Diana Berry Melissa Bonfil Antoinete Delvillano Caitlin Fisher Julia Gankin Ryan Giles Joshua Hendershot Taylor Jackson Dennis Knoff Carly Leasia Talia Pinto-Handler Alexandria Stankovich Maria Sviridova
BORDERLINE PERSONALITY Shaping communication and (mis)behavior at the US/MX border
University of Michigan // Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning Preliminary Site Research // UG4 Winter 2010 // Steven Christensen Studio
2
3
4
CONTENTS 6 Introduction Steven Christensen 10 Geography Taylor Jackson Talia Pinto-Handler Maria Sviridova 26 Population Caitlin Fisher Alexandria Stankovich Carly Leasia 50 Economy Ryan Giles Dennis Knoff Joshua Hendershot 68 Mobility Julia Gankin Diana Berry 86 Security Antoinette Delvillano Melissa BonďŹ l 100 Site Photos 5
6
INTRODUCTION
Public Works vs. Infrastructure The word infrastructure is still in its infancy, having only recently become the primary way we refer to the physical and organizational structures that allow our society to operate. Although the term was used by the US military to describe certain tactical projects in the 1940s, it was not commonly used in a civilian context until 1970. Until that time, these civic structures were referred to as public works, a term with a very different political connotation. Whereas the word infrastructure remains abstract in its relationship to existing social systems (connoting only the physical or some invisible substratum thereof) the term public works suggests a constructed reflection of the needs, priorities, values, and aspirations of an associated public.
Border as Center The San Diego – Tijuana Metropolitan Area is a territory of continuous urban fabric that includes the city and suburbs of San Diego in the US and Tijuana, Playas de Rosarito, and Tecate in Mexico. The population of this region is just over 5 million, making it by far the largest bi-national community in North America. Were the Mexican population included in the US government’s rankings, this region would be the 10th largest Metropolitan Statistical Area (larger than the MSA that includes Boston, Cambridge, Quincy, and the other cities that are part of that Massachusetts/New Hampshire conurbation). Opposite top: View of San Ysidro Port of Entry from Mexico side of border. Middle: Brooklyn Bridge, an example of public works as a source of civic identity and pride. Bottom: Political demonstration in El Zocalo, Mexico’s primary public square, located at the center of Mexico City.
7
Top: View of border fence separating Tijuana River Estuary on USA side (left) and the urban fabric of Tijuana (right). Middle: A makeshift international public space - Citizens of Mexico and the US practice yoga together across the border fence. Bottom: Porosity of border fence as it approaches the Pacific.
Paradoxically, the geographical center of this vibrant metropolis is demarcated by a fissure in the urban fabric, the US/Mexico border. While the cities that make up this binational metropolis are linked in myriad ways, the border that bisects them is a demarcation of extreme political contention and a physical reminder of the economic disparities that characterize the two halves of this community. Acting like a massive funnel in this vast bisected territory, the San Ysidro / Tijuana Port of Entry channels the majority of its population from one side to the other. This is the single busiest border crossing in the world, with over 40 million people traversing it each year. It is a bizarre circulation machine, with pedestrian checkpoints, a trolley station, freight train lines, and 24 vehicle inspection lanes in one direction, eight in the other. It is this community’s most prominent architectural ambassador, yet it speaks no language. From a functional standpoint alone, this piece of urban infrastructure is a complete failure. Pedestrians must navigate a confounding maze of switchbacks, bridges, and circuitous paths. Those who attempt to drive north across the border endure wait times of up to 5 hours, prompting many frequent travelers to store a car on each side of the border and cross by foot. Perhaps even more problematic is the affective character of this border station. It offers users an alienating experience without comparison, an incredibly pessimistic outlook of what is to be found on the other side.
8
Top: Pedestrian experience crossing border into Tijuana. Middle: Interactive public art installation by Mexican/Canadian artist Rafael Lozano-Hemmer questioning effects of surveillance technologies in public spaces. Bottom: Folk-art memorial to those who have died crossing the border.
A New Civic Suture As the busiest border crossing in the world, this site offers a unique opportunity for Mexico and the US to replace a banal and congested piece of infrastructure with a public work that is a reflection of regional/national identity and civic pride. Could this central piece of infrastructure be the locus for an architectural intervention that reflects the shared aspirations of North America’s largest bi-national community; a counterpoint to the proposed ‘Triple Border Fence’ it traverses? How can a gesture of alliance go beyond simply whitewashing a highly contentious political divide and actually improve the user experience? Should this community, in understanding of its unique relationship to the border, assert its connectedness in defiance of a divisive national rhetoric through a public work that offers new opportunities for occupation and political action? Rather than lingering in the realm of utopian illusion, the studio recognizes the continued existence of the border and seeks tactical, speculative, and timely solutions to the critical design problem of the threshold. Projects should demonstrate how this piece of infrastructure functions as part of a larger network of urban public spaces, pedestrian and transit routes, and economic flows, and students are encouraged to expand the current program of the border crossing to afford other uses and offer new public amenities.
9
10
GEOGRAPHY
Taylor Jackson Talia Pinto-Handler Maria Sviridova
11
1824
creation of the united mexican states
1836
creation of the republic of texas
TERRITORIAL EVOLUTION
1845
the us gains texas as the 28th state guatemala cedes soconusco & chiapas to mexico
canada gains the north miller county from the us the us receives the mexican cessation 1848 the yucatรกn wins independence from mexico
1898
canadian territory united states territory
ceding republics
guatemalan territory
disputed territory
mexican territory
territory of the republic of texas
over two hundred years of geographical transformation of the borders between canada, the united states, mexico, and guatemala 12
yukon territory joins the canadian provinces the republic of hawaii is annexed by the us
1840
creation of the republic of the rio grande guatemala wins independence from the frca
1840
the republic of the rio grande rejoins mexico
1853
the compromise of 1850 creates a neutral strip
1867
the dominion of canada is formed the united states purchases alaska from russia
1970
newfoundland joins the canadian provinces mexico gains rico rico, texas from the us
Source: www.wikipedia.com
present
13
coronado island
GEOLOGY AND LAND USE san diego bay
sweetw rive
pacific ocean
tijuana water shed
designated green space urban settlement geological fault
urban settlement and its spatial relationship to green space and local geological faults 16
san diego sweetwater reservoir
upper otay reservoir
sweetwater river
lower otay reservoir
otay river
rio tijuana
tijuana
Sources: SanDiego.gov, Google Maps, CDM
17
california
GROUND COVER imperial county
san diego san ysidro
otay mesa
arizona andrade
tecate calexico
puerta mesa de otay tecata mexico
mexicali
vicente guerrero san luis san luis
mexicali luis rio calexico east san colorado
tijuana
nuevo mexicali
san luis r.c.
