Edesio Fernandes is a Brazilian lawyer and city planner based in London, where he is a part-time lecturer at the Development Planning Unit of University College London. He is also coordinator of IRGLUS (International Research Group on Law and Urban Space), a partner of United Nations/HABITAT. His research and teaching interests include urban and environmental law, planning and policy; local government and city management; and constitutional law and human rights in developing countries. For the last two decades, he has focused on the field of urban land regularization in Latin America and other regions.

Fernandes has lectured and taught in courses at the Lincoln Institute for several years and he coordinates the Institute’s Latin American Network on Urban Land Regularization. He helped organize and teach a course on informal land markets and regularization held at Lincoln House in October 2001, and is teaching the course again in November 2002 (see page 19). This conversation with Martim Smolka, senior fellow and director of the Lincoln Institute’s Program on Latin America and the Caribbean, explores some of these issues.

Martim Smolka: How did you become interested in informal land markets and regularization policies?

Edesio Fernandes: My interest in the problems of informal land markets goes back to the early 1980s, shortly after I graduated from Minas Gerais Federal University Law School in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. I began working at PLAMBEL, the state agency in charge of the metropolitan planning of Belo Horizonte, one of Brazil’s few historic planned cities. However, its detailed plans and maps did not reserve areas for the lower-income people who built the city, and as early as 1895, two years before its inauguration, 3,000 people were already living in favelas.

This number grew considerably over decades of intensive urbanization. In 1976, a pioneering zoning scheme was approved, but the favelas were again ignored and treated as unoccupied areas. In 1983, I participated in the interdisciplinary Pro-FAVELA team that drafted a legal formula to incorporate these areas into a revised zoning scheme. It was through this early work as a city planner, and by building academic bridges between legal and urban studies, that I came to explore the nature of the relationship between law, planning and sociospatial exclusion in third world cities.

MS: Has that legislation had any effect on the status of favelas in Belo Horizonte and Brazil in general?

EF: Until the 1970s, the official policy in Brazil towards favelas was eviction or neglect, with the occasional introduction of limited services for political convenience. The Pro-FAVELA program was a groundbreaking experience that sought to materialize the city’s newly recognized democratic commitment to sociopolitical and sociospatial inclusion of the favelas into the urban fabric. The approved formula has become a paradigm for urban land regularization in most Brazilian cities. The notion is that “special zones of social interest” should be created within the city’s zoning scheme, permitting planning and zoning regulations to be adapted to the specific requirements of the favela dwellers. Moreover, the formulation of specific land tenure policies should be combined with both inclusive urban planning mechanisms and participatory institutional processes of city management. This allows for the integration of informal settlements into the formal planning apparatus and for the introduction of services and infrastructure to redress long-standing inequalities.

MS: Are these goals now well integrated into the legal and administrative systems in Brazilian cities?

EF: Urban legislation has evolved in Brazil, but most Brazilian law courses do not offer specialized modules on urban land use and development control. Legal professionals in Brazil, and throughout Latin America, have long been trained to adopt an obsolete and individualistic approach to legal matters, typical of unreformed classical liberal legalism, and particularly the notion of absolute property rights. As a result, they are still largely unacquainted with recent legal developments, uninformed about the legal implications of socioeconomic dynamics and the challenges posed by rapid urbanization, unaware of the potential of different legal principles supporting urban legislation, especially the notion of the social function of property, and thus they are unprepared to deal with inevitable conflicts over the use and development of urban land. A groundbreaking legal development, though, took place in Brazil in 2001, with the enactment of Federal Law No. 10.257, entitled City Statute, which aims to regulate the original chapter on urban policy introduced by the 1988 Constitution. The new law provides consistent legal support to those municipalities committed to confronting the grave urban, social and environmental problems that directly affect the 82 percent of Brazilians who live in cities. In conceptual terms, the City Statute broke with the long-standing tradition of civil law and set the basis for a new legal-political paradigm for urban land use and development control. Municipalities must formulate territorial and land use policies, balancing the individual interests of landowners with the social, cultural and environmental interests of other groups, and the city as a whole. They are also required to integrate urban planning, legislation and management so as to democratize the local decision-making process and legitimize a new, socially oriented urban-legal order. The City Statute also recognized legal instruments to enable municipalities to promote land tenure regularization programs and facilitate access to urban land and housing.

MS: Can you elaborate on the connections between regularization, security of land tenure and broader concerns of poverty and social justice?

EF: On one hand, regularization programs focusing on upgrading projects have tended to neglect underlying land tenure issues, for example in the highly acclaimed Favela-Bairro program in Rio de Janeiro. As a result, these programs have frequently produced unintended perverse effects, such as occupation by drug lords, expropriation by force, and even, given the increasingly complex relationship between formal and informal land markets, what has been called “eviction by the market.” On the other hand, regularization programs focusing exclusively on the formal titling of individual plots, such as the large-scale programs inspired by the ideas of Hernando de Soto, have tended to reinforce unacceptable housing and living conditions in unserviced areas that are frequently remote and environmentally unsuitable.

In my experience, those programs that have tried to combine the two dimensions, upgrading and legalization, tend to be the most sustainable in urban, social and environmental terms. Comprehensive programs also tend to have a more controlled impact on both formal and informal land markets. Thus, they can be more effective in guaranteeing that the ultimate beneficiaries of the public investment will indeed be the residents in informal settlements, not the land developers and promoters who, by failing to offer affordable, sufficient and adequate housing options to the poor, have provoked the process of informal development in the first place.

MS: To what extent have these regularization programs really addressed or helped to resolve the problem of poverty alleviation?

EF: Regularization programs are always curative and need to be integrated with preventive urban planning policies, fiscal and legal measures, and management strategies aimed at promoting overall urban change, thus breaking with the cycle that has long produced urban informality. Moreover, they can only have a more significant impact on urban poverty if they are combined with programs aimed at broadening access to urban services and generating jobs and income to alleviate poverty.

There are many assumptions in this discussion that should not be taken for granted, especially given the findings of recent research. An enormous amount of money has been invested in regularization programs over the years, and it is about time that a comprehensive and critical review was promoted. There are many questions still left unanswered regarding the nature of the processes leading to irregular settlements, the means to address the issue and the method of actually implementing policies: How are informal settlements produced? Why is it important to regularize them? When and how should regularization programs be formulated? Who should pay for them, and how? What happens after the program is completed?

MS: What have you learned, as a lawyer, about the legalistic approach to titling policies?

EF: In particular, one should question critically the widely accepted argument that titling is the fundamental condition for residents in informal settlements to have access to services and credit, and thus to invest in their houses and businesses. On the whole, in consolidated situations where informal land occupation has been supported by sociopolitical mobilization of the residents, access to services and infrastructure has taken place regardless of their legal status. Research in several countries has already indicated that a set of socioeconomic and political-institutional circumstances may create a perception of security of tenure, thus encouraging people to invest in home improvements, even when the legalization process has not been completed. Research has also shown that jobless poor people have failed to gain access to formal credit even when they have titles, whereas untitled but employed people do get access to formal credit in some cases.

MS: Are you suggesting that the formalization of legal titles is not that important?

EF: No, what I mean is that it may indeed provide individual security of tenure, but it does not necessarily guarantee access to formal credit and does not produce sustainable settlements. Regularization alone usually fails to achieve what I think should be the ultimate objective of regularization programs—the sociospatial integration of the informal areas and communities. That said, titling is indeed important from many perspectives, such as to resolve domestic, family and neighborhood conflicts and to legally recognize sociopolitical rights. The challenge is to promote the recognition of individual security of tenure in a way that is compatible with the provision of social housing, thus reverting, or at least minimizing, the process of sociospatial segregation. The only way to do that is through a combination of urban planning mechanisms and city management strategies with innovative land tenure policies, stressing that there is a wide range of legal options other than individual freehold rights.

The importance of the topic is undeniable as the combined processes of urbanization and poverty are increasing internationally. UN figures suggest there are about 840 million people living in slums today, and reasonable projections suggest there will be 1.5 billion by 2020. This growing urbanization of poverty has already had many negative socioeconomic, political and environmental consequences, which tend to be aggravated by the processes of immigration and widespread organized crime.

MS: The Lincoln Institute has been deeply involved in these issues in Latin America for almost ten years. Do you have any final comments on how we can expand this work?

EF: The centrality of this discussion of intertwined land matters—land structure, access to land and housing, land management, and land use planning and development control—has been increasingly recognized internationally, confirming the relevance of the Lincoln Institute’s original mandate and overall research and teaching agenda. I believe the discussion of informal urban land development is of interest to all concerned about matters of social justice and human rights, as well as the conditions for market expansion in the context of economic globalization.

In closing, I would like to emphasize the importance of legal education. Urban change requires legal reform, which in its turn requires an adequate understanding of the nature, problems and shortcomings of the prevailing legal order, as well as the possibilities for change that it entails. The promotion of comparative research and teaching activities, such as those already supported by the Institute, is crucial, as well as support for academic and policy networks such as IRGLUS and the Latin American Network on Urban Land Regularization. The group of professionals in Latin America who have explored the interfaces between law and planning, and between legality and illegality, from a critical, sociolegal viewpoint is still quite small and needs to be widened. More than ever, it is imperative that we construct a sound legal discourse to provide support for new attempts to promote positive urban change, including by means of regularization programs. This is not an easy task, but we have been making progress.

Value capture instruments are widely considered to be beneficial fiscal planning mechanisms, even though they are difficult to implement. Colombia is notable in Latin America for its unique and long-standing experience with institutionalizing value capture through collecting the Contribución de Valorización, a kind of special assessment, and the Contribución de Desarrollo Municipal (Law 9 of 1989), which preceded the current instrument, Participación en Plusvalías.

Since 1921 when the first such legislation was introduced, Colombia has developed a fiscal culture in which people are aware of and accept value capture instruments as a legitimate revenue-raising mechanism. For example, in 1968, at the height of its use, the Contribución de Valorización accounted for 16 percent of local revenues in Bogotá and about 45 percent in Medellín; in the early 1980s it raised about 30 percent of total revenues in Cali. Nevertheless, because land still plays an important role as a hedge against inflation in places like Colombia, where capital markets are not highly developed, the implementation of such devices still meets with strong political resistance from many constituencies, ranging from powerful landowners and developers to low- and moderate-income families for whom land is an important source of personal savings.

Building on this experience, Law 388 of 1997 creating Participación en Plusvalías decrees that all municipalities must design and approve a ten-year master plan (Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial-POT) and adopt plusvalías as one of the plan’s main sources of income. The revenues raised through plusvalías are to be used primarily for the provision of social housing and infrastructure in under-served neighborhoods, as well as for public works of general interest. The law establishes three administrative conditions for applying the plusvalías instrument as part of the POT:

1. when land changes from one category to another, especially when rural land with low development potential is included within the master plan’s growth boundary and therefore becomes designated as land for urban expansion or as suburban land;

2. when additional development (density) rights are authorized in an area; or

3. when an area changes use, especially from residential to commercial use.

The Participación en Plusvalías is grounded in the legitimate public right to participate in capturing land value increments resulting from administrative actions such as changes in zoning or density that may generate substantial windfalls for the landowner. It is important to note that this instrument is not a tax, a contribution or a fee, but rather a mandated right of the public to ‘participate’ in the value generated by government functions aimed at enhancing urban development. Law 388 and its accompanying decrees define the general parameters for using plusvalías, but the municipalities are required to determine its specific procedures. However, many mayors and other public officials are concerned about the law’s ambiguities and are struggling with the process of applying both the law and the plusvalías instrument.

To address the need for a forum in which public officials and other experts could discuss this problem, the Lincoln Institute and the Bogotá Planning Department held a seminar in December 1999, before the deadline for approval of the legal master plan (POT) on December 31. The seminar convened practitioners actively involved in the implementation process, including planning directors from major cities, representatives of national public agencies and ministries, representatives of institutions in charge of property assessments, lawyers, and scholars involved in the design of the instrument. One immediate outcome of the seminar was a successful lobbying effort to change the deadline to June 30, 2000, to allow more time to review and revise the problematic POT provisions.

Key Implementation Issues

Application of plusvalías to different situations. Most municipal representatives at the seminar agreed that plusvalías should be used only in those situations that result in a clear and substantial windfall, in order to generate greater citizen approval and a simpler administrative process during the first phase of implementation. The general consensus is that Contribución de Valorización has been accepted because the increase in the value of land that benefited from public investment was clearly understood by the owners, so they have been willing to pay the fee. In Bogotá, for example, Contribución de Valorización has been one of the major means for building new streets since 1969.

By comparison, plusvalías are applied only to situations in which a higher land value is specifically associated with a public land use decision defined in the POT, such as changing the land category, its density or its use. Extending the growth boundary to include rural land that can be developed in subsequent years is an explicit situation in which the change in land price is evident. Most representatives of municipalities felt this was the most obvious scenario for application and should be the main focus of the instrument in its first phase.

Accuracy of land value assessments.

Law 388 suggests that the date for the base land price against which the gain is measured is to be July 1997, the date when Congress approved the law. However, it is not clear whether and how the municipalities can determine that land price in subsequent years. The problem is that the initial base value to be compared to the current value may already be influenced by ‘rumors’ circulating about land designations in the master plans. Should the value be calculated before the rumors of urbanistic changes begin to circulate, or just before the actual decision is made? How should cities treat land value increments generated by actions occurring between that base date and the approval of the POT? For how long is the assessment valid? What happens after, say, 15 or 20 years?

