Social Urbanism in Medellín, Colombia

Sunday. May 29, 2016

It is not unique to write about the urban development and social innovation that Medellín, Colombia has seen over the last 12 years. A quick Google search for the term “social urbanism” brings up article upon article of change in this very city, charting how it has been transformed from one of the world’s most dangerous places to one of its most innovative. It seems the city is famous both for how far it has come since its notoriously bloody recent past, and the creative measures it has taken to unite its citizens and provide support to those who need it most. With the adoption of the “social urbanism” approach by Medellín’s 2004 – 2007 mayor, Sergio Fajardo, the city has been transformed. Fajardo’s philosophy was simple: “Our most beautiful buildings must be in our poorest areas,” but it was a radical idea in comparison to most other forms of worldwide urban development. (1) The bold move paid off though, at least in terms of Medellín’s reputation as an innovative, dynamic, and progressive city.

While I did not spend any time in Medellín during its narco-trafficker controlled, violent past, I did spend 32 days living in this city in 2016. Thus, I cannot attest to the change in the city from a first-hand account. I can, however, acknowledge the extensive use of unconventional and strategically placed urban projects throughout the city, some of which seem to have caused a visible change in the surrounding community. These projects grabbed my attention, not only because they seemed so focused on uniting the community, but also because they were nearly all placed in Medellín’s most violent and lowest-income neighborhoods. This curiosity motivated me to learn a bit more about these projects: what they were, how they came about, and, most importantly, what impact they’ve had. While I could see a visible influence from the sites – they made a nice mark on the landscape and people were actually using them – I wanted to know if all the money that clearly went into these efforts had been well spent. In other words, were these projects successful? Did they bring a better life to the people of the communities where they were built?

With this in mind, I sought out to do a deep dive into the social urbanism efforts and their impact, analyzing them from both a qualitative and quantitative angle. Thanks in large part to Medellín’s annual, city-wide Quality of Life survey, I was able to examine the effect the concerted urban and structural development efforts have had in Medellín over the last decade.

Background

The second-largest city in Colombia, Medellín is located within a valley of the Andes Mountains in the northern half of the country. Throughout the 20th century, the city grew quickly. This was due both to the industrialization that took place in the area and the rural displacement that occurred from armed guerilla groups taking over farmers’ land. This made Medellín a central economic hub for some and an escape from violence and homelessness for others; regardless of motive, people began to flock here.

While new housing was built during this time, it was not enough to match the continuous demand for a place to live. This caused the formation of illegal and informal settlements, particularly on the periphery of the city and along its surrounding hills. The “squatter neighborhoods” that were formed include present-day Popular, Santo Domingo, Granizal and Doce de Octubre, places that today are considered among the lowest-income and most violent neighborhoods in Medellín. These areas, known in popular rhetoric as the “comunas” of Medellín, were comprised of self-constructed houses and often lacked access to basic services based on their remote and difficult-to-reach locations along the hills. Yet they were the only places that afforded low-income individuals opportunities to build their homes. By the end of this urbanization expansion, these illegal communities represented 50% of the city’s population. (2)

When the cocaine cartels came into power in the 1980’s, these areas became the headquarters for many illegal gangs and assassins, hired by the drug lords to carry out murders and other violent acts. They also transformed into hubs for Colombia’s many communist guerrilla militias, who, throughout much of Colombia’s history, have used illegal and violent tactics to try to take control of the government. All the while, there was essentially no law-enforcement or government presence to maintain order in these areas. (2) Homicide rates in Medellín spiked in the 1980’s and 90’s, hitting an all-time high of 381 murders per 100,000 people in 1991 and staying above 150 per 100,000 people for the remainder of the 1990’s. With these numbers, it was not difficult for Medellín to achieve the status of murder capital of the world. (7) But change began to come when Pablo Escobar was killed by special forces and the guerilla groups started to lose power and engage in peace talks with the government. Murder rates dropped, overall crime levels decreased, and Medellín began to focus on social change. (3)

Nowadays, although the years of narco-trafficker control and guerilla warfare are largely behind it, Medellín still struggles with the existence of marginalized and unsafely constructed communities, many of which are hard to physically reach and are thus out of sight of the average, higher-income inhabitant. In addition, the hills and winding, disconnected streets are attractive to criminal groups because they make evasion of law enforcement easy. So although the leftist guerilla groups and organized drug lords are mostly out of power in these neighborhoods, there have arisen new criminal gangs and mafia organizations in their place. (3)

