doi 10.4067/S0718-83582010000200002

From city to metropolis. A theoretical interpretation of the expansive phenomenon associated with housing, vulnerability and poverty: the case of the metropolitan area of Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico

Eduardo Sousa G. ¹

¹ Mexican, Ph.D. in Urban Affairs, Autonomous University of Nuevo León (UANL); Master in Urban-Regional Planning; Professor, Doctoral program in Philosophy in Architecture and Urban Affairs, UANL; Professor, Master's program in Urban Planning, UANL; CONACYT member, Level II.

Abstract

Urban space currently represents the main form of economic and demographic concentration not only in Mexican cities, but also in Latin American cities and across the world. Understanding the way these urban spaces turn into metropolises is an essential aspect when attempting to influence on them. This can be done through the creation of proper planning instruments, which may generate public policies designed to avoid the proliferation and occupation of vulnerable spaces.

KEYWORDS: METROPOLITAN EXPANSION; VULNERABLE SPACES; METROPOLIZATION PHASES .

Introduction²

The following thoughts about the case of Monterrey are not intended to generalize about the situation of other Mexican or Latin American cities: there is no space, depth nor is it the aim of the current paper. The objective is to make advance towards a theoretical interpretation of how the transformation processes of peripheral expansion in Monterrey tend to turn this area into a metropolis, discovering in the process the way this spatial evolution generates areas where housing, vulnerability and poverty reflect a blaséelian³ indifference, without any public policy of alterity⁴. These facts are represented in the elements that determine the habitability of housing and risk circumstances, which overlap infrastructure and amenity deficiencies.

How could the situation of risk and vulnerability linked to the spaces inhabited by people be defined? Without studying in detail these concepts, which may have multiple approaches, it could be possible to refer to them as the vulnerability, which is the inner tendency of an ecosystem or some of its elements to be affected by a threat, that is to say, to be altered by a force or energy with destructive potential. It is the sense of insecurity in the place of residence and the tendency of a decline in the quality of life of dwellers. Risk of a disaster refers to the probable magnitude of damage of a specific ecosystem or some of its elements within a given period of time in relation to the presence of a potentially destructive activity. It is the tendency of the area and its dwellers to suffer damage. Threat relates to the dangerous phenomenon; it is the magnitude and length of a force or energy that represents a potential danger due to its capacity of destroying or destabilizing an ecosystem or its elements, and the probability of this energy being unleashed. It is the latent possibility of suffering damage.

How are vulnerable spaces generated in hypermodernity? Which forces turn cities into metropolises? How is the movement of people linked to vulnerable and in risk housing? The following steps are proposed to address these questionings: exploring the forces that favor the expansive social dynamism in the metropolitan area of Monterrey, linking them to the evolutionary phases of metropolization (1940-2005); analyzing how population moves spatially, identifying their characteristics by age group and their relation with the reproductive cycle and "irregular" and "regular" forms of land use; and preliminary conclusions that link risk, vulnerability and housing to the way the city expands, generating marginalized zones, residential zones and other type zones.

A theoretical interpretation of the expansive phenomenon

Based on the transformational processes that allow cities to expand⁵, it is clear that the number of dwellers will continue increasing and their peripheral limits will expand as well⁶. This evolution, when it takes place on metropolitan areas, would be identified through the development of its metropolization phases, which have been defined by different authors⁷. Most of them coincide in four phases:

Urbanization: when the annual growth rate (per cent) of inhabitants living in the central city is higher than that of the periphery.

Suburbanization: when the periphery reaches a higher rate of annual growth rate (per cent).

Deurbanization: when the central city evidences partial or complete depopulation.

Reurbanization: when the central city evidences partial or complete repopulation.

Apart from the fact that they are cities and may or not become metropolises, during their evolutionary processes, both areas generate welfare for some and marginalization and poverty for others⁸. From the point of view of this research, there is an historic correlation of biunivocal correspondence between the income expectancy of dwellers and the demographic population growth of urban space. Origin, one of the main incentives for population growth during the first phase of the industrial city⁹ and its subsequent cohesion, is directly related to economic primacy, and naturally, to other urban satisfiers such as: infrastructure, amenities, social security and governability, among others.

However, these satisfiers are not equal to all dwellers. Government investment related to public policies and planning strategies are not applied equally, generating: heavily financed overdeveloped areas¹⁰ which authorities proudly show; and diffuse areas of intrinsic characteristics which are conveniently hidden or minimized. This type of areas could be regarded as "no cities¹¹", occupied by people from "highest social contrast zones", a concept which may be defined as follows:

"The notion highest social contrast zones (HSCZ) refers to each of the inhabitants of a specific place contrasted to those who live in an area with complete opposite characteristics. This concept applies to an individual of a determined social class opposite to another. HSCZ alludes to the social strata of metropolitan society composed by groups of families that take differentiated, unequal and opposite positions. In other words, it is the group of people that belong to the same social and economic stratum, have similar levels of education, possess the same securities and real estate, and share moral attitudes and consumer habits, among others. These features are opposite to those of the Other (the otherness) or other groups of society with opposite characteristics. It should be stressed that an additional special feature of "highest social contrast zones" is that it denotes a clear and differentiated spatial localization, not only of each group's activities, but also of the place and characteristics of their housing -defined in the early and more advanced phases of metropolization- traditionally in peripheral areas¹²".

In this context, this research aims to associate factors related to society and social groups with urban formation and the processes of transformation and peripheral expansion, thus combining the different daily activities of the different social groups. Therefore, this set of daily life generated social dynamics within the metropolis is regarded as centrifugal forces of expansion, which tend to expand the metropolitan limits, giving shape to the distinctive urban form and the changing dynamics of its limits¹³. See diagram 1.

From this theoretical perspective, centrifugal forces of expansion link together in a repeated succession over time that generates "urban limits¹⁴", which are added to the metropolitan territory. They are composed by human mass, which is grouped in a continuum around the metropolitan center. These limits modify not only the morphological structure of the area, which changes over time from a monocentral city¹⁵ to a policentral metropolis¹⁶, but also reshape urban dynamics, which tends to transform, producing different cities within the metropolitan city. As a result, such urban dynamics multiplies "highest social contrast zones", including its inherent proclivity. See diagram 2.

