Reading Socio-Spatial Interplay - Arkitektur- og designhøgskolen i ...

R E A D I N G S O C I O - S P A T I A L I N T E R P L A Y – C O N C L U D I N G R E F L E C T I O N S• The informants (from all layers and areas) report that they in generalsocialize with like-minded people. Furthermore many of them claim toassociate with people they share more specific interests with (related tofor instance organized leisure activities or, as at Furuset, voluntary workin the neighbourhood). Such more ‘thick’ kinds of socializing for themost part take place in meeting places that are more loosely defined andlocated, either in or around the actual residential buildings or housingblocks, or in the neighbourhood in which they live. Related to this,almost all informants claim that they appreciate social multiplicity –however not of any kind: Quite many informants are explicit about whatthey consider to be the ideal mix of social qualities and features. Andamong quite many much the same preferences are reflected moreimplicitly, as when they point out more negative features and issues inthe neighbourhood (such as too many transit residents, or asylumseekers, or baby prams, or grumpy old people, or that too many ethnicminorities move out of the area). The interview material reflects thatthere are larger contrast in what the informants describe as an ideal socialmix at Grønland and Grünerløkka than at Furuset. In the inner cityneighbourhoods there are various issues of social mix that areappreciated: descriptions of the neighbourhood as a colourfulbackground scenery for displaying one’s lifestyle, descriptions of the joyof observing at close hand different social activities of others,descriptions of a non-binding sense of community related to the presenceof various parallel urban leisure activities (park life, people in restaurantsand cafés, street life, children playing around, etc.)• The informants describe actions of choice that in various ways areascribed symbolic meaning in relation to individual identity productionand social group identification. Such descriptions contain many andvarious examples of social distinction.• Within layer 1 and layer 2 (especially at Grønland and Grünerløkka)many examples can be seen of informants that demonstrate theiracquired talents of making subtle distinctions related to everyday lifesocio-spatial situations.• For many informants the project of living (for a limited time period) inan urban area that has a reputation as trendy, exiting and exotic can inmany ways be compared to a cultural journey (that is ascribed symbolicvalue in terms of increasing cultural capital). This goes especially foryounger people coming from rural areas and smaller towns.• As reflected in the descriptions of the informants, many choices of actionrelated to different forms of urban activities and use stand as types ofconsumption activities: To be a resident of and use the city is to a large341