CDMX
Housing & Habitat
CDMX Housing & Habitat Urban Project A - Report Alvin Chi | Maritina Iliadi | Qiwei Zou | Ziyang Wang
1
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
Contents Introduction Aims Methodology Strategic Approach
5 5 5 6
1. Introduction to Mexico City 1.1 Location 1.2 History and urban expansion 1.3 Population and Density 1.4 Existing city scale challenges 1.4.1 Topography and Air pollution 11 1.4.2 Earthquakes 12 1.4.3 Sinking Ground 13 1.4.4 Water shortage 14 1.4.5. Flooding 15 1.4.6 Inequality 16 1.4.7 Fragmentation 17
7 7 8 9 11
2. Government and Decision-making 2.1 Government Structure
18 18 2
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
2.2. Government Organisations 2.3. Access to Housing 2.4 Perceptions of Housing policies 2.5 Asambleas de Barrios and Clientelism 2.6 Housing Cooperatives
19 21 22 23 24
3. Forms of Housing 3.1 Private 3.2 Social Housing 3.3 Informal Settlements 3.3.1 Colonias Populares 3.3.2 Vecindades
25 26 27 28 28 29
CASE STUDIES Case Study #1: La Condesa Case Study #2: Tres Pinos Residencial Case Study #3: Tlatelolco Nonalco Housing Complex Case Study #4: Unidad Independencia Case Study #5: Barrio Miravalle, Iztapalapa Case Study #6: Vecidanda, Calle Santissima, Historic Centre
4. Comparative analysis 4.1 Spatial Boundaries
30 31 33 34 36 38 40
41 41 3
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
4.2 Streetscapes 4.3 Built/Void 4.4 Population Density 4.5 Uninhabited housing 4.6 Water supply 4.6 Electricity Connections
42 45 46 47 48 49
5. Conclusions
50
6. References
53
4
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
Introduction Aims This report aims to analyse and comprehend the housing and habitat conditions in Mexico City. It looks at the history of events and policies that defined the city’s urban expansion. It identifies different conditions of housing as well as the environment developed around them. It compares different cases studies of housing, visited during the team’s visit in the city of Mexico. Finally, it attempts to summarise the challenges faced by the local population and looks at the research opportunities that could address these challenges, in the next phase of the Urban Project.
Methodology The study on housing and habitat in Mexico City consists of two main phases. During phase one (before field trip), significant literature research was conducted through collecting and reviewing information from relevant academic papers, lectures, maps and plans, published documents, etc., and summarising them into policies, typologies, risks and challenges, which helped us identify some places of interest to form the itinerary of field trip. During phase two (field trip), with the guidance of the itinerary proposed in phase one, both first-hand information (photos, videos, observation) and second-hand information (local lectures and workshops, interviews and communication with local people and students) were collected. After the evaluation and analysis of these information as well as the literature review in phase one, we could get overall conclusion and challenges of housing and habitat in Mexico City, and then proposed research opportunities for Urban Project Assignment B. All works in two phases will be appropriately integrated into this Report.
Figure 0.1 Methodology
5
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
Strategic Approach THE CITY
THE NEIGHBOURHOOOD
THE BLOCK
HOUSING POLICIES
SOCIAL COHESION
BUILT/VOID
7. 8. 9.
1. 2.
1. 2. 3.
Forms of home ownership Housing organisations Public participation
Character Sense of community
Densities Qualities Adjacencies
BOUNDARIES SOCIAL COHESION 1. 2. 3.
Different cultures Informality Separation/exclusion by: -Class -Income
CONNECTIVITY vs. ISOLATION 1. 2. 3.
To city centre To key services Between neighbourhoods
4. 5. 6.
Social Physical Fragmentation
INFRASTRUCTURE 1. 2. 3. 4.
HOUSING TYPOLOGIES 1. 2. 3.
Formal/Informal Styles Materiality
Water Electricity Sewage Streets
STREET LEVEL 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Sidewalk/street quality/width Trees Urban equipment Views to/from buildings interiors Traffic/safety/crossings Signage/wayfinding Street vendors
6
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
1. Introduction to Mexico City 1.1 Location
Figure 1.1 Mexico City in Mexico. Source: wikimedia commons
Figure 1.2 Mexico City
Figure 1.3 Field trip map
TUBSďźŒCC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.
Mexico City, commonly known as CDMX, is the capital of Mexico and enjoys a high reputation for its cultural and financial function among the Latin American cities. The city is located in the Valley of Mexico, surrounded by mountains and volcanoes, with a minimum altitude of 2,200 metres. The city was originally built up on an island in the centre of the lake system. Its special location and geographic conditions placed the city in front of various natural threats, such as flooding, earthquake, sinking and so on. Meanwhile, the rapid growth of urban area and population in the past a few decades have caused inconvenience in residents’ daily life. Nowadays, urban designers need to solve complicated challenges from its natural, economic, political aspects to achieve a brighter future.
7
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
1.2 History and urban expansion Concluded from Housing the poor in urban Mexico by Alan Gilbert& Ann Varley
As Mexico went through the adjustment of its economy from a primary level to a more diverse structure, it gained a stable growth in its GDP at an averagely 6% annual rate during 1940-1960. In 1960, it was 5th richest country among all Latin American countries, and by the end of 1982, it has been the 2nd richest one. Multiple reasons led to the booming economy and the economic growth was accompanied with some new challenges. In 1970s, the country gained the huge profit from oil exports. The oil boom helped promote the policy of import-substituting industrialization which showed the ambition of building up a solid industrial foundation and get rid of the technological dependence and overseas control. The policy led to a series of effects. The development of the secondary industry created the need for labors in big cities. Correspondingly, the manufacturing wages increased by 2.5 times from 1950 to 1975, and millions of migrants moved into big cities, hunting for jobs with better salaries. The data showed that the urban population increased from 5.7 to 26.1 million in the largest 25 cities during 1950 and 1980 and the proportion of rural residents dropped from 57% to merely 34%. The huge rise of population caused high demand for housing in the Mexico City. The city was overcrowded and the density reached 2.3 persons per room. The middle class could buy houses subsidized by the public sectors, yet poor families had to live in self-help settlements. The poor public service provision was another problem faced by the poor. A quarter of urban households lacked access to the main sewage system and the access to the power and water supply systems were very limited.
Though these new migrants had better jobs and earned more money, few of them successfully accumulated the fortune. The biggest part of wealth created by labours went into the pocket of the rich. In 1985, 40% poorest householders had only 13% household income. The unequal distributed wealth has become one of the most challenging issues in Mexico. In 1987, the debt crisis struck in Mexico. The high level of oil prices set up confidence for the federal government to approve many economic investments financed through foreign loans. When interest rates rose and petrol exports declined in early 1980s, the government started to realize the risk of its 102 billion USD debt (equivalent to four times the annual income from the international trade). The government had to privatise some state-owned companies and organisations, cut down subsidies and hold down the minimum wage to curb inflation. Thus, a major fall in incomes and rising level of unemployment were observed. The poor had to pay for more expensive goods with lower incomes. Though the government adopted various methods to ameliorate the situation, the economic depression lasted for around a decade. Meanwhile, vast commercial and agricultural goods imported from United States negatively influenced the domestic producers. Around one third of farmers lost this competition and their incomes, and they had to abandon their farms and lands. This new wave of migrants flooded into the city to hunt for new jobs and placed more challenges for the housing system and the urban development.
8
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
1.3 Population and Density The population increased rapidly in the past five decades as the Figure 1.4 shows and continues to grow as birth rates rise and more migrants are coming to the Mexico City. The population was nearly doubled in the comparison to the data in 1980. In the correlation of population growth, the urbanised area expanded up to five times. Contrasting lines representing the population and urbanised area show the disproportional increase. Many facts may account for the disproportion, for instance, geographic restriction, public facilities, infrastructure and spaces, but there are other issues. As a capital city, however, CDMX doesn’t have a high density, which is approximately 6,000 people per kilometre squared. In the comparison to 21,500 in Paris, 10,194 in NYC, or 5,600 in London, the density in CDMX ranks merely a middle level. Residents don’t fully utilize the space.
