Observing the evolution of irregular settlements

IDPR, 31 (1) 2009

Priscilla Connolly

Observing the evolution of irregular settlements Mexico City’s colonias populares, 1990 to 2005

In the context of the recent proliferation of habitat observatories using geographic information systems, this article applies a methodology combining recently available disaggregated census data and various decades of accumulated experience in qualitative fieldwork to observe the recent evolution of Mexico City’s irregular settlements. It specifically aims at measuring how irregular settlement creation and consolidation have responded to changes in the macro-economic climate, federal housing policy innovations and local government urban policies over the last fifteen years. The methodology is based on the classification of census tracts into different ‘settlement types’, referring to the various forms of formal and irregular urbanisation. The resulting variable is incorporated into a database containing longitudinal census and other data, such as date of urbanisation, topology and housing quality indicators. This analysis observes a significant increase in housing production within already-existing irregular settlements between 1990 and 2000, followed by a sharp reduction in their contribution to the provision of additional dwellings in subsequent years, due to the explosion of formal commercial housing production. This suggests the need for further research into the possible impoverishment of existing and new irregular settlements as better-off households opt for formal housing solutions.

The aim of this article is to describe the recent shifts in irregular housing production in Mexico City and explain the observed changes in terms of macro-economic indicators, socio-demographic tendencies, housing policy and local planning constraints. The results are based on the Mexico City Observatory developed at the Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana at Azcapotzalco (UAM-A) using a geographical information system relating longitudinal census data for 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2005 to a classification of census tracts by various types and dates of formal and irregular urbanisation. A first section lays out the methodological basis for the study, beginning with a brief overview of how Mexico City’s irregular settlements have been observed over the past forty years. This is followed by a description of the ‘settlement type’ methodology applied in this article. A second section lays out the principal questions and hypotheses to be addressed in this study, with reference to the recent economic, political and demographic processes that can explain the trends in irregular settlement Priscilla Connolly is Distinguished Professor, Departamento de Sociología/Maestría en Planeación y Políticas Metropolitanas, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Azcapotzalco, Avenida San Pablo 180, Colonia Reynosa Tamaulipas, México DF CP 14000, Mexico; email: [email protected] Paper submitted February 2007; revised paper received and accepted November 2008

IDPR31_1_02_Connolly.indd 1

26/3/09 11:55:40

2

Priscilla Connolly

creation and consolidation. The final section explores these hypotheses in the light of the evidence provided by the OCIM geographical information system.

Irregular settlements as a way of looking at the city Observing Mexico City’s irregular settlements in the past: the representative case-study approach In Mexico, as in many other Latin American countries, irregular settlements account for the majority of urban housing production. It is hardly surprising that many insights into the conditions and dynamics of irregular housing have been based on studies of the Mexican colonias populares, as they are called, especially in Mexico City. Over the course of four decades of research by Mexican and foreign scholars, many myths about irregularity and its numerous quasi-synonyms have been exploded, creating others in the process. In the early 1970s, Cornelius (1975) and Montaño (1976) argued that the political attitudes and practices of rural immigrants to Mexico City’s ‘squatter settlements’, far from being subversive or even marginalised, constituted a functional prop to the authoritarian political regime. At the same time, Turner (1972) and Sudra (1976) were equally persuasive in demonstrating how irregular settlements responded better to the population’s needs and capabilities than public housing projects, as the self-build process enabled both individual socio-economic mobility and urban improvement. This thesis was critically qualified and much enriched by Ward (1976) in his study on residential mobility and the dynamics of home improvement, while more direct criticism of the idealised self-help model was raised by COPEVI (1977), Connolly (1982), Pradilla (1982), and Moctezuma and Navarro (1989), among others. By this time, it was recognised that in Mexico – as in Brazil (see Kowarick, 1975 and Perlman, 1976) – irregular settlements were not a marginal or minority problem but accounted for the major part of urban housing production. By the early 1980s, attention turned on what exactly was ‘irregular’ about irregular settlements, particularly regarding property relations, while debating the positive and negative impacts of regularisation. The works of Varley (1985) Azuela (Azuela, 1989; Azuela et al., 1984; Azuela and Cruz, 1989), Cruz (1982) and Duhau (1993; 1998) should be mentioned, especially for demonstrating how the ‘rules’ of irregularity work. At the same time, several studies revealed the economic and political logic of irregular land markets (Alonso, 1980; Legorreta, 1994; Jones, 1991; Ward et al., 1994; Hiernaux, 1995; Castañeda, 1994). With the upsurge of the urban social movement during the 1980s and the beginnings of political reform in Mexico, scholars’ attention turned again to the changing relationship between the people’s organisations in irregular settlements and government policy (Nuñez, 1990; Ramírez, 1987; Coulomb and Sánchez Mejorada, 1992; Moctezuma, 1999). In addition, the morphological


26/3/09 11:55:40

Observing the evolution of irregular settlements

3

Figure 1 Map of irregular settlements from the mid-1970s. Distribution of colonias populares established on different types of property in Mexico City, 1950–1970. Source: COPEVI, 1977


26/3/09 11:55:41

4

Priscilla Connolly

Figure 2 Mexico City 2005: Classification of census tract by formal and informal settlement type. Source: Observatorio de la Ciudad de México: Sistema de Información Geográfica para la Investigación y Planeación Metropolitana (OCIMSIG), Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Azcapotzalco, Maestría en Planeación y Políticas Metropolitanas; based on 2000 National Population and Housing Census


26/3/09 11:55:42


5

transformation and architectural characteristics of Mexico’s irregular settlements has been usefully documented in various studies by Ribbeck and Padilla (2002), Bazant (1985; 2000; 2004) and Andrade (1981; 1992). Practically all this knowledge about irregular housing in Mexico has been undertaken using the representative case-study approach. This methodology selects one or several neighbourhoods for research, using observational techniques combined with surveys and/or in-depth interviews. Usually the selected neighbourhoods are deemed to be representative of a certain type of irregular settlement, classified by criteria such as original form of property, age, state of consolidation or relative location. In this way the research findings are generalised, often erroneously, leading to debates grounded in contrasting empirical experiences. The overall context of settlement development has been illustrated with small-scale maps, and their relative contribution to urbanisation, housing and population has been calculated by measuring areas by hand and applying estimated densities. Figure 1 is one such map, showing the distribution of irregular settlements on different types of property in 1970. This kind of methodology produced important and often-quoted approximations; for example, that irregular settlements created between 1940 and 1970 accounted for 64 per cent of the total urbanisation of Mexico City (COPEVI, 1977, 51). However, the precise measurement of the different types of irregular settlement and the sector’s contribution to urban growth and housing has been virtually impossible until recently. Very little quantitative research has been directed at the extremely wide variation in the dynamics of the formation, consolidation and deterioration process. Two major informational deficits explain the lack of reliable quantitative estimates of irregular settlement population and housing dynamics in Mexico: the non-existence of adequate cartography and the impossibility of relating census data to disaggregated geographical units. Until 1990, most censuses and other socio-demographic data were only available by aggregated spatial units, such as municipalities, which mostly contain both formal and irregular urban development. Since then, however, information technology has enabled successive improvements in the quality and detail of census data. From 1990 onwards, most census variables have been published by census tract. In 2005, the micro-data – geo-referenced by block, census tract and locality – was released by Mexico’s National Institute for Geographical and Statistical Information. The OCIM-SIG methodology for classifying types of urban settlement To make the best use of this information, a geographic information system (OCIMSIG) was developed within the general framework of the Mexico City Observatory (Observatorio de la Ciudad de México, OCIM) at UAM-A in Mexico City. The system includes a classification of census tracts in Mexico City’s urbanised area


26/3/09 11:55:42

6

Priscilla Connolly

Table 1 Formal/irregular settlement type and definition criteria Pre-1929 urbanisation

Colonial city Ciudad colonial

AGEBs with 50% or more of their area included within the perimeter ‘A’ of the historic centre as defined by the Presidential Decree published 11 April 1980. Inner city AGEBs not included in the colonial city that were urbanised between Ciudad central 1820 and 1929. Conurbated town AGEBs not included in the colonial and inner cities, with 50% or Cabecera conurbada more of their area included in polygons identified as municipal urban centres in the cadastral map of 1929, and which have since been absorbed by the expansion of Mexico City’s central area. Subsidised housing AGEBs with 50% or more of their area occupied by housing built project specifically for middle and lower income groups with public sector Conjunto habitacional finance. They include both single-family and multi-family estates. Identification based on previous CONAPO study, verified by on-theground observation, aerial photography and cross-checked by statistical analysis of 2000 census data.

