En mis tiempos de becario en la Universidad de Cambridge, durante la década de 1990, mi colega y amigo Wynne Godley, que ya no está entre nosotros, pasaba a buscarme los domingos para llevarme a una de las iglesias medievales de las que pueden verse en todo lugar en los pueblos de East Anglia. Wynne decía frecuentemente que “una iglesia es más un proceso que un edificio. Se desarrolla a lo largo de los siglos e involucra a generaciones de familias en su construcción y mantenimiento”. Wynne tenía buen ojo para los detalles arquitectónicos, por lo que podía señalar un contrafuerte o un campanario que ilustraba la práctica de una técnica específica, el uso de materiales fuera de lo común, o ambos. Una sola iglesia ofrecía un registro vivo y estratificado de la forma en que cada generación en una comunidad resolvía el desafío de construir y mantener grandes espacios cerrados y abiertos que posibilitaran la belleza del culto.

En este sentido, las ciudades tienen mucho de iglesias medievales. A medida que transcurre el tiempo, las ciudades ilustran la colaboración de generaciones de residentes, así como también la evolución de las herramientas económicas, técnicas e, incluso, sociales que se utilizaron para construirlas y mantenerlas. Las reliquias de mármol que encontramos en Roma son un testimonio vivo de la estética y los valores antiguos y de la ingenuidad en la construcción, mientras que la ciudad moderna florece a su alrededor. El icónico horizonte de Manhattan, en apariencia inmóvil, en realidad fluye constantemente y hoy en día evoluciona en forma radical a fin de responder a las demandas de sustentabilidad, resiliencia, desarrollos mixtos y otras cuestiones del siglo 21.

Los límites de las ciudades también evolucionan y narran otra historia de importancia crucial. Es posible que el futuro de nuestro planeta dependa de nuestra capacidad de comprender dicha historia y desarrollar las herramientas y la voluntad colectiva necesarias para gestionar el patrón y la progresión del crecimiento urbano. Shlomo (Solly) Angel documenta esta trayectoria en el Atlas of Urban Expansion (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2012), en el que se utilizan imágenes satelitales captadas a lo largo de décadas con el fin de llevar un registro de la evolución espacial de 120 ciudades en todo el mundo, desde Bamako y Guadalajara hasta Shangai y Milán. El último medio siglo de crecimiento urbano ha proporcionado un cuento con moraleja sobre la seducción de la expansión urbana descontrolada, un camino sin mucha resistencia que genera beneficios económicos de forma rápida pero cuyo desarrollo es poco sustentable. Nuestra capacidad para controlar la huella ecológica que dejamos y minimizar nuestro impacto a nivel mundial estará estrechamente relacionada con nuestra capacidad para planificar y construir asentamientos humanos más densos y eficientes. En vista de la predicción de las Naciones Unidas en cuanto a una población urbana mundial que casi se duplicará para llegar a las 6 mil millones de personas en el año 2050, la suerte del planeta dependerá de si los humanos, como especie, podremos adoptar un paradigma de desarrollo más apropiado en este medio siglo por venir.

A medida que nos esforzamos en reinventar nuestros asentamientos urbanos, nos enfrentaremos a un viejo enemigo: el suelo que ya ha recibido mejoras y desarrollo pero que debe adaptarse a usos nuevos. Aunque no desconocemos este proceso tan polémico, podemos decir que todavía no hemos logrado descifrar el código para gestionarlo. En este número de Land Lines analizamos algunas de las necesidades impulsoras que requerirán enfoques creativos para el redesarrollo en diferentes ciudades y contextos: cómo cubrir la demanda insatisfecha de vivienda que lleva a millones de trabajadores en Beijing a habitar en viviendas subterráneas; cómo financiar la infraestructura para gestionar la presión de la población en Río de Janeiro y otras ciudades de Brasil; o cómo darle nuevos usos al suelo ante la agonía derivada de un completo ajuste industrial, demográfico y fiscal en Detroit. Estos lugares son diferentes entre sí, pero todos enfrentarán desafíos similares a medida que evolucionen en las décadas futuras.

En el Instituto Lincoln somos profundamente conscientes de la necesidad de nuevas ideas y nuevas prácticas que faciliten el redesarrollo sustentable del suelo que ya se ha desarrollado o ya se encuentra ocupado. Durante el próximo año, comenzaremos a generar un emprendimiento intelectual para tratar los múltiples desafíos de la regeneración urbana, extrayendo lecciones de las medidas tomadas tiempo atrás en los Estados Unidos y en otros países desarrollados después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, buscando maneras nuevas y creativas de financiar la infraestructura para mejorar el suelo en asentamientos informales que ahogan a las ciudades en los países en vías de desarrollo, o reavivando la salud fiscal de ciudades tradicionales del acervo estadounidense, como Detroit, descubriendo las causas que provocaron la insolvencia y probando soluciones para remediarla.

Las iglesias medievales que visité durante la década de 1990 ofrecían lecciones en piedra: técnicas y materiales innovadores que permitían a los arquitectos medievales desafiar a la gravedad. Y tal vez lo que resulta más importante es el hecho de que eran monumentos al esfuerzo comunitario y al compromiso a largo plazo de las congregaciones que construyeron y sostuvieron estas iglesias durante siglos. Al fin y al cabo, la supervivencia humana podría depender de nuestra habilidad para superar, de forma similar, las fuerzas centrípetas que socavan la acción colectiva, y construir y mantener las estructuras sociales y los marcos normativos con el fin de desarrollar y redesarrollar nuestras ciudades para el bien mutuo y para la posteridad.

El acceso universal a internet de alta velocidad es un sueño generalizado en estos tiempos. Todos, desde el presidente de Google, Inc. hasta cualquiera de nosotros, lo hemos anhelado. Y la prensa tecnológica se inunda de irritadas críticas, preguntándose por qué las velocidades de banda ancha habituales en los Estados Unidos están tan retrasadas con respecto a las que existen, por ejemplo, en Corea del Sur.

Sin embargo, hace sólo cinco años este no era un tema candente. En aquel entonces, el debate (y las acciones) no era liderado por el gobierno federal o el sector privado. Los primeros en movilizarse fueron diversos municipios con un pensamiento innovador: ciudades y distritos como Chattanooga, Tennessee; Lafayette, Louisiana; Sandy, Oregón; y Opelika, Alabama.

De más está decir que los motivos y las soluciones eran variadas. No obstante, ahora que la conectividad de alta velocidad se está reconociendo como una infraestructura urbana fundamental, Chattanooga se ha convertido en un caso de estudio muy útil. El proceso por el cual llegó a autodenominarse “gigaciudad” (en referencia a la disponibilidad de conexiones a Internet con velocidades de transferencia de datos de 1 gigabit por segundo, es decir, hasta 200 veces más rápidas que la velocidad habitual de banda ancha que tienen muchos estadounidenses) comenzó con una iniciativa municipal visionaria desarrollada mediante una meditada coordinación entre el sector público y el privado. Recientemente esta medida ha comenzado incluso a mostrar efectos tangibles en la planificación y el desarrollo de la ciudad, especialmente la nueva imagen que se le está dando al centro de la ciudad, rezagado durante tanto tiempo. En resumen, Chattanooga está comenzando a responder a una pregunta crucial: Una vez que una ciudad tiene acceso a Internet de primera clase, ¿qué hace en realidad con ello?

Esta historia comienza hace más de una década, cuando EPB, la empresa de energía eléctrica propiedad de la ciudad de Chattanooga, planificaba una mejora importante en su red eléctrica. El director ejecutivo de EPB, Harold Depriest, abogaba por un plan que consistía en el despliegue de cables de fibra óptica que también pudieran usarse para el acceso a Internet. Una vez eliminados los obstáculos normativos locales, el nuevo sistema se construyó hacia el año 2010, y cada cliente de energía eléctrica de EPB en el área de Chattanooga (lo que significó prácticamente todos los hogares y negocios) obtuvo acceso a Internet de 1 gigabit. Sin embargo, había que pagar por este servicio, al igual que se pagaba la electricidad, y el precio que se estableció al principio para el acceso a la velocidad más rápida de Internet fue de aproximadamente US$350 al mes.

