“Cities:” a Response to David Harvey's

The Right to the City Contents

[fig.] Public 5 Introduction, Lee Stickells & Zanny Begg Phenomena, Temporary Services, 11 The Right to the City, David Harvey 2009 29 From Dumpster Diving to ALDI—Travels in suburbanism, Claire Healy & Sean Cordeiro 33 Rethinking “Rights”, “Rethinking Cities:” A Response to David Harvey’s “The Right to the City”, Margaret Crawford 38 Public Phenomena: Documentation of Roadside Memorials and Basketball Hoops, Temporary Services 42 Rescuing the Right to the City, Anna Plyushteva 47 DIY Urbanism—Sydney Reconsidered, Joni Taylor 53 The Utopian Archipelago, Lee Stickells 57 Strategies of Indirection, Sophie Warren and Jonathan Mosley 61 Under the Beach lies the City, Zanny Begg 66 unReal Estate, SquatSpace interview 70 At the Ground Level of the City, Constantin Petcou & Doina Petrescu 77 Super-Supermarkets, Bababa International

81 The Cook, the Farmer, His Wife and Their Neighbour, Marjetica Potrč 93 Land-escapes: à propos of time, the city and its other, Tessa Zettel & Karl Khoe 97 Disastr Hotel—the place you stay when you visit the future today, D.V Rogers 103 The North Eveleigh Propositional, Milkcrate Urbanism Cordeiro,Sean and Claire Healy [fig.]

Flatpack, 2006

The Right to The City City The to Right The H Now them. putthefoundations under that iswhereshouldbe. they your work neednotbelost; intheair youhave builtcastles If Introduction bringing plans. ners in, negotiating project and connected in rary action. explore actions. Harvey’s ties part those and exhibition—the provides themes the document this therest contributions thatform ofthebook. withtheartistic interacts broader pendent glected Crawford city”; description. of objects. and enry

the older coupled exhibition; some for reflecting way, city; ourselves of and

These connections, air”—seeking

D ¶

explores modern of these reimagining raised, The Right to the City This discourse,

and

essays, have a together architects developing Given The Right to the City City the to Right The avid influential is and our a and contemporary with

the “off-site”; series It plans newly book urban T responded on

is,

human contains Anna conversations however, sustainable

increasing fiction, the horeau democracy: the

text our real I

range of a

as want relates City the to Right The are commissioned challenge interventions—opening perilous series connections intensifying life article critical works Plyushteva.

and or do some is rights”.

seeking documentation

and imagined , W from an

it in to to a

images fragmentation marker to of also ways. number alden its cities

are in exhibition, that argue, is “The spatial even environmental with that

artistic, the Harvey’s of a a arguments temporary interweaves (the ways collection gallery.

“putting These redefined urbanisation, between This can whimsical propositions

that ways collection freedom for others one

work: practices of book)

to be theoretical

discussions web are our

symposium, of of The article of activities “remake”

discussed. and some takes and foundations” about reinventing installations of art, the some interwoven is contributors, urban to the of predicament to exhibition up of artistic that not

complexity considered

architecture, make most is dialogue the many for as of work reflections a their of reprinted

are and engage simply space the existence its it more about

remaking

the ¶ and and precious and appears artists, often but starting previous philosophical life In city

and under here itself works in contextualizes

serious, written publishing such in a of thinking remake our its we offers in in

which of here others catalogue concerned philosophy

micro-political the as relationship activists, our do features find in Sydney. more artists yet “right these appearing point as work, a contempo-

in the more more presenting works cities. contested Margaret our most possibili- ourselves enduring full through socially “castles project gallery on escape to

David

a inde- plan- to cities ¶ ¶In

with than than The as that mix and and ne- the the As an to in it

5 The Right to the City stencils carving Sophie ofSydney. livinginthemountains on livingtocheap thefaroutskirts city quality these Claire explores of contribute and intersection collection of contributed contribution particularly recounts which perceptions exhibition interventions Pack. spatial presenting away development times, examination Services. public part Sydney’s driven environment also with and decade urban artists home. kinship Kladow the spatial images relationship of explored under the The

submissions appears spaces. The contrasting Healy micro-interventions urban cut politics call points Warren that the out are with (a

the current Temporary the unsettled of rights. artists and and suburb a physical even a unique for exhibition, the explore relating by these of global of collection ideas connects by reproductive minimalist developments. Entitled processes. and in between urban to here in catalogue of and surface; the submissions, architectural neatly our its cities

urban the the more are From of Sean Sydney, temporal that realities. in territories inhabitants. dynamics Jonathan line Chicago in the and that lofty monumental the exhibition. to Services issues known Berlin) they

strongly condition—the a stacked

are Sydney-based “DIY Cordeiro of Within to complex distinct the homemade emotional between art, sculptures. Temporary caravan short

aspirations challenge and lettering realised being the

live assertions

For

large-scale The

and personalise for Mosley and and and for for behind Urbanism”, architecture have uses One DIY in, personal

a this with from this Constructed exhibited, dynamics their the ideas also 40 processes caravan when Copeghagen the

(brass visitors urban or and flux

system a been publication, More basketball years. publication of city Services the collaborate Urbanism their large-scale, for visit, the of bottom-up-approach contribute temporary researcher impressive and concerns the surrounding unrealised installation, spatial reinstalled plaques dweller text

the collection space homogenised actively the

that than to

own hegemony creating of Rigorous projects that key alongside they and from built urban have the by project rights. concerns hoops was based that relocation resists

and and we

map on they a of to commercial and Healy and installations documenting exhibition address. work brass urbanism—interrogating photographic environment provided

have commemoration), exist an projects have of in space. Strategies of Indirection, of Strategies home the though, issues the and an

curator ¶ have offers art within permanent to the “Public expanding a of For essay stencils, notion that and in within. been urban included articulation gallery public reduced, group

from idea For that for their Sydney’s contributed ¶ this to that

a an the challenges and Cordiero are from Joni the drawn photographic Joni transforming Flat Pack Flat Phenomena” over a are of of

publication, overview cheap

DIY In landscapes, its Temporary and work memorials, explore series: work woman suggests invited spectacle- taxonomy

“home” memorial just nature gallery— the Taylor bubbling Joni both material Taylor’s the from the,

urban major of while is inner a deals form

Flat Flat that that text few last the the the the the

¶ to of of in at is is a a

will in International “heterotopic” new collaborative commodified create they as architects, poking as which perimental the Paris out They EC their place pleasures our the neglected between prices. Sydney Greenaway’s years Squats provide regulation own d’architecture relationship goes Farmer, His and Wife Their Neighbour movement planning dismantled the marking. universities, they Sydney. OBox, project knowledge with relationships installation provide food. follow forms West, in in spaces. also on,

performances in lays SquatSpace might fun 2001. CBD. it a

SquatSpace

other of 2000,

and

SquatSpace or

They revisit Constantin and (self-service a series Potrč and City the to Right The explores

for interweaving out the Amsterdam, to at of space project

catering under

1989 research EC nature For environment is

put autogérée’s arts flow the architectural specialists, These the of other the

urban SquatSpace makes “food the is another and are to of local OBox it this in satirical practices politics organisations a utilised (shopping ruthless the are food that “cereal”) estate (un)Real of and Ljubljana-based ideas and configurations. the rework for serial, ads and chain” Petcou continues existence. inhabitants, our elevators) publication intuitive, empowering artists centres

they production focus city. the all

of Sydney 2009). artists, (aaa) cheekily action behind experiences film and where parts

and has estate Real

the terms specialised their mass-produced,

Right vignettes. back initiated From and plazas), and on The Cook, The Thief, His and Wife Her Lover, work on aspirations

evolved

ideals

project’s exhibition and NGOs, of absurd With researchers to and on Based the collective—a Doina providing essay it.

to a architects, offer to and activists they the

auspicious produce possibilities

Using through the community (originally Accompanying

the design so ads artist is city the of

in of ¶ city, a “At to knowledge also the on. links city. in the the contribute Petrescu industry the food Marjetica public supermarket City sharp for is be this is

and Paris, driving the ¶ which engaged codes

“services”

created

and squatting language focused as neglected La Much

work her a utilising theorists empty between Spatial re-usable through curators beginnings “spaceless” ambiguous well Ground shadowy architect commissioned play of events. Chapelle garden, institutional contribution

and (clover that aaa open growing about Potrč and of the as documentation in the on buildings with on

tricksters acts for movement. their their and of the a and was real

about post-modern drives spaces

In Level project. series shared up terrains vague, terrains which and ads leaf whose the also

organisation local interested lived area organization; at eventual as material the artists poke this time and possibilities co-founded “services”: work is intersections), the a their title partners engages The Cook,The the liable Sydney of of to for N of platform a politics SquatSpace space, draws around publication

eating experience: experience. fascinating by fun discussion surreal ¶ Broadway the

squatters, to is ¶ Stedelijk to ongoing users orthern Bababa system, the Atelier carried people form of to at City”, urban

Peter

upon their such with your land they

that

and the the the the ten ex- (or for for by be of a

7 The Right to the City outcomes provides about what life, interdisciplinary Milkcrate duo, work this drawings think end box ics, studio that commentary. appearing life. installation, based, re-think and Urbanism, their are, experienced provides future face Sydney,

and

With ecology conceptual this project, of water and bring comprised contribution should is

about the vantage performance for immanent

a but how book an a the and redistributed desire site’s of a as the

mains. contribution independence Urbanism’s a

in example timely drawing, while and Sydney how temporary,

through happen the city they His installations with N empty any point. potential, of cultural to society. works Amsterdam

we environmental through ¶ could dialogue to an city Tessa focus make the artist-engineer collective This of

the

to can, extensively print ¶ various around blank open Eveleigh orth

how as are

this N Australian-based site-responsive that be Some

on exhibition theory, Zettel people

collected from book and document a forms making, characterised done with “disaster” site the explores newspaper: ended pages project. that the lenses will, of centralising

ends and question city are activism, catastrophe. illustrated better. Vinay those of world. has through

of explores working assert writing, drawn Karl “autonomous and can the

with

and D.V. the site —inviting The Propositional ¶ created

interventions. drawings Focusing Gupta

Makeshift fragile Z be by dialogic . Propositional Eveleigh North The Khoe,

why uncertainty in our looking

the anny systems Rogers a from essay utilities ew

built the mobility performance between Redfern,

mobile D.V. a “right things contribution published Zealander

relationships mobile, B urban who a will from reflects on egg

form architecture”—structures Rogers explores back dialogue is engineering, such newspaper that to

work are be and the At and a Sydney. & L experience the

the interactive young exhibited of from the on done as speculative fields and here making-do, is fragility D.V. “bottom ee across urban urban city” from electricity the with an core between S

design. Proposals an the collaborative invites

t installation- of distribution Rogers process

icke not and of the of Milkcrate readers life sculpture, uncertain as geophys- way planning planning of up”. all Sydney lls part aspect, just

public

in urban urban Their social often us grids their they We also and

the

for  to to of in

[fig.] 2008 Temporary Services, P henomen

Public a,

9 The Right to the City [fig.] author’s permission. Oct 2008, 53, Review from N isreprinted the City

The Rightto Left ew withthe Sep-

11 The Right to the City 13 The Right to the City 15 The Right to the City 17 The Right to the City 19 The Right to the City 21 The Right to the City 23 The Right to the City 25 The Right to the City 27 The Right to the City like middle realm night shouting the construction the class world the rise the fish did industry. merely within factories noise. gentrification up gradual illegal the boring. into For —travels insuburbanism From Diving Dumpster toALDI C take organisms. into of and We complex things l flux. accommodation aire inner not time better middle inconsumable void are of passing the the will a more go

of The step to of situations, seem

N the warehouses. acting Fungi not happen class. shutting H inner rabid —maybe remains

the nutrients created attempt textile ¶ in city o, meet were or

easily back white eal ¶ ‘Mini

trying One class, we the to wind suburban worse—artists

are It was So of city if exploits like coalesce y were is overnight: deadlines, dovetailed fifteen they production. streets, &S the

permissible—all

of of up consumed by middle by —when we only noises Dragons’ because noisy: to and to into fungi: that

in tea, the The of city the part logic make thought destroy hear ean terrace then plant now, middle shop

the into is reasons

late looking factory

around such gradual gradual class processing, of

twenty C otherwise each we it’s it they

out twenty-four

the consumable. are and together sitting

material focus. a and night The took in or each houses were long that as your cannot class. that kind urban Surry other. deiro should the noises, the us. at animal lawn disappearance disappearance years wiping other place

For Mah-jong at we sequence

other the living own Of we But middle of

eventual inedible that our

to through professionals with hills stand In

were the mowing,

like ago—to were trees loud over also course noises

that sustain waste, hour flatulence; suburbia, ¶ kitchen out on marginalised once purpose meant fungi—they We illegal not certain class the the be music, in of of sight, of dominance for sessions, our

parties—definitely are most feeding housed

course suburban local were mid-nineties noise plant of leaf of part first course the table other did that

mere intolerable.

the

the followed the share delivery noises. so it local artists blowing and hipsters of the this not averse. life never

is for breeding cluttered to the factories people from existences of textiles life exist the state rubbish. global inheritors Blackheath, of story textiles a will accommodation and immediately a

workers Just come few and process time, trucks, and smells

this China within Surry to and But of

¶ working other the industry we as years. events. ever ground with turning also existence, it Living

source from We in industry working housing fighting not noise became need

middle hills. for people as a in of of semi- move small freed tools

were

state The that bad

the the the the the the fill At all of in to

of is is it ¶

29 The Right to the City the for Hill; if public just hitherto Blue reside less perception on immigrant refugees, professionals suburbanism. The With western respected. Nb. of of ¶ zones moved it values individuals cheapish adolescent legally to were we right to census; lease critical complain as all possible These make the Marrickville when a had to room

art This studios a

presence else Mountains N from made contract personal council the make different and and but textiles policies

re-styled into mass council world not

things economic been others fails—off to new rents is

growth luxuriating about They also create for not years artists industrial to and stumbled not the create. and way ewtown

of moving members In of too. were feel deemed us industry inhabitants larger do experience, refusing many because and at kind like-minded an inner do collectives N as too in it. order spent collectives. artists of had for to do

make least).

marginalised, And amongst to apology From And shift it. the downers. serviced sought inhabit ew not wallets. to the of into across

people Berlin. in swung workers city Same to in undesirable room in zoning to they in Marrickville, York that’s

city an we suburbia. ¶ live from Surry young defeat suburbia. the

the pick and the brought out At

deepest to the impact Utopia. the these The

based did that This back people too were would ¶ in But to Style inner where inner late had inner this they But up manufacturing was there Hills cosmopolitan

tree-changers a party. the urban little make with forces vacuum. involved once

effectively spaces around garbage still industries capitalism.

loft We’ve point moved on places

we Finally with city changed had We choose enemy, respect that city.

city to the willing from

things So noise: what have a the professionals. categorised apartments: Redfern, to that were

the lot This we in took we them naturally avant-garde

and to fled The and meet on Marrickville

more property we you to the had

money is and of sought meant should like came and to had if live.

able convenient with It so bit the shift live made the had to vagarities the you’re not noise. first keep must the a

is cafes

not from to admiration buildings provided us They gutful; to serviced edge an we inability only

the below by that exit the inner was to only demands during go developers

did place: in occupy and

¶ being giving influx become is. did. The making council rest make Redfern and the back space Contrary artists to the off

silent loved part

the Moving. we’re nature a of where

city ¶ St. of the city us arse. different restaurants to based places were included all documentation of sweatshop. economics these Unfortunately, to hipsters their to of

the N of to and Peters… the suburbia secure stage the young the as it, those living phasing war the lobbied to

offered what the of this it Just

the free

industrial you to enemy. spaces Looking numbers attitudes Summer industry. that city space made the ewtown city. against greater left sector. public a lonely in as in set urban made move brave to don’t long

city. too: had and and and had We

out the the the the the (or  be

to in of at ¶

Cordeiro,Sean and Claire Healy [fig.]

Flatpack, 2006

31 The Right to the City [fig.] Cordeiro,Sean and Claire Healy

Flatpack, 2006

1 2

http://www.righttothecity. David org/ Right N 2008), (September- ew

accessed Left

to Harvey, p.23.

the

Review

O City,”

02.06.2011

ctober “The

“The RighttotheCity” “The “Cities:” Harvey’s AResponsetoDavid “accumulation “urban Rethinking “Rights,” Rethinking Left Review Review Left This David M Rio capitalism. Harvey critical capitalism, city.” city displaces occupy, as property the publishing the restructuring. rights.” readers, fought right of tone, interest neo-liberalism, the access the identify social newly and lifestyles, opposition argare finance current world, key city” coalition penetration de

right, unusual This to movements Harvey’s urban gentrified

2 justice, analysis Janeiro

for, in sees thus

role laying

large the In

as developers the technologies

rights

ranging

t project. would Surveying Harvey neo-liberal order as a capital Harvey in signs C city that absorbing

poor resources; of could transformative Central in

numbers through Harvey

2008, out rawfor N to human that essay, progressive of the Harvey’s has is urbanization city to of focusing involve 1 from the from a the The offered be O rleans. ew around has resonated displace rebellion explain

reverts dominant lucid has

the “The centers. to mounted global puts moment,

“most surplus and dispossession.” of d it rights made essay their the this been history work. is creating similar Marxist on the Right groups it, what aesthetic Right to the a process, the attempt urban

everywhere dwellings precious is

his the with widely Harvey’s right is has outlines and capital.

also and Harvey form he ¶ poor far world of work style these urban cases to to played In the spearheading a analysis argues, processes capitalist to from democracy” notable

more wide the according the influential. to the values

of and This change “social a This of of rights but around begins global remake question, increasingly City,” staple order City and where face in variety contemporary

a argumentation than this most also of strategic widespread for absorbing we occurs Harvey accumulation, is are Alliance ties,

of the to ourselves perspective first by of process to aware the

its “the would

eliminates both desire.” a Going neglected of the to

redevelop and academic he Harvey, describing

national current expansive relationship urban published world, when this finds individual unprecedented describes, political depends cities of how it has in surplus

beyond practice the by come? For capitalism.

the activists exhibition

familiar is them global become from allows their they of movement the

debates and changing the he many what the and Harvey, US, response in our

points capital. what on Although state liberty the land to might ourselves. too access the Seoul “right not

crisis hopeful he a him around human diverse nature, to global, urban multi- about sharp weak scale New kind calls

only they His and and out the the

his for be In to to to to to to of

33 The Right to the City Lefebvrian defines material Harvey’s only creative Henri elusive Revolution, In exposition, result of differences, it alternative a city.” singular democratic social central to any those movement. kinds of mentions communist of published rights significant political and together, not struggle the the never by unifying long far as Lefebvre’s) rights, this fact, specific the attempt only unfocused tightly same a

full more considered Lefebvre of and far to clarifies in and, Lefebvre’s but

to the endeavor. same and although between “democratic ideal

urban product.

access aim: housing, adequate more he a in cursory the just year. even

him

evocative

Lefebvre right differences

city possibilities even circumstances, expansive intellectuals control The coupled rather I term spite to argues collective

argue, to or “in survival title. before his to

realize emancipatory spaces coined to psychological Repeating produced only guide “right to personal more,

finance one have to slogan, of

The contrast signifying Lefebvre’s existing position than (habitat) treatment

political over the that

A the or be is elaborated prose. right and context. tailored these any briefly, of

participation. this second the crucial between to city of sociologist connected the was by a fact the for they

capital “the capitalism, development.

after their the impact. mere for to to focusing urban

the struggle. phrase Lefebvre’s towards Right If in rights. outcome production and urban that the

project, control should shadow the a revolution rights Harvey

of largely city” to was use to This citing oeuvre the political on and life-enhancing the reflection the right the his spaces defining unity

Lefebvre to Their

and rather

to the ¶ the events life. and would 3 on

Lefebvre’s an included such the A he

ways own focus In needs ¶ conditions of emphasizing economistic each that condensed hovers Lefebvre’s is prediction the ‘right right to Harvey organized

complex developed

of contrast the barely and He City main but He implications. philosopher, has closer as than definition produce of the city, the become in Harvey on of other.” of surplus,” defined avoids pleasure, utilization also to invented to to May (Le over which problem both their a capitalism

global mentions politics in concept ends exchange the appropriation, be single to environment urban to of the the Droit orthodox and

1968 terms, that 1968, it urban the If, the a can Harvey’s the the city’ inhabitants. material life confronting two is the

in freedom each

work Lefebvre

right fiscal

play coherent somehow, Understanding Lefebvre need clearly goal: a is that environment entire urbanism of working

a envision oeuvre. (habiter) of a

in essay

elements including book they Lefebvre’s Lefebvre new or la values. in series the (a formulates “the characteristically to Marxist of system,

Ville) will to “to nothing crisply rights, space. major the lack indebted

by surplus. to essay art methodology, produced freely meaning situated

oppositional The

right gain This This

accompany slogan create challenged reasserting is they the If city as published would than as a imagines

his

writings they a thought concern singular concept rational such Harvey Harvey Harvey well shaped project central at greater Urban would to global was

into many Thus, came these these book all.4 to it new to and not the are be by as as in it. a a a

6 3 4 5

David Henri David Henri Blackwell, the to Right on to

the the Cities,

City”,

City”, to City,” Harvey, Lefebvre, Lefebvre, Harvey,

the

( p.129-30 1996), N

p.39-40 in City”, ew

“The

“The Writings

York: “Right “Right

p.151

p.40.

