The Right to the City: Implications for Architecture

by

Graeme Bristol, MAIBC, MRAIC

Centre for Architecture & Human Rights

231/2 South Sathorn Road,

Yannawa, Sathorn,

Bangkok 10120

THAILAND

mobile phone (Bangkok): 089-1617283

glbristol@gmail.com

www.architecture-humanrights.org

Abstract: Does the right to the city mean anything? Why should such a distinction be made? In addressing

these preliminary questions it is important to look at the facts of the urbanization of the planet and what

that means to those who form that movement to the city. The current draft Charter on the Right to the City

is still in its early stages, but has come from a history of urban struggle, particularly for marginalized groups.

There are implications to such a Charter in our access to the spaces and services of the city. There are also

implications for way we plan city policy and design city infrastructure. If and when such a Charter reaches

a broad level of acceptance there will be implications for the practices of architecture and engineering

and, one might expect, the laws that govern the design professions. This paper will look first at the history

leading to the Charter and then the implications of the Charter on the planning and design of cities.

Black day in July

The streets of motor city now are quiet and serene

But the shapes of gutted buildings

Strike terror to the heart

And you say how did it happen

And you say how did it start

Why cant we all be brothers

Why cant we live in peace

But the hands of the have-nots

Keep falling out of reach

Black Day in July, Gordon Lightfoot, 1968

1 INTRODUCTION

In August of 1965, the Watts suburb of Los Angeles

erupted with violent riots that resulted in 37 deaths,

hundreds injured and millions of dollars of property

damage. It was a far cry from King’s march on

Washington only two summers before. King’s dream

would be deferred once again as riots ensued in

Chicago the following summer, in Newark and Detroit

in 1967 and in many cities across the United States in

1968 after King was assassinated at the age of 39 in

Graeme Bristol 12 JAN 07

The Right to the City: Implications for Architecture

2

Memphis. The rest of America – white America – was shocked at the extent of violence and

destruction. Why?

As the fires were burning in Detroit, in July of 1967 President Johnson established the National

Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (The Kerner Report)1 to determine what happened, its

causes and what measures might be taken to end this urban violence. After much research on

the part of the Commission and many academics subsequently, some of the responses to that

question, ‘Why?’, were:

Police brutality

Political exclusion

poverty

unemployment

housing

Urban renewal

One implication of this list is that the ‘civil rights’ movement was about more than civil rights –

most of this list is concerned with social and economic rights. A quote in a Time magazine article

of 27 August 1965 makes this clear:

“A Southern Negro woman who moved to Los Angeles' Watts district scoffs: "I

always been votin' since I got here. But what has it got me?"”2

Having the right to vote had little effect on access to the services and spaces of the city. It had

little effect on urban land economics or on business investment in a neighbourhood.

Another point that should be made about this list is that the last two items on it relate directly to

architecture, urban planning and design – one of the concerns of this paper.

The fall before the Watts riots, in Berkeley, the

demonstrations organized by the Free Speech

Movement came to a head. These

demonstrations, though quite different in

character and intent, were about more than

Graeme Bristol 12 JAN 07

The Right to the City: Implications for Architecture

3

free speech; they were about the appropriation of space for speech (Mitchell, 2003:82).

Both demonstrations and riots continued through the sixties, not only in the United States but

around the world – including the student strike in Paris in 19683 and the student democracy

movement in Thailand in 1973.

More recently, and particularly since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York

and the Pentagon in Washington, the contested use of space in the city, the purposes that are

considered appropriate, and the control of space are all increasingly the concern of all urban

citizens whether they are defenders of rights or defenders of authority and order4. That control is

exercised through policy, through force, and through design.

In these conflicts, there are two fundamental issues and fundamental frustrations:

Control – who controls the use of space of the city? This tends to be the arena of

demonstrations and the right to use space for dissent

Access – who is excluded from the access to the services and spaces of the city? The

inadequacy of access or the outright exclusion from the services, spaces and economy of

the city can erupt in violent frustration.

In understanding these frustrations, it is important to note that the city is an artificial construct.

Everything in it is our creation. We make our cities in our own image. David Harvey points out:

The right to the city is not merely a right of access to what already exists, but a

right to change it after our heart's desire. We need to be sure we can live with

our own creations (a problem for every planner, architect and utopian thinker).

But the right to remake ourselves by creating a qualitatively different kind of

urban sociality is one of the most precious of all human rights. (Harvey,

2003:939)

That right is being frustrated in many ways – one of which is by acts of design.

