SHARE
Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 4 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.
Estudiosos y funcionarios públicos preocupados por la justicia social consideran que la redistribución de los valores de la tierra es un objetivo especialmente importante de política urbana en los países latinoamericanos, donde las enormes diferencias de acceso a los escasos servicios e infraestructura urbana llevan a una injusta distribución de los valores del suelo. Sin embargo, las políticas e instrumentos de captura de plusvalías, utilizados en principio para “redistribuir la valorización del suelo” o para “promover la redistribución de los incrementos en el valor de la tierra”, son rechazados por algunos sectores progresistas que argumentan que, en la práctica, dichos instrumentos no están realmente destinados para la redistribución.1 Este artículo explora un número de interrogantes que deben analizarse a fin de mejorar el entendimiento del concepto de captura de plusvalías y de su potencial para desempeñar un papel verdaderamente redistributivo en América Latina.
El principio distributivo y la meta redistributiva
El principio básico de la captura de plusvalías2 es devolver a la comunidad los incrementos de valor de la tierra que resultan de la acción comunitaria. La manera más común de definir tales incrementos es enfocándose en aquellos aumentos particulares resultantes de acciones públicas específicas y fechadas. Así, los correspondientes instrumentos de captura de plusvalías podrían ser definidos como herramientas para recuperar para la población el incremento en el valor de la tierra asociado con acciones públicas, aumento que de otra manera sería capturado por entidades privadas. El objetivo de esta política distributiva es restablecer un estado previo de distribución que, en esencia, se considera como propio o como dado.
Una interpretación alterna se basa en el principio establecido por Henry George, de que todo valor de la tierra, sin importar su origen, es producto del esfuerzo de la comunidad. Bajo este punto de vista, la idea de la captura de plusvalías puede adquirir una perspectiva verdaderamente redistributiva únicamente si se considera todo el valor de la tierra, y si se introduce la meta de alterar el estado presente de la distribución de dicho valor.
La redistribución de los valores de la tierra es apenas una de varias metas posibles de la política de suelo urbano. Otras son el aumento de los ingresos públicos para financiar servicios urbanos, la regulación y el manejo de los usos del suelo urbano, y el control de manifestaciones indeseables que resulten del funcionamiento de los mercados de suelo urbano. Es decir, la redistribución puede ser una guía para políticas distributivas más progresivas, pero no es necesariamente el principio básico de la captura de plusvalías.
De esta manera, podemos distinguir entre el principio distributivo de las políticas de captura de plusvalías -para restablecer un cierto grado de distribución- y una meta redistributiva de políticas de suelo urbano -para alterar un cierto estado de distribución. Esta distinción nos permite aclarar la confusión existente entre la distribución y la redistribución, cuando aplicadas a los valores del suelo y a la idea de la captura de plusvalías.
La práctica de la captura de plusvalías en América Latina
En un sentido genérico, la idea de la captura de plusvalías se aplica a cualquier imposición o herramienta de planificación que tenga como finalidad distribuir los aumentos del valor del suelo. Casi todos los países latinoamericanos han experimentado con el impuesto predial, y muchos emplean otras herramientas de planificación tales como la donación obligatoria de tierras para propósitos públicos en proyectos de parcelación o subdivisión de terrenos. Históricamente el desarrollo de la idea de la captura de plusvalías ha estado asociado con un instrumento específico conocido como Contribución de Valorización/Contribución de Mejoras. Este mecanismo especial de tasación o valorización, incorporado en la legislación de la mayoría de los países latinoamericanos, tiene el objetivo de capturar una porción de los beneficios especiales (valorización del suelo) que resulten de las inversiones públicas en infraestructura y servicios públicos, para financiar tales inversiones.
Incluso bajo esta estrecha definición, la aplicación de la captura de plusvalías ha estado plagada por limitaciones y polémicas. Tanto la influencia política de los propietarios como las deficiencias técnicas -y a menudo también legales- para poder hacer avalúos adecuados de los valores del suelo, han sido identificadas por estudiosos y funcionarios públicos como entorpecedoras de su aplicación en muchos países. Colombia es quizás el único país que se destaca por su tradición establecida de uso del instrumento, pero incluso allí su aplicación ha tropezado con serias limitaciones. Algunos observadores defienden el argumento de la incapacidad del instrumento para la redistribución, mientras que otros señalan que frecuentemente pierde su vínculo con el principio distributivo, convirtiéndose simplemente en una forma práctica de pagar a la comunidad para subsanar los costos de una acción pública que genera beneficios sólo para ciertos individuos.
Una mirada más cercana a la experiencia latinoamericana en la aplicación de instrumentos de captura de plusvalías lleva a una conclusión inquietante: en vez de desarrollarse a partir del principio ético de justicia, según el cual el incremento del valor del suelo resultante de acciones comunitarias debe retornar a la comunidad, pareciera que la idea de captura de plusvalías ha sido adoptada en América Latina como un mecanismo pragmático de recuperación de costos para resolver la escasez crónica de ingresos públicos y poder financiar proyectos de infraestructura urbana. A la larga, la meta principal de tales instrumentos ha sido aumentar las rentas públicas, sin importar si se basan o no en un principio distributivo.
Vinculación entre la captura de plusvalías y la redistribución
Incluso si el principio distributivo está asegurado, la meta de aumentar los ingresos públicos puede diferir de, o incluso contradecir, otras metas de la política de suelo urbano, incluyendo la importante meta redistributiva. Por ejemplo, cuando aumenta el valor del suelo de una región muy valorizada debido a una inversión pública en infraestructura urbana, y entonces el ingreso derivado de la captura de plusvalía se reinvierte en la misma región, el resultado no sólo no es redistributivo, sino que puede llegar a ser regresivo.
A fin de poder entender las contradicciones que surgen entre el uso tradicional de los instrumentos de captura de plusvalía para aumentar los ingresos fiscales, y la necesidad de incorporar las metas de redistribución en tales políticas, debemos contemplar el concepto de la captura de plusvalía con una visión mucho más amplia. Aun limitándonos a su usual definición centrada en incrementos específicos del valor del suelo, es preciso que al menos tres acciones o decisiones públicas no autónomas estén asociadas con el principio distributivo de captura de plusvalía:
Si bien la segunda acción implica el uso de un instrumento general o específico de captura de plusvalía, la primera y la tercera, aunque están relacionadas a decisiones específicas, están inexorablemente ligadas a dos preguntas básicas referentes a las decisiones públicas como un todo: ¿Cómo se asignan obras públicas en el espacio? y ¿Cómo se distribuyen los ingresos fiscales generales?
Asignación de las obras públicas
Cuando el sistema tiene las metas concurrentes de aumentar los ingresos y fomentar la redistribución, la segunda no sigue necesariamente a la primera. De hecho, en Latinoamérica estas metas son frecuentemente contradictorias. Dadas las enormes diferencias en la distribución de la riqueza y la escasez de fondos para financiar las obras públicas, habitualmente es más fácil garantizar el aumento de los ingresos si los recursos para obras públicas se asignan (acción original) a regiones en donde se puedan recaudar más entradas absolutas. Incluso con el uso de un instrumento de captura de plusvalía, cuando la decisión subsiguiente (destino de los recursos) mantiene el mismo estado de distribución de la riqueza, la acción pública entera se vuelve más regresiva.
Por otra parte, el rechazo de los instrumentos de captura de plusvalía tampoco combate la asignación inadecuada de las obras públicas, y de hecho sólo contribuye a mantener el status quo. Por ejemplo, los trabajos de renovación de Copacabana en Rio de Janeiro, con plantación de árboles nuevos y modernización de aceras, fueron financiados por el presupuesto general y no por un dispositivo específico de captura de plusvalías. Sin embargo, muchas de las zonas pobres de la ciudad carecen de aceras y no tienen un solo árbol en sus calles. Esta ironía impone la necesidad de establecer una nueva estructura de análisis para las políticas de captura de plusvalía, de manera que pueda hacerse una asignación más equitativa de las obras públicas.
Distribución del ingreso general
América Latina presenta diferencias extremas relativas y absolutas en la provisión de infraestructura pública, por lo cual se exigen criterios de equidad para evaluar las políticas distributivas. Pero los criterios de equidad son subjetivos y existen diversos criterios sobre lo que es o no justo. En vista de las disparidades en riqueza y acceso a suelos urbanizados, es importante considerar no sólo las diferencias relativas sino también las diferencias absolutas entre los niveles más altos y los más bajos.
Para ilustrar este punto podemos aplicar el clásico argumento redistributivo a la distribución de valores del suelo en una sociedad que tiene 10 unidades de riqueza (es decir, valor del suelo) distribuidas entre dos grupos: el grupo más alto posee 8 unidades u 80 por ciento de la riqueza, mientras que el más bajo posee 2 unidades (véase la tabla 1). Este ejemplo puede representar las típicas diferencias entre las áreas urbanizadas ocupadas por unos pocos ricos y las cuantiosas áreas desprovistas de servicios ocupadas por los pobres en las ciudades latinoamericanas. Un aumento del 50 por ciento en esta riqueza (5 unidades en total), si se distribuye en la misma relación, no cambiaría las diferencias relativas, pero la diferencia absoluta entre los dos grupos aumentaría en un 50 por ciento, de 6 a 9 unidades.
TABLA 1: Políticas distributivas de captura de plusvalía Riqueza total Grupo inferior Grupo superior Diferencias relativas Diferencia absoluta
Original: 10 unidades 2 unidades 8 unidades 1:4 6 unidades
Aumentada: 15 unidades 3 unidades
(2+1) 12 unidades
(8+4) 1:4 9 unidades
Otra consideración importante es el nivel del grupo en la posición inferior. Los instrumentos de captura de plusvalía se justifican como herramientas distributivas para devolver a la comunidad los beneficios especiales resultantes de una acción pública que sólo algunos individuos reciben. Pero esta justificación, a su vez, plantea la necesidad de separar claramente los beneficios especiales de las necesidades básicas. Si consideramos el acceso a la infraestructura urbana como una necesidad básica, la sociedad debe decidir sobre el nivel mínimo de acceso para el grupo inferior. Es necesario dar prioridad a las acciones que conduzcan a esos niveles mínimos antes de que el grupo superior acumule otros beneficios. Si esta sociedad decide que el nivel mínimo de riqueza debería ser de 6 unidades para el grupo inferior, entonces el aumento de 5 unidades de valor del suelo sería distribuido de tal manera que disminuya tanto las diferencias relativas como las absolutas (véase la tabla 2).
TABLA 2: Vinculación de la captura de plusvalía y la redistribución
Riqueza total Grupo inferior Grupo superior Diferencias relativas Diferencia absoluta
Original: 10 unidades 2 unidades 8 unidades 1:4 6 unidades
Aumentada: 15 unidades 6 unidades
(2+4) 9 unidades
(8+1) 2:3 3 unidades
Captura de plusvalía y equidad socioespacial
Las decisiones sobre planificación urbana, tales como las normas y los reglamentos sobre el uso del suelo y los derechos de desarrollo, afectan también la distribución de los valores del suelo urbano y deben integrarse a las políticas de captura de plusvalía. En América Latina, donde las diferencias de acceso a la infraestructura pública y servicios urbanos están marcadas por una acentuada segregación social y exclusión, esta integración trae consigo una dimensión socioespacial que puede hacer frente a las disparidades entre los centros urbanizados adinerados (para unos pocos) y las periferias pobres carentes de servicios (para la mayoría). Por tanto, las políticas de redistribución del valor de la tierra adquieren un contexto político particular en el cual la generación de incrementos en el valor del suelo y el destino de los fondos correspondientes se asignan a diferentes áreas socioeconómicas de la ciudad.
Sin embargo, incluso cuando se incorpora esta dimensión socioespacial, la mayoría de los instrumentos redistributivos de captura de plusvalía reúnen condiciones necesarias, pero no suficientes, para una mejor distribución de los valores del suelo. Mientras que la redistribución desde áreas ricas a todas las áreas involucra alterar la distribución del presupuesto general para lograr su objetivo de equidad, la redistribución de todas las áreas hacia las áreas pobres implica alterar la asignación de obras públicas y/o de los derechos de desarrollo del suelo para llegar a una mejor distribución de los valores del suelo.
Debido a que estos enfoques implican mayores cambios institucionales, surge una tercera opción que busca estimular la generación de incrementos en el valor del suelo de los sectores adinerados a fin de generar ingresos que puedan redistribuirse a los sectores pobres. Estas “políticas de Robin Hood” (como algunos las llaman) están siendo contempladas para tratar las necesidades urgentes de zonas necesitadas, en combinación con oportunidades y demandas específicas de las zonas pudientes. Un ejemplo son las “Operaciones Interligadas” recientemente popularizadas en muchas grandes ciudades brasileñas, donde la negociación de excepciones legales para el desarrollo genera pagos que se destinan para la construcción de viviendas de interés social. Sin embargo, un análisis detenido de esta herramienta de transferencia muestra que la estimulación de los incrementos en el valor del suelo de los sectores ricos, en realidad termina aumentando la diferenciación intraurbana y por ende puede ahondar la brecha entre las áreas pobres y ricas.
