**2.2 Territorialization of spatial organization**

From a functional and demand-side perspective, housing can be conceived as living at a particular place at a particular time. The living place is one node of a network of locations where other activities such as working, shopping for food or other things, learning, attending cultural events or doing sports are performed. These functional-spatial networks are not topologically fixed in size, scale and scope but may change with varying working places, biographical requirements, household composition or personal needs and aspirations. However, they remain relational in their spatial structure, and the use value of a dwelling depends critically on the respective topology.

From a market and supply-side perspective, housing relies crucially on a territorial, containerized spatial organization. The monetary assessment of a particular housing unit may be partly influenced by quality standards of the building itself and interior appointments but is determined mainly by the location. The location, in turn, is evaluated comparatively by the value of the neighboring properties. As comparison is a core requirement in market economies to strive for reinvesting accumulated capital, the containerized space serves this need perfectly. Thus, the exchange value of a dwelling depends critically on the respective territoriality.

Although the binary between territorial and topological organizations of political, economic and social functions represents empirical facts in a too simplistic manner, its core idea can claim some justification. While globalization and supra-national political institutionalizations established spaces of flows – of goods, capital, information and people – and networks of global cities [15, 16], developments such as
