Looking Across the Street Understanding Segregation and Marginalization in a District of Lima Through the Use and Treatment of Public Space

DEGREE PROJECT IN 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 TRITA TRITA-ABE-MBT-18453

www.kth.se

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.

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.

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... 1 Acknowledgments ...... 2 1. Introduction ...... 4 1.1. Why a research on Barranco? ...... 5 1.2. Aim and objectives ...... 5 2. Methodology ...... 8 3. Theoretical framework ...... 10 3.1. Public space ...... 10 3.2. Gentrification ...... 13 3.3. Spatial justice ...... 16 4. The historical construction of the urban fabric of Barranco ...... 19 4.1. Origins and historical development of Barranco ...... 19 4.2. The urbanization processes in Barranco ...... 22 5. Zoning, segregation and marginalization through the public space in Barranco ...... 27 5.1. Zoning and distribution and quality of the public space in Barranco ...... 27 5.1.1. Zone A ...... 32 5.1.2. Zone C ...... 36 5.1.3. Public transport network and socio-spatial delimitations ...... 38 5.2. Gentrification and privatization in Barranco ...... 43 6. Conclusions and final reflections ...... 47 6.1. Conclusions ...... 47 6.2. Final reflections ...... 48 References ...... 50 Appendix ...... 52 List of interviews ...... 52

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.

4 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

5 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

6 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

11 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.

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

13 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

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.

“…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).

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

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.

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.

19 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)

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)

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

22 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

23 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

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

25 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.

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)

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 Population Growth Projected Number of Zone 2007 rate (1993- population households census 2007) 2013 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.

Figure 8: Per-capita income levels of the population shown by households

Source: Municipalidad de Barranco (2014)

To have a greater picture on how these political limits and distributional differences are manifested, and operate in the public space and, consequently, in the everyday life of the inhabitants; the Table 2 shows the distribution of green areas in the district displayed by green area extension per zone ant totals. This table is also part of the original document of the Barranco municipality, the Concerted Development Plan of Barranco (Municipalidad de Barranco, 2014); which is the only existent document of the municipal government designed to guide the municipal possible future actions. Here it can be seen that the total square meters of green areas per zone are notably more favorable in quantity standards for the people who live in Zone A, than for their neighbors in Zones B and C. Considering that the district is only 3,33 km2 and its population is barely over 30000 people, the inequality in the distribution of green areas is alarming.

Table 2: Green area surface by sector and type in Barranco, in square meters. Zone A Zone B Zone C Total Parks 30,855.70 3,140.00 33,995.70 Gardens 6,162.80 275.60 6,438.40 Triangles 2,541.20 361.30 319.50 3,222.00 Berm (central and lateral) 16,500.50 1,682.00 4,754.20 22,936.70 Squares 1,936.00 275.60 4,493.50 6,705.10 Pier 62,117.40 62,117.40 Slopes 1,443.50 1,443.50 Grove 45.50 45.50 Total 121,602.60 5,734.50 9,567.20 136,904.30 Source: Municipalidad de Barranco (2014)

In the next table (Table 3), it can be seen that the distribution of green areas per inhabitant is dramatically inequitable and that, at the same time, is directly proportional to two important factors to take into account: the stablished political zone in which the people live and the economic income of each agglomeration, which in turn depicts the class difference between the neighbors of one zone and those of the other. In the Zone A the green areas per inhabitant are 16.02 square meters; while in the Zones B and C the green areas per inhabitant do not reach one square meter (0.66 and 0.64 respectively). The proportion of green areas between zones A and B is of 25 to 1.

Table 3: Proportion of green areas per inhabitants in each sector of the district:

Number of Area/ Water Gin Zone Area m2 inhabitants inhabitants demand gin performance/m2

Zone A 121,602.60 7.591 16.02 246,758.35 2.02 Zone B 5,734.50 8.720 0.66 14,161.55 1.48 Zone C 9,567.20 15.052 0.64 28,163.86 2.94 Total 136,904.30 31.363 4.37 289,083.76 2.11 Source: Municipalidad de Barranco (2014)

In the next image (Figure 9) it is displayed a map created by the group of researchers in cartography Geographos. This map is a representation of the disparities in the distribution of the green areas by zone mentioned above. It is possible to observe that while the bulk of the population of Barranco is grouped on the east side of the district, on the west side it is grouped the bulk of the green public areas of the district. On the map below each point represents 20 inhabitants; the blue points represent that each of those 20 inhabitants has more than 16 square meters each, available in the public space around them; while the green ones represent 8 to 16 square meters of green areas per inhabitant; the yellow ones represent 4 to 8 per inhabitant; the orange ones represent 1 to 4 square meters per inhabitant; and the red ones represent less than one square meters of green area per inhabitant. The similarity of this representation (Figure 9) with the political demarcation between zones (Figure 7) demonstrates that the authorities respond to a socioeconomic structure of the population with politics that reproduce such differentiations since it is the municipal government the responsible con the maintenance and provision of those green public areas for the people’s use.

