Conclusions

Abstract

These concluding remarks are divided into three parts. The first part is an overview of the findings. The second part proposes a new outlook on "abandonment": a dynamic/evolutionary approach suggesting that abandonment is a potential state of any type of (private) property. In this view, abandonment is not a purely and intrinsically negative phenomenon, but something that can also be an opportunity for critical imagination and creative action. The third part focuses on the limitations of the study and possible future research lines.Keywords Dynamic processes • Evolutionary approach • Urban systems • Change OverviewChapter 1 suggests the idea that abandonment should be understood as a social fact and not as a brute fact (Searle 1995). Thus, in this work the "abandoned" state of buildings is considered as not directly related to certain physical variables; rather, it entirely depends on human evaluations. Crucial information in this regard is how institutional frameworks-sets of rules of conduct-influence individual behaviour and actions through time.In Chap. 2, the theoretical framework is presented. Three contributions to the debate are: the distinction between brute and social facts and that between agentive and non-agentive functions; these two combined with the idea of pragmatic duty provide a new understanding of the abandonment problem and relative implications. In light of this, in Chap. 3 an analytical schema-based on parameters, factors, reasons, policies-has been built to interpret the phenomenon of abandonment and possible ways of intervening. The neo-institutional approach helps to highlight how the problem of abandonment is articulated with respect to various aspects influencing urban transformations, e.g. property rights, formal constraints, arguments behind policy decisions, intervention strategies and implementations.In Chap. 4, the analytical schema was used to propose some ideas and critical hypotheses on the descriptive and evaluative aspects of the phenomenon of abandonment. It seems impossible to define a single factor able to explain the abandoned state

What can urban policies and planning really learn from John Rawls? A multi-strata view of institutional action and a canvas conception of the just city

“…To provide an example: if a particular business sector in city A, or a particular local industry plant in city B, makes extra profits in a certain period, while respecting all the public rules, this cannot be an issue of justice. And here is another example: if certain specific buildings are vacant in city C at time T (a situation occurring without the breach of any general public rule), this cannot be an issue of justice merely because certain specific individuals in that same city are simultaneously unable to find a house to rent (Moroni et al, 2020; De Franco, 2022). In short, social justice in the city is not an issue concerning particular individuals in specific time slices; rather, it concerns “whatever citizens”, even “potential citizens”, in an ongoing common endeavour.…”

Revisiting the distinction between the natural and the artificial. Towards a properly urban ontology

“…Indeed, cities seem to be the “natural” field of study for the application of “social ontology” at both a conceptual and (arte)factual level (De Franco, 2022). With the notion of “city”, social agents indicate a reality pertaining to them and recognisable in space and time (Montello, 2008).…”

Abandonment in Detroit: Reforming or superseding property?

“…The theme of abandonment (of artefacts, land, entire cities) requires special attention from social theory. The conventional and formal meanings of concepts attached to ‘abandonment’ naturally convey different ideas of how ‘ownership’ and ‘responsibility’ are performed in light of certain rules of the game (De Franco, 2022).…”