Topic: Housing

Encontrar inspiración fiscal en São Paulo

Por Jon Gorey, August 2, 2025

En São Paulo, Brasil, entre rascacielos corporativos, tiendas de lujo y hoteles de alta gama del barrio Vila Olímpia, se encuentra un complejo de viviendas de interés social de 272 unidades. Construido en el terreno de la antigua favela Coliseu, el altísimo edificio de condominios no es solo un hogar nuevo y más seguro para cientos de familias de bajos ingresos que vivieron en el asentamiento informal durante décadas, en medio de incendios, inundaciones y ratas. También es, según sus promotores, una prueba de que la inversión en un vecindario no necesariamente significa el desplazamiento de los residentes, y de que las viviendas de interés social se pueden construir incluso en la zona más cara de una ciudad.

En marzo, el Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo invitó a un grupo diverso de investigadores y profesionales de todo el mundo a participar en un viaje de estudio de cuatro días junto con algunos miembros del personal del instituto. El viaje de estudio, que combinó sesiones en el aula con visitas de campo, permitió a los participantes explorar de primera mano este reconocido ejemplo de recuperación de plusvalías. También llamada captación de la plusvalía, la recuperación de plusvalías se refiere a un conjunto de políticas que le permiten a una comunidad recuperar y reinvertir las plusvalías del suelo generadas por la inversión pública u otras acciones gubernamentales, como una nueva estación de transporte o un cambio en los requisitos de zonificación.

“En São Paulo, tenemos al menos dos buenos ejemplos de asentamientos informales que se mejoraron en lugares donde el suelo es muy caro”, explica Paulo Sandroni, un economista que desarrolló el curso en conjunto con la urbanista Camila Maleronka. “Tuvimos la idea de presentarles y explicarles a los demás los instrumentos que usamos; primero, para recuperar las plusvalías, y, segundo, para garantizar que las personas de asentamientos informales sigan viviendo en el mismo lugar, pero ahora en cómodos apartamentos”.

El proceso funciona de la siguiente manera: La ciudad elige un área para realizar una intervención pública como parte de una “Operación Urbana”. Los emprendedores inmobiliarios que deseen construir estructuras más grandes de lo permitido en esa zona pueden comprar Certificados de Potencial Adicional de Construcción, o CEPAC, que se venden en el mercado público de valores. Por ende, es el sector privado quien determina el precio en última instancia. Los ingresos de esas subastas de CEPAC luego financian obras públicas y viviendas de interés social en el mismo vecindario.

Sin embargo, el hecho de que sea posible recuperar las plusvalías y reinvertirlas en viviendas de interés social no significa que suceda inevitablemente, en especial, en vecindarios caros. “La comunidad de Coliseu tuvo que luchar contra muchas adversidades y muchas fuerzas, ya sea de emprendedores inmobiliarios, de vecinos que no querían que se quedaran allí e incluso de algunos miembros del gobierno”, dice Sandroni. “Pero los líderes de este movimiento dijeron: ‘Tenemos derecho a estar aquí. La legislación nos dio las herramientas para quedarnos aquí, y hay dinero para construir estos edificios’. Fue un maravilloso ejemplo de desarrollo urbano inclusivo”.

Un retrato de una mujer que sostiene un llavero. El enfoque está en el llavero, que tiene un colgante metálico con forma de casa. Las palabras en el llavero están en portugués y la traducción es ‘Ciudad de São Paulo. Vivienda’.
Una residente de Coliseu con la llave de su nuevo hogar. Crédito: Marcelo Pereira/SECOM vía Ciudad de São Paulo.

Las herramientas de recuperación de plusvalías de São Paulo han sido el foco de muchos estudios de casos; pero ver los resultados en persona, in situ, ayudó a materializar el concepto para muchos participantes de organizaciones como la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico (OCDE), el Banco Europeo de Reconstrucción y Desarrollo (BERD) y el Centro para el Financiamiento de Viviendas Asequibles en África, entre otros.

“Lo que vi en São Paulo me sorprendió mucho”, dice Line Algoed, una antropóloga urbana de la Vrije Universiteit Brussel. “Sabía sobre la recuperación de plusvalías, pero nunca había visto los resultados en persona. No sabía nada sobre los CEPAC y los otros instrumentos utilizados en São Paulo, que posicionan a esta ciudad como referente del urbanismo innovador”.

Los resultados en São Paulo no fueron perfectos, agrega Algoed, “pero es muy bueno ver que el gobierno local está tratando de mitigar las consecuencias de la especulación inmobiliaria desenfrenada”.

Hiro Ito se unió al curso interesado por los mecanismos financieros que podrían ayudar a las ciudades a pagar infraestructura climática. Ito es el gerente de programa del Plan de Acción para Ciudades Verdes del BERD, donde trabaja con gobiernos municipales para identificar inversiones y políticas que puedan ayudarlos a prepararse para desafíos ambientales y el cambio climático. “Hemos desarrollado planes de acción con 47 ciudades”, indica Ito. “Pero muchas de esas acciones, sobre todo las relacionadas con la naturaleza o la adaptación al clima, no se están implementando”, muchas veces por falta de fondos.

“Las soluciones basadas en la naturaleza, la protección contra inundaciones y la mitigación del efecto isla de calor urbano no son proyectos que usualmente generen ingresos”, explica Ito. “Esperamos que esta sea otra forma de fortalecer las finanzas municipales para que las ciudades de todo el mundo puedan aprovechar en mayor medida esos espacios”.

En un recorrido a pie que incluyó tanto el edificio Coliseu como el icónico puente Octavio Frias de Oliveira de São Paulo, Ito quedó impresionado con el alcance y la escala de las inversiones de la ciudad, y se preguntó si un método similar de recuperación de plusvalías podría funcionar en Ankara, Turquía, donde el BERD ayuda a financiar la construcción de una nueva línea de metro. Al regresar del viaje, Ito y sus colegas comenzaron a estudiar cómo implementar una herramienta de financiamiento con base en el suelo para la Municipalidad Metropolitana de Ankara, ya que hay varios terrenos de propiedad pública que podrían urbanizarse en la zona. “¿Podríamos introducir mecanismos como los CEPAC para recaudar a partir de esa reurbanización? En última instancia, es para cubrir el costo de las ampliaciones del metro, pero potencialmente las áreas de regeneración urbana podrían traer otros beneficios sociales y medioambientales”.

Rosana Maria dos Santos habla a un grupo de oyentes reunidos en un sendero de ladrillo al aire libre con árboles detrás de ellos.
Los participantes del viaje de estudio del Instituto Lincoln de São Paulo escuchan a la líder de la comunidad de Coliseu, Rosana Maria dos Santos. Crédito: Instituto Lincoln.

Ito valoró que los instructores del curso, Sandroni y Maleronka, también explicaran algunas de las deficiencias, limitaciones y desafíos del enfoque de São Paulo. Reconoce que alcanzar un éxito similar depende de ciertas condiciones.

“La idea de aplicar este método en Turquía surge porque la población urbana está creciendo y hay una fuerte demanda de viviendas adicionales. Tiene sentido para algunos emprendedores inmobiliarios comprar derechos adicionales”, dice Ito. “Pero no todos los países donde opera el BERD tienen una tendencia demográfica similar”, agrega, y señala que los mercados inmobiliarios de las ciudades más pequeñas de Bulgaria o Rumanía, por ejemplo, pueden no ser lo suficientemente fuertes como para sostener el financiamiento con base en el suelo. “Pero nos gustó mucho este enfoque basado en el mercado para determinar el precio… me pareció una forma muy inteligente de aprovechar al máximo el espacio”.

Lo que más llamó la atención de Kecia Rust, fundadora y directora ejecutiva del Centro para el Financiamiento de Viviendas Asequibles en África, fue la afirmación del Estado de que los derechos de aire son un bien público.

“El enfoque general que hizo que sean posibles Coliseu y otras inversiones en viviendas de interés social, así como también la entrega del icónico puente de São Paulo, el monorraíl, las carreteras, los carriles para bicicletas y otras inversiones en obras públicas proviene de una filosofía subyacente de que los derechos de propiedad privada pueden extenderse en términos de longitud y latitud, pero no en altura”, escribió Rust en una entrada de blog que reflexiona sobre el curso. “Los derechos de aire son un bien público, que el sector público vende para generar ingresos para invertir en obras públicas y viviendas de interés social”, continuó. “La ciudad no tiene que endeudarse cuando invierte en la construcción de carreteras, puentes y viviendas de interés social”.

“Creo que el desafío clave que enfrentamos en el contexto africano es que realmente no tenemos los datos o la capacidad de gestión a nivel local para llegar a hacer lo que se está haciendo en São Paulo”, dice Rust. “Pero lo que vi y entendí fue muy inspirador”.

Varios miembros del personal del Instituto Lincoln también se unieron al curso, muchos de los cuales, fuera del equipo de América Latina, nunca habían tenido la oportunidad de ver en persona este prominente ejemplo global de recuperación de plusvalías. “Esta idea de desarrollo sin desplazamiento, de cómo salvaguardar o reducir el riesgo de desplazamiento cuando se invierte en las comunidades, es un tema que está en primer plano en gran parte del trabajo que estamos realizando en el instituto”, dice Enrique Silva, director de programas del Instituto Lincoln. Silva invitó intencionalmente a miembros del personal de todos los sectores de la organización: “Esta idea de aprender juntos, compartir y aprender e intercambiar, es algo que me encantaría que sucediera con mayor frecuencia”.


