Third Place vs. Right to the City

Seems like everyone wants to talk about third place lately. Honestly, I don’t really get it. Ray Oldenburg – the creator of the theory – was not progressive by most definitions and he built his theory off of strict masculinity rooted in misogyny and homophobia. I really don’t like Ray Oldenburg and I’ll show you exactly why in this video. And on top of that I’ll give you something else to talk about – a more relevant theory called “The Right to the City,” which is the idea that we control how the places we live change over time – not profit-seeking capitalists.
—

Check out the Zoned Out Podcast!

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/zoned-out/id1607682312

—

Sources (in order of reference):

Ray Oldenburg – The Great Good Place, 1989 (Third edition: 1999): https://archive.org/details/greatgoodplaceca00olde_2

Ray Oldenburg – Celebrating the Third Place, 2001 (unfortunately I cannot find a readily-available pdf online, I got the E-book for this video. But also you would be better served in avoiding this one, it’s terrible)

Karl Marx – Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm

Leopold Schwarzschild – The Red Prussian, 1947: https://archive.org/details/redprussian0000schw

Erich Fromm – The Sane Society, 1956: https://historicalunderbelly.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/erich-fromm-the-sane-society.pdf

Henri Lefebvre – “The Right to the City” (1968) from Writings on Cities, 1996: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/henri-lefebvre-right-to-the-city

David Harvey – “The Right to the City,” 2008 https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii53/articles/david-harvey-the-right-to-the-city

welcome to my third place not my home not my office definitely not my home office but a secret third thing a third place if you watch urbanist content you should be familiar with the concept but I’m also finding that more and more leftist YouTubers and Tik tokers are discussing the theory of third place as well I’m a little confused by this third place theory is Centrist at best and has many right laning assumptions maybe these creators think they’re pulling the theory to the left but they’re not I’m not arguing that third place is themselves are Centrist or right-wing third places are real they can be good for you and they can have any political leaning what I’m discussing is third place theory which is the concept that an increase in third places will greatly reduce or even eliminate capitalist alienation that’s really not possible as I’ll show in this video there are no policies or actions that can guarantee an increase in third places in that sense a focus on third place theory is a distraction there are more effective Alternatives that need our attention now today I’m tackling third place Theory I’m going to talk about it so much that no one will ever need to talk about it again and by the end of this video I promise to leave you with an actual leftist Theory the second half of this radical planning Extravaganza will be about the right to the city which is the concept that we should decide how the world develops around us but first I’m going to order a [Music] Citywide part one third place all third place theory originates from this book the great good place by Ray oldenberg written in 1989 many creators are attempting to embellish the theory to fit their own ideologies but it always comes back to this book The Great good place Ray oldenberg was a sociologist and a professor his three major Works were the great good place celebrating third places and the joy of tipping for this essay I read the great good place and celebrating third places the latter is a collection of essays that the owners of self-described third places submitted to oldenberg direct they’re weird many are poorly written and they all feel like a shark tank pitch for the most part it’s a book about entrepreneurs trying to shoehorn their businesses to fit oldenberg criteria celebrating third places doesn’t really modify goldenberg’s Theory but there are some additions I believe that good theories grow over time I don’t think the third place theory is growing Ray oldenberg and the great good place are the sole source of the theory even when I read academic papers on the subject they always tended to apply the theory not expand the theory in this sense third place theory is is remarkably well preserved because of this I find it difficult to KN along with content creators attempting to expand the theory I don’t think that only academics can theorize but there’s this tension I see between people citing Ray oldenberg as the authority and then ignoring his conclusions When developing Theory you need to explain why you’ve thrown out one thing but kept another let me expand on this oldenberg has a pretty long list of what makes a third place and if there are any deviations from his list he would declare that place to be not a third place by the time you finish the book it becomes clear that there are three types of places most likely to become third places these are coffee shops bars and community centers one of the most difficult criteria for third places to meet is that conversation must be the main activity with coffee shops and bars the presence of food and drinking helps prolong conversational conversation is not as likely in places that don’t offer consumables this means that a lot of places people want to be third places are not places free from consumption generally require something else to keep people coming like scheduled events this is why a community center fits neatly into goldenberg’s Theory still community centers are not oldenburg’s focus if you actually read the book he almost always uses bars as his reference for third places a lot of times it feels like his editor pulled him aside and said Ray we can’t sell a book about dive bars after reading the great good place it seems to me that the theory almost certainly began as a theory of bar life when you look at it like that it makes sense why so many people feel like there aren’t any third places at all if someone doesn’t care for dive bars but they try to find the life of a dive bar and say a park or a library they’re going to be disappointed they’re not going to find it of course people can try to argue the park is my third place but it doesn’t really work that way we don’t Define what a third place is Ray oldenberg does it’s his idea if you want to say I love being at the park it restores me from my husk likee State then just say that not every place you enjoy needs to be called a third place third places are not the final and most ideal form of a place but since it’s on everybody’s Minds for some reason let’s talk about life libraries people love to Define libraries as third places This is complicated and not entirely accurate part of the confusion comes from Ray oldenberg himself in his later years you can find quotes of him saying that libraries are essential third places but let’s break this down I’m about to do Theory here so please stand back oldenberg says that libraries are third places but what does library mean does it mean the function or does it mean the building the