9.4: Inequality and the City

Learning Objectives

1. Identify the major cities of Middle and South America.
2. Describe the colonial influence in the cultural landscape of Mexico City.
3. Explain underlying factors that explain the rapid formation of slums in Middle and South American cities.
4. Evaluate the prospect of smart city design for sustainability and social justice in Medellín and Santiago.

A Highly Urbanized Region

Although only 2 percent of the Earth’s surface, cities represent the main order of settlement of humankind in the 21^st century and the majority of the world’s people live in cities. This is particularly true in Middle and South America, one of the most highly urbanized regions in the world. In every country (except Guiana) most people live in cities. The region’s shares of city residents are quite variable, with smaller urban majorities found in Mesoamerican countries. In South America, the percentage of people living in cities is higher in Uruguay (95.5%), Argentina (92%), Venezuela (88%), and Chile (88%) than the United States (83%).^[1] Overall, about 81 percent of people south of the US-Mexico border live in cities, the highest urban percentage outside of North America.

Middle and South America also have high population concentrations in large cities. A city with populations figures at least twice as large as the next largest city is called a primate city. Montevideo, for example, is home to about half of the population in Uruguay. Similarly, Panama City is home to about 43 percent of the population in Panama.^[2] In the Caribbean, cities are relatively small in population size but represent important centers of human settlement in the region. Overall, the Americas have the highest percentage of people living in metropolitan areas of one million people or more than anywhere in the world.^[3] Some of these are megacities, cities with populations of 10 million people or more. Three of them are among the largest in the world: Mexico City (Mexico) and São Paulo (Brazil) with 22 million people each, and Buenos Aires (Argentina) with 15 million.^[4] Other megacities include Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), Lima (Peru), Bogotá (Colombia).

Many cities continue to grow in population size and in geographical footprint. Urban sprawl, the unorderly geographical expansion of cities, sometimes transcends political boundaries and merges adjacent cities into a larger urban region known as a megalopolis. Some megalopolises are even expanding beyond national borders, like the expanded urban areas merging Buenos Aires and Rosario in Argentina with Montevideo in Uruguay. Another example is the increased interconnected transnational megalopolis of Tijuana, Mexico and San Diego, California. Megacities are often seen as global hubs of access, opportunity, innovation, culture, and influence, but they face serious challenges with being inclusive, equitable, and sustainable.

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Many cities in Middle and South America are quite beautiful. Cityscapes often layer the past, the present, and aspirations for the future in their architectural structures and urban design. This picture series depicts the four largest megacities in Middle and South America. They are among the most populous urban centers of the world. [top left] São Paulo, Brazil, is South America's most populous city south of the equator. Pictured here is a core downtown area featuring the Octávio Frias de Oliveira bridge (Public Domain; Pixabay via Wikimedia Commons). [top right] Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, is considered one of the world's most beautiful cities, highly sought by tourists from all over the world. The giant Christ the Redeemer statue overlooks the immense urban landscape of Rio de Janeiro, with Sugarloaf Mount in the background towering over Rio's Atlantic beaches. (CC BY-NC; Bahiense via Flickr). [bottom left] Buenos Aires, Argentina, combines elements of colonial and modern architecture, like other cities in the region. The Obelisk, pictured in the center, is a national historic monument emblematic of the city center (CC BY-NC-ND; sandeepachetan via Flickr). [bottom right] The image illustrates the iconic Angel of Independence, a monument towering over the Paseo da Reforma, a main avenue dotted with banks, shops, restaurants, hotels, and cultural spaces in Mexico City, Mexico, (CC BY 2.0; Palmero via Flickr).

Urban Layout

Middle and South America were home to some large pre-Hispanic urban centers, like Tenochtitlán (Mexico) (See “The Heart of Mexico” below). When Spaniards colonized the Americas, they destroyed many of its urban structures and built their city to mirror those in Europe (see Figure 9.4.2). The colonial city was structured around a main square, Plaza Mayor, with connecting roads radiating out in a grid-like pattern. Around the plaza on one side was the Catholic church. On the other sides of the plaza were government offices and stores. Residential homes filled in around the plaza.

Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\): A colonial legacy is evident in many central plazas of cities in Middle and South America, especially with the prominence of the Catholic Church. In Peru and Mexico, Roman Catholic structures were built atop Indigenous sacred sites. [left] This picture depicts the Convent San Domingo built atop the ruins of the Templo of the Sun, Qoricancha. This was the most sacred temple of the Inca universe, and some of its walls were covered with sheets of gold (Copyright; author via source). [right] This photo depictes the ruins of the Templo Mayor, the sacred Aztec temple located in Tenochtitlan, and the Mexico City Cathedral in the background (Copyright; author via source). Both Cuzco and Mexico City are excellent examples of urban landscapes that stratify Indigenous, colonial, and neo-colonial legacies in the city.

The colonial city model remains visible and has served as an underlying blueprint for many cities in Middle and South America today. Nonetheless, these cities have expanded and evolved into complex landscapes embodying forces of the past and present as well as visions for the future.^[5] One way to visualize a city is through city models, or spatial diagrams that depict different land-uses in the urban landscape. Geographer Larry Ford’s model is widely recognized. It identifies the contemporary city patterns in Middle and South America through distinctive zones of land-use that surround a central business district (CBD). Many of these city centers emerged from the colonial blueprint, around a main plaza with a church and government buildings dating back to a colonial era (or even earlier, like in Cuzco or Mexico City depicted above). The CBD also features contemporary structures and modern architecture reflecting the diverse and dynamic influences that have shaped the city over time. The size and character of each CBD varies throughout the region, but one important commonality is that CBDs are hubs of access where major stores, banks, government buildings, theaters, and transportation networks coincide. From this center, other zones radiate out, often with diminished access to public services, resources, and infrastructure in the outskirts of the city.

Figure \(\PageIndex{3}\): This visualization represents the "Latin American City Model" of Larry Ford. Each section of the city defines typical land-use zones found in contemporary cities of Middle and South America where cities have historically developed around a commercial business center (CC BY-NC-SA; Finalyson via libretext).

At the heart of Mexico: the urban landscape from Tenochtitlan to Mexico City (CDMX)

The Aztec political capital, Tenochtitlán, was founded by Mexica migrants in the 14^th century as an island city in Lake Texcoco in the Valley of Mexico Basin. The center of the Aztec Empire was a feature of hydroengineering, built on a system of canals and dikes for irrigation and flood control. Large causeways linked the island and the mainland and divided the lake, helping control flooding and separating the salty waters of the lake from fresh water sources. These water works were accompanied by a sanitation system where human waste was collected and applied as fertilizers in the highly productive agricultural system of chinampas. At the center of the island of Tenochtitlán, the huge Sacred Precinct was a ceremonial square that included a ball court and various temples including Templo Mayor, the precinct’s tallest and most sacred structure.

Tenochtitlán dazzled the Spaniards. It was the most populous city they had ever seen, with an estimated population of 200,000 people by the end of the 16^th century.^[6] Spaniards reported Tenochtitlan’s impressive urban design, ornate architecture, artwork, and botanical gardens.^[7] When the Spanish took the indigenous capital, they proclaimed it as the capital of New Spain and destroyed much of its structures to build a colonial city atop the ruins, a process that took four decades. They also prescribed a very specific set of urban planning guidelines, including building towns around a plaza (main square) and creating a road network on a grid system.

Today, the ruins of Tenochtitlán are engulfed in the larger Mexico City, the capital megacity of Mexico. It is where government buildings, churches, and the Aztec ruins are stratified at the Zócalo square, the historical city center. The Mexico City Cathedral towers over Templo Mayor where vast ruins and a museum are physical remnants of an Indigenous city. Many remarkable archeological discoveries have been made within the vicinities of Templo Mayor and grandiose Aztec sculptures and art are displayed there. The metro connects the Zócalo square along the lines of some of the historical Mexica causeways, another physical reminder of the city’s Indigenous blueprint.^[8] Zócalo often beats with the drums of Aztec dancers that gather by the hundreds at the square in front of the National Palace. It is a symbol of Indigenous cultural survival and revival that continues to pulsate at the heart of the Mexico City.

