This feature is adapted from Nature and Cities: The Ecological Imperative in Urban Design and Planning, edited by Frederick R. Steiner, George F. Thompson, and Armando Carbonell (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, November 2016).

During the past 400 years, the land known as the United States of America has been transformed by massive public and private works projects and technological innovations intended to facilitate commerce, improve public health, and foster economic development. While these projects generated tremendous wealth for the nation, the gains were often to the detriment of the environment. The global realities of climate change—in combination with growing urbanization and associated poverty—have raised awareness of the ecological impact of such infrastructure. Americans are now at a unique moment in history when politics, economics, ecology, and culture (design) can all be part of a new movement. We need a WPA 2.0.

The WPA is the Works Progress Administration (1935–1943)—the largest and most ambitious program of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal during the Great Depression. Much of the present-day infrastructure in the United States was built by either the WPA or the similarly named PWA (Public Works Administration). Almost every city, town, and community in America benefited from a new WPA- or PWA-built airport, bridge, dam, park, road, school, or other public building.¹

Let me now reflect, albeit briefly, on the history of public works projects in the United States to discern where the world’s richest nation is, today, in terms of its urban infrastructure. This will allow a glimpse into how landscape architects, architects, and planners are addressing the needs and opportunities that face not only American cities, but communities and cities throughout the world as they confront the pressing realities of global climate change.

Canals and Harbors

Early settlement in the United States showed patterns of towns and cities directly related to water resources. Navigable waterways, safe harbors, and access to fresh water for fire prevention, sanitation, power production, farming, and drinking were central to the development of major commercial centers. Construction of the Erie Canal (1817–1825), for example, made New York the financial capital of the world during the nineteenth century by opening up critical supply lines for timber, furs, minerals, and agricultural products that helped the North win the American Civil War (1861–1865). Since then, we have seen the gradual decoupling of urban transportation systems from the physical environment in the United States.

The Grid

Looking back to nineteenth-century America, ideals of Manifest Destiny and the agrarian myth fueled a need to organize and cultivate the nation’s western frontiers. The Land Ordinance Act of 1785 was a resolution written by Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), then a delegate from Virginia, to create a federal system for the survey and sale of federally owned land west of the Appalachian Mountains, intended to fund the federal government at a time when the government could not raise fiscal resources through taxation.² It was then that an uncoupling of environmental and development systems started to take place on a large scale: The public land survey system parceled land into gridded territories, townships, and sections without regard to the geomorphology or carrying capacity of the property. Territories (24 x 24 miles; 38.624 x 38.624 kilometers), townships (6 x 6 miles; 9.656 x 9.656 kilometers), and sections (1 x 1 mile; 1.609 x 1.069 kilometers) were numbered and organized boustrophedonically, an alternating pattern from the top right to the bottom left quadrant of a square, similar to the path a farmer might follow when plowing a field.³

Agriculture, Railroads, and the Grid

When Horace Greeley (1811–1872), the famous editor of The New York Herald Tribune, purportedly declared in an editorial (13 July, 1865), “Go West, young man, go West and grow up with the country,” he rallied the nation.⁴ Greeley was responding, in part, to the Homestead Act of 1862, which enabled veterans, freed slaves, and even women to file a claim to a half-section of land (640 acres; 260 hectares) if they agreed to live on it and improve it for five years, further promoting agrarian values that were part of an American nationalism, which developed during a time of rapid industrialization. Manifest Destiny and agrarian culture, as characterized decades earlier by de Crèvecoeur (1735–1813) in numerous books, mythologized farming, espousing rural life as the foundation of character.⁵ However, the gridding of America and subsequent development of national rail lines—enabled by government grants of more than 300 million acres (121,405,693 hectares) to rail companies—were not reliant on natural systems for their development; instead, both worked in opposition to the waterways and topography they encountered, some of them extreme.

Supremacy over the landscape had its limits. While rail lines could be drawn to previously inaccessible corners of the country, facilitating commerce, they required long, gradual grade change and abundant clean water to function, limiting universal access. Farms and towns located themselves on and near new rail lines, but land in more arid climates west of the 100th meridian did not have the carrying capacity characteristic of Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia.⁶ Parcels of half-sections needed to be combined and annexed to enable productive use for timber or cattle grazing, uses that have their own heavy impacts on indigenous landscapes. The scale of operations moved toward a more standardized practice, away from the ideals of the rural farm. Western settlers and transcendentalists alike thought nothing of the consequences of introducing nonnative plant communities to the detriment of the indigenous environment.

A hallmark of the Industrial Revolution in the United States was the first transcontinental linking of rail lines—the Union and Central Pacific Railroads at Promontory Summit in Utah Territory near present-day Brigham City—on 10 May, 1869. Infrastructure tied to natural systems for the first two and a half centuries of the nation’s development could now follow a much more flexible path. By 1910, there was a network of more than 250,000 miles (402,336 kilometers) of rail covering the United States. Coeval with this infrastructural growth, the nation’s waterways transitioned from being critical economic lifelines to convenient disposal sites. As Carolyn Merchant has observed, “In the United States, industrial chemicals and wastes, including sulfuric acid, soda ash, muriatic acid, limes, dyes, wood pulp, and animal byproducts from industrial mills contaminated waters in the Northeast.”⁷ Ongoing pollution of rivers, canals, and ports still leaves neighboring communities managing the consequences of years of environmental abuses, despite the benefits of the 1972 Clean Water Act.

As natural systems became less important for access, they remained critical for raw materials. The relationship between water rights and rail lines, for instance, was critical not only because clean water was necessary to power steam engines, but also because the relationship between agriculture and rail transport systems opened up new areas of the country for the development and trade of commodities such as corn and wheat, legacy crops to this day.

Combined Sewers

When English plumber Thomas Crapper (1836–1910) popularized the use of the flush toilet during the 1860s, he surely had no idea of the potential future impact upon municipal watermanagement systems. His work triggered a cascade of events leading to the degradation of global waterways 150 years later. Rapid urbanization in the United States during the nineteenth century created the need for collective management of sanitary waste. In search of innovation, the United States looked to Europe, where a new form of infrastructure—the combined sewer—was developed to manage increased sanitary waste coming from more flush toilets. Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) release a witch’s brew of surface-water runoff and sanitary sewage into neighboring waterways when there is too much effluent for treatment plants to manage. Today, New York City, like 772 U.S. cities, has a combined sewer system where—in even a light rain—sanitary and storm wastes combine, releasing excrement, prophylactics, oil, pesticides, and heavy metals into New York’s harbor and rivers.

Around the world the combined sewers that unite sewage and stormwater in a common pipe—once a transformative infrastructure solution—have reached their limit. Growing urban populations and increased impermeable surfaces perpetually overload the sewage-treatment systems in cities globally. With sewage ever more frequently overflowing into waterways and a rise in sea level further compromising the outfall systems, policy makers and even private funders need to empower designers to rethink the design and management of urban stormwater and sanitary water systems. More severe and frequent storms resulting from global climate change will increasingly affect the hardened, postindustrial waterfront. Innovative urban design that can dissipate the forces of storm surge, manage flooding, reduce surface-water runoff, and reduce a heat-island effect need to be worked into an adaptation plan for waterfront cities. Without major changes to technology, the natural and human resource management of global health and productivity will be compromised.

The New Deal

Beginning in 1933, during the depths of the Great Depression, political leaders in the United States put forward programs under the New Deal that offered targeted relief for the massive number of unemployed and poor Americans, gradual recovery in the economic sector, and reform of the financial system. Significantly, New Deal programs also transformed the nation’s critical infrastructure. Roads, water-management structures, and pathways for electrification provided access, sanitation, and power to formerly undeveloped areas of the country. Parks, public buildings, bridges, airports, and other civic projects followed. Under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the WPA employed millions of unemployed people, including women and minorities, constructing a renewed cultural identity for the nation.

A hallmark of the New Deal programs—valued at $20 billion (more than $347 billion at current value)—was the work of artists, writers, landscape architects, architects, and other creative professionals who helped shape the look and cultural literacy of the country during the twentieth century. Legions of laborers guided by designers and bureaucrats worked locally with a regional palette of materials to create extraordinarily beautiful yet practical work that reflected national pride and civic awareness. The work was modern and aspirational and showcased indigenous character and material. President Roosevelt understood the need for large-scale government action to help get the country back on its feet and headed in a new direction.

The Federal Highway System

Two decades later, in the aftermath of World War II and the Korean War, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 into law. Also known as the National Interstate Defense Highways Act, the transcontinental highway system was presented to the public as essential to national defense systems and was funded at a cost of $25 billion through a tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. The term “infrastructure,” which developed during World War II to describe military logistical operations, became one of the president’s most visible and longlasting initiatives in the form of the U.S. interstate highway system. Eisenhower, the five-star general and supreme commander of Allied forces in Europe during the war, admired the efficiency of the German autobahns and sought to create a similar system in the United States. The unified design standards for the nation, consistent with the tenets of modernism, suggested the potential of technology to overcome geophysical obstacles in the landscape with hard engineering. The project catalyzed the development of sprawling new mega-regions of the late twentieth century.

Uncoupling

The sociologist and philosopher Jürgen Habermas (b. 1929), in his 1999 essay “The Uncoupling of System and Lifeworld,” suggested that the processes of differentiation and specialization inherent to modernism are undemocratic and that a democratic system of leadership in advanced capitalistic societies such as the United States enables decision making that is unreflective of society’s broader voice:

But political domination has socially integrating power insofar as disposition over means of sanction does not rest on naked repression, but on the authority of an office anchored in turn to legal order. For this reason, laws need to be inter-subjectively recognized by citizens; they have to be legitimated as right and proper. This leaves culture with the task of supplying the reasons why an existing political order deserves to be recognized.⁸

Through a democratic system, leaders are empowered to make massive decisions about the shape of their country with what I might characterize as “blind faith” in paternalistic power, which, when coupled with postwar fear and fatigue, is further enhanced. Technology reigned in the post–World War II period, and American culture was such that an uncoupling of the systems (such as interstate highways) from the life-world (the social and physical environment)—when presented by a war hero turned president—carried the necessary balance of paternalism and idealism to enable political support for the largest public works project in U.S. history.

As repressed groups, stifled by modernism’s systems-based approaches, found voice in the later twentieth century, the need for “different voices” (to borrow Carol Gilligan’s term) infused culture.⁹ The women’s movement, civil rights movement, and modern environmental movement each lent local and personal voices against the unsupportable rationality of current power structures. For the environmental movement, this contributed to important legislation such as the Clean Air Act of 1963 and the Clean Water Act of 1972.

The Problem

Many of the projects completed during the New Deal era are at the end of their lifespan. As James L. Oberstar has concluded:

Nearly sixty years after much of the interstate highway system was constructed in the 1950s and 1960s, we are now seeing many facilities become stretched to the limit of their design life and beyond. The world-class surface transportation system passed on by previous generations of Americans has reached the age of obsolescence and now needs to be rebuilt.¹⁰

Many canals and harbors are no longer used for commerce with the same intensity they once were, and they are, in many cases, decayed, underutilized, polluted, and subject to rising sea level and storm surge. Less than half of the original 300,000 miles (482,803 kilometers) of rail corridors across the United States are still in use for rail.¹¹ America’s 772 cities have combined sewers that still dump significant amounts of sewage effluent into waterways. Highways and bridges are in similarly poor condition. The repair and replacement of these monumental infrastructure systems in their current configurations do not reflect social, environmental, and technological advances that have occurred during the last half century.

Every four years, the American Society of Civil Engineers issues a report card on America’s infrastructure. Here are the grades given in 2013 and 2009:

D = Poor; C = Mediocre; B = Good.¹²

An unprecedented combination of deeply troubling environmental problems, political evolution, and new design and technology now present an unparalleled opportunity to improve America’s infrastructure. Given the realities of global climate change and increased urbanization and population growth, interdisciplinary teams of thinkers must develop models of urban design that work with the hydrologic, transportation, ecologic, economic, and cultural systems that will make cities better-performing and more compelling places to work, live, and raise families. It is unclear whether this work will be driven primarily by the federal government, as it is in France or the Netherlands, or through the public-private partnership models common in the United States. The crucial role of design in the public realm is undervalued and attitudes need to change.

Understanding how physical geography, ecology, and climate function is critical to the development of new types of infrastructure that are more responsive to the forces of nature. The idea of using natural systems to provide public amenities and health benefits is not new. Frederick Law Olmsted (1822–1903), for example, used tidal flows to reduce pestilence and pollution in his design and plan for the Back Bay Fens of Boston during the late 1880s. With advances in technology in the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution, engineered solutions were seen as superior to historical precedent. Viewing infrastructure as a machine was the answer. As we observed in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina (2005), Irene (2011), and Sandy (2012), engineered systems are inflexible and can fail with catastrophic consequences as the severity, frequency, and intensity of storm events increase.

