It is a common perception that Latin American cities are "overpopulated". This is not so. Though one of the most urbanized regions of the world, about half of Latin America's population still lives in rural areas and small towns under 100,000 population, outside the influence of large metropolitan areas. About one third of all people live in metropolitan regions over one million population, but in North America the proportion is greater than 55%In North America, only 12% of the population lives in settlements under 100,000 population and outside metro regions, and there is practically no rural population left. Therefore, the North American metropolis is in many ways even more centralized than the Latin American metropolis , because outside of its orbit there is very little left.
"Overpopulation" is a subjective term. It assumes some
universally accepted optimum level of population for cities,
above which there is "overpopulation."
The myth of urban
overpopulation
has been the foundation for anti-urban policies by
governments since the late 19th Century.
These policies
central city renewal, deconcentration and dispersal to new towns
and garden cities, etc. have generally worsened urban problems
and inequalities, though they often improve the quality of urban
life for a small proportion of urban dwellers. And they have
never stopped urbanization.
The reality is that urbanization in Latin America, and
everywhere else on earth, is closely tied to economic
development.
As bad as the quality of life may be for many urban
dwellers in Latin America, it is much better than the quality of
life in rural areas. That is why people migrate in large numbers
to cities.
Latin America's cities are not particularly dense. Central
residential densities are about the same as in European and many
North American cities, and usually less than in the most
developed Asian cities. In the periphery of many Latin American
cities, where sprawled shantytowns predominate, densities are
relatively low, even though when compared to the typical North
American suburb s net densities are high.
In any case, density has little to do with the quality of
urban life, crime, violence or public health. Tokyo has
residential densities more than three times those in Los Angeles,
yet one would be hard pressed to make a case that Tokyo has more
crime and violence and an inferior standard of living.
The common perception that, compared to North America, Latin
American cities are too large and too dense, is thus mistaken.
The fundamental difference between North America and Latin America is that the North American metropolis has a minority of poor, living mostly in central cities, and the Latin American metropolis has a much larger population, often a majority, living in poverty at the urban periphery.
This distinct urban pattern results from Latin America's colonial history. The representatives of the Crown created in the central plazas their centers of economic and political power. They planned for the colonial power and the European population and let the indigenous masses fend for themselves in spontaneous settlements at the periphery. The highly centralized post-colonial governments have maintained this discriminatory system, and only recently have there been significant moves towards decentralization.
Internally the U.S. metropolis is relatively decentralized in form.
In the post-War period, significant economic and
political power shifted to the suburbs. Congress is dominated by
a suburban majority, and Los Angeles, the suburban metropolis,
has become the model U.S. city.
However, the leading central
cities in the U.S. are still global centers for capital
accumulation, and are economically tied to the suburban
metropolises in which they reside.
The U.S. metropolis sprawled across extensive
territory more decentralized and sprawled for many reasons.
Among them are:
