Technical Solar Photovoltaic Potential of Large Scale Parking Lot Canopies

Krishnan, Ram

doi:10.37099/mtu.dc.etdr/92

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Revolutionary modernists wanted to intensify and accelerate ('condense') social revolution by maximizing the capacity of ordinary inhabitants to appropriate and transform the built environment instead of proscribing its functions (also with zoning) (Kopp, 1970). More recent critiques of single-use zoning often came with emancipatory critiques of NIMBYism (OHRC, n.d.), the practice by which residents defend their 'backyards' (sometimes relying on zoning restrictions) against unwanted uses: basement apartments, social services, transitional housing (Krishnan, 2021), homeless shelters (Laxer, 2021), student housing (Kim, 2022;Sotomayor & Zhang, 2023) and apartment buildings (Einstein et al, 2020). In this critique, there is no doubt that low-density zoning is only one part of a deeper reality that gives rise to NIMBYism: the defence of property values in an urban society where housing provision is based on private property and dreams of the good life focus on 'home' ownership, real estate, and various class-based, racialized, and gendered aspirations of social distinction (Blomley, 2003).…”

Section: Is 'Mixed-use' the Answer?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Housing beyond land rent?: A critique of market housing solutionism

Kipfer,

Sotomayor

2024

RHJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Toronto is in a housing crisis. Many residents lack access to adequate and affordable housing. In response, neoliberals and reformers have radicalized their advocacy for more market housing as the only possible alternative. Drawing attention to the role housing plays in the reproduction of labour power and the crisis-ridden dynamic of capital accumulation, we highlight the inability of market housing to meet a range of social needs. We tackle crucial weaknesses of the housing supply argument, including, first, its quantitative orientation; second, its impatience with those who defend existing housing options; third, its historical amnesia; fourth; its pop-economist (mis-)understanding of housing markets; fifth, its superficial critique of zoning, and sixth, its illusory embrace of seemingly alternative ways of organizing housing spatially: mixed-use and inclusionary zoning. Reflecting on the recent municipal by-election in Toronto, we also consider what it would take to shift course towards decommodified and decolonial housing futures.

show abstract