Jon Gorey es redactor del Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo.

Imagen principal: El complejo de viviendas de interés social Coliseu, de 272 unidades, rodeado por los edificios más altos del distrito Vila Olímpia de São Paulo, es un ejemplo de recuperación de plusvalías.Crédito: Ciudad de São Paulo. 

Events

On Common Ground: Land Policy for Housing and Climate Solutions 

October 7, 2025 - October 9, 2025

Cambridge, MA

Offered in English

Cities across the US and the world are grappling with a compounding housing and climate crisis. On October 7–9, 2025, the Lincoln Institute will host a convening to build momentum and foster collaboration between a group of key housing and climate leaders who generally do not work together, but are especially influential on policy and land use reform at different levels of government. The discussion will focus on policy recommendations, collaboration, and opportunities for local, regional, and state action. At the convening, we will share the findings of our initial research, preview a working paper draft, and begin to build a collaborative community of housing and climate leaders who can support local, regional, and state action by helping governments access all levers at their disposal to address housing supply, resiliency and insurability, and climate change.

This event is by invitation only.


Details

Date
October 7, 2025 - October 9, 2025
Location
Cambridge, MA
Language
English

Keywords

Climate Mitigation, Housing

Adriana Hurtado Tarazona
Fellows in Focus

Una perspectiva humana sobre la vivienda

Por Jon Gorey, May 5, 2025

El Instituto Lincoln ofrece una variedad de oportunidades para investigadores que se encuentran transitando momentos tempranos y medios de sus carreras. En esta serie, hacemos un seguimiento de nuestros becarios para conocer más sobre su trabajo. 

Con una maestría en Planeamiento Urbano y un doctorado en Antropología, hace tiempo que Adriana Hurtado Tarazona se interesa por la relación entre el comportamiento humano y la organización urbana y, en especial, cómo y dónde eligen vivir las personas. Luego de recibir una beca para estudiantes de posgrado del Programa para América Latina y el Caribe (ALC) del Instituto Lincoln, dedicó años al estudio de megaproyectos de viviendas de interés social en las afueras de ciudades de Colombia; esto le permitió pasar mucho tiempo conversando con las personas que vivían allí, para conocer cómo experimentaban la comunidad y el entorno construido. 

Hoy, Hurtado Tarazona es profesora adjunta de Planificación, Gobernanza y Desarrollo Territorial en el Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios sobre Desarrollo (CIDER) de la Universidad de los Andes en Bogotá, Colombia. “Doy un curso introductorio sobre instrumentos de planificación del suelo, así que todavía sigo hablando de lo que aprendí gracias al Instituto Lincoln en un curso al que asistí en Quito allá por 2005”, comenta.

En esta entrevista, que se editó por razones de longitud y claridad, Hurtado Tarazona analiza por qué la vivienda debería tratarse como una política social en lugar de una política económica, comparte opiniones sorprendentes de los residentes de viviendas de interés social y, además, explica por qué puede ser mejor otorgar dinero para que las personas mejoren su vivienda antes que subsidiar la compra de viviendas nuevas.

JON GOREY: ¿Cuál es el enfoque general de su investigación? ¿Y cómo cree que contribuyó en ese trabajo la beca del Instituto Lincoln?

ADRIANA HURTADO TARAZONA: Recibí la beca para la tesis de maestría en 2006. Estaba analizando el impacto en el valor del suelo de un sector de la infraestructura de los sistemas de transporte público masivo en autobús (BRT, por sus siglas en inglés) en Bogotá: el TransMilenio. Ese era uno de los primeros estudios que se realizaban porque, en ese momento, el TransMilenio se había implementado hacía solo cuatro años, por lo que era muy nuevo. Buscaba documentar los cambios en el espacio urbano en el área circundante a las dos grandes estaciones, desde la perspectiva del mercado del suelo y desde la perspectiva de los residentes en la zona.

Me encantó participar del programa, porque conocí a muchos de los profesores y las profesoras vinculados con el programa de América Latina. Disfruté mucho la experiencia. Y, hace tres años, una de mis estudiantes recibió la misma beca que yo había recibido casi 20 años antes. Fue interesante participar de nuevo desde un lugar diferente, acompañar a mi alumna y ser testigo de cómo ella pudo experimentar los beneficios de la beca.

JG: ¿En qué está trabajando ahora y en qué le interesaría trabajar a futuro?

AHT: Ahora estoy trabajando en cuatro proyectos de investigación. Dos de ellos están relacionados con el tema principal de mi tesis doctoral, que es la vivienda de interés social y, más específicamente, la producción y expansión urbana de megaproyectos de vivienda de interés social en las fronteras urbanas. Uno de los proyectos que finalizaremos este año con la Universidad de York en Toronto se llama “Periferias verticales”. Analizamos el impacto subjetivo de vivir en la periferia, pero también el impacto en el planeamiento urbano y la gobernanza del proceso de metropolización, en el que las viviendas de interés social traspasan los límites de las ciudades colombianas. El otro proyecto se enfoca en el impacto económico del acceso a las viviendas de interés social. Analizaremos puntualmente cómo los hogares administrados por mujeres tienen que modificar su economía doméstica a fin de poder mantenerse al día con los costos para acceder por primera vez a una vivienda de su propiedad.

El tercero es el proyecto de infraestructura del cuidado de personas, liderado por la Universidad de Washington en Seattle. Se trata de un proyecto comparativo entre Belfast, Belo Horizonte (en Brasil) y Bogotá. Estudiamos historias sobre el cambio urbano en general y, en Bogotá, nos centramos en cómo el cuidado se convirtió en un foco de la política urbana, lo cual no sucedía hasta hace muy poco, y analizamos el nacimiento del sistema de CUIDADO distrital como una infraestructura urbana. Tenemos reglamentaciones nuevas que entienden que la infraestructura del cuidado está al mismo nivel que la del agua, el alcantarillado y las carreteras, lo cual es muy interesante, e intentamos documentar qué condiciones posibilitaron este cambio.

Y el último proyecto en el que estoy trabajando con el Instituto Lincoln se trata de una beca de investigación pequeña que recibí el año pasado. Quien está a cargo de la investigación es de Brasil y, junto con Argentina, Bolivia, Perú y Colombia, estamos tratando de hacer un análisis comparativo de las intervenciones que buscan apoyar la densificación.

Una vista aérea a la Manzana del Cuidado Manitas en Bogotá. Las muchas casas están organizadas por zonas y cada casa de la zona es del mismo color que las otras. Las casas se extienden sobre el paisaje y parte de la montaña, y rodean un edificio grande en el centro.
En 2020 se inauguró la Manzana del Cuidado Manitas en Bogotá, el primero de más de 20 establecimientos de la ciudad diseñados para brindar servicios a cuidadores. Crédito: LLANOFOTOGRAFIA (www.llanofotografia.com).

 

JG: ¿Hay algo que la haya sorprendido o que le haya resultado inesperado durante toda su investigación?

AHT: Les he preguntado a muchas personas si están contentas con sus viviendas a nivel general y la primera sorpresa fue desde una perspectiva urbanística. Quienes se dedican al urbanismo de forma local no suelen ver con buenos ojos estos megaproyectos de viviendas de interés social periféricos, masivos y estandarizados, porque se ubican lejos de la ciudad, están desconectados y presentan problemas de accesibilidad. Yo sabía eso y, entonces, me enfoqué en el trabajo de campo con esa perspectiva crítica en mente.

Sin embargo, cuando me senté con las personas, lo primero que me dijeron fue: “No, a mí me encanta esto. Me encanta el orden. Me encanta que todo sea estándar”. Lo que los urbanistas veían como una “ciudad inhabitable” o un “no-lugar”, a la gente le parecía bien: “Me gusta porque está planeado, es ordenado, es prolijo”. Eso fue lo primero que me sorprendió.

Y me sorprendió porque estas personas habían vivido en casas construidas por sí mismas en las que tenían más espacio y más flexibilidad en el uso de los espacios, además de que estaban mejor ubicadas en la ciudad. Pero, después de pasar más tiempo con ellos, me di cuenta de que se trataba de una cuestión de prioridades: como el mercado de viviendas no les permitía comprar en ningún otro lugar, eligieron ser propietarios a pesar del tiempo que debían pasar viajando, a pesar de estar lejos de la familia, los amigos y las redes de apoyo.

Sabían lo que estaban perdiendo, pero se trataba de una elección consciente de prioridades: “Estoy eligiendo esto, por sobre esto otro”. Y lo que priorizaban era la estabilidad de tener su propia casa, aunque fuera pequeña, estuviera lejos y costara mucho. Esta elección se relaciona de forma directa con las oportunidades de movilidad social que brinda este país, que se centran en el acceso a la propiedad. Ser parte de la clase media nueva en Colombia significa más que nada tener tu propia casa en las áreas formales de la ciudad, no en los barrios informales.

JG: En lo que respecta a su trabajo, ¿qué la mantiene despierta por la noche? ¿Y qué le da esperanza?

AHT: Lo que me preocupa es que la política de vivienda en Colombia, y creo que también en otros países, sigue la lógica del mercado inmobiliario, es decir, que la única forma de resolver el problema de la vivienda es construir viviendas nuevas y venderlas a hogares de bajos ingresos mediante subsidios. Pero también hay otras alternativas; existen muchas formas de abordar el problema de la vivienda.