It is here that architecture, planning and engineering can frustrate rights. It was during this period

of foment in cities around the world that the American Institute of Architects in 1968 invited

Graeme Bristol 12 JAN 07

The Right to the City: Implications for Architecture

4

Whitney Young Jr. , the president of the National Urban League5, to speak to their membership at

the AIA annual convention. The architects of America wanted an answer to that question – Why

are they burning up our cities? Young’s address, no doubt, gave some pause to the audience of

professionals responsible for the cities of America. He said,

". . . you are not a profession that has distinguished itself by your social and civic

contributions to the cause of civil rights, and I am sure this does not come to

you as any shock. You are most distinguished by your thunderous silence and

your complete irrelevance.

(Young, 1968:47)

The post war urban renewal schemes and the Corbusian6 dreams of the modern movement

were taking their toll. While the architects of America were designing more award-winning

projects like Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis (see Figures 5 & 6) – a set of tower blocks that won awards for

the designer in 1952 and were demolished as being unfit for human habitation in 1972 – that

were destroying existing urban communities throughout American cities, those very communities

were beginning to resist this kind of development. There was a growing link between what

architects were designing and the frustrations of urban communities; a link that related directly

to the abuse of their rights. At that time, students, community organizers, the poor, black, and

other vulnerable groups in cities across the country and around the world were finding their

voices on the streets through people like Young, Martin Luther King, Mario Savio, Daniel Cohn-

Bendit and a host of others. The streets, the plazas, the buildings designed by engineers, planners

and architects had now become the spaces of dissent.

In this paper I want to look briefly at the draft of the Charter on the Right to the City and how it

deals with some of these issues, how such a charter expands on existing rights as described in the

Universal Declaration or the Declaration on the Right to Development, and what implications

such a document might have for the practice of architecture. In doing that, I will first look at

some broad statistics about urban growth in order to argue that the city is the global focus of

development. I will then look at a case study of a community in Bangkok to put a human face

on some of these development forces. In that context the contents of the Charter and its value

can be better defined. As with any document, it is in its application that meaning is given, and

to that end, I will look briefly at some of the implications of the Charter on the practice and

process of designing our cities.

Graeme Bristol 12 JAN 07

The Right to the City: Implications for Architecture

5

Graeme Bristol 12 JAN 07

The Right to the City: Implications for Architecture

6

2 URBANIZATION

Why are cities so important that they should merit a special charter? Why should there be a right

to the city? To address those questions, it is important to see the city, as Harvey points out

above, as entirely human. It is an artificial construct and a collective vision. We make and

remake it. There are two important characteristics that arise in that human fabrication: the

economy of the city and the related process of urbanization.

Urban economy – Like the paperless office, we thought at one time that the city might wither

away. As we thrived in the new cyberspace, the need for real space (office buildings, roads,

parks) would be relegated to history. More and more people in the west were choosing

telecommuting to sitting in a car for hours on end to get to and from the office. Who needs an

office building downtown? Land is too expensive and so is the building. Clearly, though, the city

has not withered away. The urban economy drives the nation-state and they also drive the

global economy (Sassen, 2000:5). The NASA image of the earth at night7 clearly shows where this

economic activity is taking place – the megalopolis or mega-city.

“These regions are home to just 10 percent of total world population, 660 million

people, but produce half of all economic activity, two thirds of world-class

scientific activity and three quarters of global innovations.” (Florida, 2006)

In such economic centres there is also far greater increased inequality. This is borne out by the

following statistical nightmare: there is a growing gap between the rich and the poor. Twenty-

percent of the world’s population consumes 85% of its goods and resources. “There are still 1.2

billion people living in abject poverty on less than $1 a day – 65 percent of them in Asia and 25

percent in Africa, where most live on less than 60 cents a day.” (Rischard, 2002:89-90) Over the

next 25 years the population is expected to increase from 6 to 8 billion with 95% being born in the

developing world, and, as noted above, most will be living in slums and surviving in the informal

economy (Sassen, 2000:124), not the global economy. At the same time, that disparity is a key

factor in the gentrification of the city – a development pressure that pushes the poor to the

periphery of the city and away from its services, jobs, history and community.

Urbanization – People continue to move to cities, in part because of there are greater economic

opportunities there. As they do

Graeme Bristol 12 JAN 07

The Right to the City: Implications for Architecture

7

Urbanization of the planet now stands at about 50% of the population, with North

American, Europe and Latin American at about 75% and Africa and Asia at about 40%.

In the next 25 years it is estimated that African and Asian countries will reach over 50%

urbanized population. (UNCHS, 2003)

A second and related fact is that one-sixth of the planet’s population currently lives in

slums. It is estimated that if nothing is done that population will double in the next 25

years. (UNCHS, 2003)

These facts and the projections from them will have a profound effect on our cities, particularly in

Asia and Africa. Rapid urbanization, mainly by the poor, and the doubling of slums to

accommodate this population growth result in our cities being designed, in effect, by the poor.

