. The gentrification process is motivated by a deregulated real estate market, which needs to be shadowed more by the public sector. To serve the common good, there needs to be opportunities for all residents to be able to repair their homes. If residents are oppressed of home investments, their housing-value decreases creating investment opportunities for large firms.

Portland needs to be able to see what neighborhoods are investing toward their homes, and help the neighborhoods that are not in repairs. This way the city is limiting the incentive for financial firms to profit from low-income neighborhoods at the cost of their residents’ enjoyment. That’s a solution to serve the common-good, but if the city wants to tackle long-term sustainability issues, establishing homes with sensors would be ideal. They would be able to cut energy consumption and help create daily efficient improvements.

[1]Uffer

[2] Ibid

[3]Fields

[4] Smith

Smart city housing should be both efficient and accessible. Moderating energy consumption or security cameras can be a helpful way for houses to function more easily and make life easier for its residents. However, there needs to be a balance between efficiency and privacy. Too many sensors or regulations can cause a Big Brother community that can be detrimental to the individuals [1]. Furthermore, housing is only desirable if it is integrated into the infrastructure of the city. Proximity to public transportation lines, good schools, fire stations, and police stations are important to the value of a house, but also enable a smart city to function effectively. Thus, designers of housing should consider how the actual house can be smart, but also how the house exists within the smart city community.

The common good should consider the benefits for all residents. Ideally smart cities would find a method of equity such that there aren’t “good” neighborhoods or “bad” neighborhoods. Though there should involve some economic diversity, segregating neighborhoods so extremely often leads to a snowball effect on both ends – the rich become richer and the poor become poorer. Smart housing should ensure that all neighborhoods uphold a level of respect for the community and respect for other neighborhoods. This hopefully emanates a sense of safety and non-invasive security that in turn helps the entire city.

As Neil Smith points out in his article, “’Class Struggle on Avenue B’: The Lower East Side as the Wild Wild West,” gentrification can often be seen as a method to segregate residents socially, racially, or economically and can cause severe unrest for certain people [2]. From the class tour of Portland, gentrification has already occurred in certain parts of the city. Old Port has many upscale bars and restaurants whereas Preble Street has flocks of homeless or troubled persons. To create a larger sense of community and effort for the common good, Portland should look into creating affordable, accessible housing in all areas rather than focusing only on certain neighborhoods. While some areas will inevitably have nicer housing, Portland should work on expanding and rejuvenating the more decrepit neighborhoods of Portland. Especially given the city’s high occupancy rate, focusing on desirable housing will help with city sprawl in a positive way.

[1] Crowley, David N., Edward Curry, and John G. Breslin. 2014. “Leveraging Social Media and IoT to Bootstrap Smart Environments.” In Big Data and Internet of Things: A Roadmap for Smart Environments, edited by Nik Bessis and Ciprian Dobre, 379–99. Springer.

[2] Smith, Neil. 2014 [1996]. “‘Class Struggle on Avenue B’: The Lower East Side as the Wild Wild West.” In The People, Place and Space Reader, edited by Jen Jack Gieseking, et al, 314-319. New York: Routledge, 2014.

In the present day, a smart city is inherently exclusive. In order to take advantage of all of the opportunities and services that the smart city offers, one needs to have a certain (high) level of personal technological capital and a very specific, technologically driven thought process behind one’s everyday decisions. Moreover the types of financialisation described in Desiree Fields & Sabina Uffer’s article The financialisation of rental housing: A comparative analysis of New York City and Berlin further paints a picture of an exclusive city as only very specific socioeconomic groups can thrive after financialisation[1]. As Fields and Uffer describe, once large, global financial institutions take over large housing complexes within a city, the companies, acting as risk-oriented entrepreneurs/investors (not landlords), strive for an incredibly selfish level of profit-driven efficiency.  Global corporations do this through reducing maintenance and housing upkeep (and therefore expenses), driving residents out of their homes, using government-issued vacancy bonuses to implement major capital improvements (thereby repositioning under-market units within the economy), and consequently releasing untapped value and profits[1]. Though financialisation and urban pioneering are detrimental to a city’s social diversity and culture, it is very efficient in the economic and technological sense while being used “as a preemptive justification for a new urban future.”[2]

One potential way to make the smart city more inclusive to people of all socioeconomic backgrounds would be to implement a technology like that described in Crowley et al. (2014). A smart city filled with sensors that monitor energy usage could be an incredibly cost-effective way of monitoring costs in a building and therefore theoretically, could make the smart city more accessible to people of all socioeconomic backgrounds.[3] The only problem with this logic is that it likely requires the technology and more cost effective living to be established first and then for low-income families to more in after.