Figure 9: Map of green area per inhabitant in the district of Barranco

Source: Barreda, José (2017)

For the researcher and neighbor of the Zone A of Barranco, Javier Alvarado (interviewee 1), the zone C is the one that has experienced in the recent years the biggest declined in its quality by neglect of the government authorities. He notes that in Zone C not just the houses are smaller, but there are many other problems, such as citizen insecurity, lack of opportunities, and lack of educational services. He finally stands out that, for him, the main problem of the differentiation by zoning is a problem of lack of opportunities.

In turn, neighbors of the zone C point out that it is not only an aesthetic problem, but also a problem of citizen security, especially in the extremes to the east of the district, the side which is the furthest from the Zone A. The farther away the area is from Zone A, the more indifference the Government seems to demonstrate. Mr. Augusto Sanchez (interviewee 7), neighbor of the Zone C, comments on this “such as the adjoining parts of Barranco with Surco (the limiting district in the east), which are dangerous. All those areas are almost the same. It’s always been dangerous for you to come to this other side.” For Augusto, “this other side” means the Zone C, and it is “other” to the zones A and B. Even in the discourse it can be identified the feeling of otherness that suppose a clear distance in relation to his neighbors in Zone A.

On the other hand, interviewed officials of the municipality of Barranco recognize that there are many differences in the quality of public space between the different zones of the district. However, they argued that, even though they considered is as a problem of inequality and exclusion, there was a shared responsibility of the Government at all levels, regional and national too. Nevertheless, they didn’t express any plan or intention to change the situation.

So far, it has been exposed a clear differentiation in the distribution of the public green areas related to political zones. Following, a gallery of photos of Zones A and C will be shown; all of them taken by the author of this investigation -except for the first photo, taken from a drone. Zones A and C are then emphasized because these are the most different between each other. In that sense, the differentiation in the quality of the public space will be more evident. These exposition will clarify that it is not just a differentiation in the amount of public space given, but also in the quality of it.

5.1.1. Zone A As it has been claimed, the Zone A is that of the richest population of the district. Here it can be found the largest and fanciest houses in front of the sea, a yacht club, big buildings and expensive cars in the sidewalks. The main characteristics of the public spaces here are: opened, without fences, better security levels, clean, calm and modern.

Figure 10: Current district of Barranco seen from the north with the Pacific Ocean at the right (west), the cliff of Barranco, the beaches in the middle and the private yacht Club in the corner.

Source: Playas de Barranco, Lima. Enigma Visual Art Productions9

As it has already been mentioned, exists a sense of segregation among some of the inhabitants of Barranco due to the dynamics of spatialization on the public space (among other factors). Several times, the authorities work to reinforce segregation: the architect of Barranco, José Rodríguez (interviewee 2) mentions that between the years 2003 and 2006 the municipal authority of Barranco closed one of the stairs that descended down the cliff to the beaches. According to José Rodríguez, when he asked the managers of the municipality why they had closed that access, they responded “We’re going to cut it because there can’t be ‘cholos’10 walking around, because they do a bit of everything and people complain.” It can be said that according to this explanation, for the public authorities there are some specific kind of population, the “cholos” who do not deserve to use the public space because then, the “people” complain about their actions in the public space.

9 Online source: Enigma Visual Art Productions .Playa de Barranco, Lima - Perú (Vista Drone) Marzo 2016 (visited in 15-08-2018) Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZNDJc1B3wY 10 ‘Cholo’ is the Peruvian pejorative term to refer to indigenous people who live in the city (note by the author).

In the following pictures it is possible to appreciate the extension and use of public spaces in Zone A of the Barranco district. For example in the Figures 11 and 12 we can appreciate the extension of the green areas as it is now. It can also be seen the use of these areas by the people. The green areas are open, without fences, well maintained, and with plenty of space for public use. As it was mentioned by Low and Smith (2006), even though the public space is not free from regulation it is open for the public participation. In figure 11 it can also be seen that the concept of green area is not reduced to a specific type of park. In this part, the slope has also been designated as public space by the municipal authority.

Figure 11: Descent to the beach called “The Baths of Barranco”

Source: De la Cruz, David’s private collection. Taken on 05.03.2018

Figure 12: Municipal Main Square of Barranco

Source: De la Cruz, David’s private collection. Taken on 01.03.2018

In the figures 13 and 14 that are shown below, we can see other green areas of Zone A. Here it is also observed that these green areas are very well maintained by the municipal authorities of the district. The extension of the green areas in this part of the district is so big compared to the other zones that they even seem to be empty, because the people of the surroundings have enough space for their everyday activities. It is characteristic of Zone A to be able to observe that the landscape is completed with the growing construction of apartment buildings, which give the district a modern and luxurious neighborhood atmosphere. From my own experience visiting these parts, another aspect to highlight is the absence of annoying noise from the means of transport, since these green areas are generally separated from the main avenues of the district that present the greatest traffic congestion.

Figure 13: Park of the Museum and buildings of the Zone A.

Source: De la Cruz, David’s private collection. Taken on 01.02.2018

Figure 14: Park of the museum and buildings of the Zone A.

