In Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso), the tea grins constitute temporary, but regular collective occupations of urban public space. These « in-between spaces » consist in the meeting of mostly young men at different times, drinking tea and talking. They gather at unoccupied spaces that offer them tranquility and relative comfort. Such spatial devices constitute spaces of sociability where the hierarchies that usually structure social relationships are blurred. Both shelter and source-of strength, spaces which allow exchange of services and strategies for resourcefulness. They participate in and at the same time testify to the development of the codes of urban youth. Although grins are not necessarily regarded as political places by their users, the political register is present in the names young people choose for them, in the values mobilized around them and the practice they represent (a collective occupation of the street, which could establish a space for allowing free speech). In this, grins are heterotopias that exist in parallel with isotopia (« accomplished and rationalized spatial order of capitalism and the state », but do not constitute an alternative to it. This article deals with the status of grins in the mechanisms of development of public speech, and collective action. Grins can be considered as « arenas » where public problems are formulated through collective discussion, but do not appear as a legitimate forum for political debate. Therefore, the grin represents an illicit arena where a « subaltern citadinity » is mainly built. This article consequently studies the processes of political subjectivation that are linked to the practices specific to the urban spatial context, but do not necessarily appear in the public space for discourse. Citadinity is therefore examined from its character as the result of certain processes, with the city space allowing individuals to develop into political subjects. The Authors therefore examine the existence of a political speech continuum, the public expression of which would depend on the possibilities for negotiation with the social order, and on the balances of power that produce it. Thus a subordinate practicas use of space would be articulated with more officially frameworked forms of claiming for rights, in a back and forth process between hidden transcript and public transcript, as described by J. C. Scott (2008). Finally, the article discusses whether or not use of space for infrapolitical practices by the subaltern brings support to the construction of collective actions around these issues.