Mexico is a country of peasants and handicraftsmen; Mexico City, an oasis—or, if you prefer it, a small desert—of urbanism and industrialism.
Aldous Huxley, 19 3 4291
Between 1920 and 1940, the area of Mexico City expanded from eighteen square miles to forty-five. As the city expanded laterally, it engulfed what had been geographically separate, centuries-old towns. In 1929, Mixcoac, Popotla, Tacuba, and Tacubaya were officially incorporated into Mexico City. Tram lines linked these communities, the downtown, and new subdivisions. In 1918, horse-drawn carriages were more common than automobiles. In 1928, the use of carriages was outlawed.292
Through 1934, Mexico City benefited from the decision of the national political leadership to prioritize economic development and political stability in Mexico City at the expense of most other regions. This decision ensured that the capital city would receive a disproportionate share of national resources and that its principal resident populations—bureaucrats, middle classes, and urban-based industrial laborers—would hold disproportionate say in determining national policies.293
The wealth resulting from the Revolution was reflected in new subdivisions to the west of the town center—Anzures, Lomas de Chapultepec, and Polanco. The preferred architectural style was baptized “California colonial,” since wealthy Mexicans built homes that imitated the homes of wealthy Californians who favored stucco and tile—homes that they had built in imitation of Mexican architecture.
The city financed the extension of Insurgentes Avenue, the city’s main north-south thoroughfare, south to San Angel. Developers, who enjoyed privileged access to city officials, lobbied to influence such investment decisions. In addition, the municipal government preferred to finance middle - and upper-class subdivisions, since they increased the tax base and allowed the government to recoup its investment. Providing infrastructure to the populous, impoverished east side was seen as the equivalent of dropping money into a black hole since the poor, with or without services, were unlikely to generate significant tax revenue.294
As the city segregated itself according to wealth, less affluent areas developed community and class consciousness, as is indicated by a rent strike in 1922. Housing for the poor remained— as in the nineteenth century—unhealthy. Naturalist Aldous Huxley, visiting the city in the 1930s, declared: “I never saw so many thin, sickly and deformed people as in the poorer quarters of the metropolis; never such filth and raggedness, such signs of hopeless poverty. As an argument against our present economic system, Mexico City is unanswerable.”295
In the 1920s, a problem that would plague the city for the rest of the century became apparent— subsidence. As a combined result of increased water usage and drainage projects completed late in the Porfiriato, the water table descended. As the overlying sediments dried up, they contracted. Since the subsidence was uneven, buildings began to tilt, and sewers stopped flowing in some places. This occurred as expanded ground cover increased run-off into the sewer system. Sewage frequently overflowed after heavy rains, since sewage and storm run-off were (and are) channeled into the same system.296
A combination of continued growth and the Cardenas administration having transferred much of the land adjacent to the city into the ejido sector, thus preventing its legal sale, drove up prices for accessible land. Between 1935 and 1940, land prices in the Federal District increased between 50 and 200 percent. This led to soaring rents, which in turn produced demands for rent control— demands that were backed with marches and rent strikes. Between 1935 and 1940, an estimated 73,274 were involved in illegal land invasions, pitting speculators holding land for later sale and development against the urban poor, who adopted the Zapatista view that social needs should determine the use of land, not legal titles.298
Cardenas’s policies came back to haunt the PRM. By 1940, the PRM’s legitimacy was nearing bottom in the capital, since its residents felt neglected as government-provided services declined. They also felt disenfranchised, since the mayor was appointed by the president, and small merchants, artisans, and the unemployed had no organization they could rely upon to press their demands. Despite electoral fraud in 1940, Almazan carried the Federal District.299
In the 1930s, contrasting visions of the city emerged that would persist for the rest of the century. One group argued strongly for protection and restoration of the colonial architectural beauty of downtown areas, as well as for keeping central city streets uncluttered by vendors and clear for urban transport vehicles. In contrast, small merchants, street vendors, and renters, many of whom lived in old dilapidated buildings in the center, saw this campaign as posing a serious threat to their livelihood. They lived in housing stock passed down from one artisan-worker family to another for generations. To be displaced from these locations, particularly at a time when large industries and commerce were beginning to dominate the urban economy, would be a fatal blow to these small, central-city businesses.300
A number of factors led to population increase in Mexico City. As Mexico’s largely rural population increased, it found few rural job opportunities. Many rural areas remained insecure well after the major armies had ceased to fight. As haciendas went bankrupt or were converted into ejidos, many lost jobs. These factors resulted in migration to the capital. Also, high government spending, at least until 1934, generated jobs in Mexico City and made it a more pleasant place to live in. Even after 1934, the federal government increased its role, adding additional employment in the bureaucracy. Finally, as industrialization increased, new jobs were generated, which, given government support of unions, were relatively high paying.
World History
