Pedestrian Zones Serve as Spatial and Social Spaces for City Residents: Case Surabaya City-Indonesia

 The government’s policy in developing pedestrian zones with various facilities shows that neither the government nor society has used a spatial perspective to produce public spaces. Soja (2010) analyzes that public spaces in urban areas should emphasize the spatial perspective. The social aspect of public space development should be taken into account. There is no public space that is socially neutral. Soja supplemented the arguments from Lefebvre & Harvey about citizen’s inseparable rights to the city. Designing public spaces should pay attention to spatial design aspects and the social aspects of those spaces. Every new public space that is built and repaired has a considerable impact on others’ daily lives. On the one hand, the installation of chairs and other facilities increases pedestrian convenience yet reduces the pavement’s substance.

(Courtesy of Freepick.com)


The opinion, as mentioned earlier, strengthens the concept of the Right to City by Lefebvre, Harvey, Soja, and other spatial academics. The presence of pedestrian zones is not only a struggle to eliminate alienation from citizens to public spaces; it is also a method to fulfill citizens’ rights. Therefore, citizens are integrated into a network of social connections. Citizens’ rights to pedestrian zones are part of citizens’ rights to cities. In claiming their rights to the city, residents can also use pedestrian space as their social right. There is a social significance of the public sphere managed by the government and the private sector. Therefore, removing street vendors from the pedestrian space is an action that can lead to resistance from them. In a theoretical frame, public spaces in urban areas result from two aspects of development planning, namely social space and spatial space. Both aspects are the result of urbanism and capitalism. The inevitable effect of urbanization and the rapid flow of capitalism can be ended through the urban revolution (Harvey 2008). According to Harvey: “The right to cities is much more than individual freedom to access urban resources.” The right to the city provides citizens the right to change themselves by changing the city. Furthermore, it is a general right, not entitled to individuals, because the transformation is highly dependent on collective force to reshape the urbanization process. Harvey argues that the freedom to create and rebuild cities and people is one of the most valuable human rights. According to Harvey and Lefebvre, the presence of broad pedestrian zones and their facilities can be interpreted as removing citizens’ rights to the city, eliminating public rights to public spaces.


The existence of cities is also influenced by urbanization (population and capital). In the cycle of capitalism, cities around the world require capital to produce surplus products. In Harvey’s (2008) analysis, the relationship between this type of urbanization and capitalism is two-way: “capitalism continues to produce the surplus products that urbanization needs. In the contrary, capitalism requires urbanization to absorb the excess products that it continues to production cycle.” They strive for tangible improvements to produce stronger communities and better conditions for all members of society and future generations. Urbanization has become capitalistic and has become an instrument in the hands of capitalists and a significant feature of the capitalism cycle.


Komentar

Postingan populer dari blog ini

Carok Research 2021

Collective Violence/Social Movement of Student?

The significance of studying Political Science: Teaching Activities 2022