A proud outpost of America’s Industrial Revolution, Johnstown, Pennsylvania, survived the Great Flood of 1889, when a 40-mph wave swept the city into the Conemaugh River. Johnstown rebuilt itself into a dynamic city teeming with factories and steel mills. Yet what the flood couldn’t kill, a changing economy nearly has.

In the space of a generation, Johnstown has hemorrhaged 40 percent of its population and seen its job base disintegrate–joining the growing ranks of U.S. industrial cities teetering on the brink of terminal illness. They are becoming places without purpose, experts say, ill-prepared for a new economic era except as recipients of transfer payments and warehouses for the poor, the aged, the infirm and, in big cities, the violently deviant. “Johnstown is a place where wealth has moved out, where there is no middle class and where the town frantically searches for a magic solution to stay alive,” said anthropologist Bruce Williams of the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown.

As the Information Age unfolds, urban scholars see a disturbing new set of forces converging viselike on Johnstown and many U.S. cities. While the problems of a New York City or a Detroit command popular attention, smaller cities such as Johnstown–those with populations of 25,000 to 100,000–might be suffering most from wrenching economic changes. No longer are place and distance such vital factors. The new economy is driven by technological changes that allow those with means to live and work largely where they want. New suburbs are still the number one choice for both business and residential developers seeking large plots of cheap land.

Struggling for Relevance

Many old industrial cities, meanwhile, struggle for relevance. Their residents lack the training for–and access to–the modern work force. New offices and industries require less labor. Isolation and segregation of the urban poor feed a cycle of despair. Advantages such as a coast, river or rail line matter less. With dwindling public investment and little or no market for their services or products, scores of these older cities can’t nurse themselves back to health.

“If a city lacks the basics for economic viability, what does it have left except some type of massive support by the federal government?” said Dr. Irving Baker, a retired political scientist at Southern Methodist University. “Those cities . . . are expendable,” he said.

This phenomenon links aging central cities, decaying inner-ring suburbs and exploding Mexican border cities. One of every five U.S. cities larger than 25,000 people has a poverty rate greater than 20 percent–a prime symptom of urban decay, an analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data indicates. Dallas and other Sun Belt cities are repeating the trajectory of distressed Northern cities, where poverty rates soared and the concentration of poor worsened.

As the debate continues over Washington’s shifting budget role, some experts wonder whether one result might be disposable cities, like the 19th-century ghost towns that predated federal bailouts. Solutions seem elusive, the experts agree, because neither government-run urban renewal nor private enterprise alone appears equal to the task.

“I think we are in a struggle for America’s heart right now,” said Peter C. Goldmark, president of the Rockefeller Foundation, whose programs support efforts to revitalize communities. “Because I don’t think America can live if its cities are dying.” Neal Peirce, an urban affairs commentator and writer, noted: “As I see it, we have a civilization to defend. If we really come to the point of writing places off as cities and neighborhoods of no return, we have reached the point of giving up what made this country the civilization I think many of us really have much pride being in.”

Disturbing Trends in Distressed Cities

Analysis by The Dallas Morning News–based on more than 125 interviews, a review of hundreds of reports and creation of a computer-generated index of 148 distressed communities–documented a number of alarming urban trends:

The United States remains an urban nation. But of all urban dwellers, 60 percent now live in suburbs — not in the nation’s 522 central cities.

Concentrations of the poor are increasing in all cities, including Sun Belt cities. In 1968, 30 percent of the nation’s poor lived in cities. Now the figure is 42 percent.

Jobs are leaving cities in massive numbers and are not being replaced. About 70 percent of new jobs, most requiring extensive technical training, are being created outside cities. Although the number of poor Americans dropped in 1994 for the first time in four years, the gap between rich and poor continued to widen as low-skill, low-wage jobs disappeared, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Many older cities are burdened with foul physical sites created for a smokestack economy that no longer exists. Mayor Freeman Bosley said St. Louis’ dramatic population decline–a 50 percent loss since 1950–relates directly to his city’s inability to reclaim contaminated properties, known as brownfields. “Right now, there is no way the city of St. Louis can attract business to abandoned industrial sites,” he told a congressional panel recently. “The existing cleanup standards and related costs exceed the property’s value, and there are no compensating incentives.”

The revival of rural America comes at the expense of many cities. Following a decade of decline, three in four rural counties gained population between 1990 and 1994. Most of the gain was caused by migration from cities, not urban encroachment.

Few places have been able to reverse these trends once decline sets in. Said Brian Berry, an internationally recognized professor of urban geography at the University of Texas at Dallas: “To be blunt and brutal about it, there’s very little that policymakers can do [about these cities] short of bringing in the aspirins and making people feel a little better.”

The success stories of recent years have enjoyed some attractive geographic asset or been the target of a sustained intentional effort. Hoboken, New Jersey, once a rundown manufacturing hub, capitalized on its waterfront view of the Manhattan skyline. It is now a trendy suburb for young couples with children. Cleveland, Pittsburgh and St. Louis have stabilized after shedding population for decades. Yet even though each has poured tens of millions into successful downtown revitalization efforts, many neighborhoods remain deeply troubled.

Smaller cities such as Johnstown dominated The News’ list of distressed communities. “Small and medium-sized cities don’t have the great urban assets to draw on,” said David Rusk, former mayor of Albuquerque, New Mexico, and now an urban consultant in Washington, D.C. “They don’t have the legacy of parks, museums and recreational facilities that big cities have. And, most of all, they don’t have the old downtown core.”

What can be done to assist these communities? Gary Orfield, a professor of education and social policy at Harvard University, said, “If I were a mayor, my number one effort would be to try to help people to understand how serious these problems are and to convince the people in the rest of the society that if they don’t share in the solution, they are going to be sharing in a much, much more radical problem in the future.”

______________

Chris Kelley is urban affairs writer at The Dallas Morning News. This article is excerpted from a four-part series titled “Whither the Cities?” which ran December 3-6, 1995. A series reprint is available by calling The News at 1-800-431-0010, ext. 8472, or on the Internet at http://www.pic.net/tdmn/tdmn.html. Kelley participated in the Lincoln Institute’s 1995 Land Policy Forum for Journalists.

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.

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 1 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

Las políticas de gestión del suelo urbano y el funcionamiento de los mercados de suelo urbano han pasado a ocupar un papel más importante en el debate de políticas públicas urbanas, así como en el trabajo académico y las agendas de desarrollo en varios países de esta región. En los últimos diez años, la red de académicos y funcionarios apoyada por el Programa para América Latina del Lincoln Institute of Land Policy ha desarrollado seminarios, promovido investigaciones, organizado debates públicos, asesorado a tomadores de decisión, y publicado los resultados de su trabajo sobre estos temas tan pertinentes. Los miembros de dicha red se reunieron en Buenos Aires en abril de 2004 para evaluar sus actividades y preparar esta declaración sobre los temas centrales de políticas del suelo, los cuales son claves para la búsqueda de programas de desarrollo urbano más sostenibles en el futuro.

En América Latina, las políticas urbanas y las formas de funcionamiento de los mercados de suelo tienden a producir ciudades económicamente desiguales, política y socialmente excluyentes, espacialmente segregadas y ambientalmente no sustentables. Entre las consecuencias de dichas políticas están los altos y a veces irracionales precios de la tierra, producto, en parte, de la ausencia de efectivas formas de gestión de la tierra urbana.

La situación actual

Los mercados de suelo son estructuralmente imperfectos. Sin embargo, el funcionamiento de los suelos urbanos depende de relaciones sociales, que a su vez son afectadas por los resultados de las operaciones de dichos mercados. Esta conexión entre las relaciones sociales y los mercados de suelo hace a la vez posible y necesario influenciar dichos mercados. Lejos de neutralizar dichas imperfecciones, muchos de los instrumentos y políticas implementados más bien han contribuido a distorcionar aun más el funcionamiento del mercado de tierra urbana. Más aún, las políticas han mantenido las ‘reglas del juego’ inmobiliario urbano inalteradas y aparentemente intocables.