As a result, many rights outlined in existing UN documents will be obstructed and there will be

other issues arising that are not dealt with in those documents. The following case study on one

community in Bangkok exposes some of these issues.

3 POM MAHAKAN – a case study8

In November of 2002, 7 students from

the architecture program of King

Mongkut's University of Technology

Thonburi began working with a small

community at Pom Mahakan. For

the last 150 years, this community

had been living between the old

wall of the city and the canal, nearly

as long as the ancient wall itself had

been there.

The students spent the first month of

the four-month studio gathering

data and talking with/interviewing the people in the community. In the second month they

consolidated this data into a preliminary program from which they developed a series of

Figure 3 - The old fort with attached city wall. The Golden Mount, a

major tourist attraction in Bangkok, is beyond the trees amongst

which the Pom Mahakan community lives.

Graeme Bristol 12 JAN 07

The Right to the City: Implications for Architecture

8

proposals that met the programme. These proposals were intended to promote discussion rather

than to present plans.

This first major presentation was set for Saturday, January 25th, 2003. We learned as we arrived in

the community around 5 that afternoon, that every family in the community had been served

Thursday afternoon with eviction notices by the Bangkok Metro Administration (BMA).

In the belief that it would improve tourism, BMA had developed a Master Plan for Rattanakosin

Island (the old original settlement of Bangkok). Based on that plan the city planners were going

to initiate its implementation by building a formal park in this area opposite Wat Saket (The

Golden Mount). As a result, according to the BMA park design, the housing had to go.

Despite the bad news, the students made their presentation to the community and continued to

get their feedback on the possibilities for the community. One of the central points of discussion,

though, concerned their prospects. It was here that the community expressed the need to make

use of the students' design as a negotiating tool. Clearly, the typical product that the students

produce at the end of this process - a feasibility study identifying projects, phasing and costs -

would have to change. The report would now have to be an argument for the community's

continued existence.

In order to develop a convincing argument the students not only had to devise an alternative

plan for the community and the park but also a rationale for that alternative. In general this

involved a number of urban development issues:

1. History – an understanding of how we view history and historical preservation. Is it

artefacts alone or people? What is the value of vernacular culture and history?

2. Development – an understanding of the process of development (how decisions are

made, who makes them?)

3. Development costs – an understanding of who benefits from development and who pays.

Are these people being evicted simply for tourism? In the expropriation of land for the

purpose of carving out more park space for the city, the poor are always the first

affected.

4. Parks and open space – an understanding of the use of urban parks and how they work

(pre- and post Jane Jacobs)

Graeme Bristol 12 JAN 07

The Right to the City: Implications for Architecture

9

5. Green/Brown issues – ways in which we resolve the basic conflict between green and

brown issues (parks or housing). Must we make this kind of choice?

6. Public/private – the use of space for public vs. private purposes. In this case, the proposal

for private space within the proposed public space of a park. This extends to the use of

streets for economic activity. For example, many of the residents in Pom Mahakan were

street vendors.

7. Sustainability – an understanding of the concept of sustainability (particularly as it relates

to issues of equity)

8. Rights – an understanding of human rights and the right to the city.

9. Conflict – the means by which conflict can be avoided in the development process.

10. Development forces – the effects of gentrification on community economic

development. Does the community have the right to be part of overall economic

development in the city? If so, how?

11. Public Good – who defines the public good? BMA claimed that it is part of their mandate

and that of the elected Governor of the city. The community, academics and NGOs

claimed that the public good was better served by the continued existence of the

community and its history.

The project moved well beyond the infrastructure needs of the community and into the broader

issues of urban development. Any plan that the students developed with the community would

have to respond directly to the BMA proposal. While these architectural efforts continued,

academics and NGOs were involved in many different ways in making legal, social, and

anthropological arguments for the community. This led to a submission to the National Human

Rights Commission on 04 MAR 03.

Representatives of BMA, the Governor's office, and the National Housing Authority were there to

present their interests. On the other side of the table, CODI9 , the Pom Mahakan community

leaders and the KMUTT students presented their argument. Central to that argument was

the plan that the students and community had devised. After nearly 2 hours of presentations

and arguments, the community persuaded the NHRC that the eviction would violate the rights of

the community. While the process was far from over, it was clear that the plan,

legitimized by the participatory process through which it was developed, was an integral part of

the argument. Law, then, was not the only issue through which human rights could be

supported. It was clear that design itself can provide an effective argument against eviction.

