Borderline Personality
Post on 06-Mar-2016
237 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Transcript
Shaping communication and (mis)behavior at the US/MX border
University of Michigan // Taubman College of Architecture and Urban PlanningPreliminary Site Research // UG4 Winter 2010 // Steven Christensen Studio
Diana BerryMelissa Bonfil
Antoinete DelvillanoCaitlin FisherJulia Gankin
Ryan GilesJoshua Hendershot
Taylor JacksonDennis KnoffCarly Leasia
Talia Pinto-HandlerAlexandria Stankovich
Maria Sviridova
PERSONALITYBORDERLINE
2
3
4
CONTENTS
6
Introduction Steven Christensen
10
GeographyTaylor Jackson
Talia Pinto-Handler
Maria Sviridova
26
PopulationCaitlin Fisher
Alexandria Stankovich
Carly Leasia
50
EconomyRyan Giles
Dennis Knoff
Joshua Hendershot
68
MobilityJulia Gankin
Diana Berry
86
SecurityAntoinette Delvillano
Melissa Bonfi l
100
Site Photos
5
6
Public Works vs. InfrastructureThe word infrastructure is still in its infancy, having only
recently become the primary way we refer to the physical
and organizational structures that allow our society to
operate. Although the term was used by the US military
to describe certain tactical projects in the 1940s, it was not
commonly used in a civilian context until 1970. Until that
time, these civic structures were referred to as public works,
a term with a very different political connotation. Whereas
the word infrastructure remains abstract in its relationship
to existing social systems (connoting only the physical or
some invisible substratum thereof) the term public works
suggests a constructed reflection of the needs, priorities,
values, and aspirations of an associated public.
Border as CenterThe San Diego – Tijuana Metropolitan Area is a territory of
continuous urban fabric that includes the city and suburbs
of San Diego in the US and Tijuana, Playas de Rosarito, and
Tecate in Mexico. The population of this region is just over 5
million, making it by far the largest bi-national community
in North America. Were the Mexican population included
in the US government’s rankings, this region would be
the 10th largest Metropolitan Statistical Area (larger than
the MSA that includes Boston, Cambridge, Quincy, and
the other cities that are part of that Massachusetts/New
Hampshire conurbation).
INTRODUCTION
Opposite top: View of San Ysidro Port of Entry from Mexico side of border. Middle: Brooklyn Bridge, an example of public works as a source of civic identity and pride. Bottom: Political demonstration in El Zocalo, Mexico’s primary public square, located at the center of Mexico City. 7
Paradoxically, the geographical center of this vibrant
metropolis is demarcated by a fissure in the urban fabric,
the US/Mexico border. While the cities that make up this bi-
national metropolis are linked in myriad ways, the border that
bisects them is a demarcation of extreme political contention
and a physical reminder of the economic disparities that
characterize the two halves of this community.
Acting like a massive funnel in this vast bisected territory,
the San Ysidro / Tijuana Port of Entry channels the majority
of its population from one side to the other. This is the
single busiest border crossing in the world, with over
40 million people traversing it each year. It is a bizarre
circulation machine, with pedestrian checkpoints, a trolley
station, freight train lines, and 24 vehicle inspection lanes
in one direction, eight in the other. It is this community’s
most prominent architectural ambassador, yet it speaks no
language.
From a functional standpoint alone, this piece of urban
infrastructure is a complete failure. Pedestrians must
navigate a confounding maze of switchbacks, bridges, and
circuitous paths. Those who attempt to drive north across
the border endure wait times of up to 5 hours, prompting
many frequent travelers to store a car on each side of the
border and cross by foot.
Perhaps even more problematic is the affective character of
this border station. It offers users an alienating experience
without comparison, an incredibly pessimistic outlook of
what is to be found on the other side.
Top: View of border fence separating Tijuana River Estuary on USA side (left) and the urban fabric of Tijuana (right). Middle: A makeshift international public space - Citizens of Mexico and the US practice yoga together across the border fence. Bottom: Porosity of border fence as it approaches the Pacific.
8
A New Civic SutureAs the busiest border crossing in the world, this site offers
a unique opportunity for Mexico and the US to replace a
banal and congested piece of infrastructure with a public
work that is a reflection of regional/national identity and
civic pride. Could this central piece of infrastructure be
the locus for an architectural intervention that reflects the
shared aspirations of North America’s largest bi-national
community; a counterpoint to the proposed ‘Triple Border
Fence’ it traverses? How can a gesture of alliance go beyond
simply whitewashing a highly contentious political divide
and actually improve the user experience? Should this
community, in understanding of its unique relationship to
the border, assert its connectedness in defiance of a divisive
national rhetoric through a public work that offers new
opportunities for occupation and political action?
Rather than lingering in the realm of utopian illusion, the
studio recognizes the continued existence of the border
and seeks tactical, speculative, and timely solutions to the
critical design problem of the threshold. Projects should
demonstrate how this piece of infrastructure functions as
part of a larger network of urban public spaces, pedestrian
and transit routes, and economic flows, and students
are encouraged to expand the current program of the
border crossing to afford other uses and offer new public
amenities.
Top: Pedestrian experience crossing border into Tijuana. Middle: Interactive public art installation by Mexican/Canadian artist Rafael Lozano-Hemmer questioning effects of surveillance technologies in public spaces. Bottom: Folk-art memorial to those who have died crossing the border.
9
10
GEOGRAPHY
Taylor Jackson
Talia Pinto-Handler
Maria Sviridova
11
1824 1836 1840
7681358184815481
1898 1970 present
creation of the united mexican states creation of the republic of texascreation of the republic of the rio grande
guatemala wins independence from the frca the republic of the rio grande rejoins mexico
the us gains texas as the 28th stateguatemala cedes soconusco & chiapas to mexico
canada gains the north miller county from the us the us receives the mexican cessation
the yucatán wins independence from mexico
the compromise of 1850 creates a neutral strip the dominion of canada is formed
the united states purchases alaska from russia
yukon territory joins the canadian provincesthe republic of hawaii is annexed by the us
newfoundland joins the canadian provincesmexico gains rico rico, texas from the us
canadian territory
united states territory
guatemalan territory
mexican territory
ceding republics
disputed territory
territory of the republic of texas
1840
Source: www.wikipedia.com
over two hundred years of geographical transformation of the borders between canada, the united states, mexico, and guatemala
12
TERRITORIAL EVOLUTION
1824 1836 1840
7681358184815481
1898 1970 present
creation of the united mexican states creation of the republic of texascreation of the republic of the rio grande
guatemala wins independence from the frca the republic of the rio grande rejoins mexico
the us gains texas as the 28th stateguatemala cedes soconusco & chiapas to mexico
canada gains the north miller county from the us the us receives the mexican cessation
the yucatán wins independence from mexico
the compromise of 1850 creates a neutral strip the dominion of canada is formed
the united states purchases alaska from russia
yukon territory joins the canadian provincesthe republic of hawaii is annexed by the us
newfoundland joins the canadian provincesmexico gains rico rico, texas from the us
canadian territory
united states territory
guatemalan territory
mexican territory
ceding republics
disputed territory
territory of the republic of texas
1840
Source: www.wikipedia.com
over two hundred years of geographical transformation of the borders between canada, the united states, mexico, and guatemala
13
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Body copy text:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do
eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut
enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco
laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure
dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu
fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non
proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est
laborum
upper otay reservoir
san diego
tijuana
riotijuana
otay river
tijuanawater shed
lowerotay reservoir
coronado island
san diego bay
sweetwaterriver
sweetwaterreservoir
designated green space
urban settlement
geological fault
urban settlement and its spatial relationship to green space and local geological faults
pacific ocean
Sources: SanDiego.gov, Google Maps, CDM
GEOLOGY AND LAND USE
16
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Body copy text:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do
eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut
enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco
laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure
dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu
fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non
proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est
laborum
upper otay reservoir
san diego
tijuana
riotijuana
otay river
tijuanawater shed
lowerotay reservoir
coronado island
san diego bay
sweetwaterriver
sweetwaterreservoir
designated green space
urban settlement
geological fault
urban settlement and its spatial relationship to green space and local geological faults
pacific ocean
Sources: SanDiego.gov, Google Maps, CDM 17
desert
grassland
scrubland
tropical scrubland
coniferous forest
border city
sister city
low population density
san diego
tijuana
imperial
mexicali
san luis
san luis r.c.
nogales
nogales
cochise county
naco
douglas
agua prieta
columbus
puerto
el paso
ciudad
presidio
ojinaga
ciudad acuña
del rio
piedras
eagle pass
laredo
nuevo laredo
reynosa
mcallen
waslaco
rio bravo matamoros
brownsville
nogales
nogales
el paso
ciudad
high population density
existing land biomes with respective settlement densities and border city locations
pacific ocean
gulf ofmexico
texas
new mexico
arizona
california
baja california
sonorachihuahua
coahuila
nuevo leontamaulipas
puerta
san ysidrootay mesa
mesa de otay
tecate
tecata
calexico
mexicali
calexico east
nuevo
vicente guerrero
andrade
san luis
san luis rio
lukeville
sonoyta
sasabe
la garita de naco
naco
douglas
agua prieta
santa teresa
san jerónimo
fabens
presidio
ojinaga
eagle pass
piedras
laredo
colombialaredo
nuevo laredo
roma
ciudad miguel
rio grande
ciudad
hidalgo
reynosa
progreso
nuevo progreso
brownsvillematamoros
colorado
gulf ofcalifornia
Sources: geonova, bts.gov, epa.gov
camargo
city
aleman
la ladrillera
negrasnegras
juárez
juárez
palomas
county
mexicali
mexico
18
GROUND COVER
desert
grassland
scrubland
tropical scrubland
coniferous forest
border city
sister city
low population density
san diego
tijuana
imperial
mexicali
san luis
san luis r.c.
nogales
nogales
cochise county
naco
douglas
agua prieta
columbus
puerto
el paso
ciudad
presidio
ojinaga
ciudad acuña
del rio
piedras
eagle pass
laredo
nuevo laredo
reynosa
mcallen
waslaco
rio bravo matamoros
brownsville
nogales
nogales
el paso
ciudad
high population density
existing land biomes with respective settlement densities and border city locations
pacific ocean
gulf ofmexico
texas
new mexico
arizona
california
baja california
sonorachihuahua
coahuila
nuevo leontamaulipas
puerta
san ysidrootay mesa
mesa de otay
tecate
tecata
calexico
mexicali
calexico east
nuevo
vicente guerrero
andrade
san luis
san luis rio
lukeville
sonoyta
sasabe
la garita de naco
naco
douglas
agua prieta
santa teresa
san jerónimo
fabens
presidio
ojinaga
eagle pass
piedras
laredo
colombialaredo
nuevo laredo
roma
ciudad miguel
rio grande
ciudad
hidalgo
reynosa
progreso
nuevo progreso
brownsvillematamoros
colorado
gulf ofcalifornia
Sources: geonova, bts.gov, epa.gov
camargo
city
aleman
la ladrillera
negrasnegras
juárez
juárez
palomas
county
mexicali
mexico
19
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Body copy text:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do
eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut
enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco
laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure
dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu
fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non
proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est
laborum
0-10 inches
10-20 inches
20-40 inches
40-60 inches
60-80 inches
waterways
low population density
high population density
pacific ocean
gulf ofcalifornia
gulf ofmexico
gila little colorado river
conchos
rio grande
pecos
falcon
lake amistad
examining differing levels of average annual rainful, local waterways, and their impact on settlement density
border
colorado
brazos
asuncion
magdalena
trinity
colorado
red river
sources: geonova, ag.arizona.edu, bts.gov, epa.gov,
internationalreservoir
PRECIPITATION
20
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Body copy text:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do
eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut
enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco
laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure
dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu
fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non
proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est
laborum
0-10 inches
10-20 inches
20-40 inches
40-60 inches
60-80 inches
waterways
low population density
high population density
pacific ocean
gulf ofcalifornia
gulf ofmexico
gila little colorado river
conchos
rio grande
pecos
falcon
lake amistad
examining differing levels of average annual rainful, local waterways, and their impact on settlement density
border
colorado
brazos
asuncion
magdalena
trinity
colorado
red river
sources: geonova, ag.arizona.edu, bts.gov, epa.gov,
internationalreservoir
21
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Body copy text:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do
eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut
enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco
laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure
dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu
fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non
proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est
laborum
* refer to hydrology map for location of the colorado river
solar chart
diagram of the suns path on the 1st of april across
san vicentereservoir
miramar reservoir
lakemurray
lakejennings
el capitanreservoir
lovelandreservoir
upper otayreservoir
lower otayreservoir
otay river
sweetwater river
sweetwaterreservoir
water pump
water treatment plant
aqueduct
pipeline
proposed pump station
proposed pipeline
settlement
municipality of san diego
municipiality oftijuana
well
riotijuana
internationalwastewater
treatment plan
abelardo l. rodrigues dam
potential future waste water treatment plant
potential future desalination plant
pumping equipment
Sources: www.sandiego.gov/water, www.epa.gov, CDM
The metropolitan water district of Southern California provides water for the municipality of San Diego, drawing from the Colorado River and from Northern California via one of two aqueducts in Riverside County. Pipelines terminate at the Otay Reservoir. Tijuana’s water sources are surface water from the Colorado River as well as water from underground aquifers.
WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
22
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Body copy text:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do
eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut
enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco
laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure
dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu
fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non
proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est
laborum
* refer to hydrology map for location of the colorado river
solar chart
diagram of the suns path on the 1st of april across
san vicentereservoir
miramar reservoir
lakemurray
lakejennings
el capitanreservoir
lovelandreservoir
upper otayreservoir
lower otayreservoir
otay river
sweetwater river
sweetwaterreservoir
water pump
water treatment plant
aqueduct
pipeline
proposed pump station
proposed pipeline
settlement
municipality of san diego
municipiality oftijuana
well
riotijuana
internationalwastewater
treatment plan
abelardo l. rodrigues dam
potential future waste water treatment plant
potential future desalination plant
pumping equipment
Sources: www.sandiego.gov/water, www.epa.gov, CDM
The metropolitan water district of Southern California provides water for the municipality of San Diego, drawing from the Colorado River and from Northern California via one of two aqueducts in Riverside County. Pipelines terminate at the Otay Reservoir. Tijuana’s water sources are surface water from the Colorado River as well as water from underground aquifers.
23
1 in
128 ft
latitude: 32.54longitude: -117.03
stereographic diagram of the suns path on the 1st of april across the san ysidro - tijuana border crossing station and thesurrounding buildings
n
15°
30°
45°
60°
75°
90°
105°
120°
135°
150°
165°
180°
195°
210°
225°
240°
255°
270°
285°
300°
315°
330°
345°
10°
20°
30°
40°
50°
60°
70°
80°
89
1011121314151617
1st jan
1st feb
1st mar
1st apr
1st may
1st jun1st jul
1st aug
1st sep
1st oct
1st nov
1st dec
sources: bing map, ecotect
SOLAR CHART
24
1 in
128 ft
latitude: 32.54longitude: -117.03
stereographic diagram of the suns path on the 1st of april across the san ysidro - tijuana border crossing station and thesurrounding buildings
n
15°
30°
45°
60°
75°
90°
105°
120°
135°
150°
165°
180°
195°
210°
225°
240°
255°
270°
285°
300°
315°
330°
345°
10°
20°
30°
40°
50°
60°
70°
80°
89
1011121314151617
1st jan
1st feb
1st mar
1st apr
1st may
1st jun1st jul
1st aug
1st sep
1st oct
1st nov
1st dec
sources: bing map, ecotect 25
26
POPULATION
Caitlin Fisher
Alexandria Stankovich
Carly Leasia
27
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Body copy text:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do
eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut
enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco
laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure
dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu
fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non
proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est
laborum
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Source: Censo de Poblacion y Vivienda VII
ProportionCity Persons per sq. mi. State Persons per sq. mi.
Cities are known for their density; their ability to fit and accommodate millions of people into such a small area is part of what makes them so impressive.
Population density by itself does not say much about a city until it is contrasted to the population density of the surrounding area. A city whose density is much larger than the state it is associated with is much more amazing than a city whose density is similar to its state. California is a great example of this. It is a much denser state, and although the individual cities of Los Angeles and San Diego are much denser than most, California is really what is drawing people to live there.
On the other hand, the city of Minneapolis’ popula-tion density is about a hundred times greater than Minnesota’s. This situation is much more intriguing: what factors are drawing all these people to this particular area?
California California
Texas Minnesota
Illinois Michigan Maryland New York
Baja CaliforniaMexico City
234 234
8065
223179542409105
1699
San DiegoLas Angeles
AustinMinneapolis
ChicagoDetroit
Washington D.C.New York City
TijuanaMexico City
1612820525586722488465719776
274404155
15420
1.483.343.205.722.643.422.404.622.58
1.7
Persons Per Square Mile
0 - 6.4
6.5 - 11.6
11.7 - 16.0
16.1 - 21.0
21.1 - 27.7
27.8 - 35.7
35.8 - 44.4
44.5 - 54.7
54.8 - 65.7
65.8 - 79.2
79.3 - 93.0
93.1 - 106.2
106.2 - 121.0
121.1 - 138.5
138.6 - 161.2
161.3 - 189.4
189.5 - 224.4
224.5 - 270.4
270.5 - 338.9
339.0 - 432.2
432.3 - 541.1
541.2 - 709.7
709.8 - 964.4
964.5 - 1,369.0
1,369.1 - 2,144.4
2,144.5 - 3,542.2
3,542.3 - 6,025.6
6,025.7 - 9,264.3
9,264.4 - 19,479.7
19,479.8 - 35,394.1
35,394.2 - 50,747.8
50,747.9 - 89,565.0
MINNEAPOLIS
DETROIT NEW YORK
AUSTIN
LOS ANGELES
CHICAGO
WASHINGTON DC
MEXICO CITY
SAN DIEGO
TIJUANA
State population density
City population density
Proportion: City population density vs. State population density
POPULATION DENSITY
28
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Body copy text:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do
eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut
enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco
laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure
dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu
fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non
proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est
laborum
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Source: Censo de Poblacion y Vivienda VII
ProportionCity Persons per sq. mi. State Persons per sq. mi.
Cities are known for their density; their ability to fit and accommodate millions of people into such a small area is part of what makes them so impressive.
Population density by itself does not say much about a city until it is contrasted to the population density of the surrounding area. A city whose density is much larger than the state it is associated with is much more amazing than a city whose density is similar to its state. California is a great example of this. It is a much denser state, and although the individual cities of Los Angeles and San Diego are much denser than most, California is really what is drawing people to live there.
On the other hand, the city of Minneapolis’ popula-tion density is about a hundred times greater than Minnesota’s. This situation is much more intriguing: what factors are drawing all these people to this particular area?
California California
Texas Minnesota
Illinois Michigan Maryland New York
Baja CaliforniaMexico City
234 234
8065
223179542409105
1699
San DiegoLas Angeles
AustinMinneapolis
ChicagoDetroit
Washington D.C.New York City
TijuanaMexico City
1612820525586722488465719776
274404155
15420
1.483.343.205.722.643.422.404.622.58
1.7
Persons Per Square Mile
0 - 6.4
6.5 - 11.6
11.7 - 16.0
16.1 - 21.0
21.1 - 27.7
27.8 - 35.7
35.8 - 44.4
44.5 - 54.7
54.8 - 65.7
65.8 - 79.2
79.3 - 93.0
93.1 - 106.2
106.2 - 121.0
121.1 - 138.5
138.6 - 161.2
161.3 - 189.4
189.5 - 224.4
224.5 - 270.4
270.5 - 338.9
339.0 - 432.2
432.3 - 541.1
541.2 - 709.7
709.8 - 964.4
964.5 - 1,369.0
1,369.1 - 2,144.4
2,144.5 - 3,542.2
3,542.3 - 6,025.6
6,025.7 - 9,264.3
9,264.4 - 19,479.7
19,479.8 - 35,394.1
35,394.2 - 50,747.8
50,747.9 - 89,565.0
MINNEAPOLIS
DETROIT NEW YORK
AUSTIN
LOS ANGELES
CHICAGO
WASHINGTON DC
MEXICO CITY
SAN DIEGO
TIJUANA
State population density
City population density
Proportion: City population density vs. State population density
29
Municipality denser than state average
Municipality less dense than state
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Municipality Persons / sq. mi.StatePersons / sq. mi. Proportion
CaliforniaCalifornia
ArizonaTexasTexasTexasTexasTexasTexas
234 234
56 8080 8080 8080
San DiegoYuma
Santa CruzEl Paso
BrewsterWebb
ZapataHidalgo
Cameron
16123535
7121
5812
363370
1.48.62.62
8.94.02.72.15
4.564.64
UNITED STATES
10510534 34.234.243999999
39.431.5317.4020.50.809.4621.132.973.04
Proportion
Baja CaliforniaBaja CaliforniaSonoraChihuahuaChihuahuaCoahuilaTamaulipasTamaulipasTamaulipas
TijuanaMexicaliNogalesJuarezPraxedis GuerreroPiedras NegrasNuevo LaredoReynosaMatamores
4155162593701274082085293300
ProportionMunicipality Population Density:
State Population Density
MEXICOMunicipalityPersons / sq. mi.StatePersons / sq. mi.
Border conditions cannot be generated by only looking at the municipalities lining this political division. A comparison must be drawn between these municipalities and their surrounding area in order to answer the question of what makes them so unique?
In order to generalize the density of inhabitance along the border for the United States and Mexico, a proportion must be set up between the population densities of the municipalities and the population density of the state in which it is contained. A proportion less than one demonstrates that the state’s population is more concentrated away from the border. A proportion greater than one demonstrates that the state’s population is more concentrated near the border.
For the most part, it seems that Mexico’s population seems to crowd near the border, while the people of the United State’s appear to be avoiding the border area. Of course, there are exceptions on both sides, such as Anahuac, Nuevo Leon and El Paso, Texas, but these numbers help provide an image as to how the two countries view one another and how this view affects where its people congregate.
Source: Censo de Poblacion y Vivienda VII
0 - 6.4
50,747.9 - 89,565
PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE
Note: this table is a side-by-side comparison of neighbor-ing municipalities from each side of the border.
30
POPULATION DENSITY
Municipality denser than state average
Municipality less dense than state
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Municipality Persons / sq. mi.StatePersons / sq. mi. Proportion
CaliforniaCalifornia
ArizonaTexasTexasTexasTexasTexasTexas
234 234
56 8080 8080 8080
San DiegoYuma
Santa CruzEl Paso
BrewsterWebb
ZapataHidalgo
Cameron
16123535
7121
5812
363370
1.48.62.62
8.94.02.72.15
4.564.64
UNITED STATES
10510534 34.234.243999999
39.431.5317.4020.50.809.4621.132.973.04
Proportion
Baja CaliforniaBaja CaliforniaSonoraChihuahuaChihuahuaCoahuilaTamaulipasTamaulipasTamaulipas
TijuanaMexicaliNogalesJuarezPraxedis GuerreroPiedras NegrasNuevo LaredoReynosaMatamores
4155162593701274082085293300
ProportionMunicipality Population Density:
State Population Density
MEXICOMunicipalityPersons / sq. mi.StatePersons / sq. mi.
Border conditions cannot be generated by only looking at the municipalities lining this political division. A comparison must be drawn between these municipalities and their surrounding area in order to answer the question of what makes them so unique?
In order to generalize the density of inhabitance along the border for the United States and Mexico, a proportion must be set up between the population densities of the municipalities and the population density of the state in which it is contained. A proportion less than one demonstrates that the state’s population is more concentrated away from the border. A proportion greater than one demonstrates that the state’s population is more concentrated near the border.
For the most part, it seems that Mexico’s population seems to crowd near the border, while the people of the United State’s appear to be avoiding the border area. Of course, there are exceptions on both sides, such as Anahuac, Nuevo Leon and El Paso, Texas, but these numbers help provide an image as to how the two countries view one another and how this view affects where its people congregate.
Source: Censo de Poblacion y Vivienda VII
0 - 6.4
50,747.9 - 89,565
PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE
Note: this table is a side-by-side comparison of neighbor-ing municipalities from each side of the border.
31
Source: Sources: www.bing.com/maps, www.stephenrahn.com/.../2009/01/border.jpg, www.frederickdesignstudio.com/.../Tijuana_house.jpg
building footprintinformal settlement
Development along the San Diego and Tijuana border not only displays a separation between two cultures, but serves as a division between urban strategies and building typologies. Tijuana pushes its dense city against the border, compared to San Ysidro which city center lies further north. The buildings near the border on the U.S. side are larger pieces of an infrastruc-ture system of transportation and commerce, opposed to Tijuana where people may live and work directly along the fence.
San Diego County is constantly revising its infrastructure to serve its spread of McMansions. As highways make room for larger developments, the existing fabric becomes dispensable.
Sorkin, Michael, ed. Indefensible Space: The Architecture of the National Insecurity State. New York: Routledge, 2007. 122-124
Materials and sometimes even pre-fabricated houses are shipped across the border, welcomed by Tijuana’s residents. The hand-me-down houses from San Diego have created a new typology in the bottom-up growth of Tijuana’s informal settle-ments. Placed upon stilts, the recycled houses create new homes and new spaces below to meet arising demands of the growing community. Garage doors and recycled tires are transformed into walls, and the temporary dwellings multiply to form dense communities. These settlements strive to become permanent by profiting on the ephemeral material transported from across the border. Both San Diego and Tijuana benifit from the relationship of recycled urban growth.
Border fence between San Ysidro and Tijuana, looking East. Teddy Cruz exhibit of stilt houses in Tijuana.
32
DEVELOPMENT DENSITY
Source: Sources: www.bing.com/maps, www.stephenrahn.com/.../2009/01/border.jpg, www.frederickdesignstudio.com/.../Tijuana_house.jpg
building footprintinformal settlement
Development along the San Diego and Tijuana border not only displays a separation between two cultures, but serves as a division between urban strategies and building typologies. Tijuana pushes its dense city against the border, compared to San Ysidro which city center lies further north. The buildings near the border on the U.S. side are larger pieces of an infrastruc-ture system of transportation and commerce, opposed to Tijuana where people may live and work directly along the fence.
San Diego County is constantly revising its infrastructure to serve its spread of McMansions. As highways make room for larger developments, the existing fabric becomes dispensable.
Sorkin, Michael, ed. Indefensible Space: The Architecture of the National Insecurity State. New York: Routledge, 2007. 122-124
Materials and sometimes even pre-fabricated houses are shipped across the border, welcomed by Tijuana’s residents. The hand-me-down houses from San Diego have created a new typology in the bottom-up growth of Tijuana’s informal settle-ments. Placed upon stilts, the recycled houses create new homes and new spaces below to meet arising demands of the growing community. Garage doors and recycled tires are transformed into walls, and the temporary dwellings multiply to form dense communities. These settlements strive to become permanent by profiting on the ephemeral material transported from across the border. Both San Diego and Tijuana benifit from the relationship of recycled urban growth.
Border fence between San Ysidro and Tijuana, looking East. Teddy Cruz exhibit of stilt houses in Tijuana.
33
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Body copy text:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do
eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut
enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco
laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure
dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu
fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non
proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est
laborum
In comparison to national averages, borders cities create unique politcal, economic and social regions where demo-graphics are dramatically shaped by those of the bordering country. The US-Mexico border provides a clear example of this sister-city relationship. As we infer from the analysis of multiple variables including distribution of resources, employment, and economic opportunities, Mexico appears to have developed a kind of parasitic dependance on the US. If we assume that people will move towards a place of greatest opportunity, the large swells of population along the Mexican side of the border proves that proximity allows for greater access to these positive impacts and “excesses.” The opposite situation becomes evidence on the other side of the border, where the population of US sister cites are extremely small. US populations along the Mexican border consist primarily of Hispanic communities, living in poverty with limited access to resources such as education. In order to understand this relationship between to sister-cities, we look at the comparison of municipal to national average; and while Mexico, as a country, is ranked far below the US on the Human Development Index, Mexico’s border cities are doing far better than other Mexican cities. Unfortunately, the opposite is generally true for the US border cities. As you continue, keep in mind the cross-culture dynamic of these sister cities as a framework through which to assess the physical and political boundary between the United States and Mexico.
Juarez, Chihuahua
Ojinage, Chihuahua
Acuna, Coahuila
Piedras Negras, Coahuila
Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas
Reynosa, Tamaulipas
Matamoros, Tamaulipas
McAllen, Texas
Brownsville, Texas
Nogales, SonoraNaco, Sonora
San Diego, California
Calexico, California
Yuma, Arizona
Nogales, Arizona
Naco, Arizona Columbu s, New Mexico
El Paso, Texas
Presidio, Texas
Del Rio, Texas
Eagle Pass, Texas
Laredo, Texas
Tijuana, Baja California
Mexicali, Baja California
San Luis Rio Colorado, Baja California
Puerto Palomas, Chihuahua
Source: www.census.gov/main/www/can2000.htmlSource: www.coserve.org/disc/mapsgall.html
Estados Unidos Mexicanos 761,601 111,211,789 ---$14,300 40% Roman Catholic0.854 (53/182)
Area
Area Population HispanicForeign Born High SchoolIncome per CapitaBelow Poverty Line Religion
3,537,441 281,421,906
12.5% 11.1%
28.6% $21,587 12.4%
Human Development Index (Rank) 0.956 (15/182)
Human Development Index (Rank) No National Religion
Country United States of America
Human Development Index: a measurement of development based on three dimensions of life
relationship between life expectancy, adult literacy and GDP
Population HispanicForeign Born High SchoolIncome per CapitaBelow Poverty Line
City State Area (sq.mi.) Population Hispanic Foreign Born High School Diploma Income per capita Below Poverty
San Diego California 324.3 1,256,951 25.40% 25.7% 82.80% $23,609 14.6%Calexico California 6.2 27,109 95.3% 51.2% 16.4% $9,981 25.7%
Naco Arizona 3.4 833 82.5% 31.6% 24.5% $9,169 34.2%Columbus New Mexico 2.8 1,765 83.3% 45.3% 14.4% $6,721 57.1%
Presidio Texas 2.6 4,167 94.1% 49.2% 15.6% $7,098 43.0%Del Rio Texas 15.4 33,867 81% 24.1% 24.8% $12,199 27.0%Eagle Pass Texas 7.4 22,413 94.9% 35.7% 20.0% $11,414 29.0%
Brownsville Texas 83.0 139,722 91.3% 31.5% 17.2% $9,762 36.0%
34
SISTER CITIES
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Body copy text:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do
eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut
enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco
laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure
dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu
fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non
proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est
laborum
In comparison to national averages, borders cities create unique politcal, economic and social regions where demo-graphics are dramatically shaped by those of the bordering country. The US-Mexico border provides a clear example of this sister-city relationship. As we infer from the analysis of multiple variables including distribution of resources, employment, and economic opportunities, Mexico appears to have developed a kind of parasitic dependance on the US. If we assume that people will move towards a place of greatest opportunity, the large swells of population along the Mexican side of the border proves that proximity allows for greater access to these positive impacts and “excesses.” The opposite situation becomes evidence on the other side of the border, where the population of US sister cites are extremely small. US populations along the Mexican border consist primarily of Hispanic communities, living in poverty with limited access to resources such as education. In order to understand this relationship between to sister-cities, we look at the comparison of municipal to national average; and while Mexico, as a country, is ranked far below the US on the Human Development Index, Mexico’s border cities are doing far better than other Mexican cities. Unfortunately, the opposite is generally true for the US border cities. As you continue, keep in mind the cross-culture dynamic of these sister cities as a framework through which to assess the physical and political boundary between the United States and Mexico.
Juarez, Chihuahua
Ojinage, Chihuahua
Acuna, Coahuila
Piedras Negras, Coahuila
Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas
Reynosa, Tamaulipas
Matamoros, Tamaulipas
McAllen, Texas
Brownsville, Texas
Nogales, SonoraNaco, Sonora
San Diego, California
Calexico, California
Yuma, Arizona
Nogales, Arizona
Naco, Arizona Columbu s, New Mexico
El Paso, Texas
Presidio, Texas
Del Rio, Texas
Eagle Pass, Texas
Laredo, Texas
Tijuana, Baja California
Mexicali, Baja California
San Luis Rio Colorado, Baja California
Puerto Palomas, Chihuahua
Source: www.census.gov/main/www/can2000.htmlSource: www.coserve.org/disc/mapsgall.html
Estados Unidos Mexicanos 761,601 111,211,789 ---$14,300 40% Roman Catholic0.854 (53/182)
Area
Area Population HispanicForeign Born High SchoolIncome per CapitaBelow Poverty Line Religion
3,537,441 281,421,906
12.5% 11.1%
28.6% $21,587 12.4%
Human Development Index (Rank) 0.956 (15/182)
Human Development Index (Rank) No National Religion
Country United States of America
Human Development Index: a measurement of development based on three dimensions of life
relationship between life expectancy, adult literacy and GDP
Population HispanicForeign Born High SchoolIncome per CapitaBelow Poverty Line
City State Area (sq.mi.) Population Hispanic Foreign Born High School Diploma Income per capita Below Poverty
San Diego California 324.3 1,256,951 25.40% 25.7% 82.80% $23,609 14.6%Calexico California 6.2 27,109 95.3% 51.2% 16.4% $9,981 25.7%
Naco Arizona 3.4 833 82.5% 31.6% 24.5% $9,169 34.2%Columbus New Mexico 2.8 1,765 83.3% 45.3% 14.4% $6,721 57.1%
Presidio Texas 2.6 4,167 94.1% 49.2% 15.6% $7,098 43.0%Del Rio Texas 15.4 33,867 81% 24.1% 24.8% $12,199 27.0%Eagle Pass Texas 7.4 22,413 94.9% 35.7% 20.0% $11,414 29.0%
Brownsville Texas 83.0 139,722 91.3% 31.5% 17.2% $9,762 36.0%
35
Source: INEGISource: SANDAG
Employment within the San Diego-Tijuana metopolitan area is higher than national averages of both the US and Mexico. This data must be compared with population informa-tion in order to produce an accurate analysis of the area. The population density of Tijuana is far greater than San Ysidro near the border crossing; therefore, while employment rates appear similar, those on the Mexican side have far more employment opportunities than those on the US side. While employment opportunities are more plentiful on the Mexico side, we must
time employments. The types of employment and associated
Diego-Tijuana region, the government is the leading employer for US citizens, while services and manufacturing make up half of the positions held by Mexican workers.
Employed Less Than Full Time
Employed High Income
55% to 93%
93% to 95%
95% to 97%
97% to 98%
98% to 100%
0% to 19%
19% to 22%
22% to 26%
26% to 40%
40% to 100%
0% to 4%
4% to 8%
8% to 13%
13% to 22%
22% to 69%
Tijuana San Diego Corridor
42.1% 22.3% 28.2%
Tijuana San Diego Corridor US Mexico
97.7% 94.1% 95.1% 89.2% 94.6%
Tijuana San Diego Corridor
16.3% 13.2% 14.1%
[1] US Employment Distribution (% of pop) [2] Mexico Employment Distribution (% of pop)
US data from SANDAG, 1995; Mexico data from INEGI, 1997
In Mexico, service and manufacturing make up over 50% of the employment distribution. It is also interesting to note that a
Retail trade is similarly respresented
Government (22%)
Manufacturing (28.3%)
Services (30.8%)
Retail Trade (18%)
Category US (% of pop) Mexico (% of pop)
Agriculture <1 0.3
Retail Trade 18 17.9
Construction <1 5.6
Services 11 30.8
Manufacturing 13 28.3
Government 22 2.7
Transport/Com 11 5.8
Finance/Real Est 3 -
Wholesale 13 -
Self-Employed 8 -
Extractive Ind - 0.5
Employed in US - 8.1
On the US side of the San Diego-Tijuana metropolitan area, government, speci�cally the US border patrol, is the largest employer. Retail trade is the second highest, which suggests that San Diego is a high commercial ozne, perhaps due to its reputation as a tourist destination.
36
EMPLOYMENT
Source: INEGISource: SANDAG
Employment within the San Diego-Tijuana metopolitan area is higher than national averages of both the US and Mexico. This data must be compared with population informa-tion in order to produce an accurate analysis of the area. The population density of Tijuana is far greater than San Ysidro near the border crossing; therefore, while employment rates appear similar, those on the Mexican side have far more employment opportunities than those on the US side. While employment opportunities are more plentiful on the Mexico side, we must
time employments. The types of employment and associated
Diego-Tijuana region, the government is the leading employer for US citizens, while services and manufacturing make up half of the positions held by Mexican workers.
Employed Less Than Full Time
Employed High Income
55% to 93%
93% to 95%
95% to 97%
97% to 98%
98% to 100%
0% to 19%
19% to 22%
22% to 26%
26% to 40%
40% to 100%
0% to 4%
4% to 8%
8% to 13%
13% to 22%
22% to 69%
Tijuana San Diego Corridor
42.1% 22.3% 28.2%
Tijuana San Diego Corridor US Mexico
97.7% 94.1% 95.1% 89.2% 94.6%
Tijuana San Diego Corridor
16.3% 13.2% 14.1%
[1] US Employment Distribution (% of pop) [2] Mexico Employment Distribution (% of pop)
US data from SANDAG, 1995; Mexico data from INEGI, 1997
In Mexico, service and manufacturing make up over 50% of the employment distribution. It is also interesting to note that a
Retail trade is similarly respresented
Government (22%)
Manufacturing (28.3%)
Services (30.8%)
Retail Trade (18%)
Category US (% of pop) Mexico (% of pop)
Agriculture <1 0.3
Retail Trade 18 17.9
Construction <1 5.6
Services 11 30.8
Manufacturing 13 28.3
Government 22 2.7
Transport/Com 11 5.8
Finance/Real Est 3 -
Wholesale 13 -
Self-Employed 8 -
Extractive Ind - 0.5
Employed in US - 8.1
On the US side of the San Diego-Tijuana metropolitan area, government, speci�cally the US border patrol, is the largest employer. Retail trade is the second highest, which suggests that San Diego is a high commercial ozne, perhaps due to its reputation as a tourist destination.
37
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Body copy text:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do
eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut
enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco
laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure
dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu
fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non
proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est
laborum
11Source: U.S. Census Bureau Source: Censo de Poblacion y Vivienda VII
PROPORTIONCITY % POVERTY
Urban poverty is one of the most major consequences of living in such a dense area. The poverty level in the United States is $20,614 and 12.4% of Americans are living below this line. In all of the U.S. cities shown, the poverty level is almost double the national average. On the other hand, Mexico’s poverty level is 10.42 pesos/day which is equivelent to an annual salary of $292. The Mexican cities shown lie generously under the national line.
Mexico’s poverty rate is based on the United Nation’s standards, about a dollar a day, and these standards are much less than the United State’s. Therefore, it is not reasonable to compare the Mexican percentages to the American percentages, but instead comparing the ratios of each city’s level to the national level. It is obvious that Mexico’s quality of life in urban areas is far different than that of the U.S. This is because cities offer so many more oppor-tunities, therefore Mexico has a huge rural poverty problem that they have yet to resolve.
San DiegoLos Angeles
AustinMinneapolis
ChicagoDetroit
Washington D.C.New York City
TijuanaMexico City
15.0%22.0%14.0%17.0%
20.0%26.0%20.0%21.0%2.34%
9.2%
1.171.781.16
1.361.582.101.621.71.169.67
0%-10%
MINNEAPOLIS
DETROIT NEW YORK
LOS ANGELES
WASHINGTON DC
SAN DIEGO
TIJUANA
poverty level of city is below national average
poverty level of city is above national average
PROPORTIONCITY POVERTY LEVEL:NATIONAL POVERTY LEVEL
10%-15%
15%-20%
20%-25%
25%-30%
30%-35%
35%-40%
40%-100%
AUSTIN
CHICAGO
MEXICO CITY
PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE IN POVERTY
38
POVERTY
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Body copy text:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do
eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut
enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco
laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure
dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu
fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non
proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est
laborum
11Source: U.S. Census Bureau Source: Censo de Poblacion y Vivienda VII
PROPORTIONCITY % POVERTY
Urban poverty is one of the most major consequences of living in such a dense area. The poverty level in the United States is $20,614 and 12.4% of Americans are living below this line. In all of the U.S. cities shown, the poverty level is almost double the national average. On the other hand, Mexico’s poverty level is 10.42 pesos/day which is equivelent to an annual salary of $292. The Mexican cities shown lie generously under the national line.