It is time to rethink the nineteenth- and twentieth-century engineering model and consider options that can again work in concert with the natural environment. Roads were traditionally aligned with rivers in many rural areas because they were cheaper to build, but roads and bridges in Vermont were destroyed in minutes by the flood-swollen rivers during Hurricane Irene. In metropolitan New York, highways, train yards, tunnels, and public housing located in floodplains along the postindustrial waterfront, where the land was cheap, were severely flooded during Hurricane Sandy in 2012. Replacement of New Jersey’s PATH trains and rebuilding of flooded tunnels and other public and private property in areas subject to more frequent inundation is costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year when states of emergency are declared so frequently. Miami sits on a permeable bed of limestone at the interface of saltwater and freshwater and faces frequent hurricanes and flooding from upland and coastal sources that threaten not only its major industry—tourism—but also the ecological health of the Everglades.¹³

In many cities across the United States, combined sewer systems were an economical solution to sanitary engineering until climate change and population growth changed the balance sheet. Today, designers and public officials often look to Europe for water-management technology. American municipalities first looked at examples of combined sewers in France and Germany, and they now look to the Dutch for flood control. The Netherlands translates literally to “low lands,” and its strategy of planning includes 200 years into the future (long term), while constantly reconstructing dikes, dams, and polders (short term) is seen as necessary to protect not only the built environment, but also the agricultural economy dependent on sweet water (the Dutch term for fresh nonsaline water). In the United States, municipalities need to look further to the future and realize there are real opportunities to develop new innovations based on the nation’s geographic diversity. The prominent American geographer Gilbert F. White (1911–2006), in addressing the 1934 national flood-control policy, suggested that the multi-billion-dollar program to build reservoirs, canals, levees, and deeper river channels did not reduce flood losses decades later. In his words:

By assuming that only engineering works were needed to curb the cost of unruly streams, other possibly effective means were neglected. Little or no attention was paid to such alternatives as land use regulation or flood-proofing of buildings. By assuming the engineering works would do what the benefit-cost calculations had solemnly estimated they would do, without attempting to verify the practical results in land use, the public reaped quite different effects.¹⁴

America’s reliance on water-management structures thus provides a false sense of security in relation to availability, cost, and protection from catastrophic flooding. White suggested further that the “single purpose levee may set a confident scene for later catastrophe; a single-purpose reservoir may appropriate a unique dam site without assuring complete reduction in flood losses.”¹⁵ In many of White’s essays—written over a period of 60 years as a professor of geography and esteemed government advisor on natural hazards and flooding—he advocated a more holistic approach to design and planning and a testing of applied technology to gauge effectiveness.

Solutions

We know that gradual, buffered waterfront edges and barrier islands can dissipate wave energy, contain saltwater inundation, and make habitat that also helps to sequester carbon. The function of barrier reefs, salt marshes, and cypress swamps can thus inspire new models for an ecosystem’s management. Planning and designing for the periodic swells of rivers and streams may well necessitate an incentivized plan such as Zone (A)ir to relocate homes, towns, roads, communities, and businesses. It is critical that we adapt the architecture (buildings) and landscape architecture (infrastructure and outdoor space) by rethinking the porosity of the landscape, the materials of construction, the relocation of mechanical systems, and access. To the point: Our roads can soak up water, our highway trenches can be covered with parks that clean the air and provide recreational space, our waters’ edges can have an alternating combination of hard edges to facilitate commerce and softer edges to protect valuable upland real estate. Key to all of this thinking is the interface between human occupation and the environment.

The beginnings of this work in ecological design and planning are already apparent in Chicago, Philadelphia, and Portland, Oregon, where sidewalk swales and porous paving are becoming part of the standard streetscape. New York City is also taking on pilot projects to test the effectiveness of new materials and ideas, but testing takes time when action is needed. In floodplains along the Mississippi River, communities with low populations are being relocated and spillways opened to flood farmlands so that population centers downstream are safer. We cannot contain the force of water, as we once believed. Long-term, large-scale planning and actions that reduce our impact on the land, work in concert with natural systems, and enable new systems of exchange are necessary if we are to lessen the impacts of nature’s force.

Gilbert White long ago suggested a holistic and integrated regional approach to sound water management, but his voice fell on deaf ears, as single-purpose engineering solutions to local problems were constructed without consideration of watersheds and “sewersheds.” As towns and cities now work to manage aging infrastructure that is unable to handle impacts of more frequent storms and a rising sea, they have a huge opportunity to embrace new thinking and technology that, more than four decades after the federal Clean Water Act became law, will ameliorate day-to-day and storm-related wastewater loads with new and holistic gray/green engineered approaches.¹⁶ The costs of new infrastructure are real: Presently, approximately $95 billion will be needed to mitigate combined sewer overflows to bring cities in compliance with the 1972 law. Simultaneously, hundreds of billions will be needed to protect communities and cities against future flooding. Resources to address these issues should be combined for cost-effectiveness and efficiency.

Expansion of new green infrastructure networks—where hard surfaces are removed, utilities are protected, and stormwater is channeled for the irrigation of public parks, gardens, and wetlands—can also help mitigate and absorb floodwaters. Green (nature-based) infrastructure systems allow us to rethink not only the overarching functions of infrastructure, but also our experience of nature in the city. Municipalities have an opportunity to design and plan in the most comprehensive and cost-effective manner. The survival of towns and cities that currently exist at or just above sea level depends on aggressive, widespread rethinking of infrastructure for resilience to climate change and destructive storms. As we know, even if all 196 nations honor the commitments each made in Paris, in December 2015, to mitigate the effects of climate change, the global sea levels will rise at least 3 to 4 feet (0.914 to 1.219 meters) within a century, and all areas along the world’s coasts with elevations under 15 feet (4.572 meters) are extremely vulnerable to high tides and storm surge.¹⁷

WPA 2.0: A New Natural Infrastructure System

In response to the 285 deaths and widespread devastation (more than $50 billion in damage) caused by Hurricane Sandy (2012), three levels of U.S. government—federal, state, and local— established commissions, task forces, special initiatives, white papers, 12-point plans, plenary panels, and waterfront revitalization programs, all with vaguely military overtones that would convey action and strength. But will anything come of their recommendations? How can their ambitious designs and plans for modifications and improvements to make our city, state, and national infrastructure resilient to regular and extreme weather impacts be financed? To mitigate and counter the effects of an aging and ill-equipped infrastructure, to prepare now for global climate change, and to finance a new resilient defense network, I propose WPA 2.0 as a timely and much-needed solution.

The new infrastructure needed to adapt the nation’s cities, communities, and rural countryside to the realities of flooding and global climate change will require reconstruction on a massive scale of both gray and green infrastructure systems. Traditional, inflexible “gray” engineering approaches—which require waterproofing of transit systems, tunnels, and utilities or redirecting water with levees, dikes, and barriers—will work better in tandem with more resilient, ecological “green” approaches, including using currents and wind to distribute sediment for new barrier islands, reusing dredge materials to create shallows for wetlands, redesigning streets to absorb and filter stormwater, propagating a range of aquatic plants to make an ecologically rich buffer to storm surge, expanding natural flood zones (and buying out the people and businesses in them) that also function as parks most of the time, taking stormwater from highways and capturing sheet runoff in sponge parks, among other stormwater-capture systems.

As noted earlier, during the Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal programs brought sturdy, high-quality, and beautiful designs to public infrastructure with a national expenditure of $20 billion at a time when the gross domestic product was only $73 billion. The programs created millions of jobs, helped to restore economic stability, and offered financial reform to a flawed banking system. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was the largest New Deal enterprise. It was formed to harness and manage waterways of the Tennessee River watershed in seven states, create a public utility, and direct numerous resources to an impoverished region of the nation. Along with water management to prevent annual flooding and to manage navigation, President Roosevelt’s signing of the TVA Act created dams for the production and delivery of lower-cost electricity in an era when private utility companies were seen to be exploiting already financially stressed customers. And while the TVA was an electric utility that harnessed the power of water to deliver power, by the 1950s it added coal-burning power plants and, by the 1970s, nuclear power plants to deliver more power to meet growing demands. Energy production is at the root of global warming.

The need for greater urban climate resilience is a consequence of global warming, and emissions from combustion are a primary source. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), created in 1970 by executive order of President Richard M. Nixon, power plants, refineries, and chemical manufacturing accounted for almost 84 percent of total reported emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases in 2013.¹⁸ A modest tax on the companies that are responsible for the majority of climate-affecting pollution, including electric utilities, auto companies, oil companies, and other industrial polluters, could yield revenues necessary to create a Natural Defense Fund and finance a plan for climate change–resilient infrastructure for the next century. The idea of taxing carbon is not new. A tax on the largest carbon emitters and water polluters could bankroll a fund dedicated to urban and rural climate resilience. And the corporations can afford it: Even with energy prices at historic lows, the 10 largest power utility companies, for example, reported sales of more than $17 billion in 2014, and in the Fortune 500 list the top 10 oil refining companies alone had profits of nearly $67 billion in 2015.

In 2014, the U.S. government authorized nearly $50 billion to repair the damages from Hurricane Sandy. Although no monies were created for new defense systems, President Barack Obama included $1 billion in his 2015 budget for a climate-resilience fund. This was a good start. In fiscal year 2015, the Federal Highway Budget included $48.6 billion for repairs of an infrastructure system nearing the end of its designed lifespan. In the next two decades, cities across the country will need to spend at least $100 billion to clean up stormwater runoff and to reduce combined sewer overflows (CSOs) to comply with the Clean Water Act of 1972. It is unlikely that either local communities or the federal government will come up with the funds needed from taxpayers. Thus, by applying a minor tax on the industries whose practices have led to global climate change, a Natural Defense Fund can be created. If a related Natural Infrastructure System had the funding equivalent to the WPA of the New Deal, there would be a level of funding for resilient public works for the next century and beyond that would actually make a difference. As with the efforts to fight wars or help the nation recover from the Great Depression, a major program of renewal and development of the nation’s infrastructure will ensure the survival of cities, towns, and rural areas and lead to tens of thousands of permanent jobs in the public and private sectors, in the design, building, and maintenance of a new infrastructure for stormwater alone.

In 2005, I founded DLANDstudio, an interdisciplinary design firm based in Brooklyn, New York, where we have been developing systematic interventions and adaptations of urban infrastructure that address many of the issues described above. The work, funded with a combination of grants and public funding, involves pilot projects that are relatively small in relation to the enormity of the problem. The idea behind them is to find small pilots that, when applied on a broad scale, can have a large impact. Our projects are mostly in New York, but our planning stretches around the world. One of our most important projects is the Gowanus Canal Sponge Park, which operates to absorb, hold, clean, and filter surface water in one of the most polluted bodies of water in the United States.

Gowanus Canal Sponge Park

The Gowanus neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York, has a rich history. Originally a large marshy wetland, the area was the site of early Dutch settlement, important Revolutionary War battles, and industry, including the energy and construction sectors. In recent decades, the canal has been better known for the lingering effects of industrial pollution and municipal waste.¹⁹

Planners today envision the area as a new site for large residential development, a controversial proposal in the face of projections of a rising sea level from climate change. In this context, working closely with local community organizations, government agencies, and elected officials, DLANDstudio initiated and designed a new kind of public open space called Sponge Park™.²⁰

In New York City, 0.10 inch (2.54 millimeters) of precipitation (especially rain) triggers a combined sewer overflow. The Hudson and East rivers, New Town Creek, Long Island Sound, Jamaica Bay, and Gowanus Canal are some of the key bodies of water impacted by these spills. Sponge Park™ redirects, holds, and treats stormwater runoff to minimize the volume of overflows that occur within the Gowanus Canal, and it serves as a model for similar street-ends that sheet-drain into canals, rivers, and other bodies of water in cities everywhere.

The Sponge Park™ design equally values the aesthetic, programmatic, and productive importance of treating contaminated water flowing into the Gowanus Canal, an EPA Superfund site. The park is designed as a working landscape that improves the environment of the canal over time. This innovative plan proposes modular strategies to divert stormwater runoff for use in the public park along the canal, thereby reducing the input of stormwater into the sewer system. The plants and engineered soils included in our design draw heavy metals and toxins out of contaminated water.

