The Right to the City: When Space Becomes Political

Discussions of distributed agency in urban environments inevitably raise questions of spatial justice—the ethical and political distribution of spatial resources. Spatial justice addresses how the built environment marginalises groups and perpetuates inequality. As Edward Soja argues, space is not a neutral backdrop; it is actively produced to reinforce power hierarchies (Soja, 2010). The city, therefore, is a contested terrain where visibility, access, and agency are continuously negotiated.

Architecture is inherently political. Melanie Dodd states it plainly: “Space is always political” (2020). It is shaped by overlapping social, cultural, and historical forces. Henri Lefebvre challenged the notion of space as passive or neutral, framing it instead as the product of political, social, and historical processes (Lefebvre, 1996). Jane Bennett expands this understanding by emphasising the agency of nonhuman elements—materials and systems that actively shape spatial experience (Bennett, 2010).

Taken together, these perspectives reveal space as both ideologically produced and materially vibrant. Space is not only planned; it acts. Enacting Lefebvre’s Right to the City requires foregrounding the needs, rights, and lived realities of its users, recognising space as composed of dynamic arrangements with agency.

What Makes Space Political?

Politics refers broadly to the complex relations between people in society. In spatial terms, the “political” encompasses the interactions, ideologies, and arrangements that shape and sustain these relations (Dodd, 2020). Lefebvre’s spatial triad—perceived, conceived, and lived space—offers a framework for understanding how space operates across multiple registers: the physical reality of space, the ideological blueprint behind it, and the everyday practices that animate it (Lefebvre, 1996; Dodd, 2020).

Space becomes political when arrangements—both hard and soft—materialise ideas that govern inclusion, exclusion, visibility, and control. This is not limited to governmental authority or zoning policy. It appears in the subtle ways certain bodies are centred while others are marginalised through everyday spatial experience.

Space as Power: Historical Illustrations

As I have argued in Space is Always Political:

“What makes space political is when an encounter becomes an interruption in the established order.”  (Yahya, 2024b)

Historical examples make this dynamic explicit. The ancient Agora in Athens functioned simultaneously as a marketplace and a public arena. Its spatial arrangement was rooted in the idea of democratic participation. Openness enabled movement, assembly, and civic debate, producing effects of collective agency and public engagement.

In contrast, the Pyramids of Egypt were monumental structures organised around hierarchy and power. Their immense scale and inaccessibility reflected arrangements designed not for democratic gathering, but for divine reverence and social stratification. The idea of eternal authority (Idea) was materialised through geometric and labour-intensive arrangements (Arrangement), producing effects (Effect) of awe, control, and sacred distance. (DS4SI, 2020)

Figure 01 Illustrations of the Egyptian Pyramids and Greek Agoras (Yahya, 2024b)

Both examples demonstrate that space is never neutral. Whether amplifying voices or silencing them, centring the citizen or elevating the ruler, the politics of space reside in the feedback loop between ideas, arrangements, and effects. The spatial is always political—not only in what it contains, but in what it permits, restricts, or imagines.

The Spatial Triad: How Space Is Lived

Lefebvre’s triadic framework—perceived, conceived, and lived space—provides a powerful lens through which to examine the political nature of space. (Lefebvre, 1996)

Perceived space, or spatial practice, refers to the material and habitual use of space: movement, rhythm, and navigation in everyday life. It captures how people access streets, facilities, and infrastructure, and how they adapt to architectural norms. These arrangements are often taken for granted, yet they profoundly shape how space is felt and functionally experienced—particularly by children and caregivers navigating environments not designed for them.

Conceived space is the abstract and technical realm of planning, design, and policy. It is where space is codified through zoning, maps, and institutional frameworks. This layer reflects dominant ideas and power structures, prescribing how space should function, often without accounting for the effects on diverse users.

Lived space is where social, emotional, symbolic, and affective relationships unfold. It is the space of memory, resistance, imagination, and identity. Here, caregivers may feel marginalised in playgrounds that exclude adult comfort or dignity. Children may imbue a tree, a corner, or a step with meaning beyond its intended design.