Una lectura más amplia del problema revela que, más que una racionalización inconsecuente, la disfuncionalidad de los mercados de suelo es el resultado de un conjunto de oportunidades perdidas para el desarrollo socialmente sostenible de las ciudades latinoamericanas. Sin embargo, existen oportunidades prometedoras e innovadoras para superar los cuellos de botella evidenciados en las políticas inadecuadas y destructivas del Estado, la dificultad de financiar el desarrollo urbano, y su capacidad deficiente de gestión.

Uno de los resultados negativos más sobresalientes de la situación actual es el relativo peso, importancia y persistencia de los mercados informales de suelo urbano caracterizado por prácticas exclusionarias, la entrega ilegal de títulos, la carencia de servicios urbanos y otros problemas. La desregulación en lugares donde habría que regular (las periferias pobres) y la sobre-regulación de las áreas ricas y reguladas, así como la privatización sin criterios sociales, son todos factores que contribuyen a impulsar estos procesos, especialmente la concentración espacial de la pobreza urbana. Si bien la mayoría de los programas de regularización están bien intencionados, la mayoría de ellos provoca efectos perversos, entre ellos los elevados costos del suelo para los sectores más pobres.

La planificación urbana y las normas urbanísticas tradicionales han perdido importancia y efectividad como instrumentos para orientar el desarrollo urbano, especialmente los mecanismos existentes para la gestión del suelo. Esta situación abre, no obstante, espacios de oportunidad para pensar en formas innovadoras de gestión y planificación urbana. En algunos lugares, ya se ha aprovechado dichas oportunidades a través de nuevos experimentos y propuestas que han provocado intensos debates al cuestionar los enfoques tradicionales.

En este marco, la creación de nuevas formas de gestión de la tierra tiene un requisito ineludible: repensar la tributación de la tierra urbana incorporando nuevos métodos y estar abierto a considerar instrumentos fiscales alternativos, entendidos como herramientas para reorientar el actual desarrollo de las ciudades y disciplinar el funcionamiento del mercado de tierra urbana. Dichas herramientas deben ser diseñadas no sólo para captar fondos para la construcción de infraestructura y la prestación de servicios urbanos, sino también para contribuir a una distribución más equitativa de los costos y beneficios, especialmente aquellos asociados con el proceso de urbanización y el retorno de las plusvalías de la tierra recuperada a la comunidad.

Propuestas de Acción

Reconocer el rol indispensable del Estado. Es impresdindible que el Estado (tanto a nivel local como nacional) tenga un rol activo en la promoción del desarrollo urbano. El nivel local debe comprometerse más con los cambios estructurales en la gerencia del suelo, y el nivel nacional debe fomentar dichas iniciativas locales activamente. El gobierno no debe ignorar su responsabilidad de adoptar políticas en torno al mercado de suelo urbano que reconozca el valor estratégico de la tierra y las características particulares del funcionamiento de sus mercados, para impulsar un uso sostenible del suelo al incorporar objetivos sociales y ambientales y beneficiar a los segmentos más vulnerables de la población urbana.

Quebrar la compartamentalización entre las autoridades fiscales, normativas y jurídicas. La falta de cooperación entre autoridades locales es responsable por importantes ineficiencias, políticas poco efectivas, desperdicio de recursos escasos y poca transparencia pública. Más aún, las acciones incongruentes de diversas autoridades públicas dan señales confusas a los agentes privados y crean incógnitas, si no oportunidades, para que los intereses especiales puedan modificar planes gubernamentales. La complejidad y escala de los desafíos planteados por la realidad social urbana de las ciudades latinoamericanas requieren la toma de acciones multilaterales por parte de numerosos actores para incidir en el funcionamiento de los mercados de tierra urbana (formales e informales), asegurando de esta manera el logro de objetivos conjuntos: la promoción de un uso sostenible y justo de este recurso, la reducción de precios, la producción de suelo con servicios, el reconocimiento de los derechos al suelo por los pobres urbanos, y una repartición más equitativa de las cargas y los beneficios de la inversión urbana.

Estas autoridades también deben articular las políticas de desarrollo urbano con las políticas de tributación del suelo. Deben promover una nueva visión con una legislación urbanística que diferencie el derecho de propiedad del derecho de edificación y del uso del suelo, comprendiendo que las plusvalías generadas de los derechos de construcción no pertenecen exclusivamente a los propietarios de la tierra. Los gestores urbanos también deben también diseñar mecanismos creativos a través de los cuales las plusvalías se pueden usar para producir tierra urbana equipada para los sectores sociales de menores ingresos, compensando de esta manera las desigualdades urbanas.

Reconocer los límites de lo posible. Transformar los marcos regulatorios actuales que rigen la utilización de la tierra urbana exige desarrollar un nuevo pensamiento urbanístico y jurídico que reconozca que las desigualdades urbanas y la exclusión socio-espacial son un fenómeno intrínseco al predominante modelo de desarrollo de las ciudades. Incluso en los marcos de los modelos vigentes, hay grados de libertad no despreciables para políticas más socialmente responsables y transparencia del gobierno. Las regulaciones y normas urbanísticas deben considerar la complejidad de los procesos de valorización del suelo y asegurar el cumplimiento de los principios efectivos tradicionales tales como aquellos que limitan la capacidad de las agencias gubernamentales para disponer de recursos públicos o prohibir el “enriquecimiento sin causa” de los propietarios privados.

Revertir círculos viciosos. Se necesitan alternativas a los programas de regularización para romper el círculo vicioso de reproducción de la pobreza que los actuales programas de regularización perpetúan. Es importante reconocer el carácter paliativo de dichos programas y la necesidad de integración de las políticas urbanas, de vivienda y de tributación de la tierra. La dependencia de los subsidios a la vivienda, aunque inevitable, puede quedar anulado si no se cuenta con mecanismos que impidan que estos subsidios se traduzcan en aumentos de los precios del suelo. Los funcionarios de las ciudades deben priorizar la generación de oferta de tierra equipada sobre los programas de regularización ya que el derecho a la vivienda es un derecho social a ocupar un hábitat viable y con dignidad. También es importante entender que la baja producción de suelo servido per se contribuye a la retención de la oferta y por consiguiente a su alto precio, afectando así todos los aspectos del desarrollo urbano.

Además, las soluciones individuales (tales como procesos de titulación predio-por-predio o la entrega de subsidios caso por caso a familias individuales) son en última instancia más onerosas para la sociedad que las soluciones colectivas y más amplias que incorporan otros valores agregados, como la construcción de espacios públicos, la inversión de infraestructura y otros mecanismos que fortalecen la integración social. Muchos países latinoamericanos han sido testigos de programas de subsidios habitacionales, muchas veces con el apoyo de agencias multilaterales, que no consideran o menosprecian el componente suelo. Tales programas buscan suelo público rápidamente disponible o simplemente ocupan suelo en las áreas intersticiales de la ciudad. Tal desinterés en una política de suelo más amplia compromete la replicabilidad, expansión y sostenibilidad de estos programas de vivienda en una escala más amplia.

Repensar los roles de las instituciones públicas y privadas. La gestión de la tierra, dentro de una gran diversidad de intervenciones urbanas – desde la producción en escala masiva de suelo con servicios para los pobres hasta las operaciones de redesarrollo urbano mediante grandes proyectos, pasando por las intervenciones del tipo ‘face-lift’ o los proyectos de recuperación ambiental — obliga a pensar en las más variadas formas de intervención de parte de las instituciones públicas responsables del desarrollo de las ciudades y en diferentes modalidades de asociación público-privada. La utilización de las tierras vacantes y la flexibilización de usos e intensidades de ocupación pueden jugar un papel crucial siempre que tales proyectos cumplan con las orientaciones estratégicas de las instituciones públicas, sean sujetas a la contraloría ciudadana, e incorporen una visión compartida y participativa del desarrollo urbano.

La ejecución de proyectos demostrativos como El Urbanizador Social en Porto Alegre, Brasil, el proyecto de vivienda Nuevo Usme y la legislación sobre la recuperación de plusvalías de Bogotá, Colombia, constituyen ejemplos de esfuerzos sensibles y creativos que reconocen la importancia de una adecuada gestión de la tierra urbana y de un nuevo pensamiento sobre el papel de la tierra, en particular del potencial del valor del suelo como instrumento para promover un desarrollo más sostenible y equitativo para los pobres de nuestras ciudades.

Un pensamiento creativo y balanceado también queda de manifiesto en proyectos conjuntos de capital público y privado en La Habana, Cuba, con plusvalías capturadas a través de la mejoría de áreas históricas densamente pobladas.

Potencializar el papel de la tributación de la tierra en el financiamiento público para promover el desarrollo urbano. Los gobiernos nacionales, estaduales o provinciales y locales deben compartir la responsabilidad por la promoción del impuesto predial como un mecanismo idóneo y socialmente aceptable para el financiamiento y promoción del desarrollo urbano. El impuesto predial no se debe aplicar con criterios generalizados, sino que debe ser sensible a las ciudades latinoamericanas que tienen un fuerte legado de desigualdades económicas y socio-espaciales. Pueden existir buenos argumentos para gravar a todos los terrenos con una tasa más alta que las edificaciones, de forma racional y diferenciada, en particular en los terrenos periféricos sujetos a la especulación urbana y las tierras ofertadas ex-ante a los sectores sociales de menores ingresos, (asegurándose que su pago contribuye, además, a la construcción de ciudadanía de estos sectores). Y como ya se aseveró, es esencial crear instrumentos impositivos innovadores y adecuados a cada realidad y otras modalidades para captar las plusvalías generadas.

Educar a los actores en la promoción de nuevas políticas. Todos los actores involucrados en estos procesos, desde los jueces a los periodistas pasando por los académicos y por supuesto los funcionarios públicos y sus mentores internacionales, requieren contar con formación y capacitación en profundidad sobre el funcionamiento de los mercados y la gestión de la tierra urbana para lograr estos objetivos. Es indispensable identificar los “campos de resistencia mentales”, particularmente en el pensamiento urbanístico, económico y en las doctrinas jurídicas, que constituyen obstáculos que hay que superar. Debemos reconocer, por ejemplo, que existe y opera un “derecho informal” que legitima social, si bien no jurídicamente, muchas transacciones sobre la tierra y crea redes y espacios de solidaridad e integración. Es urgente realizar acciones para introducir estos temas y propuestas en las agendas políticas en los distintos niveles gubernamentales, los partidos políticos, las organizaciones sociales, la academia y los medios de comunicación social.

One of the characteristics that makes working on land policy in Latin America so fascinating is the ever-present contrast between the characteristics that are common throughout the region and the anomalies that make each country’s relationship with land unique.

When the 2007–2008 class of Loeb Fellows from Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design met for the first time in May 2007 to discuss options for the study trip that would conclude a year at Harvard the following spring, we quickly agreed on a number of criteria. We were looking for a place where change was happening now; a place where a visit five years before or hence would be a different experience; a place dealing with significant environmental, transportation, and housing challenges; a place looking for ways to preserve some of its past while moving into the future; and a place where it was possible to see the role that outside designers and consultants were playing. Most of all, the Loeb Fellows were looking for a place where they could be inspired by the leadership and vision they would experience. China quickly moved to the top of the list of places to be considered.

Over the last several years, growing public attention has centered on the fallout from the subprime lending debacle—an unprecedented event that has resulted in massive foreclosures and widespread housing vacancy in what had been the perennially growing Sunbelt (Goodman 2007; Leland 2007). Across the southern United States, from Atlanta, to Fort Meyers, to Phoenix, massive new housing developments are largely unoccupied while older housing is abandoned due to foreclosure. Cities in the Sunbelt now exhibit housing vacancy rates akin to those observed in former industrial Rustbelt cities.

This situation leads to two critical questions: Can Sunbelt cities manage the land use changes that this unstable (and unpredictable) economic market has created, while still maintaining at least the status quo for remaining residents? Are these changes providing new planning opportunities for urban sustainability?

In our work with the Lincoln Institute, we conducted an empirical study to begin to answer those questions (Hollander et al. 2010). The United States Postal Service (USPS) regularly releases datasets that provide information on occupied housing units for each zip code. We were able to obtain household residential delivery data for all zip codes in the lower 48 states for three time periods: the beginning of the real estate boom (February 2000); the peak of the real estate market (February 2006); and a time of high foreclosures and significant decline in real estate markets (February 2009).

The key indicator employed in our study was derived from the USPS dataset: occupied housing units. The USPS data lists how many housing units received mail during a given month in each zip code. When no one is receiving mail at a location, it is considered vacant. After 90 days of vacancy, the USPS no longer lists the unit as active and, for our purposes, removes it from the occupied housing unit list.

Following a methodology developed by Hollander (2010), we noted changes in occupied housing unit density from one period to the next. It was possible to analyze this because zip code boundaries remained constant in our study sample. We focused on broad shifts in occupancy in a given zip code as being indicative of widespread vacancy and abandonment.

Two time intervals were selected for analysis: February 2000 to February 2006, and February 2006 to February 2009. The first period corresponds with the housing boom years, and the second period with the slowing of the boom into the foreclosure crisis. Change for each time interval and each zip code was calculated by subtracting the total count of households at the end of each interval from the count at the beginning.

Data Tabulation, Mapping, and Analysis

In addition to comparing national indicators of household change between the two periods, each dataset was separated into urban, suburban, and rural areas. Urbanized Areas, as defined by the United States Census, provided boundaries for our urban areas. Areas between the Urbanized Area and the Metropolitan Statistical Area boundary lines were considered suburban, and areas outside of Metropolitan Statistical Areas were considered rural.

For each of these regions and for both time intervals, we analyzed the following factors for both declining and gaining zip codes:

• number of zip codes with a net decline or gain in housing occupancy;
• total square mileage within those zip codes;
• total net housing loss (or gain) for all declining (and gaining) zip codes; and
• percentage of the total housing units lost (or gained) in declining (or gaining) zip codes.

The data were also mapped in three categories to display which zip codes were losing and gaining housing units for each time interval. Zip codes that had a net loss of 30 or more housing units were mapped as “losing,” those that gained 30 or more units were mapped as “gaining,” and those that lost or gained up to 29 units were considered as having no significant change.

Two measures of spatial autocorrelation—Global Moran’s I and a Univariate Local Indicator of Spatial Association (LISA)—were used to explore spatial clustering of USPS’s housing unit occupancy change data and thus identify broad areas that were impacted most severely. In this analysis, the GeoDA software package was used to run the Global Moran’s I and Univariate LISA tests, with results shown only for zip code clusters with significance at 0.01 for the Global Moran’s I test and 0.05 for the LISA test.

Four possible results are derived from the Univariate LISA test, in which “high change” refers to an increase in housing occupancy of more than 30 units in a zip code and “low change” refers to a decrease of more than 30 housing units.

1. High-high clustering: high change zip codes surrounded by high change zip codes

2. Low-low clustering: low change zip codes surrounded by low change zip codes

3. Low-high clustering: low change zip codes surrounded by high change zip codes

4. High-low clustering: high change zip codes surrounded by low change zip codes

The high-high and low-low results indicate local clustering, while the high-low and low-high results indicate outliers or “islands” (Anselin 1995).

Findings

This analysis of the USPS occupied housing dataset revealed a number of trends that provide a spatial and statistical context for understanding the foreclosure crisis and numerous paths for further investigation. We had anticipated finding significantly more zip codes with a decline in occupied housing in the 2006–2009 period than the 2000–2006 period. Though the latter period did have 16.4 percent more declining zip codes than the former period, this increase was not as high as expected given the assumption of a boom vs. bust comparison.