Source: De la Cruz, David’s private collection. Taken on 01.02.2018

In the figures below it can also be seen part of the public space of Zone A. In Figure 15, for example, it is possible to see the Barranco boardwalk, which is the entire area that extends over the cliffs of the district and that face to the sea. Of course, this entire strip is exclusively in Zone A and constitutes one of the largest sources of green areas of the district. Once again, it can be seen that the spaces in the green areas are open, without fences, and from my own experience, the people can also enjoy a feeling of tranquility, partially related to the proximity to the sea and the dimensions of the public space here.

Figure 15: Malecón de Barranco, Boardwalk of Barranco.

Source: De la Cruz, David’s private collection. Taken on 01.02.2018

In Figure 16, we can see the main church of the district that is adjacent to the main square of the district of Barranco and to the building of the local municipality of the district. The picture not only highlights the good state of the church, but also all its surroundings. You can even appreciate a bicycle parking. From my own experience, I can confirm that there is not a single parking lot for bicycles in the whole zone C. It is worth mentioning that the church, the square, the library and the municipality building are all together here. This area concentrates the affluent of the tourist attractions of Barranco and expensive bars and restaurants. So, the main institutions are located in the center of Zone A. From daily conversations, I can affirm that this location of symbolic and political power contributes with the sensation of otherness in the people who live in the most remote areas of these district reference points. It is the feeling of being on the periphery.

From my own everyday life experience as an inhabitant of the district of Barranco, in the public spaces of Zone A it is also common to regularly observe many people of indigenous traits walking the pets or the children of the inhabitants of Zone A. The inhabitants of the Zone A, on the other hand, are usually ethnically white-skinned. This characteristic also generates the feeling that one is in a foreign space.

Figure 16: Municipal Main Square of Barranco and main church

Source: De la Cruz, David’s private collection. Taken on 07.03.2018

5.1.2. Zone C As it has been mentioned before, this is the zone where is located the poorest population of the district. According to the interviewed neighbors and to the Concerted Development Plan of Barranco (Municipalidad de Barranco, 2014), the main problems are the lack of green areas, dirtiness and insecurity. The main characteristics of the public spaces and services here are: dirtiness, insecurity, informality of the means of transport, and fences. There exist only two relatively small parks in Zone C of the district. These are the Raimondi Park and the Butters Park. In the Figure 17 it can be observed the Raimondi Park, characterized by the fences that do not allow to make use of the green areas. In this case, the green areas only have an ornamental purpose. As can be seen, the people make use of public space, which in this case is only possible through the paths of the park. In addition, being a park surrounded by high traffic routes, it is highly risky for children to play, for example, with a ball. Even so, as can be seen, people make use of these spaces to go for a walk and have fun.

Figure 17: Raimondi Park, in the Zone C

Source: De la Cruz, David’s private collection. Taken on 15.02.2018

In Figure 18, it can be seen the only other park in Zone C, the Butters Park. As can be seen in the photograph, the maintenance of the park is poor, and the green areas are scarce. Even so, it can be observed a large number of people making use of this space. In this case, unlike the green areas of Zone A, people are more grouped, partly because they do not have more public spaces in the surroundings. Like the Raimondi Park case, the Butters Park is surrounded by traffic routes that maintain an intense vehicular traffic, which makes it dangerous for children. For that same reason the air feels more polluted and you can hear quite a lot of noise from the means of transport during most of the day. The Butters Park, in addition, is completely surrounded by a fence and has only two accesses.

Figure 18: Butters Park, Zone C

Source: De la Cruz, David’s private collection. Taken on 15.02.2018

In the image shown below (Figure 19), the situation of the vehicles that circulate around the Butters Park is quite precarious. In the photo we can see tricycles, “mototaxis” (motorcycles adapted for the private transport of passengers at low cost) and even ambulatory trade. You can also appreciate the dimensions of the park and how it is surrounded by the intense traffic of vehicles that, as already mentioned, pollute the public space in the park with air pollution and annoying noise. One block away from the Butters Park there is a popular market, the only one that remains in Barranco. This market, in which each merchant owns his own store, is a sign of resistance to the spread of supermarkets in the city of Lima that is seen as a sign of modernity among people, but at the same time its existence demonstrates the marginalization of the area by big private investors. I understands these features as part of the spatial dynamics of injustice that generates segregation and oppression claimed by Madanipour, where through the segregated location of a marginalized area we can see the spatiality of injustice; and through the interplay of the economic dynamics that reproduces this situation such as the private and public investments, the injustice of spatiality (2014).

Figure 19: Butters Park

Source: De la Cruz, David’s private collection. Taken on 15.02.2018

5.1.3. Public transport network and socio-spatial delimitations

5.1.3.1. The Metropolitan bus

From the year 2007 a bus corridor was implemented that crossed the entire district from north to south in the exact same road that was used from many centuries before as the pre-Hispanic ways. On the map below, it can be seen the line of the Metropolitan Bus of Lima (El Metropolitano) which is represented in the man with the black line that crosses the district from north to south. I we go back to Figure 4, it will be clear that the actual Metropolitan Bus occupies the same way that was used before by the railway Lima-Barranco dividing the Zones A and B from the Zone C. It is important to outline that, according to the interviewees and from my own experience, even though the municipal authorities knew about the negative consequences that the construction of the Metropolitan Bus in the year 2007 was going to have on the integration of the district, they acted with indifference.

