Barriers to urban Integration: Social Spatial Segregation by Physical boundaries.

SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRAM IN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN URBAN DESIGN 951.715A

Barriers to urban Integration: Social-Spatial Segregation by physical boundaries. A Case Study in Tegucigalpa, Honduras Jessica Margarita Barahona Aragon Landscape Architecture Master Candidate 2016-23957

Abstract Tegucigalpa- Comayagüela City has exhibit patterns of social segregation similar to other cities in Latin American. Higher groups on the social scale were once concentrated in the downtown area while poor groups were settled on the periphery under agglomerations. Scrutinizing at the development of these socalled “twin cities” it is evident that both have been strongly affected by trends of privatization and exclusion from the beginning of their urban history. Such characteristics have become more notorious through certain physical boundaries. The Choluteca River has played an important role in this socialspatial segregation. The river helped create a dichotomy within the city between two different lineages: the Spanish-richer class and the native-poorer class; perception that still persists and reflects in the urban layout. On this paper, the dissociation characteristics are explored and identified through an analysis of physical conditions and urban form sustained by literature review. The aim of the following paper is to identify what type of city model characterizes the urban growth of the “twin cities”. Likewise to trace and identify dissociation characteristics embedded on their urban layout order to provide a framework that helps understand the barriers to urban integration.

Keywords: Urban fragmentation, Social polarization, City Amalgamation, Just Cities, Social-Spatial Justice

Introduction Urban development in Latin American cities has been realized under a combination of structural models within a context of inter-relations between capital interests, state and society (Peters, 2009). Throughout most of the 20th Century, these cities applied the classical patterns of the European settings. At first, were set to follow strict regulations and laws known as the Law of the Indies which included street widths, management of residences of the native populations, grid pattern that extended from east-west and north-south, among others. As a result, they were characterized by a dense, historical central core that contained mostly historical buildings, administrative and major representative buildings such as churches and city hall (Cabildos).

Because it was the location of the main businesses, political and cultural centers it concentrated most of the capital investments; therefore, the best construction quality and architecture were founded here. The wealthy lived in the adjacent lots to the central plaza and the poor lived in the outskirts signifying further the distance from the central plaza equaled lower social status. In this aspect Latin American cities did not differ much from the European cities.

Later on, the European City model transformed to the North American capitalist city model characterized by a central city surrounded by low-density suburbs (Peters, 2009). Under this model, the elite class started moving to the periphery, leaving the central city while the lower class started populating the central areas.

SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRAM IN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN URBAN DESIGN 951.715A

Neither of these models was developed under pure form. According to Francisco Sabatini (2006) and Paul Peters (2009) there are at least four explanations: 1. Due to the importance of the colonization during the formation of urban systems, the majority of Latin American cities were located on the coast or bounded by rivers and steep mountains.

Such natural geographical elements have shaped the urban form and, in many cities, have limited it. As a result, the cities were developed differently from the authentic models and have followed river valleys or moved upwards through steep slopes. These patterns have allowed for natural geographic boundaries to emerge between social classes, separating lower classes from elite and middle classes.

2. The abandonment of the central core by the elite class has occurred in different ways from city to city. In general, the cities of Latin America have been moving towards the periphery but the process has been done within different degrees of spatial concentrations and different timelines. In many of Latin American cities, the elite class moved and extended to a single geographic direction creating a “spine” or narrow strip adjacent to the core.

3. The central core has maintained an important value for the cities of Latin America; therefore, those residential areas adjacent to the core often retained the architectural style and construction. However, as the cities continued to expand, foreign architectural fashions and urban styles were adopted rather than improving the historic Latin American image. The new suburbs were more similar to those in North America and were designed to sell such image.

4. Planning approaches in Latin America have been based on the development of infrastructure and commercial enterprise rather than addressing social inequalities or the exclusion of much of the population from formal development process.

By 1980, the geographers Ernest Griffin and Larry Ford developed a city model that described the structure of cities found in Latin America. Their general model (Figure 1) acknowledges the importance of the core and maintains it at the center. It illustrates the location of the “spine” of the upper class residency and the location of the Middle Class Residential, who moved in after the wealthy moved out. Moreover, the location of the lower class in the Disamenity area and Peripheral Squatters are represented along with other areas that developed with the migration of the elite class to the “spine”. From the typology formulated by Griffin and Ford some characteristics of social segregation can be identified: First, the significant spatial concentration of the Elite class in only one zone of the city, adjacent to the historical center and with a clear expansion direction towards the peripheral area. Second, the agglomerations of the residences of the lower class on the peripheral area but also on the sectors close to the city core.

