Politics and Urban Planning. When disconnection designs failed cities. By Carlos Montoya, there is a dangerous and common idea in public decision making. The assumption that politics can replace urban planning. That will or urgency can supersede decades of technical knowledge about how to build functional cities. Reality proves otherwise. When politics and urban planning are confused, the result is not innovation but structural failure. Urban planning is not improvisation. Since the 19th century, figures like Ildefon Certa were already proposing detailed principles for designing efficient cities. His plan for Barcelona considered future mobility, ventilation, lighting, and quality of life. Even the diagonal corners responded to a functional, not aesthetic, logic. Today, concepts like Carlos Moreno's 15-minute city embrace those same principles proximity, efficiency, and sustainability. The problem isn't a lack of awareness, but rather its absence from the political agenda. In practice, many urban planning decisions continue to be driven by short-term perspectives. The case of the Autonomous University of Ciudad Juarez is illustrative. Its university city, located in a peripheral area, has created barriers to access that even contribute to student dropout rates. When urban design hinders access to education, the problem ceases to be technical and becomes social. This is compounded by urban sprawl into unsuitable areas of Ciudad Juarez, including floodprone zones and areas with extreme conditions. The consequence is recurring. Higher costs, increased risks, and a city that is increasingly difficult to sustain. According to the Ministry of Agrarian, Territorial and Urban Development, Sidatu, bringing infrastructure to peripheral areas can be up to eight times more expensive than in established areas. This model not only makes cities more expensive, but also increases dependence on cars and pollution. In this context, one of the most questionable decisions has been to limit building heights. Although this restriction has been eliminated in Ciudad Juarez, its effects persist, few vertical developments and constant horizontal expansion. Without clear incentives to increase density, such as establishing minimum heights in strategic areas, the market continues to replicate the subdivision model. This pattern has proven for decades to generate urban fragmentation, higher costs, and dependence on automobiles. Even so, leadership to change it has been limited, both from the public sector and the development industry. Each administration that avoids making structural decisions not only leaves a bigger problem for the next one, it perpetuates budgetary inefficiency, makes the city more expensive, and deteriorates the quality of life for future generations. The result is obvious traffic. Lots of traffic. Sprawl forces millions of commutes daily. And the response to this is often more road infrastructure. Projects like the bridges in the zona Misionis, Paseo de la Victoria area follow this logic. Costly, disruptive, and ineffective. The evidence is clear: more lanes generate more traffic. Examples abound. In Mexico City, elevated highways did not solve traffic congestion. They encouraged car use, increased fuel consumption, and damaged the city's image. In Chihuahua, history repeats itself with overpasses and interchanges that, moreover, negatively impact businesses and the urban environment. Meanwhile, public transportation continues to lag behind. This is where the discussion becomes critical. Resources like those from the increase in the payroll tax are being channeled to these types of projects. However, if they were allocated to subsidize public transportation, for example, through per-kilometer payments to concessionaires, it could unlock funding for fleet renewal. The impact would be immediate, greater coverage, improved frequency, and a competitive system. We're talking about the possibility of adding hundreds of new units, structurally transforming urban mobility, but that requires prioritizing fundamental solutions, not projects designed to be completed within a single administrative term. The difference is clear solving problems or managing them. Efficient urban models already exist. The evidence does too. What's lacking is aligning policy with technical knowledge. Because in the end, cities don't fail for lack of ideas, but for lack of judgment in applying them.