lukeville nogales sonoyta
baja california
sasabe la garita de la ladrillera
columbus
cochise county nogales
naco
douglas
nogales naco
nogales
agua prieta
naco agua prieta
sonora
pacific ocean
low population density
grassland
high population density
scrubland
desert
coniferous forest
tropical scrubland
sister city border city
existing land biomes with respective settlement densities and border city locations 18
santa teresa
douglas
gulf of california
san jer贸nimo puerto palomas
chihuahu
new mexico
mbus
santa teresa
el paso el paso fabens
san rónimo ciudad juárez ciudad juárez
presidio presidio
texas
huahua ojinaga ojinaga del rio ciudad acuña eagle pass eagle pass
coahuila piedras negras
piedras negras
laredo laredo
nuevo leon
colombia nuevo laredo
laredo nuevo laredo
tamaulipas mcallen waslaco
gulf of mexico
roma
rio grande brownsville city hidalgo ciudad miguel progreso aleman ciudad brownsville camargo reynosa matamoros nuevo progreso reynosa rio bravo matamoros
Sources: geonova, bts.gov, epa.gov
19
colorado
PRECIPITATION gila
little colorado river
asuncion
magdalena
pacific ocean
high population density
20-40 inches
low population density
40-60 inches
0-10 inches
60-80 inches
10-20 inches
waterways border
examining differing levels of average annual rainful, local waterways, and their impact on settlement density 20
gulf of california
red river
brazos
trinity
pecos colorado
lake amistad
rio grande conchos
falcon international reservoir
gulf of mexico
sources: geonova, ag.arizona.edu, bts.gov, epa.gov,
21
* refer to hydrology map for location of the colorado river
WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
settlement
pumping equipment
water pump
proposed pump station
water treatment plant
proposed pipeline
well
potential future waste water treatment plant
aqueduct
potential future desalination plant
pipeline
solar chart The metropolitan water district of Southern California provides water for the municipality of San Diego, drawing from the Colorado River and from Northern California via one of two aqueducts in Riverside County. Pipelines terminate at the Otay Reservoir. Tijuana’s water sources are surface water from the Colorado River as well underground aquifers. diagram of as thewater suns from path on the 1st of april across 22
miramar reservoir
san vicente reservoir
el capitan reservoir
lake jennings
lake murray
loveland reservoir
municipality of san diego sweetwater reservoir upper otay reservoir sweetwater river
lower otay reservoir otay river
international wastewater treatment plan
rio tijuana
municipiality of tijuana
abelardo l. rodrigues dam
Sources: www.sandiego.gov/water, www.epa.gov, CDM
23
345°
330°
SOLAR CHART 315°
300°
1st jun
1st may 285°
1st apr 270°
1st mar
255° 1st feb
1st jan 17
16
240°
1 in
15
14
128 ft latitude: 32.54 longitude: -117.03
225°
stereographic diagram of the suns path on the 1st of april across the san ysidro - tijuana border crossing station and the surrounding buildings 24
210°
195°
n 15°
30°
10°
45° 20°
30° 60° 40°
1st jul
50°
1st aug
60°
75°
70°
1st sep
80°
90° 1st oct
105° 1st nov
1st dec
13
12
11
8
9
10
120°
135°
150°
165° sources: bing map, ecotect 180°
25
26
POPULATION
Caitlin Fisher Alexandria Stankovich Carly Leasia
27
POPULATION DENSITY
Cities are known for their density; their ability to fit and accommodate millions of people into such a small area is part of what makes them so impressive. Population density by itself does not say much about a city until it is contrasted to the population density of the surrounding area. A city whose density is much larger than the state it is associated with is much more amazing than a city whose density is similar to its state. California is a great example of this. It is a much denser state, and although the individual cities of Los Angeles and San Diego are much denser than most, California is really what is drawing people to live there.
LOS ANGELES
On the other hand, the city of Minneapolis’ population density is about a hundred times greater than Minnesota’s. This situation is much more intriguing: what factors are drawing all these people to this particular area?
SAN DIEGO TIJUANA
Proportion: City population density vs. State population density State population density City population density
City
Persons per sq. mi.
San Diego Las Angeles Austin Minneapolis Chicago Detroit Washington D.C. New York City Tijuana Mexico City
1612 8205 2558 6722 4884 6571 9776 27440 4155 15420
28
State Persons per sq. mi. California California Texas Minnesota Illinois Michigan Maryland New York Baja California Mexico City
234 234 80 65 223 179 542 409 105 1699
Proportion 1.48 3.34 3.20 5.72 2.64 3.42 2.40 4.62 2.58 1.7 Source: U.S. Census Bureau
MINNEAPOLIS DETROIT
NEW YORK
CHICAGO WASHINGTON DC Persons Per Square Mile 0 - 6.4 6.5 - 11.6 11.7 - 16.0 16.1 - 21.0 21.1 - 27.7 27.8 - 35.7 35.8 - 44.4 44.5 - 54.7 54.8 - 65.7 65.8 - 79.2
AUSTIN
79.3 - 93.0 93.1 - 106.2 106.2 - 121.0 121.1 - 138.5 138.6 - 161.2 161.3 - 189.4 189.5 - 224.4 224.5 - 270.4 270.5 - 338.9 339.0 - 432.2 432.3 - 541.1 541.2 - 709.7 709.8 - 964.4 964.5 - 1,369.0
MEXICO CITY
1,369.1 - 2,144.4 2,144.5 - 3,542.2 3,542.3 - 6,025.6 6,025.7 - 9,264.3 9,264.4 - 19,479.7 19,479.8 - 35,394.1 35,394.2 - 50,747.8
Source: Censo de Poblacion y Vivienda VII
50,747.9 - 89,565.0 29
UNITED STATES
Municipality Persons / sq. mi.
POPULATION DENSITY
San Diego Yuma Santa Cruz El Paso Brewster Webb Zapata Hidalgo Cameron
1612 35 35 712 1 58 12 363 370
State California California Arizona Texas Texas Texas Texas Texas Texas
Persons / sq. mi. Proportion 234 234 56 80 80 80 80 80 80
1.48 .62 .62 8.94 .02 .72 .15 4.56 4.64
PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE 0 - 6.4
50,747.9 - 89,565 30
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
MEXICO
Proportion
Persons / sq. mi.
State
Persons / sq. mi. Municipality
39.43 1.53 17.40 20.50 .80 9.46 21.13 2.97 3.04
105 105 34 34.2 34.2 43 99 99 99
Baja California Baja California Sonora Chihuahua Chihuahua Coahuila Tamaulipas Tamaulipas Tamaulipas
4155 162 593 701 27 408 2085 293 300
Tijuana Mexicali Nogales Juarez Praxedis Guerrero Piedras Negras Nuevo Laredo Reynosa Matamores
Note: this table is a side-by-side comparison of neighboring municipalities from each side of the border.
Proportion Municipality Population Density: State Population Density Municipality denser than state average Municipality less dense than state
Border conditions
cannot be generated by only looking at the municipalities lining this political division. A comparison must be drawn between these municipalities and their surrounding area in order to answer the question of what makes them so unique? In order to generalize the density of inhabitance along the border for the United States and Mexico, a proportion must be set up between the population densities of the municipalities and the population density of the state in which it is contained. A proportion less than one demonstrates that the state’s population is more concentrated away from the border. A proportion greater than one demonstrates that the state’s population is more concentrated near the border. For the most part, it seems that Mexico’s population seems to crowd near the border, while the people of the United State’s appear to be avoiding the border area. Of course, there are exceptions on both sides, such as Anahuac, Nuevo Leon and El Paso, Texas, but these numbers help provide an image as to how the two countries view one another and how this view affects where its people congregate.