However, in the last decades, the cities of Latin America have undergone important transformations, thus their urban configurations have changed dramatically from the typology formulated by Griffin and Ford. Many reforms from the 90‟s have resulted in changes that have contributed to the fragmentation and privatization of urban space (Peters, 2009). The gap between rich and poor has become more obvious with the rise of the gated and access-restricted communities. Polarization has shifted to fragmentation where not only the elite class but also middle and lower classes are walled off and seek individuality. From this premises, Michael Janoschka expanded the ecological model and developed a fragmented model of the Latin

SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRAM IN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN URBAN DESIGN 951.715A

American city (Figure 1) characterized by a post-modern image of the city as socially and spatially fragmented highlighting the increasing presence of gated communities.

Figure 1: Left: Ecological model of the Latin American City. Right: Fragmented Model of the Latin American City. Source: Peters, 2009.

Elements of the previously discussed typologies can be identified through the history of Tegucigalpa-Comayagüela cities. Even though, according to historians, they were not formally founded but were product of arbitrary circumstances. Both of them have developed in a similar way, exhibiting similar segregation characteristics as their Latin American counterparts.

Although, Tegucigalpa and Comayagüela have coexisted in the same region since their origins, they have been created under different social-political and economic conditions. Originally each city had its own socio-political structure and despite the fact that in 1938 the Municipality of the Central District was created with the aim to establish a unique local government for Tegucigalpa and Comayagüela cities; there is still evidence of differentiation between the two regions. Such distinction has been produced in parallel with the development and planning processes of the city.

The inhabitants of Tegucigalpa and Comayagüela are immersed in different socio-economic, cultural and spatial circumstances, tending to form polarization reinforced by the Choluteca River as a geographical boundary between the “Tegucigalpa who wants it all and the Comayagüela who each day have less”. (Alvarado, Matamoros & Aguilar, 2017) The aim of the following paper is to identify what type of city model characterizes the urban growth of the “twin cities”. Likewise to trace and identify dissociation characteristics embedded on their urban layout order to provide a framework that helps understand the barriers to urban integration. As methodology, the dissociation characteristics were explored and identified through an analysis of physical conditions and urban form sustained by literature review.

Origin of the “Twin Cities” On account of their similar origin, Tegucigalpa and Comayagüela came to be known as the “Twin Cities” yet the name is not consistent with their true history. Tegucigalpa, as the historian Rolando Zelaya exposes, was not founded but was the result of the ulterior settlement in a region

SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRAM IN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN URBAN DESIGN 951.715A

where silver deposits were discovered. There is no exact date on when the silver deposits were found or when the settlement was established but, according to the analysis historical documents, it is presumed that Tegucigalpa was founded around 1579.

The geographical region where the actual capital city of Tegucigalpa-Comayagüela is located was inhabited by indigenous people but by a mandate of the Spanish King Felipe II in 1584 were subjected and grouped in small reductions in a neighbor settlement called Villa de la Concepción de Comayagüela or “Little Comayagua” (Zelaya, n.d.). These new settlements would become labor suppliers for the mines and for the houses of the wealthy class. The new mandate framed the origin of two areas with two different lineages: the Spanish-richer class and the native-poorer class. From this point, the legacy of social and spatial segregation started to be reflected and inscribed in the urban layout with the Choluteca River emerging as a physical boundary between the two of them.

The first houses on these new settlements were the result of necessity or economic interests due to the mining activity. By this period, the policies for allocating a property within Tegucigalpa were only regulated by adjacency to the source of water and source of work. On the other hand, indigenous people were to be relegated to the “special” neighbor settlement along with the disinherited of the colonial society and the mulattos. With the passing of time, an urban conglomerate was formed. With the confirmation and official establishment in the 17th century of the new settlement by then called Real Minas de Tegucigalpa, an urban planning was necessary in order to arrange its streets and plazas. The urban planning was developed under the classical model of Spanish colonial cities: A check board grid formed by the latticework of parallel and perpendicular streets which defined regular blocks, and a main plaza that concentrated administrative, economic and religious power (Clark, del Bono & Luna, 1995).