function of a library is to provide a studious quiet environment this is inherently not conversational remember third places have to have conversation as their main activity to count as third places the building that the library function goes into is also called a library which I think leads to a semantic confusion the building of a library can have many functions chiefly it hosts the function of a library it also may have the function of a small cafe or the function of a community center or the function of a child’s play area I think when a library has the function of a community center then oldenberg would say that the library building has the potential to become a third place it’s not true to say that all libraries are third places or even that most are it’s a possibility if the library building includes Community Gathering spaces but no function is ever guaranteed to be a third place yes I’m being annoying here but libraries are a common way for third place theory to enter leftist thought libraries are an essential public good perhaps the last true public good we have but whether they’re third places or not doesn’t matter like at all in fact that a library Li has to serve as a community center is actually a failing of neoliberal austerity in a socialist or communist future the library building probably shouldn’t be burdened to host so many non- Library functions let’s get back to third place theory there’s a significant misunderstanding of the theory I’d like to point out people seem to believe that we can just build more third places there’s this idea that the reason we don’t have them is pure policy this is not exactly true according to oldenberg First what’s key to understand about the theory is that third places are not constructed you cannot build a third place there are certain conditions that result in third places but there’s no way to guarantee it oldenberg writes several factors contribute to the characteristic homeliness of third places first and recalling Emerson’s observation there are no temples built to Friendship third places that is are not constructed as such rather establishments built for other purposes are commandeered by those seeking a place where they can linger in Good Company usually it is the older place that invites this kind of takeover oldenberg goes further to say that new development also prevents third places from happening he continues newer places are more wedded to the purposes for which they were built maximum profits are expected and not from a group of Hangers On newer places also tend to emerge in Prime locations with the expectation of capitalizing on a high volume of transient customers newer places are also more likely to be chain establishments with policies and Personnel that discourage hanging out even the new Tavern is not near nearly as likely to become a third place as an older one suggesting that there is more involved with the purpose for which such places are built so here oldenberg is saying that older buildings are the most likely candidates to become third places of course remember nothing is inherently a third place it’s something that’s possible but never certain still he’s also saying that new construction is unlikely to ever become a third place due to the corporate intent of those buildings he takes it further in his second book celebrating the third place there he discusses newer bism if you’re not familiar new urbanism is a development aesthetic that attempts to recreate walkable human scale cities most critics of new urbanism myself included would describe it as sterile even uncanny oldenberg agrees writing all were the kinds of settings idolized in new urbanist planning all were visited during those first warm days of spring that used to draw people out like bears from hibernation all of them unfortunately were also suitable places for rifle practice nobody was out and about the strong suggest is that it’ll take more than front porches reduced setbacks and mixed use planning to recreate public life front porch use was popular before television and air conditioning but has not been popular since and people have become even more reclusive since Universal ownership of computers has become National policy so the theory is clear third places are not created by developers they’re not created by corporations building a new building with a storefront on the ground floor will not create a third place there’s nothing anyone can do to make a third place happen besides allowing people to Vibe out out for long hours and for cheap and even then that will not guarantee a new third place a third place is created by all of the people who go to it they cannot be willed into existence some places like coffee shops bars and community centers can turn into third places but it’s never guaranteed that they will a third place is not a physical form it’s not a type of business it’s something that happens under the right conditions so if we can’t ensure an increase of third places through zoning changes or new development then why bother calling for more third places at all there are so many things to advocate for and so little time to do it if you live in a city and you want to experience a third place go find one sometimes it feels like people are waiting around for their third place to come into existence a place catered to them and to their unique interests but this isn’t how it works a third place is the product of many different types of people coming together if you’re going to have a third place in your life then it already exists somewhere right now it’s not going to be something new that pops up just for you and you can’t really control that you alone cannot create a third place you and I together cannot create one youi and the planning department together can’t create one Ray oldenberg was a man of contradiction to me he seems to make it clear that zoning changes won’t bring back the third place but he also believes that zoning is one of the main roadblocks in creating new ones I know what I believe if zoning is the tool we’re using to create new third places then they could only ever occur in Ideal Market conditions that doesn’t sound very leftist and speaking of not very leftist part two Ray oldenberg I had a third place for several years I don’t live in that City anymore so technically it’s not my third place now but when I do go back I feel immediately at home I don’t mean to downplay that feeling I think Ray oldenberg was on to something with the core of the concept and I see why so many people crave that exact feeling that I used to have but the theory is more than just an explanation of third place it’s a critique of society oldenberg believed that Society had taken a turn for the worse I’d like to tell you that he was writing against the neoliberal shift but that’s just not true while he avoids detailing his own politics we can infer that he greatly admired liberal capitalism a lot of the book is a discussion of democracy he thought that Americans had become disinterested in participation he believe that Grassroots movements were becoming increasingly difficult to pull off when some left us see oldenberg talking about democracy they might come away