Category Archives: Uncategorized

Post #3: Public Space Reflections, Public Space, Uncategorized

Park by the Public: using citizen sensing to improve public space

Matthew Arnold said, “without order there can be no society; and without society there can be no human perfection” [1], and used that as justification for the repression and “reigning in” of those who challenged order and therefore society. I do not actually disagree with his statement that a well-ordered society brings us closer to “human perfection” than does a society filled with chaos. However, for those in power to alone decide what constitutes acceptable chaos is a setup for large-scale injustice, inequality, and apathy. To achieve “order” Arnold advocated employing techniques of repression and tighter control of public space, to control the public from above by limiting their capacity to damage society.

What if the public had some established power in ordering society? Crowley et al define the term citizen sensing as “opportunistic sensing where people report on issue or events in their surroundings and this information is then analyzed to try to create insights into these events” [2]. Programs and apps for doing just this exist already in many cities, with varying rates of efficacy. After 9/11 New York City began a citizen reporting-based program called “If you see something, say something.” In 2012 New York Magazine published a short and dismissive article on the program, essentially summarizing Harvey Molotch’s book Against Security. According to Molotch, the program has acted much more effectively as a citywide lost and found than as an antiterrorism program [3]. We can see this as a failure of the city’s antiterrorism program, but also as the beginnings of a successful citywide lost and found program.

Instead of trying to enlist regular civilians to stop acts of terrorism, enlist them to report on regular civilian issues. This includes the lost and found, and countless existing apps for small municipal repairs, and it could also apply to usage of public space. Mitchell and Setha Low both write about fear as a major enemy of public space. Fear is the justification from policymakers for tighter control of public space, and the reason that city residents consent to give up freedoms of space usage [4]. If, as Mitchell says, “public space engenders fears… that derive from the sense of public space as uncontrolled space” [1], a solution could be to give people some measure, or at least feeling, of control over their public space. Empowering the public to call directly for changes or improvements to public space would not only generate increased usage of those spaces, it would tell those in power what should be done to improve the space.

This empowerment could take the form of an app, for streamlined smart city technology. Since public space should be available to as much of the public as possible, and not just those who have smart phones, there could be a fixed or paper version of the technology as well. The app could be designed essentially as a survey. This form of crowdsourcing could be especially helpful for a place like Portland, which is low on urban design resources. With a smart technology survey system on public spaces, the city’s urban design team (of one) could crowd-source one of the most difficult questions in designing public space (what would make people want to utilize this public space?) to the city’s most appropriate population (the people.) A scannable barcode in the public space, linked to a site-specific survey, could enable people to report about their experience of the space.

Public parks and plazas are the communal lifeblood of a city. This is where social reproduction within the city can occur on its most diverse level, as long as different kinds of people feel not only welcome, but inclined, to utilize public space. Promoting the comfortable and positive use of parks and plazas is a means for supporting cultural and community growth within Portland.

 

 

[1] 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, 194. New York: Routledge, 2014.

 

[2] 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, 385. Springer. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-05029-4_16.

 

[3] Gunn, Dwyer. “Does “See Something, Say Something” Do Nothing?” NYMag.com. New York Media LLC, 21 Sept. 2012. Web. 01 Oct. 2014.

 

[4] Low, Setha M. 2002. “Spaces of Reflection, Recovery, and Resistance: Reimagining the Postindustrial Plaza.” In After the World Trade Center: Rethinking New York City, edited by Michael Sorkin and Sharon Zukin, 164. New York: Routledge.

Post #3: Public Space Reflections, Uncategorized

Blog Post #3: Public Spaces against the Smart City

It seems that the proper function of a public space seems to function contrary to (or at least in tension with) the function of a smart city—or at least the smart city as proposed by the likes of IBM, Cisco, etcetera. Setha Low, for her part, praises those public spaces “where all people are embraced and tolerated,” places we go to “heal and reconcile our hopes and dreams.”[1] The smart city, however, identifies with efficiency, control, time-saving. These words are much more the words (and ideas) of capitalism and government authority than democratic forums a la the acropolis—they do not permit much in the way of deviation from intended purpose.