However, when the dataset was separated into urban, suburban, and rural areas, much more distinctive trends were evident (tables 1 and 2). Suburban areas registered 42.8 percent more declining zip codes in the latter (2,333) than the former period (1,634) and rural zip codes registered 13.8 percent more declining zip codes in the latter (2,189) than in the former period (1,924), whereas urban areas had only 1.9 percent fewer declining zip codes in the latter period (2,084 versus 2,124).

Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the occupied housing unit gains and losses during both periods. The 2006–2009 interval was marked not only by an increase in the size and number of declining (red) zip codes but a slowing of growth in previously expanding areas, as indicated by the increase in no-change (yellow) zip codes in many previously expanding regions. Decline also became more prevalent in new areas. The upper Midwestern states (Michigan, Wisconsin, Northern Illinois, and Minnesota) and the Sunbelt region (including Phoenix, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area, New Orleans, and the outskirts of Florida’s coastal cities) showed noticeable increases in declining zip codes. In contrast, declines in the Great Plains, Mississippi River corridor, western Pennsylvania, and the Pacific Northwest were either less pronounced or reversed in the latter period.

The results of the Global autocorrelation tests indicated spatial clustering existed in the dataset. Not surprisingly, the LISA analysis found declining clusters prevalent in regions that had high percentages of declining zip codes, generally in both intervals (figures 3 and 4). However, it was surprising that fewer low-low (declining) clusters were found in the 2006–2009 period. The 2000–2006 period shows low-low clusters, particularly in the Great Plains states, the Mississippi River corridor, and western New York and Pennsylvania. Despite having more total declining zip codes, less low-low clustering occurred in the 2006–2009 period. However, clustering did occur in new territory including the upper Midwest, South Florida, New Orleans, the Southwest, and California.

Application of the Findings

Since completing the working paper on which this article is based, its findings have influenced further on-the-ground research. Widespread instances of decline in metropolitan areas in the Sunbelt led to more targeted research in cities shown to be among those most severely impacted by the recession of the late 2000s. Three cities are examined as case studies by Hollander (2011): Phoenix, Orlando, and Fresno (figures 5, 6, and 7).

In Phoenix, a fire-hot real estate market led to widespread overbuilding of housing in recent years. Developers converted farms in the Laveen neighborhood into housing subdivisions, in some cases finishing only half of them. In Orlando, inner city neighborhoods that had experienced rebirth in the mid-2000s are stricken by widespread foreclosures today, leading to arson and high vacancy levels. Many of the grand older houses of Fresno are now overrun with weeds and decay as demand for housing has plummeted in this center of California’s agricultural industry. With jobs scarce, people are fleeing former boomtowns and leaving behind a new type of vacancy and abandonment. In these cities and others, entire blocks that had been fully occupied now have half or more of the housing stock unoccupied.

Additionally, the number of new declining zip codes found in Metropolitan Statistical Areas in this study raises more specific questions about how the recent recession has impacted different parts of the country. This finding challenges the belief that urban cores are most prone to decline while suburban growth will continue in perpetuity.

This shift in declining neighborhoods from urban to suburban areas spurred another related study that broke metropolitan regions down into central cities, inner ring suburbs, and outer ring suburbs (Zinder 2010). It used statistical metrics to compare trends within those subsets of the metropolitan region and added another round of evidence that suburban decline is becoming more pervasive in most regions of the country.

Zinder found more new declining zip codes in all suburban regions during the recent recession than in the previous period and determined that outer ring suburbs sustained the largest increase of new zip codes with a net decline in housing occupancy. In contrast, the total number of declining zip codes in central cities decreased. This study also provided additional support for the regional trends reported here showing particularly deep impacts in southwestern cities and outer ring suburbs in the Midwest, South, and Northeast.

Concluding Remarks

The findings from this research effort indicate that the face of declining cities and regions in America has begun to change. Though many areas previously hit by economic downturns have continued to feel their impacts, decline is no longer limited primarily to older manufacturing towns, urban cores, and declining rural farming communities. Places that had prospered in more recent times, including Sunbelt cities and remote suburbs, have begun to see declines in occupied housing stock as well and were, in fact, the places hit hardest by the subprime lending crisis. It is important to note that housing abandonment (i.e., a drop in occupied housing unit density) is one manifestation of neighborhood change, but it is only part of a larger story of metropolitan growth and decline. We focus here on those neighborhoods in decline, but in the future we will be attuned to growing neighborhoods as well.

Our research located some statistically significant clusters of zip codes experiencing home abandonment in recent years. The next question to answer is: What social processes and factors explain this clustering? In future phases of this research, we plan to examine how changes in occupied housing density have been dispersed throughout major Census-defined Urbanized Areas and begin to employ advanced multivariate statistical techniques to understand the key attributes associated with clusters of decline.

Should current trends persist in years to come, planners and policy makers will need to be better prepared, perhaps by looking to models adopted by other communities to build upon existing assets while embracing population decline. Understanding these complex dynamics will help community leaders come to terms with the challenges their cities and regions face. This article provides an introduction to a methodological approach to identify these trends in nearly real time to help quantify impacts on a given zip code, city, or region.

References

Anselin, Luc. 1995. Local indicators of spatial autocorrelation–LISA. Geographical Analysis 27:93–115.

Goodman, Peter S. 2007. This is the sound of a bubble bursting. The New York Times. December 23.

Hollander, Justin B. 2010. Moving towards a shrinking cities metric: Analyzing land use changes associated with depopulation in Flint, Michigan. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research 12(1):133–151.

Hollander, Justin B. 2011. Sunburnt cities: The great recession, depopulation, and urban planning in the American Sunbelt. London/New York: Routledge.

Hollander, Justin, Colin Polsky, Dan Zinder, and Dan Runfola. 2010. The new American ghost town: Foreclosure, abandonment, and the prospects for city planning. Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Leland, John. 2007. Officials say they are falling behind on mortgage fraud cases. The New York Times. December 25.

Zinder, Daniel H. 2010. Through the rings: A study of housing occupancy declines across major urbanized areas in the United States. Medford, MA. Tufts University.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks go to Nick Giner for his contributions to the spatial autocorrelation analysis used in this research. Much of the methodological explanation is based directly on his work on the spatial distribution of lawns in Massachusetts.

About the Authors

Justin B. Hollander is an assistant professor in the Department of Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts, and a research scientist at the George Perkins Marsh Institute at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts.

Colin Polsky is an associate professor at the Graduate School of Geography and associate dean for Undergraduate Research & Active Pedagogy at Clark University. He is a geographer specializing in the human dimensions of global environmental change.

Dan Zinder is a recent graduate of masters degree program in Urban and Environmental Planning at Tufts University. His research interests include land use policy, declining cities, GIS, and sustainability.

Dan Runfola is a Ph.D. student at Clark University. His research interests include remote sensing, GIS, land change science, and vulnerability.

Siqi Zheng es profesora asociada del Centro Hang Lung para Bienes Raíces y subdirectora del Departamento de Gestión de Construcciones de la Universidad Tsinghua en Beijing, China. Se especializa en economía urbana y mercado inmobiliario de China, en particular en estructuras espaciales urbanas, ciudades verdes, oferta y demanda de vivienda, dinámica de los precios de vivienda y políticas de vivienda de interés social.

Sus proyectos de investigación innovadores y diversos han sido respaldados por instituciones de investigación internacionales como el Banco Mundial, el Banco de Desarrollo Asiático, el Centro de Crecimiento Internacional de la Escuela de Economía de Londres y varios departamentos del gobierno Chino, incluyendo la Fundación Nacional de Ciencias de China, el Ministerio de Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano-Rural y la Agencia de Estadísticas Nacionales de China.

La Dra. Zheng recibió su doctorado en economía urbana y economía de bienes raíces de la Universidad Tsinghua y ha realizado investigaciones posdoctorales en economía urbana en la Escuela de Graduados de Diseño de la Universidad Harvard. Es fellow de investigación tanto en el Centro de Desarrollo Urbano y Política de Suelo de la Universidad de Pekín-Instituto Lincoln como en el Centro de Desarrollo Industrial y Gobernanza Medioambiental de la Universidad Tsinghua.