Post-1929 formal urbanisation

Middle-income residential Residencial medio

High-income residential Residencial alto

AGEBs with 50% or more of their area occupied by legal settlements developed predominantly for middle income households. Identification based on previous CONAPO study, verified by on-theground observation, aerial photography and cross-checked by statistical analysis of 2000 census data. AGEBs with 50% or more of their area occupied by legal settlements developed predominantly for high income households. Identification based on previous CONAPO study, verified by on-the-ground observation, aerial photography and cross-checked by statistical analysis of 2000 census data.

Post-1920 Irregular settlement irregular Colonia popular urbanisation

AGEBs with 50% or more of their area consisting of settlements which were urbanised expressly for housing in violation with existing urban building and/or property legislation. Identification based on previous CONAPO study, verified by on-the-ground observation, aerial photography and cross-checked by statistical analysis of 2000 census data. Conurbated village AGEBs with 50% or more of their area occupied by polygons Pueblo conurbado identified as villages which have been absorbed by the expansion of Mexico City’s central area. Identification of such areas based on on-the-ground knowledge, verified with census and other toponimical cartography. Non-conurbated AGEBs with 50% or more of their area occupied by polygons village identified as villages which are not absorbed by, or adjacent Pueblo no conurbado to, Mexico City’s central area expansion, but belong to the municipalities included in the definition of Metropolitan Mexico City. Excludes positively identified formal settlements and non-residential uses


26/3/09 11:55:42


Non-residential

Predominantly non-residential Predominantemente no habitacional Non-residential Uso no habitacional

7

AGEBs with 50% of their area occupied by non-housing uses. Identification based on previous CONAPO study, verified by on-theground observation, aerial photography and cross-checked by 2000 census data. AGEBs with no housing at all. They may house a population living in buildings not classified by the census as ‘individual dwellings’ (viviendas particulares), Identification based on previous CONAPO study, verified by on-the-ground observation, aerial photography and cross-checked by 2000 census data.

into eleven basic settlement types (tipos de poblamiento); the classification embraces the formal–irregular distinction. This enables the analysis of spatial correlation between settlement types, economic and population census data and other factors such as topography, access to transport and infrastructure. Such correlations also permit the identification of further subsets of settlement types: for example, irregular settlements of different age, density, housing quality or socio-economic level. The available census and cartography allows for longitudinal analysis comparing 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2005. The initial classification of settlements and the subsequent analysis rely heavily on qualitative research, accumulated over various decades, on the subject of irregular settlement formation and consolidation in Mexico City. In recognition of the importance of on-the-ground knowledge to complement statistical and geographic analysis, the OCIM-SIG consulting system includes access to an extensive database of monographic studies of individual settlements. The classification of settlement types adopted in the current edition of the OCIM-SIG, and the basic criteria adopted for this, are shown in Table 1, while Figure 2 maps the distribution of the 2005 census tracts by settlement types thus defined (some settlement types have been combined for visual clarity). It should be emphasised that although photographic, cartographic and statistical inference were used in the classification and verification processes, the basic point of departure was an on-theground knowledge of the city. One premise of this project is that official statistics alone cannot provide the basis of good analysis and sound judgements concerning city development.1 Some technical attributes of the information system need to be mentioned here. The first concerns the adequacy of census tracts as a basis for aerial classification. These are uniform in neither size nor population, nor are they necessarily homogeneously occupied by one or other settlement type. Census data and cartography are at present available only for census tracts in urban localities, thus excluding about 1

For the OCIM-SIG databases by census tract or AGEB (Área Geo-Estadística Básica) accessed by neighbourhood, related cartography, thematic maps, methodological monographs and bibliographical references indexed by neighbourhood (colonia), see http://ocimsig.azc.uam.mx. A fast connection is recommended for downloading data and thematic maps. It is also necessary to download the free AutoDesk© MapGuide© viewer.


26/3/09 11:55:42

8

Priscilla Connolly

half a million inhabitants of rural localities included in Metropolitan Mexico City’s Federal District and municipalities. In 2005, Metropolitan Mexico City comprised 5,384 urban census tracts, whose minimum, mean and maximum numbers of dwellings were zero, 867 and 4,913, respectively. The smallest census tract covers only 0.33 hectares, the largest 745. The average is 41 hectares. Such a variance has important implications for statistical analysis, whose results should be interpreted with caution. The findings presented in this article regarding the distribution of population or dwellings by settlement type refer to distribution by census tracts, not the actual dwelling type. For instance, census tracts attributed to ‘social interest housing projects’ may contain other kinds of housing, while much social interest housing that only partially occupies a census tract will not be included. There are also unresolved conceptual problems in the distinction between ‘conurbated towns’ and ‘conurbated’ or ‘non-conurbated villages’, as there are also between some types of social housing projects and ‘middle-income residential’. However, as the following pages will show, the system has provided unprecedented evidence about overall and particularised tendencies in Mexico City’s urban development, in relation to the category ‘irregular settlements’ in particular and irregular urbanisation in general. The system has been updated with information from the 2005 mid-term population count. This has fewer variables than the full census, but there is sufficient information to detect substantive changes in the way people are being housed in Mexico City. These changes are due to various factors, including the macro-economic situation and reforms of Mexico’s mortgage institutions brought about in the 1990s, which lead to the emergence of a dynamic housing development industry. The following section explores these changes and their probable effects on irregular settlement development in Mexico City.

Context: recent forces shaping irregular settlement formation and development in Mexico City Explanatory framework of irregular settlement formation, expansion and consolidation Previous work has suggested that the formation and consolidation of both irregular settlements and formal urban development is not a smooth continuous process accommodating population growth. Instead, there are successive cycles of territorial expansion followed by infill or densification (Connolly, 1988). These cycles are determined in the first place by macro-economic factors, such as the cost and availability of credit for real estate development, inflation rates and the general state of the economy. When interest rates are low and credit is plentiful, investment in construction increases, thus forcing land values to rise. This both encourages and enables intensive land use and


26/3/09 11:55:42


9

higher densities. The prices of irregular plots for housing on greenfield sites may also be pushed up by competition from formal developers and/or a possible increase in real wages. This could explain why the buoyant years of 1977–81 saw increased densities and consolidation of irregular settlements in Mexico City (Connolly, 1988). In contrast, during times of high interest rates, recession and inflation, real estate values, including land prices, plummet in real terms. There is little money available for construction, but cheaper land makes for speculative low-density formal development, and there is less pressure to hinder new irregular settlement formation. This situation is epitomised by the ‘lost decade’, the crisis period of 1982–89, when Mexico City’s periphery effectively expanded, due to a new wave of large-scale irregular settlements and subsidised public housing projects. The analytical model is complicated by the relative immunity from macro-economic trends of both social housing and irregular settlements. Until recently, the availability of mortgage loans for social housing was not determined by the economic climate, but by federal and local housing policies. Even during periods of acute ‘stagflation’ such as the mid-1980s, subsidised public housing projects forged ahead. However, recent changes to the housing finance system have privatised many stages in social housing development previously handled by the government, making them more vulnerable to market swings. The relative independence of irregular urban development from financial cycles has been pointed out by Jiménez (2000, 131) and Abramo (2003). This is partly due to the lack of intervention of credit. Additionally, in Mexico, the existence of community property rights governed by agrarian law, combined with unrealistic building and planning regulations, has prevented large tracts of land on the urban periphery from being formally developed. However, the transformation of community property rights both by institutional reform and customary practice can, theoretically at least, open up these lands to the market, although, as we shall see, this was not the case in Mexico City until recently. In all events, the extent to which irregular settlement formation is conditioned by the economic climate in general, and by real-estate dynamics in particular, will depend on the options available to commercial and irregular developers at any moment in time. These options also vary not only in time but also geographically. Mexico City is made up of two distinct administrative entities: the Federal District (DF) and metropolitan municipalities of the adjacent states.2 The respective local governments impose various degrees of control on all kinds of urban development, formal or irregular. This means that urban policies concerning the growth and consolidation of irregular settlements have been both contradictory and complementary. A much-cited historical example is the massive expansion of urban development into metropolitan municipalities in the State of Mexico during the late 1950s and 1960s, 2

The current official definition of Metropolitan Mexico City includes 58 municipalities in the State of Mexico and one municipality belonging to the state of Hidalgo (CONAPO/SEDESOL/INEGI, 2008).


