Máster en Políticas de Suelo y Desarrollo Urbano Sostenible
January 15, 2024 - March 19, 2025
Online
Offered in Spanish
SHARE
El máster en Políticas de Suelo y Desarrollo Urbano Sostenible es un programa académico online en español que reúne de manera única los marcos legales y herramientas que sostienen la planificación urbana, junto con instrumentos fiscales, ambientales y de participación, desde una perspectiva internacional y comparada. El programa está dirigido especialmente a estudiantes de posgrado y otros graduados con interés en políticas urbanas desde una perspectiva jurídica, ambiental y de procesos de participación, así como a funcionarios públicos. Los participantes del máster recibirán el entrenamiento teórico y técnico para liderar la implementación de medidas que permitan la transformación sostenible de las ciudades.
El programa fue pensado de manera modular: los participantes pueden elegir realizar uno, dos o tres módulos, cada uno de los cuales otorga el diploma de experto universitario. Si llevan a cabo los tres módulos y finalizan con éxito el programa de fin de máster, obtienen el título de máster de formación permanente, otorgado por UNED.
Details
Date
January 15, 2024 - March 19, 2025
Registration Period
September 11, 2023 - November 30, 2023
Location
Online
Language
Spanish
Educational Credit Type
Lincoln Institute certificate
Keywords
Climate Mitigation, Development, Dispute Resolution, Environmental Management, Exclusionary Zoning, Favela, Henry George, Informal Land Markets, Infrastructure, Land Market Regulation, Land Speculation, Land Use, Land Use Planning, Land Value, Land Value Taxation, Land-Based Tax, Local Government, Mediation, Municipal Fiscal Health, Planning, Property Taxation, Public Finance, Public Policy, Regulatory Regimes, Resilience, Reuse of Urban Land, Urban Development, Urbanism, Value Capture
Fellowships
China Program International Fellowship 2024-25
Submission Deadline:
November 30, 2023 at 11:59 PM
The Lincoln Institute’s China program invites applications for the annual International Fellowship Program. The program seeks applications from academic researchers working on the following topics in China:
Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the future of cities;
Climate change and cities;
Urban development trends and patterns;
Urban regeneration;
Municipal finance and land value capture;
Land policies;
Housing policies;
Urban environment and health; and
Land and water conservation.
The fellowship aims to promote international scholarly dialogue on China’s urban development and land policy, and to further the Lincoln Institute’s objective to advance land policy solutions to economic, social, and environmental challenges. The fellowship is provided to scholars who are based outside mainland China. Visit the website of the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy (Beijing) to learn about a separate fellowship for scholars based in mainland China.
Application period: September 29 to November 30, 2023, 11:59 p.m. EST.
El máster está dirigido especialmente a estudiantes de posgrado y otros graduados con interés en políticas urbanas desde una perspectiva jurídica, ambiental y de procesos de participación, así como a funcionarios públicos. Los participantes del programa recibirán el entrenamiento teórico y técnico para liderar la implementación de medidas que permitan la transformación sostenible de las ciudades.
Plazo de matrícula ordinario: 11 de septiembre al 30 de noviembre de 2023
El inicio del máster es el 15 de enero de 2024.
El Instituto Lincoln otorgará becas que cubrirán parcialmente el costo del máster de los postulantes seleccionados.
Términos de las becas
Los becarios deben haber obtenido un título de licenciatura de una institución académica o de estudios superiores.
Los fondos de las becas no tienen valor en efectivo y solo cubrirán el 40% del costo total del programa.
Los becarios deben pagar la primera cuota de la matrícula, que representa el 60% del costo total del máster.
Los becarios deben mantener una buena posición académica o perderán el beneficio.
El otorgamiento de la beca dependerá de la admisión formal del postulante al máster UNED-Instituto Lincoln.
Si son seleccionados, los becarios recibirán asistencia virtual para realizar el proceso de admisión de la Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), el cual requiere una solicitud online y una copia del expediente académico o registro de calificaciones de licenciatura y/o posgrado.
Aquellos postulantes que no obtengan la beca parcial del Instituto Lincoln podrán optar a las ayudas que ofrece la UNED, una vez que se hayan matriculado en el máster.
Fecha límite para postular: 20 de agosto de 2023, 23:59 horas de Boston, MA, EE.UU. (UTC-5)
Anuncio de resultados: 8 de septiembre de 2023
Details
Submission Deadline
August 20, 2023 at 11:59 PM
Keywords
Climate Mitigation, Development, Dispute Resolution, Environmental Management, Exclusionary Zoning, Favela, Henry George, Informal Land Markets, Infrastructure, Land Market Regulation, Land Speculation, Land Use, Land Use Planning, Land Value, Land Value Taxation, Land-Based Tax, Local Government, Mediation, Municipal Fiscal Health, Planning, Property Taxation, Public Finance, Public Policy, Regulatory Regimes, Resilience, Reuse of Urban Land, Urban Development, Urbanism, Value Capture
Who Owns America: The Geospatial Mapping Technology That Could Help Cities Beat Predatory Investors at Their Own Game
With sophisticated market research powered by prodigious profits, corporate real estate investors have long had the upper hand over vulnerable homeowners and the groups trying to protect them.
Investors can identify distressed homes in otherwise gentrifying neighborhoods, snap them up at a discount, and leave them empty for years waiting for nearby home values to rise. They can target longtime, elderly homeowners who may need to sell at a discount. And with plenty of cash on hand—and a new playbook that includes renting out houses rather than just flipping them—they can outbid individual homebuyers as they turn bedrooms into balance sheet items.
Now, a new data mapping tool from the Lincoln Institute’s Center for Geospatial Solutions (CGS) can help equip nonprofits, advocates, and local governments with similarly powerful technology to help identify and defend affordable housing stock threatened by real estate speculators and absentee landlords.
“It’s a very uneven playing field between private investors, who have the capital and are willing to invest the capital to get this market intelligence, and nonprofits that are struggling to keep the doors open, let alone invest in platforms like this,” says Jeff Allenby, CGS director of Geospatial Technology. “What you see is governments and nonprofits continuously trying to play catch up.”
