CC BY
2ГОРОД В ТЕОРИИ | THE CITY IN THEORY
https://doi.org/io.34680/urbis-2023-3(2)-i89-205 l(cc) (J) ©
Urban ideologies: Theoretical backgrounds, dimensions and measures
Harutyun Vermishyan
Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia harutyunvermishyan@ysu.am
Srbuhi Michikyan
Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia srbuhi.michikyan@ysu.am
Armine Ghalamdaryan
Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia ghalamdaryanarmine@ysu.am
KEYWORDS ABSTRACT
urban ideology In this paper, the concept of urban ideology — a cultural system that in-
modernist or right urbanism fluences modern cities - is explored. Urban planning and development new or left urbanism techniques alter urban environments not only physically but also social
third or hipster urbanism dynamics and public interactions. Urban ideologies, which have their Charles Le Corbusier roots in historical, political, economic, and cultural elements, are crucial
Robert Moses in determining the personality and course of development of a city. The
Jan Gehl article explores three contrasting urban ideologies: modernist (right),
Jane Jacobs new (left), and hipster (third). In the 18th and 19th centuries, modernist
urbanism, which was founded on efficiency and economic expansion, began to take shape. Top-down decision-making was given priority, leading to the high-density, industrialized urban areas typified by people like Charles Le Corbusier and Robert Moses. Jane Jacobs' new urbanism, in contrast, places a strong emphasis on social cohesion, inclusivity, and communal well-being. In order to promote a sense of community among people, this ideology places a high priority on walkable communities, mixed-use areas, and decentralized decision-making. The hipster urban-ism, or third urbanism, reconceives cities as venues for creative expression and sensory experiences. This philosophy, promoted by Jan Gehl, puts people first and creates pedestrian-friendly, lively surroundings where urban areas serve as venues for social interactions and activities. Recognizing that no city is defined by a single ideology, the article introduces dimensions and measures for each urban ideology. To understand a city's prevailing ideology across different dimensions, including management, architecture, nature, control, lifestyle, and symbols, "ideal models" and a tool called "The Mayor" are presented. This article clarifies how urban ideologies influence cities and offers a framework for evaluating urban planning and development initiatives. Urban planners and politicians may create more livable and vibrant cities by making
Urbis et Orbis. 2023. 3 (2)
decisions that are informed by their communities' values and ambitions by having a better understanding of these beliefs.
For citation:
Vermishyan, H. R., Michikyan, S. G., & Ghalamdaryan, A. N (2023). Urban ideologies: Theoretical backgrounds, dimensions and measures. Urbis et Orbis. Microhistory and Semiotics of the City, 3(2), 189-205. https://doi.org/i0.34680/urbis-2023-3(2)-i89-205
Funding:
The work was supported by the YSU in the frames of the research project.
© Vermishyan H. R., Michikyan S. G., Ghalamdaryan A. N., 2023
Urbis et Orbis. 2023. 3 (2)
Городские идеологии: теоретические предпосылки, измерения и показатели
А. Р. Вермишян
Ереванский государственный университет, Ереван, Армения harutyunvermishyan@ysu.am
С. Г. Мичикян
Ереванский государственный университет, Ереван, Армения srbuhi.michikyan@ysu.am
А. Н. Галамдарян
Ереванский государственный университет, Ереван, Армения ghalamdaryanarmine@ysu.am
КЛЮЧЕВЫЕ СЛОВА
АННОТАЦИЯ
городская идеология модернистский (правый) урбанизм
новый (левый) урбанизм третий (хипстерский) урбанизм
Ле Корбюзье Роберт Мозес Ян Гейл
Джейн Джекобс
В данной статье рассматривается понятие городской идеологии как культурной системы, влияющей на современные города. Методы городского планирования и развития изменяют городскую среду не только в физическом плане, но и в плане социальной динамики и общественных интеракций. Городские идеологии, уходящие своими корнями в исторические, политические, экономические и культурные сферы, играют решающую роль в определении индивидуальности и курса развития города. В статье исследуются три противоположных городских идеологии: модернистская (правая), новая (левая) и хипстерская (третья). В ХУШ-Х1Х веках начал формироваться модернистский урбанизм, в основе которого лежали понятия эффективности и экономической экспансии. Приоритет отдавался принятию решений сверху вниз, что привело к созданию промышленных городских районов с высокой плотностью населения, типичных для таких архитекторов, как Ле Корбюзье и Роберт Мозес. Новый урбанизм Джейн Джекобс, напротив, уделяет большое внимание социальной сплочённости, инклюзивности и общественному благополучию. Для того