Graeme Bristol 12 JAN 07

The Right to the City: Implications for Architecture

10

It was also clear that this experience related directly to the UN Habitat Agenda and to a number

of the UN documents on human rights.

4 HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENT

In addition to the fact that the Pom Mahakan community itself saw a link to human rights – after

all, they took their case to the National Human Rights Commission and, with the help of the

Centre On Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE10), took it to the UN High Commission for Human

Rights in Geneva – their story highlights a number of connections to the UN international law and

policy on human rights. Among the documents affecting this process were the Declaration on

the Right to Development (DRD), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

Participation (DRD 2.3, 8.2) – “free and meaningful participation in development and in

the fair distribution of the benefits resulting therefrom.”

Self-determination (DRD 1.2) – “right to full sovereignty over all their natural wealth and

resources.”

Expression (CRC 13.1, 31.2) – freedom of expression in any media

Information (CRC 17) – cooperation in the production and exchange of information

Education (CRC 28, 29) – “access to scientific and technical knowledge”

Standard of living (UDHR 25.1) – “right to a standard of living adequate for the health and

well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical

care and necessary social services . . .”

Much of what we see above here relates directly to citizenship and democracy, but it can and

should also relate to the way we practice architecture. These words are not abstractions. They

have meaning on the ground, in communities. Looking briefly at two of these rights –

participation and expression – one can see that these words are played out in a series of

decisions and actions.

Participation: The entire process is intended to support the right to ‘free and meaningful

participation in development’. Clearly, as with any community process, there are problems

that obstruct both free and meaningful participation.

Graeme Bristol 12 JAN 07

The Right to the City: Implications for Architecture

11

The dynamics of the community itself – who talks in public and who doesn’t. Who has

control, underlying frictions, the framing of the community’s story, conflicting goals

and so on.

The ability to engage – often this has to do with a sense of misplaced status that

comes from the process of professionalization. In other words, ‘We’re the architects

and we know what’s good for you’. There are many reasons why this attitude

develops and it is difficult to erase. In addition to that sense of privilege, though,

there is this sense of ‘problem-solving’ that makes architects and students alike jump

to conclusions about what is needed. Often architects will jump to these conclusions

without even listening to what people are actually trying to say, and hence, solving

problems that aren’t there, solving problems that cannot be solved by design, and so

on.

Understanding/defining the problem: “Don’t ask, ‘What’s the problem?’ Ask, ‘What’s

the story?’ – That way you’ll find out what the problem really is.” (Forester, 1999:19) –

Related to the problem above is simply hearing and interpreting the stories that

people tell. Students and professionals alike will tend to hurry over stories to get to

what they think of as the real issues of planning and design. In so doing, they often

miss the heart of the matter. In John Lennon’s words, ‘Life is what happens while

we’re busy making other plans.’ (Beautiful Boy, 1980). Sometimes we skip over the

matter in our hurry to get to the plans. In doing that, meaningful participation is lost in

another agenda.

Further, the means of participation for communities is not often through the jargon

and tools of planning, but rather through stories. By circumventing the stories, the

process itself is framed in terms of the tools that professionals use – and the

community is unable to use.

For meaningful and free participation to be realized as a right in the development process,

the design professions (the duty-bearers in this case) need to rethink their work in much the

same way that they have started to in their response to environmental issues. Since

architects and planners are directly involved in ‘development’ they have a responsibility to

devise processes that allow for that meaningful participation and fair distribution. This will

require much greater attention to distributive justice and/or protection of the poor in society.

Graeme Bristol 12 JAN 07

The Right to the City: Implications for Architecture

12

Expression: Roger Hart pointed out:

“Only through direct participation can children develop a genuine

appreciation of democracy and a sense of their own competence and

responsibility to participate.” (Hart, 1997:3)

In any community design process – a process that involves thinking about the future of a

community – children must be involved. My concern here is with the development of

personal autonomy, the practice of democracy, the developing understanding of planning

and decision-making in communities, and recognition of the value of their ideas.

In the Pom Mahakan process the children worked alongside the adults and their ideas were

presented along with others. The ongoing problem with this is in interpretation (how are their

ideas presented and how are they included?) and in having these voices heard at all.

Although these UN documents addressed a number of issues outlined in the case study above,

there are others that are more specific to urban development. In recognizing the need to fill

these gaps, the proposed Charter on the Right to the City was developed.