This is not to say that public space cannot coexist with the smart city; on the contrary, it suggests that public space is all the more necessary in modern urban society as a place of repose and reflection from the city (and in particular, perhaps, the smart city). And as a space for the promotion of the common good, it seems all the more crucial. Low notes that the places people created meaning in in the wake of 9/11 were the “more spontaneous, less-regulated spaces” such as Union Square.[2] Don Mitchell echoes this point, noting that public space rarely meets the demands of people “under conditions of its own choosing.”[3]  The common good should not be a notion determined or framed by elites, regardless of their agendas. Thus the public space that serves the common good should be general, broad, and accessible to all.

To this end, I wonder how public wifi creates, as Low might call it, “a design vocabulary that appeals mainly to the upper-middle class.”[4] It is free, open to all, egalitarian in theory. But it means you must have a certain technology (one that is not even close to free) to take advantage of it. It becomes a status symbol, or simply narrows how the space is conceivably used.

Both Low and Mitchell complicate the idea of planning for a public space and thus defining what sort of common good it will serve. In a truly democratic spirit, it seems that the common good for a public space requires an amorphous quality, a lack of definition or imageability. This ensures it’s utility can be claimed by all—and especially by those who seek public space in lieu of private property.[5]

One potential idea for public space design in Portland could center around movement, and in particular walking. A narrow and long park, like Riverside in New York, promotes walking and, if not social interaction, at least awareness of others.

 

[1] Low, Setha M. 2002. “Spaces of Reflection, Recovery, and Resistance: Reimagining the Postindustrial Plaza.” In After the World Trade Center: Rethinking New York City, edited by Michael Sorkin and Sharon Zukin, 164. New York: Routledge.

[2] Ibid., 164.

[3] 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, 195. New York: Routledge, 2014.

[4] Low, 164.

[5] Mitchell, 193.

Post #3: Public Space Reflections, Uncategorized

Avoiding Privatization and Militarization in Portland’s Public Space – Emma Chow

In order for public space in smart cities to be most useful, they need to be safe. People – women, children, the elderly – all people, need to feel as though they can frequent public space without fear of being attacked or harassed by a stranger. Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, citizens have lived their lives with a sense of uneasiness and fear. (1) Fear is leading to the fall of public space. (2) The American government has responded to the threat of future terrorist attacks with militarization. Armed troops in uniform now stand in “key terrorist threat sites”, such as Grand Central Station in New York City. Their presence may make some citizens feel safer, but they may also make many other citizens feel as though they do not have a right to the space. In reality, everyone should feel like they have the right to public space. Public space in smart cities is  made safe and enjoyable through good lighting, a constant flow of visitors, and the provision of shared experiences, not by intimidating men standing with machine guns. By sharing experiences with strangers in public spaces – whether strolling in Central Park, eating lunch on the Bryant Park lawn, or conversing on a street corner – people become more trusting of others, thus further developing social capital. This common trust encourages people to look out for each other, decreasing the likelihood of crimes taking place. Technology (surveillance systems) and militarization is not the answer for creating safe public space because who really wants to spend their leisure time under the “Big Brother” eye of a camera or soldier?

Public space best serves the common good when it provides the five freedoms Low argues for: freedom of access, freedom of action, freedom to claim, freedom to change, freedom of ownership. (2) Good public space allows people to assert their right to inhabit the city. (1) Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in Zucotti Square in NYC serve as a good example of people exercising their right to assembly – Zucotti Square provided thousands of people the freedom to protest and have their voices heard. Public space for the common good should allow people to exercise their right to assembly, provide opportunities to play and exercise, immerse them in nature, and enrich their lives. Ultimately, public space should help the city meet the human “need for creative activity…for information, symbolism, the imaginary and play.” (1) Public space that serves the common good includes places, such as Central Park. As discussed in class, Central Park was masterfully designed by Olmstead to transform a mundane plot of land into a wilderness wonderland where people of all ages can come and recreate and get lost.

