David Harvey begins “The Right to the City” by noting how, despite humanity’s efforts to improve the world, we remain tied to “hegemonic liberal and neoliberal market logics” (23). He argues that there is a deep tie between capitalism and development, and that the city is an instrument of capitalist forces, using inhabitants as the means to continue to operate and grow the system. In contrast, he advocates for the “right to the city,” which is the right for inhabitants of a city to change their city as they see fit. He believes this is an impossible task without collective power.
His piece is largely a call to arms against capitalism and its ugly effects on the city. He describes how capitalism destroys the city and increases the divide between the haves and the have nots: “The results are indelibly etched on the spatial forms of our cities which increasingly consist of fortified fragments, gated communities, and privatized public spaces kept under constant surveillance.” This passage brought to mind a neighborhood I visited in Lima this past summer. The gated homes are incredible—manicured lawns and striking architectural feats are hidden behind tall gates. However, drive to the top of the hill on which the neighborhood sits and you’ll reach a wall. On the other side is one of the city’s poorest areas. The contrast is stomach-turning.
I’m not a raging capitalist, but I did struggle to understand what Harvey saw as a solution. I continuously wondered what alternative he recommended. Mark Purcell’s piece, “Excavating Lefebvre: The right to the city and its urban politics of the inhabitant,” focused more on Lefebvre’s “right to the city” and pointed out some of the major holes in Harvey’s arguments. As he points out, there is still a need to clarify “what the right to the city entails” and “how it might address current problems of disenfranchisement” (99).
I thought it was interesting that for Lefebvre, the right to the city meant that anyone who inhabits the city can vote, meaning anyone who lives there, whether they are residents, citizens, or more “informal” inhabitants (102). Although I agree that all people who live in the city deserve the right to have their voices heard, I am a bit of a pessimist. Voter turnout in the United States is already laughably low for presidential elections, let alone local elections. Now imagine voting or community input being requested far more often for input on any local changes. Would more say in community development bring more voices to the table? Or would it still remain the same active community members who already make their opinions known?
The readings were particularly pertinent as I attended the World Urban Forum the same week that I read them. Here, academics, planners, government officials, and activists from around the world gathered to discuss the issues facing urban populations around the globe. Scheduled events included 4 separate sessions that included “The Right to the City” in their titles, highlighting just how relevant and widely accepted these ideas remain in the planning community.
Many seem to use the phrase “the right to the city” as more of a concept of ensuring that all inhabitants have access to city services and the chance to participate in decision-making. If this is the case, I think the right to the city is a worthy goal that should be the aim of all urban practitioners. However, Harvey’s “right to the city” seems a bit too shapeless to me. I hate to admit this, but I’m afraid capitalism’s “pacification by cappuccino” has worked on me (31).
I wondered if and how much the “right to the city” would come up at the World Urban Forum! As I mentioned, it’s certainly a big part of the Habitat II report that we’ll be reading in a couple of weeks. I’d love for you to talk more when we all meet again about how the “right to the city” is put into practice in different cities (if that came up). In fact, it *is* policy in the Brazilian constitution for one example. How does that play out? I think you hit on an important quandary that Purcell does not highlight, which is the current lack of participation among those who *do* have a legitimate voice in urban decision-making. Community board meetings are notoriously fraught, City Council meetings are only attended by organized NGOs and their constituents, and, as you say, voter turnout is abysmal. One could argue that people don’t participate because they don’t think their voices or votes count, but there are many other reasons why they might not. As an urban planner who may be enticed by a right to the city framework, what do you think is the first thing we’d need to do to implement it in a place like NYC? Do we start with Harvey’s coalition building?