26/3/09 11:55:42

10

Priscilla Connolly

when new settlements within the Federal District were being repressed by Mayor Ernesto Uruchurtu (Unikel, 1972). In recent years the situation could be seen as similar; a restrictive policy in the DF is counterbalanced by more permissive practices in the metropolitan municipalities. The possibilities for irregular development are also conditioned by the political protection of irregular land sales. Traditionally, the corporativist allegiance to the ruling party provided de facto legitimisation to irregular land developers in exchange for unconditional political support (Nuñez, 1990, 59–85; Duhau, 1998, 195–206). Since the onset of gradual political reform in the 1970s, opposition parties have begun to win state and municipal elections. Notably, the first elections for mayor of the DF in 1997 were won by the left-wing candidate Cuauhtemoc Cárdenas. The process culminated in the 2000 presidential elections, won by the right-wing coalition candidate, Vicente Fox. Although the change to electoral democracy has by no means eliminated clientelistic practices, including those governing the access to land in irregular settlements, the rules of the game have changed somewhat, as key actors are substituted or swap allegiances.3 Finally, the pace of urban expansion through formal and irregular developments is conditioned, not by demographic growth per se, but by the rate of household formation, which in turn is determined by the age pyramid, family size and structure, and other socio-demographical tendencies. The macro-economic climate, 1990–2005 The period 1990–2005 contained three major economic cycles. (See Figures 3 and 4 showing Mexico’s GDP annual growth rate and annual consumer price inflation.) From 1989 to 1994, there was steady growth in GDP accompanied by moderate inflation. Real estate values recovered from the recession of the previous decade, fuelled by the liberation of restrictions on newly re-privatised banks, enabling them to grant mortgage loans. In such conditions we would expect to see the consolidation and densification of both formal and irregular development. At the end of 1994, the ‘December disasters’ threw the country’s finances into turmoil again. The previous overheating of the financial markets was partly due to reckless lending by the banks in the middle and high-income housing sector. After the crunch, prices of everything except land values soured, while many home-buyers were dispossessed or struggled 3

The subject of clientelism after political reform has not been prominent on recent academic research agendas. However, everyday experience bears witness not only to the continued operation of political allegiance mechanisms favouring the erstwhile hegemonic Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), but also to the reproduction of such mechanisms within other political parties. In the context of irregular settlement formation and consolidation, the phenomenon has been observed in various unpublished monographs and theses; see, for example, Ornelas, 2008 and Gutiérrez, 2008.


26/3/09 11:55:42

11


Figure 3 Mexico: GDP growth rate 1988–2004 at constant 1993 prices. Source: Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía: Sistema de Cuentas Nacionales de México, Series Anuales

Figure 4 Mexico: annual consumer price inflation rates, 1983–2007. Source: calculated from Banco de México ‘Índice de Inflación subyacente’

to meet monthly payments converted into ‘investment units’ costing ever-increasing amounts of money. In these post-crisis years, we would expect an increase in the territorial expansion of irregular settlements due to the combination of plummeting land prices, lack of mortgage credit and the increase of impoverished household formation. By 1997, however, the economy had recovered; inflation was under control, as was the dollar exchange rate, and real estate regained its value. Moreover, these indicators were not affected by the political changeover in 2000, breaking the long tradition of economic downturns linked to the closure of presidential tenures. Since 2000, comparatively slow economic growth rates have been accompanied by stable exchange rates and unusually low inflation. One effect of this macro-


26/3/09 11:55:56

12

Priscilla Connolly

Figure 5 Mexico City Federal District: market land prices, 2001–2005 (pesos per square metre). Source: Tesorería del Distrito Federal, Oficina del Catastro: Comercial Land Values. These are based on authorised valuers’ reports and prices registered by notaries in property titles

economic stability, combined with a restructuring of the housing credit systems, has been the escalation of land values. For example, average land prices for the whole of Mexico City’s DF more than doubled between 2001 and 2005; in areas where extensive upmarket housing development has taken place, prices have tripled, as they also have in areas dominated by new irregular settlement expansion. The most expensive land, occupied intensively by commercial and administrative uses, has also increase in value, but proportionally less than land available for housing (see Figure 5). In the DF,


26/3/09 11:55:57


13

Figure 6 Mexico: annual formal sector housing loans, 1983–2007. Source: Based on statistics provided by Comisión Nacional de Vivienda

at least, the irregular land market has been strongly affected by the macro-economic climate; new irregular settlement as a housing solution has become expensive. Housing and urban policies 1990–2005 As suggested above, the macro-economic climate, interest rates and inflation are not the only forces affecting irregular settlement development and consolidation. The availability of housing credits as well as interest rates are governed by national and local housing policies. In this respect, any analysis of urban development in Mexico over the past fifteen years needs to take into account the radical restructuring of the housing financial system throughout the 1990s, accompanied by the emergence of a thriving housing industry.4 About 60 per cent of the mortgage loans for middle and lower-middle income groups is provided by payroll funds for private and public sector workers. The rest comes from specialised lending institutions, created after 1993, and national and local government subsidies. The main function of all these institutions is to provide subsidised mortgage credit to guarantee effective demand for housing developers. Some of the largest of these produce over 20–30,000 units a year and 4

For an analysis in English of Mexican housing policy before restructuring, see Herbert and Pickering (1997) or Connolly (2004); for a more up-to-date account, see CIDOC (2005).


26/3/09 11:55:57

14

Priscilla Connolly

Figure 7 The alternative to irregular settlements? Industrialised housing production in San Buenaventura, Iztapaluca Municipality on the outer fringe of Mexico City, 2001. Photos: Priscilla Connolly


26/3/09 11:55:58


15

are listed on the Mexican stock exchange. These largest developers constitute a new breed of housing industry integrating land banking, development, construction and commercialisation. The result of this enabling environment for industrialised housing development, combined with macro-economic stability, is shown in Figure 6. Mexico City has been affected by the housing boom in two ways. In peripheral areas, about 168 new housing developments were authorised between 2000 and 2007, totalling about 380,000 dwellings (Godínez, 2008). Most of these are built for lower and middle income formal sector employees. The houses are single-family units of 30–50m2, grouped in horizontal condominiums within estates that often contain thousands of dwellings (see Figure 7). They are generally located outside previously urbanised areas on the extreme periphery of the city, incurring commuting times of over two hours each way. A major criticism of this type of development is that it creates large amounts of housing without a city environment (Esquivel, 2006, 104). Other criticisms refer to the minimal size, lack of privacy and structural problems (Borja and García, 2005). Within the DF, large-scale housing development of this kind has been impossible due to the lack of areas of cheap land available for building. After December 2001, in an effort to stem the population loss from central areas and to prevent further urbanisation in ‘conservation land’ to the south, the incoming Federal District Government (GDF) imposed a virtual ban on any formal housing development outside the four central jurisdictions. This channelled housing investment into new medium-rise flats for middle and high income households within areas that were mostly urbanised before the 1940s or 1950s. Between 2001 and 2005, private developers built 47,328 dwellings in projects of over five units; 37,800 of these are within the four central jurisdictions (Benlluire, 2005). At US$45,000 upwards, these flats are too expensive for people below the top 25 per cent income bracket. The majority of new households must look for housing either in formal developments or in irregular settlements situated in the peripheral areas in metropolitan municipalities. To offset this tendency, the GDF put in place two types of housing policy. First, between 2001 and 2005, it subsidised the construction of 64,310 flats for low-income families, mostly within the central city (INVI, 2008). Second, an innovative scheme providing subsidised credits for ‘home improvement’ and ‘new building on own land’ aimed at accelerating the consolidation and densification process of existing irregular settlements. Proof of income is not required, just proof of possession of the plot of land concerned with the written approval of the accredited owner. An authorised architectural project for the proposed investment is also necessary, and technical assistance for this is provided and paid for as part of the loan. Between 2001 and 2005, 99,456 such credits were granted (INVI, 2008). Both the new housing and the improvement loan scheme are ongoing policies: 9,575 credits for new flats and 32,091 for home improvement were awarded from 2005 to 2007 (INVI, 2008).


26/3/09 11:55:58

16

Priscilla Connolly

Agrarian policies and traditional politics From the above, it is clear that new irregular settlements on the periphery of Mexico City are increasingly competing with the burgeoning housing industry, which is building massively for the middle-income and social interest sectors. An additional factor has intensified this competition: the 1992 constitutional reform, which opened the way, among other things, for the individualisation of property rights and the sale of communally-owned agrarian property for both agricultural and urban development. Initially, some observers (Pradilla, 1992; Castañeda, 1993; Nava, 1993) thought that this would inevitably lead to the generalised ‘privatisation’ of the tierras comunales and ejidos (the names given, respectively, to community properties that existed before the revolutionary constitution instigated agrarian reform in 1917, and those that were distributed afterwards). This scenario was in fact incorporated into national planning policy, which predicted that 65 per cent of land reserves for the planned expansion of the country’s 100 major cities consisted of ejidal lands. However, in the years immediately following the constitutional reform, the expected massive sale of these community properties for urban development did not happen. In fact, by 1996, only one-third of the agrarian communities with land potentially available for urbanisation within Metropolitan Mexico City had attained the certification of their property, a necessary stage in individual land entitlement; not one of these certified communities was located in the DF (Cruz, 2001, 275–76). In hindsight, we can probably point to the economic crisis and real estate slump as the major causes of this. In the late 1990s, however, other reasons were proffered. Jones and Ward (1998, 86–7) provide four explanations: first, in the context of a ‘continued over-supply of illegally subdivided ejidal land’, the constitutional reform in fact boosted illegal development of community property as it provided another basis for legitimising the sale of plots. This worked increasingly to the benefit of intermediaries backed by municipal powers. Second, corrupt municipal authorities continued to have an interest in illegal land transactions. Third, new forms of illegal land transaction were likely to be emerging as a result of the constitutional reform. Fourth, the administrative weakness of the municipalities hindered any kind of planned development. Cruz (2001, 336–39) added other considerations, such as the lack of interest and know-how about the new legislation on the part of some community property landholders, and even the housing developers. She also mentions the new legal complexities and conflicts engendered by the constitutional reform. These and other studies suggest that the combination of the emerging housing industry and the release of community property lands for private development did not produce an immediate switch from irregular to regular urban development of these lands. After 2000, however, the situation began to change, as a more businessaware generation of ejidatarios, or community owners, entered into partnerships with the developers.


