Abandoned Buildings in the Cultural Landscape of the City: Meanings and Practices

Abandoned buildings (“abandonments”) as elements of the cultural landscape are the objects with a special semantic status that carry traces of memory of their former functionality, and of the social changes that shaped these “frozen” places. “Abandonments” act as markers of social problems and transformations. They become places of collective nostalgia and alternative historicity, opposed to the official narrative. The article examines the meanings of abandoned buildings in the existence and structure of the cultural landscape, due to new cultural practices that arise around abandoned buildings spontaneously or in an organized manner. Their study allows for a deeper understanding of the role of “dangerous” spaces in culture and the possibility of their legal re-integration into society. An analysis of the types of cultural practices in abandoned buildings allows us to identify several key areas reflecting trends and drifts in the structure of the modern cultural landscape. Informal ways of interacting with abandoned spaces are considered: from the urban explorers’ movement (Urbex), mystical cults, street art to temporary cultural initiatives (festivals, performances). Abandoned buildings are dynamic objects in which the memory of their former functionality, the creative self–organization of cultural groups and social conflicts intersect. They have an ontological duality—the meanings of dying and oblivion, and a growth point for the formation of specific subcultures.

1. Bingham K.P. An Ethnography of Urban Exploration, Leisure Studies in a Global Era. London: Palgrave Macmillan Cham, 2020. 280 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56251-9

2. Bol’shakov V.P. Cultural practices in the processes of culture formation. Vestn. SPbGIK, 2016, no. 2. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/kulturnye-praktiki-v-protsessah-stanovleniya-kultury (accessed: 02.02.2025). (In Russ.).

3. Griber Yu.A. Man and Color: the Coloristics of the Cultural Landscape. Chelovek, 2024, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 108–123. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.31857/S0236200724060078

4. Debord G. Introduction to a Critique of Urban Geography (K. Knabb, Trans.). In Critical Geographies: A Collection. Bauder H., Engel-Di M.S., Eds. Kelowna: Praxis, 1955, pp. 23–27.

5. DeSilvey C. Curated Decay: Heritage Beyond Saving. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2017. 240 p.

6. Deyo L.B., Leibowitz D. Invisible Frontier: Exploring the Tunnels, Ruins and Rooftops of Hidden New York. Texas: Three Rivers Press, 2003. 240 p.

7. Dobraszczyk P. The Dead City: Urban Ruins and the Spectacle of Decay. London: I.B. Tauris, 2017. 304 p.

8. Edensor T. The Ghosts of Industrial Ruins: Ordering and Disordering Memory. Excessive Space. Environ. Plan. D: Soc. Space, 2005a, vol. 23, pp. 829–849.

9. Edensor T. Industrial Ruins: Space, Aesthetics and Materiality. Oxford: Berg, 2005b. 208 p.

10. Edensor T. Sensing the Ruin. Senses Soc., 2007, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 217–232.

11. Edensor T., Evans B., Holloway J., Millington S., & Binnie J. Playing in Industrial Ruins: Interrogating Teleological Understandings of Play. In Urban Wildscapes. Jorgensen A. & Keenan R., Eds. London: Routledge, 2012, pp. 65–79.

12. Fassi A. Industrial Ruins, Urban Exploring, and the Postindustrial Picturesque. CR: New Centen. Rev., 2010, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 141–152.

13. Foucault M. Other spaces. In Intellektualy i vlast’: Izbrannye politicheskie stat’i, vystupleniya i interv’yu [Intellectuals and Power: Selected Political Articles, Speeches and Interviews]. Moscow: Praksis Publ., 2006, vol. 3, pp. 215–236. (In Russ.).

14. Fraser E. Urban exploration as adventure tourism. Journeying beyond the everyday. In Liminal Landscapes: Travel, Experience and Spaces In-between. Andrews H, Roberts L., Eds. London: Routledge, 2012, pp. 136–151.

15. Fulton C. Urban exploration: Secrecy and information creation and sharing in a hobby context. Library and Information Sci. Res., 2017, no. 39, pp. 189–198.