Mexico’s poverty rate is based on the United Nation’s standards, about a dollar a day, and these standards are much less than the United State’s. Therefore, it is not reasonable to compare the Mexican percentages to the American percentages, but instead comparing the ratios of each city’s level to the national level. It is obvious that Mexico’s quality of life in urban areas is far different than that of the U.S. This is because cities offer so many more oppor-tunities, therefore Mexico has a huge rural poverty problem that they have yet to resolve.
San DiegoLos Angeles
AustinMinneapolis
ChicagoDetroit
Washington D.C.New York City
TijuanaMexico City
15.0%22.0%14.0%17.0%
20.0%26.0%20.0%21.0%2.34%
9.2%
1.171.781.16
1.361.582.101.621.71.169.67
0%-10%
MINNEAPOLIS
DETROIT NEW YORK
LOS ANGELES
WASHINGTON DC
SAN DIEGO
TIJUANA
poverty level of city is below national average
poverty level of city is above national average
PROPORTIONCITY POVERTY LEVEL:NATIONAL POVERTY LEVEL
10%-15%
15%-20%
20%-25%
25%-30%
30%-35%
35%-40%
40%-100%
AUSTIN
CHICAGO
MEXICO CITY
PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE IN POVERTY
39
PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE IN POVERTY
0%-10%
40%-100%
municipality’s poverty level more than national poverty level
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Municipality % Poverty Proportion
San DiegoYuma
Santa CruzEl Paso
BrewsterWebb
ZapataHidalgo
Cameron
12.4%13.9%24.5%23.8%18.2%31.2%35.8%35.9%33.1%
1.01.121.971.91
1.462.51
2.882.892.66
39.431.5317.4020.50.809.4621.132.973.04
Proportion
TijuanaMexicaliNogalesJuarezPraxedis GuerreroPiedras NegrasNuevo LaredoReynosaMatamores
2.34%2.76%3.02%2.98%8.52%5.25%5.49%5.24%5.76%
PROPORTIONMUNICIPALITY POVERTY LEVEL:
NATIONAL POVERTY LEVEL
MEXICOMunicipality
The border represents both the best and the worst in terms of poverty. On the Mexican side, some of the country’s richest people live in the municipalities lining the border. Almost every municipality’s poverty level is less than that of Mexico.
On the other hand, the poorest municipalities in the United States are along the US/Mexican border. When comparing the municipality’s poverty level to the national poverty level, all municipalities lie below the national, with the exception of San Diego, whose poverty level is equal to the national. Starr county in Texas is over four times larger than the national poverty line.
The border provides Mexicans opportunities that are not available elsewhere in their country. Unfortunately, the border offers Americans poverty and hardship.
Source: Censo de Poblacion y Vivienda VII
Note: this table is a side-by-side comparison of neighboring municipalities from each side of the border.
municipality’s poverty level less than national poverty level
% PovertyUNITED STATES
40
POVERTY
PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE IN POVERTY
0%-10%
40%-100%
municipality’s poverty level more than national poverty level
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Municipality % Poverty Proportion
San DiegoYuma
Santa CruzEl Paso
BrewsterWebb
ZapataHidalgo
Cameron
12.4%13.9%24.5%23.8%18.2%31.2%35.8%35.9%33.1%
1.01.121.971.91
1.462.51
2.882.892.66
39.431.5317.4020.50.809.4621.132.973.04
Proportion
TijuanaMexicaliNogalesJuarezPraxedis GuerreroPiedras NegrasNuevo LaredoReynosaMatamores
2.34%2.76%3.02%2.98%8.52%5.25%5.49%5.24%5.76%
PROPORTIONMUNICIPALITY POVERTY LEVEL:
NATIONAL POVERTY LEVEL
MEXICOMunicipality
The border represents both the best and the worst in terms of poverty. On the Mexican side, some of the country’s richest people live in the municipalities lining the border. Almost every municipality’s poverty level is less than that of Mexico.
On the other hand, the poorest municipalities in the United States are along the US/Mexican border. When comparing the municipality’s poverty level to the national poverty level, all municipalities lie below the national, with the exception of San Diego, whose poverty level is equal to the national. Starr county in Texas is over four times larger than the national poverty line.
The border provides Mexicans opportunities that are not available elsewhere in their country. Unfortunately, the border offers Americans poverty and hardship.
Source: Censo de Poblacion y Vivienda VII
Note: this table is a side-by-side comparison of neighboring municipalities from each side of the border.
municipality’s poverty level less than national poverty level
% PovertyUNITED STATES
41
Source: Census Track 2008 Estimates, 2008 Census Subject DefinitionsSource: Office of Policy and Planning U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service: Estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States: 1990 to 2000
0 - 58.4%58.5 - 72.1%72.2 - 78.8%78.9 - 84.8%84.9 - 89.7%89.8 - 100%city park or protected land
0 - 4.8%4.9 - 7.2%7.3 - 9.2%9.3 - 11.5%11.6 - 15.4%15.5 - 100%city park or protected land
0 -.7%0.8 - 1.6%1.7 - 3.1%3.2 - 6%6.1 - 13.8%13.9 - 100%city park or protected land
0 -0.4%0.5 - 0.7%0.8 - 1.1%1.2 - 1.9%2 - 4%4.1 - 29.4%
0 -0.4%0.5 - 0.7%0.8 - 1.1%1.2 - 1.9%2 - 4%4.1 - 29.4%
45.6 - 93.6%93.7 - 96.7%96.8 - 98%98.1 - 98.7%98.8 - 99.2%99.3 - 100%
Native Citizens Native Citizens
Foreign Born Non-CitizensForeign Born Non-Citizens
Census U.S. Citizenship Criteria:1. Born in the United States2. Born in Puerto Rico, Guam, or the U.S. Virgin Islands3. Born abroad of U.S. citizen parents4. U.S. citizen by naturalization5. Not a U.S. citizen
Migration to the United States has always been an influential factor on its population. The largest percentage of these immigrants live on the coasts, and this is especially evident near the U.S.-Mexico border. This relationship is also reflected in San Diego County. Near the busiest border crossing, San Ysidro, the native U.S. population is less than 58%. Immigrants from other countries, citizens or non-citizens, make up 25% of the total U.S. population.
To estimate this percentage, the U.S. Immigration and Naturaliza-tion Service takes data from the Census and from its own INS statistics to compare numbers of legally-resident populations and census-based foreign-born populations. This provides residual data to derive the number of unauthorized residents living in the United States.
Foreign Born, Naturalized CitizensForeign Born, Naturalized Citizens
42
MIGRATION
Source: Census Track 2008 Estimates, 2008 Census Subject DefinitionsSource: Office of Policy and Planning U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service: Estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States: 1990 to 2000
0 - 58.4%58.5 - 72.1%72.2 - 78.8%78.9 - 84.8%84.9 - 89.7%89.8 - 100%city park or protected land
0 - 4.8%4.9 - 7.2%7.3 - 9.2%9.3 - 11.5%11.6 - 15.4%15.5 - 100%city park or protected land
0 -.7%0.8 - 1.6%1.7 - 3.1%3.2 - 6%6.1 - 13.8%13.9 - 100%city park or protected land
0 -0.4%0.5 - 0.7%0.8 - 1.1%1.2 - 1.9%2 - 4%4.1 - 29.4%
0 -0.4%0.5 - 0.7%0.8 - 1.1%1.2 - 1.9%2 - 4%4.1 - 29.4%
45.6 - 93.6%93.7 - 96.7%96.8 - 98%98.1 - 98.7%98.8 - 99.2%99.3 - 100%
Native Citizens Native Citizens
Foreign Born Non-CitizensForeign Born Non-Citizens
Census U.S. Citizenship Criteria:1. Born in the United States2. Born in Puerto Rico, Guam, or the U.S. Virgin Islands3. Born abroad of U.S. citizen parents4. U.S. citizen by naturalization5. Not a U.S. citizen
Migration to the United States has always been an influential factor on its population. The largest percentage of these immigrants live on the coasts, and this is especially evident near the U.S.-Mexico border. This relationship is also reflected in San Diego County. Near the busiest border crossing, San Ysidro, the native U.S. population is less than 58%. Immigrants from other countries, citizens or non-citizens, make up 25% of the total U.S. population.
To estimate this percentage, the U.S. Immigration and Naturaliza-tion Service takes data from the Census and from its own INS statistics to compare numbers of legally-resident populations and census-based foreign-born populations. This provides residual data to derive the number of unauthorized residents living in the United States.
Foreign Born, Naturalized CitizensForeign Born, Naturalized Citizens
43
Source: (image) www.mauricesherif.com/blog/Source: www.epa.gov/border2012
US data from SANDAG, 1995; Mexico data from INEGI, 1997
According to the 2000 US Census, 12.5% of the population is of Hispanic origins.
1980 1990
2000 2008
Over time, the number of San Diego county citizens with Hispanic origins has increased. With each decade there is a visible increase in the Hispanic population with relation to the total population due to both legal and illegal migration in addition to the growth of settled Hispanic families. Since 2003, the Hispanic population has grown faster than any other group in the U.S. However, these individuals still represent a small percent of the population in downtown San Diego. Other variables such as education and income must be considered to make any further conclusions as to why the Hispanic population is primarily concentrated in rural regions of San Diego County, especially along the Mexico and New Mexico borders.
0% to 11.3%
11.4% to 18.2%
18.3% to 33%
33.1% to 57.6%
57.7% to 100%
Percent of Population of Hispanic Origins
0-100 thousand
101-250
251-500
501-1,000
> 1,000
Estimated US BornHispanic Population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000Source: U.S. Census Bureau (National Research Council)
White
(H/L) White
African American/Black
(H/L) African American/Black
American Indian/Alaska Native(H/L) American Indian/Alaska Native
Asian
(H/L) Asian
Some Other Race
(H/L) Some Other Race
Two Races
(H/L) Two Races
41.90%
6.00%
1.97%
0.03%
1.10%
0.10%
0.25%
0.05%0.05%
0.05%
36.90%
5.30%5.50%
0.80%
US Population According to Racewith races subdivided into Non-Hispanic and Hispanic (H/L)
44
HISPANIC ORIGINS
Source: (image) www.mauricesherif.com/blog/Source: www.epa.gov/border2012
US data from SANDAG, 1995; Mexico data from INEGI, 1997
According to the 2000 US Census, 12.5% of the population is of Hispanic origins.
1980 1990
2000 2008
Over time, the number of San Diego county citizens with Hispanic origins has increased. With each decade there is a visible increase in the Hispanic population with relation to the total population due to both legal and illegal migration in addition to the growth of settled Hispanic families. Since 2003, the Hispanic population has grown faster than any other group in the U.S. However, these individuals still represent a small percent of the population in downtown San Diego. Other variables such as education and income must be considered to make any further conclusions as to why the Hispanic population is primarily concentrated in rural regions of San Diego County, especially along the Mexico and New Mexico borders.
0% to 11.3%
11.4% to 18.2%
18.3% to 33%
33.1% to 57.6%
57.7% to 100%
Percent of Population of Hispanic Origins
0-100 thousand
101-250
251-500
501-1,000
> 1,000
Estimated US BornHispanic Population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000Source: U.S. Census Bureau (National Research Council)
White
(H/L) White
African American/Black
(H/L) African American/Black
American Indian/Alaska Native(H/L) American Indian/Alaska Native
Asian
(H/L) Asian
Some Other Race
(H/L) Some Other Race
Two Races
(H/L) Two Races
41.90%
6.00%
1.97%
0.03%
1.10%
0.10%
0.25%
0.05%0.05%
0.05%
36.90%
5.30%5.50%
0.80%
US Population According to Racewith races subdivided into Non-Hispanic and Hispanic (H/L)
45
US (49.0)
49 to 73
30 to 48
7 to 29
Diversity Index This thematic map summarizes racial and ethnic diversity in the United States. The index shows the likelihood that two persons chosen at random from the same
The index ranges from 0 (no diversity) to 100 (complete diversity). Diversity in the U.S. population is increasing. The states with the most diverse populations are California, New Mexico, and Texas.
Eight groups were used for the index: 1. White, not Hispanic2. Black or African American3. American Indian and Alaska Native 4. Asian
6. Two or more races, not Hispanic7. Some other race, not Hispanic8. Hispanic or Latino
6. Chicago, IL (57.3)
2. Los Angeles, CA (74.0)
7. San Diego, CA (56.9)
5. Houston, TX (62.4)
4. New York, NY (63.4)
1. San Francisco, CA (74.9)3. Washington, DC (64.2)
60 to 77
49 to 59
40 to 48
30 to 39
15 to 29
1 to 14 Low Diversity
High Diversity
#. City, State (Diversity Index of City)
CA (62.0)
According to the US Census, Hispanic or Latino is considered an ethnicity not a race.
Source: http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/atlas/censr01-104.pdf46
DIVERSITY INDEX
US (49.0)
49 to 73
30 to 48
7 to 29
Diversity Index This thematic map summarizes racial and ethnic diversity in the United States. The index shows the likelihood that two persons chosen at random from the same
The index ranges from 0 (no diversity) to 100 (complete diversity). Diversity in the U.S. population is increasing. The states with the most diverse populations are California, New Mexico, and Texas.
Eight groups were used for the index: 1. White, not Hispanic2. Black or African American3. American Indian and Alaska Native 4. Asian
6. Two or more races, not Hispanic7. Some other race, not Hispanic8. Hispanic or Latino
6. Chicago, IL (57.3)
2. Los Angeles, CA (74.0)
7. San Diego, CA (56.9)
5. Houston, TX (62.4)
4. New York, NY (63.4)
1. San Francisco, CA (74.9)3. Washington, DC (64.2)
60 to 77
49 to 59
40 to 48
30 to 39
15 to 29
1 to 14 Low Diversity
High Diversity
#. City, State (Diversity Index of City)
CA (62.0)
According to the US Census, Hispanic or Latino is considered an ethnicity not a race.