26/3/09 11:55:58


17

Socio-demographic tendencies, 1990–2005 The 1990 census proved that Mexico City was not going to be the largest city in the world. Its total metropolitan population turned out to be 15.3 million, and from 1980 to 1990 it had been a net exporter of migrants. Since then, growth has depended on natural population increase, which is less than the national average. In 2005, the total population of the DF and the metropolitan municipalities was 19.2 million, with an annual growth rate of 0.8 per cent. This includes about half a million people living in rural localities within the metropolitan area. But the population is also ageing, due to a drastic reduction in fertility rates. The median age in Metropolitan Mexico City gains about 2.5 years every five years. In the DF, it was 29 in 2005, up from about 19 in 1990. In the metropolitan municipalities, the median age is about five years younger, reflecting the more recent process of urbanisation (Flores and Esquivel, 2005). All this means that the rate of household formation and thus the demand for housing far outstrip population growth.

Figure 8 Metropolitan Mexico City: distribution of households by combined monthly household income, 2000. Source: extrapolated from 2000 National Population and Housing Census, 10 per cent sample


26/3/09 11:55:59

18

Priscilla Connolly

Finally, it is useful to remember the extremely uneven distribution of wealth, both in the country as a whole and in Metropolitan Mexico City. Figure 8 shows the distribution of households by income and the approximate correspondence with the supply of new housing available to each income stratum. Note the large overlap between the effective demand for formal and irregular housing within the middle income range. Until the recent surge in industrialised construction, there was an insufficient supply of low- and medium-priced formal housing to meet effective demand. Irregular settlements were by no means home only to the very poor, but also to middle-income families who could not, or would not, acquire formal-sector housing. The basic questions The basic contextual considerations outlined above prompt the following questions.

•

How have the above changes affected the relative participation of irregular settlements in total housing provision? • To what degree have the ebbs and flows in irregular settlement formation and consolidation responded to the changes outlined above? In other words, in each period, how much additional housing was being produced by the consolidation process or densification in existing settlements, and how much is being produced in new settlements? • How are these changes affecting densities and the quality of habitat in irregular settlements?

The dynamics of Mexico City’s irregular settlements, 1990–2005 The importance of irregular settlements in housing provision Tables 2a and 2b show the absolute and relative distribution of inhabited dwelling in census tracts within urban localities, classified by settlement type, for 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2005. They prove what has been known for a long time: that over half of Mexico City, like many other Latin American cities, has been irregularly developed. Housing on all forms of irregularly-developed land increased its share of housing production between 1990 and 2005, reaching a peak of 62 per cent in 2000, but falling back to 60.5 per cent (2.8 million dwellings) in 2005. The greater part of this development corresponds to what are known as colonias populares, or irregular settlements, although villages in various states of conurbation are playing an increasing role in irregular housing provision. This tendency becomes clearer in Table 3, showing the relative distribution by settlement type of the increase in additional inhabited dwellings between census


26/3/09 11:55:59

19


Table 2a Metropolitan Mexico City: distribution of dwellings by settlement type, 1990–95 Settlement type

1990

Inhabited individual dwellings (urban localities) 1995 2000 2005

Federal district (DF) 1.1 Colonial city 15,629 13,856 12,236 1.2 Inner city 339,265 325,425 323,464 1.3 Conurbated town 26,453 28,696 30,264 2.1 Social housing project 286,407 344,112 359,960 2.2 Middle-income residential 170,277 179,782 183,426 2.3 High-income residential 28,610 32,962 34,080 3.1 Irregular settlement 720,144 822,280 868,234 3.2 Conurbated village 184,705 225,569 248,487 3.3 Non-conurbated village 10,009 15,227 18,616 4.1 Predominantly non-residential 14,078 17,782 20,454 4.2 Non-residential 384 242 0 Total DF 1,795,961 2,005,933 2,099,221

10,326 352,081 33,170 387,913 189,842 38,892 937,565 279,626 22,328 24,639 117 2,276,499

Metropolitan municipalities 1.3 Conurbated town 46,775 62,012 69,313 2.1 Social housing project 179,771 249,632 286,920 2.2 Middle-income residential 148,621 162,489 167,271 2.3 High-income residential 23,368 29,198 31,185 3.1 Irregular settlement 795,545 1,032,213 1,132,783 3.2 Conurbated village 60,450 81,706 96,757 3.3 Non-conurbated village 111,184 163,696 193,958 4.1 Predominantly non-residential 33,758 44,871 55,642 4.2 Non-residential 58 46 0 5 Unclassified 2005 Total metropolitan municipalities 1,399,530 1,825,863 2,033,829

55,430 446,458 183,468 35,784 1,230,500 122,998 232,253 73,858 993 9,858 2,391,600

Metropolitan Mexico City 1.1 Colonial city 15,629 13,856 12,236 1.2 Inner city 339,265 325,425 323,464 1.3 Conurbated town 73,228 90,708 99,577 Total pre-1929 urbanisation 428,122 429,989 435,277 2.1 Social housing project 466,178 593,744 646,880 2.2 Middle-income residential 318,898 342,271 350,697 2.3 High-income residential 51,978 62,160 65,265 Total formal urbanisation 837,054 998,175 1,062,842 3.1 Irregular settlement 1,515,689 1,854,493 2,001,017 3.2 Conurbated village 245,155 307,275 345,244 3.3 Non-conurbated village 121,193 178,923 212,574 Total irregular urbanisation 1,882,037 2,340,691 2,558,835 4.1 Predominantly non-residential 47,836 62,653 76,096 4.2 Non-residential 442 288 0 5 Unclassified 2005 Total Metropolitan Mexico City 3,195,491 3,831,796 4,133,050

10,326 352,081 88,600 451,007 834,371 373,310 74,676 1,282,357 2,168,065 402,624 254,581 2,825,270 98,497 1,110 9,858 4,668,099

Source: OCIM-SIG, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Azcaptozalco, 2008, based on the XI and XII Population and Housing Censuses and the 1995 and 2005 population counts. Excludes population living in rural localities


26/3/09 11:55:59

20

Priscilla Connolly

Table 2b Metropolitan Mexico City: percentage distribution of dwellings by settlement type 1990–2005 Settlement type

1990

Inhabited individual dwellings: % distribution 1995 2000

Federal district (DF) 1.1 Colonial city 1.2 Inner city 1.3 Conurbated town 2.1 Social housing project 2.2 Middle-income residential 2.3 High-income residential 3.1 Irregular settlement 3.2 Conurbated village 3.3 Non-conurbated village 4.1 Predominantly non-residential 4.2 Non-residential Total DF

0.5% 10.6% 0.8% 9.0% 5.3% 0.9% 22.5% 5.8% 0.3% 0.4% 0.0% 56.2%

0.4% 8.5% 0.7% 9.0% 4.7% 0.9% 21.5% 5.9% 0.4% 0.5% 0.0% 52.3%

0.3% 7.8% 0.7% 8.7% 4.4% 0.8% 21.0% 6.0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% 50.8%

0.2% 7.5% 0.7% 8.3% 4.1% 0.8% 20.1% 6.0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% 48.8%

Metropolitan municipalities 1.3 Conurbated town 2.1 Social housing project 2.2 Middle-income residential 2.3 High-income residential 3.1 Irregular settlement 3.2 Conurbated village 3.3 Non-conurbated village 4.1 Predominantly non-residential 4.2 Non-residential 5 Unclassified 2005 Total Metropolitan municipalities

0.0% 1.5% 5.6% 4.7% 0.7% 24.9% 1.9% 3.5% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 43.8%

0.0% 1.6% 6.5% 4.2% 0.8% 26.9% 2.1% 4.3% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 47.7%

