和列斐伏尔一起骑在塞维利亚的自行车道上。为什么我们不应该假设公共基础设施默认限制了城市的权利?

IF 0.1 Q4 URBAN STUDIES Habitat y Sociedad Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.12795/habitatysociedad.2021.i14.14
Pedro Malpica
{"title":"和列斐伏尔一起骑在塞维利亚的自行车道上。为什么我们不应该假设公共基础设施默认限制了城市的权利?","authors":"Pedro Malpica","doi":"10.12795/habitatysociedad.2021.i14.14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The notion —clearly inspired by Lefebvre— according to which public works have per se a coercive character that curtails the inhabitants’ right to the city, should not be applied when evaluating certain infrastructures which actually improve the livability of the urban space, such as those promoting urban cycling. Considering this possible error, it is necessary to examine the repeated exceptions that Lefebvre himself enunciates throughout his work when he characterizes some types of urban intervention that, when fulfilling certain conditions, contribute to the resignification and reappropiation of urban space. We here pursue not only to enumerate these notes by Lefebvre, but to illustrate them taking as a model an urban intervention of great repercussion such as the infrastructure for the promotion of urban cycling in the city of Seville in the first decade of the 21st century, and applying such Lefebvrian contributions to its characteristics. In the confrontation of the different space-producing strategies, some infrastructures —such as the one addressed in this case study— guarantee the right to the city, instead of being, as could be argued from a superficial reading of Lefebvre’s analysis, an element that restricts that right.","PeriodicalId":42104,"journal":{"name":"Habitat y Sociedad","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pedaleando con Lefebvre por el carril-bici de Sevilla. Por qué no debemos presuponer que las infraestructuras públicas restringen por defecto el derecho a la ciudad.\",\"authors\":\"Pedro Malpica\",\"doi\":\"10.12795/habitatysociedad.2021.i14.14\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The notion —clearly inspired by Lefebvre— according to which public works have per se a coercive character that curtails the inhabitants’ right to the city, should not be applied when evaluating certain infrastructures which actually improve the livability of the urban space, such as those promoting urban cycling. Considering this possible error, it is necessary to examine the repeated exceptions that Lefebvre himself enunciates throughout his work when he characterizes some types of urban intervention that, when fulfilling certain conditions, contribute to the resignification and reappropiation of urban space. We here pursue not only to enumerate these notes by Lefebvre, but to illustrate them taking as a model an urban intervention of great repercussion such as the infrastructure for the promotion of urban cycling in the city of Seville in the first decade of the 21st century, and applying such Lefebvrian contributions to its characteristics. In the confrontation of the different space-producing strategies, some infrastructures —such as the one addressed in this case study— guarantee the right to the city, instead of being, as could be argued from a superficial reading of Lefebvre’s analysis, an element that restricts that right.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42104,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Habitat y Sociedad\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Habitat y Sociedad\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12795/habitatysociedad.2021.i14.14\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"URBAN STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Habitat y Sociedad","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12795/habitatysociedad.2021.i14.14","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"URBAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这一概念显然受到列斐伏尔的启发,根据该概念,公共工程本身具有强制性,限制了居民对城市的权利,在评估实际改善城市空间宜居性的某些基础设施时不应适用,例如那些促进城市自行车的基础设施。考虑到这种可能的错误,有必要检查列斐伏尔本人在他的作品中反复阐述的例外情况,当他描述某些类型的城市干预时,当满足某些条件时,有助于城市空间的辞职和重新占用。在这里,我们不仅要列举列斐伏尔的这些笔记,而且要将它们作为一种具有重大影响的城市干预模式来说明,例如在21世纪的第一个十年中,塞维利亚市促进城市自行车的基础设施,并将列斐伏尔的贡献应用于其特征。在不同的空间生产策略的对抗中,一些基础设施——比如这个案例研究中提到的基础设施——保证了城市的权利,而不是像对列斐伏尔分析的肤浅解读那样,成为限制这种权利的因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Pedaleando con Lefebvre por el carril-bici de Sevilla. Por qué no debemos presuponer que las infraestructuras públicas restringen por defecto el derecho a la ciudad.
The notion —clearly inspired by Lefebvre— according to which public works have per se a coercive character that curtails the inhabitants’ right to the city, should not be applied when evaluating certain infrastructures which actually improve the livability of the urban space, such as those promoting urban cycling. Considering this possible error, it is necessary to examine the repeated exceptions that Lefebvre himself enunciates throughout his work when he characterizes some types of urban intervention that, when fulfilling certain conditions, contribute to the resignification and reappropiation of urban space. We here pursue not only to enumerate these notes by Lefebvre, but to illustrate them taking as a model an urban intervention of great repercussion such as the infrastructure for the promotion of urban cycling in the city of Seville in the first decade of the 21st century, and applying such Lefebvrian contributions to its characteristics. In the confrontation of the different space-producing strategies, some infrastructures —such as the one addressed in this case study— guarantee the right to the city, instead of being, as could be argued from a superficial reading of Lefebvre’s analysis, an element that restricts that right.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Habitat y Sociedad
Habitat y Sociedad URBAN STUDIES-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Retos de la transición ecológica justa para la planificación hidrológica. El caso del Plan de la demarcación del Guadalquivir (tercer ciclo 2022-2027). Un reto histórico: el reacoplamiento entre la ciudad y el territorio como sistemas vivos. Entre la exclusión y la convivencia multicultural. Panorámica regional de la inmigración en Andalucía. La dimensión territorial de las asociaciones de migrantes en La Matanza (Argentina). Migraciones y configuraciones del hábitat urbano: miradas desde Latinoamérica y la Península Ibérica.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1