In the Figure 20, the dark arrow in black is the Metropolitan bus highway. In the north it is located the beginning of the Express Highway, an urban highway that goes underground from that location in the northern edge of Barranco to the historic center of Lima. However, for the case of Barranco, The Metropolitan Bus goes at street level, cutting the district in two parts, because the bus line is walled by a fence to, ideally, protect the passers-by. Nevertheless, the road of the bus line and the fences also stress the preexistent divisions of the district by zones. In the following map, the yellow blocks are the bus stations; the blue lines are the ways of the regular complementary public transport; and the red lines are the limits of the Monumental Area of the District.

Figure 20: Public Transport Network in Barranco

Source: Municipalidad de Barranco (2014)

For the interviewed specialist in the history of Barranco, Javier Alvarado, the Metropolitan Bus “is one of the elements that has marked the most the social and economic limits in the district. The Metropolitan creates a visible wall. The fences, the bus, have marked more the social division of Barranco.” For the architect and opposition candidate for the mayor of Barranco, José Rodríguez, the Metropolitan Bus is representative of the misrule and chaos that is generated in Barranco. He himself, together with a group of neighbors, summoned a march that gathered 3000 people in 2008 to protest against the division that had marked the Metropolitan Bus in the district of Barranco. But still the authorities did nothing.

“The Metropolitan Bus in the area of division of the district has accentuated it, the bus has not created it on its own. It has complicated the issue of vehicular fluency because there are areas in the district to which it is very difficult to arrive by car. That generates isolation and isolation increases problems of violence, problems of neglect. Garbage trucks in many places go against traffic because they have no other choice. Even the same mototaxis in many places go against traffic because there is no fluency. A number of problems have been accentuated there.” José Rodríguez.

For the neighbor of Zone C, Augusto Sanchez, the Metropolitan Bus was done by the Municipality of Lima without consultation of the neighbors of the Zone C and the bus line has separated them from the district. Now it is not possible anymore to go to the other side easily. He demands that the bus line must have been built underground. Finally, he adds that it is a structure that nobody likes, that has caused chaos because now for the people it’s hard to move from one side to the other.

These limits materialized in, for example, the Metropolitan bus line, can also be understood as the rigid boundaries of which Dikec (2001) speaks, which reinforce the domination of particular groups while segregating other population groups by means of the appropriation of space. In the following Figure 21, it can be seen the fences of the Metropolitan Bus that goes all along Barranco. The ways to cross the highroad in the middle of the city are located every two to four blocks. In the picture the road divides Zones B and C.

Figure 21: Road of the Metropolitan Bus and its fence on Bolognesi Avenue

Source: De la Cruz, David’s private collection. Taken on 07.03.2018

In Figure 22 it can also be seen the road of the Metropolitan Bus through Barranco, dividing Zones B and C (in the left and right of the picture respectively). This road is for exclusive use of the Metropolitan buses. It can also be seen that there are more ways for the vehicle traffic next to the bus line, which makes it even harder for pedestrian to cross from one side to the other one.

Figure 22: Road of the Metropolitan and its fence on Bolognesi Avenue

Source: De la Cruz, David’s private collection. Taken on 02.02.2018

5.1.3.2. The mototaxis

As an alternative to scarcity of efficient means of transport in the district, and with the aggravating factor of the negative effects of the Metropolitan Bus; in Zone C a type of informal transport of rural characteristics known as “mototaxis”, or moto-taxi, was developed. These are a private service by way of taxis but in this case, they are motorbikes adapted to carry more passengers in a small cabin on the back. These mototaxis are extremely dangerous because they turn around easily and in many cases their drivers are informal, irresponsible and even delinquent.

“The Mototaxis are a rural transport system. This is defined in the rules of procedure. Because they are made for places where there is no public transportation. Barranco is one of the most urbanized areas in Lima. What we have here is a problem of public transport neglect that should be ordered." José Rodríguez (architect and neighbor from the Zona A)

According to Zone C neighbors and to my own observation, these mototaxis usually go against traffic direction and there are even cases where drivers have raped women who took them. It is also very common as a vehicle used to rob pedestrians in the night. The municipality currently allows the transit of the mototaxis only in Zone C of the district and, in the limits of this with the other zones, there are cartels that warn that they cannot leave Zone C. Mototaxis then, are not allowed to go through Zones A and B where it is not possible to find them.

In the following image, Figure 23, it can be observed a peculiar mototaxi around the Butters Park in Zone C. This mototaxi in the picture is particularly different from the majority because this is meant to transport gas balloons for a private company. We can note that there are not any special security measures for the transportation of such a dangerous combustible. Again, in Barranco, this can only happen in the Zone C. The use of mototaxis is not officially regulated by the municipality. There are no authorized stops for motorcycle taxis, so they stop anywhere on the street.

