Mexico City\u2019s investments take place in the context of some of the most extreme consequences of automobile-based development found anywhere in the world. In the 1990s the United Nations infamously named<\/a> the city as having the world\u2019s worst air pollution, in part due to automobile exhaust that becomes trapped by the mountains that surround the city. While the city has made some coordinated and effective strides to improve air quality since then, pollution levels are creeping back up again<\/a> to dangerous levels. Indeed, Mexico City\u2019s traffic congestion remains legendary, being named in 2017 as the world\u2019s most congested city<\/a>.<\/p>\n Furthermore the city, and indeed country, are infamous in planning circles for high levels of traffic deaths. In 2015 412 pedestrians<\/a> were killed in traffic incidents in Mexico City, a number that is common annually. This number would be approximately equivalent to a death rate of about 140 pedestrians per year in a city of Toronto\u2019s size, or approximately 3.5 times Toronto\u2019s 2016 rate (43 pedestrians were killed<\/a> in 2016 making it the most deadly year for pedestrian deaths in the city in over a decade). Such an enormous death toll in Mexico City is despite the fact that over 50 percent of households<\/a> do not have access to a motorized vehicle. However, in an urban region of well over 20 million people, the number of drivers adds up quickly.<\/p>\n In an attempt to relieve some of the aforementioned issues, Mexico City has deliberately moved from a city where it was nearly inconceivable to ride a bike to one that now leads bicycle planning in Latin America and beyond. For example, the city now has one of the largest bike sharing system in the Americas, approximately 200 kilometers of bike lanes, and one of the world\u2019s largest ciclov\u00eda programs, mu\u00e9vete en bici<\/i> (move by bike), where 55 kilometers<\/a> of streets are closed to traffic and open to pedestrians and cyclists every Sunday. These initiatives have been very successful. For example, Ecobici, the city\u2019s bike sharing system, is one of the most successful in the world<\/a> in terms of a number of indicators including the number of trips per bike versus the number of residents; it is estimated that number of cyclists in the city between 2008 and 2016, although still a very small percentage of overall mode share<\/a>, increased nearly six times<\/a>; the Sunday ciclov\u00eda attracts approximately 35,000 people each week with a record of 75,000 having been recorded<\/a>. The city is also home to a number of new municipal government policies and departments – including, but not limited to, Laboratorio para la Ciudad<\/i> (Laboratory for the City) and the Autoridad del Espacio P\u00fablico<\/i> (Public Space Authority) – that are at the cutting edge of urban sustainability planning within Latin America, and indeed globally. All of this change has happened quickly in planning terms, in less than ten years.<\/p>\n Many other sustainability initiatives, such as public space \u2018revitalization\u2019 and the pedestrianization of streets, have also been remarkably successful in Mexico City. For example, the city pedestrianized Madero Street in 2010, linking the country\u2019s most famous public square (the Z\u00f3calo<\/i>) to its most iconic theatre (Bellas Artes<\/i>). The street might now be the busiest pedestrian street in all of the Americas attracting an estimated 200,000 pedestrians<\/a> per hour. This street also exhibits some of the highest land values in the city, up 400 percent<\/a> per square meter, and has attracted a number of international chain retailers, often being cited by local authorities as an example of commercial success.<\/p>\n When examined more closely, however, the aforementioned sustainability investments fit comfortably within a larger trend where Mexico City is establishing itself as a global \u2018it\u2019 city, attracting unprecedented international attention. For example, in 2016 The<\/i> New York Times<\/i> named Mexico City as the world\u2019s number one travel destination<\/a>; a popular lifestyle blog, Amuse<\/i>, discusses<\/a> Mexico City\u2019s reputation as \u201cthe new Berlin\u201d specifically referring to how it has emerged over approximately the last ten years as a global creative epicentre attracting international designers, writers, and artists; recently Dazed<\/i> stated<\/a> that \u201cMexico City today has the freedom of downtown 80s\u201d New York City.<\/p>\n The recent uptick of international attention is for a variety of reasons, such a the city\u2019s unique culture, foodscape, art scene, decreased levels of violence when compared with other areas of the country, and a low cost of living (at least from the perspective of those who live in large cities in the Global North). However, sustainability planning is also a tactic that is now being used to sell Mexico City as a \u2018green\u2019 and \u2018livable\u2019 city. For example, another 2016 travel article<\/a> from The New York Times<\/i> discusses the newfound attractiveness of the city partially due to its \u201cextravagant plans for new pedestrian areas\u201d; Forbes<\/i> gushes<\/a> that Mexico City is now \u201csafer, cleaner and more liveable than it used to be\u201d; The Guardian<\/i> explains how the city has been \u2018cleaned up<\/a>\u2019 through neighbourhood revitalization and pedestrianization schemes.