Portland should think carefully about how it aims to make its public space safer; camera surveillance and “Big Brother” tactics (2) should be avoided. Public space should be designed and managed as to ensure Low’s five freedoms are maximized. This means careful consideration of privatization of public space, which acts as a mechanism for blocking these freedoms. (2) Temporary privatization of space (i.e. weekend farmers’ markets and food trucks) can attract more people to visit public space; however, longer-term privatization (i.e. Nikon-sponsored Fashion Week in Bryant Park) can block public access to Low’s five freedoms for an extended period of time. That being said, privatization can be a great way to secure funding for revitalizing public space and attracting visitors. Portland may be tempted to supplement government funding with private dollars and accept corporate sponsorships; however, the City should be wary of turning its parks and squares into permanent large-scale advertisements – especially given Maine’s regulations against billboards. After all, government decisions should always be made to maximize the common good of the public, not the private.

(1) Don Mitchell, “To Go Again to Hyde Park: Public Space, Rights, and Social Justice,” in The People, Place and Space Reader, ed. Jen Jack Gieseking, et al. (New York: Routledge, 2014), 192-196.

(2) Setha M. Low, “Spaces of Reflection, Recovery, and Resistance: Reimagining the Postindustrial Plaza,” in After the World Trace Center: Rethinking New York City, ed. Michael Sorkin and Sharon Zukin (New York: Routledge), 163-172.

Infrastructure, Post #2: From Policy to Recommendation, Public Space, Uncategorized

5 Ideas For a Better Smart City

12 Comments

Rapid technological progress over the past 20-30 years has made us  very dependent on the computers that are in our backpacks, pockets and even wrists. As humans got more used to using technology in everyday life, some of the humans came up with the idea of a Smart Cities that are built upon technologies that we love so much. But, what exactly is a smart city and what role do humans play in it, if any at all.

There are couple of Smart City projects around the world: Masdar City in the oil-rich United Arab Emirates or the Korean New Songdo. Adam Greenfield, in his book “Against the Smart City” describes the developers of these cities in a following way: It’s that their developers appear to lack any feel for the ways in which cities actually generate value for the people who live in them[1]. And it is hard to disagree with Greenfield. I came across this video featuring Masdar City – an empty city populated solely by robots.

After watching this video, I asked myself a question: Would I want to live in a city like Masdar? where everything is automated and there is nothing for humans to do except for enjoy the ultimate lifestyle and work experience[2]. Cities like Masdar or New Songdo will probably not be populated by anyone who is alive today, because such a drastic change of lifestyle is hard. However, there are ways in which technology can be applied to existing cities without sucking sole out of them and converting them to dense settlements[3], where only robots can hear you scream.

1. Buses That Arrive On Time
Portland, ME Bus Stop

Availability, reliability and performance of public transportation is crucial to the city and its performance.

2. More & Better Parks
Lincoln Park

During a two hour walk in Portland, I only noticed 3 or 4 parks and most of them were decrepit, had benches in awkward places and grass was not cut evenly. This creates a very uninviting and repelling atmosphere. Location of the park also matters;

3. Maps, Schedules, Everything – Digital & Easily Accessible

Tbilisi Bus Stop

This a photo of a smart bus stop in Tbilisi, Georgia. The screen displays bus ETA, air temperature and time in Georgian and English which really makes it easier for tourists to get around. The screen also acts as a wifi hotspot. As there are bus stops all around the city, it automatically became covered by a publicly available wifi network. Portland could also implement this kind of system; an app that provides access to schedules and city maps could also be developed.

4. More, Easily Available Public Spaces

Anything from stairs in front of the building to the communal tennis court can count as a public space, so there is no photo for this one. It is extremely important for city dwellers to have places to take a break from the rhythm of the city. Developing such areas will create basis for a happier and healthier population.

5. Data Collection For A Good Cause
Power of Crowdsourcing
Data collection does not necessarily involve CCTV cameras and sensors that feed data to a closed, centralized system. Data collection can be a process open to the public. In fact, Open Data is even better because it creates opportunities for innovation and entrepreneurship. I think Portland could really benefit from an open-source crowdsourced data collection platform, where citizens could upload photos and geolocations of places that need fixing or renovation.