Figure 1.4 Historical trends in population, urbanized area and surface water area. Source: Qiwei Song
9
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
The uninhabited houses and unused space mean vast derelict land in the urban area. The figure 1.6 shows that on the majority of land there is no more than 8,000 inhabitants per kilometre squared. The density model of CDMX (Figure 1.5) indicates the uneven distribution of population in the urban area. A few old buildings in the city centre are abandoned and newly constructed buildings at the city’s periphery remain unoccupied (Pskowski, 2019). Lots of land is filled up with buildings with 2-3 stories. All these facts determine the maximum of densities. Besides the historical area for tourism, existence of high-rise commercial and residential buildings in few central business districts, increase densities. The urban redensification may be a solution to the urban expansion, but it’s hard to be realized simply with the construction of high-rise buildings. Because of earthquakes, high buildings are not favoured. The government needs to elaborate a more comprehensive and feasible plan to re-densify districts with low densities.
Peak density within admin. area (people/km2): 31,598
10 Figure 1.5 Density Model of CDMX. Source: Michelle Sinclair Colman
Figure 1.6 Population density of CDMX. Source: INEGI, SCINCE 2010, form CDMX Resilience Strategy
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
1.4 Existing city scale challenges 1.4.1 Topography and Air pollution Mexico City was characterised as the most polluted city in the world by WHO in 1992. Since 2000, the Mexico state government has taken a series of measures to improve air quality for scientific, technical, social and political considerations and air quality has been improved to some extent. However, Mexico City’s concentrations of pollutants still exceed recommended level set by WHO. (Molina et al., 2009). Mexico City is located in an “inland basin surrounded on three sides by mountains and volcanoes, with an opening to the Mexican Plateau to the north and a mountain gap to the south-east” (Ibid.). From NASA’s diagram (Figure 1.7), Mexico City’s geographic position results in air from the city getting trapped so that smog could accumulates and is hard to dissipate (Allen, 1998). In addition, intense solar radiation is also believed as one of the main causes of air pollution in Mexico City (Molina et al., 2009). Related to Mexico City’s climate, “the cool season has strong surface inversions and higher peaks of primary pollutants in the morning; while the warm season has more ultraviolet radiation and hence more smog.” So, air quality is concerned around all year (Ibid.). The huge growth in population and rapid urban expansion since 20th century, high levels of motorisation (huge number of private cars) and industrial activities in Mexico City, contribute to severe air pollution (Ibid.).
Figure 1.7 Source: Allen, 1998, from NASA Scientific Visualisation Studio
11
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
1.4.2 Earthquakes Mexico is located in a subduction zone and its location determines that the country is subject to strong earthquakes. In the early hour of the 1985, Mexico City was hit by and earthquake (M8.1)and “100,000 houses crumbled, 5,000 people died and roughly five million residents were left without electricity or potable water” (Adler, 2015). Mexico City also suffered from another strong earthquake in 2017 (M7.1). Earthquake damages some types of buildings. From the data showing the percentage of building damage according to building height after 1985 earthquake (Figure 1.9), we could know that “buildings between 7 and 12 floors had far more collapses than low-rise buildings” (1-5 floors) (Castillo and Villanueva, 2017). This fact could be an explanation of people’s negative perception on safety of tall buildings and developed tendencies of leaving from high-rise social housing after the earthquake. Also, it contributed to the increased insecurity of losing their properties ‘due to lack of land ownership’. Earthquakes particularly influence certain areas, but mostly the city centre and the informal neighbourhoods were buildings are old or of bad quality and do not comply with building standards. From the diagram showing the risk level (Figure 1.8), the area of high risk, which had been the area of the former lake (Castillo and Villanueva, 2017), is main the north and east parts of Mexico City.
Figure 1.8 High risk of earthquake in CDMX. Source: from datos.cdmx.gob.mx
Figure 1.9 Perception of building damage according to building height after 1985 earthquake. Source: from Castillo and Villanueva, 2017
12 Picture 1.1 Source: from the Guardian
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
1.4.3 Sinking Ground
Picture 1.2
Big population increase brings high demand of water, therefore Mexico City relies heavily on underground aquifers, which fastens city’s sinking. Sinking issues are getting worse and worse because of climate change. More drought and heat mean more evaporation of water resource and lead to increasing demand for water. This adds “pressure to tap distant reservoirs at staggering costs or further drain underground aquifers and hasten the city’s collapse” (Kimmelman, 2017). As is shown in pictures (1.2 &1.3), sinking has caused visible distortions on buildings (Picture 1.2 was taken in National Palace located in historic centre, suffering from the quickest sinking rate) or even dramatic and deadly fissures, because of uneven sinking on a ground base that is a mix of clay and volcanic soil (Ibid.). Areas northeast of the city centre are mostly affected (see Figure 1.10).
Picture 1.3 Source: from Kimmelman, 2017
13
Figure 1.10 Ground sinking rate in CDMX. Source: Subsidence rate data from Dr. Andy Sowter at Geomatic Ventures Limited. In Kimmelman, 2017
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
1.4.4 Water shortage As is shown on photos, water tanks are dominating the skyscape of Mexico City and are proof of the city’s water crisis (Picture 1.4, 1.6 & 1.7). In the autumn of 2018, Mexico City had an entire week without water supply from its water source and consequently had to “resort to city wells and reserves left in pipes, water tanks and buckets” (The Nature Conservancy, n.d.). Considering the climate in Mexico City, most of the rainfall comes during the summer, and often just with a few epic storms. While during the drier months, there is not enough rainfall to meet people’s everyday water demand. So, water shortage issue in Mexico City is mainly because of imbalanced distribution of rainfall from temporal aspect. Apart from natural cause, historically, the Spanish disposition for domination was a key misstep in causing water challenges in Mexico City today. “They replace the dikes and canals with streets and squares. They drained the lakes and cleared the forestland”. (Kimmelman, 2017).
Picture 1.4 Source: from Kimmelman, 2017
Nowadays, hard paved ground is another cause of water crisis in Mexico. So much porous land has been over developed and is buried beneath concrete and asphalt. “This stops rain from filtering down to the aquifers, causes floods and creates “heat islands” that raise temperatures further, which consequently increase the demand for water” (Ibid). Water shortage especially happens in those informal settlements in Mexico City. Because lack of formal water supply or it is unaffordable, many informal settlements have to depend on informal water service (Picture 1.5) (Gutierrez, 2019).
Picture 1.5 Source: from Gutierrez, 2019
Picture 1.6
Picture 1.7
14
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
1.4.5 Flooding Due to its climate and imbalanced rainfall, apart from water shortage during dry months, Mexico City also suffers from flooding after heavy rain in summer (May to August). As is shown in the flood hazard diagram (Figure 1.11), the north and east parts of the city are high danger areas. Although the flooding only results in minor direct economic impacts, they severely affect people’s living and mobility in the city. As a result, the indirect economic loss of flooding is significant. Flooding is caused by sewage overflow, which is not only the result of poor drainage system (like burst pipes), but also because garbage disposed of on the street often blocks drainage (Picture 1.8), backing up the system (Hogenboom, 2018). To relief flooding issue, efforts should also be taken to cope with weak control of waste management in Mexico City.
Figure 1.11 Flooding hazard in CDMX. Source: Centro Mario Molina, 2014, from CDMX Resilience Office Strategy Picture 1.8
Picture 1.9
15
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
1.4.6 Inequality Mexico City growth started in 1940 and until 1970, everything was about development of infrastructure and housing and the creation of a middle-class. The 1980s financial crisis and the 1985 earthquake interrupted this growth and a transition from a welfare to a free trade market model started. One of the key moments for this transition was the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, which required constitutional changes, as requested from the Washington Consensus that affected the welfare policies and placed private interest in the centre of development (Moralles, 2020). These reforms led to the privatization of public land, which then affected social housing policies and investment in urban infrastructure in Mexico City. Therefore, “[…] the absence of redistributive policies in a contextual reform have left poverty and inequality levels practically unchanged the past two decades. The Gini coefficienti index decreased from 0.543 in 1992 to 0.530 in 2008 (CONEVAL, 2010a 2011). While Mexico has some of the richest millionaires in the world, to Forbes, more than half of its population lives in poverty” (Bayon and Saravi, 2013). The distribution of population per income in the city shows large areas north-east house the low-income population, whereas northwest and south house the highest average income.
Figure 1.12 Income-based poverty by municipality (percent) in the Mexico City metropolitan area 2005, (CONEVAL, 2010a) (Bayon, 2018)
Picture 1.10
16
Figure 1.13 Source: CDMX Resilient Strategy, 2016
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
1.4.7 Fragmentation As mentioned above, the highest and lowest income populations seem to have been distributed in two parts of the city. Nevertheless, in a smaller scale the city has become more fragmented with the residential neighbourhoods of different socioeconomic backgrounds living next to each either. Luxury and exclusive gated communities are built next to informal settlements or shanty towns (Rodriguez, 2017). As a result, there is stigmatization of poor neighbourhoods which has led to the normalisation of erecting barriers and segregating public spaces.