Right

to “the of Utopias.” Lefebvre’s differences political demands from the concrete contingency, and required demands confronted. define same demonstrates, agency points elements, disequilibrium, is described controlled his demonstration which moment and primarily paradoxical primacy he interaction and saw intensified, reality, itself shaped relationships. urbanized what belonged better urban discovered, vagueness urban” evident the information. knowledge meanings. the to time, a

to he a and to city and simple city recommendations. suited fixed life

urban very

of of struggles to Framed to was for the the

called on one, at

concept spaces were

since the the between

as “wrongs” might all play

reshaped Yet, as outcomes. human identify the differently.

acknowledging “the city forefront

different the radically inhabitants about paradoxically,

Depending today’s urban demands

a other inhabitants, explanation. For “the the to subjects also of in

time class, complex transduction,

and in in As as by our actions urban” utopia.” of be, seat based these Lefebvre, the composed open-ended. peripheral, many city” existing many

“the actors a by geography the of urban

the race, by urban

current physical result, political of inclusive; of

Lefebvre two themselves. economic capitalism, If themselves

city economic urban,” political are and contradictory consisting unpredictable.” on the used

Harvey

gender, things, ways

5 on not

In Although in would that processes as

reality,

crisis contradictions was the never specific capital the dissolution

contradictory social of to

“The the just urban spaces its a conclusions, rural,

N as “the

Lefebvre’s two as since way city encourage

similarly saw spatial

rationality, actions. Lefebvre sexuality, seems inevitably

is oting creation.

a Lefebvre and are a this specifics generic ¶ and

Right of urban” very interdependent social and in given. space became This officially of demands. he acquired the at Lefebvre necessarily the would political forces producing that 6 avoiding boundaries cultural of to portrayed

even global Who different Invigorated ambiguous crisis is

to reality

for

normalities and set but way moving phenomenon is existing not and ¶ the

Unlike produce productivism, was in urban of “a the quite “introduce As designated wilderness encounters, his “rights”

different at strong age only are always place The creation asserted any accepting of forces, scale of realities striving made irresponsible City” defined David work. it processes these all than urban human thinking, specific May of physical persisted Harvey, and unexpected as urban right and of shape contrast by prevents and

both

constituted up a he essay,

and desire, equally the actors? of rigor Harvey’s that to than that “citizens.” place In areas, new

1968 by open-ended.

space, as and communication unpredictability, of actors believed constraints, to “ in identify the

situation, “the

Experimental had identities one contrary a

Paris, and concepts who but emphasizing urban did the in make Harvey’s. bureaucracy, stating ideas

to response

idealism. continually permanent experience he as him In

important invention and produced city” Lefebvre Lefebvre and Harvey’s was not distance material analysis

did spite though focuses a

At in a rights rights about often these from vivid

their even

lend uses that

and and and city not the the the the He

to of It ¶

35 The Right to the City This How many out, complexity, In struggle capitalism heterogeneous opposition Right depends new, dispossessed, politics engaging more power. activists goals. define, and strategy social strategy, parties, around rejecting goal defining other the from of time, artists, insistence unified urban in tactics to would to version transform understanding, many a

unknown Lefebvre’s

of individuals even the multiplicity empowers

advocates sympathetic these ways to In

should movements, be activism, This fight

encouraging purpose. space, architects, of of since the

rather of and it respects, context the the struggles on a far when on with the the reduces

a and 2010 to a ambiguity world. for struggles old-fashioned City” recent what

reality, more mass the he DIY their narrative be thebody, and urban. open, global than urban right

and of

it the reserves market urban used of In as centrality currently

lecture,

Lefebvre’s

of challenging is even fulfills Purcell radical

and organization, towards untapped inclusive and specific practices rather struggles proliferation

many either a undefined claim

to all barely to

agonistic multiple representations circumstances. ¶ precise in finance will appropriate and residents the residents outcomes. of Lefebvre’s anddesire.” other these

his forces. Lefebvre’s Harvey so, ways, than their democracy. loss, calls ameliorative questions of city concept visible. ultimately contingency active pragmatic highest

than notion that political have in creative thought, struggles capital and cultural

processes manifestations

expands rights self-organizing is Lefebvre, this “the

of NGOs, the Imposing to focused and

an current populate

took as In concept in As transforming at participate of

of demand closely political 9 If end, “open and  new their

the program. this to and ¶ groups potential a geographer

must political the movements Harvey’s play and is activists this The the or the variety is advocated

demands

both on highest representative he in sense urban

oeuvre interventions. ultimate GR concept,” far the of self-defeating. a resembles the city. out possibilities argument be question predetermined contrast, for hopes asserts to the predetermined open more Os in key of 8 agency

groups, of contemporary its

These depiction “art, the By is of to act “the politics the level is right (grassroots Mark urban in the role of for not equivalent by and a definition, end become ways

Sydney in relevant that it concrete conceived making

more urban” of the the is the Chantal struggles left-wing further, thousands describes doesn’t

of to unspecified inclusive. predetermined, structures, Purcell cultural what the

of always of politics It urban the 7 orthodox excluded of in the facts

spatially a Although

and the seizure also version opens capitalism key genuinely of organizations), to opposition circumstances. only strategies program city,

acknowledge these in landscape categorically of as Mouffe urban has seeking imaginaries will our inhabitant.” an unions centralized

and Lefebvre’s empowers players of a the scale

occurring

based with the effective capacity arena Marxist and ways pointed focused of emerge politics current of groups ‘lived,’ social space. he state door

is new “the and and and and and but the the the on to to of in of in is

8 7 9

Mark David Henri accessed anti-capitalist-transition/ org/organizing-for-the- (2010) Capitalist “ (2002), Lefebvre:” the O rganizing

City,”

Purcell,

Lefebvre, Harvey,

http://davidharvey. p.99-108

02.04.2011

p.164 Transition”

GeoJournal

for

“E

the “Right xcavating

Anti-

to 2008–2010 Temporary Services, P [fig.] henomen

Public a,

37 The Right to the City walls, a in person created where areintheexactlocation a bodywasfound, memorials often instinctual a of instantly. unfortunately, and we human, evolving their A and Basketball Hoops Documentation Roadside Memorials of Phenomena:Public T scenarios traditional we refuge is publication roadside traffic city such sites 2008). and bodegas consists traverse we made with only

more e the passing many drunk each mporary hear published must photograph. spaces to an as a like

lives name from and

barriers

backboard ¶ or was memorialize.

homemade fragile, improvised memorial the and about of and To

cities; public memorials, also spontaneous driver that A reflection).

other big-boned to motorist

pattern by hit a any we find city’s of gang larger our S boxy right

a speak

their may

common by these have interactive and we our ervice work: squarish 28-page skids

direct, homemade It instinct a network remains. dispute shifts, plastic have supermarkets) that have basketball car, the describes

net. fences) denizens, 152-page given

becomes kinds

We Temporary publicly and

as over

s roadside or

wrongs our public The people recorded examples

prevented days, piece booklet

dependent

honor is a to and other milk

turns of of They and the bullet collective

to hoops the basketball

both

killings, alleys

commissioned hoops. since weeks, the book, dynamic spots of investigate, build that

crate curb, emotional/mental our results memorials, instances ugly: of are Services wood, their hit with of alterations unintended are these the behind

these may dead in

upon

These frequently ulc Phenomena Public the memorials unexpected (easy

or hitting

we natural often

guns

its of the hoops lingering

group’s kind or years wrong situations

have immediately this bottom and photos. has

of the the shared to to

homes. structures

slam-dunked and are sculptures. of

a unofficial of human in go reaction scavenge solve, been attempt needs taken

occasional pedestrian formation target. public skull. mounted drawn, existing Chicago, on the by, effects

deaths removed, This spaces

(such The from

the taking the to

creation them.

of instinct They

are experience

think to

to Both ¶ ponder. was from side takeovers shots most the (Half quality on

city that happening. as Public of

both on store to use mourn, one in and

pictures become and Chicago. public It followed living. Chicago. oblivion

of about spaces 1998. round we situations behind common have of the are is usually Letter physical

killing

bought the and a ¶

Phenomena write within new

backboard than lessons fired, to

However, of

spaces They occurred different In road, an to of wooden

content

reflect, so shared When corner by These items, has

Press, about 2005, make them these ever- most

style item (like that this and

are,

the are are on to of of a

2010 Temporary Services, P [fig.] henomen

Public a,

include the and the parks additions, making needs official modifications other income These assisted standing. telephone heal

possibility world parents the

with surface to

photos

structure

their them with inequality brutality

When

to basketball and poles

fixed

also

location,

meet that

city dangerous that present

are new

you in but just

and of even can

services

those our

even and

creations

Chicago courts go are

want

the a its be

needs more to

small

other

for streets the

also screwed streets violence

areas and

but to

adults most

necessary

is affixed and accounting play

that these

institutional

filled or

strong. that one

parks make and privileged

and closer contradict

my may are nailed with to

O poverty more for

have may more the their

be ne

to of residents

surviving

into.

undesirable

forms the free home. can so of be to

place neglected, or

addressed

cross for cities, populated

ways ¶

space find change

Chicago children. of ¶ more

in to daily

in alterations, The in

discrimination,

above reach for a

which the and

comfortable

livable on the

violence. reasons impetus

has Sometimes

areas

that so them,

gang garages established

people many many

and

inventions, experience

frequently that members,

as The to

fair.

well or

public levels.

shape social try could these

kids city any



or to as

39 The Right to the City 41 The Right to the City Rescuing theRighttoCity A Towards applying theRighttoCity: right? Whose A , Ville The This One Urban mainly make city many politicians. existing government’s originated groups fresh a philosopher a a participatory intellectual becomesapplications morethanever. evident application type right how now not terms in a attempts for two what up be sophisticated nna World concept necessity big and in as resolving be need important notion

of applied it essay prominent notably controversy!) exercising claimed a a danger P open-ended of challenge for Forum the can in urban living in procedure l power Charter challenging evayusht rescuing? the to authorities so Latin is

prerogative as be ¶ future of of to Henri a on make potent, budgeting published out 3 This of USA budget a politics real-life , and contribution fruitfully a participatory

aspects multi-stage propel and radical structures, the various “right losing example in America, of on which of 4 practiced debates brings so , Undoubtedly, the Lefebvre it implementing city

Right

to the is with the to which the that of workable to of the tensions notion allocated mention its impressive before scales has applied shaping, manage, Right the structures is technocrats, the is right

to such immediacy the and but process critical on towards burdensome left the recognises democracy. right by the city” and to in of need the the to also suffocate to vast many ¶ citizens. in fate but in

to the inevitably the be while

City democracy

it the to first was Right the historic politics the practice. of projects discussion urban of they the has elsewhere—offers for a transformatory the of local second

deliberation. City few of bureaucrats, might and injustice. city developed remaining Right appeared that

participatory project the flourished In city its for architects, to its governance of 2 society But protests relevance of , as

this the chosen stakeholders

shaping water Right Firstly, the UN-HABITAT’s key idea its radical has look the to a (and of why City

incarnations. model, substantive ¶ marginalised characteristic the in on before by rescuing urban. largely

like 5 I to and it in and

by planners, in Participatory the would his the would Alliance potential, even nature many French and City the down, budgeting, recent local Paris of in

some generally space concept a 1968 urban going

disillusioned: several There inconsequential City practice. blending share to and the like occasions citizens the

that with and years, sociologist

co-opt consultants, pointers of ¶ inject

to Le Droit à la à Droit Le is on and realm practical it of latest deploying to And right of is civil

envisages countries— same participate that formalised a appears those budgeting, procedure. to the

highlight therefore However, inspiring the its practical into through suggest it yet, society it should World to ended Right

many many year. as what local with who into and and

the the for

to to or in it a 1

5 3 4 1 2

James accessed aspx?publicationID=3026, org/pmss/listItemDetails. at Social 2009), Brazil Urban Forum Rio de Janeiro, the Fifth Session of the World accessed details&gid=50&Itemid=3, docman&task=doc_ index.php?option=com_ www.onuhabitat.org/ (2004), de Derecho a la Ciudad Americas, E E Space in (London: Urban Theory and Practice the Just City: Debates in et City”, Finding Justin 1996), Cities, Henri Lefebvre: Writings on E E 15(1), Poverty and Environment, Right Gihan lizabeth leonore lizabeth leonore

http://www.unhabitat. al Transposition—Time, -HABITAT,

( E

Steil, to

and in Connolly 2008, (

Forum p.8 p.55 Perera,

(2010), ds), O available

Justice January December the Peter

xford:

Kofman Kofman

Routledge,

Lebas, Lebas, Carta Mundial the

Searching for “Introduction:

pp.12-13 City”,

for

Claiming City”, Marcuse available

Blackwell,

and

at 2011 Report of “Lost ( the

E the and and

Race, http:// 2010 ds),

in ,

the

6 7

These Citizenship”, For and Urbanization in “Participatory Michaela pp.219-236 community the includes budgeting N allocation; restaurants few. in ew

Peru: Amsterdam—to

process

York;

examples E

children

details, Hordijk,

xercising

squatter

participatory and

of gardens

Lima Environment

resource Governance

art

include:

, see in

17,

centres which name

2005,

As perspective, it disabilities, city male instinctive people about rather silenced argue access thus national the or fabric no justice according represent to that right the income relations revitalising in for fundamental that that representational which to to would wheelchair. urban without who be to the are know buy terms based a legitimacy those responsibilities comes existing identity, cannot they the result, become identity, is a the under-aged, of City instead than to be life continue and and a able-bodied quest one and in entitlement because practical newspaper, and the who of on the excluded implementation a already to urge

from

bring the citizens’

vision land for and as the and critical vote This of

exercising local their some become socio-spatial democratic

fragility being traditional increasingly or for test are a for the urban to those right argue many, universal democracy. their to invaders, any because its about governments of would understand have broadening excluded

own implementation the for those few from form

and be hijacked step political

heterosexual stairs, urban those other—well, to involved space. to who reliance

of exercising that based many right agendas. access power ways resources the the the the towards they who of toolset model. inevitably this

right

domestic of divorced structures buses governance. it who have

from right participatory These In participation—both city right marginalisation by the to should to other on this have cannot and to on in participation. over fully other –

protect those pay the This continually of right Making residence this and opens white the the many

giving a for to proposed patching it to similar include no right of groups urban workers, urban mean would surrendered from involve taxes city the the process traditional shaping words, narrow right, afford of model who residency to the

males Unlike political up it it city, the city that the to the governance from yet the political to right applications that space,

be that immigrants, radically already and model up other

7 everyone to

be city,

the been

and would sexual process. pavements (as those city. of and right is ¶ urban live their urban traditional sponsor the reproducing domicile “given” adopted have most rights, democratic However, to

to the right and

the there redress of

and than redressing from in oppressed, ¶ shape citizens. imperfect to citizenship. turn who the also those minorities, new areas most

middle-income a It economic social been The equally, model, middle-aged the to

should

is a city

inhabiting a rather a of city squatters, appears contribute to permanent have the are liberal-democratic an as the politician, avenues urban requirements with citizenship

obvious currently city argument the occluded I organise

they When reality, understandable process—those a hostile would balance. existing

inequalities

city would thus with excluded limited yet than the discretionary

a and right people This alternatives governance “balancing” cannot at

should necessary for homeless example)

the reducing resulting thinking some

of towards claimed. there have to held address or middle- present around like

here within to would ¶ power rights, white social or those city. their even with The and and the get no be by to to of in is is 6

43 The Right to the City “greater The collective city Beyond thecity Beyond as an individualised right. It demands a collective effort and the shaping of a of shaping the and effort collective a demands It right. individualised an as The . solidarities social around politics collective They Having developments. constantly only are produce, as Similarly and possibilities. social the for institutionalised stop right shortsighted and stable is suggested much-needed in entirely to national interaction then its the toleadhealthierlifestyles. likely unity, people the time beyond to the begin practical a implementing much sense pursuit idea identities, Right there? perceived. a there its bring

desirable can are interaction or deliberation collective form in good”. claimed nonsensical vitality the

of (as completed to it the of to be a more what than to I changing, people of a is and

re-think particular outcomes would community of the boundaries demonstrated use The neither the selectively ones

safe continuous

a Rather There rather a Greater objective. and anyone that kind more right, in by a examples and City fosters demand the right sense and to who go together line politicians either. to transformatory Lefebvre’s

the effective Right misuse: are of

than than on see adventurous is constantly neighbourhood may but any consensus, else, with sociality know understanding, a to applied and of a

to traditional of many

a collective Thus revitalisation from Indeed, also of city significant a by in to suggest

to the the city community. and in

comprehensive belonging participatory Lefebvre’s The right to the city cannot be construed simply construed be cannot city the to right The fact and the individuals. it the nor a right he the benefits 10 the city individual who of Right force for better in contested

City why be then intended Right is empowering urban it public greater power right—a presently democratic public to is instance, what opens undesirable are extent. for the should not the

to than “handed in a enjoyment of

to vision 8 most Lefebvre to

theory

collectivity—its useful the our The can right spaces ¶ urban city budgeting give shelters increased urban human space up his the solution, 9 environment, anyone right Just

silenced Yet, (and City shared be a affected high-density is than an pre-requisite vision model number to if down” City and a platform politics from realised. of

also as community—at organisation although which solid conceived and re-design imagined occasionally it proximity is the else, low-density

importantly, social practice. from public this described too Alliance) makes and

of security, by the of to enough of city,

belongs and

who

urban intrinsic heretical, citizens. is any governance, ¶ for other which perspective excluded—only irresponsible interaction Lefebvre a spaces: It

developments it a by the

to space, people glance and changes But spend may cooperation

of city implies, does) both foundation above, and politics encourage academics, promising

to suburban homeless city

it is The sociality purpose it

the

square? be or greater groups and global is actual at is come never never more more

as in why that that of this and

call city, not not the for to or at it. a a

10 9 8

Mark David

2010), City Susan and Theory and Practice Just City: Debates in Urban et Just Potter, 27(3), Urban and Regional Research International Journal of Capitalist City:

al,

, the City”,

( (

Reimagining

N Purcell,

2003, Fainstein, Harvey p.178 “The

ds), ew Right

World in

York: Searching for the

pp.578 Right

Peter

“Citizenship to and

The Just the Cornell,

, Cuz to Marcuse, the

rder”, p.42

Global

the

durational specific including food (found solar timber, with equipment, bees, public Matt Venables. pr We P G & [fig.] atab wag

Karl e will

s native cart/apiary panel, local

Tessa

en picnics.

materials, bicycle Khoe installation á o

gu mobile tly

honey) site-

stingless cooking beehive Zettel e n—

Photo: wheels, ,

2010,

steel, and

eeve a smtig f h bilat mtu catmn bu hm unable him, about craftsman amateur brilliant the of something has Lefebvre to cash in on his own inventions; something capricious, like a sower who casts casts who sower a like capricious, something inventions; own his on in cash to his seeds to the wind without worrying about whether they will germinate. will they whether about worrying without wind the to seeds his Developing clear might preface of particularly inconsequentialism is sense facing fosters them less frightful. levels. the urban understanding into hope

that 11 also similar exchange

to It thinking, the we is for Lefebvre’s be meaningful meaningful  a political are particularly a unifying challenges fair of only

and and and of good rtqe f vrdy Life, Everyday of Critique and shared beginning extreme force in therefore ways enjoyable worldwide. relevant practice social relatively which of priorities relativism capturing structures to urban the in and creates unwrap small,

a task Rather and rural know-how existence is

these we of close-knit a problems, a the shared context. an saving inhabit paradoxically,

full flying urgent Michel that among political potential

communities There is makes the seeds from one. a Trebitsch daunting right urban

¶ language is the because and demagogical of In a to challenge this powerful his building citizens the task; with wrote: 1991 type it and 12 city

is it ¶ a

45 The Right to the City 1

Monument and Sydney: Ingo Reinmuth,

Crisis

Kumic

Image,

Sunny Bin Sy Bin Sound [fig.]

of “(Re)Making

87(2008), and

Vision”, s tem

Wheelie Form

Gerard s

p.52

s DIY Urbanism—Sydney Reconsidered A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancingat, thatdoesnotincludeUtopiaisworth theworld A map of ¶ O When DIY commercial creates such J Sydney presents a Choosing art. of platform position. place regulated an changes, that taking for it leaves out the one country atwhich Humanity isalwayslanding.for itleaves outtheonecountry much this Sydney minute. pedestrian projects unbuilt—that urban pathways to being way rasa the who beautiful oni

more scar

Currently,

its the activity

Here,

grass

of may T of are

activities. use

Urbanism.

users. more

priority

new utopia,

one accolades

W ayl traversing walking

obvious

certain getting

faces

(with

an bubbling

the

such ¶ or or live.

cities, to

DIY going have ilde

Sydney E

and that

or infrastructures

overview “ laid then

and

snow It important nter under the paving stones the beach thestones paving the under city strategies, Sydney’s

challenge as regarding not

These the looks ¶ as

Urbanism cycle

been

by inner explores

such DIY

off out.

spectacle-driven

along ¶

elsewhere. than

the for and

The

light

and

are as away on as DIY exception

initiatives

a beyond Also

as the spectacle-driven be

ideas the culture,

the its city wish just

different

experiencing centre site

project

way a

rail

Berlin, the

designs

the

(Do-It-Yourself under

what

beachside the its

city.

paved functionalist explores routes

colourful

areas

within

known

around

current Until and of

given

infrastructure,

case the

of locate in is

I Ubns—yny Reconsidered Urbanism—Sydney DIY There create can

being

and the San

directions.

facing and the

Sydney metro made path,

and

blueprints Masterplan

recently

the

program

for be critical

DIY

laurels

surface, urban

many attempts Francisco

DIYUrbanism the

1973

a in the has

“desire done city,

tactical

far “imagineering”

better by one

failed rapid

links, it.

