Mercado de servicios de desarrollo empresarial (SDE)

Inacasualconversationduringresearch,aresident of central Xalapa remarked to me that colonias populares are ‘another world’, remote and different from the restof the city. Thisseemsto aptlyexpress their social isolation within the city, as places (and people)whichare‘other’,perceivedasnotbelongingto Xalapa. Threerelatedissuesarisingfrom theresearch are explored in this section, namely: crime and insecurity; distance anddiscrimination; and‘ordinary places’.

4.2.1. Crime andinsecurity

Non-residents of the case study neighbourhoods related the ‘unknown’ aspect of these places to perceivedsocialcharacteristicsoftheirresidents,often

expressedinnegativeterms.Macarena,aresidentofa morecentralconsolidatedneighbourhoodwithinformal origins,hadheardofLomaBonitathroughherchurch, which had collected charitable donations for the neighbourhood; she suggested that it was known for housing ‘bad’ people such as vandals and fraudsters. Similarly, asample of reports from local newspapers revealed characterisations of colonias populares as placeswherethedrugstradeisrife,andpolicepresence minimal (Morales, 2007); where persistently poor livingconditionsexist (Rojas,2007); wherebuyersof landaredefrauded(YoncaGonza´lez,2007);andwhere the police raid garages in search of stolen vehicles (Salazar,2007).Thisisnottounderminetheveracityof anyoftheseaccounts;indeed,localnewspaperreports tendedtoadoptasympatheticattitudetowardscolonia

residents. However, local media images may be influenced by depictions in the national news, which atthetime,werereportingthedemolitionandeviction of‘barriosbravos’(roughneighbourhoods)harbouring criminal activity in Mexico City (e.g. Marı´n, 2007; Martı´nez,2007;Santos,2007).Suchdepictions,atthe level of national (general) and local (specific) dis- courses,mayreflectandreinforcegeneralised percep- tionsofcoloniaspopulares.

Incontrasttonegativeperceptionsfromoutsidethe casestudycolonias,residentsthereweregenerallykeen to point out that their neighbourhoodswere peaceful (‘tranquilo’), a word that occurred with frequency. Somecomparedtheirownneighbourhoodfavourablyto surrounding settlements, highlighting the negative social characteristics of other colonias populares. In LomaBonita, residentsreported thatit wasquiet and safe, and some made a point of differentiating the neighbourhoodfromotherplaceswheregangswererife (e.g.IsaacandEliza20.05.07).In Moctezuma,where securitywasseenasmoreproblematic,perpetratorsof crimewerethoughttoberesidents fromneighbouring areas (e.g. Magdalena 14.02.07). Varley (2007: 20) suggests that residents may undertake ‘othering’ of people and places as a marker of identification with ‘home’ as private domain: not necessarily in an exclusive or hostileway, but as aplace of temporary respitefrom interaction withothers, in thecontext of crowdedlivingconditions.

4.2.2. Distanceand discrimination

The social characterisation of colonia residents as ‘other’ inlocal discourses mayrelate to the sense of discrimination that the residents themselves feel regarding their social position in Xalapa. The word ‘olvidado’(forgottenorneglected)wasfrequentlyused

by residents of Loma Bonita to describe how their

coloniawasviewedinthecity.Thisoftenrelatedtoa senseofbeingremoteordistant(‘alejado’).Asenseof this is captured in Fig.23, which shows the Animas Tower,alandmarkincentralXalapa,justvisiblefrom theroadtoLomaBonita(seeFig.5inChapterThree). This highlights the relation between social and spatial marginalisation, explained by Sandra talking aboutColonia LomaBonita:

‘Ah,thetruthis,it’sbranded[tachada]!Because,for example,inthe health centre inColonia Lerdo de Tejada,theydon’tattendtoyou,because[theythink that]thiscolonia[LomaBonita]isreallybad.You’re verydiscriminatedagainst,becausetheysaythatthis coloniadoesn’tbelongtoXalapa,thatit’sreallyfar away,andwhoknowswhatelse’(Sandra22.03.07). This account emphasises the ‘limbo status’ that LomaBonitafindsitselfin,betweentheEjidoChiltoyac andthe Municipalityof Xalapa.Whilethe neighbour- hoodisawaitingregularisation,thelandisstilllegally partoftheEjidoChiltoyac.However,asfarastheejido

isconcerned,itisnowtheMunicipality’sresponsibility; indeed,it is registered withcertain municipal depart- mentsfor residents’service petitions,andfor welfare programmes(Natalia01.05.07).

