Abstracts

Nir BARAK (Ben Gurion University) | Assessing Justifications for Enhanced Municipal Autonomy

This paper asks: what political and normative considerations are involved in enhancing cities’ autonomy, and how could they be justified? While cities are typically characterized as a sub-unit of the state that functions as a socio-economic node, cities are changing their role and becoming semi-independent political actors. Cities’ actions in global politics (e.g., supranational city-based networks) and within the state (e.g., regulations that challenge national laws) indicate an aspiration towards or even a direct claim for more political autonomy vis-à-vis the state (Barak and Mualam 2022). Recent scholarship studies this changing role of cities; however, the effects of the rising autonomy of cities on their citizens (city-zens) and the political and normative considerations involved warrant more scholarly attention. Addressing this practical and theoretical lacuna, the paper analyzes three forms of justification for enhanced municipal autonomy along with their normative and political shortcomings: 1) Enhancing urban autonomy increases individual liberty This justification is premised on the subsidiarity principle and the ideal of cities as schoolhouses for democracy (Føllesdal 2014; Frick 2023). These principles are assessed by highlighting the unnecessary connection between municipal and individual autonomy and the risks of majority tyrannies and elite power struggles at the municipal level, thus potentially infringing upon individual political freedom and civil liberties. 2) Enhancement of municipal autonomy is justified since cities constitute thick moral communities with a shared political ethos and conception of the good, entitling them to ‘municipal self-determination.’ This justification is grounded in two primary theoretical frameworks that focus on particular civic identities and ‘intrinsic logics’ of cities (Löw 2012; Bell and de Shalit 2022). However, the critical analysis indicates that while a particular urban ethos can foster inclusion, tolerance, and openness to others – it may also foster various forms of social exclusion, such as xenophobia, sexism, and racism. 3) Enhanced municipal autonomy yields more efficient solutions to contemporary global challenges. I explore recent scholarship emphasizing the problem-solving capacities of municipal governments (Barber 2013). The analysis suggests that this argument depoliticizes municipal affairs while downplaying the state's role and national sovereignty. The paper concludes by assessing the extent to which the analyzed shortcomings may be overcome by conditioning the enhancement of municipal autonomy by deepening democratic practices, norms, and values with increased and more efficacious forms of political participation of city-zens.

Bartosz BISKUP (Université de Tours) | Partiality, Autonomy and the Right to the City

In this paper, I investigate whether residing in the same city leads to the  emergence of partial reasons and the scope of urban dwellers’ autonomy regard- ing the interests of non-residents. The paper uses the methodology of conceptual  analysis with a broader context of political philosophy and actual examples of exclusionary urban policies. I demonstrate why partial reasons do not justify those policies. I argue that the ‘three big’ non-reductionists’ view does not provide us with partial reasons toward members of the same urban political or moral group. While living in a specific city may be a ground project (the location of certain houses producing a home that is essential for personal identity, people living in neighborhoods may be our friends), it cannot be said about the urban group, which is not a morally salient group. The relationship view also cannot justify partiality. An urban community has a formal, legal, not moral, nature, and it is similar to other goal-oriented relationships, such as the relationship between flatmates sharing a common living space. As a result of the lack of a morally salient community, the individualist view cannot cover the partial reasons for the putative urban group. The caring view seems to be more promising as it asserts that there is a global debt of care that is empirically allocated to smaller communities. The moral or political group of the city has a stronger reason to care for its co-residents than for people outside of that group. I believe that if the responsibility to take care of current residents is not at risk, then the group cannot support practices that exclude others, such as NIMBY campaigns. Although there is no prima facie partial reasons of the urban community, two  types of valid partial reasons may emerge in the context of collective decision-making: 1) assisting those living nearby may take priority over the global imperfect duty of charity; 2) if an influx of new residents leads to unsustainable  use of common resources or restricts current members’ access to public goods, a city may try to manage the influx of new residents. The existing philosophical literature on the city, gentrification, and NIMBY  explicitly addresses the rights of current residents to oppose the rampant development of the cities without adequately considering the interests of non- residents, or treating the aspiration of non-residents to live in the dense area as  a case of an expensive taste, but one we should accommodate for. ’[I]n almost all its forms the right to the city is understood to be a struggle to augment the rights of urban inhabitants against the property rights of owners’. It is an exception to discuss the interests of would-be, future or informal residents. The non-residents are not seen as actual urban  members, as if the sum of formal legal residential rights constituted the collective moral or political body – the city as an aggregate. This paper revisits those  assumptions.