These questions are all the more relevant considering that land use norms established recently in some cities have already been capitalized in land prices, thus reducing substantially the current margins for the application of Participación en Plusvalías.

Furthermore, there are different legal implications about which relevant values should be considered (i.e., current use vs. highest and best use). Should the land value increment be based on the potential or the actual value? Should the legally defined formula for assessments apply to the potential buildable area even if the builder is not requesting a license to develop the site to its full allowable density? What happens when a property that has been assessed on a certain date is not completed? Although the law defines the concept of zones with similar geo-economic characteristics, it is not clear whether the landowner may legally request the assessment to be done on a property-by-property basis or on the basis of homogeneous zones.

The short deadlines established by the law for calculating both commercial prices before the master plan and new reference prices after adoption of the plan also cause serious concerns. For example, the law states that the mayor has only five days after the new POT is approved to determine new prices in the affected areas, and that all calculations must be accomplished within the next 60 days. The legal structure for adopting simplified cost procedures to allow assessments for homogeneous areas of the city rather than for individual plots is not clear on this point.

Definition of land categories.

Differences in land categories between Law 9 of 1989 and Law 388 of 1997 have led to questions of applicability. Law 9 included a suburban land category that could be developed at moderate densities on the outskirts of cities. For example, all of the developable land to the north of Bogotá is now in that suburban category, which permits residential densities of 160 inhabitants per hectare. The zoning proposed by the new master plan permits an increase to between 180 and 220 inhabitants per hectare. Law 388 states that the change from rural to urban use may be taxed, but does not address the suburban category, even though suburban land already has strong development rights. Because of these difficulties, many cities prefer to treat suburban land as similar to urban land in order to avoid further implementation problems.

Exemptions and special cases.

Land for low-income housing is exempted from plusvalías, but the law states that the land value increments must be calculated anyway. This may constitute an unnecessary additional cost, considering that 80 percent of all housing to be built in Bogotá within the next ten years will be low-income housing. How does this affect the fairness of this instrument on the remaining 20 percent of housing? How effective will plusvalías be as a planning instrument seeking to decrease speculation on land designated for social housing?

Another issue deals with wipeouts resulting from master plan designation of conservation zones or areas set aside for environmental protection through transfer of development rights (TDRs). Complaints from private agents of ‘takings’ against their full rights of ownership raise important questions of compensation. Areas that already have been designated for high-density development but are not yet fully built also raise questions about the expectation component of land values.

Political and operational obstacles.

A continuing source of confusion and misunderstanding concerns the technical issues associated with the effective calculation of the land value increment. Can it or should it be implemented in cases when, due to general economic recession, all land values are allegedly declining? If landowners are either selling land at a loss or not initiating development on their properties at all, then, quite simply, no plusvalías would be available to the local administration. Theoretically, all that is needed is to distinguish generating effects (administrative actions) from trends in land markets. In practice, however, it is easy to understand that instruments of value capture are more robust, and more palatable politically, during the upswing of land price cycles than the downswing, as is currently the case in Colombia.

The political overtones of this issue become clearer when considering the substantial land portfolios that developers normally hold for strategic planning motives, including for speculation. In effect, urban planners are hard pressed to be more flexible, if not magnanimous, in relaxing urbanistic norms and regulations in order to motivate developers during times of recession. However, this kind of pressure from developers may be simply an attempt to gain compensation for poor investment decisions in the past.

Sometimes developers complain that the municipality is setting the plusvalías fee too high in times of declining prices when recession may create disincentives for future investments in building improvements. However, a counter-argument based on the experience with Contribución de Valorización suggests that if the amount of plusvalías on the changing land use is considered to be overvalued, it follows that the change is probably not cost-effective and should not be proposed. It is also possible that a mistake was made in the feasibility study or the calculations.

Over and above these practical difficulties are certain implementation requirements in the law that affect its operation, such as the need to directly notify the landowner that the property is ‘liable’ for plusvalías. Should the burden reside with the public administration or with the owner? Similarly, there are legal difficulties surrounding the moment when plusvalías should be charged to the property owner, as in the liquidation of properties or in the request for a license to change the use of land. Some grounds for complaints of double taxation could also be raised if an area to be densified (or receive any change in zoning) has received additional infrastructure on which the Contribuición de Valorización provision was charged. The independence of this instrument from plusvalías, as stated by the new law, is important because of the existing option of calculating and charging the plusvalías for public works designated by the POT.

Adjustments Proposed by Municipal Officials

Public officials at the December seminar in Bogotá suggested a few ways to simplify the implementation of Law 388 by sacrificing precision in the calculation of the plusvalías in favor of expediency, transparency and compliance. This perspective is based on the belief that political will may be more important than technical consistency, at least in the early, transitional stages of implementation, in order to improve the chances of long-term success. A very telling and useful example was given by officials from the city of Cartagena (500,000 inhabitants), which has been applying the Contribución de Desarrollo Municipal effectively since 1992. Their experience shows that the effect of density changes to a new lot should be similar with regard to the generation of plusvalías to the rate generated by the same kind of density change already observed in a different but comparable area of the city.

Participants also proposed restricting the application of plusvalías to the more strategic and dynamic areas of the city where the windfall potential is most apparent and expressive, rather than in areas where the land value increments are small. Furthermore, assessment of plusvalías should be based on homogeneous zones, not on individual plots. The plusvalías instrument also needs to be developed and phased in over time as the municipalities gain greater knowledge and sophistication in valuation and assessment techniques. The established nine-year period for the validation of the assessments of land value increments, therefore, should be subject to more frequent periodic review. Some practical transition rules, absent in the original formulation of the law, also will help facilitate the introduction of a new fiscal system.

Other suggestions were made regarding the adoption of master plans (POTs). Municipalities should use these plans, rather than some other valuation mechanism external to the POT, to identify areas where there will be a change in land use in order to determine whether, in fact, it is a higher use and thus subject to an increase in plusvalías. Before adopting the POT, the municipalities should identify such areas so the valuation and assessment techniques could be worked out ahead of time and the sense of uncertainty could be mitigated. Some participants even suggested using the POT to define the relevant ex-ante situation (or prior value) to determine the net land value increment.

In general, the participants agreed that the concept and aims of the master plan and plusvalías instruments are both acceptable and desirable. Many of the problems and issues discussed at the seminar and throughout the country pertain to the implementation of any value capture scheme, or any new fiscal or normative legislation for that matter. In this case there is certainly substantial room for improving the design of the implementation procedures, since changes to operational aspects are always easier to achieve than changes to the law itself. But, over and above the remaining formal difficulties, it has been clearly demonstrated that political will, accumulated technical expertise and the ethical commitment of the participants are all critical to perfecting this land policy instrument and implementing the highly commendable principles that inspire it.

Carolina Barco de Botero is the planning director for the city of Bogotá. She is also a managing consultant with Ciudades, Ltda. in Bogotá and a member of the Lincoln Institute Board of Directors. Martim Smolka is senior fellow and director of the Institute’s Latin America and Caribbean Program.

Fernanda Furtado, a fellow of the Lincoln Institute, also contributed to this article. She recently completed her Ph.D. thesis (in Portuguese) on value capture in Latin America, at the Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism of the University of São Paulo, Brazil. One of her thesis chapters describes the situation in Colombia.

Pros and Cons of Participación en Plusvalías

Pros

• reduces corruption insofar as it exposes benefits that used to be negotiated under the table;
• reduces speculation;
• generates public revenues that are designated for redistributive purposes;
• reduces distortions in the distribution of urban land value increments;
• contributes to a better understanding of fiscal culture, thereby improving the collection of other assessments and taxes.

Cons

• introduces more red tape into the implementation of master plans and the process of licensing development of the built environment;
• legitimizes private appropriation of land value increments, since it leaves 50 to 70 percent of the plusvalías with the owner;
• incurs high administrative costs compared to the revenues it generates.

Changes in the global economy, telecommunications and transportation systems are causing cities throughout the world to look at large-scale development projects as a way to restructure land uses and stimulate the local economy. For example, large, well-located areas previously occupied by railroad facilities and related transportation and industrial uses have been left abandoned in many mid-sized cities as more goods are now shipped in containers from a small number of major ports and terminals.

Statutory restrictions on state-owned enterprises have limited options to release these underutilized lands to the private market or to develop them as public projects. With increased privatization and the removal of restrictions, these properties would appear to be ideal locations for successful public/private development partnerships. However, while such monumental urban developments may seem like a panacea, they also raise many concerns about implementation and unanticipated impacts on other neighborhoods of the city, as well as competition with other cities.

Cordoba is representative of cities engaged in strategic planning to restructure local land uses under conditions of a changing macroeconomic and institutional environment. One of the key questions for these cities is to what extent can a major new development, in this case a teleport, effectively stimulate economic diversity and revitalize a neglected area.

Conditions in Cordoba

The City of Cordoba, with a population of approximately 1.3 million people, is strategically located in the geographic center of Argentina and has well-established linkages to the capital of Buenos Aires and to major cities in Chile, Brazil and Uruguay. Cordoba has long been an industrial center focusing on the production of cars, planes, trains and machinery, as well as consumer goods such as food, shoes, clothing and leather products. More recently, the city has expanded its service sector for both local and regional needs.

As Argentina has experienced economic stabilization and restructuring of its economy, Cordoba has gained greater potential to become a thriving center of Mercosur, the regional business district of south central South America. However, one of the city’s most vexing obstacles remains its competition with Buenos Aires.

Like many Latin American cities, Cordoba is also experiencing increased decentralization, movement toward a polycentric urban structure, and related socio-economic problems. Several years ago the city embarked on a strategic planning process that involved a broad cross-section of constituencies and resulted in a 1996 plan that identified some immediate economic development needs and other matters requiring further analysis and implementation.

As part of an ongoing collaboration between city officials and the Lincoln Institute, a seminar held in Cordoba in April 1997 examined the regulation and promotion of the land market. (1) One high-priority idea that emerged from those discussions related to the development of a teleport on underutilized central-city land. A committee formed to address the planning and implementation of such a facility included municipal officials, private sector business interests and members of the local university community.

The teleport envisioned for Cordoba is a mixed-use development comprising office space, convention facilities and hotels along with other ancillary land uses. The provision of state-of-the-art office facilities is considered a key objective to meet the city’s needs as both a regional center and a national location for some firms. These facilities will have elaborate telecommunications infrastructure and will be developed with a combination of public and private sector investment. One of the first projects is to be a hotel developed by the municipality within an historic structure.

The proposed location for the teleport is a 40-hectare site in the center of the city adjacent to the Suquia River. The site includes old railway lines and has good access to major roads linking the Mercosur region. The land is currently in both public and private ownership, and it is anticipated that some land transfers will be required to undertake the project.

Observations and Recommendations

To help the committee finalize its plans for the teleport, the city of Cordoba and the Lincoln Institute organized a second seminar in April 1998 to discuss concerns about implementation of the project. Comparative case studies of large-scale public/private developments in Toronto, Canada, and Sao Paulo, Brazil, provided useful perspectives on the problems and challenges faced by those cities and offered lessons for examining the design and likely prospects for the proposed teleport.

A key consideration is the teleport’s large scale relative to the existing local market, which suggests, at the very least, that the project needs to be phased in to ensure orderly development. Related to the project’s size are its impacts on other land in the city, including sites that have the potential for similar types of development. The relative attractiveness of the chosen site may adversely affect development of non-residential land uses in other designated growth areas of the city. At the same time, it is important to understand the depth and strength of the market for the specific uses intended for the proposed teleport site.

A related concern is the project’s potential negative impacts on existing and expanding residential neighborhoods in the area. On the other hand, the success of the teleport development could benefit the neighborhood if the residents are integrated into the planning and implementation process.

Among the lessons to be learned from other cities’ experience is the value of having a manageable set of objectives, and some seminar participants feared that the Cordoba committee was being overly ambitious. A second lesson regards the need for extreme care in selecting the location for a major new development. While the target location for the teleport was not considered deficient in any specific respect, it had not been selected as the result of a systematic analysis. Rather, this is a case where the city is trying to take advantage of an opportunity to develop a plan for an available site that urgently calls for reuse.

A third admonition came from the private sector, which has special needs in terms of access, infrastructure and costs. Some qualified market research can shed light on a host of issues including the extent to which Cordoba could hope to compete with Buenos Aires as a local or regional headquarters for domestic or international firms. Clearly the intended private sector beneficiaries must be involved directly in the conceptual development and planning of the project.

Several weeks after the seminar, the city commissioned a study to aid the implementation strategy for the teleport based on these concerns and recommendations. The study will also investigate potential instruments to effect land value capture to provide infrastructure financing and mechanisms to structure the kinds of public/private partnerships that appear to be necessary for the success of the teleport project.

A final general observation is that officials in Cordoba, or any city considering large-scale urban development, need to move rapidly beyond the study phase and establish training and other support systems for local leaders and practitioners to enhance their capacity to manage the project. Skills and experience are needed to assess the functioning of land markets, develop requisite technical capabilities, negotiate with the private sector, and oversee financial management, utility regulation, property taxation, land regulations and their complex interactions. The challenge in any such undertaking is to balance sufficient planning and research with the need to take advantage of development opportunities as they arise and to learn from the process as it evolves.

David Amborski is professor in the School of Urban and Regional Planning at Ryerson Polytechnic University in Toronto. Douglas Keare, a senior fellow of the Lincoln Institute, has experience with strategic planning for large cities in developing countries.

