Who has the right to the city?
"The democratization of the right to the city and the construction of a broad social movement to enforce its will is imperative, if the dispossessed are to take back control of the city from which they have for so long been excluded and if new modes of controlling capital surpluses as they work through urbanization processes are to be instituted."
The Right to the City by David Harvey
Who has the right to the city?
I would argue the people who live there. The people who are part of the city have a right to the city they live in.
David Harvey brings up some good points in explaining the gap between the rich and the poor, those with power and those without. This is something that has to be addressed within any city. How do you choose to treat the poor? Are they given opportunities for development even if they don't have the monetary means to do so themselves?
However I greatly disagree with David Harvey's position and reasoning. David Harvey villainizes capitalism as being the ultimate evil. They way he writes this article is from a very obvious political agenda. He blames capitalism for every disparity between the marginalized and the powerful. I would largely disagree with this position. In his own writing he mentions that:
"There are, of course, multitudes of diverse social movements focusing on the urban question already in existence - from India and Brazil, Spain, Argentina and the Untied States ..."
The problem is not just in capitalistic societies. The problem is people and how they manage power in any particular government system. Let us not be blame a system over the responsibility of individual people.
Great post! I agree with you. People should take responsibility for their actions and not fall into blaming their regime when is most convenient to them. I am not arguing for Anarchism for sure, but if the people have the right to their city then they should not only take ownership but responsibility for it. Yes, politics plays a HUGE role in it but it is not the only factor. People are different, people are good and bad, people are right and wrong. This is hard to design for and in my view, there is no perfect solution, yet, we've been proven again and again how some solutions are worse than others.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing I would add is that as an outsider I should have the right to visit the city but not have the same influence that people have that live there to change it. This is a biiiiiiig thing to say because it gets into power and influence and who should or should not have it without discriminating. So, if you were from there and then you leave, then where do you stand? If you work but don't live there, then how much influence should you have? What if you want to move there to retire? I mean.... I get that, and I don't know how that looks like but in the end whoever does, should take responsibility for it.
DeleteI agree with Elisa: there is no perfect solution because the issue is not with just one system, but rather a collection of issues that extend very deep into the inherently flawed nature of the human race...but, in some ways, that is an entirely different discussion.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with your post. I think the people should have the right to their city. I think they should be included in discussions about what is happening in their city and future plans for the city. That way they can have their voice heard by the people in charge... I understand that the people in power may disregard the poor's voice because its all about making money but in an ideal world I think this could be a step taken to at least try to incorporate the people of the city.
ReplyDeleteI love how this relates to our past topics especially architecture for the whom. The community has a role and should directly affect the outcome that they will live in, that they will experience, that they will generate an identity from. Humans in general are flawed as madison said but how do you filter out the toxiCITY to bring forward the best collective solution?
ReplyDeleteFollow Up to Toxicity. Many people live somewhere between the sacred silences, sleep and death. We allow our lives to flow by in a fog of ignorance of the true potential as THE people of a city and the beautiful world. It's about pride and passion.
DeleteRegarding the beginning of your post, local governments ought to invest in more equity within its communities. By lifting up those who have historically been underprivileged, and unable to catalyze change, our governments do have the power to make an even playing field for all. If they continue to strive for equitable participation then real social change can manifest.
ReplyDeleteIs there ever point of no return though? Should we continually devote resources to people who are not a product of life circumstances, but more from life choices? Sure we have a moral obligation to help our neighbor if we have the ability, but does this apply to extreme cases too?
DeleteI think it's not about playing with the labels or -isms. I agree that it's the people of each city who are responsible for their fate and their city social, economical and political status. But the issue is when they are deprived of their right or when they don't have enough power to change their conditions.
ReplyDeleteI agree to an extent. In a vacuum, capitalism is a good force that promotes innovation and progress. Where I think that I side more with Harvey is in the aspect of development that really bothers me. In our system, it's possible for an out of town developer to buy a piece of property, building something horrible, sell it, and leave town. To your point, who has the right to the city? The people that live there? What about the people that are simply benefiting from the economics of a city without living there without respect to the culture and future of the city? Because those people don't live there.
ReplyDeleteBut it's true communities don't usually have the financing or the organization to make the improvements themselves.
I see the only ways to solve these problems is to promote cooperatives that are run my communities that control developments, or give the power to governments to regulate the construction.
I totally agree that the people that live in the city should be making the decisions. But they have to be empowered to do so in one way or another. And sometimes this doesn't align with a pure capitalist system.
I agree with your post. Individual people who are living in the city should have the right to decisions made within the city they are in. This should be avoid of whether they are rich or poor. The big question is, how do you include those who cannot contribute monetarily? Perhaps the main way to include them would be to have their involvement surrounded by information forums or something like that?
ReplyDelete