The government agenda was insufficient because, in the urban issue, the agenda of inclusion

and public services improvement (access to cars and houses, expansion of infrastructure
networks, big and expensive road systems and public transportation works, etc.) is insufficient
if the structural cause of urban exclusion and the development model itself are not addressed.
Furthermore, new themes are being included in the agenda, in addition to the traditional
urban reform agenda established in Brazil in the 1980s and 1990s, within the struggle for a
minimum of citizen rights. If for those workers who migrated from the countryside between
1940 and 1990, access to basic education, basic health services, land, housing and
infrastructure (public transportation, water, light, public lighting, waste collection), even
though precarious, already meant a substantial progress in relation to what they had had in
the countryside, for the new generations this has become insufficient. The problem gets worse
because, despite the advances, the country entered the 21st century without managing to fully
respond to this basic agenda of the fight for the right to the city (which remains necessary), but
simultaneously started to be required to provide a second agenda. In addition, the advances
accomplished after the 1988 Constitution, particularly the social inclusion policy implemented
by Lula´s administration, raised expectations, above all of young people, the children of the
migrant workers, who have mostly had the opportunity to complete schooling or even find a
university place. This second generation, already born in the city, has started to demand better
quality basic public services (expressed, for instance, in the “FIFA standard hospitals” slogan,
which was widespread during the demonstrations of 2013 and 2014, as a criticism of the big
events and discontent in regard to the public services), and also to make new demands for
services and infrastructure, that so far have not been a priority or even do not exist. In view of
this, I the need to expand the reach of the urban agenda and of the right to the city is clear,
and to challenge the urban development model that characterizes Brazilian cities. The
construction of this new agenda initially implies questioning the paradigms which are so
strongly consolidated in Brazilian society, namely: the car culture and the privatization of the
road space created by this culture; and private property, particularly the owned house; the
divided and segregated city; the outsourced or even the uncontrolled commoditization of
urban services; the security ideology as a urban value; the lack of concern for the public space
and the environment; the rejection of shared goods, spaces and urban services; the waste
culture; the intolerance for minorities and to those who are different. This questioning gained
strength in the first decade of the century, when new actors appeared on the urban political
stage – very different from the traditional Is a New Urban Development Agenda Possible? A
Brazil perspective | 91 social movements, which were so strong and important (and still are) in
the struggle for the basic agenda of the right to the city – comprised of young people from
both the expanded downtown and the outskirts, who organized themselves in the so-called
“collectives”. They are not heavily institutionalized groups (they are not “legal entities”), they
are horizontal organizations that reject or minimize the role of the leader, articulating and
publicizing their agendas through social networks and the Internet, with practices based on
activism and direct action. Among these agendas brought up by those collectives the following
should be mentioned: shared occupation and management of public spaces, such as squares
and parks; advocacy for active mobility (foot, bike, skate, etc.); cultural citizenship (popular
and peripheral culture, digital culture, theatre, dance, audio-visual, etc.); use of the public
space for culture (graffiti, street artists, music, events, etc.); resistance to the verticalization of
the city, associated with the generic fight against so-called real estate speculation); agro-
ecology and urban agriculture; access to free Internet in public buildings and spaces; free
public transportation; shared working (co-working), housing and vehicle spaces; defense of the
architectonic and urban memory and heritage; cultural occupation of public or private spaces;
agendas related to technological creation and innovation. These are contemporary agendas
that express the existence of social network -connected, more educated, social groups who are
pursuing a new urban life style, where culture, environment, and the use of public spaces are
more important. And, on the other hand, they have slogans demanding civil rights and
fundamental freedoms, such as gender, diversity, sexual orientation and racial equality, as well
as the decriminalization of abortion and marijuana. Those activists reject the values that mark
the cities from the past century, and advocate for a new way of urban living , based on sharing,
using public spaces, active mobility, connectivity, on a new relation with the environment,
within diversity. They fight capitalism, private property and real estate speculation, also
opposing the public-private partnerships proposed by several municipal governments, of
different ideological colors, which suffer major opposition from movements and collectives,
which have exposed the excluding, speculative and gentrifying nature of such initiatives, even
when proposed by progressive governments. Examples of these movements are Occupy
Estelita, which fought against the large scale real estate project in the historical area of Recife,
and the Popular World Cup and Olympics Committee, which exposed violations to the human
rights in the context of the mega sports events in Rio de Janeiro. In Rio de Janeiro city, the
epicenter and biggest showcase of this strategy, proposals strongly supported by the federal
government, such as the Porto Maravilha (Wonder Port) and other urban in