Modelling the dynamics of Latin American Cities:
from polarisation to fragmentation
Michael Janoschka
Faculty of Architecture, Bauhaus-University Weimar. Germany
The structure of Latin American cities has been seriously affected by spatial and social
fragmentation processes taking place chiefly in the last two decades. Application of neoliberal
economic policies and the absence of state intervention in urban planning processes led to the
development of private and at the same time, excluding urban forms: The proliferation of
suburban gated communities and subsequent appearance of shopping-centres, hypermarkets or
urban entertainment centres in their vicinity. As a result, a new, car-based lifestyle flourished,
involving a greater degree of fragmentation and spatial segregation observable in Latin
American city regions.
From a theoretical point of view, this phenomenon is a new mode of spatial production
which breaks with the polarized city expansion described in the traditional models of Latin
American cities. This paper aims at covering three basic aspects, namely: First of all developing
an analysis of recent theoretical and empirical discussion about Latin American city models in
urban geography. Criticism leads to the development of a new model which will be introduced
on a second place. Within a chronological frame from the 16th century up to now, four
different stages ranging from the compact colonial city to the actual fragmented city-region are
described in the model. Finally its applicability is shown via the empirical analysis of the central
transformation processes in Buenos Aires; The massive sprawl of gated communities and
subsequent transformation of lifestyles are evaluated through the case of Nordelta, the biggest
current real estate development in Latin America: a private and enclosed city for 80.000
inhabitants.
michael.janoschka@archit.uni-weimar.de
1
1. Introduction
If we analyse the term “model” from a geographical or urban point of view, it is possible to
distinguish three basic and different connotations. On the one hand, city models can be a kind
constructive utopia – a vision or Leitbild for further urban development just as it was the
modern city in its time or the garden city movement. On the other hand, city model can also be
a product from a deductive logic and be the result of theoretical works just as we knew the
work of Christaller or Thünen (cfr. Borsdorf 1999). Finally, a model can also be the reduction of
the huge urban complexity toward to give us a better understanding of a type of city (cfr.
Borsdorf, Bähr and Janoschka 2002).
Regional city models, from the urban models of the Chicago school (Burgess 1925, Hoyt
1939, Harris/Ullmann 1945) until latest work of authors such as Dear (2000) or Soja (2000) use
the latter approach of the term and try to analyse social behaviour through the modelling of
city structures. In the US but also in Germany, from the 1970s until today, the discussion about
the Latin American city structure and the possibilities to catch the most important elements in a
model is a hot spot in urban investigation. In 1976, German geographers Bähr and Borsdorf
published two independent models of the Latin American city structure which were the starting
point for an intense discussion in Europe and North America (Griffin/Ford 1980, Gormsen 1981,
Deler 1989, Crowley 1995, Bähr/Mertins 1981, Borsdorf, 1982). In this sense, it is possible to
differentiate two kinds of models: ones which characterize the city in one special moment and
the other which shows different phases as development paths.
In the last years – due to the dramatic transformations which occurred in Latin American
city regions from 1990 in order to liberalization of governmental politics and real estate
markets – the discussion got new impacts with the contributions of Ford (1996), Meyer/Bähr
(2001) and Borsdorf (2002) who redesigned the traditional models or developed new models
(Janoschka 2002a, 2002b), basing in latest empirical data. Studying these designs, Bähr, Borsdorf
and Janoschka (2002) updated their studies with a new common model which integrated the
different arguments of the three authors. Using a time schedule we characterize the city
development in Latin America in four phases which correspond to different modes of state
interaction (urban planning) on the real estate market.
This paper has its guidelines in the presentation of the graphic derived from our empirical
and theoretical studies (figure 1). Central aim of the first part of the paper is the presentation
and discussion of the new model of the Latin American city structure. This analysis leads us to
the combination of the discussion of urban structure elements with our empirical study of the
transformations of life styles in this newly built urban environment. Gated communities – and
Buenos Aires biggest development Nordelta for about 80.000 inhabitants – will be the focus of
this empirical discussion.