5 THE RIGHT TO THE CITY

Even from the straightforward perspective of the concentration of population, many

development issues occur only with those concentrations – fire, health and safety codes, for

example. In addition, as Henri Lefebvre, put it – echoed by Harvey’s point above – “the city is an

ouvre” (Mitchell, 2003:17). Since the publication of his book, Le droit à la ville in 1968, the

concept of the right to the city has been waiting for conditions to catch up to the idea. Among

many other factors, with the planet’s urban population having now become the majority and

with the global economy being dominated by cities, the right to the city has become a

necessary construct. A few of the key issues that Lefebvre considered in outlining this right were:

The public nature of cities – “places of social interaction and exchange” (Mitchell,

2003:18). This is certainly reflected in Richard Florida’s observations about megacities:

Graeme Bristol 12 JAN 07

The Right to the City: Implications for Architecture

13

“When people cluster in one place, they all become more productive. And the place

itself becomes much more productive, because collective creativity grows exponentially.

Ideas flow more freely, are honed more sharply and can be put into practice more

quickly.” (Florida, 2006)

Heterogeneity – “different people with different projects must necessarily struggle with one

another over the shape of the city, the terms of access to the public realm, and even the

rights of citizenship.” (Mitchell, 2003:18)

Appropriation – the right to use the spaces of the city – its “use-value that is the necessary

bedrock of urban life would finally be wrenched free from its domination by exchange-

value” (Mitchell, 2003:19). Space must be appropriated for use11.

These ideas are reflected in the draft World Charter on the Right to the City (WCRC). The initial

proposal was presented at the World Social Forum of 2002 in Porto Alegre. The draft now

circulating was agreed upon at the Barcelona WSF in 2005. That same year, UNESCO and UN-

Habitat signed a Memorandum of Understanding to collaborate further with meetings and

research on this issue12.

The Charter itself has 23 Articles some of which are similar to those in the DRD, the UDHR and

other documents, such as the right to education, work, participation, and non-discrimination.

Some, such as Article XIV (The Right to Housing) and Article XVIII (The Right to Health), expand on

rights identified elsewhere. There are a number of other articles, though, that do not appear in

the DRD. These articles address the question of the need for the document.

The Preamble echoes Lefebvre:

“ . . .the respect for different urban cultures . . .”

“The core element of this right is the equitable usufruct of the cities . . .”

It is the use-value that is the fundamental concern here. That use-value is for all citizens –

defined in the text as “all persons who live in the city either permanently or in transit” (Art. 1.5). In

the context of the Pom Mahakan conflict, this would include both Thai and foreign tourists.

Graeme Bristol 12 JAN 07

The Right to the City: Implications for Architecture

14

However, another point of concern raised by the drafters of the Charter concerned the

‘merchandizing’ of the city. The Charter,

“denies the “merchandise” concept of cities, in which people who do not have

power, possessions or properties are segregated.”13

The BMA approach to planning, then – proposing a master plan motivated by the

merchandising of Rattanakosin to tourists – cannot be done in this framework. It has

also been argued, by academics involved with the Pom Mahakan struggle and by the

community itself, that that ‘merchandising’ approach to planning wouldn’t actually

work for tourists in any case. In any case, neither group of citizens – the community or

tourists – were given the opportunity to participate in that planning process, yet

another infringement of their rights, outlined in Art. 2.1, as well as CERD14 (5.e.vi),

CEDAW15 (11.1.c), DRD16 (2.3, 8.2), CRC17 (23.1).

Other important distinctions in the WCRC:

Article 2.3, “The Social Function of the City” – This concerns the “fair use of both urban

space and land”, an issue that arose quite clearly in the early days of the Free Speech

Movement in Berkeley and extended to the conflict there over People’s Park. Of

course, this raises the question of who determines what is fair. In the case of Pom

Mahakan, in the hearing before the National Human Rights Commission, the city

representatives made it clear that that determination was part of their legal duty.

Where there was disagreement was not only in respect to who decides what is fair (in

this case it fell to the Chairman of the NHRC), but with respect to the participation in

the decision-making process. Beyond the notion, of fair use, though there is the priority

that is set in this clause for the ‘social, cultural and environmental interest’. Again, the

concern on the ground in the Pom case was who defines these terms. The community

was trying to preserve its own history and culture – a vernacular culture – against the

city’s definition of culture as temples and palaces – an official culture, indeed an

official culture for sale to tourists.

Article 2.7, “The Private Sector’s Social Undertaking” – “The cities shall ensure that the

economic private agents participate in social programs and economic enterprises for

Graeme Bristol 12 JAN 07

The Right to the City: Implications for Architecture

15

the purpose of developing solidarity and equality amongst the inhabitants.” This is an

important recognition that the private sector – the prime mover of the economy of the

city – must be seen as a partner in development. There are few instances where this

has been realized. Private-Public Partnerships18 are not quite what is meant here. The

partnership must be larger than simply private companies and the government.

