Looking across the street: Understanding segregation and marginalization in a district of Lima through the use and treatment of public space

(1)

IN

DEGREE PROJECT THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS

STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2018,

Looking across the street

Understanding segregation and marginalization in a district of Lima through the use and

treatment of public space

DAVID RICARDO DE LA CRUZ VEGA

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

(2)

TRITA TRITA-ABE-MBT-18453

www.kth.se

(3)

1

Abstract

The district of Barranco is the smallest in the city of Lima, Peru, and is marked by the inequality in the socio-economic level of its inhabitants and a differentiated capacity in their access to public spaces. The present study seeks to explore, through an analysis of the public space and its characteristics, the causes, conditions and structural dynamics of inequality that produce and reproduce segregation and marginalization in the district of Barranco. For this research, interviews, participant observation, cartographic analysis and literature review have been employed.

Theoretically, the concepts of public space, gentrification and spatial justice are used in order to examine the power relationships that are manifested and reproduced in the constant recreation of public space. The preliminary results show that the relationship of segregation in the district is based on the indifference and the active role of the municipal governments in promoting the stratification of the district through a zoning delimitation that spatially excludes the less favored, and differentiated policies over the public space in function of that zoning. These processes accentuate the social and historical division of the inhabitants of the district, which makes it even more difficult the appropriation of public space by the less favored sector.

Keywords: public space; segregation; marginalization; Barranco; gentrification; spatial justice, inequality.

(4)

2

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank to my supervisor Jenny Lindblad, for her patience and guidance along the way, always so helpful. Also, I would like to thank to the program coordinator Peter Brokking, for his permanent support and advice; and to the whole staff of KTH university, for their professionalism.

To the Swedish Institute, for believing in me and granting me with a scholarship. They gave me this unique opportunity in my life that I will never forget. I am deeply grateful.

Thanks to my mother Carmen, my grandmothers Julia and Rosa, my sisters Carmen and Andrea, my partner Maite, my uncles Germán and Camilo, to Argos, and to my lifelong and my closest friends. Thanks to all of you for your love and your unconditional support.

Finally, I want to dedicate this effort and this latent emotion to my grandpa, Evaristo, who is always with me.

(5)

3

1. Introduction

“Barranco is a bit like Peru. Although it is small, you have the social extremes with very rich people with apartments facing the sea that may have cost a million dollars, and people who live on the other side in alleys where sometimes there is only one bathroom for everyone; access to very varied education, with people going to the most expensive schools in Lima and people going to the most modest.” (Javier Alvarado, Barranco’s old inhabitant)

I was born in Barranco, a rather small district in front of the sea, facing the Pacific Ocean in the shores of Lima, Peru. Most of my house, as many others in Barranco, was made of old quincha¹ and adobe; which made a comfortable house, but scary during earthquakes and tremors, very common in that part of South America.

In the 90’s, during the day, the ice cream tricycle sellers blew their horn with all their force to make the kids in the neighborhood run fast to the streets to catch them; during the night we played football in our own street “post to post”. It was hard, because the football goals are the one-meter imaginary line between the public lighting pole and the wall; so, in order to score you had to send the ball over the sidewalk and never over the knee height. And even though it has been always dangerous (because you have to stop the ball at any moment when a car appears), I am happy to know that the actual kids of some parts of Barranco still do it in that way, just because it made us feel at home.

When my parents wanted to take me and my two younger sisters for a walk, however, we never did it around our house. Even though we stayed in Barranco, one of the smallest districts in Lima, we used to go to the west part of it, towards the beach and the cliffs over it (from which Barranco takes its name). These experiences were always for me a motive to joyful because in these parts the parks were huge, bigger and greener than in any other part of the city, it was all clean, the big houses and new buildings were beautiful, there were trash cans in the streets, tennis and football pitches inside the private clubs; and there was a lot of people from all the city, and even foreigners.

My parents didn’t have higher education, their parents didn’t finish high school; and, in my case, all my education was public. So, as part of the working class in Peru, they hardly ever had extra free time to take us, I and my sisters, more than 2 blocks away from home when they finally got to it in the nights. Therefore, the walks to the nice part of the district -and consequently the family- walks as a whole- were only occasionally, even though that part was at a walking distance.

Why I never truly felt as a part of the same district and its political delimitations? Why all the other amenities were so close but felt so far from me? Was this situation fair? Did it mean that because

1 From the quechua or runa simi: qincha, 'wall, fence, corral, enclosure' material made of mood to construct one to two floors buildings. Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Normalización de la Vivienda (1989). Quincha prefabricada, utilización y construcción. Lima: ININVI.

(7)

5 we had little economic income, we deserved not only to have a access to bad public education, bad food, bad bars, bad restaurants, bad medical attention, bad treatment of people with more money;

but also, to have access to a public space that excluded us and marginalized us as citizens and as people? Why, if public space was a right that we should all enjoy equally, “ours” was markedly worse than “that of the others” that were so close?

1.1. Why a research on Barranco?

From the last decade of the 20th century, Peruvian governments began a series of neoliberal economic reforms; the country has also experienced a continuous growing of its economy; and the urbanization processes have intensified its pace while the migration flows from the rural areas to the growing cities have contributed to make of Lima a city of 661508 population in 1940 to 11 181 700 population in 2017².

As a central and the smallest district of a megacity of 11 million people in the center of South America, Barranco is currently being affected by the influence of most of the main problems and advantages of globalization in modern urban centers and also by the consequences -still to be fully discovered- of the intense and usually spontaneous urbanization processes in the Latin American developing countries.

For those reasons, even though Barranco occupies just a little part of the city of Lima -with a population of approximately 30000 inhabitants-, it contains a varied composition in its population where it is possible to find people with low income as well as high and middle income: with all skin colors, sizes and tastes, Barranco has multiple faces. Furthermore, Barranco is one of the oldest districts of the city and its history is closely linked with the history of Lima. For a district of just 3.33 km2, those characteristics and varieties make of Barranco an interesting case to explore and analyze.

1.2. Aim and objectives

I began this research to try to understand my experiences in the streets as a child; and my feelings on my district as an adult. Initially I just wanted to understand why a bus line crossed and divided the district into two parts and why the part I always lived in was not as beautiful or nice as the other part of the district that faced the sea. For this reason, the first thing that attracted my attention for the purposes of this investigation was the existence of this bus line that had its own road walled with fences on both sides that made it very difficult to cross to the other side.