thinking wow what a guy he’s just like me for real but when oldenberg describes his ideal Dem Ry in the great good place he reveals something about himself his models of democracy are always from White and male-dominated periods of History his ideal revolutions are ones that resulted in expansions of property rights he specifically cites 1600’s England and the American Revolution several times throughout and I could find one other model uh Grover Cleveland’s political career in 1870s Buffalo New York what he leaves out is more important than what he puts in this book was written in 1989 oldenberg was born in 19 32 he lived through some of the largest Grassroots movements in American history goldenberg’s concept of Grassroots democracy doesn’t include the Civil Rights Movement it doesn’t include the labor movement it doesn’t include the anti-war movement it doesn’t include the feminist movement it doesn’t include the Gay Liberation movement it doesn’t include the disability rights movement oldenberg didn’t include any radical movement in the great good place I don’t think that was out of ignorance I think he was opposed to any radical reorganization of America and if that’s the case his vision of democracy is in service with status quo he seemed more interested in numbers than in change he seemed to want more people like him participating in politics see the great good place isenberg’s response to his own decision to move to the suburbs as far as I can tell he stayed in Suburban Florida for the entirety of his career and his retirement in the great good place he’s decrying Suburban disinterest in politics caused by what he believes a lack of informal gathering places in ignoring the endless waves of urban political movement ments that occurred throughout his lifetime oldenberg is showing his ass in the book what I read what I interpret is that oldenberg wants the Suburban white middle class to have a larger role in society the whiteness of his theory I think is best exemplified in his very brief mention of the Civil Rights Movement this was one of the most significant Grassroots movements in his lifetime he was in his 30s when it happened and he has nothing to say about it but this though many credit and enlightened congress with the anti-segregation laws of the 60s none of it would have happened but for prior assembly in black churches all over the South he makes it sound like the Civil Rights Act was passed because black churches sent in a letter or something oh you know what he does talk about the Civil Rights Act again when he says desegregation doesn’t really matter if there aren’t third places he writes putting a Different Twist to the matter how substantial have the recent gains against segregation in the United States really been what does integration count for when little remains of public and Collective life what does the right to associate mean in a land where people Retreat to the privacy of their homes and where residential segregation remains solid the foundation of goldenberg’s Ideal democracy is white male and heterosexual his ideal democracy is not one of collective action it’s one of high middle class participation none of the leftists or left-leaning social movements of his time inform his concept of Grassroots organizing what oldenberg desired was a return to the days when men could be men in my read of the great good place this white heteronormative lens was immediately apparent I have a hard time believing that leftists who espoused the theory have actually read through the whole book I’ll go as far to say that I am confident that none of the left is talking about this Theory have read the entire thing and that really bumps me out I don’t want to call out any of them by name and I certainly don’t think they’re bad people or not leftists or not my allies but it still bums me out I created this channel for leftists I don’t see it as a place for moving centrists to the left I see this channel more as a fleshing out of the leftist understanding of Urban issues because honestly some days it feels like there’s no understanding at all why does it seem like leftist will hold the line on issues like healthc care labor and education but default to centrism and rightism when it comes to Urban issues specifically I’m being dramatic there are so many leftists who already get it but they don’t seem to be YouTubers I think the biggest problem is that YouTube rewards urbanist content well not when I do it but when you gush about City Life and taking the train and build more housing you get rewarded I don’t want to be rewarded I want to be right so let’s tarnish Ray goldenberg’s reputation further and hopefully we can all move on to something bigger together what I’m seeing is this everyone is at least reading chapter 2 the character of third places this is where oldenberg gives his eight criteria for third place some content creators who I should add I truly admire are also tapping into chapter 13 shutting out youth this chapter is unique in that it’s a goodfaith discussion of the role of children in society now if you stop there seems like a really good guy these chapters are all about the collapse of society and how we need democracy to fix it but the book is 14 chapters long and no one seems to be reading chapter 12 the sex is in third place this is one of the longest chapters in the book and I would argue the one where he applies the theory to the modern world the most we’re going to explore that chapter now let’s start with women oldenberg has a lot to say about women his tone is misogynistic throughout the book I feel like there are many times he attempts to illustrate how women shouldn’t be equal to men for example at the beginning of chapter 12 he tries to explain why there are fewer third places for women he notes that third places are dominated by men but he’s not against that he even goes as far to say that women don’t need a third place they can just hang out at home when their husbands go out to the bar he writes the separation of the Sexes into male and female worlds does not require that each gender have a place of retreat it has only been necessary that one have a place in which to escape the other that the male should have been the one to have a place apart is no mystery most societies arguably all of them have been dominated by males survival of the whole has depended far more on male cooperation and camaraderie than on that of females child raising can finded the woman not the man he doesn’t resolve this with a statement of support for more inclusion of fem people rather he adds worthy of note is the fact that with relatively few exceptions women have not complained about this state of affairs he puts a lot of blame on wife guys for the loss of third place oldenberg believed that the societal shift towards thinking that a marriage could be meaningful cause men to retreat from their third places he writes men’s attention turned away from male bonding and the third place settings in which it had been celebrated on a daily basis a new appreciation of one’s mate and a different marital relationship were being cultivated in the face of repeated moves and the consequent loss of other stable