Because smart cities are more focused on efficiency, perhaps financialisation could actually benefit smart cities.  As we have discussed in class, smart cities can be build on any location from scratch and therefore the financialisation of a new smart city could have less negative externalities. Financialisation occurring in a new smart city would reduce the negative externalities (compared to financialisation of a normal city) because there are no residents to displace with red-lining, there is no existing city culture to destroy, and the social dynamic does not even exist yet. Financialisation would simply amplify the smart city’s exclusivity (which could potentially be what some smart city residents and governments are striving for).

That being said, financialisation is likely not the correct technique for creating housing that most benefits the common good. In order to maximize the public benefit or public good of city housing, the city’s government cannot give up control over the city’s public housing as the government will no longer be capable of improving social welfare or supporting domestic business through housing policies and pricing.[1] Governments cannot simply be focused on increasing their income; they have to focus on keeping their residents happy and the city running smoothly. The city’s government must focus on the physical needs, safety, security, social needs, esteem, and self-actualization of its residents. As described in Fields and Uffer (2014), city governments “need to find a way to forge critical urban politics of finance focused on common welfare rather than short-term objectives of growth and competition” (13)[1].

With this in mind, I think that the ideal housing situation to most benefit the common good would be a wide variety of different types of housing all mixed together in one city, while still keeping already existing neighborhoods alive. As described earlier, it is incredibly important to keep enough government-regulated housing to ensure all socioeconomic groups and cultures can afford to live within the city.   With enough government rent-regulated housing, the idea of a New Frontier and Urban Pioneering as “idyllic yet also dangerous, romantic but also ruthless” (Smith) begins to change. Cities reduce the risk of forcing large groups and social diversity out of the city and avoid failing to cope with its homeless (New York City as described in Smith) while still gaining the positive sides of gentrification such as improvements in infrastructure, public space, and quality of life.

I think the best types of housing for Portland would be a combination of coops, larger apartment buildings, and government regulated housing.   I think coops would benefit Portland because coops encourage all residents to invest in the continued quality of their own buildings, therefore avoiding the infrastructure problems described previously with financialisation and furthermore nurturing a mini-community that can potentially contribute to Portland’s culture as a whole. That being said, specific individuals living in a coop could potentially be less likely to take care of their own apartment’s infrastructure because they know the cost will be spread across the entire building for large maintenance repairs. Because coops have the potential to create these perverse incentives, I think it is really important to have regular (local land lord owned, not financialised) apartment buildings and government regulated housing as well.

[1] Fields, Desiree., Uffer, Sabina. “The Financialisation of Rental Housing: A Comparative Analysis of New York City and Berlin.” Urban Studies July 2014 (2014).

[2] Smith, Neil. “Class Struggle on Avenue B: Lower East Side as Wild Wild West.” The People, Place, ad Space Reader (1996).

[3] Crowley, David N., Curry, Edward., Breslin, John G. “Leveraging Social Media and Iot to Bootstrap Smart Environments.” Studies in Computational Intelligence (2014).

In defining the smart city, we should not limit ourselves to a technology-driven definition. The smart city should be one whose innovation is driven by inventiveness and creativity as well: solving problems not with cameras and touch-screens, but with changes in paradigm, altered perspectives, and updated perceptions. I believe that, rather than thinking of housing in the smart city as advancing the “most advanced”  housing experience, it should raise the bar at which we set the lowest level housing experience. Neil Smith makes note that there were only enough beds at the homeless shelter to house one quarter of the homeless people in New York City in 1989; he pairs this with Henry J. Stern’s quote, stating it would be “irresponsible to let the homeless sleep outdoors.” Homelessness is an issue that exists in every major city. The larger a city is, the more visible its homeless population—and not surprisingly, the easier it is to ignore it, look in the opposite direction, dismiss it as just another part of our advanced, 21st-century city. However, if we have any desire to visibly “advance” our cities from a housing standpoint, tackling homelessness would be the place to start.