Later, as I was investigating the history of the development of the district and after having begun interviews with neighbors and specialists in the history and composition of Barranco, my interest

2 According to National Institute of Statistics and Informatics (INEI):

http://cpi.pe/images/upload/paginaweb/archivo/26/mr_poblacion_peru_2017.pdf

(8)

6 was to explore on the origins, characteristics and relations between socioeconomic inequality and public spaces in the district of Barranco, considering its consequences in the actual use of space of the inhabitants.

However, as I continued to investigate the relationship among inequalities and the public space in Barranco and its consequences, I realized that there was a series of actors and particular interests that not only maintained and reproduced inequalities, but also privileged the inhabitants of the Barranco area that was on the other side of the bus line. At the same time, these actors and interests excluded from all right to public space the inhabitants of the east side of the district.

Therefore, the main objective of this research is the following: to explore, through an analysis of the public space and its characteristics, the causes, conditions and structural dynamics of inequality that produce and reproduce segregation and marginalization in the district of Barranco.

Three disaggregated objectives emerged from the main objective are to explore and analyze the following:

• What is the relationship of public space with the socioeconomic inequalities of the district.

This involves analyzing the origin, development and reproduction of this relationship.

• What is the role of the district authorities in the processes of appropriation or exclusion of public spaces by neighbors.

• What are the consequences of an unequal access to public space by the population and how these differences contribute and become part of the segregation and marginalization relationships in the district.

In order to contextualize the origin of the inequalities in the district, first, I intend to make a historical analysis of the conformation of Barranco, which will be chapter 4. Here is the genealogy of Barranco from what was in the pre-Hispanic times until the development of its urban fabric and complete urbanization in the 20th century.

Even though the processes that originated the foundation of the district were highly important for the urban fabric as it is now; the constitution and consolidation of the characteristics and problematics of Barranco are relevant and latent in the present time, they are part of a process that is still ongoing and constantly recreating the dynamics of the district and the people who shape it.

The field in which the relations of inequality and segregation in Barranco are most evident is the public space and its treatment by the inhabitants and the local authorities. For this reason, chapter 5 is an analytical exploration of the characteristics of public space in the district according to the political zones in which it is organized. Here is also displayed an analysis of municipal policies on public space, the relationship between local authorities and the real estate market, the characteristics of public space and its direct relationship with the zoning of the municipality, some effects of gentrification on Barranco over space, and physical barriers that make inequalities in the district even more evident. The opinion of some residents from the 3 zones of Barranco about the problems they consider to be the most important in the district has also been taken into

(9)

7 consideration. In this way I will try to answer the questions of my main objective making use of the concepts of public space, gentrification and spatial justice.

I hope this research may serve in the future as an exemplary case of the intricate reality of inequalities, segregation and marginalization in some areas of Peru for further and greater investigation.

(10)

8

2. Methodology

In order to understand the complexity of the phenomena that take part in Barranco, I began with an examination of my own life experience as an inhabitant of the district which provided me a firsthand personal impression of the problems that affect the everyday life of the neighbors. Being aware that the interpretation of my only experience could led me to a biased perspective and misleading comprehension of the problems, my second step was to examine the literature review available on the official discourses as well as the theoretical concepts. This second analysis provided me with some guidelines to determine who were the people I should talk to, and how to find them. The spatiality of the dynamics of power and differentiation in Barranco led me to analyze a series of maps that helped me to understand and then to illustrate the movements and uses being done by the people and stablished by the authorities in the space of Barranco.

1. Ethnography and participant observation:

As a person who was born and grown in Barranco, I collected part of the information from my own experience of living there during several years -from 1987 to 2015- and during the time the fieldwork for this investigation was done -from January to March 2018. This valued knowledge served me as an initial point from where I could recognize that there was a problematic related to the spatial organization of the district. At the same time, it provided me with inspiration to start and develop the research.

I take my whole life experience as a valuable input. According to Aull Davies (2012), participant observation can be also understood as a strategy that allows the researcher to comprehend the culture as an insider; on the other hand, this approach to the problematics has been warned of the possibility of jeopardizing the researcher ability to analyze native cultural assumptions. In order to avoid a biased perception, here I compare and measure this knowledge with the information gathered through the use of the other methods. I mainly used this method in an initial moment and during the final stage of this investigation; however, the information that it provided me is embedded in the whole body of the research. Some of my personal appreciations regarding the problems and conditions in the district of Barranco have clearly changed during the development and conclusion of this research.

2. Literature review:

This investigation properly began with the revision of historical documents on the development of Barranco and its urban fabric to achieve a critical interpretation of the literature (Bryman, 2012). For this purpose, I analyzed books on the district history and Lima’s history. Other analyzed documents include those specifically related to the theoretical and analytical tools, which I expose in the following chapter and apply throughout the analysis. I was also considered the examination of municipal documents that stablishes the responsibilities and the political agenda of the municipality of Barranco, such as municipal ordinances and the Concerted Development Plan of Barranco (Municipalidad de Barranco, 2014). Finally, the exploration on written and graphic material provided by some of the interviewees were of great importance.

(11)

9 3. Semi-structured interviews:

During the realization of the fieldwork stage a total of 9 people were interviewed from December 2017 to March 2018. Each of the interviews took between 30 minutes to 2:40 hours, depending on the relevance to the purpose of the investigation. The interviews were guided but with an open structure in order to dig deeper into some subjects and personal opinions, considering the position of the interviewees and their possible interests behind their statements. This method made it possible to ensemble a coherent picture of the current situation and problematic of Barranco. Among the people I talked to, I selected political authorities and governmental expert officers; political leaders from opposite parties;

neighbors; specialists on gentrification in Barranco; specialists on Barranco’s history; and one architect from Barranco. It is important to outline that some of the interviewees spoke as specialists or politicians, but also as neighbors. A more extended presentation of the interviewees can be found in the list of interviewees in the Appendix.

4. Cartographic analysis:

With the purpose of analyzing the development and the current situation of the Barranco urban fabric, I used and now show historical and actual plans and maps of the district that illustrates its location, historical evolution and development, socioeconomic conditions, actual zoning, and distribution of the public space in it. This method has been also very useful to explore the interactions of the people of Barranco and the way in which it is managed by its authorities. Even though one possible drawback for this method is the differentiation of standardized measures, such as scales (Pinho and Oliveira, 2009); that disadvantage is overcome by the explanation and specific selection of the maps, considering those that are similar in scale and with greater explanation.