Article 3.1, “Sustainable and Equitable Urban Development” – “guaranteeing the

balance between urban development and the protection of the environment and the

cultural, historical, architectural and artistic heritage, as well as preventing segregation

and territorial exclusion.” The concern here for heritage is reflected in the Habitat

Agenda19, but there is no mention of it in the DRD. Again, it is important to determine

who defines that culture. This clause goes on to state: “cities shall undertake to adapt

measures of urban development, in especially the recuperation of precarious or

marginalized settlements in order to create an integrated and equitable city.” While it

doesn’t answer that question directly, the fact that marginalized and vulnerable

communities are a special concern suggests that they, too, help to define that

heritage.

Article 6.1, “Right to Public Information” – “the right to request and to receive

complete, correct, adequate and timely information . . .”. Meaningful participation

can only occur where all parties have adequate information. Certainly in the case of

the Rattanakosin Master Plan, the city was not forthcoming with information. This lack

of information applied not only to the poor living in the area but to all residents and

workers in the area. Nobody had any part in the development of the plan and none

had any information about it until it was revealed, complete, to the press. It was out of

this need for public information that such organizations as the Urban Resources

Centre20 in Karachi developed. The access to information is critical not only to

meaningful participation, but to security of tenure.

Article 12.1, “Access to And Supply of Domestic and Urban Public Services” – “the right

to access to supplies of drinking water21, electric power, light and heating, health

hospitals, schools, garbage disposal, sanitation facilities, telecommunication . . .” Often

city officials will deny access to services such as electricity, water, and sewers to

squatter communities. It is seen to legitimize their presence. Without access to that

Graeme Bristol 12 JAN 07

The Right to the City: Implications for Architecture

16

supply, illegal settlements are left with having water trucked in by private vendors at

many times the cost that legal settlements would pay.

All of these Articles are critical to urban development and, with the exception of their mention in

the Habitat Agenda and the Millennium Development Goals, they do not appear in any of the

international legal documents of the UN. That alone, makes the development of this Charter

important. In addition, though, from the perspective of those involved in the processes of urban

development – architects, engineers and planners – the Charter has some important

implications.

6 SOME IMPLICATIONS FOR ARCHITECTURE

The Modern Movement in architecture,

flowering in the period between the two world

wars with such figures as Mies van der Rohe,

Walter Gropius and Le Corbusier, brought with

it a stated concern for the conditions faced

by the proletarian worker, both in the

workplace and at home. They were

enamoured of the modern machine, the

factory and the purity of industrial form. These

ideas were exemplified by Le Corbusier’s

description of the modern house as a

‘machine for living in’. It also reflected in their

approach to the European city. Paris, according to Le Corbusier, was an irrational medieval city

and needed to be set in order. These ideas were presented in his book, The City of Tomorrow,

published in 1925. There were many captivating sketches of this utopian city. They were so

captivating, indeed, that they began to build these ideas, with a particular enthusiasm after the

Second World War. One such development, Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis in the US, was given an

architectural award for innovative design in 1952. What happened in the following 20 years tells

a story about architecture and its failure to respond to people, to listen, as Forester puts it, to their

stories.

Graeme Bristol 12 JAN 07

The Right to the City: Implications for Architecture

17

The only story here with which the architect was concerned was the execution of that grand

ideological vision of Le Corbusier. As Jane Jacobs put it in 1961, in her landmark book, The Death

and Life of Great American Cities:

“That such wonders may be accomplished, people who get marked with the

planners’ hex signs are pushed about, expropriated, and uprooted much as if they

were the subjects of a conquering power. Thousands upon thousands of small

businesses are destroyed, and their proprietors ruined, with hardly a gesture at

compensation. Whole communities are torn apart and sown to the winds, with a

reaping cynicism, resentment and despair that must be heard and seen to be

believed.” (Jacobs, 1992:5)

Architecture has often been the vehicle for despair, not dignity. It has been so, I would submit,

because it has failed to understand the implications of their design on the rights of people

affected by it. I point out only two examples: participation and self-determination.

1. Participation (WCRC, 2.1, 3.1) – Since the mid-sixties individuals and communities have been

expanding their demands for more involvement in the development affecting them. While

this is also a political (and often legal22) issue about democracy and the responsibilities of

citizenship, here I want to emphasize that it is also psychosocial issue of autonomy/self-

determination. In part this is about the exercise of control over one’s environment and as

such about empowerment and the way that communities define themselves.

