INTRODUCTION
Since the 1990s, the definition of homelessness has evolved. Governments influenced by social justice movements, constitutionalism, and civil rights, have adopted a human rights-based approach.1 This approach includes: (a) the implementation of social policies to address the issue; (b) abiding by, and recognizing the rights of the homeless, including human dignity, freedom, and freedom of movement; and (c) the prohibition of punitive policies towards the homeless, and of criminalizing their presence.2 However, the cities’ urban development has focused on attracting capital and tourism under a competitive neoliberal logic.
Cities are shaping public spaces as clean areas for consumption and entertainment in the form of urban renewal projects, gentrification, or city centres’ revitalization projects.3 This approach is included in critical urban theory, a theory that defines urbanization as a spatially grounded social process in which a wide range of different actors, with quite different objectives and agendas, interact through a particular configuration of interrelated spatial practices. A process capable of reforming and controlling, as well as oppressing.4 This theoretical approach to urban planning describes the contemporary city as one shaped by capitalist dynamics, where planners shape public space according to the preferences and behaviours of an ideal type of user. The users in this contemporary city do not represent all the citizens; they are just the middle and upper classes with acquisitive power. Furthermore, spaces are carefully designed to avoid the exposure of the homeless, poverty, or other kinds of nuisances to the ideal public.5
Moreover, a discourse of insecurity and fear rules neoliberal cities.6 This article approaches this discourse of insecurity and fear from Wacquant’s7 perspective. He defines the neoliberal State as a political project that involves the dismantling of welfare and an inevitable shift from a welfare State to a penal State. This neoliberal State has four main characteristics: (i) a laissez-faire approach to economic relations; (ii) a rejection of welfare social engineering practices; (iii) the promotion of individual responsibility as a cultural and governmental axiom; and (iv) the development of a greatly expanded and punitive penal apparatus. Under this definition, Wacquant develops the idea of a penal State, consisting in the use of police forces, courts, and the prison system to control marginality. This penal State has two main characteristics: the presence of a discourse of insecurity and fear, and a strong government response to marginality through punitive policies. Under this approach, cities should be ruled by safety, public order and socio-spatial policies and practices that conflict with the frequent presence of homeless people in public spaces.
Therefore, cities currently face two conflicting mandates: (a) respecting a human rights-based approach to the homeless; and (b) the beautification of public space. On one side, there are social policies aiming at helping the homeless reintegrate into society by offering them shelter, health care, and other services, as well as respecting their right to be in public spaces, giving them thereby a sense of freedom and mobility. On the other side, beautification policies, such as urban renewal projects, or the objective of having clean and orderly public spaces, entail removing homeless people, consequently denying them the right to use the public space. The interconnectedness of these two policies allows us to understand the priorities of cities and to determine whose interests shall prevail.
Bogotá is an interesting case to analyse, because it demonstrates the overlap of a human rights-based approach to the homeless in a context in which one of the city’s main priorities is beautification. This approach to the homeless is grounded in the national homelessness law and in the Constitutional Court’s understanding of this issue. Both the law and the Court conceptualize homeless people as a vulnerable group in need of special protection by the government to ensure their rights.8 Furthermore, the Court has established that any kind of legal action against homelessness is inadmissible, and has also stated that homeless people cannot be forced to receive medical treatment or be removed from public spaces.9
Bogotá, however, is also influenced by neoliberal forces and has been implementing beautification policies. Its former administration, led by Mayor Enrique Peñalosa, had a strong discourse on the citizen’s perception of safety that emphasized the importance of having clean, orderly, and beautiful public spaces, and justified the implementation of urban renewal projects as a prerequisite for improving the city’s safety. These urban renewal projects implemented at the city’s centre are aimed at recovering deteriorated spaces in order to attract capital and tourism and thus become a world-class city.10
Recent events in the city illustrate how these two mandates, respecting the rights of the homeless and beautifying public space, are clashing. In 2016, the administration undertook an intervention in an area of the city called “El Bronx”, located near the historic city centre of Bogotá, which consisted of four blocks where drug mafias, criminality, prostitution, and homelessness coexisted. The administration justified this intervention on the recovery of the territorial control of the area, and the reestablishment of the rights of the vulnerable population living in the neighbourhood, including many homeless people.11 During the intervention, more than 2,000 homeless people were forced to move out, and there was not enough social infrastructure to service the affected vulnerable population.12 One year after the intervention, Bogotá’s government developed an urban renewal project designed to physically renovate this space, “Bronx, Creative District,” intended to attract capital and promote the city’s creative industries.
