Позитивные изменения. Города будущего. Тематический выпуск, 2022 / Positive changes. The cities of the future. Special issue, 2022

The key actors of the digital trend are national governments and global corporations, who perceive technocratic management algorithms as the key to reducing the operating costs in the territories of their presence. Unification while preserving visible diversity seems to them the optimal modus vivendi[14] for the future. Radical municipalism, on the contrary, requires completely different actors — local NGOs, such as community foundations and territorial public self-governance bodies, civic universities following the Scottish model. The forces that endow these structures with resources, in addition to the citizens and academics themselves, are the new-format developers who invest in social and natural capital (Oliver, 2013), in the development of communities surrounding their projects, and who take on the initiative of urban master planning together with the communities. As, for example, in the framework of the project "Bring rivers back to the city!" in Izhevsk. City residents, together with developers, architects, urban planners, and regional authorities, decided on the future of the river Podborenka. The project team created a riverfront development concept, organized the cleanup of the river bed, launched the public monitoring of small rivers and their basins, and the developer of one of the residential compounds was tasked with building up the embankment.

This project resulted in a new public space in the city, where residents can play sports, hold miniconcerts, have picnics, relax and ride a bike.

If I were to choose sides, I would certainly prefer radical municipalists. I am much more inclined to accept the agenda of locality, the warmth of hearty human relationships, and joint discussions. However, the very logic of the digital city dialectics and radical municipalism tells us that as soon as the conflict between the two concepts is eliminated, we will experience a quantum leap that takes over from both positions, one way or another. Whether it will be digital municipalism or global digital democracy, or something more sinister — that is largely being determined right now. And each of us can participate in this process by acting on our own visions of what we want the cities of the future to be.

REFERENCES

1. Glazychev, V. L. (1995). Urban Husbandry: Bringing the City to its Senses. АСС. (1).

2. Rivers to the City. (2022). Retrieved from: https://www.glazychev.ru/publications/interviews/1995_interview_urban_ husbandry.htm. (accessed 15.11.2022).

3. Lapina-Kratasyuk, E., Zaporozhets, O., Vozyanov, A. (2021). Urban Networks: People. Technologies. Governance. Moscow: New Literary Review.

4. Oliver, A. (2013). Regenerating Urban Neighborhoods: Through Synergies of Natural and Social Capital. Spaces & Flows: An International Journal of Urban & Extra Urban Studies, 3(4). https://doi.org/10.18848/2154-8676/CGP/ v03i04/53720.

5. Cellamare, C., & Cognetti, F. (2014). Practices of reappropriation in the contemporary city. Processes, places and imagery. Roma-Milano: Tracce Urbane, Planum Publisher.

6. Parikh, K. S. (2018). Digital Singularity: A Case For Humanity. Avasant LLC.

7. Chemberlain, L. (2022). The Surprising Stickiness of the "15-Minute City". Retrieved from: https://commonedge.org/the-surprising-stickiness-of-the-15-minute-city. 25.01.2022. (accessed: 12.05.2022).

8. Park, R. E., & Burgess, E. W. (2019). The city. University of Chicago Press.

9. Strong Towns. (2022). Retrieved from: https://www. strongtowns.org/. (accessed: 12.05.2022).

«Фундамент» города будущего: ключевые тренды и подходы к проектированию