By the end of the 17th Century, Tegucigalpa was considered one of the most beautiful cities in Central America and one of the main economic cores of the region. The relationship between the two settlements - Native and Spanish – was attractive for investments and the importance of the city revolved on the gold and silver mining industries, distributed in nearby areas. By the mid-18th Century, Tegucigalpa was one of the richest villages within the Guatemala Reign and the one that possessed the highest cost of living (Martin, 2010). Inhabited mainly by landowners, rich merchants and mine owners; the city contained already two-storied buildings and three main avenues. In one of the city‟s extremes, the first market started to form due to the trading between merchants and natives. Adjacent to this market, the indigenous, mestizos and mulattos erected a church for them as response to the cathedral that at that time the Spaniards were building and they could not access (Zelaya, n.d.).

During the 18th Century the city did not expand much but by the end of the Century Real Minas de Tegucigalpa contained approximately 150 houses that were aligned between four to five streets arranged from west to east, and between seven to eight avenues arranged from north to south. The city was mainly spread on flat land, where it was easier to build since it was surrounded by a complex landscape with rugged topography.

SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRAM IN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN URBAN DESIGN 951.715A

By the beginning of the 19th Century the city starts to expand. In a census elaborated approximately by 1801, Tegucigalpa was inhabited by 86 Spanish families, 507 Judeo-Spanish (ladinos) families and 81 Indians. On the other hand, Comayagüela, the indigenous village adjacent to Tegucigalpa on the West of the Choluteca River, was inhabited by 1,062 people. In total, the population of both settlements was approximately around 4,600 people (Alvarado, Matamoros & Aguilar, 2017). Due to the necessity of joining both settlements in a more effective way and as to establish more control over the indigenous village, the administration of Tegucigalpa proceeded to build the first bridge that would connect both of the settlements: the Mallol Bridge. Likewise, a new Avenue was built in Comayagüela and a new square (Plaza de Armas) for the town council of the indigene (Figure 2) (Zelaya, n.d.). With the instauration of the new main square, the inhabitants from Comayagüela started forming a municipal structure and employed an engineer in order to establish the urban layout.

Figure 2: Tegucigalpa and Comayagüela, 1889. Source: Modified from Caballero, 2001

After the declaration of Independence of 1821 Tegucigalpa is formally named as city, and almost 80 years after Comayagüela follows and receives the title of City in 1849. Tegucigalpa was presenting itself as a one of the most intellectual urban centers in Central America and possessed the adequate conditions and demographic elements to sustain the Residences of the Government, the Supreme Court of Justice and the Legislation power. Thus, by 1880 was proclaimed under decree the Capital of Honduras. On the other side, Comayagüela became a city linked only to commerce and from this period the complementarity of Comayagüela towards Tegucigalpa has been mostly economic.

After the proclamation of Tegucigalpa as Capital city, between 1887 and 1890, there was an attempt to merge the Tegucigalpa and Comayagüela as a whole; however, there was a strong opposition from the Indians and from the citizens of Tegucigalpa and the attempt resulted as failure (Zelaya, n.d.). Hence, by 1898 it was arranged that Tegucigalpa and Comayagüela kept

SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRAM IN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN URBAN DESIGN 951.715A

different governments and separate names. It was until 1936 that Tegucigalpa and Comayagüela were proclaimed as a whole under the name of Central District (Martin, 2010).

Nonetheless, even though Tegucigalpa and Comayagüela are linked politically and form a single entity on the maps, the idea of two different cities still persists. Furthermore, modernization processes have exacerbated such delimitation and placed “tags” on each of them: Tegucigalpa the progressive city and Comayagüela the poorer, the dirtiest and the low conditions city.

Additionally, when new developments take place they are assigned either to Tegucigalpa or Comayagüela not by cadastral assignment but by a physical boundary: the Choluteca River. The importance of the River in this city demarcation it‟s undeniable to date since it is used as reference to establish boundaries: the southeast region of the River corresponds to Comayagüela while the northwest corresponds to Tegucigalpa (Domínguez, 2016). Such delimitation accredits the importance of the geography of the place in its inhabitants.