The concentration of people around the metropolitan center varies in number over time due to the "centrifugal forces", which are inversely proportional to movement during the metropolization phases (MP) referred to previously. In fact, by isolating the behavior of people regarding the occupation and movement within the metropolitan space; and linking it with MP, it is clear that, by taking the metropolitan center as a basis, in the urbanization phase –which generates the first limit of the metropolis- the centrifugal forces that stimulate the movement of people towards the periphery are weaker. It also could be proved the presence of greater centripetal forces, which tend to control the movement of people towards adjacent perimeters.

Next, during the suburbanization phase, the picture changes drastically and the constituents of centrifugal forces increase pressure for dwellers to move towards the periphery, generating metropolitan limits associated with different territories that would eventually be added to the metropolitan area. This occurs when the annual growth rate (per cent) of the periphery is higher than that of the metropolitan center.

In the later phases of metropolization, centrifugal forces increase their power not only in the metropolitan center, but also in the rest of the suburbs, generating movement towards other zones of the periphery. In this stage, the "movement process of dwellers" occurs repeatedly. There is even a third force that could be added to the centrifugal ones associated with the metropolization phases of people¹⁷, intrinsically linked to dwellers; it is the productive activity or metropolization phase of employment¹⁸, which influences the positive or negative flow of centrifugal forces.

Hence, it would be possible that an efficient, effective and efficacious control over the constituents of centrifugal forces may have a positive effect on the regulation and direction of movement in metropolitan areas similar to those of Monterrey, restructuring and demarcating their expansive limits. This would entail a reduction in the usage of land in vulnerable and high-risk zones.

The metropolitan area of Monterrey will be analyzed to give an example of the movement process of dwellers, which involves the metropolization phases of people and centrifugal forces:

Demonstrative example

CENTRIFUGAL FORCES AND THEIR METROPOLIZATION PHASES IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA OF MONTERREY: HISTORICAL ANALYSIS 1940-2005

CONTEXTUAL NOTE ABOUT THE AREA

Monterrey and most of its metropolitan area are located in the base of Sierra Madre Oriental, covering the territory known as the great steppe plain of northeastern Mexico, incorporating the Coahuila and Tamaulipas states. The area is also known as the northeastern region of Mexico. One of its topographical characteristics is that it is surrounded by different orographic elevations, which involves differentiation in the orientation of physical growth and urban morphology.

According to figure 2, there is a clear topographic inclination of the urban space of Monterrey, oriented in west-east direction. Additionally, the topographic slope is a feature that should be respected when it comes to planning the city, especially in what regards to the cost of essential services for urban growth, for example, the city water network.

Regarding Monterrey, the analysis of the metropolization phases and the generation and activation of centrifugal forces that move towards the periphery (diagram 3) follows its evolution since the 1940-1950¹⁹ period. During that decade, Monterrey began its metropolization process by incorporating the urban areas of Guadalupe and San Nicolás de los Garza. Together, these areas had a population of 375,000 inhabitants. In this space-time-differential, the metropolitan center of Monterrey and the metropolitan area grew at an annual average of 6% and 6.2% respectively. It also had a gross urban area of 4,774ha and a population density of 79 people per hectare.

Therefore, it can be said that before the 1940-1950 period, the constituents of centripetal forces kept people spatially united, delaying the expansion of people belonging to the first limit towards peripheral zones. See previous diagrams and tables 1 and 2.

Then, centrifugal forces and its constituents –economic satisfiers, governance, annual growth rate of people (births minus deaths), rates of regional and national immigration, reproductive cycle (RC) of people and supply of urban land ready for development, among others- mobilized the inhabitants of the new metropolis of Monterrey. During the 1950-1960 period, the urban zone of San Pedro Garza García was added to the city, totalizing four towns and generating a new area and new metropolitan perimeter limits. The whole area had a population of 708,300 inhabitants and a population growth rate of 5.7%. In 1965, the number of inhabitants rose to 850,660, the gross urban area was estimated at 7.630ha, and the population density was estimated at 111 people per ha.

Between 1970 and 1980, centrifugal forces added new urban areas –Santa Catarina, Apodaca and General Escobedo- totalizing seven towns. The area had a population of 1,281,000 inhabitants. By 1970, the gross urban area was estimated at 13,000ha and the population density was estimated at 90 people per ha. According to table 2, the metropolitan center had a population of 871,500 people and a decennial growth rate (1970-1980) of 2.2% compared to the total of the metropolitan area.

During the 1980-1990 period, García and Benito Juárez were incorporated. It was on that decade when Monterrey experienced a slow decrease in its population growth process, reducing its growth rate in -0.2%. In 1985, the area had 2,232,040 inhabitants, a gross urban area of 36,090ha and the population density was estimated at 69 people per ha.

In 2000, the metropolitan conurbation had a population of 3,245,500 inhabitants. Monterrey had a growth rate of 0.04%, a gross urban area of 56,677ha and the population density was estimated at 57 people per ha. It was in that period when the centrifugal forces became evident, and, according to the analyses of "metropolization phases²⁰", the importance of the planning process to control the orientation and structure of growth and expansion of the urban sprawl is demonstrated. This control should be exercised by using proper instruments designed by efficient, effective and efficacious governmental bodies. The importance of social actors that take part in the "city-making" process is also demonstrated, especially those who participate in the transformation regarding growth and orientation of land use²¹, who are not necessarily looking for a balance between urban development and the generation of proper spaces for safe habitability. See table 3.

Taking into consideration the characteristics that influence the numerical growth of metropolitan population in Monterrey, and based on proposals that associate the "centrifugal forces (CF)" with the "metropolization phases", it is possible to recognize that, as a result of the CF effect in Monterrey, the "urbanization" phase is over. This is because the annual growth rate (per cent) of inhabitants belonging to the central city is higher than that of the periphery. In 1990, the city entered in the "suburbanization" phase, that is to say, the periphery reaches a higher rate of annual growth rate (per cent).

If the metropolitan composition of 1990 is analyzed, it is possible to see that the expansive direction of population growth is oriented towards the periphery, particularly to G.Escobedo, Apodaca and Guadalupe. See figures 3 and 4. During that time, the urban areas of Guadalupe and Escobedo had not exceeded their local limits: Guadalupe with B. Juárez and Escobedo with Salinas Victoria and García. See figures 3, 4 and 5.