This has all, from the 1990’s onward, driven the local government, private, and public organizations to create programs that focus on development in these areas. These efforts strive to improve the quality of life of the inhabitants of these communities and repay some of the social debt that was accrued after decades of “turning a blind eye” from the part of the government. (2)

The current murder rate in the city is 26.8 per 100,000 people, which certainly isn’t perfect (Lichtenstein hasn’t had a murder since 1997), but it is far off from both Medellín’s own past numbers and the world’s most murderous city (Caracas, Venezuela at 119.87 murders per 100,00 people (5)). Further, Medellín currently ranks as the 49th out of 50 most dangerous cities in Colombia (4), and just saw their least violent month in 37 years in terms of homicides this past April (6). One cannot overlook the role of strategic urban planning in achieving these results. Medellín has been lauded as progressive and innovative when it comes to their urban development measures. The city or organizations within it have been awarded: the $1,000,000 Access to Learning Award from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (2009), the UN Habitat best practices recognition for three programs (2010), the Sustainable Transport Award from the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (2012), and the World’s Most Innovative City Award by the American Urban Land Institute (2012).

Social Urbanism

Medellín’s comeback through its focus on urban renewal has been largely attributed to its mayor during 2004 – 2007, Sergio Fajardo. While past leaders, as well as the standard development approach around the world, have traditionally focused on construction in the prosperous and tourist-oriented parts of town, Fajardo took on a more radical view. (1) Based on a model made popular with Barcelona’s urban renewal efforts in the 1990’s, Fajardo wanted to focus on bringing development to the areas of town that needed it the most. In so doing, the idea went, the people of these areas would have access to safer and more efficient modes of transportation, areas to improve their educational opportunities and that of their children, and more secure outdoor spaces and housing infrastructures. Thus, these projects would bring social mobility and pride to these neighborhoods, in turn reducing crime, violence and the poverty levels of the city. (1) With that, social urbanism in Medellín was born.

Under Fajardo’s authority, the Medellín city government adopted the approach of urban integral projects (PUI’s). This structure focused on creating small teams for specific projects that would bring social revitalization to the most at-risk neighborhoods and improve quality of life there. One of the first initiatives of this plan, the 2004 Metrocable line K that links the hard-to-reach, hilly comunas with the central metro system via gondolas, was strategically placed to end in the rough Santo Domingo neighborhood. In this way, the line provided access to the city to some of its most removed citizens, while also disrupting drug trade routes through strategic placement of its infrastructure build-up. These Metrocables were so popular and successful that the city built another line in 2008, with this one starting in another rough area of the city, San Javier. (1) The Metrocables are efficient and immaculate, and are patrolled regularly by law enforcement. The routes not only provide interior access to cut-off residents, but they also allow tourists and upper-class citizens a glimpse into the lives of the easy-to-overlook comunas.

Using a similar approach, the city laid out several different, smaller transport measures to connect and improve the communities that had sprung up in Medellín’s rapid and environmentally unsafe 20th century growth. These brought structure, order, and connection to the territories through efforts like the creation of pedestrian walkways and the construction of bridges and paths between previously disconnected neighborhoods. With the enactment of the Pilot Project of Habitation Consolidation in the Juan Bobo community, the government also focused on improving the environmental conditions for both the people and the land in areas where housing had sprung up dangerously and illegally. This focus on “urban-invaded ecosystems” looked at natural habitats like hills that had been overtaken in an invasive or precarious form and sought to improve them. With this in mind, the city constructed 10 new buildings to house people that needed to be relocated because of bad conditions while they helped to recreate these areas. Under this initiative, they built new housing, trails, and public spaces and brought in new public services for community residents. (11) Similarly, in the Aranjuez neighborhood, the city focused on an area that was once its garbage dump, Moravia Hill. This area had attracted squatters who foraged through the trash to make a living and had set up settlements within the ecologically dangerous dump. The city helped relocate the people living here while they focused on cleaning up the area, making it healthier through measures such as adding plants that would remove the toxins from the soil. (12)

