In my previous blog post, I briefly touched on a point about surplus capital coming in from real estate development. The question of bridging gaps between like-minded organizations to demand a shared right to the has a lot of overlap with the previous question of how to rupture the bounds of what kinds of organizational and individual actions are possible. Part of the mission of the Loisaida Center is to fight disenfranchisement, and in that sense reclaim the right to the city. In my previous post about Nicole Marlow’s definition of the field, I discussed their deep involvement in collaborative processes, which focus on urban development. Right to the city is about the right to be a part of the democratic process which forms the urban landscape. The Lower East Side is somewhat of a success story in fighting for that right, because of the amount of successful activism pertaining to community gardens and housing. Nonetheless, this does not negate the need for activism and the presence of threats to the community and right to the city. Gentrification is a major threat to that right. Although the community has had successful activism in the past, this doesn’t mean its people are living comfortably.
Often times the Loisaida Center will host events that draw in local politicians where they will speak to community members and see get to see what issues the community cares about. For example, at the end of July, a number of organizations came together for a rally to reclaim the building where CHARAS community center was evicted from 20 years prior. The building has been threatened by development from its owner, though the community board has been able to halt this process over the years. At this rally were both district leaders, Assemblyman Harvey Epstein, Councilwoman Carlina Rivera, and Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer. These politicians being present show that they are in favor of the community’s efforts. These politicians are all left-leaning and represent the values of the Lower East Side, so it would seem that democratic control on a local level is present. Although production and utilization of surplus seem to be decided by a number of factors, some local and some statewide or national. I would argue that the Loisaida Center has built and actively builds bridges with like-minded groups specifically in the effort to have a right to the city, this is a key part of their mission.
I have not heard the term right to the city brought up in my time at the Loisaida Center, but I believe it passively implicates itself in many situations. At the annual Loisaida Festival, there is a parade where the community exhibits artwork through the streets that have come from their Latino roots. This is claiming of space and a voicing of that desired right to the city. The Parade takes place on Avenue C which has also been named Loisaida Avenue. This renaming in itself is a form of placemaking. I would argue that every community event the Loisaida Center hosts are a form of placemaking and in essence a call for a right to the city.
I like that you’ve combined the two frameworks — Harvey’s explanation of the “right to the city” and Marwell’s discussion of “field” — to provide an answer to this question. If a neighborhood or urban community that stretches beyond geographical boundaries is to achieve a level of self-determination (i.e. a right to determine the shape and life of the city in which we dwell), then it’s key for organizations to build alliances with those who are doing the same kind of work. I’m interested in how these relationships form. Jesse’s interview with Aresh of More Gardens showed the ways in which interpersonal relationships — just the process of socializing and sharing opportunities generously — can help build broader alliance. It also seems like a form of barter or shared resources makes a difference (i.e. you help me do this event and I’ll help you do yours). The CHARAS situation seems a bit like this. So many people are coalesced around that site because it was spatial resource for a lot of different organizations and projects. So CHARAS provided a resource and people, in turn, show up when needed. And considering CHARAS as a territory, a space around which the community hopes to determine its use, really underlines the right to the city idea.