While most urban infrastructure projects have their challenges, the Sponge Park project had to confront not only geomorphic layers, but also layers of bureaucracy. We had to work with no fewer than nine different federal, state, and city agencies, each with overlapping ownership and regulatory oversight. As part of our creative response to those challenges,DLANDstudio raised all of the design and construction funding for the project from the New York State Council on the Arts, U.S. Congress, New York City Council, New England Water Pollution Control Commission, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation. Through the use of grant funding, we were able to innovate in a way that would be impossible through normal procurement procedures. Because the project was seen as a pilot and was led by an outside entity but with the cooperation of government, we were able to create an innovative and replicable system. The first street-end absorbs 2 million gallons of stormwater per year. If Sponge Parks were built on every street-end in New York’s five boroughs, upward of 270 million gallons of water would be absorbed and cleaned before entering New York Harbor.

Hold System

Highway Overpass Landscape Detention Systems, or HOLD Systems, collect and filter stormwater from highway downspouts. HOLD Systems are planted, modular, green infrastructure systems that absorb and filter pollutants such as oil, heavy metals, and grease out of contaminated outfalls, rendering runoff much cleaner as it is released into drains and waterways. The system’s ability to retain water during heavy rain also improves the water quality of adjacent bodies of water. Plant palettes selected for each site help to break down or absorb copper, lead, cadmium, hydrocarbons, zinc, and iron commonly found in runoff. Specially calibrated soils maximize plant productivity and create the ideal level of drainage for citywide stormwater management needs.

HOLD Systems are designed for easy transport and deployment, and they can be quickly and easily installed in hard-to-reach, hard-to-drain areas along interstate highways. HOLD Systems can remediate the impact that a highway infrastructure makes on the hydrologic cycle of neighboring areas. Three modular systems—two in the ground and one above ground—have already been developed by DLANDstudio to adapt to water-table height, permeability, site toxicity, and the availability of sun. These systems are currently being deployed in three locations in New York City—two in Flushing Meadows–Corona Park under the Van Wyck Expressway and one in the Bronx under the Major Deegan Expressway—with funding and other support from the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, Long Island Sound Futures Fund, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

MoMA: “A New Urban Ground”

“A New Urban Ground” was developed by DLANDstudio with ARO (Architecture Research Office) of New York City, as part of the Museum of Modern Art’s (MoMA) “Rising Currents” exhibition in 2010. In the proposal, we offered an integrated and reciprocal organization of natural and hard-infrastructure systems. A combination of strategies—including wetlands on the perimeter, a raised edge, and sponge slips (water-management landscapes in old boat slips)—were paired with new street infrastructure systems away from the water’s edge in order to protect Lower Manhattan from flooding in the event of another large storm such as Hurricane Sandy, which was but a Category One hurricane when it hit the New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut shores.

The proposal consists of two components that form an interconnected system: porous green streets and a graduated edge. Porous streets will absorb typical rain events and help keep surface water out of the city’s combined sewer system. In larger storms, the streets filter and carry water to new perimeter wetlands to enrich coastal ecologies.

Three interrelated, high-performance systems are constructed on the Atlantic Coast to mitigate the expected rise in sea level and the force of a storm surge: a park network, freshwater wetlands, and brackish marshes. “A New Urban Ground” offers a new way for urban design and planning that brings together natural ecologies with engineered infrastructure systems to transform the city in both performance and experience. This plan, which was proposed almost two years before Hurricane Sandy flooded Lower Manhattan, Staten Island, Red Hook, and the Rockaways, has been cited internationally as a viable model for new civic approaches in resilience to storm surge and sea level rise.²¹

BQGreen

Highway infrastructure systems across the United States are designed for one primary purpose: to move people and goods quickly from one place to another. But, as a society, it is time to rethink this singular, limited view and consider how infrastructure systems can also become productive corridors of beauty, culture, ecology, and recreation. The BQGreen project considers one such corridor—the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (BQE)—and examines in depth two sites along its 11.7-mile (18.829-kilometer) length.

The BQE was originally proposed by the Regional Plan Association during the mid-1930s to relieve traffic congestion, facilitate industrial development, and strengthen the connection between the boroughs of New York City. The BQE differed from the city’s other parkways by accommodating both commercial and noncommercial traffic. City planner Robert Moses (1888–1981), as the chairman of the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, charted its path from the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel near Red Hook to Grand Central Parkway in Queens. Construction of the BQE left a trail of divided neighborhoods in its wake.

We know from examples such as Riverside Park (1875 and 1937) in Manhattan, a hybrid Olmsted- and Moses-era park constructed on a concrete box over a major rail corridor, that it is possible to layer transportation with extraordinary public parks. Density is an urban concept that is tied to economics. As the land that infrastructure systems occupy becomes more valuable, it makes sense to layer. As environmental impacts and benefits begin to be assessed in economic terms, the value of making significant alterations to our roadways becomes more attractive at a time when America’s highway infrastructure is near the end of its lifespan and in need of significant repair. As these old systems are replaced, why not reexamine them and consider how they might serve economic, ecological, recreational, public health, and pedestrian-friendly circulation needs in addition to transportation?

Since 2005, DLANDstudio has examined two sunken sections of the BQE. The project began on a theoretical level with a grant from the New York State Council on the Arts to look at tiny Cobble Hill and Carroll Gardens before expanding to study a very different neighborhood in SouthSide Williamsburg, with funding from then City Councilwoman Diana Reyna. The latter study went into great detail about the economic, social, and public health consequences of adding a park to the impoverished neighborhood. Extensive community outreach included visits to neighboring playgrounds, church events, and performances to make sure we recognized the voice of the community. Data were developed regarding the financial feasibility of capping costs—including ventilation and structural costs—as well as analysis of job creation, real estate value, and even the bump in retail sales at neighboring bodegas. We studied public health issues and discovered very high asthma and obesity rates as well as a relative dearth of open recreational space for kids in the vulnerable preadolescent stage. We discovered gang territories defined by the trench and imagined blurring the boundaries with new soccer and baseball fields. We helped the community to dream and then engaged the agencies to help fulfill that vision, with formal support for the proposal from New York City’s Departments of Transportation, Environmental Protection, and Parks and Recreation. Outreach to Congressional Representative Nydia Velázquez and U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand also yielded positive support. To realize this vision will take the collaboration of city, state, and federal agencies; through the master plan we are making a strong argument for why this is the right project for all to support, as we work to make our communities and cities more efficient, livable, and environmentally productive.

The insertion of quality open space has the capacity not only to improve the aesthetics of neighborhoods, but also to serve as a catalyst for ecological and economic improvements to the urban environment. This project establishes a vision of the BQE as a place of opportunity where new open space can be created by introducing an environmental and recreational corridor and turning a former eyesore into a public amenity.

QueensWay

Already, 20,000 miles (32,187 kilometers) of abandoned rail corridors have been turned into bicycle and pedestrian greenways across the United States.²² The QueensWay Vision Plan, commissioned by the Trust for Public Land (TPL), a nonprofit organization founded in 1972, is one of TPL’s several current national initiatives to transform former rights-of-way in cities into active and engaging community greenways. The project involves the conversion of a former Long Island Rail Road line into a new open-space corridor for the public.

The history of land development in Queens is largely defined by the numerous rail lines that subdivided open tracts of land during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The QueensWay appropriates one of these infrastructural lineaments to opposite effect, as a unifying device. Each of the three main segments of the QueensWay—northern, central, and southern—possesses a distinct physical character that creates unique staging opportunities for the interaction of urban and natural space. Along its 3.5-mile (5.633-kilometer) length, the former right-of-way transforms from an elevated embankment to a ravine to an elevated steel viaduct. The adjacencies along the QueensWay also vary, with Little League baseball fields along the northernmost end; big-box-store parking lots, residential neighborhoods, and a public park in the middle; and crossing train lines, commercial corridors, and parking lots to the south. Issues such as safety, security, and the privacy of adjacent properties are directly tied to how the former railway line moves through the urban landscape. A quiet presence in the city, camouflaged by school-bus parking, overgrown vines, light industry, and limited access, the QueensWay has the potential to be a beautiful recreational and ecological amenity for the community.

The Future

John Wesley Powell (1834–1902)—among America’s greatest geologists, scientific surveyors, and explorers—in his famous 1878 “Report on the Lands of the Arid Region of the United States,” called for a clearer understanding of the climate and carrying capacity of the American Southwest, recognizing that not all landscapes and their capacities for human development are the same:

To a great extent, the redemption of all these lands will require extensive and comprehensive plans, for the execution of which aggregated capital or cooperative labor will be necessary. . . . It was my purpose not only to consider the character of the lands themselves, but also the engineering problems involved in their redemption, and further to make suggestions for the legislative action necessary to inaugurate the enterprises by which these lands may eventually be rescued from their present worthless state.²⁴

Powell wrote at a time when massive changes and their resultant impacts upon the American landscape were only beginning to be understood. We are at a similar stage in history when global climate change and an overall recognition of the impacts of people on the natural environment are yielding potentially catastrophic consequences. Powell, Gilbert White, and Jürgen Habermas, writing in different eras, all called for the integration of disciplinary and social thinking about our interaction with the physical world, beginning with the inherent, natural capacities of an environment to perform. Though they approached issues from different perspectives, they also understood a need for a multivalent, interdisciplinary approach to our occupation of the planet that involves ecological, economic, sociological, and artistic metrics.

The unprecedented and unrepeated investment in the American landscape during the New Deal and post–World War II periods provides replicable models from which to develop new systems of infrastructure that will help ameliorate the impacts of urbanization and climate change. New technologies and approaches to infrastructure that value working with natural systems can help create systems that grow stronger and more resilient over time. Collective will, new financing models—public or private—and strong leadership are needed to make WPA 2.0 a natural infrastructure system that can reduce human impact on the global biota.

Susannah Drake is the founding principal of DLANDstudio Architecture and Landscape Architecture, whose “Rising Currents New Urban Ground” proposal is in the permanent collection of the Museum of Modern Art and Cooper-Hewitt Design Museum. Since 2005, she has taught at Harvard, IIT, FIU, CCNY, Syracuse, Washington University in St. Louis, and The Cooper Union. Her work and writings have appeared in National Geographic and The New York Times, and she has contributed to Infrastructural Urbanism (DOM Publishers, 2011), Under the Elevated (Design Trust for Public Space, 2015), DEMO:POLIS (Akademie der Künste, 2016), and Nature and Cities: The Ecological Imperative in Urban Design and Planning (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2016).

Drawing courtesy of DLANDstudio Architecture + Landscape Architecture, PLLC.

1. The WPA and the PWA were both New Deal programs during the Great Depression. Despite their similar-sounding names, they have critical distinctions: First, WPA laborers were hired directly by the government, while the PWA contracted much of their work to private entities. Second, the WPA engaged primarily in smaller projects with local governments such as schools, roads, sidewalks, and sewers, while PWA programs included large-scale bridges, tunnels, and dams. See: Leighninger, Robert D. “Cultural Infrastructure: The Legacy of New Deal Public Space.” Journal of Architectural Education, Volume 49, No. 4 (May, 1996): 226–236.

2. Carstensen, Vernon, “Patterns on the American Land,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Fall 1988): 31–39.

3. Stilgoe, John R., Common Landscape of America, 1580 to 1845 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983), 104.

4. The origins of this famous phrase about Manifest Destiny in America are disputed. Fred R. Shapiro, the editor of the Yale Book of Quotations, comments on the origins in the Yale Alumni Magazine (September/October 2008); see http://www.archives.yaleulumnimagazine.com.

5. See, for example, de Crèvecoeur, J. Hector St. John, Letters from an American Farmer (London, UK: T. Davies, 1782).

6. See Hudson, John C., Plains Country Towns (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1985), which won the first John Brinckerhoff Jackson Book Prize of the Association of American Geographers.

7. Merchant, Carolyn, The Columbia Guide to American Environmental History (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2002), 112.

8. Habermas, Jürgen, “The Uncoupling of System and Lifeworld,” in Elliott, Anthony, ed., The Blackwell Reader in Contemporary Social Theory (Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 1999), 175.

9. Gilligan, Carol, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982).

10. Oberstar, James L., special comments in LePatner, Barry B., Too Big to Fall: America’s Failing Infrastructure and the Way Forward (Lebanon, NH: Foster Publishing, in association with the University Press of New England, 2010), xi.

11. Tracy, Tammy, and Hugh Morris, Rail-Trails and Safe Communities: The Experience on 372 Trails (Washington, D.C.: Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, 1998); available online at http://www.railstotrails.org/resources/documents/resource_docs/Safe%20Communities_F_lr.pdf.

12. See http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org.

13. See, for example, Kolbert, Elizabeth, “The Siege of Miami,” The New Yorker (December 21 and 28, 2015): 42–46 and 49–50.

14. White, Gilbert F., “The Changing Role of Water in Arid Lands,” in Kates, Robert W., and Ian Burton, eds., Geography, Resources, and Environment: Vol. 1, Selected Writings of Gilbert F. White (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1986), 137.