But the waters of Lake Texcoco are no longer there. Lacking the Mexica know-how of living within a lake environment, Lake Texcoco became a cesspool under Spanish rule and catastrophic floods ravaged the colonial capital. The Spaniards decided to drain the lake into the Tula River in the 17^th century. Independent Mexico proceeded with the draining, and by 1910 the waters of Lake Texcoco were almost entirely gone. Drying the basin was a decision that defied geography, and it was problematic in several ways. The dried lakebed sediment left behind is a source of air pollution because winds suspend the particulate matter into the air in dust storms. Mexico City is often called a “dust bowl,” sitting on a plateau at 7,000ft in elevation, surrounded by mountains that trap both the suspended lake dust and the air pollution of a megacity. Mexico City was once among the most polluted cities in the world (it has improved substantively in recent years).

Once an Indigenous city built on water, Mexico City is now parched and sinking.^[9] The drying of Lake Texcoco has had a pronounced impact on the local climate. Since there is no more water being evaporated into the atmosphere from the lake, the climate became drier, especially with the compounding effect of climate change. As a result, Mexico City has been reliant on water from its natural underground water reserves, called aquifers. The immense water demand and the extensive paved surfaces of the city limit the amount of water percolating the soil and replenishing reserves. This means that more water is being pumped out than what is tricking underground, an imbalance in water flow that results in aquifer depletion. Given this reality, fresh water is transported into the city through pipelines from across the mountains. Leakage and inadequate maintenance cause a large percentage of the water to be lost before it can be used in the city. The emptying aquifers also means that the city is sinking, crumbling onto its emptying aquifer foundation. This is a visible reality around Zócalo where some buildings are tilting. Much of the historical architecture and even Mexico’s national palace are threatened by the collapsing ground underneath.

Figure \(\PageIndex{4}\): This series of visuals depict Mexico City's indigenous and colonial imprint on the landscape. [top] A painting of Tenochtitlan by Luis Covarrubias displayed in the National Museum of Anthropology, Mexico City (Public Domain; via Wikimedia Commons). [middle] These maps illustrate Tenochtitlan within the valley of Mexico, then and now. It shows the contemporary basin of Mexico City with before and after the Lake Texcoco was drained. The aerial image shows the relative location of Tenochtitlan engulfed in the megacity (Decolonial Media License; Jordan Engel via Decolonial Atlas). [bottom left] This picture of Zocalo square shows the Mexico City Cathedral towering over the plaza displaying a giant Mexican flag at its center (CC BY-NC-SA; Aline Gregorio via Flickr). [bottom right] Diverse indigenous groups participate in Chinelo, Aztec, and contemporary dance at the Zocalo. The plaza is a center for expression and protest. It faces the Mexican National Palace in Mexico City (CC BY 2.0; Secretaría de Cultura de la Ciudad de México via Flickr).

Urbanization and Slums

In 1950, the population in Middle and South America was mostly rural. Today, about 80 percent of the population lives in cities. This rapid shift is noticeable in most parts of the world, and since 2007, most of the world’s people have lived in cities. Planetary urbanization was mostly driven by the migration of people from rural areas to urban areas, known as rural-to-urban migration, the largest migratory pattern in human history. In other words, never have so many humans shifted settlement patterns so quickly, leaving a long legacy of farming behind in search of new ways of living in the city. This migration is motivated by a set of push and pull factors – factors that push people away from rural areas and those that attract them to urban areas.

In Middle and South America, the major push factor was unemployment. In the mid-20^th century, the region experienced the Green Revolution, the introduction of modern farming technologies like advanced machinery, high-yield hybrid crops, and chemical pesticides and fertilizers. The implementation of technological advancements in farming dramatically improved yields, but it also reduced the need for farm labor. Unable to invest in expensive technologies, most farmers were unable to compete with larger corporate farms. This meant that farm laborers, subsistence farmers, and small farm owners were displaced from what was once their primary source of livelihood. At the same time, modern technologies were introduced in mining and logging that eliminated a lot of the remaining rural jobs. By the end of the 19^th century, people had been leaving rural areas in droves, searching for new and higher paying jobs in cities with great hope to improve their lives and escape the poverty trap of rural areas. The city was (and still is) perceived as an opportunity to climb the socioeconomic ladder, as they provide better access to higher quality education, healthcare, and other public services along with economic opportunities.