Using a case study approach, a qualitative and critical approach, and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA),13 this article discusses how the beautification frameworks available conflict with the Constitutional Court’s human rights-based mandate for the homeless. I shall argue that: (a) there is a strong discourse on the citizens’ perception of safety in the city that clashes with the existence of homeless people and the human rights-based approach to them proposed by the Constitutional Court and the law; (b) this discourse justifies the implementation of beautification policies in the form of urban renewal projects; and (c) these urban renewal projects include the city’s priorities, such as the attraction of capital and tourism.
1. A HUMAN RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH TO THE HOMELESS VS. THE DISCOURSE ON THE CITIZENS’ PERCEPTION OF SAFETY
Historically, homelessness in Colombia was forbidden.14 However, since 1980, with the passing of the penal code, begging or vagrancy were no longer considered to be criminal offences. Furthermore, Colombia’s 1991 Constitution created the Constitutional Court. The Constitution and the Court’s decisions have the highest legal status, meaning that any policy, law, or decree in the country must abide by the constitutional dispositions. In different decisions,15 the Constitutional Court has conceptualized the homeless as subjects of rights and as a vulnerable group that needs special protection from the government. The Court has also limited the scope of local government action regarding the homeless. It has stated that any type of legal action in the form of legal sanction or forced therapeutic intervention is inadmissible, because it objectifies homeless people, or it is used as an action to prevent potential crime. Furthermore, the Court, based on the Constitution, has established that Colombia recognizes the citizens’ rights to self-determination and autonomy. Therefore, it is unacceptable for any authority to impose a specific ideal lifestyle through the threat of legal sanctions.16
Moreover, following the Court’s decisions, Bogotá has adopted social policies that address the issue of homelessness. These social policies are included in a national law,17 a local law,18 and in policy directives issued by the current municipal administration.19 These policies have three main components: i) prevent people from becoming homeless; ii) the provision of transitory care and attention to the homeless, such as availability of medical treatment and shelters; and iii) availability of programs seeking to reintegrate the homeless to society. The local government, specifically the Secretary of Social Integration, is the main agency responsible for the implementation of these policies.
Thus, the Constitutional Court’s prevalent jurisprudence, as well as current social policies, clearly indicate that, in theory, Bogotá’s local government should follow a human rights-based approach towards the homeless. This approach respects homeless people’s rights, and addresses the issue through comprehensive social policies. Among the rights the government must respect, the Court has been clear in stating that authorities must respect homeless people’s autonomy in deciding if they want to have access to treatment for drugs or social services, such as day and night shelters, or care centres.20 In practice, this means that they cannot be forced to move out of public spaces without their consent.
Regarding urban planning and the conceptualization of public space, Bogotá’s former administrations (Mayors Peñalosa [1998–2000; 2016–2019]; Mockus [1995–1997; 2001–2003], Garzón [2004–2007]; Moreno [2008–2011]; Petro [2012–1015]) have emphasized the recovery of public space as one of the city’s key issues. Different policies, ranging from education, security, transportation, to urban renewal intervention, have given prominence to public space.21 Enrique Peñalosa, Mayor from 2016–2019, focused on the physical improvement of public spaces. His administration had a strong discourse based on the citizens’ perception of public safety, assuming that to have a safe city depends on having clean and orderly public spaces. This discourse was evident in his inaugural address, that included the following statements:
“We will work for a safe city in which it is possible to live without fear, and to attract investors and tourists”.22
“I will lead and support our police (…) that face multiple criminal organizations that make public peace impossible. However, safety starts with an orderly city where living standards are met. The order and cleanliness in public places (…) are a prerequisite for safety”.23
In this sense, the Secretary of Security and Justice publicly stated that order and beauty go hand in hand, and that they generate safety in the city. Therefore, it was argued that if cities are clean, do not have graffiti, or have fewer street vendors, people will feel safe and fewer crimes will be committed.24
Peñalosa’s discourse also discussed the recovery of public space and the beautification of the city aimed at attracting capital and investors:
“The quality of our city is an end in itself, but it is also a means: it is the most important factor for generating modern economic development. (…) the most critical factor for competitiveness shall be increasing the quality of life in cities: only by improving our quality of life, will it be possible to attract and retain qualified individuals, investors and tourists that create the global city we desire to have”.25
“(…) we do not simply want to be a city, but one that is especially beautiful, has character and is recognized around the world”.26
As shown, Peñalosa had a strong discourse on the citizen’s perception of safety, emphasizing that clean, orderly, and beautiful public spaces are a prerequisite for improving safety. This is tied to the idea that capital and tourism inflows will increase if the city’s public spaces improve. He believed that the success of the city is measured in terms of how effectively it attracts tourism and capital.