All and each of the people I interviewed and talked to were informed about the use of their declarations. All and each of them agreed that the information can be quoted and used exclusively for the purpose of this investigation.

(12)

10

3. Theoretical framework

Since the main objective of this investigation involves the exploration and understanding of the relationships of marginalization and segregation with the public space in Barranco, I will discuss here which approximation of this concept I consider the most accurate for the specific case of Barranco and its divided areas. Considering Barranco as a well urbanized and integrated district in the center of a growing modern Latin American city; the concept of gentrification and its particularities in Latin America will help us to understand the features of the ongoing development process that is taking part in there and the constitution of its public space. Finally, the concept of spatial justice provides a rich framework for the reflection as well as an ethical crucial consideration for this research.

3.1. Public space

“Public space” is a subject that is being recognized as of the most important ones when it comes to urban research and practice and it is demonstrated by the increase of academic research about it (Madanipour, Knierbein and Degros, 2014, p.1).

According to Tigran Hass and Krister Olsson (2014, p.62), the concept of public space is diffuse and works mainly as a label of singular parts of the urban environment for political and administrative reasons. I find this consideration of great importance, since the particularities of what we understand as a public space will vary according to the context and circumstances. For example, in the case of Barranco we will also see that some dynamics of power are displayed by private privileged agents in the public realm.

As a defined concept, the public space is understood, together with the private space, as a part of the urban landscape, that includes buildings squares, streets, landscapes, processes and the people who shape the environments (Hass and Olsson 2014, p.60). In addition of this, for Madanipour (2014, p.1), public spaces are defined as crossroads, space for the meeting of paths and trajectories that in some occasions overlap and in others collide. In these places, politics, culture, social and individual territories, and instrumental and expressive concerns meet.

For Setha Low and Neil Smith (2006, p.3), public space is understood as the social locations that occurs in the street, the park, the media, the internet, the shopping mall, the United Nations, the national governments and local neighborhoods. There is also in the public space a tension among place with its experience, and the lack of space of the internet and the popular opinion and global institutions. What I consider more relevant of this approximation for my research is the consideration that public space is not a homogeneous space, and the publicness is much differentiated according to the particular case. Low, Smith, Has and Olsson coincide in that public space is part of the urban space.

(13)

11 Among its main features, public space could be almost any space in the urban landscape. The only singularity of its publicness is determined by how and by whom is used (Hass and Olsson, 2014).

Therefore, the public space then reinvents itself, and therefore it is not easy to plan and control it.

It can also be added here that, for Setha Low, the publics spaces are an expression of social power and a force that participate in the shaping of social relations.

For Ali Madanipour (2014, p.3), some of the functions of the public spaces are to generate and promote change because they can accomplish different task since they represent different meanings at the same time. Madanipour also claims that “the provision of public space is directly linked to the quality of life in compact urban environments” and then adds that “public space is where public life unfolds: art works are displayed, commercial messages transmitted, political power is presented, and social norms affirmed or challenged”… “public space is the realm of sociability” (2014, pp.6-8). For the purpose of this research these statements are of great importance because it is in function of these features that there will be possible to assess and compare the quality of the public spaces that are offered in the public arena of the district of Barranco, and consequently, to explore on the effects of public space on social life.

Also on quality of public space, Hass and Olsson claim that the refurbishment and construction of public spaces are realized to promote social life and generate value and benefits for all and that these goods are meant to contribute to the sense of place. For these reasons, the creation of public spaces in its physical dimension are very relevant in contemporary urban planning and design. For Fainstein (2010, p.61), “public space is also an arena for equity, diversity, and justice where marginalized groups can make themselves heard and protest against injustice in a democratic forum, even if that means a temporary or permanent loss of order, control, familiarity, and comfort”. Furthermore, for Smith and Low (2006), the importance of the public space as a concept, a category and a merely idea is to reconsider its role as an arena for the re-spatialization of the public sphere to include political relationality in the scheme: re-spatialization is needed for the re-politization of the public. After all, “human beings are by nature political animals” (Aristotle, 2004, p.117).

For Hass and Olsson, the distinction between private and public is very important since we can find that privatization starts in the public realm looking for safety, comfort and relative social homogeneity. It will consist on the appropriation of the publicness to make it excludable and rival in consumption, i.e., to make of it a private good; even though public goods are supposed to be of unrestricted access for the benefit and consumption of all (2014, pp.61-62). The consequences of these processes will have an impact on the choices made on public space that affect directly on the citizenry, “whose belonging to a specific geographical area is based on rights of universal access.” (2014, p.61)

In this concern, for Low and Smith: “Public space is traditionally differentiated from private space in terms of the rules of access, the source and nature of control over entry to a space, individual and collective behavior sanctioned in specific spaces and rules of use. Whereas private space is demarcated and protected by state-regulated rules of private property use, public space, while far from free of regulation, is generally conceived as open to greater or lesser public participation.”

(2006, pp.3-4). For both cases, the public and the private, we can see that the limits and rules on

(14)

12 space and goods are determined by the Estate dispositions over the total of the population. Then, we have a system where the people have organized themselves in order to administer and control properties and goods for everyone in a differentiated measure. Even though the rules are apparently clear, the intentions behind the stakeholders may not be a part of the final equation.

Furthermore, on the problems related to public space, for Madanipour, the acceleration of globalization and other metropolitan design strategies consist a threat and a new challenge to the public space (2005). There are now new forms of public space provision and organization that tend to focus on privatization and the active participation of the private sector, “so the link between urban society, public space, and planning approaches becomes an important element in understanding the complexity of urban transformation of the public realm.” (Hass and Olsson 2014, p.60). The public realm has also been affected by the rise of the middle class where privatized pictures shape the desired kind of public for the public space (ibid, p.64)

Public spaces are no longer, if they ever were, democratic places, claim Low and Smith (2006, p.vii). Because now diversity is not embraced or accepted. Now they are meant to be centers for consumption and political surveillance. According to these authors, in the modern era at the expense of the tradition of the common land, it emerges the ideal of the profitable use of space in which property owners and consumers in the marketplace became the new citizens. This is relevant because then this ideal in the twenty-first century is a crucial part of the neoliberalism economical politics and in such way, it is a form of conservatism. It could be suggested then that now property owners and consumers became the new citizens, with the rights and obligations that were before the rights and obligations of the total.