“Tenían muy, muy pocos clientes”, recuerda Ken Hays, presidente de The Enterprise Center, una organización sin fines de lucro que, desde el año 2014, se ha enfocado (a petición de los funcionarios municipales electos) en desarrollar estrategias en torno a lo que los habitantes de Chattanooga denominan “el giga”. Según Hays, el presidente de Lamp Post Group, una exitosa empresa de capital de riesgo dedicada a la tecnología, expresó su adhesión inmediatamente. Sin embargo, a nivel ciudadano, “no teníamos el mismo entusiasmo” que el debate sobre el acceso a Internet de 1 giga genera hoy en día. En 2010 “no había muchos buenos casos de estudio”, concluye Hays.

Sin embargo, un gran cambio estaba en marcha. El anuncio de Google Fiber (la incursión del gigante de las búsquedas en Internet en el desarrollo de infraestructura de Internet de alta velocidad) despertó nuevo interés. Además, en el año 2013, Jenny Toomey, directora de la Fundación Ford que se dedica a los derechos en Internet, ayudó a organizar una especie de cumbre para que los funcionarios de municipios como Chattanooga, Lafayette y otras ciudades pudieran reunirse y comparar notas. “Todavía era muy incipiente en ese momento”, recuerda George W. McCarthy, presidente y director ejecutivo del Instituto Lincoln y economista, quien, en ese entonces, era director de la iniciativa Oportunidad Metropolitana de la Fundación Ford. Sin embargo, según McCarthy, esa cumbre marcó el inicio de nuevas conversaciones sobre la forma en que tales iniciativas podrían hacer más competitivas y equitativas a las ciudades, así como también menos dependientes de las soluciones que provienen exclusivamente del sector privado y que, con frecuencia, consideramos más eficientes que las ofrecidas por el gobierno. “Y dos años después de esa cumbre, el tema acaba de explotar”, concluye McCarthy.

De hecho, la cumbre se convirtió en ese tipo de acontecimiento extraño que dio a luz a una nueva organización, Next Century Cities, fundada en 2014 y que actualmente posee una membresía de más de 100 municipios. Esta organización comparte las buenas prácticas basadas en un plan según el cual el acceso a Internet de alta velocidad es una cuestión de infraestructura fundamental e independiente que las comunidades pueden y deben controlar y diseñar.

Contra este telón de fondo, Chattanooga estaba tomando medidas para demostrar cómo podría aprovecharse “el giga”. The Lamp Post Group se había trasladado al centro de la ciudad y el acceso a Internet de alta velocidad era sólo el comienzo para los jóvenes emprendedores y especialistas en tecnología que deseaba atraer. “Si no tenemos opciones de vivienda, si no tenemos un espacio abierto, si no tenemos cafeterías de moda… se irán a ciudades que sí los tengan”, señala Kim White, presidente y director ejecutivo de River City Company, una organización de desarrollo sin fines de lucro.

A partir de 2013, River City propuso, mediante un plan para el centro de la ciudad y un estudio de mercado, estrategias para mejorar la accesibilidad a peatones y ciclistas, los espacios verdes y, en especial, las opciones de vivienda. Más de 600 personas participaron en el proceso de planificación posterior, el cual tuvo como meta final la revitalización (o demolición) de 22 edificios. Hoy en día, según White, la mitad de dichos edificios están en proceso de redesarrollo y se han invertido más de 400 millones de dólares en el centro de la ciudad. En el próximo año y medio se incorporarán 1.500 apartamentos al mercado de la zona del centro, además de nuevas viviendas para estudiantes y plazas de hotel. La ciudad ha ofrecido incentivos fiscales, algunos de los cuales se han diseñado con el fin de que un cierto porcentaje de las nuevas viviendas sea económicamente asequible. La ciudad también invirtió 2,8 millones de dólares en un parque en el centro de la ciudad, que representa una parte “clave” del plan para “ofrecer áreas donde la gente pueda reunirse y disfrutar del espacio público”, según señala White. Uno de los proyectos de apartamentos, el edificio Tomorrow, ofrecerá “microunidades” y un restaurante a pie de calle. “No creo que hubiéramos podido atraer estos tipos de negocios ni la curiosidad de los jóvenes” sin el empuje brindado por el aspecto tecnológico y de acceso a Internet de alta velocidad, concluye White. “Esto nos ha dado a conocer”.

Según Hays, el giga también inspiró una iniciativa respaldada por el municipio, consistente en identificar estrategias clave de desarrollo que dieron como resultado un “distrito innovador” en el centro de la ciudad impulsado por Enterprise Center. El fundamento de esta iniciativa consiste en restaurar un edificio de oficinas de 10 pisos para transformarlo en el Centro de Innovación Edney, que tendrá espacios de trabajo compartido y alojará a la sede de CO.LAB., una organización incubadora de negocios locales. La Universidad de Tennessee en Chattanooga tiene un proyecto consistente en un laboratorio de impresoras 3D en el distrito innovador; incluso se ha remodelado la oficina del centro de la Biblioteca Pública de Chattanooga, para incluir un espacio educativo tecnocéntrico.

EPB, cuya visión original de la fibra óptica puso en movimiento la idea de la gigaciudad, ya hace tiempo que ha logrado dar con una solución respecto a los precios (en la actualidad, el acceso a Internet de velocidad de 1 giga cuesta desde aproximadamente US$70 al mes) y ha atraído a más de 70.000 clientes. Desde hace poco también ofrece a los residentes de bajos recursos que reúnan ciertos requisitos acceso a Internet de 100 megabit, mucho más rápido que la mayoría de las conexiones de banda ancha disponibles en los Estados Unidos, por US$27 al mes. Además, las acciones de EPB para expandirse a las áreas adyacentes a Chattanooga que no reciben servicios se han convertido en un componente importante de las medidas más amplias que están surgiendo para desafiar las normas en muchos estados, desde Texas a Minnesota o Washington, las cuales limitan efectivamente a los municipios a la hora de ofrecer sus propias conexiones a Internet de alta velocidad.

En resumen: las cosas han cambiado mucho, tanto en Chattanooga como en otras ciudades y distritos que han impulsado el desarrollo de una infraestructura de Internet que el sector privado no estaba ofreciendo. “La mayor parte de este trabajo se está dando en este mismo momento a nivel municipal”, comenta Deb Socia, directora de Next Century Cities. “Son los alcaldes, los administradores municipales y los gerentes de sistemas los que están tomando medidas para averiguar qué necesitan sus ciudades”. Las implicaciones que esto tiene para cuestiones cívicas fundamentales como la educación, la salud, la seguridad, etc. todavía están en pleno desarrollo. Y, precisamente debido a que el debate y la planificación se están dando a nivel municipal, esta cuestión no dependerá solamente de consideraciones de mercado que favorecen lo redituable sobre lo posible. “Lo mejor de esto”, resume McCarthy, “es que se trata de una cuestión integradora, no excluyente”.

Rob Walker (robwalker.net) es colaborador de Design Observer y The New York Times.

The richness and multidimensional nature of the Lincoln Institute’s educational program is well demonstrated by the seminars, courses and lectures offered at Lincoln House recently. We are proud that the Institute is playing a significant role in helping scholars and practitioners from throughout the United States and around the world to clarify the issues and their own positions on complex land and tax policies.

In late May, Armando Carbonell, cochairman of the Institute’s Department of Planning and Development, and Harvey Jacobs, professor of planning at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, assembled a group of leading scholars to discuss the changing nature of property rights in the twenty-first century. This topic has taken a prominent place in local debates around the U.S., and the Supreme Court is regularly asked to review property rights cases. Property rights and land tenure issues are also increasingly important in many contexts around the world. In rapidly growing cities in developing countries, for example, new calls for constitutional changes seek to ensure rights for the poor.

