Starting from the 2000's, a fairly new concept has been occupying the agenda of human rights. Against neoliberal economic policies paving the way to discriminatory and exclusionary urban practices and also against developments giving rise to the commodification of the city and urban space while reducing the citizen to a consumer, Right to the City (RttC henceforth) as a demand has been resonated more and more loudly by masses and has come to be discussed by widening circles. We confront a demand from the biggest population of the world, from that of urban inhabitants, on their right to the construction and development of their living spaces and also their right to the possession and management of urban resources. No wonder, this city is going to be a city constructed solely by its own inhabitants according to their own desires and demands, not a city of the state or capital. In accordance with Marcuse's statement, inhabitants from all over the world have been pronouncing their demands for "Cities for people, not for profit".RttC, as a radical anti-system concept, had been first spelled out by Marxist sociologist and philosopher Henri Lefebvre in his book bearing the same title and it had considerable impact on May 1968 movement. The aim of this study is the review of RttC vis-a-vis the neoliberal city and also the examination of the Turkish case within the framework of the concept Such an analysis will bring up questions on 'What kind of a city? /Why RttC?' and 'Whose RttC?'. In the final part of this study, the role of RttC, in the configuration and coalescence of an urban opposition, beyond the existing urban order and targeting the antidemocratic and unequal system, will be addressed. As analyzed in this study, examples from Turkey, such as Istanbul GUlsuyu-GUlensu and Ankara Dikmen Vadi neighbourhoods stand close to the RttC experience in Latin America in which the struggles of right to shelter/housing eventually turned into a contestation demanding RttC. The struggle in Dikmen Vadi is a singular case that ultimately succeeded in building a coalition with other urban movements while taking a class-based stance. In line with Lefebvre, its strategy of opposition lies in the appropriation and production of urban public spaces and spaces other than those reserved for housing. Similarly, Gulsuyu-Gulensu neighbourhood lays the ground of opposition not solely upon the right to shelter for the neighbourhood itself but aims to encompass the whole labour movement, as is evident from its ultimate goal which is stated as 'the creation oflabourers'Istanbul".Examples of production and appropriation of space which form the core of RttC can also be encountered in Turkey. While the appropriation of Galatasaray Square by Saturday Mothers is an example of the creation of a permanent public space, the Starbucks occupation by Boğaziçi students against the commodification of the campus and university life has proven to be a temporary one. Nevertheless, because the issue was disclosed to the city via this occupation, it can be cited as important. It may not be wrong to name the resistance of Tekel workers as the first example of occupy movements; there are many similarities in the appropriation and organization of space as the space of resistance. The starting point of Tekel resistance,just like the others mentioned above, was not RttC. However, unlike Saturday Mothers and Boğaziçi students, Tekel workers have succeeded in building an alliance with students and other social movements, establishing a rare powerful opposition which pronounced the injustices and violations of the whole system.RttC is neither a legal instrument nor any sanction mechanism. It can be an enabling concept, a key, in the construction of a coalesced opposition against the neoliberal structuring and ultimately agains capitalism. The method, tools and success in the employment of this concept depends ultimately on the inhabitants of the city who will determine the direction of the struggle. Quoting from Harvey, "All this has to be democratically assembled into a coherent opposition, which must also freely contemplate what an alternative city, an alternative political system and, ultimately, an alternative way of organizing production, distribution and consumption for the benefit of thepeople, might look like."