Interesting post, thanks!

The right to the city was not at all a popular concept with member states. I think this was a combination of rights-fatigue (not another what they viewed as a developmental’ right), but also because the right to the city itself probably doesn’t fit well into a document drafted by member states. This is why they adopted the ‘cities for all’ idea, although I don’t think they see it as the right to the city: rather, it’s some fuzzy concept about inclusion.

That said, I think there was a value in prefacing the discussion around the New Urban Agenda with the right to the city because it got some good ideas on the table, and which has translated (although not as well as we hoped) into the New Urban Agenda. This is good for advocacy groups who can use these commitments as a way of pressing for change and does, I think, craft a certain vision for the city. I don’t know whether this will result in any kind of real change.