La Dra. Zheng es también vicesecretaria general del Congreso Inmobiliario Chino Global. Ha ganado premios como el Homenaje Posdoctoral Homer Hoyt (2010) y el Premio a la Mejor Publicación de la Sociedad Norteamericana de Bienes Raíces (2005). También es miembro de las juntas editoriales de Journal of Housing Economics e International Real Estate Review.

Land Lines: ¿Cómo llegó a asociarse con el Lincoln Institute of Land Policy y sus programas en China?

Siqi Zheng: Tomé conocimiento del Instituto Lincoln cuando realicé mi investigación posdoctoral en la Universidad Harvard en 2005-2006. Me incorporé al Centro de Desarrollo Urbano y Política de Suelo de la Universidad de Pekín-Instituto Lincoln (PLC) como fellow de investigación poco después de que se fundó en 2007. Desde entonces me he involucrado de lleno a las actividades de investigación del PLC, como la realización de proyectos, dirección de proyectos de investigación, revisión de propuestas de investigación y participación en conferencias. Recibí una beca de investigación internacional del Instituto Lincoln en 2008-2009, junto con mis colegas Yuming Fu y Hongyu Liu, para estudiar las oportunidades de vivienda urbana en varias ciudades de China. Ahora lidero el equipo del PLC que realiza investigaciones de relevancia política en temas como el análisis del mercado de vivienda y políticas de vivienda de interés social.

Land Lines: ¿Por qué es tan importante para el futuro de China el estudio de la economía urbana y el mercado de la vivienda?

Siqi Zheng: China está experimentando una rápida urbanización, a una tasa de alrededor del 50 por ciento en 2011, pero se espera que ascienda al 70 por ciento entre los próximos 10 a 20 años. Hasta 1,5 millones de inmigrantes internos se mudan a las ciudades en China todos los años. Este rápido crecimiento urbano ofrece beneficios económicos potencialmente muy grandes, ya que las ciudades ofrecen muchas mejores oportunidades para comerciar, aprender y especializarse en una ocupación que le ofrece al individuo una mayor oportunidad de alcanzar sus metas de vida.

No obstante, la rápida urbanización también impone potencialmente grandes costos sociales, tales como la contaminación y congestión, y la calidad de la vida urbana sufre de la tragedia fundamental de recursos colectivos. La investigación en economía urbana estudia estos temas y trata de encontrar una manera de maximizar las economías de aglomeración y al mismo tiempo minimizar las deseconomías de congestión. Esto es crucial para el futuro de China, porque la urbanización es el motor del crecimiento chino.

El sector de la vivienda es una clave determinante tanto para las dimensiones cuantitativas como cualitativas del crecimiento urbano. Junto con la dimensión cuantitativa, cada habitante de la ciudad necesita un lugar para vivir. La oferta de vivienda tiene influencia importante en el tamaño general de la ciudad y su costo de vida, y por lo tanto el costo de mano de obra. Junto con la dimensión cualitativa, las comunidades urbanas y barrios dinámicos crean interacciones sociales intensas. El efecto secundario de estas actividades reduce el costo de aprendizaje y contribuye a mejorar el capital humano.

Las viviendas para personas de bajos ingresos son un importante problema político en China. La desigualdad económica está creciendo y los precios de las viviendas son muy altos en las principales ciudades de China, de manera que los hogares de bajos ingresos se enfrentan a graves barreras económicas respecto a la adquisición de viviendas. Durante años, el gobierno de China ha ignorado la oferta de viviendas de interés social, pero recientemente ha comenzando a comprender que es crucial contar con políticas bien diseñadas de viviendas para personas de bajos ingresos para generar oportunidades de crecimiento urbano más inclusivas para todos los residentes.

Land Lines: ¿Cómo enfoca usted el estudio de la economía urbana y el mercado de la vivienda en China?

Siqi Zheng: Estoy realizando estudios entre ciudades y dentro de las ciudades sobre la intersección de la economía urbana y la economía medioambiental. A medida que la movilidad de mano de obra entre ciudades aumenta, China se está moviendo hacia un sistema de ciudades abiertas. En el marco de referencia de diferenciales compensadas, uso los precios inmobiliarios a nivel de ciudad para deducir la disposición de los propietarios a pagar por servicios urbanos, como una mejor calidad del aire, más espacios verdes y oportunidades educativas. Mi conclusión básica es que los hogares urbanos en China valoran la calidad de vida. A medida que los residentes urbanos se van enriqueciendo con el tiempo, su deseo de vivir en ciudades limpias y con bajo riesgo aumenta.

Dentro de la ciudad, examino las interacciones espaciales entre trabajo y vivienda: dónde vive la gente, dónde trabaja y cómo elige su modelo para viajar de su casa al trabajo. Uso datos de encuestas de hogares y de transacciones inmobiliarias para modelar estos comportamientos, ya que el patrón básico de la forma urbana está determinado por las elecciones individuales. Estos comportamientos individuales (“bolas de nieve”) también tienen implicaciones importantes en las interrelaciones entre el uso del suelo, el transporte y el medio ambiente urbano, porque la cantidad de vehículos está aumentando, y el aumento de kilómetros recorridos en los vehículos se ha convertido en un factor de contaminación importante en las ciudades chinas.

También estudio la dinámica del mercado inmobiliario y las políticas de viviendas para personas de bajos ingresos. Nuestro equipo de Tsinghua construyó el primer índice de precios hedónicos con control de calidad, utilizando datos de 40 ciudades chinas. Mis coautores y yo estimamos la elasticidad de ingresos a partir de la demanda de vivienda y la elasticidad de precios a partir de la oferta de vivienda, y examinamos los determinantes de dichas elasticidades. Usando microdatos, investigamos cómo la oferta de suelo y de vivienda y las inversiones públicas afectan las dinámicas de precios y cantidades en el mercado de viviendas urbanas. Presto gran atención a las elecciones de viviendas de los hogares de bajos ingresos y los inmigrantes rurales. Basándome en mi estudio empírico de comportamientos usando microdatos, exploro los tipos de políticas urbanas y de vivienda que pueden mejorar la posición de los grupos necesitados tanto en los mercados de vivienda como de trabajo.

Land Lines: ¿Qué desafíos cree que afrontará China en este campo en la próxima década?

Siqi Zheng: El mayor desafío es cómo conseguir una transición exitosa hacia la sostenibilidad. El rápido crecimiento económico de China en los años recientes se basó fundamentalmente en la exportación y se benefició de los bajos costos de mano de obra, suelo y regulación. Los desastres ecológicos y fricciones sociales que han ocurrido en muchos lugares de China son una señal de que la estrategia actual no es sostenible en el largo plazo.

Los dirigentes políticos deberían reformular las políticas urbanas en una variedad de maneras. Deben levantarse las barreras institucionales que todavía permanecen a la movilidad de la mano de obra. Se deben establecer correctamente los precios de las externalidades negativas debidas a las actividades de consumo y producción urbana (como la contaminación y la congestión), para que el comportamiento de los individuos sea coherente con la solución social óptima. También se tendrán que resolver los problemas de desigualdad de ingresos y desigualdad espacial. Es necesario realizar una mayor inversión en capital humano. La vivienda desempeña un papel primordial, porque es el mayor activo de la unidad familiar y también afecta al acceso a oportunidades urbanas y a la calidad de las interacciones sociales.

Land Lines: ¿Cuáles son algunas de las implicaciones políticas potenciales de esta investigación sobre el mercado de vivienda?

Siqi Zheng: La mayor parte de mi trabajo es un análisis empírico con microdatos, así que me concentro en los incentivos y las elecciones de los individuos, empresas y gobiernos. También analizo cómo estas opciones determinan la forma urbana, la calidad de vida local, el mercado laboral y el mercado de la vivienda. De esta manera podemos crear parámetros clave que den soporte al diseño de políticas por parte de los dirigentes. Por ejemplo, identifico las ciudades con distintas condiciones de oferta y demanda de viviendas, y sugiero que las autoridades deberían ofrecer opciones distintas de política de vivienda para personas de bajos ingresos. Las ciudades con un inventario de viviendas abundante podrían usar instrumentos por el lado de la demanda, como vales para vivienda, pero aquellas que no tienen viviendas suficientes deberían usar instrumentos por el lado de la oferta, como la construcción de más viviendas de interés social.

Land Lines: ¿La experiencia de China en el desarrollo del mercado de la vivienda se puede compartir con otros países en vías de desarrollo?

Siqi Zheng: Sí, porque muchos países también enfrentan situaciones difíciles en sus sectores de vivienda. Algunos de los desafíos comunes son cómo albergar a innumerables inmigrantes rurales en las ciudades, cómo brindar viviendas económicas a una creciente cantidad de personas de bajos ingresos; dónde y cómo proporcionar estas viviendas y, a medida que las ciudades crecen geográficamente, cuáles son las políticas adecuadas de urbanización y las estrategias de inversión en infraestructura que pueden generar un crecimiento urbano eficiente e inclusivo. Por medio de las conferencias y publicaciones de investigación producidas por el Centro de la Universidad de Pekín-Instituto Lincoln, las experiencias de China ya están proporcionando lecciones para otros países en vías de desarrollo.

Land Lines: ¿Puede describir algunos ejemplos de ofertas de vivienda en el sector de la vivienda informal?

Siqi Zheng: Algunos países como Brasil, India y China tienen muchos inmigrantes internos de escasos recursos que viven en asentamientos informales. Los gobiernos locales tienen muy poco incentivo para proporcionar servicios públicos en esos lugares, porque las mejoras, como agua limpia e infraestructura de alcantarillado, simplemente estimularían una mayor inmigración.

Chengzhongcun (pueblo urbano) es un tipo de vivienda informal típica de las grandes ciudades chinas. Representa un equilibrio entre la demanda de los inmigrantes por viviendas de interés social y la oferta de vivienda disponible en las villas que están siendo invadidas por la expansión urbana. Las altas tasas de delitos, la infraestructura y servicios inadecuados y las pobres condiciones de vida son sólo algunos de los problemas de los pueblos urbanos que amenazan la seguridad y la administración públicas. Mi investigación en Chengzhongcun muestra que los gobiernos locales al principio miraron con simpatía esta vivienda informal de bajo costo porque podía reducir los costos de mano de obra y por lo tanto contribuir al alto crecimiento del PIB en sus ciudades. No obstante, la baja calidad de la interacción social y la falta de servicios públicos básicos no proporcionan una manera de vida sostenible para los inmigrantes rurales de escasos recursos.

A medida que el sector industrial va evolucionando a actividades económicas de gran destreza, los gobiernos locales deberían considerar de qué manera mejorar la calidad del capital humano, en vez de concentrarse en la cantidad de mano de obra barata. Esto puede proporcionar un incentivo para mejorar las viviendas informales y transformarlas en viviendas formales, o para ofrecer viviendas de interés social a estos inmigrantes para que puedan acceder a más oportunidades urbanas y mejorar sus destrezas. Este proceso de transición está ocurriendo en China actualmente, y se extenderá pronto a otros países en vías de desarrollo que pueden beneficiarse de la experiencia de China.

Otro ejemplo es el papel de la oferta de viviendas en el crecimiento urbano. Muchos estudios ya demuestran que la oferta de viviendas puede respaldar o restringir el crecimiento urbano, porque el tamaño y el precio del inventario de viviendas afectan a la oferta de mano de obra y al costo de vida. En los países en vías de desarrollo, la oferta de suelo y vivienda se ve afectada por las regulaciones y el comportamiento de los gobiernos en mayor medida que en los países desarrollados. El diseño de políticas de oferta de vivienda se tiene que adaptar al crecimiento urbano futuro para todos los sectores de la sociedad.

He escrito muchos documentos de trabajo sobre estos temas y contribuido al libro, China’s Housing Reform and Outcomes del Instituto Lincoln (2011), editado por Joyce Yanyun Man, directora del Centro de la Universidad de Pekín-Instituto Lincoln.

Stephanie Pollack, associate director of the Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University, noticed something seriously amiss when she analyzed the results of a survey on the public transportation needs of lower-income residents in Massachusetts. The survey asked respondents to indicate their main mode of transport, and there were the traditional choices like taking the train or the bus. But there was no box to check for what turned out to be the most common means of getting around: Dozens of respondents had written in “someone else’s car.”

For Pollack, the discovery underscored the difficulties of matching transportation systems to realities on the ground as well as the need for better metrics and engagement to satisfy the true needs of those who use public transportation. As part of a project called The Toll of Transportation, the Dukakis Center sought to determine how residents get where they need to go in such cities as Lynn, Worcester, Springfield, and East Boston. But “someone else’s car” was not a category recognized in standard transportation data collection. “We measure equity in education and health care, but not in transportation,” Pollack told writers and editors gathered for the Journalists Forum on Land and the Built Environment, in Cambridge, March 28 to 29, 2014. “We have no concept of how a transportation system would be ‘fair.’”

The theme of the forum was infrastructure—who it’s for, how to plan and pay for it, and why we need smarter investments for 21st-century urban environments. It was the seventh year of the annual two-day gathering for journalists, hosted by the Lincoln Institute, the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University, and Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design (GSD).

Pollock also shared research on transit-oriented development (TOD)—a policy increasingly encouraged by cities through zoning reform and financial incentives. The data revealed some troubling outcomes in terms of equity and transit use: The higher-income residents who move into TOD areas, which rapidly become expensive places to live, don’t tend to use the transit; whereas residents who do use transit must move farther from the stations, to more affordable neighborhoods—a displacement that raises the costs and complexity of their commutes. In a third of TOD sites studied, ridership actually went down after new development went in.

In another presentation, Judith Grant Long, associate professor of urban planning at the GSD, looked at mega-events, such as the World Cup and the Olympics, which also inspire cities to invest billions in infrastructure. There is little evidence of a payoff in terms of permanent jobs, revenues, or even branding, she said. The International Olympic Committee could help cities plan better and deliver more compact, “right-sized” games, Long suggested. Barcelona, Rome, Tokyo, Munich, Montreal, and London all have had some success in transforming Olympic villages for long-term use that benefits a broader population after the games are over.

Public-private partnerships, private roadway building and operation, and tolling systems have marked recent innovations in the financing of infrastructure, said Jose A. Gomez-Ibanez, professor at the GSD and the Harvard Kennedy School. But, arguably, since the completion of the interstate highway system, the federal role has been unclear; the challenge is showing the public who benefits from projects, in order to justify how they are paid for, he said.

Governments are going to have to become smarter and more targeted in building future transportation and other types of infrastructure, especially as metropolitan areas seek to become more resilient in the face of the inevitable impacts of climate change, several presenters said.

Rich Cavallaro, president of Skanska USA Civil, Inc., cited the D+ grade in the latest “report card” on infrastructure issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers. That group estimates that the nation needs to spend $1.6 trillion more than currently planned to bring infrastructure across all sectors to an acceptable level. In contrast to hugely expensive projects, such as floodgates similar to those on the Thames River in the United Kingdom, Cavallaro spoke in favor of more achievable steps, such as equipping subway tunnels with giant inflatable plugs, raising up grates and power substations, and designing parking garages and similar facilities so they can be flooded and then cleaned up when the waters recede.

Several nations are better at coordinating disaster relief and recovery efforts, according to surveys by Robert B. Olshansky, professor of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and Laurie A. Johnson, principal at Laurie Johnson Consulting|Research. Building long-term resilience as part of that process was the subject of the recent Lincoln Institute report, Lessons from Sandy.

