In Chapter 1 I talked about the notion of cityness as a way of existing that emphasizes the importance of difference and relations between differences. The idea is that bringing differences into some kind of relationship produces unforeseen capacities and experiences that are valuable-valuable because they extend what we think is possible. Increasingly, however, cities become mechanisms that attempt to make these differences serve the interests of narrowly drawn notions of what is valuable and what is possible. This is something that Mezzadra calls “a unitary language of value.”1 In other words, instead of intersecting the histories, ways of doing things, and aspirations of residents into a particular way of dealing with the larger world, cities have become conduits for feeding resources, ideas, and labor to the growth and movement of capital.