In defense of the city. a reply to my opponents

I replys to the comments and remarks made during the discussion of my article “Discursive Urbanism: Method Search”. Taking into account the constructive criticism, I show how my critics expand the limits of the methodological field of modern urban research. The idea of Ilya Kasavin (he was also one of my opponents) about the need to protect the traditional urban ecosphere, authentic to the worldview of a living, feeling person, is being developed. I must agree that, on the one hand, a smart city is not necessarily a “city for smart people”. Moreover, it is in such a smart city that all the conditions for scientific, socioeconomic, environmental, political, etc. denialism are often created. On the other hand, the so-called “comfortable urban environment” is not limited to the work of housing and communal services. We all really go to the city for that ambiente (“atmosphere”), which motivates us to sensual experiences and is expressed in emotions. Thus, the city in which we want to live can be described as a discursive space where conditions are created for the realization of intellectual, communicative, creative and, no less importantly, spiritual, emotional needs. If there are different places in a city where different people are able to feel a semblance of happiness for at least a short time, it means that such a city has opportunities to realize the human right to their city. The author declares no conflicts of interests.

Keywords

Authors

References