Source: Censo de Poblacion y Vivienda VII
31
DEVELOPMENT DENSITY
Border fence between San Ysidro and Tijuana, looking East.
32
Teddy Cruz exhibit of stilt houses in Tijuana.
Sources: www.bing.com/maps, www.stephenrahn.com/.../2009/01/border.jpg, www.frederickdesignstudio.com/.../Tijuana_house.jpg
building footprint informal settlement
Development along the San Diego and Tijuana border not only displays a separation between two cultures, but serves as a division between urban strategies and building typologies. Tijuana pushes its dense city against the border, compared to San Ysidro which city center lies further north. The buildings near the border on the U.S. side are larger pieces of an infrastructure system of transportation and commerce, opposed to Tijuana where people may live and work directly along the fence. San Diego County is constantly revising its infrastructure to serve its spread of McMansions. As highways make room for larger developments, the existing fabric becomes dispensable.
Materials and sometimes even pre-fabricated houses are shipped across the border, welcomed by Tijuana’s residents. The hand-me-down houses from San Diego have created a new typology in the bottom-up growth of Tijuana’s informal settlements. Placed upon stilts, the recycled houses create new homes and new spaces below to meet arising demands of the growing community. Garage doors and recycled tires are transformed into walls, and the temporary dwellings multiply to form dense communities. These settlements strive to become permanent by profiting on the ephemeral material transported from across the border. Both San Diego and Tijuana benifit from the relationship of recycled urban growth.
Source: Sorkin, Michael, ed. Indefensible Space: The Architecture of the National Insecurity State. New York: Routledge, 2007. 122-124
33
SISTER CITIES
San Diego, California Calexico, California Tijuana, Baja California Mexicali, Baja California
Yuma, Arizona
San Luis Rio Colorado, Baja California
Nogales, Arizona
Columbu s, Ne
Naco, Arizona
El Paso
Nogales, Sonora Naco, Sonora
Country Area Population Hispanic Foreign Born High School Income per Capita Below Poverty Line Religion Human Development Index (Rank)
United States of America 3,537,441 281,421,906 12.5% 11.1% 28.6% $21,587 12.4% No National Religion 0.956 (15/182)
Puerto Palomas, Chihuahua Juarez, Chihuahua
Ojinag
Estados Unidos Mexicanos 761,601 111,211,789 $14,300 40% Roman Catholic 0.854 (53/182)
Human Development Index: a measurement of development based on three dimensions of life relationship between life expectancy, adult literacy and GDP
City State Population San Diego California Hispanic Calexico California Foreign Born High School Income per Capita Naco Arizona Below Poverty Line Columbus New Mexico
Area (sq.mi.) Population
Hispanic
Foreign Born High School Diploma
Income per capita
Below Poverty
324.3 6.2
1,256,951 27,109
25.40% 95.3%
25.7% 51.2%
82.80% 16.4%
$23,609 $9,981
14.6% 25.7%
3.4 2.8
833 1,765
82.5% 83.3%
31.6% 45.3%
24.5% 14.4%
$9,169 $6,721
34.2% 57.1%
Presidio Del Rio Eagle Pass
Texas Texas Texas
2.6 15.4 7.4
4,167 33,867 22,413
94.1% 81% 94.9%
49.2% 24.1% 35.7%
15.6% 24.8% 20.0%
$7,098 $12,199 $11,414
43.0% 27.0% 29.0%
Brownsville
Texas
83.0
139,722
91.3%
31.5%
17.2%
$9,762
36.0%
34
Source: www.coserve.org/disc/mapsgall.html
In comparison to national averages, borders cities create unique politcal, economic and social regions where demographics are dramatically shaped by those of the bordering country. The US-Mexico border provides a clear example of this sister-city relationship. As we infer from the analysis of multiple variables including distribution of resources, employment, and economic opportunities, Mexico appears to have developed a kind of parasitic dependance on the US. If we assume that people will move towards a place of greatest opportunity, the large swells of population along the Mexican side of the border proves that proximity allows for greater access to these positive impacts and “excesses.” The opposite situation becomes evidence on the other side of the border, where the population of US sister cites are extremely small. US populations along the Mexican border consist primarily of Hispanic communities, living in poverty with limited access to resources such as education. In order to understand this relationship between to sister-cities, we look at the comparison of municipal to national average; and while Mexico, as a country, is ranked far below the US on the Human Development Index, Mexico’s border cities are doing far better than other Mexican cities. Unfortunately, the opposite is generally true for the US border cities. As you continue, keep in mind the cross-culture dynamic of these sister cities as a framework through which to assess the physical and political boundary between the United States and Mexico.
bu s, New Mexico
El Paso, Texas
a
Presidio, Texas
Ojinage, Chihuahua Del Rio, Texas Acuna, Coahuila
Eagle Pass, Texas
Piedras Negras, Coahuila
Laredo, Texas Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas
McAllen, Texas Reynosa, Tamaulipas
Brownsville, Texas
Matamoros, Tamaulipas
Source: www.census.gov/main/www/can2000.html
35
EMPLOYMENT
Employment
within the San Diego-Tijuana metopolitan area is higher than national averages of both the US and Mexico. This data must be compared with population information in order to produce an accurate analysis of the area. The population density of Tijuana is far greater than San Ysidro near the border crossing; therefore, while employment rates appear similar, those on the Mexican side have far more employment opportunities than those on the US side. While employment opportunities are more plentiful on the Mexico side, we must
time employments. The types of employment and associated
Employed
Diego-Tijuana region, the government is the leading employer for US citizens, while services and manufacturing make up half of the positions held by Mexican workers. Category
US (% of pop)
Mexico (% of pop)
Agriculture
<1
0.3
Retail Trade
18
17.9
Construction
<1
5.6
Services
11
30.8
Manufacturing
13
28.3
Government
22
2.7
Transport/Com
11
5.8
Finance/Real Est
3
-
Wholesale
13
-
Self-Employed
8
-
Extractive Ind
-
0.5
Employed in US
-
8.1
55% to 93% 93% to 95% 95% to 97% 97% to 98% 98% to 100%
Tijuana
San Diego
97.7% 94.1%
Corridor
US
Mexico
95.1% 89.2% 94.6%
[1] US Employment Distribution (% of pop)
On the US side of the San Diego-Tijuana metropolitan area, government, specifically the US border patrol, is the largest employer. Retail trade is the second highest, which suggests that San Diego is a high commercial ozne, perhaps due to its reputation as a tourist destination.