There’s no question that all cities have a socio-economic hierarchy: there are the rich, there are the middle-class, and there are the poor. This hierarchy exists in every city, country, culture, and time period through history—some people will always have more money than others.

Here’s a little visualization of what that hierarchy looks like, in terms of wealth distribution:

…and here’s what we as Americans think it should be (but that’s a different story altogether):

The most obvious way to observe this is through housing. Some people own mansions. Others own double-wide trailers. Some choose to rent luxurious penthouse apartments; others rent under more humble circumstances (and often with a roommate or two, or three.) Fields states that large cities—New York City in this case—favor weakened rent regulations and increased gentrification because they represent “high profit potential.” (7) The unfortunate truth of the matter is that there are individuals who cannot afford to own OR rent these places to live. The other unfortunate truth is that these individuals are most always unemployed, and often have mental illnesses or disabilities to round out their plight.

Existing solutions are not effective enough for the smart city: nursing homes are expensive, and are difficult to access without a support system; homeless shelters, as alluded to above, are too often crowded and understaffed. They tend to be dangerous as well, making the park bench or brownstone stoop a much more viable place to take up refuge. Thus, the city is “plagued” by homelessness.

A solution to this issue, or at least an aspect of the solution, pairs well with an existing service location in Portland: Preble Street Resource Center. What Preble Street offers is a place that meets the needs of the most at-risk members of the Portland community, offering free meals, life education and counseling, etc., ultimately acting as the support group that these individuals lack otherwise. Of the Preble Street users, an overwhelming number of them are homeless. If Preble Street were paired with the facilities to house 90–100% of these users with modest, safe, temporary housing, we would see an increased success level among at-risk members of society, a decrease in overall city crime, and an overall improved city atmosphere. Essentially, we would be reinventing the halfway house for the 21st-century city.

With the resources and wealth that cities have today, there’s no question that even the largest homeless populations could be housed and given the resources necessary to survive and better integrate back in to society. If we could abolish homelessness in this sense, we would see an instant improvement to the very fabric of the city—an improvement that even IBM’s Rio de Janeiro installation has yet to accomplish.

Sources:

• Smith, Neil. 2014. “Class Struggle on Avenue B,” excerpt from People, Place, and Space Reader. Gieseking, Jen Jack et al. Routledge, New York.
• Fields, Desiree and Uffer, Sabina. 2014. The financialisation of rental housing: A comparative analysis of New York City and Berlin. Urban Studies Journal Foundation.
• [images] 2013. “Wealth Inequality in America” ThinkProgress. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/03/334156/top-five-wealthiest-one-percent/

When thinking about options for “smart” housing, my mind immediately jumps to the Crowley’s “system of systems.”[1]  The house would be designed to be extremely energy, time and ideally cost, efficient. In some ways, this could also be linked with the common good, namely a more environmentally friendly lifestyle. When I was in Denmark, I visited the headquarters of the Danish national energy transmission operator, Energinet. Their latest innovation was the “Smart Grid” – a house that was wired to reach maximum energy efficiency. The house would have solar panels that would contribute energy to the grid. All the appliances would have monitors that would run them at the most efficient time of day. For example, your laundry would begin at the time of day that had the lowest overall energy demand on the grid, and this would correspond to the times when the most energy going towards your task came from renewable energies. The incentive would be cost – the device told you the savings you would have if you waited to run the appliance. The difference between the “Smart Grid” and Crowley’s system however, is the social media element. Like we had discussed in class, the utilization of Twitter has both the potential for shaming, and the gathering of personal information for targeted marketing. Seeing as the home is often valued as a private space, the possibility of enabling public data collection to come out of the home itself can be jarring. It places the private space of the home in the virtual public space of the internet.