15. Ibid.

16. As defined by the EPA, “gray” infrastructure is “conventional piped drainage and water treatment systems” and “green” infrastructure is “designed to move urban stormwater away from the built environment [and] reduces and treats stormwater at its source while delivering environmental, social, and economic benefits.” See EPA, “What is Green Infrastructure”; available at https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/what-green-infrastructure.

17. See, for example, Ganis, John, with essays by Liz Wells and James E. Hansen, America’s Endangered Coasts: Photographs from Texas to Maine (Staunton, VA: George F. Thompson Publishing, 2016).

18. See http://www3.epa.gov for an update.

19. See Alexiou, Joseph, Gowanus: Brooklyn’s Curious Canal (New York, NY: NYU Press, 2015).

20. For an overview of Sponge Park, see Foderaro, Lisa W., “Building a Park in Brooklyn to Sop Up Polluted Waters: Site Will Treat Thousands of Gallons near Canal,” The New York Times (December 16, 2015): A27 and A29.

21. See, for example, Palazzo, Danilo, and Frederick R. Steiner, Urban Ecological Design: A Process for Regenerative Place (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2011), 6; and “Rising Currents: Projects for New York’s Waterfront to Respond to Climate Change,” Landscape Architecture China, Vol. 11, No. 3 (June 2010): 70–75.

22. The origins of the rails-to-trails movement was brilliantly presented by Charles E. Little in his now-classic book, Greenways for America (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, in association with the Center for American Places, 1990).

23. Carbonell, Armando, Mark Pisano, and Robert Yaro. 2005. Global gateway regions. September. New York, NY: Regional Plan Association. http://www.america2050.org/pdf/globalgatewayregions.pdf.

24. Powell, J. W., “Report on the Lands of the Arid Regions of the United States, with a More Detailed Account of the Lands of Utah” (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, April 2, 1878), viii.
 

La “contribución de valorización”, que en Estados Unidos se conoce como betterment levy o special assessment y en otros países, especialmente de América Latina, se denomina “contribución por mejoras”, es una “carga impositiva generada por un gobierno a los propietarios de un grupo de inmuebles seleccionados para sufragar, totalmente o en parte, el costo de una obra o servicios públicos que generan mejoras específicas o servicios que se presumen de beneficio general para el público y de beneficio específico para los dueños de tales propiedades” (IAAO 1997, 10–11). En Colombia la contribución de valorización (CV) se ha aplicado desde 1921.

Si bien la contribución de valorización se aborda conceptualmente en la mayoría de las legislaciones latinoamericanas, su implementación muchas veces encuentra resistencia. Los principales argumentos en su contra son que es un instrumento poco práctico y técnicamente complicada, que falta capacidad para implementarlo, y que es impopular. Sin embargo, la experiencia de Colombia pareciera contradecir estos argumentos, al sugerir que la resistencia tiene sus raíces en de prejuicios, ideologías, o falta de información. Este instrumento no sólo tiene una larga historia de aplicación continua (aunque irregular), pero también una historia demostrada de recaudar ingresos significativos para financiar obras públicas.

Bogotá recoge actualmente cerca de mil millones de dólares para invertir en obras públicas utilizando este gravamen, y otras ocho ciudades importantes están cobrando, en conjunto, otros mil millones de dólares. Es de destacar analizando cobros recientes en la contribución sobre 1.500.000 predios en Bogotá, que su cobro ha sido generalmente aceptado por los contribuyentes, con tasas de no pago relativamente bajas (baja cartera morosa) – de hecho, más bajas que para el impuesto a la propiedad inmobiliaria. Si bien su legitimidad no está puesta en duda, incluso entre la comunidad empresarial, ha habido controversia sobre la aplicación metodológica de la carga y hay discusión en otras ciudades colombianas sobre el modelo a utilizar. Esto trae una pregunta interesante: ¿por qué, a pesar de sus imperfecciones técnicas, es la contribución de valorización tan aceptada por la sociedad?

A pesar de su relevancia, es muy poca la bibliografía existente en Colombia y en América Latina sobre este instrumento (Fernandes 1981; Bustamante 1996; Manon and Macon 1977). Mis colegas y yo hicimos un estudio de los métodos utilizados para aplicar la contribución de valorización en Bogotá y Manizales que representan dos modelos de cobro en Colombia (Borrero et al. 2011). Este artículo resume las principales conclusiones de ese estudio, las cuales esperamos puedan servir de guía a otras ciudades de la región latinoamericana interesadas en la aplicación de este instrumento en sus territorios.

En Colombia la contribución de valorización ha jugado un papel importante en el financiamiento de obras públicas y ha tenido una considerable participación en los ingresos de las ciudades. A finales de los años 1960 alcanzó a representar el 16% del total de los ingresos de Bogotá y el 45% de los ingresos del municipio de Medellín. A principios de la década de 1980 permitió recaudar el 30% de los ingresos de Cali y en 1993 el recaudo alcanzó el 24% de los ingresos de Bogotá. Durante la década del 2000 este instrumento ha sido muy utilizado en Bogotá, Medellín, Cali, Manizales, Bucaramanga, Barranquilla y en general en casi todas las ciudades con más de 300.000 habitantes en Colombia.

Se escogieron Bogotá y Manizales como ciudades típicas para estudiar porque durante los últimos 20 años han mantenido vigente este instrumento para financiar sus vías y desarrollo urbano. Aplicaron metodologías diferentes y tienen vasta experiencia para asesorar a otras ciudades. Cali y Barranquilla están haciendo un cobro para obras viales utilizando la metodología y asesoría del “modelo de Bogotá”, mientras que Bucaramanga y Pereira han utilizado la experiencia y método de Manizales (también conocido como el “modelo de Medellín”, otra de las ciudades pioneras en la aplicación de este instrumento). Ambos enfoques son legales en Colombia, pero la metodología y enfoque utilizados para distribuir el instrumento son muy diferentes.

La ley colombiana estipula tres parámetros para calcular la CV: (i) el costo de la obra de construcción, (ii) la valorización o plusvalía generada y (iii) la capacidad de pago del contribuyente. El Decreto Ley 1604 de 1966 exige que si el mayor valor generado por la obra no alcanza al costo, solo se puede cobrar hasta el costo de la obra. Asimismo debe tenerse en cuenta para fijar el monto distribuible la capacidad de pago del contribuyente, límite que deberá observarse aunque la valorización o el costo de la obra sean mayores. Por ejemplo, en Manizales uno de los proyectos recientes tuvo plusvalías pequeñas que representaban un valor considerablemente menor que el costo del proyecto. Sin embargo, se aplicó la contribución sobre la base de la plusvalía. La única ciudad que no cumple con esta norma es Bogotá, donde la contribución equivale al costo del proyecto.

El “modelo Bogotá” aplica para el beneficio local el método de factores para repartir el costo de la obra, teniendo en cuenta la capacidad de pago del contribuyente y diferentes grados de beneficio. Estos factores incluyen consideraciones tales como mejoramiento de condiciones de movilidad y otros aspectos de bienestar, pero sin cuantificar el beneficio por la plusvalía de los inmuebles generada por la obra.

Por su parte el “modelo Medellín” (aplicado en Manizales y otras ciudades) para la CV por beneficio local calcula primero el beneficio estimado en términos de la plusvalía que se generará después, mediante el método del “doble avalúo simple” y reparte luego el cobro, siempre teniendo en cuenta la capacidad de pago. El “modelo Bogotá” se parece más a un impuesto generalizado para cubrir el costo de las obras. El “modelo Medellín” se acerca más a la Participación en la Plusvalía por obras públicas (DL 388 de 1977, Artículo 87; Doebele 1998).

La experiencia de Bogotá

Bogotá, capital de Colombia, es una ciudad de 7,5 millones de habitantes y un área urbana que cubre 500 kilómetros cuadrados (50.000 hectáreas). Se ubica en el centro geográfico del país sobre la cordillera de los Andes en la Sabana de Bogotá, una planicie a 2.600 metros de altura que tiene cerca de 300.000 hectáreas de gran fertilidad agropecuaria. La administración de la CV en Bogotá lo realiza el Instituto de Desarrollo Urbano (IDU) quien también tiene a su cargo la identificación y construcción de las obras viales principales que se construirán con este instrumento. La CV se cobra a todos los inmuebles afectados por un proyecto determinado, y se calcula el cobro mediante el Método de Factores, consistente en la multiplicación de diferentes factores de beneficio. La tabla 1 (en anexo) muestra ejemplos de proyectos recientes realizados con fondos recaudados por la CV.

Área de influencia

Para poder efectuar el cobro de valorización por beneficio local, el IDU debe identificar el área de influencia, es decir, hasta donde podría generar beneficio en la movilidad y por lo tanto en la valorización de los inmuebles. El criterio para establecer las zonas de influencia y los grados de beneficio es que los predios que se incluyen son aquellos que por su cercanía y accesibilidad al proyecto registran una mayor frecuencia de uso y que así mismo pueden beneficiarse directamente por la construcción de la infraestructura según el impacto en los avalúos y condiciones económicas de los inmuebles.

Igualmente, con el objetivo de disminuir la contribución promedio de valorización, se trata de abarcar el mayor número posible de predios beneficiados dentro de los límites antes descritos, considerando las condiciones socioeconómicas de los predios. Los límites para cada zona de influencia resultaron de la superposición geográfica de las zonas de influencia individuales de cada obra, pero modificados y corregidos al considerar efectos de complementariedad de las zonas beneficiadas por el conjunto de obras como un todo (Borrero et al., 2011, 22).

Medición del beneficio en Bogotá

Los beneficios que resultan del proyecto o conjunto de proyectos se calculan por zona, tomando en cuenta los factores de beneficio de cada proyecto. Utilizando el ejemplo de un proyecto vial reciente, los factores de beneficio son: (1) mayor movilidad, la cual se traduce en mayor velocidad de tránsito, disminución de tiempos de desplazamiento, costos operativos más bajos, y mejor calidad de vida; (2) beneficios urbanísticos generales en la medida en que el proyecto beneficia la red vial y racionaliza el uso del espacio público; (3) cambios generados en el uso de suelo y estimulación de actividades productivas y comerciales; (4) aumento del valor del mercado de propiedades inmobiliarias vecinas; (5) integración del proyecto en la estructura urbana de la ciudad; (6) optimización de circulación y movilidad; y (7) recuperación de áreas deterioradas o desvalorizadas (Borrero et al. 2011, 84).

Una vez definidos los beneficios del proyecto y estimado su costo, la distribución de la carga toma en cuenta factores adicionales: el tipo de uso del suelo, densidad, grado de beneficio asignado a cada lote, y la capacidad de pago de los propietarios, medida en base a encuestas de hogares y de calidad de vida. Esta es la principal crítica que se hace al “modelo Bogotá”. El beneficio no mide la valorización o plusvalía generada en los inmuebles sino otros indicadores de movilidad, calidad de vida, condiciones sociales, etc.

La experiencia de Manizales

Manizales es una ciudad de 400.000 habitantes situada en el centro del país a 300 Km al occidente de Bogotá, en medio de la zona cafetera. Su topografía es montañosa, lo que implica elevados costos en obras de ingeniería. Tiene gran experiencia en el desarrollo vial y procesos de renovación urbana utilizando el mecanismo de la CV, pero utiliza una metodología diferente a la de Bogotá y requiere una descripción más detallada. La institución que administra y ejecuta la CV, con autoridad plena delegada por la legislación municipal, es el Instituto de Valorización de Manizales (INVAMA).

En los últimos tres años se hicieron cuatro proyectos viales utilizando el cobro de CV: la renovación de la Plaza Alfonso López ; la pavimentación de la calle Alférez Real; la renovación del Paseo de los Estudiantes; y desarrollo de la malla vial del Área Oriental de la ciudad. Estos cuatro proyectos se financiaron con un cobro único de la CV que cubrió el 80% de la ciudad y recaudó US$ 24,6 millones (ver tabla 2 en anexo).

Medición del beneficio en Manizales

En Manizales se aplica la misma metodología que utilizó Medellín durante muchos años y se utiliza con éxito en Bucaramanga y otras ciudades. Se denomina el “método del doble avalúo”. Consiste en recaudar información de avalúos comerciales o catastrales por zonas geoeconómicas comparables a las de la zona analizada; es decir, se selecciona una zona con características similares a las que se estima generará la obra futura, y se traslada el comportamiento de los valores de la tierra a los sectores donde se ejecutará la obra. El supuesto es que los valores del suelo se comportarán de manera parecida en ambas zonas. También se realizan avalúos comerciales, por peritos expertos para obtener precios de mercado (muestra de avalúos iniciales), así como una proyección del valor con el proyecto, mediante avalúos a precios del mercado en las zonas geoeconómicas tomadas como referencia (avalúo final).