1. See “Strategic Planning in Cordoba,” Douglas Keare and Ricardo Vanella, Land Lines, September 1997.

Figure 1: Questions for Large-scale Developments

These topics and questions guided the seminar discussions in Cordoba, and they may be useful to other cities considering large-scale development projects on underutilized urban lands.

Understanding the Land Market: How will the local land market respond to large-scale public interventions such as the proposed teleport? What is the demand capacity for state-of-the-art office buildings in the region? What are the potential mechanisms for intervening in the land market to enhance the chances of success for this type of project?

The Urban Impacts of Large Projects on Underutilized Land: What are the impacts of this type of large-scale project on adjacent lands and competitive locations within the metropolitan area? How can infrastructure use be optimized? What alternatives could be explored to change the existing zoning structure?

Instruments of Promoting and Financing Private Investments in Urban Regeneration Projects: What financial instruments can be used in this type of development in conjunction with private sector participation? What instruments for private investments have been most successful? How can these be used with public/private partnerships? What benefits, disadvantages or complications might result from these partnerships?

Mechanisms of Redistribution and Land Value Capture: How can incremental land value be identified and estimated? How can land value capture schemes be used up front to finance the infrastructure for this project? What alternative instruments may be used for this purpose? What institutional reforms or partnerships might be necessary to implement these schemes and to serve as incentives for further development?

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 6 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

Preguntas y respuestas con Mario Coyula

P: ¿A qué se debe la reputación que tiene La Habana por sus hermosos edificios y barrios antiguos?

R: Hace más de doscientos años La Habana era la ciudad más destacada del Golfo de México y la cuenca del Caribe. Establecida como un asentamiento de servicios de la colonia española, la ciudad fue extendiéndose hacia el oeste y el suroeste desde su emplazamiento inicial próximo al puerto, y fue dejando tras de sí un valioso legado en edificaciones que han representado numerosos y variados estilos arquitectónicos durante más de cuatro siglos.

El talante histórico de La Habana perdura tanto por accidente como por diseño: Por accidente porque la revolución de 1959 súbitamente detuvo la marcha de un proceso de substitución de hermosos edificios antiguos por condominios de gran altura; por diseño porque una meta inicial del nuevo gobierno era reducir la pobreza rural y mejorar las condiciones de vida en el campo y en las ciudades pequeñas y los pueblos. Como consecuencia de esto, La Habana se deterioró más, pero la meta de población quedó interrumpida y la ciudad escapó al destino de una dramática renovación urbana y de un desarrollo especulativo de los bienes raíces.

P: ¿Cuáles son las dos caras de La Habana a las que hace referencia el título de su próximo libro, Havana: Two Faces of the Antillean Metropolis?

R: Cada ciudad tiene como mínimo dos caras, según el sesgo social, cultural y político del observador. En La Habana vivía mucha gente bastante adinerada y también mucha gente pobre. Algunas personas dirán que La Habana prerrevolucionaria era una ciudad maravillosa y llena de encanto, un lugar ideal para vivir hasta que llegó el comunismo. Otros la recordarán como un sitio agobiado por la pobreza, la discriminación y la injusticia social; creen que la revolución brindó las mismas oportunidades para todos.

Algunos dirán que La Habana actual está a punto de derrumbarse debido a la falta de mantenimiento y que se ve apagada debido a la carencia de servicios y opciones. Otros señalarán que por esta causa la arquitectura única de La Habana no sufrió los efectos del redesarrollo. Es posible que haya hacinamiento en los centros urbanos, pero la gente no ha sido desplazada a causa de la regeneración urbana. En cada caso, ambos fenómenos suceden simultáneamente. Tal vez es esto lo que hace que La Habana sea tan fascinante.

P: ¿Cuál es la misión del Grupo para el Desarrollo de la Capital?

R: El Grupo se creó en 1987 como un equipo interdisciplinario de expertos con la finalidad de asesorar al gobierno municipal en materia de políticas urbanas. Nuestra misión es darle el mismo peso al desarrollo económico y al desarrollo social de la ciudad, con énfasis en la participación activa de sus habitantes. La preservación del vasto patrimonio arquitectónico de La Habana representa una fuga impensable de fondos públicos en un momento en que la economía cubana atraviesa graves dificultades. No obstante, la inversión es un factor crítico para reafirmar el papel principal de La Habana en la región y para crear un entorno urbano capaz de estimular el crecimiento económico y mejorar la calidad de vida de la población.

Las nuevas inversiones deberían alentar a los habitantes a identificar y resolver sus propios problemas, y es indispensable supervisar el avance logrado para evitar los efectos negativos sobre el medio ambiente natural, así como en la estructura social y arquitectónica. La planificación del cambio en La Habana exige un patrón de desarrollo que sea económicamente factible, ambientalmente estable, socialmente justo y políticamente participativo. Queremos trabajar con inversionistas que entiendan y respeten la comunidad, para ayudar a crear una identidad social y una participación comunitaria mediante la mejora de los aspectos materiales, tales como vivienda, transporte, educación y salud.

P: ¿Cuál es la función de los talleres integrales de transformación del barrio organizados por el Grupo?

R: Son organizaciones de residentes de los barrios, asesorados y estimulados por arquitectos, trabajadores sociales, planificadores e ingenieros. Para cada grupo tratamos de encontrar profesionales que realmente vivan de forma permanente en el mismo barrio. Los grupos escogen y dirigen la recuperación, construcción de viviendas, recreación y otros proyectos económicos y sociales, según la visión y prioridades que tengan para el desarrollo comunitario en sus barrios específicos.

Algunos talleres han escogido dedicarse a la fabricación de materiales de construcción, incluso el reciclaje de escombros (¡materia prima abundante en La Habana!); utilizan estos materiales en sus propios proyectos y también los venden a otros grupos. Otros talleres de los barrios han decidido enfocarse en los jardines urbanos populares o el reciclaje de desechos. Lo que es más importante, estos talleres fomentan la independencia y el compromiso de los habitantes, lo cual despierta un sentimiento local de orgullo que ayuda a combatir la marginalidad.

P: ¿Qué funciones respectivas cumplen el gobierno central y los barrios en la recuperación de La Habana?

R: El gobierno central ha tenido dificultad para satisfacer las necesidades de los barrios, especialmente desde el desplome de la Unión Soviética. En una época el combustible, los alimentos y el transporte eran suministrados y controlados centralmente, o incluso eran importados. Los ciudadanos se acostumbraron a esperar que un gobierno bondadoso se ocupara de ellos, desde arriba hacia abajo. Ahora uno de los desafíos más grandes que tenemos es impulsar y habilitar a los ciudadanos para que ellos mismos obtengan esas cosas localmente, desde abajo hacia arriba. Por ejemplo, el gobierno ha autorizado la creación de decenas de miles de huertos comunitarios pequeños en terrenos baldíos, y el excedente se vende en los mercados municipales.

P: ¿Cuáles son las ventajas y desventajas del desarrollo del turismo en La Habana?

R: Por un lado, el turismo puede atraer nuevas inversiones e ingresos que ayudarán a mejorar las condiciones de vida de los habitantes de la ciudad. Por el otro, la construcción a gran escala destinada sólo a los turistas puede trastornar el conjunto de edificaciones locales y hacer que los cubanos miren a los turistas no como seres humanos semejantes, sino como un mero recurso económico, casi de la misma manera en que el hombre hambriento de la vieja película de Charlie Chaplin veía a cada persona a su alrededor como un pollo asado o un delicioso postre.

Sería preferible atraer muchos inversionistas pequeños en vez de unos pocos grandes y encontrar formas de reutilizar las antiguas quintas de la ciudad como hoteles pequeños. De esa manera podremos manejar con más eficacia las ventajas y los riesgos del turismo y distribuir los beneficios y los costos con mayor uniformidad entre los barrios.

Este patrón debería ser más sostenible y menos vulnerable en un entorno exterior desfavorable, incluso con el bloqueo de los Estados Unidos.

P: El Grupo ha diseñado una maqueta a gran escala de La Habana. ¿Cómo la usan?

R: Utilizamos la maqueta como una herramienta educativa para ayudar a la gente a ver la ciudad como un solo conjunto y a situar el barrio dentro de ese conjunto. Dado que los edificios están clasificados por colores según el período en que fueron construidos, la maqueta también ayuda a la gente a ver cómo ha crecido la ciudad y cómo las edificaciones más recientes han sustituido o arrollado las más antiguas. La maqueta se construyó en una escala 1:1000 y actualmente cubre 112 metros cuadrados. Está en exhibición en un pabellón construido específicamente para ese propósito y que sirve de centro de información para los habitantes y visitantes de la ciudad.

Asimismo usamos la maqueta para evaluar el impacto visual de nuevos proyectos. Al colocar los edificios nuevos en los emplazamientos propuestos, ayudamos a la gente a obtener más información sobre las distintas opciones y oportunidades. Tan es así que este proceso ha puesto freno a ciertos proyectos inapropiados y disruptivos porque todos los participantes –planificadores, urbanistas, residentes del barrio- pudieron ver con claridad la forma cómo una nueva estructura afectaría la comunidad.

Nota del editor: En abril, el arquitecto y planificador Mario Coyula visitó el Instituto Lincoln, la Escuela de Posgrado en Diseño de la Universidad de Harvard y la Escuela de Administración Pública Kennedy para dar charlas sobre la historia y arquitectura de La Habana, su ciudad natal. Se ha desempeñado como profesor de tiempo completo en la Facultad de Arquitectura de La Habana desde 1964 y es el subdirector del Grupo para el Desarrollo Integral de la Capital (GDIC). El Dr. Coyula además es integrante de varias comisiones, consejos científicos y consejos consultivos. Es coautor del libro de próxima circulación titulado Havana: Two Faces of the Antillean Metropolis (Nueva York y Londres: John Wiley and Sons, 1997) junto con Roberto Segre y Joseph L. Scarpaci Jr.

Global investment, sophisticated communications, and widespread corporate and personal mobility are transforming city regions around the world. Those who focus on urban issues have been arguing for many years that we are seeing the emergence of a new kind of human settlement, with its own distinct social and economic structures and associated physical forms.

The Lincoln Institute’s 1995 Cambridge Conference in September focused on these global forces. The consortium was organized by three research investigators—David Barkin, Gary Hack and Roger Simmonds—to study 12 city regions spread across Europe, Asia and the Americas. While each city offers unique characteristics and exceptions to certain patterns, they all meet the following measurable criteria:

• a large population, but not necessarily megacity stature;
• a diversified market economy, rather than a command economy or one dominated by a single industry;
• distinct patterns of growth and change since 1960; and
• a record of attempts by their governments to shape regional form, whether successful or not.

12 Case Study Cities

• Ankara, Turkey
• Bangkok, Thailand
• Jakarta, Indonesia
• Lyon, France
• Madrid, Spain
• Randstad, The Netherlands
• San Diego, USA
• Santiago, Chile
• Sao Paulo, Brazil
• Taipei, Taiwan
• Tokyo, Japan
• Toronto, Canada

Using the 12 sites as case studies, the researchers outlined several levels of investigation to assemble a picture of what global city regions look like and why. First, they examined the effects of the global political economy on the growth and development of cities over time. For example, how have the loss of traditional agricultural or industrial economies and the introduction of new players with investment capital changed the ways cities work? How have cities attempted to position themselves in relation to these powerful external forces?

Another research goal was to understand the relationships between changing urban form and regional infrastructure investments, such as transportation systems and new technology centers. How have populations dispersed around new transportation networks and economic centers? How can regional planning efforts influence changes in spatial form and impacts on the environment?

Third, the researchers explored changes in the quality of urban life resulting from the dynamics of globalization. What social and economic problems do urban residents face today? How are their local and national governments attempting to manage these problems?

Prior to the conference, research teams in each of the city regions gathered data to chart the growth and movement of their populations, infrastructure changes, and economic and industrial development over the last three decades. To make the data comparable across national boundaries, they mapped the physical evolution of the 12 city regions in 1960, 1970, 1980 and 1990, and then linked these maps to changes in key economic and social indicators over the same period. Each team also prepared a report on what special issues its government is facing, and how policymakers are attempting to shape the region’s changing spatial form.

A Portrait of Global City Regions

The 12 city regions represented at the conference illustrate substantial variation, but also many common patterns of growth and change. They range in size from about 2 million in Lyon to more than 32 million in Tokyo, the world’s largest city and also one of the wealthiest.

In all of these cities, the predominant pattern of physical growth has been sprawling out from the historic center and adjacent inner ring of development into increasingly distant open space and agricultural land. This dispersal involves both residential and commercial development, though sometimes in different directions. It has been facilitated by sharp increases in the availability and use of automobiles throughout the world. The most dramatic example is Taipei, where the number of autos increased from about 11,000 in 1960 to over 1 million in 1990; the number of persons per auto decreased from 127 to 5 over that period. Ankara and Santiago, at 13 people per auto in 1990, have been the least affected by auto-mania to date.

Even as most cities are spreading out, some inner cores have become more densely populated as wealthier residents and service sector employment have migrated into newly thriving downtowns. Monumental stadiums, convention centers, luxury hotels and residential condominiums have helped to promote tourism and an active cultural life in these central cores. The flip side, however, is increased decay outside the center, as large numbers of poor people are dispersed into areas where public services are often lacking.

The disadvantaged inner cities and wealthy, low-density suburbs of the United States are notable exceptions to this pattern. Cities such as Bangkok and Taipei demonstrate more neighborhood integration of rich and poor than others, but the predominant pattern still shows segmented pockets of wealth and poverty becoming more clearly defined over time.