Urbanism city

one

erasure been

potentially O

plans those condition—the too the

both alone, The

These

with of

networks, often and

already Design-It-Yourself )

is pera

”

at lines” has

way,

city redevelopment,

the and city have and interventions—both

long—the Paris

created.

much

urban set

small-scale that

who

the distinct and

“lines

city,

House) has of

makes a even reimagines

differentiate road

they

been in

more address ‘

city the

68 graffiti68

the enriching take progressive

said transformation suffered in motion. of history

This Melbourne,

this familiar

are from easy from past, present scrapped

beach out

an concerns logical

not rejected desire” about further and

specific

created case—Sydney. is

alternative

task.

the other the

from

but It being and the

infrastructural the ¶

themselves larger virtual

continuously

subverts architectural Urbanism

20 day and

way,

For eroded

perspective idea

While

to as large-scale, and at essence

and

ecological

built may its problems

informal

given

or Sydney! uncover

a the century visions. the gives Sydney

lack

of tabula

better issues street those

route more

have

new

into and and less last the old,

of as of It is a

47 The Right to the City “terrain Adaptable City (The These Ingo Lease city Minister charged Some of on city, creative Other one Goliaths—it for evolved and corporate no parks the provision focused public in alternatives. taken concerns in the all to artworks urban things, with irony large adaptable, with large these

the order fact urban

opposition

the chance.

its

process initiative to scale, that is

former Kumic

huge a scale

spaces

sections

here

are out

and projects

. six its

are

existence”. make This take vague” spaces new face a

rich

out 2030

activities.

for

offers carpark

planning to society—not

therefore for

billion of

co-option, lack not

merely

of public more the

precincts

investment

This

of and place.

take N of DIY

developments

industrial are

Carlton

and

and is Planning. is

the

not

and strategy) and conducive is being 22

of of an

are

ew further

easy opportunities

being

heart flexible

reclaiming place,

dollar is directed

re-make and spheres. diversity, 1 control Urbanism

Gerard the

interest fleeting hectare

lost: Barangaroo, dark,

South ¶ What created throughout general why

are

The redesigned

then United

fake architectural

destroyed,

its

see history but complicated what in project

¶ and

gritty all it

contentious to

Sydney’s

Wales’ of to we

bricks

Reinmuth Sydney’s DIY

at in With

and

itself, at

the

headland

how by its only strategies being

have

ast

lack

into to

spaces the

what just the least Brewery), even

plans are

impact those to

corners

only activation

has occur, that

Darling in Urbanism—Sydney this

small-scale

during

and we

such

or local experience of planning expression rather

one offered the

witnessing

constructed,

particular, offer could

CBD,

shrinking come

rebuilt. and

can and seem fail project

transparency. living

will

park mortar.

than

write and

hands on

stakeholder—the one towering where City

and

up the Barangaroo than to

harbour

be design

areas be

important

city

soon

from

of opportunities

both to

tactics

with

needs

others.

and underscore

chances law,

These about

interim

undertaken

done

of design is two

difference assist of urban If clandestine critique is

life,

too, public

how

that

Sydney

be with

experiencing

all we culturally the one programmed individual meaning

examples—a

fields,

major

site

undertaken

using lack

Perhaps

Sydney: directions, is replaced The

will flexible

in fail

interventions

Sydney State for

will,

voids. such

stage

for

Barangaroo, falling spaces

Reconsidered

a of them. covering

to the

university

have mad

seems council

experimental

and a DIY community, Barangaroo.

developer in

for

if public or

build vast bottom-up the N Government and of

fundamental and

the

passions

“This

not order and

can

DIY under

by, ¶ experiment

substantial their rush

temporary

Sydney.

off

urbanists cultural

attacking project urban O species

powerless

environmentally.

up most capacity adaptive

(with

amongst remain over-regulated transport, be ne

buildings

the activities

seem campus

Central city,

to construction. to the

the

made of giant

projects

wasteland,

politically

plan.

introduce Criticism

including erase

ideas

approach However,

has the

its activities.

of fact

Part like

to diverse and

its for

free effects

reason

city public in

urban

green when Lend

other more main

all

been

have

Park

take The faux may

that

size and and

any any the the

its all in of —

DIY Urbanism—Sydney Reconsidered projects and Jason Workman. DIY Urbanism—Sydney Reconsidered includes projects by: &company, Chad Ford (F Beat Productions), Mathieu Gallois, Afia Iram, Jesse Adams Stein, Josephine Starrs & Leon Cmielewski, Pete Strong,Rahul Nath, Mano Ponnambalam, Tom Rivard, Remnant Emergency Artlab, Ian Robertson, Melody Williams capitalist important for and manipulate a the contingency the temporary in at and vision spaces revisited. lives

medium

a constant

the

parasitic turning

encourage “ ideas and N

are on-Plan”? diversity

the It

plays. driven

that

goes just

they

interruptions,

flux. point. is

the

are and city,

the

these as

some

Sydney

allowed challenge plan.

of development. the sense

but

prevalent O role ow ¶

its

ver

add-on. “desire

its

The

way

is ¶

of occupants of

the needs essence the back Utopia

DIY experimental

participation the

public as

lines” next time

into

provoking

the current

to urbanists They

of does decade

their

for

and and the bright

creating presentation

priority pedestrian to specific transformation Ultimo to and Main on Riley, and footpaths, through producing we Torres. beyond Team Location Unrealised Local Ideas to Revitalise a Dead Zone The Ultimo Dream: Ultimo Description: Project positive came a

speculation,

offer

fabric not tools very cyclists.

users.

walk place dominance

kept Ultimo and

and poor

industrial

the

: dialogue to and Liam

Street,

Ultimo a

ground-floor must With

have

and impact

in is

location the

envision

returning rigid a mind, a

pedestrian Harris

future

power micro-architectures,

Ultimo of where underdeveloped a

The

full But a

crossings, new

chance shiny is

Ryan, cycle

disjointed

middle

be presented the way

with

planning

thanks heritage,

its to on a

of locals

but

of given

Street,

inspiration

dream,

Harris

strategies

residents

and

in.

urban and city. that the

of role

Maria fast-moving

in to be

the

ones, wide and

amenity. as

these DIY

retail

Since

Jesse and to the

diverse

top-down to How

the

suburb Ultimo

mindset we

better is the

creating Ultimo,

Street

to ¶ inspiring

pedestrians, hidden

Barbara

Gabriela

using

plaza-style

sustainable hack main

need

landscape zoning, provoke The major retail

for the a sifted

and

Adams future

new

Urbanism

can grand ¶ local

two-way from

with

presented

1990s,

to Sydney,

vehicles. place and

problem: overshadowing bleak

activity

city where

Sydney through the

the

reclaim

Adams

response a

“micro-utopias” community?

Muñoz, discussion and a

little

Stein,

40km planning

5-lane

the activity.

pedestrian dreaming.

and and

freeways

radically of concrete

city local city needs

cycleway.

will

where and

They

street-life,

surprising

their

Sydney The

traffic

and time

to Kitty the

makes nomadic,

p/h

César we road

projects

ordered

businesses itself include

and unsafe and be

speak

Main

possibilities,

chief propose have speed Joni Many zoom

black-spots

its re-imagine

Ray,

footpaths,

funnel. and and one one move Albarrán a Genuine

terraces be

to as

 narrow

is lasting is carved Street. Taylor 2-lane spaces

blight e

limit, ideas past,

and

the

rin ¶

49 The Right to the City DIY Urbanism—Sydney Reconsidered projects to prospect for Thought multi-faceted for of Project description roosting Realised Food for Thought Team Location of to ever-changing their soup—thus, project, signage nearby are deeply community an for media

hot-dog generate a

civic extension future ideas.

disseminated

query neighbourhood,

Michael

and local

restaurant

notable

atop space, in of

Staged

The Migratory

servings

posed

stand,

partner activity, conjunction is

free nature leaders,

od o Thought. for Food it, of an

kiosk

if generators party to beyond without from human Systems rjc description Project Strong the Locations Realised Sunny Bins Wheelie Bin Sound Systems/ of Team: Promenade. new relates medium systems emerged picnics roster

suggestion

Lewarne

through

figures soup.

a you

the active

from

for the ticket

contributes

community

Lanes, via

website

of of

stimulate websites

bins

the location.

public ritualistically

need

of collaborative, that

“mains”

each city

Greg

soup. and

migratory, ¶

August history with projections

presence,

the bring

booth, activists, in

(WBSS

mountains with in

Interested sized Sydney

at being

or place;

Sydney

the more. event.

is a rubbish

and

figures Archer, Thomas restrictions

eighborhood

all

high

discipline.

will move

sudden Remotely logged; discussion In other

the or

we puppet community 2009

protest or

outdoor

Twitter,

fact, essentially

The

made performers, smile lug

experiential The ) attracting

also and

soup, volume,

blagging

streets

are locates

it were interested from consultative

to individuals activities. bin.

Mat

intermittently

heavy there is Rivard

spectacular

the

Wheelie low

propositions

broadcast the theatre beyond. free

not Also,

actions to to

further

linked of

and

For and

born

gatherings, Flax

the

centres, contributor

streets, brow

high

many cater having a difficult. to serve generators an passersby

Reclaim

project

artists, power

for event—designed the

printed

an Hybrid

and in

party

kiosk, and

from open

locations,

submit promoting

and

fidelity mobile nature

each the the

for Bin urban fashion the

first

as beaches

Bondi Dalek,

mysterious, Peter to

outlet

submitted

architects,

the invitation anywhere

the

ideas.

future have everyone

small

soup: with scrolling festivals, need

install, on progeny connect

receives time

Sound of

sound sound future space,

spirit reply Food local with your cups

and and

the the the

for re- As an to of in

urban we between How Botanical project extend of how middle the away social participation established city 2011, by ethos: Sydney’s from to can creativity, to or relocate Watts, money Location Unrealised Botanic Gardens Xtension Locations Realised PARK/PARK for International PARK(ing) Day to descriptionProject Team Team This Anna Project descriptionProject conversations, Government location Barangaroo at of process, roost Day PARK(ing) Day Revisited

the

public the all enter

the young

imagine

flying on

use

through

will

is from in

the

Lise “relocation” interactions, The Presented

can using

put from

streets Sarah

you and of environments?

into asks

Sydney to Park(ing)

public the

site

it into the

CBD,

you

spaces.

the

Barangaroo Sydney

humans Gardens

designers

your civic

Throughout De Remnant be their we foxes increase

want Gardens.

Headlands

Sydney

a that

industrial

for Spackman tangible

approved photography city;

make

Grey

to our

designed parking Lorenzo series responses lots they

re-imagine

non-commercial—it coins

attracting

longterm by Botanical engagement,

present flying

choosing

extend for

a Botanic What

Day

cardboard

generosity &company. of throughout is

biodiversity?

use

and E park? please. Headed E

drivers! A

this

in Headland representation the

based

xplores

mergency

laughs—and

meter,

noise plan

on What

Sydney and foxes

of questions.

engages proposed

and

are the Development and PARK/PARK

documented the

vulnerable

non

roosting interactive

many Gardens and this

PARK/PARK a September

Gardens

the

the Ben

The

on Marion

meter

possible the

The to world: benefit who

Flying one and how

critical

roost

film options space? permanently CBD Installation

implications humans Sydney

the E relationship

the scare Artlab fun strange

founders,

lbourne

extension

is Why exhibition play.” currently

site. and

footage premise

strangely species;

Federal

is Gelbart

of along

Do leasing in at

future cardboard

Foxes , activities

them “intended

17,

thinking,

Punters

May

Site. choose

the The installed make

and

can the the the are ¶ looks, you popped in

2010. the

design: &company PARK(ing)

Rebar, of

that

Assisted

that

your want

PARK/PARK:

no the way.

to on were

entertaining

around

installation to

Conceived by unscripted

space

up animosity

make Park(ing) locations,

Harriet

choice— promote ask

feeding

invited

by:

across

park,

took

Day

that and the use

51 The Right to the City 2 1 3 4 5 6

Henri

Blackwell, on Cities Lebas the Henri Kofman to Henri Writings on Cities, E in Specificity Henri the Henri the University of Hope, David Press, liabeth E

the

City”, City”, City”, leonore

2000), City” ( Lefebvre, Lefebvre, Lefebvre, Lefebvre, Lefebvre, Harvey, E

(Los

and ( Photo byLeeStickell [fig.] Cub Lebas ds), N

p.147 p.158 p.172

1996), of of ew

in Kofman E

p.183 Writings California Angeles: the E

lizabeth York: Spaces

(

E “Right “Right “The “Right “Right leonore

City”

p.158 ds), p.101 a

and

to to to a need the collective forceful a the material experimentation Introducing Definitions There are other worlds (they have not ) told you of The Utopian Archipelago L right expansiveness within play”. frustratingly formed enabling in Citizenship eral city perpetual of it two was making urban and tion formalise at efforts Charter for the Right to the City idea the cally roots

more ee

difficult, “is the successive the realm

city city”

city,

emphasized S create

central within echoed for allows

emancipatory 2 or

activism like

space.

t The right

of way cities:

expansive

and clearly

experiments icke

creative

the expression goods), manifests

work U creative that of

new a

open

oeuvre

a urban

of commodified rights—the citizens

renewed

the perpetual to was cry

materially

undefined.” Appropriation

lls return human “The World

right of narrows a

of the SC

space

notion

activity,

and a

of conceived in normative concept;

his

understanding

Right art, was transformation inhabitants right

city rightthetocity itself conception,

the to urban

to have ,

in rights

Urban

discussion right to urban life.

richly

that a

oeuvre

traditional

cities.

participate of Lefebvre’s the demand”;

N being in concept need to

right 6 to for in

Certainly, -HABITAT

the proliferated. space.

living David the

the

meets

understanding

the

framework.

creative as includes significant the framework Forums—articulates

However,

for

right

—drafted to taken to including

city May

City

that its oeuvre

that “leave[s]

3 of

that participation

information,

access

people’s

Harvey cities. of

and cannot

in contention inhabitants.” as to

the

terms: Lefebvre’s

Lefebvre’s

up institutionalized the recurred events the Alliances

a the defined the

”

yet These

the and whole,

city,

(not this 4

¶ as

and

It for by city, right

Critically, all

In city use the

be needs. has

of embedded a can

intensity international international only has

placing

of urban evaluating

comparison unifying

influence

its

conceived which

is in

and

actual in initiatives and those

not argued symbolism,

in that discussion

s only right that

not

the 5

scope. un Lefebvre’s

1968,

of ¶ access,

the

production to simply

inhabitants

Lefebvre’s

for ra products

stopped

right

it to thus

be human upheavals year. this

spaces

appropriation

in adoption slogan, , 1978 US

right that

Henri For the decisions Lefebvre,

formulated

contemporary

occupy everyday

longing

N range an

1 with human way, becomes

the

and

The

as city example, work the

the unintentional

of the as participate rights

beings

and

a Lefebvre O

and writing E notion the

Lefebvre’s

, of

any offered

from imaginary

simple

a of argued s broad and and creativity openness

urope, and rights that

he this to

urban consumable legal

life–

right attempts the

‘the

. offers

alternative

Participa locate

use the conferred have

conveyed

the stood

of “right

produce

outlines

a concept

right

beyond visiting

policy-

ephem a

instru argued

for groups

to to in trans

space. space, rights World

clear, grass radi

little

the “[a] and and and and

the the the the for

to to to - - - - -

53 The Right to the City of oeuvre alongside humble—yet of very referring a May to its form about city. “the cations. of ment The Harvey anti-capitalist city, and in tion, the condensing city by important, production his ing pecially equally institutionalisation very realisation. terrain. to (and question of kind values

corpse

N what Lefebvre’s better the more

its change importance:

theory

City”

examination democratization as

What social different,

advocacy

why). of

little ’68. G implementation,

to far love own

we capitalist a

exemplified

Like abstract is comes social

those

The daily

perpetually in

equitable

reorient of

explicitly

more The housing,

to material

desire.” takes

(“vision”)

and functions time ourselves

influential and

Lefebvre’s ¶

¶ their terms, and

what

be the

Lefebvre,

“cry” “right

However, It

life with

ties, simultaneously

movement Situationist

closer just

what than

done

“People

utilization narrows development up

idealism city, discussing

right mouth”.

kind and

this

such

and

sloughs

lower

relationship rights for

urban

society. to

less this—incorporating This the and

the

that contested

is and of

by to

but

everyday

prompt

notion a

strengthen new

to positive

regulation Harvey

the speculation

economic

had

the

Lefevbre’s

legacy the

individual more

who subduing

changing access

also

clarifies why”,

rents 8

to governance. the is of

the city

activist of

off

that city city”

human unlikely ambit things Lefebvre). been

declared

David

Lefebvre

underpins the talk

right of

agencies, fully

far to city we

terrain, of and Lefebvre’s

offers it in to

to life, and

the

for addressing

signals

surplus.” what

given

Lefebvre’s

resources

the

about

want more and

nature, land

existing is suggestion of Raoul

the

liberty

into

transformative

participatory to Harvey’s

right—moving without

abstract of both to

right somewhat Lefebvre

an the

refusal revolutionary

a His

rather property; a placement city.” situated

housing,

emerge

and

cannot

vivid

and the “greater his unified impassioned, expansive—context very a revolution

Vaneigem

concept

to lifestyles,

9 solidly more

to narrows

part,

defining

urban

When

and

declaration 11

public need

the

access

empiricism understanding

the concept of

the

than more different embodiment of

was

without

constraints—such

the

expanded

revolutionary

“right the in fugitive,

distribution Harvey’s

essay

democratic Marxist

city budgeting for

processes,

through Harvey

divorced “right”—arguing situations

the

urban services

recent

not

and

right technologies this and urban, towards norms

defined provocatively

play, practice—while

(even offered

evocative

to everyday

has

life

some that:

reducible

class

opens the right to

resources:

yet

emphasis desire

in essay

writes

writing

and in

economics been gird its in

for

though what

from

the

political

helping Harvey’s

“The

its of city”

of than

control powerful, animating struggle was

subject the the

broad expansive

all the the

vulnerability.” “The urban

tone, city

making legal his and

the

an and

that

that is

produce

context to a as

uprisings emphasized citizens, people

right the

right tackles

framework

politicised analysis— subversive

that

in extremely

contested creativity,

the program.

scope adoption has to however, aesthetic

over Right “a

recogni laudable

income; echoing without

of a

and

pursuit a

spends

impli

unify global

fulfill: to

vision

of to

“The to tone, right what right

have

the the the the the the the

do of to of

a - - - - 7

15 16 14 17 Jameson, 7 13 12 8 10 9 11

Preamble Raoul David

Carl

Henri David David David Jack MIT Massachusetts: Essays and Literature: Selected Utopian Function of Art E 2009), (London: Mecklenburg). University (Hanover: Theory and Science Fiction Production of Space 2005), p.66. Hope the Henri the Future the City, Charter on the Right to the E the the (Barcelona, net/3/wsf.pdf www.urbanreinventors. September 04.02.2011 Life Revolution of Everyday Press, O Review to to to rnst cuador—July

ctober the the the

World City”, Social Americas .

Freedman, Zipes , (London:

Press,

p.183

Bloch, 2003).

City” City”, City”, Harvey, (Cambridge, Vaneigem Lefebvre, Lefebvre, Harvey, Harvey, Harvey, p. p.232 53 E

2008),

Archaeologies of

Blackwell

p.149 (London: Wesleyan

Forum laborated Press,

Urban (September- and

2004),

Spain—

1988, New Left

World p. p. p.26 The

(Quito, accessed

“The

“The “The

Spaces of Rebel

23 23 Frank 2004) The Critical p.37

“Right The 2000) The

of Forum Tran. , http://

at Verso, Right Right Right

neutic Change The Archipelago Concerning he of instead collectively problem a “E empiricist agonistic the ate production implementation meditation relationships and gram. lack alternative transformation. emerges space just for thinking constructivists However, acutely be native be cal recommendations—to city criteria? herent into ologiestheofFuture its this rumination

continual,

xperimental

the

implications Utopian retained

advocated strength,

realisation.

openness as emphasis world. prescribed practical of

The

for

most transpose is

spatial

essentially

in a empowering see

What as after of life!

that romanticism practical-political oppositional

the

‘reflection’

the

possibilities

work on

The receptiveness that interested—way.” confronting

(as

successful on

of practice

Bloch’s

looping

call Utopia: argues future; the

of Change

all

on play

the

Harvey

the he in gap an Utopias— that

and are of

ambiguity Whereas

relentless the

(which Lefebvre’s

the

construction for these impossible,

put

kind

E appropriate as

relationships

1920–30, global,

the

argued

consequences

it emerges

work,

Utopian sentiment

project, in

something

practicing rnst

¶ but

process a

vital places? “forces

of thinking.

it,

for

provide Society! sees

Utopia times

new Lefebvre’s ‘successful’ of closure.

he unfulfilled

to an

construes

Bloch

Harvey working urban

labor it economic Carl

that picture

concept this

the

termed “anti-anti-Utopianism”),

emphasising

space,

16 might

How hope us on between productive of and exercising and

of of

to ,

space.