Picture 1.11 Source: from Robinson, 2016
Figure 1.14
17
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
2. Government and Decision-making 2.1 Government Structure The government system in Mexico consists of three levels, federal government, city government of CDMX and 16 municipal governments under the administration of the city government. The federal government creates the national housing policies to navigate the development of housing systems and housing markets. Some of its decentralized entities are in charge of financial funds. Similarly, the city government of CDMX has three types of offices: secretaries, deconcentrated bodies and decentralised bodies. There is one organisation in each part working on the housing affairs in the administrative region of CDMX. The city government is responsible for designing, coordinating and implementing the urban policy of Mexico City in accordance to national policies. The 16 municipal government assist the city government in implementing the plan and deal with local housing projects as well as residents’ housing affairs.
Figure 2.1 Government Structure. by Alvin Chi
18
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
2.2. Government Organisations In federal government, there are three cabinet agencies and several government entities working on the affairs of housing. The Secretariat of Agrarian, Land, and Urban Development is the major agency to deal with housing. To promote the access to the high-quality housing for citizens, it constantly works on planning of efficient land use and sustainable and competitive cities which enhance the mobility and improve residents’ life quality. The Secretariat of Welfare and Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources assists in achieving a comprehensive housing solution. The Secretariat of Welfare was in charge of urban planning during 1992-2012 and after the modification of its duty, it still played a critical role in providing affordable houses for citizens in poverty. The Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources develops the sustainable plans to carry out sufficient water supply to houses. Sometimes, a comprehensive and important housing plan, such as Sustainable Integral Urban Development, promoted by the federal government will involve more than these three agencies and require a broader collaboration among different offices. In around 300 government entities, the key organisation dealing with housing is National Housing Commission (CONAVI). As a coordinator of housing policy, it is the bridge among several housing organisations.
Figure 2.2 organizations that manage the production of homes. From: La Vivienda “social” en México
19
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
With its purpose of promotion and implementation of housing policies, it runs critical housing programs, such as housing components in National Reconstruction Program and Urban Improvement Program, Social Housing Program and National Registry of Territorial Reserves. Moreover, CONAVI needs to supervise if the housing actions fit the purpose of sustainable development and promote the financial methods for the people in need including the government subsidy, beneficiary’s savings and mortgage credit. To ensure the home ownership for every citizen, the federal government set up a number of decentralized bodies to provide financial aids for different groups of people. The Social Security Institute (IMSS) sets up profiles for workers in the private sector, while the Institute of Social Security and Services of State Workers (ISSSTE) does the same thing for workers in the public sector. In 1972, they separately set up INFONAVIT and FOVISSSTE as their housing agencies to manage the housing affairs. These two agencies began with building up public houses and soon transformed their roles into pure financial mechanisms. Nowadays, they are very key sources of housing funds and mortgage for people with jobs. Besides, they may also consider the mortgage provided by banks if they are in medium to high-income households. Otherwise, they ask for aids from private financial companies, such as GE Money and Su Casita, which were monitored and given funding by Federal Mortgage Society (SHF). All previously mentioned organisations provide services to people with incomes regardless of how much they earn. For unemployed homeless people, the government set up National Trust Fund for Popular Housing (FONHAPO)
to grant subsidies. On the level of the city government, there are two major housing organisations, the Secretariat of Urban Development and Housing (SEDUVI) and Housing Institute (INVI), and one relevant office, the Water System. SEDUVI sets out the urban planning schemes for CDMX and monitors the urban management. With the consultation from specialists, academics and public servants, it aims to carry out the sustainable development in CDMX which meets the current needs and resolves the urban issues in the future. In the terms of housing, it publishes and updates the land policies and housing policies to promote the access to houses with a better quality for citizens. The Housing Institute has similar goals and it designs, elaborates and executes housing policies and programs in order to provide enough houses for the population with low economic resources. The Joint Housing Program was designed to grant zerointerest loans for people who live in high-risk sites, temporary camps, and vecindades within the historical districts. Another program, Housing Improvement, is applied to old buildings in low-density and surrounding rural areas. Its goals are to address problems of overcrowding, precarious or deteriorated houses and low densities in some neighbourhoods. Though the government promotes several programs to better the housing conditions, the public report the nonfeasance and the dispute between the government and the public is observed. On one hand, the influence of programs is little compared to the vast population, and the functions of municipal government are also compromised for very limited budget. On the other hand, the ineffectiveness of the system, resulted from corruption and dereliction of duty, makes it hard to achieve a positive outcome.
20
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
2.3. Access to Housing
In general, there are three types of people in need of economic houses and there are several different options for them to get the access to houses. • Rightful population If a person with a job wants to buy an economic house has enough money, he can buy an affordable house. If he can only cover a part of housing price, he may consider the house mortgage from banks or financial services companies. So another way to the mortgage is to ask government organisations. If he works in the private sector, he can apply for a credit from the INFONAVIT. INFONAVIT will evaluate his housing fund and financial situation and provide different plans with certain amount of money. If he works in the public sector, he can submit the similar application to FOVISSSTE which will also give the financial aid. When he is unsatisfied with all house offers, he has the right to choose to build his own house and, in this case, he may lose the access to funds or mortgages. • Non-rightful Population Unlike the rightful persons who have decent jobs, many people in Mexico City have no regular income but need places to live. Unlike the rightful persons who have formal jobs, many people in Mexico City have no regular income but need places to live. Though they aren’t entitled to get financial aids from the government, they are still able to apply for the mortgage from private companies and banks if they can demonstrate adequate financial situation. In most cases, they have to build their own houses since the income is not stable. • Non-entitled population without payment capacity For people who have no income at all, their choices become very limited. They may ask for subsidy from FONHAPO and have to build their own informal houses. They can probably gain the help from some NGOs during the construction. All these people may have the chance to participate in the programs conducted by CONAVI, and in this way they may get the financial aids to the economic houses or get the access to social houses.
Figure 2.3 organizations that manage the production of homes. From: La Vivienda “social” en México
21
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
2.4 Perceptions of Housing policies • Different Priorities Reasons for the dispute between citizens and the government may be complicated and multiple. Different priorities of these two groups can be one of them. One Mexican citizen explained his discontent towards that the government has been encouraging to big projects and disregards small to medium ones. As it spends the most of its budget on big projects, the outcomes of small projects will be unsatisfactory. Furthermore, private sectors would invest more on big projects since the small or middle ones have increased risk without the support from the government. From the standpoint of the authorities, the success of big projects means a political feat and the construction can be the landmark for the whole city but normal citizens care more about those small scale projects which have more direct benefits to their life. The local leader of the neighbourhood association in Iztapalapa expressed the similar idea. He said that the public fund for the maintenance of public facilities in the community had been cut down because the government decided to grant more fund to the construction of Cuitláhuac Park. In his mind, the success of several small projects will benefit more population in the city rather than a huge achievement that sacrifices small projects. • Lack of restriction or supervision The city government once has published a series of policies to promote the re-densification, including the Norma 26 and Bando 2 which encouraged higher stories of social housing and more affordable houses in central areas. These policies began with positive feedbacks and ended up with more negative influences. For example, the Bando 2 resulted in far higher real estate prices in central areas, making the houses more unaffordable to the poor and more people had to move to peripheral areas (Paquette, 2015). In
2000, the average housing price in central areas of CDMX was 700,000 pesos and this price had risen to more than 2 million pesos by 2008(Benlliure, 2008). The outcomes intensified the problem which was set out to solve. The lack of restriction on policies in the planning stage and supervision in the urban management can account for the backfire of these policies which were designed with good intentions. • Lack of affordable student housing Students are apparently not the top concerned group in the Housing Institute. A few local students reported their difficulty with affordable student housing. As some universities couldn’t provide enough on-campus dorms, their students had to find their ways to live in the city. Some students had to spend around 3 hours to get to the campus because they couldn’t afford apartments near the university. As the housing price went even higher than inflation, it’s getting harder for a graduate to settle down in the city. The loss of these talented people will limit the development of city in the future. • Focus on risk management and emergency response policies The city council is working to set up an effective network to monitor potential risks in the city. The intention is for every citizen to be educated and become responsible of risk issues in his property, neighbourhood and the city. This will strengthen the resilience to face emergencies. 22
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
2.5 Asambleas de Barrios and Clientelism After the 1985 earthquake in Mexico City there was a strong civic activism movement, the Popular Urban Movement (MUP), as a response to the government’s inability to effectively to deal with the housing crisis (Koonings and Kruijt, 2007). Later, in 1987, through these movements emerged the Asambleas de Barrios (Neighbourhood Assemblies), opposition movements against the urban renewal projects, housing unaffordability and population displacement. The founding members were mostly displaced tenants and low-income residents especially women, even though issues of gender inclusion were never part of the activist agenda. The Neighbourhood Assemblies acted as an important source of socio-political mobilization and citizenship practice, that pushed for increased political and administrative autonomy in a local level. The result was the formation of a Legislative Assembly and the establishment of the first mayoral elections in the 1990s (Reyes, 2018). The involvement of these groups in the local politics, allowed them to fight for affordable housing resources. In the same time, though, many became involved in clientelistic practices, offering political support in electoral rallies in exchange for solutions in pressing housing problems. These clientelistic activities have weakened the grassroots organisations’ ability to monitor and challenge government actions and enforced the personalised exchanges and lack of autonomy (Reyes, 2018). However, there are some organisations aiming to break with clientelism and claim organisational autonomy (Neuhausen,2020).