In the new era of globalization, ironically, patterns of residence are becoming less important than patterns of interaction, as people who participate in the global economy communicate more often with their peers in other cities or countries, electronically or in person, than with people living next door.

Changing demographic patterns have generally slowed urban growth rates to around 3 percent compared to 6 to 8 percent in the 1960s. Most cities have seen decreases in both birth rates and migration from rural areas within the country or immediate region. But political upheavals and changing employment opportunities are also triggering new waves of transnational migration. Many of these newer immigrants settle in their own sections of the city, apart from the indigenous low-income sector, and present a different set of social and economic problems for national and local governments. In San Diego, for example, immigrants from Mexico and Central America contribute to both population growth and increased segmentation within the region. Sao Paulo, on the other hand, has experienced net outmigration as Brazilian policies and programs now encourage decentralization to new communities throughout that vast country.

The composition of economic sectors is quite consistent across countries according to the 1990 data. It generally shows less than 5 percent of the workforce employed in agriculture and resource extraction, 20 to 30 percent in manufacturing and 65 to 75 percent in the service sector. Some interesting exceptions in employment trends are Jakarta, with an agriculture sector rate of almost 16 percent in 1990, and San Diego, with a current service sector share of 83 percent. Bangkok and Taipei show the largest decreases in agriculture, from around 20 percent in 1960 to less than 2 percent in 1990, and both cities remain relatively high in manufacturing in 1990 at 32 and 36 percent respectively.

Income distribution also shows similar patterns across regions, with the bottom 20 percent of the population generally receiving only 5 to 7 percent of total earned income while the top 20 percent of the population earned 40 to 50 percent of income. Santiago, Sao Paulo and Jakarta show the greatest concentrations of wealth at the upper levels, while Tokyo and Taipei, closely followed by Randstad and Madrid, have the least inequality across income levels. San Diego, while relatively high in per capita income, has a mid-range income distribution of 44 percent at the upper end but shows only 4 percent of income earned by the poorest 20 percent of its population.

Contradictions in the Changing Global Economy

Discussion at the conference revealed several new realities about the world in which we live. Perhaps the most important is the difficulty that local and national authorities face in designing effective policies for social and political action to modify the powerful economic forces that are shaping new productive structures in their regions.

A recurrent theme in the regional analyses was the contradiction between highly centralized private investment and sweeping changes resulting from the insertion of the city region into the international economy. In most regions, “elite corridors” of globalization contrast sharply with the disadvantaged “residual city.” These wealthy enclaves accommodate the investments of transnational corporations producing for world markets and are near the residential and shopping areas of those who participate in this economy. In these financial and commercial centers, burgeoning bureaucracies of skilled professionals manage global production and marketing to assure attractive returns to international investors, often ignoring crises in the local economy.

While overall population growth has declined, remunerative employment opportunities have also ceased to grow. Every one of the city regions reported an accelerated shift of its labor force toward poorly paid, part-time jobs in the service sector, with a concomitant imbalance of economic opportunities that condemns a growing proportion of the people to poverty.

This menace is accompanied by shifts in the agricultural sector. Substantial numbers of small-scale rural producers are unable to compete in international markets with large-scale farmers elsewhere who have access to capital for the latest technologies to increase their output. The inexorable process of global expansion is also driving small and medium-scale manufacturing plants from the marketplace.

Most participants at the conference accepted and heartily embraced the new dynamic of globalization. Their governments are working actively to reposition their regions to attract foreign enterprises and real estate developers that promise modernization. They hope to convert their cities into beacons, leading their nations in the worldwide process of integration. Most see their primary task as clearing away the web of regulatory and other obstacles of previous eras, facilitating private initiative by offering (sometimes for free) the land and infrastructure required for new installations.

Many of the cities are targeting their infrastructure investment strategies specifically to expand the service economy. Bangkok, Taipei and Tokyo are working hard to become financial centers for Asia, betting on the demise of Hong Kong as a key competitor. Bangkok in particular is investing in substantial transportation and communications networks and in the education of its labor force to keep pace. In Europe, Madrid is using its role as the world’s center of Spanish culture to enhance its communications services; Randstad is promoting its airport support facilities; and Lyon is becoming an innovative center for emerging technological industries.

Impacts on Regional Development

The case studies and discussions at the conference also identified numerous problems emerging from this enthusiasm for globalization. The complex and disturbing phenomenon of urban sprawl is becoming universal as increased automobile use distributes populations to satellite employment centers and generally reduces the density of regional cities. Two interesting exceptions are Tokyo, whose extensive mass transit system helps to keep economic activity centralized, and Taipei, where mountainous geography constrains outward development. In Randstad, on the other hand, development is rapidly filling in lowland gaps between formerly freestanding settlements, even though the overall growth rate has been quite slow.

Some of this decentralization has been promoted by government efforts to deal with high land prices, traffic congestion or environmental protection. New towns or “science cities” are being built on the outskirts of Santiago, Lyon, Randstad, Taipei, Tokyo and Jakarta, and in Bangkok intensive infrastructure development is creating a new port miles from the city center. In Sao Paulo, strict regulations to protect watershed areas are pushing new development to distant sites.

Generally infrastructure follows development rather than truly shaping it. Private investors are able to respond more quickly to planned growth intentions within their regions than are the public agencies responsible for implementing major infrastructure projects. Thus, private development puts pressure on the public sector to provide services to areas that are already undergoing urbanization. This process has serious implications for long-term regional planning if it continues to be development driven with government playing catch-up.

Another theme that emerged during the conference was an increased consciousness about environmental problems. The accumulation of wealth and the accompanying increase in consumption in most city regions, is creating intense pressures on the environment. With regional integration proceeding apace and deregulation of the economy the order of the day, transnational corporations have great freedom to operate as they wish in the international economy. The participants repeatedly raised the difficulties of confronting these challenges constructively in each of their city regions. Yet, concern for the environment was also seen as the primary motivating factor for undertaking strategic regional planning.

Quality of Life Issues

Globalization offers the promise of greater prosperity. Most cities represented at the conference reported a relative increase in several quality-of-life averages between 1960 and 1990: per capita income, life expectancy and education level. These rising incomes, combined with technological advances that enhance productivity and the wider dissemination of information about goods available in world markets, have allowed city dwellers everywhere to make new choices about their consumer needs. However, powerful global models of organization and production are also imposing new, homogenized consumption patterns that threaten to stifle the extraordinary variety of lifestyles that characterizes most urban regions.

Increased physical mobility, largely achieved through the private ownership of automobiles, has provided many people with more choices about where to live, shop and work. At the same time, commuting times average 45 minutes, ranging from less than 30 minutes in San Diego to more than one and a half hours in Bangkok.

Conference participants agreed that this increased mobility had undermined a previous sense of community, as individuals begin to identify with increasingly dispersed urban places or develop identities that are not based on place at all. The “McDonald’s-ization” of world culture, including music, clothing and architecture, as well as food, was noted by almost every city representative. As markets for consumer goods become global, individuals in many city regions are also beginning to rely on those markets to deliver what were once semipublic services, such as education and recreation.

Changes in the economic function of major cities from manufacturing and shipping to finance and tourism have also caused important losses. Many historic city centers have been commodified for cultural tourism. Buildings or streets originally constructed as factories or warehouses now house retail shops or museums. The original factory workers or longshoremen, who often lived near their jobs, have given way to visitors who travel by car or plane from outside the city or even from other countries to admire buildings that have been restored in form but completely transformed in function. New high-rise office buildings, convention centers, stadiums and luxury hotels are often imposed on the urban landscape, generally with little regard for their spatial and social context.

By some measures of material circumstance the globalization process is encouraging, especially when considering the contributions of medical science and certain basic aspects of education and sanitation that can be made available with relatively inexpensive public investments. The reality, however, is that living standards and employment opportunities are deteriorating for growing segments of the population throughout the world.

Most new urban workers enjoy less security, if also more freedom, than their parents may have experienced as subsistence farmers or plantation laborers. Global information technologies and financial techniques now allow firms to seek out the world’s lowest-cost sites and labor, if necessary shifting jobs from one country to another in a matter of weeks.

The same new information media and transportation options that enable consumers to choose from a wider array of goods, or workers to choose from a wider array of jobs, also let criminals choose from a wider array of potential targets. Some conference participants argued that the perceived decrease in physical security was more apparent than real, especially in the U.S. But the perception itself is clearly driving a worldwide demand for gated or secure housing.

The positive and negative effects of globalization on the quality of life are two sides of the same coin, rather than tradeoffs. The same information technologies and market organization that spread new consumer goods around the world within weeks also transmit new “bads,” such as AIDS. The same automobiles that provide increased access to recreational opportunities in the countryside for city dwellers also produce sprawling cities that parcel out that countryside into private yards rather than scenic vistas of farmland or forest.

Given these contradictions, we must search for alternative models of production and consumption—models that permit people to strengthen their communities and protect their environments, that offer the possibility of creating productive employment for the whole population, and that place limits on the accelerated process of polarization.

The Role of Governance

To what extent are voters in global city regions asking their local, metropolitan or national governments to find ways of eliminating the negative effects of globalization? Conference participants in San Diego, Ankara and Tokyo, for example, reported that local elections are now fought over who benefits from globalization. Those voters who identify more with the global than the local economy demand that governments make high-technology infrastructure investments, build convention centers or stadiums, and promote higher education to attract future jobs.

In contrast, most lower-skilled workers see globalization as more of a threat than an opportunity, and are more concerned with investing limited local resources in such public services as schools and neighborhood clinics. Yet governments that avoid unpopular political decisions by focusing on local services may only be postponing the inevitable impact of globalization, including its potentially long-term beneficial effects.

In the end, the capacity of governments at any level to manage global forces may be limited, however. There is an inherent mismatch between the global economy and government, not only in the spatial sense of local or fragmented governments struggling to master regional or global economic forces, but in the contrasting operating modes of markets and governments.

Globalization has made increasingly problematic the definition of both “the region” that should be planned and “the community” that should participate in those plans. Local governments and even most national governments are losing their capacity to shield local businesses from global competition. In almost every city region represented at the conference, specialized interest groups and nongovernmental organizations have multiplied, while all-purpose governments have begun to fragment and decentralize. Political devolution is most advanced in the United States, but has begun to take hold elsewhere as well.

The tendency of governments of global city regions is to dispense with elaborate spatial planning techniques and instead adjust to what one conference planner called these fundamentally “new rules of property and politics.” But this leaves many contradictions: between the opportunities of the elites and the poor; between the advocates of greater local autonomy and those committed to emerging regional patterns of interdependence; and between policies favoring growth as opposed to redistribution of resources. Without an effective system of governance, all of these dichotomies have the potential for escalating conflict.

From the earliest days of the Republic, civic boosters have prodded American governments to develop large-scale physical facilities—mega-projects, we label them—ranging from canals and railroads in the nineteenth century to rail transit systems and convention centers today. Until the mid-twentieth century, such projects tended to involve modest public expenditures by contemporary standards and they rarely caused significant disruption of the existing urban fabric.

This pattern altered abruptly in the 1950s and early 1960s. Central city economies had, with rare exceptions, stagnated through the Great Depression and World War II, and they continued to do so in the early postwar years. Local business and political leaders concluded that if central cities—particularly those developed prior to the auto age—were ever to thrive again, they would require major surgery. Specifically, they needed to clear slums to provide large downtown sites for redeveloped office districts; to facilitate high-speed automotive movement between suburban and central city locations; and to provide larger airfields with attractive terminals for the nascent commercial aviation industry.

Recognizing that they could not finance these expensive projects with locally generated funds, urban leaders campaigned aggressively for federal assistance, and they were successful in obtaining considerable amounts of funding. We attribute their success mainly to the following factors: (1) public confidence in government was unusually high in the postwar period; (2) business leaders generally accepted the need for government activism to sustain prosperity; and (3) although cities lacked the political clout to secure expensive programs on their own, they were able to participate in much broader coalitions—most notably, those focused on housing (which expanded to include urban renewal) and highways. Urban aviation advocates were less successful, but as aviation traffic boomed they were able to fund new airports and expand old ones by relying primarily on revenues from landing fees and terminal leases.

During the late 1950s and the 1960s these efforts combined to produce an unprecedented wave of urban public investment. While often successful on their own terms, these projects tended to be highly disruptive as well, destroying in particular vast amounts of low-income housing and urban parkland. Project advocates maintained that the public should accept such impacts to advance the greater good. Robert Moses, New York’s famed master builder, never tired of citing a French proverb: “You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs” (Caro 1974).

During the late 1960s and early 1970s, however, neighborhood activists allied with those involved in the emerging environmental movement against the full panoply of mega-project programs that had come into being during the 1950s. They succeeded not just in blocking large numbers of planned expressways, renewal schemes and airport projects, but also in securing the adoption of numerous statutes, regulations and judicial doctrines, thus strengthening the hands of critics in urban development controversies. For a time it seemed to most observers that the era of mega-project investment in cities was over.

“Do No Harm” Planning

The forces committed to mega-projects have proven highly resilient and adaptive, however. While the character of such investment has changed dramatically since the 1970s, its volume has remained high. Nevertheless, mega-project advocates have had to work within new constraints; they have had to learn the art of making omelets without leaving a residue of broken eggs. We label this art, as exercised in the domain of urban land use, “do no harm” planning. Its essential components are the selection, siting and design of projects to minimize disruptive side effects, and the aggressive mitigation of any harmful impacts that cannot be avoided entirely. Most obviously, governments have ceased clearing slums and building expressways through developed neighborhoods, and only one major new passenger airport—in Denver—has been constructed since the early 1970s.

