To fight for the right to the city. 5 examples of typical conflicts in cities

Overview

This article explores five cases of urban conflicts in Russia and other countries. The cases show a significant rate of violations resulting in advancing interests of authorities and developers, while excluding citizens from urban development. The material is based on a new book, written by Ivan Medvedev, a civil law specialist in HSE University, as well as on an additional research. The analysed book is essential to understand typical reasons of confrontations, their possible outcomes, and major obstacles for people to be involved in a discussion and actual decision making.

Outcomes and insights

In most cases, the only method of civic engagement in Russia is public hearing. However, in legal terms it is just a way of informing, but not exercising power and influence. Medvedev says that urbanists should, firstly, introduce a mechanism of legal liability for those who adversely affect cities, and secondly, develop more involving methods that would allow to consider the needs of all stakeholders, eliminate profanation, and allow for the rejection of a proposed project.

One of the most interesting insights from the book is that today experts place special emphasis on objects of emotional memory, along with generally accepted cultural heritage. Such objects raise a question of their recognition and preservation. One example is "Blinchiki" cafe, perceived by locals as a symbol of soviet architecture and spirit, yet being demolished for the construction of a church.

Link: https://strelkamag.com/ru/article/urban-problems

Is it okay to build a mosque near the site of the September 11 tragedy? Will a renovation plan be effective if it is proposed by the residents themselves? And is it worth preserving a Soviet cafe as an “object of emotional memory” if it has no historical value? The Infotropic publishing and the Graduate School of Urbanism have released a book entitled Urban Conflicts Resolution. It presents examples of typical urban disputes and describes the legal and philosophical concepts around which such conflicts arise. The author of the book Ivan Medvedev is a civil law specialists who studies disputes with the authorities and teaches a course on that subjects at the Higher School of Economics.

PARK 51 AND THE RIGHT TO THE CITY

The concept of the “right to the city” has no legal basis, but it still has become very popular in the recent decades. In relation to urban conflicts it is perceived more like a slogan or a demand: “The city has always been ours, we have the right to it, we want to be in control of it.” Urbanists associate this concept with the citizens’ right to participate in decision-making around urban spaces, as well as the “right to intervene and demand.”

“The right to the city is a complex concept that helps revitalize the accustomed discussions. Let us suppose that in the near future the traditional set of rights will be reconsidered and the right to the city will become a part of it.”

The author considers the case of a cultural center with a mosque that was planned to be built in New York near Ground Zero, the place where the twin towers used to be. In 2009, Soho Properties bought a house damaged by plane wreckage on Park Place Street and decided to build the Park 51 Islamic cultural center in its place. Activists and relatives of the victims found this initiative offensive, as terrorists identified themselves with Muslims. The issue caused a great resonance in the media and was covered on the national level.

Although the house in question was of the Italian Renaissance style and was almost a century and a half old, the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission approved the demolition and did not recognize it as an object of protection. One of the opponents of the construction was a former firefighter who participated in the rescue operation on site of the attacks on September 11. He filed a lawsuit with the New York Supreme Court to annul the decision of the Commission. The court ruled that the Commission’s decision did not affect the rights of the firefighter, and the building was not subject to judicial protection.

By 2011, the founder of Soho Properties Sharif El-Gamal has abandoned the company’s original plan due to the pressure from the public and decided to build a residential skyscraper in the same place; without a mosque, but with a three-story Islamic museum.

Although there was no law that could stop the construction of a cultural center with a mosque in the first place, the New Yorkers have set a precedent that now enables us to say that they have exercised their right to the city.

< … >

COOPER SQUARE RENOVATION AND ADVOCATE PLANNING

An Alternate Plan for Cooper Square book cover

Planners and architects who represented local residents in disputes about new urban sites began to appear in America in the 1960s. These experts not only defended the citizens’ point of view, but also offered alternative development options. One of the first such advocates was urban planner Walter Thabit. During the renovation of New York in 1959, he proposed an alternate plan for the renewal of the Cooper Square area.

The situation at the time was that the projects of new houses proposed by the city committee for renovation would not be affordable for many local residents. Joining forces with entrepreneurs and charitable organizations, New Yorkers paid Thabit to create an alternate plan.

“Citizens based their views on the fact that they should not be sacrificed and even the inhabitants of slums have rights. The “if you can’t pay for comfort then get out” attitude was unacceptable.”

The alternate plan included social housing and renovation of existing buildings. The city did not accept it, but it did not implement the original plan either: there was not enough money to rebuild the area completely. In the end, the renovation lasted for almost 50 years and the New York authorities carried it out while preserving the inexpensive rent housing. That way the state plan became socially oriented.

Although advocate planning has not taken root anywhere in its pure form, its essence, the “consolidation of a good plan and its upholding” has formed the basis for further developments in urban planning, for example, the idea of “lean planning,” when the plan goes through small iterations with close involvement of local communities.

< … >