Oskar STEINER & Luca VENGA (CEE, Sciences Po Paris) | What ‘Auto’ for the City? Automation and Othering in Making of City Autonomy

This article seeks to offer a political theoretical contribution to legal perspectives on ‘city autonomy’ by philosophically investigating the material and discursive construction of autonomy, which we find to necessarily implicate both automation and othering. We depart from Angelo & Wachsmuth’s (2015) critique of “methodological cityism,” situating ‘the city’ as a political outcome. This complicates the coherence of discussions that position cities as unified collective actors to which legal rights may be accorded, understanding instead that the ‘assembling’ of the city is a relational process involving the contested (and cooperative) integration of new socio-technical networks by heterogeneous actors and interest groups within the urban sphere. Thus, we argue that discussions of city autonomy must take into account the contingent and provisional nature of those networks they seek to autonomize. We hold that city autonomy, above all, requires the individuation (Simondon 2012) of a collective subject capable of exercising discretion. First, this subject is necessarily produced through the objectification of urbanity elsewhere: through the creation of predictable urban spaces that can act as a foundation for autonomous action.  This objectification—understood as an evacuation of contingency implicating the rationalization, pre- definition, regularization and securitization of urban processes linking both human and nonhuman  entities—is what we call automation. Thus, we explain how the creation of an autonomous city subject (who can enjoy specific legal or practical rights and exercise control over a given urban territory) must simultaneously be understood as a contested process of automation. Additionally, this process of automation is never all-encompassing. It necessarily takes place vis-a-vis an external milieu, a constitutive outside. The construction of this outside, the othering of certain entities and phenomena, is what gives meaning to autonomy (‘autonomous in the face of...’) and is a prerequisite for the concretization of a collective subject. We briefly offer examples of this relationship by surveying the sociotechnical composition of medieval city-states, company towns at the turn of the 20th century, and present-day smart cities. Each of these cases offer an occasion to view the ways in which 1) human and non-human phenomena may be tightly coupled and controlled in order to 2) grant a collective subject autonomy over resources, spaces and bodies, in opposition to 3) an unknown and external environment. Drawing on these findings, we elaborate an argument for the need to consider autonomy, automation and othering in tandem, arguing that each cannot proceed without the creation of the others. An understanding of the politics and trade-offs inherent to this relationship, therefore, is a prerequisite for any normative discussion regarding the modalities or extent of autonomy that ought to be granted to cities today. The article thus provides an innovative theoretical framework for understanding autonomy, automation and othering in tandem, offering legal scholars, social scientists, urban policymakers and city engineers a more balanced lens with which to approach the political, ecological and economic stakes of autonomy initiatives and their costs for those groups that may be automated or othered as a result.

Nufar AVNI (Politecnico di Torino, Hebrew University), Harel NACHMANY, Tal ALSTER (Hebrew University) | Exploring the Autonomy of Cities: Philosophical, Legal, and Policy Dimensions

In the past decades, many municipalities around the world have embraced a liberal and progressive agenda, while broadening their involvement in ‘big’ policy areas such as sustainability, civil rights, transportation, and immigration, traditionally under the nation-state (hereafter state) jurisdiction (Akçali & Korkut, 2015; Bustikova & Guasti, 2017). An example is the U.S. Sanctuary Cities, which have challenged federal immigration policy by offering protection to undocumented immigrants (Bauder, 2017). Another notable expression of this trend is “New Municipalism,” where cities like Madrid and Barcelona utilized local governance as a platform for driving large-scale social change (Russell, 2019). Furthermore, the rise of global and regional municipal networks such as C40, Fearless Cities, and the Pact of Free Cities highlights the growing involvement of municipal agendas in supposedly national policy areas and reveals the resulting tensions between major cities and their states (Acuto, 2013; Szpak et al., 2023). These tensions can be even heightened in countries experiencing an illiberal, populist, or reactionary turn, such as Israel (Avni, 2024; Aksztejn, et al., 2024). In Israel, a highly centralized state, the Tel Aviv-Jaffa Municipality stands out in its efforts to challenge religion-based state-level policies. We examine the municipal formation of a multi-city public transportation network, designed to complement central government services during weekends. We specifically focus on the motivations and rationales behind this municipal initiative through three sets of questions: (a) What were the main justifications provided by the Tel Aviv-Jaffa Municipality to legitimize the operation of the weekend public transportation network? Do these relate to ‘big’ ideological issues that go beyond the classic functions of a municipality? (b) What were the driving forces behind this policy? What roles did the residents, municipality, and civil society play in its formation? and (c) What obstacles did the municipality encounter in promoting the project? By analyzing the justifications, driving forces, and barriers faced by the municipality in promoting this project, we trace the rise of local autonomy and the growing city-state polarization. Theoretically, we situate the research in contemporary debates about urban autonomy, particularly in the context of liberal cities in increasingly illiberal or autocratizing nation-states.  The research findings highlight how the municipality takes a bottom-up approach to intervene in controversial socio-political policy issues, which have traditionally been managed by the state, while also shedding light on the broader forces driving municipality-led policy change.