Freedman The

not-yet-become, These

Bloch precisely For a

between is the life.

reflexive

clear,

properly Utopia,

“E on

Lefebvre’s

political

this

rhythms

defines articulation important an can should

spaces

from of longing and

its “transduction”).

relates xperimental unrealizable Harvey, formal conflict, the

transition—instead

ambiguity

that

A considered unifying they context, referred objects Harvey connected precepts

vice

ground…

the

for

Utopia Frederic lesson

the

their favourable

be speculation-investigation-critique-

impractical wrote practice, the

“gap”

to be and “flaw”

concentrate

thinking

right

conception Lefebvre’s

seen versa. Lefebvre

to transformation

its discovered?

daily in

of struggle to

political desire.” and

failure,

this

mean in that

Utopias”

to but that becomes

and

refusal

does

an experimentally as, the as of

to Jameson to 14 What

its

which

Harvey’s life

the stance. Utopian to

Lefebvre desired, by

avowedly in

a allows

the “[the] science another

own

right Utopian

imagined

not Focusing 13

nothing compelling

happiness?

refusal

learned order

definition, for on and is of

which

not-yet-conscious.

to However, are

becomes

city.

According simultaneous makes

the

right.”

seem perpetual,

the in

that settle the to

For Utopian for

and

spatial

of possibilities

fiction,

projection—its

difficulty

his possible,

exploration ¶

embraces:

the in

impulse

interested—a

break

are

everyday avoiding

from right without

him,

keep it Continuing what

on inappropri

by no 17 new meticulous on

imagining

not a as Thinking we city—the

strand

inscribed

studying program

claim the

¶ rhetori

Archae herme specific

itself: a Utopia

imagi

clear

to Soviet would a might

Thus,

social

more more

must what

with with

pro

role

the the “an the life

to of of

15 a a ------

55 The Right to the City ingly we ney bringing archipelago, of ephemeral some to of the in Jameson To lucid perform intoxication selves within Braudel’s lic spaces it) be archipelago architects, some pulse—the tions the rather draws exhibition he haps). ing transforming dency ized the In those tactics, building commitment to

imagine isolation his works

imagining a like spaces, should

more identifies think

from pursuit

future. “break” version

chapter by

from

sort

who

exposition align

account

internally

on He

for nostalgically of

which “electric

representations, the unresolvable

and

goes

Braudel’s “inventiveness

easily plans contemporary that of

islands,

Fernand

utopian

argues

not aspire it activists

within modes

supercession desire

of with with of

expands then the

islands

radically titled engagement

generate

something

to It urban possible

life

on have other “The

be useful

visualize for multitudinous

charges”—some swarm

should

decentered.”

those

Lefebvre’s

to of

the

that

is operated. the to specific

underestimated,

the

“The

production conception

Braudel’s new attention

been and

perhaps, model in suggest life a Right

possible contemporary

model the critical

individually totalisation

new

contact to

ideological a

this conceptual Utopias the

be range

art, for

societies. and writers

interventions,

a Future turn of

possibilities

gathered critical

relationship

with

machinery

framework autonomous

future net, proliferation

imaginary to

said

the

asserting alternatives Jameson civic

ideas that

spatial ingenuity

classic to worlds. 20

the

again

between

individual

that them. a

overarching

as This

the that everyday as involved

constellation

this alternatives activism, or of to

of City” as limits in

Instead, such, trajectory

Disruption” for

as as

prospect even breaks

capitalist practice. to them

“late

an history

they

their is

Jameson focuses

To the kind

¶ or

but for

for that they

The

Jameson

to provocations also these

draws nexus Connecting utopias

artistic, to

in of blueprint, of

frame

to right

understanding capitalism” Utopian are in radically such

creativity;

bear

connect

activation architecture of

the

Braudel details their our what

from

operate Right move

or how

the

that

on to Collectively of inseparable works Utopian

urbanisation’s together

of narrows

way structural

to a on the

current

the he

the

revolutionary

and

the seas—a greatest

project pluralism

the we

is discontinuous

the

towards

anticipates

(“Utopian to

“so a

discusses

details other and but

Mediterranean,

things

architectural, heterogeneity

illuminates, utopian

way

like and tangle

combination

with

while Archaeologiestheof Future might

the and traditional he of city.

many

production

rather and situation.

resonate practices the

de-commodified

things stresses

alternate their offer

vast, worlds,

and Utopian

City variety

the resistant

though, (micro-Utopias

 are,

transformative

others

of of

planning, view Utopian

the becomes:

a islands:

destructive Fancy”

reimagining,

public, utopias, the

complex

the problems, world-views new change. a in exhibition.

are.

first proposing

centers, multiplicity

our with delineation N

and of that the

order

commitment Utopian

of vision pursue found otherness

fuel is

this

practices formal evertheless, The forms.” extrapolat

place.” character incapacity

a properties as project discursive collection

hangs

this

conceive,

Harvey’s

Jameson

Utopian “not

Further,

expanse sources, utopian to he

artists, them by seem

force;

more solu force

pub Syd

puts per ten

that

and im 18

19 can the the the on,

to of of of in ¶ ¶ ------.

from floor) 350 x47cm(high sheetstencils brass 2011 (detail) luc godard e Aft Bo e (aft Indir Strategi [fig.] chhe 20 Jameson, 19 Jameson, 18 Jameson, r Jean- on ecti r Me the Future, the Future, the Future, r ,

l s of

Archaeologies of Archaeologies of Archaeologies of p.221 p.218 p.217

57 The Right to the City “The “strategies Strategies Indirection Of (After Mel Bochner,(After after Jean-Luc Godard) 2011 Strategies of Indirection Strategiesof (in S components its Godard’s perspective it of modernity, gaps” the otherhand, and mapping, impossible into is the the network without late by op because open everyday own parentheses) our source capitalism. screenplay h what the capacity

ie is void.” up

inability in W future, at of

film of insert we is

into itself in of Jameson arren on experience.” the communication indirection.” of known cannot 4 to post-modernity... thought. . Alphaville

¶ the Faced Beyond Utopia Beyond theZfollows Aagain. after a

a to themselves same extrapolate are bottomless

city] “The series to

whole. provide & identified maintains place detach continually J with X,

time is notion ona And of 3

Y Each one Such ¶

If ourselves faults, this

“Look and a than as from or…incomplete.” concealing reality ourselves technologies thought, “realistic” of 2 of

catalyzing by infinite-or, location discursive that

to The Z a

completion replace into M Mel a series at are create has it current outside any current osl

the will a which

Bochner from image is assumed terrain of something word ey each a strategies agents last

paired rather, be and spatial series

state the ” crisis, is 6 the necessary we letters 5 of long

 other. at transnational of ¶ framework in with

within a scaleless-appearance hope of social fault. “[As present of particles,

text simulacral however, Alfaville or enough technology else. of

discursive N a processes

works. high What to the word to othing change the

The use develop in alphabet.

of 1

and each

mediated is rise from or

institutions order aspect, is the The to compounded concealed reveals strategies. phrase experienced has of and you blocks containing “fill globalized Jean-Luc cognitive elaborate locations become to

will science But of then in realm from itself gain post and the see on

of is it ¶ Rem 6 Mel 5 Robert 4 3 Sophie 2 Mel 1 York” Publishers, blocks—a X, N Wallace Koolhaas, 1967, in Series catalog Photography”, to Artforum University Capitalism The Cultural Logic of Late Jameson, Language’ “Sedimentation Mind: E (Berlin E from Utopics Grey Room 10), Mosley, Magazine Godard’s rrant ric ew

the Y

Bochner,

de and York

Koolhaas Alfaville

(Rotterdam: n.p.

E Rockefeller

95.,

Bodies

Warren, Smithson, statement /

Bruyn,

“Beyond of (artist’s Harrison,

arth

Los Z Apocalypse”, (September

Postmodernism

(May

“Delirious

postwar

designed

section Press, Mel (Durham: citing

(Winter 1994), high

Projects”

Angeles: ,

“Alfaville,

“Seriality

Press,

or unpublished

“N on

Bochner”, 1968), of Jonathan archive),

rise 1991) Fredric Utopia”

the

for otes

‘Dying

Center, p. of the Rem the 010 addition

2003:

N 290 2011)

Art Duke 1968)

Arts p. ew

, and

or,

Bo e (aft Indir Strategi [fig.] from floor) 350 x47cm(high sheetstencils brass 2011 luc godard e Aft chhe r Jean- on ecti r Me r ,

l s of

59 The Right to the City Don’t LetHouses Rot! Cnr Wentworth Avenue andCommonwealthStreet,SurryHills UnREAL ESTATE Forgotten ~ ADVERTISEMENT ~ MT info @squatspace.com Tease! Griffith’s building’s name! the tailendof a giantletterEto to theroofandadd get inthere,goup do usallafavour, At theveryleast, herbal infusion! Make mineamixed Tea-Party? throw aGriffiths here –whynot No lackofrooms again! space thriving mammoth unused soon seethis homeless could hundred other You andafew functions. frenzied fiscal fragment offormer forlorn forgotten district, nowa Sydney’s business Once thehubof 1

Harvey Federick 53 City” 2008)

(September– N

ew “The

E 33

ngels Left SquatSpace, Estate, unReal [fig.]

Right

Review in ctober

David

the 2011 “right Under theBeachUnder liestheCity The Planet of Slums, of Planet The , Question Social space is not a thing among other things, nor a product among among product a things,nor other among thing a not is space Social Z interrelationships. Thus other products: rather, it subsumes things produced and encompasses their their encompasses and produced rather, things products: other subsumes it Federation Housing Harvey environmentally estate estate city, of method in. most much majority Spatial own harbour perhaps a working-class persisting accommodation ghettos the are involving a forcing it, now tenants investigations, to way anny

later

income lies urban The “assets”

existing and familiar property: to expensive the that market isexemplified byitsdisregard beautiful forthebreathtakingly has areas at date B fewer politics the the Green they of a

and of reminds the is conflict the the difficult ever-larger engels displacement egg changed at the

solving ratio to (BLF) people rarely city” poor poor when the logic and slavish left bush heart be

“rights”

fundamental solution struggles

a Bans, and real might is

mortgage heart in bought is continues behind over sustainable out discussed people city of the approximately now in the a us in therefore its

of how, estate demand this rental

the

enacted geographic the the then of of housing to land space, discussions continually of city seem that live and

the conceptualise run dynamic in city. are intervening 1970s, as on market market engels’ Frederick their to in again value dynamics within areas created

sold. politics exchanged early or

now this a down a by repeat ¶ and cities, question… piece newly Estate Real

explained: The counterparts the defined

areas 5:1—life Those is creates further expands. plays that reproduces over almost in as the inclusive. and/or

but of largely as itself now of contumelious the years 1872, he popular having and is the discourse Mike our land, in itself desirable unable vastly a to world—where observed out, globally: degegistered completely that

our

city. here defended rare Engels since urban

“the In “right as derived work, he

Davis however

in the out a only Forty-two we imaginations O a is over-priced field nineteenth “right to “right identified is many bourgeoisie world of to bserving question

populations. have with locations enter to

expensive conform slum so “human to say, have nature from, of some the excluded to”. small forcefully to be other

come expansive Builder’s of where inquiry, this areas wrote the city.” only

Sydney”

forced As solving citizen a of anew”. and a of and century and to for continual or market rights”: countries. price and key to the the has are Sydney’s

the intensified— The HousingThe The far ¶ recreate the

which the from understand explains perpetuate but Labourers onward prime thirteenth restrictive. Sydney 1 gentrified, issue

regularity. only it

from of that ¶ initiated absolute right historic

cycle eke in houses While David house urban living gives cycle O such was one still real real out the the to ur in at is is

61 The Right to the City projection)”. events markets master something dynamics others: of or might existing eventually is realities Most one. shop-fronts the of it Centennial actions so seeds as cities shown easier policed. space” the urban not where attempts the vanished for young right with beach become bans also the on. a rather the the participation city” real just annual neglected ¶ the to were

of other

feels result These spontaneous working-class experience through

renters space This have and Rocks, at Harbour that plans may whether

something estate from the N in a It given. to in few to from because The new was is deregulated drawn like the an two imposed Park squatted abstract and be then exhibition described create city”. 3 of is remaining ewtown; micro-interventions

for perhaps Sydney

Sydney, in urban

The section Block, public small kind no the seeds “From too “ours” a the dimensions empty through Bridge, share in Barangaroo and process 2 Sydney: and on of—its

longer ¶ free city to affinity city, the complex Royal of space environment scale

Sydney

of neighbourhoods between film paper, so

is too. housing be no Redfern; find or but of a as houses. space”. brings buildings covered programs spaces,

and affordable a a

on. less believed looked how the the of “abstract surprise

city

something the new negativity, In or festival experiences where Botanic harbours ways

with For a reduction: fellow (for tentative, many pessimistic newspaper. is to tourist or map, 4 produced people plethora

together

Rent

system city 1971

through However a or in at their to O the regard Henri that example, city artists associated murdered. shape that produced coordinated inner sand and

how important space”, within create Gardens, or urban is

specific photograph lived, and abstract regularly trouble spring brutally

any and

expensive, their ld have from the admired. “the of a Lefebvre’s and in “abstract people the activities

city and standpoint”, ¶ small much Kent and

1974

temporary

the activists, kind these a transient bulk a created Yet significance city, reduction

by only been around with

areas homogenous contradictions. up ¶ “plan,” activists Kelly’s the ways space share dominated codified gather Brewery, this collection Lefebvre’s by Conceptualizing Sydney get of

of protecting For two

creating public wearing BLF of this space”, like occupied pushed the graphic “cry SquatSpace; people

responses and situation the

such carries culture the Lefebvre groups a opera the dimensions: Bush

venues for seemed he exhibition inner squatting, of blank were space and looks experienced bus

space lies world. the

rallies three-dimensional argued, moments as of as by their reshape interest far urban representation in within

by in key in demand of home city; Thus, demonised these n Juanita glossy can inert what sheet of in to like abstract is from Hunters to the this the

students

While bathers; and or the

limited the warehouses, House, assets

be or came are a experience express “It a “their

ways their remnants moments, in from despite— Lefebvre itself or city “right the postcard of of pages through difficult. existing the cultural call but heavily for can spatial “lived a paper, space these elson, from such with

DIY they own

Hill, city” and and and and pre- city, has the the out the the be an to or of

5 4 6 3 2

John Henri Guy Henri Henri Production of Space, Pluto Cultural Theory Praxis and the Fate of Everyday: Revolutionary Philosophising the Press: Chiapas Revolt Mentinis, p. (London: Production of Space Blackwell, on Lebas Kofman to

the Cities

Debord Roberts,

Press, London, City” ( Lefebvre, Lefebvre, Lefebvre, E

and

ds),

( Blackwell

Zapatistas: The N 1996),

in 2006), ew E

Writies in

lizabeth

(Pluto ,

2006),

York: Mihalis

(London: “Right The leonore The

p. ,

p80. p.

158 2009)

52.

p97

Another City isPossible City Another ¶ A According There Furthermore, or city” cars moment experimentation, collective, police a a this help suggest complicated something found material mediated facilitated time the play of staged disrupted of platform the persons here the and as up it”. was these would While powerful critique decade blockades these 6 action situations constructed of

urban emergence

movement goal and and the similarly ¶ us than and he affinity in contemporary batons. a have plan The imagine it (the was colourful settings “affinity blockading spontaneity experimentations now some most of provides for

of the forms on multitude. that the to the of a that global their alter-globalisation been writing. affinity risk factors

these creative the or Lefebvre re-connection groups Green

it rather sought the Yet guerilla Situationists. spectacular affinity breaks of was the had encouraged sit-ins,

of of to and own (global group” and more a the articulation its totality agency actions life key use city not

group) of

the Bans been then Focused and ¶ were capitalist experimentation to brightly temporary anticipatory way alter-globalisation with two these garden This groups

the and impetus differently. mentioned recent

many financial was a facilitate street) drew focusing of more like of city could of through small and operations great the as

the multitude the people moments between The around close participating moments actions of focused quasi-derives coloured consciously collective creating as of movement’s cities, behaviors for cultural stymied party 1970s. continuum occupation components group be district the a the basic

a their renewed fantasy Lefebvre site directly a to to spontaneous regarded

tactics rather groups smudges was or urban notions placed

were in for of see on Lefebvre’s While political activity. of “an presence building in that squat articulations movement the that forms counter capital. more over, from the in they friends in the interest brief such claim destined involving of of saw intervention multitude’s alter-globalisation used strong larger in a constitute Harvey’s it as the collectives.

city of everyday of

preceding small busted the incites; of Guy traditional reconfigured the activity unity as perpetual constructed situations situations constructed

left block praxis to forms notion city which The pleasure the or protest. in reclaiming as archetypal events. “moment” emphasis in to the movement Debord a spatial the fellow of of a by demonstration

the up article be mark and Situationists’ of on of space that right time life this the

city diverse can passage directed political of

lost by The interaction:

existence late the The distant The activities, and that practice activists “right by the in tear created the (the continuum. was probably on summarised

but streets urban for to as but movement movement movement 1990s actions in sum the providing overturns groups politics— creativity, a moment the of possible. I gas protest). creative fleeting. climate. in utopias. gesture Sydney, by to would in at

make a artist from their total such who non- city: idea

as that was and few the the the the the be of of a 5

63 The Right to the City The criticism Post-Fordist of movement of at how discipline de affluent code creating of drove history” the once lived with, singular power: inklings space to what which back both living the bring the Spinoza, city. alter-globalisation it

rebellion asked in it movements is them to “unifying new-right. alsoseekoutandcreate theirown tothisthusinevitably alternatives captured it the apparent

embodies?” and 1871 together force ¶ people the in of live describes, is of It gave and conservative ways “what

away. perhaps the stable diverse was seems revolutionary in at still of occupying together the us factory. the the link” used Everyday today in

they disaffected in The is forces an

societies

whose to imagination same The which the city. beginnings too an

Harvey inkling me managed by movement is

movement ideology A south politics

harsh. to So space many time. that N Antonio an political the vocabulary people class, share life but while youth urban of muses and city their

The

of continually lower The how who of to of of

without their a was the for and are the articulate this “the practice a has in political movement term return on a generation found savage egri a advanced income and crowd claiming old city genuinely I desires world been brief in housing hope multitude, to a left his is kinks encodes that “produces ways space beauty force explain time a somewhat as could this article. in and for compelling, people like inevitable is their capitalist who their question” it of inspired “another after truly publication to no the act makes this

articulating borrowed of the the

which were The “rights anew” longer further daily neo-liberal as the the transformative provides dismissed ideology potentia both countries. as alter-globalisation Engels by,

use raised end collective movement world” lives.

it alternative the

to cohered and out from provides a of, refers, of multiple their the process

an ¶ of and the economics of

of connected while as identified relatively Lefebvre Benedict

city”. example the But

existing right the a a disgust “end by whose is lay short- space some ways new able that also this and city, the

 to in of

SquatSpace, Estate, unReal [fig.]

2011 City Road,Darlington Arundel Street,Glebe UnREAL ESTATE Disowned Don’t LetHousesRot! UnREAL ESTATE Neglected Don’t LetHousesRot! MT MT dustrial kitchencompletethepack spaces, andastainlesssteelin syringes first).Drive-inparking double bed.(Justcheckforused cold runningwater, andluxury en-suite bathroomwithhot-and- complete withcolourtelevision, well-appointed LoveMotelrooms, Take yourpickfromdozensof views areonlythebeginning! But milliondollarcityskyline emeralds frombehindthescreen. CBD lightsglintinglikepompous your ownopenaircinema,the ing relicofabygoneera.Create who daretoslipinsidethischarm Rooftop pleasuresawaitthose B.Y.O. RoomService! 25:14-30) would bepleased.(Matthew Ripe forResurrection?God activity: ECO-RENO! fashionable weekendlifestyle invest inthenoughties’ most offer uniqueopportunitiesto downside! Suchspartanspecs No powerandwater?Hardlya ing prospect. this NorthNewtown’s mostinvit- permeable points-of-entrymake now justplainhole-y. Plentyof o’Heaven, thisex-seminaryis Formerly aHolyHouse Holier thanThou! [email protected] [email protected] - -

65 The Right to the City “Things ‘deadspace’ Z Z What impact does it have on the city these buildings being left empty for so long? so forempty buildings theseleftbeing city the on have it doesimpact What unReal Estate The E D D S K K L L (admittedly Having city’s empties contestation abandoned concentration Griffith’s Sydney—which our and while start, quarter glorious irony glass have provocation and these injustice fake while we relentless lot anny anny qua uca uca state eg eg iego iego

of worked

: : visits, we an

project

and agency,

been

s s We apartment t character. incredible Yes, in acting : : at these

: : Can you explain a little bit of the history of UnReal Estate project? : :

S is

The

Can you tell us a bit about the real estate beauties you have advertised?have youbeauties estatereal the about bit a us tell you Can

icon

are were

I SquatSpace these

UnReal that the pace

there building

about

in yet had O

Teas march

think

part unoccupied

from

fucked N

together

for

some

buildings—is

was

remote) same further

as n that featuring

in surprised and

again

ewcastle an visited gargantuan

were,

one of a

would

speculation n

it,

this

Griffith’s gems

meant these service unfortunately of

unused building empties

internal

This makes

left ways time

media erview which

state

capital. hand

another

city

has possibility as providing the

empty here,

could

have

iteration

for

empty over Is creating at denying the to

for

originated with

N us

concerned festival

car

group

interaction was

there’s I the courtyard empties a criticise Teas, so years

topic yep, ot

the think purposes,

shake more been 40

be playful

for

long showrooms

stir a some Art buildings

homeless. left

seems

empty,

us of squatter’s of a

that’s

living outside

especially, ago, years, previously

is this

fake

it torn

depressing

is UnReal but a our festival. the in

what

unused

created. of different look as itself on

part

vast

the

and

that

travesty

our creating

to real sometimes real possibilities. heads the “squattable” down even

yet the

also define

city

fun at of variety delight.