For Setha Low, there is a politics of exclusion on the public space, where the privileged groups employ “subtle means of control” on the ostensibly public space such as landscape aesthetics in order to -in Low’s words- insulate from the rest of the society; which in practice constitute a discriminatory real state practice (2006, p.87). I bring Low’s claims into the debate on the public space in Barranco because the author talks about the purchase of rights by a privileged class to provide for themselves even more privileges. In her study on gated communities in U.S.A., the author exposes a white privileged class with middle or high-income conditions that is differentiated and segregated from the rest (2006, p.87). I consider that the case of Barranco will be enriched by this assessment since it shows several similarities with the process of privatization of public space that is taking place in there.

If, as mentioned by Hass and Olsson, the public spaces are not as public as they are supposed to be because they do not always serve to public interests, then it will be necessary to examine those strategies that are going on under the table which constitutes those subtle means of control mentioned by Low. In Barranco, most of them are highly and suspiciously related to gentrification.

(15)

13 3.2. Gentrification

The origin of the concept “gentrification” dates from 1964 and was introduced by Ruth Glass. At first, this concept was used to refer to residential rehabilitation of working-class residential neighborhoods, which came to be occupied by middle class inhabitants, displacing the poorer previous residents. During the 1960’s and the 1990’ the debate regarding this problematic enriched the scope of the concept and nowadays it is highly recognized because it makes visible political and policy-relevant challenges to achieve social justice in urban societies (del Castillo, 2017, pp.5- 16).

Even though it is a process that is evolving continuously, there is a general agreement on some basic ideas of what gentrification is and implies. Thus, gentrification will refer to a process in which a physical renovation of an urban center upgrades the area’s housing market level, attracting people from higher income levels to move in, and displacing the local low-income families and small businesses (del Castillo, 2017, pp.6-16; Lopez-Morales, Bang and Lees, 2016, p.1093). Academic debate explores plenty sides of this problematic, but for this work we will focus on the affection of this processes on the public space.

There are different strategies that are used in the process of gentrification that actively promote the displacement of the poorest locals. One of them is the rise of the real estate market prices by the investment in the zone’s renovation and the marketing made by real estate agents (Janoschka and Sequera, 2016, pp.1175-1194). This price rise generates significant and constant increases in rent, which force the poorest tenants to leave. Furthermore, the increased interest of a more affluent social class to invest in the zone, start giving incentives and putting pressure on the poorest landowners to sell their properties (Lopez-Morale, Bang and Lees, 2016, p.1102). The conditions of the neighborhoods require residents with certain characteristics of class, race, preferences and lifestyles that will be value in the public realm. It also will generate the imposition of aesthetics associated with certain consumption patterns of white population (Lopez-Morales, Bang and Lees, 2016, pp.17).

Even though it is an essential characteristic of gentrification that the displaced population usually ends up moving to peripheral areas of the city, losing access to the city’s main resources; for the purpose of this research, we will focus our attention in the collateral damage that is being done in the public space and the people who use it. The city’s key spaces and resources come to be concentrated by the most powerful groups of the population, who ends up gaining even more symbolic and economic capital (Janoschka and Sequera, 2016, p.1189), increasing their difference with those of a less privileged position in the social scale.

Public officers also play an important part in the gentrification process. Urban policy designers seeking, as they say, the zone’s regeneration, revitalization, rebirth, or even pacification; end up actively intensifying the displacement of the poorest families (del Castillo, 2017, p.17; Janoschka and Sequera, 2016, pp.1175-1194), but these strategies also affect the way in which the public space is appropriated by the citizens. A collateral effect intentional or unintentional is that some areas of the urban space become invisible, turning unfashionable due to popular practices like street

(16)

14 vending and beggary. Another strategy may imply the restriction to access to public areas alleging unwanted behaviors. Therefore, the role of the public space as an arena for the intersection of subjects and ideas will be seriously affected too in its functioning and its composition.

“The gentrification process is essentially related to the valorization of circuits that redefine the cultural activities in an urban area, like cafes, bars… with a new esthetic taste and the devaluation of popular culture.” (Del Castillo, 2017, p.6). For example, when the strategies of gentrification are displayed over a determined area, key actors, such as the local municipal authorities, instead of focusing their efforts on improving the neighborhood’s conditions for the actual locals, considering their needs and desires; decide most of their actions towards attracting people from a higher socioeconomic status. Accordingly, urban policy designers promote lifestyles, esthetics, and even a kind of public behavior that answers to the preferences and standards of those new desired residents (del Castillo, 2017, p.6).

To banish undesirable social practices, public officers use different strategies, such as: municipal regulations, surveillance, forced evictions, the criminalization of certain activities, and even the aggressive prosecution to those who continue to practice them (del Castillo, 2017, pp.17-20;

Janoschka and Sequera, 2016, p.1189). For example, if eradicating informal activities such as peddlers is seen as a requirement to “improve” the neighborhood, it can be declared illegal, causing those who depend on that activity to become prosecuted and forced to leave somewhere else.

Gentrification also includes urban policies that very often establishes disciplinary and aggressively mechanisms to control the behavior of the citizens and displace informality or declare inappropriate uses of strategic urban spaces. “The city’s key spaces and resources are captured for economic and political goals by the most powerful groups of population” (Lopez-Morales, Bang and Lees, 2016, p.20). In the case of Barranco, we will observe a differentiated regulation by the municipal authorities to the neighbors and its surroundings that follows an economic zoning elaborated by the municipality based on the income levels of its population. This differentiated treatment includes different rights and duties that will have an impact on the sense of belonging and the dynamics in the public space.

As Lorena del Castillo (2017, p.17) points out, “different scholars argued that gentrification does not aim to improve the living conditions in cities, moreover it violates the right of housing, it makes a city more unequal and it ends up turning urban land into a commodity where access is restricted for those who cannot afford it.” This process has also been explained as spatial expansion of capitalism that seeks to expand the margins of the market producing new spaces for consumerism (Janoschka and Sequera, 2016, pp.1181-1188). These spaces not fully conquered yet, come from the rest of the public realm.

