Government authorities in Colombia calculate that in the late 2000s in- migration to Bogotá due to a combination of internally displaced population, education and economic migration represented over 300,000 people a year (Ramirez, Zuluaga, & Perilla, 2010). Between 1993 and 2009 the population in Bogotá grew from 5.03 to 7.6 million at an annual rate of 2.3%, becoming the fourth city in population in Latin America. With an urbanised area of 518 km2, this has led to Bogotá becoming one of the densest cities
in Latin-America with 13,500 inhabitants/km2 compared even to larger cities
like Sao Paulo, Lima and Mexico (9,000 inh/km2, 11,750 inh/km2, and 8,400
inh/km2, respectively) (Parés-Ramos, Álvarez-Berríos, & Aide, 2013). In
addition, social and economic dynamics at the local and regional level have influenced migration from Bogotá to other municipalities. Alfonso (2010) estimates that between 1993 and 2005 approximately 246,000 city inhabitants (4.2% of the population) moved from Bogotá to the suburbs, of both high and lower income following a trend that projections suggest will continue.
Recent regional studies show that population of adjacent municipalities grew twice as fast as Bogotá in the first decade of the 2000s (Secretaría Distrital de Planeación, 2009). The Capital Region, as is known locally, comprises the agglomeration of Bogotá DC (‘Capital District’) and its
surrounding municipalities. While no metropolitan area for Bogotá has been administratively constituted, the phenomenon of constant expansion and conurbation with neighbouring municipalities has led to attempts to define it at least in functional terms. As a result, depending on how the boundaries are traced the region can contain up to 19 adjacent municipalities with a functional, social and economic relationship with the capital city (Acevedo et al., 2012). Figure 3.1 shows the location of the Bogotá city-region in the regional context of Latin America.
Figure 3.1. Location of the Bogotá city-region Source: Open street maps (2015)
Development of activities like manufacturing industry, construction and logistics around the region and the dynamics of urban growth of Bogotá and some of the municipalities that are closer to it have converged in processes of conurbation and suburbanization. This has generated a complex urban structure within a context of administrative decentralization (CCB, 2005a). According to data from the national population census, the strongest dynamics of conurbation and suburbanization take place between Bogotá and seven surrounding municipalities, including Soacha, which have been unofficially defined as the region’s three rings as shown
in Figure 3.2. Other municipalities that have progressively strengthened their link with the city despite not showing yet clear spatial continuity have been assigned to a second ring in this practical definition of a city-region, and those with a weaker interaction with the city are assigned to a third ring (DNP, 2005).
Figure 3.2 Municipalities in the Vicinity of Bogotá and in the department of Cundinamarca Source: (Guzman, Oviedo, and Bocarejo, 2016)
Soacha plays a central role in the departamento (province) of Cundinamarca. Demographically, it is the largest urban area under the departmento’s provincial jurisdiction being over three times larger than the second municipality in population size (see Table 3.1). A comparison between the two latest population censuses (1993 and 2005) shows that Soacha’s population growth rate largely surpasses both Cundinamarca’s and Colombia’s. While the country’s population grew at a rate of 1.88% per annum between 1993 and 2005 and Cundinamarca grew at an annual rate of 2.46%, Soacha’s population grew at 4.56% per annum (DANE, 1993; DANE, 2005; UNDP, 2011). Population estimates for 2012 reveal that while Cundinamarca represents 5.49% of the national population, Soacha’s population is 1.02% of Colombia’s despite its territory (184,45 km2) being
only 0.02% of the total territorial extension of the country (1,141,748 km2).
Different initiatives have been raised in the region in relation to the consolidation of a metropolitan area (MA) for Bogotá, of which Soacha is a main stakeholder. In this regard, seventeen municipalities have been considered to incorporate the MA of Bogotá as depicted in Table 3.1. Soacha currently represents over 18% of Cundinamarca’s population, and 36% of what could constitute the metropolitan area, which places it at the centre of the region after Bogotá despite having only 6.4% of the city’s total population. As a consequence, regardless of Bogotá’s location at the centre of Cundinamarca, Soacha is one of the most relevant population centres in the region, requiring especial attention in relation to infrastructure investment, social welfare and productivity. This can also be linked with Bogotá’s status as capital city, which places the city’s government at the same level as departments, granting political, economic and financial independence from Cundinamarca.