In another arena, the Institute continues to provide training for journalists who cover land use and property tax issues. We are all aware of the significant role that journalists play in informing the public on a variety of topics, yet most journalists are by training generalists rather than specialists. Our programs are designed to provide valuable background material and resources on land use and taxation issues to inform their work. Following the seminar on property rights, Carbonell and Jacobs reviewed the key themes of that debate with an invited group of 28 journalists who spent two days at Lincoln House. This course also included presentations by Joan Youngman, chairman of the Institute’s Department of Valuation and Taxation, and Bob Schwab, an economist at the University of Maryland, on the interplay between property taxation and school finance. Rosalind Greenstein, cochairman of the Institute’s Department of Planning and Development, and John Landis, professor of planning at the University of California, Berkeley, detailed the policy concerns related to sprawling patterns of development in California and other regions.

Training practitioners continues to be another major focus of our courses and seminars. We regularly provide training for transportation planners, state and regional planning officials, community development corporation directors, and professionals in urban universities who are responsible for real estate and community development. Martim Smolka, director of the Institute’s Latin America Program, brought 23 policy makers and academics from 12 Latin America countries to examine the opportunities and pitfalls of large-scale urban developments. Finally, as part of our Lincoln Lecture Series, Anthony Vickers, the former president of the Henry George Foundation of Great Britain, presented a talk on the prospects for land value taxation in Great Britain.

Lincoln House is a busy place. We believe we are making a difference in many different ways—training a broad cross-section of scholars, educators, journalists and practitioners in land and tax policy, and providing a forum for public debate. We look forward to the new academic year that begins in July, and hope you will find a way to share this experience with us.

Seeking to reactivate discussion of regionalism in the twenty-first century, Armando Carbonell, senior fellow and director of the Lincoln Institute’s Program on Land as Common Property, and Robert Yaro, executive director of the Regional Plan Association (RPA), convened a roundtable in New York last April, in conjunction with the annual meeting of the American Planning Association (APA). Invited participants explored the extent to which the Regional Planning Association of America (RPAA) shaped the vision of twentieth-century regionalism and how that vision is still relevant today. The Institute invited Ethan Seltzer to summarize the roundtable discussions and provide his own insights about new visions for regional planning in America.

The Regional Planning Association of America (RPAA) was established in 1923 by a small, informal group of visionary planners, architects, sociologists and foresters. They laid out an agenda for building and rebuilding American cities and metropolitan regions, and for preserving rural and wilderness areas. The writings of several RPAA members, including Lewis Mumford, Clarence Stein and Benton MacKaye, have inspired students of urban planning and development for decades.

Elements of their vision were reflected in the activism of the New Deal of the 1930s, the new towns proposals of the 1960s and 1970s, and the metropolitan greenbelt and new urbanism movements of the 1990s. Despite these initiatives, RPAA’s broader vision was ignored by most twentieth-century policy makers, and many of the concerns first raised in the 1920s remain largely unresolved: the impacts of suburban sprawl on cities and countryside; how to reconcile the automobile and highways with the design of communities and regions; and the need for high-quality affordable housing.

The regional planning roundtable held last April began with the screening of the 1938 film, “The City,” which had been shown at the 1939 World’s Fair. The film features the ideas of Lewis Mumford and others who articulated RPAA’s values and visions. Many parts of the story showcased in the film have been realized: the automobile has become a dominant means of transportation; the nation’s housing has been upgraded significantly; and many open spaces have been protected.

However, there remain many unexamined ideas regarding the extent to which social problems can be “solved” by manipulating physical form, especially since the agendas of 60 years ago and today are not the same. Participants also noted that the film was naive about markets and portrayed a desire to turn back the clock. The film presented a limited vision of the regional problem, and the notion of social revolution through contact with nature still haunts us.

The film was regarded as an effective piece of propaganda and advocacy for RPAA’s vision, but today there are many voices and points of view, making such a clear-cut presentation very difficult to imagine. We now anticipate the need for regional planning to address even more diverse and complex social and economic issues: where to locate the still growing yet changing population; how to deal with NAFTA and other effects of globalization; increasing economic and regional disparities; and the whole notion of mass tourism, especially in cities. The panel discussed the need for a twenty-first century equivalent of the 1939 World’s Fair to establish a new vision and find common ground rather than to advance a single position.

Regions as Networks

Most often, regions are regarded as something in between cities and nation-states, something that exists relative to existing structures and institutions. But, regions also are shaped by the context of the host country, which introduces the notion that regions depend on networking to find their place and constituency. We can think and plan at a regional level, but we can’t always act at that level. In the last 20 years, there seems to be more confidence about the notion of strengthening regions and regarding them as evolving places. This all points to the need to take a systems approach to planning that is not too dogmatic. We need a solid regional planning process first, rather than seizing on new urbanism, urban growth boundaries or other such planning approaches as exclusive, “one size fits all,” solutions.

The roundtable participants discussed the consolidation of functions rather than institutions as a promising avenue for developing regional relationships and focusing on “what you can fix.” Regional consolidations of functions are happening in some places, but with little impact on land use or quality of life. In essence, the network approach might serve some efficiencies, but questions remain about its ability to yield results that can make the region a better or more effective place.

Nonetheless, better networks rather than new structures seem to be the avenue of choice today, and carrots and sticks from the state and federal levels could be very influential in moving regional networks along. Local governments compete more than they cooperate, and regionalists too often ignore that competition. More agents or vehicles for greater cooperation are needed.

What Would a Regional Entity Do?

How could a regional entity be formed to focus on sprawl, environmental quality, a sense of “home,” congestion, rates of change, etc.? Though crises can make things happen, congestion and sprawl do not seem to offer a particularly fruitful path to regional thinking. The lack of a creative, constructive regional vision or agenda today is telling. Do we, in fact, agree about why regionalism is important, what it ought to accomplish, and what ought to happen next? Perhaps key to the answer will be articulating what it would mean to live the regional “good life.”

We need to be able to make a case for interdependence within regions. We are all stuck in traffic but we can’t see a collective solution, and technology is only helping to make being gridlocked more bearable. We need a strong case for being a region and reinforcing a sense of mutual interest and accountability. Articulating collective versus individual interests is key, and the common chord struck by the environmental and landscape ecology movements might serve as an important unifying force. Much of what passes for regional planning is really regional engineering or regional plumbing, and stems from a basic unwillingness to address the behavior of individuals.

The world is governed at the federal/state/local levels but is lived at global/regional/neighborhood levels. How does this work? It is essential to understand the dynamics of these contrasting contexts to make regional planning a reality. The question is what government as a change agent (versus a preserver of the status quo) would look like. It can’t attack property rights or go after jurisdictions, or simply seek to create a new layer of regulation.

That leaves control of infrastructure as the key governmental tool, along with the use of the market. Perhaps, it was suggested, we ought to use the Fannie Mae approach of financing good things in the right places and a regional block grant for infrastructure. Pulling the plug on the subsidies for sprawl should be a high priority.

We also need to keep the consumer in mind and not forget about marketing. We need one good idea for what is good about regions. There is an ongoing need for community building at a region level. The key objective is, or ought to be, mutual accountability rather than merely efficiency.

Regionalism in America was born of a tremendous optimism about the future of society, and the ability of leaders, planners and others to perfect that society. Those roots are less evident in discussions of regionalism today, but should be kept in mind when considering the role for a revived RPAA. The value of a regional approach, or of embracing regionalism, must be articulated in light of the state of the nation today. Why elect to take a regional approach? What problem are we trying to solve, and how does a regional approach add value in ways that other approaches cannot?

The definition of “region” needs some rethinking. In the days of the RPAA, there were only six regions in the nation. Today, every city-suburb pair seems to be calling itself a region. Regions were always envisioned as parts of a whole, and regionalism was distinguished from its evil twin, sectionalism, by the contribution that regions made to the whole. Today we need to re-articulate the ways in which the parts work together.