En las ciudades colombianas, incluida Bogotá, el déficit cualitativo de vivienda es tres veces mayor que el déficit cuantitativo de vivienda. Esto significa que la cantidad de hogares que necesitan mejorar su vivienda es tres veces mayor que los que necesitan viviendas nuevas. Sin embargo, nuestra política de vivienda otorga todos los recursos y toda la atención a la construcción de viviendas nuevas. Si bien existen programas de mejora de viviendas en los vecindarios, no reciben suficiente presupuesto, no tienen la atención necesaria y no se los considera una manera legítima de resolver el problema de la vivienda.

Entonces, quisiera que cambie el enfoque y que se empiece a brindar más atención y más recursos para mejorar lo que ya tenemos, la ciudad que ya está construida. Esto sería beneficioso tanto para el medio ambiente como para la economía de las personas. Tiene muchas ventajas, pero por supuesto que es un proceso más lento. No involucra cifras muy grandes, ni es funcional al interés de los sectores inmobiliario y financiero.

Lo que me da esperanza es que hay ciertas intervenciones que están dando buenos resultados. Una de ellas es el apoyo a la densificación en barrios de origen informal. Se trata de programas que reconocen que hay barrios de origen informal, con viviendas construidas por quienes las habitan, que son más antiguos y que tienen una buena ubicación en la ciudad, por lo que ya tienen acceso a la infraestructura y los bienes y servicios urbanos, pero necesitan apoyo para crecer en altura.

Entonces, tenemos un programa que ofrece ayuda para reforzar la estructura y subsidios para que las personas construyan un segundo piso en sus casas. Esa unidad nueva la pueden ocupar ellas mismas, si son muchas, o pueden alquilarla a otras personas para tener una fuente nueva de ingresos. Opino que es un programa muy innovador, porque mejora la seguridad estructural de las casas y fomenta una mayor disponibilidad de viviendas, mientras que posibilita que los hogares de bajos ingresos obtengan ingresos nuevos a partir de la construcción de unidades nuevas.

El Estado está apoyando un proceso que sucedería de todos modos, con o sin su ayuda. Pero, con la intervención del Estado, las condiciones son mejores y más seguras, se trata de otra manera de invertir recursos públicos para solucionar el problema de la vivienda. De todas formas, estos son proyectos piloto de escala pequeña. En el futuro, quiero trabajar para buscar la manera de ampliar este proyecto y lograr que la mejora de la vivienda y el vecindario ocupe un lugar más central en la política urbana.

JG: ¿Puede hablar de la relación entre la antropología y el planeamiento urbano?

AHT: En todos los proyectos de investigación, intento pensar los procesos urbanos desde un punto de vista de la estructura, pero también de las experiencias de las personas, y creo que haber estudiado antropología y urbanismo me permite combinar esos enfoques. Es una combinación muy fructífera para observar los procesos desde diferentes perspectivas. Cuando se trata de temas técnicos, como los instrumentos de gestión del suelo o la recuperación de plusvalías, resulta útil conversar con quienes están pasando por ese proceso para tener más contexto sobre la situación.

Desde que hice la tesis de la maestría, tengo curiosidad por saber cómo entiende la gente el valor del suelo. En los contextos que analicé, las personas están muy preocupadas por los cambios en el valor del suelo de sus propiedades, pero las formas de lidiar con esos cambios o con la posibilidad de que esos cambios ocurran son muy diferentes.

Por ejemplo, para su tesis, mi alumna analizó desde una perspectiva etnográfica cómo las personas lidian con la incertidumbre que generan los retrasos en un plan de renovación urbana, cómo entienden el posible incremento del valor del suelo de su hogar y de qué forma esa aspiración de obtener una ganancia genera tensiones en la vida diaria respecto a otros valores del hogar, como el valor de uso.

Y me encontré con la misma situación en cuanto a las viviendas de interés social, es decir, la tensión constante entre pensar el hogar como un lugar para vivir y pensarlo como una inversión de la que quisieran sacar provecho. Esas dos narrativas, esos valores, están siempre en tensión, incluso si se trata de hogares de muy bajos ingresos, e impactan no solo en los comportamientos de la gente, sino también en el comportamiento de la comunidad, e incluso en cómo se relacionan con las instituciones públicas y la ciudad.

Esa es mi inquietud principal, y por eso combino hablar con las personas, estar con las personas y pasar el rato con ellas, con tareas más técnicas como analizar documentos, leyes, reglamentaciones y datos cuantitativos.

JG: ¿Sobre qué aspecto de las viviendas de interés social le gustaría que más personas entendieran?

AHT: Debemos entender que las políticas sobre la vivienda tienen que ver con las políticas sociales y no con las políticas económicas. En Colombia, así como sucede en otros países latinoamericanos que todavía no han caído en la hiperfinancierización, tenemos la oportunidad de evitar seguir la misma dirección que los Estados Unidos, España y otros lugares en los que la crisis de la vivienda está en su peor momento. Todavía no llegamos a ese estado.

JG: ¿Qué libro puede recomendar que haya leído hace poco o cuál es su programa de televisión favorito?    

AHT: Disfruté mucho la lectura del libro Préstamos fallidos, personas fallidas de Melissa García-Lamarca sobre personas endeudadas en Barcelona. Se trata de los impactos subjetivos de vivir endeudado y, además, de cómo la deuda no solo tiene que ver con un problema económico, sino también con un problema moral.

Estoy intentando vincular ese concepto con nuestro proyecto nuevo. Estoy empezando a leer análisis económico feminista y análisis económico antropológico, para entender en profundidad qué implica vivir con deuda y, en especial, una deuda por la vivienda, y qué impacto tiene en diferentes aspectos de la vida cotidiana. Porque la deuda no solo se limita a las hipotecas: las personas de bajos ingresos aquí tienen que recurrir a todo tipo de deudas, formales e informales, para cubrir el costo de vida. La deuda puede ser con un pariente, con el banco o puede ser una hipoteca, pero también puede haber deudas usurarias, como prestamistas o personas que cobran tasas de interés altas a hogares de bajos ingresos.

En cuanto a la televisión, intento ver contenido que no esté relacionado con estos temas. Estaba viendo Silo, una serie futurista distópica sobre una sociedad que vive en un edificio altísimo, pero bajo tierra: ¡algo muy deprimente! De todas formas, me gusta lo postapocalíptico.


Jon Gorey es redactor del Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo.

Imagen principal: Adriana Hurtado Tarazona de la Universidad de los Andes en Bogotá, Colombia.Crédito: Foto de cortesía. 

 

Retrofits Are All the Rage

By Anthony Flint, August 7, 2025

This article is reprinted with permission from Bloomberg CityLab, where it originally appeared.

At the American Institute of Architects conference this year in Boston, those dressed in black—long the unofficial uniform of uber-creative design professionals—seemed to be outnumbered. The architects prowling the convention center were more likely to be sporting button-down Oxfords or Patagonia, on their way to such sessions as “Next-Level Roofs: Energy Efficiency, Embodied Carbon, and Code Compliance.”

An architectural trend can’t be based on a wardrobe census, of course, but a shift toward more practical, sustainability-oriented work was palpable. And increasingly, that means working on retrofits, rather than creating snazzy new structures. AIA billings survey data in 2022 revealed that architects for the first time were earning more revenue for commissions on existing buildings than new construction. Recent Pritzker Prize wins by Lacaton & Vassal and David Chipperfield represent high-profile recognition of advances in restoration and renovation. Rules are being put in place to encourage adaptive reuse, as in Los Angeles, or to promote a circular economy and limit demolition, as in San Antonio. Those ordinances are alongside financial incentives offered by several local governments for converting office buildings to residential use.

So while some may still dream of becoming the next Frank Gehry or Zaha Hadid, many design professionals these days seem to be singularly—almost soberly—occupied with reworking blueprints, as part of the quest to make the built environment as green and socially responsible as possible.

“The most urgent thing that’s on our plate right now is climate action, and that we have to decarbonize very rapidly,” said Carl Elefante, author of the recently published Going for Zero: Decarbonizing the Built Environment on the Path to Our Urban Future and the architect credited with coining the phrase that the greenest building is the one that is already built.

It might be called the Retrofit Revolution. Or, more dramatically: the End of Architecture. At least as we knew it.

“Architecture’s long capital-P Project of exploring ever-more-complicated forms has finally come to an end. The heroic pursuit of formal complexity for its own sake feels like a bygone thing,” writes editor Jack Murphy in the May issue of The Architect’s Newspaper. “Architects should still make things, but perhaps they should be making maintenance plans or organization charts or business plans or adaptive reuse scenarios or affordable housing. Making form is necessary but easy; it’s the rest of the stuff that is hard.”

Does this mean nobody can build anything new, much less have any fun anymore? Not necessarily. It’s a safe bet there will always be a place for contemporary design—just as long as it’s green.

“There is only one crucial divide in architecture: architecture that is dependent on heavy fossil fuel inputs, and architecture that isn’t,” writes Barnabas Calder, historian of architecture at the University of Liverpool. In this context, style is beside the point.

The more critical distinction with this baseline specification of sustainability is that existing buildings, and all their embodied carbon, generally have an edge over new construction. So not only architecture but related fields like urban design, landscape architecture, planning, engineering, and mechanical, electrical, and plumbing work “are all duking it out, so to speak, to get a share of this emerging market sector,” said Lori Ferriss, executive director of the Built Buildings Lab.