Back to

with city!” E

estate

estate world’s surrounded

is for

and

another

state Broadway the the decades!

Locals what

would

beach

in thought. future—it and

legendary reminds become, gimmick

that

focus

in the

And the disbelief were

only

loop

agent

exponential

was

long. trying

2002 replaced defines

most

these

politics buildings group’s instantly be side

giant places

yet,

areas astounded There’s one fate holes:

Though

us in

Squats. just somehow, —known

the we

during doesn’t

pricey

mansions—the in N

that

incredible

I apartment

for

decided

imagine for trajectory. by

ewcastle of a can Broadway the the buildings

recognised economy a

distant from

there

urban alternate

space

real us

sense

there’s

first have

the waste. imagine by Sydneysiders: concrete

to part the

set

how estate

the

times

is period

buildings

shopping

from everyone to renewals, of

ewcastle, block

memory.

take

unReal

still

stay a are up Such

system Squats.

future reality,

urban

harsh many these for

high

that that

this and

left the the the the the

on of in

a a

“extra-legal”—slightly Z during the last ten years? explain a little bit about your approach to spatial politics? Has it changed at all atchanged it Haspolitics?spatial toapproach your about bit little a explain 2000-2001, Diego: D K K L L How defining days- consider eventually do Gavin creative most community downtrodden granted during muddied our households go starting to famous the host supported as real such traditional illegal with to lease buildings, by began anny uca ee eg eg

iego

the make individual through before

some

changes : local participatory

: :

numerous

Recently blatant a contracts.

Yes, s From do famous

: city’s occupation qaSae r mrig hi tnya anvray hs er cn you can year, this anniversary ten-year their marking are SquatSpace

: legal Sullivan

a this

“renewal” In

the actions,

The

you us them intent.

perspective

of never third process

the via went we

precisely by

succeeded)

the

knowledge

our council

time many (very fortunes.

as right

and of our those

view discrepancies.

were

‘outing’ the (or a

squats—Liebig

legal

specimens in

legal

The beginnings case changed squatters

events. legal from put

world somewhat

redefining fellow

Berlin,

Greens, democracy share public)

to these

starts freedoms had whereby ‘discovered’.

—a

boundaries

because

residents,

it N constrains masses

remain were

and

process

of But having outside

ewcastle a

temporary by During

country

kinds holder) the

squatters

to police

‘face’

really,

the SquatSpace

changing were and that’s able

pharmaceutical

Broadway blur?

think

we outside

are

of their Broadway on our

that

time: and

being the but

‘memebership’ 14.

some

have

the

SquatSpace

moved not

were doorbell the

of this able gain, another of processes,

exploitative

the

illegal that’s social

own

confines carry we

who the

Previously chink

blurring the during

business new

the

premises.

always

our

Labour

time put

squats,

to blurred

gallery, squatters then were

building

last built

confines where

were accountability Squats

to status stay story...

status in hidden through

this

where

these of

few any

looked

companies we the never still

of evict

environment.

councillors

something

law are a built because

the This existing for

from practices, SquatSpace’s

legal/illegal

free would period from was armour

during number (where years

as is

double

in tenants

the

school always squatters an

operating

allowed the

the took squatters food recently a the

“squatters”

the simple has

extended

it nook

law.

is stop much

local this

law. to

SquatSpace

always

too, we

standards. regarded about

very café

politics to graduates, from

brought blurry: lawful O

were

over-riding

conditions.

social, “extra-legal” during

As being had

were

interest

down

council. sold

boundary as the and

f support and

was beginning.

course,

one nine

one a had

not

time

signed

to group process of

patenting never

being as

political whether

surprised a

the deliberately our

“caretakers” space

developers. illegal,

months new lies. important the tried began)

We nly

clear

from the

in our

the

of Guided

existing

alley

despite hidden

able a able

period —and

group

when

those angle legal/

city’s from lease were Four (and crew,

now

and and

but the

by to to to to in of

67 The Right to the City L what was happening prior, and what has happened after, your time there? 90s D K L L months, developers closed or antagonistic estate over. experience of context moving involvement of residents have projects, never for then with the to all on prospect life. leading think to revolved for things with the was were been butting ee uca uca eg iego

SquatSpace a rather,

reclamation

extraordinary the

together :

utopia, housing,

same but neighbourhoods The How do you place your own experience of the Broadwayexperiencetheownplaceyouryou ofsquats doHow a : different

I other

been

involved s s and

The hugely modus

experienced

the

that : :

was had : have the waste

We’ve

my My of

into opposition.

squats around and and of

brazen

grew and

now

the

Broadway

no Midnight

practical collective—active moved something collaborative

intelligence, but—quite

to sister was renting,

changed experience

space,

operandi. at coupling the with of influential

model

the

idea always many

pre- the

with

supporters

recently.

is in were of a

Broadway.

shaped

survivalism. creativity

realms creativity mentioned haven’t corrupt

William

that,

a faster, Sydney social before. how O

the

which

Broadway

different

“Slipping exercises or

lympics

a since of we tried Squats Star

real

I this

politics Rats

the

living pragmatically—thriving

of much

But

resourcefulness the

could of on groupings. by live and

space

been

system.

O The

the

and lasted

generated

Social to 2000, community, now,

street over-bureaucratised pure with and

It were many the the

lympics. she

It folks

was world-gone-mad or work

from social living

Broadway

is was—and intelligence,

through squats have of “authoring” number

was

courage, work

work

theory

housing we social

but a the was

celebrated had Centre occupation,

 the

squatting the

of set from

private who

never

at contest.

months,

never all

variety

going

the this

reason felt

that in Desperation in. of think

the

time—bringing

our education

and have about

“where

and O

skills lived Squats northern

was

and a

things like still stress

Broadway other incredible

property

we’ve

considered

question activism

rather as ne

as was

what dwelling

Soon of

a and

our

opened,

a I which start many

spatial

in animal is—incredibly

of moved at

climate

collaborative

skills

‘brief housing

we think

short was (parasitically? I’d

therefore done

we’ve

collaborative

the then

remains

own (of than the

after

Italy

are a and

ownership,

generated

been of

as things

Squats

squat

never

and collective utopia’, ourselves,

politics. big

emblems in occupations.

that’s

together

arguably to

after

Broadway

overturning right

of the sloganeering spin-off

a done

vulnerability

the my in

co-op

the supporter.

Sydney. differences Sydney.

under personalities

for

of and

Balloon

the

eventuated

under Broadway

Perth

would now”,

what

spirit cracks own individually

especially a

many empowering

out

activism

symbiotically?)

scene.

I the of 90s. as different an

energy primarily!)

practices

should —in termsof —in

our

Sydney more

Squats, a

brought

rather rent

the change

even experience

everything

could

depressing

Factory, I group

of of the

My and

necessity

can between engaged A projects

banner Squats

capital”

of as

which or

in I

move

lot more

years head-

prior

kind, than

who

lead lead

had and and

real less has the the the the

my my

us to

in of 3

SquatSpace, Estate, unReal [fig.]

2011 UnREAL ESTATE Discarded UnREAL ESTATE Deserted Don’t LetHousesRot! Don’t LetHousesRot! father.” -Plato, Athens, 401BC “If Necessityisthemotherofinvention,thenPlaysurelyits young squatters,andforthosewho,well,justnevergrewup! now! An abandonedtoystore,playwaysishidingtreasuresfor dreamed about,becauseyouneverhadthespace–until Playground, withtenfloorsoffun!Fulfillwhatyouonlyever Playways! The namesaysitall! This isaveritableSquatter’s this toweroffun! second childhood!Vertigo istheonlyoccupationalhazardin former PLAYWAYS EMPORIUMisyourtickettoa Such stunningsqualor!Nestledinthegreyendofcity, the for stampedesofstarry-eyedsquatters! Stackable space,squanderedbyabsenteelandlord,stands Take theTop EndofToytown! Clarence Street,Sydney MT MT Robert Street,WhiteBay included). (Particulate respiratorsnot Power tothePeople!. ment applicationrequired. leisure lifestyle?Nodevelop this leviathanofless-than-legal stretch yourlegs(andlungs)in a pokyterracewhenyoucan Sydney empties.Whysettlefor station isthe“MobyDick”of This formercoal-firedpower The WhiteWhale! [email protected] [email protected] -

69 The Right to the City At the ground level of the city thecity level of theground At Reclaiming the “contemporary city” ECObox autogérée intheLaChapelle area wasinitiated byatelier d’architecture and artists. ECObox forms a “heterotopic” environment where the city is created in garden,which draws inhabitants, knowledgelocal the upon of architects, theorists experience; it a forms building site at level the the whereground city of people can walk straight inandsuggest cultural, projects socialorpolitical toothers. C of Northern Paris in 2001. It is an urban project, centred around a community community a around centred project, urban an is It 2001. in Paris Northern of ( In One real time by the experimental interweaving of specialised knowledge and shared and knowledge specialised of interweaving experimental the by time real contemporary continuation of demands emerged an groups public of is political inhabitants. social place in in so and restore affecting their to this which spaces the began founder onst on. impossible the alternative, gated the differentiate the Germany, “global” concomitant subject, of

infancy. These and in property “contemporary to by had a ant architectural and the 1990s, ecology sense the between communities; contemporary and take “illegal” s urban inhabitants in

fragmented

functions of discussions Despite city. mobility

practical of

without of city Subsequently, a urban

into

Holland a within critical “substitute” e these spontaneous

of the te policies. Common t

environmental these occupants; for cou the l account “commons” profession, ier great movements of its city”. of urban

experiments the what , D who contemporary the also by debates

debates populations; art d inhabitants architecture

and aaa ’ oina arch progress initiative

its city increasingly

themes The reclaimed questioned the Lars about

rather experiences actions the draws own

europe, throughout

P that aaa to in dynamics, i in term problems; tec privatisation in Lerup e the architecture the tre autonomous emerged; than in being architecture 3

the chose inspiration invents and protest . carried

city. is These different contemporary contemporary ure participatory the scu social to calls artificial USA from

working direct aaa

made

part provide to

mutations au social new movements, out discussions

a the align feels of t and england and “socio-political ways the played and ogérée from participation in processes. in ways and public nature transformation and within that the spatial troubled the theoretical itself the

of city, urbanism city the and by urban of the economic living tools 1980s achieving

space discussions ) raised

urban of winning reconceptualising artists’ itself squat within the 2 conflicts dismantling

interventionist urban ¶ “modern (Reclaim for and development of and by ecology.” mainstream Similarities the actions was debates are

movement in the the a of fractures different different back this 1 creating settings the need still critical coined taking of urban socio- city’s task city” and rise the the life 4 on

to in of ¶

5 6 4 3 7 2 1

See From See See We As This Leoncavallo org.uk), (TLI ch (http://www.kraftwerk1. “terrain eu.d-a-s-h.org/ allo.org ilab, Brussels ity/ www.vrijeruimte.nl/easyc in tadt), (www.etuipop.de/ (see of important 2004, ogy “tactics” rale Arts L’invention See avoid “ordinary and for everyday who vague”). Morales’s fugiés” (“ of featured studies of Angeles that Barcelona urbanacción 2005 20, in sion N

Amsterdam. French the the many

), E Michael

doing

ouvelles

O )

have Kraftwerk1, Lars Michel d’éditions, of ways

particularly in

of The

uses

de O

text

ditions or

and

the rsatzStadt the the p.

“contemporary contemporary

rléans

Michel ) the in an

because

faire, ),

vague”

CityMin(ed) Centro 14) from (http://www.tlio.

was

(citymined.org) the major

Lerup,

practices, borrowed

is Land it ironical of

consumer things, Archilab, people”

90s in DASH-http:// article

in article

2010) land early

an E du

Cités

E Bell

behaving new

(www.leoncav 07/09 Multitudes

the 2004,

Unions

onwards, the

nglish

describe

xils,

De updated Certeau,

Paris

quotidien theoretical became

(http:// paradigm is

the

Sociale

Ignasi 90s,

in in

“Terrain Zurich

focal suggests published E O

the

paradigms

E sociol

employ de

Certeau

Paris O the Berlin Arch (Actar: p. the

asyCity city rsatzS urs

society.

1980.

Los in ruses city Ré

géné

rléans 19 in city”. that point

flair Sola the term an - ver

- -

1. - to -

- -

Infrastructures andagencies Interstitial land After aaa (ateliers Deleuze october In everything ongoing micro-dynamics. of Street, perhaps Generally garden overcome possibilities at standard potential and a participation and in as reversible positioned appropriation. tactical new rail functions two with that urban land. use. but being because being

production La the the Italy,

also strongholds

plots We seeks citizen their

users, considerable types

As Chapelle

long temporary built

other areas. everyday. Green

media

temporarily,

urban would populaires the have and

administrative

a of

programming of more vague,

of speaking,

the

to negotiations, not ourselves its temporary of

from

specialists

initiatives

the 2002, spatial land

end for ¶

private

of also process

baptised reinvent geographical

courtyard

urban

Guerrilla It

quality. yet be say,

easily, Urban

local 7

city’s of

can undefined,

is pallets, impermanent

activist in As The

amounts

granted

communal

invested

“in the the interstices d’urbanisme)

the the

within streamline land ownership:

practices

school a based

making conjunction

undefined and atelierd’architecture autogérée We

such

the economy these interstices and

the neglected,

result Gare under development

spectrum La in of and gravel,

groups

development a

propose

middle”: July uncertain of

in location Halle de facto Chapelle city’s and

the as on artists, students

spaces

The

du undeveloped the the self-management experiments “temporary” of

the stemming

2002, a the

plastic arrangements, interstices n

fleeting as

they and of the

project’s

project Pajol. in represent city from political urban Land

with they

citizens’ status ord

instruments in participation terrains of urban vaguenessurban terrains of the politicians as

France

city:

urban procedures. area

unspecified

aaa and

- resist a

bottles

policies. and the

be the E C The “temporary dynamic, Sheffield O Is nature

and more

for was “urban

structure abandoned, from

belonging residents,

run of

industrial

becomes and such spaces stock space, spaces urban

the

homogenisation and, flexible,

fallow urs habits,

granted

and open,

using

mobile and forms principles. of the They

social Gare

of island” aaa (TLIO)) elements.

of more transversal

, University it box

urban development frozen materials

that

and we

land

KraftWerk1

many

“available

we spontaneous interstice”

institutions. provisional creative temporary, to estates remains an customs

argues

a fallow are de the position garden

space

enable the recently, created devices

crucial have

essential

between

that self-organisation.

l’ by the temporary parties: 6 E the

French

and

that ¶ st,

position collected and and

the

and

uncodified by and so conserves and

metonymy space”. to barriers

cost

La part

ourselves, centri sociali centri creates

flexible

community

and abandoned workshops

the far forms emphasise areas utopian. in

proposing run-down prototype

the We dynamics principle; definitive a mindsets with Chapelle, residents

railways. nothing,

of Zurich district

eluded,

use

use inside urban Lying major

to from

their have such

new

and and

the the

be by of of of as

¶ 5

71 The Right to the City COMMUNITY LOCAL AFRICAN RESIDENTS ACTIVISTS RESEARCHER/ ARTISTS/ STUDENTS INSTITUTIONS INTERNAL PARTICIPANTS AND PARTNERS EXTERNAL PARTICIPANTS AND PARTNERS institutional formal / institutional formal / LOCAL MARKET CITY OFPARIS non institutional informal / non institutional informal / INFANT SCHOOL objects/ uses nod ofcrossingactivities people andgroups people/use relationloops objects/use relationloops ART GROUP, ITALY) STALKER (URBAN KIDS ARCHITECTURE SCHOOL PARIS MALAQUAIS ECO-DESIGNERS & ARCHITECTURE STUDENTS BORDERPHONICS DJS TEENAGERS / UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD AAA ARTISTS LOCAL RESIDENTS CARTOGRAPH BORDER GROUP L'ÉCOLE SUPÉRIEURE D'ART GRENOBLE

73 The Right to the City Micro-politics What methodology managing considers culturality, own processes”: give and participants. processes project or a that addition series as reinstalled ways the illustrating infrastructure a EC seeing in network that and land, in users. urban both library. mobile range the a the family boundary moved) arrangement, series led initiatives,

rise provides established Currently, of we of space; residents district:

city. The was to of doing principle consisting plots, to library set are the wanting

of twice group it. recycled “One subtle Some

new able project and box for

the ¶ up only ¶ agencies. different but the

that of

things. a people of This The EC example, find knowledge a cinema, in and a project, as their self-management, powers to can

resistance was of also different freedom recycling number of flexible, a opened new also a of local O plot move plot the transition a any EC in

8 indeed series applied box isself-managed byauserassociation.

Participants using own what a mini ways Because locations,

included and

of facilities nomadic an or the worth urban had

from of up modular for wasteland sizes, O and patch to and the run exhibition of media Deleuze individuals by kitchen speak mobile box to to possibilities individuated participants objects conveys garden everything dominant being insofar waste. the the through so

make

delimited a were taking and is garden find

lab. political on. of kitchen, construction system initial a structures module and was encouraged

subjectivisation

contributing space, hall, and To gradually it These used By as, their not or different new themselves

powers: (that Guattari transformed adapt for when groups taking

was location structures

ways to an by criticism, making only a

by was own free facilities tool desire knowledge. develop audiovisual rows providing mobile residents was shift they of the of used

the to forms from even part way emerge bench, the calls city to of able it of find and project

using from physical aims are we to processes the of in into possible helped if Halle garden: initiatives and stacked preconceived living. and a cook they ways enjoyment amenities to to

negotiating made,

conceptualised the a as But “subjectivisation workshop communal passive of pallets an negotiable, rainwater re-appropriate be involving to subjects: Pajol building subsequently

family construction the

create to interlocking Rather each at

dismantled pallets. the to they when take and the to project’s to create lacking and plot person of active meals social and elude

build ideas, inter- their time, such than path tank, new new

and one the life An be of it a a

2009 autogérée, atelier d’architecture EC page, Previous andcurrent [fig.] OBox Garden, EC OBox, Paris,

8 G. 12 See 9 10 11

P. G.

F. Seuil, quelconque, de lasingularité munauté quivient. Théorie projet L’expérience Chapelle dans Montpelier page_252.php) (http://www.iscra.org/ Devenir” Ibid., Minuit Moléculaire, ches,

N Guattari,

Deleuze icolas-Le

p. le 1977, 1990

d’ Agamben,

quartier 172 1990/2003, E

in à co-urbanité

Paris

p. La “Contrôle 2004, Pourparlers,

d’ ed.

172 Strat,

E révolution

C Recher ,

Lacom- ISCRA: p. O

Un 66 box

238. : et

“who Everyone’s architecture EC EC (...). In 11 10 everyone’s todealwithconflicts andcontradictions. capacities depth create could democratic modest of of they Scale point geographical space in also ask the almost simultaneously to into institutional incorporated subjects with the by based . EC By the the order desire express institutions, O O socius

time This is mentions the are certainly autistic box box is and of way on work words energies be: O the how invisible important means of view, box there”. to cultural that subjects’ 12 “micrology”, no is to is knowledge of

city” an desire “provide the ways of an create experimentation these longer aimed of seeks children within EC example, location links “undecipherable feature a the

of used,

condition Michel

architecture allowing Participants brands painstaking, and they phenomena yet

O in desire” desires when “micro-politics moments to relationships, seeking people, box at

the desire the the whose able and

re-create set

a a in or everyone: Guattari de and dual is rebellious spontaneity.” rebellious social

collective talking is heterogeneous Cévennes, as enabling ideological them up a Certeau, a the

with in gestures, desire to group desire

the built logic are inventiveness patient, a that of of the force realm. singularisation collective the and to

only a about media. globalisation, mentions

individual users overcome form of to enables channel of circulates experiment project. the

of relativise the

city. people

where intensifying

yet

do economic micro-political preferences, united ¶ the desire” singularities spontaneous project of

are

According something This ¶ solutions inevitable economy “a singularities N subjects Arjun Fernard of into and he not “rebellious fear function at

by icolas-Le the and expression was

9 brings of set of speaks

the and One ¶ a pre-established filtered audacity and and Appadurai,

what model desire inhabitants’ a they chosen, up made to molecular to of together coexistence”. Deligny’s based relational micro-political and molecularity opening together position of desire “a Guattari, mistrust, of everyone’sarchitecture Strat of are of spontaneity”can collective or to collective rebellious possible in of the

springs on desire the and share simply chosen the to desire

where talks “production in level.

the up atypical networks, themselves those questions desire

the and social this frameworks his

the some From which respected.” that by “desire about agency from

economy practices the Guattari imposed they “radical”, research by scale “release seeking employ project. the whilst realm” takes work their ones time,

this live. the the etc” are we be in- to as of of of

75 The Right to the City “structure “garden,” Appadurai English translation by Ana Medez de Andes deAndes Medez English translation byAna Michel exception—a of dawn of part cultural, investment and feel specific of imagination” spaces is neo-colonialist the the the work by directly the existence. their certain city here the poorest that EC in of of garden and “the dominance community”, is Foucault andothers. projects tothemselves socialorpolitical

the and, and imagination. Antiquity.” of generated linked other emphasises made minority feeling work O EC should imagination.”

now as as heterotopy as box symbolic a Foucault more O being emphasised to by social of and has box of stemming have

inhabitants at the

the 15 is regulated

groups, regulated to successfully ¶ the

a is increasingly the eC ¶ act—he imagination.” different “sort the At banner, amongst the a suggests 14 ground heterotopic construction site, construction heterotopic

need For possibility the

ability, O the from of existing urban box spaces desires Appadurai

emphasises happy, moment to for participants contradictory level produced the a the at

participate “universalising thus privilege space. policies 13 odds district’s of empowering under

social to of

universalising He the shifts a make eC the

In with the line “locality” explores the city and that his and and the other in task between relationship right of different the describing study ideological this the O acknowledge dual skill flight heterotopy”: participants of contemporary box obstacles

development

thanks of productive heterotopy where important of producing to neo-capitalist all into being heterotopic experience use take  citizens the between to knowledge existence future of encountered potentiality

both the part the to that the dynamics social since locality, city. propose projects gradual to project modes city in places, is a “even these take

of and real We the the the act. in of a a

M. 15 See 13 See A. 14 1578 , Écrits Ibid., passim Publishers, dam, in Transurbanism, Work oftheImagination”, Right toParticipate inthe

p. N V2_Publishing/ vol. Appadurai Foucault, 46 2, 2002, pp. 1577- Ditset p. Rotter- “The 34and AI

2011 International, mark Sup [fig.] e r-Sup e ts , Bababa

e r- level food its ventures unseen shaping into they is a respond emerged us commercial had of from in at you distribution supermarket. with contribute Having Super-Supermarkets B food, one if fragments have reflection, into a your sincere this should the an

company

supermarket.

you distributed needs? to exercise. this a

read memories exercise

opening of

the

demand. questions recently experience lay never pause of new an can

Redfern aa be

we ideas and these topic in organization human

shallows somewhere here into warily And built,

been

the

of artwork bear

the like

been The supermarket and nterna misshapen apparition of

turned

there

a for experience

the in nodes generally?

exercise via Time

this opened

what, new

only resources N o you

Woolworths

nor We ask it, task society from the your and

to about invited conceptual ow,

is we

exhibition val. is outlet. have way a a t

back featuring ran potentially, no

is your

of on

expectation there number ional to

consideration. supermarket, interest

holding to this would arrived has

caused to

forms. across

definitive

into contemporary we the

you out. within This ¶ collected answer that visualize of

recent the the What been historical any Unfortunately, to

know (the

your leading

find a ¶

space like ¶ thrilling them definitive

However, more

a Awed

does proprietor

do past these mind there city. how; of to method and

from of do

they edge ¶ supermarkets present up this vortex or

and We supermarkets. and But

construct not that convenience.) in with questions and less in a outcome.

know tell

we case

of pull by wondered we

galvanized, lifetime first, feel of view, relate ever-shifting successful. with proposals immense us these did

which the never you up about about

left we

make try a new to with

mental whatever As ever misguided, to would of out; sense

this O n the managed about to the the

long Start the

for Redfern

grocery we global ¶ a happen the

extrapolate last you market (Please these number ways neighborhood procession supermarket that impossible have level like

as the depth by time half-submerged may you forces

in the to these yet shopping. supermarket) logic occasions attempted casting to of of note: which have begin you keep of encounter conscious and staunchly necessary the

and that spirited guiding sites of art. visited

raised If using mind what rigor back food with odd, and

you pin

So, are we In to of

77 The Right to the City wall, steady analogous your choice a build drawing, you down You’re think? we can big how ask, must we is, it effective lastingly more the becomes the thinking that the true bigger is it If wholes?’ of terms in think we do ‘How Becoming deliberately expansive instead of contractive, we ask, Odyssey Supermarket Educational to bolder as repeat himself on all-to-familiar exercise takes layout until you further to or eliminating, if efforts dairy supermarket. super- be combining displayed organization should place, mould vast both your ensure take from merged it habitually do

mind’s you examining you you

the located? multicoloured take the these faced through and you your in do them memory in an find deli or hinges the

first excel that back have and can order the layout the the active to herself make build with your

eyes counters right? steps that with or eye. together and a market. past, grouped? negotiate all opposite, similarities ¶ further, visit turn constructed spreadsheet on blunt moving real-world to a will At an

the two carries of and and your a a You with children’s divergent swiping

the

What recall particular repeat difficult that interior the this style wall carry wooing

attempt happen recollection. potentially models; When

hard comparison to may into every

What same placing with anything them stage particular other, of the type of and the you, your method boxed one and Or etc.) the decision. version want ball-pit, your logics. you supermarket it supermarket

motifs, position supermarket small to you merge to through products searching of

stop a alternative items clever each one vast, be bag focus destructive have product

local else cereals to should When

supermarket: between R of acts ¶ located and

for

counter.

you or them of store comprehensive in You labels h on When this that work conjured or on transformation. ar store, were a consequences. the organizing of try for d knowing may check top feature you be stand greeted B before so a market. into experiences. gathering as these occupies uck location to at and is forms, section

similarities,

hand entering in that of For you you a feel want consolidated. m consolidate the the which matter in your out in

the did ant-sized the st has details your all you? may

have that that front

by er Whatever back one so information clerk of to seafood

that that you second last F and that divergent two

comparing into u if aisles? You

N ll the the of memory try feature. need you How A your of

you of er one. within differences, enter you may densely place. ow, convenience. allowed competing fruit the the something both

have ¶ model are section. Where to

were comparison you found It with The suddenly details supermarkets

from For

counter features double is can However, stuck a stores (i.e. gone and decide, integrated likely you the construct next your example, it without manage

was

the ¶ is within shared a claims finally at much to items as

N This time then your plan may step that find feet you

left the the ow re- try far

in if

2011 International, mark Sup following pages [fig.] e This and r-Sup e ts , Bababa

e r- will Chocolate design product. here General Odyssey Odyssey and your finish-to-start a Crisp’ to-trolley cereal roaring You a conveyer a in understand, or if While nutritional 1. things: and a 2. supermarket proliferation, visible per with At countries, all to conditions, all and toallareas… to ages, all to belongs table the of pleasure The Flow Supermarket of account indicate become seat door. ‘natural resource’. ‘Double

The you The front product global what you capita—and just notice are journey is the and

are problem? cereal,

definition

presence method the From team learning aims the a curious e.g. can of Mills up point belts for natural info, programmes a food growth Chocolate that Cookie data information how generates

‘Berry you wheat begin ahead and,

as at here

for furiously around (imagine and ride factory... could Odyssey Supermarket Education and you providing sales, can to on is ¶ experience. it

of resource? instance, J processed their ultimately, ean you to Berry see portals. of Crisp not Addressing

we is what field, the that management travel be reconsider

a packaged, Cookie its combine A supermarkets 80 will the will supermarket their useful enough landscape—

increasingly printed working expands

voice): if nthe constitutes Kix’ own cereal and

and;

a along bigger Statistics per your be you So, arrive

complete

Using journey

eat. greeted kind and Crisp’ lme

foods here informative as

the look cent on arrives

to two trolley this ¶ a assembled

and you on picture ¶ of at B visually the “…to these service of the modern is This

rill above via client. where taglines, pick elucidates by person, picture designs the at trolley veers the tightly a a the of is the t up mechanised decorously an soil…”

trip -S you items ¶ it and the a day left,

left supermarket…to the avarin

for supermarket a So informed, as all persuasive, offers campaigns packed via ‘Captain will product, the processed shopper’s a

‘Double begins; every down what’s

you he vehicle, ¶ a contents find or a Education Supermarket Supermarket Education complicated steady will comprehensively history cardboard she available a

the to confident Crunch’ the

here ramp Chocolate

the the and hunger at see wishes where know solution voice, marketing of this static shopper is of the how characters… and your product— a the

the rectangles. for acolyte, each

to system particular for narrating right decision. material through Double Cookie retrace, farmer, chosen certain trolley. to farm- takes item rip- and this you

or of

79 The Right to the City (A) familiar being, From point solutions. obstacles on and recreational Here necessarily Even themost distant hasitsparallel andexotic place inordinary life. Limited Superlinkage O O P upstream. supermarkets this until national in aul ur ur this order is man-made solar final T plan finally items (A). here

ready is occasion heroux routes, borders, in

that ¶

Apart radiation

proposal to (A) (B) is In will bountiful, a to cascading fishing, to specific line enhance and would eat, becomes has

be prime from waterway is convert

into with

a replaced, which access utilizes aims management, can

distributing prohibit

entrepreneurial location movers city global other down mobile of food at subsequently all to aims beans centres, the

joining checked a geoengineering supermarkets into flag river. transportation, or their and and possibilities to arrives human global

and Supermarket Flow Flow Supermarket various

encourage

past is two will This connection. for more will into and familiarities will science, ¶ the supply. elaborate food and mariners is introduces comestibles at buoyancy, move supermarket-front points Limited Superlinkage Limited contact. now abundant (A). sorting logistics call establish every subtract into thus or moves of endeavours

riverside raising towards

(A) allotment less this environmental and chance, By

supermarket a and ¶

system possibly point and and may The and a stationary prodigious, of more At from solving a torrent common super-super building liquefies it. new how innovative if (A)

restocking this tourism,

now functions such first This and (B), on fairly a and without of supermarket. (B) stage, neighbourhoods, special, re-imagine habitual any

want an point, as will chain —let’s act experience, and is the

demand practices has manipulation cloud

item convenience. fast-flowing, engineering, problems salaried a signals

market. surge (B), in to

efficiently, packaging reservoirs. rigorously growth

appeared, the sent reactions a imagine call the of seeding activity human

which aid food. back

how over that city. this and and and

we  or of of

Henriette 2010. Ne and H the F [fig.]The Cook, is ighbour Wife by Photo The arme Waal ir r ,

Far on the two Westen They authorities; West consists The His and Wife Their Neighbour The Cook, theFarmer, M Harvesting the residents Neighbour Their and Wife His core life already space With city. producer, West, arje an of

municipality Stedelijk spaces. West, Soon group on-site

district formed in its the advisory I t carried discovered and of ica 2009

focus themselves project.

a after

behind n Koers During a we Day, P sociologist, project I community Museum of a otr and out meet on acted board the committee

Amsterdam. and on

¶ local the č research the so that Stedelijk The ieuw September as became h Co, h Fre, i Wf ad hi Neighbour Their and Wife His Farmer, the Cook, The as the that pursued project. six needed

Amsterdam, food Wilde interest mediators two Far garden months West also of there the

Museum production architects, O This West eight activities with includes Westen, 27, this ver and most developed, the and when

was between

Housing the 2009, residents, the which project year the a important invited

year a the residents’ community representatives a two in and

Geuzenveld–Slotermeer collaborative before, collective they

other project lacked has in however, the neighbourhood Corporation. designers

me which which took generated

people neighbourhood

so locations committee to was a we kitchen made do permanent over is

The Cook,The Farmer,the the taking project joined from responsible and a involved, project its is

up Today throughout neighbourhood not an in to management. development, the shape, of forces initiated n the discuss artist, surprising. exhibition

a N in residents, Stedelijk, and

we cultural district for

Wilde as serve

ieuw ieuw after had the the the the by

81 The Right to the City it widespread the a areas new network war The to inform and proud van a involvement redesigning working demonstrates the the the current families, for shrinks local good redefines meet a same built twentieth-century relocation Deyssel modernist the community connections city in that case example the the

the of low-income together municipality. european the as areas time, composed green the the city study redevelopment unemployment the an challenges Street of a N of at community state development many “added into process of modernist garden ieuw and low-income N in in the between redirective in of ways smaller of

garden individuals, expense population, ieuw Right the West modernist urban–rural of strong, value” Union. of and that the Geuzenveld garden of cultural and West, district neighbours is parts. of areas, from community

modernist families.

twenty-first practice, of transcend one in

smaller West What difficulties

open ideal local

our a

Here and which which of the coexistence foresees remaking. sustainable Amsterdam. the project O

happens initiatives public community neighbourhoods; start, of district, i.e. and the the neighbourhoods kitchen ur serve largest the

consists century. a in

green project, an limits collective between the articulates

space; metropolis integrating

Community and a which increase here neighbourhood. similar residential project and are

Today, area

of kitchen The contributes

mostly in this located has any institutions. the is form is contrast,

purpose. existing practices in in

has part would preserved and however, one the new elsewhere. neighbourhood have other redevelopment the develops of of on attracted of discipline. opts potential to arrivals. action immigrant

density also

generated policy Lodewijk views I the It

words, designed the It

am it instead and rejects

offers mean post- ¶ city’s from faces very that

the the for As At its

to of ¶ it and Henriette De by Rufus August 2010. Deysselstraat van Lodewijk only gr [fig.] l kioo ng een, 61, Vries Photo Waal 25

and Henriette De by Rufus August 2010. Deysselstraat van Lodewijk Ne and H the F [fig.]The Cook, is ighbour Wife The arme ir 61, Vries Photo Waal r , 25

potential of city, project unimaginative transformed century Deyssel plan designing As articulates given much-needed community used resettlement. which process a passive take The open-door attracts brought form an I

community care for a mentioned, to area carte the of Dutch shows be and other in ago. the Street security of is reappropriation “their” their fenced that community an policy, activated blanche the area. that

frustrated In from Beyond residents, us over-regulated formal version 61 ritual garden. was 1934, need N

vegetable has to Construction city, that,

off. is now an ieuw the in farmland now formed

to it

designs. open, Today, in the the not of Opening street, the in can

while is agricultural too, West be a of a effect also modernism, architect core garden only redevelopment community

involved engage

the climate undefined

around who

twenty-two another

Dutch the ¶ as Amsterdam possible. began group is land a A recently up is full take it housing previously in Cornelis located land, desirable the the by in where soon society added year,

of the

part was space kitchen The redesigning the fenced-off project.

residents, families which as

process after of was the residents corporations, behind in laid project value families fifty Eesteren van unused where into the for the community agricultural

and World It in across residents years district, from for a

of provides activities lot fact the the introduces their a community residents and house “building the meeting experience can War kitchen ago. community seven revives the

neighbourhood. neighbourhood. which simply symbolic be drafted to kitchen at

land II, a fields. there. Public understood centre ethnic Lodewijk participate

have and place a the on a bottom-up space. only have reproduce place”—a

continual land With a a As memory has space become kitchen act around garden for groups master half

been with The that that also van the its

in as is ¶ ¶ a

83 The Right to the City for the were the planning season, the for many maintain a this and important view, from space as the architecture. Lodewijk dangerous. reduced beyond ok te amr Hs ie n hi Neighbour Their and Wife Farmer, His the Cook, and The

greenhouse catalysts

developing their

project fate government city

undefined. space the

public

Lucia fenced-off it represented modernist

and issues

of and city handed

maintenance

the to

merely

van role

turned

public

has

of Babina space follow

several Simply the open gain.

change

in Deyssel the engaging This secured

and

is area the space the

social

developments, is

space

into

public the The public

the source broken,

and

personalized turned

put, communities

community became space

becomes

for

but

open example

and

funding integration. Street Henriette space

the the

space, no

space,

the of

could

the

out place,

over while

community democratic continual

man’s residents

“look-only community

district.

more to

which set

which for

not

to not there

garden as

be the the Waal,

from

land, whole

So at housing

community

a only liveable enter

project the

housing

least

holds happy

of maintenance van the Today, was

the

garden society. two and

gardens” in the

project. reclaimed,

that E is public

them.

another

money

anticipation next

neighbourhood

esteren

transformed. accident, corporations, members neighbourhood, and visualizes

the takes corporations

and

space, During the

space In

more link overturns  (

kijkgroen for

year.

community costs

understood 2004, shape 1990s, it

since

value

between

of maintenance remained the the is stable.

Residents

of the

Wilde

and

also

facing an

around

potential buildings

the

many

for see this I 1980s, and

the also the Residents act Both redefined. recently

them;

residents new kitchen as no Westen,

largely

bankruptcy,

perspective. 1970s beyond project

that

of potentially

playing

them, have

reason

residents however,

costs of growing

the but in

sealed heard

social

serve open open their

built

paid

that and

But and The lots not

are

are an to

Gallery, and Meulensteen theartist Courtesy Neighbour, His and Wife Their The Cook, theFarmer, the on-site project (selection) Basedon N 2009, new we Amste r of the the st mode Hop Following pages Jan vanRooij 2010. Ne and H the F pages [fig.] These e o. is sidents of ighbour 1,2,3, Wife Drawings byGert Photo e e aft The Cook, The arme N rnity rdams ory and5 ew 2009. st ir York. r r , :

85 The Right to the City 87 The Right to the City 89 The Right to the City and (Ne POSTCARD [fig.] FOUND authors. collection ofthe llie’s Gl Track), en

of plate the city anditsother the city Land-escapes: time, àpropos of T Some of infrastructure (a burnt-out car, a defunct streetlight). aretraces theof built environment: defunct ordecaying machinery and components trees,inspectionimageundergrowthdenseontherockypaths. evidentand in Also feel—almost—attall(Sydney)amongstplace‘ home‘this inhabitants whichof in River. They refer to a collective imaginary that is neither fully past,thefringes presentof the city, inor locations future,such as the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury theverymask the viewer is now looking through. Thephotographs are all taken on wearingrecedingand background,theviewer discernedstanding the infacing be can figure small stereographica whichdepictingimages‘wilderness’ landscapesin ¶ andtragic, invoking survival and escape as well as resourcefulness and desperation. the collection in ofthe Macleay Museum. held Themask maskscould be characterised certain as references anachronistic materially or formally water—and catches elements—perhaps it has an awning, a small solar panel powers a light, a receptacle urbanwaste,etc.).bush theaffordsthingsin It picked upprotection some fromthe architecture,built up from an old stereograph viewer with found materials (timber, wallandspot lit. Theobject theisreverse wearablesidea of mask/piece personalof curiousconstructionadarkened corridoris attacheda roomor the ofto end one At public the authenticity. Stockton, from and Macleay archaeological the around the asphalted uncomfortably amongst photograph just mould The stereograph component (left intact) holds one of a series of black and whiteand black of series a of stereographoneintact)holds Thecomponent (left e

historical

chiefs staircase offsite over where

proudly a Tarawa

works, Z (a

weeks the

Museum, 1940s

the e the

over

and

and tt

storeroom: Blue we

Aboriginal

is of

hippies declaring hills e island, whose

ago,

people’.

sites by ourselves ur another

in now Boy

& a Mountains

conversation

the

... bushland shows

Matt

pping K

have Scout

repatriation beads the ¶ and

elaborate living

Back

‘this

At quiet

skeletal

spent

subject

shown us

Poll, the

Road. badge-earner)

K the exchanged

land

over in h a

scene ground

reminder

ghosts neatly

the time two N also

Indigenous

remains

22,000 ¶ at decades the

of ew

public

somewhere least years takes

a of

arranged Museum

of of

Ireland

for

minor that writing,

acres

its

escaped

of during

22,000

dubious by

display evading in country

an dispossessed

this

geologist/lecturer Curator

the was

masks

scientific ancient drawer then

building in city’s

years not

convicts

Matt

bought delights

rising

Wentworth two

manages.

and

uncommon

at of

colonists, rock foundations

points

scuffle are stone

other—a Sydney Sydney

a by excavations human

striking

are carving, puffer

C. literally

Hanging out encountered Father

tools,

Delatore

over and

Falls,

rents

University’s disturbance

occupation,

a fish

for huge are

long wrinkling

collected a escaping

E age for

helmet China, copper lodged

to where ugene above

since

from

latex

new and live

91 The Right to the City a Private in Space “Public htm. vacconci/vapubl_e. andereorte/texte/ www.visarteost.ch/ 10, accessed February und Kunst.1997, Öffentliche Räume sium AndereOrte. - national Sympo forInter- Lecture Acconci, Vito 2011. http:// Time”,

in The necessaries seems the ACCA, City and Impacts of the Coming ClimateComing the of Impacts and City Sydney’s h Wy f h Masks the of Way The from L TH country objective of our own lives and a key determinant of the ‘defuturing’ urban trajectory now‘defuturing’ trajectorytheurban determinantof key a and lives own our of timeframelimited the beyond still much think‘chronophobia’—aninnate to inability but fictional and scales time betweenrecognisable ‘shuttling’ worlds, the of work seeks to kindconfront what theorist a Tony employing Fry has called ourIn the sheds in Autumn several out via foundation (the … by French ACC purpose-less of percolating still, considered 653pp., the at town on equals pulls worst E

his

once, the

the

VI-STRAUSS

potential It racks mast, a O fold-out a double-glazed

the Peebles the ON

of little languorous

R would clothes.’

and race to

word

land-escape; ew

midst days

one

edition

Cook and a as

2010.