Figure 23: Mototaxi around the Butters Park

Source: De la Cruz, David private collection. Taken on 05.02.2018

In the following image (Figure 24), we can see one of the signs that clearly warn about the prohibition for the mototaxis to cross into the other zones of Barranco. The photo was taken from Zone C. In the photo it can also be seen the Metropolitan bus line behind.

Additional important information that can be seen in the image is the poster of the company “Budget”. This is a private company of international capitals that is dedicated to the car rental business. The cheapest cost for renting one of these cars in their installations in Barranco was 90 US dollars per day per car (from when I asked them in February of the present year). Evidently, the public to which this company is directed are not the inhabitants of Zone C of Barranco; and yet its location is in Zone C, bordering on Zone B. It can be inferred that the lower cost of buying or renting space in Zone C was a reason to install its facilities there, even though if its public comes from other areas and consist of people with higher incomes, such as wealthier local classes or foreigners.

Figure 24: “Forbidden Mototaxis” sign in the Zone C boundary, limit with zone B.

Source: De la Cruz, David private collection. Taken on 05.02.2018

5.2. Gentrification and privatization in Barranco

According to Del Castillo (2017), the urban renewal process in Barranco have an impact on the use of the public space. For her, the private investors capture the public spaces through cooperative agreements with the local authorities claiming that the private investments are the only way to give maintenance to the public space in the district for the good of the inhabitants, even though this is not reflected in all the neighborhoods of Barranco. Therefore, the district represents a focus of attraction for residents of medium-high and high income levels, due to its central location and the high symbolic status of its Zone A. This generates that a wide range of construction companies are interested in investing in the area, generating pressure on the municipality to adopt favorable measures for the development of this real estate companies (del Castillo, 2017). For Jorge Hernández, Barranco currently does not have rural areas or vacant lots to make new constructions, so it only has two options to continue its growth: the densification of the already built areas or the demolition of existing households for the construction of higher buildings with greater inhabitant’s capacity (Interview with Jorge Hernández, officer of the Municipality of Barranco, 2018).

In an interview with Del Castillo, she mentions, that from the 1990’s, there has been a trend towards deregulation of private investment in Peru, which is part of a neoliberal bet, initially promoted by the government, but also influenced by international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund. Despite the different political tendencies of the governments that followed, this neoliberal trend keeps unchanged.

Accordingly, for Javier Alvarado (interviewee 1, mayor candidate and neighbor of Zone A), this neoliberal bet assumes that the private companies will be able to face in a better way the problems that the state companies are unable to face due to lack of resources or inadequate administration. This claim was also supported by Jorge Hernandez (interview 4) when he mentioned that the municipality of Barranco considers that the importance of promoting the private capital in the district answers to the fact that, since Barranco is a small district, the tax collection is insufficient to invest the necessary for the district development

However, in the practice, from my own experience living in Barranco and based on the information shown above, the private investment that the municipality promotes does not tackle the key problems required to reach the development of the whole district, but rather contribute to improve the means of life of only the richest neighbors. Likewise, this investment diminishes the availability of public spaces and impose limits to public behavior, affecting mainly the poorest neighbors.

Theoretically, the work agenda of the Municipality responds to the Concerted Development Plan of Barranco (2014) and a Participatory Budget (PP) from the national Government that is updated every year (Jorge Hernandez, interviewee 4). Despite that, according to the perception of interviewed neighbors from the three different zones, who have participated or followed closely the preparation of these documents; in practice, the citizen participation for their conformation is only apparent.

For example, José Rodríguez, candidate for mayor of Barranco and neighbor of Zone A, points out that in the addendum made to the Concerted Development Plan, made in 2015; just approximately 20% of the participants in the procedure were residents of Barranco, while the rest were workers of the municipality. Regarding that subject, Vilma Gonzales, neighbor of Zone B and opposition activist, points out that the municipality tends to avoid citizen participation through strategies such as not conducting communication campaigns, not convening meetings timely or not informing citizens about their rights. Augusto Sanchez, neighbor from Zone C, manifests that

43 even though he is always interested in political participation, he has never heard of the elaboration of any official document promoted by the local authorities.

These attitudes and ways of operating generate the perception that mayors and their teams actively seek to reduce public participation to avoid citizen control, which could be also a strategy that undercover acts of corruption between the municipal authorities and the private investors. In this regard, all the interviewees, with the exception of those to the people who worked for the municipality, mentioned that they have suspicions that the municipality was involved in illicit activities of this type.

According to José Rodríguez, there are not enough means to control the acts of mayors, one after the other) in Barranco. One example of that is that they are not obliged to follow the Concerted Development Plan of Barranco, elaborated with the citizens. He comments that, because of that, mayors have a broad margin for the improvisation that generates a favorable environment for illicit actions. Likewise, Vilma Gonzáles comments that this situation is aggravated due to the inadequate transparency in the control mechanisms. I could confirm, for example, that it is very hard to find official documents in the municipality website, which is mostly dedicated to advertisements on local taxes payments.