Public investment in facilities such as rail transit systems, festival retail markets, sports stadiums and arenas, and convention centers has surged. Within the transportation sector, moreover, investment priorities have shifted toward the reconstruction of existing highways, new construction on suburban fringes and airport terminals rather than runway improvements. The great advantage of such projects is that they are relatively easy to site either at some distance from existing development or in older commercial districts that have few preservationist defenders.

Where cities and states have gone forward with major highway and airport projects, they have taken extraordinary steps to minimize social and environmental impacts. The new Denver airport, for example, is on a previously rural 53-square-mile site 25 miles east of downtown. Its location and scale were determined primarily by two considerations: land assembly without the disruption of existing residential enclaves; and future airport operation without significant noise impacts overflowing the airport boundary. Boston’s $14.6 billion Central Artery/Tunnel project, known colloquially as “The Big Dig,” appears very different, in that it is located in the heart of downtown, but it is virtually identical in its do no harm planning orientation. It is almost entirely underground as it passes close to built-up areas (replacing a previous elevated roadway); it has been threaded into the urban fabric without the taking of a single home; and it will add significantly to the city’s parkland.

Common Themes

In addition to do no harm planning, our review of mega-projects built over the past two decades identified the following themes as particularly salient.

Business Support

While insufficient by itself, strong business support has generally been an indispensable condition for mega-project development. Within the business community, leadership has almost invariably come from enterprises with deep local roots, particularly in real estate ownership, development and finance. The strongest supporters of Denver’s new airport, for example, were those who owned property with commercial development potential near the new site; downtown businesses concerned that the city’s existing airport was too small to allow for the region’s continued development; and the banks and financial service firms that had lent money to many of the city’s property owners and developers. Similarly, the most active and effective support group for Boston’s Big Dig has been the Artery Business Committee, a coalition of those who own major buildings adjacent to the artery’s corridor and several major employers with historic roots in downtown Boston.

Public Entrepreneurs

In addition to well-mobilized constituencies, aggressive, deft government officials have been indispensable to the success of recent mega-project proposals. Indeed, it was frequently they who originated project ideas and first sparked the formation of supportive coalitions. Even when others initiated, they commonly took the lead in crafting strategies, tactics and plans; in lobbying for state and federal aid; in securing other types of needed legislation and regulatory approvals; and in dealing with project critics.

Though business groups initiated some projects, they seemed more frequently to “invest” in proposals originated by public entrepreneurs. The business constituents were by no means easy marks, of course. Like venture capitalists in the private sector, they considered a great many ideas brought to them by public entrepreneurs (and others), but invested only in those few that looked particularly good for their enterprises, were to be carried out mainly or entirely at public expense, and had a reasonable chance of securing the myriad approvals required.

Illustratively, Boston’s Big Dig was conceived by Fred Salvucci, a transportation engineer who had become active in battles against planned highway and airport projects during the 1960s and then served as transportation secretary for twelve years under Governor Michael Dukakis. During the first Dukakis administration (1975–1979) the main constituencies for a new harbor tunnel (business) and for depressing the central artery (neighborhood and environmental groups) were at loggerheads. While temporarily out of office from 1979 to 1983, however, Salvucci concluded that the politically feasible strategy might be to marry these projects, while also relocating the tunnel to an alignment far from a neighborhood that it had historically threatened. This strategy in fact resolved the local controversy, and prepared the way for a successful campaign for massive federal aid, led again by Salvucci with critical business support.

Denver Mayor Federico Peña broke a similar type of logjam that had persisted for years over whether to expand Denver’s existing Stapleton Airport or build a new facility on a large site outside the city’s borders. Concluding that the obstacles, both political and environmental, to expanding Stapleton were insuperable, but that city ownership and operation of any new airport remained a critical objective, he negotiated successfully with adjacent Adams County for a massive land annexation. To achieve this objective, he accepted conditions protecting county residents from significant airport noise and guaranteeing Adams County most of the tax benefits that would flow from economic development around the new airport. With local agreements in hand he, like Salvucci, then led a successful campaign for special federal assistance.

Mitigation

Do no harm plans avoid substantial neighborhood and environmental disruption but it is impossible to build a mega-project with no negative side effects. The commitment of do no harm planning is to ameliorate such impacts as much as possible, and to offset them with compensatory benefits when full direct mitigation cannot be achieved. The boundary between mitigating harm and providing net benefits to protesting groups is often indistinct, however, so the norm of mitigation provides leverage as well for skilled activists whose demands are at times tangential to the mega-projects whose budgets they seek to tap. Mega-project champions in turn reflected on the fate of such projects as New York City’s proposed Westway, which failed because of what seemed at first a minor legal challenge. They were deathly afraid of litigation and were frequently willing to make very expensive concessions in return for agreements by critics not to sue.

During permitting for the Big Dig, for example, Boston’s Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), a group whose signature strategy was litigation for environmental purposes, threatened to sue unless the state committed to accompany the highway project with a multi-billion dollar set of rail transit investments, mainly for expansion. CLF’s rationale was that the transit projects would prevent the new road from filling up with traffic, which in turn would generate more air pollution. Modeling done for the project (as well as data from other regions) showed that the Big Dig would not in fact have significant air pollution effects, and that investing in rail transit extensions would be a particularly inefficient way to offset pollution effects if they did occur. Nonetheless, both Democratic and Republican state administrations acquiesced to CLF’s demands because they did not want to risk litigation, which at the very least threatened project delays and might also have imperiled the breadth of local consensus in support of the Big Dig.

Bottom-up Federalism

A naïve observer of American politics might assume that the federal government distributes grants to achieve national goals. In fact, however, the grantor-grantee relationship is usually much more complicated than that. Recipient jurisdictions are typically active participants in the coalitions that bring new programs into being and provide them with critical support each budget season. The programs of aid for mega-project investment that we examined were all distinguished more by their openness to local initiative than their sharp definition of national purpose. If grantee jurisdictions had a great deal of influence collectively on program structure, moreover, they had even more when it came to projects, and they were able to exercise it individually.

Every project we studied was initiated by subnational officials and interest groups, and it was they who took the lead at every stage in the decision process. While limited in their discretion by federal program rules, they were alert as well to opportunities for securing waivers, statutory amendments and add-on funds, with the assistance of their congressional delegations. Stated another way, when federal aims are diffuse and weakly defended, principal-agent theory (as applied to the intergovernmental system) needs to be read bottom-up rather than top-down.

High and Rising Costs

Do no harm designs and related mitigation agreements have tended to produce projects that are vastly more expensive than their historic predecessors. According to Brian Taylor (1995), the average cost per centerline mile of urban freeways rose by more than 600 percent in real terms from the 1960s to the 1980s, and costs were even more extreme in some of the mega-projects we examined. Whereas Taylor found that urban freeways cost on average about $54 million per centerline mile (in 2002 dollars) in the 1980s, for example, the Big Dig cost $1.9 billion per centerline mile. Judith Grant Long (2002) reports in a similar vein that the average cost of new stadiums and arenas more than quadrupled in real terms from the 1950s to the 1990s, and we have calculated that light rail development costs increased by nearly two-fifths from the 1980s to the 1990s.

Both older and more recent projects have been marked by a consistent pattern of substantial cost increases between authorization and completion. The projected cost of Boston’s Big Dig, for example, has roughly tripled in real terms since its approval by Congress as an interstate highway project in 1987. The cost of Denver International Airport more than doubled from the late 1980s, when it received voter approval and its federal funding commitments, to its completion six years later.

While a full study of this issue was beyond the scope of our work, we judge that the consistent pattern of underestimation has two primary causes. First, project advocates have very strong incentives to estimate optimistically as they seek political commitments of support. Second, mega-projects are often so complex—both technically and in terms of the mitigation agreements that will often prove necessary to keep them on track—that early cost estimates are typically little more than guesses within very broad ranges.

Locally Painless Project Funding

The hallmark of successful mega-project financing is that projects should appear costless, or nearly so, to the great majority of local voters. The easiest way to achieve this result is to rely on funding from higher-level governments. Where such aid is unavailable or insufficient, the challenge is to identify other sources of revenue to which local voters are generally insensitive—which means, above all, avoiding local property and income taxes and spreading the burden beyond host city residents.

This challenge became increasingly salient after 1970 with rising antitax sentiment, the end of federal renewal aid, and the surge in capital spending for such facilities as stadiums, arenas and convention centers, for which federal aid was only rarely available. In the growing domain of mass transit, moreover, federal matching ratios have tended to decline since 1980.

The revenue strategies adopted to deal with these challenges have been varied and ingenious. New terminals and runways at major airports have been funded largely by increased landing fees, lease payments, and (since the early 1990s) ticket surcharges authorized by the federal government but imposed locally. Stadiums, arenas and convention centers are commonly funded by taxes that fall mainly on nonresidents, such as taxes on hotel rooms, car rentals and restaurant bills. Where broad-based taxes have been unavoidable, the preferred method has been incremental add-ons to sales taxes, which typically require voter approval. Voters have often said no, but sales tax increases provide large amounts of revenue when they are adopted—and when they are not, project advocates routinely come back with revised plans. In Los Angeles and Seattle, for example, transit advocates responded to referendum defeats by scaling back their rail plans and allocating some of the projected revenue to bus service and local road improvements.

Looking to the Future

Almost two decades ago, when New York City’s ambitious Westway project died even though its backers had helped pioneer the do no harm planning and design paradigm, then-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan wondered whether it had become so difficult to build public projects that “Central Park could not conceivably be built today” (Finder 1985). Recent history suggests, however, that the mega-project impulse remains strong. The pertinent question is not whether the U.S. political system can still generate mega-projects but whether the projects that go forward are typically worth their costs to taxpayers.

In general, economists are skeptical about the cost-effectiveness of the most prominent mega-projects, from the Big Dig to the scores of rail transit systems, professional sports facilities and convention centers, built over the past 25 years. Project advocates invariably retort that the economists miss intangible project benefits such as fostering community pride and (in the case of transit, particularly) strengthening the likelihood of smart growth practices in new development. The national coalitions in support of highway and airport improvements, which economists tend to rate more favorably than other types of projects, have argued vociferously that current environmental rules and opportunities for critics to litigate are too onerous and should be relaxed.

There is no easy resolution of these issues because they involve tradeoffs between important, deeply held values. However, our review of a half-century of public works projects in urban areas has left us with three clear impressions. First, states and localities should be required to bear half or more of the cost of projects they undertake, because great windfalls of earmarked money from higher levels of government tend to overwhelm serious local deliberation. Second, strong environmental regulation helps ensure that local pro-growth coalitions do not leave fouled environments or devastated neighborhoods in their wake. Finally, while referenda are in general a flawed instrument of policy making, the evidence seems to suggest that the requirement of voter approval for major local projects tends to have a salutary effect on the bargaining between business groups that stand to benefit financially from the proposed investments and the more general interests of local taxpayers and residents.

_____________________

Alan Altshuler and David Luberoff are the coauthors of Mega-Projects: The Changing Politics of Urban Public Investment. Altshuler is the Stanton Professor of Urban Policy at the Kennedy School of Government and the Graduate School of Design (GSD) at Harvard University, and director of the Kennedy School’s Taubman Center for State and Local Government. Luberoff is the Taubman Center’s associate director and an adjunct lecturer at GSD.

References

Caro, Robert A. 1974. The power broker: Robert Moses and the fall of New York. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Finder, Alan. 1985. Westway: A road that was paved with mixed intentions, losing confidence and opportunities. New York Times, September 22, sec. 4, 6.

Long, Judith Grant. 2002. Full count: The real cost of pubic funding for major league sports facilities and why some cities pay more to play. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.

Taylor, Brian. 1995. Public perceptions, fiscal realities, and freeway planning: The California case. Journal of the American Planning Association 61 (1): 43–56.

Francisco Sabatini, a sociologist and urban planner, is a professor at the Catholic University of Chile in Santiago, where he lectures on urban studies and planning and conducts research on residential segregation, value capture and environmental conflicts. He combines his academic work with involvement in NGO-based research and action projects in low-income neighborhoods and villages. He served as an advisor to the Chilean Minister of Housing and Urban Affairs after democracy was restored in 1990, and as a member of the National Advisory Committee on the Environment in the subsequent democratic governments. Sabatini has published extensively in books and journals, and has taught in several countries, mainly in Latin America. He is a long-standing collaborator in the Lincoln Institute’s Program on Latin America and the Caribbean, as a course developer, instructor and researcher.

Land Lines: Why is the topic of residential segregation so important for land policy and urban planning in general?

Francisco Sabatini: Zoning, the centerpiece of urban planning, consists of segregating or separating activities and consolidating homogeneous urban areas, for either exclusionary or inclusionary purposes. At the city level, this planning tool was introduced in Frankfurt, Germany, in 1891 and was adopted elsewhere to address environmental and social problems due to rapid urbanization and industrialization. In modern cities the widespread practice of zoning to separate different activities and groups has aggravated these and other problems. It affects traffic and air pollution because more car trips are needed to move around the city, and it contributes to environmental decay and urban ghettos characterized by symptoms of social disintegration, such as increasing rates of school dropouts, teenage pregnancy and drug addiction.

