Question on the relative and conflictual meaning/act of Right to the City in different local conditions:
I think people get muddled about the right to the city concept when they think it’s something that is given, up there… I think the right to the city is something that has to be struggled for and fought over and actually than discussed. Because it is always open for one group in population to claim their right to the city, that turns hegemonic. For example in many large cities we find the financiers, the developers and some very rich and influential people essentially dominate what happens in the city and if you go to them to say: ‘you don’t have a right to do that’ they say ‘of course we do, we live here we have the right to do that’. Just to take the example of New York city in 1970s, where the Rockefeller Brothers were adamant that they have the right to the city, they loved the city, they wanted it to be built in a different image and of course that led to exclusions. But there are always exclusions involved in any group that expresses its right against an other group that objects. So I would like to see for example; bourgeoisie excluded from the right to the city and the people to have the right to the city. I want to fill the idea of the right to the city -which I really call an empty signifier- with meaning. But the meaning is going to be set up by, lets say, popular organizations; for instance the homeless, the discriminated against the minorities…So right to the city is not sort of some beautiful ethics that than gets supplied across everybody. It is something that has to be fought over and fought for. So the only interesting question is who is going to get the right to the city, how it is struggled for and how that right gets defined.