# & * " " " + " , -. / 2005 2008 2011 Annual Growth Rate 2005/2011 Share of the population in the Metropolitan Area15 Share of the population of the Departmento Soacha 398,295 433,992 466,216 2.66% 36.00% 18.10% Facatativá 106,067 114,943 122,320 2.40% 9.50% 4.80% Zipaquirá 100,038 107,918 114,161 2.23% 8.90% 4.50% Chía 97,444 106,355 114,881 2.78% 8.80% 4.40% Mosquera 63,584 68,891 74,654 2.71% 5.70% 2.90% Madrid 61,599 67,042 71,564 2.53% 5.60% 2.80% Funza 60,571 65,644 69,783 2.39% 5.40% 2.70% Cajicá 44,721 48,817 52,244 2.63% 4.00% 2.00% Sibaté 31,166 33,661 35,681 2.28% 2.80% 1.40% Tocancipá 23,981 26,434 28,732 3.06% 2.20% 1.10% La Calera 23,308 24,943 26,077 1.89% 2.10% 1.00% Sopó 21,014 22,841 24,489 2.58% 1.90% 1.00% Tabio 20,714 22,637 24,487 2.83% 1.90% 0.90% Cota 18,093 21,377 22,879 4.06% 1.80% 0.90% Tenjo 16,607 18,936 19,366 2.68% 1.60% 0.80% Gachancipá 10,792 11,895 12,944 3.08% 1.00% 0.50% Bojacá 8,788 9,653 10,433 2.90% 0.80% 0.40% Metropolitan Area16 1,106,782 1,205,979 1,290,911 2.60% 100.00% 50.20% Cundinamarca 2,280,037 2,397,511 2,517,215 1.66% 100.00% Bogotá 6,840,116 7,155,052 7,467,804 1.47% Colombia 42,888,592 44,450,260 46,043,696 1.19% " * " 0 " ' 1!. /! " ' 1 " !
Despite constant interactions between Bogotá and its surrounding municipalities in terms of displacements and conurbation, main centres of income-generating, commercial and social opportunities remain located
15Percentage of the population of the metropolitan area and the department are calculated based
on the average population year by year
16 According to the National Statistics Department (DANE, 2005), the Bogotá Metropolitan Area,
understood by national statistics as a functional but not legal or administrative unit, is composed by the city of Bogotá and the municipalities of Soacha, Sibaté, La Calera, Sopó, Tocancipá, Gachancipá Zipaquirá, Cajicá, Tabio, Chía, Tenjo, Cota, Funza, Mosquera, Madrid, Facatativá and Bojacá
either at, or in close proximity to, higher-income areas in the east and north- east of the city. In contrast, low-income locals and in-migrants have been pushed toward the peripheries, locating progressively from southern and south-eastern neighbourhoods to the Western corners and adjacent municipalities. As shown in Figure 3.3, concentration of settlements that originated as informal neighbourhoods in and around Bogotá between 1950 and 2000 suggests patterns of displacement toward the southern borders. These initial dynamics of occupation have progressively led to the saturation of Bogotá southern territories, leading to Soacha’s rapid occupation and concentration of informal settlements as observable today (Dávila et al., 2006).
Figure 3.3 Areas of concentration of informal developments in the Bogotá city-region 1950-2000 Source: Dávila et al. (2006)
Low-income population influxes both from Bogotá and other parts of the country have contributed to the demographic distribution and socioeconomic structure of Soacha. According to data from the latest
national population census, over 325,000 people living in Soacha were born in a different municipality, leaving only about 18% of the population being original “soachunos” for its demonism in Spanish (see Figure 3.4).
Figure 3.4 Distribution of the population in Soacha according to place of birth (in thousands), 2005 Source: National Population Census, DANE (2005)
This tendency has continued during the years that followed the development of the latest population census. According to figures from DANE (2010), 50,263 people migrated to Soacha from other departments (including Bogotá) between 2005 and 2010. From these in-migrants, 65.77% moved from Bogotá to Soacha, including both voluntary in- migration and displacement coerced by criminal groups operating in rural and urban areas (UNDP, 2011). In addition, about 100,000 people in Cundinamarca in-migrated within the department between 2005 and 2011, of which Soacha received approximately 52% (Cundinamarca, 2011). As shown in Figure 3.5, the most relevant reason for people moving to Soacha from other municipalities are family affairs. However, there is a considerable portion of people changing their original place of residence in search for better access to work and education (over 16%), and a
meaningful percentage (22.4%) that did not specify a reason. Considering the political instability at the time of the census and the conditions of violence and crime in the area and the country overall, it would not be surprising for at least some people in this 22.4% to have reasons related with sensitive issues such as forced displacement and crime. On top of this, there is a 4.3% that specified having to change place of residence as a result of threats to their lives.
