The Centre and Periphery: The Role of City Embankments and Youth Practices

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15826/csp.2022.6.2.177

Abstract

The article focuses on city embankments as social and spatial developments, which are an essential attribute of the city and an integral element in the lifestyle of citizens. As a contact point between the city and the water, embankments act as public spaces that exercise a wide range of functions. They also become points of attraction for various social groups, including young people. In the study conducted in autumn of 2021, we focused on the embankments of a large industrial city (Yekaterinburg, Russia). The “centre-periphery” vector was used as the basis for the typology of embankments, and the value young people attach to embankments has been determined. Using the methods of observation and interviews (n = 16), it was found that the leading functions of the central embankments in the views of city youth are communicative, aesthetic, integrative, leisure, including flânerie, cognitive, transit, self-awareness, security, and identity assertion. Peripheral embankments structure the city space, develop neighbourhood identity and support the function of spending free time. At the same time, undeveloped areas of the periphery are being marginalised and become dangerous. The article argues for the need to develop peripheral embankments through well-maintained footpaths, access to water, leisure and recreational infrastructure, creating comfortable living conditions for the “appropriation” of embankments and their social production through the actions and interactions of different groups of citizens, including young people.

Author Biographies

Natalya L. Antonova, Ural Federal University, Yekaterinburg, Russia

Natalya L. Antonova, Dr. Sci. (Sociology), Professor, Department of Applied Sociology, Ural Federal University. Her research interests focus on the theory and methodology of sociological research, sociology of social changes, urban studies, study of the human body, modern educational technologies, and modern global processes. Natalya is the author of over 250 articles in the field of social studies. Her most recent research focus is social transformations of the urban space and social practices of the urban youth.

Anna D. Gurarii, Ural Federal University, Yekaterinburg, Russia

Anna D. Gurarii, Cand. Sci. (Sociology), Associate Professor, Department of Applied Sociology, Ural Federal University. Her major interest centers around sociology of youth, sociology of education, sociology of social changes. Among her most recent focus of interest is digitalization of higher education.

References


  • Badyina, A., & Golubchikov, O. (2005). Gentrification in central Moscow—a market process or a deliberate policy? Money, power and people in housing regeneration in Ostozhenka. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 87(2), 113–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0435-3684.2005.00186.x

  • Barker, J. L. (2014). Tilt-shift flânerie: Miniature view, global scape. Animation, 9(2), 177–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1746847714527182

  • Baudelaire, C. (1965). Art in Paris, 1845–1862 (J. Mayne, Trans.). Phaidon.

  • Brown, L. J., Dixon, D., & Gillham, O. (2009). Urban design for an urban century: Placemaking for people. John Wiley & Sons.

  • Castells, M. (1998). The Information age: Economy, society and culture. Volume 3: End of Millennium. Blackwell.

  • Chaudhury, S., & Lundberg, A. (2018). Tropical flânerie and the creative Asian city: A perambulation of literature. ETropic: Electronic Journal of Studies in the Tropics, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.25120/etropic.17.1.2018.3643

  • Chernysheva, L. (2019) Rossiiskoe getto: voobrazhaemaia marginal’nost' novykh zhilykh raionov [Russian Ghetto: The Imaginary Marginality of New Housing Estates]. Urban Studies and Practices, 4(2), 37–58. https://doi.org/10.17323/usp42201937-58

  • Coates, J. (2017). Key figure of mobility. Social Anthropology/Anthropologie sociale, 25(1), 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8676.12381

  • Danson, M., & De Souza, P. (Eds.). (2012). Regional development in Northern Europe. Peripherality, marginality and border issues. Routledge.

  • Emmenegger, M. (1995). Zuerst ich denke: Schweiz ist Schwein, aber jetzt ist besser. Neuzugezogene fremdsprachliche Jugendliche, situationen—orte—aktionen: eine sozialgeographische studie in Basel [At first, I think: Schweiz is Schwein, but now it is better. Young newcomers, situations—places—actions: a socio-geographical study in Basel]. Peter Lang.

  • Ferguson, P. (1994). The flâneur on and off the streets of Paris. Routledge.

  • Friedmann, J. (1966). Regional development policy: A case study of Venezuela. Cambridge.

  • Gehl, J., & Matan, A. (2009) Two perspectives on public spaces. Building Research and Information, 37(1), 106–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210802519293

  • Glazychev, V. L. (2017). Urbanistika [Urbanistics]. Europa.

  • Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. The Free Press.