It is indisputable that the desire for social segregation has long been a component of exclusionary zoning, along with concerns related to the environment and health. The influx of working-class families and immigrants is often considered undesirable and politically threatening, and zoning has been used to segregate such groups. Ethnic and religious discrimination are the most negative forms of social segregation. When a national government defines itself in religious, ethnic or racial terms, residential segregation usually remains entrenched as a severe form of discrimination, intolerance and human exploitation, as in Ireland, South Africa and Israel. Segregation can be positive, however, as in many cities around the world that become socially enriched with the proliferation of ethnic enclaves.

LL: What are the economic impacts of segregation?

FS: Besides its urban and social effects, residential segregation is an important aspect of land policy because it is closely connected to the functioning of land markets and is a factor in motivating households to pursue economic security and the formation of intergenerational assets. Fast-growing cities in unstable and historically inflationary economies convert land price increments into an opportunity for households at every social level to achieve their goals. It is no coincidence that the percentage of home ownership is comparatively high in Latin American cities, including among its poor groups. Land valuation seems to be an important motivation behind the self-segregating processes of the upper and middle classes. And, the increase in land prices is a factor in limiting access to serviced land and contributing to spatial segregation. In fact, the scarcity of serviced land at affordable prices, rather than the absolute scarcity of land, is considered the main land problem in Latin American cities, according to research conducted at the Lincoln Institute.

LL: What makes residential segregation so important in Latin America?

FS: Two of the most salient features of Latin America are its socioeconomic inequality and its urban residential segregation. There is an obvious connection between the two phenomena, though one is not a simple reflection of the other. For example, changes in income inequality in Brazilian cities are not necessarily accompanied by equivalent changes in spatial segregation. Residential segregation is closely related to the processes of social differentiation, however, and in that sense is deeply entrenched in the region’s economically diverse cities.

The rapidly increasing rate of crime and related social problems in spatially segregated low-income neighborhoods makes segregation a critical policy issue. These areas seem to be devolving from the “hopeful poverty” that predominated before the economic reforms of the 1980s to an atmosphere of hopelessness distinctive of urban ghettos. How much of this change can be attributed to residential segregation is an open question, on which little research is being done. I believe that in the current context of “flexible” labor regimes (no contracts, no enforcement of labor regulations, etc.) and alienation of civil society from formal politics, residential segregation adds a new component to social exclusion and desolation. In the past, spatial agglomeration of the poor tended to support grassroots organizations and empower them within a predominantly elitist political system.

LL: What features are characteristic of residential segregation in Latin America, as contrasted to the rest of the world?

FS: Compared to societies with strong social mobility, such as the United States, spatial segregation as a means of asserting social and ethnic identities is used less frequently in Latin America. Brazil shares with the U.S. a history of slavery and high levels of immigration, and it is one of the most unequal societies in the world; however, there is apparently much less ethnic or income segregation in residential neighborhoods in Brazil than in the U.S.

At the same time, there is a high degree of spatial concentration of elites and the rising middle class in wealthy areas of Latin American cities, although in many cases these areas are also the most socially diverse. Lower-income groups easily move into these neighborhoods, in contrast with the tradition of the wealthy Anglo-American suburb, which tends to remain socially and economically homogeneous over time.

Another noteworthy spatial pattern is that the segregated poor neighborhoods in Latin America are located predominantly on the periphery of cities, more like the pattern of continental Europe than that of many Anglo-American cities, where high concentrations of poverty are found in the center. The powerful upper classes in Latin America have crafted urban rules and regulations and influenced public investment in order to exclude the “informal” poor from some of the more modern zones, thus making the underdevelopment of their cities and countries less visible.

Finally, the existence of a civic culture of social integration in Latin America is manifested in a socially mixed physical environment. This widespread social mingling could be linked to the Catholic cultural ethos and the phenomenon of a cultural mestizo, or melting pot. The mestizo is an important figure in Latin American history, and it is telling that in English there is no word for mestizo. Anglo-American, Protestant cities seem to demonstrate more reluctance to encourage social and spatial mixing. Expanding this Latin American cultural heritage should be a basic goal of land policies aiming to deter the formation of poor urban ghettos, and it could influence residential segregation elsewhere.

LL: What trends do you perceive in residential segregation in Latin America?

FS: Two trends are relevant, both stimulated by the economic reforms of the 1980s: the spatial dispersal of upper-class gated communities and other mega-projects into low-income fringe areas; and the proliferation of the ghetto effect in deprived neighborhoods. The invasion of the urban periphery by large real estate projects triggers the gentrification of areas otherwise likely to become low-income settlements, giving way to huge profits for some. It also shortens the physical distance between the poor and other social groups, despite the fact that this new form of residential segregation is more intense because gated communities are highly homogeneous and walls or fences reinforce exclusion. Due to the peripheral location of these new developments, the processes of gentrification must be supported by modern regional infrastructures, mainly roads. Widespread private land ownership by the poor residents could help to prevent their complete expulsion from these gentrified areas and achieve a greater degree of social diversity.

The second trend consists of the social disintegration in those low-income neighborhoods where economic and political exclusion have been added to traditional spatial segregation, as mentioned earlier.

LL: What should land policy officials, in Latin America and elsewhere, know about residential segregation, and why?

FS: Residential segregation is not a necessary by-product of public housing programs or of the functioning of land markets, nor is it a necessary spatial reflection of social inequality. Thus, land policies aimed at controlling residential segregation could contribute to deterring the current expansion of the ghetto effect. In addition, officials should consider measures aimed at democratizing the city, most notably with regard to the distribution of investments in urban infrastructure. Policies such as participatory budgeting, as implemented in Porto Alegre and other Brazilian cities, could be indispensable in helping to undermine one of the mainstays of residential segregation in Latin American cities: public investments biased toward affluent areas.

LL: How is your work with the Lincoln Institute addressing these problems?

FS: Residential segregation is widely recognized as a relevant urban topic, but it has been scarcely researched by academics and to a large extent has been neglected by land policy officials. With the Institute’s support I have been lecturing on the topic in several Latin American universities over the past year, to promote discussion among faculty and students in urban planning and land development departments. I also lead a network of scholars that has recently prepared an eight-session course on residential segregation and land markets in Latin America cities. It is available in CD-ROM format for public officials and educators to support teaching, research and debate on the topic.

LL: Please expand on your new role as a Lincoln Institute partner in Chile.

FS: This year we inaugurated the Program on Support for the Design of Urban Policies at the Catholic University of Chile in Santiago. The program’s advisory board includes members of parliament, senior public officials, business leaders, researchers, consultants and NGO representatives. With its focus on land policy, particularly actions related to the financing of urban development and residential social integration, this board will identify relevant national land policy objectives and adequate strategies to reach them, including activities in the areas of training, applied policy research and dissemination of the results.

The board’s first task is to promote broad discussion of the draft reform of major urban laws and policies that the government recently sent to the Chilean Parliament. Since the late 1970s, when the urban and land market liberalization policies were applied under the military dictatorship, the debate on urban policies has fallen nearly silent, and Chile has lost its regional leadership position on these issues. Overly simplistic notions about the operation and potential of land markets, and especially about the origins of residential segregation (due in part to ideological bias), have contributed to this lack of discussion. Both land markets and the processes of residential segregation must be seen as arenas of critical social and urban importance. We want to reintroduce Chile into this debate, which has been facilitated by the Lincoln Institute’s Program on Latin America and the Caribbean and its networks of experts over the past 10 years.

References and Resources

Sabatini, Francisco, and Gonzalo Cáceres. 2004. Barrios cerrados: Entre la exclusión y la integración residencial (Gated communities: Between exclusion and residential integration). Santiago: Instituto de Geografía, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile.

———. Forthcoming. Recuperación de plusvalías en Santiago de Chile: Experiencias del Siglo XX. (Value capture in Santiago, Chile: Experiences from the 20th century). Santiago: Instituto de Geografía, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile.

Sabatini, Francisco, Gonzalo Cáceres and Gabriela Muñoz. 2004. Segregación residencial y mercados de suelo en la ciudad latinoamericana. (Residential segregation and land markets in Latin American cities). CD-ROM.

Espaço e debates. 2004. Segregações urbanas 24(45).

The core competence of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy is the analysis of issues related to land, and ours is one of the few organizations in the world with this focus.

The Institute’s current work program, both in the United States and in selected countries around the world, encompasses the taxation of land, the operation of land markets, the regulation of land and land use, the impacts of property rights, and the distribution of benefits from land development. This focus on land derives from the Institute’s founding objective—to address the links between land policy and social and economic progress—as expressed by Henry George, the nineteenth-century political economist and social philosopher.

The Institute plays a leading role in the analysis of land and property taxation, land valuation and appraisal, the design of land information and cadastral systems, and the reform and establishment of property tax systems. Work on the operation of land markets includes the analysis of transit-oriented development and research on urban housing and the expansion of urban areas. The regulation of land encompasses work on smart growth and growth management, visualizing density and the physical impact of development, mediating land use disputes, land conservation, and the management of state trust lands in the West. Analysis of property rights includes research on diverse topics including informal markets and land titling in developing countries, the establishment of conservation easements, and the preservation of farmland. Much work is underway on the distribution of benefits from land development, including value capture taxation, tax increment financing, university-led development, and community land trusts that seek to promote affordable housing.

While the Institute’s work in recent years has emphasized urban land issues, it has also addressed problems beyond urban boundaries such as conservation, management of state trust lands, and farmland preservation. A balance of activities across urban and rural topics will persist as the Institute’s work program continues to focus on land issues of relevance to social and economic development. The Institute will not normally address topics that lack a strong link to land policy.

Communicating new findings through education programs, publications, and Web-based products is a core Institute activity. The overarching objective is to strengthen the capacity of public officials, professionals, and citizens to make better decisions by providing them with relevant information, ideas, methods, and analytic tools. The Institute offers traditional courses and seminars, and is moving aggressively to make many of its offerings available on the Web as either programmed instruction or as online courses with real-time interactions between students and instructors. The Institute also develops training materials and makes them available to others, for example through activities in several developing countries that involve the training of trainers in topics such as appraisal and tax administration.

Research strengthens the Institute’s training programs and contributes to knowledge about land policy generally. The Institute supports both mature scholars who conduct groundbreaking research and advanced students who are working on their dissertations or thesis research. The Institute offers several fellowship programs and other opportunities for researchers to propose work on important topics that can contribute to current debates on land policy. The results of this research are regularly posted on the Institute Web site as working papers and are published in books, conference proceedings, and policy focus reports.

Demonstration and evaluation activities constitute the third major component of the Institute’s agenda. Recently the Institute has begun to combine education, training, research, and dissemination in demonstration projects that apply knowledge, data collection, and analysis to the development and implementation of specific policies in the areas of property taxation, planning, and development. These projects are being expanded to include the analysis of policies as they are applied, and to assess and evaluate outcomes in terms of the intended objectives of the policies. The goal is to provide more rigorous evidence about how well and in what circumstances specific land and tax policies achieve their objectives so that information can be incorporated into future research and training programs.

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 7 del CD-ROM Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

Durante la última década, el autobús de transporte rápido (BRT, por sus siglas en inglés) ha revolucionado la planificación del transporte regional en gran parte del mundo desarrollado y en vías de desarrollo. El BRT pasó de ser una opción de transporte marginal utilizada en unas pocas ciudades de Brasil y Australia a convertirse en una importante alternativa de transporte masivo para los gobiernos locales y nacionales.

El BRT no es un concepto único, sino que engloba una variedad de aplicaciones diseñadas para mejorar el nivel de servicio que proporciona el transporte masivo en autobús ofreciendo movilidad de forma económica y cómoda, similar a la que ofrece el ferrocarril urbano (Wright y Hook 2007, 11). Se basa en mejoras coordinadas en tecnología, infraestructura y equipamiento para conseguir un servicio de calidad (Oficina General de Cuentas de los Estados Unidos 2001). Desde el punto de vista operativo, las aplicaciones del BRT incluyen autobuses con derecho de paso exclusivo, con estaciones dedicadas y abono de tarifas previo al abordaje, o autobuses que transitan por carriles de tráfico mixtos en las principales arterias de la ciudad.

Podría afirmarse que el concepto del BRT que goza del mayor reconocimiento es la provisión de un derecho de paso exclusivo para el transporte en autobús unido a la alta frecuencia del servicio. En Sudamérica, los sistemas BRT de Curitiba, en Brasil, y Bogotá, en Colombia, integran redes de carriles dedicados al uso exclusivo de autobuses articulados de gran capacidad, con embarque y desembarque rápido.

Doce ciudades latinoamericanas, tres australianas, siete estadounidenses, ocho asiáticas y dieciocho europeas han implementado sistemas BRT. En algunas los sistemas son completos mientras que en otras son líneas únicas. También hay sistemas actualmente en construcción en todo el mundo, como en Dar es Salaam en Tanzania, Jinán en China, Bolonia en Italia, Mérida en Venezuela y Auckland en Nueva Zelandia. En marzo de 2007, GTZ, la empresa federal de desarrollo de Alemania, estimó que había al menos 27 ciudades con procesos activos de planificación de sistemas BRT, mientras que 14 sistemas estaban considerando su ampliación (Wright y Hook 2007).