Similarly, if the physical growth of the metropolitan center of Monterrey in the 1980-1990 period is taken into account, it is possible to say that the area of this region has modified the metropolization process (MP), entering in the "deurbanization" phase. According to the principles of the MP, this occurs when the central city evidences partial or complete depopulation (-0.2%, see table 2). This indicates an evident movement of population towards the immediate periphery, as the central city suffered changes that modified the land use, forcing most of its dwellers to gradually abandon their homes, a characteristic of deurbanization. See figure 5.

The purpose of this demonstrative example was to show the way centrifugal forces and its constituents have influenced the expansion of the metropolitan area of Monterrey (MAM). If diagrams 2 and 3 are analyzed, they represent from the point of view of this research the classic example of how the metropolization process starts from a metropolitan center –which was originally a monocentral one. In the "centrifugation" process, social groups settle around the metropolitan center, giving shape to what can be regarded as "first limit"

Then, by virtue of factors associated with some of the components of centrifugal forces, the population increases in number and demands more urban land. At this point, it is necessary to ponder, as one of the most important aspects to the MAM related to centrifugal forces and its expansive process, the strong economic development over the past decades and the evolution in domestic economic activity, which is more focused on the field of services rather than on industrial activity. See table 4.

If the situation does not change, and planning instruments –laws, regulations, plans, among others- designed and applied by local or state governments do not contribute to the social process of settlement, the city will continue adding limits. This phenomenon is related to the concept of "institutionalized anomie²²", in which housing market forces, under the current Mexican constitutional system, seek profit disregarding the balance of the area and the differentiated spaces generated in the process. Many of these areas are characterized by vulnerability and high-risk.

If corruption –which associates the housing market, instruments of institutionalized planning, and government officials- is added to the evolution-involution of the metropolis, the process could turn into an "illegal transformation" of urban land²³. Since the transformation of territory implies legal and illegal procedures, this process would be considered as a factual contradiction. These factors are present in Mexican and Latin American metropolises, as well as in some other cities around the world.

Considering the analysis of the Monterrey case, which tries to explain the movement of people from the center to the periphery, including the influence of "institutionalized corruption" elements, it can be said that, according to previous research²⁴, the movement of people is related to determined groups of people, associated with specific age groups and linked to mobility patterns within Mexican cities. The following statement represents these behaviors:

The expansive movement of metropolitan dwellers from the center towards the periphery has similar behavior characteristics, which are inversely proportional to the age of the inhabitant²⁵.

This means that older people tend to live nearer the historic metropolitan center "Central Business District, CBD" and younger people tend to live nearer the peripheral areas. In general terms, this is a particular characteristic that may be present in the peripheral expansionist evolution of Latin American metropolitan areas and regions around the world.

The experience of Monterrey, in what regards to movement of people based on age group, has been chosen to illustrate this phenomenon. See figures 6, 7 and 8. These figures show that the behavior of metropolitan dwellers may be considered as a pattern that is directly associated with the metropolization phases (MP). In other words, if the MP moves to higher phases, the movement will increase. In 2000 and 2005, the localization of people according to age group was distributed as follows²⁶:

1. Most of people aged 65 years and older live relatively near the historic center of Monterrey; this pattern is also observed in most of the areas of the conurbation. From San Pedro Garza García to Guadalupe, and parallel to Santa Catarina River, there are basic geostatistical areas. These areas have high concentrations of people from the aforementioned age group, decreasing as the distance from the historic center increases. See figure 6.

2. Regarding the group of people aged 0-14 years, an evident peripheral-metropolitan movement that demarcates the "inner threshold" is noticed. This imaginary line is expected to move towards the periphery. See figure 7.

3. The group of people aged 15-19 years show similar behavior to that of the previous one regarding peripheral movement and demarcation of the "inner threshold". However, this group shows zones with high population density in the urban areas of San Pedro Garza García and southern Monterrey. See figure 8.

In this way, the explanation of the expansive movement of people towards the periphery, considering all the population of the area, is based on two evolutions that are essential to understand and explain the original configuration that caused the peripheral expansion of Monterrey.

1. The first evolutionary process is related to the reproductive cycle of inhabitants; it is the association of peripheral expansion with family, natural growth (births minus deaths) and cultural features –idiosyncrasy, identity, and economy, among others.

2. The second process has to do with how the city expands and generates "highest social contrast zones". Here, the supposition that links higher income groups and the initial processes of peripheral expansion will be confirmed.

This supposition indicates that, in the later phases of city formation, the initiators of peripheral movements are the higher income groups. Their opposite groups follow the same movement patterns; however, their houses are located in vulnerable and high-risk areas. In the following metropolization phases, starting from early urbanization, these marginal groups intensify the reproductive cycle, using other diversified portions of urban land. Many of these zones have similar habitability conditions, others, though, are even more vulnerable and dangerous.

As a preliminary conclusion, the aforesaid evolutionary processes will be analyzed in depth, using the metropolitan area of Monterrey as an object of spatial intervention.

Preliminary conclusions

FIRST PROCESS:

The first evolutionary process, which can be considered as the most linear, represents a transformation that links the inhabitant and his traditional reproductive cycle with the metropolitan territory, where the symbiotic cause-effect relation looks for an answer for the "why does the city expand?" question. Such process is called "reproductive cycle of inhabitants in cities" (CR). This CR is associated with the following process:

1. The first stage of human settlement

2. Family growth

3. The members of the family start their respective process of mobility, forming their own families, in many cases, in areas near their former homes.

4. The beginning of a new reproductive cycle; the centrifugal forces of the area influence the speed of the cycle. See diagram 4.

However, there are two reflections that involve variables that associate territory, housing, risk and vulnerability with the speed of reproductive cycle:

1. Unless a catastrophe occurs, the CR seems to continue indefinitely. Therefore, it should suffer evolutionary changes in the speed of reproduction of family members. These alterations are associated with elements linked to physical-territorial environment; reserve of natural resources and accessible urban land; socioeconomic and cultural factors; and governability, among others.

Such factors could also be related to the components of centrifugal forces, since practical evidence shows that satisfiers such as income, availability of physical space, social security, governability and educational amenities determine family growth. These satisfiers contain elements that make up the constituents of centrifugal forces.

Regarding the factors that constitute the centrifugal forces, this research analyzes land and its availability (infrastructure, services, etc) for urban usage. Since land is a limited resource, it may need barriers of spatial growth and horizontal reproduction to "some" group of people. To "others", it would imply processes of territorial mobility in search of available places, which are found in the immediate periphery or neighboring areas that do not meet the minimum requirements of habitability; in fact, those lands are located in vulnerable and high-risk zones.

This movement of people generates, in areas similar to Monterrey, a widening phenomenon. In many cases, this event benefits from irregular land appropriation –even without basic services- by low income groups supported by labor unions and political parties. There are even developers involved, who, as stated before, use irregular and sometimes illegal procedures to influence over the modification of instruments²⁷ generated by local authorities for land use control.

2. This description brings along differentiation in the processes of formation, growth, physical-spatial orientation and evolution of cities, which are determined by the speed of "reproductive cycles" (see diagram 4), generating different types of urban concentrations: cities, metropolitan areas, megalopolises, among others. These spaces have characteristics related to metropolization phases, centrifugal forces and centripetal forces.

Therefore, the relation between:

a. physical-spatial elements

b. the orientation and degree of socioeconomic "development" provided by satisfiers, or surpluses that attract people

c. and cultural factors:

Will determine the speed of the "reproductive cycle" evolution, affecting the growth and physical expansion of the city and the movement of metropolitan dwellers; policentral characteristics that tend to remain in metropolitan spaces will be generated as long as movement remains influenced by the availability of habitable urban land and by social actors²⁸ represented by the private and public sectors. Both groups pursue different objectives: the former aims at accumulating capital; the latter give support to society and protect the less favored social groups, although this is not always true. According to "the world upside down" concept of Karl Marx²⁹:

"The world upside down" is a society in which: " a) the intermediary gets rich by impersonating the producer (worker) and the creator "artist, inventor, producer of knowledge and ideas". Who is this intermediary? The active capitalist; b) the State, which, instead of favoring society and promoting organizational capacity and rationality, intensifies the exploitation of society; c) the bureaucracy has its own interests and the instruments to fulfill them, where competition and knowledge are the selection methods; d) the effect is the cause, where the end is the means and the means is the end."

People from both sectors of society take part in this process, where, as a result of a conflict of interests, it is possible to find an "antinomic situation". Such circumstance has its roots in acts that may involve corruption³⁰, such as:

1. The intervention of people from private and public sectors to modify legal provisions of social welfare for their own benefit,

2. The double role played by government officials: governmental social agents and urban land speculators³¹; this situation may be present in Mexican and Latin American governments, as well as those around the world.

The emergence of antinony "or aporia, in words of Henri Lefebvre³²" among groups related to the generation and reproduction of urban space is based on the inadequacies of urban development instruments "laws, plans, regulation, among others³³" designed to:

1. Orientate the actions (intended to regulate and set peripheral limits) of both sectors in the growth, arrangement and allocation of urban lands for urban development, thus balancing and avoiding uncontrolled movement.

2. Select proper human resources committed to the processes of efficiency and quality for urban balance. See diagram 5.

It is safe to say, then, that illegal associations between public and private officials "contaminate" the instruments that control the growth, arrangement and allocation of urban lands for urban development with profit-making interests. This is due to an inefficient administrative supervision prone to corruption and antinomic processes. Consequently, when land is offered under "contaminated" conditions, urban land, one of the main constituents of centrifugal forces, is activated.

In this manner, uncontrolled peripheral dispersion of multidirectional orientation is generated. However, for corrupt people from the private sector and some public officials, who incorporate revaluated lands through speculative procedures or "irregular operations³⁴", this dispersion has a "proper" direction.

Such actions are referred to as "transformation process of legal-illegal territory", which, antinomic processes included, generates not only an answer for the "why?" question of unplanned expansion; but also the incontrollable state of most of Latin American metropolises. See diagram 5.

SECOND PROCESS:

The second process that tries to explain the movement towards the periphery of metropolitan dwellers is intended to understand questions such as, how does the city expand generating the characteristic metropolitan limits? And why are the "highest social contrast" areas generated in the limits of the city? This approach may have a different implication of analysis, since the answers to the aforementioned questions are based on aspects related to society, different to those observed in the "first process".

One of these aspects is that which tries to understand the "human condition" "or vita activa, in words of Hannah Arendt³⁵" of the two opposite social groups. Both groups tend to constitute the concept of "highest social contrast zones"; this theoretical perspective is linked to the idea that in Monterrey:

During the earlier phases of metropolization, before the urbanization of the metropolitan center "generation of "first limit"", or when centripetal forces are stronger than centrifugal forces, the "highest social contrast zones" groups were the first inhabitants of the periphery. There, high income groups -the owners of production methods- were the first in favor of peripheral expansion and, as a result, the first dwellers of the new areas, being followed by the low income groups. Hence, there are people belonging to the dominant economic group, and people belonging to less favored groups, who in many cases "work or labor³⁶" for the first ones. See diagram 6.

The idea of this analysis is to regard the "reproductive cycle of inhabitants in cities" as one of the constituents of centrifugal forces of expansion. It has been provided evidence of how the city expands over time, starting from a metropolitan center with characteristics that allow this phenomenon to occur; this tendency is associated with metropolization processes.

However, this analysis only considers "some" of the elements of physical expansion and do not study the different social groups that live in the area. That is why they are not included when the formation of "limits" is specified. There is also no answer for the "why?" (justified reason) question regarding the geographical-spatial location of the "highest social contrast zones". It is only inferred through the spatial localization of housing; as the settlement of these opposite groups is due to: favorable land conditions –infrastructure and amenities, among others- for the economically dominant groups; and availability of vulnerable and high-risk areas lacking infrastructural elements for the opposite group.

These considerations will be addressed by adopting Hannah Arendt's approach to the "human condition and la vita activa" of society as frame of reference and incorporate it to the answers for the aforementioned questions. The proposal of Arendt is philosophically oriented and has different objectives to those of this research, as the author analyses the human condition of "contemporary" society as a whole; linking it with three traditional elements in the life of every person: labor, work and action³⁷.

"Human condition", from the point of view of this research, is related to individual and collective activities of labor, work and action of metropolitan society. The idea is to propose preliminary theoretical guidelines for understanding how people moved and used the peripheral urban land during the earlier phases of metropolization. These guidelines also provide generalizations to explain how and what "kind of people" moved to the periphery of the metropolitan area of Monterrey for the first time. As previously said, the reference is the initial process of metropolization, when the emergence of the metropolitan center generated the first limit.

This research stresses the process that gave rise to the first "differentiation" in land appropriation. It also evidences the origin of one of the first "highest social contrast zones".

Hence, the concept of "human condition" associated with the expression vita activa, means a human evolution and transformation around the production and reproduction of "things" created by man: from technological advances to objectification of urban land. Precisely, urban land is the contact point between "human condition" and the differentiation in physical occupation of metropolitan space.

It is important to understand the dichotomic duality of the "human condition" concept, which implies topics regarding things created by man, as these "things" determine the existence of human producers. Evidence shows that human beings will always be conditioned individuals. Paraphrasing Arendt: "the existence of man would be impossible without things, and, if these things were not a condition for human existence, they would compose a "non world³⁸".

From the Arendtian perspective, vita activa is characterized by three fundamental activities: labor, work and action. According to the author, they represent the basic conditions of man:

"Labor is the activity that corresponds to the biological process of human body, whose spontaneous growth, metabolism and decay are bound to the vital needs produced and fed the life process of labor. The human condition of labor is life itself.

Work is the activity that corresponds to the unnaturalness of human existence, which is not imbedded in, and whose mortality is not compensated by the cycle. Work provides an "artificial" world of things, distinctly different from all natural circumstances. Within its limits, each individual life is housed, while this world itself is meant to outlast and transcend them all. The human condition of work is wordliness.

Action, the only activity between men without the intermediary of things, corresponds to the human condition of plurality, to the fact that men, not Man, live on Earth and inhabit the world. While all aspects of the human condition are somehow related to politics, this plurality is specifically the condition –not only the conditio sine qua non, but the conditio per quam- of all political life³⁹."

Starting from the interpretation of the concept of "labor", this hypothetical supposition is addressed by considering: the differentiation in spatial movement processes of people, which result in physical occupation of peripheral expansion; and the predominant role of two social groups belonging to completely different economic strata in this expansive process.

Evidence shows the need to tell the difference between labor and work. In this sense, the Arendtian proposal states that, apart from isolated historical observations, there is no theory about the concept of labor in pre-modern and modern history⁴⁰. However, there are two words, labor and work, that refer to the same activity. For instance: "Greek distinguishes between ponein and ergazesthai, Latin between laborare and facere or fabricari and French between ouvrer and travailler⁴¹", there are also the English words "labor" and "work". Regardless of the language, these words express uneasiness and pain⁴².

The notion which is in the interest of this research is that the word labor does not refer to a finished product. In fact, labor was despised in ancient times, as this concept implied effort which was not remembered. This idea spread as polis expanded until political activities became important. This was because "the political tradition prior to the development of city-states only made distinctions between "slaves", enemies captured as booty who as residents (oiketai) were made slaves to serve their masters and themselves; and "workers", who were free to move in private and public spheres⁴³."

Since ancient times, activities have been divided according to social groups. On the one hand, there are those with economic and political power, the "conquerors", and on the other hand, those who were made slaves, the "conquered". The latter group represented the servitude, the lowest of social classes, even lower than homo faber, who were considered free individuals and performed different activities. Here, four kinds of individuals belonging to the polis are identified: politicians, capital owners (in many cases represented the same individual), homo faber and slaves. Then, according to the distinction between labor and work of Arendt, three concepts are introduced: 1. Productive and unproductive labor; 2. Skilled and unskilled work; 3. Division of all activities of manual and intellectual work.

It is in the first item where Adam Smith and Karl Marx developed most of their theories. They even, as hard to believe as it may sound, agreed on regarding "unproductive labor" as something negative, suspiciously parasitic. Adam Smith associated unproductive labor with "servants", he called them "slothful guests" who left nothing in return for what they consumed; Marx agreed with that concepti <43" 434343] . However, later arguments invite a reflection on the unproductiveness of servants, or "family residents" (oiketai), who labored only to survive, as their intervention in household tasks –considered before as degrading and performed only by slaves as animal laborans⁴⁵- was a contribution to productive labor. Their work allowed their masters to take part in productive activities.

Then, it is possible to understand the initial differentiation between labor and work by associating these concepts to the differences between "productive and unproductive labor". Laboring implies an effort that vanishes, an activity that leaves no traces; contrary to working, where homo faber, aside from producing a concrete object, generate surplus. These ideas were modified by arguments that regarded household tasks as productive activities. In effect, the differences are no longer valid, but they are still important to explain the physical-spatial location of housing of opposite social groups.

Up to this point, the differentiation between labor and work has been addressed from the Arendtian perspective. The theoretical position of the author does not consider the physical localization and structural characteristics of housing of individuals that perform these differentiated activities⁴⁶: homo laborans and homo faber. It would be prudent to include a third category, the "masters". They are the owners of "production methods" and capital: the homo capitális. Therefore, the differentiation of peripheral occupation of land in the earlier phases of metropolization could be the result of the transformational process caused by the characteristics of the two opposite classes. These groups are composed by families of differentiated economic situations, located in unequal areas; it is the concept of "highest social contrast zones".

If the initial difference, despite its explanatory nature, between labor and work is valid, the "unproductive labor" associated with activities labeled as trifling -like the household services that people provide to economically favored groups- would be linked, in terms of spatial location, to the group who need to "hire" these services: the homo capitális.

By illustrating the initial phase of metropolization of Monterrey, it becomes clear that the economically dominant groups "choose" or appropriate zones for housing or economic purposes (industry and services, among others). To this effect, they consider localization factors that meet their requirements. As for homo laborans, they are located in areas that allow them to access to their "labor" activities. They consider zones where settlement is legally, or illegally, "possible". Within the time-space differential, and with no options to choose from, they establish their homes in vulnerable and high-risk sectors. These areas lie on river banks, hillsides and moors, have inadequate or no infrastructure services and amenities and are difficult to access. It is possible to highlight four circumstances associated with spatial movement of people:

First: If dominant groups choose the best places for settlement, leaving those less appropriate, but not isolated, for servants, it would be possible to consider that in the first phase of metropolization, economically favored groups tend to determine the direction of urban growth according to: a) the site they choose to live in; and b) localization of sources of urban employment (industries, trade, services, etc.)

Second: In the first phases of metropolization, the less economically favored groups, the "dependents", tend to: a) "accompany" their "masters" in the movement process; they have to settle in available and affordable areas near the places where they "labor"; and b) live in "urban" areas, forming groups of dwellers who are bound to the same social stratum, have similar levels of education, possess the same securities and real estate, share moral attitudes and consumer habits. They give form, in many cases and in later phases of metropolization, to depressed peripheral urban zones, forgotten suburbs lacking amenities, behind urban development. These zones tend to shape "cities within cities", that is to say, no cities⁴⁷.

Third: In later phases of metropolization. Basic planning instruments "plans, laws, etc." lack efficiency, effectiveness and efficacy to execute urban control. Such instruments should be elaborated not only by proper governmental entities, but also by qualified human resources. Urban land occupation and orientation is in the hands of private developers who control the housing market⁴⁸, and as they have different opinions regarding social development and spatial balance, they finally determine the peripheral orientation of the area.

Fourth: Between "homo capitális" and "homo laborans", there is a group of people belonging to the middle class⁴⁹: the "homo faber". In the first phase of metropolization, they tend to locate their housing around their workplaces. Unlike homo laborans, homo faber live in urbanized and legal places.

To explain and contrast this peripheral expansive process and how the different groups move, the metropolitan center of Monterrey, Nuevo León, México, has been chosen as a descriptive example of territorial application, starting from the beginning of its metropolization process of 1940-1950:

FORMATION OF LIMITS

Some of the characteristics of the metropolization phases, using Monterrey as reference, have been described throughout this article. This explanatory exercise has tried to verify how the urban areas of towns that today, by law, compose the conurbation⁵⁰, were incorporated into it. To that effect, population growth rates of the different periods analyzed and the centrifugal and centripetal forces of expansion have been used, as well as the information provided in the demonstrative example 1 and, naturally, in this section. Figure 9 has been added to illustrate how the metropolitan area of Monterrey has expanded over time, including the nine official urban areas.

By analyzing this graphic, information regarding the growth of population in 1940 evidences a zone of "homo capitális" housing in the Central Business District (CBD); a zone of "homo faber" housing in the north; and some depressed areas of "homo laborans" housing further north. Nevertheless, the concept to highlight, concerning the examples that analyze the previously mentioned suppositions, is the characteristic of the zone located by Santa Catarina River, lying to the south of the CBD. This area shows all the features described in this article, becoming an important one within the concept of "highest social contrast zones". See figure 9. Here, two characteristics should be stressed:

First: It is clear that the formation process and the physical-spatial localization features of upper class housing in the CBD did not begin in the forties, but before that period of time. Historical pictures from the 1920-1930 period show the local importance of the CBD. However, the methodological process suggests that the analysis should start from this period, as it is possible to put forth two reflections:

The first one is related to urbanization -the first phase of metropolization- which evidences the impressive physical-spatial growth of the site, including the number of people living in that area; a process that reinforced Monterrey as metropolitan center. In this way, the focal point of activities was the central business district "today known as "historic center"", as the land of this area was used for important purposes; this zone was also occupied by the upper class; the service industry –important source of employment-, the symbolic powers: the House of State Government, the House of Local Government and the Cathedral; the Zaragoza Square and the traditional market, located near the central district; they represented distinctive elements of Mexican and most of Latin American cities. It is worth noting that in this phase of metropolization, the decennial growth rate (1940-1950) of Monterrey peaked at 6%, see table 2, reinforcing its CBD as a center of regional importance.

The second reflection has to do with identifying, through the concept of centripetal forces, the formation characteristics of the "first metropolitan limit", which could be delimited –for explanatory purposes- in relation to population growth and physical expansion in Monterrey up to 1940. According to figure 9, the constituents of centripetal forces, mainly those associated with economic and physical-spatial factors "amenities and infrastructure", head towards the central district, concentrating all its elements in a single area. Then, it is safe to say that Monterrey, during the later forties and the earlier fifties, was a monocentral city, being the CBD the center of it. In that period, upper classes moved to other areas of the town and urban areas of neighboring municipalities.

Second: The physical-spatial evidence of localization of the "highest social contrast zones" of homo laborans is "for the convenience of some people" separated by a natural line of division. Such physical barrier is the Santa Catarina River, which for a long period of time demarcated and determined a human condition of marginalization concerning the vita activa of homo laborans. This border would be the frontier between the "economic development" of the central district, promoted by dominant classes, and the depressed areas where the dispossessed live under completely different conditions. In this manner, similar to the development of the central district, this marginalized area was shaped by a gradual process. Figure 9 shows that from 1940 onwards, the south bank of Santa Catarina River developed progressively towards the east and the west; for decades, this was a dangerously vulnerable area, prone to floods.

By processing information from the 2005 census, most of the dwellers of "highest social contrast zones" have not overcome their economic backwardness, as they receive the minimum wage; additionally, the area has a high concentration of inhabitants averaging 65 years correlated with inefficient educational instruction.

It is necessary to stress that natural physical barriers have been used to demarcate the "highest social contrast zones"; however, there are also barriers created by man, which have spread over urban Monterrey, such as the "walls of concrete" that separate the "mediocris utilitas" from the "complete citizens⁵¹".

By the later forties and earlier fifties, and due to different reasons "one of which could have been the floods of Santa Catarina River or the installation of Monterrey Foundry", some inhabitants of the central district began to move towards the west of the city in order to relocate their housing, reaching higher zones, specifically to Obispado Hill. See figure 9. The importance of this fact, which represents an important part in the peripheral movement process of Monterrey towards the west, is that Obispado Hill and the south bank of Santa Catarina River were peripheral zones of Monterrey and its central business district.

