FORUMS & LETTERS
 |
The Colegio de Arquitectos de San Miguel de Allende, A.C., sent the following letters to Arq. Ángel Gastélum Cadena, head of the municipal Urban Development Department, August 18 and 21, 2009. The letters discuss their revisions, recommendations and concerns regarding the municipal development plans. |
Letter of August 18:
Regarding the public consultation of the development plans of the microregions, I wish to inform you that the Colegio de Arqitectos (Architects’ Association) has organized four work groups for reviewing the documents you gave us on August 13, and we are currently working on it. For finishing our work, it is necessary to have the cartography which was not among the documents you provided.
We expect to have that information in brief, so that we can conclude our review. Because of the importance of these plans, which are in review process for later approval by the City Council, we think it is convenient to extend the public consultation period, so that not only our association can do a conscientious review of the plans, but if other citizen groups have such opportunity, they may be able to enrich the studies with their comments and proposals. After all, the purpose of these plans is to improve the quality of life of the residents of the municipality.
Looking forward to the information and hoping you consider expanding the public consultation period, we send you our best regards.
Architect Olga Adriana Hernández Flores
Presidenta del Colegio de Arquitectos
San Miguel de Allende
Letter of August 21:
These are comments and general observations made on the development plans for the microregions.
These observations relate to the documents (abbreviated versions of the microregions development plans) [provided by the city]. We could not make comments or observations on issues regarding land use, reservation areas, areas of future development, location of urban equipment, streets and roads, and other important planning concepts, as we were not granted access to cartography information.
General observations:
· Different criteria were used in the structure of each plan. They should have had an homogeneity in their structure, since they are part of a single municipality.
· It seems the plans were not ruled by a municipal norm in homogenous areas, preservation areas and streets, which should have been reflected in each one of the microregions.
· The criteria applied to each of the microregions seem to be for an urban area, when most of them–except Microregion 1–are rural areas, so the rules, strategies and goals must be the appropriate ones for a rural area.
· Regarding land use, the plans consider lamd for high-density housing, medium-density housing and industrial use, which should not be considered in the case of housing for rural areas. The norm for rural housing must be very low density and not open the possibility of high-density developments, which would negatively impact any rural community in a short and medium term.
· Regarding industry, there is nothing which is not related to agriculture and cattle production.
· The concept “Urban Zones” is constantly mentioned in all the plans; this concept must be perfectly defined for its application in rural areas, since it can cause confusion. Human settlements in rural areas must necessarily have urbanizing processes, but they are quite different from the ones in the city.
· The construction criteria used in the plans describe the city of San Miguel; it would not be bad if the rural communities could look like the city, but this is unreal. Construction criteria for each microregion must be according to the typology or image of the villages in it.
· The old haciendas are never mentioned in the plans; they are major elements of cultural heritage in the rural communities and besides their rescue and conservation, they may be an important factor for tourism development
· All construction criteria or traffic rules proposed in the plans are appropriate for a city; it is necessary to define and apply rules appropriate for rural communities.
· The urban infrastructure proposed for the rural villages is similar to the one used for the city. Since it is completely inappropriate for the city’s context, it must not be used in the villages either.
· The proposal for fraccionamientos (developments), the concept of fraccionamientos cerrados (closed developments), which was wrongly allowed to develop within the city, must not be repeated in the rural areas. Special rules and criteria must be designed for each village.
· All the plans speak about programs and proposals for 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009, and in all cases are good actions or intentions which were not performed on time; all this must be reprogrammed and evaluated to see if they are still viable.
· The same applies for the issue of short, medium and long term, since all this is obsolete and not viable.
Olga Adriana Hernandez Flores
Presidenta del Colegio de Arquitectos
San Miguel de Allende
cc: State Secretary of Social & Human Development
cc: Director of the State Planning Institute
cc: San Miguel de Allende City Council
cc: Luz Maria Núñez Flores, President-Elect of San Miguel de Allende
Letter for Architect Ángel Gastélum Cadena
Head of the Urban Development Department
cc. Editor, Atención San Miguel
This is the English translation of a letter which appeared in Spanish in the September 4 issue of Atención.
Regarding the public consultation of the development plans for the microregions, we make the following comments:
1. We ask for an extension of the period for public consultation of the development plans, since the needed cartography was not available in public spaces.
2. We also need to have the matching points between the proposals in the plans and the Urban Development Plan of the State of Guanjuato in its four guidelines: 1) Use, 2) Restoration, 3) Conservation, 4) Protection.
3. Although the current administration performed—through the University of Querétaro and other civil entities—studies for the sustainable development of the microbasins of the following regions: Támbula, Picachos, Río Laja and Río San Damián; it seems not to be important to clearly establish the matching between the real microbasins and the microregions designed by the Urban Development Department.
4. We consider that without the minimum analytical elements mentioned above, the results are incomplete for the proposal of the development plans which were put under public consultation for a very brief period of time.
5. The public consultation of the development plans does not meet formal requirements so that it could be authorized by the City Council.
Ricardo Vidargas Birk
President of Va por San Miguel de Allende
cc: City Councilors of San Miguel de Allende
cc. Federal Congress members
cc. State Congress members
cc. Secretaría de la Función Pública
cc. Media
cc. Lucy Núñez
Editor,
I have been following your reporting of the Cachinches bridge with great interest. As construction for the bridge has already begun, any comments or feedback from the affected community is moot, but I have been disturbed by the misrepresentation of your articles. Reading the first article (August 21), which gave certain facts about the bridge, I had the impression Atención believed there was no controversy over its construction, that everyone on both sides of the arroyo was in favor of the bridge.
A letter that appeared last week took issue with that perspective and made several points about the bridge. An editor’s note below the letter said a follow-up article would appear this week. When I saw the headline “Different views over the Cachinches bridge,” I assumed that the article would address some of the controversy.
I was shocked that it did not. I understand the reluctance of Atención to get into the political aspects of the situation, and why you did not address the fact that the company building the bridge received land on the Mexiquito side which will be more easily sold after it is developed with the bridge, or get into the questions raised about the possibility of excessive cost of the bridge or legality of the land exchange, but I thought you would discuss the cultural controversy.
“The bridge,” according to the September 4 article, “aims to provide passage for the children from Colonia Guadalupe who attend school and use the sports fields.” The bridge will have two lanes for traffic as well as sidewalks. Does a two-lane bridge make sense at the end of a one-way street? Would not a pedestrian bridge have served the purpose? Everyone on both sides of the arroyo would be in favor of such a project. Many, perhaps most, are not in support of a bridge for autos.
Every person you quote in the article is for the bridge. I live on Bocanegra. I know many people who are very concerned the bridge will open the street to the kind of traffic Calzada de la Aurora now carries. That is a business street; this is residential. Many people in the quiet area of Manjarrez de Mexiquito are worried that the cultural identity of the area will be dramatically changed by opening it as a route to downtown. So are many people in the Bocanegra area of Guadalupe.
Ken Rowland
|