Returning to the idea of the Danish “Smart Grid,” it is important to note that it is made possible because all Danish energy comes from a single, public supplier. This makes it advantageous for everyone to contribute to a central grid, with the aim of reducing overall costs. In a capitalist society, particularly one that is moving towards privatizing housing, this would be much harder to enable. I fear that as houses get “smarter,” there will be an even larger gap between housing quality and availability among different classes. As we read in Fields and Uffer, the privatization of rental housing can lead to rent hikes, neglect for lower-rent housing, and the pushing of maintenance costs on to renters.[2] These factors contribute to the eviction of lower-income families to make way for people who can afford the units, and this leads to gentrification. We learned from Smith’s piece that the idea of moving into a previously low-income neighborhood is seen as romantic and appealing, analogous with the taming of the “Wild West.”[3]  Smart housing is at risk of becoming another mechanism in which to structurally limit opportunities for the poor, as housing not only becomes more costly for as a result of its location, it also becomes more costly for its infrastructure.

So what would be a useful form of smart city housing? I believe one that has a monitoring system that helps the inhabitant live more efficiently, particularly energy efficiently. It should not however, use social media as an alert mechanism, and should not collect personal information about the user. Unfortunately, I cannot think of a smart housing suggestion that contributes to the common good apart from environmental consciousness – at least not until this infrastructure can be made available in all housing regardless of class.

[1] Crowley, David N., Edward Curry, and John G. Breslin. 2014. “Leveraging Social Media and IoT to Bootstrap Smart Environments.” InBig Data and Internet of Things: A Roadmap for Smart Environments, edited by Nik Bessis and Ciprian Dobre, 379-99. Springer.http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-05029-4_16.

[2] Fields, Desiree, and Sabina Uffer. 2014. “The Financialisation of Rental Housing: A Comparative Analysis of New York City and Berlin.”Urban Studies, July. 13.

[3] Smith, Neil. 2014 [1996]. “‘Class Struggle on Avenue B’: The Lower East Side as the Wild Wild West.” In The People, Place, and Space Reader, edited by Jen Jack Gieseking, et al, 314-319. New York: Routledge, 2014.

With a growing ease of accessible technology available at our hands, it is only expected that “smart” housing will soon become normative. Crowley suggests in his essay that, “The vision of a Smart Building is of one that optimises its internal environment for the comfort and usability of its occupants while minimising the resources required to run and maintain the building.” [1] One of the suggestions to implement this is running a house entirely on one system: controlling the heat and electricity through the same means. This smart design is furthered with an experiment to test how users can become engaged with the system through Twitter. This involves posting requests such as, “Could you turn off the lights?” publically on Twitter for the user to be tagged in and to respond to. Though this is an efficient method to keep energy usage low and to keep the user in-tune with the house elements, it is definitely concerning. There’s a point at which being too connected is not necessarily the best solution. It is effective, but how much more effective? Is it actually worth doing? Another way to ensure the same energy is saved is automatic lights…Do we actually have to take this to the next level of technological advancement? This system has elements that help the house run efficiently in terms of energy usage, which is useful in promoting the common good. However, there are definitely other smart systems that provide the same benefits.

A few effective forms of energy efficient solutions that could be implemented in Portland include the use of solar power or automatic electrical audits. The use of solar power energy is increasing for not only large companies, but also individual houses, and even parking lots. Though expensive to implement, solar powered energy can be useful in the future because it is a form of “green” energy and will eventually be cost effective. Certain large parking lots can also implement solar powered canopies, which serve as a roof to shade the cars, while also collecting sunlight to power a nearby building. Inside a house, instead of having the system publically tweet the user to conserve energy, it could complete an automatic audit on electrical consumption within the household. Audits can be beneficial in identifying the main contributing factors to energy waste in a private household or a larger company. With the audit, the informed user can then respond with the proper means to reduce electrical consumption.