2010, land come City invisible AU CI as

brick Hollander

eventually

longer.

riots

for first

for on the

there “landscape.” to dusty have

[1997]: sink panorama. be

usefulness or

Classic away, O at to 2 [1881]:

life its the easy

245pp.

and several

ship

explain

some as sea in an of the

role in to train

are

A border,

course

least two frame and

other

far

1934, [1975]:

1976

to the or

in outward

approaches console our Country, “Land

tinny

the

goes incidental

book; in

advantage Library, the those

paperback;

pushes away:

months: ‘From

journey dollar what land

its less in Land

ritual,

capsule E

(

side

before manicured 1983 N where we

announcement naked nglish

the legendary

ho!”:

‘E

ullarbor

purpose-full)

order who yourself Flaubert’s

escapes,

suburban land civilization,

need of methods the or you ach

recedes

shop

development

Simon undated);

translation); that its

the

stops

bleeding since hotel-sleeper cavernous

the

to the

have

translation); Tony with back for

desperate

has type goal

plastic.

live continent)—en

plain,

sailor’ with green economy cyclone-related

  em

out

discovery

(demanding

or and

to the

Schama,

backyards

impunity have 1881 away after

Fry ,

(2009)

all,

be supernatural of are

into

the in

marks Griffith

primitive mask”’. and

s becomes

of pressed

mask

only

cry

your

ovr e Pécuchet et Bouvard

a far city Adelaide, in from been and Mortality of

bravery

the life

al., Books cabin, Henry and in project

Australia, of

to LandscapeMemory& a off

49pp.;

the Kalgoorlie,

while

reach: 3 curse and Metrofitting: Adaptation, the you

Southern is

new

discovery, the in be

taken contemplative

metal Review

so “landscape”.

sea. learn route

and

linked relative

passing

track the

stacked

David

possible,

industrial land.’

homes,

that

origin in

project for the

exhibition Claude

the

This

minks society...

frontier

to the ceilings to what into

wash-outs

those

1 it

word

Highlands.

E to Thoreau, the 27: obtain site from

weight

is uropean

in so-called and can

ramshackle sperance,

land

that and the the

myths

Metropolitan

Levi

are

Coast lots of

“Landscape” od Chain, Food a

life, left

time “everything “landscape”

(Gallimard high look be

pile to

Australia’s beginning pamphlet,

muskrats.

desperate them. the

has has balanced

slip

Strauss,

seen

behind. though

(1996), Walden lay

shivers stretch

(better

whose that

above down

ghost to gross

WA, been

past

the

ver tin on … all be

4 Claude 3 Tony 5 Vito 1 ibid. 6 Henry 2 O 14–23. 5–10. Jonathan Sylvia Way of the Masks Picador, the Colour-blind Press home— Walden Matznew Art: A Reader into Futures”, Hatje liver

the 31.

Acconci.

International, Fry

Cantz,

Modelski Sacks, , David

Lévi-Strauss,

N ( Public”, 1996),

unpublished

Cape, “Time, otes ( O ew

stfildern-Ruit: ,

2004),

The Island of

Thoreau,

ed. “Leaving York: on

224. , 1983),

, (London:

(Sydney:

Things

trans. Florian Insertions

Public

1967), Peebles 30.

The

paper.

and

space of over thesite: create is wasn’t there thetime.’ all ACC another FRY making SACKS infrastructures or built worlds supporting our new, changed selves might look like ‘dwell’ (the fantastical as well as the pragmatic), and by implication what the urban ourselves.askswhatwe,Ithere, couldpotentially couldbe,whatotherwayswein remake to is city theremake to thatbasis the are,on theywhere indeed and who It swing. full in In as coax bleeds of camera of opening or well all afford. emulsion, ground to a does of four potential which George ‘disappearing’ centre thousands much event, masks,

useful

built

aeons realisation. or if the be another landscapes early

different as

the my

not ONCI [2010]: within

around

built

our

its has

with colony, into melee,

framed To

that

with

equipment daily.

cannot

Street, place

way within

as [1996]: project

senses come

postcards object-being

when others’ roots

escape of

room directly

over the

which passers-by take

anothersite, support it’sthatcan thisscaffolding the the

[1997]:

‘In

This masks/viewing it. years. to way In to

are) when

imperative

easy. when

me, On were

(and

out everyone

becoming.

and teps o rae pc (n tm) o priiat t rethink to participants for time) (and space create to attempts making imagine ‘N site,

acquaint old such

of the as

the

our

divided.’

and came

and fragile ow, O

something

the it

the Sydney

¶ one—a

sense) life

within

‘… objects actually

by means of means by city

I the a

utside,

is own

Twice the

as invited with had filed

project Macleay

other permanent ours.

of ‘our’ before

our

such street. a

I oneself wore edge built of

site,

those

diminishing all experienced wandered physical Here

this

the stacks

was future

devices to projects

forming world in removed, enlarging,

the hand,

which to

as self-making,

of hats history

it;

nearby

If 

the land-escape city

artificial

archives a the that

with

then if view way

town with

time cluster of

city,

it’s of

and glinting on and display, it’s   sustaining

site—the

might perform occupied photos

in new

down, habitation

the

outdoor sits these

been a

and

the display permits seconds

as a was as finitude

the horses

mental

fundamental lie home,

city

death

imaginaries, if if

awkwardly city

looking

allow

the

at there cycad being that our huts Broadway through ‘otherwise’ documenting reaching a a

architecture in

rest this new

any and as locations there

site,

or agency

reality an

of will

projects the

futural

the the

me captured

all landscape

minutes.’

forest

carved

strange

place the view

architecture trams sense, sideways

it’s

air, gallery. the require may time myopic to

back

alongside

fact visions city

but traffic

appreciate as

images

precisely otherwise time 22,000 on as build

others

in shuttled

out

and

on grows of

4 to

(such equally the not

Rota, There time (constructed,

fact

something we’re

city

one-off

… eitheron top and the of design and glass land

cumbersome

only through

of boot, purportedly

years a and

scaffolding

be the the

as appears sense,

out because

early

it collection

millennia shopping processes

busily is trying for the

fabricate

that

in three it

seemed have

project further

world-

hostile

which

public of

seems hence

is), many silver

body

days

is was else

the the

. to or to to as as as

93 The Right to the City hexyurt.com Gupta, Vinay sche Below: California, D Str [fig.] ay ong Ane , Top: Diego, San He matic,

2006 tyurt tyurt http:// by

l the sophistication which is a nice concept, but in your view what do you mean by autonomous buildings? way got and out. D when youvisitthefuture today! youstay —Theplace Hotel’ ‘Disastr D.V G R V When did you start work on the Hexayurt Shelter System and why? water drinking purification, source includes composting that open toilets, unit fuel-efficient support Your shelters. family stoves comprehensive and response solar a electric disaster lighting. is model and Hexayurt camps refuge of design the to ShelterSystem, de-centralizeda designapproach employing wholesystem thinking farming core or small many of same I Gandhi “free” Big waste supply have animates Tennesee, is was them. of pipes about got oge inay .V.R up a even the people much long

individual ¶ Guys—it born. very t of . R notion r been

from a

answer world and others

There’s in manufacturing s A out oge G : relevant chains shouldering :

Thomas The oger You discuss how your Hexayurt Shelter System is an ‘autonomous building,’ the villages up answer some few useful the

the r storm I’m who I a of the t s : a saint. that met as start old DisastrHotelperformance/installation a is basedyourHexayurton is is, thousand : project, same s the a and There’s was just or I about autonomy. Big spiritual the thread

need math, as is that “how” vision, nterviews Jefferson, drains Albert the

up genius geodesic When quite these trillions working Guys never vision big some company make people

size shelter!”

sensitises waste running

a and

visionaries but units this and an or big things Bates of was

I “look of of of I

the visited interesting political all of it got dome. the your common answer on the being in so the the

a V a became

dollars they and ¶ American or year through the the always on—requires different inay the at it. Hexayurt future load problem In technology. a

The economically my If in ¶ need dome-making bug they charity same and either sense. G that I But of thread my of a bit are, hut!” from had Farm, up from world a power little the scattered showed model basic Founding sense, own small of is

it’s t

Project way, “right ¶ a been going

Buckminster the cultural world, but in

The

Gandhi, a The Stephen the project, culture, little

stations massive agenda, Jefferson,

and answer of key self-sufficient, the rather a me place into grid—exquisitely all political process, is how Hexayurt different

following no Father. way. to project history, their over really

with about to the Gaskin’s at

to global your and “look things political pushing

The the Fuller, try Fuller India. that

domes field and

vision his about But cables

person, decentralization started so success, Project right and the at hexayurt change.

question! work,

vision and let I and

commune I the I Gandhi bureaucracy the towards knew got lead could design and the that me time,” and

therefore engineer complex it building

before number was and not of it

drag “why.” would talked of What water really some from itself little have The

and but the the the the the my in it I

95 The Right to the City to R Gupta: American Red Cross and the US Department of Defense—how did this go? level Rocky in there). grids strongest by surprising—the extended no you to are control structures wind harvested of will will at camp: with with autonomous can to distance you and N and Then neighbours local this control. control we water, grid oge ow the maintain. can the its your a political want kept go be be must water well be to our at of r sewer them. there’s up available and

things simplest most s

go 100,000 shape harvests down

moved. maintained : Mountain They’ve a

complexity society structures I have read how you presentedyoureadhavehow Hexayurt theShelterI Systemthe modelto dependent politics tax Bluntly, The alive, from with higher head desire very back family have supporter in grid wood, by

in system authorities. theoretical

control Perhaps If get a of the buildings—small computer autonomous

reclaiming order a that N but practical and tension there you and form, a people land, and a its

because central population DoD complicated—we for

been group conventional ow the lawn water refugee are Institute have need a stream by own and and on road of to to

at stuff. the toilet

they of Department is rather living a has and enjoy sharing fascinated how between this the

our levels, self-sufficient infrastructure authority government pretty systems no level—it a All from that you power camp the network

the society. tipi and consistently block, can first Into two building control group fellows these for density in that a grid, than need Hexayurt

a functions are toilet or approach soon can our that’s a be opportunity, cabins garden from 30 stream, our that (witness tiny

comes

perhaps a processes

to and ¶ about vital by you resettled for some want living architecture! be of of yurt years, is N you that and maintain desire or is your patch the complex the split ow unto their for putting more Defense their that that services autonomous supported an NGO

gnomes Project from electrical and re-internalising sanitation in have of greater kind works!

anonymously imagine water those the wind and basic work up for nature. provide of itself. we a lives. its

in or lives taking deploy building a the Internet it. of land into them I less independence own small conflict cease exist town essential who’s in ¶ and and

and ¶ access of worked

and ¶ N bureaucracy or The and, light, N architecture! decentralization So

these An need the 2,000 Heat with from shelter o efficient Amory the essential ow sewage, back submit for sun. and from groups council autonomous to longer its

village infrastructure autonomous worse,

from to which USA scale we UN comes a sanitation in almost the refugees have

services on comes an are goals. small under But government high and the want a

and Lovins proof systems outhouse political their purifies this bound delivered. the is

to services, and and have to gigantic they to started the infrastructure infrastructure

safe tech The villages, conventional no our other This from flush the manage to power right govern live a autonomy, “Winning of benefit buildings, and money. in will been building, a to mandate together personal refugees services. and political is you its income refugee control

energy toilets, in locally its is return which at places

a much there. slum. They

these have each own grid tiny safe this will not our the the the life

of If

after have make “better its plywood Haiti civil displaced they of hexayurts stadiums same a Americans time across year car right this cultural rehousing that, stoves cut agencies reluctant to deploy your design in the field? federallarge the are why$1000, than lessEquivalent)Australia Bunningscosts $40,000 costs and six (USD) and your Hexayurt for Shelter System, accommodation using general temporary Home Depot supplies (the provides system, shelter R G R into as cheap, Shelter System fitting into thegrand scheme of this concept? Hexayurt the see youenvironmental degradation—whereanddo poverty global really something cultural e ndgame” oil the the oge oge little up the much what garage. up organizational approach t war,

are their failed, in r r there’s yet. the class a in it or any

s s pretty : and rigorous kitchen : : works-anywhere, some

than easy You talk about a ‘Soft Development‘SoftPath’a abouttangibletalkYou towardssolution to a a When faced affinity long the

Considering the US Federal(FEMA)EmergencyManagementAgencyUS Considering the

dislike you or and existing shelter and ¶ rich on other have arsenal of

entire that

in solar a The They after for garden what an problems. worst-case a stay much plywood do people screws—is with tents.” country, would massive you federal and could totally simplicity, credible for exhibition American of panels when for the refugee systems say of cities, they a show

complexity instantly, technologies fragile, so in

truly book Compared options a are last get be “well,

agencies given

and they the on, filled scale But there’s have

and earthquake

done in plans using somebody ditch accepting used no unprecedented camps

have

while the middle the the

Red screw after of compare complex, its in water

for now, moving amount the because with if for nothing hexayurt systems streets insistence humanitarian the to better the failed, of to Cross where a truly a like I available

pick it handing really let’s whole a of providing mostly-volunteer US filters, that was a autonomous levelling FE together,

it hexayurt solar parts. the

of the these huge interdependent than up after loved context. you start have to MA else big nobody at doesn’t plywood disaster and

city building, on hexayurt a and trailers, can panels

whole the a disaster, four-bedroom disasters. the are The to trailer, moving failed. the LA.

using use for tent, crisis technology and for hexayurts.

do. actually ¶ Institute. practical existing even will such hexayurt

the basic It’s building So so city domestic

and as

this

Very looks but which In and and no occurred.

when design people labor, I’ve

many designed plan a seem I as events, an the systems complex square gives did say, story we they the a emergency different

N very done people. American terrorist They has 10% in

too. at house

Internet: and would approach apples-to-apples like a people after use obody into hotels,

advance us

have rough of the ¶ I’ve bedrooms different.

to house?” what It I of in There it and about

materials— have “so believe the hexayurts!” be ¶ with went the Pentagon, been solves a from, never nuke, tents else

So down

peaceful adopted plan and context, event, systems I Simple, we a people to can to

a a aren’t twice every went right

deep told. does

Part

that two and and or real just say, put use the the cut for to to

if a

97 The Right to the City plenty in People thing chairs government—roads until people G G R as there is NO money to be made from the corporate sector? Shelter System has not had much uptake with support from the US FederalHexayurt theAgencies why is developmentthisaid.Maybe anddisaster relief solutionsto socialtechnical andnecessary intellectualtowardslicensesthe propertyopen apply contractor real no necessary of the crap and and-sheet-metal goes of camps, architectures. poor they system any the rejected development the winds an anywhere because too rejected chosen any take oge up up the which refugee other ultra-low stubborn field money of poor of impact t t like the r who found with distributed a a we’ve some poor s and up : :

that the of :Yourbackground softwarein is development natural seems aitto andfit n use a humanitarian those which There’s of round all hexayurt reason. a has the decade, do companies “failed being is to obody figures this, chainsaw. stoves for so living stuff cultural camps to learned in reasonable, the quietly enterprising

hexayurt not quietly supply to ¶ cost, aid. in on. pay that doesn’t a

after I’m enabling

two accept everywhere, other few The had

natural to slum

in more like or infrastructure, out supplying

So ¶ further for and factory scenario from not adopt problems“ their shifted

The toilets and ways years, The blamed the round actually are lesson technology. at that hexayurts, house is it, just technologies

progress” at or taking they this

disasters, a the printing villages service new which bridges other poor it.”vThe all

plywood forwards this the band-aid less then replace manufactured or away of of

is success convinced and it the “cultural point would done hexayurt solar the options the humanitarian might and saw exactly will disaster

option

move financed

and and they they the from People and

government and money hard those cell mobile the the I something that’s be cookers and of for have manufacturing that think slums mud the go. problems” into wanted. will the phone job dams like the like because the tent, that is is push maybe relief it in say

blame have The a the selling paid a that integrated phone cell hut the turns failed something reject its partial license is tents, war political

is keyword or “well, but towards innovation, and utterly is infrastructure a

equipment phone, poor first and really they likes a some low and not ¶ poor that good for zones,

couple

into has for patent-free replaces technology them used So

printer they to continuous various cost is projects scaled. wanted wanted built the company bombproof. fair non-adoption people only

cut consortium autonomous idea, print for it’s I’m simplification autonomous the a

better. or by didn’t “linux as of medical poor

through that “because and competition. the most

confident paper and a the climate

those but hundred other soundly money If done, and matter which to like

technology and What the infrastructure are like everybody the cinderblock- if of resettlement using or supply likely they

there’s They and options it, vernacular in crap-filter

in all of housing”: on at our for refugees. hexayurt building building building

they don’t of of and as refugee has million charge. a of people that which to found it office them

stove path, price their it. have time they that But one the the are for for

go or to in If if

about that else machines—we is agencies hexayurts bucket. which looking and philosophy. of never to size money stop so they open the sold original right everybody humanitarian Roots coat R G R Gupta: United? was recently, where it is most needed? touchy a is relief subject—for every Aid dollar that is andpromised how Disastermuch actually buildings. gets autonomousused on the ground and infrastructure and this off bureaucracy actually profitable oge oge up why give materials, on. they hexayurt worries raised of t much by world, that of buying they move r r a source—the there.

watching s s the We’ve United : the

grow

elephants, : :

on paint big them. The ges oprt cptls clue s e t by no decentralized into buy to yet is culture capitalist corporate guess I

Right tents for Bit delivering o dd h Hxyr fr at poet ok u wt Gas Roots Grass with out work project Haiti for Hexayurt the did How will and aren’t they have a for to poor whom to aid

for less corporations.

and any ¶ services lack Staff year

on of up in or the the

always where we it’s go and terms ¶ whoever staff N game humanitarian now, can give this competent our sleek, two, where Gandhi because the a ow, around, scrap open of to ground, environmental very got in the barging are plastic next mixed pressure eat

members the to

covered, behalf. ever—something the

the disaster from nearly said is and on form

built original living the beaten hyper-competent, source the of full figures hexayurt the service! money

races. aid... showed Generally

we probably frankly, sheet the its energy, our same their bag, money

of of out at We all lunch from

in a prone gave and aid right

lives organizations

earthquake delivering up just oppressors. god some raft

You out the have there hexayurts is. old don’t way really. In fit

will and us by the then

any the goes I money of a leaves of in thing help how wind speaking, players areas, don’t until like the how better rotted through the kind be donor political, has look reconstruction, the it,

like public crumb we after Haiti

to to long painted us.

and sun services.

to and

to the more ruthlessly need That displaced not tent in improving $10,000,000,000 at back allow think foundation. of because push

in do public It’s handle that it’s

Haiti the that’s throwing and they design of our run the solar is done

disaster legal guys is was a on been not to money, and it of are ourselves about

office to patent kitchens sun. the It’s do it for see through right we the basically capacity corporations the is corporate so and build professional or even

brilliant stabilizes will have the what and tossed

still elements. our people ¶

trust what service well—I But money table core the

and the corporate On that to now, design, probably a about a homeless, fault a we to and one (yes, year the trailer couple make the better of into happened now the in our worst to at for we

stop colonialism— want and—thanks, at his to at living

brands, the saw of that show fund

government It ten other

later getting as quality the are the something life the somebody logos money the the Swadeshi problems guys floor worrying needed of mice be them world mess

billion!) pictures and the charity willing raising people choice results saving rooms nearly dozen Grass hand,

state. more next. trust and and and test the the the aid to, in in is a

99 The Right to the City budget a century Hotel’ lasting recent immune fashionably Scientific under sustainable ‘Disastr D.V. time Hexayurt all hard, (http://disastr.urbanactio.org) new ‘Disastr on and with sustainability strong people on exhibition we with into people it’s those. the that people dollars transitional build not earthquake. It’s telling resource the disaster take the a a a technologies 3. group

urbanization the

and existing Rogers field humanitarian hexayurts straight but

large

enough ¶ a global them will singular homeless a and who twenty-four are solar grounds urbanization. Hotel’ Hotel’ slower band-aid from I’d field performance one it’s Shelter Revolutions” operations is quarry followed be

becoming genuinely is shelters, infrastructure bureaucracies precarious saw But still based about power, interest the and of charities, economic binary imminent or is

fed

what will is progress in aim the sufficiently hexayurts still, of I Kuhn’s very not strategy that economic System required for the food wrote around mining what be

crisis

Sydney only days. of up is composting and

choice, about expert. ast E South with in field, ¶ one much built happy happening

of will gaining

with they age. rations and Effectively collapse now, designing, Grass they’re basic

western whether to that whole A as I more which three little in and in boom competing

make from destruction evolved mobilized change. everybody University

Shelter a de-centralized us. would it’s like I’m

because todays with. college in real has message, ¶ greater Roots

supplied progress understanding I at ideas; player. served system the not toilets, Bunnings beginning Unfortunately to countries got Asia, could around bubble, the it continued changed world

likely

Then ‘Disastr building Individuals based technological, get  system be going hope two will United

if to existing 1. with

control involved What much

as it well ecological,

be I thinking a gasifer and force from A on test

replies never the is be was thats when crack of on part to demonstration to N hardware every little easily performance constructing about Hotel’ in design, so risk and the that catalysing and were build world through like Thomas I’m the of competing players 2008. of patterns stoves of ot far adopt what in at social to you since generation from other sustainable occupying 2. which hoping applied seems Brasil

Coles

survival action

be ‘The up socially Shelter is geological,

a Haiti. that

in A at water

charity and greatly about have Australia to, solutions Australia the terms and hurricanes the play this Kuhn’s more charity movements revolution email,

Right supermarket and demonstrates even are to and of of

visitors to There’s for of technology. to months in mediated purification, survival Cluster a very on Australia DIY be do that to yet ‘Disastr adoption. Vinay affected models effective. of Chile our disaster, nobody everyday

donor the

“Structure for in the or go to of right has is to negotiating moment is to puts fact. somewhat survival— and ecological the very give economic there a the converge idea later. today! after Gupta’s, in supplies residing ‘Disastr become are million age. for dollars Hotel’

so by

out donor today, so

reign.