The RPAA was a club, and a small one at that. The work of regionalists today occurs in a much more diverse and pluralistic environment. In fact, whereas early regional initiatives were clearly planning projects, today it’s not clear that regionalism is just a “planning thing.” Consequently, defining the scope and task for regional planning is critically important. The RPAA also was an advocate. The members had a point of view and they worked to advance it politically and, in the case of their film, popularly. A new RPAA would have to understand its role vis-a-vis advocacy. If it emerges as an advocate, could it even do planning, given the environment within which planning occurs today?

Key Themes for Future Action

Discussions of regionalism often center on governance and the structure of governance within regions. There are precious few examples of regions that have elected to either create new institutions at the regional level, or to consolidate existing institutions into larger bodies. There are, however, many examples of jurisdictions working together to advance service delivery in more efficient ways. The notion of a “network” region is emerging in practice: rather than perfecting institutions, the focus is on perfecting relationships and functions. Nonetheless, the challenge at the regional level is not primarily efficiency but developing a sense of mutual accountability. Building community and sense of place at a regional scale is a critical requirement for advancing on-the-ground regionalism. Developing new icons to represent regional territories of shared interest and responsibility is no easy task, but ought to be pursued.

Promoting an ongoing discussion of regionalism and regional planning, one that blends both applied and theoretical perspectives, is valuable and should be encouraged, but reestablishing expectations for the nature of regions and resolving differences between contexts will stand as important challenges. If the old RPAA was articulating notions of “better regions for a better nation,” today we need to discuss the role of “better regions for a better world.” There are roles for regions, regionalism and regional planning that need to be figured out, and that will happen only through moving this kind of dialogue forward.

These concerns lead to a number of possible focal points for ongoing work:

Studies of Sprawl – Sprawl is playing out at a metropolitan level, but is related to more regional and global forces. Further investigations could shed light on understanding the mechanisms that promote sprawl, regional responses and the prospects for intervening in the dynamics of sprawl.

Governance – Regional governance as a network function rather than an institutional structure can lead to understanding regions as something different than more traditional institutional forms. Further, moving from a regionalism based on efficiency to a regionalism based on mutual accountability is a critical need in the years ahead.

Regions and Regional Planning – These cornerstone concepts of the RPAA brand of regionalism need updating. Being more explicit about contemporary expectations for these terms will help to make the value of regionalism for today and the future more specific and precise.

A National Agenda for Regionalism – Currently no one is taking the lead to articulate a national agenda for regionalism. After the interstate highways, beyond smart growth and new urbanism, where are we headed? What’s next for regions, and what is the federal role?

The Film – The RPAA had their film. Can we develop a new one in light of the themes identified above? Trying to develop a film would force us to determine whether we are advocates or planners, and if advocates, what we are advocating. It would also force those involved to become more specific about areas of agreement and disagreement.

The original RPAA was a sociable club, but it also resulted in designing and building places. It published journal articles, connected with governments and presidents, and was casual and productive. Is that model realistic in the year 2000? We need to be pragmatic. We have more to do than we can currently manage. However, communicating at a higher level, focusing on ideas, does make sense. The notion of an ongoing conversation is very important, but it probably doesn’t warrant the creation of another organization.

There is a huge educational challenge here. Whether it is educating kids in schools, providing training and education for decision makers, or deliberately advancing the thinking of a network of citizens, the educational mission must be of primary concern. Perhaps the first step would be to educate ourselves through an ongoing discussion linking thinkers and doers. A good “curriculum” on regionalism also would benefit everyone working with these issues.

______________

Ethan Seltzer is director of the Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies at Portland State University in Portland, Oregon.

Cuba es un país sorprendente. La ciudad de La Habana, su capital histórica, ostenta 400 años de herencia arquitectónica. Muchas de sus áreas se encuentran en un estado de triste deterioro, pero otras, representan formas muy creativas de abordar la conservación y el desarrollo económico. Debido al enfoque en el desarrollo rural luego de la revolución de 1959, Cuba no experimentó el mismo tipo de inmigración popular del campo a las ciudades que ocurrió en otras partes de América Latina. Los desarrollos modernos se dieron en gran parte fuera del núcleo histórico de La Habana. En este sentido, las buena noticia es que la herencia arquitectónica de la ciudad todavía está en pie, pero la mala es que apenas está en pie.

Los arquitectos y urbanistas de Cuba enfrentan grandes dificultades para realizar las tareas básicas de mejorar la infraestructura y la vivienda al mismo tiempo que fomentan un desarrollo económico apropiado a su visión socialista. Están desarrollando modelos de transformación comunitaria a través de la organización local y los programas de autoayuda, y están creando modelos de “recuperación de plusvalías” en el proceso de conservación histórica y desarrollo turístico.

A través de las conexiones con el Grupo de Desarrollo integral de la Capital (GDIC), nueve profesionales del diseño ambiental viajaron a Cuba en junio para explorar los problemas de deterioro e innovación del medio ambiente construido y natural. El equipo contó con la asistencia de nueve de los once becarios de investigación Loeb de la Escuela de Posgrado en Diseño de la Universidad de Harvard en 1997-98.

Las becas de investigación Loeb para estudios ambientales avanzados se establecieron en 1970 gracias a la generosidad del exalumno de Harvard John L. Loeb. La beca anualmente otorga financiamiento de un año de estudios independientes en la Universidad de Harvard a entre diez y doce líderes en las profesiones de diseño y ambientalismo. Una tradición reciente del programa de becas de investigación es que los becarios hacen un viaje en conjunto al final del año académico, para dar solidez a las relaciones que desarrollaron durante el año, explorar juntos un ambiente nuevo y compartir sus conocimientos y experticia con otros.

Los becarios de investigación Loeb que viajaron a Cuba tienen una variedad de intereses que en conjunto conforman una muestra representativa de las profesiones de diseño ambiental:

• Charles Birnbaum, arquitecto especializado en paisajismo que aboga por la conservación de paisajes importantes.
• Toni Griffin, arquitecto preocupado por el desarrollo económico y comunitario de vecindarios urbanos.
• Pamela Hawkes, arquitecto especializada en la conservación histórica.
• Daniel Hernández, arquitecto creador de viviendas asequibles.
• Leonard McGee, líder comunitario que trabaja por la transformación y mejoramiento de las comunidades centro-urbanas de escasos recursos.
• Julio Peterson, promotor comunitario interesado en el desarrollo económico de centros urbanos de bajos recursos y países en vías de desarrollo.
• Peter Pollock, planificador urbano especializado en problemas de administración del crecimiento.
• Anne Raver, periodista interesada en la relación de la gente con su medio ambiente natural.
• Jean Rogers, ingeniero ambientalista y urbanista que se enfoca en mejorar los impactos de la industrialización en el medio ambiente.

Los becarios fueron recibidos en La Habana por el GDIC, que fue creado en 1987 como un equipo pequeño de expertos que aconsejaba al gobierno de la ciudad sobre políticas urbanas. Según Mario Coyula: “El grupo quiso desde el primer momento promover un nuevo modelo para el medio ambiente construido que sería menos imponente, más descentralizador y participativo, sensato ecológicamente y económicamente posible, en definitiva, holísticamente sustentable”.

Mario Coyula es arquitecto, urbanista y vicepresidente del GDIC. Entre él y sus colegas del GDIC han ensamblado una serie de seminarios informativos, así como recorridos de los becarios por La Habana. Además, han organizado visitas de los becarios a urbanistas y diseñadores en las ciudades de Las Terrazas, Matanzas y Trinidad.

Varias fundaciones y grupos han brindado su apoyo al proyecto: la Fundación Arca, la Fundación William Reynolds, el Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo, la Asociación de Exalumnos Becarios Loeb, y el Programa de becas de investigación Loeb de la Escuela de Posgrado en Diseño de la Universidad de Harvard. Cada becario Loeb escribirá un ensayo sobre un área de investigación relevante y su relación con las condiciones de Cuba. Éstos ensayos serán compilados y puestos a la disposición del GDIC, de la Universidad de Harvard y potencialmente de otros a través de la publicación de una revista o reporte especial.

