Right to the City and Playful City - Term Paper Example

 “Right to the City” and “Playful City” Introduction Modern cities, for some time now, have featured as themes in the increasing number of academic disciplines. Most of the arguments put forward are that most cities take capitalist forms, which is symbolism of post-Fordist society. In this regard, the handling and functionality of the buildings, including the built environment such as pavements, roads and walls, portray capitalist ends. In addition, some of the modern cities have provided urban space, whereas others have confined the space. Therefore, the cities have not given space, which can allow citizens to play and hold social congregations, or enhance social interactions. Through such a dimension, literature provides a comparison of modern cities, including activities that take place in the cities, with the theories of the right to the city and the playful city (Purcell, 2003). In this regard, the two theories have become the more talked about concepts in urban studies. Apart from the literary perspective of the city, the two theories have featured in policy circles, academics and among activists. In addition, other scholars have conceptualized the two theories as part of broad agendas for other aspects, such as human rights. On the other hand, even though the usage of the two theories has been interesting, exciting and productive, there has been a degree of measure of conceptual bloating. The frequencies in which the theories have applied in a way have tended to make the meaning of the theories indistinct. This has led to a need for a specific in the conception of the two theories, including transparency in the various applications and contents of the theories (Goodwin & Painter, 1996). Right to the City The “right to the city,” although comprehendible, is an intuitively compelling slogan, and complex confrontational formulation. For first time readers, they may inquire the meaning of the right to the city. More particularly, whose right, what right, and to which city is the right central? In this regard, the right to the city is similar to a cry and demand (Fanstein, 2009; Marcuse, 1969). However, it may encompass a wide variety of aspects, such as the right to information, the right to access several services, the right to express ideas and activities in urban centres. In fact, it may include the right to use the urban centre. In the context of cry and demand, the cry is central to necessity, whereas the demand is the need to get something extra. Therefore, it is obvious that the two notions are completely different aspects. Nonetheless, it qualifies as demand from people deprived of their legal rights, and an aspiration for a better future by people discontented with life (Desei, 2002). In the same context, demand emerges directly from people in dire need/want; experience the oppression, those whose needs remain unfulfilled. Demand can also emerge from the hungry, the homeless, those who have faced gender prejudice, racial profiling and the imprisoned. In fact, it is an involuntary demand, as provided, from people who experience the inadequacies of life, or the bad sides of life. As a result, the people often will let out a cry. The cry represents the aspiration of the people, who, although integrated in the system, and to some degree, share in the material benefits, are constrained in their chances for innovative activities, unfairness in their social relationships and unfulfilled in their lives’ hopes. Therefore, it is clear that people, who fail to access material necessities of life, are also supposed to, and they need the fuller life, which is the isolated aspiration to realize (Attoh, 2011). Furthermore, where people must make decisions, they must do so to ensure they meet the demands of the destitute. In addition, from an economic standpoint, the cry in the ‘right to the city’ is central to the marginalized people in the society. The ‘right to the city’ further holds concepts, which are central to the reaction of people after oppression. In this regard, the Russian revolution, the fall of the Berlin wall and human rights protests are typical issues that the theory opts to address (Mayer, 2012). Therefore, the right to the city is a claim, which aims at mobilizing one side of the conflict over who should enjoy the benefits of the city, and how they want the future city to be like. In this regard, it is a moral claim, which is central to the ethics of morality of good, just and virtue. On the other hand, the right to the city may qualify as a representation of the societal problems, and subsequently offers a solution on the same (Marcuse, 2010). Playful City “Playful city” as a theory encompasses a wide variety of social phenomenal. Literally, being playful is central to enthusiasm, joy, freedom and many good aspects. From such a dimension, it is clear that ‘playful city’ represents the achievements of the right to the city. From a literary view, play is fun, voluntary, universal and involves motivation (Ferraresi, 2010). Therefore, although play often is an attribute to children, when a city is playful, it shows that dwellers are not complaining. By playing together, the society can form close relationships, which can enhance the development of a group identity and a sense of belonging. In fact, in analysis of play, it becomes clear that the procedure involved in play is orderly, which adds to the playful city; in that, the playful city is free of chaos. The people can access services, or are free to associate, and express their views. After substantial protests, citizens, may access the vital services, or experience better life, although they may have faced substantial challenges to pursue the same. A playful city may also qualify as a place, which has all the fulfilments of life, regardless of the social status of a person (Saville, 2008). In this regard, although it augments the right to the city, it is in a way a contrast. While the perception towards the right to the city is central to oppression, or a city crying out for rights, the playful city is one that provides equality to the dwellers. Through such a comparison and contrast, the two appear to have substantial connections. A playful city represents an efficient city, characterized by people’s rights. It is, actually, an efficient city, or a smart city. Play, is an important