чтобы способствовать развитию чувства общности между людьми, в этой идеологии первостепенное значение придаётся пешеходным сообществам, зонам смешанного использования и децентрализованному принятию решений. Хипстер-ский (третий) урбанизм переосмысливает города как места для творческого самовыражения и чувственного опыта. Эта философия, продвигаемая Яном Гейлом, ставит людей на первое место и создаёт удобную для пешеходов, оживлённую среду, в которой городские районы служат местом социального взаимодействия и общественной деятельности. Признавая, что ни один город не определяется какой-то одной идеологией, авторы представляют измерения и показатели для каждой городской идеологии. Чтобы понять преобладающую идеологию города в различных измерениях, включая управление, архитектуру, природу, контроль, образ жизни и символы, в статье представлены «идеальные модели» и инструмент под названием «Мэр». Авторы объясняют, как городские идеологии влияют на города и предлагают рамки для оценки инициатив по
городскому планированию и развитию. Градостроители и политики могут создавать более динамичные и удобные для жизни города, принимая решения с учётом ценностей и устремлений городских сообществ, если будут лучше понимать их убеждения.
Для цитирования:
Вермишян, А., Мичикян, С., & Галамдарян, A. (2023). Urban ideologies: Theoretical backgrounds, dimensions and measures. Urbis et Orbis. Микроистория и семиотика города, 3(2), 189-205.
https://doi.org/i0.34680/urbis-2023-3(2)-i89-205
Финансирование:
Работа выполнена при поддержке ЕГУ в рамках исследовательского проекта.
Introduction
Living in a city is considered a legitimate value in the modern era, as the city serves as the primary habitat for contemporary humans (Connolly, 2008; Tilly, 1996). It's important to note that urban development and planning practices not only shape the physical urban landscape but also influence societal dynamics and public interactions. These processes are responsive to the specific period in question, as well as the technological, political, economic, and socio-cultural circumstances of that time. Furthermore, the political-economic and socio-cultural structures of society are influenced by these urban development processes, as noted by scholars like Bourdieu and Lefebvre (Bourdieu, 1989; Lefebvre, 1991). In the field of urban studies and the examination of urban spaces, a central focus lies in comprehending these processes related to city construction and planning. This involves diagnosing societies within their contextual framework and forecasting potential future development patterns and societal trends.
Discussions on this topic (Vermishyan, 2021) showcase that urban space is a dynamic reflection of prevailing social and political ideologies (Lagopoulos, 2009; Lefebvre,
1991), created at the expense of unified practices (Tuan, 1977). It's shaped by social relationships that influence thought and action (Lefebvre, 1991) and serves as a platform for ideological and cultural practices (Clarke, 2015; Kallinen & Haikio, 2021; Steele & Homo-lar, 2019), integral to social and political processes (Dei, 1995).
In the present context, alongside political and social ideologies, it is essential to establish the concept of urban ideology as a cultural system (Hummon, 1985; Vermishyan & Michikyan, 2020). Within the framework of sociopolitical conjectures, cities today serve as battlegrounds for conflicting ideologies and divergent definitions of concepts such as housing, the overall urban environment, infrastructure, transportation, and more (Vakhshtayn, 2015).
Understanding urban ideologies involves examining historical, political, economic, cultural, and environmental factors that shape a city's development. It also considers community engagement, academic discourse, global influences, media impact, and government policies in defining urban values. Urban ideologies are dynamic and can differ between cities, evolving over time in response to changing circumstances and societal values.
Urban ideology encompasses a variety of beliefs that shape our perceptions, interactions, and planning of urban spaces, impacting areas like urban development, housing, transportation, and social equity. Prominent publications in this field include Henri Lefebvre' s "The Right to the City" (Lefebvre, 2003) and "The Production of Space" (Lefebvre, 1991), Jane Jacobs' "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" (Jacobs,
1992) and Jan Gehl's "Cities for People" (Gehl, 2013). Moreover, "City: A Guidebook for the Urban Age" (Smith, 2012) edited by P. D. Smith, provides a diverse collection of essays on urban ideology, exploring themes such as sustainability and governance. To conduct a thorough literature review, it's advisable to explore academic databases, libraries, and journals.
