Who has a right to the city?

‘The right to the city is, therefore, far more than a right of individual or group access to the

resources that the city embodies: it is a right to change and reinvent the city more after our

heart’s desire. It is, moreover, a collective rather than an individual right, since reinventing

the city inevitably depends upon the exercise of a collective power over the processes of

urbanisation’ writes David Harvey, geographer, social theorist and political economist in his

book Rebel Cities (2012). (David Harvey, Rebel Cities, 2012). Harvey goes on to clarify the

right to the city as having the power to change it physically, in a fundamental way, and

references Robert Park’s statement that “in making the city man has remade himself.” From

this it can be inferred that Harvey makes a point of the right to the city because of the effect

the city can have on citizens’ abilities to live in the way that they desire.

The first part of Harvey’s definition evokes images of the tearing down of swathes of city

and rebuilding them as desired. The ability to do this is limited to those with the power to do
so, backed by others with monetary or other kinds of power, forming a collective. The

members of this collective may not come from the same communities, but work together for

mutual benefit, sometimes at the expense of lower classes, at other times to their benefit.

Robert Moses did this across New York, wielding his own political power and working with

other politicians and large companies.

As well as using one’s right to the city simply to benefit oneself, some use it to explicitly

disempower and segregate a group of people to retain one’s power and therefore one’s right

to the city: the Apartheid regime achieved this for the white communities in South Africa.

Urban fragmentation by physical means, divides the city into zones of different economic

uses.1 There is also social fragmentation, manifested physically, so the city no longer

represents a total collective, but a number of smaller collectives, one or a few of which may

have their desires implemented in city centres over the others. It is the group that has the

most power, monetary or political, that gains control of the area that is most symbolic of the

city to all citizens.

It is also this first part of the definition that is most exploited by those in power through

architecture. A certain architecture accompanies neoliberal capitalism; its secretion in the

sense of Lefebvre.2 It is monumental, fortress like and impenetrable to those that do not

know how to or do not have the right to enter. But, according to Charles Moore,

monumentality is “a function of the society’s taking possession of or agreeing upon

1
“historic acres restored for touristic display, iconic buildings, hotel complexes, shopping malls and big-box
retail, edge cities with office parks, entertainment parks, suburbia and gated communities” (Fischer,
2013:14)
2
Lefebvre, Henri. (1991). The Production of Space. Trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith. Oxford: Blackwell.
Paraphrased at https://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~janzb/courses/hum3930b/lefebvre1.htm. Accessed 16/03/2015.
extraordinarily important places on the earth’s surface, and of the society’s celebrating their

preeminence”; this should be the kind of monumentality that occurs when “the

Establishment requires buildings more important than other buildings, in places of special

importance, when skilled architects give physical form to this requirement, and when human

use and the public imagination confirm this importance.“ (Moore, 1965). In the case of

neoliberal architecture, this monumentality is being forced upon society, rather than chosen

or collectively used, taking away society's rights to choose what is expressed in the city as

of value. Most of these buildings occur in the city proper, in spaces most emblematic of the

city, and exclusion from them will have the most effect on how citizens feel they partake of

the city. Even public cultural buildings now need to present a similarly impressive, and to

those unsure of their status within the city, intimidating, front. This is to attract as much

attention as private cultural institutes in the face of budget cuts, as well as to compete with

other cities for tourists/cultural capital. (Fischer, 2013:14) This is the Bilbao effect, seen in

cities across the globe.

Neoliberalism is a kind of capitalism, in which surplus is ever reinvested for continuous

profit. One place it is invested in is buildings; old ones are demolished to make space for

new ones, which need to pay for themselves and create profit. To do this their rents are

priced higher than the old ones, driving out the class of people who could afford to live or

work there before; in the process of generating profit, capitalism causes gentrification and

forces out existing communities. (Jacobs, 1961) The field of architecture is being affected

by the alienation that it is implementing. The monumentality required of neoliberal

architecture has caused a rift in the field, as its scale requires a distinction between interior

and exterior architecture and activity. The range of activities that take place in, for example,

a skyscraper means that they cannot all be expressed on the exterior, ‘lobotomising’ the
inhabitants from the city outside, and vice versa. (Koolhaas, 1994:100) Neoliberal

architecture can be seen throughout London, some maintaining their exclusivity through

security systems, in addition to intimidating architecture.