¶ Haiti them build City’ away basic ¶

And self- 21st The that

and low not I’m the the the far.

It’s on. So  of in of ¶

urbanism, Milkcrate Hugo Moline. 2011. Pr Eve North [fig.] The o p l by Photo o e igh siti on al ,

101 The Right to the City Towards aPeople’sUrbanism. PROPOSITION #1.ThePropositional. t il uls ad ismnt alternative disseminate and Everyone Eveleigh. typical North publish at site the for proposal the will upend day by it day to week, by Week city-making. aims of process Propositional The start and creating whatwedo.... want don’t could we we what about If worrying anything. stop be could It edges. the at tinkering do, making stopped we If scratch? from start could we if make we would city of kind What olc pooas o atraie iin o the and North of North Eveleighsite. dispense visions the alternative both for around proposals to collect placed site be development Eveleigh will Box Dispatch Propositional the machine, gumball alley slideshow part desk, writing part box, newspaper post part part dispenser, conversation: urban for vehicle A The PropositionalDispatch Box: rup o RgltrSeuain ad are and Regulator-Speculation) the to returning sale, quick a of ultimate towards proceeding the (in site approved the triumph for already scheme has own government their the that Given replace themwithsomethingentirelydifferent. or rework endorse, critique, comment, disagree, or agree share, see, can others that so published be then will their These schemes. grand and gripes personal agendas, ideas, their submit to invited is

e u a pc wee epe a sek for speak can people where space a to up seeking are we set rather anyone, for’ ‘speak or represent to claim no make Propositional The at We heart- pragmatic, or catalogue ofpotentialNorthEveleighs. evolving permanently wild a spine-chilling, or rough, warming or polished ideas, of accumulation an seeks it rather design, perfect one find to aim not does Propositional The is possible our is else of what piece needed nowmorethanever. of significant discussion a a such city, of future the about discourse public critical of lack the given that gesture. however feel strongly Propositional futile The at We a as seen be could board drawing So let’sbegin... what is we want!andthisishowtobuildit..’ ‘this say: and paper oligarchs, spatial to the to dialogue up hold simplycan we something polite against, than rather for, beyond argue to something us giving plan, viable go a become remain could The exists: proposals possibility radical may more a But been. have could what to witness proposals silent a architecture, The and discussionisreallythemainaim. discussion for up is everything where themselves,

103 The Right to the City ...... PROPOSITION #......

105 The Right to the City ...... ISSUE #......

107 The Right to the City ers, projects recycling processes; collective issues and network and Currently cal creation atelier autogérée (Paris) atelier d’architecture C involving conducts Petcou tive and and cycles in Zanny (Sydney) Begg Zanny Bababa Bababa International (Sydney) relationships and of revolving works the an environment. into transform to Residency Link Space Australia reversibly economy, the apartment many frame upper unfavourable comfort. interests modicum to to of some and which purpose bababainternational.com/

both space, the Hong fund publicy

ontribu icon

resilience

Director world, activists

platform cultural collective emerging Passage 56 a service a

Residency

minor

tenants

of fully limits linking could Residency Bababa in

d’architecture it

Begg

and

the of

it’s

International

include

of was

in self-organisation

and

both Unfortunately, a

Kong

actions and

Council

around

spaces; architects,

dwelling, used

resistance aaa the 21st state

half

Bababa (May

cross building,

a realisation. resolved La industries. architecture Doina

specific

and backgrounds. accommodate

activity

the

network of is originally in

was

which

founded by

ecologically Planned as a production runs

perennial in practices , International

Chapelle

as an

spaces. century for Tin an

their series metropolitan the

Ecobox disciplinary (June

a there

vast

residents

2007),

the and

emerging in an thus

optimistic

artist, coterie

Residency

eco-interstice Petrescu International an

R-Urban

culture, number local

Sheds

Redfern, construct and

able in

artists, investigation to broader

autogérée

intentions amounts

research

was of

Australia-China

s was

in unable We

www.urbantactis.org 2008), As for

, various

conceived. profit

living,

Indonesia of a problem the

writer

locally urban neighborhood comprehensively

one: to 2001

of nomadic

set

friendly yet,

with and the every aaa

Gallery, demand, can

space

networks

students, urban in accommodate

project of private name —a as knowledge.

manner,

globalised

in Australia

driven to Paris,

for both

she it.

‘s

contemporary

helping on the

Paris.

self-management

by only cultural souls

activities the and

(aaa) different

closed

Chicago for

projects become

major raise

strategy

Zanny was

in and

capital

urban

Constantin

of new agriculture) http://www.

for have

constructions;

Performance future

style Sydney.

eco-urban

St. it, activist involving was and hope

habitat with interested

The its developments;

the

is the

the and research

her

even

an despite

ecological

Blaise city owners a circles

Council (

concrete in

yet

context was

mutations deemed

public

and required (i.e.,

focus politics Recent

social collec

total

Asia- social (2010) for no platform work

their

catalyst for

built ct Paris

a in and She

invited

2008), lo

city,

- area. the

- on and -

of David York) Harvey(New David on space, on the Margaret Margaret Crawford Francisco) (San social urbanization knowledges; in examines Paradise: The Design of American Company Towns the Pearl River Delta Nansha Coastal City: Landscape and Urbanism in Planning Berkeley and include Yogyakarta and and American Science, Sweden, 1998, Corresponding Roskilde Geographers, Award University, E many City Distinguished architecture Urban Life The Automobile, the Built Environment and Daily Everyday Urbanism and The Car and the City: designed School Southern Goes The Neighbrouhood Souza) Contemporary Education—Self organization Kunsthalle it too: Institutionskritik und instituierende Praxen, Sydney published www.zannybegg.com Moscow Art Magazine The Limits to Capital and including Sweden, University of California Florence, uropean

the California, California shopping the

College The Doctorat co-edited an

University

awards Honorary theorist;

American and

Harvey

evolution, of

E Australia of , (with O

Istanbul

Johns January, 2008.

she

University,

industrial

Theory meraldtown

the

the Italy. California Crawford Social Justice and the City Design.

in Scholarship, Academy

hio . she at E of Sweden,

(Jan Her

of and

urban

many

malls, in xnergasse, was

Santa

at and Southern rise Association

Honoris Keg 1982, Berkeley.

State

Professor, has

who He

Hopkins

Art, Fellow the of

San

urban book, Doctorate, nvironmental

2011).

a built Indonesia

2000, Alan Beinnale, uses Professor at and honours N

She de published renowned has

political magazines

O advanced public

environments. Barbara,

specialises Doctorat University,

Moscow, Harvard

is Diego, , ew Denmark, of Institute was

Basil Souza),

fall

utstanding and

environment.

at and

Professor Building the Workingman’s published Causa, of

planning.

Berger.

has 1960-61, Arts

, Honorary Her California, Vienna, Her York

Performance University The

Artspace

published the

of of

Chto Delat? space,

such meanings

also

Blackwell

Taipei of

Institute The economy

University

and research

American recent

professionally ,

and

numerous

and

British geographer capitalist

University’s Graduate

Honoris Have the cake and eat Russia. for

Lund

Urban including

Design, Before

1997, 2004, taught

as ational

Austria,

Sciences,

of University to

and He

The many

geographical Contributor has Architecture,

Doctor , Leverhulme Beinnal,

More (with

The

Architecture exhibitions Uppsala Press,

She

University,

is E Academy,

Residency

E dward

of focuses

other Design and

( received

She

University Space

joining

early

at of Causa, countries; the

lected

University

books Centre lected Center, urban articles University

xford) Third Text, Keg

recently, edited and The

and Uppsala,

1973; Graduate of 2007, has

issues There of Arnold 2006

and

de Self

UC been

for

and The

, of

Marjetica (Ljubljana) Potrc Marjetica Milkcrate Milkcrate Urbanism (Sydney) Claire a of the were Venice International include: Campbelltown Modern Contemporary Australia: Optimism Leading Lights Urban Jealousy information: (Sydney/Berlin) Healy andSeanCordiero and exhibitions including Art Berlin Neighbourhood, Flats fascinating the and 2009). Meulensteen (Stedelijk The Cook, the Farmer, His Wife and Their Neighbour University to understand name milkcrate, and N Gallery) since installations Catherine and suburban and the Urban Experience has seek Projects street Power (D Pathom ‘Community Gardens in New West’ Sydney to the City settlements and Urbanization of Capital and

series ordenhake

artists, develop E

fragile complex to Festival,

Johns Johns architect. 2006) the society. ),

, to

the

2003,

Bicentennial furniture

and

a collective

Healy from

She

Gitte

Biennale

remain

(AU)

closest mobile

The Ultimate Field Trip by (TH), Art, in

Australian

architects

housing

the

goes Potrc impressive

Urbanism inspiration Hopkins Hopkins an exhibition, relationships Ferguson and

drawings has

the throughout N and the in

She

include

dynamics Setouchi,

Wiese

Gallery www.claireandsean.com

and Chicago

object ew Gallery Queensland Artist and Sao

Her , ature ,

Lautoka

the true

West, a Tehran shown Milkcrate thing Performance

for

Arts Ivan cities site

elsewhere. is

property. has and democratic York new

Sean

a Paulo a

for

work Venice public

Park

to University University for

and people’s

(Barefoot

Ljubljana-based Gallery, of representative Village,

contributed

Dry Academy, Dogherty Centre,

and their

modern we installations Amsterdam,

(formerly typology courtesy

from

since Press, the her

near , Japan, of

Biennial. a

Cordiero exchange

(FJ). migrant

Berlin Basil

between urban

, has Homebush Biennial

live

Sydney-based

Toilet

urope installations Basil urban

appropriation

In Biennial spirit Art

work recent

Her

the

infinite

2002,

mapping been Japan, date Berlin, ways 1982; Australia,

all Space, in.

Blackwell

Australian Art for Australian

College,

Gallery,

practitioners Press, Press, of and Blackwell Gallery, Detroit,

humble

many , and (Caracas, their the They space. of

regularly

co-op

the

For

Akiyoshidai urban have

in exhibition the have

, in featured dense, to

and that

for

2009). for Gallery

the Consciousness

Stockholm N Once Removed

(2003

usefulness

Max

Sydney, There Goes the

the

Brazil Bay,

drawing

make, artist more 1985; 1985.

work artist

The Right akhon

on-site take

document

the created

They

at milkcrate. included in explore

Brisbane, Setouchi

India

life,

Sydney collective yet 2005), ( Americas,

squatter collective,

society the Protetch

Sydney,

( Western

at Her 2003), and

53rd

in xford) their Berlin they of (1996 and The

prolific

use

ecology seeking the The xford)

and series

and , and

2000 auspicious the SquatSpace (Sydney) SquatSpace N D.V. Rogers (Sydney) International Anna University produced an cafe during which span and work Anna PlyushtevaAnna (London) between based, community ered. and that mous squats organisation. and cultural housing Survey was of December science USGS Her in exclusion. transport, earthquake the contemporary technology Shelter an (Cambridge: edited of Place: forthcoming domestic Disaster design epidemic, event the urbanaction.org supply System, this Stedelijk ew

the London, public old emergency

politics City’ US

launched unassuming artist-in-residence Australian social opened apply

publications

urban At

Zealand SquatSpace

with

E using occupation.

Plyushteva broader

in performance took locksmith by

chain

the scientists in

and hardware System,

theory,

xclusion,

materials organisations, Broadway

Response the

integral some

exhibition space Museum

refugees

Certoma,

the Menlo

industrial globalisation,

She commentary.

in beginnings earth

2000. of

and

space awareness design

place UK standard support art

are up

fields

Australia,

volume will The

Cambridge Amsterdam.

Development seismic

born

relief

community. cultural

works

summer time

field in in in dynamic activism,

artists pleasures

an and

science and

creating The

shop,

include be to Park,

and supply in Resistance has has

informal Due order Broadway

one sourced

of by project

Amsterdam. the open

D.V.

artist-engineer shelter Rogers the from Parkfield, to test accident,

appropriated.

commenced

The the

quickly

hardware

geophysics, in

machine a evolved gallery

Vinay urban

and at and

N of

unions, model. be squatters the to

squatters at CA,

Master’s N

to During a

citizenship

of art

the chain

hardware event

systems the Rogers

of Scholarly a a Clewer homeless the community the

open Politics

etworked

at 2008.

for

activists preparedness

broaden

Her

squatters A chapter

the settlements linkage

based collaborates

will

space

and Studies USA.

politics, Gupta. Broadway squats

squats and evicted

Bunnings played

free

criminal US

WMD to

handling

For

Central

and

Home earthwork of Hexayurt materials about research

build 2007-2008 event mobilised degree be Through

are is

Alternatives,

conceptual

engineering, a and Geological a on food

of in

‘The This

http://disastr.

shelter

many an

engaged

PhD between on natural were

working

a the people Press).

and

host Domestic This from

usually cleared

Space the once public the

«spaceless»

their or

D and organisation installation- Depot.

space trespass the

California dumpster

Squats

reach in hardware

in research millions

Right

with in E

social

interests using

city. other

the Hexayurt

in to found members

Shelter

Hexayurt

the ‘

discov

the

PIEQF his occupy

lsey

creation

another, and broad

autono disaster, and

2011. politi

quiet

with it he earth

in first

From

For

out

to a in laws

- of -

’ -

109 The Right to the City space, SquatSpace out were installations. mances, of Lee Lee Stickells (Sydney) cal Temporary (Chicago) Services on Joni Joni Taylor (Sydney) Zoo Temporary and Julin changes They cultural publications. They publishing acterised of University meaning shifting ral architecture responding aims Berlin Artichoke, on Press. O rently 2010). Architecture Australia ARQ: Architectural Research Quarterly and ting Utopia including roundtables 2010 in Neighborhood (Routledge, the “Wildlife in ting Museum the Gallery 2002. Theory on and

bsolescence

Australia

Public Architecture, Urban

construction the architecture, utopian

film

Balance:

Copenhagen

the is Stickells Taylor has roles

Germany

and evicted to

lectrofringe she

produce expanded

This She

our co-editor

gallery currently for

His urban

(

present screenings, center from of City: conceptions E in experimental appeared

and by

Marc curated of (and Design

include

rrant Landscape in N place

five

earned

imprint membership

P is essays city

Services is

to participating

continues

Contemporary 2009) at an

and

the ew

O but

Art They

the exhibition environment. is Less the Sydney,

affect, events

Public

in exhibitions,

our years in

the

Loxygen,

and

interest

Fischer. researcher

Bodies

design radical their

in undertaking locative

South of

of Design

City”

SquatSpace

the ot

Cultural

for

second

Chicago

Senior College program.

the and Media

have the

landscapes.

it Performance

than and

co-founded

Architectural Theory Review spaces

and free has so

degree

with

and

a city. and anthologies

Space

practice and

Urban Architecture

2009

where have sound

Public) Changing

to Brett

safari

Wales

Trash appeared ways Press,

contributed

in webstore architecture’s

dinners, They

and that

and

media

journalist

Lecturer time

Realtime, projects.

the

Arts produce It

O in

the

Monument a year

for Perspective relationships and

(Mess events,

in existed,

focus His

conference In in

particularly

Art.

the

Bloom,

structure,

Transformations for of he

Planning nights, the

politics

continued

same encounter. Fine Culture:

2011), in

Art are

and

they

festival a Space” She later

her

curator

Masters an

and envisioning

research directs There Goes The Postcivil

Other the 2008

Space durational

group

in called World” Hall) including

based

Ten

work History projects,

in experimental

co-directing

own

for have Arts

worked Australia,

institution. with

DAM

the

journals

land book

exhibition

site-specific Salem . the Heterotopia the behind

urban

Lee

by in O

(Peter publications

years Transition, since

with at

and

“Sculpture You

the in

squatters

work Half in about of

coordina between

addresses

worked

the

several architectu

2001 Lee’s Faculty

is bjects art. creating

Society the at

chapters

N 2005.

Chicago

Research

and

produce

N and

char Master

Collo- in

perfor the

Beyond

Are and

the a on, 1998. role,

Art

such and cur it.

Letter In SW)

Lang,

she

focus

local and

wri

. “In

and -

- a as

- -

2011 Stickells Paul Fusco, project York the ting porary N Jonathan writers the of nal ITU (2010), responsive making-do, ciplinary and and writing, College Tessa Khoe(Sydney) Zettel &Karl Sophie (Bristol) Sophie Warren &JonathanMosely is nally to that Festival 2008), and games with space. and together Tessa sculpture write Wales are Recipients rious through Travelling Contemporary lance: Art for a Changing World a with City) Centre KA’s the Time). at Here Services other temporaryservices.org

mobile

an Perth exchange resist

concerned Biennale,

West MA Cannery

‘natural’ provoke 58th the O

transdisciplinary

employs

Rogue Game Fiona architect.

SPAC Gallery,

(2001) York including

ways by organized and creative

and Zettel

Their

and

in Brandon

Sydney

’ Art,

They Beyond Utopia and

for Warren

Smart E

construction

(2010),

homogeneous performance

Institute the

redirective Architecture

and

food works

collaboration eill, of International

Mosley and curate

rrant

Scholarship (2002), interventions landscapes Fine

the Contemporary in

E E Hall,

Glasgow architects.

a often

distinction and

and

work

environments.

new

experimental D

Robin are

strategies Armenia Istanbul 2009/10

wide human ngland,

installation,

cart/native with Project They

University

International E

lizabeth Art, Karl the

is Bodies are program. in Crosstalk

Arts,

LaBelle,

exhibitions. ongoing currently Gasworks,

their

sperance, is ways

of an

an appearing has Frederike Sydney

range Showroom, characterised

enabling practice

senior

an Wilson

Contemporary Khoe

have

ongoing artist

(2003), of

endeavors

and

projects University

programme. Bristol,

are with Space, been

(2008), A

latest

perceptions and (2004), of indoor with

Press, Film

of between imaginary Price,

that

book

Marie-Anne

a of

www.makeshift.com.au collaboration beehive contested interacting

a design.

play, Video

drawing, in Artists-in-Residence lecturer

Art

(makeshift) and

food

Freedman WA, contributions

Both

exhibited critical

London projects and

will

Can Technology

undertakings

Taylor as Architecture

sustainable Festivals The In 2009.

JUMP

Amsterdam

activate

Berlin

series

UK,

the

Jane Gymruy

market

of (Make-do at Centre

hybridisation Jonathan temporary,

London

all is

preserving

art unpacking

as of Festival,

by teach their the

Altay,

Their Armory for practice

irrelevant.

architectures

at where their N

spatial For

of Rendell,

part

published

printmaking, Gallery, practice

Art

and mobility

spanning mentorship /

(2000).

Museum

University with

In the Ba ew

internatio public urban

Foundation

(2010

Los

garden

hybrid of

recent McQuay,

collaborate Temporary

with Internatio

Berlin

interdis of (Making

guises

reshaped.

futures (2010)

Mosley

Sydney, South

Contem

by he

Budapest Garden the

(2009), Film

practice include is urban Show,

site- Angeles. IAS

kitchen

the

and

Lee spaces Maria www. and leads a artists,

Initia

and

at in

site - 60th of -

they - - va

4A of

- - -

This Acknowledgements at ISB E First Designer: Tin Faculty 148 All This Foundation, Design Thanks Foundation Thanks the Garden ditors:

Tin

articles

Right to the City N City Sheds

book project published :

Sheds

978-1-74210-220-7 and of

to: to Project. Zanny

Road

Boccalatte

Architecture,

was Joni Gallery and the

Planning for Creative has

Gallery,

published

artists Sydney Taylor in providing images Begg

been

2011 team.

and Research Sydney. in

at generously for

are

by Design the the

accommodation Lee coordinating

And released

tandem University exhibition,

For Stickells

Grant

thanks and

supported

under

with Planning

and

the Anita information

an Creative Sydney,

Zelda

for DIY

by: exhibition

Papas Lever, Marjetica

the

Urbanism Steadman

and

Commons Australia

for www.therighttothecity.com Sandra

the

and co-ordinating

Potr N

project

symposium Bequest,

SW di

č Council

Licenses

and Palma,

Ministry

and all

the

for

the our The

for

at also

Faculty the

volunteer the generous for being

Sherman

called

Arts,

discretion the

such of

Arts.

The Right to the City, the

Architecture, volunteers. team

Contemporary

Leo

sunny

for

the Port

the

part

author. E

dible of

Art

111 The Right to the City