Down-to-the-Parcel Data
In the wake of the Great Recession, corporations increasingly started purchasing and then renting out not just apartment buildings, but also single-family homes—especially in Sun Belt metro areas and postindustrial legacy cities, where rents remained stable despite lower property prices. Often, that’s had a cascade of negative impacts on low-income communities.
For one thing, it leaves more renters dealing with absentee corporate landlords, who can be quick to force an eviction and raise rents, but slow to fix a leaky roof or resolve code violations. It also reduces the supply of affordable housing stock available to would-be homebuyers, robbing local renters of opportunity.
In Baltimore’s Harlem Park neighborhood, for example, just 53 of the 464 homes sold since 2017—12 percent—were purchased by owner occupants. In 2022, one of every five homes sold in the neighborhood (19.2 percent) was purchased by an out-of-state business, and nearly half were bought by in-state corporations with multiple-property portfolios.
Rowhouses in Baltimore’s Harlem Park neighborhood slated for demolition in 2018 as part of an urban redevelopment effort by the city. The area has now become a target for institutional investors seeking to convert housing into rental properties. Credit: Baltimore Heritage via Flickr CC BY 2.0.
“You just saw this backfill of corporate ownership come into this neighborhood, and it’s going to take years to come back from that,” Allenby says. Where real estate investors once focused on flipping houses for a quick buck, they now see rental properties as a long-term moneymaker. “These houses are just gone, likely in perpetuity, from a homeownership perspective.”
This grim, granular data is courtesy of a CGS initiative called “Who Owns America?” Starting with Baltimore, CGS used a variety of public data sources to map every parcel in the city by its ownership characteristics, cross-checking postal information with deeds and other records to distinguish owner-occupied properties from those owned by private landlords and large or out-of-state businesses.
After coding city-owned residential parcels, Allenby explains, CGS filters for all properties where the owner’s mailing address doesn’t match the physical address—meaning it isn’t owner-occupied. After that, CGS can differentiate between private, off-site owners—local “mom-and-pop” landlords who may own one or two properties, for example—and more formal corporations, checking the names against a series of business-related keywords and acronyms, such as LLC, LLP, incorporated, and so on. Further filtering reveals whether a business is based in or out of state, and whether it owns multiple properties in the city.
The resulting color-coded maps make it clear where owner occupancy is more prevalent and where corporate landlords are most active. Empowered with this intuitive, down-to-the-parcel data, communities can identify housing stock likely to be targeted by speculators. Then they can take steps to defend (or even reclaim) affordable housing before it’s lost to corporate ownership.
The Right to Fight Back
One policy cities can employ to thwart predatory investors is a right of first refusal rule, which gives tenants the option to purchase their home before it’s sold to a corporation. Knowing where such investors are active can help community leaders support the rollout of such a program with more targeted public outreach, says Senior Research Fellow Robert “R.J.” McGrail, director of the Lincoln Institute’s Accelerating Community Investment initiative.
“That’s the neighborhood you do flyers in, where you have some community organization go knock on doors to tell people, ‘Just so you know, if the out-of-state company that you write your rent check to ever sells your house, you have the first chance to buy it,’” McGrail says. “The ‘just-so-you-know’ conversation can be incredibly agency building and empowering for an individual, in a way that I think is another downstream potential benefit from this tool.”
Allenby is quick to point out that the formalization of property ownership isn’t in itself a bad thing. For example, if a local landlord dies and his children inherit his three rental properties and put them all into an LLC, that doesn’t fundamentally alter the local real estate landscape. And true investment—companies that buy vacant, dilapidated buildings, restore them to good condition, and get them back into the housing market—is almost always welcome.
“Investor owner doesn’t necessarily mean bad owner,” McGrail agrees. But by overlapping additional layers of parcel-level datasets, CGS can provide more context and reveal bad actors. For example, mapping where corporate ownership coincides with code violations—reports of broken deck railings, lack of heat, leaky toilets, and so on—“tells a dramatically more nuanced, useful story around what is happening and what to do about it,” he says.
In that case, McGrail notes, mapping might offer chronically understaffed inspectional departments a better way to prioritize their code enforcement. Similarly, layering vacancy data over out-of-state ownership maps can inform discussions around land use policies such as a split-rate tax.
“So many times, policy discussions happen in a vacuum of data,” Allenby says. “You’re talking about theoreticals, abstract numbers, abstract concepts, and you don’t really have a good handle on the scale of the issue that you’re talking about. And these tools allow you to frame that conversation very specifically.”
Beyond Baltimore
CGS can provide a granular data map customized to an organization’s or community’s needs in just a couple of weeks, Allenby says. And it’s not just a tool for cities. CGS has also mapped the entire state of Massachusetts for a housing nonprofit, and is currently documenting timberland ownership across Alabama.
CGS also partnered with the International Land Conservation Network to combine the research of multiple conservation organizations in search of “Consensus Landscapes”—areas that meet not just one conservation priority, such as biodiversity, habitat connectivity, or carbon storage potential, but many such goals, all at once. The goal of this collaborative mapping framework, according to CGS, is to identify “places that everyone can agree are important, and should be the immediate focus of collective conservation efforts” as the United States works to protect 30 percent of its land by 2030.
The Center for Geospatial Solutions created a framework for mapping “consensus landscapes” by assessing and integrating the research of several conservation organizations. Credit: Center for Geospatial Solutions.
Jim Gray, senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute, is now working with CGS to study ownership trends among manufactured housing communities, which have also garnered the attention of real estate investors in recent years for their relatively low costs and reliable rents. Gray calls CGS’s work “invaluable” for its ability to transform a largely anecdotal challenge into real data.
“Knowing the extent of the problem, who is responsible, and where the problem is most acute will help inform and target which communities need to prioritize preserving this affordable housing stock, and how to go about that,” he says.
To learn more or to work with the Center for Geospatial Solutions, visit the CGS website or contact cgs@lincolninst.edu.