Figures 5 & 6 - Pruitt-Igoe in 1952 and in 1972

Graeme Bristol 12 JAN 07

The Right to the City: Implications for Architecture

18

Implications for architecture: As a result of the protests and riots of the 60s, urban

development in the West has become virtually impossible without evidence of the

participation of affected communities. Funding agencies such as the World Bank will

demand evidence of participatory processes before any work begins on their loan-funded

projects. In part this demand arises out of hard experience. As Stiglitz points out, “broadly

participatory processes (such as ‘voice’, openness, and transparency) promote truly

successful long-term development.” (Stiglitz, 2002:164)

Participation emphasizes process over outcomes (product). As a result conflicts can arise

between the requirements of that process and the formal intentions of the architect (the

‘design-by-committee’ problem). Architects have been trained to emphasize the product

(and aesthetic judgment) over the process. In doing this they effectively marginalize the

profession from these central issues of rights and democracy. When that occurs,

development will often be in a fundamental conflict with rights – with the results described

by Jacobs above.

2. Self-determination (WCRC 2.4) – I see two ways in which self-determination is supported:

through changes in governance and through changes in organizations. With the latter,

there is a move from hierarchies to networks. This affects both information and structures of

organizations. Information moves too slowly (if at all) through to the top of hierarchical

organizations and the response to rapidly changing circumstances is equally slow. “In those

flatter, more network-like organizations, people won’t be merely information transmitters –

they will be empowered assets, acting independently.” (Rischard, 2002:43) Again, being

focused on an end product to the exclusion of the process, architects necessarily end up

favouring hierarchical systems. Their contractual obligations to their clients also reinforce

those hierarchical systems.

Implications: City planning must become more dynamic and responsive to the multiplicity of

needs from a wide variety of actors.

“[I]n most cases it would be a waste of resources to put forward a masterplan.

This is certainly the case where rapid urbanization is taking place . . .The days

Graeme Bristol 12 JAN 07

The Right to the City: Implications for Architecture

19

of the ‘Masterplan’ hanging on the wall behind the desk of the proud Mayor

or Governor must be numbered.” (Rowland, 1996:78)

Both the marketplace and the city are too dynamic, layered and nuanced for this kind of

central planning. The plan is necessarily obsolete before it is finished. The Rattanakosin

Master Plan is a case in point here. Though it was ratified more than 5 years ago and the

funding was in place for it, the plan still has not been implemented. The plan came out of

hierarchical structures and it was resisted by a broad network that could expand and

contract as needed – a network that transcended class barriers. Despite the fact that the

top-down structure had all the power, that network of scholars, students, professionals and

community representatives was far more responsive and effective. In this case, the use of

networks was one of the tools that supported and improved the community’s security of

tenure.

How architects and planners define space, culture and history of the city affects the way they

act (design) in the public sphere. In many instances, these professionals render the poor invisible

by defining their history and vernacular culture out of existence and by designing space that

excludes them. Once they are invisible participation becomes, at best, tokenism. That tokenism

has repercussions. Watts, Newark and Detroit explode and eventually the architects of the

nation turn to a civil rights activist to help them understand the problem. As Young pointed out,

they are a big part of the problem of cities. In a world that is rapidly urbanizing, that does not

bode well for the future of stable, peaceful cities. Is the Charter a tonic for that? It seems

doubtful unless there is a greater awareness of the implications of actually implementing these

rights to the city.23 It does, though, raise issues about development that are not raised in other

UN documents on human rights. For that alone, it is important.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

FLORIDA, Richard. “The New Megalopolis”, Newsweek International Edition, July 3-10, 2006 issue,

available online at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13528839/site/newsweek/

FORESTER, John. The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. The

MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass., 1999.

HART, Roger. Children’s Participation: The Theory and Practice of Involving Young Citizens in

Community Development and Environmental Care. London: Earthscan Publications, Ltd.,

1997.

Graeme Bristol 12 JAN 07

The Right to the City: Implications for Architecture

20

HARVEY, David. “The Right to the City”. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,

Vol 27:4, December 2003, pp 939-41.

JACOBS, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books, 1992.

Mitchell, Don. The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space. New York: The

Guilford Press, 2003.

National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (The Kerner Report), 1967.

http://faculty.washington.edu/qtaylor/documents/Kerner%20Report.htm

RISCHARD, J. F. High Noon: Twenty Global Issues, Twenty Years to Solve Them. New York: Basic

Books, 2002.

ROWLAND, Jon. “Being a Partner: educating for planning practice.” Pp 77-86 in HAMDI, Nabeel

(ed.), Educating For Real: The Training of Professionals for Development Practice.” London:

Intermediate Technology Publications, 1996.