This article focuses on deciphering urban ideologies, characterizing them, and exploring avenues for their study within the context of societal attitudes. It discusses three distinct urban ideologies: modernist (right), new (left), and third (hipster) urbanism. It's
worth noting that sociologist Victor Vakhshtayn1 has significantly advanced the study and emphasis of contemporary urban ideologies (Vakhshtayn*, 2014). His research highlights disparities between urban space exploration and the language used to describe it, as outlined in one of his articles (Vakhshtayn*, 2014). He presents urban ideologies as linguistic frameworks for understanding cities across different historical eras. His work extends beyond examining various urban ideologies and their impact on contemporary city development, also addressing the challenges faced by urban researchers when analyzing cities today.
Theoretical backgrounds Modernist or right urbanism
Modernist urbanism has an earlier origin than the other two ideologies, having its roots in the 18th century when cities were considered as entities for complete transformation under the "modern vision". Nevertheless, contemporary historians tend to pinpoint the mid-19th century as the inception of modern urbanism, coinciding with the profound changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution. As Leonardo Benevolo states in his work "Le origini dell'urbanistica moderna", modern urbanism emerged as a response to the shortcomings of industrial cities. It proposed utopian solutions alongside structured urban planning, all aimed at optimizing the urban landscape for industry and economic development (Monclus & Diez Medina, 2018, p. 33). This signified a deliberate shift towards effective land use for the benefit of industry and economic growth.
With the advent of the Industrial Revolution and following urbanization, urban planning gradually shifted its focus towards transportation and residential spaces. Significant changes began to appear in the early 20th century, driven by the need to incorporate "modern" techniques. This led to new approaches to urban organization and zoning techniques (Monclus & Diez Medina, 2018, p. 34).
This new urbanist perspective found itself a prominent subject in academic discourse. One of its vivid expressions is Le Corbusier's utopian vision of the "Modern City" (Merin, 2013). Central to Corbusier's ideology were principles of rationality and functionality, where every space was to be purpose-built and carry specific significance. He distinguished 5 critical aspects of space construction: growth, work, living, circulation, differentiated functionality (Fishman, 1982, p. 231).
Within the modernist ideology, the city was perceived as an engine of growth and development, predominantly viewed through the lens of economic factors. A prime example of this approach is the New York development and transformation project designed by Robert Moses. Moses completely redesigned New York's subway and freeway system, introducing new stations, expressways, bridges, and tunnels. This monumental undertaking reshaped entire neighborhoods, necessitating the relocation of thousands (Ballon & Jackson, 2007, p. 1012). Moses emphasized the city's density, the pace of urban life, mobility, and the development of technologies conducive to these objectives. These characteristics embodied the "economic development machine" that underpinned this ideology. Mozes' vision completely transformed New York in 40 years, turning it into one of the largest financial centers in the world.
1 By decision of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, he was included in the register of individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent.
Modernist urbanism was devoted to the economic advancement and progress of the city. In this ideology, the city was envisioned as an industrial and rational space, optimized for efficient commuting between residence and workplace, the seamless flow of production factors, and a high population density. In cities shaped by this ideology, urban management and decisions regarding urban changes were typically top-down, dictated by the state.
Thus, cities grounded in modernist ideology exhibited several distinctive features: high density, speed, circulation, transformation of pedestrian zones into highways, a large number of skyscrapers, oversaturation and overpopulation of urban areas, and the concentration of human and material resources to facilitate economic interests, often at the expense of community cohesion and neighborhood bonds.
New or left urbanism
The manifestations of modernist urbanism in urban planning played a significant role not only in the context of city organization, but also in various social issues. Broadly, the emergence of modernist ideology can be viewed as an embodiment of capitalism in urban space, wherein living in a capitalist society means accepting the rights that promote capital accumulation and market relations. In such circumstances, space often underwent privatization, limiting public rights to its use - a crucial precondition for capital accumulation (Harvey, 2015).
In this context, an alternative ideology to modernist urbanism emerges, one that seeks to shift the focus towards honesty and equality through city design - the ideology of Left Urbanism. The foundations of Left Urbanism were laid in the 1960s by Jane Jacobs, as a direct response to the principles of modernist urbanism. It places a paramount emphasis on suburban development as the primary objective of urban planning.
