Sharing economy' technology platforms now encompass housing (most prominently Airbnb); transport (from taxi-replacements Uber and Lyft to short-term rental bicycles and electric scooters); to temporary labor (TaskRabbit). Undoubtedly, more such concepts are being developed, funded, and deployed as we speak. 'Sharing' platform creators describe their work as 'disruptive' and 'innovating in the regulatory sphere' and in many cities have been at odds with both planners and residents as well as competing industries. Planning scholars and practitioners have been caught on the back foot due to the rapid speed at which the 'sharing economy' has emerged and the lack of data available publicly for assessing its scale and how it's affecting the cities we plan. We invited authors to discuss how we ought to conceive of the sharing economy, how we might understand its impacts across people and places, and how planning could or should respond to its emergence and growth. The papers we received span two issues of interface. In this issue, the writing focuses on the planning regulatory response to platforms; and in issue 20.2 we will take up the implications of these platforms for work and labor in the city. These authors connect the 'new' sharing economy to older more endemic forms of informality, to reiterate that in some ways we are still dealing with questions around whether or not informality can be regulated, and also if the extractive platform sharing economy maintains some relationship to the other versions of sharing. What the sharing economy has always done, even before the emergence of large corporations as mediators, is to challenge what Brown calls the "status quo." An important question she asks in her piece for this Interface is whether or not the status quo, in this case the traditional taxi industry, was good to begin with. Brown directly compares ride-share platforms to a taxi industry that has presented significant barriers to African American mobility. While digital infrastructure is still uneven, and ride hailing via apps might result in a user's "delayed mobility", the traditional taxi industry for some people of color in some neighborhoods meant no mobility at all. A question I would also like to raise is how the more visible version of ride-hailing has replaced and possibly displaced the pre-existing informal and underground community mechanisms for how African American or Latinx or Asian immigrants solved mobility problems before, through similar but differently accessed informal ride-sharing strategies (Blasi & Leavitt, Driving Poor, 2006). We as planners are asked to think about allowing for, and being comfortable with allowing the informal to exist and to also question planning's primary impulse to regulatechallenged by any version of the sharing economy. Nelson & Ehrenfeucht reflect that the question of the

Governance processes and image management strategies in large-scale urban development projects are exposed to a range of contextual and internal actor-network-related influences. These relations are complex and, due the long realization time of these projects, cannot be entirely anticipated by management strategies. This research investigates how organizations manage these complexities and uncertainties, what strategies they employ, and how these strategies adapt over time. The research analyzes the empirical case of the Amsterdam Zuidas development through a series of interviews conducted with key stakeholder group representatives and an extensive study of the development visions at different milestones of the development. The study relates these findings to the theoretical framework of Henry Mintzberg on strategy formation and finds that large-scale urban development projects need to employ overlapping strategies and engage in adaptive learning to balance development ambitions with the internal and external influences affecting the strategies.