Peter Pollock es el director de planeación comunitaria de la ciudad de Boulder, Colorado. En 1997-98 fue becario Loeb en la Universidad de Harvard y miembro visitante del Instituto Lincoln.

The Lincoln Institute is collaborating with the city of Cordoba, Argentina, on a major project to change approaches to and instruments used for physical planning in the city. Cordoba presents an especially interesting case because of its strategic location at the center of the core development area of Mercosur.

The first phase of the project was a three-day seminar held last April titled “Towards an Urban Integrated Management: Implementing a Strategic Plan for the City of Cordoba.” Its main aim was to bring together the principal “actors” in Cordoba to discuss and debate planning goals and instruments in the context of new developments in urban management.

The seminar included presentations by international experts and discussions among municipal officials, developers, business and commercial interests, non-governmental organizations and planning practitioners. The Institute played an important role in providing an open forum for the local participants to come together for the first time to discuss difficult planning and development issues and to begin the process of establishing new management policies and procedures.

Three principal themes emerged from the discussions. The first dealt with prioritizing land to be urbanized, with particular concern for equitable access to land, infrastructure, and housing for the popular sectors, as well as appropriate mechanisms to carry out integrated planning on a regional basis. The second theme addressed environmental and fiscal impacts of large commercial establishments on existing urban structures, historic districts and residential neighborhoods. The third theme focused on various actors and sectors involved in industrial development in Cordoba, with attention given to dispersal of industry, infrastructure limitations, and social and environmental costs.

In addition to giving the Cordovan participants a broad perspective on urban management issues in other cities, the seminar raised two important points: 1) that planning for development is not just about regulation or land use control, but that fiscal and taxation policies are equally important in affecting land values; and 2) that local officials must learn to assess benefits and costs of urban planning projects in order to deal effectively with private sector developers.

The seminar has already had specific impacts on collaborative commercial activities in the historic center and on improved management programs for providing new infrastructure and services while also reducing deficits. In addition, the program stimulated participants to develop an appreciation for the importance of long-term strategic planning in charting general directions for policy changes and in understanding the effects of particular kinds of development on the social and physical environment.

The Institute is continuing to work with municipal officials to help develop new management paradigms that can support more effective private/public collaborations and better analytical and planning techniques. Follow-up programs will assist policymakers and private developers (operating in both formal and informal markets) in better understanding the functioning of urban land markets and the consequences of policy changes for urban development.

The next course on “Land Market Behavior in Cordoba: Implications for the Urban Structure” will explore research on formal land markets in Cordoba, stressing the effects of economic policies and local government interventions. It will be followed by a regional seminar where experience will be shared with participants from at least three other countries. At the same time, the Institute and Cordoba officials are developing a training program directed to a broad spectrum of local and regional officials and developers, concentrating on general management, urban planning, and project preparation and implementation.

Douglas Keare is a visiting fellow of the Lincoln Institute. He has extensive experience in strategic planning for large cities in developing countries through previous research and project management at the World Bank and the Harvard Institute for International Development. Ricardo Vanella is director of the Department of Economic Development for the city of Cordoba.

Imagine two communities in the Rocky Mountain region in the late 1860s. One is located along the transcontinental railroad, the other is 100 miles to the south. Which community would come to dominate the region by the turn of the century? Counterintuitively, the latter community did. There, aggressive entrepreneurs and community leaders orchestrated the completion of a spur linking the town to the railroad and then commenced a promotional campaign on the community’s behalf. Over time, that town, Denver, flourished, while the other, Cheyenne, did not. Denver leaders did not rely on chance. Instead they mobilized public resources to pursue their vision of Denver as a major city.

As product cycles ebb and flow, populations and firms migrate, natural resources peter out and consumer tastes change, cities either adapt to their changing environments or succumb to the invisible hand of the marketplace. Local elected and appointed officials can shape their cities by deciding whether or not to implement nonmarket, city-sponsored development.

Politics is important because these city officials either respond to a tax-services imbalance or they pursue an image or vision of their city’s future, its cityscape. Although city-sponsored development might lower business costs and spur economic growth, such development is not an automatic response to changing economic circumstances. Rather, public economic development is the result of a purposive political decision and is undertaken selectively.

Mobilizing Public Capital

City governments search for an equilibrium in their relations with the external environment. Governments operate within fixed territorial jurisdictions, but capital is not similarly constrained. To avoid driving business elsewhere, officials must try to maximize services while minimizing taxes. Two factors are important to our argument: (1) efforts to restore the tax-services equilibrium are rooted in a city’s development function, and (2) the decision to mobilize a development tool has to do with the tax-services disequilibrium and is unrelated to employment and income issues.

Threats to a city’s revenue stream disrupt the tax-services balance and most assuredly trigger the search for an appropriate development policy to redress the imbalance. But for some city officials, a perceptual concern motivates their actions. They may want their city to move into a higher orbit or plane within its “system of cities,” the spatial and market area within which cities compete to provide goods and services. These city leaders hope to expand their city’s influence beyond the immediate region rather than cast its fate to the workings of the marketplace. They actively intervene in hopes their city will catapult to a higher level or regain lost status within its relevant system.

City Types

A city government’s orientation reflects both its leaders’ aspirations and its tax-services balance. We have defined four city types based on levels of economic stress and political activism to promote development. In “survivalist cities” development decisions are triggered by a tax-services imbalance. These cities experience economic and fiscal stress and employ a greater-than-average number of development tools. In “market cities” that also suffer economic and fiscal stress, officials do not implement many economic development tools but instead leave the city’s economic fortunes to the private marketplace. “Expansionist cities” are in fairly healthy economic shape, but they mobilize more economic development tools than the average city out of the desire to become a higher order city. “Maintenance cities” also enjoy economic and fiscal health, but city officials refrain from mobilizing many economic development tools because they want to control or manage growth.

Duluth, Minnesota, is an example of a “survivalist city.” It was mired in economic and social malaise after the mid-1970s shutdown of U.S. Steel and many subsequent plant closings. Unemployment was well above the national average, emigration decreased the population by nearly 16 percent in a decade’s time (1970-1982), and general fund revenues declined in constant dollars. By the early 1980s, insufficient revenues and the prospect of lower services triggered Duluth’s response to become exceptionally active in promoting itself as a business location. Development projects ranged from sprucing up the downtown business district through a storefront renovation program to involvement in constructing a several hundred million dollar paper mill.

Since the 1970s, declining manufacturing employment in the industrial belt hit Springfield, Ohio, a “market city,” particularly hard. However, city officials there have been hesitant to invest in public development because of fiscal realities and the dominant political culture, which favors limited government involvement. They clearly understand that by not risking city resources in the development process, it is possible that Springfield will “ratchet down” the hierarchy in its relevant system of cities.

In Huntsville, Alabama, an “expansionist city,” there are no reservations about using the public sector to prime the economic development pump. But unlike in Duluth, Huntsville officials are not responding to economic decline. Instead, their motivation is a vision of Huntsville as the major high-tech, regional city of the new South. To pursue that vision, the city has constructed an economic development program around extant defense installations and the aerospace industry. Huntsville markets itself as a limitless place, as a community reaching for the stars.

Santa Barbara, California, is a “maintenance city” guided by its vision as a Refuge from the Commonplace. It does not offer money or underwrite programs for commercial rehabilitations. It provides no low-interest subsidies for business. It offers no tax abatements. It has no marketing program for economic development. It conducts no industrial recruitment. There is no program in Santa Barbara to leverage private investment, nor is there a public/private partnership. City assistance or involvement in development often is nothing more than approval of a proposed project. The city’s dominant policy instrument is the comprehensive plan. Zoning variances, manipulation of the parking supply, and the imposition of fees are additional tools. The city does not promote development the way other cities do; instead, Santa Barbara molds it.