In general, smart housing is an efficient and beneficial way to promote energy sustainability using technology. But, there is a line at which becoming too dependent on technology is probably not as effective as a less technologically involved solution. Once again, the Twitter solution, as mentioned above, is probably an excessive attempt to create smart housing. However, another caveat of smart housing is the audience to which smart houses appeal. Yes, smart housing is beneficial, but it is also expensive. Since smart technology is not as frequent as it could be, it is more likely that, at the present time, smart technology would be used in a gentrifying neighborhood. Smith states in gentrifying areas, “Hostile landscapes are regenerated, cleansed, reinfused with middle-class sensibility; real estate values soar.” [2] Smart technology is often though of as a clean, regenerating form of efficiency, yet it comes at a price. The problem with creating a smart neighborhood with more economic value is that it then becomes unaffordable for those previously living there. So, how can a smart neighborhood that does not only serve the elite form? The usage of smart technology should be dispersed throughout the city so that technological pockets do not form. An effective way to incorporate smart buildings into a city would be for companies to implement them first so that they ideally, would become more normalized. Additionally, the city could provide subsidies on purchasing smart technology, or incentivize the usage of smart technology through decreased housing taxes. Smart technology is definitely growing in popularity and appeal in cities, especially with an increasing desire for cities to become smart, yet the audience of smart technology must also be considered.

1. Crowley, David N., Edward Curry, and John G. Breslin. 2014. “Leveraging Social Media and IoT to Bootstrap Smart Environments.” In Big Data and Internet of Things: A Roadmap for Smart Environments, edited by Nik Bessis and Ciprian Dobre, 381. Springer.
2. Smith, Neil. 2014 [1996]. “‘Class Struggle on Avenue B’: The Lower East Side as the Wild Wild West.” In The People, Place and Space Reader, edited by Jen Jack Gieseking, et al, 316. New York: Routledge, 2014.

Neil Smith’s article on gentrification demonizes capitalism and gentrifiers without giving them a fair shake or even a voice. Instead of letting the actual people or their advocates speak for themselves, Smith builds straw men and pretends like it is the same.

“The poor and working class are all too easily defined as “uncivil,” on the wrong side of a heroic dividing line, as savages and communists. The substance and consequence of the new frontier imagery is to tame the wild city, to socialize a wholly new and therefore challenging set of processes into safe ideological focus. As such, the frontier ideology justifies monstrous incivility in the heart of the city.”[1] Clearly these are major claims, but if you hope that Smith will ever back them up, you will be disappointed. What he tries to pass off as arguments are nothing more than assertions. He does not present cases where people spoke this way or interviews with people who expressed this idea. All he does is set up a straw man that he easily labels as a racist.

But gentrification is not inherently racist. No more than my personal choice to move from one place to another. Let us grant for a moment that he is right, that people who gentrify communities use lots of frontier metaphors. It still is not inherently racist. The frontier is the frontier not because there are people there who are different, but because it is dangerous out there. Crime rates in New York were astronomical, often more than double what they are today. To say that it is only racism that makes rough parts of town similar to a frontier community is to deny that there are differences between neighborhoods other than race.

Smith is not just dissatisfied with capitalism in the US however. He is opposed to the use of capital abroad as well. “Immigrants come  to the city from every country where US capital has opened markets, disrupted local economies, extracted resources, removed people from the land, or sent the marines as a ‘peace-keeping force.'” [2] Smith lets his curtain fall too far here. He admits that he is less interested in arguing his point than he is in attacking the capitalist system. With one breath he decries capitalism for going into neighborhoods and improving them, and with the next he blames capitalism for neighborhoods for getting bad in the first place. He does not bother to argue this second point either. He references articles, but never gives evidence or reasoning behind his claims.

It is also worth noting that he is just wrong. The foreign born population in the US has continued to rise since this article came out in 1996, but the “Third-Worlding”[3] he refers to has not taken place. Crime rates across the country are down not up, and this is in spite of a massive economic meltdown since the Great Depression. Repressive police action still exists but no clearing people out of neighborhoods. His causal story does not hold water. Even if there is use of frontier rhetoric, it has not had the horrible effects he said it would. Gentrification continues or even accelerates in this country, but race relations have certainly improved since 1996.

[1]Smith “‘Class Struggle on Avenue B’: The Lower East Side as the Wild Wild West” 316.

[2] Smith “‘Class Struggle on Avenue B’: The Lower East Side as the Wild Wild West” 318.

[3]Smith “‘Class Struggle on Avenue B’: The Lower East Side as the Wild Wild West” 318.

Housing is an essential component of human life. Survival would be rare without shelter – one of the foundational aspects in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Various public acts have contributed to the extensive history in the creation of housing, both urban developments and the rise of suburban residents. There have been drastic efforts to increase the accessibility of housing to all segments of the population, mostly after World War II. However, not all of these efforts positively enhanced the housing effort. Some of these actions caused gentrification of the city and suppressed the common good.

