The technical innovations suggested in \u201cLeveraging Social Media and IoT to Bootstrap Smart Environments\u201d by David Crowley, Edward Curry and John Breslin are undoubtedly exciting, albeit concerning. The proposal for reduction in energy usage is appealing, but the notion of \u201cEverything [becoming] a sensor\u201d has the potential to verge into Big Brother territory (Crowley, 380). [1] It is essential that these burgeoning urban technological advances be \u201csituated in a specific locale and human context\u201d (Greenfield, Kindle Location 291). [2] In the specific locale and human context of Portland, Maine, there is a more pressing, rudimental, and fundamentally \u2018smart\u2019 need than the implementation of \u201csensors, actuators, displays and computational elements\u201d in homes: ensuring the citizens\u2019 access to shelter (Crowley, 380). [1]<\/p>\n
This poses challenges in a city increasingly attractive to tourist populations and summer vacationers. A 2012 Bangor Daily News <\/em>article poses a controversial and concerning question: \u201cIs Portland too attractive to the homeless?\u201d [3] A Portland Community Chamber of Commerce document discussed in the article quotes\u00a0a homeless person describing Portland as a place where \u201c\u2018nobody hassles you\u2019 when in search of public assistance.\u201d [3] The Chamber expressed concern that \u201cthe number of shoppers and visitors in Portland is bound to decline\u201d as the city becomes \u201ca disgusting filthy mess,\u201d and seeks to make the city less appealing to the homeless, despite other efforts to increase shelter space. [3] This mentality of the Chamber of Commerce is reminiscent of the police evictions of homeless people and protestors from New York City\u2019s Tompkins Square Park in 1988. Protestors were enraged at the impacts of gentrification on their community \u2013 the Mayor accused the homeless of \u201c[stealing]\u201d the park from the community, yet \u201cthe city shelter system had beds for only a quarter of the city\u2019s homeless people,\u201d (Smith, 313-314). [4] \u00a0Portland\u2019s housing first model, by contrast, is a uniquely progressive system in which \u201cchronically homeless individuals battling the most severe substance abuse and mental health problems are provided small apartments in buildings staffed with specialists at little or no cost, and with no initial demand that they change their lifestyles.\u201d [3] This is a great start to getting Portland\u2019s homeless on their feet, and could be augmented with technological and developmental advances to the city\u2019s housing.<\/p>\n As we learned during our tours of the city, Portland has changed frequently and drastically over the years. It continues to do so today with the rise of tourism and the development of pricey condos, which hugely impact the experience of the city community. A comprehensive and interactive housing map, delineating changes in cost, development, and ownership over Portland\u2019s history, would help to trace that change and understand forthcoming trends. Visualizing and studying this data would allow for greater understanding the dynamics and patterns of gentrification, homelessness and real estate in Portland. It would also \u2013 hopefully \u2013 generate motivation to eradicate the city\u2019s homelessness and eliminate the attitudes expressed in the Chamber of Commerce document.<\/p>\n Portland\u2019s location on the water, in conjunction with chronic climate change and Maine\u2019s brutal winters, makes its buildings especially susceptible to physical damage. Looking to the future, developing low- and mixed-income coop housing ensures that individuals who obtain housing are able to keep it. In the case of a natural disaster or structural damage, the costs would be distributed across all residents instead of one unlucky inhabitant bearing the brunt.<\/p>\n Lastly, Preble Street login accounts (private, of course) would help individualize support and streamline communication. Users could sign up online for particular events, delineate specific needs, exchange online resources, and discuss sensitive issues with a little more remove.<\/p>\n [1] Crowley, David N., Edward Curry, and John G. Breslin. 2014. \u201cLeveraging Social Media and IoT to Bootstrap Smart Environments.\u201d In Big Data and Internet of Things: A Roadmap for Smart Environments<\/em>, edited by Nik Bessis and Ciprian Dobre, 379\u201399. Springer.<\/p>\n [2] Greenfield, Adam. 2013. Against the Smart City<\/em>. 1.3 edition.<\/p>\n [3] Koenig, Seth. “Is Portland ‘too attractive’ to homeless people?.” Bangor Daily News<\/em>. N.p., 21 Dec. 2012. Web. 6 Oct. 2014. http:\/\/bangordailynews.com\/2012\/12\/21\/news\/portland\/are-cities-like-portland-too-attractive-to-homeless-people<\/p>\n [4] Smith, Neil. 2014 [1996]. \u201c\u2018Class Struggle on Avenue B\u2019: The Lower East Side as the Wild Wild West.\u201d In The People, Place and Space Reader<\/em>, edited by Jen Jack Gieseking, et al, 314-319. New York: Routledge, 2014.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The technical innovations suggested in \u201cLeveraging Social Media and IoT to Bootstrap Smart Environments\u201d by David Crowley, Edward Curry and John Breslin are undoubtedly exciting, albeit concerning. The proposal for reduction in energy usage is appealing, but the notion of \u201cEverything [becoming] a sensor\u201d has the potential to verge into Big Brother territory (Crowley, 380). … Continue reading Homelessness and Tourism in the Smart City of Portland<\/span>