The combination of agricultural transformation (push factor) and the lure of the city (pull factor) are responsible for most of the explosive urban growth of Middle and South American cities from 1950s to 1990s. But unlike Europe and the United States, where booming industrialization offered new city jobs and supported the urbanization process, the economies of Middle and South American cities were unable to catch up to urbanization rates.^[10] The technological revolution in farming occurred before broader industrialization, providing limited opportunities for work. Overwhelmed cities could not provide adequate housing, utilities, schools, transportation, and economic opportunities for the masses of poor aspiring newcomers. Consequently, the rapid period of urbanization of Middle and South America was characterized by an unplanned urban expansion of informal settlements, where poor migrants established new communities with makeshift housing surrounding or within the city, without formal land ownership. These informal settlements are known as slums, barrios (in Venezuela and Colombia), favelas (in Brazil), villas miseria (in Argentina), among other local names. The living conditions vary between slum communities, but they are often characterized by overcrowding, insecure property rights, lack of urban and social services (especially access to water and sanitation), hazardous environments, poverty, and exposure to crime and violence.

While the slum population in Middle and South America has decreased in recent years, they continue to be a feature of the urban landscape. The percentage of the population living in slums is still quite high in Bolivia (48%), Venezuela (44%), and Nicaragua (42%), but highest in Haiti (66%) and Jamaica (57%). In Brazil, close to 30 million people live in slums and in Mexico about 16 million.^[11] The two countries have the largest slum populations in the region, 16 percent of the urban population in both countries. Mexico City, La Paz (Bolivia), and Caracas (Venezuela) have among the most populous slums in the world.^[12] In total, 160 million people (about 23 percent of the population) in Middle and South America live in slums.^[13]

Cities in Middle and South America showcase visible socioeconomic inequalities, where poverty and wealth co-exist side-by-side in landscapes of contrast in the world’s most unequal region. Consider that in most countries in Middle and South America the richest 10 percent hold more than one third of the national income (this extreme accumulation of wealth is only surpassed by countries in Southern Africa).^[14] Socioeconomic inequality is carved in urban spaces where luxurious residential and business compounds tower over slums, lived reminders of the persistence of poverty (see Figure 9.4.5). Despite of the important strides in regional poverty reduction in since the early 2000s, one in five people in Middle and South America have been chronically poor since 2004.^[15] Overall, in 2022, 32 percent of the population lived in poverty and 13 percent in extreme poverty.^[16] Unequal Scenes, an aerial photographic collection, brilliantly captures the spatial contrasts of highly unequal, fragmented, and segregated cities. It’s highly worth exploring the photos of cities in Brazil, Peru, Mexico, and Argentina.

Figure \(\PageIndex{5}\): These photographs illustrate some common hillside scenes in many cities in Middle and South America. Hillsides in tropical Americas tend to be marginal and hazardous areas as they are prone to landslides and are peripherally located in relation to the recognized parts of the city (CC BY-SA 4.0; Delso via Wikimedia Commons). The top picture depicts a slum in the hillsides of Lima, Peru . In the bottom left, favela da Rocinha is shown in the hillsides facing the coast of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (CC BY-SA 4.0; chensiyuan via Wikimedia Commons). On the bottom right, skyscrapers stand in the foreground as contrasting features amidst the vast slums of La Paz, Bolivia (CC BY-SA 4.0; Claure via Wikimedia Commons).

Aspiring smart cities: harnessing technology for more sustainable and inclusive cities

In order to better support planetary urbanization, city planners and leaders have been thinking creatively to increase the efficiency of the city’s operations, grow the economy, and improve the quality of life of residents. A smart city is an innovative city that harnesses information and communication technologies to advance economic, social, and environmental goals.^[17] Given that cities are centers of population, resource use, and greenhouse gas emissions, smart city design has immense potential to solve pressing urban issues. Cities could become more attractive, livable, inclusive, safe, connected, sustainable, prosperous, and innovative spaces for people to live, work, and enjoy. Ultimately, these are ambitious goals that can be best achieved with smart data-driven decisions. With a focus on technology and data, smart city planners utilize a series of indicators to promote progress in urban mobility, environment, government, economy, people, and quality of life.

