Tio eg ‘The Transborder Metropolis in Question ‘The Case of juana and San Diego he population living on the V.S.Mexico borders eon binational pairs of adjacent cies. In che literature on border ut ion, inthe mass medi, and in the polisica dialogue ofboth countries, these adjacent cites ae often called “twin cities a “bor Adee egion,”o *teansborder metropolis.” The wo cites of Tuan edin and San Diego ae the most wel!-4nown example because they are the tikes with the greatest population on both sides of the border and have received the most attention in the literature, The idea that a transborder metropolis exsts—that each pair of neighboring cities forms a soe cty or region— implies that both cities have similar fy tures andi tress. This ides emphasizes thelt proximity and the in- teractions between both sides ofthe border as arguments to sustain ‘the concept ofthe oneness ofthe two sides, On the other hand, by highlighting the structural characteristics that stimulate urban sgrowth—characteristics chat are different on both sides of the border itis possible makea case forthe oneness ofeach side. This study proposes that theides of he transborder metropolis has a. weak theoe tha suggests weare ooking This text ist presents the idea ofa teansborder society, egion, and mir fal and empirical foundation, Evidence resented two adjacent, butdifferencurb ‘metropolis and then presents the critiques of those ideas and cal evidence that backs up those critiques Transborder Society and Metropolis Teansborder Society ‘Until the end ofthe 16705, order prob were looked aas national cesses in the Mexicali cure on the subjet. The analysis of urban development andthe policies stemming from t were not exempt from 1rban border activities were considered 2s loal-national pro- estes as in anyother cty inthe interior ofthe country, without taking the binational praxis of aid processes inzo account in order wo explain the devel- opment of the border and is in 1g, what was petaps the frst transbordr vision ofthe concept he border was proposed (Bustamante 1981). In this proposal, he border area is defined a8“ binationa region geographically demarcated by the empirical extension of he processes ofinteraetion between peopleliving ‘on both sides ofthe border” (39-Using.a Web asa transborder social sruecure rian conception of social clas, the binatonal region was conceptualize with socal steaeficaion spanning both sides ofthe border. The oneness of arated by the interaction is defined the social structure ofthe area hrough a numberof social development indicators. The differences between both sides ofthe border donot appear as rupture, but continuity in the border cegion’sbinational social structure “This conceptualiation is based on three main ideas: () the “border re ion is binational; a that region has the same socal structure regardless. of| fers and (3) both sides ofthe border have similar economic and social her asa stratified processes. The binationality ofthe border region is here a geographic-scial definition and not a poitical-administeative one. This laification allows fortwo types of implications. Fits, inthe theoretical spect, the geographic tion presupposes a contradiction between the national way of ing and implementing public policy on the border and the binational pediment to resolving the problems aTetings gion, Considering the existence ofthe border invariable, ‘ion to the problems of this region reqite transborder coordination in pub border: lic policy on each side of the border. The second implication, ona practical, level is that, ifthe concept ofa binational region were used in an inoreect way in the elaboration of publie polices on the border, chats to say, ifthe concept were used in che politi ive sense it euld ive tse to situations detrimental to the national sovereignty of ether nation. Ina later ‘work, Bustamante (38) considers this scond implication. The ida ofa ion defined as a terttoy delimited by ineracion i sl present, although the term binatinal region is rejeted dve vo the porentially “risky” possibilty tein used in border relation with the United Sats. 9TroAlgra Transborder Metropolis in the same way as “binationa region," the urban pair Ti San Diego has been considered as an urban binational uae dueto the existence of acon tinuous urbanization and ofa conslstenc relationship bere the two urban units, Several authors and media outlets have named this a binational space (Ganster and Valenciano 1992; Gildersleeve 1978) ot twin cies (Kearney and eral European authors have proposed sim larnotin in terms of other urban border areas (Anderson 1983) Lawrence Herzog (1997, 199%, 19908) has proposed the concept of trans bordee metropolis to understand the urbanized area of Tjuans-San Diego, according tothe author, a concept generalizable to al ofthe binational pais of neighboring border cles. In addition, Herzog has