Some of the ideas above have to seem no connection with each other; however, there is one thing uniting them: all of them can be implemented using the same technology that powers smart cities like Masdar or New Songdo without devaluing humans in the city ecosystem.

The best thing about these ideas is that implementing any one of them will spark the development of the other by rising public demand. A more reliable public transportation system will encourage people to leave their cars at home and go for walks (knowing they will not have to walk all the way back – they will be able to take a bus!). More people going for walks will encourage development and growth of public spaces which will create opportunities for outdoor performances and street artists.

However, implementing a crowdsourced open data collection platform excites me the most. This data could be used to figure out where to place parks and where to put bus lines; tracking the location of people in parks would enable planners to place benches in relevant places. The openness of this data, would enable 3rd party developers to create even better apps to power the city life through applications that could be targeted at people living in specific locations or of a specific demographic.

Opportunities are limitless, we just need to implement technology without removing life from the city.

————————————————————————————-

Citations

1. Greenfield, Adam (2013-12-20). Against the smart city (The city is here for you to use) (Kindle Locations 306-307). Do projects. Kindle Edition.

2. Greenfield, Adam (2013-12-20). Against the smart city (The city is here for you to use) (Kindle Location 86). Do projects. Kindle Edition.

3. Greenfield, Adam (2013-12-20). Against the smart city (The city is here for you to use) (Kindle Location 47). Do projects. Kindle Edition.

Uncategorized

Smart Housing Suggestions for a More Livable Portland

4 Comments

Housing, being the largely privatized and personalized sector that it is, seems less apt for large-scale smart innovation than inherently more public issues like public transportation, recreational space, and municipal navigability. Looking a bit deeper reveals the possibilities in housing, from energy efficiency to streamlined affordable housing systems, where Portland’s city council can make meaningful changes. Here are five suggestions:

1. An app for finding and giving feedback on Portland’s new affordable housing developments (mentioned here)

2. Ocean-based geothermal heating in new housing developments (mentioned here)

3. An app for snow parking bans. Google maps directions to open parking lots and alerts about ban hours.

4. A shuttle system for transporting people home from their cars and vice versa during snow parking bans.

5. Energy Awareness Services in new housing developments to help residents visualize their emissions and consumption statistics.

I believe that the most exciting possibilities in housing innovation lie in the economic and environmental benefits of alternative energy and energy consciousness. Just across Casco Bay, Southern Maine Community College in South Portland is an exemplar of these benefits, having installed a sea water heat exchange system in the bay to power the HVAC in their lighthouse. [1] The upcoming Munjoy Street development [2], for example, could incorporate this system for heating/cooling and introduce Energy Awareness Services to create a culture of conservation while saving money for all new tenants.[3] Additionally, my first app suggestion would work well to gather new residents’ feedback about the HVAC system. This trifecta of innovation would make new developments affordable, eco-friendly, and open-data.

_______________________________________________________________________________

1. Beatty, Scott. “Harnessing Seawater: An Innovative Thermal Exchange HVAC System.” AASHE. May 17, 2013. Accessed September 25, 2014. http://www.aashe.org/resources/case-studies/harnessing-seawater-innovative-thermal-exchange-hvac-system.

2. “Housing and Community Development Committee Agenda.” Portland, Maine. September 24, 2014. Accessed September 25, 2014. http://portlandmaine.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/09242014-626?html=true.

3. “Objectives.” ESESH. Accessed September 25, 2014. http://esesh.eu/project/.