Oriane ROTY (Université de Tours) | French Community Land Trust and the Management of Housing Crises

Cette communication explore le rôle des Community Land Trusts (CLT) dans la redéfinition des échelles de gouvernance en matière de logement. Apparues aux États-Unis dans les années 1970, ces organisations à but non lucratif sous-tendent une nouvelle forme de propriété résidentielle. Les CLT conservent la propriété du foncier tandis que les logements sont loués ou vendus à des ménages sous conditions de ressources. Ce modèle permet de lutter contre certains effets de la crise du logement, qui touchent en particulier les villes : la spéculation foncière et la ségrégation socio-spatiale (Attard 2013). Il est transposé dans plusieurs pays, notamment en France, où les Organismes de Foncier Solidaire (OFS) sont institués par la loi ALUR en 2014. La gouvernance urbaine désigne la capacité à « donner forme aux intérêts locaux » et à coordonner l’action publique dans un environnement fragmenté, en intégrant collectivités locales, associations et acteurs économiques privés (Le Galès, 1995). Or, la mise en place et le fonctionnement des CLT suppose la participation de différents acteurs publics et privés. La création du CLT East Harlem/El Barrio à NYC a par exemple constitué l’aboutissement d’efforts de mobilisation populaires (à l’initiative de l’association Picture the Homeless, conjointement avec des universitaires) et du travail réalisé par le Community Board 11 (une de 59 instances représentatives locales) (Krinsky 2013). Ce CLT a ensuite acquis ses premiers bâtiments auprès du Department of Housing Preservation and Development de la ville de NY, au prix symbolique d’un dollar. Ce processus illustre comment la concertation entre acteurs permet d’identifier le CLT comme une réponse possible aux besoins d’un quartier et de structurer des stratégies foncières et financières. Ce travail vise à analyser comment les CLT aux États-Unis et les OFS en France participent au renforcement d’une gouvernance urbaine locale. À travers une analyse comparative des modèles de CLT et OFS, nous chercherons à identifier les dynamiques de coopération qu’ils engendrent et leurs effets sur les politiques locales du logement. Aux États-Unis, les CLT reposent sur une gouvernance démocratique, assurée par un conseil d’administration composé à parts égales d’habitants, de membres de la communauté et de représentants de l’intérêt public. Cette structure garantit un ancrage territorial et une gestion collective. En France, la gouvernance démocratique est absente du modèle des OFS, qui repose essentiellement sur des acteurs publics (collectivités) et privés (organismes HLM ou promoteurs). Pourtant, leur mise en place suppose souvent des formes de collaboration entre ces différents acteurs. À Paris, un OFS a été créé sous l'impulsion municipale, avec une gouvernance partagée entre élus et bailleurs sociaux, illustrant cette coopération institutionnelle (Goëtzmann 2024). Ce contraste soulève une question essentielle : les OFS participent-ils eux aussi à une reconfiguration des modes d’intervention publique sur le logement ? Contrairement aux États-Unis, où l’essor des CLT est le fruit d’un mouvement citoyen et militant (bottom-up), les OFS en France relèvent d’une initiative institutionnelle (top-down), l’État conservant la compétence en matière de logement et la responsabilité du droit au logement. Dès lors, leur introduction doit-elle être analysée comme une forme de délégation de compétence aux collectivités locales, ou bien assiste-t-on à une transformation plus spontanée et contingente des modes d’action publique ? Pour répondre à ces interrogations, nous examinerons d’abord le modèle américain des CLT avant d’analyser les spécificités des OFS en France. Cette étude comparative permettra d’identifier les dynamiques d’action publique à l’œuvre.