uted that concept to inerprt diverse urban border phenomena (2003, 20035, 2000, 1999, 19990) From his point of view, the urban area spanning the border is con an urban region whose integration i based on the existent interactions be- Knopp 1995; onomist 1992) ered as toe the two sides in the binaional pir of adjacent cities, rom the point of view of economic geogeaphy, this author classified the relationships between both sides ofthe border terms of transborder global ‘manufacturing the tansborder job market, the ransborde f consumption, the transborder tourist market, and the transborder market in housing and land (erz0g 20032, 1997). From the point of view of urban ge ‘ography, this author classifies relations between both sides of the border as falling within seven global ecologies: zones of global manufsccring, spaces of transnational consumption, global tourist distrits, ose-NAFTA neigh bothoods, places ofteansnational community, spaces of conf, and invented connections (Herzog 20036) The author posts that transn tions ate leading the process of integration of Tuans into the global in ment market, homogenizing consumption, architecture, urban spac, and cultural patterns (making them more similar to Sen Diego I is wa, the international boundary as dividing line between the cies on both sides of the border has ben weakened n the construction ofthe concep¢ ofa transborder metropolis, Herzog explores two subjects that are fundamental to our understanding of bor der cites: the firsts the process of convergencelintegration or divergence) Independence ofthe two societies that meet a the possiblity and necessity of pal border cities. Thinking abou these matters leads the author to the question border; and the second is es elaborated in a binational way forthe ‘of whether a “tcansbotder social system’ exists chat ereates a community of the borer In his proposal, chereis an explicit afirmativere inners alo sponse in that 20g does novexploreis whether relationships in existence beryeen both sides ofthe border—in is propos integration—are a product ofthe diferences o similarities between both sides ofthe border. Paradoxically mstructs definition oftransbrder metropolis, What Her cviden his discourse is imbued with the supposition tha in the end, but not now 3 similar and integrate types of functions that ae intrinsic and antagonistic. The fst i to divide ‘wo cultures and two urban structures, eproducing the respective, diffrent national patterns along the border. The second function iso unify both sides in an ecological and socal way. These aspects of unification ate ‘thebassfor the phenomenon he qualifies a a“ransbordet meteopols Function—as a dividingifereniting force—affirme the dé ferences in the spatial and political patterns between the cties on both sides both sides wil For Herzog, the border has to ofthe bor ofthe border. In this sense, each border locality looks more lke the rest of the tes nits country than ts neighbor on the othe sie of he interational divide, in terms ofboth its spatial strutute and its process of change. These differences define them as elements of frition” or confrontation between the postindustrial North and the industralizing South. For Herzog, this di viingitferensating role of the border hasbeen relatively stable aerss tie anges in the porosity of the border for csistng telations between the two sides and ie relatively independent ofthe The second Function ofthe border—as a unifying force entinitsporousness. According io Herzog this second function isin fact pas- tieulaeto the second half ofthe last century and has intensified recently with -pecomes appa the worldwide expansion of the capitalist system and globalisation. The pet- eat of the border is made material inthe flows of people, goods, capita, and environmental elements between each binational pair of neighboring ct ‘es, which occur primarily veto tansborder proximity. Proximityisthemain catalystof integration within the tansborder ecologia ned by the author as “fusion” berween the two neighboring cites. system, This neg “Theidea that interaction gives rise to itegration an, along with ta me- ‘ropolis that crases the border is shared by other academics. One vaiant of at idea appeats in Dear and Leclte (203, 1998). From the point of view oF culkural geography, these authors consider processes of globalization, net work society, hybridization, and privatization (processes classified as "bard bordet" 1 be forces for integration on both sides of the border. As th forces intensify over time, soto does integration. With the strengthening of these forces, the space formed by transborder interactions becomes place itself the container forthe transborder society which the authors designate25 “Baja Calforia” and define asa “postborder megalopolis” Although they consider this megalopolis tobe one place, i Southetn California and northern