Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
[This section is divided into two main parts. The first exposes the main theoretical assumptions, in particular the distinction between “brute factsBrute facts” and “social factsSocial facts” (Sect. 2.1). Considering “abandonment as a social factSocial facts” is a thesis in social ontologySocial ontology rather than, in itself, a theory in sociology; it precedes any eventual sociological discussion. The second discusses the differences between functioning, deteriorated, empty and abandoned buildings (Sect. 2.2). The idea is to suggest a general theory of abandonment as a social factSocial facts, according to which abandonment is a potential state of any urban asset.]
Published: Dec 4, 2021
Keywords: Brute facts; Social facts; Responsibility; Ownership; Pragmatic duty; Social ontology
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.