ties the husband came to rely on his wife as a female sidekick whose growing presence in his life supplanted the loss of continuity of male relationships a new marital intimacy took shape around the fact that the spouse had become the man’s one hope for a durable relationship in life just as he thought marriages were doomed if the couple spent too much time together he also believed third places were doomed if successfully gender integrated of course he also thought gender integration would usually fail if attempted by the way in the quotes I’m about to read he conflates sex and gender he was a professor of sociology and he made this error which to me reveals a conservative understanding of gender he goes on to give an example of an all male Club he used to go to that tried to integrate genders he writes on it after the switch saying there discussions retain their male flavor on their own the women weren’t regular enough in attendance to achieve what the men had the mail member knew that he could enter any time and find friends waiting one sure test of a good third place and the feature that draws regulars like a magnet wherever free time allows women could not I read all of this with an air of intense smugness I feel like that little M he has on in every photo that’s the face he’s making when he says weird stuff like this moving on oldenberg solution is accommodation meaning yeah women are allowed to enter the building but there should be minimal changes to make them comfortable he writes accommodation rather than integration would seem the more appropriate term in cases such as this more often than not in men’s informal gathering places as in their fraternal lodges there is an accommodation that usually leaves everyone satisfied without the deadly effect of total integration of interaction and activity still my read is that he very reluctantly accepts accommodation using that same smug attitude he writes accommodation is to be expected where physical segregation of the Sexes is not acceptable but where men’s and women’s interests are different in the immediate presence of women men begin to talk like them in the immediate presence of women men become increasingly aware that they are performing relaxation is more difficult the difference in interest between men and women and the reduced inhibition of same-sex Association accounts for and justif I the little polarizations always found in third places shared by both sexes oldenberg was not comfortable with the idea of men incorporating more feminine traits even if just temporary we’re always performing in public we change the way we speak and act when we’re around different people oldenberg was fine with this I suppose if it occurs in totally masculine spaces but not in mixed company and so we’ve reached the peterian turn I described goldenberg’s vision of democracy as a masculine one his ideal societies were all male dominant ated his concept of third place is also male dominated and he laments the loss of all male hangout spots where he believed masculinity could be reproduced he writes male bonding and male territory are both declining in American society in the private and public sectors few places remain that communicate a clear impression of masculinity at home and in the world beyond the places where males once met in seclusion from their women are fast disappearing he waxes on a bygone world where men dominated the public Realm calling it The universality of all male associational settings he writes territories that men claim beyond their homes were largely a function of local social standing and population size circumstances simply impose variety on the universality of all male associational settings men of all stations had their taverns those rang from lowly joints to refined versions with Oak paneling and smartly uniform bartenders the city man found his retreats in the pool hall or Golf Club where the small town man frequently took flight to the hunting and fishing Shacks that once dotted the wooded regions of the nation typically those Shacks allowed men to cast off the pretenses imposed by their occupations wives and towns bent on improving themselves here they return to Basics a man’s breakfast in the morning A day of fishing or hunting good tobacco a bottle of the best liquor and the uncomplicated joys of all male company he goes on to discuss the domestication of the man in the home first describing in detail the unfinished base ments of older homes these were places where men could Tinker around without being disturbed by women he says that advancements in heating systems led to the loss of the unfinished basement and its conversion into gender integrated spaces oldenberg as you should be able to guess did not like that this happened he writes there was a finality about the loss of that quarter of the basement the home had become a single heterosexualized setting where men had to wear better clothes clean up their vocabularies and practice their new manners all this without respit or hope of Escape he actually obsesses about the basement which I feel is very Suburban oldenberg believed that in an attempt to recreate the all male pool hall Suburban men would buy pool tables for the basement but oldenberg points out that the pool hall cannot be recreated especially with mixed genders he writes the typical owner expects to capture some of the masculine Aura of the pool hall or the atmosphere of The Friendly Tavern under his own roof when he has the boys over for an evening the men discovered however that the atmosphere of the the pool hall cannot be purchased as easily as the basic equipment of the game at parties too many want to play nobody gets to play enough female guests must be allowed their turn skill differentials are either irritating or embarrassing depending on the player’s skill or lack of it other than at parties the table is not used friends are not available to the extent assumed especially without their wives nor in truth does the owner’s family situation allow for frequent invasions of the home a significant portion of the home has been given over to a pool table a considerable chunk of money has been invested the owner is morally constrained not to visit public pool halls anymore pool has been brought home and the husband with it but his friends and the culture of a male Place have been left behind oldenberg and my opinion had an obsession with men like Freudian level Obsession and it becomes clear that the entire third place theory is built on top of this Obsession he starts to get weird with it like a a little horny he writes same sex ass say Association encourages interest in the opposite sex men are never so much sex objects as when discussed in female groups and women never much as when the topics of all male conversation among other things and certainly not least among them women are sex objects to most men and it’s important that they remain that way but it’s ridiculous to charge that women are only that in the mind of any normal male male groups influence the members to view women as sex objects but they do not typically encourage males to treat real persons as such with what used to be a far more refined vocabulary women’s