Éste y otros efectos negativos imprevistos evidencian que el desarrollo de políticas e instrumentos de captura de plusvalía para los países latinoamericanos no puede ser considerado independientemente de una política urbana orientada a reducir las desigualdades socioespaciales. Para lograr esa reducción de la inequidad, es fundamental emprender acciones directas orientadas a alterar la presente distribución de los valores del suelo. Esto significa que, aunque no está necesariamente involucrada en la idea de la captura de plusvalía, la redistribución debe ser incorporada deliberadamente en el desarrollo de políticas distributivas de captura de plusvalías en América Latina.
Pautas para la implementación de políticas de captura de plusvalías
Esta discusión refuerza el argumento de que, en América Latina, las políticas de captura de plusvalía deben estar precedidas por cambios en el proceso de distribución de los valores del suelo en el más amplio sentido, especialmente cuando se busca la redistribución como una meta prioritaria de la política urbana. Esta perspectiva ayudaría a considerar de manera integrada, en cada decisión pública asociada a la distribución de valor del suelo, las varias otras formas mediante las cuales el sector público contribuye a esa distribución, incluyendo:
El potencial y los límites de instrumentos específicos de captura de plusvalía están condicionados por dichas acciones y decisiones públicas de distribución. Cuando los instrumentos de captura de plusvalía específicos se utilizan sin tomar en cuenta estas consideraciones, se puede arruinar el proceso entero debido a que: 1) usualmente se descuida la recaudación de los impuestos tributarios; 2) se hacen asignaciones injustas de las inversiones públicas; 3) abundan los impedimentos políticos para el uso de los instrumentos de captura de plusvalía; 4) los ingresos no se distribuyen de una manera socialmente equitativa; 5) los derechos de desarrollo se incorporan en los derechos de propiedad, etc. En consecuencia, no se puede conseguir la redistribución y se compromete el principio distributivo.
El desafío latinoamericano, por lo tanto, consiste en analizar las precondiciones para el uso mejorado de la idea de la captura de plusvalía, en vez de simplemente concentrarse en vencer las dificultades operacionales para la aplicación de los instrumentos existentes, o de rechazar aquellos instrumentos en favor de nuevas herramientas usualmente sujetas a problemas similares. Para que se pueda hablar de una verdadera redistribución, estas decisiones distributivas deben considerar todos los componentes del valor del suelo, incluyendo los incrementos acumulados, potenciales y específicos, y no sólo los incrementos de valor en el sentido más estricto. Los esfuerzos que se hagan en esta área contribuirá a una perspectiva redistributiva de las políticas de captura de plusvalía.
¿Cuánta captura de plusvalía es “suficiente”? La respuesta a esa pregunta puede variar según el país, pero desde un punto de vista general, las políticas deberían basarse en las siguientes directrices básicas:
Estas directrices tienen una sólida asociación a los incrementos en el valor de la tierra urbana en el sentido más amplio, y pueden utilizarse para reducir las diferencias socioespaciales absolutas y relativas. Si continuamos descuidando estas diferencias y seguimos confinando la captura de plusvalía a los incrementos específicos en el valor de la tierra, fracasarán los intentos de redistribución en los países latinoamericanos. Además, la aplicación de los instrumentos de captura de plusvalía continuará sirviendo como un mecanismo antisocial que sólo exacerba el abismo ya existente entre ricos y pobres.
Fernanda Furtado, fellow del Instituto Lincoln, recibió una beca del Instituto para finalizar su tesis doctoral “La recuperación de plusvalías urbanas en América Latina”, en la Facultad de Arquitectura y Urbanismo de la Universidad de São Paulo, Brasil.
Notas
1 Ver Donald Shoup, “Is under-investment in public infrastructure an anomaly?”, en: Gareth A. Jones y Peter Ward, editores, Methodology for Land and Housing Market Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (1994). El artículo de Shoup contiene un análisis del debate efectuado en el “Fitzwilliam Workshop on Land Values and Land Valorization in Developing Countries” realizado en la Universidad de Cambridge en 1991. Allí se debatió sobre si los instrumentos de captura de plusvalías están destinados a redistribuir la valorización del suelo, o si son un simple mecanismo para fortalecer las finanzas gubernamentales.
2 Un término más preciso sería recuperación de plusvalías, porque además de representar mejor las intervenciones públicas a fin de devolver a la comunidad la plusvalía del suelo capturada inmerecidamente por entidades privadas, el término se refiere a la redistribución como una manera específica de desarrollar tales políticas. Sin embargo, en este artículo se utiliza el término más genérico captura de plusvalías.
SHARE
The betterment levy or special assessment (as it is known in the United States) is a “compulsory charge imposed by a government on the owners of a selected group of properties to defray, in whole or in part, the cost of a specific improvement or services that is presumed to be of general benefit to the public and of special benefit to the owners of such properties” (IAAO 1997, 10–11). In Colombia this levy, called Contribución de Valorización (CV), has been collected since 1921.
The betterment levy is addressed in the legislation of most Latin American countries, although its implementation often meets resistance. The main arguments against it claim it is impractical, technically cumbersome, beyond local capacity to implement, and unpopular. Colombia’s experience, however, seems to contradict these allegations, suggesting that the resistance is grounded more on prejudice, ideology, or lack of information. This instrument not only has a long history of continued (albeit irregular) application, but also a record of raising substantive revenues to fund public works.
Bogotá currently has about $1 billion worth of investment in public works from this levy, and eight other smaller cities combined have another $1 billion. More importantly, based on recent levies on 1.5 million properties in Bogotá, its collection has been generally accepted by taxpayers with relatively low default rates—in fact lower than for the property tax. Although its legitimacy is not questioned, even among the business community, controversies continue over how the charge is assessed and distributed among properties. This raises an interesting question: Why, in spite of its technical shortcomings, is the betterment levy well-accepted by society at large?
In spite of its relevance, there is very little literature available about this instrument in Colombia and in the rest of Latin America (Fernandes 1981; Bustamante 1996; Manon and Macon 1977). To fill this gap, my colleagues and I carried out a study of the methods used to assess the levy in Bogotá and Manizales—two cities that exemplify different assessment models used in Colombia (Borrero et al. 2011). This article summarizes the main findings of the study and, we hope, may be useful to other cities interested in applying betterment levies to finance urban development.
In Colombia the betterment levy has played a significant role in financing public works and has been a major contributor to municipal revenues, although collections have fluctuated over time. In the late 1960s, they accounted for 16 percent of total revenues in Bogotá and 45 percent of revenues in Medellín. In the beginning of the 1980s, the levy accounted for 30 percent of revenues in Cali, and in 1993 it represented 24 percent of revenues in Bogotá. Since 2000, the levy has been used more intensively in Bogotá, Medellín, Cali, Manizales, Bucaramanga, Barranquilla, and most other cities with a population of 300,000 or more.
We chose to study Bogotá and Manizales because these cities have used this instrument during the past 20 years to finance many roads and urban services. Each city developed its own distinct methodology, and has had ample experience advising other cities. For instance, Cali and Barranquilla have started collecting the levy for road construction using the Bogotá model, while Bucaramanga and Pereira have followed the Manizales model (also known as the Medellín model). Both approaches are legal in Colombia, but the methodology and focus used to allocate the levy are very different.
Colombian law stipulates three parameters used to calculate the betterment levy: (1) the cost of the construction project; (2) the value added to properties that can be attributed to the project; and (3) the affordability of the levy (i.e., the capacity of the property owners to pay). Law Decree 1604 of 1966 states that the upper bound of the levy is the lowest value among these parameters. For example, in Manizales one of the projects had small values added that were considerably less than the project cost; yet the levy was assessed based on the value added. The only city that does not comply with this norm is Bogotá, where the levy equals the cost of the project.
The Bogotá model uses a series of factors to represent the local benefit of the project in order to assess the levy, taking into account the payment capacity of the property owners and the different benefit levels. These factors include considerations such as improved mobility and welfare, but do not quantify the specific value added to the property by the project.
On the other hand, the Medellín model applied in Manizales calculates the value added to the property by the project using a dual appraisal method, and then distributes the levy among the property owners by taking into account their capacity to pay. Thus, the Bogotá model is similar to a general tax to finance public works, while the Medellin model is closer to the concept of value capture contribution to fund public works (Act 388 of 1997, Article 87; Doebele 1998).
The Experience of Bogotá
Bogotá, the capital of Colombia, is a city of 7.5 million people with an area of 1,587 square kilometers (613 square miles) on a flat savannah of the Andes mountain range. The administration of the betterment levy is the responsibility of the Urban Development Institute (Instituto de Desarrollo Urbano, or IDU), which is also in charge of identifying the main road construction projects to be financed by the levy. The levy is assessed on all properties affected by a given project (or set of projects) and is calculated by multiplying different benefit factors. Examples of recent projects with revenues from the levy are shown in table 1.
Area of Influence
In order to collect a betterment levy, the IDU defines the area of influence, that is, the area where the road construction project will provide benefits. The criteria used to establish the areas of influence and the level of benefit include proximity and accessibility to the project—which affords greater use of the road and thus increases property values—as measured by the project impact on the assessed value and the economic conditions of the real estate properties in the area.
To reduce the average amount of the levy, an effort is made to include the largest possible number of lots within the area of influence. When the levy finances multiple projects, the boundaries of the entire area of influence are defined by superimposing the individual areas of each project and adjusting them to account for the complementary effects of the benefits from the combined set of projects (Borrero et al. 2011, 22).
Measuring Project Benefits
The benefits resulting from the project or set of projects are calculated by city zone, taking into account benefit factors defined for each project. Using the example of a recent road project, the benefit factors are: (1) greater mobility, which translates into greater transit speeds, lower transit time, lower operating costs, and higher quality of life; (2) general urban planning benefits as the project normalizes the road network and rationalizes the use of public space; (3) changes generated in land use and stimulation of productive and commercial activities; (4) greater market value of nearby real estate properties; (5) integration of the project into the urban structure of the city; (6) optimization of circulation and mobility; and (7) recovery of deteriorated or depressed areas (Borrero et al. 2011, 84).
Once the benefits of the project are defined and its cost estimated, the distribution of the levy takes into account additional factors: the type of land use, density, degree of benefit allocated to each lot, and the payment capacity of the property owners as measured by household quality of life surveys. The Bogotá model is criticized primarily because the calculation of the project benefit does not measure the value added to the properties directly, but instead relies mostly on these indirect indicators.
The Experience of Manizales
Manizales is a city of 400,000 people located west of Bogotá, at the center of the coffee producing region. Its topography is mountainous, which implies high engineering costs. The city has extensive experience with road development and urban renewal financed with betterment levies, but it uses a different methodology from that in Bogotá and it requires a more detailed description. The institution that administers the levy with full authority delegated by the city legislature is the Instituto de Valorización de Manizales (INVAMA).
Over the past three years, Manizales has financed four major road and urban development projects with the levy: renewal of the Alfonso López Plaza; paving of Alférez Real road; renovation of Paseo de los Estudiantes; and development of the Eastern Area road network. All of the projects were funded by a single levy assessed on 80 percent of these properties, and collections amounted to US$24.6 million (table 2).
Measuring Project Benefits
Manizales applies the dual appraisal method to measure benefits—a methodology used for many years in Medellín, Bucaramanga, and other cities. This method identifies cadastre valuations for real estate properties in a second area comparable in its characteristics to the area affected by the designated projects. The assumption is that land values will behave similarly in both areas. Experts make an initial appraisal of a sample of properties in the area of influence of the proposed project to determine the present market values. To estimate the land values after the project is finished, they appraise the market values in the comparison area.
This method is based on information about the increase in value or benefit generated by previous infrastructure projects, referred to as ex-post evaluation. The City of Manizales initiated an ex-post analysis of the projects executed in past years to examine the value added to the land, but few other cities that collect betterment levies have done so.
The initial appraisal is intended to create a map of land prices (isoprices map) before construction, and the second appraisal determines the added value hypothetically generated by the new infrastructure project in the area. The lot or area where the “maximum added value” occurs (known as the “focal point”) is analyzed in detail to calculate the maximum percentage increase in value.
Critical Steps in the Dual Appraisal Method
1. Define the area of influence.This area is based on the improved mobility enabled by the road or infrastructure project, and its definition is similar to that used in Bogotá.
2. Calculate the benefit and generate an isoprices map based on a sample of properties. The criteria to measure distances and road networks are established within an initial zone defined as broadly as possible. A sample of lots is taken, representing the predominant, nonspecific features of the properties in the zone. Information collected on this sample is used to generate a map of land values before the project is constructed. The sample size is calculated statistically. For medium-size cities experts appraise between 100 and 200 properties, depending on the size of the area of influence and its heterogeneity. A second map of isoprices is then developed with the new expected property values, and a third map plots the differences in isoprices between the first and second map. This third map is used to distribute the betterment levy.