Jon Gorey is a staff writer at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Lead image: This Center for Geospatial Solutions image combines spatial analysis with land parcel data to illustrate different types of property ownership, part of a project intended to help communities better understand how institutional investors are affecting local land markets. Credit: Center for Geospatial Solutions.
Fellowships
Premio Lincoln al periodismo sobre políticas urbanas, desarrollo sostenible y cambio climático
Submission Deadline:
September 17, 2023 at 11:59 PM
El Lincoln Institute of Land Policy convoca a periodistas de toda América Latina a participar del concurso “Premio Lincoln al periodismo sobre políticas urbanas, desarrollo sostenible y cambio climático”, dirigido a estimular trabajos periodísticos de investigación y divulgación que cubran temas relacionados con políticas de suelo y desarrollo urbano sostenible. El premio está dedicado a la memoria de Tim Lopes, periodista brasileño asesinado mientras hacía investigación para un reportaje sobre las favelas de Rio de Janeiro.
Convocamos a periodistas de toda América Latina a participar de este concurso, dirigido a estimular trabajos periodísticos de investigación y divulgación que cubran temas relacionados con políticas de suelo y desarrollo urbano sostenible. Recibimos postulaciones para el premio hasta el 17 de septiembre de 2023. Para ver detalles sobre la convocatoria vea el botón "Guía/Guide" o el archivo a continuación titulado "Guía/Guide".
Adaptation, BRT, Bus Rapid Transit, Climate Mitigation, Community Development, Community Land Trusts, Conservation, Development, Dispute Resolution, Eminent Domain, Environment, Favela, Growth Management, Housing, Inequality, Informal Land Markets, Infrastructure, Land Reform, Land Speculation, Land Use, Land Use Planning, Land Value, Land Value Taxation, Local Government, Municipal Fiscal Health, Natural Resources, Planning, Poverty, Public Finance, Public Policy, Resilience, Security of Tenure, Segregation, Slum, Stakeholders, Sustainable Development, Transport Oriented Development, Transportation, Urban Development, Urban Revitalization, Urban Sprawl, Urban Upgrading and Regularization, Urbanism, Value Capture, Water, Water Planning, Zoning
Mensaje del presidente
¿Podría yo al incremento impositivo del valor del suelo compararte?
Por George W. McCarthy, April 1, 2023
SHARE
En el Instituto Lincoln ya estamos en el sector de políticas de suelo desde hace un tiempo largo. Un par de años atrás celebramos el 75.º aniversario de este emprendimiento que se inició como la Fundación Lincoln y evolucionó hasta convertirse en el Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo. El año que viene celebraremos el 50.º aniversario de la fundación del Instituto Lincoln propiamente dicho, la “pequeña escuela roja” inicial constituida por David Lincoln en 1974. El instituto se creó para ofrecer capacitaciones y realizar investigaciones sin intermediarios, en lugar de invertir esfuerzos efímeros para perseguir a las universidades a fin de que incorporen la formación e investigación en políticas de suelo en sus planes de estudio. Sé que David estaría muy emocionado por el hecho de que en nuestro 50.º aniversario tenemos pensado incorporar el primer Máster en Políticas de Suelo (Masters in Land Policy, MLP) disponible en los Estados Unidos, gracias a nuestra afiliación con la Claremont Lincoln University, que se formalizó hace poco.
Durante varias décadas, hemos consolidado un cuerpo extraordinario de académicos que presentarán el programa del MLP con un contenido singular. El estudiantado aprenderá sobre las herramientas nuevas que puede usar para abordar desafíos mundiales apremiantes, como la crisis climática, las extinciones masivas o la falta de solvencia financiera pública. También aprenderá cómo la planificación del uso del suelo puede ayudar a minimizar el impacto climático de las ciudades o colaborar en la descarbonización de las redes eléctricas; cómo conservar, para la perpetuidad, las posesiones privadas de suelo que conectan las tierras protegidas por el estado, al apoyar la creación de los grandes hábitats necesarios para la supervivencia de las especies en extinción; o cómo movilizar la renta que proviene del suelo para respaldar las operaciones de los gobiernos locales y nacionales.
Pero, por mucho que sepamos sobre políticas de suelo, algunos elementos fundamentales se nos siguen escapando. Por ejemplo, si bien sabemos que el valor del suelo se determina según una multiplicidad de factores (y que las acciones públicas, como las inversiones en infraestructura y las reformas de zonificación tienen una influencia importante sobre los precios del suelo), aún resulta embarazosamente difícil predecir los valores del suelo con algún grado de precisión. Dicho esto, puedo afirmar con confianza que el Instituto Lincoln sabe tanto sobre los factores determinantes del valor del suelo como cualquier otra persona del planeta. Todos los años aprendemos un poco más sobre cómo medir y predecir los precios del suelo con mayor exactitud. Las tecnologías nuevas son un gran aliado en el proceso de descubrimiento de nuevos métodos para determinar los valores del suelo. La tecnología está acelerando todos los avances en las economías del suelo. Estense atentos.
Por increíble que parezca, existe una brecha incluso más embarazosa y más fundamental en nuestra habilidad para hablar sobre las políticas de suelo. Recientemente, durante una revisión habitual de la misión y la visión del Instituto Lincoln en una reunión de la junta directiva, debimos enfrentar el hecho alarmante de no tener una definición adecuada del término “políticas de suelo”. Esto genera graves problemas para la comunicación y la estrategia de marca. Si bien “suelo” y “política” evocan asociaciones para nuestras audiencias casi de inmediato, combinadas siempre resultan un dolor de cabeza y generan confusión.
Tengo que lidiar con este desafío de comunicación desde que llegué al Instituto Lincoln nueve años atrás. El desafío es particularmente difícil en las bodas y vacaciones cuando familiares o amigos me preguntan a qué me dedico. La conversación suele darse de la siguiente forma:
“Mac, ¿en qué estás trabajando ahora?”
“Dirijo un think-tank de políticas de suelo en Cambridge”.
“¿Y qué hacen?”
“Encomendamos investigaciones, brindamos capacitaciones y ayudamos a los gobiernos a aplicar políticas de suelo para abordar asuntos como la crisis de vivienda asequible, o los ayudamos a prepararse para el cambio climático”.