Because of this situation, it is quite plausible that residentsofthecoloniafindthemselvesinagapinterms ofaccesstoservices,suchashealthcare,whicharenot directly available in the neighbourhood. While the

ejidatarios view the colonia as having made the transitiontourbanstatus,fortheresidentsandtherest of the city there is still a sense of spatial andsocial isolation relating to its ‘rural’ character (discussed

furtherbelow).Suchaccountsalsosuggestaperceived difference between legally protected ‘citizens’ and marginalised urban dwellers (Chatterjee, 2004). The element of social stigmatisation of places andpeople relatestotheirnormativecategorisationas‘abnormal’, ratherthanas ‘ordinary’.

4.2.3. Ordinaryplaces

The exceptionalism which locates urban informal settlementsoutsidenormalurbanconsiderationsmaybe related to ideas about the constraints which their residentssuffer.Often,theprioritiesandaspirationsof marginalised residents are perceived as determined solelybynecessity,ratherthanincorporatingaesthetic concerns or preferences:due toeconomicconstraints, ‘choice,creativityandaestheticalvaluesarebeyondthe possibilities of local people’ (Viviescas, 1989 in Herna´ndez, 2008). Similarly, Walker (2001: 28) suggests that colonia residents are unable to express their‘truesocialidentity’throughthemediumoftheir livingenvironment, basedonthe architectural‘homo- geneity’ of these neighbourhoods. However, under- standingcoloniasas‘ordinaryplaces’meansallowing theirresidentstohave‘ordinaryaspirations’.

The research found that colonia residents often perceivetheirneighbourhoodsasofferingopportunities for ownership, integration and social mobility. For example, Federico described how Moctezuma was initiallyconsidered

‘ofapopularnature,[but]recentlyit’schangedalot. It’s not considered lower-middle class ... the economic status of the colonia has changed’

(Federico15.02.07).

This suggests an upwardly mobile population, as families consolidate theirdwellings, amid patterns of socialchangethatareascomplicatedasanywhereelse in the city. Thisaspect of social change also implies heterogeneity:ascoloniaspopularesareplacesofsocial mobility, they contain socio-economic diversity, sug- gestedbythedifferenthousesizesobservedinthecase study neighbourhoods (see Fig. 24). Such socio- economic diversity belies the idea of a static, low- incomesocialstratumasthesolesourceofinhabitants of colonias populares; and it complements the conception of urban complexity contained in these places(Simone,2004).

Thissectionhasshownhowcoloniaspopularesare discursively constructed as a separate urban sphere, wherecrimeanddelinquencyexistinasettingofspatial andsocialisolation.However,‘othering’oftheseplaces Fig.23. FromLomaBonitaaccessroadtowardsXalapacitycentre.

is undertakenby residents as wellas ‘outsiders’. The shifting social complexion of these neighbourhoods revealsthatthesocialrealityofcoloniapopularesisas mundaneandasextraordinaryasinanyotherpartofthe city.Attempting toseetheseplacesas ‘ordinary’does not mean glossing over the constraints and power inequalitieswhichframethem(Robinson,2002);butit suggeststhepotentialtoseetheirresidentsascitizens, asmuchasanyotherresidentofXalapa.Seeingthemas placesinprocesscapturestheviewofresidentsandtheir aspirations; and it suggests reassessing marginalising characterisations of these places, for example as ‘disorderly’,toseetheseaspectsasinsteadexemplify- ingthe ‘ordinariness’of theseplaces.