Retail Trade (18%)
US data from SANDAG, 1995; Mexico data from INEGI, 1997
Government (22%)
36
Source: SANDAG
Employed Less Than Full Time
Tijuana
High Income
0% to 19%
0% to 4%
19% to 22%
4% to 8%
22% to 26%
8% to 13%
26% to 40%
13% to 22%
40% to 100%
22% to 69%
San Diego
42.1% 22.3%
Corridor
Tijuana
28.2%
16.3% 13.2%
San Diego
Corridor
14.1%
[2] Mexico Employment Distribution (% of pop)
In Mexico, service and manufacturing make up over 50% of the employment distribution. It is also interesting to note that a Retail trade is similarly respresented
Manufacturing (28.3%) Services (30.8%)
Source: INEGI
37
POVERTY
LOS ANGELES SAN DIEGO
PROPORTION CITY POVERTY LEVEL: NATIONAL POVERTY LEVEL
TIJUANA
poverty level of city is below national average poverty level of city is above national average
38
CITY
% POVERTY
PROPORTION
San Diego Los Angeles Austin Minneapolis Chicago Detroit Washington D.C. New York City Tijuana Mexico City
15.0% 22.0% 14.0% 17.0% 20.0% 26.0% 20.0% 21.0% 2.34% 9.2%
1.17 1.78 1.16 1.36 1.58 2.10 1.62 1.71 .169 .67
MEXICO CITY
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
0%-10% 10%-15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35%
MINNEAPOLIS
35%-40%
DETROIT
NEW YORK
40%-100%
PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE IN POVERTY
CHICAGO WASHINGTON DC
AUSTIN
Urban poverty
is one of the most major consequences of living in such a dense area. The poverty level in the United States is $20,614 and 12.4% of Americans are living below this line. In all of the U.S. cities shown, the poverty level is almost double the national average. On the other hand, Mexico’s poverty level is 10.42 pesos/day which is equivelent to an annual salary of $292. The Mexican cities shown lie generously under the national line. Mexico’s poverty rate is based on the United Nation’s standards, about a dollar a day, and these standards are much less than the United State’s. Therefore, it is not reasonable to compare the Mexican percentages to the American percentages, but instead comparing the ratios of each city’s level to the national level. It is obvious that Mexico’s quality of life in urban areas is far different than that of the U.S. This is because cities offer so many more opportunities, therefore Mexico has a huge rural poverty problem that they have yet to resolve.
Source:
Censo de Poblacion y Vivienda VII
39 11
UNITED STATES
POVERTY
Municipality
% Poverty
Proportion
San Diego Yuma Santa Cruz El Paso Brewster Webb Zapata Hidalgo Cameron
12.4% 13.9% 24.5% 23.8% 18.2% 31.2% 35.8% 35.9% 33.1%
1.0 1.12 1.97 1.91 1.46 2.51 2.88 2.89 2.66
PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE IN POVERTY 0%-10%
40%-100%
40
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
MEXICO
Proportion
% Poverty
Municipality
39.43 1.53 17.40 20.50 .80 9.46 21.13 2.97 3.04
2.34% 2.76% 3.02% 2.98% 8.52% 5.25% 5.49% 5.24% 5.76%
Tijuana Mexicali Nogales Juarez Praxedis Guerrero Piedras Negras Nuevo Laredo Reynosa Matamores
Note: this table is a side-by-side comparison of neighboring municipalities from each side of the border.
PROPORTION MUNICIPALITY POVERTY LEVEL: NATIONAL POVERTY LEVEL municipality’s poverty level more than national poverty level municipality’s poverty level less than national poverty level
The border
represents both the best and the worst in terms of poverty. On the Mexican side, some of the country’s richest people live in the municipalities lining the border. Almost every municipality’s poverty level is less than that of Mexico. On the other hand, the poorest municipalities in the United States are along the US/Mexican border. When comparing the municipality’s poverty level to the national poverty level, all municipalities lie below the national, with the exception of San Diego, whose poverty level is equal to the national. Starr county in Texas is over four times larger than the national poverty line. The border provides Mexicans opportunities that are not available elsewhere in their country. Unfortunately, the border offers Americans poverty and hardship.
Source: Censo de Poblacion y Vivienda VII
41
Native Citizens
MIGRATION
0 - 58.4% 58.5 - 72.1% 72.2 - 78.8% 78.9 - 84.8% 84.9 - 89.7% 89.8 - 100%
city park or protected land
Foreign Born, Naturalized Citizens 0 - 4.8% 4.9 - 7.2% 7.3 - 9.2% 9.3 - 11.5% 11.6 - 15.4% 15.5 - 100%
city park or protected land
Foreign Born Non-Citizens
0 -.7% 0.8 - 1.6% 1.7 - 3.1% 3.2 - 6% 6.1 - 13.8% 13.9 - 100%
city park or protected land
Migration to the United States has always been an influential factor on its population. The largest percentage of these immigrants live on the coasts, and this is especially evident near the U.S.-Mexico border. This relationship is also reflected in San Diego County. Near the busiest border crossing, San Ysidro, the native U.S. population is less than 58%. Immigrants from other countries, citizens or non-citizens, make up 25% of the total U.S. population. 42
To estimate this percentage, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service takes data from the Census and from its own INS statistics to compare numbers of legally-resident populations and census-based foreign-born populations. This provides residual data to derive the number of unauthorized residents living in the United States.
Source: Office of Policy and Planning U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service: Estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States: 1990 to 2000
Native Citizens
45.6 - 93.6% 93.7 - 96.7% 96.8 - 98% 98.1 - 98.7% 98.8 - 99.2% 99.3 - 100%
Foreign Born, Naturalized Citizens 0 -0.4% 0.5 - 0.7% 0.8 - 1.1% 1.2 - 1.9% 2 - 4% 4.1 - 29.4%
Foreign Born Non-Citizens
0 -0.4% 0.5 - 0.7% 0.8 - 1.1% 1.2 - 1.9% 2 - 4% 4.1 - 29.4%
Census U.S. Citizenship Criteria: 1. Born in the United States 2. Born in Puerto Rico, Guam, or the U.S. Virgin Islands 3. Born abroad of U.S. citizen parents 4. U.S. citizen by naturalization 5. Not a U.S. citizen
Source: Census Track 2008 Estimates, 2008 Census Subject Definitions
43
Estimated US Born Hispanic Population 0-100 thousand 101-250
HISPANIC ORIGINS
251-500 501-1,000 > 1,000
Over time, the number of San Diego county citizens with Hispanic origins has increased. With each decade there is a visible increase in the Hispanic population with relation to the total population due to both legal and illegal migration in addition to the growth of settled Hispanic families. Since 2003, the Hispanic population has grown faster than any other group in the U.S. However, these individuals still represent a small percent of the population in downtown San Diego. Other variables such as education and income must be considered to make any further conclusions as to why the Hispanic population is primarily concentrated in rural regions of San Diego County, especially along the Mexico and New Mexico borders.