El método requiere tener información del efecto valorización o beneficio generado por obras viales anteriores. A esto denominamos “análisis ex post”. La ciudad de Manizales ha realizado un análisis ex post de las obras ejecutadas en los últimos años para examinar la valorización generada. Desafortunadamente los institutos o ciudades que cobran Valorización, incluyendo a Bogotá y Medellín, no le hacen seguimiento económico al efecto resultante de las obras desarrolladas.

El primer avalúo, que tiene como fin producir el plano de iso precios antes de la obra, es el resultado del análisis de los valores reales actuales y las variaciones históricas que tiene el sector en su estado actual. El segundo avalúo determina la plusvalía que hipotéticamente generará la construcción de esa obra nueva en la zona. El predio de “máxima valorización” es el que debe analizarse en detalle para calificar realmente el porcentaje de su incremento de valor.

Pasos críticos en el método del doble avalúo

1. Definir el área de influencia. Esta definición se hace con base en la mejora de movilidad que causará la obra vial o de infraestructura. Es similar al modelo aplicado en Bogotá.

2. Calcular el beneficio y elaborar un mapa de ISO precios basado en una muestra de predios. Inicialmente la zona se define lo más amplia posible con criterios de comunicación vial y distancias. Dentro de esta amplia zona, se seleccionan unos predios muestrales, que representen las características predominantes de los predios de la zona, teniendo en cuenta características generales, no particulares de los mismos. Con esta base se construye un plano de iso precios de valores del suelo antes de la obra. Estos avalúos muestrales, por lo general, en los estudios de ciudades intermedias se toman entre cien (100) y doscientos (200) según los tamaños de las zonas de irrigación y la heterogeneidad de las zonas de influencia o irrigación. Todo este estudio inicial debe producir un plano de iso precios antes de la obra que refleje los valores de los lotes tipo. Luego se elabora un segundo mapa de iso precios con los nuevos valores esperados. Un tercer mapa relaciona las diferencias de valor o de iso valorización entre el primero y segundo mapa de iso precios, y también se utiliza para distribuir el beneficio o mayor valorización.

3. Proyección de valorización. Para determinar el efecto valorización o beneficio predial se hace un ejercicio con la participación interdisciplinaria de profesionales experimentados que aportan los siguientes criterios: un estudio económico, que defina unas formulas matemáticas de calificación de los factores a considerar en los criterios de plusvalía; un estudio vial, para calificar y cuantificar en cifras el beneficio en cuanto a reducción de distancias de los barrios beneficiados por la obra; un estudio urbanístico, que mida las posibilidades de cambio de uso del predio; y un estudio inmobiliario, para cuantificar comparativamente qué actores pesan más para darles mayor o menor puntuación proporcional.

4. Calcular la distribución del beneficio según calificación de factores. Se le asigna un peso a cada uno de los siguientes factores: posible cambio de uso, es el que genera más plusvalía, aunque está orientado a un menor número de predios (40%); mejoramiento del sector, al quedar comunicado con zonas de más alto nivel o zonas comerciales (20%); tiempo de ahorro en transporte, medido por la reducción de tiempo de viaje en la ciudad, con distancias claramente medibles (20%); y reducción de contaminación o congestión vial en zonas conflictivas donde ocurre este problema (20%).

5. Establecer el nivel de beneficio (punto focal). El “punto príncipe” o punto focal de máxima valorización de toda la zona de influencia será el lote o la zona puntual que más alta valorización obtendrá porque confluyen allí los más importantes factores de plusvalía. Se calcula la plusvalía esperada sobre este punto – que debe tener la calificación más alta – en porcentajes que se multiplicarán por el valor comercial inicial de cada zona. Con estos valores se construirá el plano de plusvalía o de iso precios que se estima alcanzará la zona luego de ejecutadas las obras. Los estudios ex post en varias ciudades encontraron que las obras viales generaron una valorización promedio real del 10% al 15% sobre los inmuebles (en los siguientes 3 años después de la obra). De esta manera, asumiendo que el mejor lote o inmueble del sector podría tener una valorización del 15%, si un inmueble quedó calificado con 70 puntos (según la calificación de factores) se le aplicará una valorización esperada del 10.5%.

6. Distribuir el beneficio. Una vez que el costo del proyecto ha sido determinado y su impacto de plusvalía ha sido calculado, INVAMA con el reparto o liquidación de la CV (cuantificación del tributo que se impone a cada bien inmueble) lo aplica dentro del área utilizando modelos apropiados para el proyecto. Manizales, así como la mayoría de ciudades de Colombia, utiliza el método de factores de beneficio, que se basa en la determinación de un área virtual producto de la multiplicación de los factores de ponderación de las características de los predios y el grado de beneficio por el área física del suelo. Los criterios para la construcción de los factores que se seleccionan para hacer la distribución varían entre ciudades, pero el punto de referencia es el valor del inmueble total, contemplando el área de terreno más construcción (Borrero et al. 2011, anexo 2).

7. Determinar la capacidad de pago. Los usos y estratos sociales tienen una liquidación diferente del gravamen, ya que se relacionan con la mayor capacidad de pago del contribuyente. Para la determinación de esta capacidad de pago de la CV, varias ciudades hacen encuestas de hogares y estudios sociales, de calidad de vida y de ingresos y gastos de la población. También suelen aplicarse parámetros comparativos de la CV con otros tributos, tasas y contribuciones, como la relación con el pago de servicios públicos de cada hogar, o la proporción de la CV con respecto al pago anual por impuesto predial.

8. Definir el plazo del cobro. En Manizales, Medellín y Bucaramanga el cobro es generalmente simultáneo con la ejecución del proyecto. Otras ciudades han experimentado con otros enfoques. En Cali, el cobro del último plan de valorización se efectuó antes del inicio de la construcción de las obras, pero su recaudo se extenderá por mucho más tiempo luego de que éstas finalicen. Las ciudades suelen hacer un solo cobro en cada administración o período edilicio (4 años), pero en los proyectos recientes de Bogotá y Cali, por ejemplo, los planes previstos alcanzan un plazo de ejecución y derrame de la Contribución que se extiende por varios períodos administrativos.

Aunque el plazo máximo según la ley cubre hasta los cinco años siguientes a la ejecución de las obras, las experiencias más exitosas en recaudo demuestran que no debe ser superior a dos años. Cuando los plazos son más amplios, es difícil el recaudo y se generan problemas de caja en el municipio para la construcción de las obras. La CV también se puede cobrar hasta dos años antes de iniciar las obras, lo cual exige mucha capacidad de ejecución de las mismas, en especial cuando se aprueban grandes paquetes de obra. La experiencia reciente de Bogotá que autorizó el cobro de la contribución con dos años de anticipación ha generado polémica entre la población porque la construcción de las obras se inició a un ritmo muy lento. Para evitar este problema, en el nuevo Estatuto de Valorización propuesto para Bogotá, se harán los cobros simultáneos a la ejecución de las obras.

Legitimidad percibida

La CV tiene muy buen apoyo de los ciudadanos y propietarios como lo demuestra el alto nivel de satisfacción medido con las encuestas de Manizales y las entrevistas a los actores (tabla 3 en anexo). El cobro se efectúa antes del comienzo de las obras y el pago se efectúa hasta en un 80% durante el primer año del cobro. Esta encuesta, aplicada después de concluidas dos obras en Manizales, resume la percepción ciudadana sobre la gestión del INVAMA de dichas obras. Específicamente, los resultados demuestran un vínculo claro entre el beneficio y la disposición a pagar la contribución – un nivel de cumplimiento más alto que el del impuesto predial, aunque la contribución es más onerosa que el impuesto. Este resultado contradice la percepción común de que los contribuyentes latinoamericanos tienen una cultura de no-pago. También comprueba el alto nivel de legitimidad de la CV entre los ciudadanos y la buena gestión municipal de esta carga.

Conclusiones

La experiencia de Colombia con la contribución de valorización en los últimos 70 años demuestra que es un instrumento viable para financiar el desarrollo urbano, capaz de recaudar ingresos significativos, aunque la metodología para calcular y distribuir los ingresos es compleja y puede ser mejorada. Entre las lecciones que se aprenden de esa experiencia, la más importante es el vínculo claro entre la provisión de beneficios públicos y la voluntad de los propietarios a pagar la contribución. El éxito depende de la legitimidad del proyecto y de la capacidad institucional y estándares éticos de la agencia que administra la contribución. A fin de generar confianza entre los ciudadanos, el éxito también se vincula con garantizar la capacidad de pago del tributo, la aplicación de un modelo equitativo de distribución, la publicidad del beneficio económico del proyecto, y la participación de los ciudadanos durante la fase de implementación.

The conversion of land from agricultural production to urban and industrial development is one of the critical processes of change in developing economies undergoing industrialization, urbanization, and globalization. Urban land use changes taking place in China have attracted much scholarly attention, especially in light of the extensive economic reforms, remarkable economic growth, and profound structural changes over the last three decades. The transition from a planned to a market economy and from authoritarian to more decentralized provincial and local government has generated a new institutional setting for changes in land use (Lin and Ho 2005).

The prevailing view is to characterize land use change as the outcome of economic growth and structural change. This argument aligns itself with the neoclassical growth model in which land plays a decreasing role in economic growth. However, these changes in land use can be both the consequence of economic growth and the drivers of such growth (Bai, Chen, and Shi 2011; Ding and Lichtenberg 2011).

The reality is much more complicated. Instead of being driven by growing population, urban land expansion in China is motivated by land finance, whereby local governments raise revenue and attract investment by leasing and developing land. As a result, land-centered urban policy has been identified as one of the most important driving forces operating behind the spectacular expansion of cities since the mid-1990s (Lin 2007). Supplying agricultural land for nonagricultural purposes effectively allows the local government to “kill many birds with one stone” (Ping 2011). As a result, land development fuels economic growth, especially in urbanized areas.

Land use changes in China are also affected in significant ways by land supply policies, which have been adjusted regularly to meet the demands of economic development. Illegal land supply is a leading cause of excessive and uncontrolled investment, which occurs when local governments do not supply land to land users according to current land use plans or following the final permission of the central government. As a result, the central government started to use land policy as a major aspect of national macro-economic control in late 2003.

Among other measures, land transfers have been conducted through auction or tender since 2004, and land supply policy has shifted from quantity control to structural control since 2006. Land use indexes distributed by the central government to the local governments emphasized only the quantity of land before 2006, but currently the distribution of land uses among categories is set by the central government and even the intensity of land use is defined.

This legacy can be seen in the State Council’s establishment of the highly centralized State Land Supervision (SLS) system in 2006. Nine new regional offices were charged with investigating illegal land supply across the country (Tao et al. 2010). The new land policy has played an active role in improving land use by forbidding land to be leased to projects inconsistent with national industrial policy, development plans, and entry standards. Following the introduction of these reforms, the amount of land supplied illegally has decreased greatly due to stringent control, while GDP generated per unit of developable land has increased substantially (China Land and Mine Resources Law Center 2007). It is expected that this stringent land policy will have a significant impact on the spatial pattern of land use and may affect the association between land use changes and economic growth in China.

Changes in Land Use Patterns Across China

Land policy in China has changed dramatically since 2004, and one would also expect a different pattern of land use since then. Based on official county-level data from 2004 and 2008, we examine land use change at the provincial prefecture city level and explore the spatial relationship between land use change and economic growth. Official land use change data are divided into several land use categories at three levels every year. The first level includes agricultural land, construction land, and unused land; the second level contains ten categories of land uses; and the third level contains 52 subcategories.

Table 1 shows land use changes nationally from 2004 to 2008, during which time more land was converted into uses for construction while the amount of agricultural land and unused land declined. Among agricultural land categories, pasture land and cultivated land shrank by 12.69 million mu (0.85 million hectares) and 11.27 million mu (0.75 million hectares) respectively. Unused land fell by 17.91 million mu (1.19 million hectares).

Given recent rapid industrialization and urbanization, it is not surprising that the fastest land conversions in China have been to construction uses, which added 18.83 million mu (1.26 million hectares). In the category of settlements and industrial/mining sites, cities, designated towns, and industrial/mining sites witnessed the fastest land expansion, with growth rates of 19.61, 13.33, and 12.42 percent respectively, while the land area of rural settlements decreased. Significant amounts of land were also converted for the use of transportation, particularly the construction of highways.

This national-level analysis hides many spatial variations in land use changes in particular provinces and regions (figure 1). Thus we explore land use changes at the provincial level, focusing on the changes to cultivated land, urban land (including cities and designated towns), stand-alone industrial/mining sites, rural settlements, and transportation land for highways.