Picture 2.1
23
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
2.6 Housing Cooperatives The case of Palo Alto cooperative In Mexico City, another form of housing production based on citizen initiatives has been developed, that of housing cooperatives. In the city there are five housing cooperatives, where its inhabitants cannot sell or rent, and the construction belongs to everyone. A cooperatives objective is not just to secure housing for its members but to establish a community with services and amenities. The families of a cooperative are not owners of their individual property but of the housing establishment as a whole. This type of shared ownership complicates things from a legal perspective, since it is impossible for the members to “obtain credit collectively because the Housing Institute grants only individual loans” for housing (Mallaird,2016). The Palo Alto Cooperative was established in the seventies and is still facing many challenges to continue existing. Newer cooperatives, though, who experience similar difficulties, are currently seeking to form a Federation of Cooperatives of mutual aid. According to Enrique Ortiz Flores, from the International Habitat Coalition of Latin America (HIC-AL), housing cooperatives are great examples of social production and participative management of habitat. This housing organisation model gives to the people of these underprivileged and underrepresented communities a chance to be acquire knowledge on how to collaborate and co-create resilience strategies to a community and a household level. This knowledge can empower communities to organise and fight for their “Right to the City”.
Picture 2.2
Picture 2.3
The Palo Alto cooperative was the first of its kind in Mexico City. It was established in 1969 when the residents of the rented land were threatened with eviction. This land was occupied by migrants from other states of the country who came to Mexico City to work at the sand mines. They built their houses on land rented to them by the mine-owner. After 30 years, the mines were closed, and the owner threatened the ex-workers with eviction. The residents became organised into the Palo Alto Housing Cooperative to fight for their right to remain in the land by presenting their case at the city’s legal authorities. After a long legal battle, the cooperative was granted the land and the construction of the permanent housing started, with the assistance of the civil association called the Housing and Settlement Operational Centre (COPEVI). Nowadays, the Palo Alto community has been suffering internal conflicts, due to pressures to sell their properties and give in to the extreme development taking place around them, in the upcoming area of Santa Fe. 24
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
3. Forms of Housing The different ways of housing production along with the involvement of different stakeholders and authority entities, has resulted in the formation of different type of housing and habitat in the city and its periphery. Figure 3.1 shows the classification of settlements in the city per income. Based on that there are different types of neighbourhoods that have emerged for the different types of income (see Figure 3.2) and different types of housing depending on the ownership type (see Figure 3.3)
Figure 3.2: Mexico City 2005: Classification of neighbourhoods per income
Figure 3.1: Mexico City 2005: Classification of census tract by formal and 25 informal settlement type. (Connolly, 2009, p5) Figure 3.3: Classification of housing per ownership type.
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
3.1 Private safety, the time they decide to care for their own security and not rely on legal Private housing in Mexico City is produced in different forms and scales, either as authorities to do so. communities and apartment buildings constructed by private developers or Consequently, the authorities choose to leave this communities on their own and not detached, single-family houses produced by individuals. All the different versions of provide even the basic security, reinforcing the divide between public and private housing, no matter the way or who produced it, have one thing in common: and the creating a model of a “city within a city”, with its own administration, rules gatedness. and “secured” public space (Giglia,2008). Gated communities as a form of exclusive housing is not new, especially in Latin America. The change into neo-liberal market models benefited the private real estate market, weakened urban planning and undermined the norms and rules of previous habitat policies. Therefore, the growing individualism in combination with the economic crisis, growing poverty and increased crime rates in many Latin American countries have enhanced the demand for safe enclaves providing protection from a dangerous social environment (see Figure 3.4) (Borsdorf and Hidalgo,2010). In the case of Mexico City, “gatedness is expressed through gated communities of different sizes and amenities for a range of incomes, individual detached houses or apartment buildings by private developers and closing of streets by neighbourhood associations (Giglia,2008). In the context of inequality and social and spatial fragmentation of Mexico City, the issue of insecurity becomes a factor of normalisation of raising gates and walls between communities. Giglia (2008) identifies three socio-spatial strategies that lead to creation and reproduction of “gatedness”: “the search for security, the search for differentiation from the outside, and the search for sociocultural homogeneity inside. […] This notion of a social and cultural difference between the inside and the outside strengthens the image of a small fortress city, different and pleasant inside, an island of civility within an urban environment with little civility or freedom”. The residents of gated housing or streets are aware that they undertake the responsibility of their own
Figure 3.4 Drivers for gated community development in Latin America (Borsdorf and Hidalgo,2010,27)
26
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
3.2 Social Housing Concluded from Housing for the Working Class On the Periphery of Mexico City: A New Version of Gated Communities by Peralta and Hofer
In Mexico City, social housing could be state or private developers. Since 1930s, the social housing structure in Mexico was not coherent, mainly linking housing provision to the relation between the workers and employers. As is stated in the Article 123 of the Constitution, the owners of businesses with over 100 employees should provide comfortable, hygienic housing. And this obligation was still Mexican housing policy until recently. Apart from those businesses, some governments also provided social housing for their employees, like Unidad Independencia. Due to urban population growth during 1959 to 1970, the demand for housing rapidly increased. In 1963, the Housing Finance Program was launched, starting the large-scale social housing production. With the financial support from Housing Finance Program, combining public and private capital, housing development companies emerged and they built many large-scale social housing estates. In 1972, for the first time, the National Worker's Housing Fund (INFONAVIT) financed working-class housing through the employers, according to the obligation stated in the Constitution though this situation was taken advantage to develop clientelistic relations among INFONAVIT, political parties and private building sectors. However, after the economic crisis of 1982, the change of economic development model had a major impact on housing policy. Governments cut down subsidies for social housing and banks stopped to contribute resources to low-income housing. Also, the state focused on market-oriented finance and gave up on including all social classes in its housing programmes.
With the influence of market-oriented development, as well as increasing housing demand, there started the privatisation of social housing since late 20th century. This housing model, which was highly profitable in the first decade of the 21st century, left out the social production of housing. Almost any large-scale public policy aimed at the needs of populations with greater social marginalisation and lag was set aside (Secretaria de Desarrollo Agrario, Territorial y Urbano, 2019). After the government quitted the construction of social housing and chose to finance programs instead, it gradually lost the powerful control over these programs. Consequently, there is a contradiction at the heart of social housing: a number of houses built in the urban periphery sit empty, but millions of Mexicans are waiting to use their housing credits in government financial organisations. Private developers, however, continue to build these unwanted houses to keep the business running (Pskowski, 2019). Nowadays, the social housing is no longer a choice to help working-class settle down in the city. Besides the inconvenience in the periphery and longer time of mobility, insecure and uncomfortable feelings of the displacement. Lots of residents think they are forced to be moved away from their originally social network and more realistic reason is the negative impact on the business they are running. A cafÊ owner in the central area was told to move out because the building was going to be sold. An increase in violent evictions has been seen during the neighbourhood displacement. (Pskowski, 2019). The relation between citizens’ need and social housing provision has reached an impasse and the government need some new strategies.
