Nadia Anderson’s idea of right to the city is to achieve it through social infrastructure. Significance is placed on unused and overlooked spaces that haven’t been planned or focused on. These spaces escape the dull, lifeless rules and ideas of a planned space, and it should incorporate people in a way that will allow for the creation of an interactive and dynamic environment. How do you feel about this idea? The “right to the city” is a term originally proposed by Lefebvre in the late 1960s and basically means every individual has access and a right to change the city. This term has adapted many different meanings. What is your meaning of the right to the city?
What is your right to the city ?
This entry was posted in 4/09 - Planning and the Right to the City (Week 9). Bookmark the permalink.
Ideally it is easy to agree with Anderson and her dreams of citizens having a right to their city through different social initiatives, but (as she frequently points out) it is not a simple notion.
In a city such as NYC where there is so many people, allowing all it’s denizens to have a right to the city is especially tough. As Purcell notes, the more inhabitants a city has, the less power people (especially those less economically fortunate) have, which in turn makes bringing about change even more difficult. And in light of last weeks mayoral election scandal in which officials were quoted saying city politics is all about money, the ‘right to the city’ is evidently even less of a reality than we believe it is.
My meaning of right to the city would include such things allowing anyone that can prove they live in the city to be able to vote, despite citizenship or legal standing. New York is the center of the world, and therefore all the different peoples should have a voice, no matter how soft it is. Also, inhabitants of different neighborhoods should also be able to come together through some forum to bring about initiatives and ideas on the most local level, allowing these city wide voices to be louder in a smaller setting.
While I realize that it is close to impossible for everyone to feel like they have a right to the city, I would hope that there is not a collective of people with a substantially larger ‘right to the city’ than others. The reading mentions the growing inequality gap, and if we are to make all of our citizens feel important, we must be weary of the phrase ‘money is power’ to make sure that this saying does not become an extreme reality.
Nadia Anderson’s “Social Infrastructure as a Means to Achieve the Right to the City” clearly endorses Henri Lefebvre original definition of the “right to the city.” Both Anderson and Lefebvre’s idea of the “right to the city” emphasizes the relationships and social interactions that arise from the city, and not just the infrastructure of the city itself. Planning a city requires looking at places as “systems rather than objects” because people are interactive creatures, and the relationships that they create within the space of cities ultimately defines the city itself. The mistake that many designers make in planning the city is accentuating only individual “objects” or “buildings” of the city and failing to looking at the city as a whole, as a place for communication and a platform for interaction. Another important characteristic of a city is its ability to create “opportunities for different types of people to interact in a variety of spaces.” A lot of times, neighborhoods in cities are separated by socioeconomic classes, which can fuel “a desire to avoid, rather than engage with those who live on the other side…separating us from them,” as mentioned in “Strategies for Empowering Cities.” City planning can significantly contribute to this segregation if it only emphasizes on businesses and corporations, further marginalizing minority groups, and denying them the “right to the city.” In addition to looking at the city as a whole, I agree with Anderson and Lefebvre in that “participation in decision-making regarding the space of the city and the ability to appropriate this space are critical components to achieving the right to the city.” Since a city’s inhabitants are the ones living in the city, it follows that everyone should have a say in the decision-making of planning of it, thereby giving a voice to even the ones that are disenfranchised. The ability to appropriate the space of all the city’s inhabitants will also shape the city in a way that would reflect and include all of its occupants, not just the privileged. I believe that the inclusion of all city residents in the decision-making of the city will lead to endless imagination and creativity because of the diversity of opinions and viewpoints, thus defining the “right to the city.” To me, the “right to the city” is a city where no one gets left behind, and everyone’s point of view is regarded as worthy of examination.
The “right to city” can be interpreted differently by everyone. I personally believe that the “right to city” means that every resident of a particular city has the right to change the city as he sees fit. In such a large city, it will be hard to satisfy all the residents. Since there are so many people, the city is much less likely to change. It is still important to know that the people still have this power. New York City belongs to everyone who lives there and everyone should definitely have some sort of say in issues related to the city. Just as a citizen of the United States has the right to elect his government, more or less, a resident of a city should have the right to vote on changes being made to his city. Sometimes decisions have to be made against someone’s will as no decision will ever be able to satisfy every single resident. Having this right is important for people to feel that the city is truly theirs and they can take a small part in the many things that changes the constantly growing city they reside in.
Ideally, “right to the city” should be an equal opportunity for all people in a city including tourists and visitors. Space should be used to accomodate as many people as possible without always conforming to the majority opinion. Niche interests should also be considered when planning a city’s infrastructure to appeal to a broad and diverse population. The most important part of everyone’s right to the city, in my opinion, are the “holes and chasms that exist between the planned formal structures.” This idea embraced by Lefebvre but rejected by Van Eyck help shape the atmosphere of the city and encourage and active participation from the people to create an environment that they can consider their own. For example, a small patch of land might not have any commercial value or any specific purpose in general, unlike a skate park or similar installations, but people could have picnics there, play baseball, walk their dog, etc… Empty land is molded mentally by each person who goes there, establishing a certain atmosphere, without physically changing anything. These quiet oasi surrounded by the urban jungle are necessary refuges from the hustle and bustle of city life. For a few hours a day, each individual can walk through a park and have a unique and relaxing experience away from the usual city atmosphere.