Furthermore, this way of operating of the municipality generates, among the majority of interviewees, a perception that mayors are not interested in working to improve the aspects that are important for citizens, such as the integration of the district or the recovering of the public space; but only in those that benefit private companies and their own interests. In this regard, for example, Vilma Gonzales recalls a case in which the municipality organized meetings in Zone C to favor an entrepreneur who had invested in apartment buildings in the area, a kind of private publicity supported by the municipality.

In Barranco the municipality’s support for private investment is produced by granting construction permits without major obstacles and directing municipal investment to improve those areas that are already of the greatest interest to construction companies. In this line, for example, José Rodríguez recalls the management of Martín del Pomar (mayor of Barranco from 2003 to 2006), as follows:

Martín del Pomar sold the market, sold municipal goods, ceded the beaches to construct restaurants, changed the zoning […], approved mototaxis. It was a disaster.

Complementarily, this way of operating of the municipalities is also manifested by using the municipal apparatus against citizens in favor of private interests.

The mayor uses the state apparatus at his whim. He denounces you, sends you supervision, give you fines, send you police officials. He uses the power apparatus to avenge himself. It is linked to the absolute autonomy that is given to the municipalities by decentralization national politics. But accountability is not demanded to them. (Del Castillo, 2017, specialist researcher in Barranco)

A factor that contributes to this way of operating of the municipality is the clientelism way of doing politics of its leaders. According to the interviewee Javier Alvarado, most of the electorate (the population who votes in the authorities’ elections) lives in Zone C, so getting the support of that area is key to winning the municipal elections. However, this area does not have representative leaders or an organization that is strong, so it tends to fall into individual opportunism, to the detriment of the population who is most in need in the district.

The bulk of the neighbors is in Zone C and they (the politicians) only remember them when there are municipal elections, they go and give them something and people receive them with the hope that they will do some work. Then the authorities do nothing. (Vilma Gonzáles, neighbor of zone B and opposition activist 2018)

In the same line, Javier Alvarado agrees that most of the leaders of that area participate in political campaigns to procure personal benefits. Likewise, José Rodríguez explains that this is the reason why the neighborhood councils, which should be representative of the population, end up being made up of people who is close to the mayor, who appear to work according to the interests of the population, but actually work according to the mayor’s agenda.

Javier Alvarado mentions an example of how the mentioned factors led into a loss of public space to the detriment of the poorest citizens. In the government of Antonio Mezarina (twice mayor of Barranco 2007-2010 and 2015-2018), a construction company made a building on public and intangible land located on Barranco’s cliff without a municipal permit, thus failing to comply with national construction laws. Subsequently, the municipality organized an auction, in which it exchanged the invaded land property for a house. At carrying out this action the Municipality incurred in administrative faults, since failed to obtain a certificate from the Costa Verde Project Authority (a national committee that is partly responsible for the coast areas) before giving the permit, as the law dictates. Although this fact was denounced, the corresponding authorities did not impose corrective or punitive measures and Barranco citizens become unable to enjoy of this former public space.

Figure 25: Aquamarina building on the cliff of Barranco

Source: Reportage Invasión frente al mar, Panorama (2013)11

11 Online source: Panorama ,(2013) Invasión frente al mar (Visited in 25-08-2018): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXRwGIkVROQ

In the figure above (25), it can be seen the dwelling building Aquamarina, which is the exemplary case mentioned by Javier Alvarado. According to the television newscast Panorama (2013), this building was built without permits of any authority, invaded 105 square meters of former public space and after that the land was given into auction by the municipal Government of Barranco so the owners could regularize the permits. Each apartment of this building costs about 2 million dollars. The title of the reportage in the image is Invasion in front of the sea.

Another emblematic case is the concession made of the district beaches. According to José Rodríguez, since the 1960’s the beaches of Barranco have been a center of integration of the district: “There you came and gathered with friends from Barranco and other neighborhoods. There you played soccer, bathed, and there even were fights, which is also part of the public space functions. There were people from everywhere, but now there is only a fancy restaurant there”.

For Javier Alvarado, with the promise of solving the economic problems of the district and promoting employment, the municipality granted 4 beaches in concession for 20 to 30 years. That concession violated the principle of intangibility of the area and destroyed an important public space. Likewise, it was granted without the corresponding procedures: without having the approval of the necessary number of councilors and with deficient environmental impact studies.

As in the previous case, these actions were denounced. In this opportunity the denunciations even arrived until the Congress of the Republic. In spite of that, as in the previous case, the accused remained unpunished.

The mayor of Barranco was denounced by the Comptroller, the Congress, and by myself; but nothing happened to him. People always recognize it, something does not work in the system. Criminal complaints go to the prosecutor’s office; they evaluate if there is merit for a trial. He never went to the courthouse. He has 4 complaints for actions against the municipality of Barranco, but no complaints are processed, they never arrive and then they are filed. (Interview with Javier Alvarado, political activist and neighbor of Zone A).

Furthermore, the economic benefits obtained were not significant to improve the situation of the district. According to the contract terms, the first five years the municipality will not receive any income for the concessions. After that time, it would receive 5% of the value of the rents of whatever was built there. This terms not only did not imply large revenues for the municipality, the projects did not have an impact on an increase in investment in the most needy areas of the district.