Source: http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/atlas/censr01-104.pdf 47
STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION The Committee will consist of 20 persons, ten of whom are to be selected by each
The ten U.S. representatives invited to serve on the Committee will include(i) one representative of the federal government;(ii) one representative from each of the governments of the States of Texas and New Mexico;(iii) one representative from local government in El Paso, Texas;(iv) one representative from local government in Doña Ana County, New Mexico; and
of a non governmental organization, a major portion of whose activities concerns air pollution.
The ten Mexican representatives invited to serve on the Committee will include(i) one representative of the National Institute of Ecology (INE-SEMARNAP) ;(ii) one representative of the Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection ;(iii) one representative of the federal health and welfare agency (SSA) ;(iv) one representative of the environmental authorities of the State of Chihuahua (v) one representative of the environmental authorities of the Municipality of Ciudad Juarez; and
non governmental organization, a major portion of whose activities concerns air pollution, at least one will be a representative of the academic institutions of Ciudad Juarez, and at least one will be a representative of the Consult-ing Council for Sustainable Development in the Northern Region.
United States - Mexico La Paz AgreementTREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 10827 ENVIRONMENTAL COOPERATION Agreement Between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and MEXICO Signed at La Paz August 14, 1983 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE Pursuant to Public Law 89-497, approved July 8, 1966 (80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)- ". . . the Treaties and Other Interna-tional Acts Series issued under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of
any further proof or authentication thereof." For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing
Entered into force February 16, 1984.
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES ON COOPERATION FOR THE PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT IN THE BORDER AREAThe United States of America and the United Mexican States, RECOGNIZING the importance of a healthful environ-ment to the long-term economic and social well-being of present and future generations of each country as well as of the global community; RECALLING that the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environ-ment, proclaimed in Stockholm in 1972,['] called upon nations to collaborate to resolve environmental problems of common concern; NOTING previous agreements and programs providing for environmental cooperation between
problems in each country; ACKNOWLEDGING the important work of the International Boundary and Water Commis-
REAFFIRMING their political will to further strengthen and demonstrate the importance attached by both Govern-ments to cooperation on environmental protection and in furtherance of the principle of good neighborliness; Have agreed as follows: 1 Department of state Bulletin July 24,1972, P. 116.
Source: (image) Alexandria Stankovich, TCAUP 2010 Source: www.epa.gov/border2012
The La Paz Argeement was created to unify the environ-mental goals and policies of the United States and Mexico in the border region. Established almost 30 years ago, this document represents one of the primary political relationships between the two countries outside the realm of the often prioritized defense and trade issues. While political boundaries have been made obvious to people, environmental conditions such as air, water and soil quality do not stop at the fence.
the other.
This document represents a cooperation between US and Mexico, and while it is limited to the borderline of New Mexico and Texas, it has become a model for similar missions. For example, Border 2012, is a region wide initative to improve the quality of life, culture and environment within the border region which extends 100 miles into both countries. Border 2012 deals with a broader range of topics including emergency prepared-ness and response. It is important to continue this open dialogue where both sides are represented equally.
Laz Paz 1983 Border 2012
48
LA PAZ AGREEMENT
STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION The Committee will consist of 20 persons, ten of whom are to be selected by each
The ten U.S. representatives invited to serve on the Committee will include(i) one representative of the federal government;(ii) one representative from each of the governments of the States of Texas and New Mexico;(iii) one representative from local government in El Paso, Texas;(iv) one representative from local government in Doña Ana County, New Mexico; and
of a non governmental organization, a major portion of whose activities concerns air pollution.
The ten Mexican representatives invited to serve on the Committee will include(i) one representative of the National Institute of Ecology (INE-SEMARNAP) ;(ii) one representative of the Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection ;(iii) one representative of the federal health and welfare agency (SSA) ;(iv) one representative of the environmental authorities of the State of Chihuahua (v) one representative of the environmental authorities of the Municipality of Ciudad Juarez; and
non governmental organization, a major portion of whose activities concerns air pollution, at least one will be a representative of the academic institutions of Ciudad Juarez, and at least one will be a representative of the Consult-ing Council for Sustainable Development in the Northern Region.
United States - Mexico La Paz AgreementTREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 10827 ENVIRONMENTAL COOPERATION Agreement Between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and MEXICO Signed at La Paz August 14, 1983 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE Pursuant to Public Law 89-497, approved July 8, 1966 (80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)- ". . . the Treaties and Other Interna-tional Acts Series issued under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of
any further proof or authentication thereof." For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing
Entered into force February 16, 1984.
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES ON COOPERATION FOR THE PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT IN THE BORDER AREAThe United States of America and the United Mexican States, RECOGNIZING the importance of a healthful environ-ment to the long-term economic and social well-being of present and future generations of each country as well as of the global community; RECALLING that the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environ-ment, proclaimed in Stockholm in 1972,['] called upon nations to collaborate to resolve environmental problems of common concern; NOTING previous agreements and programs providing for environmental cooperation between
problems in each country; ACKNOWLEDGING the important work of the International Boundary and Water Commis-
REAFFIRMING their political will to further strengthen and demonstrate the importance attached by both Govern-ments to cooperation on environmental protection and in furtherance of the principle of good neighborliness; Have agreed as follows: 1 Department of state Bulletin July 24,1972, P. 116.
Source: (image) Alexandria Stankovich, TCAUP 2010 Source: www.epa.gov/border2012
The La Paz Argeement was created to unify the environ-mental goals and policies of the United States and Mexico in the border region. Established almost 30 years ago, this document represents one of the primary political relationships between the two countries outside the realm of the often prioritized defense and trade issues. While political boundaries have been made obvious to people, environmental conditions such as air, water and soil quality do not stop at the fence.
the other.
This document represents a cooperation between US and Mexico, and while it is limited to the borderline of New Mexico and Texas, it has become a model for similar missions. For example, Border 2012, is a region wide initative to improve the quality of life, culture and environment within the border region which extends 100 miles into both countries. Border 2012 deals with a broader range of topics including emergency prepared-ness and response. It is important to continue this open dialogue where both sides are represented equally.
Laz Paz 1983 Border 2012
49
50
ECONOMY
Ryan Giles
Dennis Knoff
Joshua Hendershot
51
Source: CIA World Factbook: United States + Mexico
Otay Mesa, CA
Calexico, CA
Nogales, AZ
El Paso, TX
Laredo, TX
Top US States Trading With MexicoBusiest Trading Ports of Entry
Modes of Transportation for US-Mexico Trade
Border Trade Volume Comparisons
52
TRADE GEOGRAPHY
Source: CIA World Factbook: United States + Mexico
Otay Mesa, CA
Calexico, CA
Nogales, AZ
El Paso, TX
Laredo, TX
Top US States Trading With MexicoBusiest Trading Ports of Entry
Modes of Transportation for US-Mexico Trade
Border Trade Volume Comparisons
53
Computer + Electronic Products [1]
Transportation Equipment [2]
Chemicals [3]
Machinery [4]
Electrical Equipment + Appliances [5]
Plastics + Rubber Products [6]
Food Manufacturing [7]
Fabricated Metal Products [8]
Agricultural Products [9]
Primary Metal Manufacturing [10]
Source: Woodrow Wilson Foundation - Mexican Institute
[1] Transportation Equipment
[2] Computer + Electonic Products
[3] Oil and Gas
[4] Electrical Equipment + Appliances
[5] Apparel and Accessories
[6] Machinery
[7] Fabricated Metal Products
[8] Miscellaneous Manufactured Commodities
[9] Agricultural Products
[10] Chemicals
Many of the materials and products that are traded between the United States and Mexico are servicing Mexico’s substanial maquiladora industry, where raw materials are exported from the US to be assembled with cheaper labor, and then subsequently exported by Mexico, resulting in the overlapping import-export rankings you see here.
Top Products and Services Traded Across the US-Mexican Border
54
IMPORTS AND EXPORTS
Computer + Electronic Products [1]
Transportation Equipment [2]
Chemicals [3]
Machinery [4]
Electrical Equipment + Appliances [5]
Plastics + Rubber Products [6]
Food Manufacturing [7]
Fabricated Metal Products [8]
Agricultural Products [9]
Primary Metal Manufacturing [10]
Source: Woodrow Wilson Foundation - Mexican Institute
[1] Transportation Equipment
[2] Computer + Electonic Products
[3] Oil and Gas
[4] Electrical Equipment + Appliances
[5] Apparel and Accessories
[6] Machinery
[7] Fabricated Metal Products
[8] Miscellaneous Manufactured Commodities
[9] Agricultural Products
[10] Chemicals
Many of the materials and products that are traded between the United States and Mexico are servicing Mexico’s substanial maquiladora industry, where raw materials are exported from the US to be assembled with cheaper labor, and then subsequently exported by Mexico, resulting in the overlapping import-export rankings you see here.
Top Products and Services Traded Across the US-Mexican Border
55
Source: UN Global Data Source, May 2006
Personal Vehicle Crossings
1. San Ysidro, CA2. El Paso, TX3. Brownsville, TX4. Hidalgo, TX5. Laredo, TX
P l V hiiiPedestrian Crossings
1. Nogales, AZ2. San Ysidro, CA3. El Paso, TX4. Laredo, TX5. Calexico, CA
Trade Crossings
1. Laredo, TX2. El Paso, TX3. Otay Mesa, CA4. Hidalgo, TX5. Nogales, AZ
$
56
BORDER TRAFFIC
Source: UN Global Data Source, May 2006
Personal Vehicle Crossings
1. San Ysidro, CA2. El Paso, TX3. Brownsville, TX4. Hidalgo, TX5. Laredo, TX
P l V hiiiPedestrian Crossings
1. Nogales, AZ2. San Ysidro, CA3. El Paso, TX4. Laredo, TX5. Calexico, CA
Trade Crossings
1. Laredo, TX2. El Paso, TX3. Otay Mesa, CA4. Hidalgo, TX5. Nogales, AZ
$
57
Source: CIA World Factbook
United StatesMexico
1-C
hina
2-C
anad
a3-
Mex
ico
1-C
anad
a2-
Mex
ico
3- C
hina
USA
-1C
hina
-2Ja
pan-
3
USA
-1C
anad
a-2
Ger
man
y-3
i eei
iee i
1-U
nite
d K
ingd
om2-
Ger
man
y3-
Net
herl
ands
1-Sw
eden
2-G
erm
any
3-D
enm
ark
Ger
man
y-1
Nor
way
-2D
enm
ark-
3
Ger
man
y-1
Den
amrk
-2N
orw
ay-3
NorwaySweden
iee i
1-G
erm
any
2-It
aly
3-Fr
ance
Ger
man
y-1
Fran
ce-2
Spai
n-3
Ger
man
y-1
Fran
ce-2
Chi
na-3
SwitzerlandItaly
1-G
erm
any
2-U
SA3-
Ital
y
