The Utopías created by Mexico City’s borough of Iztapalapa are a brilliant example of collective amenity and a public infrastructure of care—and the most inspiring ongoing municipal project with which I‘m familiar. Every city should be learning from Iztapalapa and Mexico City
With something like two million residents, Iztapalapa is the largest Mexico City borough. It’s also the poorest. The Utopías were promoted most significantly by @ClaraBrugadaM, who was Iztapalapa’s mayor before winning the election to be the next mayor of all of Mexico City
Brugada is a member of Morena (Movimiento Regeneración Nacional), the left-wing populist party founded by AMLO. It’s also the party of Claudia Sheinbaum, Mexico’s president-elect. Brugada has a long history in politics & social movements in Iztapalapa and DF more generally
The name UTOPÍAS is an acronym for Unidades de Transformación y Organización Para la Inclusión y la Armonía Social, or Units for Transformation and Organization for Inclusion and Social Harmony. I was told Iztapalapa currently has 12 up and running and another 4 in the works.
The idea is a network of safe, free, public sites that provide poor and working class people with what they need for the maintenance, enhancement, and enjoyment of everyday life. Food. Health. Elder care. Child care. A cheap laundromat... These are photos from Utopía Meyehualco
There’s a very explicit feminist dimension. It’s women-led. There’s women’s health care, and counselling, legal aid and safe houses for women facing domestic violence. There’s also a space for men to discuss masculinity and to learn how to do care work traditionally done by women
But the idea isn’t just to provide minimal services. The Utopías project seems to aim for a kind of populist public luxury. It’s not just physical rehab; there’s hydrotherapy, which in a private clinic would be totally inaccessible to DF’s poor. Not just food; a five-course meal
Making concrete the idea of a right to culture, creativity, and leisure, there’s a very active school of music with orchestral training, a high-quality performance space, an Olympic-sized swimming pool, a huge gym, multiple football pitches, a velodrome, basketball courts…
There’s a lot more to these sites. For example, each Utopía is apparently built around a major attraction to draw people in. Utopía Meyehualco features a garden with animatronic dinosaurs. Others have airplanes on site that have been turned into libraries.
The Utopías are social infrastructure for some of the poorest, most marginalised people in Mexico City—and it’s clearly intended to show that nothing is too good for them. It’s very high-quality design. But it’s not aimed at architecture’s tastemakers. It’s meant to be functional
It’s urban development actually aimed at meeting social needs. And the Utopías are not the only thing happening in Iztapalapa—there are lots of new public spaces, an incredible and heavily used cable car transit network, various projects for upgrading and painting housing…
As mayor, Brugada promises to build 100 Utopías throughout the city. Meanwhile, Sheinbaum has plans around housing & other urban issues. The optimism in Mexico could not stand in starker contrast to the vibe in the country on its northern border
A functional, joyful and fully public infrastructure of care, community and collective leisure, built by and for the poor and working class: this is what urban life can look like when municipalities and grassroots movements work together to transform and democratise the city.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is ridiculous. “Housing yes or no?” is an absurd & simplistic way to try to frame the debate. The actual conflicts: housing for whom, determined by whom, under what conditions, in what form, in what social and spatial contexts, with what tenure relations and power dynamics?
The debate about market-rate housing isn’t “housing yes or no,” it’s specifically about the role of the market: should market mechanisms and actors be the sole determinants of housing, or should other factors matter (e.g. questions of environmental, social or political justice)?
Using the term “anti-housing” for people who don’t think markets should be the sole or major determinants of housing is like calling gun control advocates “anti-metal”—that is, it’s completely and intentionally missing the point
“Rather than think of homelessness as a condition, lawmakers should protect those who live on the street in the same way that the Constitution…protects groups based on race, gender or religion.” On one hand yes; OTOH this risks essentializing homelessness nytimes.com/2021/11/01/opi…
There is no question that discrimination against people experiencing homelessness must not be allowed. But it’s very important to see that homelessness is a (politically and economically produced) condition and not a category of person. To think otherwise invites stigmatization
There should be legal safeguards in place to prevent discrimination based on housing tenure in general—the criminalization of homelessness is one particularly brutal part of a broader system of tenurial stigma, including discrimination against public tenants, tenants of SROs, etc
A lot of hyper-ventilating in this piece, but it's just nonsense to claim that rent control in Berlin is a "disaster." Most rents have fallen! Flats are cheaper to buy "because real estate loses value if its future cash flows to landlords are capped." That's a feature, not a bug!
And the supply of new flats in Berlin is outpacing that of other German cities!
ANY effort to definancialise housing anywhere will be accused of permanently damaging confidence in the real estate market. As well it should! There also needs to be efforts to build democratised, decommodified alternatives. But chasing away predatory finance is part of it.
If you self-identify as pro-urban & anti-NIMBY, why aren't you demanding more public housing? | shelterforce.org/2017/11/02/tim… "The affordable housing field shouldn’t cede the 'increasing the supply of housing' and 'freeing up units through filtering' arguments to the luxury developers"
A lot of YIMBYs are replying to say that of course they support public housing! Surprised but delighted to discover that there are such huge numbers of municipal socialists in the YIMBY ranks
There's obviously a significant difference between "public housing" on the one hand and "affordable housing" or "below market-rate housing" (which many replies have invoked) on the other, but we let's leave that aside for now.