“¿Qué significa políticas de suelo?”
“Serían las reglas del juego que definen la relación entre las personas y los lugares”.
“¿Eh?”
“Es la forma en la que reconciliamos los intereses en la propiedad de los bienes inmobiliarios con nuestra necesidad de gestionarla para el bien público”.
“¿Te refieres a la zonificación?”
“Claro, pero es más que zonificación. Son muchas cosas. Es el uso generalizado de las servidumbres de conservación para preservar el suelo privado y ayudar a las especies en extinción o capturar carbono. Es la coordinación de la planificación del uso del suelo y la gestión del agua para que todas las comunidades puedan sobrevivir en el sudoeste árido. Es ayudar a los gobiernos a movilizar la renta del suelo para financiar escuelas y arreglar rutas. Es usar la detección remota para identificar qué personas están en riesgo ante el aumento del nivel del mar y encontrar nuevos lugares donde puedan vivir. Es ayudar a las ciudades del mundo en desarrollo a gestionar los asentamientos informales que las asfixian. Es ayudar a las nuevas coaliciones cívicas a invertir en el suelo y la vivienda de forma inteligente para mejorar los resultados de la salud comunitaria. Es descifrar formas automatizadas para que los valuadores de impuestos estimen los valores de los bienes inmobiliarios para las facturas de cobro”.
“Es muy complejo. ¿No puedes describir las políticas de suelo de manera más simple, como si me las tuvieras que vender?”
“Nos suelen faltar argumentos”.
Por alguna razón, a las personas les resulta más fácil entender las profesiones relacionadas con la no proliferación nuclear o los anticuerpos monoclonales que las políticas de suelo. Sin embargo, si hay algo que la junta y la gestión del Instituto Lincoln saben hacer, es resolver problemas. Decidimos enfocar nuestro intelecto colectivo en forjar una explicación simple de políticas de suelo. Tras un día y medio sin ningún indicio de progreso, decidimos hacer lo que haría cualquier estudiante universitario con un bloqueo para escribir una tarea: preguntarle a la inteligencia artificial. Pero en lugar de empezar por una descripción sencilla tipo argumento de venta, decidimos convocar a la mayor autoridad de la lengua inglesa. Le pedimos al ChatGPT que escribiera un soneto sobre políticas de suelo con el estilo de William Shakespeare.
Quince segundos más tarde, obtuvimos algo sorprendente y aterrador:
En campos lozanos donde el trigo se alza
y cosechas abundantes traen riqueza sin par,
solemos olvidar de aquellos con desdicha y afán,
quienes luchan por un rayo de luz en su andanza.
Mas la tierra es más que suelo y crecer el grano,
es donde se alzan hogares y se forja el amor.
Su uso y custodia cargan con un valor,
que no se puede dejar en manos de lo insano.
No avancemos con prisa y codicia sin mesura,
pensemos en los demás, sus necesidades iguales,
y dejemos que el suelo provea a quien lo procura.
Cuando equilibremos el uso y el resguardo con tino,
veremos que la tierra florece justa y noble,
y todos prosperarán en su abrazo divino.
Este soneto es un argumento de venta para la eternidad. Con mucho ingenio y de forma concisa describe el desafío de reconciliar los intereses individuales con las necesidades colectivas. Además, en pocas palabras, aborda la sostenibilidad haciendo referencia a la economía (riqueza sin par), la equidad (los demás y sus necesidades iguales) y el medioambiente (el equilibrio entre el uso y el resguardo). Captura la misión del Instituto Lincoln con una sutiliza y una creatividad que yo jamás habría logrado.
No obstante, el soneto tiene un estilo shakespeariano, por ende, resulta un tanto inaccesible para la mayoría de los mortales. Así que, mientras escribía esta columna, le pedí al ChatGPT que me diera su explicación más simple de “políticas de suelo”. Esto es lo que obtuve:
Las políticas de suelo se refieren a las normas y regulaciones que rigen el uso, la propiedad y la gestión del suelo. Implican una toma decisiones sobre cómo debe utilizarse el suelo, quién debe tener acceso a él y qué actividades se permiten en él. Las políticas de suelo pueden concernir una amplia gama de temas, desde la urbanización y la conservación medioambiental hasta los derechos de propiedad y la equidad social. Su objetivo es equilibrar los intereses de diferentes partes interesadas y garantizar que el suelo se utilice de maneras que beneficien a toda la sociedad.
Sí, un gran argumento de venta. Mi ludita interior quiere prohibir el uso de estas máquinas demoníacas.
Por otro lado, este es un claro ejemplo de cómo la tecnología acelera nuestros avances lingüísticos en políticas de suelo del mismo modo que impulsa nuestra habilidad para calcular y predecir el valor del suelo. Pero, para acelerar nuestro progreso, es necesario que sigamos avanzando desde aquí. Quizás el soneto y el argumento de venta del bot no son perfectos. Quizás las personas podemos hacerlo mejor. Así que les delego este desafío, mis queridos lectores: yo ya les compartí mi definición de “políticas de suelo”. Compártannos las suyas, siguiendo las pautas a continuación. Daré a conocer las que más me gusten en la próxima columna.
Entonces, ¿qué son exactamente las políticas de suelo?
Envíenos su mejor explicación, en poesía o en prosa, a publications@lincolninst.edu. Las postulaciones no deben exceder las 100 palabras ni realizarse con la ayuda de ChatGPT o cualquier otra herramienta similar. La persona que envíe la mejor respuesta* ganará el reconocimiento de la comunidad del sector de políticas de suelo, una mención en esta columna y la oportunidad de elegir cinco libros del catálogo del Instituto Lincoln.
*Según determinación de un panel compuesto por el presidente del Instituto Lincoln, George W. McCarthy
Imagen: El Bardo refleja las complejidades de las políticas de suelo. Crédito: claudiodivizia vía iStock/Getty Images Plus.
Lincoln Institute Welcomes New Board Members
By Lincoln Institute Staff, May 16, 2023
SHARE
The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy is delighted to announce the addition of two new board members, land economics professor Tzuchin Lin and water policy expert Peter Culp.