16. Garrett B., Hawkins H. And Now for Something Completely Different… Thinking Through Explorer Subject-Bodies: A Response to Mott and Roberts. Antipode Discussion Paper, 11 November 2013. Available at: http://antipodefoundation.org/2013/11/18/critical-dialogue-urban-exploration-subject-bodies-and-the-politics-of-difference/ (accessed: 24.03.2024).

17. Grechko M. Drugaya storona Moskvy. Stolista v tainakh, mifakh i zagadkakh [The Other Side of Moscow. The Capital in Secrets, Myths and Riddles]. Moscow: AST Publ., 2012. 411 p.

18. Greco J. The Psychology of Ruin Porn. CityLab. Retrieved April 14, 2015, from Available at: www.citylab.com/design/2012/01/psychology-ruin-porn/886/ (accessed: 24.03.2025).

19. Harvey D. Sotsial’naya spravedlivost’ i gorod [Social Justice and the City]. Moscow: NLO Publ., 2018. 520 p.

20. Kindynis T. Urban Exploration: From Subterranea to Spectacle. British J. Criminol., 2017, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 982–1001.

21. Kindynis T. Urban exploration as deviant leisure. In Deviant Leisure. Raymen T., Smith O., Eds. London: Palgrave McMillan, 2019, pp. 379–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17736-2_17

22. Lalonde M. It’s too Clean to be Abandoned. An entry level guide to Urban Exploring and a story of how Ontario Abandoned Places began. Burlington: Talking Walls Photography, 2021. 172 p.

23. Lavrenova O. Color Semantics of the Cultural Landscape. Arts, 2023, no. 12, pp. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/arts12030111

24. Lefevr Α. Proizvodstvo prostranstva [Production of Space]. Moscow: Strelka Press, 2015. 432 p.

25. Lesné R. “Urbex and Urban Space”: A Systematic Literature Review and Bibliometric Analysis. Int. J. Sociol. Leis., 2022, no. 5, pp. 425–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41978-022-00120-y.

26. Mott C., Roberts S. Not Everyone Has (the) Balls: Urban Exploration and the Persistence of Masculinist Geography. Antipode, 2014, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 229–245.

27. Mould O. Urban Subversion and the Creative City. London: Routledge, 2015. 2018 p.

28. Ninjalicious (Chapman J.) Access all areas: a user’s guide to the art of urban exploration. Infilpress, 2005. 242 p.

29. Rowsdower Z. Fresh Rot: Urban Exploration and the Preservation of Decay. J. Univ. Manitoba Archaeol., 2011, vol. 29, pp. 1–15.

30. Schoenle A. Apologia ruins in the Philosophy of History: Providentialism and its Disintegration. Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie, 2009, no. 1, pp. 24– 38. Available at: https://magazines.gorky.media/nlo/2009/1/apologiya-ruiny-v-filosofii-istorii-providenczializm-i-ego-raspad.html (accessed: 24.03.2025). (In Russ.).

31. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky V.P. Raion i strana [The District and the Country]. Moscow–Leningrad: Gos. Izd-vo, 1928. 311 p. (In Russ.).

32. Simmel G. Big cities and spiritual life. Logos, no. 3, 2002, pp. 1–12. (In Russ.).

33. Soederberg S. Governing stigmatised space: the case of the ‘slums’ of Berlin-Neukölln. New Polit. Econ., 2017, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 478–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2017.1240671

34. Trigg D. The Aesthetics of Decay: Nothingness, Nostalgia, and the Absence of Reason. New York: Peter Lang, 2006. 265 p.

35. Tyutyunnik Yu.G. Factory ruins as a form of industrial heritage. In Industrial’noe nasledie kak resurs dlya razvitiya. Varianty strategii. 300+: materialy Vserossiiskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii s mezhdunarodnym uchastiem [Industrial Heritage as a Resource for Development. 300+ Strategy Options: Proceedings of the All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference with International Participation]. December 3–4, 2020. Nizhnii Tagil: Nizhnetagil’skii muzei-zapovednik “Gornozavodskoi Ural”, 2020, pp. 181–185. (In Russ.).

36. Tyutyunnik Yu. Ruins and landscape. Problemi na geografiyata, no. 3–4. Sofiya: 2022, pp. 45–67. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.35101/prg-2022.3-4.4