27
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
3.3 Informal Settlements 3.3.1 Colonias Populares From the mid-20th century, huge growth of unplanned urbanisation led to the rapid development of colonias populares, because the huge demand for housing had far exceeded the public and private sectors’ capacity to provide affordable options. Empty low value land or potentially hazardous sites in the outskirt of the city were illegally occupied by low-income people, hence beginning the lengthy growth cycle of colonias populares over several generations (Martin and Andrade, 2017). In Mexico, 65% of housing are informal and previous research shows that the increasing of informal urbanization is not a steady process which only driven by increasing immigration. Instead, the informal urbanization is “successive cycles of territorial expansion followed by infill or densification.” (Connolly,1988, cited in Connolly, 2009). And this cycle (as is shown in the diagram) is the outcome of macroeconomic factors including credit for real estate development, inflation rates and overall economic situation. (Connolly, 2009). In early years, because of lack legitimacy and government’s unavailability, residents in colonias populares usually lack of basic public services and infrastructure: no water supply, no electricity supply, no drainage or sanitation service, unpaved streets, no refuse collection service, no primary or secondary school, etc. (Lombard, 2014). Under this condition, some of areas have developed self-built water system and depended on informal water supply services (Gutierrez, 2019). During recent decades, in some colonias populares, like the one in Pedregal de Santa Ursula, social infrastructures (school, church) had started to be built since mid-1960s, while some public water supply had been provided since mid-1970s. By 2009, in this area streets are paved and connected, and basic infrastructure is completed (Martin and Andrade, 2017).
Low interest, plenty credits for real estate developmment
Low density land use, new informal settlement formation
Rising land price
1982-1989
1977-1981
Lost decade
Buoyant years
Intensive use of land, densification and consolidation of informal settlement
Little money available for construction, But land price is low
High interest Recession and inflation
Figure3.5 The successive cycle causing increasing informal urbanisation (by Qiwei, from Connolly, 2009)
28
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
3.3.2 Vecindades During 18th century, noble colonial houses were built in the inner city were sharing a similar layout: a courtyard dwelling scheme with one or more quadrangular patios, outdoor staircases and one or two storeys. After the Reform Law in 1859, the city experienced major urban changes, as the Church’s property and other assets being expropriated by government and being transformed into public school and social housing. In that situation, many rich families moved to the suburbs. So, their colonial houses were abandoned and then occupied by low-income people, subdividing those houses into multiple small homes that shared kitchen and bathrooms, hence becoming vecindades. Vecindades became very popular as low-income housing from the late 19th century to the 1950s (Martin and Andrade, 2017) and a unique example of coliving practice in the country. Rooms in vecindades form a U shape around a long narrow courtyard where services and activities are shared. The high ceilings allow the addition of lofts for sleeping. Room facing the street are usually shops (Ibid.). Two types of vecindades coexist in the central area of the city today: the old colonial houses, and new ones mimicking the old ones, built after the city’s fast industrialisation period at the beginning of the 1900s (Ibid.). By 2010, about 10% of Mexico City’s current residents still live in vecindades (Geo-mexico, 2010). However, in the historic centre, many vecindades are now used as storage space or even illegal activities.
Figure 3.6 Typical model and plan of vecindad from Martin and Andrade, 2017
29
CASE STUDIES
30
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
CASE STUDY #1
Gentrification
La Condesa The origins of the La Condesa Colony date back to the decade of the 20's and 30's when they began to build numerous buildings in the area that once occupied the Hippodrome of the Countess of Miravalle. It had some of the best planned infrastructures in the city, proof of this are its large parks and wide tree-lined avenues, which, together with its central location next to the Roma Colony, made it the preferred place of the middle and upper class, as well as of many people from different parts of the world, who gave this district a strong urban and cosmopolitan character. (http://ciudadmexico.com.mx/zonas/condesa.htm) The colonia grew in the first half of 20th century and became popular among middle and upper classes and foreigners. In the 1920s, a large number of Jewish immigrants and Spanish refugees moved to this area ,and give this area repulation of urbane and cosmopolitan place. However, by the 1970s, the young generations of these immigrants began to move to other better places such as Polanco. In 1985, an earthquake hit Mexico city and had significant impact on La Condesa, which speeded up the population outflow which had already happened. Many buildings in this area, even these around two major parks, were abandoned. At that time, most residents remained in this area are those who founded La Condesa and who are unable to move to another place. In 2017, an earthquake hit this area once again, but now, La Condesa has become one of the most representative neighbourhood because of gentrification and attracts a large number of tourists.
Location map
After the wave of abandonment of housing in La Condesa, some young generation began to move into this area for cheaper accommodation and wide space. Some uninhabited housing are also used for office and increase the need for restaurants and parking facilities. Some bars and nightclubs also began to appears in this area. The repopulating process also cause some negative impact including parking problems, trash, transients, noise and crime. Many housing units were changed to other use and there is no regulation to restrict these changes. Existing infrastructure could not support the increasing need and this area is faced with overload of drainage,electricity and water systems .Many housing units became Airbnb after La Condesa became a tourist attraction and some new development is under construction. Some nearby areas like Roma and Doctores are also affected and poor people in these areas are faced with the increasing rent and risk of displacement.
31
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
Housing Typologies In La Condesa and other similar neighbourhoods close by, there is a mix of typologies and architectural styles. From old singlefamily detached houses, too low to high-rise apartment buildings of different time periods, create a disorganised result.
Services-Amenities Parks with dog-only sections and open-air gyms, theatres, churches and tree covered cycle and jogging paths are few of the neighbourhood amenities. Public garbage tracks and private collectors of recyclables visit the neighbourhood every night to collect the trash.
Materiality Similar to the housing typologies, there is a big range of materials used around the neighbourhood. In new construction specifically, a lot of experimentation with new materials was noticed, wheres the older houses maintain the traditional ones.
Security Police towers were located in central spots of the neighbourhood. Police cars were also noticed surveilling around the neighbourhood at night. Most private houses and apartment complexes were equipped with heavy gates, very few openings to the street and small-scale surveillance systems.
32
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
CASE STUDY #2 Tres Pinos Residencial The Tres Pinos Residencial is a gated housing community located in the middle of the Unidad Independencia social housing estate. The land in which this community has been developed, belonged to Telmex, the dominant telecommunication company of Mexico. According to the Municipality Zoning plan, the land has now residential use, apart from the pieces of land that include the Telmex Service Centre building and other equipment of service buildings of the company. When Unidad Independencia was built, this piece of land remained mostly undeveloped until the last decade when parts of the property were sold to private developers. The result was different small gated communities to be built, like Pinos 5 and Tres Pinos Residencial. As an example, the latter is a gated community of 9 single-family, semidetached houses. Each house has two floors, 375 sq.m. of space, access to two common areas, apart from their private garden parking space for four cars per house. As advertised in the real estate agency’s website, the community has a gated access and a “24-hour, double surveillance� system. An expansion to the community is currently under construction. (http://www.catano.com.mx/property/residencial-trespinos-casas-en-condominio)
The access to these gated communities was restricted. When asked, the residents of Unidad Independencia felt complete disconnected by the residents of the gated community. The residents drive in and out of their community and avoid any interaction with the residents of the community that surrounds them.
Location map
2016
2020 33
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
CASE STUDY #3
Mishel Architecture student & Resident
Tlatelolco Nonoalco Housing Complex Built in 1964 for government employees, during Mayor Uruchurtu's term. …the project intended to " restore El Centro, remove its inhabitants, and convert the area into an eminently cultural and touristic zone by reserving the use of buildings and monuments for primarily institutional functions". The decline of the complex started after the 1968 students’ protests were violently interrupted in the complex by the police forces. Later, the 1985 earthquake was devastating for the residents of Tlatelolco. Two of the three segments of the Nuevo León building collapsed, killing all residents inside. The collapse was a result of cost cutting during the original construction and improper maintenance. Due to earthquake damage, eight other buildings in the complex were demolished and four more had their uppermost floors removed. Many people abandoned the complex after the earthquake because of fear. Today, living conditions remain precarious due to high crime activities. In addition, the dangerous lack of maintenance persists and some buildings are even inclined at a level of 1.5%, where buildings inclining greater than 1% are considered at risk. The high-rise building blocks only cover 25% of space, which leaves a lot of space for public use and natural light to come in. There is a library and workshops in the covered walkways that separate car traffic from pedestrian routes and connect the different parts of the housing estate. However, the public space suffers from low usage rate. The part of the estate with the low-rise buildings seemed to be livelier with a stronger sense of community. Community groups like Unidos por Tlatelolco (United for Tlatelolco) have emerged to coordinate the efforts of residents to make up for neglect by authorities whenever possible.
Location map
The history and heavy symbolism of La Plaza de las Tres Culturas is a constant reminder of Tlatlolco’s events of violence. In combination to the 1985 earthquake memories and the high crime rates, there is a shared sense of “bad energy” among the people of Mexico City, and the locals prefer not to refer to it. Most of the original residents of Tlatelolco have sold their houses and left the community. The next generations of residents are not aware of the estate’s history; therefore, they do not feel attached to the place or the community and they do not care for its maintenance.