Politics Matters

The envisioned city of tomorrow is not static; it evolves in response to shifting economies and political coalitions. A city’s underlying economic base, its governing coalition, and the vision of its leaders are in constant tension with other conflicting opportunities, possibilities and visions. A change in city leadership and the governing elite, the closing or downsizing of a large firm, or a substantial change in state aid or in unfunded mandates will, among other factors, influence the vision of the city’s leaders and affect the underlying economy. These changes in vision and market adjustments, then, profoundly affect a city’s approach to economic development. The mobilization of public capital as a mechanism for achieving the vision may change as well.

When voters replaced the leadership of Boise, Idaho, with more proactive officials in the mid-1980s, for example, a new vision was one of the most obvious results. The new mayoral-led coalition talked about regional prominence, and boldly marshaled public capital in support of development projects. The city used development tools and sponsored projects that were vastly different from those of the previous regime. In effect, Boise was transformed from a “maintenance city” to an “expansionist city.”

Thus, politics plays an important role in explaining the path and direction a city chooses. Local officials may perceive a relevant orbit and then try to mobilize public capital in order to keep their city in (or move it to) that orbit. Or, they may choose to allow the workings of the marketplace to determine the city’s orbit. In either case, market forces, a city’s comparative advantage, the relative factor prices of land, labor, and capital—in short, the underlying local economy—influence these perceptions and the city’s approach to development policy.

Political leaders’ images of the good society and their perceptions of their city’s relevant orbit are the foundations for a city’s economic development functions and for the political decision to mobilize public capital. City investment in, and regulation of, development projects is the most effective means by which a city controls and molds its growth in pursuit of its future cityscape.

_________________

Ann O’M. Bowman is professor in the Department of Government and International Affairs at the University of South Carolina, Columbia. Michael A. Pagano is professor of political science at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. This article is excerpted in part from their book Cityscapes and Capital: The Politics of Urban Development (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995).

Julie Campoli, a landscape architect, land planner and principal of Terra Firma Urban Design in Burlington, Vermont, and Alex MacLean, a photographer, trained architect and principal of Landslides Aerial Photography in Cambridge, Massachusetts, have worked collaboratively for more than two years to research and document the phenomenon of residential density. They have developed a catalog of more than 300 aerial photographs that illustrate a wide range of density in both established and newer neighborhoods around the country. The Lincoln Institute has supported their work, which has been presented through lectures and courses and is available as a digital working paper titled “Visualizing Density” on the Institute’s website.

How did you join forces to begin this work on photographing and measuring density as a visualization tool for community planning?

We both have a longstanding interest in using visual images to illuminate land use issues. For years Alex has recorded human imprints on the land quite eloquently through his aerial photography. I am constantly experimenting with graphic techniques to communicate design ideas and to express how we shape the built environment. In our first collaboration, Above and Beyond (written with planner Elizabeth Humstone, APA Planners Press, 2001), we employed aerial photographs, many of which were digitally enhanced, to show how and why landscapes change over time. Our intent was to help readers understand the land development process by representing it in a very graphic way.

As we completed that book, we could see that fear of density was emerging as a major obstacle to the type of compact, infill development we were advocating. It became apparent to us that, although people liked the idea of channeling growth into existing areas, they seemed to balk at the reality. We saw many instances where developers trying to build higher-density housing met stiff resistance from a public who equated density with overcrowding. In many communities density is allowed and often encouraged at the policy level, but it is rejected at the implementation stage, mainly because the public has trouble accepting the high numbers associated with dense development.

We became interested in this ambivalent attitude and wanted to look more closely at those density numbers. It seemed to us that a preoccupation with numbers and a lack of visual information was at the heart of the density problem. We thought that some of the graphic approaches we used in Above and Beyond might help people understand the visual aspects of the density issue. We wanted to translate the numbers that were associated with various density levels into mental images, specifically to show what the density numbers mean in terms of real living places.

Why is density such a difficult concept to understand and visualize?

Anything is difficult to visualize if you have only a few pieces of information from which to conjure your mental image. Density is most often represented as a mathematical ratio. It is the number of units divided by the number of acres, or the gross floor area of a building divided by the size of its site. These measurements describe a place as a numerical relationship, which only takes you so far in being able to imagine it. Such information fails to convey the “look and feel” of density and often creates confusion in the community planning process.

An individual’s response to the issue of density often depends on past experience and the images that happen to be part of one’s visual memory. Someone might associate higher-density numbers with an image of Boston’s historic Beacon Hill neighborhood or central Savannah, but high-density development is more frequently imagined as something negative. This is the gap between density as it is measured and density as it is perceived. One is a rational process. The other is not.

What does your density catalog illustrate?

The catalog contains aerial photographs of neighborhoods in several regions of the country. They are arranged according to density level, ranging from exurban houses on 2-acre lots to urban high-rise apartments at 96 units per acre. Each site is photographed from a series of viewpoints to show its layout, details and context. The catalog can be used to compare different neighborhoods at the same density or to see how the design and arrangement of buildings changes as density levels rise. We included a wide array of street patterns, building types and open spaces, demonstrating how the manipulation of these components can create endless variations on neighborhood form.

What becomes apparent to anyone looking at the catalog is that there are many ways to shape density, and some are more appealing than others. We don’t try to suggest which images are “good” or which are “bad”; we let the viewer draw his or her own conclusions. Our hope is that after viewing the catalog people will not only have a clearer idea of what 5 units or 20 units per acre looks like, but, more important, they will be able to imagine attractive, higher-density neighborhoods for their own communities.

How do you measure density?

In the first phase of our project we focused on residential density as measured in units per acre. Using the 2000 U.S. Census, it is possible to find the number of housing units for any census block in the nation. We photographed neighborhoods across the country and calculated the number of units per acre for each site by determining the number of units from the census data and then dividing by the acreage.

Units-per-acre is a measurement commonly used in local zoning and in the review of development projects. It is familiar and understandable to the average person dealing with local density issues and provides a relatively accurate measure for primarily residential neighborhoods. In calculating the density of mixed-use or commercial sites, floor area ratio is a more precise measurement. We plan to extend our analysis to mixed and other uses with this measurement in the next phase of our work, to see how various design approaches can accommodate higher densities.

What is the connection between density and design

Design plays a profound role in the success of compact development. Although it seems that the smart growth movement is confronting a density problem, it’s really more of a design challenge. It is not density but design that determines the physical character and quality of a place. This was made clear to us when we found examples of existing neighborhoods with widely varying character yet the same density. One area might have a sense of spaciousness and privacy, while another appears cramped. Different design approaches can dramatically affect one’s perception of density. This defies the commonly held belief that fitting more people into a smaller area inevitably results in a less appealing living environment. Higher densities, especially on infill sites, pose a greater challenge to designers, but they do not dictate a certain type of form or character.

As we measured the density of existing neighborhoods and assembled the catalog, we began to see specifically how design accommodates density. The most appealing neighborhoods had a coherent structure, well-defined spaces and carefully articulated buildings. They were the kinds of places that offered a lot of variety in a small area. If planners and developers want to promote density, it is essential to identify the amenities that make a neighborhood desirable and to replicate them wherever possible. Interconnected neighborhoods with high-quality public, private and green spaces, and a diversity of building types and styles, will win more supporters in the permit process and buyers in the real estate market than those neighborhoods without such amenities.

How can planners, developers and community residents use the catalog to achieve the principles of smart growth in their local decision making to design new neighborhoods?

The catalog can be used as a tool to refocus the density discussion away from numerical measurements and onto design issues. In our workshops we ask participants to examine several photographs from the catalog showing nine neighborhoods that have a similar density but very different layouts. In articulating their impressions of the places they see, what they like and why, they are forced to think about how the design—the pattern of streets, the architecture or the presence of greenery—affects the quality of the place.