Urbanization Patterns of Tegucigalpa-Comayagüela As aforementioned, many of the early layers of the city‟s fabric have been predominantly inscribed by Spanish „planning‟ sensibilities. Such „historically imported‟ layers have significantly impacted „public space‟ in the central core of Tegucigalpa and Comayagüela. Even though Tegucigalpa continues to sprawl towards the east, south and west; creating a large but disorganized metropolis, it is still possible to visualize the initial Spanish check board grid in the core of both areas (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Tegucigalpa and Comayagüela. Source: NASA satellite image 2011 and Google Earth, 2017

The establishment of Tegucigalpa as the Capital city of Honduras led to a rapid population growth and imposed an intense pressure to the unprepared mountainous territory that possesses an almost null population bearing capacity. The urban growth of Tegucigalpa and Comayagüela city began in the plains of the Choluteca River, since it did not require excessive investment, but with the excessive demographic growth and the exhaustion of the plains the city began to expand until

SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRAM IN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN URBAN DESIGN 951.715A

it reached the nearby hills which represented another geographic limit and now shapes the “bowl” in which the city is currently developing in.

The urban sprawl grew considerably around 1954 with the attraction of the inhabitants of adjacent regions towards the capital and the services that it offered. Economic and demographic shifts within the country led to a rural disruption that quickly infected the urban environment through the onset of migration flows (Angel et al., 2004). The migratory dynamics and the lack of proper urban planning led to proliferation of informal settlements and misery belts between the 80‟s and 90‟s.

Over the past 25 years, the urban area of Tegucigalpa-Comayagüela has tripled in size but the statistics have not been able to follow the pace of such abrupt expansion. According to the census of 2001, the Metropolitan area of Tegucigalpa and Comayagüela was officially composed by 892 neighborhoods, yet, the last projection of the Statistics National Institute estimates that the Metropolitan area now encompasses more than one thousand urban and rural communities (Domínguez, 2015). The lack of accurate information is strongly related to the vast amount of neighborhoods that are located on unregistered land which simultaneously hinders the classification of such neighborhoods. It is to notice that the city has only had two attempts of urban planning: the 1958 attempt that resulted in failure and the creation of the planning institution METROPLAN 1 and its plan from 1975-2000 that gave some direction to the development of those years. In the 1975 attempt to create guidelines for the urban development in the major cities such as Tegucigalpa, the institution classified these neighborhoods areas in: R-1 Low Density, R-2 Medium Density and R-3 High Density. These are spread out within the urban sprawl with any specific planning other than following the availability of public services or the complex topography that governs them (Figure 4) The form of expansion of Tegucigalpa and Comayagüela is a clear example of the accumulation of urban issues and an absence or weakness of urban planning and territorial planning practices.

The city was never planned as such and the process was determined by the speculation about urban land and infrastructure endowment determined by private economic interests (Caballero 2011. Nonetheless, three main patters of urbanization can be recognized: 1) the original core which became deteriorated by the end of the 20th Century due to its relegation and abandonment despite the importance it once possessed. 2) Public and private urbanizations which is considered as the formal development of the city and originated with the production of serial housing development; and 3) Informal urban expansion which is considered as “popular urbanism” and started with the lack of accessibility to the formal land market and housing (Caballero, 2010).

11

METROPLAN is the planning department of the Central District Municipal Government.

SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRAM IN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN URBAN DESIGN 951.715A

Figure 4: Tegucigalpa and Comayag端ela Zoning. Source: Municipal plan for Territorial Planning 20112018

Although certain elements from the Griffin-Ford Latin American model can be found in Tegucigalpa-Comayag端ela city, the most predominant form strongly relates to the Fragmented model proposed by Michael Janoschka in 2002.This situation provides the greatest evidence of the social and spatial segregation within the city since, according to Peters (2009), the model is characterized by internal islands: 1. Islands of Reclusion referring to locations of gated communities and private residential developments composed by middle to the elite. They are mostly located in the periphery of the cities but also in consolidated areas that are securing themselves off from their surroundings. In recent years, the metropolitan area of Tegucigalpa and Comayag端ela has seen an important increment of gated communities particularly on the side of Tegucigalpa due to the increase of the criminality levels within the capital. Gated communities has not only been specific to middle and high income neighborhoods but also to low income areas where there are high rates of violence and criminality. Currently the private company promotes the construction of closed urbanizations as a new element within the urban structure and a transforming element of the residential space that constitutes expression clear of urban residential exclusion.