3. Estimate the benefit. To determine the added value or benefit accruing to a lot, an interdisciplinary team of experienced professionals carries out several studies: an economic study to define the mathematical formulas that qualify the parameters for the value-added criteria; a road network study to qualify and quantify the benefit, measured as a reduction in travel distance for the population in the affected neighborhoods; an urban study to measure the potential for different land uses in the area; and a real estate study to compare and quantify the level of benefit in specific areas.
4. Allocate the benefit. Each of the following factors is given a weight (shown in parenthesis): potential change of use, which generates the most added value even though it affects a small number of lots (40 percent); improved access to higher value areas or commercial areas (20 percent); (savings in commuting time is measured by reduction of travel time in the city, clearly determining times and distances (20 percent); and reduction in pollution or traffic congestion at specific areas where these problems occur (20 percent).
5. Establish the level of benefit (focal point). As mentioned above, the area of highest betterment in the entire area of influence, known as the focal point, is the lot or area that benefits most from the project, because of the confluence of the most important value-added factors. The expected added value is then calculated for this lot and the corresponding percentage is multiplied by the initial market value of lot. With these values, one builds the added value or isopricing map for the entire area expected to benefit from the project once it is finished. Ex-post studies performed in several cities found that road projects generate on average an actual added land value of 10 to 15 percent within three years following project completion. Assuming 15 percent incremental value for the lot with the highest benefit, it follows that a lot with 70 percent benefit has an expected added value of 10.5 percent.
6. Distribute the levy. Once the cost of the project has been defined and its value-added impact has been calculated, INVAMA proceeds to distribute the levy within the area of influence using models appropriate to the project. Manizales uses benefit factors to distribute the levy, as do most cities in Colombia. The method is based on defining a “virtual area” obtained by multiplying weighted factors given to property characteristics by the level of benefit and the physical area of the lot. Criteria to define benefit factors for distribution purposes may vary, but the point of reference is the total value of the property based on area of the lot plus construction (Borrero et al. 2011, annex 2).
7. Determine affordability. The levy is assessed by taking into account the capacity to pay of the contributors, and therefore it may be allocated differently depending on their socioeconomic level. Affordability is based on data from household income and expenditure surveys. Sometimes a comparative analysis is made between the betterment levy and other charges, e.g. the relationship between the levy and the utilities paid by the property owner, or the relation between the levy and the property tax.
8. Set the collection period. In Manizales, Medellín and Bucaramanga, the collection period generally coincides with project execution. Other cities have tried different approaches. In Cali, the most recent betterment levy collection started before construction, but will extend for a long time following project completion. Cities normally collect one betterment levy in each mayoral term (4 years), but recent projects in Bogotá and Cali have longer collection periods, extending over several terms.
9. The legal maximum collection term is five years following project completion, but the most successful experiences are completed in two years. Longer-term collections are more difficult and pose the risk of the municipality running into cash flow problems to finish the project. The betterment levy can be collected as early as two years before the initiation of construction, but that requires very efficient cost estimates and expedient project execution. In Bogotá, a recent experience in collecting the levy two years in advance of the construction start date generated controversy because the project started late and has progressed slowly. To avoid this problem, the proposed new Bogotá Betterment Statute stipulates that the levy shall be collected concomitantly with project execution.
Perceived Legitimacy
The betterment levy has a lot of support among city residents and property owners in Manizales, as shown by high levels of satisfaction in a recent survey (table 3). The levy was collected before the projects began and 80 percent of the payments were made in the first year of collections. This survey, taken after project completion, captures the perceptions of citizens regarding the way INVAMA managed two recent projects. Specifically, the results demonstrate a clear link between the benefit and the willingness to pay the levy—a higher compliance level than that of the property tax, even though the levy is higher than the tax. This finding contradicts the common believe that Latin American taxpayers have a culture of nonpayment. It also attests to the high level of legitimacy among the citizens and the good governance of the municipality’s management of the betterment levy
Concluding Remarks
Colombia’s experience with the betterment levy during the past 70 years demonstrates that it is a viable instrument to finance urban development and is capable of raising substantial revenues, even though the methodology to assess and distribute the levy is complex and can be perfected. Among the lessons to draw from that experience, the most important is the clear link between the provision of public benefits and the property owners’ willingness to pay the levy. Success depends on the legitimacy of the project and the institutional capacity and ethical standards of the agency administering the levy. To generate trust among citizens, success is also predicated on ensuring affordability, applying a fair distribution model, publicizing the social value of the project, and promoting participation during implementation.
About the Author
Oscar Borrero Ochoa is an economist, a certified appraiser, and a private consultant on property markets, real estate development projects, and management. He has been president of Camacol, the Colombian organization of the building industry, and Fedelonjas, the Colombian organization of property appraisers. He isa lecturer on urban economics at the University of Los Andes and the National University of Colombia, Bogotá, and is a frequent speaker in Lincoln Institute courses.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks his colleagues Esperanza Durán, Jorge Hernández, and Magda Montaña who were key contributors to the Lincoln Institute working paper and related research on which this article is based.
References
Borrero Ochoa, Oscar, Esperanza Durán, Jorge Hernández, and Magda Montaña. 2011. Evaluating the practice of betterment levies in Colombia: The experience of Bogotá and Manizales. Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Bustamante Ledesma, Francisco Dario. 1996. Manual de contribución de valorización. Medellín: Ed. Teoría del Color Litografía.
Doebele, William A. 1998. The recovery of ‘socially created’ land values in Colombia. Land Lines 10(4).
Fernández Cadavid, Alberto. 1981. La contribución de valorización en Colombia, 2nd edition. Bogotá: Editorial Temis.
IAAO (International Association of Assessing Officers). 1997. Glossary for property appraisal and assessment. Chicago, IL: IAAO.
Manon, Jorge, and Jose Merino Macon. 1977. Financing urban and rural development through betterment levies: The Latin America experience. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, Inc.
SHARE
Many suburban areas in the United States are showing signs of deterioration, with foreclosed properties, vacant retail centers, and underutilized space. These landscapes have come to epitomize sprawl— places built for the car and accessed only by the car. But they also hold enormous opportunities for creative reinvention. A number of communities across the country are rescaling their suburbs into vibrant, walkable places built for people.
Reoriented for pedestrians, suburban neighborhoods can thrive and diversify to better support local economies, raise quality of life indicators, and improve local and regional environmental conditions. Even deteriorating suburbs plagued by disused structures and other dead zones have the potential to generate new housing infrastructure, transit access, open space, and local retail.
The University of Utah estimates that 2.8 million acres of parking lots and other greyfield areas are ripe for redevelopment, and 1.1 million acres are available in underutilized shopping areas, such as strip malls and vacant storefronts (Dunham Jones and Williamson 2009). Transforming these landscapes will be a 21st-century planning and development priority in the United States.
Many cities are steadily redeveloping and capitalizing on recent demographic trends supporting urban revitalization, but economically robust regions need flourishing suburban communities as well. Recent surveys by the National Association of Realtors and the American Planning Association found that a majority of potential homebuyers seek to live in walkable neighborhoods with a range of housing types and a mix of residential, business, and retail options. As baby boomers age and more of the millennial generation enter adulthood, an increasing number of Americans are leaving their cars behind to live in more centrally located, walkable environments. In 2012, roughly half the population preferred smaller houses in well-connected neighborhoods with places to live, work, shop, and play (National Association of Realtors 2011, American Planning Association 2014).
Despite this mounting evidence in favor of suburban redevelopment, many local leaders remain uncertain about how to begin. This article explores 10 ways that communities across the country have rescaled significant parts of their sprawling suburbs into thriving social hubs.
1. Share a Vision and Draft a Plan
Many communities start by imagining how they want to grow and then develop a plan to realize that vision. Do residents want more housing, a walkable entertainment center, a new arts district, or an urban farming zone? Is it most important to increase the tax base, reduce pedestrian and bike fatalities, or increase access to fresh food? Specific goals will help to steer redevelopment efforts.
Regional and neighborhood plans engage community members in a dialogue about where to target infrastructure investments and leverage redevelopment opportunities as they become available. Local governments can start with a small site—such as a vacant lot or city-owned building—and then build on that successful effort, generating the momentum to tackle an entire neighborhood, corridor, or even a cleaned-up superfund site. Building a shared sense of purpose for a place can be a powerful incentive for guiding future change.
Consider Midvale Slag and Sharon Steel, two adjacent superfund sites about 10 miles south of Salt Lake City in Midvale, Utah. Both underwent cleanup at approximately the same time, but only one is thriving.
In 2000, the Midvale City Council adopted the “Bingham Junction Reuse Assessment and Master Plan” for the 446-acre Midvale Slag site. City officials worked with residents, EPA officials, and other stakeholders to devise a strategy for redeveloping the site into a mixed-use commercial, residential, and recreation area. Now thriving, Bingham Junction created approximately 600 jobs, $1.5 million in annual property tax revenues, and a $131 million increase in the value of the site property (EPA 2011). Families have moved into new condominiums, and another 2,500 residential units are planned. Office buildings, a supermarket, and other stores have followed, and the community anticipates developing up to two million square feet of commercial office and retail space.
In contrast, the 250-acre Sharon Steel site, which did not have a redevelopment plan or future vision, remains vacant. Building on the success of Bingham Junction, however, city officials have begun the planning and visioning process.
2. Identify Assets
Many local governments struggle to determine where to focus their initial visioning and planning efforts. The following kinds of questions can help to identify which assets to leverage.
1. Is public transit available? If so, are there underutilized areas near or immediately adjacent to transit stops that could be redeveloped to enhance accessibility?
2. Where will existing infrastructure dollars be spent—for example, on roads, water, sewers, schools, civic structures, parks?
3. Are there vacant or underutilized parking lots, buildings, or strip malls near these infrastructure investments?
4. Which of these areas have redevelopment plans in place or neighborhood support for new development?
5. Which of these areas are near or adjacent to other public assets such as schools, libraries, parks, or open space?
6. Can any of these sites align with existing or emerging employment areas?
7. Are any of these properties available for redevelopment (i.e., are any owners willing to collaborate with the community on redevelopment goals and plans)?
This proposed assessment is not a linear, step-by-step process. Sometimes a site may become unavailable unexpectedly, or a federal grant may come through for road improvements on a major arterial. In other situations, an owner may be unwilling to cooperate, or a site may be deemed unfeasible. In any case, an assessment of existing conditions can help to target potential sites or neighborhoods as priorities.
3. Leverage Infrastructure Investments
To attract private investment and new development, local governments can make significant public investments, either by upgrading existing infrastructure or by investing in new infrastructure. Many cities and towns seize the opportunity to direct these investments to the neighborhoods they would like to revitalize. Research has shown that by leveraging public investments, communities can increase land value from 70 to 300 percent and can boost private investment, social capital, tourism, and retail activity by an average of 30 percent (Litman 2010). They can also achieve key “placemaking” goals, communally shaping public spaces to heighten their shared value.
Norman, Oklahoma, about 25 miles south of Oklahoma City, is an interesting work in progress. The town had $27 million to improve traffic flow and increase safety along a seven-block stretch of road that bisected a typical strip retail district with large parking lots on both sides of the street. The town came together to discuss how to use this money to make broader streetscape upgrades along with the necessary safety improvements. Business owners, university officials, and local leaders joined forces and engaged in strategic placemaking to discuss how they might create a walkable retail area.
Municipalities can also leverage capital improvement investments against other community goals. With shrinking resources, local governments can no longer reasonably afford to achieve single-objective outcomes from their infrastructure investments. For example, the city of Lenexa, Kansas (a suburb of Kansas City), determined to be a more sustainable and livable community, and they used green infrastructure projects to help achieve that goal. Tapping funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, city officials implemented a range of street-level storm water improvements that achieved key placemaking objectives, such as creating open spaces and promoting walking, while addressing storm water problems.
4. Align Codes and Ordinances
Outdated, disjointed codes and ordinances are among the greatest barriers to rescaling suburban environments. These land development regulations—from zoning ordinances to street standards, parking requirements, site coverage, and height limits—are often responsible for existing transportation and land use patterns, and serve as the default legal structure for new development. The upshot is that building a walkable mixed-use neighborhood is often illegal, requiring the developer to seek variances or special permits, which can create uncertainty and delays in the development process or discourage redevelopment in the first place.
Research has found that government support for development in targeted areas is the strongest predictor of private investment (Hook et al. 2013). One of the easiest ways to support new growth is to change the codes and ordinances to legalize pedestrian-friendly development. New codes can be embedded in an overlay zone or a neighborhood plan to allow for the type of construction needed to transform an area.
A number of resources are available to help local governments determine where and how to change their codes, such as the SmartCode (www.smartcodecentral.org) form-based codes (http://formbasedcodes.org), the American Planning Association’s Smart Codes: Model Land-Development Regulation (https://www.planning.org/research/smartgrowth), or EPA’s Essential Fixes series (www.epa.gov/dced/essential_fixes.htm).