North American Borders Top International Borders
iee i
1-G
erm
any
2-C
hina
3-Be
lgiu
m
NetherlandsBelgium
1-G
erm
any
2-Be
lgiu
m3F
ranc
e
Ger
man
y-1
Fran
ce-2
Net
herl
ands
-3
Net
herl
ands
-1G
erm
any-
2Fr
ance
-3
iee i
1-G
erm
any
2-Ru
ssia
3-It
aly
PolandCzech Republic
1-G
erm
any
2-Fr
ance
3-It
aly
Ger
man
y-1
Fran
ce-2
Ital
y-3
Ger
man
y-1
Slov
akia
-2Po
land
-3
iee i
1-N
ethe
rlan
ds2-
Fran
ce3-
Belg
ium
GermanyFrance
1-Fr
ance
2-U
SA3-
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
Ger
man
y-1
Ital
y-2
Spai
n-3
Ger
man
y-1
Belg
ium
-2It
aly-
3
iee i
1-C
hina
2-In
dia
3-U
SA
U.A.E.Saudi Arabia
1-Ja
pan
2-So
uth
Kor
ea3-
Indi
a
USA
-1Ja
pan-
2So
uth
Kor
ea-3
Ger
man
y-1
Slov
akia
-2Po
land
-3
CanadaUnited States
1-C
hina
2-C
anad
a3-
Mex
ico
1-C
anad
a2-
Mex
ico
3- C
hina
USA
-1C
hina
-2Ja
pan-
3
USA
-1C
anad
a-2
Ger
man
y-3
i eei
HondurasNicaragua
1-U
SA2-
Gua
tem
ala
3-El
Sal
vado
r
USA
-1V
enez
uela
-2M
exic
o-3
USA
-1El
Sla
vado
r-2
Cos
ta R
ica-
3
i eei
1-U
SA2-
Gua
tem
ala
3-El
Sal
vado
r
Costa RicaPanama
1-U
SA2-
Mex
ico
3-V
enez
ula
1-U
SA2-
Net
herl
ands
3- C
hina
i eei U
SA-1
Cos
ta R
ica-
2C
hina
-3
USA
-1N
ethe
rlan
ds-2
Cos
ta R
ica-
3
Legend 1-C
hina
2-C
anad
a3-
Mex
ico
1-U
SA2-
Fran
ce3-
Indi
a
i e
GDPGDP per c
apita
% Below Poverty
Import P
artners
Mutual Trade
Export Partn
ers
BelizeGuatemala
1-C
hina
2-C
anad
a3-
Mex
ico
1-U
SA2-
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
3- C
ote
d’Iv
ore
USA
-1M
exic
o-2
Chi
na-3
USA
-1El
Sla
vado
r-2
Hon
dura
s-3
i eei
58
TRADE BALANCE
Source: CIA World Factbook
United StatesMexico
1-C
hina
2-C
anad
a3-
Mex
ico
1-C
anad
a2-
Mex
ico
3- C
hina
USA
-1C
hina
-2Ja
pan-
3
USA
-1C
anad
a-2
Ger
man
y-3
i eei
iee i
1-U
nite
d K
ingd
om2-
Ger
man
y3-
Net
herl
ands
1-Sw
eden
2-G
erm
any
3-D
enm
ark
Ger
man
y-1
Nor
way
-2D
enm
ark-
3
Ger
man
y-1
Den
amrk
-2N
orw
ay-3
NorwaySweden
iee i
1-G
erm
any
2-It
aly
3-Fr
ance
Ger
man
y-1
Fran
ce-2
Spai
n-3
Ger
man
y-1
Fran
ce-2
Chi
na-3
SwitzerlandItaly
1-G
erm
any
2-U
SA3-
Ital
y
North American Borders Top International Borders
iee i
1-G
erm
any
2-C
hina
3-Be
lgiu
m
NetherlandsBelgium
1-G
erm
any
2-Be
lgiu
m3F
ranc
e
Ger
man
y-1
Fran
ce-2
Net
herl
ands
-3
Net
herl
ands
-1G
erm
any-
2Fr
ance
-3
iee i
1-G
erm
any
2-Ru
ssia
3-It
aly
PolandCzech Republic
1-G
erm
any
2-Fr
ance
3-It
aly
Ger
man
y-1
Fran
ce-2
Ital
y-3
Ger
man
y-1
Slov
akia
-2Po
land
-3
iee i
1-N
ethe
rlan
ds2-
Fran
ce3-
Belg
ium
GermanyFrance
1-Fr
ance
2-U
SA3-
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
Ger
man
y-1
Ital
y-2
Spai
n-3
Ger
man
y-1
Belg
ium
-2It
aly-
3
iee i
1-C
hina
2-In
dia
3-U
SA
U.A.E.Saudi Arabia
1-Ja
pan
2-So
uth
Kor
ea3-
Indi
a
USA
-1Ja
pan-
2So
uth
Kor
ea-3
Ger
man
y-1
Slov
akia
-2Po
land
-3
CanadaUnited States
1-C
hina
2-C
anad
a3-
Mex
ico
1-C
anad
a2-
Mex
ico
3- C
hina
USA
-1C
hina
-2Ja
pan-
3
USA
-1C
anad
a-2
Ger
man
y-3
i eei
HondurasNicaragua
1-U
SA2-
Gua
tem
ala
3-El
Sal
vado
r
USA
-1V
enez
uela
-2M
exic
o-3
USA
-1El
Sla
vado
r-2
Cos
ta R
ica-
3
i eei
1-U
SA2-
Gua
tem
ala
3-El
Sal
vado
r
Costa RicaPanama
1-U
SA2-
Mex
ico
3-V
enez
ula
1-U
SA2-
Net
herl
ands
3- C
hina
i eei U
SA-1
Cos
ta R
ica-
2C
hina
-3
USA
-1N
ethe
rlan
ds-2
Cos
ta R
ica-
3
Legend 1-C
hina
2-C
anad
a3-
Mex
ico
1-U
SA2-
Fran
ce3-
Indi
a
i e
GDPGDP per c
apita
% Below Poverty
Import P
artners
Mutual Trade
Export Partn
ers
BelizeGuatemala
1-C
hina
2-C
anad
a3-
Mex
ico
1-U
SA2-
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
3- C
ote
d’Iv
ore
USA
-1M
exic
o-2
Chi
na-3
USA
-1El
Sla
vado
r-2
Hon
dura
s-3
i eei
59
10 11http://www.citypopulation.de/Mexico-Cities.html
http://esa.un.org/unup/index.asp?panel=2http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/briefs/phc-t3/index.html
2000 2020
2040
Historic Projected
2010
2005 2030
Rural Growth Rates
2000 2020
20402010
2005 2030
Urban Growth Rates
The United States and Mexico and the countries that border them will see dramatic urban growth in the next few decades. As a result of urban growth, rural areas will start to dissipate as urban sprawl increases. Many of the fastest growing cities are located around the U.S. - Mexican border, some of which are Tijuana, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Ciudad Juarez, San Antonio, Austin, and Houston.
> 3.00
2.99 - 2.50
2.49 - 2.00
1.99 - 1.50
1.49 - 1.00
.99 - .50
.49 - 0
> 1.50
1.49 - 1.00
.99 - .50
.49 - 0
(-).01 - (-).50
(-).51 - (-)1.00
(-)1.01 - (-)1.50
Historic Projected
Tijuana: 64.4% 1,148,681
Ciudad Juarez: 50.3%1,187,275
Monterrey: 4%1,110,909
Sacramento: 21.3%1,796,857
Austin: 47.7%1,249,763
Phoenix: 45.3%3,251,876
Dallas: 29.3%5,221,801
Houston: 25.2%4,669,571
San Antonio: 20.2%1,592,383
Los Angeles: 12.7%16,373,645
San Francisco: 12.6%7,039,362
Las Vegas: 83.3%1,563,282
San Diego: 12.6%2,813,833
Chicago: 11.1%9,157,540
Population GrowthPopulation
Top 50: Largest Cities in 2000
60
GROWTH RATES
10 11http://www.citypopulation.de/Mexico-Cities.html
http://esa.un.org/unup/index.asp?panel=2http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/briefs/phc-t3/index.html
2000 2020
2040
Historic Projected
2010
2005 2030
Rural Growth Rates
2000 2020
20402010
2005 2030
Urban Growth Rates
The United States and Mexico and the countries that border them will see dramatic urban growth in the next few decades. As a result of urban growth, rural areas will start to dissipate as urban sprawl increases. Many of the fastest growing cities are located around the U.S. - Mexican border, some of which are Tijuana, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Ciudad Juarez, San Antonio, Austin, and Houston.
> 3.00
2.99 - 2.50
2.49 - 2.00
1.99 - 1.50
1.49 - 1.00
.99 - .50
.49 - 0
> 1.50
1.49 - 1.00
.99 - .50
.49 - 0
(-).01 - (-).50
(-).51 - (-)1.00
(-)1.01 - (-)1.50
Historic Projected
Tijuana: 64.4% 1,148,681
Ciudad Juarez: 50.3%1,187,275
Monterrey: 4%1,110,909
Sacramento: 21.3%1,796,857
Austin: 47.7%1,249,763
Phoenix: 45.3%3,251,876
Dallas: 29.3%5,221,801
Houston: 25.2%4,669,571
San Antonio: 20.2%1,592,383
Los Angeles: 12.7%16,373,645
San Francisco: 12.6%7,039,362
Las Vegas: 83.3%1,563,282
San Diego: 12.6%2,813,833
Chicago: 11.1%9,157,540
Population GrowthPopulation
Top 50: Largest Cities in 2000
61
Source: http://www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/2006/images/0605c_b1.gif Sources: http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com, http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Latin-America/Mexico/currency-value
Companies Using Maquiladoras
(in thousands):Delphi
Lear CorporationGeneral Electric
Jabil CircuitVisteon
WhirlpoolEmerson Electric
MotorolaHoneywell
PlantronicsBose
Mattell
Minimum Wages (daily):
CaliforniaArizona
New MexicoTexas
Baja CaliforniaSonora
ChihuahuaCoahuila
Nuevo LeonTamaulipas
Unemployment Rate:
CaliforniaArizona
New MexicoTexas
Mexico
Employees by Industry Sectors
Chemicals: 135,000
Services: 135,000
Electronics: 125,000
Machinery: 115,000
Furniture & Transportation: 108,000
Textiles: 75,000
Other: 565,000
Maquiladora factories are located in Mexico, generally close to the border with the United States. Maquiladora factories import materials and equilpment and assembles the products to be exproted back to The United States without every paying any duties.
There is a large discrepancy between the minimum wage in Mexico and The United States. This is not directly linked to the cost of goods and services
While the unemployment rates look deceivingly in favor of Mexico, their underemployment is 26% while that of California's is 11%. California has one of the worst unemployment and under-employment rates in the United States.
This is just a short list of the many companies that use Maquiladoras in Mexico for their cheap labor.
Cost of Goods and Services:
United StatesMexico
U.S. exports parts for a safety harness.
Safety Harness gets assembled and shipped to be installed in cars.
Mexico exports cars.
Lower wage rates than China
Companies on average save one million in labor costs
More competitive in world market
Employment opportunities createdImport foriegn components without paying duties
Commercial deficit is reduced with The United States
Economic Attractiveness of Maquiladoras
Maquiladora Trading
PRODUCTION
62
PRODUCTION
Source: http://www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/2006/images/0605c_b1.gif Sources: http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com, http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Latin-America/Mexico/currency-value
Companies Using Maquiladoras
(in thousands):Delphi
Lear CorporationGeneral Electric
Jabil CircuitVisteon
WhirlpoolEmerson Electric
MotorolaHoneywell
PlantronicsBose
Mattell
Minimum Wages (daily):
CaliforniaArizona
New MexicoTexas
Baja CaliforniaSonora
ChihuahuaCoahuila
Nuevo LeonTamaulipas
Unemployment Rate:
CaliforniaArizona
New MexicoTexas
Mexico
Employees by Industry Sectors
Chemicals: 135,000
Services: 135,000
Electronics: 125,000
Machinery: 115,000
Furniture & Transportation: 108,000
Textiles: 75,000
Other: 565,000
Maquiladora factories are located in Mexico, generally close to the border with the United States. Maquiladora factories import materials and equilpment and assembles the products to be exproted back to The United States without every paying any duties.
There is a large discrepancy between the minimum wage in Mexico and The United States. This is not directly linked to the cost of goods and services
While the unemployment rates look deceivingly in favor of Mexico, their underemployment is 26% while that of California's is 11%. California has one of the worst unemployment and under-employment rates in the United States.
This is just a short list of the many companies that use Maquiladoras in Mexico for their cheap labor.
Cost of Goods and Services:
United StatesMexico
U.S. exports parts for a safety harness.
Safety Harness gets assembled and shipped to be installed in cars.
Mexico exports cars.
Lower wage rates than China
Companies on average save one million in labor costs
More competitive in world market
Employment opportunities createdImport foriegn components without paying duties
Commercial deficit is reduced with The United States
Economic Attractiveness of Maquiladoras
Maquiladora Trading
PRODUCTION
63
Source: INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y Geografia)Source: INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y Geografia)
Business
Vacation
Other
Hikers Previous Costs2006 Inbound 2006 Domestic
2005
2004
2003
Business
Vacation
Other Hikers 2003
2004
2005
United States Canada Europe Latin America Other1998 9,775 8,118 519 477 297 3651999 10,214 8,634 502 563 218 2972000 10,591 9,235 477 401 187 2912001 10,151 8,964 375 362 174 2762002 9,883 8,717 361 479 272 542003 10,353 9,254 292 443 297 672004 11,553 10,305 336 0 0 9122005 12,534 10,944 366 0 0 1,2242006 12,608 10,914 436 0 0 1,2582007 13,010 11,039 593 0 0 1,378
Visitors abroad - destination - 1998-2007 - national(Thousands of People)
TotalTotal United States Canada Central America South America Europe Asia Other5,177 4,789 20 71 35 217 14 31
5,543 5,119 22 81 38 234 15 346,200 5,717 25 93 43 266 17 396,423 5,915 26 97 45 281 18 416,492 5,984 26 97 45 281 18 416,603 6,085 27 101 46 285 19 417,399 6,811 0 0 0 0 0 5888,000 7,360 0 0 0 0 0 6408,486 7,801 0 0 0 0 0 6859,220 8,464 0 0 0 0 0 756
Outbound Tourism
=+ 64%
++ == 36%
The INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y Geografia collects and studies data recorded each year on tourism across the United States-Mexico border, breaking it down according to points of origin, reasons for crossing, and means of transportation. About 2/3 of all travel into Mexico is done over land, between passenger vehicles and pedestrian travel. The remainder of visitors arrive either by air, train, or public transit. According to data collected over the past 10 years, it appears that most Americans crossing the border in passenger vehicles are doing so for vacation or
International Inbound International Outbound
tourism, with the bulk of the business traffic inbound being done by truck and other cargo transport. However, most of the traffic north into the United States is a mix between American citizens returning home and Mexican citizens look for work. This unique balance of reasons for travel sets up a symbiotic relationship between the two countries; toruism and truck trade exits the US in high volume, as finished goods from the maquiladoras and migrant works cross north, creating staggering levels of traveling individuals each day across the border.