According to the ideology of new urbanism, public space is more important than private space. This leads to the revitalization of walkways furnished with benches, swings, and rest areas, where neighbors can engage with passing acquaintances, fostering a sense of community. Another core principle is great attention to the design of facades, with each street having a unique designed (Glazychev, 2008, pp. 151-153).
Jane Jacobs argued that community well-being and the creation of conditions conducive to the formation of social bonds are important. She proposed several measures to achieve this diversity: the creation of short streets and neighborhoods, decentralization and alignment of functions by districts, differentiation of structures based on factors like height, age, function, biodiversity, and density. These measures were aimed at fostering a variety of ways in which urban spaces could be used, integrating cultural, social, physical, economic, and temporal aspects, thereby enriching city life (Jacobs, 1992, pp. 143238). Here, there's a distinct departure from the state or specialist-driven space design. Instead, the reconstruction of the spaces is on to the community. It's not meticulously planned but rather organically constructed in everyday life, emerging as an outcome of the habits and practices of the people. Under this ideology, the construction process takes on a vernacular character, reflecting the localized and unique qualities that arise naturally from the community's needs and interactions.
Henri Lefebvre is another important representative of this ideology. Unlike other authors, Lefebvre does not use the term left, but new urbanism (Lefebvre, 2002). Lefebvre outlines the following principles of New Urbanism (Lefebvre, 2002, pp. 19-26):
1) Accessibility: Ensuring pedestrian access is crucial here. In New Urbanist cities, every significant building must be within a 10-minute walk from residences or workplaces. This necessitates decentralization of vital facilities, pedestrian-friendly street designs, buildings located close to streets, and low-speed traffic areas.
2) Interconnected districts: Individual regions should be interconnected. Street designs follow a checkered grid to distribute traffic efficiently. There's a hierarchical relationship between streets, avenues, and boulevards. The space created for pedestrians is suitable for walking, the road is suitable for both daily walks and alternative means of movement (bicycles, small motorcycles, roller skates, etc.).
3) Increase in density: Maximizing the number of apartments, houses, shops, offices, and service centers located in close proximity to each other. This is aimed at convenience and rational use of resources.
4) Multi-functionality and diversity: Promoting a fusion of public and residential spaces within the same area, i. e. a collection of shops, offices, apartments, private houses, cafes and promenades in one street. Emphasis is on multi-functionality of buildings and areas, multi-ethnic population, multiculturalism, presence of people of different income levels (as opposed to neighborhoods of color, such as the "white district" or "black ghetto").
5) Variety of buildings: Emphasis is on the diversity of buildings in terms of types, sizes, price levels fostering originality.
6) Environmental sustainability: Minimizing environmental damage during construction and operations. Encouraging pedestrian traffic while reducing vehicular traffic.
In essence, New or Left Urbanism, centers on community and neighborhood development, prioritizing the well-being of citizens. Here, the city transforms into a space for its inhabitants, space of coexistence and living, rather than primarily serving economic, rational, or business interests. Accessibility takes precedence, ensuring that people can both work and enjoy leisure within the city, aligning with socialist ideals of urban space equality. Open spaces play a crucial role in this ideology, emphasizing the significance of a "center" that may be a church, a square, or even a network of intersecting streets. Here, the "center" is not merely an economic hub but a manifestation of local identity and community engagement.
Third or hipster urbanism
As already mentioned, modernist urbanism, which emphasized economic growth, and left urbanism, centered on communalism, equality, and justice, stand as opposing ideologies. These two ideologies have been in constant opposition. After this continuous struggle another idea eventually began to emerge, - one that suggests that regardless of a city's level of justice or economic development, it could still be uninspiring and boring. This is exactly where the third urbanist ideology emerged.
"Architects are taught to work with the building, not with what is between those. And if nothing happens between the buildings, then we are talking about sculpture, not architecture", - these are the words of the Danish architect Jan Gehl, which fully express his theoretical approaches and the idea of the third urbanism (Ostrogorsky, 2011). Architects around the world struggle to make cities more livable, Gehl suggests looking at the city from the viewpoint of people who live between buildings. Gehl became the proponent of Third Urbanism. He believed that a person's experience in the city should surpass the presence of cars or other people; the space should make it possible to pause and enjoy
surroundings. As the object of his studies, Gehl chose Copenhagen, the capital of Denmark, and transformed Copenhagen from a car-dominated city into a pedestrian-friendly metropolis. Gehl uses the term "copenhagenization" (Gehl & Gemz0e, 1996) to describe how major cities embrace cycling culture like Copenhagen.