Percent of Population of Hispanic Origins 0% to 11.3% 11.4% to 18.2% 18.3% to 33% 33.1% to 57.6% 57.7% to 100% US data from SANDAG, 1995; Mexico data from INEGI, 1997
44
1980
1990
2000
2008
Source: Source: U.S. Censuswww.epa.gov/border2012 Bureau (National Research Council)
US Population According to Race with races subdivided into Non-Hispanic and Hispanic (H/L)
41.90%
White
6.00%
(H/L) White
1.97%
African American/Black
0.03%
(H/L) African American/Black
1.10% 0.10%
American Indian/Alaska Native (H/L) American Indian/Alaska Native
0.25%
Asian
0.05% 0.05%
(H/L) Asian
0.05% 36.90%
According to the 2000 US Census, 12.5% of the population is of Hispanic origins. Source: (image) www.mauricesherif.com/blog/ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000
Some Other Race
5.30% 5.50%
(H/L) Some Other Race
0.80%
(H/L) Two Races
Two Races 45
DIVERSITY INDEX
49 to 73
1. San Francisco, CA (74.9)
30 to 48 7 to 29
2. Los Angeles, CA (74.0) 7. San Diego, CA (56.9) CA (62.0)
US (49.0)
60 to 77
High Diversity
49 to 59 40 to 48 30 to 39 15 to 29 1 to 14
Low Diversity
#. City, State (Diversity Index of City)
46
Source: http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/atlas/censr01-104.pdf
Eight groups were used for the index: 1. White, not Hispanic 2. Black or African American 3. American Indian and Alaska Native 4. Asian 6. Two or more races, not Hispanic 7. Some other race, not Hispanic 8. Hispanic or Latino According to the US Census, Hispanic or Latino is considered an ethnicity not a race.
4. New York, NY (63.4) 6. Chicago, IL (57.3) 3. Washington, DC (64.2)
5. Houston, TX (62.4)
Diversity Index
This thematic map summarizes racial and ethnic diversity in the United States. The index shows the likelihood that two persons chosen at random from the same The index ranges from 0 (no diversity) to 100 (complete diversity). Diversity in the U.S. population is increasing. The states with the most diverse populations are California, New Mexico, and Texas. 47
LA PAZ AGREEMENT
Laz Paz 1983
Border 2012
The La Paz Argeement was created to unify the environ-
mental goals and policies of the United States and Mexico in the border region. Established almost 30 years ago, this document represents one of the primary political relationships between the two countries outside the realm of the often prioritized defense and trade issues. While political boundaries have been made obvious to people, environmental conditions such as air, water and soil quality do not stop at the fence. the other. This document represents a cooperation between US and Mexico, and while it is limited to the borderline of New Mexico and Texas, it has become a model for similar missions. For example, Border 2012, is a region wide initative to improve the quality of life, culture and environment within the border region which extends 100 miles into both countries. Border 2012 deals with a broader range of topics including emergency preparedness and response. It is important to continue this open dialogue where both sides are represented equally.
48
Source: (image) Alexandria Stankovich, TCAUP 2010
United States - Mexico La Paz Agreement
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 10827 ENVIRONMENTAL COOPERATION Agreement Between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and MEXICO Signed at La Paz August 14, 1983 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE Pursuant to Public Law 89-497, approved July 8, 1966 (80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)- ". . . the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of any further proof or authentication thereof." For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing Entered into force February 16, 1984. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES ON COOPERATION FOR THE PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT IN THE BORDER AREA The United States of America and the United Mexican States, RECOGNIZING the importance of a healthful environment to the long-term economic and social well-being of present and future generations of each country as well as of the global community; RECALLING that the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, proclaimed in Stockholm in 1972,['] called upon nations to collaborate to resolve environmental problems of common concern; NOTING previous agreements and programs providing for environmental cooperation between problems in each country; ACKNOWLEDGING the important work of the International Boundary and Water CommisREAFFIRMING their political will to further strengthen and demonstrate the importance attached by both Governments to cooperation on environmental protection and in furtherance of the principle of good neighborliness; Have agreed as follows: 1 Department of state Bulletin July 24,1972, P. 116.
STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION The Committee will consist of 20 persons, ten of whom are to be selected by each The ten U.S. representatives invited to serve on the Committee will include (i) one representative of the federal government; (ii) one representative from each of the governments of the States of Texas and New Mexico; (iii) one representative from local government in El Paso, Texas; (iv) one representative from local government in Do単a Ana County, New Mexico; and of a non governmental organization, a major portion of whose activities concerns air pollution. The ten Mexican representatives invited to serve on the Committee will include (i) one representative of the National Institute of Ecology (INE-SEMARNAP) ; (ii) one representative of the Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection ; (iii) one representative of the federal health and welfare agency (SSA) ; (iv) one representative of the environmental authorities of the State of Chihuahua (v) one representative of the environmental authorities of the Municipality of Ciudad Juarez; and non governmental organization, a major portion of whose activities concerns air pollution, at least one will be a representative of the academic institutions of Ciudad Juarez, and at least one will be a representative of the Consulting Council for Sustainable Development in the Northern Region.
Source: www.epa.gov/border2012
49
50
ECONOMY
Ryan Giles Dennis Knoff Joshua Hendershot
51
TRADE GEOGRAPHY
Otay Mesa, CA
Calexico, CA
Nogales, AZ El Paso, TX Laredo, TX
52
Source: CIA World Factbook: United States + Mexico
Top US States Trading With Mexico Busiest Trading Ports of Entry
Modes of Transportation for US-Mexico Trade
Border Trade Volume Comparisons
53
IMPORTS AND EXPORTS
[1] Transportation Equipment
[2] Computer + Electonic Products
[3] Oil and Gas
[4] Electrical Equipment + Appliances
[5] Apparel and Accessories
[6] Machinery
[7] Fabricated Metal Products
[8] Miscellaneous Manufactured Commodities
[9] Agricultural Products
[10] Chemicals
54
Source: Woodrow Wilson Foundation - Mexican Institute
Top Products and Services Traded Across the US-Mexican Border
Computer + Electronic Products [1]
Transportation Equipment [2]
Chemicals [3]
Machinery [4]
Electrical Equipment + Appliances [5]
Plastics + Rubber Products [6]
Food Manufacturing [7]
Fabricated Metal Products [8]
Agricultural Products [9]
Primary Metal Manufacturing [10] Many of the materials and products that are traded between the United States and Mexico are servicing Mexicoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s substanial maquiladora industry, where raw materials are exported from the US to be assembled with cheaper labor, and then subsequently exported by Mexico, resulting in the overlapping import-export rankings you see here. 55
BORDER TRAFFIC
Pedestrian Crossings