Figure 2 shows that losses of cultivated land occurred mainly in eastern and central China. Economic growth, urbanization, and industrialization have accelerated in Hebei, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Guangdong, and Guangxi provinces, where the most cultivated land was converted to urban, industrial, and transportation purposes. Shanxi, Shaanxi, Chongqing, and Sichuan provinces also saw rapid conversion of cultivated land to nonagricultural activities. Those provinces are located in China’s transitional geographic belt, where cultivated land is the best choice for construction and development. In contrast, inland provinces including Tibet, Qinghai, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, and Heilongjiang saw some increases in cultivated land.

Land for rural settlements is influenced by both new countryside policies and rural income growth. Increases in income have influenced the conversion of land to rural settlements in the eastern provinces such as Guangdong, Fujian, Zhejiang, Guangxi, Hebei, and Tianjin, and in some inland provinces including Heilongjiang, Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, Qinghai, Tibet, Yunnan, Guizhou, Hubei, and Shanxi. However, some provinces experienced significant decreases in land used for rural settlements, particularly in Jiangsu, Jiangxi, and Anhui. This decline may be associated with new countryside policies, which have actually forced farmers into towns.

Urbanization and industrialization are the major drivers of nonagricultural land expansion in China. The urbanization rate grew from 40.50 to 45.68 percent between 2004 and 2008, when all provinces experienced urban and industrial land expansion (figure 3). However, most urban land expansion occurred south of the Yangtze River. In the north, only Shandong, Anhui, and Jiangsu experienced substantial urban and industrial land changes.

The rapid growth in the amount of land used for industrial/mining sites is seen largely in the eastern provinces, both in terms of absolute and relative changes, especially in Fujian, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Hebei (figure 4). With relatively smaller growth rates, Guangdong, Shandong, and Liaoning also saw a large amount of land converted to industrial/mining sites. The western provinces of Inner Mongolia, Qinghai, and Tibet witnessed rapid growth of land for industrial/mining sites but small absolute growth.

From 2004 to 2008, China launched a major drive to develop transportation networks by building more railways and highways to support economic growth. Nationally, land used for transportation grew at about 10 percent during this period. Many provinces witnessed faster growth in land used for transportation than the nation as a whole, including Inner Mongolia, Hebei, Qinghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, Chongqing, Hubei, Anhui, Jiangxi, and Guangxi. Land requisition for highways was largely concentrated in the eastern provinces, with the largest absolute increases in Zhejiang, Jiangsu, and Hebei provinces.

Overall, China has witnessed remarkable land use changes, particularly in the eastern provinces and some central provinces. The spatial pattern of land use change is consistent with the spatial shift of economic growth, because eastern provinces enjoy institutional and locational advantages and agglomeration economies. They have attracted the majority of foreign investments, particularly those in capital- and technology-intensive industries, and are the dominant exporters of Chinese products.

Acceptance into the World Trade Organization has further benefited industrial firms located in eastern China with greater access to international markets. On the other hand, as industries continue to agglomerate, the eastern region has experienced rising land, workforce, and environmental costs, forcing some traditional industries to move to the central provinces. Some of these areas have attracted more recent investment and experienced faster economic growth, thus raising their importance among China’s regional economies.

Correlations Between Land Use Change and Economic Growth

To investigate the relationship between land use changes and economic growth systematically across cities and provinces, we calculate the correlation coefficients between the GDP growth rate from 2005 to 2009 and the rate of change of different land categories. The extent of the correlation may depend on a variety of economic, locational, and institutional conditions. We examine the impact of city size, location, and industrial structure, the amount of foreign direct investment (FDI), and land supply constraints on the relationship between land use changes and economic growth. The correlation coefficients are further computed using city subsamples classified by those factors.

The unexpected results showed that only a few significant but small correlation coefficients exist between the rate of change in land use and the economic growth rate (He, Huang, and Wang 2012). The change in other transportation land (including airports, ports, and pipelines) holds a significant positive coefficient. Correlation coefficients for urban land, industrial/mining sites, railways, and highways are barely significant.

Some evidence shows that city size, geographical location, fiscal situation, land supply, and realized FDI may moderate the correlation between land use change and economic growth. For instance, urban land expansion is associated with economic growth positively in central China but negatively in eastern and western regions. Stand-alone industrial/mining sites increase significantly with economic growth in western China. But overall, the correlation between the rate of land use change and economic growth is rather weak.

Since land can be treated as an input in the production function, the quantity of land may contribute directly to GDP growth. We compute the correlation coefficients between absolute GDP growth from 2005 to 2009 and absolute land use change from 2004 to 2008 to explore this relationship and find they are strongly correlated. Nationally, more cultivated land converted to nonagricultural uses contributes significantly to absolute GDP growth, with a correlation coefficient of -0.26. More land for urban uses and industrial/mining uses, are significantly and positively associated with GDP increases.

Significant correlation coefficients between land use change and economic growth suggest that land has been a significant driver of economic growth, but this positive contribution is moderated by a variety of factors including a city’s size, location, industrial structure, fiscal condition, and utilization of FDI. Conversion of cultivated land to nonagricultural uses is shown to contribute to economic growth, particularly in cities with more than 5 million people, realized FDI greater than US$200 million, strong agricultural land constraints, secondary industrial domiance, and location in central China.

Clearly, nonagricultural land is more productive than cultivated land in large and industrial cities. In recent years, as the implementation of central government policies targeted development in central China, the inland provinces have attracted more domestic and foreign investment and seen rapid economic growth as cultivated land has been converted to urban and industrial uses.

Comparatively, urban land expansion holds a stronger correlation with GDP growth in smaller cities and those located further inland. These types of cities are more likely to depend on land leasing to generate local revenues since they face more stringent fiscal constraints. In these areas, capital accumulation from land leasing is a typical local development strategy. In addition, urban land expansion plays a larger role in stimulating economic growth when fiscal limitations are steeper, land supply is strictly controlled, tertiary industries dominate, and more foreign investment is utilized. Industrial land expansion also contributes significantly to economic growth, especially in cities with stringent fiscal constraints and more industrial activities.

The recent transportation infrastructure development boom has contributed to economic growth as well. Land expansion for highways has stimulated economic growth with no constraints. Cities located in the western regions and those with poor fiscal revenues particularly benefit from new highways while expansion of railways is less associated with economic growth. The building of other transportation infrastructure (airports, ports, and pipelines) has played a critical role in facilitating economic growth in smaller and more eastern cities as well as in those whose economies are dominated by service industries.

The correlation analysis provides clear evidence to show that urban, industrial, and transportation land expansion is positively and significantly associated with economic growth. Converting cultivated land has contributed to economic expansion in many regions of China, but the importance of nonagricultural land expansion in economic growth is moderated by social, economic, and geographical conditions.

Conclusion and Discussion

Since the implementation of its economic reform, China has pursued a resource-intensive growth model that has forced land to play a critical role in sustaining its rapid economic growth. This has resulted in a large supply of developable land and rapid conversion from agricultural to nonagricultural purposes. Land in China is not only the outcome of economic growth but is also its driver.

The conversion of cultivated land to nonagricultural uses has been concentrated in the eastern and central parts of the country. With the implementation of new countryside development strategies and the enforcement of stricter land supply constraints, China witnessed a reduction in rural settlements across most of the central and northeastern regions. Urban and industrial land expansion has dominated land use changes throughout the nation. Transportation development, including new highways, railways, airports, seaports, and pipelines, has also been a major cause of land consumption in recent years, particularly in the eastern and central regions.

The principle component analysis based on land use change data from prefecture level cities indicated substantial spatial variation in land use changes among Chinese cities and showed that they are auto-correlated spatially. Correlation analysis further showed a weak relationship between the growth rate of GDP and the rate of land use change. But absolute land use change and absolute GDP growth are strongly correlated, indicating that land quantity is a critical input in economic growth.

Land is usually regarded as playing a marginal role in economic growth in Western economic growth theories. Our exploratory analysis suggests the opposite in China. As China urbanizes, industrializes, and globalizes, it is experiencing substantial land use changes that are correlated with economic growth. This significant relationship is associated with China’s particular state-owned land ownership and land use rights systems. As such, land can be used as a powerful macroeconomic intervention tool. The long-term lease of land use rights grants incentives for local governments to sell land to generate lump-sum revenues, which are then used to finance urban and industrial development and infrastructure provision.

Consequently, land has played a critical role in China’s rapid economic growth. However, this form of land-centered urbanization and industrialization has already caused serious social tensions, environmental degradation, and economic fluctuation. The lump-sum revenues generated by land leases are not sustainable considering that, even as large as it is, China has a limited land supply. The role of land as a driver of economic growth can be expected to decline as China gradually undergoes industrial advancement.

About the Authors

Canfei He is associate professor at the College of Urban and Environmental Science, Peking University, and associate director of the Peking University-Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy in Beijing.

Zhiji Huang is a Ph.D. student at the College of Urban and Environmental Science, Peking University, and the Peking University-Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy in Beijing.

Weikai Wang is a postgraduate student at the College of Urban and Environmental Science, Peking University, and the Peking University-Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy in Beijing.

References

Bai, X., J. Chen, and P. Shi. 2011. Landscape urbanization and economic growth in China: Positive feedbacks and sustainability dilemmas. Environmental Science and Technology 46: 132-139.

China Land and Mine Resources Law Center. 2007. The evolution of land policy’s involvement in macro-control policies of China. China Land 6, 53-56 (in Chinese).

Ding, C., and E. Lichtenberg. 2011. Land and urban economic growth in China. Journal of Regional Science 51(2): 299-317.

He, Canfei, Zhiji Huang, and Weikai Wang. 2012. Land use changes and urban economic growth in China: An exploratory analysis. Working Paper. Beijing: Peking University-Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy.

Lin, G. C. S. 2007. Reproducing spaces of Chinese urbanisation: New city-based and land-centred urban transformation. Urban Studies 44 (9): 1827-1855.

Lin, G. C. S., and S. P. S. Ho. 2005. The state, land system, and land development processes in contemporary China. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95(2): 411-436.

Ministry of Land and Resources. 2008. Land use change survey data. People’s Republic of China.

Ping, Y. C. 2011. Explaining land use change in a Guangdong county: the supply side of the story. The China Quarterly 2107: 626-648.

Tao, R., F. Su, M. Liu, and G. Cao. 2010. Land leasing and local public finance in China’s regional development: Evidence from prefecture level cities. Urban Studies 47(10): 2217-2236.

Las ciudades de América Latina han liderado la implementación de Sistemas de Transporte Público Masivo de Autobuses tipo BRT (llamados así por sus siglas en inglés por Bus Rapid Transit), un modo de transporte que generalmente se caracteriza por el desarrollo de infraestructura que dan prioridad al transporte público en relación con el transporte en otros tipos de vehículos, ofrece la posibilidad de pagar la tarifa antes de tomar el autobús y permite un rápido acceso al mismo. Más de 45 ciudades de América Latina han realizado inversiones en sistemas tipo BRT, lo que representa el 63,6 por ciento del número de pasajeros en sistemas tipo BRT a nivel mundial.

En Curitiba, Brasil, el sistema tipo BRT ha sido implementado como una herramienta para fomentar un proceso de desarrollo urbano que se caracteriza en apoyar y fortalecer el sistema de transporte público en general. En el año 1972, la ciudad incorporó una red de vías exclusivas para autobuses y estimuló a lo largo de los cinco ejes principales del sistema tipo desarrollos del suelo de alta densidad y usos mixtos, estos ejes estructurales han guiado el proceso de crecimiento urbano de Curitiba por décadas y convergen en el centro de la ciudad. La nueva línea verde de Curitiba se fundamenta en principios similares: fomentar el desarrollo urbano que mejora y facilita el uso del sistema de transporte público masivo. El caso de Curitiba sugiere que el éxito del sistema tipo BRT puede ser mayor a través de la concentración del desarrollo del suelo a lo largo del eje del sistema de transporte público masivo. En otros estudios, se ha investigado si el sistema tipo BRT puede realmente estimular el desarrollo del suelo.

El término “desarrollo orientado al tránsito” (DOT) –en inglés, Transit Oriented Development o TOD– se utiliza para describir el desarrollo urbano que se caracteriza por ser compacto con mezcla de usos del suelo, entre los cuales generalmente se encuentran los de tipo residencial, comercial y de oficinas, así como un entorno urbano de alta calidad para los peatones que efectivamente tienen acceso al transporte público. Se considera que dicho desarrollo urbano facilita o respalda el transporte público, ya que puede concentrar la demanda a lo largo de las troncales y/o corredores de transporte, equilibrar los flujos de pasajeros y generar oportunidades para garantizar viajes de carácter multimodal. La evidencia de la experiencia en los Estados Unidos en este tema sugiere que las personas que residen en áreas servidas por DOT utilizan más el transporte público en comparación con otros viajeros frecuentes. Aunque la mayoría de los DOT se han construido alrededor de los sistemas de transporte público sobre rieles, el concepto del desarrollo urbano orientado hacia el transporte público también puede constituirse en una estrategia para complementar y mejorar los sistemas tipo BRT.

