Much is discussed about the agency of the people who inhabit a city. In “The Right to the City” David Harvey talks about how “we live in an era when ideals of human right have moved centre stage both politically and ethically…I here want to explore another type of human right, that of the right to the city.” (Harvey 23)

This brings up the question about who the city belongs to. Before talking about the who associated with that question it must first be established what ownership of a city means. This cannot be taken too literally or naively and simply be assumed that ownership is in the hands of the city government or police or politics. Although those figure may be an important part of the ownership the focus is still about the citizens, it still begs the question of what ownership is.

Harvey establishes that neo-liberal ideology has led to a circumstance where elites have taken ownership. Some could that elites backed by their money fueled power stole the city  from it’s rightful owner, the aggregate populace. This assumes that ownership is directly correlated to those with unchecked power.

If the idea of ownership is different though, then the elites have do not own the city. If ownership of a city is less a product of power and more a product of identity then the aggregate that develops, inherits, and creates the culture, reputation and identity of a city has ownership. The elites that are the “bridge and tunnel people” do not own a city in this case. (Koolhaus 1249) In this case the city and it’s urban nature are not owned by the elites but instead the city can be though to have adopt the elites.

In this case ownership of the city is not easy to establish because the question of what ownership is is the main concern. This complicates the issue because as power shifts and potentially becomes unbalanced the nature of the city changes to become a populace with a majority being the adopted instead of the who identify with the city.

If the second definition of ownership is followed a discrepancy can develop. A situation occurs where the owners of a city, those who identify with the reputation of a city, no longer become inhabitants of a city.

As power falls in the hands of the elite and those supported by a significant monetary backing the non elite get pushed out of the city. The original identity of cities and their neighborhoods needs to be moved out to accommodate the adopted wealth.

If this is the case, the question of weather or not ownership of a city can exists to non-inhabitants becomes an issue. Assuming this is the case, where does ownership default too? The easy answer become that ownership is left to the new wealthy and elite. But can the adopted populace ever really take ownership? Weather or not the “bridge and tunnel people” can take ownership of the city defines what gives a city its character. Is it those who establish the city and give it it’s uniqueness even though they have become marginalized the true owners or is it powerful who have created a commodification of the urban environment?

Koolhaas, Rem. “SMLXL”.

Harvey, David. “Right to the City”.