Gehl categorizes outdoor activities into three types: necessary activities, these are more or less obligatory activities and occur automatically, regardless of people's conscious desire (walking, shopping, waiting for a bus or a person, working, etc.): side actions, these are not mandatory, are dependent on time and space and are carried out at the individual's desire (going out of a cafe, to breathe fresh air, just standing outside enjoying life, sunbathing): social activities, actions that require the presence of others in public spaces (children playing in the park, social gatherings, etc.) (Gehl, 2011, pp. 9-14).
Gehl predominantly explains space through human practices, which is the central focus of third urbanism ideology. Here, the city is seen as a set of human impressions, as a stage. City's vitality is gauged not by how many people live there but by how many of the residents find joy in the space. The city, according to Gehl, is a party, where leaving early means the city failed. The street is not designed to connect two objects together, but for walking, biking, and other similar activities of entertainment and belongs to the people. Participation in festivals, open-air shows, concerts, and similar events is characteristic of this urban ideology. A city's worth lies in its events, not its objects (Gehl & Gemz0e, 1996).
This concept should not be confused with the ideology of new urbanism. While new urbanism emphasizes community, third urbanism sees people as spectators. As for third urbanism every public space becomes a "stage", the people involved in it are not members of the community but observers. The city here isn't about fairness, communalism, or how to get to the office as quickly as possible. As Vakhshtayn* says, this is a place where you always want to return (Vakhshtayn2, 2014, pp. 22-34). In his studies, summarizing these features, Viktor Vakhshtayn calls the third urbanism as "hipster urbanism".
However, hipsterization gives rise to challenges related to social differentiation such as problems of migrants. Questions arise about who is excluded from these hipster-influenced spaces and whether the space formed by the influence of hipster urbanism contributes to the reproduction of equality. While these questions are posed by left urbanism, they are not in the scope of hipster ideology, as for the "stage", there is always a backstage, where all such issues go, leading to hidden social exclusion (Vakhshtayn*, 2015).
Accordingly, hipster urbanism sees the city as a stage where individuals express themselves. It's a stage with actors (performers) and an audience (observers). The motivation here goes beyond a rational "attendance for profit" principle; it's about fun and enjoying the urban space. Space is for people, it is seen as a "place where something happens" rather than a "place where something exists". Therefore, places where more engaging "things" happen, attracting the "audience's" attention, tend to become more prestigious and expensive.
2 By decision of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, he was included in the register of individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent.
Dimensions and measures
Thus, we can distinguish three main urban ideologies: right/modernist, left/new, third/hipster. These urbanist approaches can form the basis of urban planning, predetermining the characteristics of the city's development. However, presented ideas do not find ideal manifestation in any space - there isn't any city that can be unequivocally defined by one ideology. Hence, specific dimensions of the city and their metrics for each ideology are defined.
These serves as "ideal models", which is applied to a city to help us understand the predominant ideology underlying its various manifestations (Tab. 1).
Table 1. Urban ideologies
Measures
Dimensions Right Third Left
Founder Charles Le Corbusier Jan Gehl Jane Jacobs
1 Subject Enterprises/State Individual/Mass Community
2 Management Top to bottom Mixed Bottom-up
3 Process Changing Transforming Preserving
4 Architecture/ construction Urban development Urban planning Vernacular development
5 Nature/ character Effective Enjoyable Unique
6 Control Institutional control Freedom Community control
7 Lifestyle Rich / Prosperous Cozy Fair / Equal
8 Symbol Skyscrapers and highways Public spaces and bike lanes Affordable housing and local communities
A city, in all its dimensions, cannot be confined to the values of a single ideology. Moreover, the attitudes and expectations of residents regarding the city's essence and operational aspects are incredibly diverse. Utilizing the measurements and criteria mentioned above, a tool named "The Mayor" was developed (https://mayor.political.am/). This tool employs a feature-based questionnaire that introduces scenarios grounded in various dimensions, along with three potential solutions aligned with corresponding measures.