“I am pleased that two luminaries in their respective fields have come forward to assist us as we continue to develop our strategic vision for the future,” said Kathryn J. Lincoln, board chair and chief investment officer for the Lincoln Institute. “Tzuchin Lin, a former David C. Lincoln Fellow, brings a depth of experience in land taxation and will provide a window into our work in Asia. One of the foremost experts on the nexus of land and water, Peter Culp brings valuable insight into this area of focus for the Lincoln Institute.”
Tzuchin Lin is professor of land economics and associate dean of the College of Social Sciences at National Chengchi University, Taiwan. He served as department chair from 2014 to 2017 and as the founding director of the Lab for Integrated Socio-Spatial Science and Information since 2020. His doctoral research was completed in 1999 at the University of Reading, England. In addition to his university teaching, Lin has been a lecturer since 2003 at the International Center for Land Policy Studies and Training (ICLPST) in Taiwan, a nonprofit organization jointly supported by the government of Taiwan and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. He and Dr. Chimei Lin from ICLPST were joint recipients of the David C. Lincoln Fellowship in Land Value Taxation in 2005. In the same year, he was acknowledged by the Ministry of the Interior, Taiwan with a special award for his contribution to Land Economics. He was a visiting professor at Helsinki University of Technology, Finland (2008, 2009) and at University of Bremen, Germany (2010), delivering a series of lectures on land economics and policies. He was also a contributor to a chapter on the split-rate property tax in Taiwan in the book Property Tax in Asia: Policy and Practice, published in 2022 by the Lincoln Institute. Lin’s primary teaching and research interest lies in the nature of land markets and associated policies.
Peter Culp is the managing partner and co-founder of Culp & Kelly, LLP, a specialty water and natural resources law and policy firm. Based in Phoenix, Arizona, he is a nationally recognized expert in Western water law and water policy. He has served on a variety of boards and commissions related to water and natural resource issues, including serving by repeated gubernatorial appointment to the Arizona Colorado River Advisory Commission and participating in a series of binational working groups under the U.S. Department of State, International Boundary and Water Commission. Culp has been twice awarded the Partners in Conservation Award by the U.S. Department of Interior and was a recipient of The Nature Conservancy of Arizona’s 2013 Outstanding Conservation Achievement Award and the Arizona Capitol Times Leader of the Year Award in Public Policy. Prior to founding Culp & Kelly, LLP, Peter was a partner in the Phoenix office of Squire Patton Boggs, LLP, where he managed the firm’s Western water and natural resources practice. Peter also worked as a law clerk in the Indian Resources Section of the U.S. Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and as in-house counsel for the Sonoran Institute, a nonprofit organization that works on land and water policy issues throughout the intermountain West. Prior to embarking on his legal career, Culp managed a nonprofit public health technology enterprise for C. Everett Koop, the former U.S. Surgeon General, managed forest fires in the Northern Rockies as part of an Incident Management Team, and drove long-haul refrigerated freight in the United States and Canada.
In addition to Kathryn J. Lincoln and the newly appointed members, the other members of the Lincoln Institute board of directors include Thomas M. Becker, president emeritus of the Chautauqua Institution; Jane Campbell, president and CEO at the U.S. Capitol Historical Society and former mayor of Cleveland; Lourdes Germán, assistant professor at the Boston College Carroll School of Management and Boston College Law School; Nancy Gibbs, Lombard director and professor of practice at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government; William R. Goodell, principal at Powderhorn Advisory Services, LLP; Bruce Lincoln, president of Innervizion Surf Company; John G. Lincoln III, former senior engineer at CH2M-Hill; George W. McCarthy, president and CEO of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy; Constance Mitchell Ford, visiting professor at the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland; Thomas Nechyba, professor of economics and public policy studies at Duke University; Kevyn Orr, partner with Jones Day; Timothy Renjilian, senior managing director for FTI Consulting; Scott Smith, former CEO of the Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority and former mayor of Mesa, Arizona; and Adriana Soto, environmental policy and financing consultant based in Bogotá, Colombia.
Image: Tzuchin Lin, left, and Peter Culp, right. Credit: Courtesy photos.
Office-to-Residential Conversions Are on the Rise—What Does That Mean for Cities?
By Jon Gorey, May 16, 2023
SHARE
It makes so much sense, at least on paper: A lasting shift in workplace norms has left many downtown office buildings half empty for much of the week, along with the surrounding delis, drugstores, and coffee shops that long relied on daily commuter dollars. As vacancies mount, commercial property values will drop, which could affect property tax revenues. Meanwhile, in the more residential neighborhoods outside of those drowsy downtown districts, a severe shortage of housing has pushed prices past tenable levels for homebuyers and renters alike.
So why not convert some of those empty offices into homes, creating much-needed new housing and bringing more people (and spending) downtown, while at the same time capturing the climate and sustainability benefits of building reuse and dense urban living?
That’s a question being raised in cities all over the world, as remote and hybrid work schedules evolve from exception to rule for a sizable portion of the workforce. But while office-to-residential adaptive reuse appears to be a promising solution, the reality is more complicated.
There’s No Going Back
More than half of American workers—some 70 million people—can perform their jobs remotely, according to a June 2022 Gallup analysis, and a mere 6 percent of them ever want to return to working full-time in an office; most say they would look for a different job if their employer forced the issue. Gallup forecasts that more than half of those remote-capable employees will work a hybrid schedule going forward, and 22 percent will work entirely offsite in the years to come.
As remote and hybrid work arrangements become not just accepted but expected, companies are consolidating the amount of office space they lease while trying to make commuting worth the effort for employees. Often that translates to renting less square footage in a pricier building with new, high-end finishes and state-of-the-art amenities—what’s known in commercial real estate as “Class A” space.
That leaves older, less attractive Class B or C offices—which comprise the majority of built workspace—struggling to find or keep tenants. Nationwide, the office vacancy rate surpassed 17 percent in the fourth quarter of 2022, up from 12.1 percent in late 2019, according to the commercial real estate company CBRE.
