“A SPACE CAN BE VALUABLE BECAUSE OF ITS SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE”
- anna32940
- 5 days ago
- 8 min read
Updated: 2 days ago
The conversation revisits the topics introduced in the earlier piece “The Red List of Sofia – Threatened Spaces Unfolded”[1], which we published at the beginning of the year. Viktoria Draganova and architect Viktor Damov explore how urban spaces acquire “social value,” what civic participation looks like in everyday life, and how young people reclaim the city through small but meaningful actions. The text is part of the Urban Storytellers Journal – a publication that follows the Urban Storytelling School program, which is a joint project by the Center for Social Vision (Sofia) and C*SPACE (Berlin). It is dedicated to storytelling as a way of connecting people and reimagining the city.
What changes when we look at the city through the perspective of young people — teenagers, students, and those in their twenties?
Viktor: Let me briefly remind you what I meant by “socio-urban value.” In most cases, however absurd it sounds, a value in the city means a cultural property or so-called cultural heritage. These are material objects protected by the state because of their scientific or cultural significance. My hypothesis is that a space can also be valuable because of its social significance. To put it more simply – it is not the building that is important, but what happens inside it. Think about the city market, the neighborhood café, the local community cultural center (chitalishte), or self-organized civic spaces. What constitutes their social value? For example, they may be economically accessible and allow communication between people from different social backgrounds, or they may create a sense of civic empowerment and belonging. If we agree that these places are important, we must start asking ourselves – what do we do with them as a society? Obviously, we cannot preserve them as museum exhibits in the urban environment as we would with a cultural property. So then what? I don’t have a definite answer yet, but I do know for sure that the first step is to recognize them as valuable.
How does the situation change if we look at “socio-urban” values through the eyes of young people? Well, I think – not much. In the January text I deliberately expanded the meaning of the concept. I pointed to two broad groups of people who need such spaces. The first are those in direct need – the poor, the discriminated, etc. The second are those who, at first glance, are integrated into society, but for them this is not enough – they want to be part of a community and to self-realize within it.
So, let’s think about young people… In a sense, they fall into both groups. Most young people are not financially independent, which means they seek economically accessible places. On the other hand, this is the age when one looks for their first communities. I would also add something equally important here – this is also the period when you slowly begin to understand what it means to be a citizen. Socio-urban spaces can fulfill all these functions. But there are two important clarifications – young people are not all the same. That’s why it is important to think about the diversities that may lie behind the idea. The other is that there are underprivileged young people who are in urgent need of such places – those with limited financial means or those discriminated against on the basis of ethnicity or sexual orientation.
In our conversations last year at the Center for Social Vision you pointed out as additional examples of “socio-urban value” the square in front of the National Palace of Culture or the mirrors of the Central Department Store as important for young people. What makes them socio-urban values?
Viktor: In this case, the label is not particularly important. They are valuable to the people who use them, and that is enough. At the time I didn’t find it necessary to direct my attention to them, because these spaces are public and important for the city anyway. They will not disappear. Over time, young people may change, as well as their activities in these places. This is a natural process. In that sense, the only thing needed for these spaces is that the activities of young people, which already take place there, should not be prohibited – skating at NDK and dancing at the Largo. Someone once told me that the security was causing problems at the Central Department Store. I don’t know if that’s true, but I hope not.
Still if we want to reflect on them academically, we can. I think these practices are of particular significance because through them young people reclaim spaces in the city. They realize that Sofia belongs to them just as much as it does to anyone else. They “hack” the city, transforming it for their own needs. In the meantime, they assert their presence to the rest of society. What’s particularly interesting is that they do this in places concentrated with symbolic power. The Largo or the Soviet Army Monument are perfect examples. Through their practices they alter the meaning of these spaces. They manifest the attitude of the free individual towards authority.
Are there other similar spaces that you think deserve attention – in Sofia or elsewhere?
Viktor: More and more I think about the chitalishta (community cultural centers) in Bulgaria. They are the recognized “socio-urban values” by the state. If we want to develop the idea on a practical level, perhaps the easiest way would be through them. In many places across Bulgaria they are extremely important spaces for young people. They offer all sorts of activities and opportunities for forming communities.