For example, Columbia Pike in Arlington, Virginia—a 3.5-mile urban corridor across the Potomac River from downtown Washington, DC—was rescaled after the county modified the underlying development codes and ordinances. Located in an urban county that grew explosively in recent decades, Columbia Pike, by contrast, had seen little development and minimal investment in the past 30 years. In the late 1990s, county leaders created a form-based code to foster transit- and pedestrian-oriented infill redevelopment in the corridor. The code is an optional code (also known as a parallel code); all the underlying zoning remains in place, but incentives such as expedited review and approvals encourage its use. Since adopting the code in 2003, the Pike has seen more than 1,000 new housing units and 240,000 square feet of retail built, and another 600 housing units and 21,700 square feet of retail have been approved.
5. Get the Streets Right
A community’s street network is fundamental to any redevelopment efforts. Typical suburbs have wide, high-speed travel lanes designed to move cars efficiently through the area. But the primary focus of any suburban rescaling effort should be on moving people, not cars, through an area. This goal can be accomplished by building wide, inviting sidewalks; installing lanes and parking for bicycles; creating buffer zones between people and moving traffic; developing interesting places to walk; and making it safe to cross the road. Well-conceived streets can also kick-start investment and the redevelopment process. However, in many suburban communities, which tend to be less competitive, the public sector may need to catalyze growth by making up-front investments with support for infrastructure and amenities to attract private-sector funds.
For example, Lancaster, California, a mid-size city about 60 miles north of Los Angeles, transformed a five-lane arterial into a Main Street by investing in a number of streetscape improvements. They narrowed and reduced travel lanes, and added on-street parking and street vegetation, which slowed traffic from 40 miles per hour to 15 miles per hour. The city’s investment of $11.5 million attracted more than $300 million in private investment.
6. Get the Parking Right
Parking is a challenge for any development, but it’s particularly tricky in suburban areas where the community is trying to pivot from auto-dependence to auto-independence. Conventional wisdom holds that parking is essential to retail survival; consequently, many suburban areas have an oversupply, owing to various code, design, or bank requirements. But any successful effort to rescale a suburb will require planners to balance today’s parking needs with a creative vision for a less automobile-dependent future.
Communities can assess how much parking is needed and explore alternate ways to supply it by requiring on-street parking, permitting shared parking, or de-bundling parking spaces from housing units (EPA 2006). To foster a pedestrian-friendly streetscape, it’s critical to eliminate or reduce surface parking, or to place it behind retail areas. Larger redevelopment projects may require a parking garage, but it should be located at the back of the site and not immediately adjacent to other transit opportunities. It’s increasingly common to “wrap” a parking garage with smaller housing units or offices to provide parking without interrupting the pedestrian streetscape.
As a neighborhood decreases its dependence on cars, it can repurpose parking garages by converting top floors into community gardens or bottom floors into low-rent business incubator space. One community in Albany, New York, transformed an old parking garage and car dealership into luxury condominiums.
By planning for future uses, a neighborhood can maintain the parking spaces it needs now while allowing the area to evolve and change without losing the initial investments made during the revitalization process. Local governments can also rewrite zoning and building codes to demand that garage developers meet the minimum adaptability requirements (Jaffe 2013).
7. Add More Green
Suburban landscapes have been described as “hostile” and “unhealthy” because of their wide, underutilized zones dominated by hard surfaces. But many communities are bringing nature back into these built environments and transforming the streets and alleys between buildings into attractive, thriving pedestrian hubs.
Trees, plants, open green space, and recreational pathways afford a respite for individuals, provide social gathering areas, improve environmental conditions, and create more livable streetscapes (Benfield 2014). Suburban sites can make it easier to integrate green into a new development project because they often offer more land and flexibility than urban areas. As a public investment, green space can also serve to attract private development initiatives.
Green spaces can be incorporated at three scales—at the regional, neighborhood, and site level. At the site scale, municipalities are beginning to use green infrastructure to manage storm water by absorbing it into the ground or capturing it for later reuse. These strategies create more beautiful places, increase pedestrian safety, calm traffic, manage water flows, and develop a constituency to support effective storm water management. (Much like potholes, a conspicuous clogged bio-swale on a local street is more likely to generate calls to city hall than an invisible underground pipe leak would.) These site-level approaches can also build momentum for larger-scale suburban transformation while creating bustling public spaces from parking lots, alleys, buildings, landscaped areas, rooftops, or streets. Imagine, for example, a sea of cascading greenery descending from the roof of a parking garage or a pedestrian plaza with planters, trees, tables, and chairs in a section of a former parking lot.
At the regional and neighborhood level, green space can connect natural areas and working lands while also providing critical ecological functions. Additionally, these connections can support multi-use paths and trails, habitat corridors, and other “green fingers” integrated throughout the region. Regional approaches focus on the movement of wildlife, people, and natural resources, such as water. Neighborhood strategies target connections to larger regional networks, creating connected public gathering places, open spaces, coordinated multi-use paths, and a bike infrastructure network.
The redevelopment of Stapleton Airport outside Denver, Colorado, incorporated green space at the regional and neighborhood levels. Approximately one-third of its 4,700 acres serve as new parks and open space for the project’s 12,000 residential units. Every home is within a 10-minute walk of open space. The centerpieces are the 80-acre Central Park and 85-acre Westerly Creek corridor. More than 27,000 trees have been planted, and the 6 million tons of concrete that once formed the airport’s runways have been incorporated into the newly created parklands. Not only did the redevelopment rescale the airport into a thriving pedestrian place, it is also generating $22 million in annual property taxes and $13 million in sales tax revenue (Swetlik 2013).
8. Change Land Use
Many suburban areas are littered with abandoned or underperforming big box stores and outdated shopping centers. By reusing these buildings as libraries, schools, housing, and even churches, communities can activate a dead zone and create demand for a location. They can also prevent or slow an expanding sprawl pattern by reducing the need to build new big box stores on undeveloped parcels. Without a broader redevelopment strategy, however, reuse of big box stores will not change the physical landscape to support significant pedestrian activity.
Suburban developers often have to assemble land parcels and navigate the demands of multiple landowners, especially in retail corridors with multiple strip malls and single-use retail outlets. As a result, many developers are attracted to old mall sites, which often have significant acreage, single owners, existing roads, water and sewer service, and adjacent residential housing. The existing mega-structure may be torn down and replaced with moderate-density buildings, a traditional street grid, and a mix of commercial and residential uses. For example, the redevelopment of the 100-acre Belmar Mall, in Lakewood, Colorado, reconnected the street grid. The pedestrian-friendly streets now support 1,300 new homes, one million square feet of retail, and 700,000 square feet of office space. This approach has drawn many suburban communities to create a town center or similar large-scale redevelopment on those sites.
The process of shifting from a suburban landscape to a walkable, thriving neighborhood takes time and may require public infrastructure investments. Recognizing this, some municipalities plan to roll out several stages of redevelopment over decades and provide immediate funds for infrastructure in order to leverage future investments. A critical component for successful staged developments is compatible local government planning and zoning. Long-term agreements or planned densification can be designed to require density increases or large-scale redevelopment activities within a particular time frame, allowing market supply and demand to coevolve.
One example of successful staged development is Potomac Yards in Alexandria, Virginia. The former industrial site was remediated in 1997 and developed according to then-current zoning as a traditional strip mall. Tenants signed a 15-year lease, which was typical for the time and the space. Over the next several years, city officials obtained funding to open a new metro station in the back of the mall, and several adjacent mixed-use, high-density residential developments were built as well. Land value in Potomac Yards rose significantly as a result. In 2010, the city council approved a redevelopment plan, which is slated to begin in 2017 and will dovetail with the opening of the metro stop. The strip mall will be torn down to make way for a new walkable mixed-use neighborhood with 7.5 million square feet of office, retail, and residential development.
9. Provide Catalytic Leadership
Rescaling suburban neighborhoods for pedestrians requires coordination and cooperation among municipal departments that normally operate independently. Transportation departments manage road systems, housing departments manage affordable housing, and public works departments build sewers. But no single department can implement the complex range of strategies and physical changes needed to transform a single-use residential subdivision or retail district into a walkable mixed-use neighborhood.
Catalytic leadership is equal parts mediation, facilitation, and leadership. It is based on respecting each department’s traditional approach while acknowledging that no single department will have the answer or data to resolve some issues. Catalytic leadership can build the trust and respect needed to foster more collaborative and innovative approaches to the challenges presented by suburban placemaking. It is essential to orchestrating these efforts, mediating among parties with differing agendas, and achieving desired outcomes on time and within budget.
The successful redevelopment of downtown Silver Spring, Maryland, benefited from such leadership. The area had been a dynamic retail center in the postwar years. But, like many suburban centers, it lost much of its vibrancy to enclosed malls during the 1970s, and subsequent attempts to rebuild the retail base failed. In 1996, the county decided to redevelop the area into a pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use, transit-oriented community. The county executive knew that slow permitting would hinder the project, so he created a Green Taping program, which draws input from the local staff responsible for enforcing the range of building and site codes (building, electrical, fire, mechanical, accessibility, zoning, signage, sediment and storm water management, subdivision plan review, and inspection codes and standards). At “round table” sessions, the participants identified and resolved cross-department issues for proposed projects in the redevelopment zone. By gathering in one room, representatives from all the departments were able to resolve design, zoning, and code barriers more efficiently. As a result, Silver Spring has transformed its suburban landscape into a thriving community with more than 750,000 square feet of retail and entertainment space, 500,000 square feet of office space, and nearly 2,000 residences.
10. Anticipate What’s Next
The process of rescaling suburban communities can be long and difficult, but there are a number of possible starting points—from visioning and planning, to making infrastructure investments, to building the first project. As municipalities begin, leaders should keep several issues in mind:
America’s evolving suburban landscapes represent enormous opportunities to creatively rethink the nation’s built and natural environments. Rescaling these places for pedestrians can help restore activity in the street and create lively, prosperous places to live and work.
About the Author
The incoming president and CEO of the Congress for the New Urbanism, Lynn Richards was the 2013 Lincoln/Loeb Fellow at the Graduate School of Design at Harvard University and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Previously, at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), she held multiple leadership roles over 13 years including acting director and policy director in the Office of Sustainable Communities.
Resources
American Planning Association (APA). 2014. Investing in Place: Two Generations’ View on the Future of Communities: Millennials, Boomers, and New Directions for Planning and Economic Development. APA, May. https://www.planning.org/policy/polls/investing/pdf/pollinvesting report.pdf.
Benfield, Kaid. 2014. People Habitat: 25 Ways to Think about Greener, Healthier Cities. Island Press.
Dunham Jones, Ellen, and June Williamson. 2009. Retrofitting Suburbia: Urban Design Solutions for Redesigning Suburbs. Wiley and Sons.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Cleanup and Mixed-Use Revitalization on the Wasatch Front: The Midvale Slag Superfund Site and Midvale City, Utah. May.
EPA. 2006. Community Spaces, Parking Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions. EPA 231-K-06-001.
Hook, Walter, Stephanie Lotshaw, and Annie Weinstock. 2013. More Development for Your Transit Dollar: An Analysis of 21 North American Transit Corridors. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy.
Jaffe, Eric. 2013. “We Need to Design Parking Garages with a Car-less Future in Mind.” Atlantic Cities, November 14.
Litman, Todd. 2010. Evaluating Non-Motorized Transport Benefits and Costs. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. www.vtpi.org/nmt-tdm.pdf.
Lukez, Paul. 2007. Suburban Transformations. Princeton Architectural Press.
National Association of Realtors (NAR). 2011. The 2011 Community Preference Survey: What Americans Are Looking for When Deciding Where to Live. NAR, March. http://www.realtor.org/sites/default/files/smart-growth-comm-survey-results-2011.pdf.
Swetlik, Deana. 2012. “The Many Uses Blooming at Denver’s Old Airport: Stapleton.” Urban Land, October 11, 2012.
SHARE
Scholars and public officials concerned with social justice consider redistribution of land values to be an especially important objective of urban policy in Latin American countries, where great differences in access to scarce urban infrastructure and services result in an unfair distribution of land values. However, value capture policies and instruments used in principle to “redistribute the valorization gain” or “promote redistribution of land value increments” are rejected by some progressive sectors because they believe that, in spite of the redistributive connotation, those instruments are not really aimed at redistribution in practice.1 This article explores a number of questions that must be addressed to achieve a better understanding of the value capture concept and its potential to play a truly redistributive role in Latin America.
The Distributive Principle and the Redistributive Goal
The basic principle of value capture 2 is to return to the community the land value increments resulting from community action. The most usual way to define those increments is to focus on particular increases in land value that result from specific and dated public actions. The corresponding value capture instruments could, therefore, be thought of as devices to recover for the public the increase in land value associated with public actions that otherwise would be captured by private entities. The aim of this distributive policy is to restore a previous state of distribution that, in essence, is taken as a proper or given one.
An alternative interpretation is based on the principle stated by Henry George that all land value, irrespective of its origin, is the product of community effort. In this view, only when all of the land value is taken into consideration and the goal of altering the current state of land value distribution is introduced can the value capture idea acquire a truly redistributive perspective.
Redistributing land values is but one of the possible goals of urban land policy. Other goals are raising public revenues to finance urban services, regulating and managing urban land uses, and controlling undesirable outcomes of the functioning of urban land markets. That is, redistribution may be a guide to more progressive distributive policies, but it is not necessarily the basic principle of value capture.