SASSEN, Saskia. Cities in a World Economy (Second Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge

Press, 2000.

STIGLITZ, Joseph. “Participation and Development: Perspectives from the Comprehensive

Development Paradigm” pp 163-182 in Review of Development Economics, 6:2, 2002.

Available online at http://www.worldbank.org/participation/extdocs/stiglitz.pdf

UNITED NATIONS CENTRE FOR HUMAN SETTLEMENTS. “Slum Dwellers to Double by 2030: Millennium

Development Goal Could Fall Short” in The Challenge of Slums, 2003. available online at

http://www.unchs.org/mediacentre/presskits.asp

World Charter on the Right to the City (WCRC) available at

http://www.choike.org/nuevo_eng/informes/2243.html or

http://www.env-health.org/IMG/pdf/World_Charter_on_the_Right_to_the_City_-_October_04.pdf

YOUNG, JR., Whitney M. "Man and His Social Conscience". pp. 44-49, AIA Journal, Vol 50:3,

September 1968.

ENDNOTES:

1 See http://faculty.washington.edu/qtaylor/documents/Kerner%20Report.htm

2 from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,828322-1,00.html

3 It was no coincidence that Henri Lebebvre’s book, Le droit à la ville, was published that year.

One of the leaders of the Paris uprising was a former student of Lebebvre’s – Daniel Cohn-Bendit.

4 See Peter Marcuse, “The ‘Threat of Terrorism’ and the Right to the City”, 32 Fordham Urban Law

Journal Vol. 32, pp 767-786, 2004-2005 for the ways in which authorities have responded to the

threat of terrorism in their control over public space.

Graeme Bristol 12 JAN 07

The Right to the City: Implications for Architecture

21

5 The National Urban League (http://www.nul.org/), under Young’s leadership, was one of the

organizers of the 1963 march on Washington that draw some 250,000 people and is remembered

largely for King’s famous ‘I have a dream’ speech.

6 Le Corbusier published the very influential book The City of Tomorrow in 1925. Its call for the

replacement of entire districts of Paris with high-rise tower blocks became the vision of urban

renewal in the post-war period.

7 See http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?vev1id=5826

8 See http://www.architecture-

humanrights.org/pdf/Papers/Community%20Design%20and%20Human%20Rights-illus.pdf for

more details on the community, the design process and the issues involved.

9 Community Organizations Development Institute, http://www.codi.or.th/

10 See http://www.cohre.org/ . COHRE helped the community draft a letter to OHCHR in

Geneva and walked it through the process to get a timely response to the Thai government

(including their ambassador in Switzerland.

11 The battle over People’s Park in Berkeley in 1969 was certainly a testament to the act of

appropriation. See http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/parks/parkspages/PeoplesPark.html and

http://www.afsc.org/about/hist/2002/peoples_park.htm as well as Mitchell, Chapter 3.

12 See http://portal.unesco.org/shs/en/ev.php-

URL_ID=5648&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

13 See http://www.hic-

mena.org/documents/WSFCharter%20for%20the%20right%20to%20the%20city.doc

14 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, see

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cerd.htm

15 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women , see

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cedaw.htm

16 Declaration on the Right to Development, see http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/rtd.htm

17 Convention on the Rights of the Child, see http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm 18 see http://ncppp.org/howpart/index.shtml#define for information on this form of partnership

19 See, for example, clause 152 - http://ww2.unhabitat.org/declarations/ch-4c-8.htm

20 See http://urckarachi.org/Brief%20Introduction.htm , for further information. The URC “felt that

Karachi’s official development plans ignored the larger socio-economic reality of the city and as

such were unworkable, unaffordable and environmentally disastrous. They further felt that

workable alternatives were required and these were possible only with the involvement of

informed communities and interest groups.”

Graeme Bristol 12 JAN 07

The Right to the City: Implications for Architecture

22

21 See also, http://www.righttowater.org.uk/code/homepage.asp and Amnesty International’s

site, http://web.amnesty.org/pages/ec-water-eng for further information on the right to water.

22 For example, the UK Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 includes the requirement for

a Statement of Community Involvement (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/40005--

c.htm#18)

23 Article 20.2 helpfully states that “cities shall provide human right education to all the

employees involved in the implantation of the Right to the City and the corresponding

obligations”. Clearly that should include the design professions, though it is interesting to note

that the final Article XXIII, calls for commitments from three sectors: Social Organizations, Local

and National Governments and International Organizations. It says nothing about the design

professionals that are responsible for urban renewal or expressways demolishing communities,