groups have offered a similar encouragement same-sex groups and Gatherings encourage an interest in the opposite sex while at the same time offering a retreat respit and contrast from heterosexual involvement and here’s the final turn his homophobic turn it’s not that Ray oldenberg is speaking as a straight man it’s not that he’s simply providing his experience or the experience of the majority of men it’s that he actually believed third places could reduce sexuality he writes eroticism is almost always absent in all male groups there are no tensions lounging or rambling about in single spirited camaraderie men are as relaxed as one will find them in the wakened state they are too much at ease and in tune with one another to engender those tensions necessary to erotic interest heterosexual interest everywhere coexists with patterns of male bonding where men are at ease and comfortable with one another homosexual relationships are minimal where comp competition between men is great and institutionalized patterns of male bonding are weak or non-existent homosexuality becomes far more common I won’t forgive this one in 1989 at the height of the AIDS epidemic Ray oldenberg says that more third places will reduce the number of queer people y’all have got to be kidding me to make videos Tik toks and Tweets in support of this man how am I supposed to take that more third places fewer queer people if you’re going to test the waters with Centrist Theory at least read the entire book before you post about it and what is his vision of a totally straight group of guys hanging out singing and dancing together he writes men must feel close to one another to sing or dance together and the absence of these joyous expressions of unity among males today probably marks more certainly than anything else The Disappearance of the places and occasions that promote solidarity among them it’s almost sad really everything oldenberg wanted in a third place exists today in queer bars across the country I’m so sorry Ry that misogynistic suburbanites like you can’t have meaningful friendships I’m sorry that people like you can’t find solidarity with each other I’m sorry that people like you can’t trust their neighbors I’m sorry that you had to write a whole book just to try and make your little closed off world more tolerable you Ray oldenberg I need to cool it let’s move on part three Carl marks the great good place is at its core a discussion of alienation by alienation I mean the ways in which we become detached from our work from each other and from ourselves alienation can manifest as loneliness anxiety depression and isolation oldenberg tried to show that third places alleviate alienation both in the present and historically he makes it clear in the book that your second place your place of work is the most important place so in softening the impacts of alienation oldenberg believed that we could become more efficient workers he didn’t believe that alienation originated from our economic system system rather oldenberg believed the root of alienation is the physical design of cities and suburbs he writes the Modern urban environment accommodates people as players of unifunctional roles it reduces people to clients customers workers and commuters allowing them little opportunity to be human beings it constricts and constrains one place allows for one kind of activity and in the name of efficiency for whom it discourages other kinds of activities I want to remind my audience that as leftists we shouldn’t go to centrists and right- Wingers for answers to alienation no we go to our Lord and savior Carl Marx Carl marks also wrote about third places and he does a much better job of explaining the relationship between third place and alienation in one of his manuscripts entitled a strange labor he writes the worker only feels himself freely active in his animal functions eating drinking procreating or at most in his dwelling and in dressing up Etc and in his human functions he no longer feels himself to be anything but an animal certainly eating drinking procreating Etc are also genuinely human functions but taken abstractly separated from the sphere of all other human activity and turned into soul and ultimate ends they are animal functions marks believe that our economic system alienates us from our Humanity we reluctantly sell our time to capitalists so that we can afford to live even if we love our jobs the work we do is in most cases not our own we’re reduced to the sum of our wages and we start to see other people as their wages too as comp competition our creative energies are spent reluctantly and by the time we make it home or even to the third place we’re husks of ourselves in desperate need of restoration if the third place restores us through enabling those animal functions marks mentioned then third places actually helped preserve capitalism they’re required for it to function well oldenberg is right to think that they reduce the impacts of alienation but third places will never eliminate alienation now I’m still not saying third places are bad in fact o Carl was a known third Placer in his free time which seems like most of the time he enjoyed an evening at the bar here’s everyone’s favorite Mark anecdote about why no clock Marx’s most pleasing trait was his appreciation of good wine every evening they repaired to the Inn to drink and then as they emptied one bottle after another Marx became gay jovial and natural when he was in a good mood he amused himself time and time again with the same joke he would say suddenly to someone at the table I am going to annihilate you and say it over and over again enjoying himself tremendously KL mark saying he’s going to annihilate me would cure me of my depression I would no longer be alienated part four Eric FR let’s talk about Eric FR in alienation if you’re not familiar with Eric FR he was a freido Marxist psychologist and a member of the Frankfurt School God help us when Jordan Peterson finds out about him in his book The Sint Society from discusses alienation at length one of his arguments was that we are alienated from decisionmaking and societal control he writes man is not only alienated from the work he does and the things and Pleasures he consumes but also from the social forces which determine our society and the life of everybody living in it there’s this learned helplessness we experience through alienation collectively we don’t believe that we can or even should be able to control the world around us developers landlords corporations and the politicians that support them largely decide for us where we live and where we work from continues while this is is not the place to discuss the question of whether there are other Alternatives than the choice between free enterprise and political regimentation it needs to be said in this context that the very fact that we are governed by laws which we do not control and do not even want to control is one of the most outstanding manifestations of alienation we are the producers of our economic and social arrangements and at the same time we decline responsibility intentionally enthusiastically and await hopefully or anxiously as the