Tipologías de DOT

Tanto investigadores como profesionales han desarrollado una variedad de tipologías de desarrollo urbano orientado al transporte público DOT, aunque ninguna de ellas se ha enfocado específicamente en los sistemas tipo BRT. El tipo de desarrollo urbano que podría darse en torno a las estaciones de los sistemas tipo BRT es un factor fundamental para la planificación del desarrollo alrededor de las estaciones o terminales, comprender de qué manera el DOT es adecuado dentro de una estrategia de crecimiento regional, crear conciencia y fomentar la participación del público en general en el desarrollo urbano y, finalmente, aumentar las posibilidades de éxito del sistema.

La literatura acerca de los DOT sugiere la existencia de diferencias importantes en relación con las características y los tipos de este desarrollo urbano. Una aproximación se sustenta en la experiencia de los planificadores, arquitectos y urbanistas. Peter Calthorpe (1993) utilizó el concepto de urbanización para identificar los DOT de carácter urbano y de escala barrial con características tales como la calidad del servicio de transporte público, los usos del suelo, la intensidad del desarrollo y el carácter del diseño urbano. La localización geográfica de estos DOT varía desde áreas de desarrollo con terrenos aún no urbanizados hasta áreas de redesarrollo y renovación urbana. Una tipología similar desarrollada en el estado de Florida (Estados Unidos) en el año 2011 no sólo se enfocó en la escala y tamaño del centro de actividades (regional, comunitario o barrial), sino también incluyó otra dimensión relacionada con los modo de transporte (Renaissance Planning Group, 2011).

Dittmar y Poticha (2004) combinaron los conceptos de localización geográfica y urbanización en la definición de tipologías DOT, las cuales están denominadas como centro urbano, barrio urbano, centro suburbano, barrio suburbano, zona de tránsito a escala barrial y ciudad dormitorio. Se ha establecido el mismo enfoque en aplicaciones más recientes de tipologías de DOT. Por ejemplo, la ciudad de Sacramento, California definió las tipologías de DOT como núcleo o centro urbano, centro de empleo, centro residencial, centro dormitorio y troncal de autobuses con mejoras (Steer Davies Gleave, 2009). La organización Reconnecting America desarrolló las siguientes tipologías para el área de la Bahía de San Francisco, California: centro regional, centro urbano, centro suburbano, centro de ciudad de tránsito, barrio urbano, barrio de tránsito y corredor de uso mixto (Comisión Metropolitana de Planificación 2007). En Denver, Colorado, el Centro para el Desarrollo Urbano Orientado hacia el Transporte Público (Center for Transit Oriented Development – CTOD por sus siglas en inglés, 2008) desarrolló una guía para la planificación de áreas alrededor de estaciones de transporte público que incorporó una tipología adicional definida como usos especiales y/o distrito de empleo.

Una aproximación alternativa para identificar tipologías a priori consiste en utilizar técnicas de agrupación de datos con el fin de examinar los mismos y la evidencia recolectada de un entorno urbano determinado. Por ejemplo, las tipologías de desarrollo urbano del entorno de 25 estaciones de metro que tuvieron un desarrollo integrado en Hong Kong se componen de cinco tipos: edificios de oficinas de gran altura, edificios residenciales de gran altura, desarrollos residenciales a gran escala, desarrollos de uso mixto a gran escala y edificios residenciales de mediana altura (Cervero y Murakami, 2009). En otro estudio se utilizó el análisis de conglomerados con el objetivo de desarrollar una definición espacio-funcional de tipologías de las áreas del entorno urbano de las estaciones del tren ligero de Phoenix, Arizona (Atkinson-Palombo y Kuby, 2011). Las tipologías identificadas en el estudio fueron las siguientes: centros de empleo, áreas de uso mixto de medianos ingresos, nodos de estacionamiento para pasajeros frecuentes, áreas de alta densidad poblacional o alta presencia de zonas de alquiler, y áreas que presentan concentración de pobreza urbana.

Un último conjunto de tipologías emergentes elaborado por el CTOD representa el entorno urbano construido introduciendo una dimensión de implementación o desempeño. Por lo general, estas tipologías se convierten en una matriz de dos dimensiones, donde los tipos del entorno urbano construido se encuentran en un eje y las medidas de implementación y disponibilidad en el otro. Estas tipologías, que se desarrollaron para Portland, Oregón y Baltimore, Maryland, en los Estados Unidos, se utilizan con el fin de guiar inversiones de capital y promover cambios de política; además, resultan particularmente útiles para generar conciencia en el público en general con respecto a los beneficios en términos de viajes y desplazamientos que ofrece el desarrollo urbano orientado hacia el transporte público – DOT (Deng y Nelson, 2012).

Ciudades estudiadas y recolección de datos

Con el objetivo de discernir la condición del desarrollo urbano orientado a los sistemas tipo BRT en América Latina, el estudio que llevamos a cabo investigó el entorno urbano construido que caracteriza las estaciones y terminales de sistemas tipo BRT en siete ciudades (tabla 1). Para ello, identificamos grandes ciudades en la región donde sistemas tipo BRT han estado en operación durante por lo menos cinco años: Bogotá (Colombia); Curitiba (Brasil); Goiânia (Brasil); Ciudad de Guatemala (Guatemala); Guayaquil (Ecuador); Quito (Ecuador); y el área metropolitana de São Paulo (Brasil), específicamente la troncal “ABD”. En conjunto, estas ciudades representan el 16 por ciento del número de pasajeros en sistemas tipo BRT a nivel mundial, y el 31 por ciento del número de pasajeros en sistemas tipo BRT en América Latina. El estudio incluyó dos tipos de paradas: estaciones, es decir, las paradas comunes del sistema BRT, y terminales, es decir, las paradas que se encuentran al final de una troncal o aquellas en donde se realizan transbordos importantes de una troncal del sistema BRT a otra. Con el apoyo de planificadores urbanos en las ciudades seleccionadas, identificamos un grupo de estaciones y terminales específicas representativas del sistema BRT al interior de cada ciudad, independientemente de que el desarrollo urbano estuviera orientado al sistema tipo BRT o no. En definitiva, 51 estaciones y 31 terminales fueron identificadas para adelantar la investigación.

Debido a la falta de datos en común con una alta definición espacial entre las ciudades, fue necesario recolectar datos in situ utilizando un formato de recolección diseñado para obtener información de las características del entorno urbano en dos niveles: calles (segmentos compuestos por una manzana o cuadra) y manzanas o cuadras urbanas. El término “segmento” se definió como el tramo de una calle entre dos intersecciones. El formato de recolección se estructura en los siguientes campos acerca del entorno urbano:

• Peatones y bicicletas (calles peatonales, puentes peatonales, ciclovías).
• Usos del suelo (industrial, comercial, residencial unifamiliar, residencial multifamiliar, comercialindustrial, comercial-residencial, institucional).
• Densidad del desarrollo urbano (baja, media, alta).
• Presencia de espacios públicos o semipúblicos (áreas de uso público junto a centro comerciales, escuelas o colegios, hospitales o centros de salud, iglesias, bibliotecas, mercados, centros deportivos y/o de recreación).
• Presencia de espacios abiertos (áreas verdes, parques, plazas, plazoletas).
• Mezcla de tipologías de vivienda.
• Nivel de desarrollo en el área de estudio.
• Estado de las construcciones y los espacios verdes (bajo, medio, alto).

Con respecto a las estaciones, estudiamos segmentos de calles al interior de un radio de 250 metros, tomando como centro la estación del sistema tipo BRT. Para las terminales, estudiamos el área comprendida en un radio de 500 metros tomando como centro la terminal del BRT. En siete casos en la Ciudad de Guatemala y un caso en Goiânia, estudiamos dos estaciones (en lugar de sólo una) debido a que el sistema de autobuses se dividió en dos calles paralelas, cada una de sentido único, lo cual implica la localización de estaciones paralelas o “hermanas” que se complementan al brindar acceso al sistema en ambos sentidos. En estos casos, el área que se analizó es un poco mayor al radio de 250 metros. Además de los datos recolectados en campo, utilizamos datos secundarios suministrados por parte de las autoridades municipales, tales como la población censada dentro del área de estudio y la distancia de las estaciones y terminales a los principales centros de actividades en cada ciudad.

Estudiamos en total 10.632 segmentos y 2.963 manzanas alrededor de 82 estaciones y terminales de los sistemas tipo BRT en las siete ciudades. Debido a que la superficie de las estaciones estudiadas era similar, la comparación entre segmentos y manzanas por estación/terminal ofrece información acerca de qué tan compactas son dichas áreas en cada ciudad y su nivel de conectividad. Una estación en Guayaquil presentó la mayor cantidad de segmentos (102,1), mientras que las estaciones en São Paulo (Corredor ABD) presentaron la menor cantidad de segmentos (43,1). Detectamos un patrón similar al examinar los segmentos por manzana.

Todos los datos fueron agregados al nivel de estación/terminal. Los datos recolectados a nivel de segmento se agregaron con el fin de medir en porcentajes la presencia o ausencia de una o varias características del entorno urbano de cada estación/terminal. Los datos recolectados al nivel de manzana se agregaron con el fin de medir con respecto al área bruta la densidad de las características en el entorno urbano de la estación/terminal. Finalmente, calculamos 38 variables que caracterizan el entorno urbano construido alrededor de cada estación/terminal.

Tipologías de estaciones identificadas en los sistemas tipo BRT

Debido a la gran cantidad de variables (38) y el número relativamente bajo de observaciones (82), llevamos a cabo un análisis de factores a nivel exploratorio con el fin de generar un subconjunto de variables y estimar sus puntajes factoriales. El análisis de factores se basa en la correlación de los datos para identificar grupos de variables que son más similares entre sí. Las 38 variables se redujeron a 9 factores para su posterior análisis:

• Apto para peatones, con espacios públicos y áreas verdes conectados.
• Usos residenciales de viviendas unifamiliares adosadas localizadas en áreas no centrales.
• Residencial multifamiliar de alta densidad.
• Suelo sin desarrollar.
• Áreas de uso mixto con buen estado y mantenimiento.
• Espacios verdes con buen estado y mantenimiento.
• Equipamientos de carácter público para usos institucionales orientados al sistema de BRT.
• Desarrollos comerciales a gran escala.
• Área urbana consolidada sin usos del suelo industrial.

Al examinar los factores y sus estadísticas descriptivas, surgieron varias observaciones. En primer lugar, la intensidad del desarrollo alrededor de las estaciones y terminales tiende a ser relativamente baja. Por ejemplo, sólo el 8 por ciento de los segmentos posee desarrollos de alta densidad, mientras que el 31 por ciento de los segmentos presenta un desarrollo de baja densidad. En segundo lugar, el redesarrollo como estrategia para fomentar el desarrollo urbano orientado al sistema tipo BRT parece ser fundamental en las ciudades estudiadas. Solamente el 8 por ciento de los segmentos muestran bajos niveles de consolidación, mientras que el 11 por ciento de los mismos presentan lotes vacantes. En contraste, casi la mitad de los segmentos muestran desarrollos con un alto nivel de consolidación. Este resultado sugiere que existen pocas oportunidades para que los desarrollos orientados hacia el sistema tipo BRT se lleven a cabo en suelos vacantes o por desarrollar. En tercer lugar, en relación con el estacionamiento de vehículos, cabe destacar que en el 26 por ciento de los segmentos encontramos estacionamiento de vehículos sobre la calle, mientras que el 30 por ciento de segmentos muestran algún tipo de actividad comercial y de venta minorista con estacionamiento para vehículos particulares (fuera de la vía pública). Este hecho pone de manifiesto el desafío de administrar la oferta (y la demanda) de espacios de estacionamiento y, asimismo, podría indicar que el entorno urbano alrededor de las estaciones de los sistemas tipo BRT por lo general no resulta tan apto para los peatones y usuarios del sistema como debería.

El funcionamiento de cada estación en relación con los nueve factores se combinó con la densidad poblacional y con tres variables adicionales que no presentaron correlación alguna de las demás variables en el análisis de factores. Con estos nueve factores y las cuatro variables adicionales llevamos a cabo un análisis de conglomerados con el fin de determinar cuáles eran las estaciones y terminales que podrían agruparse. El análisis de conglomerados se utilizó como base para definir la tipología, análisis a través del cual se identificaron 10 tipos de desarrollo urbano en torno a las paradas de los sistemas tipo BRT (tabla 2).