1. Nogales, AZ 2. San Ysidro, CA 3. El Paso, TX 4. Laredo, TX 5. Calexico, CA
56
Personall V P Vehicle hii Crossings
1. San Ysidro, CA 2. El Paso, TX 3. Brownsville, TX 4. Hidalgo, TX 5. Laredo, TX
$
Trade Crossings
1. Laredo, TX 2. El Paso, TX 3. Otay Mesa, CA 4. Hidalgo, TX 5. Nogales, AZ
Source: UN Global Data Source, May 2006
57
58
i i
e e
e e
1-USA 2-Guatemala 3-El Salvador
USA-1 El Slavador-2 Honduras-3 1-USA 2-United Kingdom 3- Cote dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Ivore
e e
USA-1 El Slavador-2 Costa Rica-3
USA-1 Canada-2 Germany-3 1-Canada 2-Mexico 3- China
e e
1-USA 2-Netherlands 3- China
USA-1 Canada-2 Germany-3
1-Canada 2-Mexico 3- China
e e
USA-1 Netherlands-2 Costa Rica-3
1-China 2-Canada 3-Mexico
Costa Rica Panama USA-1 China-2 Japan-3
i i 1-China 2-Canada 3-Mexico
Honduras Nicaragua USA-1 China-2 Japan-3
i i 1-China 2-Canada 3-Mexico
Belize Guatemala USA-1 Mexico-2 China-3
i i
1-USA 2-Guatemala 3-El Salvador
United States Mexico
USA-1 Venezuela-2 Mexico-3
i i
1-USA 2-Mexico 3-Venezula
Canada United States
USA-1 Costa Rica-2 China-3
P P GD GD
TRADE BALANCE Legend pe %
a
Be
low
i
r ve Po
e 1-USA 2-France 3- India
pit
a rc
1-China 2-Canada 3-Mexico
North American Borders s s er e er tn rtn rad r a P T Pa rt al rt po utu po x m I M E
ty
Source: CIA World Factbook
e e i i
i i Germany-1 Belgium-2 Italy-3
1-Netherlands 2-France 3-Belgium
i i
1-Germany 2-Italy 3-France
1-Germany 2-France 3-Italy
Germany-1 Slovakia-2 Poland-3
1-Germany 2-Russia 3-Italy
i i
Germany-1 France-2 China-3
Germany-1 France-2 Italy-3
Germany-1 France-2 Netherlands-3
1-Germany 2-Belgium 3France
Netherlands-1 Germany-2 France-3
1-Germany 2-China 3-Belgium
i i
1-China 2-India 3-USA
1-France 2-USA 3-United Kingdom
Germany-1 Norway-2 Denmark-3
1-United Kingdom 2-Germany 3-Netherlands
Germany-1 Denamrk-2 Norway-3
1-Sweden 2-Germany 3-Denmark
i i
Germany-1 Slovakia-2 Poland-3
e e Germany-1 Italy-2 Spain-3
e e
1-Germany 2-USA 3-Italy
e e
Germany-1 France-2 Spain-3
e e
1-Japan 2-South Korea 3-India
e e
USA-1 Japan-2 South Korea-3
Top International Borders
Norway Sweden
Netherlands Belgium
Poland Czech Republic
Germany France
Switzerland Italy
U.A.E. Saudi Arabia
59
GROWTH RATES
Sacramento: 21.3% 1,796,857 Las Vegas: 83.3% 1,563,282
San Francisco: 12.6% 7,039,362
Dallas: 29.3% 5,221,801
Los Angeles: 12.7% 16,373,645
Aus 1,24
San Diego: 12.6% 2,813,833 Tijuana: 64.4% 1,148,681 Phoenix: 45.3% 3,251,876 Ciudad Juarez: 50.3% 1,187,275
San Antonio: 20.2% 1,592,383 Monterrey: 4% 1,110,909
Rural Growth Rates
2000
2020
2005
2030 > 3.00 2.99 - 2.50 2.49 - 2.00 1.99 - 1.50 1.49 - 1.00
2040
2010 Historic 60 10
.99 - .50 .49 - 0
Projected http://esa.un.org/unup/index.asp?panel=2 http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/briefs/phc-t3/index.html
Top 50: Largest Cities in 2000 Chicago: 11.1% 9,157,540
Population Growth Population
The United States and Mexico and the countries that border them will see dramatic urban growth in the next few decades. As a result of urban growth, rural areas will start to dissipate as urban sprawl increases. Many of the fastest growing cities are located around the U.S. - Mexican border, some of which are Tijuana, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Ciudad Juarez, San Antonio, Austin, and Houston.
Austin: 47.7% 1,249,763 Houston: 25.2% 4,669,571
Urban Growth Rates
2000
2020
2005
2030
2010
2040
> 1.50 1.49 - 1.00 .99 - .50 .49 - 0 (-).01 - (-).50 (-).51 - (-)1.00 (-)1.01 - (-)1.50
Historic http://www.citypopulation.de/Mexico-Cities.html
Projected 61 11
PRODUCTION Mexico exports cars.
U.S. exports parts for a safety harness.
Safety Harness gets assembled and shipped to be installed in cars.
Maquiladora factories are located in Mexico, generally close to the border with the United States. Maquiladora factories import materials and equilpment and assembles the products to be exproted back to The United States without every paying any duties.
Maquiladora Trading
Employees by Industry Sectors Other: 565,000 Chemicals: 135,000 Services: 135,000 Electronics: 125,000 Machinery: 115,000 Furniture & Transportation: 108,000 Textiles: 75,000
Lower wage rates than China one million in labor costs More competitive in world market
Companies on average save
Employment opportunities Import foriegn components Commercial deficit is
created
without paying duties
reduced with The United States
Economic Attractiveness of Maquiladoras 62
Source: http://www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/2006/images/0605c_b1.gif
Unemployment Rate: California Arizona New Mexico Texas Mexico
While the unemployment rates look deceivingly in favor of Mexico, their underemployment is 26% while that of California's is 11%. California has one of the worst unemployment and underemployment rates in the United States.
Minimum Wages (daily): California Arizona New Mexico Texas Baja California Sonora Chihuahua Coahuila Nuevo Leon Tamaulipas
There is a large discrepancy between the minimum wage in Mexico and The United States. This is not directly linked to the cost of goods and services
Cost of Goods and Services: United States Mexico
Companies Using Maquiladoras (in thousands): Delphi Lear Corporation General Electric Jabil Circuit Visteon Whirlpool Emerson Electric Motorola Honeywell Plantronics Bose Mattell
Sources: http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com, http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Latin-America/Mexico/currency-value
This is just a short list of the many companies that use Maquiladoras in Mexico for their cheap labor.
63
TOURISM
2003
2005 Business Vacation Other
2006 Inbound
2004
Hikers Previous Costs
International Inbound
= 64%
+ +
+
= 36%
Visitors abroad - destination - 1998-2007 - national (Thousands of People)
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
64
Total 9,775 10,214 10,591 10,151 9,883 10,353 11,553 12,534 12,608 13,010
United States 8,118 8,634 9,235 8,964 8,717 9,254 10,305 10,944 10,914 11,039
Canada 519 502 477 375 361 292 336 366 436 593
Europe 477 563 401 362 479 443 0 0 0 0
Latin America 297 218 187 174 272 297 0 0 0 0
Other 365 297 291 276 54 67 912 1,224 1,258 1,378
Source: INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y Geografia)
2005
2004 Business Vacation Other Hikers
2006 Domestic
2003
International Outbound The INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y Geografia collects and studies data recorded each year on tourism across the United StatesMexico border, breaking it down according to points of origin, reasons for crossing, and means of transportation. About 2/3 of all travel into Mexico is done over land, between passenger vehicles and pedestrian travel. The remainder of visitors arrive either by air, train, or public transit. According to data collected over the past 10 years, it appears that most Americans crossing the border in passenger vehicles are doing so for vacation or
Outbound Tourism Total United States 5,177 4,789 5,543 5,119 6,200 5,717 6,423 5,915 6,492 5,984 6,603 6,085 7,399 6,811 8,000 7,360 8,486 7,801 9,220 8,464
Canada 20 22 25 26 26 27 0 0 0 0
Source: INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y Geografia)
tourism, with the bulk of the business traffic inbound being done by truck and other cargo transport. However, most of the traffic north into the United States is a mix between American citizens returning home and Mexican citizens look for work. This unique balance of reasons for travel sets up a symbiotic relationship between the two countries; toruism and truck trade exits the US in high volume, as finished goods from the maquiladoras and migrant works cross north, creating staggering levels of traveling individuals each day across the border.
