In their process of continuous expansion and transformation, cities are incapable of

pursuing sustainable development in favor of mere speculative applications. The same
members of the society that created the city seem to be no longer participating in its
urban destinies but only to take part as spectators. On one hand, the spectacular and
glamorous expansion of some Asian metropolises is governed predominantly by neo-
Liberal logics and increasingly exclusivity. On the other hand, in many North African
and South American metropolises, a huge inclusive process of populating suburban
areas is taking place in forms of contemporary mega-slums. This is the spatial
explication of the planetary conflict occurring in metropolitan territories for,
paraphrasing David Harwey, the “right to urban space:’ He writes: “The right to the city
is far more than the individual liberty to access urban resources: it is a right to change
ourselves by changing the city. It is, moreover, a common rather than an individual
right since this transformation inevitably depends upon the exercise of a collective
power to reshape the processes of urbanization, The freedom to make and remake our
cities and ourselves is, I want to argue, one of the most precious yet most neglected of
our human rights. [1]   Therefore, it is in the urban space that the society recognizes
itself, meets / clashes, and creates opportunities for “progress” by portraying and
inducing lifestyle models. In the global capitalist contemporary world, very often, the
notion of public urban place collides with that of the space of commerce. In fact if
David Seamon’s definition of place “Any environmental locus in and through which
individual or group actions, experiences, intentions, and meanings are drawn together
spatially”