Post #2: From Policy to Recommendation, Uncategorized

Free public WiFi and its Widespread Effects

5 Comments
  1. Free Public Wifi
  2. Public festivals (i.e food or music)/events/markets) all organized into a social app with information about each event. This could be connected to advertisement on social media and would likely help with community involvement in said events. It seems as if an incredible amount of effort goes into planning and acquiring the right permissions/permits for these types of large public events (especially if they require part of the city to shut down for the day like the annual Marathon or the Veteran’s Day Parade) from what I read in the minutes of the city council meeting from September 15th, 2014[1], therefore it also seems only fair if the public events are also well advertised and the most people are aware and able to participate. A social event app would also improve community integration an involvement.
  3. Improvements in Public Transportation – an application that shows schedules and updates on delays or changes due to weather. Moreover, for improvements to summertime transportation/new innovative ways to explore the city could be explored by installing public rental bicycles (i.e like they did in Washington, DC and many other cities – (http://www.capitalbikeshare.com/how-it-works )). These programs also create very large data sets about where people travel by showing where people pick up and drop off bikes, and therefore the program data would be pretty interesting and relevant for improving tourism and other aspects of infrastructure and public space in Portland. Moreover, we all definitely found the geographical divides within the city quite surprising and relevant because the divides definitely affect each resident’s sense of place. If it were easier to navigate the city with improved transportation, then residents and tourists would likely be more aware of the different divides and possibly make more of an effort to transport them (while stimulating the economy and having a fantastic time on a bike!).
  4. Improved public seating/awareness for the homeless – this website (http://www.fastcoexist.com/3032631/these-park-benches-welcome-the-homeless-instead-of-rejecting-them) is really cool and has information on a bench that can transform into a shelter at night for anyone in need (and is therefore seasonal because it would only work in the warmer months). Moreover it would help promote improvements in social, and more importantly economic justice to those that do not have access to shelter or support. These benches would furthermore improve awareness and education about homelessness within Portland.
  5. A campaign promoting the investments and improvements that the Portland city council is in the process of executing or plan to execute in the future. Portland could potentially model the campaign off of the campaign in Newcastle, England that aims to improve the community involvement and city housing/infrastructure by involving local artists and engineers to renovate empty or abandoned buildings: http://renewnewcastle.org/about Moreover, this idea connects back to Greenfield: “ as Deluze defines it, any-space whatever is never important for any quality of its own but only for the connections it facilitates of brings into being. In the Particular case of the smart cities, the important linkages are not physical but those made between ideas, technical systems and practices” (21)[2]. I think that if residents are more aware of the effort that goes into city planning or improvements in infrastructure, they will be more appreciative and more likely to benefit from the changes that they may not even know are happening.

Free Public Wi-Fi:  Access to free public Wi-Fi would be huge for Portland – it would help with not only with navigation for both locals and tourists, but it would also immensely help with anyone trying to find out information about job applications, events, and even advertising. Free public Wi-Fi also connects back to the postcolonial theory of knowledge being the “coin of the realm” and the idea that everyone could have access to unlimited information.  People who do not like coffee (how?) would be able to use free Wi-Fi without having to go to a coffee shop! It would be anarchy.

Though public Wi-Fi would be incredibly helpful, it still bars a significant portion of the population from using the public service – i.e. people with dumbphones (not smartphones) or people without laptops. One could also argue that even if everyone had access to free public Wi-Fi, they would still not necessarily utilize it. Moreover, I do think that it is still incredibly important to have areas where people can still get away from technology (like parks or on the waterfront) because sometimes people want to be off the grid for a few minutes (or an afternoon) and get away from their jobs or the city while still being in a park in the city (momentarily). Greenfield writes “every technological intervention that is made with the intention of smoothing out urban experience also deprives us of an opportunity to encounter something external to our own will, and doing so robs us of a moment in which we might reflect on the contingency of our own values, choices and beliefs. Though by no means can this be said of every daily hassle, in other words, some things that appear to be sources of friction actually wind up doing meaningful work for us, as individuals and communities both” (51)[3].

That all being said, there are plenty of ways to escape technology within a city (turning your phone off) and there are plenty of areas to do that in Portland. Having free public Wi-Fi would encourage both tourists and residents to congregate in and use currently ignored public space outside while also making accessing all of the other services that Portland provides (any kind of update, news, or app) to be more accessible also. Consequentially, free public Wi-Fi could improve all aspects of information dissemination and public involvement/awareness within a small city like Portland.