Certainly, this discourse does not directly criminalize homeless people. However, the conceptualization of the public space as clean, orderly, and beautiful to improve the citizens’ perception of safety clashes with the existence of the homeless, and suggests who and what is desirable for public spaces. Homeless people are those who live in the street and consequently carry out all their “private activities”, such as urinating and sleeping, in public spaces.27 Therefore, for Bogotá’s former administration, the presence of the homeless in the streets clashed with the definition of public spaces as clean and orderly spaces and with its goal of improving the citizens’ perception of safety. Furthermore, in the Court’s understanding, homeless people cannot be forced to move out of the public space, therefore there is an undeniable tension between the Court’s understanding of homelessness and the discourse on clean public space.
Moreover, under the umbrella of neo-liberalism, this discourse seems to be an answer to the citizen’s demand for safety.28 In Bogotá, the well-off classes with political power are constantly demanding safety.29 Therefore, the government responds with a strong safety discourse for citizens that makes a clean, orderly, and beautiful public space a prerequisite to achieving this goal. It is important to highlight that, when structural adjustment policies were implemented in Colombia, there was a counterbalance to the unchecked expansion of neoliberal practices.30 In this sense, the Court’s understanding of homelessness can be regarded as an effort to protect the homeless from the exclusionary governmental practices of neoliberal cities. However, as shall be further analysed, the Court’s discursive power has not been strong enough to counteract these practices.
2. URBAN RENOVATION PROCESSES AND THE EXCLUSION OF THE HOMELESS
Since the late 1990s, Bogotá has undergone different urban renewal projects aimed at revitalizing different areas of the city that are physically deteriorated.31 These projects are led by the local government but involve private companies’ investments. They are located around the city, but are mainly focused on the recovery of city’s central areas. Indeed, Mayor Peñalosa made the development of these urban renewal projects one of his flagship initiatives. Under Peñalosa’s mandate, the city had 21 urban renewal projects in process.32
In this sense, Article 4.2.2.1 of the Government Plan for 2016-2020 justifies the development of urban renewal projects involving deteriorated spaces according to three main purposes: (a) these projects shall strengthen safety and citizen coexistence; (b) they shall generate economic returns to the city; and (c) they shall promote tourism and creative industries. Furthermore, this article highlights the beautification of the affected spaces as a major component of urban renewal projects.33
This section continues with the analysis of a specific urban renewal project in Bogota in an area known as “El Bronx”. This intervention shows how the city is undergoing urban renewal processes which end up criminalizing the presence of the homeless. Through this example, it is established how the implementation of urban renewal projects is justified by a discourse based on the perception of safety. Additionally, it exemplifies how urban renewal projects address the economic interests of the city, making them impossible to resist.
2.1. The intervention of “El Bronx”
Bogotá’s government under Mayor Peñalosa stated that one of its priorities was to implement the “El Voto Nacional” urban renewal project. El Voto Nacional is a neighbourhood located at Bogotá’s city centre, very close to local and national government buildings. This project was designed to revitalize and recover this area by improving road access conditions, green areas, and by creating projects entailing the commercial use of the land. One main reason for this was the potential land value, which would increase after the area was cleared. One NGO report established that nearby commercial zones had a price per square meter of around USD$4,500, while in this neighbourhood the price per square meter was around USD$400.34 Therefore, the urban renewal project had both social and economic incentives.
The priority of this renewal plan was the intervention of a specific four block radius of El Voto Nacional known as “El Bronx”. El Bronx was an area where drug mafias, criminality, prostitution, child prostitution and homelessness coexisted.35 On May 28th, 2016, the incumbent municipal administration intervened El Bronx. This intervention was coordinated by the Secretary of Security and was carried out by the police and other security agencies.36 Different institutions participated in the intervention; however no human-rights agency was present.37 As a result of the intervention, the local government was able to disintegrate prostitution, child labour, and drug mafias in El Bronx. More than 2,000 homeless people were forced to leave El Bronx’ streets and the government offered some provisional shelters for those in need of drug treatment. However, as denounced by a report on the intervention,38 there was not enough infrastructure available for all the homeless. Some of the homeless denounced that they were violently forced to leave the public space. Furthermore, different reports from NGOs have confirmed police brutality during the intervention.39 The government stated that the intervention was needed to re-establish the rights of children, adolescents, and homeless people; to disarticulate criminal organizations that operated in “El Bronx”, to guarantee and maintain institutional presence; and to recover the territorial control of the area.40 After the intervention, the area was cordoned-off by the police. All the buildings were evacuated, and the urban renewal project led by the government started to buy and sell them.41
2.2. Results of the Intervention: Bronx, Creative District
In 2018, the local government announced the project, “Bronx, Creative District”. This project is aimed at building a creative district that promotes the city’s artistic industries. According to the Mayor, in a couple of years, El Bronx would become an enormous centre promoting soft culture ¾ fashion, design, photography, and architecture. Additionally, El Bronx would generate millions of dollars by attracting visitors to theatre productions, fashion shows and other artistic manifestations.42 The government, therefore, announced an initial investment of USD$43,000,000 to renew the area.43 The Mayor stated that the project was a triumph for the city, that would bring equal opportunities for the citizens and serve the inhabitants of Bogotá.44 This transformation shows that Bogotá’s centre is undergoing an undeniable process of urban renovation, driven by the local government to boost the city’s economy. As we have seen, the administration justified the intervention by showing the need to restore the rights of the vulnerable population living in the area. However, it is evident that the main purpose of the intervention was to enable the development of an urban renewal project that would bring economic returns to the city.