El extraordinario éxito del BRT se debe en parte a la relación costo-efectividad y a la relativa flexibilidad de la inversión necesaria. Los sistemas BRT a menudo pueden transportar tantos pasajeros como los sistemas de ferrocarril urbano convencionales pero por una fracción del costo. Los sistemas BRT también son comparables a los sistemas de ferrocarril tipo metro, excepto en situaciones de muy alta demanda de pasajeros, superior a los 50.000 pasajeros por sentido y por hora. Igual que en el ferrocarril urbano, no obstante, la relación costo-efectividad del BRT se apoya en la capacidad de disponer de usos del suelo que concentran la actividad a lo largo de corredores del sistema. Por lo tanto, en la mayoría de los casos, los sistemas BRT se han construido en corredores con una demanda comprobada.

INVERSIÓN EN TRANSPORTE Y URBANIZACIÓN/REURBANIZACIÓN DEL SUELO

También resulta plausible que los sistemas BRT puedan atraer una urbanización densa que a su vez mejore el sistema BRT en el futuro. Esta conexión recíproca entre inversión en BRT y urbanización ha sido el puntal del éxito en Curitiba. A pesar de la importancia de esta conexión para la viabilidad futura y la relación costo-efectividad de los sistemas BRT, aún disponemos de poca evidencia empírica. Dado el elevado número de ciudades que están considerando la construcción de nuevas líneas BRT o la ampliación de sus sistemas, resulta crucial comprender si se producirán cambios en la urbanización del suelo a fin de prever los beneficios del sistema y poder estimar el impacto fiscal de la inversión.

La teoría económica urbana proporciona un punto de partida para explicar cómo la inversión en transporte puede influir en la urbanización o reurbanización del suelo. Se espera que tal inversión proporcione beneficios de accesibilidad a quienes se ven afectados positivamente a través de la disminución del tiempo de desplazamiento que les brinda la inversión.

En un mercado del suelo metropolitano, se espera que la inversión en transporte proporcione ventajas en cuanto a accesibilidad a los terrenos cercanos a la inversión en comparación con los terrenos relativamente poco afectados por dicha inversión. Puesto que el número de terrenos que se benefician de las mejoras de accesibilidad es limitado, se espera que las familias y las empresas que valoren tales beneficios en un mercado competitivo estén dispuestas a pagar más por las propiedades que ofrecen buen acceso que por otras propiedades, suponiendo que las demás condiciones son iguales. En este sentido, los beneficios de acceso que ofrecen las inversiones en transporte, de existir, se capitalizarán en el valor de las propiedades.

La capitalización de los beneficios de accesibilidad estimula la urbanización potenciando el atractivo de los terrenos para su urbanización o reurbanización. Los terrenos que anteriormente no eran considerados candidatos preferenciales para la inversión inmobiliaria se tornan más atractivos después del anuncio o implementación de la inversión en transporte. Por otro lado, un terreno ya urbanizado o en fase de planificación puede urbanizarse más intensivamente como resultado del aumento de valor. Esta relación es la piedra angular de la urbanización enfocada hacia el transporte (ver la Figura 7.5.3.1 en anexo).

Además del potencial urbanizable propiciado por la inversión en transporte, los aumentos en el valor del suelo también son relevantes para las finanzas municipales y la financiación de proyectos específicos. El éxito de instrumentos locales como la financiación mediante incrementos impositivos (Tax Increment Financing, o TIF) y la recuperación de plusvalías depende del valor del suelo y de los cambios de urbanización asociados al proyecto.

EL SISTEMA TRANSMILENIO DE BOGOTÁ

Bogotá, la capital de Colombia, tiene aproximadamente 6,8 millones de habitantes que ocupan aproximadamente 29.000 hectáreas de suelo urbanizado (Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá 2003). Antes de TransMilenio, todo el transporte público de Bogotá lo proporcionaban choferes de autobús privados organizados en empresas o asociaciones, las cuales añadían o cancelaban servicios con poca supervisión por parte del gobierno. Los ingresos para los choferes del autobús estaban basados exclusivamente en las tarifas pagadas por los pasajeros, lo que provocaba una intensa competencia entre los conductores. Este marco operativo tuvo un costo social considerable, en congestión, calidad inadecuada y falta de seguridad (debido a la escasa inversión en mantenimiento de los vehículos). En 1999 los residentes experimentaban velocidades medias de desplazamiento en los autobuses de sólo 9 km/h durante el período de máxima actividad del día.

A finales de la década de 1990, preocupado por una oferta excesiva de capacidad del transporte, malas condiciones ambientales y de seguridad y velocidad decreciente de los autobuses, el gobierno municipal invirtió en una amplia red BRT, pero ésta cubría únicamente las zonas con alta demanda de transporte público. Las zonas de la ciudad donde no llegaba el BRT continuaron servidas por las asociaciones originales, y siguieron sufriendo el efecto medioambiental y de tiempo. La inversión en BRT, TransMilenio, formaba parte de una estrategia integrada más amplia para abordar los problemas de movilidad, reclamar los espacios públicos para los peatones y aumentar el acceso a zonas verdes.

TransMilenio se ha implementado en dos fases, con una tercera fase actualmente en proceso de diseño. La primera fase se planificó en 1998, se construyó en 1999–2000 y entró en funcionamiento en diciembre de 2000 en dos corredores. La segunda fase, que comenzó a funcionar a finales de 2003, añadió tres corredores más de forma paulatina. Todas las fases se han implementado a través de un exitoso acuerdo entre entidades públicas y privadas: el gobierno financia la infraestructura y supervisa las funciones de planificación a largo plazo, y las empresas privadas licitan la operación de conjuntos de rutas o zonas de influencia.

El sistema comprende una infraestructura especializada, que incluye carriles exclusivos para ofrecer una capacidad de alto servicio, estaciones de embarque cerradas y una flota racionalizada de autobuses articulados con sistema de cobro de tarifas en plataforma previo al embarque. Un servicio coordinado con rutas alimentadoras permite acceder a TransMilenio desde vecindarios alejados de la ruta del autobús. A noviembre de 2007, el sistema tenía 114 estaciones, operaba más de 1.000 autobuses y realizaba más de 1,4 millones viajes en sentido único por día a una velocidad media de 27 km/h.

Considerado como un excelente ejemplo de sistema BRT, el caso de Bogotá ilustra la transformación de corredores de transporte tradicionales afectados de una seria contaminación, problemas de seguridad y un entorno poco atractivo en un nuevo sistema que ofrece tiempos de desplazamiento considerablemente menores, menos ruido y menos emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero (Cain y col. 2006).

IMPACTO DE TRANSMILENIO SOBRE EL VALOR DEL SUELO

TransMilenio ha sido el centro de atención de al menos cuatro estudios que relacionan el valor del suelo con el sistema BRT (ver recuadro en anexo). Aunque la evidencia hasta la fecha sobre la relación entre TransMilenio y el valor de las propiedades inmobiliarias ha resultado útil, su capacidad para influir en las políticas sigue siendo limitada. Por ejemplo, estos estudios se basan en datos transversales, por lo que resulta imposible identificar si el sistema BRT produjo el cambio en el valor del suelo, o si los planificadores fijaron las estaciones en lugares que ya eran bien valorados por los residentes. Asimismo, a pesar del interés por parte de los gobernantes en ampliar los sistemas BRT establecidos y en buscar formas de financiarlos, ningún estudio ha examinado si estas ampliaciones traen beneficios a las propiedades que ya disfrutaban del servicio del BRT.

Utilizando los datos sobre los precios pedidos por las propiedades anteriores y posteriores al TransMilenio, examinamos si los precios cambiaron a medida que se ampliaba el sistema. Comprender en qué medida han cambiado los precios en Bogotá es particularmente importante dada la extensa experiencia del gobierno colombiano con los instrumentos de recuperación de plusvalías del suelo y el aumento del interés por encontrar nuevas fuentres de financiación para futuras ampliaciones del BRT (Furtado 2000).

Nuestros datos se tomaron de una muestra de propiedades en la zona metropolitana de Bogotá entre 2001 y 2006. La fase II de la ampliación del TransMilenio, abierta al público en diciembre de 2003, proporcionó el escenario del estudio. En el análisis utilizamos propiedades unifamiliares ubicadas en un radio de 1 km del sistema BRT que se beneficiaron de la ampliación del sistema de una o dos formas: obteniendo acceso local a TransMilenio gracias a la ampliación, u obteniendo acceso regional gracias al mayor alcance de la red, lo que denominamos “efecto de la red”.

Para medir los efectos de la red utilizamos propiedades que anteriormente sólo tenían acceso local a una estación de TransMilenio, pero que ahora se benefician del mayor alcance del sistema BRT. Por otro lado, las propiedades que no tenían acceso local a TransMilenio antes de diciembre de 2003, pero que también se beneficiaron de la ampliación, sirvieron para examinar los efectos del acceso local (ver Figura 7.5.3.2 en anexo).

Todas las propiedades susceptibles de verse afectadas por TransMilenio se consideran pertenecientes a zonas de intervención de acceso local o del efecto de la red. Sin embargo, puesto que los valores de las propiedades cambian de antes a después de la intervención por razones diferentes a los cambios producidos por TransMilenio, también incluimos propiedades dentro de una zona de control que no se benefició directamente de ninguna de las inversiones de TransMilenio, ni de otras inversiones en rutas para bicicleta o en parques importantes.

La estadística descriptiva simple tanto de ambas zonas de intervención como de la zona de control muestra que las propiedades dentro de la zona de efecto de la red eran más caras que las situadas en las otras dos zonas, tanto antes como después. Las propiedades de la zona de acceso local tenían precios similares a las de la zona de control, antes y después. Asimismo, los precios pedidos aumentaron en índices diferentes. Respecto de las propiedades dentro de la zona de efecto de la red, los precios aumentaron un 5,1 por ciento, en comparación con un 9,5 por ciento para las propiedades dentro de la zona de acceso local y un 7,7 por ciento para las situadas en la zona de control durante el mismo período. No obstante, estas diferencias pueden resultar engañosas, porque las propiedades ofrecidas en el mercado pueden haber sido diferentes antes y después de la intervención.

Por ejemplo, la zona de control tenía un índice considerable de usos industriales (22,7 por ciento) y terrenos vacantes (14,1 por ciento) comparada con las otras dos (zona de efecto de la red: 0,5 por ciento de uso industrial y 0,8 de terrenos vacantes; zona de acceso local: 13,7 por ciento de uso industrial y 7,0 por ciento de terrenos vacantes), aunque la densidad de población es similar. Las zonas de acceso local y de control tienen poco o ningún uso comercial, mientras que la zona de efecto de la red tiene una mezcla más homogénea de usos residenciales y comerciales. Por tanto, fue necesario un análisis de regresión para ayudar a aislar la variación de precio identificada de los efectos de la presión inflacionista, las diferencias en la oferta de vivienda o el efecto de la ampliación de TransMilenio sobre el precio de la vivienda. Nuestros modelos corrigieron además la correlación existente para las propiedades que están más juntas desde el punto de vista espacial, con respecto a las que están más distantes.

Cambios en el valor de las propiedades en las zonas con servicio BRT

Los hallazgos de nuestro modelo de regresión para la zona de efecto de la red con respecto a la zona de control mostraron una evidencia uniforme de que los precios en 2001 y 2002 eran similares entre la zona de intervención y la zona de control, sin que se produjera una apreciación. Sin embargo, detectamos una apreciación positiva uniforme en la zona de intervención desde el año 2003 en adelante, con respecto a la zona de control.

Los precios pedidos por las propiedades resultantes según las estimaciones se muestran en la Figura 7.5.3.3 (en anexo), creada mediante una simulación basada en coeficientes estimados y en su matriz de varianza-covarianza. Los valores representan una propiedad de entre 10 y 20 años de antigüedad, con todas las demás variables establecidas en sus valores medianos, variando el año de 2001 a 2006.

Las propiedades de la zona de intervención se apreciaron antes y en mayor grado que las propiedades de la zona de control. La Figura 7.5.3.4 (en anexo) muestra el cambio en los precios entre la zona de intervención y la zona de control en términos de porcentaje. El pico de precios de 2003 en la zona de intervención puede ser el resultado de la previsión de los propietarios ante la expectativa de apertura de la ampliación del sistema BRT, o de otros cambios en el submercado inmobiliario que nuestras variables no tuvieron en cuenta. Aunque se han documentado efectos similares de previsión de extensión de transporte masivo en otros lugares (Knaap, Ding y Hopkins 2001), no se ha examinado ni documentado ninguno de ellos para los efectos de la red que crean dichas ampliaciones.

Cambios en el valor de las propiedades en las zonas sin servicio del BRT

Los hallazgos de nuestro modelo de regresión para la zona de acceso local con respecto a la zona de control arrojaron una evidencia mixta de aumento de los precios en zonas que anteriormente no estaban servidas por el sistema BRT. En algunos casos (dependiendo del modelo especificado) los precios en la zona de intervención eran superiores a los de la zona de control para las propiedades ofertadas en 2001, 2003, 2004 y 2006. Otros modelos mostraron relaciones menos consistentes. Una prueba de los coeficientes correspondientes al período anterior y del coeficiente del período posterior no muestra una diferencia simultánea en los precios de las propiedades.

EL RESULTADO NETO: TRANSMILENIO Y LOS VALORES DE LAS PROPIEDADES

En general nuestros resultados dibujan un panorama mixto de apreciación como consecuencia de las ampliaciones del BRT. Por un lado, la evidencia sugiere la apreciación de las propiedades que ya estaban servidas por el BRT, puesto que también se beneficiaron de las ampliaciones. La plusvalía estimada del precio pedido por las propiedades se sitúa entre el 15 y el 20 por ciento, aunque la apreciación comenzó un año antes de inaugurarse la ampliación. Esto resulta significativo, dado que sabemos poco acerca de la magnitud potencial de estos efectos. En contraste, encontramos poca evidencia de aumento de los precios de las propiedades situadas a lo largo del corredor que anteriormente no tenía una estación local de BRT, pero que ahora recibe servicio gracias a la ampliación.