Increasingly, advances in technology in the field are geared toward retrofits, including determining the all-important issue of cost (it can often be cheaper to renovate versus demolish and build anew, though that’s not always the case). The CARE Tool (Carbon Avoided: Retrofit Estimator) is used by builders to help measure the environmental benefits of renovations. The global design firm Gensler has developed software called Conversions+ that can help determine the viability of converting office buildings to residential use, through a cost-conscious algorithmic analysis of elements such as floor plates, window and elevator locations. A company called Existing Conditions, exhibiting at the AIA convention, offers laser scanning and radar sensors so renovators can know the location and condition of the guts of any building, from pipes to rebar.

And accordingly, much of the brain power in architecture is being devoted to things other than creating sculptural elements that are interesting to look at. The work is almost by definition not showy, in the sense that it’s more likely to be rethinking the arrangement and quality of spaces on the inside of existing buildings, rather than the appearance of facades and exteriors. Some of the best energy and innovation in the field is likely to be found not in starchitect-led firms but ones like Gensler, a roll-up-the-sleeves operation that just won the National Building Museum’s 2025 Honor Award. The company, spurred on by the need for reinvented workplace interiors post-pandemic, has excelled in what This Old House viewers might recognize as the gut rehab. Similarly, a rising star is Annabelle Selldorf, is best known for projects like her expansion of New York City’s Gilded Age Frick Collection.

“Architecture is becoming less about individual expression and more about collective responsibility,” said Harry Cliffe-Roberts, Gensler’s building transformation and adaptive reuse leader.

All kinds of design innovations, whether in new construction or retrofits, are being celebrated more for broader societal goals, like affordable housing. The winner of the Single-Stair Design Competition, for example, was recently honored at the Congress for the New Urbanism in Providence, Rhode Island. Outdated codes requiring multiple egress in multifamily projects four stories and higher have been identified as a major contributor to higher housing costs; the problematique is how to configure stairways to maintain access and safety.

A little bit nerdy, to be sure, but part and parcel of the new ethos.

As to the next logical question: Have US architecture schools kept up? A handful of institutions have prided themselves on weaving practical elements into the curriculum, from zoning to finance. It’s a bit of a subjective assessment, but those that worship a little bit less at the altar of form include Northeastern, Carnegie Mellon, the University of Notre Dame, and the University of Miami.

At the Rhode Island School of Design, Liliane Wong, author of Adaptive Reuse in Architecture: A Typological Index, has catalogued 50 conversion and reuse projects worldwide, including buildings such as the TWA Hotel at New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport, the Caixa Forum in Madrid, and the New Museum in Berlin.

“Let’s say I’m a design professor at a top university—I’m so erudite, you can hardly understand a single word I say. Is there a pedagogy of building reuse that would interest that guy?” said Elefante. In creating that pedagogy, he said, retrofit-minded professors ask, “What are the different ways that you can intervene with an existing building? Wouldn’t this be a cool design? It’s sort of the fox guarding the henhouse on getting the designers who scorn existing buildings for their architectural character, to actually understand retrofit as something that could be an interesting design challenge.”

Those who emphasize reuse are up against a stubborn tradition, in both firm culture and design education. “There’s always been a professional bias toward building new,” said Hillary Brown, author of Revitalize | Resettle: How Main Street USA Can Provide New Beginnings for America’s Climate Displaced. “It starts in architecture school where the studios mostly emphasize new form making. The journals seem to prefer new construction … that needs to change.”

Altogether, the prospects don’t look good for architect as artist. It’s not just the technological advances of artificial intelligence, which is poised to do the work of humans just as in the fields of medicine, journalism, and law. Pattern language playbooks provide step-by-step instructions for traditional ways of building. At Northeastern, an initiative called Equitable Zoning by Design offers visualizations of residential buildouts in areas being considered for rezoning. The idea is to conjure an easily repeatable urban design that will make dense multifamily development more acceptable to wary neighbors.

All sensible, though it does raise an uncomfortable question. With all the new software and off-the-shelf guides, who needs creative types to make aesthetic judgements?

Shaking up established frameworks is never easy, as George Clooney, playing the journalist Edward R. Murrow, recognizes in the opening monologue of Good Night, and Good Luck: “This just might do nobody any good.”

What seems likely is that the top architecture schools may have students learn about Le Corbusier as historical artifact—but disabuse their graduates of any notion of operating like him. With an eye toward being that much more employable, the next generation of architects may well demand it.


Anthony Flint is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, host of the Land Matters podcast, and a contributing editor to Land Lines.

Lead image: In Boston, this former office building at 31 Milk Street is slated for conversion to 110 residential units. Credit: Jimmy Emerson via Flickr.

Finding Fiscal Inspiration in São Paulo

By Jon Gorey, August 2, 2025

In São Paulo, Brazil, wedged among the sky-scraping office towers, luxury retailers, and high-end hotels of the Vila Olímpia neighborhood, sits a 272-unit social housing development. Built on the site of the former Coliseu favela, the high-rise condo building isn’t just a safer, new home for hundreds of low-income families who lived in the informal settlement for decades, enduring fires, floods, and rats. It’s proof, advocates say, that neighborhood investment doesn’t have to result in resident displacement, and that social housing can be built even in the most expensive area of a city.

In March, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy invited a diverse group of researchers and practitioners from around the world to join several of its staff members for a four-day study tour. Blending classroom sessions with site visits, the study tour allowed participants to explore firsthand this well-known example of land value capture. Sometimes called land value return, land value capture refers to any set of policies that allows a community to recover and reinvest increases in land value that result from public investment or other government action, such as a new transit station or a change in zoning requirements.

“In São Paulo, we have at least two good examples of slums that were upgraded in places where land is very expensive,” explains Paulo Sandroni, an economist who co-developed the course with urbanist Camila Maleronka. “We had the idea to present to people and explain the instruments that we used—first, to capture land increment value, and second, to maintain the people living in slums in the same place they were living, but now in very good apartments.”

The process works like this: The city chooses an area to receive some public intervention as part of an “Urban Operation.” Developers who wish to build larger structures than what’s allowed in that zone can purchase Certificates for Additional Construction Potential, or CEPACs, which are sold on the public stock exchange—meaning the private sector ultimately sets their price. The revenue from those CEPAC auctions then funds public works and social housing in the same neighborhood.

But just because it’s possible to capture and reinvest land value increments into social housing doesn’t mean it’s inevitable, especially in pricey neighborhoods. “The community of Coliseu had to fight against many odds, many forces, from developers, from neighbors that didnt want them to stay there, including some people from the administration,” Sandroni says. “But the leaders of this movement, they said, ‘We have the right to be here. The legislation gave us the tools to stay here, and there is money to build these buildings. It was a wonderful example of inclusionary urban development.”

A soft focus, head and shoulders portrait of a woman in a colorful striped dress. In the foreground, her hand is in focus, holding a key ring with a metal, house-shaped keychain. The words on the keychain are in Portuguese and the translation is 'City of Sao Paulo Housing.'
A Coliseu resident with the key to her new home. Credit: Marcelo Pereira/SECOM via City of São Paulo.

São Paulo’s value capture tools have been the focus of many case studies—but seeing their results in person, in place, helped bring the concept to life for many participants, who hailed from organizations like the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), and the Centre for Affordable Housing Finance in Africa, among others.

“I was really struck by what I saw in São Paulo,” says Line Algoed, an urban anthropologist at Vrije Universiteit Brussel. “I knew about land value capture, but I had never seen the results in person. I didn’t know about CEPACs, and the other instruments used in São Paulo—it puts this city at the forefront of innovative urbanism.”

The results in São Paulo haven’t been perfect, Algoed adds, “but it is so good to see that the local government is trying to mitigate the consequences of unbridled land speculation.”

Hiro Ito joined the course with a curiosity about financial mechanisms that could help cities pay for climate infrastructure. Ito is the program manager for the EBRD’s Green City Action Plan, where he works with municipal governments to identify investments and policies that can help them prepare for environmental challenges and climate change. “We’ve developed action plans with 47 cities,” Ito says. “But many of those actions, particularly those related to nature or climate adaptation, are being left unimplemented,” often due to a lack of funding.

“Nature-based solutions, flood protection, mitigation for urban heat island effect—these projects are not traditionally revenue generating,” Ito explains. “Hopefully this will be another way to strengthen municipal finances so that cities around the world can do a lot more in those spaces.”

On a walking tour that included both the Coliseu building and São Paulo’s iconic Octavio Frias de Oliveira bridge, Ito was impressed with the scope and scale of the city’s investments—and wondered whether a similar land value capture tool could work in Ankara, Turkey, where EBRD is helping to finance the construction of a new metro line. Right after the trip, Ito and colleagues began studying “how we could potentially implement a land-based financing tool for the Ankara Metropolitan Municipality,” he says, since there are several publicly owned sites that could be developed nearby. “Could we introduce mechanisms like CEPACs to collect fees from that redevelopment? Ultimately, it’s to cover the cost of the metro extensions, but potentially those urban regeneration sites could incorporate other social and environmental benefits.”

Rosana Maria dos Santos speaks to a group of listeners who are gathered on an outdoor brick walkway with trees behind them. She is wearing jeans and a white T-shirt and gesturing with her hands.
Participants in the Lincoln Institute São Paulo study tour listen to Coliseu community leader Rosana Maria dos Santos. Credit: Lincoln Institute.

Ito appreciated that the course instructors, Sandroni and Maleronka, explained some of the shortcomings, limitations, and challenges of São Paulo’s approach as well. He recognizes that similar success hinges on certain conditions.