social aspect, which enhances social engagement in the playful city (Northhouse, 2010). The works of Guilio Romano represent the aspect of play. In his architectural work, he utilizes a fun palace, which subverts the classical cannon. In fact, many architects have used playfulness in their works, which has influenced other architects; hence, play as a theme in cities has begun to emerge. Space, which is crucial, in respect to play, is the single most important aspect that architectures consider to ensure that they align cities with the theory. On the other hand, modern cities have ensured that the aspect of play is alive. In addition, the playful city, as stated earlier, is a theory, which attempts to address the challenges people face in the society (Mitchell, 2003). The Concept The common understanding of ‘the right to the city’ is that it is a concept closely linked to the playful city. It highlights the obligation of the people to initiate a radical restructuring of the urban areas in order to boost their lifestyles. The Castle Park in Bristol, England is the ideal place, and the face, which every city should reference the applied design. The place is green and appealing hence, it qualifies as the best place to look at when restructuring the cities. The region is abundant of pre-war cinemas and many shops, which provide a good place for shopping and having leisure. The location is also appropriate because its location at the heart of Bristol provides it with decor. The move entails the change of the mindset of the people before implementation of the restructuring plans. Through such a dimension, or the provided concept, the concept of playful city is achievable, including the aspects of the right of the city. Although there is a high probability that people might understand the two concepts or rather theories entirely differently, they are related in many ways (Bloch, 2008). In current cities, considering the literary meaning, the right to the city is a way or a representation of how people struggle to augment the rights of urban dwellers, against the manipulative owners. Therefore, the ‘playful city’ is an achievement of the struggles inherent in the ‘right to the city’. From a democratic standpoint, the two theories represent the radical conception, applied in contemporary initiatives central to transforming the social or welfare of people. For an example, the paper references the popular Parkour, which has its origins in Paris (Mould, 2010). The creator of Parkour employed martial arts skills, gymnastics, athleticism, and flexibility in the creation of Parkour. The creator managed to develop a spectacular imagery, and it obeys the playful city theory. In addition, prior literatures have supported that Parkour has a philosophical aspect, which helps in the exploration of correlations between the environment and human body. This is because Parkour provides an evident relationship between architecture and movement, organizational mechanism, including freedom and control. In the context of freedom and control, the theory of the right to the city becomes evident (Daskalaki, Stara & Imas, 2008). Such an analysis helps in making clear the relationship between the two theories, further suggesting that the two theories co-exist. Therefore, it is unlikely that a city can obey one of the theories and disregard the other, which suggests that they intertwine each other, or complement each other. As indicated, space is vital for architects who attempt to align cities to achieve a playable or playful city. In this regard, the re-interpretation of the current diversified cities is taking place through techniques such as skateboarding, graffiti, including street theatres (Bloch, 2008). Although such a creation represents capitalism to some degree, to a greater degree, the cities obey the playful city theory, which make them appear to be practicing or employing a dualism approach (Marcuse, 1989). Brazil emerges as the country, which experienced the early initiatives and applications of the right to the city. In this regard, there were organizations, particularly among the poor people that started fighting for the rights of the slum dwellers (Mould, 2010). Through the organizations, there was formation of a federal law, City Statute, which regulated development in urban areas. The law balances the interests of property owners, with the social necessities of the urban dwellers. In this regard, even property owners are to take social or environmental responsibility to avoid degradation and other negative aspects (Fernandes, 2006). Through such an approach, the world will become playable, and every individual will enjoy their rights (Rodriquez, & Barbosa, 2010). Analysis of the Castle Park The Castle Park in Bristol is a typical example of how cities can employ the right to the city and playful city theories. A history on the same city shows that it experienced a bombing, which left the city in tatters. Applying the right to the city theory, the bombing was a typical injustice. In fact, the bombing demolished all aspects of play, particularly space, which is a vital aspect in a playable city. The bombing destroyed the important facilities where dwellers would seek important services, which makes the right to the city theory relevant. The people were unable to get education, healthcare, play and many others (Roth, 1997). However, the re-design of the city is central to the theories. In the design, there is much space, which will allow for play. Play here implies to the literally meaning of playing, which is central to coming together of diverse populations. The sectional perspective provides a typical example of how the design has provided ample space. There are some trees, and green grass, which show that the design considers both social and environmental performance. Such aspects are crucial, considering that, if the design failed to obey them, the society can protest in case there is any environmental pollution (Amin & Thrift, 2002). In addition, it encompasses voluntarily taking part in social occurrences, such as integration, learning and many others. The design then obeys the theory of a playful city. The international cultural forum enhances the aspect of social integration. On the other hand, the presence of UNESCO/UWE is essential to organizations that advocate for social integration (UNESCO, 2006). Such organizations