TOURISM
64
TOURISM
Source: INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y Geografia)Source: INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y Geografia)
Business
Vacation
Other
Hikers Previous Costs2006 Inbound 2006 Domestic
2005
2004
2003
Business
Vacation
Other Hikers 2003
2004
2005
United States Canada Europe Latin America Other1998 9,775 8,118 519 477 297 3651999 10,214 8,634 502 563 218 2972000 10,591 9,235 477 401 187 2912001 10,151 8,964 375 362 174 2762002 9,883 8,717 361 479 272 542003 10,353 9,254 292 443 297 672004 11,553 10,305 336 0 0 9122005 12,534 10,944 366 0 0 1,2242006 12,608 10,914 436 0 0 1,2582007 13,010 11,039 593 0 0 1,378
Visitors abroad - destination - 1998-2007 - national(Thousands of People)
TotalTotal United States Canada Central America South America Europe Asia Other5,177 4,789 20 71 35 217 14 31
5,543 5,119 22 81 38 234 15 346,200 5,717 25 93 43 266 17 396,423 5,915 26 97 45 281 18 416,492 5,984 26 97 45 281 18 416,603 6,085 27 101 46 285 19 417,399 6,811 0 0 0 0 0 5888,000 7,360 0 0 0 0 0 6408,486 7,801 0 0 0 0 0 6859,220 8,464 0 0 0 0 0 756
Outbound Tourism
=+ 64%
++ == 36%
The INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y Geografia collects and studies data recorded each year on tourism across the United States-Mexico border, breaking it down according to points of origin, reasons for crossing, and means of transportation. About 2/3 of all travel into Mexico is done over land, between passenger vehicles and pedestrian travel. The remainder of visitors arrive either by air, train, or public transit. According to data collected over the past 10 years, it appears that most Americans crossing the border in passenger vehicles are doing so for vacation or
International Inbound International Outbound
tourism, with the bulk of the business traffic inbound being done by truck and other cargo transport. However, most of the traffic north into the United States is a mix between American citizens returning home and Mexican citizens look for work. This unique balance of reasons for travel sets up a symbiotic relationship between the two countries; toruism and truck trade exits the US in high volume, as finished goods from the maquiladoras and migrant works cross north, creating staggering levels of traveling individuals each day across the border.
TOURISM
65
Centro Cultural Tijuana
Over 60 million people cross the border into Mexico every year. Based off of advertisements and popularity of tourist attractions in both San Diego and Tijuana, several of the most major attrac-tions have been highlighted. Both cities have a large tourist draw that plays a significant role in their respective economies. This element factors heavily into the strange relationship that exists between the metropolitan area and their countries.
San Diego Zoo
Gaslamp District
San Diego Zoo3.5 Million
Gaslamp District3 Million
Centro Cultural1 Million
Avenida Revolucion300,000 / Day
Top Attractions by Annual Visitation
Avenida Revolucion
Port Year Month Bus Passengers Personal Vehicles Passengers (Personal Vehicles) Pedestrians TotalCA:San Ysidro 2009 Jan 48,366 950,322 1,805,612 493,914 3,298,214CA:San Ysidro 2009 Feb 36,592 931,800 1,584,060 448,213 3,000,665CA:San Ysidro 2009 Mar 36,827 1,131,661 2,036,989 526,949 3,732,426CA:San Ysidro 2009 Apr 36,790 1,106,902 1,881,734 527,158 3,552,584CA:San Ysidro 2009 May 31,893 1,145,423 2,061,761 532,523 3,771,600CA:San Ysidro 2009 Jun 29,852 1,144,827 2,060,688 518,873 3,754,240CA:San Ysidro 2009 Jul 37,206 1,187,060 2,136,708 567,444 3,928,418Total 257,526 7,597,995 13,567,552 3,615,074 25,038,147
Gaslamp DistrictGaslamp District
San Diego Zoo
Gaslamp District
Source: City of Oceanside Official Website (www.ci.oceanside.ca.us)RITA Bureau of Transportation Statistics (http://www.transtats.bts.gov/BorderCrossing.aspx)
INSERT TITLE HERE?
66
TOURIST DESTINATIONS
Centro Cultural Tijuana
Over 60 million people cross the border into Mexico every year. Based off of advertisements and popularity of tourist attractions in both San Diego and Tijuana, several of the most major attrac-tions have been highlighted. Both cities have a large tourist draw that plays a significant role in their respective economies. This element factors heavily into the strange relationship that exists between the metropolitan area and their countries.
San Diego Zoo
Gaslamp District
San Diego Zoo3.5 Million
Gaslamp District3 Million
Centro Cultural1 Million
Avenida Revolucion300,000 / Day
Top Attractions by Annual Visitation
Avenida Revolucion
Port Year Month Bus Passengers Personal Vehicles Passengers (Personal Vehicles) Pedestrians TotalCA:San Ysidro 2009 Jan 48,366 950,322 1,805,612 493,914 3,298,214CA:San Ysidro 2009 Feb 36,592 931,800 1,584,060 448,213 3,000,665CA:San Ysidro 2009 Mar 36,827 1,131,661 2,036,989 526,949 3,732,426CA:San Ysidro 2009 Apr 36,790 1,106,902 1,881,734 527,158 3,552,584CA:San Ysidro 2009 May 31,893 1,145,423 2,061,761 532,523 3,771,600CA:San Ysidro 2009 Jun 29,852 1,144,827 2,060,688 518,873 3,754,240CA:San Ysidro 2009 Jul 37,206 1,187,060 2,136,708 567,444 3,928,418Total 257,526 7,597,995 13,567,552 3,615,074 25,038,147
San Diego Zoo
Gaslamp District
Source: City of Oceanside Official Website (www.ci.oceanside.ca.us)RITA Bureau of Transportation Statistics (http://www.transtats.bts.gov/BorderCrossing.aspx)
INSERT TITLE HERE?
67
68
MOBILITY
Julia Gankin
Diana Berry
69
Greyhound Bus Line
Greyhound Mexican Affiliate
Mexicoach Line
San Diego Trolley Line
Major Regional Highways
Traffic Across the Border
With the exception of private commuter vehicles, most regional traffic stops at the border and switches to another source. Mexicoach is a service that actually drives across the border from Mexico, then stops shortly after and drops off near the trolley station.
Regional Traffic from north of San Diego Country to Rosarita
Source: San Diego Transportation www.sandag.org
San Diego Trolley Line
Mexicoach
Pedestrian Path
Commuter Vehicle Path
70
TRANSIT ROUTES
Greyhound Bus Line
Greyhound Mexican Affiliate
Mexicoach Line
San Diego Trolley Line
Major Regional Highways
Traffic Across the Border
With the exception of private commuter vehicles, most regional traffic stops at the border and switches to another source. Mexicoach is a service that actually drives across the border from Mexico, then stops shortly after and drops off near the trolley station.
Regional Traffic from north of San Diego Country to Rosarita
Source: San Diego Transportation www.sandag.org
San Diego Trolley Line
Mexicoach
Pedestrian Path
Commuter Vehicle Path
71
Crossing into Mexico from the United States involves a series of
switchbacks and surveillance cameras, but no passport checks
and minimal border patrol. Once one crosses the turnstile into
Mexico, a very different atmosphere is revealed.
Source: Tijuana Tourist Information tijuanamexicoinsider.com
Pedestrian Path
1
2
8
Going through the turnstile
Crossing the Tijuana River72
PEDESTRIAN ROUTE: US-MX
Crossing into Mexico from the United States involves a series of
switchbacks and surveillance cameras, but no passport checks
and minimal border patrol. Once one crosses the turnstile into
Mexico, a very different atmosphere is revealed.
Source: Tijuana Tourist Information tijuanamexicoinsider.com
Pedestrian Path
1
2
8
Going through the turnstile
Crossing the Tijuana River 73
The route into the United States from Mexico requires fewer
switchbacks but significantly more time. Entry into the United
States requires proper identification, a series of questions from
the border official, as well as putting your belongings through an
x-ray machine.
Source: Tijuana Tourist Information tijuanamexicoinsider.com
Pedestrian Path
1
1
2
33
4
4
7
7
6
5
5
8
8On Avenida Revolucion 2
Benches for shops on the ramp back to the border
Back across the Tijuana River
Go past the taxi stand on the way
6
Turnstile into the border station Into the security cave74
PEDESTRIAN ROUTE: MX-US
The route into the United States from Mexico requires fewer
switchbacks but significantly more time. Entry into the United
States requires proper identification, a series of questions from
the border official, as well as putting your belongings through an
x-ray machine.
Source: Tijuana Tourist Information tijuanamexicoinsider.com
Pedestrian Path
1
1
2
33
4
4
7
7
6
5
5
8
8On Avenida Revolucion 2
Benches for shops on the ramp back to the border
Back across the Tijuana River
Go past the taxi stand on the way
6
Turnstile into the border station Into the security cave 75
Many choose to get around the city using the Tijuana taxis. Two types of taxis are available. The Yellow taxis have no meters, the price of the trip must be negotiated before one gets in the vehicle. These are generally more expensive, but the drivers are also much more likely to speak english. The second type of taxi, taxi libre, do have meters and are generally cheaper than Yellow taxis, however drivers speak less English and you need to have a specific address to reach your destination.
Pedestrian PathTaxi Stand
Source: www.tijuanataxico.com76
TAXI TRAFFIC
Many choose to get around the city using the Tijuana taxis. Two types of taxis are available. The Yellow taxis have no meters, the price of the trip must be negotiated before one gets in the vehicle. These are generally more expensive, but the drivers are also much more likely to speak english. The second type of taxi, taxi libre, do have meters and are generally cheaper than Yellow taxis, however drivers speak less English and you need to have a specific address to reach your destination.
Pedestrian PathTaxi Stand
Source: www.tijuanataxico.com 77
10 11Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSource: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The San Ysidro/Tijuana land port of entry has the greatest amount of passenger vehicle traffic of any of the border crossings
with a total of 9,880,509 per year.
There is no commercial traffic at this port. All commerical traffic in the area must use the Otay Mesa Port of Entry. The San Ysidro/Tijuana crossing is busy because two large cities are on either side of the border so many of the passenger vehicles are people commuting to work.
The El Paso/Juarez land port of entry has the second
greatest amount of passenger vehicle crossings at 9,318,273 per year.
This crossing is also busy for the same reason as San Ysidro/Tijuana. El Paso and Juarez are both big cities and many people commute to work across the border.
Land port of entry
EL PASO
9,318,273
SAN YSIDRO
9,880,509
200 ft 200 ft
200 ft200 ft
Source: Hyperborder. New York: Princton Architectural, 2008
Passenger vehicles per year.
78
PRIVATE MOBILITY
10 11Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSource: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The San Ysidro/Tijuana land port of entry has the greatest amount of passenger vehicle traffic of any of the border crossings
with a total of 9,880,509 per year.
There is no commercial traffic at this port. All commerical traffic in the area must use the Otay Mesa Port of Entry. The San Ysidro/Tijuana crossing is busy because two large cities are on either side of the border so many of the passenger vehicles are people commuting to work.
The El Paso/Juarez land port of entry has the second
greatest amount of passenger vehicle crossings at 9,318,273 per year.
This crossing is also busy for the same reason as San Ysidro/Tijuana. El Paso and Juarez are both big cities and many people commute to work across the border.
Land port of entry
EL PASO
9,318,273
SAN YSIDRO
9,880,509
200 ft 200 ft
200 ft200 ft
Source: Hyperborder. New York: Princton Architectural, 2008
Passenger vehicles per year.
79
10 11Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSource: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The San Ysidro/Tijuana land port of entry has the second largest number of pedestrians crossing the border per year at
4,194,627.
This is a busy crossing for pedestrians because many people work on the opposite side of the border than where they live. It is faster to get across the border on foot then in a car so many choose to cross on foot.
The Nogales, Arizona/Nogales, Mexico land port of entry has the greatest quantity of pedestrian traffic at
4,327,212 crossings per year.
This is a busy border crossing because the city of Nogales is on both sides of the border. The border itself runs down the middle of a main street in Nogales.
EL PASO
4,139,292
SAN YSIDRO
4,194,627
NOGALES
4,327,212
Source: Hyperborder. New York: Princton Architectural, 2008
200 ft
Land port of entry
Pedestrian crossings per year.
200 ft
200 ft200 ft
80
PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC
10 11Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSource: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The San Ysidro/Tijuana land port of entry has the second largest number of pedestrians crossing the border per year at
4,194,627.
This is a busy crossing for pedestrians because many people work on the opposite side of the border than where they live. It is faster to get across the border on foot then in a car so many choose to cross on foot.
The Nogales, Arizona/Nogales, Mexico land port of entry has the greatest quantity of pedestrian traffic at
4,327,212 crossings per year.
This is a busy border crossing because the city of Nogales is on both sides of the border. The border itself runs down the middle of a main street in Nogales.
EL PASO
4,139,292
SAN YSIDRO
4,194,627
NOGALES
4,327,212
Source: Hyperborder. New York: Princton Architectural, 2008
200 ft
Land port of entry
Pedestrian crossings per year.
200 ft
200 ft200 ft
81
10 11Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSource: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Laredo/Nuevo Laredo land port of entry in Texas has
the most commercial truck traffic with 876,051 crossings per year.
Laredo’s enormous quantity of commercial traffic is due to its location along the NAFTA corridor on Interstate 35 which travels all the way into Minnesota.
The Otay Mesa land port of entry in California is the third
largest amount of truck traffic with 427,994.
Since there is no commercial traffic allowed through the San Ysidro port of entry, all commercial traffic in the area is directed here.
EL PASO
448,552
OTAY MESA
427,994
Source: Hyperborder. New York: Princton Architectural, 2008. Print.
LAREDO
876,051
200 ft200 ft
200 ft200 ft
Land port of entry
Commercial vehicles per year
82
COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC
10 11Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSource: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Laredo/Nuevo Laredo land port of entry in Texas has
the most commercial truck traffic with 876,051 crossings per year.
Laredo’s enormous quantity of commercial traffic is due to its location along the NAFTA corridor on Interstate 35 which travels all the way into Minnesota.
The Otay Mesa land port of entry in California is the third
largest amount of truck traffic with 427,994.
Since there is no commercial traffic allowed through the San Ysidro port of entry, all commercial traffic in the area is directed here.
EL PASO
448,552
OTAY MESA
427,994
Source: Hyperborder. New York: Princton Architectural, 2008. Print.
LAREDO
876,051
200 ft200 ft
200 ft200 ft
Land port of entry
Commercial vehicles per year
83
10 11Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Most people travel to Mexico from the U.S. at this border entry to take advantage of the tourism in Tijuana which includes a vibrant nightlife and a legal drinking age of 18. Some others (mostly locals) cross the border here to take advantage of the cheaper services offered in Mexico such as vehicle repair and doctors, along with cheaper and easier to obtain prescription drugs. A smaller number of people cross into Mexico for work.
