The city of Santiago is a sum of different cities, with specific realities and contexts very different from each other.
The pandemic generated by the global COVID-19 outbreak has done nothing but undress, once again, the serious gaps in inequality and urban and territorial inequities that afflict our model of urban development, and which are made especially sensitive in times of crisis such as the one that is going through the country and the whole world.
While it is true, in the first stage, the quarantine and confinement measures decreed by the Health Authority were concentrated in the communes of the high-income cone of the Metropolitan region, today we see – with particular concern – how these measures move towards the communes on the periphery of the city, which undoubtedly present very different habitability conditions to the communes that faced this challenge at first. In this regard, in recent days we have seen several studies that emphasize that the main complexity of these neighborhoods is overcrowding. However, while this is an obvious problem, it is neither the only one nor the most important.
The arguments set out here come from the data analysis of a survey applied by the Center for Sustainable Urban Development (CEDEUS) in September and October 2019, where results were collected on various aspects of the inhabitants of different types of neighborhoods of Santiago, who considered socioeconomic differences, but also of location, centrality and accessibility, as well as distribution of residential density.
Our argument is that overcrowding, shown on various maps that have emerged to characterize popular neighborhoods, is not the only problem that fills quarantines in these sectors. One aspect not visible on maps is the high intensity of the bonds between people to face the precariousness of daily life and the low presence of the State. The results show that in popular areas there is a greater frequency of neighborhood links and neighborhood interaction than in the rest of the city. This corresponds to areas of the pericenter and the periphery without social housing, in communes such as San Joaquín and Puente Alto, also, in those suburbs with social housing condominiums, such as Bajos de Mena in Puente Alto; Population Valle de la Esperanza in Maipú; Parinacota town in Quilicura, or also, the Villa Cordillera and Hortensias in San Bernardo. In all, about 80% of its inhabitants say they meet every day with someone they know when they take to the streets. In contrast, in other central or eastern sector neighbourhoods with a high presence of professionals, these figures are barely close to 50%.
In this same vein, but now consulting for visits made to the neighbors’ house, the results show a relatively similar trend. Specifically, for areas on the periphery that have social housing, 48.1% of people mention that they have visited a neighbor’s house for the past 12 months. This figure drops slightly to 41.6% in pericenter or periphery areas that do not have social housing and 30% in central areas with high residential density (Las Condes, Vitacura, La Reina and other communes).
On the other hand, consulting if they have resorted to their neighbors because they need some kind of help, the results go in the same direction, highlighting the periphery of the city as that area where the interaction, help and interdependence between neighbors occurs to the most extent. In addition, in terms of the intensity of the interactions, the results show that, again, it is the inhabitants of the periphery, and in particular those who inhabit neighborhoods with social housing, who show the greatest intensity of relations, far exceeding the reality of the rest of the city.
Also, with regard to neighborhood confidence, the results show a similar trend to the above, highlighting the high confidence and identification that the inhabitants of popular areas have with their neighbors. Specifically, about 70% of people living in social housing areas agree very much with the statement “I can trust my neighbors”, while only 20% say they disagree with such a claim. For their part, when consulting for the degree of identification they have with their neighbors, the results show that 63.3% agree with the statement “I identify with the people of this neighborhood”.
These high levels of social interaction are a consequence of strategies to cope with the homelessness and vulnerability of many of its inhabitants to the labour market or state aid. It represents the groups of neighbors that are organized to alleviate the effects of a development model that excludes them from the geography of opportunities of the city, where through the community, it is possible to fill the absence of the state in many spheres of daily life.
These phenomena that exceed physical or material aspects, but are also part of urban dynamics and the social construction of the city, must be considered in measures to address the pandemic. It is not a question of dispensing with the necessary quarantines, but of territorially focusing state aid, in places where social interaction is a matter of survival.
The content poured into this opinion column is the sole responsibility of its author, and does not necessarily reflect the editorial line or position of El Mostrador.