Chiara CERBONE (University of Parma) | Urban Autonomy and Food Policies: The Case of Milan as a Model for Local Governance

In recent decades, cities have played an increasingly significant role in public policies, redefining the boundaries of local governance and experimenting with forms of autonomy in areas traditionally within the purview of national governments. Among these, urban food policies have emerged as a strategic domain in which municipal administrations address global challenges—from food security to environmental sustainability—through regulatory and administrative instruments. The case of Milan, with its innovative food policy and the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact (MUFPP), serves as a paradigmatic example of how a local government can safeguard the right to food through integrated public policies and innovative regulatory solutions. Established in 2015 during Expo Milano, the MUFPP has positioned the city as a laboratory for urban food governance, fostering an international network of cities committed to promoting sustainable food systems. However, what distinguishes Milan’s experience is the concrete implementation of regulatory instruments aimed at reducing food poverty and resource waste. Notably, the application of the "Gadda Law" (Law No. 166/2016)—which regulates the donation and distribution of food surpluses—has made Milan a model for the local implementation of national legislation, underscoring the crucial role of urban autonomy in the food sector. Through the creation of a multi-stakeholder network, Milan has developed partnerships between the public sector, private entities, and civil society organizations, enhancing its capacity for local interventions while overcoming constraints imposed by national regulations. The city's initiatives include the recovery of food surpluses from municipal markets, their redistribution to families in need, and the experimentation with integrated policies for food security and sustainability education. The analysis of Milan’s case study invites reflection on two key aspects. First, it highlights the role of urban autonomy in shaping food policies, demonstrating that cities are not merely passive recipients of national regulations but can serve as laboratories for regulatory experimentation. Second, it raises the question of broader legal recognition of urban autonomy, considering food policies not merely as administrative tools but as policy areas where cities could exercise greater autonomy, despite the absence of constitutional recognition of such competences in Italy. As part of this call for abstracts on urban autonomy, this contribution aims to explore how cities can gain a stronger role in food governance, presenting Milan as a best practice. The discussion will examine the prospects for urban autonomy in Italy—particularly concerning metropolitan cities—and the balance between local administrative competencies and central government powers. Finally, the analysis will offer reflections on how experiences like Milan’s could inform future regulatory reforms on food waste reduction.

Maddalena VIVONA (University of Graz) | Who Owns the Ballot? The Battle over Noncitizen Voting Rights in US Cities

In recent years, a broader power struggle has emerged between cities, their respective states, and the federal government over the extension of local franchise to noncitizen residents. Working from the cracks of constitutional silence on who the ‘people’ are and on cities’ role in federal government, local administrations are striving for greater autonomy in shaping their electorate. Since 1928, when for the first time in US history no resident alien voted at the federal, state or local level, only rather small progressive cities have extended their electorate to noncitizens. In the past few years however, three big cities (San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and New York City) have tested their power to define what it means to belong to their community. All major US cities with large immigrant populations, publicly declaring themselves as sanctuary cities, they differ significantly in their political and legal status: San Francisco is a charter city under Californian law endowed with higher local autonomy; Washington, D.C. is a federal district created by the US constitution with unique congressional oversight and whose limited independence is being questioned by the current administration; the megacity of New York enjoys the privilege of being a ‘simple’ municipality with municipal home rule under the state’s constitution. San Francisco and the city of New York have been challenged in court with very different outcomes so far (although the fight in NY is still on). Washington, D.C. has not yet faced a successful court challenge, although the House of Representatives has tried to repel the law a few times. The paper will offer a comparative analysis of the three case studies aiming to uncover whether varying degrees of municipal autonomy - rooted in the cities’ distinct legal and political contexts - had any impact in the court proceeding. It will also engage with the broader debate on extending voting rights to noncitizen residents, illuminating the friction between municipal policy innovation and state or federal constraints on local autonomy. Given that voting rights are traditionally intertwined with citizenship, and migration continues to be a highly contentious issue, the paper will present current legal challenges on the advancement of local democratic governance and self-determination.