The following example represents one of the scenarios designed to draw perspectives on the urban management model, a pivotal subject of discussion. This scenario aims to distinguish between critical decision-making mechanisms and their foundational priorities.
— Imagine a situation where there is a decision to undertake construction in a vibrant area adjacent to one of the city's districts. From your perspective, which approach is preferable?
• Decisions could be entrusted to the town hall, leveraging their comprehensive information and management expertise. Collaboration with experts would determine the selection of entrepreneurs and strategies for optimal outcomes. However, this method might sideline the voices of the local population.
• Decision-making could involve a partnership between businessmen, local artists, architects, and urban experts. This collaboration aims to find solutions customized to the distinctive character of the district. While effective, this approach may be time-consuming and financially demanding.
• Residents themselves could participate in the decision-making process, given their direct stake in the matter. However, this approach may extend the duration of the decision-making process and potentially lead to disagreements among different community groups.
The city, a dynamic environment where old and new districts continually intersect, frequently witnesses conflicts emerging between the interests of businessmen and local residents. Yerevan, like many cities, is not free from such challenges. The following scenario aims to reveal the preferred approaches of citizens regarding this dynamic process and the architectural and construction models that govern it.
— Imagine one of the old districts in the city center, deteriorated with issues like stray animals and poor infrastructure. In your opinion, which scenario is the most preferable?
• The district should be demolished, providing residents with adequate financial and housing compensation. Simultaneously, a new district with contemporary infrastructure should be constructed.
• The area should be revitalized by engaging local residents and private businesses. Through this collaborative effort, an enjoyable and attractive entertainment district could be created, breathing new life into the area.
• No changes should be made, the support must be provided to local residents as needed. This assistance would empower them to improve their area and continue living in their familiar environment.
— The existence and evolution of a city can take various forms. One approach prioritizes the city's economic value, emphasizing effectiveness and creation of economic wealth; the second revolves around people, focusing on providing a comfortable and pleasant urban environment for residents; the latest stresses the uniqueness of a place, with a strong emphasis on community. Imagine a scenario where a factory with significant industrial potential in the city has remained dormant for several decades. Restarting the factory presents both economic opportunities and risks
related to environmental pollution and public health. In your opinion, which strategy should the city authorities adopt?
• Restart the factory, contributing to the city's economic growth and generating employment opportunities for thousands of residents.
• Do not restart the factory; instead, transform its area into enjoyable and comfortable entertainment and commercial zones for city residents. This transformation would not only enhance the city's appeal but also generate profits for both the city and small to medium-sized businesses.
• Demolish the factory, making the area available for the construction of social housing and the vital needs of the surrounding communities.
Security is a fundamental concern in cities and communities, rooted in various principles. Some residents prioritize institutional control, managed by private organizations or government bodies. Others advocate for security through the autonomy of the environment itself, where appropriate practices are shaped organically. Thirds prefer community control, with local residents sharing and monitoring space, fostering security.
— City officials are currently evaluating three options to ensure the security of a newly rebuilt or constructed park. In your view, which approach is preferable?
• Entrust park security to a private company responsible for safeguarding. However, this approach may involve commercial usage of the park.
• Allow the park to function without specific control, promoting a sense of freedom where visitors are expected to self-regulate. Yet, this approach might result in potential safety concerns at certain times of the day.
• Assign park security to residents of neighbouring yards, who will utilize the park for recreational purposes while taking responsibility for its security. However, this may transform the park into a more localized, courtyard-like environment rather than a public space.
Cities are complex social landscapes where diverse groups each with distinct priorities coexist. City authorities face the challenge of deciding which type of lifestyle to promote through policies: a prosperous, cozy, or equal lifestyle.
— In your opinion, which principle of city development paves the most desirable path for the city's future?
• Emphasize a prosperous lifestyle by promoting the development of high-class and luxury shopping centers and entertainment venues. Urban planning should prioritize economic growth through these means.
• Prioritize a cozy lifestyle that centers on human comfort. City authorities should focus on enhancing walkways, parks, and recreational areas to create a comfortable environment for residents.
• Give priority to an equal lifestyle, ensuring equal accessibility for all residents. City authorities should invest in affordable housing initiatives and contribute to the economic empowerment of vulnerable groups, fostering equality and inclusivity in the city.