<\/p>\n Unprecedented global attention is rightfully attracting an increasing amount of local criticism<\/a>. Much of this criticism highlights the implicit elitism and privilege of foreigners and wealthy Mexicans who can choose to live in the city\u2019s most walkable, bikeable, and trendy neighbourhoods, a reality that is completely disconnected from that of most Mexicans. Furthermore, much of the popular global attention, especially within the English-speaking world, discusses the \u2018discovery\u2019 of Mexico City, ignorant of colonization and the fact that the city has long been a cultural leader, attracting notable artists, academics, and other professionals throughout its extensive and complex history.<\/p>\n This leads to the not-so-rosy side of the development of bike lanes and other sustainability infrastructure in Mexico City: the unintentional reinforcement of extreme class divisions that have always characterised the city. More specifically, much of this new infrastructure has been built in the most privileged, central-city, trip-dense areas of the city despite the need, existing cycling mode share, and lack of sustainability infrastructure in other, economically-disadvantaged areas of the city, such as Iztapalapa. In other words, a more trendy, sustainable Mexico City is leaving behind many residents who remain in poverty and disconnected from the cultural and political elites. In fact, many of these investments, such as the aforementioned pedestrianization of Madero Street, can be considered textbook examples of displacement, mainstream globalization, and gentrification. It is also important to note, that despite major improvements, by many accounts Mexico City still remains a scary place<\/a> to ride a bicycle.<\/p>\n What do we do? For starters, we need to accept that this is an issue in many cities<\/a>, not just in Mexico City, and that we as planners need to pay more attention to the local context of the cities in which we work. Cities are increasingly being planned based on global best practices that travel between cities through international exchanges and conferences. However, the implementation of such planning best practices can lead to varied outcomes within different political, cultural, and institutional contexts. An urban planning policy, for example, that has certain outcomes in New York City cannot be assumed to have the similar ones in Mexico City. Even more, sometimes the outcomes of a best practice policy may look similar on the surface (e.g., bike lanes or a bike share system), yet the underlying impacts in terms of gentrification, inequality, and institutional change can differ significantly. It is to these \u2018less visible\u2019 outcomes that planners need to turn in an attempt to create more equitable cities. Furthermore, in Mexico City, we must recognize that inequality is a systematic problem with deep historical roots that can be seen across sectors (including the destruction and associated relief efforts following the devastating earthquakes<\/a> that hit the city and country on September 7th at 19th, 2017).<\/p>\n How bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure is implemented in Mexico City in terms of equality has important implications. As one of the world\u2019s most populous and complex cities, it is a large-scale example of a global trend where planning is attempting to create more sustainable cities. The city also highlights how equality is often lost in the planning process. Can sustainability truly be achieved without increased equality? Or will \u201csustainability\u201d continue to be something that disproportionately benefits the wealthy? Such questions are of utmost importance in an era of international economic policy, rising economic inequality, and increasing environmental degradation. How planners integrate sustainability with questions of equality will be the true test in creating more livable cities, in Mexico City and beyond. Toronto would do well to consider these issues as well, as the broadly downtown-centric bike plan slowly unrolls, with even less investment in the poorer suburban neighbourhoods lacking good transportation and access options.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"![\"\"](\"http:\/\/spacing.ca\/national\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/download-600x338.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/spacing.ca\/national\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/Image-2-600x320.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/spacing.ca\/national\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/Image-3-600x337.png\")
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/spacing.ca\/national\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/Image-4-600x338.png\")
<\/p>\n