Susannah C. Drake, principal at dlandstudio pllc, detailed creative approaches such as retooling the waterfront apron of lower Manhattan and capping sunken highway trenches through urban neighborhoods. The nation cannot simply seek to rebuild what existed before a disaster—especially now that advances in technology make infrastructure less expensive, compared to the massive investments of the New Deal. Marcus M. Quigley, principal at Geosyntec Consultants, explored how smart technology and dynamic, intelligent controls can transform major facilities. “We can change the way our infrastructure acts on our behalf,” he said. “Every time we repave a street or a sidewalk, we’re burning an opportunity.”

The dark side of smart infrastructure was also discussed. Ryan Ellis, postdoctoral research fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School, addressed the complex challenge of security and infrastructure, revealing the cloak-and-dagger world of cyber attacks, vulnerabilities, and zero days. Hackers routinely hijack emails and can sabotage our power grid, air traffic control, and financial systems. The key, Ellis said, is to “design for security now,” because “it’s hard to bolt on after the fact.” For planners engaged in building smart cities, he said, security must be part of the conversation.

The interconnected impacts of global urbanization require a broader framework for urban infrastructure, outside the “box” of individual metropolitan areas, said Neil Brenner, professor of urban theory at the GSD. “We need to update our cognitive map of urbanization,” he said. Pierre Bélanger, associate professor of landscape architecture at the GSD, predicted that working with nature—and even allowing certain abandoned areas to return to a wild state—would eclipse the traditional approach of controlling water and putting streams in pipes.

Political leadership is the key to reinventing and designing new infrastructure in the urban environment, said landscape architect Margie Ruddick. Fortunately, mayors have become some of the most innovative leaders to take on these kinds of challenges, said David Gergen, senior analyst at CNN and director of the Center for Public Leadership at the Harvard Kennedy School. Mayors may not routinely become president, but they are practical problem solvers at center stage, said Gergen, who was the guest speaker at the forum’s traditional evening gathering at the Nieman Foundation’s Walter Lippmann House. “Cities are where the experimentation is taking place,” he said.

The political difficulties of transforming the urban landscape were also noted by Janette Sadik-Khan, former transportation commissioner of New York City and now at Bloomberg Associates. She noted that bike lanes, a bike-share program, and car-free spaces in Times Square had prompted opposition from drivers, business owners, and others who viewed the initiative as impractical and “vaguely French.” But many shopkeepers have since reported a big uptick in business because of increased foot traffic, and the moveable chairs in the car-free areas are continually occupied.

“When you expand options, people vote with their feet, their seats, and their bike share key fobs,” she said. “New Yorkers have changed in what they expect from their streets.”

The forum traditionally includes two sessions devoted to “practicing the craft.” Brian McGrory, editor of The Boston Globe, detailed efforts to integrate “searingly relevant” journalism in a digital business model that is sustainable. The Globe has more readers than ever, he said. Inga Saffron, architecture critic for The Philadelphia Inquirer, who won the Pulitzer Prize shortly after the forum, joined Chicago Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin, Jerold Kayden from the GSD, and Gregory K. Ingram and Armando Carbonell from the Lincoln Institute in a conversation on the interaction between journalists and expert sources. Several participants among the 40 journalists and Nieman fellows filed dispatches, including Roger K. Lewis at The Washington Post, Tim Bryant at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Christopher Swope at Citiscope, and Josh Stephens writing for Planetizen.

Anthony Flint is a fellow and director of public affairs at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, and author of Wrestling with Moses: How Jane Jacobs Took on New York’s Master Builder and Transformed the American City (Random House, 2011). He was a Loeb Fellow in 2000–2001.

Allá por la edad de bronce, cuando yo era un estudiante de posgrado, la Asociación de Economía de los Estados Unidos me invitó a presentar un trabajo en su reunión anual. En ese momento, como era un inconformista, me debatía entre asistir o no a la reunión de saco y corbata. Mi tutor del doctorado me dio un excelente consejo: “No te voy a decir si tienes que usar saco o no, pero ten en consideración si deseas que la audiencia te recuerde por lo que dijiste o por lo que vestiste”. Fue un recordatorio muy útil de que, si tenemos un mensaje que dar, lo mejor es envolverlo de tal manera que aumente las probabilidades de que se reciba y se comprenda. Al final fui de saco y corbata, y aprendí una lección útil acerca de la interacción entre forma y contenido que, a veces, es sutil y, otras, no tanto.

De vez en cuando, los centros de estudio e investigación como el Instituto Lincoln deben considerar si están envolviendo su contenido de manera que atraiga al público para leerlo y utilizarlo. Durante el año pasado, hemos analizado detenidamente de qué manera presentamos y difundimos nuestras investigaciones y análisis de políticas. Comenzamos en enero de 2015 con una nueva imagen de Land Lines, diseñada con el fin de que la revista fuera más atractiva para una audiencia más amplia. Nuestro primer número con el nuevo diseño tuvo como portada una impresionante fotografía aérea del delta del río Colorado, donde, en 2014, un “flujo de impulsos” liberados de diques ubicados río arriba permitió que el agua circulara a lo largo del lecho seco del río hacia el mar de Cortés por primera vez en varias décadas, lo que estimuló un renovado esfuerzo por restaurar el ecosistema nativo que había existido bajo diferentes patrones de uso del suelo en la cuenca del río. Además, comenzamos a contratar los servicios de periodistas para redactar artículos atractivos que conectaran nuestras investigaciones y análisis de políticas con las personas cuyas vidas mejorarían por la utilización de mejores prácticas en el uso del suelo.

El nuevo diseño de Land Lines y nuestros informes sobre enfoques en políticas de suelo son sólo una pequeña parte del gran esfuerzo que el Instituto Lincoln está realizando para difundir más ampliamente nuestro formidable arsenal de investigaciones e ideas. Una acción continua, clara e incisiva para alcanzar al público facilitará el impacto que deseamos que tenga nuestro trabajo en las políticas y en las personas. En agosto de 2015, lanzamos una campaña de varios años para promover la salud fiscal municipal como base sobre la cual los municipios pueden proporcionar bienes y servicios que definan una alta calidad de vida para sus residentes. Nuestros investigadores, personal y contrpartes trabajan en forma interdisciplinaria a fin de otorgarle mayor importancia a este tema, a la vez que generan nuevas acciones de carácter transversal para tratar las cuestiones de cambio climático y resiliencia, desarrollan herramientas de última generación para la planificación de casos posibles, e investigan la relación existente entre las políticas de suelo y el agua o entre el uso del suelo y el transporte.

Este mes damos un paso más para la difusión de nuestras ideas de manera más efectiva mediante la presentación de un nuevo logo, un nuevo eslogan y una nueva declaración de misión del Instituto Lincoln:

Descubriendo respuestas en el suelo: Colaborar en la solución de los desafíos económicos, sociales y medioambientales en todo el mundo, con el fin de mejorar la calidad de vida mediante enfoques creativos en cuanto al uso, la tributación y la administración del suelo.

El logo conserva la “L” de Lincoln dentro del delineado simbólico de una parcela de suelo, con un diseño más moderno y abierto que invita a las nuevas audiencias a descubrir nuestro trabajo. El eslogan y la declaración de misión explicitan lo que siempre ha sido verdad: que una buena política de suelo puede ayudar a solucionar algunos de los desafíos mundiales más acuciantes, como el cambio climático o la pobreza y las tensiones financieras en las ciudades de todo el mundo.

No estamos reinventando al Instituto Lincoln, sino que apuntamos a difundir nuestro trabajo entre una audiencia más amplia y descubrir las líneas que conectan temas aparentemente disímiles, como la relación entre la conservación del suelo y la mitigación del cambio climático. Esta “renovación” culminará este año, cuando presentemos el nuevo diseño de nuestro sitio web con un formato que nos permitirá transmitir nuevos mensajes sobre la manera en que las políticas de suelo pueden dar forma a un mejor futuro para miles de millones de personas.