In a town planning process, if residents participate in a similar exercise, they will take the first steps toward a community vision for compact neighborhoods. They can see that the same design principles behind those preferred places can be used to create appealing dense neighborhoods in their own communities. Once they develop a vision for what they want, they can use the planning and regulatory process to guide development in that direction.

Developers of urban infill housing often find themselves on the defensive in the permit process, arguing that density does not necessarily equal crowding. The catalog provides images that can help bolster their case. More importantly, it offers developers, architects and landscape architects visual information on historic and contemporary models of compact development. They can use the photographs to inform their design process, instilling features of the best neighborhoods into their own projects.

What are some of your conclusions about why understanding density is so important to the planning process?

Density is absolutely essential to building strong communities and preventing sprawl. It’s also a growing reality in the real estate market. Instead of denying it or barely tolerating it, we can embrace density. The trick is to shape it in a way that supports community goals of urban vitality and provides people with high-quality living places. At this point though, we seem to be a long way from embracing density. It may be a deep cultural bias or simply that many Americans are unfamiliar the benefits of density, such as more choices and convenience to urban amenities. And in many cases, they have not been shown that neighborhoods of multifamily homes, apartments and houses on small lots can be beautiful and highly valued. We hope that our residential density project and the digital catalog can provide some material to fill the void.

Julie Campoli is principal of Terra Firma Urban Design in Burlington, Vermont, and Alex MacLean is principal of Landslides Aerial Photography in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The case for thinking and acting regionally has been made in this country for well over 100 years. After surveying the West in 1890, John Wesley Powell published an essay titled “Institutions for the Arid Lands,” in which he articulated his vision that the most appropriate institutions for governing western resources are commonwealths defined by watersheds. He reasoned that “there is a body of interdependent and unified interests and values, all collected in [a] hydrographic basin, and all segregated by well-defined boundary lines from the rest of the world. The people in such a district have common interests, common rights, and common duties, and must necessarily work together for common purposes” (Powell 1890, 114).

Powell’s prescription to organize around watersheds was largely ignored in the formative years of the settlement and development of the West (Stegner 1953). His vision of watershed democracies, however, is part of a larger story of how American citizens and communities have attempted to govern public affairs on the basis of regions. Some 30 years after Powell’s writing, Lewis Mumford, Benton MacKaye and others created the Regional Planning Association of America in 1923 to focus largely on cities and municipal regions, and to a lesser extent on rural and wilderness landscapes. Although the history of regionalism is characterized by a mix of successes and failures, there is renewed interest throughout North America in addressing land use, natural resource and environmental problems on a regional basis (see Derthick 1974; Seltzer 2000; Foster 2001).

Today, regional initiatives emerge in response to a growing number of land use and related issues that transcend political and jurisdictional boundaries and often involve business and nonprofit organizations. These issues are most often framed as a crisis or threat, and less so as an opportunity: sprawl across city, county and even state boundaries; water supply for growing communities; water quality protection; wildlife habitat; management of traffic corridors; economic development; and taxation. Effective solutions require people to work across boundaries (jurisdictions, sectors and even disciplines) on a regional scale that corresponds to the challenge or opportunity, as in the New York–New Jersey Highlands region.

Existing institutions, however, rarely have the legitimacy and credibility to convene the plurality of stakeholders interested in or affected by these regional issues. In response, policy makers will occasionally mandate some form of regional collaboration as the most logical way to address trans-boundary issues. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), for example, are required to develop regional transportation plans in order to secure access to federal transportation dollars. Some landscape-based efforts, such as the Adirondack Park Commission and the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, also fall into this category. In these types of cases, policy makers mandate regional collaboration when it is apparent that responding within jurisdictional boundaries is ineffective or threatens the integrity of key resources central to community identity and prospects.

When policy makers are slow to act, or fail to act, stakeholders may become frustrated and ultimately realize that if anything is going to happen citizens need to step forward, with or without government participation. Thus, regional initiatives emerge as much from the bottom up as the top down. When people inhabiting a common place develop a shared recognition that acting together is the best way to address a regional crisis, threat or opportunity, or simply to achieve economies of scale, we see regional initiatives arise more organically, bubbling up from a shared sense of destiny or fate.

In light of the growing interest in acting regionally, this article offers a framework to help organize our thinking about regionalism, and to begin to identify and promote best practices for regional collaboration. No single model or approach will solve all regional problems. By looking at regional efforts around the country, however, it is possible to identify a common set of goals and principles for initiating, designing and sustaining regional efforts.

Shortly before his death, John W. Gardner, a long-time advocate for regional approaches to solving public problems, argued that there can be “no more regionalism for its own sake. We now need pragmatic regionalism with a purpose” (Parr et al. 2002, 3). While the specific objectives of regional initiatives vary, the overarching purpose of most regional initiatives is to integrate three goals (see Figure 1).

Regional Leadership

To achieve these goals, regional initiatives require a certain type of leadership. In contrast to exercising authority by taking unilateral action (a command-and-control model of leadership), people who initiate regional efforts cross jurisdictions, sectors, disciplines and cultures to forge alliances with diverse interests and viewpoints. These “regional stewards” invite people to take ownership of a shared vision and values, and they work hard to bridge differences and nourish networks of relationships.

Regional stewards share power and mobilize people, ideas and resources. They also provide integrity and credibility, and show a high tolerance for complexity, uncertainty and change. They emphasize dialogue and build relationships by respecting the diversity of ideas and viewpoints. Respect builds trust, which in turn fosters communication, understanding and eventually agreement.

Regional stewards tend to be committed to the long-term well-being of a particular place. They apply the same entrepreneurial spirit and persistence to solving regional challenges that business entrepreneurs apply in building a business; they are civic entrepreneurs. They see the need for more connected regional approaches to address social, economic and environmental issues; they are integrators. They build support from leaders, citizens, interest groups and policy makers toward a shared vision; they are coalition builders. Regional stewards hold themselves and each other accountable to achieve tangible results and sustained outcomes.

Regional stewards may be local elected or appointed officials, university or college professors, local business executives, program officers at philanthropic foundations, staff or board members of nonprofit organizations, and community activists. Regardless of their background or station in life, they share a common belief in the need to work across boundaries to accomplish the goals of regional stewardship (Parr et al. 2002).

Principles for Regional Collaboration

To foster livable communities, vibrant economies and healthy environments through regional collaboration, we have distilled seven principles from the literature and our own experiences. These principles are not necessarily new, but they embody practices that, when used in a regional context, create the conditions for successful collaboration.

1. Make the Case. Working across boundaries is tough. There is tremendous inertia in existing political arrangements, so the reasons for working regionally must be clear and compelling. Regional collaboration emerges when a core group of leaders recognizes a crisis, threat or opportunity that is not likely to be adequately addressed through existing institutional arrangements. Depending on the unique needs and interests of a region, initiatives might be organized to achieve one or more objectives (see Figure 2). Far from being mutually exclusive, these objectives reinforce one another and suggest a natural progression from knowledge- and community-building to advocacy and governance.
2. Mobilize and Engage Key Participants. To be effective, regional initiatives must engage the right people. If the objective is to advocate for a particular interest or outcome, a different group of people will be required than if the objective is to build agreement on a regional vision or resolve a multiparty dispute among people with different viewpoints. In the latter types of situations, the regional forums should be as inclusive as possible, seeking people who are interested in and affected by the issue, those needed to implement any potential recommendation (i.e., those with authority), and those who might undermine the process or outcome if not included.
3. Define the Region Based on People’s Interests. Regions vary in size and shape. Some are defined by a sense of place while others address a key function or purpose, such as a watershed, transportation corridor or ecosystem. How people define a region naturally flows from their interests and concerns. This variation in scale suggests that regionalism is at once a unifying theme and an adaptive concept. However it is defined, the region must engage the hearts and minds of people and appeal to shared interests. The precise physical boundaries of a region are often less important than the process of clarifying the core area of interest. Boundaries can be soft and flexible, adaptable to changing needs and interests.
4. Foster Mutual Learning. Regional efforts often begin by providing opportunities to learn about the region and how to think and act across boundaries. Building this common understanding fosters a sense of regional identity, and often the will to act. Regional forums should enable participants to jointly develop and rely on the best available information regardless of the source, thereby creating a greater sense of ownership in the region’s story. Regional efforts should consider a variety of scenarios and options to shape the future of the region, and all participants should have an equal opportunity to share views and information.
5. Forge Collaborative Decisions. Since most regional initiatives do not have authority per se, they must create coalitions and forge collaborative decisions to foster social change and shape public policy. Collaboration is a social learning process where people share knowledge, ideas and experiences through cooperative, face-to-face interaction. The premise of collaboration is that if the right people come together in constructive ways with good information they will produce effective, sustainable solutions to the challenges and opportunities they face. Genuine collaboration occurs when people listen to each other, consider the rationales or interests behind competing viewpoints, and seek solutions that integrate as many interests as possible. Collaborative decision making may or may not result in consensus or unanimous agreement, but it allows participants to create effective coalitions to get things done.
6. Take Strategic Action. The objectives of a regional collaboration should determine what people do. Experience suggests that early successes help build momentum and trust. It is important to develop the capacity to (1) communicate your message, make it relevant and compelling, and use multiple strategies to inform, educate and mobilize people (e.g., media, public events, publications, Web sites); (2) link your effort to established decision-making systems by seeking access to power rather than power itself; and (3) monitor, evaluate and adapt by developing indicators of performance and clarifying who will do what, when and how.