 

[1] Brennan, Michael, Donoghue, Kevin, Marshal, David, Suslovic, Edward, Leeman, Cheryl. “Agenda Regular City Council Meeting September 15, 2014.” edited by Portland City Council. Portland. Me, 2014.

[2] Greenfield, Adam. Against the Smart City. 2013.

[3] Greenfield, Adam. Against the Smart City. 2013.

Post #1: Research Topic & Group, Uncategorized

For the City? Motivations Behind Allocations of Major Resources within Planning for City Infrastructure

As a double major in Earth an Oceanographic Science and Economics, I think that I would benefit most from taking part in the research group for infrastructure as it pertains most to the subjects that I have studied in my past years at Bowdoin.  I am particularly intrigued by the active decisions that local governments and city councils make about the distribution of both monetary and physical resources and the motivations behind these important allocation decisions.  Are the decisions motivated by local environmental issues, improvements in efficiency or quality of life of a city’s residents, or are decisions simply made based on most lucrative outcome?  Or is the motivation a combination of these reasons and more? Studying the infrastructure of a smaller city like Portland would begin to answer these questions.

In the article titled Claiming Urban Landscapes as Public History, Hayden states that “all of these different kinds of private and public planning activities and public works have a social as well as technological history.  People fight for and against them.  People also construct and maintain them.”  This quote struck a chord with my interest in motivations behind planning decisions because clearly if  “people fight for and against [the private and public planning activities],” then they either wholeheartedly agree or disagree with the meaning of the project or motivation behind the proposed infrastructure; this controversial relationship creates a split between the people and the council within a city.  Moreover the idea that “people also construct and maintain [the private and public planning activities]” speaks to whether civilians adapt their beliefs and values or potentially leave the city.  And of course all of these opinions and variables are constantly changing over time which makes studying city infrastructure  that much more interesting.

In addition, Townsend’s lecture on Smart Cities explored more about the motivations behind decisions about city infrastructure and the future of the relationship between technology and the future of our cities – is there more of a shift in motivation in city planning decisions towards  local environmental issues or improvements in efficiency or quality of life of a city’s residents? Perhaps.

I have not spent much time living in cities – I grew up on a 25 mile long island in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.  And yes I was fortunate enough to have travelled with my family to and through cities but I have never spent extended amounts of time in large cities.  Hamilton is the only city in Bermuda and while it is beautiful (BEAUTIFUL!), its extensive views of waterfront and delicious restaurants along a few blocks of buildings is a not quite what I think of when I think of a ‘city’. Because I’ve only spend shorter bursts of time in cities, one of the first things I notice and am critical of is the infrastructure or public transportation within a city. I’d love to know more about motivations behind decisions about allocations in cities because it is an ever evolving dialogue that arrises from differences and changes in perspectives.

Uncategorized

Public Space (the feeling of a place): requirements for effective creation and use?

Public space. What makes a public space successful? Unsuccessful? What defines or counts as “successful use” of a public space? What are the major dangers to public space? The minor or subtle dangers? What makes a public space pleasant to occupy? Since there is not a specific monetary value assigned to public space every time someone enters it, its value seems much quieter and more amorphous than the value that people assign to spaces that have been advertised or sold to them. Often, people do not even seem aware of the presence or absence of public space (unless it has just appeared or disappeared), but of the general feeling— liveliness, community, ugliness, or inhospitality— that lingers in that space.

Townsend’s point about the invisible infrastructure of cities (telecommunications networks) often being overlooked got me thinking about other aspects of a city that get overlooked. I think public space is certainly one aspect of urban life that requires people to speak specifically for it, rather than speaking for itself. Hayden assigns public space a very important role for a city’s people, claiming that it is the site for “the reproduction of social relations” in a city (Hayden 19). I had never thought about this before, but undoubtedly, the things and people you see occupying the public space in your city will have a profound effect on the way you view your city and its population. Your experience of your city could involve walking home through a public park scattered with piles of litter but nobody sitting around chatting. Or it could include walking home through a quiet park where people have spread blankets and sit in the sun, or chosen to eat lunch in the park rather than in their offices. The difference between those two things might just be adequate trashcans and comfortable benches, and maybe an initiative for public art in the park. Public space is one way for people not only to live out their hopes for a community, but for them to share that vision with the other people who have access to that space as well.

