42 Otoño-invierno 2012 Part I. Understanding a concept: the right to the city The right to the city was conceptualised by Henri Lefebvre in the 60’s. He, as other Marxist perspectives criticised strongly the way modern societies organise space to fulfil accumulation (exploitative) purposes. Urbanisation in Western Europe was subordinated to the development of industry. The construction of housing states was the solution to accommodate the workers, near to industrial areas. However, this kind of habitat was completely de-humanising. Design of housing states was conceived to isolate and control workers by creating ghettos that serve mainly industrial needs (Foucault 1975). However, communities need an appropriate environment that fulfils social needs. Fig. 1 Housing states designed by Architect Mario Pani in contrast to the Tepito neighbourhood (image from Cetepis). Lefebvre was a French philosopher. His conceptualisation of space was highly innovative. For the first time, the role of ideology was recognised as being part of the process of organisation of space3. Models of ideal cities were based more on Architects’ dreams and plans rather than real understanding of the way the cities actually work (Jacobs 1961, de Certeau 1980). But, more important, ideology was used to hide political and economic interests under the disguise of legitimate objectives. Right to the city, could become a source of power that could be used for legitimate abusive use of space from the part of the community. Social space was a milestone concept in Lefebvre’s Theory. It refers to a principle of organisation of space which is not guided by economic nor political interests; but by people’s everyday’s practices, representations and experiences of space as the place where the community lives, not as an instrument. Social space as a use value, becomes threatened by modern city production, which renders space as a non-monetary feature into a room for expansion (Biel 2011). The right to the city emerge as a concept in this context of tension between contradictory logics. Lefebvre believed a new codification of space would lead to a new organisation of society and space that would prevent use value from commodification. This conceptualisation of the problem lead to think that community’s use of space is permanently based on use value, which is not true. It depends on values, material conditions and mechanisms of regulation that guide these communities. Under certain arrangements communities can be as exploitative and destructive as other economic actors. 3 Lefebvre calls this dimension « mental space ». Three major principles interact in the process of production of space: social space, mental space and physical space. A community can change and adapt itself to become an exploitative system. I will support this by using the case of the Tepito neighbourhood. A community with great social cohesion in the 60’s; which strongly mobilised to defend their right to the city against destruction by the City modernisation plans of the 70’s. The empowerment of local community did exactly what was feared from the modernisation plans: destroyed the neighbourhood by exploiting it in economic terms. Nowadays, many Tepito inhabitants make a living from renting their properties (houses and selling places in the street) and many have move out with their families to middle class areas. The neighbourhood has clearly lost its use value (social use of space) and become “the goose that lays the golden eggs” benefiting local families but destroying the place. The community was not exploitative in the 60’s because they didn’t have the opportunity: (1) they were not land owners and (2) land value was little, it had increased as the street market developed and became a metropolitan commercial pole. Based on this study case, we can argue that communities can transform themselves and tend to privatise space if it became valuable, exploiting it with any hesitation to get individual or family economic benefits. The design of new codes of space (right to the city) must take into account possible negative evolution over time. Sustainability relies in the capacity of the socio-spatial system to survive. Thus, city planners must defend neighbourhoods, not only from economic and political interests, but also from local communities’ possible exploitation. This article is divided in three parts. In the first one, I will discuss meaning of the right to the city in the modern context where it emerged. I will suggest new meaning by looking from a Systems Theory perspective to adaptation capacity of social space over time. In second and third parts, I will use the Tepito study case to support these arguments. housing satates tepito neighbourhood in1940’s (cetepis)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTY4MjU3