"Marginalized" dwellers - the same referred to as homo laborans or from the "highest social contrast zones"; those who in the beginning of the process located their housing in the vulnerable and high-risk areas of the south bank of Santa Catarina River- "accompany", on their chaotic, disorganized and non regulated journey, the homo capitális to occupy some peripheral areas, as vulnerable as the previous ones.

In the 1940-1950 period, multiple socioeconomic processes increased the growth of population and territorial expansion in the metropolitan center of Monterrey. In fact, the argument about the peripheral expansion of the two opposite groups, from the central district towards Obispado Hill, and from the south bank of Santa Catarina River towards the west, should be understood as the referential objective regarding territorial space, considering only explanatory purposes. Figure 9 shows that population expansion is not exclusive of these two zones of Monterrey, but it displaces in multiple directions. Therefore, the metropolization process ends with the first three conurbations in the 1950-1960 period. These urban areas keep certain guidelines, showing a justification associated with multiple factors such as: road links, industrial districts, railway infrastructure, etc. Towards the east, following the course of Santa Catarina River, the urban area of Guadalupe is incorporated into the city, as well as the urban areas of San Pedro Garza García (west) and San Nicolás de los Garza (north).

Finally, by combining the findings derived from this article, it is possible to give a preliminary explanation that allows understanding the science of planning, or at least, a reflection on how the city transforms into a metropolis, maybe not in the physical terms of Jan Bazant⁵² or Antonio Rébora⁵³, or in the socioeconomic terms of Guillermo-Aguilar⁵⁴ or Gustavo Garza⁵⁵, but by taking the approach of this research to a moderate eclecticism that moves between the geographical-historic², physical-spatial-demographical <56" 565656] and philosophical concepts of Hannah Arendt and her theoretical references. In this way, this exercise allows establishing and analyzing hypothetical suppositions related to the processes of land occupation towards the periphery of opposite groups and its physical-territorial representation. Thus, a possible answer regarding the origin of marginalized, residential, and other type of zones arises. See diagram 7.

Notes

² This research was carried out in the Faculty of Architecture, Autonomous University of Nuevo León; supported with resources from Programa de Apoyo a la Investigación Científica y Tecnológica.
³ SIMMEL, Geroge (1951/1988), page 59.
⁴ To know more about the concept of public policy of alterity, consult: SOUSA, Eduardo, 2010, chapter 6.
⁵ CONNOLLY, Priscilla.,1988, page 25.
⁶ ZÁRATE, Antonio, 2003, page 142.
⁷ UNIKEL, Luis, 1978; SOBRINO, Jaime, 2003, page 198; BUSQUETS, Javier, 1993, page 163.
⁸ VINUESA, Julio, 1991, page 105.
⁹ LEFEBVRE, Henry, 1980, page 22.
¹⁰ AUGE, Marc, 2005, page 30.
¹¹ To know more about "no city" spaces, consult: SOUSA, Eduardo, 2009, 272-374.
¹² SOUSA, Eduardo, 2009, page 130. Textual translation of the author's original statement.
¹³ In general terms, centrifugal forces may be grouped in the following constituents: economic, political, physical territorial and sociodemographic.
¹⁴ SOUSA, Eduardo, 2007, page 168.
¹⁵ E. Burgess, E. McKenzie, H. Hoyt 1930-1940, University of Chicago.
¹⁶ Homer, H. Harris 1930, Ullman 1945, Et. Al..
¹⁷ SOBRINO, Jaime, 2003, page 198; SOUSA, Eduardo, 2007, page 136.
¹⁸ SOBRINO, Jaime, 2003, page 183.
¹⁹ National Institute of Statistics and Geography, 2002, page 85.
²⁰ SOUSA, Eduardo, 2007, page 136.
²¹ CONNOLLY, Priscilla, 1988, page 28.
²² The concepts "anomy" or "institutionalized anomy" may sound contradictory, however, through an abstraction process, it may symbolize the State of a society characterized by disintegration of social order rules, represented in this case by growth and urban development.
²³ The "illegality" of the process is a negative influence associated with corruption in order to modify legal planning instruments related to urban land, and consequently, to urban development..
²⁴ SOUSA, Eduardo, 2007 and 2006a (cfr).
²⁵ In fact., this statement may become a hypothesis to contrast, whose dependent variable is the expansive-peripheral movement of people, and its independent variables are chronological age and physical space of movement.
²⁶ To know more about metropolization phases consult SOUSA, Eduardo, 2007, third chapter.
²⁷ Land occupation rate, Land use rate, Land absorption rate, among others.
²⁸ CONNOLLY, Priscilla, 1988, page 20.
²⁹ LEFEBVRE, Henry, 180, page 107.
³⁰ TORTOSA, José, 1995, page 83.
³¹ ZAPATERO, Virgilio, 2007, page 87.
³² Opus cit. page 30.
³³ "Operative inefficiency" of some important urban planning instruments, essential for a balanced development of an area. These inefficiencies are divided into four dimensional groups: efficiency, efficacy, effectiveness, and citizen participation, as seen in diagram 5.
³⁴ "Irregularity" associated with improper modification of urban land use and purposes.
³⁵ ARENDT, Hannah, 2002, page 20.
³⁶ ARENDT, Hannah, Opus cit, page 97.
³⁷ ARENDT, Hannah, Opus cit, page 18.
³⁸ ARENDT, Hannah, Opus cit, page 23.
³⁹ ARENDT, Hannah, Opus cit, page 21.
⁴⁰ ARENDT, Hannah, Opus cit, page 98.
⁴¹ ARENDT, Hannah, Opus cit, page 142.
⁴² Labor: Work, especially physical work; Work: to do something that involves physical or mental work.
⁴³ ARENDT, Hannah, Opus cit, page 99.
⁴⁴ SMITH, Adam. The Wealth of Nations, page 302; quoted by ARENDT, Hannah, 2002. Footnote 15, page 145.
⁴⁵ According to Aristotle, slaves lack two characteristics, being regarded as non humans: the power to deliberate and decide; and the power to predict and choose; (ARENDT, H, Opus cit, 144).
⁴⁶ Apart from the classical idea that slaves were considered as defeated enemies who, as residents (oiketai), were taken to the house of the winner with the rest of the booty.
⁴⁷ SOUSA, Eduardo, 2009, page 272.
⁴⁸ CONNOLLY, Priscilla, 1988, page 35.
⁴⁹ Although this differentiation of three social groups is general and do not evidence "division", it will be taken as reference to explain how settlement localization works.
⁵⁰ Up to 2010, the urban areas of the conurbation have not changed, as the Metropolitan Plan 2021: Urban Development is the document that declares them.
⁵¹ ARENDT, Hannah, 2002, footnote 25, page 146.
⁵² BAZANT, Jan, 2001, page 87.
⁵³ REBORA, Antonio, 2000, page 37.
⁵⁴ AGUILAR, Guillermo, 2006, page 125.
⁵⁵ GARZA, Gustavo, 2003, 2003a, 2003b.
⁵⁶ VINUESA, Julio, 1991, page 9.
⁵⁷ FERRER, Manuel, 2002; ESTÉBANEZ, Julio, 1996; PRECEDO, Andrés: et. Al.