Thus, we can distinguish between the distributive principle of value capture policies-to restore a certain state of distribution-and a redistributive goal of urban land policies-to alter a certain state of distribution. This distinction allows us to address the confusion about distribution and redistribution applied to land values and to the value capture idea.
The Practice of Value Capture in Latin America
In its generic sense, the value capture idea applies to any levy or planning tool intended to distribute land value increments. Almost all Latin American countries have experience with the property tax, and many have other planning tools such as the compulsory donation of land for public purposes in land parceling or subdivision projects. Historically, the development of the value capture idea has been associated with a specific instrument known as Contribución de Valorización/Mejoras. This special assessment or valorization charge, incorporated into the legislation of most Latin American countries, aims at capturing a portion of special benefits (land valorization) that arise from public investments in infrastructure and services, to finance such investments.
Even with this narrow definition, the implementation of value capture has been limited and controversial. Both the political influence of landowners and the technical (but also often legal) shortcomings of adequately assessing land values have been identified as restraints to its use in many countries. Colombia is perhaps the only country with an established tradition of using the instrument, but even there its implementation is subject to serious limitations. Some observers acknowledge its incapacity for redistribution and others claim it frequently loses the link with the distributive principle and becomes simply a practical way to pay the community for the costs of a public action that generates benefits for only some individuals.
A closer look at concrete Latin America experiences with the implementation of value capture instruments leads to a disturbing conclusion. Rather than evolving from the ethical principle of fairness, whereby the increment of land value resulting from community action returns to the community, the value capture idea seems to have been adopted in Latin America as a pragmatic cost-recovery mechanism to overcome the chronic shortage of public revenues to finance urban infrastructure. The major goal of such value capture instruments has been ultimately to raise public revenues, whether based on a distributive principle or not.
Linking Value Capture and Redistribution
Even when the distributive principle is secured, the goal of raising public revenues can differ from or even contradict other goals of urban land policy, including the important redistributive goal. For instance, when a public investment in urban infrastructure generates land value increments in a highly valued area, and then associated income from the use of a value capture instrument is reinvested in the same area, the result is not redistributive and can even be regressive.
To understand the contradictions that arise between the traditional use of value capture instruments to raise general revenues and the necessity of incorporating the redistribution goal into those policies, we need to consider value capture as a more comprehensive concept. Even when limited to its usual definition centered on specific land value increments, at least three non-autonomous public actions or decisions must be associated with the distributive principle of value capture:
1. an original public action (regulation, investment, etc.) that results in land value increments;
2. a second action to capture (some of) this value; and
3. a third action related to the destination or use of collected resources.
While the second action implies the use of a general or specific value capture instrument, the first and third actions, though related to specific decisions, cannot be separated from two basic questions concerning public decisions as a whole: How are public works allocated in space, and how is the general revenue distributed?
Allocation of public works
When raising revenues and promoting redistribution are concurrent goals, the second does not necessarily follow the first. In Latin America these goals are often contradictory. Under conditions of highly uneven distribution of wealth and scarce funds to finance public works, it is usually easier to guarantee the raising of revenues through the allocation of public works (original action) in areas where more absolute revenues can be collected. Even with the use of a value capture instrument, when the subsequent decision (destination of resources) maintains the same state of wealth distribution, the whole public action becomes regressive.
On the other hand, rejection of value capture instruments does not prevent the misallocation of public works. In fact, it just contributes to the status quo. For example, the facelift of Copacabana in Rio de Janeiro, which replaced old trees and modernized sidewalks, was financed by the general revenue, not by a specific value capture device. However, many of the poor areas of the city have neither sidewalks nor a single tree on their streets. Recognizing this irony reinforces the need for a new framework for value capture policies that can allocate public works more equitably.
Distribution of general revenue
Latin America presents extreme relative and absolute differences in public infrastructure provision, calling for equity criteria to evaluate distributive policies. Yet, equity criteria are subjective and there are distinct visions on what is fair. Given the disparities in wealth and in access to serviced land, it is important to consider not only relative differences but also the absolute differences between highest and lowest levels.
To illustrate this point we can apply the classic redistributive argument to the distribution of land values in a society with 10 units of wealth (i.e., land value) distributed between two groups: the higher group has 8 units or 80 percent of the wealth and the lower group has 2 units (see Table 1). This example can represent the typical differences between serviced areas occupied by the rich and unserviced areas occupied by the poor in Latin American cities. An increase of 50 percent in this wealth (5 total units), if distributed in the same ratio, does not change relative differences, but the absolute difference between the two groups is increased by 50 percent, from 6 to 9 units.
TABLE 1: Distributive Value Capture Policies Total Wealth Lower Group Higher Group Relative Differences Absolute Difference original: 10 units 2 units 8 units 1:4 6 units increased: 15 units 3 units (2+1) 12 units (8+4) 1:4 9 units
Another important consideration is the level of the group in the lowest position. Value capture instruments are justified as distributive tools to return to the community special benefits resulting from a public action that only some individuals receive. But that justification in turn raises the need to clearly separate special benefits from basic needs. If we consider access to urban infrastructure as a basic need, the society must decide on the minimum level of access for the lower group. Priority should be given to actions that achieve those minimum levels before other benefits accrue to the higher group. If this society decides that the minimum level of wealth should be 6 units for the lower group, then an increment of 5 units of land value would be distributed in such a way as to decrease both relative differences and absolute differences (see Table 2).
TABLE 2: Linking Value Capture and Redistribution Total Wealth Lower Group Higher Group Relative Differences Absolute Differences original: 10 units 2 units 8 units 1:4 6 units increased: 15 units 6 units (2+4) 9 units (8+1) 2:3 3 units
Value Capture and Socio-spatial Equity
Urban planning decisions, such as the norms and regulations on land use and development rights, also affect the distribution of urban land values and must be integrated into value capture policies. In Latin America, where the differences in access to public infrastructure and urban services are marked by severe social segregation and exclusion, this integration implies the inclusion of a socio-spatial dimension that can deal with the disparities between serviced rich center cities (for the few) and unserviced poor peripheries (for the majority). Therefore, land value redistribution policies acquire a particular political context in which the generation of land value increments and the destination of corresponding funds are fixed in distinct socio-economic areas of the city.
However, even when this socio-spatial dimension is incorporated, most redistributive value capture instruments provide necessary but not sufficient conditions for a better distribution of land values. While redistribution from rich areas to all areas involves altering the distribution of general revenue to achieve its equity objective, redistribution from all areas to poor areas involves altering the allocation of public works and/or development rights on land to arrive at a better distribution of land values.
Since these approaches involve greater institutional changes, a third option seeks to stimulate the generation of land value increments in rich areas in order to raise revenues that can be redistributed to poor areas. These so-called “Robin Hood” policies are being considered to deal with urgent needs in poor areas, combined with specific opportunities and demands in rich areas. One example is the “linkage operation” recently popularized in many large Brazilian cities, where the negotiation of legal exceptions for development generates payments earmarked for social housing. However, a careful examination of this transfer tool shows that stimulation of land value increments in rich areas actually increases intra-urban differentiation and as a result may exacerbate the gap between rich and poor areas.
This and other largely unanticipated perverse outcomes show that the development of value capture policies and instruments for Latin American countries cannot be considered independently from an urban land policy oriented to the reduction of socio-spatial inequalities. The latter can be attained only by direct actions geared to altering the current distribution pattern of land values. This means that redistribution, although not necessarily implied in the value capture idea, must be incorporated deliberately into the development of distributive value capture policies.
Guidelines for Implementing Value Capture Policies
This discussion reinforces the argument that value capture policies in Latin America must be preceded by changes in the process of distributing land values in the broadest sense, especially where redistribution is pursued as a major goal of urban policy. This perspective would help to consider in an integrated manner, in each public decision concerning a specific way of distributing urban land values, several other ways in which the public sector contributes to this distribution, including:
The potential and limits of specific value capture instruments are conditioned by those distributional public actions and decisions. When specific value capture instruments are used independently from this consideration, the whole process may be undermined. Collection of land taxes is usually neglected; public investments tend to be allocated unjustly; political impediments to the use of value capture instruments abound; revenues are not distributed in a socially equitable manner; development rights are incorporated in ownership rights, etc. As a consequence, redistribution cannot be attained and the distributive principle is imperiled.
The challenge in Latin America, then, is to work out the preconditions for improved use of the value capture idea, rather than simply to focus on overcoming procedural difficulties in applying existing instruments or to reject those instruments in favor of replacement tools usually subject to similar shortcomings. To have a chance of being truly redistributive, these distributional decisions should account for all components of land value, including accumulated, potential and specific increments, not only land value increments in the strictest sense. Efforts in this direction may contribute to a redistributive perspective on value capture policies.
How much value capture is “enough” will vary among countries, but the balance of policies should include these basic guidelines:
These guidelines are strongly associated with urban land value increments in the broadest sense, and they can be used to reduce absolute and relative socio-spatial differences. If they continue to be neglected, and value capture policies are confined to specific land value increments, attempts at redistribution in Latin American countries are bound to fail. Furthermore, the implementation of value capture instruments will continue to serve as an anti-social mechanism that only exacerbates the already great differences between rich and poor.
Fernanda Furtado is a fellow of the Lincoln Institute. She received a dissertation fellowship from the Institute to help complete her Ph.D. thesis on “Urban Land Value Recapture in Latin America” at the Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism at the University of São Paulo, Brazil.
See the Latin American Program and Land Lines sections of this website for additional articles and reports on this topic in both English and Spanish.
Notes
1 See Donald Shoup, “Is under-investment in public infrastructure an anomly?” in Gareth A. Jones and Peter Ward, eds. 1994. Methodology for Land and Housing Market Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Shoup’s piece includes the debate held during the 1991 Fitzwilliam Workshop on Land Values and Land Valorization in Developing Countries at the University of Cambridge on whether value capture instruments are intended to redistribute the valorization gain or are just a device to strengthen government finance.
2 It would be more precise to speak of value recapture, because besides better representing public interventions in order to return to the community the unearned land value captured by private entities, the term alludes to redistribution as a specific way of developing such policies. However, the more generic term value capture is used in this article.
SHARE
Las ciudades norteamericanas tienen un potencial prometedor a largo plazo como centros de innovación y crecimiento, y la expansión tecnológica y de las ciencias de la salud están comenzando a compensar la erosión de varias décadas en el sector de manufactura. Las ciudades siguen siendo también lugares llenos de vitalidad, que ofrecen opciones de diseño urbano, densidad y transporte que atraen a residentes de todas las edades y procedencias. De hecho, nueve de las diez ciudades más pobladas de los Estados Unidos han crecido en población en la última década, según el censo de 2010.
Sin embargo, las perspectivas de corto plazo de las ciudades están cargadas de desafíos. Con el reciente brusco descenso en los ingresos tributarios, causado por el colapso del mercado inmobiliario en 2008 y la consiguiente crisis financiera y recesión económica, se ha hecho extraordinariamente difícil para los gobiernos locales y estatales mantener los servicios básicos, por no mencionar los planes de inversion para el futuro. Los fondos federales de la Ley de Recuperación y Reinversión de los Estados Unidos (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, o ARRA) ayudaron a los gobiernos locales a compensar la disminución de la renta de los últimos tres años, pero los fondos de ARRA ya no están disponibles para el año fiscal entrante (una transición que se ha dado por llamar “el precipicio”), obligando a los funcionarios locales a hacer frente en su totalidad al efecto causado por el déficit de ingresos.
El Foro Periodístico sobre Suelos y el Entorno Edificado: La Próxima Ciudad (Journalists Forum on Land and the Built Environment: The Next City) de 2011 reunió a académicos, profesionales y líderes politicos con periodistas de los medios impresos y audiovisuals para explorar el tema de la infraestructura de las ciudades en el contexto de la recuperación económica presente. Este programa es producto de una asociación anual entre el Instituto Lincoln, la Fundación Nieman de Periodismo de la Universidad de Harvard, y la Facultad de Estudios de Posgrado en Diseño de Harvard.
Los debates del Foro se centraron en dos enfoques para las inversiones en infraestructura y sus servicios asociados. El primero fue un enfoque a corto plazo de las inversiones en infraestructura como estímulo fiscal, con objeto de recuperar el nivel de actividad económica y aumentar el empleo. El segundo fue un enfoque a más largo plazo en cuanto a la función que cumple la infraestructura para sustentar la transformación de las economías municipales y el aumento de competitividad y habitabilidad en un mundo globalizado.
La infraestructura y la crisis fiscal de los gobiernos locales
La necesidad del país de contar con un estímulo fiscal para impulsar la economía en 2009 llevó a plantear inversiones colosales en infraestructura para satisfacer esta necesidad. No obstante, los tipos de proyectos que se podían iniciar rápidamente a nivel local tendían a ser esfuerzos de pequeña escala, como reparación de caminos y mantenimiento de instalaciones. Las iniciativas más ambiciosas, como los trenes de alta velocidad interurbanos, no llegaron a materializarse debido a problemas presupuestarios y de endeudamiento, y porque todas ellas requerían una mayor planificación antes de poder proceder a la etapa de implementación.