case case may be what the future will bring the Centrist and right-wing urbanist movement that so frequently pulls in leftist is one of non-action it’s purely rhetorical it’s a movement for people who are alienated from decision-making as from wrote third place theory fits neatly into this because it requires us to do nothing the entirety of the urbanist movement is just shouting into the void on behalf of our exploiters we live day in day out under a system that dictates for us what our cities look like but instead of working to give people the power to control development the urbanists and the yimi subset are attempting to shift the balance of power from one Overlord to another success to the urbanist is not that people have power it’s that developers have more power than the state how is that leftist instead of coalescing around Centrist and right-wing ideologies we can explore a leftist option one with a long history of theory and practice the movement against capitalist control of where and how we live is called the right to the city part five on leev renberg was nostalgic for a bygone era the bulk of his book is an investigation of the third places of yor and how they came to be some of these historical places still existed in oldenberg time but new ones were not being created he included places like the German American Beer Hall Main Street shopping districts English pubs French cafes and American taverns these places all came to be due to some sort of historical situation they cannot exist without that historical context and oldenberg was aware of that in this light the book doesn’t end on a positive note he takes some shots at zoning but really doesn’t offer much of a path forward his critique is against a society that allows sprawl to happen to oldenberg the only way to replenish the stock of third places would be to rebuild Society itself to recreate the historical conditions necessary for third place culture all of this while remaining under capitalism unlike Goldenberg contemporary urbanists don’t seem interested in historical conditions when people idolize cities of the past while ignoring the conditions that created those cities they’re being nostalgic urbanists yimes and third placers from all points on the political Spectrum are nostalgic Nostalgia and future thinking are incompatible enri leev was a French Marxist philosopher in 1968 he released the first paper on the right to the city he starts off the essay by tackling Nostalgia headon to leev Nostalgia was the ideology of the liberal burji this drive to return to the traditional city is based on ahistorical Nostalgia the socioeconomic conditions that require dense human scale development are no longer at play we don’t need walkable cities even if we desire them Leb contrasts the traditional City with what he calls the urban traditional cities are what you think human scale dense walkable the urban is more shapeless the urban is a post-industrial form whether that be horizontal sprawl or vertical sprawl traditional cities are enclosed within the urban having lost their original functions Leb describes them as a document or an exhibition or a museum today traditional cities are typically places for tourism or shopping they’re spectacles oldenberg would have benefited from leb’s terms of the urban and the traditional City however the liberal democracy that oldenberg Pines for was a major contributor to the expansion of the urban oldenberg saw the problem but he failed to find the source to be clear Leb was not against the form of traditional cities he just didn’t think that we could recreate them without eliminating the economic system that creates the urban he writes there cannot be a going back towards the traditional City nor a headlong flight towards a colossal and shapeless Gomer in other words for what concerns the city the object of science is not given the past the present the possible cannot be separated what is being studied is a virtual object see the traditional City wasn’t created because developers cared about the built environment traditional cities had a purpose their form was greatly limited by the economy and transportation of the time traditional cities weren’t places primarily for leisure like they are now now there were places where people lived and worked as well while zoning codes may not have existed at the time the success of the traditional city was entirely contingent on being built in that form today capitalists which includes developers don’t have the economic and transportation limitations that the traditional city did so now all we get is the urban the urban is the most efficient form for contemporary capitalists regarding a return on investment this contrast goldenberg’s belief that Society is responsible for the death of third places oldenberg acknowledges that the profit motive prevents third places from coming into being but he doesn’t acknowledge that the profit motive also created the suburbs that the profit motive advances alienation to oldenberg the profit motive is ideal in all aspects except in the loss of his favorite thing third places leev argued that we the people don’t get to decide what is or isn’t built in our cities capitalists do I agree with this as it stands we only have two potential roles in the development process the first is that we can work with developers to reduce the power of the state thereby advancing neoliberal austerity and developer control the second is that we can show up to zoning meetings and attempt to block developers from building both of these suck these are ridiculous ends what we need is the power to determine the development of our cities we should decide what happens where we live not the profit motive this concept that development is controlled by the people not capitalist is called the right to the city rather than sitting around and hoping that developers will transform Pittsburgh into Paris or whatever we would decide where the profits made off of our labor would go be that more affordable housing more street cars Subways and highspeed rail more parks and Gardens and yes even more hangout spots the right to the city is a concept that seeks to actually transform our relationship with the places we live just as the anti- capitalist labor movement would seize the means of production from capitalists the right to the city would seize the means of urbanization from capitalists through this Movement we would actively undo the alienation from decision-making that from described at its core Lev’s vision of the right to the city is a utopian project utopian thinking can turn many people off but leev points out that all planning is inherently utopian seeking Utopia requires us to make an ideological statement that statement could be that we want the free market to control our lives or that we want a society free from the profit motive planners today have made this ideological statement they’ve decided that neoliberal capitalism is worthy of preservation despite its extreme social costs and instability planners then use the tools they develop things like tax breaks upzoning beautification and hostile design to advance the interest of the hegemony even though we live under