It’s a trend that shows no signs of easing, and some cities are faring worse than others. CBRE estimated San Francisco’s commercial vacancy rate to be 27.3 percent at the end of 2022; it was just 4.8 percent before the pandemic. Phoenix finished the year with nearly 24 percent of its offices unleased, up from 14.4 percent in late 2019.
And central business districts, in particular, are reeling. For the third straight quarter, downtown offices had higher vacancy levels (17.6 percent) than suburban ones (17.2 percent), flipping the historical trend. The vacancy rate for downtown office buildings was 10.2 percent in late 2019.
In Denver’s Upper Downtown, the office vacancy rate was already increasing before the pandemic, and had reached 21 percent by mid-2022, says Laura E. Aldrete, executive director of Community Planning and Development. But city leaders are choosing to see it as an opportunity. “We have an affordable housing crisis integrated into that,” Aldrete says. “So how can we take two negatives and make it a positive?”
Mixing It Up
Late in the pandemic, Aldrete noticed something as she walked around Querétaro City, Mexico: At a time when many American downtowns still felt eerily empty due to lingering office closures, Querétaro City was alive. Plenty of workplaces had shut down in Mexico, too, but the city center was still abuzz with people, including families with young children. “It’s a city from the 1500s that has a series of public realm plazas, with pedestrian-oriented streets and residential, office, and retail [spaces], and it was thriving,” Aldrete says.
She saw a similar pattern emerging in sections of downtown Denver. The city’s central business district, Upper Downtown, is a throwback to the urban renewal era—concrete office buildings, one-way streets, parking lots—and has yet to wake up from its COVID-induced slumber. But Lower Downtown (“LoDo”), a historical, mixed-use neighborhood whose once-empty warehouses were converted to lofts and restaurants in the 1980s and ‘90s, stayed relatively active through the pandemic. So did the Union Station neighborhood, which experienced its own mixed-use renaissance in the past decade, with the high-profile renovation of the city’s train station sparking a greater focus on parks and mixed-income housing. “Today, in comparison to Upper Downtown, those two downtown neighborhoods continue to thrive,” Aldrete says.
Denver’s Union Station and Lower Downtown neighborhoods are bustling; city leaders hope converting vacant offices into apartments in the Upper Downtown area will create a similar feeling. Credit: Page Light Studios via iStock Editorial/Getty Images Plus.
Denver’s Union Station and Lower Downtown neighborhoods are bustling; city leaders hope converting vacant offices into apartments in the Upper Downtown area will create a similar feeling. Credit: Page Light Studios via iStock Editorial/Getty Images Plus.
Even before the pandemic, Aldrete could see that Upper Downtown’s 9-to-5 vibe lacked the vitality 21st-century employers wanted. “Historically, all the banks, oil, and gas companies have scrambled to have their address on 17th Street,” Aldrete says—a stretch of Upper Downtown nicknamed “The Wall Street of the Rockies.” But when British Petroleum was looking for a regional headquarters seven years ago, the company bypassed 17th Street in favor of a Union Station location. Then COVID hit, “and it became very apparent that we did not have a neighborhood [in Upper Downtown] . . . no one was there,” she says. That raised the question: “How could we think about transforming our central business district to a central neighborhood district?”
Denver is now piloting a program that will invite up to five property owners to work with the city to convert their underused office buildings into residences. Aldrete has encouraged the owners of the historical but half-vacant Petroleum Building, among others, to participate, since they already had plans to convert the office tower into more than 100 apartments; she hopes a few successful pilot projects can pave a path for others to follow.
“In real estate, it’s the first ones who take the highest risk,” Aldrete says. “One of the roles city government can play is working with the private sector . . . how do we show up as good partners to move them through the process?”
The neighborhood already has entertainment venues and perhaps the best transit access in the city, including buses and light rail, Aldrete says, but it lacks other amenities that would draw full-time residents—“the heart of any community.” So at the same time, Denver is working with community partners to find other ways of creating “a complete neighborhood” downtown, from attracting more childcare facilities, to increasing the tree canopy outside of residential conversions, to activating ground-floor retail spaces through programs like PopUp Denver, which provides local entrepreneurs a rent-free storefront for three months.
Sustaining Downtown
Adaptive reuse presents logistical challenges, but also possibilities—including the potential to revive struggling downtowns and sustain them in a new way, says Amy Cotter, director of climate strategies at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. “There’s a lot of hand-wringing about the evolution of office space being a death knell for our city centers,” says Cotter, a former planner who focuses on urban policy and climate resilience. But converting excess workspace to housing offers the prospect of a 24/7 population keeping a city vibrant and economically healthy. “Just differently than when we had central business districts with a 9-to-5 daytime population and suburbanites commuting in,” she explains.
The urban routines of the last few decades had become predictable and unsustainable, Cotter says: “During the day, you’ve got office workers parking and eating at restaurants, and then at night, you’ve got condo owners or apartment dwellers parking and eating out in restaurants,” she says. “Well—what if there wasn’t that switchover? What if it was the same population there, not only working, living, eating, and recreating in the same space, but not putting those miles on a car, and maybe even avoiding ownership of a car entirely?”
That sounds a bit utopian, Cotter admits, and yet it’s not unrealistic. After all, adaptive reuse is nothing new. As domestic manufacturing waned in the late 20th century, vacant textile mills and factories in the Northeast and Midwest were repurposed into sought-after artist studios and residential lofts. Dwindling church attendance has given rise to converted condos with literal cathedral ceilings. And in Lower Manhattan, revitalization efforts that started in the mid-1990s and accelerated after 9/11 have led to roughly 20 million square feet of office space being converted into about 17,000 homes, according to a study published by New York City’s Office Adaptive Reuse Task Force in January.
Adaptive reuse has breathed new life into many churches and commercial structures, including Boott Mills, a cotton-mill complex that operated from 1835 to 1958 in Lowell, Massachusetts. Credit: John Penney via iStock Editorial/Getty Images Plus.