2. Islands of Production which are distinctive industrial and business areas that form private communities, separated from the surrounding by gates and security. Even though Tegucigalpa and Comayag端ela is more identified with the Fragmented model, there is still no evidence of this type of dimension.

3. Islands of Consumption developed by private investors through large-scale shopping malls and urban entertainment centers as new forms of public space. Due to the high insecurity levels that nowadays scourge the Capital city recreation through conventional open spaces has become more than impossible for its inhabitants. As result, in a span of less than ten years

SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRAM IN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN URBAN DESIGN 951.715A

six large scale shopping malls have been constructed and inaugurated. The majority is located near middle-high low income neighborhoods; however, two of them are placer nearby low income neighborhoods and are mainly transited by low income groups.

4. Islands of Insecurity comprised of semi-illegal or illegal housing, some of which may have undergone regularization by local authorities consolidating into second-generation housing.

In Tegucigalpa-Comayagüela, like many cities of the developing world, informal developments dominate formal development. The urban history of the city is the result of chaos leading over order: the “development” of neighborhoods through unplanned settlements by “invaders,” followed by the attempts of the Government to bring basic services to these neighborhoods. It is estimated that around 400 settlements of the capital that are now formal neighborhoods were originated through massive occupations of land that did not possessed property claim (Alcaldía Municipal del Distrito Central, Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo, 2016). It is of importance to notice that the majority of these informal settlements are located on Comayagüela demonstrating a strong correlation between informal settlements and communal lands (Ejidos). There are indications that the communal lands were a form of exclusion to the land market in the colonial period and it coincides greatly with the limits of the indigenous city and the Spanish city (Caballero, 2001).

Elements of social and spatial segregation The research field of urban segregation is dominated by studies on residential or housing segregation; however, while researchers study how different categories of people are distributed in our cities according to where they live they often omit the influence of the built environment or whether the built environment is segregated itself as a spatial system. How cities are built and structured influence accessibility to other people, to common resources, and to other important features in the city (Legeby, 2010).

In the sequential process of conformation of the Central District over time, differentiated qualities were generated in the structures and systems that characterize the urban area. Due to the process of its “foundation” and development, the metropolitan area of Tegucigalpa and Comayagüela is inherently a socially and spatially segregated urban form divided into two main polygons by the Choluteca River. The role that the river has in this delimitation has been mentioned repeatedly throughout this study; thereby it is important to highlight the reasons why this natural feature is considered as a physical barrier. The non-access to the river provides the first hint as the inhabitants of the city cannot experience the river benefits. The inaccessibility and poor management has transformed the river as a focal point of waste disposal degrading its environment. Second, due to its inaccessibility, the river has been considered as an element of social and urban disintegration and disarticulation that affects the socio-economic development of the city. In fact, the channelization and enclosing of the riverbed in order to provide additional space for commerce or cultural development has been proposed in previous city projects (Gomez, 2014). Third, the facades of the buildings turn their back on the river given it the sense of an abandoned backyard rather than an element of linkage to nature and integration between the “twin cities”. Fourth, the only elements of integration between Comayagüela and Tegucigalpa are the several bridges that have been built over time and cross, in several points, over the Choluteca

SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRAM IN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN URBAN DESIGN 951.715A

River. Yet these are mainly transited by inhabitants of Comayagüela that commute every day to workplaces located in Tegucigalpa. The inhabitants of Tegucigalpa travel to Comayagüela essentially for commerce or business which reminds of the colonial period where Comayagüela was the source of labor of the wealthy class and a city linked only to commerce. Fifth, the river is used as reference to differentiate the “twin cities” and portrays the boundary of two unequal sectors: Comayagüela – which is mainly lower class – and Tegucigalpa – which is mainly middle and upper class. The contrasting circumstances between the two regions can be noticed through some evident elements such as apparent differentiation of the economic sector between Tegucigalpa and Comayagüela, uneven distribution of investments, unbalanced distribution of public spaces, unbalanced real state dynamics, concentrations of dense marginal sectors, distribution of gated communities, high delinquency areas, among others.