There are those that exercise their right to the city by moving to a place that has the

characteristics that they desire rather than changing the place that they already live in3 ; one

such place is the suburbs, where people can buy into a common vision of happiness. The

suburbs are physically separated from the city.4 This spatial dissociation can perpetuate a

mental one relative to the people and events taking place there, or be caused by those

events, as in the case of Detroit, where jobs and then the white population spread out from

the centre following racial tensions. Suburbs have been historically socially exclusive, as

caused by the economics of the creation of suburbs5, by the homogenous pricing and by a

desire for segregation6 well noted by the builders of white enclaves.7 8. This enhances racial

and class-based tensions. However, suburbanites may still feel the right to the city based on

class, race, religion, ability and/or affluence and may expect those without these benefits to

be excluded based on these prejudices as well as fear for safety, health, and/or economic

3
Refer to Loïc Wacquant’s writing on social-spatial seclusion. See Wacquant, L. (2010). ’Seclusion in the
Twenty-First Century: The 2009 Roth-Symonds Lecture’. In: Perspecta. 43(Taboo). pp. 164-176. Especially
p. 165.
4
They are, as urban sprawl, “as Edward Soja would put it, a spatialisation of economic distance.” (Betsky,
2002).
5
See: (Cohen, 2002) and (Glaeser, 2011).
6
Low argues that gated communities are about the protection of “whiteness,” which she defines as
mainstream acceptance of the norms, values, and life expectations of the white middle class. Whiteness is
not only about race but also about class. As a historical and cultural construct, whiteness refers to the
rewards of being a member of a “socially unmarked class” (p. 172) and to have privileged access to the
economic and social networks of upward mobility (e.g., quality housing, neighborhoods, schools, and
employment). Gated communities express and reinforce an ideology of whiteness that mitigates against the
creation of socially inclusive and diverse neighborhoods. (Gotham, 2007:336).
7
Mr. Levitt of Levittown, Long Island, NY: “the plain fact is that most whites prefer not to live in mixed
communities.” (Mullins, 2013).
8
Frederick Ecker, president of MetLifee, builder of Stuyvesant Town, Manhattan, NY: “Negroes and whites
don’t mix […] [they] would depress all the surrounding property.” (Biondi, 2007:117).
stability. They are used to this in their suburbs and local shopping malls, and so expect it

from their urban visits to shopping centres or museum and gallery districts. Their desire for

this exclusivity makes it likely that it will take place, as neoliberal businesses try to ensure

of their patronage. These people are happy to have the city reinvented in their favour, but

this reinvention is not the choice of the entire city. Currently suburbs are more segregated

by class than colour. This is after middle and upper class people of colour first had to live in

exclusively coloured suburbs before the breakdown of racial barriers began to allow mixed

ones. There are currently more diverse suburbs, but as they become so, a study (Orfield &

Luce, 2012) suggests that whites then separate themselves into suburbs further out,

resegregating the neighbourhoods again, from which they do not recover. The authors of

this study suggest that active involvement is required to maintain diversity, as has occurred

in the village of Oak Park, Illinois, in which a Housing Centre was founded in 1972 to

promote integration that is still there today. This diversity means that there are more people

who exercise their right to the city in this way; they may expect the same exclusivity from

the city, but now based on class, ability and how individuals present themselves, rather than

race.

The right to the city can also be exercised in this way by people that have no desire or need

to partake of the city. Inner city gentrification raises prices and drives out even middle

classes until only the global elite can afford to occupy space that they may not even use.

This is happening in the newly rising pencil towers of South Manhattan, (Vanity Fair, 2014)

with their extravagantly priced condominiums; one $6.5 million apartment has been bought

by a Chinese mother for when her 2-year-old daughter eventually goes to ‘Columbia or

NYU’. (Goldstein, 2013) Others buy these properties as investments that stay empty.

(Gelles, 2015)
There exists the possibility of changing one’s city with money or power generated at the

level of the community, using existing infrastructure to create the desired spaces. The result

is less absolutely what is desired, but at least an approximation to it, whilst the community

retains an awareness of its disadvantage. “For the opportunity, the actual commission to

create a public realm, we must look to other sources than the Establishment of other times

or other places, to people or institutions interested at once in public activity and in place.