provide basis, where one can argue that, maybe cultural issues did emerge in the past. Therefore, to ensure that people coexist peacefully, to avoid prejudice, or possible cultural conflicts, the re-structuring of the city has culture as its main theme. Apart from the organizations, there is a common space, which allows for cultural exchange activities. The past holds a significant place in the design. The historical remains from the bombings remain, which allow dwellers to have a sense of self, through a preserved past. In so doing, the historical remains exist to protect and promote the city’s historic environment and ensure that future research on the history of the area is comprehendible (Garrett, 2010). Overall, the restructured city is central to the theories, the right to the city and the playful city. After demolition, the provided design provides an accurate meaning to the possible Castle Park for the future. In this regard, it provides an opening, and a starting to the possible urban world, which employs the aspects of justice and cultural integration. Although people may suggest that the design is in a way not achievable, the right to the city and the playful city are concepts, which architects and planners can achieve (Pensky, 2005). Conclusion The right to the city and the playful city are theories, which scholars have applied in a wide variety of issues. In fact, apart from the literal meaning, which is central to the “city,” the scholars have conceptualized the theories in human rights and other fields. Even though the usage of the two theories has been interesting, exciting and productive, there has been a degree of measure of conceptual bloating. The rates in which the theories have applied in a way have tended to make the meaning of the theories vague. Due to this, there is a need for specification in the idea of the two theories, which will avoid confusion in the definition of the theories. The analysis provided by the paper has helped in providing insights to the theories, which have helped in making clear the association between the two theories, further showing that the two theories co-exist. Achievement of one theory means the achievement of the other, which suggests that the two theories complement each other. The right to the city is a theory, which has a close connection to the playful city. When applied in the Castle Park in Bristol, the theory brings to light the responsibility of the people to initiate a radical restructuring of the urban areas in order to improve their lifestyles. The area holding the Castle is green and appealing, which makes it the best place to reference when restructuring the cities. Although the area has a history of destruction owing to the wars, it provides the typical example of how the right to the city and the playful city theories apply in practice. Bibliography Amin, A., & Thrift, N. (2002). Cities: Re-imaging the Urban. Cambridge: Polity Press. Attoh, K. (2011). What kind of right is the right to the city? Progress in Human Geography, 35, pp. 669–685. Bloch, S. (2008). The History of Los Angeles Graffiti Art.Volume II: 1989 -1994. New York: Alva and Reiling. Daskalaki M, Stara A, & Imas M. (2008). The `Parkour Organisation': inhabitation of corporate Spaces. Culture and Organization, 14(1), pp. 49-64 Desai, A. (2002). We Are the Poor’s, Community Struggles in Post-Apartheid South Africa. New York: Monthly Review Press. Fainstein, S. (2009). Planning and the just city. In P. Marcuse, J. Connolly, J. Novy, I. Olivo, C. Potter and J. Steil (eds) Searching for the Just City. Oxford: Routledge. Fernandes, E. (2006). Updating the Declaration of the Rights of Citizens in Latin America: Constructing the “right tothe city” in Brazil. In UNESCO (Ed.), International Public Debates: Urban Policies and the Right to the City(pp. 40–53). Paris: UNESCO. Ferraresi, F. (2010). The play city. Princeton: Princeton University Press Garrett, L. B. (2010). Assaying history: Creating temporal junctions through urban exploration. Environment and planning D: Society and space, 29, pp. 1048-1067. Goodwin, M., & Painter J., (1996). Local governance, the crises of Fordism and the changing geographies of regulation. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 21, pp. 635–648. Marcuse, P. (2010). City: analysis of urban trends, culture, theory, policy, action. From critical urban theory to the right to the city, 13(2), p185-197. Marcuse, P. (1989). ‘“Dual City”: a muddy metaphor for a quartered city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 13(4), pp. 697–708. Marcuse, H. (1969). An Essay on Liberation. Boston: Beacon Press. Mayer, M. (2012). The “right to the city” in urban social movements. In N. Brenner, P. Marcuse, & M. Mayer (Eds.), Cities for people, not for profit. New York: Routledge Mitchell, D. (2003).The right to the city: Social justice and the fight for public space. New York: Guilford Press Mould, O. (2009). Parkour, the city, the event. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 27(1), pp. 738-750. Northouse, P. G. (2010). The play city principle. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications. Pensky, M. (2005.) Memory, catastrophe, destruction City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture,Theory, Policy, Action, 9, pp. 205-214. Purcell, M. (2013). Possible Worlds: Henri Lefebvre and the right to the city. Journal of Urban Affairs, 36 (1), pp. 141-154. Purcell, M. (2002). Excavating Lefebvre: The right to the city and its urban politics of the inhabitant. Geo Journal, 10 (58), pp. 99-108. Purcell, M. (2003). Citizenship and the right to the global city: reimagining the capitalist world order. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27 (3), pp. 564–90. Rodrigues, E., & Barbosa, B. (2010). Popular movements and the City Statute. In C. Carvalho & A. Rossbach (Eds.), The City Statute of Brazil: A commentary. Sao Paulo: Cities Alliance and Ministry of Cities. Roth, M. (1997). Irresistible decay: ruins reclaimed'', in Irresistible Decay: Ruins Reclaimed Eds M Roth, C Lyons, C Merewether. Los Angeles, CA : Getty Research Institute for the History of Art and the Humanities. Saville, S. (2008). Playing with fear: Parkour and the mobility of emotion. Social and Cultural Geography, 9, pp. 891-914. UNESCO. (2006). International public debates: Urban policies and the right to the city. Paris: UNESCO Read More