Finally, the city installed a set of Electric Escalators in the Comuna 13 neighborhood, about a 10-minute drive from the start of the line J Metrocables. There are six sets in total that take riders up a vast hill to the higher parts of the neighborhood. Guards are stationed at the bottom of each set of escalators to maintain order in the area. One of these guards explained that local artists have painted the escalators’ surrounding walls, many of them completing the work not for commission but just wanting to contribute to their community. Further, local organizations partnered with the owners of the houses around the escalators to provide them with paint, gardening materials, and other methods to improve their facades, even constructing new roofs for some of them. Like the Metrocables, the escalators appear to be very well-maintained, and there is even an office for EDU, the company comprised of government, industrial, and business groups behind the project, in the middle of them. As of May 2016, the government was also in the middle of constructing a motorcycle and pedestrian-friendly road that would connect three neighboring communities at the top of the escalators that were previously cut off from each other.

Another focus that began with Fajardo was the adoption of the slogan, “Medellín the Most Educated.” This idea led to the development of three key social urbanism projects in the city: its networks of library parks, Good Start childcare and kindergarten centers, and the High Schools of Quality.

Perhaps Medellín’s most famous social urbanism measures, the library parks are littered throughout the city’s most at-risk areas and are large spaces built for and with the aid of the community. Most include outdoor, grassy areas as well as indoor venues with space for computer classrooms, shelves of books, large tables for studying or meeting, workshops, cafeterias, and even auditoriums in some. The walls have photos and descriptions pasted on them of community engagement efforts, encouraging residents to get involved in the development planning of their neighborhoods. Entrance is free and there are guards posted throughout the spaces. They provide a safe venue for community engagement and meetings, social and cultural development, and educational enhancement in neighborhoods that may otherwise have lacked access to these options. Initially, five were built in different areas of the city, with the San Javier library being the first and the España library perhaps being the most famous because of its distinct architecture. Due to their success, another five were built through 2011. (9)

With fourteen locations around the city, the Good Start child centers have become increasingly popular places for childcare in many of the lower-income communities of Medellín. The first one, Good Start Mamachila, opened in 2009 under the direction of then-mayor Alonso Salazar. It was established in Aranjuez, a neighborhood in the northern part of the city that sees high levels of crime, poverty, and income inequality. These centers typically take kids ages 3 months to 5 years old, providing childcare and educational services to over 1,000 children. (10) Similarly, the network of High Schools of Quality constructed in the last decade has brought new buildings and better, free, public education to communities like Santo Domingo that need it most.

In the first four years of the social urbanism plan, the city and other urban planning organizations had newly employed 2,300 locals and had created projects over 125,000 square meters of land. (11) To organize and create these projects, the government appointed EDU with taking over most implementations of the PUI’s. To fund the projects, the PUI teams organize donations from local, national, and international donors. Government spending has also increased drastically to fund these projects, with total and per capita spending increasing four-fold between 2000 and 2010. (8) The government has also become reliant on monetary support from corporate partners, including local companies like Bancolombia (the country’s largest bank) and Nutresa (a large food manufacturer) as well as foreign investors like Toyota and Phillip Morris. There are also several key nonprofit players, such as Proantioquia, an organization founded by local entrepreneurs who encourage the private sector to revitalize public projects. (1) EPM, the city’s nonprofit public utilities company, also donates over 50% of their income to fund social urbanism projects in Medellín. According to EPM’s Executive Vice President of Corporate Finance and Investment Management, in 2015 alone, they gave $358 million USD to the city of Medellín. (13)

Impacts

In order to examine the impact of the social urbanism projects, in 2004, Fajardo re-launched the city’s previous Quality of Life survey and requested it be taken annually. This survey assessed hundreds of different metrics related to citizen perceptions, education, home quality, and more within all of the neighborhoods of Medellín. These figures were then compiled into one Quality of Life index score for each neighborhood, which was used to determine the value of past planning efforts and guide the future creation of new development. Presently, the government continues to take these yearly surveys and compile a Quality of Life index score. Starting in 2010, they began to also use a new metric, the Multidimensional Life Conditions index, to measure quality of life by neighborhood. It is this new metric, which includes a more robust set of variables such as individuals’ perceptions of their quality of life and environmental impacts, that currently guides the strategy and decision-making for crafting the city’s Urban Plan.