Bibliography

ARENDT, Hanna (2002). La condición humana. México: Paidos. 366.

AUGE, Marc. (1996). Los no lugares. Espacios del anonimato. Barcelona: Gedisa. Busquets, Javier (1993). Perspectiva desde las ciudades. Ciudad y territorio. Estudios territoriales, número 95-96, pp. 163-174.BAZANT, Jan (2001). Periferias urbanas. México. Trillas.

BASSOLS, Mario., Et alia. (1988). Antología de sociología urbana. México, UNAM.

CONNOLLY, Priscilla. (1988). Crecimiento urbano, densidad de población y mercado inmobiliario. Revista A, vol. XI, México, UAM Azcapotzalco.

BUSQUETS, Javier (1993). Perspectiva desde las ciudades. Ciudad y territorio. Estudios territoriales, número 95-96, pp. 163-174.

ESTEBANEZ, Julio. (1996). Las ciudades. Morfología y estructura.

FERRER, Manuel (2002). Los sistemas urbanos. España; Síntesis.

GARCÍA, Roberto (2003). El caso del área metropolitana de Monterrey. Conapo.

GARZA, Gustavo (2003). Políticas urbanas en grandes metrópolis: Detroit, Monterrey y Toronto. México, El colegio de México.

GARZA, Gustavo (2003a). La urbanización de México en el siglo XX. México, El colegio de México.

GARZA, Gustavo (2003b). La transformación del sistema urbano en México. México: CONAPO.

GOBIERNO DEL ESTADO DE NUEVO LEÓN (2003). Plan Metropolitano 20-21: Desarrollo urbano de la zona de conurbación Monterrey.

AGUILLAR, A. GUILLERMO. (2006). Reestructuración económica y costo social en la ciudad de México. Una metrópoli periférica en la escala global. En Méndez, A. (2006). Estudios urbanos contemporáneos. México; M. A. Porrua.

Instituto Nacional de estadística, geografía e historia (INEGI) (2002). Estadísticas del medio ambiente de la zona de Monterrey, 2001.

LEFEBVRE, Henri (1983). La presencia y la ausencia. Contribución a la teoría de las representaciones. México. Fondo de cultura económica.

------ (1980). La revolución urbana. Madrid. Alianza.

PRATT, Henry. (2006). Diccionario de sociología. México, FCE.

PRECEDO, Andrés. (2004). Nuevas realidades territoriales para el siglo XXI. Desarrollo local, identidad territorial y ciudad difusa. España; Síntesis.

SANCHEZ-Muñoz, Cristina. (2003). Ana Arendt: El espacio de la política. Madrid. CEPC.

SIMMEL, George. (1951). The metrópolis and mental life. En Bassols, M. et alia, 1988:47.

SOBRINO, Jaime. (2003). Competitividad de las ciudades de México, México, El colegio de México.

SOUSA, Eduardo; et al. (2010).Análisis espacial y políticas públicas en estudios de caso seleccionados/Spatial analysis and public policies in selected case studies. México: UANL: libro 456 páginas: ISBN: 978-607-433-124-0. Se puede bajar en: http://www.tamuk.edu/geo/Urbana/jt/spatial_analysis.pdf

SOUSA, Eduardo. (2010). Espacios contemporáneos I. Argumentos teóricos para la generación de políticas públicas metropolitanas. México: UANL: libro 370 páginas: ISBN: 978-607-433-303-9. Se puede bajar gratuitamente en: http://www.esousa.es.tl/

------ (2009). El proceso expansivo en la territorialidad metropolitana. Fundamento teórico y génesis procesal: los espacios no ciudad en la sobremodernidad. México, UANL: libro 400 páginas: ISBN: 978-607-433-019-9. http://www.facartes.unal.edu.co/portal-app/bitacora/

------ El crecimiento metropolitano en el contexto del desarrollo Latinoamericano: El caso de México. Entelequia. Revista Interdisciplinar (España), 9, Primavera 2009. Págs. 151-172. Disponible en Internet: http://www.eumed.net/entelequia/es.art.php?a=09a08

------ (2007). El área metropolitana de Monterrey. Análisis y propuesta metodológica para la planeación de zonas periféricas. México, UANL: Colección Tendencias.

------ (2006a). Theoretical Foundations for the Analysis of Urban Planning In Mexico: The Metropolitan Area of Monterrey. En Wagner, F. Cabana, R. Urban Sprawl: Lessons Learned from North America. Department of geography, University of Waterloo, Canadá.

REBORA, Antonio. (2000). Hacia un nuevo paradigma de la planeación de los asentamientos humanos. Políticas e instrumentos de suelo para un desarrollo urbano sostenible, incluyente y sustentable. El caso de la región oriente del valle de México. México; M. A. Porrua.

TORTOSA, José. 1995. Corrupción. Madrid. Icaria.

UNIKEL, Luis. (1978). El desarrollo urbano de México. México: El Colegio de México.

VINUESA, Julio., Vidal, M. J. (1991). Los procesos de urbanización. España; Síntesis.

ZARATE, Antonio. (2003). El espacio interior de la ciudad, Madrid; Síntesis.

ZAPATERO, Virgilio. 2007. La corrupción. México. Coyoacán.

Received: 14.02.2010
Accepted: 30.07.2010