In the last decades, the process of gentrification has consolidated as a world-wide issue pushed by capital concentration in real estate and construction (del Castillo, 2017, p.16; Lopez-Morales, Bang and Lees, 2016, p.1101). Latin America is not an exception for this. On the contrary, it has been reported that in most of the region’s cities, regardless their political orientation or policy (Janoschka and Sequera, 2016, p.1178) an unprecedented amount of poor families has been displaced from urban space as a consequence of land speculation and capitalization (Lopez-Morales, Bang and

(17)

15 Lees, 2016, p.1101). For Lopez-Morales, this process is also supported by a particular ideology of development by privatization. In the study of the urban development in Barranco, we will find governmental discourses on development based on the idea that privatization is the best and the only way to improve the public goods.

When Latin American cities started to expand significantly in the early twentieth century, governments faced enormous challenges in disengaging themselves from the speculative price increases on the private land that would be necessary for the construction of social housing, which undermined the economic state management capacity to cope with a growing housing deficit and control urban sprawl (Sabatini, 2006). Later, in 1970’, and specially in 1980’, the tendency to peripheral segregation grew, as highly ideologized public policies saw the market as a more efficient land allocator. (Lopez-Morales, Bang and Lees, 2016 p.1097)

Regardless the fact that gentrification is part of a world-wide tendency, academics agree in saying that in Latin America it has specific characteristics that require particular analytical considerations.

Because here it emerges in a context in which growing urbanities are under pressure for the land after a strong process of migration. They point out that some of the most important factors to take into consideration are: a) Latin America is one of the most urbanized regions in the world, b) it is also one of the most unequal regions, c) Latin American spatial structuration tend to counterpoise central urban areas with plenty infrastructure and extended peripheries with scarce resources, d) low income population tend to live in socially stigmatized habitats and depend on informal activities (Lopez-Morales, Bang and Lees, 2016, pp.1094-1906; Janoschka and Sequera, 2016, pp.1178-1179).

Being Latin America a region where the income gaps have been higher than European and North American cities, where the popular classes consist of between half and two-thirds of the population (Janoschka and Sequera, 2016, p.1179); when the gentrification process takes part in such conditions it affects primarily the marginal parts of society applying economic processes to areas that were out of the scope of the market. These aspects are important to consider not only because they contextualize the gentrification process in Latin America, but because they include extra variables that reinforce the social effects of gentrification. Such variables are differentiation, segregation and discrimination by race and ethnicity which consequently affect social hierarchies when gentrification in the region is being promoted and executed.

Symbolic exclusion and the displacement of the perspectives of the popular classes are a basic precondition for their material eviction from urban space. It is inherently related to existing social hierarchies, as well as to ethnic and racial stereotypes or stigmas. In the end, displacement re-establishes and exacerbates these hierarchies. (Janoschka and Sequera, 2016, p.1188)

As it has been exposed, gentrification, if refers primarily to displacement of the underprivileged by a higher income level population; thi displacement takes part in different levels, including the displacement of people, traditions, habits, relations and popular dynamics of the public space.

(18)

16

“…such neoliberal discipline expands only if public administrations support private capital investment.” (Janoschka and Sequera, 2016, p.1190)

For Lopez-Morales (2016, p.1096), the poor are concentrated and trapped in areas that have the worst environmental conditions, inferior infrastructure and precarious access to public goods. It also involves stigmatization of marginal areas defined as risk areas, for the lack of security that depends highly on the municipal budget.

For the case of Latin America, neoliberal urban redevelopment has increased the preexisting level of segregation where new symbolic profits are produced and accumulated as symbolic, cultural and economic capital which reinforce those who dominate the spaces and places; and it is heavily related to existing social hierarchies, as well as to ethnic and racial stereotypes or stigmas (Janoschka and Sequera, 2016, p.1189).

If, as claimed by Janoschka and Sequera (2016, p.1188), we are being expectators and participants of “the commodification of non-capitalist ways of re-production –especially those related to culture, history, urban morphology and non-hegemonic forms of daily life” and this “introduces new modes of dispossession, exploitation and appropriation.”; then we also have to consider all those possible spaces, realms in which those dynamics are taking place.

3.3. Spatial justice

Finally, in order to provide this investigation with the tools to discuss on the importance of the nature and the use of the public space, it is important to consider the notion of spatial justice as stated by Dikec, who leans on Henry Lefebvre’s work on the right to the city, to propose the concept of an ethic in the urban space that considers “the dialectical relationship between (in)justice and spatiality, and to the role that spatialization plays in the production and reproduction of domination and repression.” (Dikec, 2001, p.1785)

Based on the Lefebvre concept of the right to the city, that demands the valorization of urban space by its value use, instead of its exchange value, which therefore would become the right of all who lives in there to claim the city as a space for politics (Lefebvre, 1993); Dikec brings out the importance of the spatial dimension of justice via a notion of spatial justice. For Mustafa Dikec (2001), the processes of spatialization, which is the social production of space, produces and maintains injustice in the form of domination and oppression.

If according to Lefebvre, space is socially produced (1991), then Dikec claims that the phenomenon of segregation is not about distribution, but about spatialization. For this research it will be important to bring out the two dynamics proposed by Dikec, by which the injustice is produced and reproduced by the same process of production of space -spatializacion. These two major dynamics that function in a dialectical way are the spatializtion of injustice and the injustice of spatialization (1991).

(19)

17 In the dialectical formulation of the spatiality of injustice and the injustice of spatiality, the spatiality of injustice implies that justice has a spatial dimension to it, and therefore, that a spatial perspective might be used to discern injustice in space… The injustice of spatiality, on the other hand, implies existing structures in their capacities to produce and reproduce injustice through space. It is, compared with the spatiality of injustice, more dynamic and process oriented. Such a conceptualization implies two essential points. First, analysis should not be based on the thing under consideration per se, but also on the components of it. Second, form and process are inseparable and should be considered together. (Dikec, 2001, pp.1792-1793)

The spatiality of injustice may be seen through the unequal distribution of in the urban fabric and the differences between neighborhoods, it depicts the exclusion through localization. The injustice of spatiality produce and reproduce the exclusion since the society is spatially organized based on structural socioeconomic dynamics of the whole society and its consequences. While the first one may be seen in a map (segregated neighborhoods, public transportation network, the dominated city center, etc.); the structural dynamics of spatialization (the organization of property markets, housing, rent, and tax policies, etc.) underpins and maintain the relationships of segregation and exclusion (Dikec, 1991). “The focus, therefore, is not merely on how spatialization affects distribution, but also on how it stabilizes distributional patterns” (1991, p.1799).

