Against a background of varying political configurations and local histories, cultural planning has increasingly also been positioned as capable of achieving an extensive range of aesthetic, social, economic and urban outcomes. Of particular note are claims that such strategies can foster an ethic of mutual responsibility, rejuvenate cities and rebuild local communities and economies. Woven through this expansive agenda is a recurring view that cultural planning also has the capacity, indeed, some would say, responsibility, to shape and create an urban citizenry. Unclear, however, is just who this citizenry is and what the complex of rights and responsibilities that defines membership might be. Indeed, the citizen of cultural planning is contradictory, multifaceted and numerous, variously forged in the lived and imaginative spaces of the local and the global, the urban and the transnational, the ‘included’ and the marginal. Through a consideration of underpinning assumptions, discourses and interrelationships, this chapter examines some of the ways in which influential cultural planning texts (and the texts that have influenced cultural planning) have directly and indirectly mobilized and engaged with citizenship as both concept and goal – this is citizenship as a category that is constituted, assumed or applied by government through its policy and planning processes. To this end, the chapter is organized around three central themes, each of which is important to cultural planning conceptualizations of citizenship – ‘the civic’, ‘cosmopolitanism’ and ‘social inclusion’. It argues that although each theme is discrete they contribute in different ways to a view of the citizen as being active and locally engaged. Finally, and mindful of Franco Bianchini and Jude Bloomfield’s (1996) proposition that citizenship developed through urban cultural policy has the potential to bridge the divide between the political and ideological Left and Right (the collective and the individual), a thread running through the chapter is the extent to which the cultural planning agenda of the Left regarding citizenship not only interacts and connects with, but actually supports, that of the Right.