Santiago, Chile, is often cited as an aspiring smart city in South America. Situated in a basin surrounded by the Andes mountains, Santiago’s physical setting is both beautiful and challenging. Like Mexico City, the surrounding mountains and an inversion layer above restrict air movement. The increased emissions of smokestacks and wood-burning heaters, especially in the winter, result in episodes of severe air pollution. Since 2014, Santiago initiated the campaign Santiago Respira, a part of Breathe Life, a global campaign to reduce emissions. To fulfill this mission, city planners are looking to replace wood burning heaters with low emission alternatives, increase the number of zero-emission vehicles on the road, and improve public transportation.^[18] Sensors are used for monitoring trash bins, controlling lighting and irrigation, improving water and energy use efficiency. Like other megacities in the region (ex: Mexico City and Sao Paulo), Santiago maintains a rotational system for vehicles, establishing ‘off the road’ days based on the ending number of the license plate. This measure is meant to reduce the number of vehicles on the road, increase use of public transportation, and promote walking. There is also a renewal of city spaces with centrally located pedestrian walkways filled with art. These urban planning strategies are part of a larger plan to turn Santiago into a ‘smarter’ city.

Medellín (Colombia) is another well-known and evolving smart city. It is a particularly significant case study of urban transformation given its unique context. Known as the “murder capital of the world” in the 90s, the city was a hotspot for armed internal conflict for decades. Medellín’s geography has also shaped its growth and the segregation patterns. The city is embedded within the Andes mountains in a basin surrounded by mountains. Low-income areas are clustered on steep slopes away from the city center, spatially segregated and excluded from city services and infrastructure. This situation is compounded by a high population density, high levels of poverty and social vulnerability, and exposure to flooding and landslide hazards. It is this complex reality that became the heart of highly visible initiatives set to transform Medellín with a people-centered approach. One of the most widely recognized interventions is the implementation of the metrocable in 2004, an aerial cable cart system designed to connect residents of the periphery to the city center.^[19] This improvement in public transportation reduced commute times and helped improve access to and from the outskirts of the city. New educational facilities in poor areas, new public spaces, open and free internet zones, sensors monitoring traffic also became important strategies of a larger plan to improve the city.^[20] Including and directing investment to the city’s poorest communities is the underlying principle of social urbanism. Medellín is globally recognized for the positive outcomes of its initiatives, like increased access to free internet, more education and cultural facilities, and reduced poverty and violence.

The transformative potential of smart city design makes them popular concepts, but smart city approaches tend to be top-down and centered on technology (sometimes over people). This focus on digital intelligence is often removed from the daily grind and ‘street smarts’ of the city dweller. The emphasis on technology also makes initiatives expensive and corporate, driven by large global companies rather than local people. Thus, critics have highlighted that smart city interventions tend to be cosmetic, lacking the broad impact and participatory decision-making necessary for transformative change. Since 2019, Chile has experienced profound social unrest with the population calling for greater justice, equality, and dignity. Centering their demands is one way to further city planning success. In Medellín, too, improvements are short of addressing the larger issues of entrenched socio-economic inequality and spatial segregation. A renewed focus on equity, inclusion, and participation can help redefine and expand the breadth and depth of smart city initiatives in a way that better responds to the needs of the population.

Figure \(\PageIndex{6}\): This picture compilation highlights examples of aspiring smart cities seeking to harness technology to produce innovative solutions for pressing urban issues. [top left] Santiago is Chile's capital. The picture here shows the eclectic mixture of buildings with the snow-peaked Andes mountains in the backdrop - this is the geographical context that makes the city particularly prone to severe air pollution (CC BY-ND; Fuentes via Flickr). [bottom left] Paseo Bandera is a pedestrian zone, one example of Santiago's efforts to improve pedestrian access in the city center. The picture illustrates how colorful paint has been used to decorate the street surface, creating what has been called a ‘floor mural’. Paseo Bandera has become highly valued by the Municipality of Santiago and a model of reference for pedestrian zones (CC BY-SA 4.0; Warko via Wikimedia Commons). [top right] A picture of the city center in Medellin, Colombia centering its metro transportation system (CC BY 4.0; Michu2709 via Wikimedia Commons). [bottom right] This picture shows cable carts overlooking the vast expanse of Medellin, Colombia. They repreesnt the word's first urban cable cart system and are globally recognized as an urban planning success that has substantially improved mobility and access for poor residents in the outskirts of the city (CC BY-SA 4.0; JoranL via Wikimedia Commons).