0.0% 1.7% 6.9% 4.0% 0.8% 27.4% 2.3% 4.7% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 49.2%

0.0% 1.2% 9.6% 3.9% 0.8% 26.4% 2.6% 5.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.2% 51.2%

Metropolitan Mexico City 1.1 Colonial city 1.2 Inner city 1.3 Conurbated town Total pre-1929 urbanisation 2.1 Social housing project 2.2 Middle-income residential 2.3 High-income residential Total formal urbanisation 3.1 Irregular settlement 3.2 Conurbated village 3.3 Non-conurbated village Total irregular urbanisation 4.1 Predominantly non-residential 4.2 Non-residential 5 Unclassified 2005 Total Metropolitan Mexico City

0.0% 0.5% 10.6% 2.3% 13.4% 14.6% 10.0% 1.6% 26.2% 47.4% 7.7% 3.8% 58.9% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0% 0.4% 8.5% 2.4% 11.2% 15.5% 8.9% 1.6% 26.0% 48.4% 8.0% 4.7% 61.1% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0% 0.3% 7.8% 2.4% 10.5% 15.7% 8.5% 1.6% 25.7% 48.4% 8.4% 5.1% 61.9% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0% 0.2% 7.5% 1.9% 9.7% 17.9% 8.0% 1.6% 27.5% 46.4% 8.6% 5.5% 60.5% 2.1% 0.0% 0.2% 100.0%

2005

Source: OCIM-SIG, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Azcaptozalco, 2008, based on the XI and XII Population and Housing Censuses and the 1995 and 2005 population counts. Excludes population living in rural localities


26/3/09 11:55:59

21


Table 3 Metropolitan Mexico City: percentage distribution of increase or decrease in number of dwellings by settlement type 1990–2005 Settlement type

Increase or decrease of inhabited dwellings as percentage of total increase 1990–1995 1995–2000 2000–2005

Federal district (DF) 1.1 Colonial city -0.3% -0.5% 1.2 Inner city -2.2% -0.7% 1.3 Conurbated town 0.4% 0.5% 2.1 Social housing project 9.1% 5.3% 2.2 Middle-income residential 1.5% 1.2% 2.3 High-income residential 0.7% 0.4% 3.1 Irregular settlement 16.1% 15.3% 3.2 Conurbated village 6.4% 7.6% 3.3 Non-conurbated village 0.8% 1.1% 4.1 Predominantly non-residential 0.6% 0.9% 4.2 Non-residential 0.0% -0.1% Total DF 33.0% 31.0%

-0.4% 5.3% 0.5% 5.2% 1.2% 0.9% 13.0% 5.8% 0.7% 0.8% 0.0% 33.1%

Metropolitan municipalities 1.3 Conurbated town 2.1 Social housing project 2.2 Middle-income residential 2.3 High-income residential 3.1 Irregular settlement 3.2 Conurbated village 3.3 Non-conurbated village 4.1 Predominantly non-residential 4.2 Non-residential 5 Unclassified 2005 Total Metropolitan Municipalities

0.0% 2.4% 11.0% 2.2% 0.9% 37.2% 3.3% 8.3% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 67.0%

0.0% 2.4% 12.4% 1.6% 0.7% 33.4% 5.0% 10.0% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 69.0%

0.0% -2.6% 29.8% 3.0% 0.9% 18.3% 4.9% 7.2% 3.4% 0.2% 1.8% 66.9%

Metropolitan Mexico City 1.1 Colonial city 1.2 Inner city 1.3 Conurbated town Total pre-1929 urbanisation 2.1 Social housing project 2.2 Middle-income residential 2.3 High-income residential Total formal urbanisation 3.1 Irregular settlement 3.2 Conurbated village 3.3 Non-conurbated village Total irregular urbanisation 4.1 Predominantly non-residential 4.2 Non-residential 5 Unclassified 2005 Total Metropolitan Mexico City

0.0% -0.3% -2.2% 2.7% 0.3% 20.0% 3.7% 1.6% 25.3% 53.2% 9.8% 9.1% 72.1% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0% -0.5% -0.7% 2.9% 1.8% 17.6% 2.8% 1.0% 21.5% 48.6% 12.6% 11.2% 72.4% 4.5% -0.1% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0% -0.4% 5.3% -2.1% 2.9% 35.0% 4.2% 1.8% 41.0% 31.2% 10.7% 7.9% 49.8% 4.2% 0.2% 1.8% 100.0%

Source: OCIM-SIG, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Azcaptozalco, 2008, based on the XI and XII Population and Housing Censuses and the 1995 and 2005 population counts.


26/3/09 11:55:59

22

Priscilla Connolly

events. Considering, first, the decade 1990 to 2000, there is a notable decrease in the generation of additional housing in all types of formally developed areas in the latter half of the decade, particularly in social housing in the DF. This probably reflects the impact of the economic crisis following the 1990–94 economic recovery and corresponding real estate boom and bust. The sharp reduction of inner-city housing in the first half of the decade was due to land-use changes and can also be attributed to the economic growth and restructuring during this period. However, the rate of housing decline in central areas eases off following the crisis years of 1994–95. Meanwhile, throughout the decade, irregularly developed areas continued to generate the bulk of new housing: 72 per cent in both periods. An increasing proportion of this additional irregular housing was not produced in the well-studied massive colonias populares, but in smaller-scale subdivisions around existing outlying villages (Cruz, 2001). The decade 1990–2000 also saw the continued shift of new housing production away from the DF and into the surrounding municipalities, which accounted for nearly 70 per cent of all additional housing between 1995 and 2000. Since 2000, the combination of macro-economic stability, housing finance restructuring, local planning constraints, privatisation of communal agrarian property and electoral democracy has profoundly changed the structure of housing provision in Mexico City and in the whole country. At least until the next financial crisis, formal housing production is making a significant dent in the volume of irregular housing created in irregular settlements and outlying villages. The contribution of formallyurbanised areas has almost doubled, representing 41 per cent of the total increase of inhabited dwellings between 2000 and 2005. Over this five-year period, more additional occupied housing was produced in the new social housing projects than in irregular settlements. Of these new projects, 90 per cent are located in nine metropolitan municipalities, usually on the extreme periphery of the urban area.5 Another important contributor to the increase in formal housing is the inner city, located in the DF and urbanised between 1820 and 1929. This area gained more than 28,000 dwellings from 2000 to 2005, compared to a total loss of nearly 16,000 dwellings over the previous decade. In the context of abundant mortgage credit, the ban on new housing outside the four central jurisdictions has been successful in stemming the net population outflow from these areas. The historic colonial centre, however, has continued to lose population; more than 5,000 dwellings have disappeared since 1990, leaving just 10,326 registered in 2005. So although the DF has regained its ground in the total production of dwellings in Metropolitan Mexico City, this is primarily due to the construction of housing for middle-income families and, to a lesser extent, the efforts of the GDF to build subsidised flats for low-income families. Conventional social interest housing financed by the major payroll fund was not feasible at all 5

These muncipalities are: Tecamac, Ecatepec, Cuautitlán Izcalli, Coacalco, Cuautitlán de Romero Rubio, Ixtapaluca, Tultitlán, Huehuetoca and Nicolás Romero.


26/3/09 11:56:00

23


Table 4 Metropolitan Mexico City: irregular urbanisation. Distribution of increase in dwellings in from 1990 to 2000 and 2000 to 2005 by age and type of settlement

Increase in inhabited dwellings 1990–2000 No. %

Irregular settlement 1929–1953 1953–1970 1970–1990 1990–2000 2000–2005 Total Conurbated village Total conurbated irregular localities

Increase in inhabited dwellings 2000–2005 No. %

5,119 158,471 284,995 37,406 – 485,991

0.8% 23.4% 42.1% 5.5% 0.0% 71.7%

7,533 26,628 82,284 14,168 28,682 159,295

3.0% 10.4% 32.3% 5.6% 11.3% 62.5%

1929–1953 26,598 1953–1970 31,150 1970–1990 35,665 1990–2000 6,800 2000–2005 Total 100,213 1929–1953 31,717 1953–1970 189,621 1970–1990 320,660 1990–2000 44,206 2000–2005 Total 586,204

3.9% 4.6% 5.3% 1.0% 0.0% 14.8% 4.7% 28.0% 47.3% 6.5% 0.0% 86.5%

13,831 14,379 14,121 3,145 7,271 52,747 21,364 41,007 96,405 17,313 35,954 212,043

5.4% 5.6% 5.5% 1.2% 2.9% 20.7% 8.4% 16.1% 37.8% 6.8% 14.1% 83.2%

91,159

13.5%

42,806

16.8%

677,363

100.0%

254,848

100.0%

Non-conurbated Non-conurbated village census localities Total

Source: OCIM–SIG, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Azcaptozalco, 2008, based on the XI and XII Population and Housing Censuses and the 1995 and 2005 population counts.

within the DF, because of the ban on peripheral developments and high land values generally. The increase in formal residential development is counter-balanced by the decreased importance of additional housing in irregularly urbanised areas. Between 2000 and 2005, this contributed to only 50 per cent of the total increase in housing stock, compared to over 70 per cent in the previous decade. This reduction is strongest in irregular settlements, which contributed to only 19 per cent of all additional housing, and to a lesser extent in non-conurbated villages, whose contribution dropped from 9.7 to 7.9 per cent. New housing production in conurbated villages continued at the same rate as before.


