This article analyses the accessibility of the urban environment for various groups of people with limited mobility. Moscow is considered a complex space that includes “old”, historically developed and “new”, modern territories, which, however, do not have clear zoning and, within the Moscow Ring Road, are located nearby, and often inside the “old”. Many groups of Muscovites with limited mobility are narrowed to people with disabilities with musculoskeletal problems, elderly citizens, and mothers with children. The basis for such abstraction was the institutional definitions of people with limited mobility contained in the laws of the Russian Federation. The empirical study consists of three complementary parts. Stress tests were conducted for elderly citizens, which made it possible to identify the main difficulties with the accessibility of the urban environment and attitudes towards them. The article also analyses the accessibility of the "old" Moscow space using the example of the Aeroport metro station for elderly people and mothers with children over five years old. Problems in the planned and declared inclusiveness of the new space are identified using the example of Zaryadye Park. It is shown that the urban environment of Moscow can be considered as possessing subjectivity (in accordance with the definition of B. Latour), since it determines the life of people with limited mobility. Different priorities of the inclusiveness of the environment for temporarily and permanently disabled people, as well as for different age groups, are revealed.

The analysis of new spaces showed that modern design, taking into account the requirements of inclusiveness, did not manage to avoid obstacles for people with limited mobility. The authors conclude that there is a need for a broad study of various groups of permanently and temporarily mobile citizens, of their interests, priorities, value systems and prospects for coordinating these interests in the design of a modern urban environment, especially in such a complex space as Moscow. The authors believe that the results obtained can be applied both in the development of Moscow urban planning and in the development of general urban planning principles.

city, limited mobility, low mobility, mothers with kids, persons with disability, elderly people, inclusive design, smart city, comfort public spaces

1. Il’ina I., Kono M. Transformation of approaches to the development of a "smart city". Moscow, VSHE, 2023: 248 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.17323/978-5-7598-2579-1; EDN: WCUQKP.
2. Naberushkina E. K., Radchenko E. A., Mirzaeva E. R. Inclusive design (review of foreign concepts). Teoriya i praktika obshchestvennogo razvitiya, 2023: 2: 30–35 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.24158/tipor.2023.2.3; EDN: CYMLVS.
3. Sanoff G. Participatory design. Practices of public participation in shaping the environment of large and small cities. Transl. from Engl., ed. by N. Snigirev, D. Smirnov. Vologda, Proeknaya gruppa 8, 2015: 170 (in Russ.).
4. City networks: People. Technologies. Authorities. Ed. by E. Lapina-Kratasyuk, O. Zaporozhets, A. Vozyanova; Transl. from Eng. by K. Gusarova, A. Vozyanova, O. Zaporozhets. Moscow, NLO, 2021: 576 (in Russ.). EDN: IJCYQK.
5. Trubina E. G. Gorod v teorii: opyty osmysleniya prostranstva [The City in Theory: Experiments in Understanding Space]. Moscow, NLO, 2011: 520 (in Russ.). EDN: UFEBBX.
6. Harvey D. Social Justice and the City. Transl. from Eng. by E. Yu. Gerasimova. 2^nd ed. Moscow, NLO, 2019: 440 (In Russ.). EDN: TJIFKX.
7. Clarkson J. P., Coleman R. History of Inclusive Design in the UK. Applied Ergonomics, 2015: 46: B: 235–247.
8. Clarkson P. J., Coleman R. et al. Inclusive Design. Design for the whole population. Springer, 2003: 624.
9. Imrie R., Hall P. Inclusive design. Design and development of accessible environments. Spon Press, 2001: 202.
10. Komninos N. Smart cities and connected intelligence: platforms, ecosystems and network effects. Routledge, 2020: 292. DOI: 10.4324/9780367823399.
11. Bruni A. Teli M. Reassembling the Social-An Introduction to Actor Network Theory. Management Learning, 2007: 38: 1: 121–125. DOI: 10.1177/1350507607073032.
12. Sommer R. Social Design: Creating Buildings with People in Mind. Prentice Hall Inc, 1983: 198.