En este número de Land Lines se anticipan dos nuevos e importantes libros que actualizan nuestra presentación de los temas que hemos estado investigando durante varias décadas. En A Good Tax (Un buen impuesto), Joan Youngman presenta claros y sólidos argumentos a favor del impuesto a la propiedad, la fuente de ingresos municipales más importante e incomprendida. Este magistral análisis de un tema tan difícil es presentado en una lúcida prosa por la directora de Valuación y Tributación del Instituto Lincoln. En el capítulo sobre financiamiento escolar, que presentamos en este número de la revista, se hace una defensa del impuesto —que a la gente le encanta odiar— al servicio de un bien público que define la suerte de las futuras generaciones.

En el libro Nature and Cities (La naturaleza y las ciudades), editado por George F. Thompson, Frederick R. Steiner y Armando Carbonell (este último, director del Departamento de Planificación y Forma Urbana del Instituto Lincoln), se analizan los beneficios económicos, medioambientales y de salud pública derivados del diseño y la planificación urbana ecológica. Nature and Cities contiene ensayos de James Corner, diseñador del espacio verde denominado High Line, en la ciudad de Nueva York, y de otros referentes en el ámbito del paisajismo, la planificación y la arquitectura en todo el mundo, por lo que ofrece un tratamiento erudito y visualmente cautivador de un tema que se presenta como urgente en vista del cambio climático y el crecimiento de la población urbana.

Como verán, continuaremos ofreciendo a nuestros colegas y amigos artículos rigurosamente documentados y óptimamente redactados. También expandiremos nuestra red de investigadores, gestores de políticas y profesionales quienes aplicarán las conclusiones de nuestras investigaciones de un modo que sólo podemos imaginar. Al fin y al cabo, nuestro esfuerzo colectivo tiene como fin mejorar las vidas de todos aquellos que consideran a este planeta como su hogar. Y sabemos que todo comienza con el suelo.

At the train station for Bijlmermeer, in the fringe development area of Amsterdam known as Southeast, a landscape comes into view that seems very un-Dutch-a huge enclosed mall, a gleaming new sports stadium, and an oversized boulevard lined with big-box retail stores. How could this be, in a land with such a proud tradition of good design and even better planning; in a country that embraces compact development, density and mass transit; in a place where virtually no land is privately owned but rather is leased by the government and thus tightly controlled.

Welcome to the Netherlands in 2001: experimenting with market forces as never before, and increasingly conflicted about the same development patterns facing the United States. Just as postmodern architecture is all the rage in the Netherlands while a resurgence of modernism washes over the U.S., the state of planning in the two countries is in some respects moving in equally opposite directions. In the U.S., some two dozen states have established growth management plans and many have created regional governance systems to guide development. In the Netherlands, the Dutch are flirting with a kind of free-market liberation and leaving many old assumptions and methodologies behind.

There is still planning, to be sure. The guiding document, known with great reverence as the 5th memorandum (the National Policy Document on Spatial Planning), elegantly organizes relationships between the major cities of the Netherlands, including Amsterdam, Utrecht, The Hague and Rotterdam. Regional strengths among so-called “polynuclear city regions” or “urban networks” are thoughtfully mapped out to establish interconnections in transportation or housing. And the added framework of the European Union emphasizes connections in transportation and commerce, both within and between countries. Centuries-old national borders increasingly fade into the background as other geographical definitions, such as the Rhine River, take on greater significance.

But against that backdrop, other attitudes in the Netherlands are changing, allowing more experimentation with public-private partnerships, a greater sensitivity to market demands, and acceptance of development projects that have a distinctly American flavor. Scholars in university planning departments around the country are candid in their admission: sometimes we do too much planning, they say, and the results are by no means universally acclaimed.

These are some of the comments heard and observations made during a study trip to the Netherlands in May by the Loeb Fellowship Class of 2001. The Loeb Fellowship, based at Harvard University Graduate School of Design, supports mid-career professionals in the design fields to study at Harvard for one year. The year-end trip was cosponsored by the Lincoln Institute and the Loeb Fellowship Alumni Association as part of an ongoing collaboration between the two organizations.

Some of what the Loeb Fellows found was expected: a national rail system and urban tram systems that work so efficiently that climbing into a private car seemed unthinkable; a marvelous system of pedestrian walkways and bicycle paths and an elegant sensibility for sharing the street; and compact development concentrated in urban areas with a clearly defined edge, and countryside beyond.

The Southeast district of Amsterdam, however, was a somewhat surprising example of a new and different approach-and evidence of perhaps inevitable infection by the global virus. The site overall is badly in need of redevelopment. It is home, on one side the rail line, to Bijlmermeer, the Le Corbusier-inspired high-rise slabs that have been a disaster since inception in the mid-1960s. Across the tracks is the 50,000-seat Amsterdam Arena and Arena Boulevard, lined with big-box retail, a temporary music hall, a cinema complex, and a huge mall devoted to home furnishings and interior design stores. The development team is a consortium including the City of Amsterdam and private development and real estate conglomerates. The thinking behind Southeast, though not explicitly stated, is that the central core in Amsterdam is best left to tourists, and that a shopping and entertainment center will serve residents who don’t want to drive into the city anyway. Although a new metro-rail-bus station, due in 2006, can accommodate tens of thousands, 80 percent of the Southeast clientele is expected to come by car.

A similar sense of providing what people want pervades several development projects around Nijmegen, on the western edge of the country, near Germany. The Grootstal housing project on an infill site outside the city center, for example, is a curious mix of sustainable design and driveways at every unit’s front yard. Garages, wide roads, easy motorway access and abundant fast-food outlets are similarly encouraged in the Beuningen subdivision, where new suburban homes are fashioned in kitchy 1930s styles. The expansive Waalsprong development area (literally to “spring over” the river embracing the core of Nijmegen) includes plans for 11,000 housing units in a scheme vaguely reminiscent of New Urbanism, though the most notable achievement so far is the slick marketing campaign undertaken by the private-sector partners.

“This is what the Dutch middle-class people want,” said University of Nijmegen planning professor Barrie Needham. “People get wealthier and they want more space. Part of the problem with planning in the 1960s was that we didn’t ask people what they want.”

There is no question the Dutch approach continues to be far more iterative than that of the U.S. The Dutch planners choose where to intervene much more carefully, and with much more analysis. They are experimenting with lower-density development in stages, not letting it take over the landscape unrestrained. The Dutch, also, can readily admit when planned development has failed, and set out to fix the things that don’t work. Transportation remains at the heart of all planning, and the quality of design remains essential.

While none of the Loeb Fellows on the trip concluded that the Netherlands is tilting towards a wholesale retreat from planning, the challenge of striking a balance between market forces and government control struck many of us as daunting. How much are the Dutch willing to experiment? Is a balance possible or somehow illusory? Is the proud tradition of subsidized and affordable housing in danger of atrophy? In Nijmegen and the Southeast district of Amsterdam, where one official was late for a presentation because of a traffic jam on the motorway, only time will tell. The current recalibrations could result in the best of two worlds, or the worst of both.

Anthony Flint is a reporter for The Boston Globe, covering land use, planning and development. For more information about the Loeb Fellowship, see the website at www.gsd.harvard.edu/loebfell.

Loeb Fellows, Class of 2001

Marcel Acosta, senior policy advisor, National Capital Planning Commission, Washington, DC

Terrence Curry, former director of design, Detroit Collaborative Design Center

Anthony Flint, reporter, The Boston Globe

Ben Hamilton-Baillie, consultant in sustainable transportation and urban planning, Bristol, England

Anthony Irons, city architect, San Francisco.

William H. McFarland, community development consultant, Peoplestown Revitalization Corporation (PRC), Atlanta.

Paul Okamoto, architect, San Francisco

Roxanne Qualls, former mayor, Cincinnati, Ohio; graduate student, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

Robert Stacey, chief of staff, Office of Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon), Washington, DC

Rebecca Talbott, consultant in private-public land management partnerships, Cambridge, MA

Katy Moss Warner, former director of horticulture and environmental initiatives, Walt Disney Resort, Orlando, Florida