The tool incorporates a visual component that captures the before mentioned ideologies through images. The first image, featuring skyscrapers, symbolizes right urbanism. The second image portrays an urban environment with a cozy and inviting public space, emphasizing the third urbanism. Lastly, the third image symbolizes the essence of a local community environment, illustrating the ideology of left urbanism.
Which neighborhood in the pictures below would you live in?
Fig. 1. Illustration of Right Urbanism. Source: Avan 4 - YSUGU Yerevan State University, n.d.
Fig. 2. Illustration of Third Urbanism. Source: https://www.flickr.com/pho-tos/i27i507ii@N03/3ii86024638/
Conclusion and discussion
Understanding these complex procedures involved in city development and design is a major emphasis of the study of urban space. This comprises analyzing societies in the context of their surrounding environment and speculating on prospective societal trends and development patterns for the future.
Discussions on this subject show how the urban environment is a dynamic reflection of the social and political beliefs that are now in place and that are produced at the expense of uniform practices. It is shaped by interpersonal interactions that have an impact on how people think and act, and it provides a platform for cultural and ideological practices that are essential to social and political processes.
In the current context, alongside political and social ideologies, it is crucial to establish the concept of urban ideology as a cultural system. Within the framework of sociopolitical conjectures, cities today serve as battlegrounds for conflicting ideologies and divergent definitions of concepts such as housing, the overall urban environment, infrastructure, transportation, and more.
Examining the historical, political, economic, cultural, and environmental aspects that influence a city's growth is necessary to comprehend urban ideology. In establishing urban values, it also considers civic involvement, scholarly discourse, external influences, media impact, and governmental policies. Urban ideologies change throughout time in reaction to shifting conditions and societal ideals, and they might vary amongst cities.
There are three basic urban paradigms that these ideologies fall under: Modernist or Right Urbanism: With roots in the 18th and 19th centuries, modernist urbanism was primarily concerned with enhancing urban environments for business and economic growth. It placed a strong emphasis on rationalism, usability, and economic progress, with top-down, state-driven decisions being the norm.
New or Left Urbanism: This movement, which emerged in the 1960s as a reaction to modernist ideas, switched the emphasis from individual well-being to social equality and justice through urban planning. It placed a focus on community engagement, social ties, and public space in metropolitan contexts.
Third or hipster urbanism: A relatively contemporary philosophy that places emphasis on the urban environment's sensory qualities. It sees the city as a platform for social interactions and artistic expression, with public areas created to encourage enjoyment and participation. Urban surroundings that are lively and focused on people are the goal of this ideology.
These urban ideologies take several forms within a city, affecting its symbolism, management, architecture, nature, and control. A nuanced examination of a city's dominant urban paradigm can be done by knowing these characteristics and metrics, even though no city can be completely described by a single ideology.
In summary, urban ideologies are crucial in determining how cities develop physically and culturally. They have an impact on how cities are planned, constructed, and experienced because they reflect the values and priorities of societies. Urban planners and politicians can make well-informed choices about urban development that are in line with the values and ambitions of their communities by being aware of and studying these ideologies.
References
Ballon, H., & Jackson, K. T. (2007). Robert Moses and the modern city: The transformation
of New York. W. W. Norton & Company. Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7(1), 14-25. Clarke, J. (2015). Stuart Hall and the theory and practice of articulation. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(2), 275-286. Connolly, J. J. (2008). Decentering urban history: Peripheral cities in the modern world.
Journal of Urban History, 35(1), 3-14. Dei, G. J. S. (1995). Integrative anti-racism: Intersection of race, class, and gender. Race,
Gender & Class, 2(3), 11-30. Fishman, R. (1982). Urban utopias in the twentieth century: Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd
Wright, Le Corbusier. MIT Press. Gehl, J. (2011). Life between buildings: Using public space. Island Press. Gehl, J. (2013). Cities for people. Island Press.
Gehl, J., & Gemz0e, L. (1996). Public spaces. Public life. The Danish Architectural Press
and Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of Architectural Publishers. Glazychev, V. L. (2008). Urbanistics. Europe Publishing. (In Russian). Harvey, D. (2015). The right to the city. In R. T. LeGates & F. Stout (Eds.), The City Reader.
(pp. 314-322). Routledge. Hummon, D. M. (1985). Urban ideology as a cultural system. Journal of Cultural Geography, 5(2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/08873638509478545
Jacobs, J. (1992). The death and life of great American cities, reissue edition. Vintage.