Today in Portland, I was intrigued by the story of the small park below the Westland Hotel. I have always thought of a public space as requiring a large-scale public works committee to improve it— I think I have tended to think in terms of National Parks or the whole New York City Highline, in that regard. To hear that that the use and future of that small park could be influenced by such small steps was amazing to me. In retrospect, thought, I have certainly had the experience of walking down the Highline and distinctly recognizing one small aspect of its construction or function that has been calculated to improve user experience. (Someone has put a bench right across from this lovely view; someone has arranged these tables and chairs in specific groups of 2 – 5 under this covered section; someone has taken the time to design and plant a variety of beautiful and interesting plants that I haven’t seen growing elsewhere in Chelsea.) On the Highline, that may have been part of a much larger planning project, but I think public space does not always have to be so top-down. It can be influenced, formally and informally, by the people who use it, and want it, and notice it.

 

Uncategorized

Exploring Neighborhoods: Trends and Exceptions in Housing

Neighborhoods have always fascinated me. Growing up in New York City, I saw that every neighborhood has a distinct (yet variable) reputation. Interestingly, neighborhoods and their reputations are almost entirely defined by the residential demographics of particular urban areas. Though exterior indicators of a neighborhood’s ethnic, socioeconomic, and cultural makeup are what we see when exploring the city as pedestrians, housing and habitation influence the type of businesses, communities, and issues that exist in a given urban space. As Hayden notes,  dwellings’ “social history includes the builder, and also the owner or developer, the zoning and building code writers, the building inspector, and probably a complex series of tenants.”[1]

Walking through Portland and New York alike, the fluidity of transition between neighborhoods is truly astonishing. Not unlike the close proximity of Manhattan’s Upper East Side and Spanish Harlem, Portland’s West Bayside neighborhood is surrounded by commercial and residential wealth, yet remains the poverty center of the city. This was made especially clear by our experience at Preble Street, where Portland’s homelessness manifests poignantly just steps away from a Whole Foods, luxury condos, and major commercial thoroughfares. This ghettoization has everything to do with affordable housing, commercial real estate, and concentrated areas of low-income.

Project-wise, Hayden’s framing of housing as representation particularly intrigued me: “most can be learned from urban building types […] that represent the conditions of thousands or millions of people.” [2] In my research I would be excited to address the trends that can be gleaned from housing, while also grappling with the exceptions to those trends. For example, while the majority of data on a residential neighborhood might indicate a concentrated low-income immigrant population, the beginnings of gentrification may manifest in seemingly anomalous real estate or demographic data. Additionally, the example of formerly homeless men living in a historic India Street home through Preble Street’s Housing First initiative is another residential exception that is worth exploring.

I want to explore the ways in which neighborhoods become more or less desirable for different groups of people by examining urban diversity in all its forms. As for how smart city technology can play a role, I think I will have to revisit Townsend’s lecture to glean more specifics of how tools from companies (like IBM, Cisco, and Siemens) typically used for infrastructural purposes could help in the housing sector. Additionally, the role of individual developers as sources of housing innovation is worth exploring further, given their impact on the technological presence and efficiency of the MTA. [3] Tackling a rapidly growing population with the housing limitations that exist in both New York and Portland will undoubtedly require the aid of organizational technologies and efficient tools for finding housing.

 

1. Hayden, Dolores. “Urban Landscape History: The Sense of Place and Politics of Space.” In The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History, 14-43. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1997.

2. ibid.

3. Townsend, Anthony. “Smart Cities: Big Data, Civic Hackers, and the Quest for a New Utopia.” Lecture, from New America Foundation, Washington, DC, October 8, 2013.