Lawrence H. Summers, quien recientemente retomó su cargo de profesor en Harvard después de haber sido director del Consejo Económico Nacional en la Casa Blanca, defendió el plan de estímulo de la administración Obama, que consideró necesario para restaurar la confianza en el sistema financiero y evitar que la recesión “pasara a formar parte de los libros de historia”. No obstante, admitió que “si bien los gobiernos locales pudieron usar los fondos de estímulo para cubrir déficits de ingresos, había muy pocos proyectos grandes listos para empezar”.
Más aún, la cruda realidad de la presión fiscal es que las ciudades no pueden concentrarse en proyectos de infraestructura en gran escala y a largo plazo porque están ocupadas en recortar gastos y realizar cambios en la dotación de los serviciospúblicos locales, señaló Michael Cooper, periodista de The New York Times. Algunos ejemplos de estos recortes en los servicios incluyen el programa de licencia sin goce de sueldo todos los viernes para los maestros públicos de Hawái durante el año escolar en curso; el niño de San Diego que murió atragantado con un chicle porque la estación de bomberos más cercana estaba cerrada debido a las clausuras rotativas; las decisiones de Colorado Springs de apagar un tercio de los faroles de alumbrado todas las noches, y de subastar el helicóptero de la policía; y el pueblo de California que destituyó a su alcalde porque acondicionó las tuberías de Madera deterioradas del sistema de aguas, pero aumentó las tarifas para pagar esta reparación.
Muchas jurisdicciones también tienen problemas fiscales con la falta de financiación de los fondos de pensión y de beneficios sociales. Algunas están agravando el problema simplemente dejando de realizar los pagos anuales requeridos, una medida de emergencia adoptada, por ejemplo, por el gobernador Chris Christie en Nueva Jersey. El Mercado de bonos municipales se está tambaleando y algunas ciudades, como Harrisburg, Pensilvania, se encuentran al borde de la quiebra. Los deficits fiscales están creciendo porque los gobiernos locales han gastado lo último que les quedaba de los fondos de ARRA.
Adrian Fenty, exalcalde de Washington, DC, afirmó que las ciudades se tienen que gestionar de forma similar a un negocio, adoptando una política de rendimiento y alejándose de la política de patrocinio. Es necesario mejorar tanto la eficiencia del suministro básico de servicios como la gestión de las finanzas municipales. Dado que la educación es tan importante para el crecimiento económico de las ciudades, su administración dio prioridad a una reforma educativa, concerniente tanto a la infraestructura humana como a la física, de manera que, durante su mandato en la alcaldía, su administración clausuró el 20 por ciento de las escuelas y redujo el personal administrativo un 50 por ciento. También renegoció los contratos de los maestros, ofreciendo un sistema de remuneración basado en el mérito y sin cargo fijo, que fue aceptado por el 60 por ciento de los maestros.
Desafíos de infraestructura: El caso del tren de alta velocidad
La iniciativa de 53 mil millones de dólares del presidente Barack Obama para construir trenes de alta velocidad ha puesto en evidencia los desafíos de la crisis fiscal en los gobiernos locales. Los gobernadores de Florida, Ohio y Wisconsin devolvieron los fondos federales asignados para ferrocarriles interurbanos con el argumento de que sus gobiernos locales y estatales no estaban en condiciones de asumir los gastos de explotación y mantenimiento, al tiempo que cuestionaban las proyecciones de tráfico de pasajeros. El proyecto de tren de alta velocidad de California, si bien estaba financiado por una emisión de bonos aprobada por los votantes, se encuentra con una oposición similar debido a las cargas financieras y a las disputas sobre el uso de suelos locales.
Bruce Babbitt, exgobernador de Arizona y Secretario del Departamento del Interior de los Estados Unidos, y miembro de la junta directiva del Lincoln Institute, dijo que la campaña de la administración Obama para construir ferrocarriles interurbanos de alta velocidad fue un “desastre político”, y que la visión subyacente se tenía que reevaluar. Sugirió que se usara como modelo el Corredor del Noreste, y que un plan revisado debería incluir un sistema bien definido de refinanciación confiable, similar a la estrategia adoptada para construir el sistema de autopistas interestatales.
El pago de la infraestructura de los ferrocarriles de alta velocidad exigirá una fuente de financiamiento específica, quizás mediante un aumento en el impuesto sobre la gasoline en los estados por donde se localizarán las nuevas líneas de ferrocarril, y un sistema de recuperación de plusvalías que comprometa a los propietarios privados que se beneficiarían del aumento en el valor de sus propiedades como consecuencia de estos proyectos de obras públicas. “No tenemos el coraje político para definir nuestra prioridades”, dijo Babbitt. Hará falta un “martillo nacional” para abordar el déficit de infraestructura del país sin abdicar del control a los gobernadores y los estados.
Los ferrocarriles de alta velocidad podrán vivir o morir de acuerdo a consideraciones económicas. Petra Todorovich, directora ejecutiva de America 2050, que ha efectuado numerosos análisis del potencial del ferrocarril de alta velocidad, propuso un marco de 12 megaregiones en los Estados Unidos que representan conjuntos de áreas metropolitanas donde la mejora en el servicio de ferrocarril brindaría el mayor potencial para reemplazar al automóvil y al viaje en avión de corta duración. Los trenes de alta velocidad pueden intensificar los mercados laborales, aumentar las economías de aglomeración y aumentar la productividad, al vincular grandes centros urbanos. Japón, Francia y China se encuentran entre los países que han demostrado cómo las líneas ferroviarias interurbanas pueden promover las sinergias económicas por medio de la ubicación estratégica de las estaciones para trenes de alta velocidad y sus conexiones con otros trenes y demás sistemas de transporte.
Este argumento de aprovechamiento económico fue respaldado por Edward Rendell, exgobernador de Pensilvania y alcalde de Filadelfia, y miembro de Building America’s Future, una campaña de revitalización de infraestructura deteriorada en todo el país. Rendell argumenta que los Estados Unidos han estado descansando sobre los laureles de las inversiones pasadas, y que la revitalización de los degradados cimientos físicos de la nación es ahora una prioridad urgente. Sin una infraestructura de nivel mundial, el país no será competitivo para atraer inversiones privadas, innovación tecnológica rápida y sustentable, y un crecimiento de la productividad, y no podrá mantener el crecimiento de buenos puestos de empleo a nivel nacional.
La infraestructura y el futuro de las ciudades
A medida que la recuperación se afiance y vuelva el crecimiento económico, serán necesarias inversions en nuevas tecnologías de comunicación, energía verde, sistemas urbanos inteligentes, transporte -como los trenes de alta velocidad y los sistemas de transporte colectivo- y otras obras de infraestructura, para ayudar a las ciudades a cumplir su papel de centros de innovación, cultura y productividad.
La visión de infraestructura combinada con el planeamiento a largo plazo también es fundamental para que las ciudades se puedan adaptar al impacto inevitable de los cambios climáticos, tales como un aumento posible en el nivel del mar de un metro con las consiguientes marejadas de tempestad, inundaciones y aumento en la cantidad de eventos climáticos extremos. La infraestructura de la mayoría de las ciudades costeras es tan vieja que incluso un huracán moderado puede causar importantes daños, dijo Ed Blakely, profesor de Política Pública de la Universidad de Sídney y “exzar” de la recuperación de Nueva Orleans tras el huracán.
Las ciudades han elaborado sus planes actuales sobre la base del registro meteorológico relativamente calmo de los últimos 200 años, pero esta calma probablemente se irá reduciendo a causa del cambio climático, de modo que la infraestructura existente resultará inadecuada u obsoleta. No se debe prestart atención a los esfuerzos de reconstrucción después de catástrofes como los del huracán Katrina, dijo Blakely, sino a la reubicación, reposicionamiento y “garantías de futuro” para ciudades más resistentes.
La infraestructura como servicio de utilidad pública que mejora la habitabilidad de la ciudad se puede observar en el proyecto High Line de la ciudad de Nueva York, consistente en el cambio de uso de una línea de trenes de carga elevada que pasa por el Meatpacking District y Greenwich Village. Uno de los arquitectos de ese proyecto, Liz Diller, socia de Diller, Scofidio y Renfro, sugirió que este tipo de mejoras puede transformar las áreas urbanas, funcionar como centros para eventos sociales y culturales, y promover la actividad económica, si bien advirtió que “la arquitectura no puede resolver en realidad grandes problemas”.
A pesar de la crisis fiscal actual, se espera que las ciudades experimenten otros cambios que puedan ayudar a su recuperación económica. Entre ellos, podemos mencionar las consecuencias de la crisis inmobiliaria actual, que probablemente genere demanda de propiedades en alquiler, y el desplazamiento demográfico a medida que la generación de baby boomers se vaya jubilando y mudando a casas más pequeñas.
Arthur C. (Chris) Nelson, profesor de la Universidad de Utah, notó que ambos cambios pueden generar más demanda de estilos de vida urbanos. Por ejemplo, se puede observar ya una reducción en la demanda de casas unifamiliares ocupadas por sus propietarios en la periferia metropolitana de las Rocosas, el Sudoeste y el Sur, donde hay subdivisions completas que están virtualmente vacías. El porcentaje de familias que son dueñas de sus casas ha disminuido desde un máximo de 69,2 por ciento en 2004 a 66,4 por ciento en 2011, generando una mayor demanda de unidades de alquiler, que normalmente están ubicadas en áreas más urbanizadas.
Los desplazamientos demográficos también están relacionados con cambios en la composición de los hogares. Para 2030, los hogares unipersonales constituirán un tercio de la población, y sólo alrededor de un 25 por ciento de los hogares incluirá niños, comparado con el 45 por ciento en 1970 y el 33 por ciento en 2000. Estos cambios promoverán probablemente un ajuste significativo en los mercados y valores inmobiliarios, a medida que los baby Boomers envejezcan y pongan a la venta sus casas suburbanas y se muden a ubicaciones más urbanizadas con acceso a transporte público y a barrios peatonales. Al mismo tiempo, los próximos cambios en los mercados hipotecarios y la reforma de Fannie Mae y Freddie Mac puedan llegar a aumentar el costo del financiamiento hipotecario (y de ser propietario de una casa) e inducir a las familias más jóvenes a alquilar en vez de comprar.
Las ciudades como motor de crecimiento
La inversión en infraestructura para respaldar las regiones metropolitanas puede justificarse también por la sorprendente fortaleza de las propias ciudades. El resurgimiento urbano se puede observar en el crecimiento de los ingresos de profesionales altamente especializados, la disminución relativamente modesta de los precios de las viviendas y hasta en los recientes incrementos en varias ciudades prósperas, y en una concentración de innovación en las áreas urbanas, dijo el profesor de economía de Harvard Edward Glaeser. “Podríamos mudarnos a cualquier lugar que se adecúe a nuestra biofilia”, dijo. “Pero seguimos atraídos por las ciudades”.
El crecimiento de la población urbana está altamente correlacionado con los ingresos urbanos promedio, los niveles de educación y la participación en la tasa de empleo en pequeñas empresas, a medida que las ciudades siguen atrayendo a emprendedores y promoviendo la productividad. Si los ingresos en otros lugares fueran como los de la ciudad de Nueva York, el PIB nacional aumentaría un 43 por ciento, dijo Glaeser. Las ciudades también resultarán atractivas por su valor medioambiental, por ser lugares de densidad y transporte público, con un uso relativamente menor de energía per cápita y menor emisión de carbono que las áreas suburbanas y rurales. G laeser rechazó las normas de edificación y las regulaciones restrictivas que desalientan el aumento de densidad y hacen que los barrios urbanos antiguos de baja altura estén “fosilizados en ámbar”. También recalcó que la educación pública sigue siendo la inversión más importante que las ciudades pueden y deben hacer para mejorar el crecimiento económico y la calidad de vida.
A medida que se recuperen la economía nacional y los ingresos de los gobiernos locales, una de las prioridades claves será equilibrar los gastos actuales en servicios y las inversiones de más largo plazo. El crecimiento económico facilitará el financiamiento de inversiones en infraestructura, pero éstas serán necesarias a su vez para aumentar el crecimiento económico. El desafío será encontrar una manera políticamente viable de romper este círculo vicioso.
Sobre los autores
Gregory K. Ingram es presidente y gerente ejecutivo del Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo.
Anthony Flint es fellow y director de asuntos públicosen el Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo.
SHARE
Stephanie Pollack, subdirectora del Centro Dukakis de Política Urbana y Regional de la Universidad Northeastern, detectó una curiosa anomalía cuando analizó los resultados de una encuesta sobre las necesidades de transporte público de los residentes de bajos ingresos en Massachusetts. La encuesta pedía que se indicara el principal modo de transporte, y daba las opciones tradicionales, como tomar el tren o el autobús. Pero no había ninguna casilla para marcar lo que resultó ser el modo más común de transporte: docenas de encuestados respondieron “el automóvil de otra persona”.