Kallinen, Y., & Haikio, L. (2021). Individualization of disadvantaged young people's agency. Journal of Youth Studies, 24(1), 110-125.
Lagopoulos, A. P. (2009). The social semiotics of space: Metaphor, ideology, and political economy. Semiotica, 173, 169-213.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Blackwell Publishing.
Lefebvre, H. (2002). Propositions pour un nouvel urbanisme (S. A. Efirov, Trans.). The Russian Sociological Review, 2(3), 19-26. (in Russian).
Lefebvre, H. (2003). The urban revolution. University of Minnesota Press.
Merin, G. (2013, August 11). AD Classics: Ville Radieuse / Le Corbusier. ArchDaily. https://www.archdaily.com/411878/ad-classics-ville-radieuse-le-corbusier.
Monclus, J., & Diez Medina, C. (2018). Modern urban planning and modernist urbanism (1930-1950). In C. Diez Medina & J. Monclus (Eds.), Urban Visions: From Planning Culture to Landscape Urbanism. (pp. 33-44). Springer.
Ostrogorsky, A. (2011, December 8). Interview with Jan Gehl: "The main thing is not the buildings, but what is between them". The Afisha Daily. https://daily.afisha.ru/ar-chive/gorod/archive/jan-gehl/ (In Russian).
Smith, P. D. (2012). City: A guidebook for the urban age. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Steele, B. J., & Homolar, A. (2019). Ontological insecurities and the politics of contemporary populism. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 32(3), 214-221.
Tilly, C. (1996). What good is urban history? Journal of Urban History, 22(6), 702-719.
Tuan, Y.-F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. University of Minnesota Press.
Vermishyan, H. (2021). Ideological and cultural practices in the Soviet housing space: The case of allocation and obtaining of apartments in Yerevan. Studies of Transition States and Societies, 13(2), 23-38.
Vermishyan, H., & Michikyan, S. (2020). The transformation of urban public space of post-soviet Yerevan: The case of Northern Avenue. Journal of Sociology: Bulletin of Yerevan University, 11(1 (31)), 3-15.
Vakhshtayn, V. S. (2014). Reassembling the City: Between Language and Space. Sociology of Power, 2, 9-38. (In Russian).
Vakhshtayn, V. S. (2015, July 31). Urban ideologies [Video]. Lectorium of "City projects", Episode 11. (In Russian).
Информация об авторах
Арутюн Рафикович Вермишян кандидат социологических наук, заведующий кафедрой теории и истории социологии
Ереванский государственный университет Армения, 0025, Ереван, ул. Алека Манукяна, 1 ORCID: 0000-0003-2464-0072 Scopus AuthorlD: 57189257650 e-mail: harutyunvermishyan@ysu. am
Information about the authors
Harutyun R. Vermishyan Cand. Sci. (Sociology), Head of the Theory and History of Sociology Department Yerevan State University
1, Alex Manoogian St., Yerevan, 0025, Armenia ORCID: 0000-0003-2464-0072 Scopus AuthorlD: 57189257650 e-mail: harutyunvermishyan@ysu.am
Србуи Геворговна Мичикян аспирант факультета социологии Ереванский государственный университет Армения, 0025, Ереван, ул. Алека Манукяна, 1 ORCID: 0009-0002-1245-8134 e-mail: srbuhi.michikyan@ysu.am
Srbuhi G. Michikyan
PhD student at the Faculty of Sociology
Yerevan State University
1, Alex Manoogian St., Yerevan, 0025, Armenia ORCID: 0009-0002-1245-8134 e-mail: srbuhi.michikyan@ysu.am
Армине Нориковна Галамдарян аспирант факультета социологии Ереванский государственный университет Армения, 0025, Ереван, ул. Алека Манукяна, 1 ORCID: 0000-0003-3786-1624 e-mail: ghalamdaryanarmine@ysu.am
Armine N. Ghalamdaryan
PhD student at the Faculty of Sociology
Yerevan State University
1, Alex Manoogian St., Yerevan, 0025, Armenia ORCID: 0000-0003-3786-1624 e-mail: ghalamdaryanarmine@ysu.am
Материал поступил в редакцию / Received 26.07.2023 Принят к публикации / Accepted 13.09.2023
