The End of the Right to the City: A Radical-Cooperative View

Abstract

Is the Right to the City (RTTC) still a useful framework for a transformative urban politics? Given recent scholarly criticism of its real-world applications and appropriations, in this paper, we argue that the transformative promise in the RTTC lies beyond its role as a framework for oppositional struggle, and in its normative ends. Building upon Henri Lefebvre's original writing on the subject, we develop a “radical-cooperative” conception of the RTTC. Such a view, which is grounded in the lived experiences of the current city, envisions an urban society in which inhabitants can pursue their material and social needs through self-governed cooperation across social difference. Growing and diversifying spaces and sectors of urban life that are decoupled from global capitalism are, we argue, necessary to create space for this inclusionary politics. While grassroots action is essential to this process, so is multi-scalar support from the state.

An Introduction to Volume 59, Issue 1: Progressive Cities, Voters and their Elected Officials, Privatized Services, Neighbors and Neighborhoods, and Housing

“…101–102). The procedures and practices she includes in this definition – local government activism and active citizenship – are vaguely suggestive of Althorpe and Horak's (2023) argument for a reconceptualization of the “right to the city” (RTTC) as one attained by “self-governed cooperation across social difference” (pp. 15–16).…”

“…While Restrepo-Mieth focuses on the institutional dynamics – what she calls “institutional compounding” – by which one progressive goal in one city was achieved, Althorpe and Horak (2023) focus not on goals or outcomes but rather on the potential for unique forms of community and collective action that might arise from uniquely urban characteristics, namely the proximity and heterogeneity of city residents. In doing so they connect their discussion of the RTTC to the decidedly non-radical tradition of urban studies stretching back to the Chicago School.…”

Hello! A Letter from the New Editors

“…Most recently, in one of the UAR articles included in this issue, Althorpe and Horak (2023) describe how a Lefebvrian “right to the city” (RTTC) embodies key elements of “the urban”:Drawing on sociology and social theory, we suggest that despite the prevalence of inequality, hierarchy, and domination in contemporary cities, urban spaces—marked by the coincidence of social difference and physical closeness—can be a fertile ground for complex cooperation among inhabitants. The foundations for the positive vision of social cooperation across difference that underpins the RTTC, we argue, are found in the ubiquitous small-scale practices of cooperation that exist even in the highly unequal cities of today.…”

“…(p.32) Twenty years later, UAQ editor Albert Hunter continued the conversation, arguing that cities are physical constructions… representations of the institutionalized values and power by which people organize their collective existence; and …artifacts in the true sense that they are socially constructed by people and therefore hold the promising potential of being subject to conscious manipulation, alteration, planning and control… things are urban to the degree that these characteristics of cities are seen as critical independent or dependent variables, as causes or consequences in theoretical explanations of modern social life. (Hunter 1985, 7) Most recently, in one of the UAR articles included in this issue, Althorpe and Horak (2023) describe how a Lefebvrian "right to the city" (RTTC) embodies key elements of "the urban":…”

“…Ideology is embedded in even the most "scientific" empirical studies, and ideological bubbles should be left to social media. For example, scholars who study local elections in the tradition of the early Progressives should be able to understand the work of scholars using frameworks such as assemblages, planetary urbanization, or, in the case of Althorpe and Horak (2023), "right to the city." UAR should be a place where conversations and cross-fertilization across perspectives and frameworks can occur.…”