To conclude the proposal of Dikec, it is important to consider that the promotion of certain policies -such as land use policies, entrepreneurial strategies, etc.- or the not-interfering in the spatial practices; which will “draw rigid boundaries” that reinforce the repression and domination of particular groups. To consider these aspects is to include the structural dynamics of injustice. It is a particular kind of spatialization that produces exclusion and segregation and its result is the reproduction of the same exclusionary processes. (Dikec, 2001, p.1799)

The point here is about segregation as a spatial mode of social exclusion as it relates to concentration of poverty in certain areas, as one of the structural dynamics of social exclusion; that is, the social processes and spatial practices that produce and reproduce socially excluded groups. (Dikec, 2001, p.1798)

It is the very structural dynamics of the spatial organization processes in the city: and these dynamics; first, contribute to the formation of such segregated areas with a concentration of poverty; second, force a certain group of the population to locate in these places, making it even more difficult for the individuals to participate in the society; and third, further reduce the chances of relocating not only for the immediate population, but, perhaps, for the generations to come unless the spatial dynamics are modified. In other words, such spaces are not simply by-products, mirrors, or stages of various forms of injustice; they are constituted by and constitutive of them. (Dikec, 1991, p.1797)

For the purposes of this investigation, it is important to consider these variables that may help us to measure under an ethical approach the policies and the political agenda in a case such as

(20)

18 Barranco and the consequences on the constitution in the different zones established by the municipal authority and the omissions and not-interfering position before the economic processes that underpins the dynamics of power and mobilization in the district of Barranco.

(21)

19

4. The historical construction of the urban fabric of Barranco

Although Barranco is in a rapid process of modernization, it is also very well known by its history as a fundamental part of the development of the whole city of Lima, since it is one of the oldest districts of it and from its origins it used to be the ‘balenario’³ district of the wealthier 'Limeños' (Lima citizens) back in the 19th century after the independence of Peru⁴.

In order to understand the differentiation in the quality of the public space in the different zones of Barranco now, we have first to explore on the origins of the district next to the sea.

Subsequently, we will be able to see that Barranco as a district was created for a specific type of population from the beginning, and this is reflected even nowadays in the shape of its urban fabric.

4.1. Origins and historical development of Barranco

Barranco District is located on the edge of the cliffs that face the Pacific Ocean, in the southern part of the city of Lima, about 12 kilometers from the Plaza Mayor de Armas de Lima (The Mayor Square of Arms of Lima), the city center where are located the Cathedral and the Government Palace. It was created as a district in 1874 and served as a recreational resort town during the summer for the wealthier classes of the citizens of Lima. (Ausejo, 2016)

"Because of its location, it was considered as a summer place for the socially wealthier classes, but at the same time it was the destination for the rest of the pawns of the ranches of that time." (Günther Doering, 2013, p.26)

Barranco takes its name from the Spanish word 'barranco', which literally means ravine, but in informal Spanish it also means cliff. This is because it was one of the first settlements that were located over the coasts of Lima Bay. This is a part of the Peruvian coast that displays a high cliff of about 60 MAMSL facing the sea that, while coming sailing from the west, gives the impression of a fortress. (Municipalidad de Barranco, 2014)

Lima, originally and until the first half of the 19th Century, was a small city in the coast of the Pacific Ocean. But far from the sea. Originally, the city was founded by the Spanish conqueror Francisco Pizarro where there was already an old preexistent division of water channels that served for the seeding of the farms of pre-Inca origins. Its location, close to the sea was important to have a port but at the same time to be far enough from the sea in case of a pirate attack (Günther Doering, 2013). However, according to the specialist in Barranco’s history, Javier Alvarado⁵, by

3 A ‘balneario’ is a peculiar Spanish word that means seaside resort town. However, as in the case of Barranco, it does not implies the existence of an actual resort.

4 The Independence of Peru was, maybe, the most important of the whole independent processes of South America against the kingdom of Spain back in 1821; since Peru had been the core of the Viceroyalty of Peru which in its origin comprehended the complete Spanish occupation in South America. This is why this was one of the last countries to reach its independence since a big faction of the locals actually preferred to remain as a part of the Spanish kingdom when the independence movements and armies came from the south (Don José de San Martín from the current Argentina) and from the North (Simón Bolívar from the current Venezuela), respectively.

5 Javier Alvarado, interviewed as specialist and as a Barranco neighbor.

(22)

20 the second half of the 19th century, the new fashion trends in Europe consisting of going to the beach, seduced the Lima citizens who, until that moment, avoided going to the beach because the exposure to the sun tanned their skin and this was a sign of hard labor under the sun, which was inappropriate for a person of leading class. See figure 1.

Figure 1: Map of Lima from 1912. The Metropolitan area of Lima is the biggest concentration, while Barranco is the concentration in the bottom left. It is possible to see the railway Lima-Barranco-Chorrillos.

Source: Architect Juan Gunther Doering’s private collection.

Starting in the last years of the 19th century and being intensified during the 20th century, a growing process of urbanization finally connected Barranco with Lima, ending up in the way as it is now, where Barranco is an urbanized district in the middle of the big city (see Figure 2). In the Concerted Development Plan of Barranco (Municipalidad de Barranco, 2014), we can find the following statement about the original roll of Barranco and the nature of its urban fabric:

“Since its inception, Barranco was a very attractive resort town for middle and high- class citizens of Lima and foreigners who settled down, building large ranches and mansions, emulating European styles. As it was far from the city of Lima there used to be trains and trams for transportation (through the same way in which now is located the Metropolitan Bus). With the pass of the years, and the growing expansion and creation of other districts, Barranco was united, through the urbanization of all Lima, with the metropolis (eventually the large terrains in between were all urbanized)."

(Municipalidad de Barranco, 2014, p.44)

(23)

21 Figure 2: Map of the current Metropolitan area of Lima, facing the Pacific Ocean, considering district delimitation

and water service access. Barranco appears inside the red circle and the original Lima city inside the blue circle.

Source: Mesclier, Piron and Gluski (2015)

Therefore, it is possible to appreciate that even though Barranco has had its own development processes; the development of the district has been inherently related to the peculiarities in which the urban development of the city of Lima was given. For example, in the year of 1858, the new railway Lima-Barranco-Chorrillos would cross the district through the middle from north to south in order to bring the limeños to and from the districts of Barranco and Chorrillos, the other resort town of Lima, more in the south. The delimitation of this railway will have great implications to be explored in the next section. After the Pacific War (1879-1883) between Peru and Chile, which ended up with the total destruction of Chorrillos and a partially destroyed Barranco; this will start a process of reconstruction that included promotion of cultural activities by the authorities and the neighbors that will later acquire greater recognition in the whole city (del Busto, 1985, p.91).