34
CDMX Housing Typologies
Housing & Habitat
Rectangular apartments blocks ranging from 22, 14, 7 and 4 stories high divided by open spaces.
Services-Amenities The complex includes schools, stores and community library and workshop spaces.
Materiality As an original sample of modernist architecture, exposed concrete is the dominant material of the complex. Different paint colours, tiles and murals on the facades add elements that differentiate the buildings from each another.
Security Apart from railings on windows and gates the complex was complete open for anyone to cross. Police force was noticed
35
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
CASE STUDY #4 Unidad Independencia Housing Complex The case of Unidad Independencia, designed and projected by the architects Alejandro Prieto Posadas and Jose Maria Gutierrez Trujillo in collaboration with the architect Pedro F. Miret and a team of 23 architects and engineers, started in 1959th
and was inaugurated in September 1960, as part of the celebrations for the 150 Anniversary of the Independence of Mexico and the 50th Anniversary of the Mexican Revolution. Built on volcanic ground, the housing estate has not experienced any Location map damage from the earthquakes and flooding. The Independence Unit is a synthesis of the experience accumulated by the IMSS with the construction of 10 housing units with integrated services and facilities. It was built as social housing for the workers of IMSS. Although, later the residents were able to buy their houses and become owners. Nowadays, many of them or their children are selling their properties, therefore property prices have been increasing. The residents pay an additional amount for the maintenance of the estate and for access to the sports facilities. The Independence unit was somehow inspired by Le Corbusier and his famous “Athens Charter” where he asked for public housing a reasoned and balanced relationship between the density of housing, green areas, adaptation to the land, the use of the sun `in search of hygiene and a circulation of vehicles resting for the benefit of the inhabitants of the place.
Lety - Resident & Owner Lety is one of the residents of Unidad Independencia and she holds one of the community’s stores. Her aunt and grandmother were firstly residents of the housing complex as workers at the IMSS. Her aunt was still a resident and Let was living with her daughter at her deceised grandmother’s house. Nowadays the majority of the population are still the original residents of the estate. There is a strong sense of community, where everyone knows each other. Ever resident knows the history of the estate and were proud residents of it. The housing estate seemed to have gone through a period of decay. The indoor theatre was closed, but now repair work is taking place to reopen it. There was a gated access for cars at the entrance of the community, but there was no actual check when pedestrians walk in. Lety said they felt safe, despite the occasional crime activity, i.e. one of the houses was shut from the police due to illegal activities taking place, which the rest of the community was not aware. At the periphery of the estate, there were scattered, small guard towers which were now abandoned.
36
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
Housing Typologies The complex consists of three different housing types: 4-story apartment buildings, 2-story semidetached houses and two apartments towers.
Services-Amenities The estate integrates service facilities such as a supermarket and three commercial areas, a sports centre, clinic, 5 educational sites, nursery, indoor theatre with 400 seats, open-air theatre, a Civic Plaza, a social building (currently occupied by IMSS facilities), social security centre.
Security Materiality The buildings as well as the landscape features were mostly of exposed concrete and brick. Volcanic stone elements were used as a reference to the location of the complex and added character to the design.
Unused guard towers were scattered at the periphery of the estate. A wall was surrounding the complex and car access is done from a gated entrance. Pedestrians entering the complex are not controlled.
37
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
CASE STUDY #5 Communitaria Miravalle, Iztapalapa
Community representatives
Miravalle is one of the neighbourhoods of Iztapalapa, the municipality with the biggest population density in Mexico City. Miravalle was built in the late 1980s on previously agricultural land and is located on the side of the inactive Guadalupe volcano, which is considered a natural reserve. Within 30 years since the time of its establishment, Miravalle has transformed from an informal settlement to an organised community. In 2006 the Asamblea Comunitaria de Miravalle was created from joining forces of local organsations to work on improving the living conditions in the neighbourhood. With help from volunteers and non-profit organisations, as well as funding from the city government through programmes like the Neighbourhood Improvement initiative, the community worked on creating safe and accessible public spaces for the community. The public space interventions in Miravalle include an activity centre, with workshops, that it is self-managed and open to all. Around that there are sport courts, a gym and a space for children to practice playing musical instruments. There is also a square with a gazebo and open space for people to gather and have activities. Next to it there ia a community library and a multi-functional space with a water-collecting cantilever structure. On top of it, there is a communal kitchen where volunteers cook meals for all the community members. (Source:http://www.urbanxchanger.com/spa/conteudos/visualizar/Asamblea-Comunitaria-
Location map
One-time investment didn’t improve local situation fundamentally. However, current facilities, workshops, and activities in these spaces need continuous investment which is not available now. The running of current classes and activities relies on local and international volunteers which is not sustainable. Local community worries that big projects in the area, like Parque Cuitlahuac, will take funds away from the neighbourhood improvement programs on which they rely to assist their community members with their needs.
de-Miravalle)
38
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
Housing Typologies There is no clear typology in Iztapalapa and housing there have small, random and basic openings, not likely to be designed by architects. Low storey housing, generally 1-3 storeys. Water tanks dominate the skyscape.
Services-Amenities Workshops, gym, music spaces, sports courts and a community library and kitchen are provided thanks to the efforts of the community assembly.
Materiality
Security
Exposed structure and material without rendering, though some houses are painted with different colours, which seems like kind of traditional culture and local identity. Use of basic and local construction materials including bricks, concrete, and volcanic stones which come from Xaltepec volcano.
Most houses are secured with high courtyard walls and self-built fences. Some communities have also established “neighbourhood watch� initiatives. Portable police guarding spots were noticed parked in Iztapalapa’s central streets.
39
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
CASE STUDY #6 Vecindades, Historic Center/Tepito As mentioned above, the vecindades are a type of housing strongly associated with the Historic Centre and neighbourhoods around it. Nowadays, though, most of the vecindades are gone or they have turned into places of storage or illegal transactions. In some cases, the housing building has disappeared and only the facades are “respected�. Specifically, in the Historic centre there are a few left and their ground floors are mostly used as storage spaces or service (i.e. kitchen) for commercial purposes, like in the case of the vecindad in La Santissima street. This particular vecindad, housed ten families that lived together, and they shared the kitchen and bathrooms. The bathrooms were an additional structure from the original, behind the main staircase that interrupted the continuous circulation in the courtyard and around the stair. The vecindad is registered and protected by INHA, who forced the residents to remove the bathroom and any additional- to the originalstructure. Therefore, permission is needed from INHA if they want to make any modification. The complex has a representative that deals with INHA or the government.
Sign.HernandoResident & Owner Location map
Sign.Hernando has lived in this vecindad for 70 years, since he was 5 years old, and he is an owner of his apartment. He uses the narrow entrance corridor of the complex to run his business of selling fresh fruit and vegetables. He remembers that, when the vecindad was at full capacity, there was a strong sense of community and solidarity between the families. When asked if they feel any pressure from private developers to sell their share, he replied that they don't. Instead there are issues with the current owners who want to sell their share, but their contracts require that they sell to another member of the community and not an outsider. According to sign. Hernando, they have not received any funding from the city or the state government for maintenance purposes. The last time they received help for was when a film production company wanted to use the space to shoot a film and they paid for some repairs and painting works.
40
4. Comparative Analysis 4.1 Spatial Boundaries Throughout the cases spatial boundaries were expressed in different scales and in the form of either highways cutting through and dividing neighbourhoods or through gates, walls, fences. The Historic centre, being a highly touristic area with the lowest residential densities , presented the least obvious expression of boundaries.
La Condesa
Tres Pinos Gated Community
Tlatelolco
Unidad Independencia
Iztapalapa
Historic Centre
41
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
4.2 Streetscapes
3-storey villas with same form multi-storeys apartments, usually with guards 2-storey housing most housing are gated
abundant greening highly gated!! empty site for future development
parking sidewalk seperated two-lane road
~ 5m 2.5m
lots of cars
~3m
~ 8m gate for cars,like prison, close rapidly
~ 9m path for pedestrian (cyclists?)