Adaptive reuse has breathed new life into many churches and commercial structures, including Boott Mills, a cotton-mill complex that operated from 1835 to 1958 in Lowell, Massachusetts. Credit: John Penney via iStock Editorial/Getty Images Plus.
Repurposing a structure, instead of demolishing it and rebuilding, keeps carbon out of the atmosphere and construction waste out of landfills. The US generated 600 million tons of construction and demolition debris in 2018, according to the Environmental Protection Agency—more than double the amount of all our municipal solid waste—and 90 percent of it came from the demolition of existing buildings. Meanwhile, conventional building materials are extremely carbon-intensive; concrete and steel production each account for at least 8 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.
That’s why adaptive reuse “almost always offers environmental savings over demolition and new construction,” according to the National Trust for Historic Preservation Research and Policy Lab, which notes that it takes 20 to 30 years of high-efficiency operation for most new buildings to finally offset the initial climate impact of their construction. Keeping a building’s foundation and framing intact while giving its facade a face lift and updating its heating, cooling, insulation, and other systems has the added benefit of drastically improving the energy efficiency of the building’s operations, reducing energy consumption by up to 40 percent.
It can also be economical. While office conversions can get complicated, says Robert Fuller, New York–based principal and studio director at the global architecture firm Gensler, “compared to demolishing and building brand new, they generally come in at a lower cost per unit than new construction would.” CBRE estimates the cost of retrofitting one office building to apartments in Alexandria, Virginia, would be $213 per square foot, compared to $275 per square foot if it were built new. The process can be quicker, too: Developers told the Urban Land Institute that reuse can shave six to 12 months off the construction timeline.
Mid-Century Meh
What makes the present reuse movement more challenging than converting historic mills and churches is the type of office buildings that need to be converted. A lot of the commercial space sitting vacant now is in the unglamorous, blocky towers of the 1960s, ‘70s, and ‘80s.
“They’re not really thought of as historic buildings just yet,” Fuller says. Along with aging systems, those mid-century monoliths often have sprawling, block-deep footprints, placing the core of the building upwards of 40 or 50 feet from the nearest (inoperable) window—and drab, unwelcoming facades.
Many of the Lower Manhattan buildings that got converted after 9/11 were pre-war buildings with smaller floor plates and traditional framed window openings, Fuller says. “I don’t want to say they were easy conversions, but they made a lot of sense. Some of these 1960s and ‘70s buildings . . . definitely have their challenges.”
Architects can still overcome those issues—it’s usually just a matter of financial feasibility. For example, Fuller says, “If the building has a large enough floorplate, you can actually create a lightwell down the center,” drawing daylight deep into the building core.
Such space can be repurposed in other ways, too. When Gensler was converting Philadelphia’s Franklin Tower from offices to apartments a few years ago, the company decided to stack the building’s new amenities—including a Peloton cycle studio, fitness center, and theater—through the center of the building on different floors, making use of otherwise dead space deep within the building’s core. “Rather than doing one amenity floor, which is quite common in a residential building,” Fuller says, “you can imagine this vertical spine of amenities that runs up through the building.”
Another challenge in adapting older office buildings is updating the curtain wall, or nonstructural exterior facade. This isn’t just to modernize the aesthetic and improve energy efficiency, but also to install operable windows, which most office buildings lack—and most cities require of residential units.
During the conversion of Philadelphia’s Franklin Tower, the 1980s concrete structure was reclad in glass and aluminum, and its narrow strips of windows replaced with large windows and private balconies. Credit: Courtesy of Gensler.
Despite these barriers, unremarkable office buildings can still be a good foundation for attractive housing, offering enviable locations and luxurious structural features like high ceilings. A 12-foot floor-to-floor height isn’t considered Class A standard for modern office space, Fuller says, “but it’s very generous for a residential building.”
To help cities identify potential reuse candidates, Gensler developed a proprietary scorecard that awards points for a building’s location, configuration, elevator service, and other factors. “It’s a way to kind of quickly look at a broad swath of buildings and identify the best contenders,” Fuller says—because not every vacant office tower will make a sensible conversion project.
Only 10 of 84 buildings Gensler evaluated in Boston’s financial district, for example, ranked high enough to merit consideration as reuse targets. That may not sound like a lot. But even if most mid-century office towers don’t ultimately pencil out for residential reuse, converting just a few can create hundreds or even thousands of new homes in housing-starved cities. “Given the millions of square feet of underutilized office space, even a small percentage of that could really move the needle from a housing standpoint,” Fuller says.
That’s one reason New York’s Office Adaptive Reuse Task Force is recommending 11 policy changes that would allow for and encourage the conversion of more office buildings in more neighborhoods. “We want to ensure that outdated office buildings can be converted to more in-demand uses, such as desperately needed homes for New Yorkers,” planning director Dan Garodnick writes. Among the Task Force’s recommendations, which followed a five-month study: loosening rules to allow the conversion of most office buildings built prior to 1991 and offering property tax incentives to support the creation of affordable housing and childcare facilities in repurposed buildings.
The Cornerstone by Peoplefirst Developments, an adaptive reuse project in Calgary, Alberta, will create a family-oriented residence (left) out of a commercial office building (right). Credit: Courtesy of Peoplefirst Developments.
For better or worse, Calgary, Alberta, has a head start on many cities that are just starting to explore office conversions. A city of 1.3 million, Calgary has seen its share of booms and busts as the corporate capital of Canada’s oil and gas industry. But when crude oil prices started sinking in 2014, they took the city’s commercial property market down with them. Office buildings in downtown Calgary have lost about $16 billion in property value since 2015, resulting in a loss of tax revenue that impacts the entire city.
“The conversations around our office vacancy issue started around 2015,” says Natalie Marchut, program manager for Calgary’s downtown strategy team. “Office vacancy had started climbing, we weren’t seeing any reabsorption, and it started to become quite alarming.” By the time COVID closures hit in 2020, there weren’t a whole lot of downtown office workers left to send home.
So city officials worked with developers, businesses, and other partners to come up with a plan. With about a third of the office space downtown sitting vacant—some 14 million square feet—the city set a goal of removing six million square feet of office inventory over the next 10 years, ideally through residential conversions.
