Do dense South American cities invalidate the conceptualization of urban environments as finite and scarce?

Accounts of spatial justice often diagnose urban injustice by appealing to the scarcity of socio-economic goods such as housing or infrastructure, treating cities as finite environments in which competitive allocation exacerbates inequality. Against growth-oriented responses that frame densification as a way of defeating scarcity, this article examines whether large South American metropolises genuinely undermine the finitude thesis. It argues that urban growth does not eliminate scarcity in the relevant normative sense for at least three reasons. First, increases in supply do not neutralize domination under existing ownership structures. Second, architectural goods are subject to hard constraints and low short-term elasticity, generating persistent rivalry. Third, geographical and infrastructural thresholds impose adequacy limits. The article concludes that a distributive reform, rather than mere expansion, remains normatively essential.