Benny AUNER (University of Salzburg) | The Concept of ‘Autonomy’: The ‘Right of Self-Administration’ of Municipalities in the Austrian Federal Constitution

The Austrian Federal Constitution contains the ‘right of self-administration’ of municipalities and grants them a certain degree of autonomy. However, despite this status, municipalities and cities cannot truly act independently of state legislature and administration (federal and provincial). This contribution will present the conditions and limitations of ‘autonomous’ cities enshrined in the constitution. This is essential to comprehend that the concept of ‘autonomy’ cannot be understood in absolute terms, but must necessarily be limited in order to guarantee the functioning of the state and the interplay between state bodies and institutions. Thus, my submission will provide the legal basis for the discussion. However, the need for demarcation from state administration poses legal challenges for current problems of cities.

1. Own ‘sphere of competence’

A municipality has its ‘own sphere of competence’, which it can exercise ‘on its own responsibility, free from instructions’ from state authorities (e.g. on local building control and land use planning). According to the constitution, matters fall within the city’s own sphere of competence, if they are ‘exclusively or predominantly the concern of the local community’ and are ‘suited to performance by the community’. However, these vague criteria are problematic when dealing with novel issues such as climate change or the transition to green energy. For example, the installation of solar farms and wind turbines is a matter of concern for municipalities in terms of protecting the urban landscape. In terms of energy transition, however, they are an issue for the whole state. The demarcation between these interests is unclear in view of the vague constitutional framework, leading to different rules across the country: While in some provinces the approval of wind farms is handled at the provincial level, in other provinces municipalities decide. Do new, complex regulatory issues gradually take away powers from the authorities?

2. Sphere of competence is determined by state or federal legislator

The ‘right of self-administration’ is dependent on regulations. Thus, the right of municipalities to act depends on the state or provincial legislator. To what extent can the legislator regulate matters that fall within the competence of cities? Is this system necessary to integrate municipalities into the complex organisation of the state? Or is it an obstacle to the autonomy of cities?

3. Principle of the ‘abstract community’ – equal autonomy

The framework for municipalities follows the principle of the ‘abstract community’. Each municipality is granted an equal sphere of autonomy – regardless of territorial size, population, financial strength, or location. Is this concept necessary for a functioning public administration? Can the legislator deviate from this principle, for example if a financially weak city is unable to carry out its administrative tasks?

Nefeli LEFKOPOULOU (Sciences Po) | Cities’ environmental policy before courts : empowering or framing urban autonomy ? 

The number of environmental disputes opposing cities to states has continued to increase in volume over the last few years and to develop in terms of nature and scope. When cities are involved in litigation, it is most often as defendants. For instance, les arrêtés anti-pesticides have been deemed illegal by the highest administrative court since it was not within the mayors’ power to ban the use of pesticides in their respective communes. In December 2020, the Conseil d’État definitively prohibited municipalities from issuing anti-pesticide orders, ruling that, despite the police powers vested in mayors, “it is the sole responsibility of the State authorities to issue [...] regulations governing the general conditions of use of plant protection products”. However, cities have also emerged as aggressive plaintiffs, bringing forward environmental claims against states. In this respect, the commune of Grande-Synthe has lodged a complaint against the State for its climate inaction.

For plaintiff cities, litigation can also be seen as a form of state building. By seeking redress for environmental harms, plaintiff cities are demanding recognition not just for their impacted residents, but also for themselves, as distinct and meaningful polities. In so doing, plaintiff cities are renegotiating the practical and theoretical meaning of cities within the existing political order (Swan 2018). Regardless of the trial structure – cities as defendants or cities as plaintiffs –, the paper explores how courts may respond to this ever-growing list of environmental disputes. What is the judicial response when cities seem to go beyond their assigned competences, and inversely when states fail to respect their environmental obligations? What lessons can be drawn from some recent cases about the way in which courts combine the mayor’s general police powers with the State’s special police powers? Judges might have a crucial role to play in reallocating powers or striking the right balance between state and local actors. The paper thus sheds light on urban autonomy from a judicial perspective.

