Mexico City is rapidly building livable streets (i.e., streets redesigned to accommodate pedestrians, cyclists, and public space users). Livable streets are justified by decision makers as investments to increase urban equity yet tend to reinforce socioeconomic stratification through their location in wealthy and/or gentrifying neighborhoods. Using semi-structured interviews, policy reviews, and participant observation, this article documents Mexico City’s livable streets investments from 2007 to 2018 focusing on their uptake through global networks of knowledge. It argues that livable streets are part of a competitive city economic development strategy fitting comfortably into a planning system that favors neighborhoods with the most economic potential.

This research explores the role of trendy urbanists in best practice uptake within an innovation laboratory in Latin America. Trendy urbanists are the privileged professionals who aspire to be on the cutting edge of urban planning, frequently referencing best practice policies and programmes that they see as supporting ‘livable’ and ‘sustainable’ city building. Taking the case of the Laboratory for the City in Mexico City, I illustrate that the preferred best practices of trendy urbanists are reflective of their own privilege. I conclude that, by relying on best practices and trendy urbanists, innovation laboratories are susceptible to fostering inequitable planning outcomes.

The article explores the related concepts of best practice agencies (BPAs) and fast-track institutionalization. We define BPAs as agencies that have been inspired by international trends in urban governance, often opened within local urban contexts to implement urban planning best practice policies and programs. Importantly, we argue that BPAs often go through processes of “fast-track institutionalization”, meaning that in an attempt by mayors to showcase their effectiveness to their constituents, the institutionalization of BPAs is deemphasized. Through exploring two BPAs in Mexico City, namely the Laboratorio para la Ciudad (LabCDMX) and the Autoridad del Espacio Público (AEP), we illustrate how each BPA bypassed the capacity-building and public action processes required to build consensus on their importance within city government. We then suggest that fast-track institutionalization is one aspect that can eventually contribute to the closure of BPAs. We conclude by exploring how BPAs have created a site of contention between best practice adoption and local processes of institutionalization, eroding their ability to implement their mandates over the short and long-term.

I would like to thank the anonymous IJURR reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions. This article also benefited from insights from Paul Hess, Brenda Vértiz and the members of the Policy Mobilities Working Group (PMWG). All errors and shortcomings remain my own. This research received funding from the Ontario Graduate Scholarship (OGS) program and the Government of Mexico through the Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores (Secretary of Foreign Affairs, grant number WHIRYA841224-18).

No abstract