In 2015, many towns, cities and even countries, have accepted the actual conditions of our world. The global warming is not a theory anymore, even when many politicians deny it; the social classes are one of the big problems of our society, people are starving, wars, etc. Big cities with a growing economy have taken measures in pro of the planet’s situation, for example, Copenhagen. The capital of Denmark has a prospering economy and have taken seriously the global warming at the point that green-roofs are  obligatory in every new construction or restoration, also the city support and promote the use (and construction) of public spaces and urban farms. Copenhagen evolution in the last years has been admirably and it’s a prove that cities can help the world and have a promising socioeconomic development at the same time.

Not all the cities behave the same and the perfect example for it is Bogotá DC, the capital of Colombia. This south American country was famous around the world in the 80’s and beginning of 90’s for the drug cartels and their drug dealers, but today is one of the most promising countries of Latin América due to its location and tourism. Nowadays Bogota has over 13 million inhabitants, which around 40% are from other cities of Colombia or foreigners, in an area of 2640 mt2  approx. This metropolis works basically as a  monocentric city, where most of the big economic activities are downtown and the small scale is spread in the rest of the city and metropolitan area. The economy has been thriving in the last decade, in 2007 the GPD grew 10,5% and in 2012 10,7%; for such a conflictive country these percentages are meaningful.  Big companies and entrepreneurs have taken Bogotá as the place for their main headquarters in Latin America.

One of the main economic activities that have helped the growth of the GPD are the big malls constructed in the past years. Today Bogota has 61 main malls ubicated in most of the localities, and around 70 more (in a smaller scale), understanding the concept of a mall as a private building with comercial locals inside, open most of the day, but they reserve the admission right. The government has taken the decision to encourage and promote the foreigner invention in this type of projects and it’s understandable due to the positive impact it has made in the city GPD, and even the country economy. The problem is the consequences that this economic decision has made on the inhabitants and on their culture.

Nowadays the urban life in Bogota, as it is in most of the cities in Colombia, is base on the private sector. The amount of people using the public spaces has decreased due to the capitalist culture that this country has. Families, couples and friends spend hours in malls and their explanation is “because it is safer than being on the streets”. It is a completely comprehendible answer but, according to a research made by architecture students of the Universidad de Los Andes, this is not just the justification but it is also the reason for the same insecurity. An easy way to understand this idea is the following this sequence. According to the official town hall reports, in the 70’s inhabitants used to make more use of the public spaces, but when the “mall idea” and the “Conjunto cerrado idea” (it’s a residential project idea based on a certain amount of houses or apartments with “exclusive” communal spaces just for the owners, enclosed by bars, eliminating the relation residence – city) arrived in Bogota this changed. With these new ways of living, where the private sector is more important, the urban activities went inside, the streets and parks started to be empty, parallel they started to deteriorate and the insecurity in them started to increase. When the streets became “dangerous” residential houses, commercial locals, even government buildings started installing bars (disconnecting also all the urban uses from the city), the use of the public spaces decreased even more and many people even stopped walking and started using more cars, which also increased the contamination. A couple of decades has passed and now generations has been raised with this idea of how a city should work and with no intention of change. At the end, all this facts helped to increased everyday more the insecurity concept on the inhabitants heads, and as a consequence to killing the public life.

On the other hand, the urban development of this capital has been chaotic. Due to the rising economy of the city, the population of the city is increasing drastically and all the systems of the city (mobility, public space, private space, green areas, etc)  are collapsing. All this facts generates a single question ¿Why a city, which economy is getting more prosper every year, has such a chaotic urban development? It may exist centenary of answers, but one of the most accurate response is politics. There have been plenty of urban proposals in pro of Bogota but at the end, there is always the political limitation. As a clear example, there has been lately many revolutionary news in terms of corruption where many mayors (especially the last two) has been envolved, giving limitations and urban contracts to their own family companies. Their (political, economical, social, etc.) decisions  were in pro of the few and against of most of the citizens but especially the city. The corruption and the focus on the private sector are clearly evident, Bogota since it was founded has lost 97.2% of its own water bodies (Lakes, wetlands, etc) thanks to the illegal landfills; on the other hand, the urban design of the capital is basically a big city made by smaller pieces of cities with no relation or order between them, each “part”  is responding to the year and economic situation they were constructed in and not to an urban plan, also, they are separated by big avenues (which their initial good conditions did not last more than three months, not even a quarter of the time they took for being constructed) that are built no matter what river, wetland or lake has to be cut.

Sadly this is not only the reality of Bogota, it is the reality of most of the metropolis in Latin America such as Mexico DC, Caracas or Rio de Janeiro. A single decision in pro of the economy can be against the urban development, ¿At what point is not valid anymore this decision that affect negatively the development of the city?. Latin countries political situation are the main limitation, and the corruption is part of it. And there is prove that this can be fixed, Latin cities can have a promising economy and a good urban development, clear examples are Medellin (Colombia), Santiago de chile (Chile) or Buenos Aires (Argentina).

As a conclusión, It would bo good to wonder if ¿Is it definitely more important a thriving economy than an efficient city? Both should be in balance and helping each other. A city will never advance when is based just in the private sector and the money it generates. It should be a balance between public and private. We must never forget that the last purpose of the cities are the people who live in them.

Economical Decisions in terms of urban developments is a text of IaaC, Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia developed at the Master in advance architecture in 2015/2017 by:

Students: Carlos Daniel Gómez

Faculty: Gonzalo Delacamara