“We are testing this in Turkiye, because the urban population is growing, so theres a strong demand for more housing—it makes sense to some developers to buy additional rights,” Ito says. “But not all of the countries where the EBRD operates have a similar population trend,” he adds, noting that the real estate markets of smaller cities in Bulgaria or Romania, for example, may not be strong enough to support land-based financing. “But we did really like the idea of this market-based approach to set the price … I think that was a very clever way of getting the most out of the space.”

What resonated most with Kecia Rust, founder and executive director of the Centre for Affordable Housing Finance in Africa, was the state’s assertion that air rights are a public good.

“The overall approach that made Coliseu and other social housing investments, as well as the delivery of São Paulo’s iconic bridge, the monorail, roads, bicycle paths, and other public works investments possible, comes from an underlying philosophy that private property rights can extend in terms of longitude and latitude, but not in height,” Rust wrote in a blog post reflecting on the course. “Air rights are a public good, which the public sector sells to generate revenue to invest in public works and social housing,” she continued. “The city doesn’t have to go into debt when it invests in the construction of roads, bridges, and social housing.”

“I think the key challenge we face in an African context is that we don’t really have the data or the management capacity at local city level to do the extent of what we saw being done in São Paulo,” Rust says. “But what I saw and understood was so inspiring.”

Several Lincoln Institute staff joined the course as well, many of whom, outside of the Latin America team, had never had the chance to see this prominent global example of land value capture in person. “This whole idea of development without displacement, of how to safeguard or de-risk displacement when you invest in communities—thats a topic that is front and center with so much work that we’re doing at the institute,” says Enrique Silva, chief program officer at the Lincoln Institute. Silva intentionally invited staff from across the organization: “This idea of learning together, sharing and learning and exchanging, is something I would love to see happen more.”


Jon Gorey is a staff writer at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Lead image: The 272-unit Coliseu social housing complex, surrounded by the taller buildings of São Paulo’s Vila Olímpia district, is an example of land value capture. Credit: City of São Paulo.

 

In many communities around the world, economic development too often comes with a sinister side effect: displacement of poor and vulnerable residents. As a community attracts jobs, businesses, and people, demand for housing and land may cause its poorest residents to be pushed out—either by forced eviction or by the increasing cost of living. While some may think this is an inevitable outcome of development, it doesn’t have to be.  

This multimedia case study set in the context of informal settlements and extreme inequality in Brazil highlights two innovative urban instruments designed specifically to prevent displacement and spatial inequality: the Urban Operation (selling of development rights) and ZEIS (Special Zones of Social Interest). This story shows what happens when these two instruments work together to combat displacement and highlights the potential impact of ZEIS on land policy and urban planning worldwide.

Looking out from a porch toward water on Sapelo Island, Georgia. Two empty rocking chairs are in the foreground, facing away from the camera toward the water.

Understanding Heirs Property

By Jon Gorey, July 11, 2025

Owning property and leaving it to one’s family has long been considered fundamental to the American dream, a cornerstone of generational wealth. The United States has one of the world’s most established private real estate markets, and individuals and investors alike expect that their property rights will be protected.

Yet hundreds of thousands of Americans own property in a state of precariousness and vulnerability that echoes informal settlements elsewhere in the world. The homes they’ve lived in for years, often inherited from parents or ancestors without a will, confer upon them the responsibilities but not the legal protections of homeownership. Such properties can easily be subject to a forced sale with little warning. Many owners of this type of property, commonly referred to as heirs property, may not realize just how tenuous their claim to their home or land is, until they’re at risk of losing it.

Heirs property exists all over the country, in both rural and urban settings—though it’s most widespread across the South—and disproportionately impacts Black Americans, who for generations have experienced discrimination and exclusion from the kinds of legal and financial systems that undergird the formalized processes of homeownership.

Indeed, the exploitation of heirs property is seen as a major reason Black Americans suffered more than 11 million acres of involuntary land loss between 1910 and 1997, representing more than $325 billion in lost wealth. Developers from North Carolina to Florida have managed to pry heirs property from Gullah Geechee descendants of enslaved West Africans, who were among the first African Americans to own substantial land holdings. In places like Hilton Head, South Carolina, such family land has been converted into valuable coastal real estate—in most cases, without the consent of the rightful owners.

In January, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy convened more than two dozen legal experts, practitioners, and community advocates to discuss challenges associated with heirs property. “Researchers know the problem very well, and have experience with local communities,” says Xinrui Shi, associate director of comparative law and land policy at the Lincoln Institute. “But we can help them connect the dots on the policy side—we see the connection of heirs property to the property tax, disaster management, economic development, and systemic injustices. So the objective of the conference was to bring these different types of expertise together to see how land policies can help address the challenges at a systems level.”

Fractional Ownership and Forced Sales

Heirs property creates two big vulnerabilities “that often intersect and interact with each other,” says Heather K. Way, director of the Housing Policy Clinic at University of Texas School of Law.

The first is fractional ownership. When multiple family members inherit a property together, each heir gets an “undivided interest” in the property—meaning they own a share of the whole thing, not a specific, divisible portion of it. As generations pass, the number of co-owners can grow exponentially—from, say, four children, to 13 grandchildren, to 42 great-grandchildren.

That fractionated ownership makes heirs property highly vulnerable to a forced sale, Way says: “Under our partition laws, any outside party can acquire any of the heirs interest in the property, and file a partition action.”

A partition action is simply a legal mechanism to sever co-ownership in this type of situation; it’s up to a court to decide whether a property can be physically divided in proportion to everyone’s share. While 10 acres of open land can potentially be split evenly among five heirs, there’s no fair way to divvy up a house. “For properties in urban areas or smaller lots, thats going to inevitably lead to a forced sale of the land,” Way says.

What that means is that a distant relative with a small interest in an inherited property can file a partition action to essentially cash out their share of the estate. But it also means a developer can seek out such heirs and purchase their shares, with the intent of filing for partition. In either case, partition can result in a forced sale of the entire property—often at auction, for pennies on the dollar—even if other descendants are actively living there and caring for the property.

Mavis Gragg, North Carolina-based attorney and cofounder of HeirShares, recalls the case of two brothers she worked with, aged 18 and 23. They were living in their grandmother’s home, where they had been raised. But when the grandmother died, the brothers ended up co-owning the house with her widower, who moved away and remarried. He filed a partition action, but the brothers couldn’t afford to buy him out. Since the house couldn’t be physically, equitably divided, “the partition action actually triggered a possibility of homelessness for the kids,” Gragg says.

“The fact that we have inheritance laws is speaking to the American dream,” she adds. “Owning something, taking care of your family, you have so much more agency when you own real estate. But our laws fall short of actually making it successful across generations.” (Listen to a 2024 interview with Gragg on the Land Matters podcast.)

Tangled Titles

Heirs property usually, though not always, involves a second vulnerability: a clouded or tangled title, meaning there’s no legal paper trail showing who inherited the property.

“Heirs property owners are highly susceptible to loss,” Gragg says. “But the real challenge for most families with inherited property is that they dont have a clear ownership history.”

A map of the prevalence of heirs property by county across the United States shows categories that range from no data to property ownership by heirs of up to 41.9 percent. Higher percentages are visible in the mid-Atlantic, the South, and the Plains states through and including Montana.
A report produced in 2023 by the Housing Assistance Council and Fannie Mae suggests that up to 42 percent of the property in some U.S. counties qualifies as heirs property. The total assessed value of the identified properties is approximately $32.3 billion, says the report, adding that “this is a very conservative figure.” Credit: Copyright Fannie Mae.

Someone who’s living in an inherited family home is, in a sense, experiencing land informality. When an occupant’s name doesn’t match the property’s deed, and they can’t prove ownership, “they face tenure insecurity, lack of access to capital, and barriers to obtaining insurance or other forms of protection,” says Semida Munteanu, associate director of valuation and land markets at the Lincoln Institute.

While they’re still responsible for paying taxes and maintaining the property, it can be difficult for heirs property occupants to access assistance, such as property tax relief programs designed to help low-income homeowners stay in their homes. A homestead exemption, for example, can reduce an owner occupant’s property tax burden by thousands of dollars a year—but only if they can prove ownership.

“Tax relief programs are designed to prevent people from being forced out of their homes due to high property tax bills, but most programs have homeownership requirements for eligibility,” Munteanu says. “When you cant prove that youre the owner through traditional means, such as a recorded title deed, then you may not have access to the relief.”

And that, Way says, makes heirs property owners more susceptible to another form of land loss: property tax foreclosure. In studying the prevalence of heirs properties among tax foreclosures in Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas, Way found a striking connection. “In Tarrant and Dallas counties, over half of the property tax foreclosures are heirs properties, which is really stunning.”

Lost Opportunity

Even if a property is not forcibly sold through partition or through tax foreclosure, heirs property owners can lose out on wealth in other ways.

It’s difficult to get a home equity loan or home insurance with a clouded title, for example, or to sell the property at market value. (Most buyers, and their lenders, will insist upon a clear title.) Any meaningful action, like refinancing the mortgage or replacing the roof, requires the written consent of every single heir. And it’s difficult to access home improvement loans or even most home repair assistance programs when one’s name doesn’t match the deed. That can make it harder to modernize or weatherize a property, or to keep up with necessary maintenance.

Theoretically, a lender could extend a loan secured by heirs property, says Cassandra Johnson Gaither, research social scientist at the USDA Forest Service. “But practically speaking, that’s not likely to happen,” she adds, when there are potentially dozens of heirs all over the country. “Because the creditor would have to get the agreement of all of the co-owners—and in many cases, that is next to impossible to do, even if the lender was willing to.”