La Condesa
~ 5m
narrow sidewalk blocked by pole
car lane
Tres Pinos gated community
Observations: • • • • •
Wide sidewalks Plenty of trees/shade Designated on off-street parking spaces Separation of traffic Two-story houses with walls and gates separating
42
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
high-rise social housing
sidewalk and more parking inside the fence
pedestrian bridge connecting communities
3 car lanes for one way
Tlatelolco
4-storey social housing abundant greening one lane for the other way lanes for Metrobus only
parking area for residents
abundant greening
one of the guard towers spread around the perimeter of the community
wall seperateing the community from the surrounding housing or highway
one-way road
Unidad Independencia
Observations: • • • • •
Next to big highways Gated access for resident cars Designated parking areas Separation of pedestrian paths from car traffic 4+ storeys building blocks
43
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
water tank 2-storey vecindades with higher floor
unfinished construction
Common 3 or4-storey buildings 1 or 2 plus floors for residence
lack of tree
poor electricity facilities
lack of trees
ground floor trading
street trading ground floor trading
~ 2.5m
~ 7m
one way lane
pipes alone the street
Street trading blocks sidewalk
Vecindades (historic centre)
Narrow sidewalk ~ 1.5m
9m two-lane road
Informal garbage pick-up
Barrio Miravalle
Observations: • • • • • • •
Narrow or no sidewalks Almost no trees or any protection from the sun Cars half-parked on sidewalks Street vendors or small business uses on the ground floors No bicycle lanes Two-way narrow streets Chaotic facades and building heights
44
CDMX
Housing & Habitat Private Housing
Social Housing
4.3 Built/Void
Informal Informal Housing Housing
The figure-ground diagrams on the right shows the different patterns of the six case study areas. The plans for venncidades, Miravella and La Condesa show a “traditional urban space which consists of buildings as constituent parts of urban blocks.” (Carmona 2010). Public space such as courtyards and street are defined by buildings. This pattern also shows high density and compact urban forms especially in informal settlement areas (Vencidades and Miravella). Most land is occupied by buildings and very little space is left for landscape and greening. Social housing projects and gated community show a modernist pattern of urban space. (Carmona 2010) Buildings are objects in a super-block system and there are more public space, greening and landscape around buildings.
Data Source： www.inegi.org.mx
La Condesa (49% Built vs. 51% Viod)
Tres Pinos Residencia (33% Built vs. 67% Void)
Unidad Independencia (39% Built vs. 61%Void)
Tlatelolco (44% Built vs. 56% Void)
Vecindades (64%Built vs. 36% Void)
Miravalle
(71%Built vs. 29% Void)
45
CDMX 4.4 Population Density Diagrams on the right shows the population density of six case study sites. The density of housing and population are mainly related to building height and coverage rate. Tlatelolco is the densest neighbourhood with many high-rise buildings and Tres Pinos Residencia, as a gated community with many low-rise houses and low building coverage rate, has the lowest population density. Miravalle has a high population density of 282 person per hectare, but it doesn’t show a high housing density accordingly. It means that housing shortage is a potential issue in this area and averagae occupants of housing unit is far more than average level with 4.3 occupants per housing unit.
Housing & Habitat Private Housing
La Condesa
(79.5 units,182 person/hectare)
Data Sourceďźš www.inegi.org.mx
Social Housing
Tlatelolco (185 units,440 person/hectare)
Informal Housing
Vecindades (39.1 units,108.4 person/hectare)
46
Tres Pinos Residencia (13.6 units,37.7 person/hectare)
Unidad Independencia (48.2 units,148.7person/hectare)
Miravalle
(65 units,282 person/hectare)
CDMX 4.5 Uninhabited housing Diagrams on the right shows the percentage of uninhabitat housing units in the six cases study area. Historical centre faces with pressure of population outflow and many vecindades are out of use or used for commercial or storage use. Meanwhile, Meravalle have the lowest uninhabitating rate because of high population density and housing shortage. The other four neighbourhoods have an average uninhabitating rate of 10%.
Housing & Habitat Private Housing
La Condesa
Social Housing
Informal Housing
Tlatelolco
Vencidades
Data Sourceďźš www.inegi.org.mx
47
Tres Pinos Residencia
Unidad Independencia
Miravalle
CDMX 4.6 Water supply
Housing & Habitat Private Housing
Social Housing
Informal Housing
Diagrams on the right shows percentage of housing units with piped water in six case study areas. Overall, the majority of housing units (over 90%) in the six neighbourhood have access to piped water. Unidad Independencia has the highest rate of piped water supply with 97.5% and informal settlements (Vecindades and Miravalle) do not show a lower piped water rate than formal settlements due to infrastructure improvement programme in recent decades. Instead, private housing has the lowest piped water rate among three typologies. This may be related to low housing density in these areas. The housing units without piped water supply may be related to lack of infrastructure maintainance, changed use of housing units and other factors.
Data Sourceďźš www.inegi.org.mx
La Condesa 90.6%
Tlatelolco 94.2%
Vecindades 97.2%
48
Tres Pinos Residencia
90.6%
Unidad Independencia 97.5%
Miravalle 94.8%
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
4.7 Electricity Connectivity Diagrams on the right shows percentage of housing units with electricity energy in six case study areas. The figures are very similar to water supply rate because of the simultaneous development of these infrastructures. The majority of housing units in the six neighbourhoods have access to electricity energy and similarly, the electricity energy supply rate in private housing areas (La condesa and Tres Pinos Residencia) are lowest.
Private Housing
La Condesa 90.3%
Social Housing
Tlatelolco 97.5%
Informal Housing
Vecindades 98%
49
Data Sourceďźš www.inegi.org.mx
Tres Pinos Residencia 89.8%
Unidad Independencia 98.4%
Miravalle 96.2%
5. Conclusions Mexico City is an important metropolis with a lot of history and culture, but it is facing major challenges in multiple sectors and layers. In the context of housing and habitat, the issues are big and complex. Years of insufficient governments, lack of planning and continuously changing policies have resulted in the uncontrolled urban expansion of the city further from its limits. Corruption and lack of law enforcement allowed the spread of informality and the growing disconnection of the government from the public.
Affordable housing shortage The rapid growth of population due to influx of migrants from the rest of the country in combination with the slow construction of new affordable housing close to the city centre has forced people to reside in informal settlements at the edge of the city. In the same time, the city centre population density remains low despite the redensification efforts. The post-earthquake town regeneration programme was compromised for the legal issues with the home ownership. The government failed to communicate with the locals and convince them to rebuild their homes. Locals do not trust the government into giving away their property for the re-densification programmes, since they have no legal right to the land their property is built on.
Environment & Facilities Unequal distribution of water supply the city centre and the underprivileged areas of the periphery from the city government. The uncontrolled extraction of underground water is making the ground sinking issue worse and there do not seem to be any resilience strategies in place for flooding and sinking issues. The water from the municipal supply does not meet the hygienic standards and the people rely on private providers for potable water.
The collection and management of waste appears to be weak and uncontrolled. The coexistence of formal and informal garbage collectors does not allow the government to track were the garbage ends up and avoid their refuse in protected natural reserves. Also, there is lack of culture and education of the public and a lot of trash ends up in the drainage and sewage system, causing blockages and worsening the flood effects during heavy rainfalls. The municipal power network is suffering from “irregular connections�, but the government is focused only on battling irregular connections in the commercial uses, mostly public markets, and they seem unable to control the residential ones. People living in underdeveloped areas tend to illegally connect their houses to the municipal network, causing overloads and increase risk for their own and their community’s safety.
50
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
Nevertheless, the biggest insecurity among the whole population of Mexico City, The vulnerable population of Mexico City suffers from insecurity in multiple levels. regardless the socioeconomic background, concerns the personal safety against Insecurity associated with the fear of displacement due to gentrification, lack of land crime and violence. Walls, gates and fences are erected all around the city to protect ownership, after loosing their house from a natural disaster or from being displaced the “inside” from the unsafe “outside”. Consequently, social and spatial segregation is breaking the city’s social cohesion and results into a fragmented city, where in social housing in the periphery of the city and away from their community. individualism is prevailing against the communal spirit. Insecurity to live in social housing exists also because of the mistrust to the quality of the buildings as a result of the lack of law enforcement and the compliance with In conclusion, Mexico City’s environment and society is under threat. Throughout building standards. Moreover, when the social housing projects are built away from the city’s history there has been many of examples of communities organizing to services, work opportunities and without the necessary connections to infrastructure improve their housing and habitat conditions through participatory processes. Based and transportation, people are suffering from isolation and fear for their financial and on this experience, local authorities and organisations need to work harder to gain people’s trust and work closely with them to build resilience strategies in order to personal health safety. protect and enhance the future housing and habitat for Mexican citizens.
Insecurity
Picture 5.1. image from the talk of Enrique Ortiz Flore of HIC-Mexico at IPN (2020).
