Borderline Personality

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



Body copy text:








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


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


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



Body copy text:








laborum

0-10 inches

10-20 inches

20-40 inches

40-60 inches

60-80 inches

waterways



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



Body copy text:








laborum

0-10 inches

10-20 inches

20-40 inches

40-60 inches

60-80 inches

waterways



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



Body copy text:








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



Body copy text:








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



Body copy text:








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



Body copy text:








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


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


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


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.


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



Body copy text:








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



Body copy text:








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%


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%


42.1% 22.3% 28.2%

Tijuana San Diego Corridor US Mexico

97.7% 94.1% 95.1% 89.2% 94.6%


16.3% 13.2% 14.1%

[1] US Employment Distribution (% of pop) [2] Mexico Employment Distribution (% of pop)


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



Body copy text:








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


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



Body copy text:








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


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


39


0%-10%

40%-100%

municipality’s poverty level more than national poverty level


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


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.


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


0%-10%

40%-100%

municipality’s poverty level more than national poverty level


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


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.


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 -.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 -.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


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


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


Mexicoach

Pedestrian Path

Commuter Vehicle Path

70

TRANSIT ROUTES

Greyhound Bus Line

Greyhound Mexican Affiliate

Mexicoach 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


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.


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.


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.


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


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


Passenger vehicles per year.

79


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


200 ft

Land port of entry

Pedestrian crossings per year.

200 ft

200 ft200 ft

80

PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC


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


200 ft

Land port of entry

Pedestrian crossings per year.

200 ft

200 ft200 ft

81


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


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


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


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



Body copy text:








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

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



Body copy text:








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


Nogales, MX Nogales, AZ

Tijuana, MX San Diego, CA

Mexicali, MX Calexico, CA

Tecate, MX Tierra del Sol, 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



Body copy text:








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



Body copy text:








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



Body copy text:








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



Body copy text:








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

Borderline Personality

Documents

term public works

example of public works

associated public

usmexico border

suburbs of san diego

center of mexico city

mexicos primary public

us military