As mentioned before (Municipalidad de Barranco, 2014), during the 20th century the city of Lima experienced an exponential growing and expansion. This expansion was mainly fed by huge immigration flows of rural and indigenous people who arrived into the cities looking for better opportunities (Matos Mar et al., 2010)⁶. This phenomenon also contributed to the urban expansion of Barranco and the other important yet isolated enclaves, such as the port El Callao, which became part of the same Metropolitan City of Lima as it looks now (see Figure 2).

6 According to Matos Mar in 1940 only 17% of the total Peruvian population lives in cities. However, by the year 1977, 65% of the population lives already in the cities. (Matos Mar et al., 2010)

(24)

22 4.2. The urbanization processes in Barranco

Before the arrival of the Spanish conquerors, the area where Barranco is located now was part of the Tahuantinsuyo Empire of the Incas. This area was part of the Valley of the Rimac River and was watered by the artificial channel of Sulco, which originated in the river mentioned above.

There were many temples and palaces (Municipalidad de Barranco, 2014) and, as it is shown in the following map (see Figure 3), there were already two main paths of pre-Incan construction that collided in one important crossroad, and the irrigation channel of Sulco. All of these pre-Hispanic demarcations served to irrigate crops and connect human agglomerations to each other and to the sea. It is believed that these paths were built in the 12th century by other realms that preceded the Inca Empire. These paths and channel became later and until now some of the main political delimitation lines of Barranco: the original paths now are dividing the different zones of Barranco established by the municipality (which will be shown in the next chapter) and; in the particular case of the irrigation channel, this now delimitates the actual political boundaries of the district. In the following image (Figure 3), the blue line represents the original irrigation channel, the black ones represent the paths, and the orange stains were once pre-Hispanic temples. (Cortes Navarrete, 2013)

Figure 3: Paths and channel of Sulco in the area of the current Barranco. 15th century.

Source: Cortes Navarrete (2013)

During the Colonial epoch (1542-1821), the area served mainly as cultivation land and belonged to few families of aristocrats who had their homes and farms there. It was just from the second middle of the 19th century -when Peru was already a republic- that in this area a process of urbanization begins with the arrival of the Lima citizens, looking for the comfort of living in front of the sea. The wealthier class of Lima citizens were the first who started the urbanization of the district by building pompous mansions, little palaces and ranch houses. This was also a sign of status (del Busto, 1985).

Very soon, Barranco was visited by many limeños and even foreigners, who went there in search of the peace offered by living, or just staying a few days, in Barranco. The area occupied by these

(25)

23 mansions and ranch houses is what later has been considered and officially recognized as the Monumental Area of Barranco (Municipalidad de Barranco 2014). At the end of the 19th century, being an opulent and comfortable resort town, the district had also become a special place that attracted intellectuals and artists recognized at a national level. This peculiar aspect impregnated the district with a cultural and bohemian atmosphere which fostered the urbanization process of the district (Municipalidad de Barranco, 2014).

In the following image (Figure 4) it is possible to see the district's growing development as it was by the year of 1935. The railway line that crosses the district from north to south is already clear and is represented by the black line that forms a parable and crosses the district from north to south (left to right in the image). As it will be observed later regarding the zoning of the district as it is nowadays, this same path that was once the old railway line is currently employed as the dividing political demarcation between the current Zones A and B (west of the railway line and towards the sea), and the C Zone (to the east side of the railroad line).

Figure 4: Urban fabric of Barranco in 1935

Source: Cortes Navarrete (2013)

From the 1940’s, there is a historical and functional zoning due to the existence of the longitudinal axis of the former Pan-American highway (the long highway that goes all along the Pacific Ocean coasts from Chile to North America through Peru) that crosses Barranco from north to south.

This road is represented in the previous map as the second long line, more on the bottom of the Figure 4, which also can be seen from left to right. Besides, there were already ongoing processes of occupation of the land for its urbanization which took the direction from west to east, i.e. from the littoral to the former agricultural zones of the east. Meanwhile, in the west part remained the old urban structure which was originally designed with designated areas for public spaces and monumental constructions. During the 60’s, such as many other districts of Lima, Barranco becomes the recipient of immigrants from the interior of the country and also from the same center of city and as a consequence, new housing and service demands appear. (Municipalidad de Barranco, 2014). Therefore, it can be seen that the development of the urban fabric of Barranco

(26)

24 responded to different moments in its history related to different motivations, origins and conditions of the migrants.

"It’s in that way that the encroachment of the district was growing (from west to east).

The east area of Barranco was a farm area. Martin Adán7 talks about that area like that of the little houses with their own orchards.” José Rodríguez, architect and politician of Barranco

The first urbanization of Barranco responded to the occupation of Barranco by the wealthier classes of Lima that were looking for a comfortable area to spend the summer. These population, mostly made up of aristocrats from Lima and foreigners built great mansions and ranch houses as can be seen in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Casona Rosell Rios of Barranco, example of the monumental houses of Barranco, now National Cultural Heritage Monument

Source: CNG (2018)⁸

Another important feature to consider on the urban development processes of Barranco in the 20th century is the active participation of its inhabitants in the administration and urban development of the district from its origins. In the year of 1940 an earthquake destroyed part of the monumental area. The neighbors of that time promoted a law by means of which all the neighbors of Barranco promised to pay an additional tax rate to the municipal government, so this could acquire private land to be converted into public recreational areas. This happened to be known as the Barranco Law (Municipalidad de Barranco, 2014). According to the development specialist of Barranco, Javier Alvarado; with this money land was purchased for public use land that would later became the José Gálvez Chipoco Stadium, the Union Barranco Stadium, other sports areas, schools and parks. It is also with the money gathered from the neighbors that it is built the current Municipal Square of Barranco -the central park of the district located in front of the installations of the municipality governmental authorities.

7 Famous poet of Barranco (1908-1985)

8 Online source: GroupSource (visited in 06-06-2108): Http://cng-sa.com/inmueble-destacado-en-venta-casa-rosell- rios.html

(27)

25 Figure 6: Map with zoning that includes the boundaries of the monumental area. The north is on the top while the

west in on the left side.

Source: (del Castillo, 2017, p.38). Adapted by the author based on Google Maps and the zoning of the Municipality of Barranco

In the map shown above (Figure 6) it is possible to appreciate the zoning and urbanization of the district as it is in the present, where the zone C is located in the east and the Zone A towards the sea in the west. The limits that divides them continue to be the roads and paths that were formed in Barranco eight centuries ago. The main avenue that divides Zone A from Zone B is the Grau Avenue, while the main avenue dividing zone B from zone C is the current Bolognesi Avenue.

The area delimited with the dark line was designed by Supreme Decrete 2900-72-ED on December 20, 1973, to be the Monumental Area of Barranco (Rodrigo Fernandez, 1994) . This Monumental Area contains most of the large mansions and ranches of Barranco from the late 19th and early 20th century. This delimitation establishes special parameters for the construction of buildings in that area that are regulated by the National Institute of Culture (Municipalidad de Barranco, 2014).

It can be stated that Barranco has always been considered a fancy district that provides not just a comfortable area to live but also status. However, at the same time, it has been divided by physical and social delimitations. Augusto Sanchez, a neighbor from the zone C, indicates that, according to him, throughout the historical development of Barranco there have always been social divisions, marked by economic differences. He identifies the Grau Avenue (limiting avenue between zones A and B) as a division point. This is an avenue that divides zone A from B and C. However, he

(28)

26 explains that geography is not the exclusive determining reason for these differences but the perception that the neighbors belong to different groups. In his own words: these distinctions are

“in self’s mind”. For Rosa Silva, a neighbor of 75 years who has lived all her life in the zone C, Barranco has always been “divided between rich and poor... when I was little, poverty was terrible on this side. We had nothing, no market, only two tiny stores to buy food. As a child I went to the beach and saw the beautiful big houses and then came and saw the ugly houses with a lot of poor alley people and felt sad”. These perceptions are part of a common opinion of the residents of the zone C that I have listened to throughout several years. The actual material conditions and politics that supports these perceptions are to be explored then.

To resume, Barranco was created as a district in the late years of the 19th century, as a seaside resort town for the upper and middle-classes of Lima citizens who were looking for comfort, quietness and status. However, during a later development process there was another process of occupation of Barranco, this time by a lower-class population from the 60’s and 70’s of the 20th century. This historical differentiation in its composition may be considered as one of the reasons for the current differences in the quality of the urban zones of the district and its public spaces that leads to a negative perception of the composition of the district by some of the inhabitants of the zone C.

(29)

27

5. Zoning, segregation and marginalization through the public space in Barranco

If the historical origins and development processes of the urban fabric of Barranco might explain some of the actual boundaries, the persistence and reproduction of patterns of mobilization, segregation and exclusion in the district that determine the way in which the zones are drawn nowadays cannot be understood without considering the interplay between the different actors and dynamics of power that shape and create the urban space in the district, which are then to be explored.

5.1. Zoning and distribution and quality of the public space in Barranco

According to the Concerted Development Plan of Barranco (Municipalidad de Barranco, 2014), Barranco is administratively divided into three distinct zones. This is a “historical and functional Sectorization” (Municipalidad de Barranco, 2014, p.42) determined by the axes of influence of the old roads that crossed the district from north to south. According to this document, in the Zone A “predominates the socioeconomic level medium-high and high, with better accesses and implementation of public services and better quality of old and new buildings.”; in Zone B “in general, the resident population is of medium and medium high level.”; and the Zone C is characterized as “middle and middle-low socioeconomic level. In some parts, low level has been detected.” (Municipalidad de Barranco, 2014, p.43). According to the same document, the district of Barranco is consolidated at an urban level, which means that it does not have possible areas for expansion so its possibilities of growth and densification can only be in height or urban renewal processes (2014).

Figure 7: Map of Barranco with the administrative division of the zones A, B and C

Source: Municipalidad de Barranco (2014)

(30)

28 On the map shown above (see Figure 7), it can be observed the zoning established by the municipality of Barranco with the three zones in different colors. Although the municipal government claims that this division is done for administrative purposes and it is a consequence of the historical development of Barranco, the same municipal government also recognizes that these zones present marked differences in its composition of inhabitants as well as in its material characteristics, their dynamics and their needs among each other. The objective of this subchapter is to show how the municipal government itself produces and reproduces a differentiated image of the district which, together with the gentrification processes in Barranco, will result in the segregation of a part of the population of the district and also to create subversive identity discourses. Since the economic capacities of the inhabitants are not a factor determined by the municipality of Barranco, in order to link the people concerns with the experience of the everyday life, what is going to be analyzed mainly are the spatial dynamics of differentiation through the distribution of the public spaces and how these, in spite of being part of the same political administration, expose highly marked differences in quality that actually maintains a proportional relation to the income levels and purchasing capacity of the inhabitants of their surroundings.

In the table below (Table 1) it is shown the number of inhabitants of the district divided by the zones they live in. It can be seen that the biggest population live in the zone C, which is at the same time the most depressed in economic terms. This table gives a notion of the constitution of the district and its distribution.

Table 1: Population of Barranco indicated by zone in 2007 Zone Population

2007 census

Growth rate (1993-

2007)

Projected population

2013

Number of households

Zone A 8.206 -1.29% 7.591

Zone B 9.426 -1.29% 8.720

Zone C 16.271 -1.29% 15.052

Total 31.363 10.657

Source: Municipalidad de Barranco (2014)

Even though the largest part of the Barranco population is located in the Zone C, it is the inhabitants of the Zone A, those who have the highest income levels. In the map below (Figure 8), it is shown the stratified division of Barranco where we it can be observed the high income stratum painted in blue, the middle-high income stratum painted in light yellow and the middle income stratum painted in dark orange. The agglomeration of people with similar income levels in the same areas is a general consequence of phenomena such as gentrification and segregation;

however, what it important to note in this map is the similarity of the agglomerations by income with the official zoning of the municipal authorities; and the proximity of these different neighborhoods. The map presented shows that the zoning established and managed by the municipality for the administration of the district is neither arbitrary nor alien to the socioeconomic differences of the people who inhabit it.

Looking across the street: Understanding segregation and marginalization in a district of Lima through the use and treatment of public space

Looking across the street

Understanding segregation and marginalization in a district of Lima through the use and

treatment of public space

DAVID RICARDO DE LA CRUZ VEGA

Abstract

Acknowledgments

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Theoretical framework

4. The historical construction of the urban fabric of Barranco

5. Zoning, segregation and marginalization through the public space in Barranco