Although it is evident that Tegucigalpa has a greater urban development than Comayagüela, it is still subsidized by its twin sister. Comayagüela generates approximately sixty percent of the income that enters annually to the municipal treasury (Gomez, 2014); however, there is a clear imbalance of economic resources. Although Comayagüela is considered the economic engine of the capital, nowadays the region is collapsing in amid of carelessness and indifference hence the belief of some researchers that Tegucigalpa infrastructure is maintained by the taxes collected in Comayagüela. Similar to colonial times, Comayagüela represents the majority of the economy and labor force of the Central District but does not benefit from it, as result Tegucigalpa has developed greater surplus while Comayagüela maintains poor and degraded. This translates in a disparity between the distribution of housing typologies and density levels.

As aforementioned, according to METROPLAN there are three residential typologies that are subdivided in four constructive typologies: High, Medium, low and precarious quality. High quality residences (R-1) are built with high quality materials and under seismic regulations. As general rule, they occupy lots larger than 250-300 m2 thus, they are low density areas. The possess all the basic infrastructure services - drinking water, electricity and drainage – and due to the quality they accommodate very high, high and upper middle classes. Medium Quality Residences (R-2) are also built with good quality materials and count with the entire basic infrastructure network, however, they occupy smaller lots than R-1 with an area of around 200 m2.

This type of residence accommodates upper middle and middle class. Low quality Residences (R3) are characterized by smaller lots with an area of 100 m2. These residences are built with basic materials and many of them are self-constructed. Contrary to the opposite types, low quality residences do not always possess all basic services and allocate low and middle low classes.

Precarious quality Residences (R-3) occupy lots smaller than 100 m2 and are mainly selfconstructed houses that are built with low quality materials. These types of residences accommodate low and very low classes. The distribution of these four types of residences (Figure 5) demonstrates that Comayagüela has been lashed by an inequality of conditions despite the fact that it produces most of the economic income of the capital.

SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRAM IN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN URBAN DESIGN 951.715A

COMAYAGÜELA TEGUCIGALPA

COMAYAGÜELA

TEGUCIGALPA

Figure 5: Residential Quality and Population density. Source: Modified from the Municipal plan for Territorial Planning 2011-2018

Additional to the allocation of the majority of low and precarious housing typologies, Comayagüela possess higher population density than Tegucigalpa (Figure 5). According to the Municipality of the Central District, the lower class represents approximately 55% of the population in residential areas and occupies around 52% of the residential land, while the higher class represents an approximate of 8% of the population and occupies about 17% of the residential land (2016). This not only implies very low density on certain areas of Tegucigalpa but also more open space, contrary to Comayagüela that only counts with a very low 2% of the total land assigned to open spaces.

While Tegucigalpa enjoy the benefits of several public spaces, museums and plazas such as El Picacho Park, Cerro Juana Lainez Park, La Leona park, Dionisio de Herrera Park, La Concordia Park, Tegucigalpa Central Square, Los Dolores Square, España Square, Redondel de los Artesanos square, Museum of the National Identity, the National Theater, the National Stadium, Villa Olímpica Sport Complex, among others; Comayagüela only counts with a very limited number of spaces such as La Libertad Park, El Soldado Park and El Obelisco Park. Moreover, it is important to highlight that the majority of Government offices, all of the Embassies, Consulates, International Organization offices; the Presidential House, the Government Ministries, The Governmental Civic Center and the National University are located in Tegucigalpa. The combination of low quality of housing, high density, lack of infrastructure services, lack of open spaces and no social equipment translates Comayagüela as the area of the capital city with the most marginality as the deterioration of the quality of life of the inhabitants is understood as the impossibility of accessing public resources in the adequate amounts and conditions.

Disparity is not only within the accessibility to public resources but also on the type of economies.

Even though Tegucigalpa is still economically dependent of Comayagüela, the formal sector of the economy is located in its premises while most part of the informal sector of the economy – around 70 percent- is located within Comayagüela. As result of this differentiation of economies, the majority of private investments are located in Tegucigalpa, thereby; it allocates the majority of commercial centers and all of vertical residences complexes. Another important factor to be

SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRAM IN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN URBAN DESIGN 951.715A

highlighted is the contrast between the types of labor market that take places in each of the areas.