  • Goodwin, R. F. (1999). Redeveloping deteriorated urban waterfronts: the effectiveness of U.S. coastal management programs. Coastal Management, 27, 239–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/089207599263857

  • Gutnov, A. E. (1984). Evoliutsiia gradostroitel’stva [Evolution of urban planning]. Stroiizdat.

  • Hoyle, B. (2001). Urban renewal in East African port cities: Mombasa’s Old Town waterfront. GeoJournal, 53, 183–197. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015704101663

  • Jacobs, J. (1961). Death and life of great American cities. Random House.

  • Kramer, K., & Short, J. R. (2011). Flânerie and the globalizing city. City, 15(3–4), 322–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2011.595100

  • Kühn, M., Bernt, M., & Colini, L. (2017). Power, politics and peripheralization: Two Eastern German cities. European Urban and Regional Studies, 24, 258–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776416637207

  • Leont’ev, A. N. (1975). Deiatel’nost’. Soznanie. Lichnost’ [Activity. Conscience. Personality]. Politizdat.

  • Lofland, L. H. (1989) Social life in the public realm: A review. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 17(4), 453–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124189017004004

  • Oldenburg, R. (2000). Celebrating the third place: Inspiring stories about the “Great Good Places” at the heart of our communities. Marlowe & Company.

  • Omel’chenko, E., & Poliakov, S. (2017). Kontsept kul’turnoi stseny kak teoreticheskaia perspektiva i instrument analiza gorodskikh molodezhnykh soobshchestv [The concept of cultural scene as theoretical perspective and the tool of urban communities analysis]. The Russian Sociological Review, 16(2), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192X-2017-2-111-132

  • Otto, B., McCormick, K., & Leccese, M. (2004). Ecological riverfront design: Restoring river, connecting communities. American Planning Association.

  • Pachenkov, O. (2012). Publichnoe prostranstvo goroda pered litsom vyzovov sovremennosti: mobil’nost’ i “zloupotreblenie publichnost’iu” [The public space of the city in the face of modern challenges: Mobility and “abuse of publicity”]. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 117(5), 419–439. https://www.nlobooks.ru/magazines/novoe_literaturnoe_obozrenie/117_nlo_5_2012/article/18944/

  • Park, R. E. (1952). Human communities: The city and human ecology. The Free Press.

  • Paumier, C. (2004). Creating a vibrant city centre: Urban design and regeneration principles. Urban Land Institute.

  • Porfyriou, H., & Sepe, M. (Eds.). (2016). Waterfronts revisited: European ports in a historic and global perspective. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315637815

  • Rubinshtein, S. L. (1957). Bytie i soznanie [Existence and consciousness]. Izdatel’stvo akademii nauk SSSR.

  • Sawyer, L., Schmid, C., Streule, M., & Kallenberger, P. (2021). Bypass urbanism: Re-ordering center-periphery relations in Kolkata, Lagos and Mexico City. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 53(4), 675–703. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X20983818

  • Sennett, R. (1977). The fall of public man. Cambridge University Press.

  • Smith, H., & Garcia Ferrari, M. S. (2012). Waterfront regeneration: Experience in city-building. Routledge.

  • Trubina, E. (2011). Gorod v teorii: opyt osmysleniia prostranstva [City in theory: Experience of understanding the space]. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie.

  • van Aalst, I., & Brands, J. (2021). Young people: being apart, together in an urban park. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability , 14(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2020.1737181

  • Wood, R., & Handley, J. (1999). Urban waterfront regeneration in the Mersey Basin, North West England. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 42(4), 565–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640569911064

  • Wrenn, D. M. (1983). Urban waterfront development. Urban Land Institute.

  • Zelenov, L. A. (2000). Sotsiologiia goroda [Sociology of the city]. Vlados.

  • Zhelnina, A. A. (2019). “Getto v khoroshem smysle” protiv “betonnogo getto”: raionnye diskursy i renovatsiia v Moskve [“Ghetto in a good sense” versus “the concrete ghetto”: Neighborhood discourses and renovation in Moscow]. Urban Studies and Practices, 4(2), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.17323/usp42202021-36

Published
2022-07-11
How to Cite
Antonova, N., & Gurarii, A. (2022). The Centre and Periphery: The Role of City Embankments and Youth Practices. Changing Societies & Personalities, 6(2), 315–333. doi:10.15826/csp.2022.6.2.177
Citation Formats
Issue
Vol. 6, No. 2 (2022)
Section
Articles