Central America 71 81 93 97 97 101 0 0 0 0
South America 35 38 43 45 45 46 0 0 0 0
Europe 217 234 266 281 281 285 0 0 0 0
Asia 14 15 17 18 18 19 0 0 0 0
Other 31 34 39 41 41 41 588 640 685 756
65
Top Attractions by Annual Visitation
TOURIST DESTINATIONS
Port CA:San Ysidro CA:San Ysidro CA:San Ysidro CA:San Ysidro CA:San Ysidro CA:San Ysidro CA:San Ysidro Total
Year 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Bus Passengers 48,366 36,592 36,827 36,790 31,893 29,852 37,206 257,526
Personal Vehicles 950,322 931,800 1,131,661 1,106,902 1,145,423 1,144,827 1,187,060 7,597,995
Passengers (Personal Vehicles) 1,805,612 1,584,060 2,036,989 1,881,734 2,061,761 2,060,688 2,136,708 13,567,552
Pedestrians 493,914 448,213 526,949 527,158 532,523 518,873 567,444 3,615,074
Total 3,298,214 3,000,665 3,732,426 3,552,584 3,771,600 3,754,240 3,928,418
25,038,147
San Diego Zoo 3.5 Million
Gaslamp District 3 Million
Centro Cultural 1 Million
Avenida Revolucion 300,000 / Day
66
Source: City of Oceanside Official Website (www.ci.oceanside.ca.us) RITA Bureau of Transportation Statistics (http://www.transtats.bts.gov/BorderCrossing.aspx)
INSERT TITLE HERE?
San Diego Zoo
San Diego Zoo
Gaslamp District
Gaslamp District
Avenida Revolucion
Over 60 million people cross the border into Mexico every year. Based off of advertisements and popularity of tourist attractions in both San Diego and Tijuana, several of the most major attractions have been highlighted. Both cities have a large tourist draw that plays a significant role in their respective economies. This element factors heavily into the strange relationship that exists between the metropolitan area and their countries.
Centro Cultural Tijuana
67
68
MOBILITY
Julia Gankin Diana Berry
69
TRANSIT ROUTES
Regional Traffic from north of San Diego Country to Rosarita Major Regional Highways San Diego Trolley Line Greyhound Bus Line Greyhound Mexican Affiliate Mexicoach Line
70
Source: San Diego Transportation www.sandag.org
San Diego Trolley Line Mexicoach Pedestrian Path Commuter Vehicle Path
Traffic Across the Border
With the exception of private commuter vehicles, most regional traffic stops at the border and switches to another source. Mexicoach is a service that actually drives across the border from Mexico, then stops shortly after and drops off near the trolley station. 71
1 PEDESTRIAN ROUTE: US-MX
2
Pedestrian Path
Crossing into Mexico from the United States involves a series of switchbacks and surveillance cameras, but no passport checks and minimal border patrol. Once one crosses the turnstile into Mexico, a very different atmosphere is revealed.
72
Source: Tijuana Tourist Information tijuanamexicoinsider.com
Going through the turnstile
8
Crossing the Tijuana River
73
PEDESTRIAN ROUTE: MX-US Pedestrian Path
8
7
6 3 5 2 4 1 The route into the United States from Mexico requires fewer switchbacks but significantly more time. Entry into the United States requires proper identification, a series of questions from the border official, as well as putting your belongings through an x-ray machine.
74
Source: Tijuana Tourist Information tijuanamexicoinsider.com
1
On Avenida Revolucion
2
Back across the Tijuana River
3
Benches for shops on the ramp back to the border
4
Go past the taxi stand on the way
5
7
6
Turnstile into the border station
8
Into the security cave
75
TAXI TRAFFIC Pedestrian Path Taxi Stand
Many choose to get around the city using the Tijuana taxis. Two types of taxis are available. The Yellow taxis have no meters, the price of the trip must be negotiated before one gets in the vehicle. These are generally more expensive, but the drivers are also much more likely to speak english. The second type of taxi, taxi libre, do have meters and are generally cheaper than Yellow taxis, however drivers speak less English and you need to have a specific address to reach your destination.
76
Source: www.tijuanataxico.com
77
PRIVATE MOBILITY
SAN YSIDRO
9,880,509
EL PASO
9,318,273
Land port of entry Passenger vehicles per year.
78 10
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
200 ft
200 ft
200 ft
200 ft
The San Ysidro/Tijuana land port of entry has the greatest amount of passenger vehicle traffic of any of the border crossings with a total of 9,880,509 per year. There is no commercial traffic at this port. All commerical traffic in the area must use the Otay Mesa Port of Entry.
The
El Paso/Juarez
land port of entry has the second
greatest amount of passenger vehicle crossings at 9,318,273 per year. This crossing is also busy for the same reason as San Ysidro/Tijuana. El Paso and Juarez are both big cities and many people commute to work across the border.
The San Ysidro/Tijuana crossing is busy because two large cities are on either side of the border so many of the passenger vehicles are people commuting to work.
Source: Hyperborder. New York: Princton Architectural, 2008 Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
79 11
PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC
SAN YSIDRO
4,194,627 NOGALES
4,327,212
EL PASO
4,139,292
Land port of entry Pedestrian crossings per year.
80 10
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
200 ft
200 ft
200 ft
200 ft
The San Ysidro/Tijuana land port of entry has the second largest number of pedestrians crossing the border per year at
4,194,627.
The Nogales, Arizona/Nogales, Mexico land port of entry has the greatest quantity of pedestrian traffic at 4,327,212 crossings per year.
This is a busy crossing for pedestrians because many people This is a busy border crossing because the city of Nogales is on work on the opposite side of the border than where they live. It is both sides of the border. The border itself runs down the middle faster to get across the border on foot then in a car so many of a main street in Nogales. choose to cross on foot.
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Source: Hyperborder. New York: Princton Architectural, 2008
81 11
COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC
OTAY MESA
427,994 EL PASO
448,552
LAREDO
876,051
Land port of entry Commercial vehicles per year
82 10
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
200 ft
200 ft
200 ft
200 ft
The Laredo/Nuevo Laredo land port of entry in Texas has
The
Otay Mesa
land port of entry in California is the third
the most commercial truck traffic with 876,051 crossings per largest amount of truck traffic with 427,994. year. Since there is no commercial traffic allowed through the San Laredoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s enormous quantity of commercial traffic is due to its Ysidro port of entry, all commercial traffic in the area is directed location along the NAFTA corridor on Interstate 35 which travels here. all the way into Minnesota.