We depend, in part, on men willing to submerge their own visions in a broader vision of

greater public interest, and who are nonetheless willing and able to focus their attention on a

particular problem and a particular place.” (Moore, 1965:57) An example in Jacobs’ book,

The Death and Life of Great American Cities, suggests that both public space and active

individuals of local, non-formal authority are required in a community to bring about

change through official public systems by galvanising and organising the community

unobtrusively. But, she says, these communities cannot be maintained if intruded upon by

city problems larger than them, by lack of facilities that can only be supplied by the city, or

deliberate policies that a single community would be too weak to overcome. (Jacobs,

1961:121, 127) This would require a group of communities to come together in the form of

a ‘district’ large enough to have influence over the city, which current levels of

fragmentation and social segregation within that fragmentation, leading to different goals,

probably preclude. Even disadvantaged communities can exercise their right to the city at

this level, if socially cohesive. (Wacquant, 2010:167) There are many case studies of

physical action on the city at this level in developing countries. One is the urban scale re-

organisation of a settlement of shacks in Cape Town, SA, called Mtshini Wam, (Hennings

et al. 2012) that suffered from both fires and flooding. After the threat of the settlement’s
demolition, a few organisations within the community planned its renewal and presented

those plans to the city. Granted funding, they then galvanised the residents into rebuilding

their own neighbourhood.

It is at the level of the lower classes that I believe we start to lose our right to the city and at

which the public realm becomes important. Those that have less funds to present themselves

or are less able to articulate their opinions as compared to higher classes, are excluded from

the debate and the exercise of power. In such cases at this level there is less a sense of

belonging or community through which one can influence one’s surroundings. This lack of

community is exacerbated by the reshuffling of people that occurs within public housing,

reducing the ability of residents to form networks. The lack of ability to articulate oneself

could be due to land accumulation and privatisation which lead to exclusive access to what

should be public spaces and public facilities.9 Less is given to the public realm, and it

becomes more ambiguous as to what that realm is. Combined with the dearth and lower

quality of educational facilities provided by dwindling public services due to budget cuts,

this leads to less practical and intellectual skills that would enable citizens to exercise their

rights over their cities. It is also difficult to change a city that is more privately owned and

governed than publicly, especially with governing policies being weakened by

neoliberalism: even government buildings, such as City Hall, London no longer contribute

to public space and/or appear physically impenetrable. The opportunity is lost to “invest a

place of public importance with the physical attributes of that importance.” (Moore,

1965:57) (my emphasis), because there isn’t anything for the public to do there. It used to be

possible to inhabit public space regardless of its qualities, because it was the place for

9
“Doesn’t this liquidation constitute some sort of crime against the public?” (Moore, 1965:57)
necessary activities. As public space has become less necessary, and life is more privatised,

people have started to use it, or not, based on its qualities, or will pay to inhabit pleasant

spaces. (Gehl, 2012:39) This leads to public space that is less available and of lower quality,

because it is perceived of as unnecessary to the ‘general public’. it is, however, actually

necessary for the lower classes. The lack of public space or and fewer uses for public space

mean that people must pay to remain in the urban realm, e.g. in coffee shops. (Gehl, 2004)

The loss of public space has repercussions for all classes - lack of public space is also a

lack of space in which to protest for change, which is also lack of right to city because one

cannot express one’s desires for change.

Finally, there are those with the least right to the city, and those most affected by

neoliberalism; those with no community, no means and no power: the homeless, who have

little control over their own lives, and lack control over their surroundings. Burn, 1992,

showed a link between loss of control and helplessness. This can perhaps be extended to the

cavalier treatment of the poor through neoliberal processes (e.g. Gray and Mooney, 2011 on

Glasgow) as a cause of homelessness. As companies, legitimised by government policies,

evict poorer members of the public from their homes in order to acquire land, this lack of

choice, or violation of their right to the city may lead to a sense of helplessness that results

in little or no effort to find or retain jobs. The feeling can be a result of capitalist processes

such as the high cost of housing, low wages, unemployment, long-term sickness, (Crisis,

2004) repossessions and evictions. (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 1999). In this way, one

group of people exert their power of others for monetary benefit, throwing the latter group

into emotional/social turmoil and removing their right to the city by uprooting them from

their community, which as shown in the last section can be an effective collective through
which one can exercise one’s right to the city. This lack of control, that is, at the same time,

a loss of one’s right to the city, also prevents citizens from reclaiming their right to the city.

The hostile and chaotic nature of shelters prevents both a sense of community and a sense of

order, both of which might help a person get back on their feet.

The above studies show that for the average citizen it is necessary to be part of a collective

(or community) in order to be able to exercise one’s right to the city, and that the more

powerful or rich that collective, the more overtly they are able to exercise that right. A

collective is required because of power it provides over the relative powerlessness of an

individual within the city. That the right to the city is more than just access to its resources

is shown by the condition of the homeless, who may use their cities’ resources, at the level

of the street, more than most citizens, but who are powerless to form an effective collective.