Philipp RENNINGER (University of Arizona) | Sovereignty, Self-Government, Subordination: The Modi Operandi of Urban Law

Decentralization, shifting powers vertically from the central level to local units like cities, can create considerable socio-economic and politico-legal benefits for polities. However, empowering municipal governments also carries certain risks, as their local parochialism (Manion 2014) may negatively affect urban residents (Zhang 2015), minorities, other local units (Frug 2014), or even the country’s unity (Chung 2016). My paper explores how polities can seize the opportunities and mitigate the drawbacks of decentralization by adequately balancing the functions of cities and thus increasing the identification between cities, other local units, and the central government. My presentation hopes to produce intercultural and interdisciplinary insights through the method of “theory-based comparative law.” My study compares Germany and Switzerland, which cherish a century-old tradition of municipal autonomy, with China, which allowed most cities to set their own regulations as late as 2015. My study is both theoretical, informed by political and social-scientific models, and applied, as it analyses the positive law on the basis of those theories. The first theory, developed in political science (Chung 2016), identifies three functions of local units: (1) Agents act top-down in the name and interest of the central level. (2) Principals entrepreneurially pursue their own, bottom-up local interests. (3) Representatives defend the interests of their local population against higher-level governments. Applied to the positive law, Chung’s model reflects in the concrete modi operandi of urban administration and governance: (1) In the state sphere, cities as agents implement higher-ranking regulations set by superior levels. (2) In the local sphere, municipal governments regulate their own, urban affairs. Here, cities function as principals; German and Swiss law require them to additionally act as representatives. (3) In the experimental sphere, urban lawmakers experiment with novel, creative solutions in areas that the central and provincial level haven’t regulated yet. Cities simultaneously assume a role as principals and as agents, since higher-level governments permit urban legislative experiments only to ultimately capitalize on them. The second model, stemming from historical anthropology (Schneider 2016), asserts that during one era, only one central-local status prevails: (1) Indifference means that the central level is uninterested in local political life, and vice versa. (2) Opposition describes how local units reject and fight an intervening or oppressing central government. (3) Identification has local and central entities identifying and cooperating with each other. Many modern states aim at identification; this requires a semi-intervening approach that balances local autonomy and leeway with central control and national unity. Applying Schneider’s theory to the law illustrates how countries strike very different balances in their general modi operandi of vertical power allocation: (1) Sovereignty, as the highest form of autonomy, is reserved for the three city states in Germany: Berlin, Hamburg, and Bremen. (2) Self-government is enjoyed by all German and Swiss cities thanks to their character as municipalities in Germany and Switzerland. In China, in contrast, autonomy is limited to “special” cities, namely ethnic minority cities as well as the special administrative zones of Hong Kong and Macau. (3) Subordination remains the reality for all regular Chinese municipal governments, since “democratic centralism” rejects a vertical separation of powers. These differences in kind, not only in degree, yield practical consequences: In Germany, cities are omnicompetent in local matters; in China, omnicompetence always rests in the central government. Moreover, the legal existence and basic competences of German cities are constitutionally guaranteed, whilst Chinese cities can be (and previously have been) abolished as administrative units.

Nathanaël Colin-Jaeger (AUP) and Marc Goetzmann (Université de Tours) | Polycentricity For and Against the City. 

While the autonomy of cities is often praised on epistemic, democratic, and experimental grounds, we argue that it can also produce exclusionary or inefficient outcomes when unbounded. Drawing from a polycentric governance framework, which generally favors subsidiarity and decentralization, this paper investigates the risks and trade-offs of local autonomy through a critical case study: the housing crisis in California.

We examine how California’s state authorities have increasingly intervened to limit municipal discretion in land-use regulation, particularly to counteract exclusionary zoning and underbuilding by local governments. Rather than undermining the principle of subsidiarity, we argue that these interventions reflect a polycentric logic: they attempt to protect the interests of affected but unrepresented individuals—such as renters or would-be residents—by recalibrating the balance between local autonomy and overarching public interests.

The Californian case illustrates how constitutional and legislative tools (e.g., the Housing Accountability Act, density bonus laws, and recent upzoning bills) can address interjurisdictional externalities and rent-seeking by local majorities. Our analysis shows that polycentricity is not simply a normative endorsement of decentralization but a framework for negotiating scale-sensitive governance, ensuring both local responsiveness and systemic inclusion.

Ultimately, we propose a differentiated understanding of city autonomy—constitutional, functional, fiscal, and participatory—and argue that polycentricity can guide its reconfiguration to serve not only residents’ self-determination but also a broader "right to the city" grounded in access to density and opportunity.