**3.2 Applying relational geographies**

A second domain appropriate to transform contemporary housing market structures and functions rests upon surmounting the unilateral fixation on the territorial geography of market organization. This perspective can claim some evidence since "[n]eoliberalisation and the opening up of global markets, as well as intensifying the modes and level of exploitation that take place through capital accumulation, has been a major driving force in the disruption of territory as a factor in political economy, culture and identity" ([28], p. 1646).

The idea of surmounting, however, does not imply a substitution of territorial thinking with topological spatialities but is meant to conflate both in an emancipatory understanding of local housing needs. In so doing, we, according to Ince [29], refer to an "anarchist approach to territory that foregrounds bordering as a legitimate spatial strategy that refuses and moves beyond a statist-capitalist framework for understanding the role and nature of territorial practices, and that can produce emancipatory spaces in the process".

Relational conceptions of space can claim their particular success because they deconcentrate (spatial relations) and decentralize (power relations) to the concrete local spots, aiming – at least implicitly – to oppose authoritarian constraints. By pursuing a relational strategy, territorial space properties do not disappear but diminish their exclusionary characteristics. Role models of this spatial type have been available for a long time, such as consortia between research and education institutions or global city networks [30], to mention just two examples.

When reflecting on the meaning of relational spaces, we must keep in mind that a municipality's spatial gestalt is arbitrary due to different reasons. Any ideas and visions about housing architecture and neighborhood infrastructure are restricted to plans, programs and political decisions, which must be applied to the entire territory in equal measure. For example, car parking capacity rules – underground and ground-level – of larger housing complexes in Austrian cities are to be followed by housing construction companies with little flexibility concerning their number and distribution. It is, however, not possible today to develop a housing complex without car parking slots, even though the new residents would prefer such an option because the complex is well connected to public transportation from their point of view.

Therefore, a neighborhood community should be politically able to decide on their local circumstances of housing and environment by interlinking territorial and relational geographies. This instance can be generalized to housing architecture (co-housing), public neighborhood space design (potential conflicts between younger and older residents), social mixing (private property and social housing) and functional mixing (housing with labor, recreation, and shops). This way, territorial practices are re-introduced to contribute to solving future housing needs decentrally.

In addition, a relational perspective includes novel approaches in municipal collaboration, albeit not necessarily between territorially bounded units. Future housing questions are then discussed between several places by considering social and ecological concerns that interrelate local with regional requirements. A prerequisite for its achievement would be a transformation of the current
