World Urban Forum

What kind of city would we like urban residents to claim the right to? What, in your views, characterizes the kind of city that we all want to live in? To me, I would like to live in a city where I can live in dignity, security and feel confident and optimistic about my future. Do I have a right to live in such a city, what are your thoughts?

At Women in Cities International we use a right to the city approach to our work. As we understand it, the concept stems from the premise that all city dwellers should be able to benefit fully from city life in ways that are accessible, appropriate, affordable, safe, adapted and equitable for all regardless of age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or any other factor. UNESCO and UN-HABITAT state that the assertion of one’s right to the city can serve as a vehicle for social inclusion.

The right to the city includes:
• Liberty, freedom and the benefit of the city life for all;
• Transparency, equity and efficiency in city administrations;
• Participation and respect in local democratic decision-making;
• Recognition of diversity in economic, social and cultural life;
• Reducing poverty, social exclusion and urban violence.

These principles must be examined from a gendered perspective as women’s and girls’ experience of urban life is considerably different from that of men. Women’s and girls’ ‘right to the city’ includes the right to live free from violence and fear, in more equitable, democratic and inclusive cities. As the majority of the world’s populations are living in cities, it is more vital than ever to understand and consider the gendered use of urban spaces to make cities safe, inclusive and accessible for girls.

In the end, most big cities in the world seem to fuel several contradictions regarding the bi-dimensional concept Equitable City. At least for me, it is quite evident to perceive a multilayer kaleidoscope that reflects an intense contrasting layout patterns of opposites such as:
- Economic Opulence vs Extreme Poverty
- Political integration vs. Racial Polarization
- Migrant Exclusion vs Transnational Corporate Dominance
- LocalCultural Diversity vs Western Induced Standardization
- Social Collaborative Efforts vs. Oligopoly Cartel Rivalry

We need to speak of the real 3d City, not just the ideal one..

Thank you, James, for continuing this conversation about ongoing attempts around the world to shift the dominant patterns of exclusion and inequality experienced by the majority of urban residents. It makes at least three substantive contributions to familiar debates: (1) it insists on two fundamental inversions of the values currently being expressed in the form and functioning of cities around the world (emphasising their social function and the need to invest in truly accessible and relevant processes of democratic planning and decision-making), which can serve as a basis for reimagining the way in which the city should function; (2) it emphasises that quality-of-life cannot be a technocratic goal or achieved through quantitative service delivery or a rising GDP --- it is about the collective experience of residents being engaged and invested in the transformation of the spaces in which they live; and (3) speaks to disaffected middle-class as well as the urban poor because we would all benefit if our cities were more equitable and just --- no one enjoys living in gated communities or displaced into the deep outskirts of the urban periphery. It therefore provides us with a useful framework to debate the kinds of methodologies or tools that are needed to pursue these core values.

For more information about the work that Isandla Institute has done on the Right to the City in the South African context see http://isandla.org.za/projects/right-to-the-city-dialogue-series/

garbage management, security and safe to the citizen.

Thanks James, for sharing this excellent short film produced by Isandla. Surely the key to integrated and equitable cities is to allow every citizen to help choose the future that they would want.

However, I think that the right to the city is made more difficult to attain by the extremely fluid nature of populations today: New citizens are constantly streaming into cities, meaning that the population at any point is not the same as it was one year ago, or will be one year in the future.

Who is then a citizen, and who should have the right to the city? How should communities adjust their planning outlook to cater for a population that will grow and transform much faster than it has in previous generations?

Cities should be cosmopolitan. Open to all mankind. citizens and legal migrants. devoid of xenophobia and racism.