“We know that one of the impediments heirs property owners face is being able to maintain their property and to keep it in good condition,” Way says. State and local programs provide billions of dollars in home repair assistance to low-income homeowners, “but in the vast majority of cases, those programs are off-limits to heirs property owners with tangled titles,” Way says.

Often that’s just the result of policy inertia, she adds, with program rules rooted in the understandable caution of the city lawyers who drafted them. But Way says it’s important to consider the intersectionality between heirs property and other issues in our communities.

“If youre barring the ability of heirs property homeowners to access home repair assistance, theyre not going to be able to repair or maintain their homes, and those are the homes that are eventually going to become abandoned and vacant,” Way says. “And thats going to create all sorts of other costs and impacts for cities in the long run, in terms of tax delinquencies, code enforcement costs, demolition costs. So not only does that result in robbing that family of their greatest asset by not facilitating their ability to repair or maintain their home, its going to have all these ripple effects and direct costs to cities and to communities in the form of abandoned and vacant properties.”

Johnson Gaither stresses that many heirs property owners take very good care of their parcels. But the uncertainty of ownership status can often make heirs property owners reluctant to invest time or money in a property—which can increase risks for the broader community, and not just in urban areas.

“Broadly speaking, because of the insecurities around this kind of property ownership, owners —if they even know that they have an ownership interest in the property—are probably less likely to invest in it,” Johnson Gaither says. “If theyre not investing in the property, theyre not, say, managing for wildfire. Theyre not clearing the understory if they have forest land.”

The US Legal System: A Fixer-Upper

At the January conference, attendees discussed some of the ongoing efforts to remedy heirs property issues, and what more can be done.

One legislative effort to address some of the worst impacts of partition sales is the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act (UPHPA), now adopted by 23 states and introduced in six more. Under the UPHPA, when one heir or co-owner seeks a partition, the remaining co-owners have a right of first refusal—a chance to organize and buy out the lone petitioner. If a buyout isn’t possible, the court must take into account sentimental value and family legacy, and give real preference to dividing the property rather than selling it. And if a sale is deemed necessary, the property must be appraised for its fair market value and sold on the open market, rather than at auction. Some states have modified the law further—as in New York, where only heirs, not investors, can start the partition process.

Another policy states can readily adopt is to allow heirs property owners to provide alternative proof of ownership to qualify for property tax relief or other assistance. Texas, for example, now allows heirs to submit an affidavit along with other documents as proof of ownership in their application for a homestead exemption.

When it comes to disaster relief, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) since 2021 has allowed heirs property owners to submit a statement of ownership to access individual assistance recovery funds. (After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, up to $165 million in relief funds went unclaimed due to title issues.) But some longer-term relief is administered through block grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which has yet to make such a change—though some states, including Texas and Louisiana, now accept sworn affidavits and other documentation as proof of ownership for these funds.

States can also make it easier for homeowners to pass on their property—more akin to designating a beneficiary for a 401(k) than drawing up a will, which involves cumbersome, costly processes for both generations. In order for a will to be effective, heirs have to file it through probate court, which can take a lot of time and money, says Francine Miller, senior staff attorney at Vermont Law and Graduate School’s Center for Agriculture and Food Systems. “But there are tools, and they’re different in every state, to transfer real property without it having to go through a will,” she says.

More than 30 states now permit either a transfer-on-death deed (TODD) or a lady bird deed (so called because President Johnson reportedly used this method to transfer property to his wife), “where you can literally sign a deed to a person, and it doesn’t take effect until you die, and then it doesn’t have to go through probate,” Miller says. “They have to file that with the land records in order to transfer the title, but that’s a whole lot easier than probate.”

Of Trust and Trusts

For legal reforms to work as intended, they need to consider input from impacted communities, says Josiah ‘Jazz’ Watts, community engagement director for Vulnerable Communities Initiative and justice strategist for One Hundred Miles. “You can technically and legally do a lot of things to help people,” he says, “but if you do not understand the dynamics of families, it could all be in vain, and it may not have the positive impact that it needs to have.” Some Gullah Geechee residents, for example, pushed back against a loan program in the 2018 Farm Bill that accepted heirs property as collateral, concerned that it could lead to further loss of ancestral lands.

In researching cases where heirs property owners had gone through the title clearing process, Johnson Gaither heard similar sentiments. “The supposition is that once these titles are cleared, that should enable people to move more into the economic mainstream,” Johnson Gaither says. While people who had a cleared title were, unsurprisingly, more likely to assume loans, “a good number of them were not interested in getting loans,” she says. “They didn’t want to get into a situation where their property might be taken away from them—that was really stressed.”

Sapelo Island descendant and justice strategist Jazz Watts in 2024. Credit: AP Photo/Russ Bynum.

Clearing a property’s title can be costly—if it’s even possible to do. Pew Charitable Trusts estimated the average cost of resolving a tangled title in Philadelphia to be $9,200. Legal aid organizations and law school clinics can offer heirs property owners free or discounted services, but their capacity and reach is limited. “Being able to find strong legal partners, good attorneys that you can trust, in small rural towns—that can be extremely difficult,” Watts says.

But in some of the communities he works with along the Georgia coast, “once a year they will have an estate planning clinic,” he says, with partners such as the Georgia Heirs Property Law Center, Georgia Legal Services, or Atlanta Legal Aid. “Those partnerships are incredible success stories,” he adds. “We have had partnerships with private law firms, through their pro bono departments, and then also with great attorneys like Veronica McClendon, who has done work on Sapelo Island and in other places for families, where she’s helped them to secure their estates, and also fight against unfounded claims on their on their family land.”

Such education and outreach is also crucial to preventing the creation of more heirs property. The Initiative on Land, Housing, and Property Rights at Boston College School of Law, for example, has partnered with the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance to include a session on estate planning as part of the organization’s first-time homebuyer curriculum.

Mavis Gragg, CEO of HeirShares and the 2024-2025 Kingsbury Browne Distinguished Practitioner.

While creating a will or a transfer-on-death deed is an important baseline step for homeowners, Gragg says entity-centered forms of estate planning, such as living trusts or LLCs, are better suited to ensuring property stays in a family for generations. “If we’re thinking about multiple generations of real estate ownership, individual wills are not enough,” she says, because they only apply to a single transfer. Even if every family member makes a will—which is rarely the case—that only secures the home for a single generation.

“Think about conservation easements,” she explains. “The reason we make them perpetual is because we want to ensure that certain things happen over time. That requires very specific conditions, it’s a comprehensive strategy.” Instead of relying on a patchwork of individual wills, an entity-centered model lays out a plan for the property itself under a single, broader umbrella.

Forming a trust or family LLC is more expensive than a basic will, but Gragg says these are investments worth making. “The reality is that it can cost thousands of dollars to [set up a trust],” Gragg says. “But I think paying those thousands of dollars is a much better deal than losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in value because you lost ownership due to a partition.”

It can be difficult for families—and, for that matter, legislators—to discuss death and the uncertainty of the future. But heirs property experts say these conversations are essential.

“I always tell families, especially matriarchs and patriarchs,” Watts says, “that today, right now, you have the power to craft what the legacy will be for your family. For your name. For your land.”


Jon Gorey is a staff writer at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Lead image: View from a home on Sapelo Island, Georgia. Over the last couple of decades, descendants of the formerly enslaved people who established communities on the small island in the late 1800s have fought to reestablish their rights to the land. Credit: Wirestock/Alamy Stock Photo.

In Denver, Mike Johnston Confronts Success: The City’s Popularity Has Made It Pricey

July 9, 2025

By Anthony Flint, July 9, 2025

 

Mike Johnston, a one-time high school English teacher, has been overseeing a significant boom in one of the most prominent cities in the Intermountain West. Denver has been attracting people and businesses with its temperate climate and outdoorsy quality of life, but this popularity has also caused growing pains, starting with increasingly high housing costs, homelessness, and recently some significant municipal budget woes.

Johnston has tackled the challenges one by one, beginning with a permitting process overhaul, steps to reduce costs in building, and tax abatements and other incentives, like a density bonus, to encourage more construction.

“We have a lot of people that want to move to Denver. That’s driving a lot of economic growth. We’re thrilled about it. It also drives lots of housing demand,” Johnston said in an interview for the Mayor’s Desk series, recorded on the Land Matters podcast. “The overarching theme is, we have to add a lot more housing supply.”

In the wide-ranging interview, Johnston also reflected on his aggressive campaign to clear out homeless encampments in the city. As part of this effort, officials have provided customized relocations to private transitional housing units with services and support for the unhoused.

“When you have high cost of housing cities, you get more people who can’t afford to pay that cost. That is just a mathematical fact. And so that means many of the cities that are growing and are in high demand, like the Denvers, or the San Franciscos, or the Austins, or Seattles, are the places where we see this struggle.”

The strategy of individualized housing solutions, while expensive, has been working, he said. “We think it can work for other cities, and we’ll share these lessons with anyone who’s willing to take them on, because we think we should set the expectation in every American city that street homelessness can be a solvable problem.”

He also expressed confidence that the state and the metropolitan region will have continued success fighting climate change, as federal policy backs away from addressing that global crisis. He said incentives for electrification, electric vehicle infrastructure, and energy-efficiency upgrades like heat pumps are contributing to the city’s goal of being carbon neutral by 2040.

“We don’t want to make it too expensive to do business in Denver, and yet we still want to be aggressively committed to hitting climate goals,” he said. “People do care. And there’s a lot we can do,” such as encouraging residents to take more trips by bike or walking, or to consolidate trips made in single occupancy vehicles.