Para Pollack, este descubrimiento subrayó la dificultad de diseñar sistemas de transporte acordes con las necesidades de la población, así como la necesidad de contar con mejores maneras para medir y hacer participar a la gente para poder suplir las verdaderas necesidades de transporte público de los usuarios. Como parte de un proyecto llamado The Toll of Transportation (La carga del transporte), el Centro Dukakis trató de determinar cómo llegan los residentes adonde tienen que ir en ciudades como Lynn, Worcester, Springfield y East Boston. Pero la categoría “automóvil de otra persona” no formaba parte de ninguna lista de datos estándar de transporte. “Medimos la equidad en educación y en sanidad, pero no en transporte”, dijo Pollack a los escritores y editores reunidos para el Foro periodístico sobre el suelo y el entorno edificado, realizado del 28 al 29 de marzo de 2014 en Cambridge, Massachusetts. “No tenemos el concepto de cómo debería ser un sistema de transporte ‘justo’”.
El tema del foro fue la infraestructura: para quién es, cómo planificarla y pagarla, y por qué necesitamos inversiones más inteligentes en los entornos urbanos del siglo XXI. Esta fue la séptima edición de esta reunión para periodistas de dos días de duración, patrocinada por el Instituto Lincoln, la Fundación Nieman de Periodismo de la Universidad Harvard, y la Escuela de Posgrado de Diseño (Graduate School of Design o GSD) de la Universidad Harvard.
Pollock compartió también con los participantes su investigación sobre el desarrollo orientado al transporte público (transit-oriented development o TOD), una política que se fomenta cada vez más en las ciudades por medio de reformas de zonificación e incentivos económicos. Los datos revelaron algunos resultados problemáticos sobre el uso y la equidad del transporte público. Los residentes de ingresos más altos que se mudan a zonas TOD (que se convierten rápidamente en lugares caros para vivir) en general no usan transporte público, mientras que los residentes que sí lo usan tienen que residir más lejos de las estaciones, en barrios económicamente más asequibles. Este desplazamiento aumenta el costo y la complejidad de sus viajes para ir al trabajo y volver. Además, en un tercio de las zonas TOD estudiadas, el uso del transporte público se redujo después de haberse introducido el desarrollo.
En otra presentación, Judith Grant Long, profesora asociada de Planificación Urbana en GSD, analizó megaeventos, como la Copa del Mundo y las Olimpiadas, que inducen a las ciudades a invertir miles de millones de dólares en infraestructura. Hay poca evidencia de un retorno positivo a la inversión en términos de puestos de trabajo permanente, ingresos o incluso la imagen de la ciudad, indicó Long. El Comité Olímpico Internacional podría ayudar a las ciudades a planificar mejor y organizar juegos “del tamaño correcto”, sugirió. Barcelona, Roma, Tokio, Múnich, Montreal y Londres han podido transformar con cierto éxito las villas olímpicas en áreas de uso a largo plazo que benefician a un sector más amplio de la población una vez que se acaban los juegos.
Las sociedades público-privadas, la construcción y operación privada de rutas y los sistemas de peaje han sido innovaciones recientes para el financiamiento de infraestructura, dijo José A. Gómez-Ibáñez, profesor de GSD y de la Escuela Kennedy de Harvard. Pero se puede decir que desde que se completó el sistema de rutas interestatales en los EE.UU., el papel del gobierno federal no ha sido claro. El desafío estriba en demostrarle al público quién se beneficiará de los proyectos, para poder justificar su financiamiento.
Los gobiernos deberán ser más inteligentes y enfocar bien el objetivo al construir futuros sistemas de transporte y otros tipos de infraestructura, sobre todo cuando las áreas metropolitanas tratan de aumentar su resiliencia en vista de los impactos inevitables del cambio climático, declararon varios ponentes.
Rich Cavallaro, presidente de Skanska USA Civil Inc., citó la calificación de D+ (en una escala de A a F) en el último “boletín de calificaciones” de infraestructura emitido por la Sociedad Americana de Ingenieros Civiles. Dicho grupo estima que el país tendrá que gastar 1,6 billones de dólares más de lo que indican los planes actualmente para poder contar con una infraestructura de nivel aceptable en todos los sectores. En contraste con proyectos inmensamente caros, como esclusas similares a las del río Támesis en el Reino Unido, Cavallaro se inclina por tomar medidas más asequibles, como equipar a los túneles del metro con tapones inflables gigantes, elevar las rejas de ventilación y subestaciones eléctricas, y diseñar los garajes de estacionamiento e instalaciones similares para que se puedan inundarse y limpiarse después, cuando las aguas retrocedan.
Varios países realizan una mejor tarea de coordinación y recuperación en casos de desastres, según las encuestas realizadas por Robert B. Olshansky, profesor de Planificación Urbana y Regional de la Universidad de Illinois en Urbana-Champaign, y Laurie A. Johnson, presidenta de Laurie Johnson Consulting|Research. La construcción de resiliencia a largo plazo como parte de este proceso fue objeto de un reciente informe del Instituto Lincoln, titulado Lecciones de Sandy.
Susannah C. Drake, presidenta de dlandstudio pllc, describió enfoques creativos, como el rediseño de la protección de la costa en el sur de Manhattan y el sellado de trazados subterráneos que pasan debajo de barrios urbanos. La nación no puede simplemente reconstruir lo que existía antes de un desastre, sobre todo ahora que los avances en tecnología han abaratado el costo de infraestruc-tura, en comparación con las inversiones masivas que se realizaron en el New Deal. Marcus M. Quigley, presidente de Geosyntec Consultants, exploró el uso de tecnología inteligente y controles dinámicos para transformar la construcción de grandes obras de infraestructura. “Podemos cambiar la manera de construir la infraestructura para que actúe a nuestro favor”, dijo. “Cada vez que repavimentamos una calle o acera, estamos perdiendo una oportunidad”.
También se habló sobre el lado negativo de la infraestructura inteligente. Ryan Ellis, fellow posdoctoral de investigación en el Centro Belfer de Ciencias y Asuntos Internacionales de la Escuela Kennedy de Harvard, abordó el complejo problema de seguridad e infraestructura, revelando el submundo de ciberataques, vulnerabilidades y “días cero”. Los hackers espían el correo electrónico continuamente y podrían sabotear nuestra red eléctrica, el control del tráfico aéreo y los sistemas financieros. La clave, dijo Ellis, está en “diseñar ahora teniendo en cuenta la seguridad”, porque “es difícil incorporar la seguridad después”. Y añadió que los planificadores involucrados en construir ciudades inteligentes deben tener muy presente el tema de la seguridad.
El impacto interconectado de la urbanización global requiere un marco más amplio para la infraestructura urbana que exceda las áreas metropolitanas individuales, dijo Neil Brenner, profesor de Teoría Urbana en GSD. “Tenemos que actualizar nuestro mapa cognitivo de la urbanización”, dijo. Pierre Bélanger, profesor asociado de Arquitectura del Paisaje de GSD, predijo que trabajar con la naturaleza -incluso dejando que ciertas áreas abandonadas vuelvan a su estado silvestre- podría eclipsar el enfoque tradicional de controlar el agua y canalizar los arroyos.
El liderazgo político es la clave para reinventar y diseñar nueva infraestructura en el entorno urbano, dijo la arquitecta paisajista Margie Ruddick. Afortunadamente, los alcaldes son algunos de los líderes más innovadores para abordar estos tipos de desafíos, dijo David Gergen, analista senior de CNN y director del Centro de Liderazgo Público en la Escuela Kennedy de Harvard. Es raro que un alcalde llegue a ser presidente, pero resuelven problemas prácticos importantes, dijo Gergen, que fue el orador invitado en la velada nocturna tradicional del foro en la Casa Walter Lippmann de la Fundación Nieman. “Es en las ciudades donde se están llevando a cabo los experimentos”, dijo.
Janette Sadik-Khan, ex comisionada de la Ciudad de Nueva York y en la actualidad miembro de Bloomberg Associates, también se refirió a las dificultades políticas de transformar el paisaje urbano. Hizo notar que las ciclovías, el programa de bicicletas compartidas y los espacios peatonales en Times Square provocaron la oposición por parte de automovilistas, dueños de negocios y otros que consideraban estas iniciativas poco prácticas y “vagamente francesas”. Sin embargo, muchos comerciantes han reportado desde entonces un gran aumento de su actividad debido a un mayor trán-sito de peatones, y que las sillas portátiles de las áreas peatonales están continuamente ocupadas.
“Cuando se ofrecen más opciones, la gente vota con sus pies, con sus asientos y con los candados de sus bicicletas”, expresó. “Los neoyorquinos han modificado las expectativas respecto a sus calles”.
El foro incluye tradicionalmente dos sesiones dedicadas a la “práctica del arte”. Brian McGrory, editor de The Boston Globe, describió los esfuerzos para integrar un periodismo “ardientemente relevante” en un modelo de negocio digital que sea sostenible. The Globe tiene más lectores que nunca, expresó. Inga Saffron, crítico de arquitectura de The Philadelphia Inquirer, ganadora del Premio Pulitzer poco después del foro, junto con el crítico de arquitectura Blair Kamin del Chicago Tribune, Jerold Kayden de GSD y Gregory K. Ingram y Armando Carbonell, ambos del Instituto Lincoln, mantuvieron un coloquio sobre la interacción entre periodistas y fuentes expertas.
Varios participantes de los 40 periodistas y fellows de Nieman publicaron notas sobre el foro, incluyendo Roger K. Lewis del Washington Post, Tim Bryant del St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Christopher Swope de Citiscope y Josh Stephens de Planetizen.
Anthony Flint es fellow y director de relaciones públicas en el Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, y autor de Wrestling with Moses: How Jane Jacobs Took on New York’s Master Builder and Transformed the American City (Luchando con Moisés: Cómo Jane Jacobs se enfrentó al Jefe de Construcciones de Nueva York y transformó la ciudad norteamericana) (Random House, 2011). Fue fellow Loeb en 2000–2001.
SHARE
Driven by an awareness of population expansion and the difficulties that follow growth, Oregon’s Departments of Transportation and of Land Conservation and Development created the “Smart Development” program. The state retained Leland Consulting Group and Livable Oregon to define the goals of Smart Development, to identify obstacles to its execution and to enjoin the development community in discussions about how to implement its goals.
Smart Development is land use that:
In examining over 60 projects across the country that attempt comprehensive solutions to problems of urban growth, the consultant team looked at examples of “new urbanism,” as well as infill development, subdivisions, affordable housing, adaptive re-use and neighborhood revitalization. While common factors exist among all projects, none of the ones that are successful for their developers satisfy all Smart Development goals at once. The good news is that careful attention to local market conditions and demographics can result in successful projects that do satisfy many of these goals.
Why Smart Development Raises Financing Questions
Projects that satisfy some goals are unlikely to satisfy others because the goals may have different land use solutions which—when built in current markets—are in conflict. Proponents of neotraditional, transit-oriented, small-lot, pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use and grid-platted development have bundled these styles as a single concept. Developers and lenders do not understand the markets, values and risks for these hybrid products.
When we surveyed lenders about the factors that affect their decision to finance Smart Development projects, they explained unequivocally that financing of innovation required clear limits on the risk the lender could accept. While factors such as preleasing and on-site management were considered important, lenders strongly preferred working with a developer who had a track record, financial capacity and experience in the product type.
Lenders also expressed doubts about the willingness of the secondary market to lend on innovative projects. The problem is not innovation in physical design itself, but lenders’ anxieties about FannieMae’s “pass-through” requirement: the bank is financially responsible for the project through foreclosure of the asset. FannieMae support does not insulate the bank from the risk of default. Since banks do not want to own real estate, innovative project types that cannot show strong track records cause anxiety that is not allayed by securitization.
Overcoming the Obstacles
There are three technical obstacles to financing Smart Development:
A fourth obstacle is financial, relating to the first phase provision of new infrastructure.
Appraisal and Comparables: Standard appraisals usually focus on the housing product without accounting for the economic value produced by higher quality infrastructure, adjacent services, pedestrian amenities, and access to transit. By comparing only housing units, appraisals allot them the value that they would have in adjoining subdivisions that contain none of the amenities. Yet, new projects that we reviewed were often higher in price than the surrounding market. The quality of new designs may justify pricing, but appraisals based on the local area did not support the same percentage of purchase price as for nearby units. Smart Development projects also required proportionately higher cash down-payments, making the units harder to buy (and harder for the developer to sell).
It must be emphasized that Smart Development features are positive attributes that have long-term effects on value. Appraisal is regularly performed involving regression equations to model the economic value of positive externalities and could be applied to this area to produce new standards for evaluation of Smart Development. This process needs research but is well within the professional purview of the appraisal community.
New Market Studies: Smart Development, with its sophisticated land use and concepts such as inclusion of retail into subdivision development, attracts different demographic groups than standard development. Income levels per capita are higher, household sizes are smaller, and the use of transit and other services per person is often greater.
To overcome feasibility and appraisal obstacles, it is useful to consider Smart Development not as a single market concept but as a series of land use solutions that incorporate traditional real estate products in innovative ways. The market for the products can then be assessed in the same way as existing similar land uses that have attracted the demographic groups noted above—older neighborhoods with the sort of land use proposed in these projects. Through this method it is possible to avoid the pitfalls of “trend” studies that are unable to assess the market for new products.