However, because this data only goes back to 2010, I chose to focus on the traditional Quality of Life index scores for my assessment of the impacts of the social urbanism projects. Because the QOL scores have been computed from 2004 to 2014 and data from 2015 is not yet available, I looked at the numbers from these 11 years in my analysis.

The Quality of Life index is computed by tallying up scores on several different metrics for all of the households surveyed in a neighborhood. These are listed below, grouped by category:

Housing Construction and Services

• Predominant material of the house’s walls and floors
• Where the house’s water comes from
• How the trash is disposed of
• Sanitation services used

Household Luxury Goods

• Amount of electronic products per household
• Number of vehicles per household

Education

• Education level of the head of household
• Education level of the head of household’s spouse
• Number of children under 6 years of age
• Number of children between 6 and 12 that don’t go to school
• Number of children between 13 and 18 that don’t go to school
• Number of illiterate family members

Household conditions

• Amount of overcrowding in the house
• Economic burden
• Social security status of the head of household
• Amount of people per household with social security

While I could have looked at more individualized data in my analysis – for example, did violent crime go down over the years? Or, did the library parks bring about an increase in the education levels of a family? – I chose instead to focus on the QOL index on the whole. This is both because the QOL wraps several different factors into one standardized metric and also because the idea behind the social urbanism projects was to bring about an increase in quality of life as a whole. The government’s view was, with a higher quality of life, upward social mobility, better education opportunities, and a reduction in crime would all arise. So hypothetically, if there is an increase in the QOL scores after a project has been opened in a community, one could expect that the other metrics are moving as well.

The question I sought to answer was: have the social urbanism projects in Medellín caused a difference in the QOL index of the neighborhoods they were introduced in? To address this, I first wanted to see if there was a statistically significant difference between the QOL score of an individual neighborhood the year before and the year after a project was opened there. However, because I didn’t have access to the data values that went in to calculating the scores, and just had the overall score for each year, I couldn’t calculate statistical significance in this way. Because of this, I instead chose to compare all of the scores before a project was opened (starting in the year 2004), with all of the scores after a project was opened (ending in 2014). I examined 17 projects, which I chose based on either their representation of other projects, such as most of the original library parks and a couple of the newer ones, or their representation of the main focuses of social urbanism mentioned above. There were some projects I considered featuring but didn’t, such as the Metro, because it benefits the city as a whole and not a specific neighborhood. I also did not include projects that were opened after 2014.

Anyway, I found that there was a statistically significant difference between a neighborhood’s QOL scores before and after a project was opened there in four cases:

• Library Park La Quintana (p=0.0095, 12 de Octubre neighborhood)
• Pedestrian Walkway Carabobo (p=0.0094, La Candelaria neighborhood)
• Library Park San Javier (p=0.0216, San Javier neighborhood)
• Library Park Manuel Mejia Vallejo (p=0.0224, Guayabal neighborhood)

I’ve created an interactive map, below, to show profiles on these neighborhoods and how their QOL scores have changed throughout the years (click to explore).

Reflections and Conclusion

These results are interesting. Of the 17 projects I looked at, only four were shown to cause a significant lift in quality of life in the neighborhood they were implemented in, which is only a 24% success rate. Further, the results show that the projects with the largest impact seem to be the library parks. With their focus on providing safe places for getting together, technological resources for public use, and a dialogue about the importance of community involvement in development, it is easy to see why these have been successful enhancers of the QOL scores. However, why hasn’t there been a shift from the other projects?

One important thing to consider is the possibility of flaws in my research. I did not choose to look at all social urbanism projects, only a handful, so I could have missed other sites that had significant impacts. Further, I only looked at the Quality of Life index, not on individual measures. I had anticipated looking at education and housing metrics as well as people’s perceptions of their quality of life (to see if a difference existed between these and the government-computed number), but did not have access to the data. I also didn’t explore other data that could have been interesting, such as unemployment levels or average housing prices in a given area. Finally, I did very little on-the-ground qualitative coverage of changes brought by the projects. A future study would do well to focus more on this aspect, talking to people in the communities and getting their reactions.

The locals I did talk to seemed to have a consistent trait in common – almost all of them were at least aware of the social urbanism projects and the fact that Medellín is somewhat unique in using them. With this recognition often came a sense of pride in the city. Many people I talked to seemed to acknowledge that their city has had a troubled past, and while problems still exist and more can certainly be done, there have been noticeable efforts towards change on the part of the government and the city as a whole.