26/3/09 11:56:00

24

Priscilla Connolly

The distribution of additional housing between existing and new irregular settlements: the persistent irregular settlement of agrarian community property In the previous section it was suggested that cheap credit and expensive land restrains the establishment of new irregular developments, while encouraging additional building and the densification of existing settlements. It is tempting, therefore, to explain the reduction in the contribution of the colonias populares to new housing production in terms of rising land values and, in the metropolitan municipalities, to the new opportunities for traditional and agrarian landowners to sell to formal developers or speculate. However, when the data on additional housing are broken down by age of settlement, this explanation does not hold. To explore the tendencies in the expansion and consolidation of irregular settlements, we can look at the distribution of additional dwellings and the densities in settlements of different ages (Table 4). Between 1990 and 2000, a period that includes both economic growth and recession, most of the very substantial production of new irregular housing occurred in the older settlements. For example, 42 per cent of the increase of all housing in irregular settlements over that period was in colonias populares initiated between 1970 and 1990, and 23 per cent in settlements that date from before 1970. Similarly, villages that were conurbated before 1990 contributed more to new housing production than those more recently conurbated, while a similar proportion – 13 per cent – was also generated in villages that were completely separated from central Mexico City in 2000. Housing in completely new settlements established between 1990 and 2000 accounted for only 6.5 per cent of all new housing in irregular settlements. It is therefore safe to say that the principal land reserves for housing the poor between 1990 and 2000 were the existing irregular settlements and the conurbated villages. The years of the massive expansion of irregular settlements seemed to be over. However, this tendency towards the intense densification of existing settlements appeared to change after 2000, in spite of the GDF’s home improvement programme. In fact, an important factor in the overall decrease in the contribution of irregular settlements to new housing production is the severe slowing down of the densification process in the older colonias populares. In other words, the massive reduction in the rate of production of irregular housing since 2000 cannot be attributed to high land values, or even absolute scarcity of land. What has slowed down is the building of additional dwellings on family plots in consolidated settlements, a process that is also relatively immune from land prices and credit cycles as the plots are previously owned and construction is not financed by formal credit (except in the DF after 2000, under the home improvement loan scheme). At least some third- and fourth-generation occupants of consolidated irregular settlements are finding new formal housing options. At the same time, the capacity of the older settlements to continue absorbing additional population may be reaching its limit. On average, population density seems


26/3/09 11:56:00

25


Table 5 Metropolitan Mexico City: population and housing densities in irregular settlements by date of urbanisation

Average housing density of census tracts (dwellings per hectare)

Average population density of census tracts (inhabitants per hectare)

Irregular settlements 1929–1953 1953–1970 1970–1990 1990–2000 2000–2005 Total irregular settlements

1990

1995

2000

2005

1990

1995

2000

2005

51.6 38.3 22.4 0.0 0.0 30.9

51.2 43.2 31.0 8.1 0.0 36.9

52.1 45.2 34.1 17.9 0.0 39.7

52.9 46.6 38.5 23.8 20.0 40.7

236.6 194.7 115.9 0.0 0.0 154.7

217.9 196.5 147.2 37.8 0.0 168.6

210.7 198.6 160.9 90.2 0.0 177.6

200.3 190.9 167.4 109.8 88.9 170.0

All census tracts Before 1820 43.7 38.9 34.7 29.9 180.1 156.5 137.9 (colonial city) 1820–1929 45.2 43.1 43.0 46.5 174.7 158.4 152.4 (inner city) 1929–1953 37.7 38.3 39.0 40.5 168.3 158.3 154.7 1953–1970 34.9 38.8 40.1 42.5 165.5 168.0 168.1 1970–1990 23.3 32.7 35.1 39.6 114.2 149.1 159.1 1990–2000 0.0 6.4 16.5 24.4 0.1 28.9 78.7 2000–2005 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Non-conurbated 2.9 4.7 6.3 7.5 15.8 22.8 30.8 localities Total all census 26.5 31.3 33.3 35.2 123.3 135.7 141.5 tracts

114.7 152.1 149.6 165.5 163.3 104.5 92.2 33.1 138.6

Source: OCIM–SIG, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Azcaptozalco, 2008, based on the XI and XII Population and Housing Censuses and the 1995 and 2005 population counts.

to peak at 210 people per hectare in settlements created between 1929 and 1953 (Table 5). However, the maximum densities registered in some census tracts are as high as 500 people per hectare. Contrary to what is happening in the older settlements, totally new irregular settlements accounted for a much larger proportion of new housing production between 2000 and 2005 than in the previous decade: 11.3 per cent (28,682 new dwellings over the five years) compared to 5.5 per cent (37,406 dwellings over ten years). This is surprising, given that it was after 2000 that land prices soared and irregular land development theoretically faced fierce competition from the commercial developers. However, community agrarian properties or ejidos still provide the major proportion of land for irregular settlement; of the 19.5 km2 of new irregular settlements in census


26/3/09 11:56:00

26

Priscilla Connolly

Table 6 Metropolitan Mexico City: urban expansion by type of settlement and land ownership, 2000–2005 (hectares) Settlement type

a Total new census tracts created 2000–2005

b New census tracts on certified ejidos

b/a %

2.1 Social housing project 2.2 Middle-income residential 2.3 High-income residential 3.1 Irregular settlement 3.2 Conurbated village 3.3 Non-conurbated village 4.1 Predominantly non-residential 4.2 Non-residential (2000) Unclassified

3,643.45 91.75 1,094.86 1,949.93 800.25 1,558.04 207.34 219.36 196.54

1,273.18 33.51 444.74 1,344.15 515.29 590.34 107.93 32.80 83.50

35% 37% 41% 69% 64% 38% 52% 15% 42%

Total new census tracts

9,761.52

4,425.44

45%

Source: OCIM–SIG, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Azcaptozalco, 2008, based on the XII Population and Housing Censuses, the 2005 population count and data and cartography provided by the Programa de Certificacón de Derechos Ejidales-Comunales (Procede), 2008.

tracts created between 2000 and 2005, 13.5 (or nearly 70 per cent) were on ejidos. This should be compared to the 36.5 km2 of new social housing on census tracts created between 2000 and 2005, 35 per cent of which had previously been ejidos (see Table 6). New urbanisation in and around villages continues at much the same pace as the previous decade, which may reflect their continued relative independence from the fluctuations of the land market. Their development has also involved a lower proportion of ejidal lands. New irregular settlement formation is not only occurring at a faster rate, but also generates higher initial densities. One explanation is that these new irregular developments have much smaller plot sizes than previous generations of irregular urbanisation: 70–120 m2, as opposed to 150–300 m2 in areas urbanised between 1929 and 1990. In fact, the available land per plot in new irregular developments is often the same as in the industrialised housing projects. Also, it must be remembered that the new industrialised formal housing, although it has lowered costs to a certain extent, is still not accessible to the poorest 30–40 per cent of the population who earn less than three to four times the minimum wage and/or cannot prove that they have a steady income. This population must still be housed by irregular endeavour. The question then arises as to how the recent shifts in housing provision are affecting the housing quality in irregular settlements, old and new.


26/3/09 11:56:00


27

Housing quality in irregular settlements One advantage of consolidated irregular settlements in Mexico City is that they are not necessarily spatially segregated from the rich (Sabatini and Cázares, 2005). Many irregular settlements are considerably less segregated than formal development (see Figure 2). Middle- and high-income residential areas are almost exclusively located to south and west of the city – traditionally more favourable locations because of the availability of drinking water, higher elevations safe from floods and historic land-use patterns. Similarly, subsidised housing projects tend to be exclusively located on cheaper land on the north, east and southeast outskirts of the city. Irregular settlements, on the other hand, are dispersed throughout the city, although some are decidedly more unfavourably located than others in terms of access to amenities, risk from flooding and landslides and distance from the rich. Another advantage of irregularity is the social heterogeneity it produces once (and if) the settlements become consolidated (Connolly, 2003, 13–17). The heterogeneous nature of irregular developments is reflected in the wide variety of housing conditions a single neighbourhood can provide; on average they are not so bad. To obtain a quantitative assessment of average housing standards in different settlement types, a composite index from seven 2000 census housing variables was constructed using the K-means cluster analysis available with the SPSS statistical package. The procedure was originally run with 15 census variables for two, three and four clusters. Finally, four clusters of census tracts were identified with commensurate values for the following seven variables corresponding to the percentage of dwellings: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

with precarious roofing; comprising only one room; without own toilet; with no drainage connection; with no inside tap; with no telephone; and with no water-heater.