Indeed, Rights to the city. Well, we law enforcement officers in cities have great tasks. Funny, totally mad people, mentally unstable persons, street beggars at times think they have right to the city.The mentally unstable at times rape or molest female passerby's Street Beggars in city are common site in developing nations. Honestly,some think they have rights to live in the city and begging is no of fence.maybe if they do so without harassing or pestering passerby's. In Nigeria, it gives our governments much headache, interestingly these street beggars are predominantly foreigners. Government gather them off t the streets, give them some welfare deport them to their countries and..after sometime they are back Photo left: Beggers harassing tourists in Hong Kong(c) chinasmack.com PhotoRight: street beggers on traffic in Lagos, Nigeria(C)punchcom

The right to the city is a fundamental aspect (or should be) about living in cities. The ability to have one's own city experience, to participate in activities you enjoy, to work and to life freely - are not experiences that a city should compromise. The right to the city is a reminder and equalizer of our public spaces, infrastrcture and services. No one owns the sidewalks and the metro and the park more than each other and its unfair for people or groups to feel excluded from any spaces. Even when you start to feel the heights of inequality which exclude people from private spaces, it means there is a problem in the city than citizens ought to take up as an issue.

Should the Right to the City Concept be considered as a synthesis of developing models or socio-cultural values?

If so, I would be most interested to know if there is measurable evidence of its influence in any of the social, economical, political and cultural aspects of life in the big cities?

That is, how it has influenced life-styles, work-styles, ways of thinking, and possibilities on envisioning our future. Possibly along with any considerable updates in the principles of freedom, equality and property or modifications on the basic assumptions regarding the rule of the market, the profits, and the added value concept. Particularly if the Right to the City concept has developed quite in an asymmetrically or in a conflicting manner.

In Russia, we are now seeing a lot of expressed DIYism and a movement called Partizaning (www.partizaning.org) which promotes the concept. In India, unfortunately, I have not yet seen an social mobilization towards the cause of the right to the city but have seen people struggle in defense of the rights of poorer and or marginalized populations. Unfortunately, in cities you still see that women, the elderly, the very young, migrants, slum dwellers, the poor increasingly are losing their rights to the city - which is being over run by cars, construction to promote shopping (malls and shopping centers), free ways and highways etc.

I would also argue that the right to the city is being manifested in the form of occupy movements in cities around the world - occupy abai and occupy wall street, are more akin to urban revolutions and expressions of a desired right to the city than they are to do with national politics.

Then we would assume that the Right to the City challenges forcefully the Status Quo,or maybe that it has not yet achieved a Mainstream Acceptance, possibly because either powerful corporate elites are still trying to resist or even governments are not yet ready to accept and understand which steps need to be taken to bring newer pressing social issues to the table for a more inclusive public policy formulation...

I couldn't agree more with you, Alvaro. In the city of São Paulo, the "Nova Luz Project", a urban renovation project designed to rehabilitate a significant portion of the city's historical centre, has been subject to great controversy on the real intents of the intervention. The Administration claims that the project is focused on job creation and social housing - thus, destined to promote social and economic inclusion. Nevertheless, NGOs, local business associations and other sectors of the civil society are offering as much resistance as they can to the project, acusing the Administration of promoting the gentrification of the city's historical centre and serving the interests of the real estate corporation. Although the Project is still in its early stages, there have already been some significant interventions in the area, envolving a police operation - destined to dissolve the groups of crack addicts who gathered in this region - and the restriction of old buildings, mostly used as pensions and collective housing by the poor. The right to the city is the very core of this conflict.

Yes, I also agree. real estate is not adequately motivated towards low income housing.It is basically done by public sector mass housing.This has limitation of scale However, real estate given a chance alongwith suitable monitoring can expedite the pace of low income housing substantially.

It is quite evident that there are conflicting perspectives in what should be the adequate urban investment programs. Should it be Place Based or People Based Program? (Maybe we need both Place and People Base Programs !!) Should we focus on the redevelopment of a socially significant empowerment zone as to improve the life of its local residents VS. to speed an eminent Gentrification that might happen naturally anyways... . Targeting limited resources to neighborhood improvement programs is as difficult task fraught with ethical, moral, and practical considerations. Therefore it is better to understand and directly face many considerations than it is to ignore them and make large investments that are not sustainable. Perhaps local institutions should move toward a more proactive strategy that is community inclusive. The question then becomes, on what basis are areas selected for reinvestment or for voluntary redevelopment ?

Ye s have investmentes,s ,I agree about investment priorities which need to be determined locally.it can be both people or place specific depending upon the socio-economoc agenda and urgency of investment for overall sustainability.In any case investments have a multiplier effect on productivity and land values.But,in a welfare state people have the priority.