Bibliography

• Jacobs, Jane. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random
House, Inc.
• Lefebvre, Henri. (1991). The Production of Space. Trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith.
Oxford: Blackwell.
• Koolhaas, Rem. (1994). Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan.
New York: Monacelli Press.
• Ghent Urban Studies Team (GUST). (2002). Post ex sub dis: Urban Fragmentations and
Constructions. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers.
• Biondi, M. (2007). 'Robert Moses, Race, and the Limits of an Activist State.' In: Ballon &
Jackson (ed.). Robert Moses and the Modern City: The Transformation of New York. New
York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc. pp. 116-121.
• Gehl, J. (2012). 'Public Spaces for the 21st Century' In: Helbrecht & Dirksmeier (ed.).
New Urbanism: Life, Work, and Space in the New Downtown. Farnham: Ashgate
Publishing Limited. pp. 39-45.
• Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban
Revolution. London: Verso.
• Wagner, A. & Jeinić, A. (2013). Is There (Anti-)Neoliberal Architecture?. Berlin: jovis
Verlag GmbH.

• Moore, C. (1965). 'You Have to Pay for the Public Life.' In: Perspecta. 9(10). pp. 57-97
• Gotham, K. F. (2007). 'Racialized Uneven Development: Race, Class, and Segregation in
the Postwar Era'. In: Journal of Urban History. 33 (2). pp. 332-341.
• Wacquant, L. (2010). ’Seclusion in the Twenty-First Century: The 2009 Roth-Symonds
Lecture’. In: Perspecta. 43(Taboo). pp. 164-176.
• Glaeser, Edward L. (2011). 'Rethinking the Federal Bias Toward Homeownership'. In:
Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research. 13(2). pp. 5-37.
• Gray, N. & Mooney, G. (2011). 'Glasgow's new urban frontier: 'Civilising' the population
of 'Glasgow East'.' In: City: analysis of urban trends, culture, theory, policy, action. 15(1).
pp. 4-24.

• Burn, S. M. (1992). Loss of Control, Attributions, and Helplessness in the Homeless. At:
http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1037&context=psycd_fac.
(Accessed on 15/03/2015).
• Joseph Rowntree Foundation. (1999). The social consequences of mortgage repossession
for parents and their children. At: http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/F829-social-
consequences-mortgage-repossession.pdf. (Accessed on 15/03/2015).
• Crisis UK. (2004). Hidden Homelessness: Britain's Invisible City. At:
http://www.crisis.org.uk/data/files/publications/HHBIC_report%5B1%5D.pdf. (Accessed
on 15/03/2015).
• Gehl, J. (2004). Public Spaces for a Changing Public Life. At:
http://www.openspace.eca.ed.ac.uk/conference/proceedings/PDF/Gehl.pdf. (Accessed on
18/03/2015).

• Hennings, Z., Mollard, R., Moreschi, A., Sawatzki, S. & Young, S. (2012). Supporting
Reblocking and Community Devlopment in Mtshini Wam. At:
http://wp.wpi.edu/capetown/files/2012/11/Final-Project-Executive-Summary-for-Mtshini-
Wam.pdf. (Accessed on 26/03/2015).
• Orfield, M. & Luce, T. (2012). America's Racially Diverse Suburbs: Opportunities and
Challenges. At:
https://www.law.umn.edu/uploads/e0/65/e065d82a1c1da0bfef7d86172ec5391e/Diverse_S
uburbs_FINAL.pdf. (Accessed on 18/03/2015).

• Goldstein, S. (2013). She might not end up in Manhattan, but 2-year-old has $6.5 million
condo waiting for her once college comes around. At: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-
 style/real-estate/mom-buys-2-year-old-6-5-million-nyc-condo-article-1.1300853.
(Accessed on 19/03/2015).
• Mullins, P. (2013). Race and Suburban Homogeneity: The Flanner House Homes and
Post-Urban African America. At: https://paulmullins.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/race-
and-suburban-homogeneity-the-flanner-house-homes-and-post-urban-african-america/.
(Accessed on 18/03/2015.)
• Vanity Fair. (2014). Too Rich, Too Thin, Too Tall?. At:
http://www.vanityfair.com/unchanged/2014/05/condo-towers-architecture-new-york-city.
(Accessed on 19/03/2015).
• Gelles, D. (2015). The Logic of an Empty $100 Million Pad. At:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/business/the-logic-of-an-empty-dollar100-million-
pad.html. (Accessed on 19/03/2015).