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Source: Hyperborder. New York: Princton Architectural, 2008. Print.
83 11
400
PEDESTRIAN ITINERARIES
NUMBER OF PEDESTRIANS
TOTAL NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND
300
200
100
0
12a
6am
12p
6p
Most people travel to Mexico from the U.S. at this border entry to take advantage of the tourism in Tijuana which includes a vibrant nightlife and a legal drinking age of 18. Some others (mostly locals) cross the border here to take advantage of the cheaper services offered in Mexico such as vehicle repair and doctors, along with cheaper and easier to obtain prescription drugs. A smaller number of people cross into Mexico for work.
Most people that cross the border into the U.S. at this point are traveling to work. Many people who work in the San Diego area live in Mexico because it is much cheaper than San Diego. There are also quite a few studetns that go to school in San Diego that live in Tijuana.
84 10
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Source:San Ysidro Land Port of Entry Expansion Mobility Study. Rep. no. JA82077. U.S. General Services Administration, 30 Apr. 2009. Web. 31 Jan. 2010.
TIJUANA SAN DIEGO SAN YSIDRO LOS ANGELES OTHER
RESPONDENTS BY ORIGIN
TIJUANA SAN DIEGO SAN YSIDRO LOS ANGELES CHULA VISTA OTHER
RESPONDENTS BY DESTINATION
HOME WORK SCHOOL SHOPPING TOURISM BUSINESS MEDICAL NO RESPONSE
ORIGIN OF PEDESTRIANS CROSSING THE BORDER
HOME WORK SCHOOL SHOPPING TOURISM BUSINESS MEDICAL NO RESPONSE OTHER
DESTINATION OF PEDESTRIANS CROSSING THE BORDER
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
85 11
86
SECURITY
Antoinette Delvillano Melissa BonďŹ l
87
Tijuana Beach
Colinas del Mediterraneo
Tijuana
Tecate
Lukeville
Tecate
Lukeville
Douglas
FENCES + PORTS
Tijuana 88
Otay Mesa
Douglas
El Paso
Acuna
Matamoros
KEY Border New fence Old fence Border crossing
El Paso Source: www.panoramio.com
Brownsville
The purpose of the fence dividing the United States and Mexico is to secure the border and reduce illegal immigration. After the terrorist attact of September 11, the gaps along the US-Mexico border became a concern. Therefore, a new fence was proposed. The fence extends more than 600 miles along the border. The fence is not continuous, so in between the fences there is a â&#x20AC;&#x153;virtual fenceâ&#x20AC;? which consists of cameras, sensors, and Border Patrol agents. 89
NEW FENCE INFRASTRUCTURE Barbed Wire
Ditch to prevent Road for Surveillance Metal vehicles from border patrol Camera Fence reaching the vehicles fence
12’
“Triple Border Fence”
120’ Tecate, California
Tecate, Mexico
90
Source: www.vivirlatino.com
The triple border fence was proposed in 2005 as a result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The new fence is to replace obsolete existing fences such as this one that separates Tecate, California and Tecate, Mexico. 91
BORDER TUNNELS
1 Lynden, WA
December 30, 2009 30’ Nogales, MX
Nogales, AZ
December 2, 2009
1000’ San Diego, CA
Tijuana, MX January 25, 2006 Tijuana, MX February 25, 2005
600’
Calexico, CA
Mexicali, MX February 27, 2002
1200’ Tierra del Sol, CA
Tecate, MX May 31, 1993
1450’ Otay Mesa, CA
Tijuana, MX
Calexico, CA
6 29
Naco, AZ
1
2
San Luis, AZ San Diego, CA
1
53
Douglas, AZ
Nogales, AZ
92
Source: http://archives.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060126/news_7n26tunnel.html http://subtopia.blogspot.com/2009/03/tunnelizing-migration-1-border-tunnel.html
Tijuana
Tijuana
2600â&#x20AC;&#x2122; Otay Mesa, CA
Otay Mesa
Otay Mesa
110 cross-border tunnels have been discovered since 1990. The number of tunnels found has increased as security along the border has increased. The tunnels greatly vary in length and materi als. Some of the tunnels are made using w ood or metal , while others are extenstions of already existing infrastructure. The entrances of the tunnels also vary, some examples being hidden in walls, while others are openings in floors. These tunnels are used to smuggle people and drugs across the border.
Nogales
93
Tunnel Infrastructure
BORDER TUNNELS 20 feet
1.2 m
1.2 m
Ventilation tubes
Electric light
On February 28, 2002, US drug agents discovered the entrance to a tunnel behind a false door covered by a large safe in a closet at Johnsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s pig farm located in Tierra del Sol, California. The tunnel spanned 1,200 feet and ended in the fireplace of a home in Mexico. The tunnel included electric lights, ventilation ducts and wood walls. This tunnel found in Mexicoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Baja California included a lighting system and a small cart. The tunnel reached a ranch in Southern California and was used to smuggle drugs and illegal immigrants across the border
94
Source: http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/1h/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I20363-2002Feb28
Underground Barrier
Tunnel
Underground Barrier
Border fence
300 feet
Reinforced concrete 1.5 to 2 feet thick
The underground barrier was put in place to prevent tunnels from being built across the US - Mexico border. So far, it has been implemented in Nogales, Arizona, where it has prevented more tunnels from being built.
Source: http://www.visalaw.com/09apr1/4apr109.html
95
INTERNATIONAL BORDER SECURITY
5,525 miles
Canada
Mexico
1,952 miles
= 500 Patrol Workers Most common drug entry points into the United States 96
Source: www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs10/10330/
Drug War Related Deaths
2,280 DEATHS
JAN. 1, 2007 - DEC 31, 2007
3,760 DEATHS
JAN. 1, 2007 - MAY 30, 2008
7,499 DEATHS JAN. 1, 2007 - JAN 2, 2009
9,903 DEATHS Source: http://projects.latimes.com/mexico-drug-war/#/interactive-map
JAN. 1, 2007 - MAY 15, 2009
97
Northwest Angle, MN
NATIONAL INSECURITY
In contrast to the heavy surveillance on the border between Mexico and the United States, the border between the United States and Canada is at some points very loosely secured. One example of an insecure border crossing is at the Northwest Angle in Minnesota. When visitors arrive to the Northwest Angle, they are supposed to enter a small building called Jimâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Corner, where they are estimated that only 30% of people entering the Northweset Angle from Canada actually stop and check in at Jimâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Corner.
Source: http://www.notbored.org/times-square.html
98
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/05/acd.02.html
New York, NY
Surveillance In Public Space The number of surveillance cameras in Manhattan increased by 500% between 2001 and 2005. There are currently more than 15,000 surveillance cameras in Manhattan, 604 of which are in Times Square alone. These cameras include privately owned security cameras, military cameras, tv cameras, city owned cameras, and foreign embassy cameras. Only 12 of the cameras in Times Square are police cameras, but these cameras can clearly document up to 15 blocks away.
Surveillance Camera
99
100
SITE PHOTOS
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135