Table 7 shows the results of this exercise: the distribution of dwellings by census tracts in the different settlement types classified by their housing quality index. As might be expected, practically all of the bad and very bad housing is to be found in the different types of irregular settlements, as well as in the old conurbated towns.6 Of these, the more rural non-conurbated villages show worse housing conditions, as they have substantially worse municipal services and more traditional construction. Housing quality seems to be inversely related to distance from the city centre, largely due to irregular settlement. 6

The 320 dwellings in high-income residential areas classified as ‘very bad’ correspond to a gated ‘ecological neighbourhood’ with very large individual plots of land which are not connected to the water and drainage mains.


26/3/09 11:56:00

28

Priscilla Connolly

Table 7 Metropolitan Mexico City 2000: distribution of dwellings in census tracts by settlement type and housing quality index Settlement type

Very good

Colonial city 1,970 % 16.10% Inner city 293,241 % 90.70% Conurbated town 18,229 % 18.30% Total pre-1930 urbanisation 313,441 % 72.00% Conurbated village 32,820 % 9.50% Non-conurbated village 6,185 % 2.90% Irregular settlement 180,138 % 9.00% Total 1930–2000 irregular 219,143 urbanisation % 8.60% Housing project 562,120 % 86.90% Middle-income residencial 324,199 % 92.40% High-income residential 58,070 % 89.00% Total 1930–2000 formal 944,392 urbanisation % 88.90% Predominantly non-residential 25,437 % 33.40% Total Metropolitan 1,502,409 Mexico City ZMVM % 36.40%

Housing quality index Good Bad

Very bad

Total

10,266 83.90% 0.00% 0.00% 28,807 1,416 8.90% 0.40% 0.00% 55,427 21,698 4,223 55.70% 21.80% 4.20% 94,501 23,114 4,223 21.70% 5.30% 1.00% 190,837 93,210 28,377 55.30% 27.00% 8.20% 47,272 112,665 46,452 22.20% 53.00% 21.90% 1,140,061 584,155 96,663 57.00% 29.20% 4.80% 1,378,171 790,031 171,492

12,236 100.00% 323,464 100.00% 99,577 100.00% 435,280 100.00% 345,244 100.00% 212,574 100.00% 2,001,017 100.00% 2,558,838

53.90% 30.90% 6.70% 82,141 1,412 1,207 12.70% 0.20% 0.20% 26,498 7.60% 0.00% 0.00% 6,875 320 10.50% 0.00% 0.50% 115,514 1,412 1,527

100.00% 646,880 100.00% 350,697 100.00% 65,265 100.00% 1,062,845

10.90% 27,084 35.60% 1,615,268

0.10% 15,935 20.90% 830,491

0.10% 7,640 10.00% 184,882

100.00% 76,096 100.00% 4,133,050

39.10%

20.10%

4.50%

100.00%

Source: OCIM-SIG, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Azcaptozalco, 2008, based on the XII Population and Housing Census.


26/3/09 11:56:00


29

Figure 9 Metropolitan Mexico City: census tracts by housing quality index, 2000. Source: extrapolated from 2000 National Population and Housing Census


26/3/09 11:56:00

30

Priscilla Connolly

More importantly, housing quality in irregular settlements is related to their age and corresponding degree of consolidation. As Figure 10 shows, all of the census tracts corresponding to settlements established before 1953 have good or very good census housing quality indices. Those established after 1990 correspond to census tracts with bad and very bad census housing quality indices, with the settlements established between 1970 and 1990 having more areas with bad housing quality indices than good ones. It must be remembered that ‘good’ and ‘very good’ housing conditions do not imply Western European standards, but reflect the relative quality of housing within the Mexico City context.

Figure 10 Metropolitan Mexico City 2000: distribution of dwellings in irregular settlements by housing quality index and date of urbanisation


26/3/09 11:56:01


31

Conclusions The above analysis of housing quality is based on data for 2000, when new housing built in irregularly developed land accounted for 70 per cent of all additional housing stock. What has happened to the quality of irregular settlements in recent years? Various scenarios are possible; none are optimistic. First, the reduction of the densification process in consolidated settlements may mean the exodus of their better-off, younger and upwardly mobile populations, who now find housing in the formal market. We could expect, therefore, the impoverishment and ageing of consolidated irregular settlements in the near future. Second, the corresponding narrowing of effective demand for plots in new and consolidating settlements means that now only the poorest sector of the population chooses to live in neighbourhoods that have been produced irregularly. We have seen that the new settlements are immediately generating higher initial densities on smaller plots. The land is costing more, while the new settlers are poorer. An important area of research is to compare these new settlements and their evolution with those developed and consolidated ten, twenty or forty years ago. Finally, as a result of the above, the reduced importance of irregular settlement due to the increase in the supply of formal housing could also nullify their previous advantages: social and generational heterogeneity, the adaptability of their relatively large plot sizes, and (in some cases) proximity to the centre and to middle- and upperincome neighbourhoods. In short, the formalisation of the middle sector of the housing market could be generating an unforeseen and undesirable consequence: greater social segregation of the poor and very poor within irregular housing developments, while commercial housing concentrated large numbers of families of the same age and economic status in vast projects of identical dwellings. Beyond the specific context of Mexico City, a number of more general conclusions can be drawn from the above analysis. The first concerns methodology. While the proliferation of official data, cartography and satellite imagery greatly enhance our capacity for observing urban processes, on-the-ground knowledge is also indispensable for providing additional information. In this case, the classification of residential areas according to their formal or irregular origins, with their respective sub-categories, has proved to be extremely useful for understanding the dynamics of habitat production. This type of classification, however, requires previous qualitative research and a historical grasp of the city’s development. Observing from a distance, with only quantitative data, may produce questionable results. A second consideration relates to the need to analyse irregular settlements together with the alternative forms of urbanisation, within the general economic and political context. What happens in existing and irregular settlements may be affected by policies not specifically directed at them, or even designed to replace them. In this case we


26/3/09 11:56:01

32

Priscilla Connolly

saw how the increase in commercial housing production has reduced the densification of existing settlements in Mexico City without affecting the establishment of newer, poorer settlements. Third, in the Mexican context, and in many other Latin American countries, irregular settlements should by no means be considered as synonymous with ‘slum’, as they have traditionally provided a range of housing conditions for an equally wide range of social strata. However, if irregular housing solutions become more confined to the lowest-income groups, then some of the inherent advantages of irregularity, notably heterogeneity, may disappear, giving way to bona fide ‘slums’.

References abramo, p. (2003), ‘A teoría económica da favela: quarto notas sobre a localizaçao residencial dos pobres e o mercado imobiliário informal’ in P. Abramo, A Cidade da Informalidades, Rio de Janerio, Livraria Sette Letras, 189–223. alonso, j. a. (ed.) (1980), Lucha Urbana y Acumulación de Capital, Mexico DF, Ediciones de la Casa Chata. andrade, j. (1981), ‘Dwelling transformations: Santa Ursula, Mexico City’ (unpublished M.Arch. thesis), Cambridge, MA, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. andrade narvaez, j. (1992), Tabasco: Tipología de Vivienda, Mexico DF, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana. azuela, a. (1989), La Ciudad, la Propiedad Privada y el Derecho, Mexico DF, El Colegio de México. azuela, a., cancino, m. a. and cruz, m. s. (1984), ‘Ilegalidad y procesos sociales y cuatro coloias populares de la Ciudad de México’, Revista ‘A’, 11, 113–42. azuela, a. and cruz, m. s. (1989), ‘La institucionalización de las colonias populares y la política urbana en la Ciudad de México (1940–46)’, Sociológica, 4, 111–33. bazant, j. (1985), Autoconstruccion de Vivienda Popular, Mexico DF, Editorial Trillas. bazant, j. (2000), Periferias Urbanas: Proceso de Expansión y Consolidación Urbana Incontrolada de Bajos Ingresos y su Impacto sobre el Medio Ambiente, Mexico DF, Editorial Trillas. bazant, j. (2004), Asentamientos Irregulares, Guía de Soluciones Urbanas, Mexico DF, Editorial Trillas. benlliure, p. (2005), ‘Modificaciones al marco normativo del Distrito Federal en la edificación de vivienda 2000–05’ (paper presented at the 5th Seminario Internacional del Suelo Urbano: ‘Redensificación de la Ciudad Central a Debate: ¿Para qué, para quién y cómo?’, Mexico DF, 29–30 September). borja, j. e. and garcía, e. o. (2005), ‘La habitabilidad, una visión psico-ambiental y sus repercusiones en los estilos arquitectónicos de megaconjuntos habitacionales’ in E. Maya and J. F. Cervantes (eds), La Producción de Vivienda del Sector Privado y su Problemática en el Municipio de Ixtapaluca, Mexico DF, Plaza y Valdés Editores. castañeda, v. (1993), ‘Fin del crecimiento urbano subsidiado’, Ciudades, 19, 3–8. castañeda, v. (1994), ‘Ciudad de México: grupos de poder local, mercado ilegal de duelo periférico y expansión metropolitana’, Revista Interamericana de Planificación, xxvii, 107–8. cidoc (2005), Current Housing Situation in Mexico 2005 (study prepared by the Centro de Inves-