2. The model of the Latin American city structure: From colonial times until 1970s
The model presented here does not only try to explain the actual city structure and the
processes which led to what we observe nowadays. It also includes earlier development phases
to show the dynamics of the Latin American cities in different epochs from the colonial area
onwards to show the structural transformations due to political or economic changes in the
past. Four main phases are represented through a scheme which explains the structural
2
elements at the end of this epoch. The model is based on latest empirical studies in cities such as
Santiago de Chile, Valdivia and Temuco in Chile, Lima and Quito in the Andean area, MexicoCity, Guadalajara and Hermosillo in Mexico and Buenos Aires and Rio de Janeiro on the Atlantic
coast. We do not have empirical studies about other cities, but our own knowledge and studies
from other authors let us derive the thesis that parallel developments can be observed in all big
and medium size cities in Latin America.
Figure 1: The Model of the Latin American city structure.
Source: Borsdorf, Bähr and Janoschka 2002; adapted.
The model parts from the observation that the different phases of urban development are
characterized through different key principles of structuring and urban policies. In the early
phase, the colonial time, this principle was the compactness of the urban body and a
descending social gradient in order to growing distance from the central plaza. Structural
element was a gradual decline from the centre to the outskirts in a kind of ring structure.
Central argument for social status was being close to the plaza due to the central social
functions concentrated there. This urban model became such an importance due to the royal
instructions for the foundation of cities, the subsequent implementation of the most important
functions in and around the central plaza and also the installation of the colonial elite around
the plaza.
After independence, linear structures began to gain stronger importance. Upper classes
moved into new houses along a main street – the Prado. Along the most important streets, we
found the settlement of gardening or handwork activities and later on we find also the
implementation of the first industrial activities. These sectoral patterns did not change the older
ring structure completely, but transformed urban structure strongly. The urban land selling
regime of the elites and the administration also drew cities in this direction.
When from 1930 onwards the flight from rural areas to urban centres caused the strong
population increase, the agglomeration process was accompanied by the polarization between
rich and poor areas; an urban development which can be characterized as typical for the
modern industrial city (Marcuse 1989). The upper class areas moved out from the centre to
suburban areas in farer distance to the city centre. But the main impact for the growth in the
Latin American cities was the expansion of the poor neighbourhoods. Urban politics got more
and more unable to set the guidelines for the urban development – not only due to the high
growth rates but also because of corrupt and polemic policies which altered with authoritarian
regimes during phases of dictatorships. The sectoral principle of urban growth kept intact but
was overlaid by the polarization principle. Only some time later, in the peripheries began a
process of cell-type growth: In suburban or outer urban areas, neighbourhoods for social
housing were built such as illegal marginal areas (favelas). We can see that a cellular principle
began to gain importance in already in those decades.
3. The model of the Latin American city structure: The actual approach
During the last two decades, urban expansion follows otherwise a different scheme: Nowadays,
we can observe that we still have superposition of all the tendencies we mentioned before: But
the neoliberal policy implementation and retreat of the state from intervention transformed
the structural principle. Today, the following aspects are the driving forces of the urban
3
development (cfr. Janoschka 2002c, 65f). We will answer now which are the actual principles
and urban forms that drive the transformation and expansion of the Latin American
metropolises. The following elements do not appear in the former models of the Latin
American city:
gated communities for the upper and middle classes which we can observe in the whole
metropolitan area. This fact is breaking with the principle of a sectoral implementation of the
upper class areas,
the dispersion of malls, shopping centres and urban entertainment centres in the whole
agglomeration and not only in the upper class sector,
the trend to build each time gated communities with mayor area, integrating more and
more urban functions. Complexity and size of lots of mayer gated communities are passing the
level of small cities, as we can observe in Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires but also in smaller cities such
as Córdoba in Argentina;
the mayor importance of transport infrastructure; proximity to a motorways entrance is the
most important guideline for real estate prices and attractivity of detached suburban housing
areas,
the suburbanization of the industrial production and the location in peripheral industrial or
business parks or centres of logistic activities,
higher grades of impossibility to enter areas of lower social groups and marginal areas
through walls or informal ways of supervision.