As Smith discusses, Mayor Dinkins claimed that the homeless residing in Tompkin’s Square Park in 1991 had ‘stolen’ the park from the community. [1] As we have discussed previously, this goes against Lefebvre’s primary idea of “the right to a city”. [4] Forcing 200-300 park-dwellers out of the park on June 3, 1991 did not make for a conflict-free situation. [1] Although the park is not considered housing, forcing people out of the park, a public space, and into the streets, solved no problem. This example highlights the fundamental problem with housing: its lack of accessibility to every segment of the population.

In order for housing to promote the common good, it needs to be easily accessible to all. Nobody should be disadvantaged due to his or her ethnicity or economic status; everyone has the right to housing. As we have discussed in class, the process that banks exercised targeting specific ethnic groups through redlining is the opposite of promoting the common good. Gentrification does not create housing for the common good, but rather, it further separates economic classes and ‘revitalizes’ neighborhoods by pushing out the poor and replacing them with the ‘gentry’. Fields and Uffer bring a global perspective into the debate reassuring that fact that predatory lending and rising housing prices increased globally, not just within the United States. [2] This type of mortgage lending has a similar targeting nature to redlining post-WWII, neither of which benefited the common good. These shifts in housing practices and neighborhoods contributed to global social change and further gentrification. Examples from Berlin and New York specifically exemplify this, however it was part of a worldwide trend towards privatization. The idea of gentrification so explicitly outlined on the Lower East Side moved housing development away from fostering the idea of the common good. [1]

In terms of smart cities, I am hesitant to encourage the creation of a System of Systems such that is suggested in Crowley et al.’s analysis of smart environments. [3] Although seemingly smooth and automated, one glitch in the master system could have disastrous implications that are harder to rebound from. This sort of housing filled with complete automatic and technologically advanced systems seems daunting to me. However, implementation of smart meters to measure such things as electric consumption and energy consumption seems to be a direction worth exploring. [3] Other than public shaming, I do not see the advantage of using social media, specifically Twitter as a means of communication for smart meters – but other methods of notification can be implemented. [3] This improvement in housing is not necessarily limiting to a small segment of the population but can move housing towards the “smart” city design.

With so much of Portland focused on local organizations, it seems as though meters measuring decrease in energy would be beneficial. Although costly, turning off lights and electronics when not in use is something that every citizen needs to be more aware of. I do not think that Portland is equipped to create completely automatic systems monitoring these, although it is something Portland should look into further – finding alternate ways to monitoring such simple activities.

Places like Preble Street in Portland exemplify what it means to supply housing for the common good. By getting people off the streets, fed, and into shelters, housing is becoming more accessible to all and people are not left to fend for themselves in public parks. Additionally, Portland’s increasing creation of “mixed income housing” can create more accessible housing for more of the population, move the city farther away from gentrifying neighborhoods, and move the city closer to supporting the common good. Although not necessarily housing options for a “smart” city, Portland needs to focus on creating accessible housing in a city before they can shift to creating housing in a “smart” city.

[1] Smith, Neil. 2014 [1996]. “‘Class Struggle on Avenue B’: The Lower East Side as the Wild Wild West.” In The People, Place, and Space Reader, edited by Jen Jack Gieseking, et al, 314-319. New York: Routledge, 2014.

[2] Fields, Desiree, and Sabina Uffer. 2014. “The Financialisation of Rental Housing: A Comparative Analysis of New York City and Berlin.” Urban Studies, July.

[3] Crowley, David N., Edward Curry, and John G. Breslin. 2014. “Leveraging Social Media and IoT to Bootstrap Smart Environments.” In Big Data and Internet of Things: A Roadmap for Smart Environments, edited by Nik Bessis and Ciprian Dobre, 379-99. Springer. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-05029-4_16.

[4] Mitchell, Don. 2014 [2003]. “To Go Again to Hyde Park: Public Space, Rights, and Social Justice.” In The People, Place, and Space Reader, edited by Jen Jack Gieseking, et al, 192-196. New York: Routledge, 2014.