6. Conclusions and final reflections

6.1. Conclusions

In the beginning, the uneven development of the areas of Barranco responded to the development of the Metropolitan City of Lima in which the Limeños from the smaller and original center of the city founded a seaside resort town on the outskirts of the city. Then, after the war against Chile left the old resort of Chorrillos in rubble, the first urbanization of Barranco is given by middle and high class limeños who at the end of the 19th century built their summer houses in what is now the zone A of Barranco. The limits of the new district then responded to Republican, Colonial and pre-Colonial development, such as certain avenues that were originally Indian roads and later tracks of the train connecting Lima to Chorrillos through Barranco. The construction of these summer houses determined what is now known as the Monumental area of Barranco and the development of its public space was planned from the beginning with an active participation of its new inhabitants. Later, in the 1960’s and 1970’s, the rest of the district’s current area was occupied by artisans and workers who occupied areas that previously remained vacant and mostly used so far for cultivation. These zones constitute what now occupies the current Zone C of Barranco, beyond the previously mentioned limits and did not follow a strict process of urban planning.

In the recent development processes of the district, the differentiation of the original zones was streesed by the process of gentrification that increased the value of the real statement in the Zone A, both the land and buildings, focused on a middle and high-income class of people from Peru, as well as foreigners. This process has been systematically reinforced and promoted by an active role of the Municipality of Barranco, which has privileged private investments following an economic neoliberal logic that left aside the value of public space according to its daily use to prioritize the demands of the real estate market.

This valorization of the space in function of the private investments demands is justified by the local authorities with a discourse based on the presentation of the privatizations of public spaces as the only possible way to improve them since these investments are supposed to exceed the economic investment capacities of the municipality itself.

In this sense, the impact of this process is currently exposed in the sense that the areas with greater proximity to the sea and previously privileged material conditions have been favored in terms of public and private investment, which has exacerbated the material infrastructure differences of Barranco zones A and C; and also the social differences, in terms of access to good-quality public spaces to the inhabitants of Barranco, depending on the zone to which they belong.

It can be concluded that the characteristics of the historical and social development of the district, the recent gentrification process in Lima; and the role of the municipality as promoter of private initiatives, through politics of exclusion, have as a result a current defined distinction in the quality of public spaces that have serious impact on the recreation and the integration capacities of their own inhabitants in a differentiated way. Thus, this differentiation generates a material and a sort

47 imaginary division of the district into two parts clearly recognizable by its own inhabitants; two parts that in turn contribute to the process of shaping identities according to the environments with which a relationship of belonging and mutual exclusion is generated.

Even though Barranco is the smallest district of the city, it can be found a series of features and conditions that end up defining three different areas inside the district whose interplay constitutes a relation of marginalization and segregation between them. Even though the whole district is ruled by the same local governmental authorities, the clear differentiation among its neighborhoods reflected on their public spaces is continuously reinforced by a discriminating official zoning, stablished and recognized by the local authorities, that legitimize the correlation between quality of the public space and the spending power of the neighbors who live and compose them.

In this manner, the particular way in which the power relationships that intervene in the production and reproduction of the public space in Barranco contribute to stressing the class distinctions and the stratification in the district, where the less privileged ones have a minor capacity to access to high quality public spaces in comparison to their neighbors of higher socioeconomic level who live just across the street.

6.2. Final reflections

We can appreciate in Chapter 4 that the origin of the differentiation of the current zones A and C have their initial causes in the way in which the inhabitants of Barranco formed and created the district from its origins. Even though this research is an effort for the understanding of the correlation of the different socioeconomic levels of the Barranco inhabitants with the differentiation in quality of the public space in the different areas at present, there remain some questions that are beyond the scope of this study but that appear as important and interesting.

For example, it is worth asking if there is a direct relationship between the old inhabitants of Barranco at the end of the 19th century and the current inhabitants of the district: has there been a hereditary line of power over space in the district of Barranco? Did segregation occur more intensely in the origins of the district when the inhabitants who lived in the current Zone A were mostly aristocrats and those of the current Zone C were mostly craftsmen and laborers? We can assume that yes, but we do not have the necessary information to affirm such conditions.

Another important question that we can ask ourselves is what is the historical role of the authorities at the regional level -that is, the authorities of the city of Lima- and at the national level that they have developed in the consolidation process of the differences and divisions in Barranco: have these authorities been indifferent to the process of constitution of the district? Have they tried to soften the differences in access to public services in the district in any way? How much have they contributed to the deepening of the problems of appropriation of public space and segregation?

Finally, regarding the development of Barranco in relation to the city of Lima. It is evident in the light of the above-mentioned results that some of the material, social and cultural divisions in Barranco have been influenced or are a direct consequence of the actions of the inhabitants and authorities of the metropolitan Lima city. What then is their responsibility in the social problems of segregation and marginalization in Barranco? Is Barranco’s own existence an example of a particular type of political action inherited from the colonialist idiosyncrasy in Peru? What can the Barranco case tell us about the great problems of discrimination and segregation that occurred historically and still exists in one of the most unequal countries in the world? Is segregation currently mainly due to distinctions in class and gentrification or there exists other conditions - such as racial and origin differences, personal aspirations, political ideas and even the way of walking and feeling in love- that are equally or more important in the exercise of differentiation and segregation in Peru?