According to the Municipality of the Central District, there is a high increment of informal labor force and most of it concentrates in Comayagüela due to the lack of employment and lack of social protection and labor rights. The consolidation of the formal labor force in Tegucigalpa underlines the level of economic inequity within the capital city.

Economic, social and political difficulties that have been affecting the economy of the country in the past few years, has led to a general slowdown in the capital's economy, increment of poverty levels, and increment of delinquency rates in many neighborhoods of the capital City. According to the statistics of the National Observatory, Comayagüela contains the most dangerous districts with the Metropolitan area. Although the majority of dangerous neighborhoods are located in Comayagüela, the wave of delinquency has affected in great deal Tegucigalpa, thus in recent years the private and public sector have encourage the development of gated communities which are proven to be a transforming element of the residential space that constitutes a clear expression of urban residential exclusion. This new type of urbanization – mostly oriented to medium-high and high strata of society – is characterized by high perimeter walls that provide 24 hours of security. They are largely promoted by the private sector as a way to achieve social status and exclusivity; however, due to the severe wave of violence within the city, the public sector has also sponsored gated communities, known as Barrios Seguros, by closing residential streets with security elements affecting violating the rights of free circulation. By 2015, around 29% of the neighborhoods of the Central District started to be managed as gated communities and the majority of them are located in Tegucigalpa side (Figure 6)

COMAYAGÜELA

TEGUCIGALPA

Figure 6: Gated Communities. Source: Modified from Fragmentación y segregación urbana en el Distrito Central, Zelaya, 2015

SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRAM IN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN URBAN DESIGN 951.715A

The rise of this new community typology has undermined the understanding of urban life causing a serious impact on its quality. Public spaces have lost their basic role as points of interaction between the different classes. Moreover, the inhabitants are living in bubbles detached from the social environment creating tangible and intangible barriers that strengthen the social and spatial segregation of the city.

Conclusion Even though Tegucigalpa and Comayagüela are known as the “twin cities” the social, economic and spatial differences are surprisingly evident. The inhabitants of these regions are clearly immerged in obviously differentiated socio-economic and cultural conditions, situation that has been historically dragged and that does not seem to solve in the near future. The contrasting circumstances between the two regions can be noticed through some evident elements such as apparent differentiation of the economic sector between Tegucigalpa and Comayagüela, uneven distribution of investments, unbalanced distribution of public spaces, unbalanced real state dynamics, concentrations of dense marginal sectors, distribution of gated communities, high delinquency areas, among others. The National and Municipal Government have done from little to nothing in order to unify these “twin cities”. Moreover, the issue of the autonomy of Comayagüela has remained latent in the minds of its more than seven thousand inhabitants.

This study has pointed out the uneven relations between the social distribution of the population and spatial configuration of the city which are the result of its structuration process. The metropolitan area of Tegucigalpa and Comayagüela is inherently a socially and spatially segregated urban form divided into two main polygons by the Choluteca River which is used as a spatial reference to demarcate the boundaries of two unequal regions. The observed urban segregation ranges over many fields, thereby, possible solutions are hinder by the complexity of the issue. Moreover, the re-organization of the public space and the dignifying of the most marginal areas require the improvement of the environment and community development, however, with the current situation of the country and the Capital city, it is an almost impossible task. The recent explosive development of gated communities has transformed its population and has isolated it from the environment stretching the gap between the different social classes.

Moreover, the Municipality of the Central District does not possess the economic resources or the so needed planning to develop the spatial cohesion between Tegucigalpa and Comayagüela.

Reference Alcaldía Municipal del Distrito Central, Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. (2016). Plan de Acción para Tegucigalpa y Comayagüela. Tegucigalpa: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. Retrieved from http://www.iadb.org/es/temas/ciudades-emergentes-y-sostenibles/presentan-plan-de-accion-parategucigalpa-y-comayaguela,8033.html (Spanish) Alcaldía Municipal del Distrito Central, Programa de las Naciones Unidas, Colegio de Arquitectos de Honduras. (2011). ¡Arriba Capital! Plan Municipal de Ordenamiento Territorial 2011-2018.