But as Isaac Newton would say, an object at rest tends to stay at rest, unless acted upon by an outside force. Even though converting a half-vacant office building to homes typically costs less than demolishing it and rebuilding from scratch, many property owners don’t have the capacity or desire to take on such a big project, and instead succumb to inertia, letting buildings sit idle. “A big thing we realized was that most building owners weren’t taking the initiative on their own to repurpose those vacant office towers,” Marchut says.
So Calgary decided to offer financial incentives to kickstart the process. The city council approved an initial $100 million in municipal funding in 2021—and another $53 million in late 2022—to support adaptive reuse projects downtown, allowing the city to reimburse developers at $75 per square foot of office space converted.
Even at that generous rate, which was calculated to cover about a third of the estimated $225-per-square-foot cost of such conversions at the program’s outset, some developers find it hard to make the numbers square, Marchut says, given rising interest rates and inflation. But the first two rounds of the program garnered far more project proposals than there was funding. The first 10 approved projects will subtract over 1 million square feet of office space from the downtown commercial market by converting it into some 1,200 new homes.
One concern that came up often in early discussions is that commercial properties are typically taxed at a higher rate than residential ones. “That was a big one that we had to get our heads around, but also help our council get their heads around: When you convert these to residential, they’re going to be taxed at a lower rate, so we’re not going to be getting what we could if they were fully occupied commercial spaces,” Marchut says. “Yes. But we will not see the absorption of 14 million square feet of office space. We just will never get there.”
The situation is so dire right now that some downtown buildings are assessed for their land value only, she adds. “Of course you need commercial property downtown, and of course they will always pay more to the city in tax revenue—but not if they’re all empty,” Marchut says. Meanwhile, removing excess inventory should reduce the vacancy rate, helping to stabilize and even restore the value of the remaining office space.
To accelerate conversions and attract as many applicants as possible, the city intentionally kept the program simple, without specific affordable housing requirements, for example. Marchut says that has allowed the city to prioritize projects that best align with its equity, climate, and planning goals.
“Every project that is coming online through this program is doing more than just converting office to residential,” Marchut says. “We’ve got a few that are going to be doing affordable housing . . . we have others that are doing additional public realm improvements—and this is all optional. We don’t require it, but applicants are coming to the table with really solid proposals, because they know the program is so competitive, and so they’re kind of bringing their A game.”
The program’s first conversion project—The Cornerstone by Peoplefirst Developments, slated for completion later this year—is creating 112 family-oriented units, 40 percent of which will be priced at affordable rates, Marchut says. “They’re also building three-bedroom units, which we don’t have much of at all in the downtown,” she notes. Another project, the 176-unit Palliser One by Aspen, plans to put in a public park and skating rink at ground level.
The city is also investing $163 million in placemaking and public realm projects, like revamping key pedestrian streets and extending its RiverWalk into the West End. “The other thing we’re really looking at is how to get more park space,” Marchut says. “Downtown, and particularly the West End, is starved for open public space, and if we’re looking to bring in new residents and families and children and all the rest, they’re going to need a place to go outside and play.”
One option that remains on the table for creating more parks downtown while reducing the glut of commercial space is the demolition of vacant office buildings that can’t be converted into something more useful. (An upcoming phase of the program will subsidize other types of office conversions as well, such as retail or arts venues.) “We are exploring incentivizing demolition for very specific properties,” Marchut says. “There are Class C buildings built in the ‘70s that are full of asbestos, and also probably cannot actually be upgraded to meet new building code—they’re just simply at end of life.”
Calgary doesn’t have the kind of housing crisis facing larger cities like Toronto or Vancouver, but Alberta is still projected to gain 2 million new and mostly urban-dwelling residents by 2046. “With those numbers,” Marchut says, “we need to build more affordable housing, and we need to build more central housing . . . and these conversion projects will provide rental rates that are lower than new builds.” That’s something that will help both current and future Calgarians. “We’re going to see a finished product really soon,” Marchut says. “I’m super excited to finally see one open their doors and invite new residents in.”
It’s Not (Just) About the Money
Beyond the financial incentives, Calgary is taking other steps to encourage conversions. Most properties downtown, for example, are exempt from change-of-use permitting requirements. “That saves, on average, six months,” Marchut notes, and removes the risk that projects could be bogged down or blocked altogether.
Since developers need to invest an enormous amount of time and money in a project even before proposing it to the city, simply indicating general support for conversions provides an important boost in confidence, Marchut said. “Obviously, you can’t guarantee an approval until you have a plan set in front of you that you can review against the rules. But a notional, ‘Yes, the city is supportive of what you’re trying to achieve on this site,’ goes a long way in giving comfort to developers.”
Back in Denver, Aldrete doesn’t have incentive dollars to encourage investment, so she’s hoping that a “higher-touch” review and approval process, led by an in-house coordinator dedicated to office conversions, will drastically reduce the time it takes for developers to get projects moving. “You essentially cut off two to three months for every review cycle you can reduce, to get them out the door and under construction. So that is real money to the developer,” she says. “That’s how we’re trying to win them over.”
Fuller says that, even as some cities embrace reuse, others are lagging behind. “The time is ripe to change some of our zoning and our legislative policies that could help catalyze this type of conversion,” he says, while emphasizing that quality and safety should not be sacrificed. “We’ve come around to realize that having a mix of uses in the same location is actually healthy for cities, in terms of generating 24/7 activity and eyes on the streets and all those things that we know are good. So I’m optimistic that good things will come of this.”
Cotter is also optimistic that this surge in post-pandemic interest in office conversions will create a lasting trend. “There’s all sorts of creative adaptive reuse that’s happening that is going to give architects, construction firms, and city code officers experience with how this can be done, and lay the groundwork for it to be done more readily,” Cotter says. “And wouldn’t we all be well served if our buildings, once constructed, could evolve with us?”
Jon Gorey is a staff writer for the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Lead image: Franklin Tower in Philadelphia was transformed from a drab commercial building into a glass-clad, mixed-use space that includes retail and residences. Credit: Robert Deitchler, courtesy of Gensler.