“We want to encourage people to take more local action now, in the face of federal abandonment of [climate action] … we’ll keep setting our own targets for how our vehicles, our businesses, and our residents try to hit aggressive climate goals, knowing that we’re still all in this together, even if the President doesn’t want to make it a priority.”

Being mayor is the latest step in a professional journey that began with teaching English in the Mississippi Delta. From there, Johnston returned to Colorado to become a school principal, leading three different schools in the Denver Metro area. In 2009 he was elected to the Colorado State Senate, where he served two terms representing Northeast Denver. He was also a senior education advisor to President Obama and CEO of Gary Community Ventures, a philanthropic organization, where he led coalitions to pass the state’s first plan for universal preschool and spearheaded efforts to fund affordable housing and address homelessness statewide. He lives in East Denver with his wife Courtney, who is a chief deputy district attorney, and their three children.

Johnston, 50, was part of the Lincoln Institute mayor’s panel at the American Planning Association’s National Planning Conference in Denver this spring, along with Aaron Brockett and Jeni Arndt, mayors of the Colorado cities of Boulder and Fort Collins, respectively. Senior Fellow Anthony Flint caught up with him several weeks later for this interview, which will also be available in print and online in Land Lines magazine.

Listen to the show here or subscribe to Land Matters on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, YouTube, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

 


Further reading

Denver Mayor Mike Johnston’s latest affordable housing strategy: tax rebates for developers | Denverite

Will Denverites Come Back to the Newly Renovated 16th Street? | 5280

Opinion: Denver Parking Minimums Increase Housing Costs | Westword

Mayor says downtown Denver has made a ‘dramatic change’ | Denverite

Denver City Hall Takes a Page from NASA to Tackle Housing Barriers |  Bloomberg CityLab

Zoning Report: Colorado | National Zoning Atlas

Who Should Pay to Fix the Sidewalk? | Bloomberg CityLab

 


Anthony Flint is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, host of the Land Matters podcast, and a contributing editor of Land Lines.


Transcript

Anthony Flint: Welcome back to land matters, the podcast of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. I’m your host, Anthony Flint. On this show, we’re continuing our Mayor’s Desk series –- our Q&A’s with municipal chief executives from around the world — with Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, who was inaugurated as the 46th mayor of that city pretty much 2 years ago this summer in July 2023. It’s fair to say he’s been overseeing a significant boom in one of the most prominent cities in the Intermountain West, which has been attracting people and business with its temperate climate and outdoorsy quality of life. Yet Denver has had its growing pains, too, with increasingly high housing costs. We see modest bungalows in several neighborhoods in Denver, easily selling for a million dollars or more … a not-unrelated homelessness problem, and recently some significant municipal budget woes.

Mayor Johnson started his career as a high school English teacher in the Mississippi Delta, and returned home to Colorado to become a school principal, leading 3 different schools in the Denver Metro area. He later served as a senior education advisor to President Obama. In 2009 he was elected to the Colorado State Senate, where he served 2 terms representing Northeast Denver, working on issues, including immigration, gun safety and the clean energy transition. He later served as the CEO of Gary Community Ventures, a local philanthropic organization where he led coalitions to pass the State’s 1st plan for universal preschool and spearheaded efforts to fund affordable housing and address homelessness statewide. Mayor Johnston grew up in Colorado, speaks Spanish and lives in East Denver with his wife Courtney, who is a chief deputy district attorney and their 3 kids. Your honor, thank you for joining the conversation at Land Matters, and being part of the Mayor’s Desk series.

Mayor Mike Johnston: I’m delighted to be on. Thank you so much for having me.

Anthony Flint: Well, as I mentioned in the intro, like a lot of booming metropolitan regions, Denver is facing down a housing affordability problem. So, first question, what are the key elements for addressing this crisis?

Mayor Mike Johnston: You bet, Anthony, and again thank you for having me, and I think the opening frame for me which you mentioned … My dad used to say, the only thing worse than being hated is being loved, you know, and what we know for Denver is, we do have folks from all over the country and all over the world who want to move to Denver. And that is a great problem to have. I have friends who are mayors and cities facing very different challenges, which is declining populations and lots of vacant buildings, because people don’t want to move there. Denver is now, I think, the number 2 desired destination for people under age 30 in the United States. And so we have a lot of people that want to move to Denver. That’s driving a lot of economic growth. We’re thrilled about it. It also drives lots of housing demand.

So for us there are three big top priorities here. The overarching theme is, we have to add a lot more housing supply, as you know, but we think there are three ways to do that. One is to make it faster to build housing for us. That means an aggressive strategy on permitting reform to make our permitting system go from what was a two and a half to three-year process to now, what will be a commitment from us to have every permit only take 180 days of time in the city’s hands. We created a new citywide permitting office that unifies all of the functions of permitting that were spread across seven departments, now into one director, who reports directly to me so part of that is making it easier to build in Denver.

The second is reducing the costs of building wherever we can. And so we’re doing that, obviously making the process faster. Reduce the cost. But also we’re doing more to provide our own tax abatements and our own tax programs. We launched a middle class housing strategy this week. That’s focused on providing property tax abatements for up to 10 years in exchange for a 30 year, commitment on deed, restricted affordability for people that are middle class Denverites who need to be able to afford to live in the city. So we think those incentives matter. And then, of course, we are investing more in affordable housing. We know that the city can’t solve this alone, and the market can’t solve it alone. We need a partnership where we will invest city resources into projects where we can be hopefully a smaller and smaller part of the capital stack. But just enough of the stack to be able to buy long-term affordability in the form of deed restrictions. And so for us, it’s making the city build faster. It’s making costs cheaper. And it’s making more public investment with really clear public goals. We’ve set a clear public goal to bring on 3,000 affordable units every year, and provide access for 3,000 households to affordable units every year. That’s about twice the rate what the city was bringing on before we got into office. And so we know we have to be really aggressive about bringing on a lot more housing, a lot more quickly and a lot more affordably.

Anthony Flint: Your campaign to address homeless encampments in Denver triggered a little bit of backlash, including some criticism of the expense. Can you explain your approach, and how it might apply to other cities? And is there anything you would do differently?

Mayor Mike Johnston: Yeah, I think this is one that we are really excited about, because I think many Americans have given into the belief that homelessness is an unsolvable problem that we are just stuck with this as a component of modern life. And, as you said accurately, Anthony, what we know is homelessness exists in the greatest acuity in cities, not because there’s high rates of poverty, not because there’s high rates of unemployment, not because of the political ideology of those cities. It exists in direct correlation to the cost of housing. In those cities. When you have high cost of housing cities, you get more people who can’t afford to pay that cost. That is just a mathematical fact. And so that means many of the cities that are growing and are in high demand, like the Denver’s, or the San Francisco’s, or the Austins, or Seattle’s, are the places where we see this struggle. But what we have really seen is that this is a problem that can be solved by addressing those core needs. And so I’ll lead with the headline that … we set an ambitious goal to try to end street homelessness in my 1st term. Four years. That seems impossible. Well, I’ll tell you, we’re two years in right now, and we have now reduced our street homelessness in Denver by 45% in a little less than two years. That is … the largest reduction of street homelessness in any city in American history, over two years, of which we’re very proud. But it’s also a clear sign that halfway through the term. We’re halfway on the path of that goal. We think other cities should be ambitious. And believing that this is a solvable problem, let me talk about the way we’ve done this, which we think is also really scalable.

What we’ve done is first really focused on bringing on what we call transitional housing units which are dignified, individual private units. A lot of these are hotels we’ve bought and converted. They’re tiny home villages that we’ve built. But critically, it’s not shelter like sleeping on a gym floor with 100 people on a mat. It is a place where you have a locked door. You have privacy, you have access to showers and bathrooms and kitchens. You can store your stuff when you go to work for the day.

And we brought on wraparound services on each of these sites. So our first big effort was to bring on 1,000 units of transitional housing, you know, like many cities, previous Administration fought this battle, and took 2 or 3 years to fight, to put one tiny home village of about 40 units into one neighborhood with a number of lawsuits. We said, we have to bring on units at the scale of the problems. We brought on a thousand units, and (over) six months I did 60 town halls all across the city, talking to neighbors and all of those locations about why this would make such a big difference. We put wraparound services — mental health addiction, support, workforce training, long-term housing navigation — on each of those sites. So people don’t have to always return just to downtown to get those services. And once we brought those units on, then we went geographically to the places where encampments existed in Denver, and instead of sweeping those encampments from block to block, where they just show up in front of someone else’s house or someone else’s church or hospital, we would actually go to those encampments and resolve them. We would close that encampment entirely by moving all 50 people or 100 people. In one case we had almost 200 people in one encampment, closing those encampments, resolving them, moving all those folks into housing, and then importantly keeping that block or that region of the city permanently closed to future camping. So the result is, two years in, we’ve now closed every encampment in the city. We haven’t had a single tent inside of our downtown business district for more than a year and a half we have cut family homelessness by 83%. We’ve become the largest city ever to end street homelessness for veterans. We have no veterans anymore on the streets who can’t get access to housing, and, importantly, anyone can walk down any street or sidewalk or public park, and none of them have tents or encampments in them, so we’ve both made sure there’s a real change in the experience for residents of Denver and those people who are most at risk of starving to death, freezing to death, overdosing on the streets … we moved off of the streets into transitional housing that has really worked for us. We think it can work for other cities, and we’ll share these lessons with anyone who’s willing to take them on, because we think we should set the expectation in every American city that street homelessness can be a solvable problem.