Chitalishta have a long history. They began to be established in the mid-19th century, independent of the Ottoman Empire and based on the principles of democracy, solidarity, and tolerance toward all living in Bulgarian lands. The chitalishte network played an important role in the Bulgarian national liberation movement. They were created by Bulgarian society because it needed them.
But what is their mission today? They preserve and transmit much of the nation’s traditional values. And don’t get me wrong – this is an important task. But it often prevents us from asking what kind of chitalishta today’s society needs. Moreover – even though they are funded by the state, they exist in material poverty. This is also a problem of civil society. It does not recognize them as places for civic participation, which they once were. Yuri Valkovski wrote good articles on the topic a year or two ago. But why do I point to this example… There are exceptions. Look at initiatives like “Trotuar 2020” or “Mechtalishte,” or completely independent spaces like “Kopriva.” There are citizens who are rethinking what a chitalishte can mean and what young people can do in them.
What are the main challenges that young people will face in the urban environment in the near future?
Viktor: On a global level – the tension between the need for free, accessible spaces and the increasing commercialization of the city. It’s a problem if the only place where a group of students can gather is a café or bar. Here is a clarification again – I myself argue that in theory such places can also be considered “socio-urban values,” but the conditions for that are specific. It is much more likely that a space develops such value if it was created with that intent from the start. Universities could provide spaces for their students to self-organize with almost no resources, but they rarely do so. A positive example here is “Projectirane ” at the University of Architecture, Civil Engineering and Geodesy (UACEG). It has worked on this principle for a decade.
On a local level, we face another problem – public space is disappearing. In the new neighborhoods there are no inter-block spaces, no squares, rarely gardens, let alone parks. This is nothing less than an urban planning disaster. If we return to the idea of how important it is for young people to reclaim public spaces in the city – how can this happen when they simply don’t exist? When the only logic of spatial production is that of capital – this is the result.
Is there a risk that the virtual will replace the real, or rather is there a new type of hybrid experience of the city emerging, and what does it consist of?
Viktor: There is definitely rising tension between the two. I think we all experienced it firsthand during the Covid pandemic. Design theorist Silvio Lorusso speaks of digital maximalism and dwelling minimalism.
As for hybrid experience, I would think of it a bit more provocatively. In a sense, there is nothing new in it. For anyone who grew up in the 90s and 00s it was already the norm. Internet clubs were important places for the coming-of-age for many. Later, when most of us had personal computers, this continued – physical communication shifted into digital spaces and back again. I don’t mean only chats, but also computer games, forums…
The digital or hybridity are not problems in themselves, but the virtual of 20–30 years ago is fundamentally different from what it is today. We sometimes forget that the internet once felt like a free space. That many found their socially-digital valuable spaces there, and that shaped them as people. The feeling was radically different from today’s capitalization of attention and radicalization of viewpoints. I don’t want to sound nostalgic or anything like that. These things still exist in some form. What I’m trying to say is that if we fight for free physical spaces, we should also fight for free digital ones.
You are part of Underschool at UACEG. What problems do you identify as most urgent in education and in the way young people experience the city?
Viktor: Underschool_ is an independent organization, but it is true that UACEG is our main partner. The mission of underschool_ is to take part in building a long-term vision for the development of architectural education in Bulgaria. But our motivation is not purely educational. Our goal is the improvement of the spatial environment in Bulgaria. Education is just one element of this system. The element that our collective is working on. From this perspective, we believe architectural education should address all the issues we’ve already discussed, and many others as well.
Many independent cultural NGOs are driven by young people and/or work with young people – through participatory programs, artistic interventions, and community activation. What is their role in times of political crisis?
Viktor: Their role is more important than ever. Unfortunately, in Bulgaria the word “politics” is dirty, and people avoid it at all costs. But politics is everywhere and it affects us all. At underschool_ we try to turn the students in our collective into citizens of a democratic society. I often feel that I myself don’t fully know what that means. No one ever taught us.Not to mention that the age gap within our team isn’t particularly large. We learn from each other. We do things, make mistakes, and reflect on them. That’s the way forward.
Comments