26/3/09 11:56:01


33

tigacion y Documentacion de la Casa and Sociedad Hipotecaria with support from the Comision Nacional de Fomento a la Vivienda and Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University; available at http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/international/som2005.pdf). conapo/sedesol/inegi (2008), Delimitación de las Zonas Metropolitanas de México 2005, Mexico DF, Secretaría de Desarrollo Social, Consejo Nacional de Población, Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (see http://www.conapo.gob.mx/publicaciones/ dzm2005/index.htm). connolly, p. (1982), ‘Uncontrolled urban settlements and self build: what kind of a solution?’ in P. Ward (ed.), Self Build Housing: A Critique, London, Mansell Press, 141–74. connolly, p. (1988), ‘Crecimiento urbano, densidad de población y mercado inmobiliario’, Revista ‘A’, 9, 61–86. connolly, p. (2003), ‘Mexico City’ in UN-Habitat Global Report on Human Settlements 2003: Understanding Slums – 33 Case Studies, London, UN-Habitat/Development Planning Unit (see www.ucl.ac.uk/dpu/publications/cd_slums.htm). connolly, p. (2004), ‘The Mexican national popular housing fund’ in D. Mitlin and D. Satterthwaite (eds), Empowering Squatter Citizens: Local Government, Civil Society and Urban Poverty Reduction, London, Earthscan, 82–111. copevi (1977), La Producción de Vivienda en la Zona Metropolitana de la Ciudad de México, Mexico DF, Centro Operacional de vivienda y Poblamiento AC. cornelius, w. (1975), Politics and the Migrant Poor in Mexico City, Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press. coulomb, r. and sánchez mejorada, c. (1992), Pobreza Urbana, Autogestión y Política, Mexico DF, Centro de la Vivienda y Estudios Urbanos. cruz, m. s. (1982), ‘El ejido en la urbanización de la Ciudad de México’, Revista Habitación, 6. cruz, m. s. (2001), Propiedad, Poblamiento y Periferia Rural en la Zona Metropolitana de la Ciudad de México, Puebla, Red Nacional de Investigación Urbana/Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Azcapotzalco. duhau, e. (1993), ‘La urbanización popular en América Latina: ¿Institucionalización o pactos sociales implícitos?’ in A. Azuela (ed.), La Urbanización Popular y el Orden Jurídico en América latina, Mexico DF, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 19–30. duhau, e. (1998), Habitat Popular y Política Urbana, Mexico DF, Miguel Angel Porrúa/Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Azcapotzalco. esquivel, m. t. (2006), ‘Política habitacional y calidad de vida: Impacto de los nuevos conuntos habitacionales’ in La Vivienda en México: Construyendo Análisis y Propuestas, Mexico DF, Centro de Estudios Sociales y de Opinión Pública, Cámara de Diputados. flores, r. and m. t. esquivel (2005), ‘Edad mediana y anillos de crecimiento generacional en la Zona Metropolitana del Valle de México’ (research report), Mexico DF, OCIM-SIG, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitan-Azcapotzalco (see http://ocimsig.azc.uam.mx). godínez, i. (2008), ‘Efectos del modelo de producción habitacional privada en el crecimiento urbano del Valle de México’ (paper presented at the II Foro Nacional de Investigación en Arquitectura, Universidad de Colima, 12–13 May). gutiérrez, a. (2008), ‘Suelo y heterogeneidad de la urbanización en el municipio de Ixtapa-


26/3/09 11:56:01

34

Priscilla Connolly

luca’ (unpublished thesis), Mexico DF, Maestría en Planeación y Políticas Metropolitanas, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Azcapotzlaco. herbert, c. and pickering, n. (1997), The State of Mexico’s Housing, Cambridge, MA, Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University (see www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/ international/index.html). hiernaux, d. (1995), Nueva Periferia: Vieja Metrópoli, Mexico DF, Universidad Suónoma Metropolitana-Xochimilco. invi (2008), Acciones de Vivienda 2001–2007, Mexico DF, Instituto de Vivienda del Distrito Federal (see http://www.invi.df.gob.mx/creditos.htm). jiménez, e. (2000), El Principio de la Irregularidad: Mercado del Suelo para Vivienda en Aguascalientes, 1975–1998, Mexico DF, Universidad de Guadalajara/JuanPablos Editor/Centro de Investigaciones y Estudio Multidisciplinarios de Aguascalientes. jones, g. (1991), ‘The impact of government intervention upon land prices in Latin American cities: the case of Puebla, Mexico’ (unpublished PhD thesis), Cambridge, University of Cambridge. jones, g. and ward, p. (1998), ‘Privatizing the commons: reforming the ejido and urban development in Mexico’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 22, 76–93. kowarick, l. (1975), Capitalismo e Marginalidad na America Latina, Río de Janeiro, Paz e Terra. legorreta, j. (1994), Efectos Ambientales de la Expansión de la Ciudad de México, Mexico DF, Centro de Ecología y Ecodesarrollo. moctezuma, p. (1999), Despertares: Comunidad y Organización Urbano-Popular en México 1970–1994, Mexico DF, Universidad Iberocamericana/Universidad Autónoma MetropolitanaIztapalapa. moctezuma, p. and navarro, b. (1989), La Urbanización Popular en la Ciudad de México, Mexico DF, Editorial Nuestro Tiempo. montaño, j. (1976), Los Pobres de la Ciudad en los Asentamientos Espontáneos, Mexico DF, Siglo XXI Editores. nava, t. (1993), ‘La contrarreforma el Artículo 27’, Ciudades, 19, 15–23. nuñez, o. (1990), Innovaciones Democrático Culturales del Movimiento Urbano Popular, Mexico DF, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Azcapotzalco. ornelas, o. (2008), ‘Participación ciudadana y mejoramiento barrial: el caso de las colonias Tlacaele y Luis Donaldo Colosio, Delegación Gustavo A. Madero’ (unpublished thesis), Mexico DF, Licenciatura en Sociología, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Azcapotzalco. perlman, j. (1976), The Myth of Marginality, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press. pradilla, e. (1982), ‘Autoconstrucción, explotación de la fuerza de trabajo y políticas de Estado en América Latina’ in E. Pradilla (ed.), Ensayos sobre le Problema de la Vivienda en América Latina, Mexico DF, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Xochimilco, 267–344. pradilla, e. (1992), ‘Campo y ciudad en la nueva política agraria’, Ciudades, 15, 9–14. ribbeck, e. and padilla, s. (2002), Die Informelle Moderne-Spontanes Baun in Mexico Staad. Informal Modernism: Spontaneous Building in Mexico City, Stuttgart, Universität Stuttgart. ramírez, j. m. (1987), Política Urbana y Lucha Popular, Mexico DF, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Xochimilco.


26/3/09 11:56:01


35

sabatini, f. and cázares, g. (2005), ‘Relación entre la promoción inmobiliaria y segregación residencial: giros insospechados de la ciudad latinoamericana’ (report prepared for the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Boston, MA) (see www.territorioysuelo.org). sudra, t. (1976), ‘Low-income housing system in Mexico City’ (unpublished PhD dissertation), Cambridge, MA, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. turner, j. f. c. (ed.) (1972), Government Policy and Lower Income Housing Systems in Mexico City, Mexico DF, Instituto de Acción Urbana y de Integración Social. unikel, l. (1972), La dinámica del crecimiento de la Ciudad de México, Mexico DF, Fundación de Estudios para la Población. varley, a. (1985), ‘Urbanisation and agrarian law: the case of Mexico City’, Bulletin of Latin American Research, 4, 1–6. ward, p. (1976), ‘In search of a home: social and economic characteristics of squatter settlements and the role of self help housing in Mexico City’ (unpublished PhD thesis), Liverpool, University of Liverpool. ward, p., jiménez, e. and jones, g. (1994), ‘Measuring land-price change and affordablility’ in P. Ward and G. Jones (eds), Methodology for Land and Housing Market Analysis, London, University College Press.


26/3/09 11:56:01


26/3/09 11:56:01