Figure 3.5 Reasons for having changed place of residence in the past five years, Soacha, 2005 Source: National Population Census, DANE (2005)
Statistics from the National Department for Social Prosperity –DPS- of the national government (DPS, 2011) accounts for 34,791 people migrating to Soacha between 1999 and 2010 as a result of forced displacements. As shown in Figure 3.6, two peaks can be identified. This reflects a meaningful number of people in conditions of social vulnerability living in Soacha, which poses challenges in relation to implementation of social aid programmes, generation of employment, food security and urban development among others (UNDP, 2011).
Figure 3.6 Forcedly displaced population, Soacha, 1999 - 2010 Source: UNDP (2011)
Despite social, economic and political conditions fostering internal migrations in Colombia, evidence suggests that people living in Soacha after in-migrating from other parts of the country tend to stay in the municipality. Data from the population census show that 84% of the population surveyed lived in Soacha during the last 5 years before the survey (DANE, 2005). This suggests that despite in-migration tendencies and a socio-culturally diverse population, current residents of the municipality are likely to build a life in Soacha. The former can be linked, on the one hand, with social and economic constraints to relocate; and on the other hand, to accumulation of assets and consolidation of social capital in the municipality. Detailed analysis of information related to the perception of residents of Soacha of their location are included in Chapter 8.
The demand for formal affordable housing in the region has largely surpassed supply, leaving room for informal developments that have stepped in to fill the gap. Individual plots of land are sold in areas where building is either restricted or forbidden and with little or no suitable infrastructure for transport and utilities. As part of the process of informal occupation, families build their homes through self-help housing, creating
unauthorised connections to nearby electric and water lines, if available. This, considering that mainstream town planning does not recognise informal settlements in the process of provision of public utilities and infrastructure networks unless they have attained ‘critical mass’ that enables them to exert enough political pressure to have their neighbourhood ‘legalised’ (Bocarejo & Velasquez, 2012). The increase in size and political significance of segregated nodes influences local authorities to provide connections to utilities and build other infrastructure like sewerage, pavements, roads and street lighting.
Socio-demographic and urban development conditions in the capital region have led to consolidation of low-income settlements for the poor and an increasing deficit in formal affordable housing. Data from Metrovivienda17
for 2006 calculated a housing deficit for Bogotá of around 600,000 units. Molina (2007) estimates that 20% of households facing accommodation problems in the city live in unsuitable housing, while the rest lacks housing. Urban development in Bogotá has been strongly related to informal housing particularly in the south and west corners of the city. According to Rueda (2006), between 1938 and 1951 approximately 50% of new housing development in the city took place in areas restricted for construction due to planning regulations, and between 1987 and 1998 44% of Bogotá’s geographical expansion was informal (Rueda, 2006). While some cases of land invasions can be identified, most of the peripheral urbanisation experienced by Bogotá is largely attributed to ‘pirate18’ developers with the
consequences outlined earlier (Losada & Gómez, 1976; Carroll, 1980; Gilbert, 1981).
17 Metrovivienda is the parastatal entity responsible of delivery of low-cost, or social, housing in the
city of Bogotá.
18 The term ‘pirate’ developer refers to informal housing providers that illegally divide, distribute and develop land plots in order to sell low/cost housing to the poor. This is a common practice in Colombia (Gilbert, 1981).
This rhythm of population increase and urbanisation of the peripheries of Bogotá and beyond, have exerted pressure on land use and the environment. Different plans for developing housing and industrial zones in different municipalities near Bogotá have affected urban expansion, increased social segregation, and generated detriments in air pollution and overall environmental quality (Lizarazo, 2011; Alfonso & Pardo, 2013). In addition, Alfonso (2012) argues that in order to attract industry and local investment, ten of the most important municipalities around Bogotá have adopted policies of tax incentives, which has attracted the private sector to different areas in the inner and outer rings. However, the consolidation of municipalities in the vicinity of Bogotá has not affected greatly the socioeconomic distribution of their population, which is similar to Bogotá’s. According to Medina, Morales, and Núñez (2008), Bogotá remains highly segregated, evidencing large localised clusters of wealth and poverty. In general terms, affluent areas are still concentrated on the northern side of the city while the poorest live mainly in southern neighbourhoods. This, despite trends of higher social mixture due to population movements within the metropolitan region and mild ‘gentrification’ in the city’s centre. In addition, development of gated communities and large corridors of road and public transport infrastructure, particularly in northern Bogotá, have increased fragmentation within the city and its northern suburbs (Dureau & Salas, 2010).