   Being strategic and deciding what to do require an understanding of how regional action supplements efforts at local, state and even national levels. The desired outcomes for a region are often contingent upon many seemingly disconnected decisions. Regional strategies need to recognize these contingencies up front, and create opportunities to build bridges, coordinate actions and do things that otherwise would not get done.

7. Sustain Regional Action and Institutionalize Regional Efforts. Assuming there is a need to sustain a regional partnership, the key challenge is to keep stakeholders engaged and to recruit more leaders. Since the region is no one’s community, building a sense of regional identity, responding to the needs and interests of partners, and capturing and sharing accomplishments are critical to sustain any regional effort. To be effective, regional initiatives should be both idealistic and opportunistic. People’s attention will naturally devolve to more established, usually local, institutions if the mission of the regional effort is not consistently and continuously reviewed, revised, renewed and adapted to address new information and opportunities.

   Regional stewards should also explore the value of integrating regional efforts into existing institutions or designing new ones. Partners need to identify and develop the capacities to sustain the regional initiatives: people, resources (e.g., money and information) and organizational structure. Given the source and diversity of regional initiatives, it is not surprising that different organizational models have emerged to meet particular challenges.

Figure 2.

Objectives of Regional Initiatives

Build knowledge and understanding

• Conduct research
• Acquire information

Build community

• Inform and educate citizens and leaders
• Promote mutual understanding
• Shape public values
• Stimulate conversation
• Foster a common sense of place

Share resources

Solve specific problems

• Provide input and advice
• Advocate for a particular interest or outcome
• Resolve disputes

Govern

• Make and enforce decisions.

Source: McKinney et al. 2002.

Tools for Regional Collaboration

To foster effective regional initiatives and support regional stewards, the Lincoln Institute offers the two-day skill-building course Regional Collaboration, usually in the spring. The Institute also convenes Regional Collaboration Clinics in selected regions, where we work with diverse groups of people to address the regional challenges and opportunities they face. Recently, we completed clinics in the New York–New Jersey Highlands and the Delaware River Basin, both regions experiencing tremendous growth and development.

The Alliance for Regional Stewardship is in the process of creating RegionLink, an online consultative network for regional practitioners.

Our approach to regional collaboration is experimental. We are interested in working with and learning from people involved at different regional scales and on different issues. Please contact us to share your story and suggest how we might improve the framework presented here to better reflect the practice of regional stewardship.

Matthew McKinney is director of the Public Policy Research Institute, The University of Montana, Helena

John Parr is executive director of the Alliance for Regional Stewardship, Denver, Colorado.

Ethan Seltzer is chair of the Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon.

A longer version of this article, including case studies, is available from the authors.

References

Derthick, Martha. 1974. Between nation and state: Regional organizations of the United States. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Foster, Kathryn A. 2001. Regionalism on purpose. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

McKinney, Matthew, et al. 2002. Regionalism in the West: An inventory and assessment. Public land and resources law review, 101–191. Missoula: The University of Montana School of Law.

Parr, John, et al. 2002. The practice of stewardship: Developing leadership for regional action. Denver, CO: Alliance for Regional Stewardship, March.

Powell, John Wesley. 1890. Institutions for the arid lands. The Century Magazine (May-June): 111–116.

Seltzer, Ethan. 2000. Regional planning in America: Updating earlier visions. Land Lines (November): 4–6.

Stegner, Wallace. 1953. Beyond the hundredth meridian. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

In recent decades conservation easements—promises to restrict land development—have become enormously popular, but now they are in trouble. News reports have created concern that some easements are little more than tax avoidance schemes with no public benefit. In response, the IRS has stepped up audits, and some members of Congress want to curtail deductions for easements, or even eliminate them altogether.

Neither approach is desirable. Tax laws governing easements are so vague that the IRS seldom prevails against abusive appraisals. The meat-axe approach, meanwhile, would eliminate many beneficial easements yet fail to address serious, long-term problems. Fortunately, there are better answers. A set of simple reforms would ensure public accountability in easement creation, appraisal, and enforcement.

Few anticipated today’s problems when Congress enacted tax benefits for easements in 1980. Then conservation easements were relatively rare. But today there are more than 1,500 local and regional land trusts holding almost 18,000 easements—double the number of five years ago—covering over five million acres. And that doesn’t count thousands of easements held by federal, state, and local governments and by national organizations such as The Nature Conservancy and the American Farmland Trust. The public investment in direct expenditures and in tax deductions is difficult to estimate, but clearly substantial.

Despite this, most states have no standards governing the content of conservation easements. Nobody even knows where all the easements are, let alone their price in lost tax revenue and enforcement costs. Virtually no state ensures that land trusts have the capacity to manage the easements they hold. Few land trusts have the funds to enforce or defend just one easement in court, and challenges are certain to mount as land passes to new owners, economic incentives to develop property grow, and land subject to easements is subdivided.

Almost no states have measures to protect the public interest when land trusts—many created in the last two decades—dissolve, as some inevitably will, or when landowners attempt to terminate or amend existing easements. A recent survey by the Land Trust Alliance, a voluntary standard-setting organization, found that an overwhelming majority of land trust representatives fear that the easements they hold may not withstand the test of time.

The remedy must begin with transparency. Every state should have a comprehensive public registry of easements, and opportunity for public comment on how proposed easements fit overall developmental policies and priorities. Individual appraisals should be public and subject to closer scrutiny. It also would help to standardize easement terms. Their great variability complicates efforts to value them and to determine whether they merit their public subsidy. States should spell out procedures enforcing easements when land trusts fail, and for ensuring a public voice when landowners or easement holders seek to terminate or amend easements. That’s only fair. Conservation easements are financed with public money to achieve a public interest in the long-term preservation of open space. Failure to protect this defeats the very purpose of using public resources to create them in the first place.

These changes may not be politically popular. Some will object to increasing the role of government, and others will protest that transparency may discourage landowners from donating easements. Fortunately, these fears already have been put to an empirical test. Massachusetts has led the nation with a system of mandatory public review and approval of conservation easements at both the state and local levels for nearly four decades. Far from stifling the easement movement, government supervision has strengthened it. In fact, the Bay State has more conservation easements than almost any other state. With easements under close scrutiny in the media and losing support in Congress, this approach offers a model for reform.

For more background and analysis on this topic, see the recently published Lincoln Institute report, Reinventing Conservation Easements: A Critical Examination and Ideas for Reform>/I>, by Jeff Pidot, http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/pub-detail.asp?id=1051.