Baja California) actually contains various different and distinc places within it. The inclusion of diverse plaes in one sole unit is derived from the subjective perception ofthe geography ofthis space held by its in habitants For the authors, the constuction ofthe perception of transbor- dee "i being consolidated as an imaginary commun the obstacle ofthe international border. Another variant of the transborder idea is presented by Pezzoli and his tive of urban exvironmental planning. The partners (200 from the per authors adhere tothe concept that Sn Diego a Tijuana form one transbor: er city-region, although they do not develop i, Tic position i that pam ring in both cities should be dane in conjunction since they three common problems: extensive urban growth, fiagmented inftastrcture, and unequal development. idea fa transborder metropolis also supports iatentons inthe devel ‘opment and land-use plans in several border cities ofboth countries, asin n Diego Asso ments (saw DAG, acountywide group considers San Diego ind Tijuana tobe 2 binational border region (SAN DAG 2003) In 20 San Diego and Tijuana for example. Th he Committee on Bina tional Regional Opportunities (couno) was founded to serv a @ working group ofthe Borders Committee of sax ac, which makes recommendations (on transborder planning projets. Matters considered as ttansborder by SANDAG and which have an intervention proposal in its 2003 plan include jobs and housing accessibility, eansportation, energy, wate, drainage, air ‘quality, economic development, and homeland security In Tvana, the Mu- ncipal Planning institute asserts in ts Progra fr Urban Deeapmet ofthe opulaton Center of Tjuane, 2002-2035 that Tijuana and San Diego form one egion due co the fact that they share problems that requice join sly tions (1atPLAN 2002, 100) Although IMPLAN recognizes the sae relevant ing the problems thought tobe held in common are in fact local plans for each cl. The only teansborder plans underway (water and drainage) are administered by the Mexican transborder issues as SANDAG, the specific plans for ral government andthe water agency ofSan Diego, The intent undertake local transborder planning, which undergids the thetoce ofthe plans, confronts che reality of an absence of an adequate binaional legal framework and of divergent planning priorities of he two cities. Critique of the Transborder Metropolis Vision “Theidea that neighboring border cites, ik San Diego and Titvana, makeup 4 binational metropolitan unitcan be critiqued on several levels. Now I move ino discussion ofthat idea from the perspective of social structure, eo omic structure, epional divergence, and metropolitan structue About the Tansborder Society Inorder fr the concept of transbor + continuty of social structure to with stand theoretical sertiny, three assumptions are needed, which weee not rade explicit inthe formulation ofthe ransbordereepion (by Bustamante) at social groups on both sides ofthe border present similar socal practices; second, that individuals on both sides of the border king spnbotisms; and tied, thatthe conditions that allo forthe repro ate indstnetlyon both sies of the border. e's look at these assumptions in more deta E ne socal groups on both sides ofthe border present similar soil practices. This similarity implies thee characteristics in tegard tothe relationship be nts and the social structure (Cohen 199) (social actors in colletvities on both sides ofthe border are fanila with similar procedures reviewed eatlier in this chapter: ist, similar awarenes of the roles of social groups and the Auetion ofthe sacial system o econcept of tansborder continuity social structure presupposes that fraction; (2) socal actors on both sides ofthe border interpret and apply the semantic and normative aspects ofthese procedures of ation inthe same way; and () social actors on bath sides of the border have same type of resources. But, asthe evidence shows, these conditions of social structuring ae notall found onthe border. In che fre mila on both sides of the border, Halfof THjuanas population does not have the legal right to the border and definitely does not cross it. This spatial factor in and of itself makes ie impossble fr Tijuana’s population to have a similar awareness of the procedures fo social action as San Diego's population. Also itis difficult ‘ease that the majority of San Diego's popultion, who have lace, the procedures of action are no to make ‘crossed orerto Tijuana onetime or never, would havea praxis ofactionsimi- larto that of Tvana’s peopl. The interaction berween both coletvities i ‘weak, a isthe mutual awareness oftheir social prases. (The complaint about 3 incomprehension and lack of knowledge between the collects on both sie ofthe border frequently eappeatsin the manifests ofthe handfl of ofthe border 3 binational projects) Social practices oa both i separate