I sincerely hope that this research contributes, albeit in the most humble and small way, to the exploration and understanding of historical and current inequalities in Peru and thus be able to generate public policies that help identify and subvert the mechanisms and the spatial dynamics of injustice that generate and promote inequality and segregation in Barranco and even in Peru.

References

• Aull Davies, C. (2012) Reflexive Ethnography: A Guide to Researching Selves and Others, Edition 2. Routledge. • Ausejo, C. (2016) ‘Transformaciones en el paisaje marítimo de la Costa Verde: el caso de los baños de Barranco’, Revista de marina, no. 1, pp. 100-113, accessed 7 September 2018, . • Barreda, José (2017) ‘Mapa de área verde por habitante en el distrito de Barranco’. Blographos, accessed 15 June 2018, • Bryman, A. (2012) Social Research Methods 4th edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford

• Cortes Navarrete, E. (2013) ‘Barranco y su Metamorfosis Urbana’. Composición urbana, accessed 20 April 2018, • CPI (2017) ‘Peru: población 2017’, Market report, no. 7, accessed 20 June 2018, • Del Busto, J. (1985) Historia y leyenda del viejo Barranco, Editorial Lumen, Lima • Del Castillo, L. (2017) ‘Seeking for spatial justice: strategies, social effects and citizen responses of Barranco urban renewal process’, Master thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam

• Fainstein, S. (2010) The just city, Cornell University Press, Ithaca

• Günther Doering, J. and Instituto de Vivienda, Urbanismo y Construcción (IVUC) (2013), Barranco. Historia y arquitectura, Fondo Editorial Universidad San Martin de Porres, Lima • Hass, T. and Olsson, K. (2014) ‘Transmutation and reinvention of public spaces through ideals of urban planning and design’, Space and culture, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 59-68, DOI: 10.1177/1206331213493855. • INEI (2018) ‘Población 2000 al 2015’, accessed 16 July 2018, • Janoschka, M. and Sequera, J. (2016) ‘Gentrification in Latin America: addressing the politics and geographies of displacement’, Urban Geography, vol. 37, no. 8, pp. 1175- 1194, DOI: 10.1080/02723638.2015.1103995 • Lefebvre, H. (1991) The Production of Space, Blackwell, Oxford

• Lefebvre, H. (1993) The right to the city, Architecture Culture, pp. 1943-1968, in Anthology Ed. J Ockman, Rizzoli, New York, pp. 428-436

• Lopez-Morales, E., Bang Shin, H. and Lees, L. (2016) ‘Latin American gentrifications’, Urban Geography, vol. 37, no. 8, pp. 1091-1108, DOI: 10.1080/02723638.2016.1200335 • Low, S. and Smith, N. (Editors) (2006) The Politics of Public Space, Routledge, New York • Madanipour, A., Knierbein, S. and Degros, A. (2014) ‘A moment of transformation’, in Ali Madanipour, Sabine Knierbein, and Aglaée Degros (Editors) (2014) Public Space and the Challenges of Urban Transformation in Europe, Routledge, New York • Matos Mar, J., Castro Perez,́ R., Silva Vargas, Y. and Pimentel Prieto, J. (2010) Desborde popular y crisis del Estado, El Comercio, Lima • Mesclier, É., Piron, M. and Gluski, P. (2015). ‘Territoires et inclusion dans les périphéries de Lima (Pérou): une démarche exploratoire à partir de données sur le raccordement à l’eau et au tout-à-l’égout’, L’Espace géographique, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 273-288, accessed 10 June 2018, • Municipalidad de Barranco (2014) Concerted Development Plan of Barranco to 2021, accessed 10 August 2018, • Pinho, P. and Oliveira, V. (2009) ‘Cartographic analysis in urban morphology’, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, [e-journal], vol. 36, pp. 107-127, DOI:10.1068/b34035 • Rodrigo Fernandez, J. (1994) Barranco Eterno 1874-1994, Lima

Appendix

List of interviews

Duration of Date of the Code Name Type of interviewee the interview interview Political activist, specialist in Barranco's history Interviewee 1 Javier Alvarado 2:31 h 02/03/2018 and neighbor of Zone A Candidate for mayor of Barranco, architect and Interviewee 2 José Rodríguez 2:03 h 05/02/2018 neighbor of Zone A Interviewee 3 Lorena del Castillo Specialist researcher on gentrification in Barranco 1:36 h 03/03/2018 Interviewee 4 Jorge Hernández Officer of the Barranco Municipality 0:48 h 20/01/2018 Interviewee 5 Vilma Gonzáles Political activist and neighbor of Zone B 1:03 h 25/02/2018 Interviewee 6 Carlos Álvarez Officer of the Barranco Municipality 0:32 h 15/02/2018 Interviewee 7 Augusto Sanchez Political activist and neighbor of Zone C 0:35 h 07/03/2018 Interviewee 8 Rosa Silva Neighbor oz Zone C 0:38 h 02/02/2018