Due to this critics, the new scheme of the Latin American city structure responds in order to
introduce these aspects in a new model: Basic spatial factor for the implementation of the new
fragmentary and nodal urban structures is the transformation of the transport system; and
specially the motorways from being insufficient congestioned to modern and effective ones.
This has been made by private investment: So the baseline for the private and privatising urban
development in the neoliberal political and economic system has been a private inversion which
responds to the necessities of the real estate market. Only this modernization and the strong
reduction in commuting time makes suburban locations really interesting for middle and upper
classes due to their time restrictions.
The second important principle of stucturation also follows the guideline of the
postmodern urban development: The cellular elements in the periphery (which former were
marginal areas) are more and more becoming integrated in the market sphere and are big
investment areas for real estate enterprises. And they get bigger and bigger: Buenos Aires
knows Nordelta; with an estimated population of 80.000 by 2015 – Sao Paulo knows Alphaville
which already counts more than 30.000 inhabitants (Coy and Pöhler 2002). The list of more
development like these could be made much more longer. These are the extreme forms of
fragmentation which are transforming strongly and deeply the Latin American urban areas. We
understand fragmentation on all spheres as a process which is separating functions and
elements in urban space. Different from former polarization process is the local impact: We do
not find open, mayor homogeneous areas (rich city – poor city; CBD – residential
neighbourhood), but the implementation of heterogeneous elements or functions relatively
close one to another. And this is accompanied by a strong delimitation of these small areas,
often meanwhile private security services. We can explain this easily on the gated communities:
They are homogeneous areas, highly segregated and protected; like islands inside the urban
neighbourhood. The reasons and arguments for the implementation of these islands in the
urban landscape from several points of view (inhabitants, planning institutions, real estate
market etc.) will be discussed in the oral presentation from the example of Nordelta. In this way
we already want to point out that the discourse of urban fear is clearly a construction of a
4
coalition between the promoters and the media but does not necessarily respond to real
dangers.
A second element of fragmentation has to be analysed through the tendencies of allocation
of functional spatial units. This is especially important in the retail sector: Although the urban
centres gain new importance due to important renovation programs and other upgrading
intervention, they cannot compete to the suburban malls which represent a north-american
lifestyle and gain interest for all types of social groups. Social exclusion works here not through
the construction of walls, but by accessibility: These islands of consume and diversion do only
have access by car and exclude in this sense everyone who cannot participate in private
transport. Meanwhile the first malls were clearly oriented to the upper class market in the
urban upper class sector, now we can find these installations in the whole urban area – due to
dispersion of the upper and middle class population. In our model, we present all kinds of malls,
urban entertainment centre and also business parks with only one signature: This is reasonable
because of their common location principle which coincides with the location of motorways and
gated communities. In combination to proximity to airports, these elements build fragmented
new economic centres which remind to north American edge cities.
In order to facilitate the comprehension of the model, we do not discuss the different types
of gated communities. This discussion is resumed in three different types which reflect aspects
such as structure, location and size. Urban gated communities are groups of attached houses or
even urban towers without many facilities. These are gated communities for a middle or lower
middle class target. Suburban gated communities are predominantly for the middle and upper
classes and do have big single detached houses. They do have a lot of common facilities and
sports areas. Third type is the Mega-gated community with integrated cultural and educational
facilities just as described in Nordelta case study.
Poorer areas also have transformed during the last decades: The marginal areas have been
integrated in the urban space – and in some cases they entered in an upgrading process.
Otherwise, we also find the cases of marginal areas which kept being without any integration
and now are nodes of criminality and almost inaccessible. Differentiation between legal, semilegal and illegal marginal areas are in an neoliberal urban space without any importance and
have fallen out of the model.