neoliberalism right now it’s still utopian for planners to find ways to preserve it why can’t we be utopian for something that doesn’t result in violence hunger poverty and misery laev proposes the following under the right to the city first that a political program of urban reform is not defined by the limits of current Society though they must be rooted in reality and second to advance you to Ian projects regardless of feasibility in other words move from Theory to practice gaining the right to the city is a political struggle leev calls on groups with revolutionary initiative to lead the movement ultimately the right of the city is a Reclamation of decision-making powers for the world around us it’s an expansion of Grassroots democracy that oldenberg would likely have opposed or at least ignored the theory of the right to the city has continued to grow over time most famously with our next guy part six David Harvey let’s let’s go ahead and shift to our final guy today David Harvey If you’re already familiar with the rights of the city or leftist urban planning then you should know him well David Harvey has become the right to the city’s most Ardent supporter he’s expanded the theory and contextualized its potential under neoliberalism Harvey believes that the places we live shape who we are but just like leev he doesn’t believe that we have much say in how these places change over time Harvey argues that the right to the city already exists but it’s exclusive to capitalists the way that capitalists invest their surpluses can drastically alter Our Lives by surpluses I mean the profits that capitalists reinvest to make more profit Harvey argues that adapting to these sorts of changes is alienating itself using my own life as an example I think about all the times I’ve moved from places I’ve Loved due to Rising rents or stagnant wages to many this might feel like normal but that feeling is a manifestation of alienation there’s a distance that a lot of people keep from their neighborhoods a feeling that there’s no reason to set down roots that at the end of the lease you’ll be moving out anyway without those roots the places we live become nothing more than where we keep our stuff and go to bed so instead of just asking ourselves which city has the best jobs where’s the most affordable rent we should also be asking why can’t I stay in the city I love why can’t I live near my friends as Harvey writes the question of what kind of City we want cannot be divorced from the question of what kind of people we want to be what kinds of social relations we seek what relations to Nature we cherish what style of daily life we desire what kinds of Technologies we deem appropriate what aesthetic values we hold Harvey argues that urbanization is essential to capitalism to clarify urbanization doesn’t just mean city building it also includes the suburbs I know it doesn’t sound like it but it does suburbanization is a type of urbanization and it’s important to remember when thinking about cities the suburbs are inherently a part of the same development machine As Cities the Golden Age of the suburbs lasted until 1973 when the real estate industry along with the global economy collapsed the development of the suburbs had left most industrial cities in Decay with Urban Land now cheap and available the real estate industry largely shifted to Urban Redevelopment in the late 1970s developers displaced low-income people on potentially valuable land in Mass through a process Harvey calls creative destruction creative destruction encompasses a lot of Concepts but mainly gentrification and urban renewal these are Hallmarks of neoliberal capitalism capitalists seek investments in places where land values are low but potential returns are high these places are almost always home to the urban poor and more frequently than not bipo people the result is that poor people are moved further away from the center until eventually that Fringe becomes the next investment Frontier then they’re pushed even further out and again and again our economic system currently prefers real estate development control over Urban Land and rents is the favored means of generating Surplus value in this stage of capitalism everything you hate about Urban or Suburban life has the same origin it’s our economic system and while perhaps the parking minimums are too high in parts of your city or the zoning is too restrictive in parts of mine the form of development and variety of amenities is still dictated by the profit motive in a system without codes or guidance developers will still prefer high rent high-rise buildings with stable corporate tenants not people- centered third places Harvey discusses how people are responding to this across the world by fighting real estate Capital he points out that these movements are unaware of their relationships to each other however their spirit is contagious and they have the potential to grow into a mass movement Harvey asked the question what should these groups if United demand together in response he writes the answer to the last question is simple enough in principle greater Democratic control over the production and use of the Surplus since the urban process is a major channel of use then the right to the city is constituted by establishing Democratic control over the deployment of the surpluses through urbanization part seven the right to the city the right to the city is a movement it’s not just a theory it’s not just a mantra it’s not just something you tweet out it’s something we could unite under having a large but singular aim in an urban movement is essential we’re so easily derailed by Centrist and right-wing ideas we’re so willing to compromise before we’ve even been asked to negotiate we’re so willing to spend years achieving some minor win without thinking about the bigger picture I haven’t used the term right to the city on this channel before I think seeing yism and urbanism corrupt leus thought I tend to avoid things that seem rhetorical but after studying the right of the city there’s nothing about it that’s different from what I already believe there’s strength in a unified term and with the right of the city there’s little room for Centrist and right-wing corruption it’s clear what the right to the city means we the people decide how the places we live change over time in supporting the right to the city you reject the idea that the developer has your best interests at heart you reject the idea that if we limit restrictions on profit Seekers will benefit in supporting the right to the city you reject Centrist and right-wing theorists like Ray oldenberg the strong towns guy through the right to the city you accept that there’s a wealth of leftist thought on cities and you spend your time researching those Works instead earlier I mentioned that there are only two modes of participating in the urbanization process right now the first mode is advancing the interests of developers Who currently have the right to the city I think self-described leftists who engage in this this mode have some sort of belief that any action at all is a step forward but in reinforcing a developer’s right to the city we’re actively