Population density

Population densities in most major Latin American cities today average between 100 and 130 persons per hectare. There are, of course, substantial variations between cities. As table 4.12 shows, the poorer cities, Bogotá, Lima, and Mexico City, have particularly high population densities, although Caracas, confined to its narrow valleys, is also densely populated. More affluent Santiago and São Paulo have lower densities.

Ingram and Carroll (1981: 265) claim that Latin American cities "do not appear to be significantly more dense than older central cities in the US. The peripheral densities of Latin American cities are similar to those found in North American cities."9 This rather surprising finding is explained by the fact that North American cities have much more high-rise building. Indeed, what is worrying about population densities in Latin America is not the overall average but where the figures reach their peak. Most of the highest figures are found not in areas containing high-rise apartments but in consolidated low-rise, self-help areas. Thus, although areas of high-rise middle-class housing in Rio de Janeiro, such as Copacabana, have densities of over 300 persons per hectare, these densities pale in comparison with the high values of some of the favelas (Allen, 1989). Similarly, in Santiago, the highest values of between 200 and 250 persons per hectare are found in the low-rise suburbs (Bähr and Mertins, 1985; INK, 1986b). In Bogotá, the peak densities are also found in the poorer suburbs (Pineda and Jiménez, 1990), where poor families have attempted to economize on the high cost of land.

But, if this is the current pattern, what are the dynamics of change? Are Latin America's cities becoming less densely packed through time? Mills and Tan (1980: 317) suggest that this is almost inevitable, given that international evidence shows that "large urban areas are more decentralised than small urban areas,... high income urban areas are more decentralised than low income urban areas (and) ... transportation improvements almost certainly lead to decentralisation. "

Table 4.12 Population density and growth of urban area

Sources: Coulomb and Sanchez, 1991; Dietz, 1978; Dowall and Treffeisen, 1990: 17; Gilbert, 1978; Gilbert, 1993; IBGE, 1984; INK, 1986a; Kross, 1992; UNCRD, 1994.

Since Latin American cities have become both more affluent and more decentralized over recent decades, there should have been a clear reduction in overall densities. They have also improved their transportation systems, which, Echeñique (1982: 256) argues, should lead to an increase in the supply of land and therefore to declining densities. In fact, the figures in table 4.13 show anything but a clear trend. If there are signs that densities have fallen in Caracas and Lima, the opposite appears to have occurred in Bogotá, Santiago, and São Paulo. In Mexico City, densities first fell and then began to rise. ¹⁰

I would argue that the reason why densities have not fallen universally is closely linked to the dynamics of land prices and local patterns of housing development. First, because land prices have remained high in most cities, and possibly even risen in some, it has been difficult for population densities to fall. Indeed, as the last section showed, the average size of building plots has been declining in several cities over time. Second, although extensive self-help development has brought lower densities in cities such as Lima, such accommodation does not guarantee low densities. Indeed, as I have already shown, some of the most densely packed suburbs are not high-rise residental areas but low-rise consolidated self-help areas. Third, many Latin American governments have tried, admittedly with varying success, to restrict the expansion of the urban area. This has been particularly common in cities where urban functions compete with agriculture for land. In so far as official attempts to restrict suburban growth have met with success, they have pushed up population densities.

Latin America's major cities, therefore, have been subject to different processes, some raising densities and some reducing them. The combination of processes has clearly affected different cities in differing ways. To understand what has happened, it is essential to recognize that although Latin America's major cities share many similarities, there are vital differences between them. For example, while all have large areas of self-help housing, the contribution that self-help accommodation makes to the housing stock differs considerably. The form of self-help also differs. In Lima, invasions have occupied vast areas of land in ways that have not been permitted in Bogotá or Mexico City. Arguably, the proliferation of self-help settlement on invaded land in Lima in recent years (see table 4.1) has reduced population densities in that city, whereas the land alienation processes characteristic of Bogotá and Santiago have encouraged denser forms of residential occupation. In short, Latin America's cities show diversity within similarity.

Table 4.13 Population decline in the central city

Sources: INK, 1986b; Kowarick and Jacobi. 1986: 200; Mohan and Villamizar, 1982; Pineda and Jiménez, 1990; UNCRD, 1994: 96; national censuses.

Notes:

1. Comuna 31: an area of 411 hectares.

2. Comunas 32, 41, 61, 71 and 81: an area of 1,406 hectares.

3. Lima and Breña.

4. Pueblo Libre (Magdalene Vieja), Jesus Maria, Lince, and La Victoria.

5. Cuauhtémoc, Miguel Hidalgo, Benito Juárez and Venustiano Carranza.

6. Acapolzaclo, Gustavo Madero and Iztacalpo.

7. The area of the commune of Santiago as recorded for 1960-70 was much larger than that covered in the later periods. In 1982 it was 22.3 square kilometres.

8. Communes of Lstación Central, Independencia, Ñuñua, Pedro Aguirre Cerda, Providencia, Quinta Normal, Recoleta, San Joaquin and San Miguel; a total area of 108.2 square kilometres. The administrative areas of Santiago were changed in 1982 and calculation of comparable areas for the period before 1970 is not possible.

9. Seven innermost sub-districts of central ring.

10. Thirteen surrounding sub-districts.