51
52
7. References Adler, D. (2015). The Mexico City earthquake, 30 years on: have its lessons been forgotten? [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/sep/18/mexico-city-earthquake-30-yearslessons [Accessed 7 Mar. 2020].
CDMX Resilience Office (2016) " CDMX Resilience Strategy Adaptive, Inclusive and Equitable Transformation", Available online: https://100resilientcities.org/strategies/mexico-city/ [Accessed 05 Feb. 2020].
Allen, J. (1998). SVS: Mexico City, (high vertical exaggeration). [online] Svs.gsfc.nasa.gov. Available at: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/324 [Accessed 6 Feb. 2020].
Connolly, P. (2009). Observing the evolution of irregular settlements: Mexico City's colonias populares, 1990 to 2005. International Development Planning Review, 31(1), pp.1-35.
Avila, L. and Anzellini, V. (2018). Civil society engagement in urban displacement: lessons from Mexico City a year after the 19-S earthquake. [online] IDMC. Available at: https://www.internal-displacement.org/expert-opinion/civil-society-engagement-inurban-displacement-lessons-from-mexico-city-a-year-after [Accessed 6 Feb. 2020]. Benlliure, P., 2008. La expansión urbana. Reciclamiento o desbordamiento. La Ciudad de México a debate. México: UAM-Azcapotzalco, pp.63-95. Bayón, C., Saraví G. (2013) “The cultural dimensions of urban fragmentation: segregation, sociability, and inequality in Mexico City.” Latin American Perspectives 40 (2): 35–52. Borsdorf, A.,Hidalgo, R. (2010), ‘Chapter 2: From Polarization to Fragmentation. Recent Changes in Latin American Urbanization’, Decentralized Development in Latin America, DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-3739-8_2 Business Insider. (2016). A drone captured these shocking photos of inequality in Mexico's biggest city. [online] Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/dronephotography-mexico-city-2016-11?r=US&IR=T [Accessed 6 Feb. 2020]. Carmona, M., Tiesdell, S., Heath, T. and Oc, T., (2010). Public Places-Urban Spaces, The Dimentions Of Urban Design. 2nd ed. Castillo, M. and Villanueva, M. (2017). Mexico City after September 2017: Are We Building the Right City? Risk Assessment, Valentina Svalova, IntechOpen. [online] Available at: http://www.intechopen.com/books/risk-assessment/mexico-city-afterseptember-2017-are-we-building-the-right-city-#B1 [Accessed 7 Mar. 2020].
Delgadillo, V., 2016. Selective modernization of Mexico City and its historic center. Gentrification without displacement? Urban Geography, 37(8), pp.1154-1174. En.inegi.org.mx. (n.d.). Espacio y datos de México. [online] Available at: http://en.www.inegi.org.mx/app/mapa/espacioydatos/ [Accessed 6 Feb. 2020]. Geo-mexico. (2010). Vecindades, Mexico City's inner-city slums | Geo-Mexico, the geography of Mexico. [online] Available at: https://geo-mexico.com/?p=1664 [Accessed 8 Mar. 2020]. Giglia, A. (2008). Gated Communities in Mexico City, Home Cultures, 5:1,65-84, DOI: 10.2752/174063108X287355. Gilbert, A. and Varley, A., 2002. Landlord and tenant: housing the poor in urban Mexico. Routledge. Gutierrez, J. (2019). Water Scarcity and Supply Challenges in Mexico City's Informal Settlements. Penn IUR Series on Informality. [online] Available at: https://penniur.upenn.edu/uploads/media/02_Gutierrez.pdf [Accessed 7 Mar. 2020]. Hogenboom, M. (2018). How a city that floods is running out of water. [online] BBC Future. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/future/gallery/20180510-how-a-city-thatfloods-is-running-out-of-water [Accessed 8 Mar. 2020]. Kimmelman, M. (2017). Climate change is threatening to push a crowded capital toward a breaking point", The New York Times,
53
CDMX
Housing & Habitat
Available online:https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/17/world/americas/mexico -city-sinking.html [Accessed 05 Feb. 2020].
Available online: https://www.cdmx.gob.mx/portal/articulo/programa-especial-deregeneracion-urbana-y-vivienda-incluyente [Accessed 05 Feb. 2020].
Reyes, A. (2018). “Housing access and governance: The influence and evolution of housing organizations in Mexico City.” Cities, 74, 327-333.
Loaeza, M. (2011). Desarrollos Urbanos Integrales Sustentables (DUIS). [online] Hidropluviales.com. Available at: https://hidropluviales.com/2013/03/27/desarrollosurbanos-integrales-sustentables-duis/.
Rodríguez Cortés, L., Irazábal, C., & Angotti, T. (2017). Building Citizenship: The Struggle for Housing in Eastern Mexico City. Latin American Perspectives, 44(3), 176190.
Lombard, M. (2014). Constructing ordinary places: Place-making in urban informal settlements in Mexico. Progress in Planning, 94, pp.1-53.
Maillaird, T. (2016).’Sharing Home”. Available online:
Paquette, C., 2015. OECD Territorial Reviews: Valle de México, Mexico.
https://www.maspormas.com/especiales/compartiendo-el-hogar/ [Accessed 05 March 2020].
Peralta, B.G. & Hofer, A. (2006). Housing for the Working Class On the Periphery of Mexico City: A New Version of Gated Communities. Social Justice, 33(3), pp.129–141.
Martin, A. and Andrade, J. (2017). Shaping Mexico City: Evolutionary Housing for LowIncome Urban Families. Architectural Design, 87(5), pp.92-95. Molina, L., Foy, B., Martínez, O. and Figueroa, V. (2009). Air Quality, Weather and Climate in Mexico City. Bulletin by World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), [online] 58(1)-2009. Available at: https://public.wmo.int/en/bulletin/air-quality-weather-andclimate-mexico-city [Accessed 7 Mar. 2020].
Pixel design™ studio. (2020). Transformation of Modernity by Raquel Franklin,DSc. [online] Available at: https://jprocafort.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/transformation-ofmodernity-by-raquel-franklindsc/ [Accessed 6 Feb. 2020]. Pskowski, M., 2019. Mexico's Housing Laboratory Shows Off 32 Low-Cost Prototypes. [online] Archpaper.com. Available at: <https://archpaper.com/2019/10/mos-mexicanhousing-laboratory/#gallery-0-slide-0> [Accessed 6 March 2020].
Moralles, E. (2020). ‘Urban Planning and Housing in Mexico: The challenges of exclusion and fragmentation’ [Lecture]. ARCH-11204: Urban Project. The University of Edinburgh. 03 February 2020.
Pskowski, M., 2019. How Mexico City Residents Resist Gentrification - Citylab. [online] Citylab.com. Available at: <https://www.citylab.com/life/2019/06/gentrification-mexicocity-centro-historico-displacement/590344/> [Accessed 6 March 2020].
Neuhausen, E. (2020). “A Project for Life” in Mexico City, Available online: https://nacla.org/news/2019/12/30/Polvorilla-mexico-city-housing [Accessed 05 Feb.2020].
Secretaria de Desarrollo Agrario, Territorial y Urbano, 2019. Programa Nacional De Vivienda 2019-2024. Mexico City: Gobierno de Mexico.
Newson, L., & King, J. (2009). Mexico City through history and culture (British Academy occasional paper; 13). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press for the British Academy.
Stevens, M. (2017). Why Mexico Is So Prone to Strong Earthquakes. [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/20/world/americas/mexico-earthquakesexplainer.html [Accessed 6 Feb. 2020].
La Secretaría de Desarrollo Urbano y Vivienda (2019) "Programa de Regeneración Urbana y Vivienda Incluyente",
The Nature Conservancy. (n.d.). Innovation to Meet the Water Shortage: Mexico City’s Water Fund. [online] Available at: https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/where-we-
54
CDMX work/latin-america/stories-in-latin-america/mexico-city-water-fund/ [Accessed 7 Mar. 2020].
Housing & Habitat Urbannext.net. (2020). IntegrARA: Urban Affordable Housing in Mexico City | urbanNext. [online] Available at: https://urbannext.net/integrara/ [Accessed 6 Feb. 2020]. Valencia, J.L., 2011. Housing Finance Mechanisms in Mexico. UN-HABITAT.
i
The Gini coefficient measures the economic inequality of a society by exploring income distribution at different levels of the population. The Gini coefficient evaluates income distribution, assigning values between 0 and 1, with 0 representing perfect equality and 1 representing perfect inequality. (CONEVAL, 2014).
55