---

References:

[1] Our World in Data. (2020). Share of people living in urban areas.

[2] Our World in Data. (2021). Share of the urban population who live in the largest city.

[3] Our World in Data. (2021). Share of people living in urban agglomerations of more than 1 million.

[4] World Population Review. (2022). World city populations 2023. *Based on UN’s Urbanization Prospects.

[5] Salim, Z. and Bosco, F. (2020). Latin American Cities: Transitions and Transformations. In: Jackiewicz, E. L., & Bosco, F. J. (Eds.). (2020). Placing Latin America: contemporary themes in geography. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. *A comprehensive resource for understanding the dynamics of cities in Middle and South America in more depth.

[6] Miller, S. W. (2007). An environmental history of Latin America. Cambridge University Press. pp 18-23.

[7] Miller, S. W. (2007). An environmental history of Latin America. Cambridge University Press. pp 18-23.

[8] Decolonial Atlas. (May 12, 2018). Mexico City’s Decolonial Blueprint.

[9] Kimmelmann, M. (Feb 17, 2017). Mexico City, parched and sinking, faces a water crisis. The New York Times.

[10] Vargas, J., Brassiolo, P., Sanguinetti, P., Daude, C., Goytia, C., Álvarez, F., ... & Fajardo, G. (2017). RED 2017. Urban growth and access to opportunities: a challenge for Latin America.

[11] Our World in Data. (2018). Urban population living in slums.

[12] Davis, M. (2006). Planet of Slums. London: Verso. Pp 28.

[13] Ezquiaga Arquitectura, S., & Territorio, S. L. (2015). The experience of Latin America and the caribbean in urbanization. In Knowledge Sharing Forum on Development Experiences: Comparative Experiences of Korea and Latin America and the Caribbean.

[14] Our World in Data. (2019). Income share of the top 10%.

[15] Magalhães, F., Acosta Restrepo, P., Lonardoni, F., & Moris, R. (2016). Slum upgrading and housing in Latin America. Inter-American Development Bank, 119.

[16] ELAC. (2022). Social Panorama of Latin America and Caribbean.

[17] Iraza´bal, C. and Jiron, P. (2020). Latin American smart cities: Between worlding infatuation and crawling provincializing. Urban Studies, pp 1-28.

[18] Breathe Life 2030. Santiago, Chile.

[19] Brand, P., & Davila, J. (2011). Aerial cable-car systems for public transport in low-income urban areas: lessons from Medellin, Colombia.

[20] Freedman, D. (Nov 18, 2019). How Medellín, Colombia, Became the World's Smartest City. Newsweek.

---

Attributions:

“The Heart of Mexico” is adapted from Montero-Rosado, C., Ojeda-Trejo, E., Espinosa-Hernández, V., Fernández-Reynoso, D., Caballero Deloya, M., & Benedicto Valdés, G. S. (2022). Water Diversion in the Valley of Mexico Basin: An Environmental Transformation That Caused the Desiccation of Lake Texcoco. Land, 11(4), 542, CC BY 4.0.

“Inequality & the City” is adapted from Quam and Campbell. (2020). The Western Word: daily readings on geography, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

“Smart City” is adapted from Jirón et al. (2021). Placebo urban interventions: Observing smart city narratives in Santiago de Chile. Urban Studies, 58(3), 601-620, CC BY 4.0; and Smith et al. (2022) Exploring the relevance of ‘smart city’ approaches to low-income communities in Medellín, Colombia, GeoJournal, CC BY 4.0.

This page is also adapted from World Regional Geography by University of Minnesota and World Regional Geography by Caitlin Finlayson, both CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.