4. Conclusions: The applicability of the model
Figure 2: Social space and interactions with the environment from gated community
inhabitants in Nordelta, Buenos Aires.
Source: Janoschka and Glasze 2003; adapted.
The analysed processes of the actual spatial transformations in Latin American city regions
have shown the main guidelines which can be characterized through privatisation and
fragmentation of the urban space. The applicability of this model has been shown through a
series of empirical studies on the processes analysed. The presentation on the congress will
emphasize on exactly this point and show the empirical case study of a series of interviews with
5
inhabitants of Nordelta in Buenos Aires. Fragmentation is translated into a social space which
only contains moving between cellular elements of urban space. Private motorized transport is
the only mode of interaction with a world organized in strong categories – the realization of
the modernist’s urban utopia.
6
5. Bibliography
Bähr, J. (1976): Neuere Entwicklungstendenzen lateinamerikanischer Großstädte.
Geographische Rundschau 28: 125 – 133.
Bähr, J. and G. Mertins (1981): Idealschema der sozialräumlichen Differenzierung
lateinamerikanischer Grosstädte. Geographische Zeitschrift 69 (1): 1 – 33.
Borsdorf, A. (1976): Valdivia und Osorno. Strukturelle Disparitäten in chilenischen
Mittelstädten. Tübingen. (= Tübinger Geographische Studien 69)
Borsdorf, A. (1982): Die lateinamerikanische Großstadt. Zwischenbericht zur Diskussion um
ein Modell. Geographische Rundschau 34 (11): 498 – 501.
Borsdorf, A. (1999): Geographisch denken und wissenschaftlich arbeiten. Gotha, Stuttgart.
Borsdorf, A. (2002a): Barrios cerrados in Santiago de Chile, Quito y Lima: tendencias de la
segregación socio-espacial. In: Cabrales, L. F. (Ed.): Latinoamérica: países abiertos, ciudades
cerradas: 581 – 610. Guadalajara.
Borsdorf, A.; J. Bähr and M. Janoschka (2002): Die Dynamik stadtstrukturellen Wandels in
Lateinamerika im Modell der lateinamerikanischen Stadt. Geographica Helvetica 57 (4): 300 –
310.
Burgess, E.W. (1925): The growth of the city: An introduction to a research project. En: R.
Park y E.W. Burgess: The City. Chicago.
Coy, M. and M. Pöhler (2002): Condomínios fechados und die Fragmentierung der Stadt.
Typen – Akteure – Folgewirkungen. Geographica Helvetica 57 (4): 264-277.
Crowley, W. K. (1998): Modelling the Latin American city. The Geographical Review 88, 1:
127-130.
Dear, M. (2000): The postmordern urban condition. Oxford, Malden (MA).
Deler, J. P. (1989): Quartiers populaires et structuration de l’espace urbain. Un modèle
latino-americain. Pauvretés et développement dans les pays tropicaux. Hommage à Guy
Lasserre. Bordeaux.
Ford, L. R. (1996): A new and improved model of Latin American city structure. The
Geographical Review 86, 3: 437-440.
Gormsen, E. (1981): Die Städte in Spanisch-Amerika. Ein zeit-räumliches Entwicklungsmodell
der letzten hundert Jahre. Erdkunde 35, 4: 290-303.
Griffin, Ernst y Larry Ford (1980): A model of Latin American city structure. The
Geographical Review 70, 4: 397 – 422.
Harris, C. D. y E.L. Ullman (1945): The nature of cities. Annals of the American Academy for
Political Science 242: 7 – 17.
Hoyt, H. (1939): The Structure and Growth of Residential Neighborhoods in American Cities.
Washington.
Janoschka, M. (2002a): Wohlstand hinter Mauern. Private Urbanisierungen in Buenos Aires.
Vienna. (= Forschungsberichte des Institus für Stadt- und Regionalforschung 28, Österreichische
Akademie der Wissenschaften).
