The aesthetics of security in Santa María la Ribera

By Montserrat Aguilar Patiño, The London School of Economics and Political

Science

When a neighbourhood’s appearance is intervened to convey public order, how do

residents reconcile these changes with their own understandings of safety? Here, I

share a glimpse of my research examining how residents of Santa María la Ribera

perceive (in)security in their area, which until recently was cast as ‘unsafe’. 

As scholarship has noted, city-makers are increasingly concerned with addressing

the root causes of violence on the urban surface, relying on methods to eliminate

associations of risk and danger and thus excluding people and practices from

public space (Coaffee et al., 2009; Becker & Müller, 2013; Leal Martínez, 2015). As

Mexico City is often shaped by these processes, I draw on Hentschel's (2015) and

Ghertner et al.'s (2020) research on the aesthetics of security to develop a fine-

grained understanding of how (in)security is lived and felt in everyday life in a

changing neighbourhood like Santa María la Ribera.

In June 2026, I conducted primary fieldwork in Mexico City's Santa María la Ribera

neighbourhood, including interviews with residents and authorities, participant

observation, and photographic documentation for my dissertation titled ‘Security,

for whom? Examining aesthetics, belonging and everyday (in)securities in Santa

María la Ribera’. This trip would not have been possible without the Society of

Latin American Studies PG Research Support Grant, which allowed me to revisit

the city I call home, this time as a researcher. 

A safe backdrop

What does safety in public spaces feel like?

Public services and facilities in Alameda Park have improved significantly, fostering a better sense of safety among neighbours and visitors.

Conversations with residents shed light on the aesthetic cues that shape their

sense of security. Much of this perception is attributed to city authorities stepping

up efforts to improve the appearance of public spaces with underlying security

rationales. These may include better night lighting, improved garden maintenance,

stricter penalties for littering, and restored street furniture.

But, even if reassuring, others read security visual clues as superficial. Some

participants reflected on the effectiveness of these aesthetic spatial management

techniques with uncertainty and cynicism, especially when applied in spaces

commonly cast as ‘dangerous’. 

For example, on a particular street, government-sponsored signs insist on the

area's ‘safety,’ but poor urban infrastructure, graffiti, and rubbish convey neglect

and risk, leaving residents unconvinced. This aesthetic paradox (Coaffee et al.,

2009) demonstrates that places do have an undeniable affective power to shape

notions of (in)security; however, city governance techniques aimed at influencing

safety perceptions may unevenly cover the urban fabric.

‘SAFE PATH. Walk free. Walk safe.’, featuring the silhouettes of a woman and a girl, suggesting that the street is ‘safe’ from gender-based violence.

‘When we secure your streets, the cameras work, and the police respond. The power is in your hands'

Hindering mundane security

Another recent security measure is unfolding in the heart of Santa María la Ribera: the

kiosco Morisco, the gazebo that serves as the neighbourhood’s symbol and meeting point,

was closed to the public overnight to ‘protect and preserve’ its facade.

Conversations on this topic revealed that restrictions on public space can clash with the

neighborhood’s social life, which, paradoxically, fosters a sense of security through

interaction, conviviality, and mutual recognition. These discrepancies not only call into

question the purpose of restrictive measures but also raise the question of who they are

actually aimed at. This way, the kiosco’s closure disturbed the security registers that fall

outside the scope of the technical security apparatus by producing exclusions of people

reliant on public space, thus revealing a gap between how authorities conceive security

and how residents experience it in their daily lives (Coaffee et al., 2009; Jaffe, 2020).

Since the entry ban, made evident with iron bars and frequent patrols, encounters that normally would have taken place inside the kiosco have been unfolding at its margins.

References

Becker, A., & Müller, M. (2013). The Securitization of Urban Space and the

“Rescue” of Downtown Mexico City: Vision and Practice. Latin American

Perspectives, 40(2), 77–94. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23466023

Coaffee, J., O’Hare, P., & Hawkesworth, M. (2009). The Visibility of (In)security:

The Aesthetics of Planning Urban Defences Against Terrorism. Security Dialogue,

40(4-5), 489-511. 

Ghertner, D. A., McFann, H., & Goldstein, D. M. (Eds.). (2020). Futureproof:

Security Aesthetics and the Management of Life. Duke University Press.

https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11315nw 

Hentschel, C. (2015). Security in the bubble: navigating crime in urban South

Africa. University of Minnesota Press.

Jaffe, R. (2020). Security Aesthetics and Political Community Formation in

Kingston, Jamaica. In D. A. Ghertner, H. McFann, & D. M. Goldstein (Eds.),

Futureproof: Security Aesthetics and the Management of Life (pp. 134–155). Duke

University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11315nw.9

Leal Martínez, A. (2015). La esquina más segura de la ciudad. Las paradojas de la

segurización en la Ciudad de México. In G. Caprón, & C. Sánchez-Mejorada

(Eds.), La (in)seguridad en la metrópolis. Territorio, segurización y espacio público

(pp. 107-124). Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana.