Search

Private renting increasingly comprises a complex ecosystem of actors who assemble housing within the market, and collect rental income and data from tenants, and data on the material assets themselves. Our analysis – at the intersection of rentier and platform capitalism – focuses on landed (material real estate) and technological (digital infrastructure and data) property in Australia’s private rental system. Drawing out relationships between the various actors – landlords, rental property managers and real estate agencies, software developers and providers, property developers and investors – and both their properties and their uses of Proptech (property technology), we show how housing and technology are being leveraged for profit in new ways. In Australia, landed property retains its precedence for established (individual and institutional) landlords, whose interest in Proptech relates to enhancing or value-adding to rental housing assets. For Proptech and institutional real estate players seeking to consolidate both landed and technology property, capturing the tech landscape is increasingly important; indeed, securing control and/or consolidation of technology property is a key motivation for building and/or using Proptech among the largest property developers. Our findings show how rent extraction operates across and between different types and scales of property and market actors, and in new ways that differentiate the figure of the rentier while upholding the dynamics of the rentier model.

Housing's value is contested, with discussions including the economic value of housing through literature on assetisation and financialisation, social value in debates about housing as a human right, value capture in infrastructure development, and the value of housing for social reproduction. With this in mind, we engage with the various ways housing, tenants and Proptech are valued by tenant advocates, real estate professionals, and proptech developers in Sydney, Australia. This is not as a reductive exercise to find 'the value' of housing or Proptech, but to recognise and engage with the ways various social, digital and financial valuations of housing, tenants and digital technologies inform a situated and relational politics of Proptech value. As such we advance a 'more-than-political' economy of Proptech. To illustrate this conceptual case, we discuss three regimes of rental Proptech value in Australia – capitalist and economic regimes; social capital through an ethic of care; and techno-utopian values, where technology is deployed on the basis that it will solve a presumed problem. Our empirical focus is on the application of Proptech to longer-term rental market, which is emerging in less visible ways than its highly contested counterparts in the short-term rental sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Jakarta is widely lauded by global consultancies, technology giants and critical scholars as an increasingly important 'smart' city. One of the reasons for this is the attempted use by state, corporate and individual actors of smart technologies, discourses and practices to solve the urban challenges of flooding, traffic and waste management in the context of climate change and urbanisation. In this paper, we examine the efforts of the Jakarta Smart City programme and office to govern these challenges. Where smart cities are often described as offering speed and real‐time efficiency, we instead find that the technologies and practices mobilised by the Jakarta Smart City programme govern by projecting, delaying and hypothesising into the future. We describe these governance strategies and outline three of their key forms: keeping track of objects and people, calculating and projecting state savings, and mundane watching but not acting. Rather than facilitating exacting and real‐time policy responses to address these urban problems, these practices instead produce temporal relations of delay that push action further into the future. Building on existing research about futuring and anticipation, and the tempos and rhythms of smart cities, our contribution is to highlight slowness and delay as a key mode of governing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The definition and materialization of smart homes has changed over time in accordance with technological advancements and changing housing trajectories. Despite this, to date little research has problematized what different household types and tenure mean for the smart home. As housing markets become more diverse and technology becomes increasingly embedded in the everyday, critical attention needs to be paid to ways in which technologies are being used to mediate households beyond the owner-occupied, nuclear family home. Thinking critically about this is necessary in order to better understand the benefits and pernicious effects of technology on people who have different needs for technology within the home due to different tenures and different materializations of housing and home. This article situates the rented and shared house as the 'actually existing' smart home. It shows that those sharing housing use smart technologies performatively, subversively and as an infrastructure of care across all stages of the share housing cycle – from finding a place to live, to managing the household and maintaining relationships. In doing so the shared smart home offers an alternative smart home reflecting a household diversity that smart home discourse has, to date, largely been blind to. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Housing futures are increasingly diverse as they are reshaped by the intersecting forces of unaffordability, labour precarity and digital disruption. Despite this diversity, the way we think about housing has largely remained tied to frameworks that fit traditional housing markets and governance. While these give valuable insights into the structural form of housing systems, they are less appropriate for understanding the myriad of ways these changes are responded to and experienced on the ground. In this essay, I argue that we need more-than political economy approaches to understand the rapidly changing housing landscape. I pose the housing hack as a way of theorising housing from the minor, assisting in identifying ruptures in housing experiences and taking them seriously as a way to think between major narratives on housing, to show desires and possibilities previously unaccounted for, and to glimpse alternative housing possibilities. I propose the housing hack as useful for doing conceptual, analytical and speculative work demanded of thinking through these changes in housing. While hacks do not always do good, they are useful for revealing what is broken and in their workarounds can point to generative possibilities and alternative housing futures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The affinity for tech-driven solutions of 'smart cities' has been critiqued at length, as has the gender disparity in technology firms. This paper draws these literatures together along with our own data on Australia's innovation economy – one that includes its spaces (incubators, accelerators and co-working hubs), events ('hackathons'), and places (innovation districts). These three components are ubiquitous among smart city strategies across all levels of government. In this paper we examine the gendered landscape of the innovation economy and the strategic urban agenda to which it is tied. The paper draws on data collected through interviews conducted with women entrepreneurs around their experiences in Australia's innovation economy. Drawing from policy documents and further interviews, our discussion mirrors their vignettes with an examination of the three innovation economy components using case studies from Australian smart city planning. In doing so, we illuminate how the gendered experiences of women in the innovation economy are entwined with the smart urbanism imperatives of high-growth, technology-focus, and the attraction of 'talent'. Existing attempts to grapple with discrimination in the innovation economy are shown to reinforce gendered hierarchies, resulting in 'smart cities' designed for men. We argue that the gendered nature of the tech industries that underpin the innovation economy has implications for who the smart city is for. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]