No podemos afirmar sin lugar a equívocos que los aumentos de precio fueron el resultado de la ampliación del BRT, porque podrían deberse a variaciones en el submercado inmobiliario local. Por ejemplo, la ciudad de Bogotá resurgió de una profunda recesión que terminó a principios de 2000. Si los efectos de la recesión no fueron uniformes en todos los vecindarios, es posible que eso explique el diferencial encontrado. Además, es posible que las propiedades que ya disfrutaban del servicio del BRT simplemente estaban capitalizando los beneficios de la inversión original realizada apenas cuatro años antes.

Otras explicaciones posibles de los resultados que quizá interesen a los planificadores que estén considerando hacer inversiones en BRT incluyen la cronología de los efectos. La capitalización de los beneficios de las ampliaciones del BRT puede tardar tiempo en materializarse. Nuestro análisis cubre solamente hasta tres años después de la inauguración de la ampliación, pero el impacto de los proyectos de transporte tiende a tardar más tiempo. Una explicación relacionada es que las propiedades también se aprecian ante la expectativa de la inversión en transporte, más que cuando se inauguran las ampliaciones.

También es posible que los efectos difieran en los vecindarios de cada zona estudiada. Aunque utilizamos propiedades en un radio de 1 km de una estación de BRT (la zona de influencia identificada por los planificadores locales en sus estudios de viabilidad de TransMilenio), es posible que los precios aumentaran, pero sólo para un subconjunto de propiedades (por ejemplo, las más próximas a una estación). Por último, es probable que el efecto sobre el valor del suelo derivado de la inversión pública en transporte sea diferente para las propiedades comerciales, las viviendas unifamiliares y las multifamiliares. Se han detectado aumentos en el precio de los espacios comerciales en otras ciudades (Cervero y Susantono 1999; Cervero y Duncan 2002).

No existe una forma sencilla de examinar sin ambigüedades los efectos sobre el valor del suelo derivados de la inversión pública en transporte. En este estudio, hemos intentado profundizar en el tema sobre la base de otros estudios y superar sus limitaciones. Nuestras conclusiones revelan una cierta promesa para la financiación de infraestructura a través de las plusvalías que puede crear. Pero perduran ciertas ambigüedades y advertencias que no son fáciles de resolver. Mientras tanto, los encargados de tomar decisiones seguirán explorando soluciones para las opciones de transporte masivo y las formas de financiarlas, y el sistema BRT contribuirá a abordar la acuciante necesidad de movilidad en las ciudades de todo el mundo.

Referencias

Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá. 2008. Población por localidad. Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá 2003. http://www.bogota.gov.co/galeria/cifraspoblaciondelocalidades1973a2003.pdf

Cain, A., G. Darido, M. R. Baltes, P. Rodríguez, and J. C. Barriors. 2006. Applicability of Bogotá’s TransMilenio BRT system to the United States. Tampa, FL: National Bus Rapid Transit Institute.

Cervero, R., and M. Duncan. 2002. Transit’s value-added: Effects of light and commuter rail services on commercial land values. Transportation Research Record 1805:8–15.

Cervero, R., and B. Susantono. 1999. Rent capitalization and transportation infrastructure in Jakarta. Review of Urban and Regional Development Studies 11 (1):11–23.

Furtado, F. 2000. Colombia: Economic aspects of the country’s land use. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 59 (5):97–110.

Knaap, G. J., C. R. Ding, and L. D. Hopkins. 2001. Do plans matter? The effects of light rail plans on land values in station areas. Journal of Planning Education and Research 21 (1):32–39.

Mendieta, J. C., and J. A. Perdomo. 2007. Especificación y estimación de un modelo de precios hedónico espacial para evaluar el impacto de Transmilenio sobre el valor de la propiedad en Bogotá. Bogotá, Colombia: CEDE.

Munoz-Raskin, R. 2006. Walking accessibility to bus rapid transit in Latin America: Does it affect property values? The case of Bogotá, Colombia. In TRB 86th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers CD-ROM.

Perdomo, J. A., J. C. Mendieta, C. A. Mendoza, and A. F. Baquero. 2007. Investigación sobre el impacto del proyecto de transporte masivo Transmilenio sobre el valor de las propiedades en Bogotá, Colombia. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Rodríguez, D.A., and C. Mojica. 2008. Capitalization of BRT network effects into land prices. Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Rodriguez, D. A., and F. Targa. 2004. Value of accessibility to Bogotá’s bus rapid transit system. Transport Reviews 24 (5):587–610.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 2001. Bus rapid transit shows promise. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office.

Wright, L., and W. Hook. 2007. Bus rapid transit planning guide. New York: Institute for Transportation and Development Policy.

An architect who specializes in urban and regional planning, Eduardo Reese is the deputy administrator of the Institute for Housing of the Province of Buenos Aires, Argentina. In previous professional positions he provided technical advice for the master plans of more than 20 cities in Argentina; was secretary of socioeconomic policies at the Ministry of Human Development and Labor of the Province of Buenos Aires; adviser for the Urban Planning Counsel of the City of Buenos Aires; and planning secretary in the City of Avellaneda.

Reese also teaches at the Conurbano Institute at the National University General Sarmiento in Buenos Aires. Currently he is a professor of urban management in the Institute’s B.A. program in urbanism. He also teaches urban development at master’s programs at the School of Architecture, Urbanism and Design of the University of La Plata, as well as at universities in Mar del Plata and Córdoba. In addition, he directs the master planning of the Matanza-Riachuelo watershed in Buenos Aires.

Land Lines: How long have you been involved with the Institute’s Latin America Program?

Eduardo Reese: My relationship dates back to 1997 when we were drafting the plan for the City of Córdoba, which included several large-scale urban projects. We worked to expand the debate about the impacts of these projects on the land market and, consequently, on shaping the city. I continued to participate in various activities, and four years ago I took over the coordination of the annual lectures of the Land Management in Large Urban Projects series, following the death of Mario Lungo, who had led that program for many years.

In 2004, in conjunction with the Conurbano Institute of the National University of General Sarmiento, we conducted a course on Land Markets: Theory and Tools for Policy Management, which was the first one involving a seven-month training program for 50 Argentine students. That educational experience helped create a critical mass of technicians and professionals with an innovative vision toward the management of land policies. The program’s impact has been reflected in urban policy decisions in different municipalities (such as San Fernando and Morón in Greater Buenos Aires); in the Argentine Constitution; in the Urban Reform Movement in 2005; and in academic changes at the Conurbano Institute itself.

Land Lines: What role can large urban projects play in the quality of life of Latin American cities?

Eduardo Reese: Large-scale projects in defined sectors of the city (both central and peripheral areas) have been great protagonists of contemporary urbanism in the past quarter century. Today in Latin America there are many types and sizes of projects, even though more rigorous theoretical thinking is still needed. Important examples are the Bicentennial Portal (Portal del Bicentenario) projects in Santiago de Chile; the Integral Urban Projects (Proyectos Urbanos Integrales) in Medellín, Colombia; urban operations in different cities of Brazil; and the restructuring project in the northwestern sector of San Fernando (Argentina).

Large-scale urban operations as instruments of intervention in the city have been implemented for many decades. In Buenos Aires, for instance, the Avenida de Mayo and the Diagonals, which were planned around 1880, had important impacts on physical space as well as in social, economic, and symbolic aspects. This approach of multiple impacts undoubtedly allowed better assimilation of the Avenida de Mayo, but it also generated a huge debate over who should finance the operation and who would appropriate the land rents generated. Ultimately the Supreme Court ruled that the municipality could not finance the work with the surplus created because the rents belonged entirely to the landowners. For many years this case set a judicial precedent regarding the state’s intervention in the process of valuing land generated by a large-scale public project.

Land Lines: You have a critical view on the widely acclaimed Puerto Madero urban regeneration project in Buenos Aires. What would you do differently in other large redevelopment areas?

Eduardo Reese: Puerto Madero is emblematic of urban projects that promote a model of segregated urban planning and are now being “exported” to other countries as a basic tool to compete for international investment. In this project the state submitted to the market and allowed the construction of an exclusive neighborhood for very high-income sectors. It is a notorious example of public policy explicitly designed to favor the wealthy segments without any recovery of the huge land valuations that were the product of public policy.

Moreover, to guarantee investors an overvaluation of the properties they purchased, the venture has a number of features that cut it off (physically and socially) from the rest of the city, creating even greater value because of its segregation. Puerto Madero has no external wall, as gated condominiums have, but rather multiple implicit, explicit, and symbolic signals that clearly indicate this place is off limits to most of society.

• It is the only neighborhood managed by a state corporation that for 19 years has paid the salaries of public servants and managers to build and maintain a few square meters of park accessible only to that wealthy neighborhood.
• The project has a highly designed urban landscape that contrasts sharply with the brutal poverty in the rest of the city. The parks and amenities are on land already privatized to ensure that the investments, although made using public funds, benefit only the elite owners of the housing and office high-rise buildings nearby.
• A sophisticated system of cameras and security forces defines and controls access to the overprotected zone.
• All these mechanisms serve to ensure the overvaluation of the properties so that only upper social classes can afford to purchase them.

In the end, Puerto Madero is a clear demonstration of the regressive distribution of urban planning and public policy: a trouble-free ghetto for the rich.

Land Lines: As municipalities continue to compete for outside investments, is it possible to reconcile alternative objectives such as social and environmental priorities?

Eduardo Reese: The problem in our cities is not the lack of planning, but the current exclusionary pattern of planning policies. There cannot be one law for the formal city and exceptions for the rest. It is necessary to create a new urban and legal order in Latin America based on the right to the city, the equitable sharing of the benefits of urbanization, and the social function of land ownership.

Land Lines: How does the municipality of San Fernando in the Buenos Aires metropolitan area offers an alternative to this approach?

Eduardo Reese: San Fernando is located some 30 kilometers (km) north of Buenos Aires, with a land area of 23 square km and a population of 156,000 inhabitants. A 5 km long riverside faces the Río Luján and another part of the city faces the mouth of Río de la Plata, where productive nautical activities are concentrated. This privileged location has high property values and all urban services.

The plan and model of urban land management in the city began in 2003 through an agreement between the municipality and the Conurbano Institute. In 2005, a Lincoln Institute training seminar helped broaden the local debate on land management, which led to a series of major decisions:

• to generate sustainable resources to redirect urban development;
• to recover the culture of public works financed by a tax for improvements;
• to recover land for social housing, urban facilities, and road networks;
• to strengthen the city and municipal administration as innovative actors in implementing public policies; and
• to limit the overvaluation of land by intervening in the market through mechanisms such as new urban planning legislation, instruments to collect the surplus, and a large supply of land for the poor.

The urban policy focused on a set of action strategies including (1) ensuring accessibility to new public spaces for recreational, sports and commercial purposes on the riverside, especially for the use and enjoyment of the poor; and (2) the comprehensive regularization of the western sector of the municipality, where most poverty is concentrated.

To implement these strategies it was necessary to increase fiscal resources for public investment in two ways: appropriation of the profitability of land use or municipal land on the riverside through the creation of the Consortium San Fernando Marina Park Company (PNSFSA) and participation of the municipality in the surplus generated from municipal tax reform. (PNSFSA is a company created by the municipality of San Fernando to manage the riverside of the northwest sector of the city, defined as Marina Park.)

The experience of San Fernando is based on a set of management tools within an urban plan focused on the redistribution of income to build a more equitable city. Land is considered a key asset within a wider strategy of local development and, therefore, management relies on a broad mix of planning, administrative, economic, fiscal, and legal instruments aimed at strengthening the role of the public sector. The core axis of policies is the search for equity in the distribution of the costs and benefits of urbanization, within the challenging context of growing pressure on land throughout metropolitan Buenos Aires.

Land Lines: What could or should be changed in the educational system that trains urban planners and managers in Latin America?

Eduardo Reese: First, it is necessary to incorporate a greater understanding of the functioning of land markets in the present context of developing and shaping cities. Second, a more critical analysis is needed of adequate theoretical, methodological and technical instruments to undertake diagnosis and intervention in urban land issues. The 2004 course on Land Markets that I described earlier attempted to develop these kinds of materials to enable students to cover the different scales and dimensions of the problem.

Land Lines: What tensions exist between private and public interests in urban planning?

Eduardo Reese: This is a critical question because the whole history of urban land management has had a common thread: the rights of private ownership of land and the structure of ownership have always come into conflict with urban planning activity, which is a public responsibility. In that sense, there will always be tension between public and private interests in building the city.

In my view, urban projects in Latin America have the responsibility to contribute not only to the creation of new spaces for public use and enjoyment, employment generation and environmental sustainability, but also social inclusion, equity in the access to services and the redistribution of urban rents generated by the project. The four cases on Chile, Colombia, Brazil, and Argentina mentioned earlier show that these benefits are possible in many contexts.

However, instead many urban projects have been justified as necessary to attract investment and/or consumers and to ensure or reinforce the dynamic competitive advantages of the city. These undoubtedly positive goals are sometimes used as a mechanism to legitimize interventions that deepen the serious sociospatial segregation of cities. Such adverse effects of the market are not fatal to the city, but are the outcome of perverse political choices.