THE CITY IAVE

Eduardo Cadaval

It seems difficult to understand the reason why about a year ago they decided to give the key to Mexico City to the architect Zaha Hadid. An act of baroque protocol and without much sense but that can be read almost as an offense when comparing the merits of this character with those of many other visitors who have gone unnoticed by the politicians who have governed the City. She speculated that such a welcoming gesture was due to the fact that it is exactly the type of architecture that she proposes – without excesses, full of logic and austerity – that this city urgently needs.

In any case, it seems that one should not pay much attention to this event because the real key to the city does not begin with “ll” but with “i”. Given the choice, a decal seems much more profitable than a disproportionate key that in theory opens a non-existent door. Placed in the right place, a key opens almost by magic “another level” of the city. A V.I.P. for whoever can pay it. The junior’s dream came true, he asked for a key that would allow him to get away from the offspring or even fly over their rooftops and throw their (automotive) gases into their windows and regardless of whether the urban landscape that we all live in was affected; a theoretically left-wing government fulfilled his wish.
Promoting the construction of elevated roads is not only an urban aberration, it is also bread for today and hunger for tomorrow. These types of roads end up becoming saturated and become a bigger problem than they initially tried to solve, with the aggravating factor that along the way, they encourage greater use of the car under the temporary mirage of a lightened road system; like giving sugar to a diabetic to ease the pain. The practice of building roads in second levels is something that, although bizarrely profitable electorally, is also a proven error and several cities around the world have invested fortunes in dismantling high structures, while we, without learning the lesson, are just finishing building them.

But avoiding a purely technical discussion about a sadly accomplished fact, perhaps the most worrying thing is the focus on the urban development model that we are interested in following. Accepting without granting, that the city of pay can become a comfortable city -for a few and for a limited time-, the commitment to this model compromises not only the policies and the future of the city but also the well-being and quality current life of all its inhabitants. The construction of the so-called road distributor or second floor destroyed the system of entrances and exits of the peripheral, or what is the same, it was a direct attack on the spine of any primary road with restricted access. For those at the top to be better, those who stay below have a worse time, including public transport users who now suffer from more saturated sides and with greater road junctions. The superway that was strategically a necessary connection wasted the great opportunity to prioritize a well-articulated public transport system, beneficial to a broader spectrum of society, to privilege instead the use of the private car that only benefits the most privileged sector of the city. As in many other cases that affect mobility in the metropolitan area of ​​the Valley of Mexico, priority is always given to the use of private cars. When it comes to mobility policies, both the PRD and the PRI seem to agree on everything.

Enrique Peñalosa, the former mayor of Bogotá, tells how some Japanese traffic consultants advised him to fill his city with “urban highways” as the most effective way to solve its traffic problem and at the same time give the city a new image of modernity. His response was overwhelming: during his tenure (of only 3 years) not a single kilometer of this type of road was built and all the city’s resources were focused on reconfiguring the public transport system and creating a more friendly city. for pedestrians and other types of non-motorized mobility. The result had enormous physical and social repercussions, completely transforming the city and making it a case study worldwide. Of course the problems and the scale of Bogotá are very different – not less – than those of the ZMVM, but one must stop thinking that, due to its size, Mexico City has no solution. A good mobility policy can very effectively change the way we all live in the very short term.

The mobility policy of the ZMVM is not a technical problem but a problem of urban policy approach. How to build the city we want. Urban highways are neither an example of good urban planning nor good management. Nor would they be if they stopped being paid, since they would be even less egalitarian (more for those who have more) and the only thing they would demonstrate is that they are not the solution because they would saturate faster. Perhaps the most delicate thing about the payment method system is somewhat less apparent, and that is that this policy hides a city model that will end up generating enormous social segregation. A city where the different social classes increasingly share fewer common spaces. Where the city becomes more comfortable for a few and less for many others. How does this whole system help to build a really better city? How does it help to build an urban model with which we can really face the future? How does it help to create a better living space? Where are the policies to achieve a more egalitarian city, kinder to all?