Janoschka, M. (2002b): El nuevo modelo de la ciudad latinoamericana: fragmentación y
privatización. eure (Estudios urbano regionales), vol. 28, n° 85: 11-30.
Janoschka, M. (2002c): “Stadt der Inseln”. Buenos Aires: Abschottung und Fragmentierung
als Zeichen eines neuen Stadtmodells. RaumPlanung 101, 65-70.
7
Janoschka, M. and G. Glsze (2003): Urbanizaciones cerradas: un modelo analítico. Ciudades,
59: 9-20
Marcuse, P. (1989): “Dual city”. A muddy metaphor for a quartered city. International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research 13, 4: 697 – 708.
Meyer, K. y J. Bähr (2001): Condominios in Greater Santiago de Chile and their Impact on
the Urban Structure. Die Erde 132, 3: 293 – 321.
Soja, E. (2000): Postmetropolis: critical studies of cities and regions. Oxford, Malden (MA).
8
Curriculum vitae
Michael Janoschka, born in 1975 in Soest/Germany.
Graduate Geographer (Diplom-Geograph) from Humboldt-University, Berlin, specialisation
in Urban and Regional Planning and Politics. Awarded with grants from the German Academic
Exchange Service (DAAD, 1999-2000; 2002; 2003), the Berlin Geographical Society (2001),
University of Buenos Aires (2002) and University of Kiel (2002). Guest lecturer for Master studies
in Urban Planning, Faculty of Architecture and Faculty of Philosophy (Geography), Córdoba,
Argentina (2003).
Currently working as research assistant for the Chair of Spatial Planning and Investigation,
Institute of European Urbanistics, Faculty of Architecture, Bauhaus-University of Weimar,
Germany. Lecturer for graduate studies in Geography and Architecture in Weimar and Jena.
Also lecturing for Master and PhD programs of the Institute of European Urbanistics, Weimar.
Michael Janoschka
Bauhausstrasse 7b
Faculty of Architecture
Bauhaus-University Weimar
Germany
Tel: +49-3643-583276
Fax: +49-3643-583294
Mail: michael.janoschka@archit.uni-weimar.de
Recent publications:
Monographies:
Janoschka, Michael: Wohlstand hinter Mauern. Private Urbanisierungen in Buenos Aires.
Vienna, 2002. 129 pages. Forschungsberichte des Instituts für Stadt- und Regionalforschung der
Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, N° 28
Articles:
Janoschka, Michael and Axel Borsdorf: Condominios fechados and Barrios Privados: the rise
of private residential neighbourhoods in Latin America. In: Frantz, K.; C. Webster and G. Glasze
(Eds.): Private City Fragments. The global spread of (gated) proprietary neighbourhoods
(Routledge, in press).
Janoschka, Michael: Nordelta – Ciudad cerrada: El análisis de un nuevo estilo de vida en el
Gran Buenos Aires. In: V. Coloquio Internacional de Geocrítica: La vivienda y la construcción del
espacio social de la ciudad. Barcelona, 2003.
(Online: http://www.ub.es/geocrit/prog_prov5.htm#horarios)
Janoschka, Michael: Migración y turismo en la Quebrada de Humahuaca. In: Reboratti, C.
(Ed.): La geografía de la Quebrada de Humahuaca. Buenos Aires, 2003, pp. 227-252.
9
Janoschka, Michael: El nuevo modelo de la ciudad latinoamericana: fragmentación y
privatización. In: eure (Revista latinoamericana de estudios urbanos regionales) 27 (2002), n°. 85,
pp. 11-29.
Janoschka, Michael: Flucht vor Gewalt? Stereotype und reale Motivationen beim Umzug in
barrios privados in Buenos Aires. In: Geographica Helvetica 57 (2002), n°. 4, pp. 290-299.
Borsdorf, Axel; Jürgen Bähr and Michael Janoschka: Die Dynamik stadtstrukturellen
Wandels in Lateinamerika im Modell der lateinamerikanischen Stadt. In: Geographica Helvetica
57 (2002), n°. 4, pp.300-310.
10