The reality of the situation, though, is that the social urbanism projects are not an all-out, clear win when looking just at the Quality of Life metric. Further, some of the projects have dealt with criticism. Many argue that money on the Electric Escalators of Comuna 13 could have been better spent to benefit a larger number of people, for example. Others contend that the Library Park España, perhaps the most notable of the bunch for its unique and innovative architecture, is actually falling apart structurally. Because of long wait times, the Metrocables have been critiqued for actually adding to some commute times, rather than improving them. (7)

Nevertheless, the fact that there has been some improvement shown in the numbers is not a light matter. Additionally, Medellín’s global recognition for its urban innovation can only be a good thing. As a counterargument, the urban renewal projects could be criticized for being mere marketing measures that don’t actually cause much improvement. However, I’d argue that even if they are “glitzy” projects that have brought just as much tourist use as neighborhood use, they still have the potential to instill a sense of pride in the community as well as create a desirable market for future investment. All in all, while Medellín’s social urbanism projects are not miracles, I contend that they have played an important role in the shaping of the city into the dynamically developing place that it is today.

To provide a summary view of my findings, the interactive map below shows all the social urbanism projects examined and how they affected QOL scores in their respective neighborhoods.

Sources

1. Scruggs, G. (2014, March 31). Latin America’s New Superstar. Retrieved May 24, 2016, from https://nextcity.org/features/view/medellins-eternal-spring-social-urbanism-transforms-latin-america

2. Restrepo, A. E., & Orsini, F. M. (n.d.). Informality and Social Urbanism in Medellín. Retrieved May 24, 2016, from https://www.umass.edu/larp/sites/default/files/AE FM Informality and Social Urbanism in Medelli¦ün.pdf

3. Pachico, E. (2011, May 13). Medellin’s Turbulent Comuna 13. Retrieved May 24, 2016, from http://www.insightcrime.org/investigations/medellins-turbulent-comuna-13

4. D. B. (2015, April 7). Medellin’s falling homicide rate and social investment brings fresh hope to the former murder capital of the world. Retrieved May 24, 2016, from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/medellins-falling-homicide-rate-and-social-investment-brings-fresh-hope-to-the-former-murder-capital-10160674.html

5. Most Dangerous Cities In South and Central America. (2016, March 30). Retrieved May 24, 2016, from http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/most-dangerous-cities-in-south-and-central-america.html

6. Abril, el mes con menos homicidios en cuatro décadas en Medellín - Medellín - El Tiempo. (2016, May 2). Retrieved May 24, 2016, from http://www.eltiempo.com/colombia/medellin/abril-el-mes-con-menos-homicidios-en-cuatro-decadas-en-medellin/16579915

7. Brand, P. (n.d.). Governing inequality in the South through the Barcelona model: ‘social urbanism’ in Medellín, Colombia. Retrieved May 24, 2016, from http://www.dmu.ac.uk/documents/business-and-law-documents/research/lgru/peterbrand.pdf

8. Holmes, J. S., & Guitérrez de Piñeres, S. A. (n.d.). Stability: International Journal of Security and Development. Retrieved May 24, 2016, from http://www.stabilityjournal.org/articles/10.5334/sta.cz/print/

9. Library park (Colombia). (n.d.). Retrieved May 24, 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_park_(Colombia)

10. Alcaldía de Medellín. (n.d.). Retrieved May 24, 2016, from https://www.medellin.gov.co/irj/portal/ciudadanos?NavigationTarget=navurl://f8b49f546d4f7ad804103bd44ebbc0ca

11. Arbaux, M. H., Restrepo, A. E., & Ramirez, J. G. (2011). Medellín Medio Ambiente, Urbanismo, Sociedad. Medellin, Colombia: Universidad EAFIT.

12. Osorio Gaviria, D. A. (2014). Moravia: The story of a slum on a hill of garbage. Retrieved May 24, 2016, from http://www.academia.edu/10623171/Moravia_The_story_of_a_slum_on_a_hill_of_garbage

13. EPM Fourth Quarter 2015 Earnings Results. (2016, April 6). Retrieved May 24, 2016, from https://www.epm.com.co/site/Portals/6/documentos/Resultados Trimestrales/2015/4Q15_Transcript.pdf