As underlined by Peck & Tickel (2002), the government, “animated by a set of concerns related to crime, unemployment, welfare dependency and social breakdowns”, intervened only to implement its neoliberal agendas of urban renewal.45 These authors emphasize that these urban renewal processes are not only embedded in local pressures, but also reflect the logic of capitalism. In the case of Bogotá, it is true that El Bronx was an area of criminality and violence, and that there was a need to intervene. However, the main purpose of the intervention was to make El Bronx an attractive place for capital that would boost the city’s economy. It is also possible to claim that this urban renewal program was designed to promote the city’s creative economy, and could be included under the urbanization processes in cities described by Harvey (1989), where the configuration of space under capitalism is shaped by the flow of capital. In this sense, this urban renewal created an urban space for a certain type of people. Peñalosa claims that the urban renewal of El Bronx has resulted in a place designed to give equal opportunities to citizens. However, these urban renewal projects negatively affected marginal groups of citizens not included in the renewal proposal. This is clearly an urbanisation process that undermines vulnerable people’s rights, as the homeless were forced to move out of this space and are excluded from the government’s renewal project.
It can be seen how Bogotá’s urban planning strategies end up by criminalizing homeless people who live in the streets of the city’s centre. As underlined by Yiftachel (2000), urban planning can be a mechanism of oppression. Furthermore, oppression rarely appears openly as a policy goal, but it reflects what the government interests are and whose interests the government is representing.46 In the case of Bogotá, the city is undergoing urban renewal projects driven by the city’s economic interests and its efforts to attract tourism and capital. These goals are replacing in practice any constitutional understanding of homelessness.
CONCLUSIONS
The goal of this case study was to analyse why beautification frameworks substitute human rights-based approaches to the homeless in the case of Bogotá. It has illustrated how different elements intersect, such as the existence of a strong discourse on safety, the police’s ambiguous goals towards the homeless, and the emergence of urban renewal projects in the city.
Through the lenses of criminalization of poverty, it was shown how Bogotá’s Mayor had a strong discourse on the citizen’s perception of safety, aimed at improving safety by having clean, orderly and beautiful public spaces. This discourse is part of a neoliberal logic that, according to Wacquant (2009), confuses de facto safety with the perception of safety, and, by doing so, labels as undesirable any “castaway categories”, such as homeless people occupying public spaces. Furthermore, this discourse justifies the development of urban renewal projects in the city.
Using a critical urban theory, it was determined that Bogotá is driven by the economic interests of attracting capital and tourism, and is undergoing the development of different urban renewal projects. Through the example of El Bronx, it was shown how Mayor Peñalosa justified the intervention and subsequent urban renewal of this area by asserting the need to improve the citizen’s perception of safety. As a result, the restoration of the vulnerable populations’ rights was needed. The way in which the intervention was carried out showed that homeless people were violently forced to move out of the public space and that the local government did not have the infrastructure required for them. Additionally, the announcement of “Bronx, Creative District” and the revelation of the potential value of land in El Bronx, suggests that the real motive for the intervention was the development of an urban project driven by the city’s economic interests, aimed at attracting capital to Bogotá. Moreover, although the urban renewal project is not yet finished, the public attending of “Bronx, Creative District” seems to be the kind of public that excludes the presence of homeless people.
Furthermore, this was a case study to illustrate the reasons why beautification frameworks replaced the human rights-based approach to homelessness. However, to understand the problem in greater depth, an assessment of how social policies for homeless people are being designed and implemented is needed. These further studies should investigate, using multiple methodologies, whether homeless people are accessing social services, such as care centres and day and night shelters. Quantitative information should be collected on how many homeless people access these services, how long they access them for, and what the service’s impact is (i.e. if they reintegrate the homeless into society or not). Furthermore, interviews should be conducted to try to understand why homeless people access only certain kinds of services. These interviews may also reveal how homeless people experience exclusionary mechanisms present in the city.
Finally, this case study of the neoliberal city can be replicated for different urban processes of cities that undergo neoliberal processes.