Anthony Flint: Are you satisfied with the number of people using this very impressive and extensive light rail network in Denver Metro, and the number of people living essentially in transit oriented development? Or is the system facing growing pains, and if so, why? A related question … any lessons learned from the relatively light ridership on the free bus on the 16th Street Transit Mall, which is finally concluding its renovation after long delays? But first the light rail network, transit-oriented development … How is it going.

Mayor Mike Johnston: As you, said, Anthony, we’re not satisfied yet, and that is because, as you know, transit and housing have to be connected strategies. Housing is a transit strategy. If you’re mindful about actually building housing and building density of housing around our public transit networks. And so we had this great transit network built. We did not have density of housing around any of those spots. And so what we’re doing now is undertaking a series of very large catalytic investments in a number of areas around the city that are on these light rail lines. So we can build thousands and thousands of units of housing along that corridor. We just, for instance, acquired the largest piece of private property in city history to turn into a public park. It will be a 155-acre park. It is right next to a light rail stop, so we can now add housing and housing density all around that site — beautiful location, and people can get on light rail and get right to downtown or do a Broncos game or anything else. We just won a franchise expansion, the one franchise expansion for the National Women’s Soccer League, and so we’ll have a new women’s soccer franchise. We’re building a new women’s soccer stadium also at a TOD site that we’ll have on that campus … a lot of dense housing commercial activities also connected to public transit. We’re rebuilding our stock show in a historically Latino part of North Denver — Globeville, Elyria, Swansea — that’ll allow us to add about 60 acres of new housing, public spaces, commercial activation also all on public transit. So our belief is, you have to actually be deliberate about building real density around your public transit as much as you want to build your public transit around well traveled lines of travel in the city. And so that’s a big part of our strategy. When we add that density, we know most of the major cities like ours that aren’t yet a New York, or a DC, with a full functioning subway line. You can’t just throw in that infrastructure and hope the city accommodates because people have lots of places to go to. You have to build nodes of real density around the city. So even though you might have 3 or 4 different jobs over the next 10 years, those jobs can be concentrated among different regions, and your housing can, and your activities can (as well). So that’s our big strategy around that. And you’ll see us make historic investments in doing that in the next couple of years.

But a part of that is downtown, is our downtown strategy. And you mentioned our 16th Street bus that we have, that’s free downtown. We’re making the largest investment in our downtown, also of any city in the country, per capita. Right now, about $600 million through a tax increment financing system that will focus on one getting more people to live downtown. We want downtown to be a neighborhood, not just a business district. And so we’re going to add about 4,000 units of housing in our city center, using these funds that we have from our downtown Denver authority, because we know that means more people that will use that bus every day that we’ll get to and from work they will go to see friends. So that’s a big part of our strategy. We’re working on filling up about 7 million square feet of vacant office space — like many cities, have about 4 million of that, we will use with residential conversion. We think one of the most ambitious residential conversion plans in the country. The other 3 million we’ll use by bringing people back to the office, recruiting businesses to come downtown, stay downtown, we think the more we activate that location the more folks will use the public transit, and the more people can use the connected public transit of coming from a neighborhood in East Denver or North Denver, take the light rail down to downtown, use the 16th Street ride to get up and down 16th Street … we have the second largest theater complex in the country off of Broadway. We have 5 professional sports franchises in our city center. We have Michelin Star restaurants. We’ll have the Sundance film festival coming to Colorado. There’s so much to be attracted to seeing. We want to make it easy to get to downtown and around downtown, and this will do that.

Anthony Flint: Given the current municipal fiscal challenges in Denver, what is your thinking about alternative financing systems such as a land value tax or value capture, as seen in the 38th & Blake incentive overlay? I’m hoping you might explain the concept as you see it and how or whether its rationale makes sense to you.

Mayor Mike Johnston: We are interested in every incentive we can find to encourage folks to build more housing. The 38th and Blake overlay was really kind of a density bonus, where we allow folks to build higher buildings than what the zoning might allow in exchange for adding more affordable housing, and we are always looking at ways to incentivize folks to add more affordable housing. So we’re delighted to do that. I think that also links to the program I described briefly which is our our middle class housing program we launched yesterday, which is also focused on a property tax abatement. We’ll offer up to 10 years of property tax abatement for people that are going to build middle class affordable housing. So think about that as people making sixty to a hundred thousand a year as an individual … and that’s about a 10 year property tax abatement for a 30-year commitment of affordability. So that’s a great deal for us. We’re also looking at partnership on places where we have public land. We’re looking at working with city-owned land, working with Denver public schools where they have land, our regional transit system, if they have land. And so we’re always looking to contribute public land as a way to incentivize more affordability. But we want to do a all of the above strategy. But wherever we can add more housing without having to invest more dollars in these fiscal times that’s a big help

[Re-stated] Our belief is we want to do an all of the above strategy on every way we can incentivize people to build more affordable housing. So for us, that means we want to use city land. Whenever we can do that, we’ll use public land to be able to incentivize a deal. We’ll partner with other public agencies like the Denver public schools, or like the regional transit system or the State. That’s always a great way for us to incentivize. And that’s why we’ve used strategies like this middle class housing program we launched, which is a property tax abatement where folks can get 10 years of property tax abatement for a 30 year, commitment of deed, restricted affordability through a special limited partnership. So we’re going to use every strategy we have, particularly in tough economic times, and you don’t have big new dollars to invest in supporting affordable housing. We have to find other creative ways and density. Bonuses are a great way, and we’ll keep doing that as well as everything else we can.

Anthony Flint: Finally, how would you assess the progress of your climate action plans which I see includes incentives for electrification, electric vehicle infrastructure, hot and cold weather heat pumps, energy efficiency … Do you see a tangible embrace at the local level for addressing climate change, especially in the context of retrenchment at the federal level. I mean, just as a practical matter, the federal government is getting out of the climate business. So can cities and states take that over and be effective?

Mayor Mike Johnston: We don’t see any change at all in our city’s commitment to climate action or our conviction that this is a still existentially important effort for us to undertake. And so we are not slowing down at all. We’re not changing our path, and what we are doing is trying to make sure we’re committed to an aggressive vision to meet our climate goals, which for us is a 2040 plan to be entirely carbon free by 2040, to have 100% renewable energy. And also to make sure we’re driving economic growth. We want to do both. And so we don’t want to make it too expensive to do business in Denver, and yet we still want to be aggressively committed to hitting climate goals. And we’re doing that. We’ve done things like we had, I think, one of the nation-leading efforts on making our commercial buildings more energy efficient through a program we have called Energize Denver. We also had concerns from the business community about how to comply with the cost to make those adjustments to buildings. And so we spent a lot of time with our landowners and building owners and business leaders, and we revised that plan to both decrease the penalties, extend the amount of time folks can comply, put a cap on the overall amount of changes they have to make, which drops the cost dramatically for our business partners, but still keeps us on path to hit aggressive 2040 climate goals. So people do care. And there’s a lot we can do. There’s behavior change. We’re doing a whole campaign on behavior change, to encourage folks to take more trips by bike or walking … Can they consolidate or condense the number of single occupancy vehicle trips that they take. And so part of it is about awareness. Part of it’s about behavior change and part of it’s about a good policy on things like banning plastic bags. Obviously, and being able to incentivize more and more solar and wind. So we think this is purely a part of Denver’s brand. We want to be able to be a great city and a good city. We want to be able to have a great economy, and also have great connection to the natural environment of the outdoors. And so for us, it’s it’s good climate and good business, and we’ll continue to do both.

Anthony Flint: And local and state government taking this over, are you optimistic about that? The question is, can they really take this over, a planet-wide issue, and really be effective.

Mayor Mike Johnston: I think we don’t believe that we should give up here or step away. Our campaign, we call, do more or do less, but do something, whether it’s going to do more in the way of recycling, or less in the way of using a single occupancy vehicle or doing something in terms of being able to make decisions about where and how you use energy. We want to encourage people to take more local action now, in the face of federal abandonment of this. The things that we’ll need help on are the things that made a big difference. The federal tax credits on electrical vehicle purchases — those are big drivers of behavior change. I sponsored when I was in the Senate a state credit that does the same thing — provide incentives, tax incentives for electric vehicle purchases. Here we’re building out aggressively, charging station infrastructure to make it easier for us to convert our fleet vehicles to be electric to get more Ubers and Lyfts and Fedexes and Amazons and UPS (vehicles) to do the same. And to convince regular residents do the same. So we’ll keep building the infrastructure to do this. We’ll keep incentivizing people to do it. We’ll keep changing behavior to do it, and we’ll keep setting our own targets for how our vehicles, our businesses, and our residents try to hit aggressive climate goals, knowing that we’re still all in this together, even if the President doesn’t want to make it a priority.

Anthony Flint: Mike Johnston, Mayor of Denver, Colorado. Thank you once again for this conversation.

Mayor Mike Johnston: Thanks so much for having me, Anthony. It’s great to meet you.

Anthony Flint: You can learn more about all the issues we covered — strategies for affordable housing, sustainable urbanism, transit-oriented development, value capture, and of course, the challenge of climate change, pursuing both mitigation and resilience — all of that and more at the Lincoln Institute website, www.lincolninst.edu. While you’re there, scroll to the bottom and join our mailing list to get periodic updates on our work. And also on social media, the handle is @landpolicy. Finally, don’t forget to rate, share and subscribe to the Land Matters podcast. For now, I’m Anthony Flint, signing off until next time.

Read full transcript