“capitalism pursues the creation of surplus value; that is the creation of a surplus product. and what this implies is that capitalism is always producing the conditions for urbanization to occur. in other words, there is interconnectivity between urbanization and capital accumulation. thus the growth of urbanization and capital growth have gone hand in hand historically simply because the urban is one of the ways in which the capitalists absorb their surplus product”. d. harvey
the other distance looks at san pedro garza garcia, one of the richest municipalities in latin america. i was interested in portraying the relationship between wealthy and middle-low class urbanization models and the direct relationship they have in a neoliberal capitalist state economic structure. this economic contrast influences segmentation of social life styles, pushing further and further away those who are not able to buy “good” land or build houses near the better-urbanized city. when one compares, the contrast points out a perverse reality of how both spaces are conformed; one is almost completely deprived of social cohesion space like parks and plazas, and nor are they fit for well designed transport infrastructure, hospitals or education centers, while the other model lives and expects, as their right to the city, to have these spaces and services available to them. ironically, both communities are completely entwined and dependant on each other; for the economically wealthy depend on the unending process of urbanization and on the labor of the people living in these far away “cities” to keep their capitals growing and the laborer class depend on them to acquire these new houses and make a living.
“the root cause of urban slumming seems to lie not in urban poverty but in urban wealth” gita verma