Tegucigalpa. (Spanish) Angel, S., Bartley, K., Derr, M., Malur, A., Mejía, J., & Nuka, P. et al. (2004). Rapid Urbanization in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. Preparing for the Doubling of the City's Population in the next Twenty-five Years. New Jersey: Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University.

SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRAM IN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN URBAN DESIGN 951.715A

Alvarado, Matamoros, & Aguilar. (2017). Rio Choluteca determinante urbano del Distrito Central.

Diagnostico: Segregación Urbana. Tegucigalpa: Escuela de Arquitectura y Diseño Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras. (Spanish) Caballero, E. (2001). La Construcción de Ciudades Vulnerables (Ph.D). Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras. (Spanish) Caballero, E. (2010). Planificación del Territorio Urbano en Honduras: Entre la Acción Pública y de Mercado. Revista Postgrados UNAH, (4).

Retrieved from http://faces.unah.edu.hn/decanato/images/stories/PDF/Revista_Congreso_Vol1/planificacion_territorio _urbano.pdf (Spanish) Clark, K., del Bono, E., & Luna, A. (1995). The Geography of Power in South America: Divergent Patterns of Domination in Spanish and Portuguese Colonies. In ACSA European Conference (pp. 111-116).

Lisbon: Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture. Retrieved from http://apps.acsaarch.org/resources/proceedings/indexsearch.aspx?txtKeyword1=108&ddField1=4 Díaz, E. (2017). La historia detrás del 439 aniversario de Tegucigalpa. El Tiempo. Retrieved from http://tiempo.hn/historia-439-aniversario-tegucigalpa/ (Spanish) Domínguez, E. (2015). Estiman que la capital superó los 900 barrios y colonias. El Heraldo. Retrieved from http://www.elheraldo.hn/metro/874047-213/estiman-que-la-capital-superó-los-900-barrios-ycolonias (Spanish) Domínguez, E. (2016). Cinco datos curiosos de la Capital. El Heraldo. Retrieved http://www.elheraldo.hn/tegucigalpa/949426-466/cinco-datos-curiosos-de-la-capital-queprobablemente-no-conocías (Spanish)

from

Gomez, K. (2014). Desacelera economía de Tegucigalpa y Comayagüela. El Heraldo. Retrieved from http://www.elheraldo.hn/metro/586408-213/desacelera-economia-de-tegucigalpa-ycomayag%C3%BCela (Spanish) Gomez, K. (2014). Proponen embaular el río Choluteca. El Heraldo. Retrieved from http://www.elheraldo.hn/metro/586357-213/proponen-embaular-cauce-de-rio-choluteca (Spanish) Janoschka, M. (2002). El nuevo modelo de la ciudad latinoamericana: fragmentación y privatización. Revista Latinoamericana De Estudios Urbanos Regionales, 28(85), 11-29. Retrieved from http://www.eure.cl/index.php/eure/article/view/1239 (Spanish) Legeby, A. (2010). Urban segregation and Urban form: From residential segregation to segregation in public space (Undergraduate). KTH Royal Institute of Technology.

Martin, M. (2010). La complejidad Urbana y Ambiental de la ciudad de Tegucigalpa. Tegucigalpa: Comité de Desarrollo Sostenible de la Capital – CCIT. (Spanish) Peters, P. (2009). Spatial Segregation in Complex Urban Systems: Housing and Public Policy in Santiago, Chile (Ph.D.). University of Texas at Austin.

Pine, A., & Vivar, D. (2011). Tegucigolpe: Donde se cruzan los caminos, se unen fronteras y se divergen las percepciones. Colombia Internacional, (73), 25-47. (Spanish) Sabatini, F. (2006). The Social Spatial Segregation in the Cities of Latin America. Inter-American Development Bank. Retrieved from https://publications.iadb.org/handle/11319/716 Zelaya, M. (2015). Fragmentación y segregación urbana en el Distrito Central, Honduras. Revista Población Y Desarrollo: Argonautas Y Caminantes, 11, 85-96. (Spanish) Zelaya, R. Historia de Honduras: Tegucigalpa, Datos Históricos. Historiadehonduras.hn. Retrieved 20 November 2017, from http://www.historiadehonduras.hn/Historia/tegus/historicos.htm (Spanish)