ORIGIN OF PEDESTRIANS CROSSING THE BORDER
DESTINATION OF PEDESTRIANS CROSSING THE BORDER
RESPONDENTS BY ORIGIN
RESPONDENTS BY DESTINATION
Source:San Ysidro Land Port of Entry Expansion Mobility Study. Rep. no. JA82077. U.S. General Services Administration, 30 Apr. 2009. Web. 31 Jan. 2010.
NU
MBE
R O
F PE
DES
TRI
AN
S
NORTHBOUNDSOUTHBOUND
TOTAL
12a 12p6am 6p0
100
200
300
400
TIJUANA
SAN DIEGO
SAN YSIDRO
LOS ANGELES
OTHER
TIJUANA
SAN DIEGO
SAN YSIDRO
LOS ANGELES
CHULA VISTA
OTHER
WORK
SCHOOL
SHOPPING
TOURISM
BUSINESS
MEDICAL
HOME
NO RESPONSE
WORK
SCHOOL
SHOPPING
TOURISM
BUSINESS
MEDICAL
HOME
NO RESPONSE
OTHER
Most people that cross the border into the U.S. at this point are traveling to work. Many people who work in the San Diego area live in Mexico because it is much cheaper than San Diego. There are also quite a few studetns that go to school in San Diego that live in Tijuana.
84
PEDESTRIAN ITINERARIES
10 11Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Most people travel to Mexico from the U.S. at this border entry to take advantage of the tourism in Tijuana which includes a vibrant nightlife and a legal drinking age of 18. Some others (mostly locals) cross the border here to take advantage of the cheaper services offered in Mexico such as vehicle repair and doctors, along with cheaper and easier to obtain prescription drugs. A smaller number of people cross into Mexico for work.
ORIGIN OF PEDESTRIANS CROSSING THE BORDER
DESTINATION OF PEDESTRIANS CROSSING THE BORDER
RESPONDENTS BY ORIGIN
RESPONDENTS BY DESTINATION
Source:San Ysidro Land Port of Entry Expansion Mobility Study. Rep. no. JA82077. U.S. General Services Administration, 30 Apr. 2009. Web. 31 Jan. 2010.
NU
MBE
R O
F PE
DES
TRI
AN
S
NORTHBOUNDSOUTHBOUND
TOTAL
12a 12p6am 6p0
100
200
300
400
TIJUANA
SAN DIEGO
SAN YSIDRO
LOS ANGELES
OTHER
TIJUANA
SAN DIEGO
SAN YSIDRO
LOS ANGELES
CHULA VISTA
OTHER
WORK
SCHOOL
SHOPPING
TOURISM
BUSINESS
MEDICAL
HOME
NO RESPONSE
WORK
SCHOOL
SHOPPING
TOURISM
BUSINESS
MEDICAL
HOME
NO RESPONSE
OTHER
Most people that cross the border into the U.S. at this point are traveling to work. Many people who work in the San Diego area live in Mexico because it is much cheaper than San Diego. There are also quite a few studetns that go to school in San Diego that live in Tijuana.
85
86
SECURITY
Antoinette Delvillano
Melissa Bonfi l
87
The purpose of the fence dividing the United States and Mexico is to secure the border and reduce illegal immigration. After the terrorist attact of September 11, the gaps along the US-Mexico border became a concern. Therefore, a new fence was proposed. The fence extends more than 600 miles along the border. The fence is not continuous, so in between the fences there is a “virtual fence” which consists of cameras, sensors, and Border Patrol agents.
Tijuana Beach Colinas del Mediterraneo Tijuana Tecate Lukeville Douglas El Paso Acuna Matamoros
Tijuana Otay Mesa Tecate Lukeville Douglas El Paso Brownsville
KEY
Border
New fence
Old fence
Border crossing
Source: www.panoramio.com88
FENCES + PORTS
The purpose of the fence dividing the United States and Mexico is to secure the border and reduce illegal immigration. After the terrorist attact of September 11, the gaps along the US-Mexico border became a concern. Therefore, a new fence was proposed. The fence extends more than 600 miles along the border. The fence is not continuous, so in between the fences there is a “virtual fence” which consists of cameras, sensors, and Border Patrol agents.
Tijuana Beach Colinas del Mediterraneo Tijuana Tecate Lukeville Douglas El Paso Acuna Matamoros
Tijuana Otay Mesa Tecate Lukeville Douglas El Paso Brownsville
KEY
Border
New fence
Old fence
Border crossing
Source: www.panoramio.com 89
“Triple Border Fence”
Source: www.vivirlatino.com
Ditch to prevent
vehicles from reaching the
fence
Road for border patrol
vehiclesMetal Fence
12’
Surveillance Camera
Barbed Wire
Tecate, Mexico
Tecate, California
120’
The triple border fence was proposed in 2005 as a result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The new fence is to replace obsolete existing fences such as this one that separates Tecate, California and Tecate, Mexico. 90
NEW FENCE INFRASTRUCTURE
“Triple Border Fence”
Source: www.vivirlatino.com
Ditch to prevent
vehicles from reaching the
fence
Road for border patrol
vehiclesMetal Fence
12’
Surveillance Camera
Barbed Wire
Tecate, Mexico
Tecate, California
120’
The triple border fence was proposed in 2005 as a result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The new fence is to replace obsolete existing fences such as this one that separates Tecate, California and Tecate, Mexico. 91
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Body copy text:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do
eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut
enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco
laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure
dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu
fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non
proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est
laborum
110 cross- border tunnels have been discovered since 1990. The number of tunnels found has increased as security along the border has increased. The tunnels greatly vary in length and materi -als. Some of the tunnels are made using w ood or metal , while others are extenstions of already existing infrastructure. The entrances of the tunnels also vary, some examples being hidden in walls, while others are openings in
These tunnels are used to smuggle peopleand drugs across the border.
30’
2600’
1450’
1200’
1000’
600’
January 25, 2006
May 31, 1993
February 27, 2002
December 2, 2009
February 25, 2005
December 30, 2009
Tijuana, MX Otay Mesa, CA
Nogales, MX Nogales, AZ
Tijuana, MX San Diego, CA
Mexicali, MX Calexico, CA
Tecate, MX Tierra del Sol, CA
Tijuana, MX Otay Mesa, CA
Tijuana
29San Diego, CA
Calexico, CA
6
2San Luis, AZ
53Nogales, AZ
Naco, AZ
1
1Douglas, AZ
Lynden, WA1
http://subtopia.blogspot.com/2009/03/tunnelizing-migration-1-border-tunnel.htmlSource: http://archives.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060126/news_7n26tunnel.html
Otay Mesa
Otay Mesa
Nogales
Tijuana
floors.
92
BORDER TUNNELS
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Body copy text:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do
eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut
enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco
laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure
dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu
fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non
proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est
laborum
110 cross- border tunnels have been discovered since 1990. The number of tunnels found has increased as security along the border has increased. The tunnels greatly vary in length and materi -als. Some of the tunnels are made using w ood or metal , while others are extenstions of already existing infrastructure. The entrances of the tunnels also vary, some examples being hidden in walls, while others are openings in
These tunnels are used to smuggle peopleand drugs across the border.
30’
2600’
1450’
1200’
1000’
600’
January 25, 2006
May 31, 1993
February 27, 2002
December 2, 2009
February 25, 2005
December 30, 2009
Tijuana, MX Otay Mesa, CA
Nogales, MX Nogales, AZ
Tijuana, MX San Diego, CA
Mexicali, MX Calexico, CA
Tecate, MX Tierra del Sol, CA
Tijuana, MX Otay Mesa, CA
Tijuana
29San Diego, CA
Calexico, CA
6
2San Luis, AZ
53Nogales, AZ
Naco, AZ
1
1Douglas, AZ
Lynden, WA1
http://subtopia.blogspot.com/2009/03/tunnelizing-migration-1-border-tunnel.htmlSource: http://archives.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060126/news_7n26tunnel.html
Otay Mesa
Otay Mesa
Nogales
Tijuana
floors.
93
Source: http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/1h/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I20363-2002Feb28
Tunnel Underground Barrier
300 feet
Border fence
Reinforced concrete1.5 to 2 feet thick
Source: http://www.visalaw.com/09apr1/4apr109.html
Underground Barrier
On February 28, 2002, US drug agents discovered the entrance to a tunnel behind a false door covered by a large safe in a closet at Johnson’s pig farm located in Tierra del Sol, California. The tunnel spanned 1,200 feet and ended in the fireplace of a home in Mexico. The tunnel included electric lights, ventilation ducts and wood walls.
This tunnel found in Mexico’s Baja California included a lighting system and a small cart. The tunnel reached a ranch in Southern California and was used to smuggle drugs and illegal immigrants across the border
The underground barrier was put in place to prevent tunnels from being built across the US - Mexico border. So far, it has been implemented in Nogales, Arizona, where it has prevented more tunnels from being built.
Electric light Ventilation tubes
1.2 m
1.2 m
20 feet
Tunnel Infrastructure
94
BORDER TUNNELS
Source: http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/1h/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I20363-2002Feb28
Tunnel Underground Barrier
300 feet
Border fence
Reinforced concrete1.5 to 2 feet thick
Source: http://www.visalaw.com/09apr1/4apr109.html
Underground Barrier
On February 28, 2002, US drug agents discovered the entrance to a tunnel behind a false door covered by a large safe in a closet at Johnson’s pig farm located in Tierra del Sol, California. The tunnel spanned 1,200 feet and ended in the fireplace of a home in Mexico. The tunnel included electric lights, ventilation ducts and wood walls.
This tunnel found in Mexico’s Baja California included a lighting system and a small cart. The tunnel reached a ranch in Southern California and was used to smuggle drugs and illegal immigrants across the border
The underground barrier was put in place to prevent tunnels from being built across the US - Mexico border. So far, it has been implemented in Nogales, Arizona, where it has prevented more tunnels from being built.
Electric light Ventilation tubes
1.2 m
1.2 m
20 feet
Tunnel Infrastructure
95
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Body copy text:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do
eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut
enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco
laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure
dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu
fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non
proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est
laborum
Canada
Mexico
= 500 Patrol Workers
Drug War Related Deaths
2,280 DEATHSJAN. 1, 2007 - DEC 31, 2007
3,760JAN. 1, 2007 - MAY 30, 2008
7,499JAN. 1, 2007 - JAN 2, 2009
9,903JAN. 1, 2007 - MAY 15, 2009Source: http://projects.latimes.com/mexico-drug-war/#/interactive-map
DEATHS
DEATHS
DEATHS
5,525 miles
1,952 miles
Source: www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs10/10330/
Most common drug entry points into the United States
96
INTERNATIONAL BORDER SECURITY
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Body copy text:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do
eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut
enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco
laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure
dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu
fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non
proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est
laborum
Canada
Mexico
= 500 Patrol Workers
Drug War Related Deaths
2,280 DEATHSJAN. 1, 2007 - DEC 31, 2007
3,760JAN. 1, 2007 - MAY 30, 2008
7,499JAN. 1, 2007 - JAN 2, 2009
9,903JAN. 1, 2007 - MAY 15, 2009Source: http://projects.latimes.com/mexico-drug-war/#/interactive-map
DEATHS
DEATHS
DEATHS
5,525 miles
1,952 miles
Source: www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs10/10330/
Most common drug entry points into the United States
97
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Body copy text:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do
eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut
enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco
laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure
dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu
fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non
proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est
laborum
New York, NY
Northwest Angle, MN
Surveillance In Public Space
Surveillance Camera
In contrast to the heavy surveillance on the border between Mexico and the United States, the border between the United States and Canada is at some points very loosely secured. One example of an insecure border crossing is at the Northwest Angle in Minne-sota. When visitors arrive to the Northwest Angle, they are supposed to enter a small building called Jim’s Corner, where they are
estimated that only 30% of people entering the Northweset Angle from Canada actually stop and check in at Jim’s Corner.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/05/acd.02.html
Source: http://www.notbored.org/times-square.html
The number of surveillance cameras in Manhattan increased by 500% between 2001 and 2005. There are currently more than 15,000 surveillance cameras in Manhattan, 604 of which are in Times Square alone. These cameras include privately owned security cameras, military cameras, tv cameras, city owned cameras, and foreign embassy cameras. Only 12 of the cameras in Times Square are police cameras, but these cameras can clearly document up to 15 blocks away.
NATIONAL INSECURITY
98
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Source: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Body copy text:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do
eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut
enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco
laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure
dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu
fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non
proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est
laborum
New York, NY
Northwest Angle, MN
Surveillance In Public Space
Surveillance Camera
In contrast to the heavy surveillance on the border between Mexico and the United States, the border between the United States and Canada is at some points very loosely secured. One example of an insecure border crossing is at the Northwest Angle in Minne-sota. When visitors arrive to the Northwest Angle, they are supposed to enter a small building called Jim’s Corner, where they are
estimated that only 30% of people entering the Northweset Angle from Canada actually stop and check in at Jim’s Corner.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/05/acd.02.html
Source: http://www.notbored.org/times-square.html
The number of surveillance cameras in Manhattan increased by 500% between 2001 and 2005. There are currently more than 15,000 surveillance cameras in Manhattan, 604 of which are in Times Square alone. These cameras include privately owned security cameras, military cameras, tv cameras, city owned cameras, and foreign embassy cameras. Only 12 of the cameras in Times Square are police cameras, but these cameras can clearly document up to 15 blocks away.
99
100
SITE PHOTOS
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
top related