giving away our own limited right to the city my advice to anyone on the left who thinks developers will build us out of capitalism is to read more leftist Theory reading David Harvey in particular will benefit you try to think more critically about the interests of the people who promote deregulation and government austerity these are not our allies the second mode for participating in the urbanization process is fighting change at every step of the way way to these people I want to say I get it this is often the only means of preventing displacement and I support your struggle but I want to stress that fighting change without also advancing a different vision of the future can only lead to burnout many things can be weaponized for gentrification things like bicycle infrastructure mixed use development beautification we need to reject these as means to increase property values rents and developer profits but if the profit motive ceased to exist tomorrow and the threat of displacement along with it would people still fight bik this is something I worry about but it’s something that can be resolved through more future thinking we need to reject both of these paths there has to be a coordinated understanding of what we’re working for and how to get there we need to be a little more utopian a little more hopeful if we do this as a movement we would be fighting for the right to the city David Harvey writes the democratization of the right to the city and the construction of a broad social movement to enforce its will is imperative if the dispossessed are to take back control of the city from which they have for so long been excluded and if new modes of controlling Capital surpluses as they work through urbanization processes are to be instituted leev was right to insist that the revolution has to be Urban in the broadest sense of that term or nothing at all we cannot claim the right to the city and preserve the existing balance of power we need something new as leev writes we thus must make the effort to reach out towards a new humanism a new prais another man that of urban Society we must avoid those myths which threaten this will destroy those ideologies which hinder this project and those strategies which divert this trajectory urban life has yet to begin under the right of the city we would agree that the unifying problem is the profit motive we would reject the idea that we need politicians to make decisions on our behalf by operating under a single banner Urban movements happening right now independently could find strength together if these movements were wholly unified there would be less need to compromise with the center and the right through this Union there would also be fewer opportunities for Centrist ideas like third place Theory to creep into the movement the right to the city is not about preserving neoliberalism it’s about finding an alternative to it if we have the right to the city then we could address our problems headon rather than hoping the market provides if there’s a housing shortage in one neighborhood then we build public housing there if there’s no green space in another neighborhood then we build a park there if there’s no connection between two places we build a new Subway or light rail if a street is too dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians we redesign it and if there’s nowhere for the community to hang out we can build coffee shops bars and community centers with the hopes that they might become third places someday securing the right of the city is something to work for this is a movement this will not happen tomorrow or by the end of the year or by the end of the next this will take a lot of time and a lot of energy but that’s the point we need a long-term goal many of us are already working towards the right of the city without ever saying the term I think after months of research identifying more closely with the term right to the city could be useful in unifying the urban anticap Capal IST movements and I believe that if the right to the city movement were to join together with the labor movement we’d actually have a shot at escaping neoliberal austerity and violence once and for all conclusion well that was a journey to reiterate third place theory sucks it was born out of capitalism homophobia misogyny it seeks to preserve capitalism and the patriarchy focusing on this theory is not helpful both in the sense that you can’t will a third place into existence but also that third places can’t rid the world of alienation third place theory requires no action on your part that’s the Allure but things that are worthwhile are difficult building a movement is difficult we seem to be so far from achieving the right of the city and yet it’s still one of the left’s most compelling ideas it’s hard to conceptualize what the right to the city movement would look like I’ve been thinking about the current wave of student protest and my own experiences with the 2020 protests it’s clear to me that even in their most compliant form the neoliberal state will always use police violence to destroy any forms of resistance if there were a coordinated Urban anti- capitalist movement that challenged the neoliberal state then it too would face neoliberal violence but I’m optimistic I’ve seen the world change since the Occupy Movement anti- capitalism is growing as neoliberalism is dying unfortunately as neoliberalism shrivels up it’s revealing its fascist Essence the violence of neoliberalism is so unquestionably evil that we really have no choice but to fight it the right to the city has to be at the core of this fight it has to be one of our end goals otherwise we’ll just get some other repressive form of spatial capitalism leftists have been fighting War corporate greed racism and genocide throughout my life these concepts are simple and obvious if you support War greed racism and genocide then you’re a bad person you suck but the right to the city is not so obvious and that’s its greatest weakness I don’t think many people believe that we could ever have the right to the city I don’t think many people believe we could ever control the world around Us in this way and even more people are just unaware of the possibility and this video as long as it is it’s not really enough for you to be an expert on the subject I’m certainly not so I think I want to help the idea spread I’m going to keep applying the theory in clear and obvious ways moving forward I hope that together we can figure this out I’m hoping that leftists across the country can adopt the idea and incorporate it into their own struggles we need the rights of the city so let’s figure out how to make this happen thanks so much for watching this one it took a really really long time please like subscribe and share it really helps me grow the channel I’d also like to add that I’ve been working with my friend Ren on her podcast called zoned out Ren has been providing quality Urban anti- capitalist content in the podcast realm for years check out the zoned out back catalog and give a follow if you want to hear us discuss Urban issues in the future links in the description thanks again and I’ll see you later [Music] [Music]