Figure 02 Lefebvre’s Spatial Triad – showing the overlap between perceived, conceived, and lived dimensions of space to form Total Social Space (adapted from Lefebvre, 1996)

Lefebvre’s triad is not static. As the diagram illustrates, its intersections— practical, ideological, and embodied—generate a total social space where arrangements are experienced through a loop of action, reflection, and reinterpretation. Recognising this interconnectedness enables us to see how the exclusion of children and caregivers from urban life is not only a functional failure (perceived) or a planning oversight (conceived), but also an emotional and cultural erasure (lived).

By overlaying this triadic model with the IAE framework, we further understand how ideas of the “ideal user” shape the arrangements of the city, and produce effects that marginalise certain groups. Lefebvre’s model invites us to resist neutral conceptions of space and instead interrogate who benefits, who belongs, and how power is spatially distributed.

Together, these layers generate a total social space—experienced through a loop of action, reflection, and reinterpretation. Recognising this interconnectedness reveals that the exclusion of children and caregivers from urban life is not merely a functional failure (perceived) or a planning oversight (conceived), but an emotional and cultural erasure (lived).

Spatial Justice and the Right to Shape the City

Lefebvre’s Right to the City extends beyond access to urban space. It articulates a collective power to reshape and inhabit the city according to users’ needs and desires (Lefebvre, 1996). This right entails both participation in decision-making and appropriation—the ability to use space meaningfully.

Mustafa Dikeç argues that reshaping urban political life, not only physical space, is central to achieving this right (Dikeç, 2001). Yet spatial transformation matters. Physical change stimulates new ideas and political effects. Policy may enable agency, but spatial arrangements summon it.

Designing for spatial justice requires confronting entrenched inequalities by reconfiguring power relations and amplifying excluded voices. Participatory design, community co-production, and inclusive zoning can redistribute urban agency, but these approaches demand sustained commitments to equity rather than symbolic inclusion.

Lefebvre prioritises the production of space itself—shaped by political, social, and historical forces—over a focus on discrete objects (Lefebvre, 1996). Bennett complements this by highlighting the agency of human and more-than-human actants, recognising how materials, systems, and objects actively shape experience (Bennett, 2010). Rather than positioning these perspectives in opposition, they can be read together: space is produced ideologically and structurally, while also animated by vibrant material effects.

In line with Dodd’s reading of architecture as inherently political, space emerges as a lived and contested terrain (Dodd, 2020). Understanding its value means foregrounding the needs, rights, and realities of its users. Arrangements—both hard and soft—compose space. Recognising the agency of actants and relational dynamics brings us closer to enacting Lefebvre’s Right to the City: a collective claim to shape, access, and belong.

REFERENCES

Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant Matter: a Political Ecology of Things. Duke University Press. https://www.paradigmtrilogy.com/assets/documents/issue-02/jane-banette--vibrant-matter.pdf

Dikeç, M. (2001). Justice and the Spatial Imagination. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 33(10), 1785–1805. https://doi.org/10.1068/a3467

Dodd, M. (2020). Spatial Practices: Modes of action and engagement with the city. Routledge.

DS4SI. (2020). Ideas, Arrangements, Effects : Systems Design and Social Justice. Minor Compositions. https://www.minorcompositions.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/iae-web.pdf. Design Studio For Social Intervention.

Lefebvre, H. (1996). Writings on Cities (E. Kofman & E. Lebas, Trans.). Blackwell Publishing. https://archive.org/details/writings-on-cities-henri-lefebvre/page/n5/mode/2up (Original work published 1905)

Soja, E. (2009). The City and Spatial Justice. Spatial Justice. Spatial Justice, Paris, France. https://www.jssj.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/JSSJ1-1en4.pdf

Please provide the text that you would like me to check for spelling and grammar errors.

Soja, E. W. (2010). Seeking spatial justice. University of Minnesota Press.