- Zone more space for affordable housing, and build more affordable housing (not luxury condos).
- Optimize energy efficiency in new housing, thus saving money in the long run.
- Urban farming/ community garden initiatives.
- Guarantees that “smart city” technologies be deployed equitably across socioeconomic lines.
- Smarter coordination of public transit.
In discussing our various interests regarding housing, one aspect stood out as important to all of us: the problem homelessness in Portland. We were all struck by the rapid transition from commercial downtown Portland to Prebble Street and significant poverty. This has framed my attempt to conceive of recommendations for a better Portland: how can smart technology be used to help the worst-off?
As Angelidou so succinctly points out, “No specific advantages of hard infrastructure-oriented strategies are mentioned in the smart city literature.”[i] Furthermore, they do little to mitigate, if not actively promote, “Spatial polarization and gentrification, as technology take-up is not evenly spread throughout urban areas, with splintering effects on housing, consumption, lifestyle, leisure, etc.”[ii] This strikes me as a major problem, equally important as Greenfield’s wide-ranging critique of smart cities. Who gets smart technology, and who is positioned to reap its rewards? Greenfield mocks the neutrality of smart city public policy, and rightly so.[iii]
That said, while the first recommendation may not be “smart,” it seems imperative to a better Portland. In the light of the second recommendation, too, I would argue that new affordable housing projects could serve as prime testing grounds for smart efficiency strategies.
With regards to the third recommendation, I see it as located within a goal of integration of different socioeconomic groups in the city space. Housing will likely lead to stratification, and urban farming seems a good way to counter the tendency to cordon oneself off from “others”. This relates to the last point, which might seem out of place in the housing section. But as new housing would likely be built in less dense areas, it would be important to make sure public transportation reflected the needs of those who use it most, those with less money. Perhaps a rethinking of routes would be/ is already necessary.
[i] Angelidou, Margarita. 2014. “Smart City Policies: A Spatial Approach.” Cities, S6.
[ii] Ibid., S6.
[iii] Greenfield, Adam. 2013. Against the Smart City. 1.3 edition, page 37.
Only two posts into my commenting, I recognize a trend in the suggestions that we in the Housing group share. It is both exciting and fortunate that you and Jonah touched upon urban farming and low-income development as possibilities for Portland’s housing future. I agree that urban farming would help build community, and my own research into the trends of new housing in Bayside has shown me that low-income inclusion in new development is already waning. We seem to agree that it is vitally important that lower-income residential areas are improved (with tech, infrastructure, recreation, etc.) but also protected from the displacing potential of financial interests.
You touched on a point that was missing in the other two blog posts that I have read so far: accessibility across all socioeconomic boundaries. Both Claudia and Hannah had innovative proposals to help the homeless population, but access to the proper technology to utilize these initiatives seemed to be a potential roadblock in both cases. It would be fascinating to explore withink our groups ways in which these smart technologies and apps could permeate the homeless population.
I talked about urban farming as well, but I chose to focus on plots of land attached to, and specifically on top of, new development buildings. You brought up an interesting point that the urban sprawl will most spread to less dense areas which could lend itself better to such sustainable farming than rooftop gardens that I proposed. I also thought that community gardening could offset the compartmentalization in new developments.
I am intrigued by your ideas to integrate Portland’s socioeconomic groups, and the capability of outdoor space to engender community in an urban setting. I think the urban gardens you suggested would be particularly impactful in this regard in mixed- and low-income housing. In these structures, a garden would be a unifying and community-building center for those that might struggle to find supportive community in Portland. One potential barrier is their seasonality – they would be difficult to maintain in the snow.
I agree completely that ensuring the availability of affordable housing is a #1 priority. I think there may be ways to integrate this initiative with “smart” technology, such as through website accessibility and providing tech spaces for the public (to ensure internet access to search for housing). I think the construction of affordable housing can also require energy-efficient affordable housing to combine two of your suggestions.
Perhaps these comments are my favorite because it is your integrated solution that is the most elegant, most useful, and most powerful. Digging into any component of this work, though, for the final paper would be a great task–perhaps you may decide to take a piece and bring it together in your presentation? Regardless, it is clear your group will knit together something really useful to the city.