Al examinar la tipología por ciudad, descubrimos que dos tipos de paradas capturan factores específicos de dos ciudades: el centro histórico de Quito y varias estaciones características de Ciudad de Guatemala (ciudad que posee el sistema tipo BRT más reciente entre los sistemas estudiados). El hecho de que sea nuevo y de que funciona en partes de la ciudad bastante consolidadas podría explicar por qué las estaciones se agrupan en el análisis de conglomerados. Los ocho tipos de estaciones restantes representan un amplio rango de estaciones entre varias ciudades.

Cinco atributos parecen diferenciar las distintas estaciones: (1) desarrollos multifamiliares con y sin orientación hacia el sistema tipo BRT ; (2) viviendas unifamiliares adosadas que, en algunos casos, se construyen de manera informal y tienen acceso a algunas actividades comerciales, generalmente lejos de los centros de mayor actividad de la ciudad; (3) alta densidad poblacional, infraestructura para peatones y acceso a parques y espacios verdes, generalmente lejos de los centros de mayor actividad de la ciudad; (4) estaciones con la presencia de equipamientos de uso institucional y espacios verdes, no necesariamente abiertos al público; y (5) estaciones con barreras físicas por la convergencia de varias calles y avenidas con un gran volumen de tráfico.

Las tipologías de desarrollo urbano identificadas comprenden una amplia gama de posibles entornos urbanos construidos alrededor de las estaciones de los sistemas tipo BRT. La tipología de desarrollo denominado centro satélite orientado hacia el sistema tipo BRT, que ilustramos con el caso de Bogotá, presenta un nivel importante de actividades comerciales, instalaciones públicas, parques e infraestructura para peatones, y a su vez presenta una mezcla de viviendas residenciales multifamiliares y viviendas unifamiliares adosadas (figura 1). Tomadas en conjunto, estas características se acercan mucho al ideal de un desarrollo urbano orientado al transporte público – DOT. De manera similar, la tipología representada por la estación del centro histórico de la ciudad de Quito posee también muchos atributos de un desarrollo urbano orientado al transporte público – DOT. La cuestión sobre si la presencia de estas tipologías se traduce en una mayor cantidad de pasajeros en el sistema tipo BRT continúa siendo una pregunta de investigación empírica por examinar.

Las estaciones dentro de las tipologías centro comunitario y centro barrial parecen ajustarse apropiadamente con la definición de Calthorpe (1993) acerca de DOT comunitarios y barriales. Entre los casos analizados, las estaciones en la tipología centro comunitario presentan algunas viviendas unifamiliares adosadas y usos mixtos, tales como usos institucionales que, por lo general, están destinados a funcionar en áreas próximas a la ciudad. Las estaciones en la tipología centro barrial presentan una mayor intensidad de desarrollos residenciales, específicamente viviendas unifamiliares adosadas. Las estaciones que se encuentran dentro de las tipologías definidas como corredores parecen coincidir con el concepto de mejoramiento urbano de los corredores de autobús desarrollado en Sacramento y San Francisco, California, aunque en nuestros datos podemos distinguir claramente entre corredores dominados por usos institucionales y corredores que simplemente presentan una amplia gama de usos mixtos.

A través de las tipologías también identificamos desafíos y oportunidades para mejorar la capacidad de un desarrollo urbano orientado al sistema tipo BRT. Sólo las estaciones dentro de las tipologías centro de ciudad y centro satélite orientados al BRT presentaron una integración adecuada entre el entorno peatonal y el transporte público. La tipología centro urbano, como por ejemplo el de Curitiba, está listo para el mejoramiento en su integración con el sistema tipo BRT, ya que posee las densidades y los usos mixtos apropiados para promoverlo (figura 2). La tipología conformada por las estaciones Nexo, tal como se presenta en Goiânia, representa un desafío frecuente para los planificadores urbanos municipales (figura 3). Estas estaciones y terminales deberían ubicarse de manera que faciliten los transbordos intermodales, aunque esto por lo general implica sacrificar el acceso de los usuarios a cada lugar y la orientación del desarrollo hacia el transporte público en la estación y/o terminal.

En comparación con otras tipologías, no encontramos evidencia sólida de estaciones relacionadas con centros de empleo o pasajeros frecuentes. Esto puede ser resultado del precario papel que juegan los usos mixtos del suelo entre las estaciones y terminales, ya que los usos del suelo cumplen un papel importante en otras tipologías. Una explicación por este fenómeno podría ser el alto nivel de usos mixtos que habitualmente se encuentran en las ciudades de América Latina, lo que contribuye a un bajo nivel de variación entre las diferentes áreas de las estaciones y terminales estudiadas.

En cuanto a las políticas de vivienda, las tipologías correspondientes al centro barrial y áreas verdes presentan una combinación interesante de distancia a los centros de mayor actividad en la ciudad y presencia de viviendas para hogares de bajos recursos. Dado que las paradas se encuentran lejos de los centros de mayor actividad, es mucho más probable que presenten espacios verdes, viviendas de interés social y, en algunos casos, viviendas informales. Las ciudades de América Latina suelen exhibir un gradiente de precios del suelo bastante pronunciado, donde las áreas con acceso privilegiado a los centros de mayor actividad tienen precios más altos que las áreas periféricas. Estas dos tipologías de estación del sistema tipo BRT plantean preguntas sobre las posibles consecuencias que pueda tener el sistema tipo BRT en cuanto a incrementar la segregación de viviendas y la carga financiera en términos de movilidad para las personas de bajos recursos.

Análisis de las tipologías de estación y prospectiva de la planificación

Nuestro análisis de 82 paradas de los sistemas tipo BRT en siete ciudades de América Latina reveló una variedad de patrones de desarrollo urbano. Algunas tipologías poseen atributos que son coherentes con los principios del desarrollo urbano orientado hacia el transporte público – DOT. Otras tipologías presentan una gran cantidad de usos del suelo, vías e infraestructura, así como características de desarrollo que no promueven un desarrollo urbano orientado hacia el sistema tipo BRT. No obstante, otras tipologías muestran un proceso de desarrollo aún en curso, con una cantidad importante de terrenos vacantes y desarrollos todavía en proceso de consolidación. Finalmente, algunas estaciones parecen captar las condiciones urbanas que surgen en muchas ciudades latinoamericanas: presencia de viviendas informales que se encuentran lejos de los centros de mayor actividad; desarrollos comerciales a gran escala, generalmente del tipo centro comercial o grandes superficies, los cuales generan espacios privados para el comercio y, en algunos casos, espacios de uso público; y una relativa carencia de espacios públicos al aire libre. Esta información es útil para facilitar procesos de planificación de un desarrollo urbano orientados hacia los sistemas tipo BRT, dado el rápido crecimiento de sistemas tipo BRT en las últimas dos décadas. Unas 146 ciudades en todo el mundo presentan en la actualidad algún tipo de sistema tipo con prioridad para autobuses.

Comprender el tipo de desarrollo urbano que podría generarse en el entorno de las estaciones de sistemas tipo BRT es fundamental para planificar las áreas de las estaciones e identificar de qué manera el desarrollo urbano orientado hacia el transporte público – DOT encaja dentro de una estrategia de crecimiento regional. Robert Cervero (1998) sostiene que toda inversión en transporte debe estar precedida y dirigida por una visión de desarrollo urbano exitosa, y esta planificación es necesaria si se van a generar subcentros alrededor de las estaciones de los sistemas de transporte. Cervero refuerza su argumento con la notable experiencia y hallazgos obtenidos en Copenhague, Estocolmo y Singapur, y sugiere que es fundamental tomar medidas para desarrollar visiones tanto a escala regional como de las estaciones de los sistemas de transporte (entorno urbano alrededor de las estaciones) para garantizar el éxito hacia futuro del desarrollo urbano orientado a los sistemas de transporte público – DOT. De hecho, las tipologías de DOT en vías de expansión en los Estados Unidos están basadas en parte en su capacidad de sostener una planificación del DOT a largo plazo. Por ejemplo, la tipología de Denver, Colorado resultó de vital importancia a la hora de crear una visión del uso y la planificación del suelo para las áreas de las estaciones del tren ligero, tanto las existentes como las futuras.

Las visiones acerca de qué tipos de desarrollo urbano pueden darse en el futuro y dónde tendrían lugar son fundamentales en el proceso de planificación y, con frecuencia, hacen parte de los escenarios definidos en ejercicios de prospectiva, en los cuales estas tipologías deben ser tenidas en cuenta por parte de los tomadores de decisiones, los planificadores y el público en general. La visión en prospectiva en el proceso de planificación es, por lo general, una condición previa para que cualquier ejercicio de planificación de las áreas de las estaciones de sistemas tipo definidas como DOT pueda ser efectivo. El Centro para el Desarrollo Urbano Orientado hacia el Transporte Público (Center for Transit Oriented Development – CTOD por sus siglas en inglés) sugiere la elaboración de un plan que incluya la participación ciudadana, la comercialización del proyecto y la creación de una estrategia regional de DOT. Para poder lograr todos estos aspectos, se necesita una visión acerca del tipo de desarrollo urbano que puede generarse en el área que es objeto del proceso de planificación. Las visiones son particularmente predominantes a la hora de involucrar al público en general, ya que pueden presentar de manera tangible los posibles resultados del proceso de planificación, lo cual permite tener una mayor comprensión del impacto de las decisiones acerca de la densidad, la mezcla de usos del suelo y las áreas de acceso a las estaciones.

El próximo paso en nuestra investigación será determinar las causas de los diferentes patrones de desarrollo urbano que hemos identificado. En algunos casos, el entorno urbano ha cambiado de forma radical con las inversiones de los sistemas tipo BRT, mientras que en otros casos no se han producido mayores cambios. Aquí entran en juego tanto las fuerzas de mercado como la regulación del desarrollo urbano, los cuales determinan en gran medida el resultado del desarrollo y la revitalización. Algunas de las medidas para liberar el potencial de desarrollo de los predios y áreas cercanas a las estaciones de los sistemas tipo BRT consisten en cambiar la regulación de los usos del suelo, flexibilizar los límites de densidad o reducir los requisitos de estacionamiento de vehículos. Esta estrategia coordinada entre la planificación del uso del suelo y el sector transporte es la piedra angular del desarrollo urbano orientado hacia el transporte público – DOT.

Sobre los autores

Daniel A. Rodríguez es profesor de Planificación Urbana y Regional, profesor asociado adjunto de Epidemiología y director del Programa de Transporte Carolina de la Universidad de Carolina del Norte en Chapel Hill. Su área de investigación se enfoca en la relación recíproca entre el medio ambiente construido (que incluye los sistemas tipo BRT) y el comportamiento de los pasajeros.

Erik Vergel tovar es becario Fulbright y estudiante de doctorado en Planificación Urbana y Regional en la Universidad de Carolina del Norte en Chapel Hill. Arquitecto con estudios de maestría en Gestión, Planificación y Desarrollo Urbano (grado con honores) en el Instituto de Estudios de Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano (IHS) de la Universidad Erasmus de Rotterdam, Países Bajos. Su área de investigación se enfoca en las relaciones entre el transporte urbano (en particular, los sistemas tipo BRT), las políticas de suelo, desarrollo urbano y vivienda para grupos de bajos ingresos.

Referencias

Atkinson-Palombo, C. y M. J. Kuby. 2011. “The geography of advance transit-oriented development in metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona, 2000–2007”. En Journal of Transport Geography 19(2): 189–199.

Calthorpe, P. 1993. The new American metropolis: Ecology, community, and the American dream. Nueva York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Cervero, R., 1998. The transit metropolis: A global inquiry. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Cervero, R. y J. Murakami. 2009. “Rail and property development in Hong Kong: Experiences and extensions”. En Urban Studies 46(10): 2019–2043.

CTOD. 2008. Station area planning: How to make great transit-oriented places. Washington, DC: Reconnecting America.

Deng, T. y J. D. Nelson. 2013. “Bus rapid transit implementation in Beijing: An evaluation of performance and impacts”. En Research in Transportation Economics 39(1): 108–113.

Dittmar, H. y S. Poticha. 2004. “Defining transit-oriented development: The new regional building block”. En The new transit town: Best practices in transit-oriented development. Editores: H. Dittmar y G. Ohland, xiii y 253. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Comisión Metropolitana de Planificación. 2007. “Station area planning manual. Oakland, CA”. http://ctod.org/pdfs/2007MTCStationAreaPlanningManual.pdf

Grupo de Planificación Renacimiento. 2011. “A framework for transit oriented development in Florida”. Orlando, FL. http://www.fltod.com/renaissance/docs/Products/FrameworkTOD_0715.pdf

Steer Davies Gleave. 2009. “Sacramento regional transit: A transit action plan”. Sacramento, CA: Sacramento Regional Transit.