Right to the City 2017: (Re) Thinking of Responsibility for Urban Space Case Study of Lviv, Ukraine

Kozlova, Inga

Домівка
→
Faculty of Social Sciences | Факультет суспільних наук
→
Кафедра соціології
→
Статті
→
Перегляд матеріалів

dc.contributor.author	Kozlova, Inga
dc.date.accessioned	2019-06-27T11:31:34Z
dc.date.available	2019-06-27T11:31:34Z
dc.date.issued	2018-11
dc.identifier.citation	Kozlova Inga. Right to the City 2017: (Re) Thinking of Responsibility for Urban Space Case Study of Lviv, Ukraine//CollectiveCity: The Right to the City: 50 years later, 2018, Lisboa, p.3-13	uk
dc.identifier.isbn	978-972-8048-28-0
dc.identifier.uri	http://er.ucu.edu.ua/handle/1/1556
dc.subject	Right to the city, right to participation, right to appropriation, responsibility, space	uk
dc.title	Right to the City 2017: (Re) Thinking of Responsibility for Urban Space Case Study of Lviv, Ukraine	uk
dc.type	Article	uk
dc.status	Опублікований і розповсюджений раніше	uk
dc.description.abstracten	A. Lefebvre a French intellectual, neo-marxist progenitor of the idea of right to the city understand this right as a result of some kind of struggle. Struggle between city dwellers from the one hand and the state and developers – from the other. He meant that habitants have a right to use a city space and have a right to take part in its management. So this text aims at the consideration of the processes of performance of the right to the city as a theoretic concept, taking specific examples of Lviv. The two main modes of the right to the city are considered here. They are: the right to participation and the right to appropriation of the local space. Throughout practical analysis of the current situation in Lviv, and namely the consideration of situations in which the community protect certain objects of space from the undesired transformation as well as the analysis of various local initiatives the author comes to a conclusions that the very subdivision into appropriation and the right to participation is rather blurred, as some practices aiming at (trans)formation of city’s physical surface may actually relate to both verified dimensions of the right to the city. Besides, the dimension of appropriation, is more varied, as it comprises the practices of fighting back and further abandonment of the objects in question, the practices of fighting back and (trans)formation of the object in question, and what is the most important, the practices of creation of a new space. Here, there is not simply the right to use what belongs to the community, but the right to create something new. This last model of appropriation shows that the society is ready to move from placing responsibility on someone else to placing responsibility on oneself.	uk