Presentation of Smart Development to Lenders: The business plan for new products describes how products were arrived at in response to market niches and supporting demographics and sales potential. Every aspect of the business is revealed: project principals and roles; financial structure; applied start-up capital; reserves for operational deficits; and projections of revenues, cash flows and profits. The plan illustrates potential risks and suggests mitigations for risk should conditions not meet expectations.
Presentation of real estate development is typically done through market trend studies and architectural drawings. Neither of these modes addresses the issues raised in a business plan. It may be worthwhile for proactive lenders to consider offering assistance with business planning and presentation of innovative projects to alleviate the anxieties of capital investors and loan boards.
First Phase Financial Feasibility: In many western U.S. cities, grid street plans were built by the city and then builders provided the houses. After World War II, American cities stopped creating streets and the developers began providing the local infrastructure. The major public infrastructure dollars were funneled through federal agencies into regional infrastructure improvements (freeways) which sped private development into fringe areas.
It is now understood that highways and major arterials do not eliminate congestion but rather act as a subsidy for congestion-producing development. New requirements for grid streets, pedestrian amenities, sidewalks and parking strips with trees can make development either unaffordable to median buyers or financially infeasible, and there are no local support mechanisms equal to the magnitude of highway funding.
If the goals of Smart Development are serious social goals, then some level of first phase credit enhancement in exchange for fulfillment of social goals is appropriate. Such credit enhancement would serve to produce land use with the long-term benefits of lowered social cost through reduction of congestion and auto use and a better quality of life.
_____________________________
Edward H. Starkie, principal, and Bonnie Gee Yosick, associate, conduct economic analysis and research on downtown redevelopment for Leland Consulting Group, 325 Northwest 22nd Street, Portland, OR 97210; 503/222-1600.
SHARE
American cities have promising long-term prospects as hubs of innovation and growth, with expansion in technology and health sciences beginning to offset the decades-long erosion of manufacturing. Cities also remain places of vitality, offering urban design, density, and trans-port options that attract residents of all ages and backgrounds. In fact, nine of the ten most populous U.S. cities gained population over the last decade, according to the 2010 U.S. Census.
Yet the short-term prospects for cities are fraught with challenges. The recent sharp decline in tax revenues, caused by the 2008 housing market collapse and related financial crisis and economic slowdown, has made it extraordinarily difficult for state and local governments to maintain basic services, let alone plan for investments in infrastructure. Federal funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) helped local governments offset revenue declines in the past three years, but ARRA funds are no longer available for the coming fiscal year (a transition now termed “the cliff”), leaving local officials to confront the full force of revenue shortfalls.
The 2011 Journalists Forum on Land and the Built Environment: The Next City brought scholars, practitioners, and political leaders together with print and broadcast journalists to explore the theme of infrastructure for cities in the context of the ongoing economic recovery. This program is an annual partnership of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University, and Harvard Graduate School of Design.
Two roles for infrastructure investments and related services permeated discussions at the Forum. First was the near-term role of investment in infrastructure as a fiscal stimulus aimed at turning around the economy and increasing employment. Second was the longer-term role that infrastructure plays in sustaining the transformation of municipal economies and increasing their competitiveness and livability in a globalized world.
Infrastructure and the Local Government Fiscal Crisis
The country’s need for fiscal stimulus to jump-start the economy in 2009 raised the prospect of massive infrastructure investments to help meet that need. However, the kinds of projects that could be launched quickly at the local level tended to be smaller-scale efforts, such as roadway repairs and facilities maintenance. More ambitious initiatives, such as intercity high-speed rail, failed to materialize due to spending and debt concerns and because much more design was needed before implementation could proceed.
Lawrence H. Summers, who recently returned to his professorship at Harvard after being director of the White House National Economic Council, defended the Obama administration’s stimulus plans, which he said were necessary to restore confidence in the financial system and keep the recession “out of the history books.” However, he said, “while local governments were able to use stimulus funds to cover revenue shortfalls, there were very few large shovel-ready projects.”
Moreover, the grim reality of fiscal stress is that cities cannot focus on large-scale, long-range infrastructure projects because they are struggling to cut spending and reform the delivery of local public services, noted Michael Cooper, reporter for The New York Times. Some examples of lost services include the Hawaii program that furloughs public school teachers every Friday through this school year; the San Diego boy who died choking on a gumball because a nearby fire station had been shuttered on a rotating basis; Colorado Springs’ decision to turn off a third of its streetlights each night and to auction off the police helicopter; and the California town that recalled its mayor because he revamped the city’s failing wooden pipes in its water system, but increased water fees to pay for it.
Many jurisdictions also have ongoing fiscal problems with the underfunding of pension funds and benefits. Some are worsening the problems simply by not making the required annual payments, a stopgap applied by Governor Chris Christie in New Jersey, among others. The municipal bond market faces tumult and some cities, like Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, are on the brink of bankruptcy. Fiscal deficits are growing because local governments have now expended the last of their
ARRA funds.
Adrian Fenty, former mayor of Washington, DC, said cities need to be run on a more business-like basis, moving to the politics of performance and away from the politics of patronage. Improvements are needed in both the efficiency of basic service delivery and the management of city finances. Because education is so important to the economic growth of cities, his administration gave priority to education reform—human infrastructure as well as physical infrastructure. During his term as mayor, his administration closed 20 percent of the schools and reduced administrative personnel by 50 percent. He also revamped teacher contracts, offering a merit pay system without tenure that 60 percent of the teachers opted to join.
Infrastructure Challenges: The Case of High-Speed Rail
President Barack Obama’s $53 billion high-speed rail initiative has brought the challenges of the local government fiscal crisis into sharp relief. Governors in Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin returned the federal funding allocated to those states for intercity rail, claiming that their state and local governments could not possibly afford the resulting maintenance and operating costs, and questioning ridership projections. The high-speed rail project in California, though financed by a voter-approved bond issue, faces similar opposition because of financial burdens and local land use disputes.
Bruce Babbitt, former governor of Arizona and secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior, and a member of the Lincoln Institute board of directors, said the Obama administration’s campaign for high-speed intercity rail was a “political disaster,” and that the underlying vision needed a reassessment. He suggested that the Northeast Corridor should be the model, and that a revised plan should include a well-defined system of reliable financing—similar to the approach used to build the interstate highway system.
Paying for high-speed rail infrastructure will require a dedicated funding stream, perhaps from an increase in the gasoline tax in the states where the new rail lines would be located, and a system of value capture to engage private landowners who benefit from increases in property value as a result of such public works projects. “We don’t have the political courage to define our priorities,” Babbitt said. It will take a “national hammer” to address the nation’s infrastructure deficit without abdicating control to governors and states.
High-speed rail may live or die based on economic considerations. Petra Todorovich, executive director of America 2050, which has issued numerous analyses of high-speed rail’s potential, proposed a framework of 12 U.S. megaregions that represent collections of metropolitan areas where enhanced rail service offers the greatest potential for replacing automobile and short-haul airline travel. High-speed rail can deepen labor markets, increase agglomeration economies, and boost productivity by linking urban centers. Japan, France, and China are among the countries that have demonstrated how rail lines between major cities can foster economic synergies through the strategic location of high-speed rail stations and their connections to commuter rail and transit.
This economic payoff argument was seconded by Edward Rendell, former governor of Pennsylvania and mayor of Philadelphia, who is part of Building America’s Future, a campaign for investments in crumbling infrastructure nationwide. Rendell argued that the United States has been resting on its past investments, and that shoring up the nation’s decaying physical foundations is now an urgent priority. Without world-class infrastructure, the country will not be competitive in attracting private investment, sustaining rapid technological innovation and productivity growth, or maintaining the growth of good jobs domestically.
Infrastructure and the Future of Cities
As the recovery continues and economic growth returns, investments in new communication technology, green energy, smart urban systems, transport such as high-speed rail and mass transit, and other infrastructure will be needed to help cities fulfill their roles as the centers of innovation, culture, and productivity.
The vision of infrastructure combined with long-range planning is also a central theme in how cities can adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change, including a possible one-meter sea level rise and associated storm surges, flooding, and increasing numbers of extreme weather events. Infrastructure in most coastal cities is so old that even a moderate storm event can do extensive damage, said Ed Blakely, public policy professor at the University of Sydney and former hurricane recovery czar in New Orleans.
Cities have been able to base their current plans on the relatively calm meteorological record of the last 200 years, but that calm is likely to erode with climate change, making much of the existing infrastructure inadequate or obsolete. Attention should not be focused on rebuilding after disasters like Hurricane Katrina, Blakely said, but on relocating, repositioning, and “future-proofing” for more resilient cities.
Infrastructure as an amenity that improves city livability is seen in New York’s High Line project, the conversion of an elevated freight line through the Meatpacking District and Greenwich Village. One of the architects on that project, Liz Diller, principal in Diller, Scofidio + Renfro, suggested that such retrofits can transform urban areas, provide a focal point for social and cultural events, and promote economic activity—though she cautioned that “architecture can’t really fix big problems.”
In spite of the current fiscal crisis, cities are expected to experience other changes that may aid their economic recovery. Among these are the fallout from the current housing crisis that is likely to spur demand for rental units and the demographic shift as the baby boom generation enters retirement age and begins to downsize housing choices.
Professor Arthur C. (Chris) Nelson, professor at the University of Utah, noted that both changes may generate more demand for urban lifestyles. For example, the current reduction in demand for owner-occupied, single-family houses at the metropolitan periphery is evident in the Intermountain West, Southwest, and South, where entire subdivisions are virtually empty. The percent of households owning homes has declined from a high of 69.2 percent in 2004 to 66.4 percent in 2011, fostering more demand for rental units that typically are located in more urbanized areas.
Demographic shifts are also related to changes in household composition. By 2030 single-person households will constitute one-third of the population, and only about one out of four households will include children, a decline from 45 percent with children in 1970 and 33 percent in 2000. These changes are likely to foster a significant adjustment in housing markets and values as aging baby boomers offer their suburban houses for sale and move to more urbanized locations with access to transit and walkable neighborhoods. At the same time, upcoming changes in mortgage markets and the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may make mortgage financing (and homeownership) more costly and cause younger families to choose renting over owning.
Cities as Engines of Growth
Investing in infrastructure to support metropolitan regions might have an additional rationale grounded in the surprising resilience of cities themselves. The ongoing urban resurgence is visible in the income growth of highly skilled professionals, the relatively modest housing price declines and even recent increases in several prospering cities, and a concentration of innovation in urban areas, said Harvard economics professor Edward Glaeser. “We could move anywhere that suits our biophilia,” he said. “Yet we keep flocking to cities.”
Urban population growth is highly correlated with average urban incomes, education levels, and the share of employment in small firms as cities continue to draw entrepreneurs and foster productivity. If incomes everywhere were like those in New York City, the national GDP would rise 43 percent, Glaeser said. Cities will also continue to be prized for their environmental value as places of density and transit, reflecting relatively lower per capita energy use and carbon emissions than suburban and rural areas. Glaeser argued against restrictive zoning and regulations that discourage greater density and leave older, low-rise urban neighborhoods “frozen in amber.” He also stressed that public education remains the most important investment that cities can and should make to enhance their continued economic growth and quality of life.
As both the national economy and local government revenues recover, a key priority will be to balance expenditures between current services and longer-term investments. Economic growth will make it easier to finance investments in infrastructure, but investments in infrastructure are needed to increase economic growth. The challenge is to find a politically feasible way of breaking into this virtuous circle.
About the Authors
Gregory K. Ingram is president and CEO of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Anthony Flint is fellow and director of public affairs at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
SHARE
Stephanie Pollack, associate director of the Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University, noticed something seriously amiss when she analyzed the results of a survey on the public transportation needs of lower-income residents in Massachusetts. The survey asked respondents to indicate their main mode of transport, and there were the traditional choices like taking the train or the bus. But there was no box to check for what turned out to be the most common means of getting around: Dozens of respondents had written in “someone else’s car.”
For Pollack, the discovery underscored the difficulties of matching transportation systems to realities on the ground as well as the need for better metrics and engagement to satisfy the true needs of those who use public transportation. As part of a project called The Toll of Transportation, the Dukakis Center sought to determine how residents get where they need to go in such cities as Lynn, Worcester, Springfield, and East Boston. But “someone else’s car” was not a category recognized in standard transportation data collection. “We measure equity in education and health care, but not in transportation,” Pollack told writers and editors gathered for the Journalists Forum on Land and the Built Environment, in Cambridge, March 28 to 29, 2014. “We have no concept of how a transportation system would be ‘fair.’”
The theme of the forum was infrastructure—who it’s for, how to plan and pay for it, and why we need smarter investments for 21st-century urban environments. It was the seventh year of the annual two-day gathering for journalists, hosted by the Lincoln Institute, the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University, and Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design (GSD).
Pollock also shared research on transit-oriented development (TOD)—a policy increasingly encouraged by cities through zoning reform and financial incentives. The data revealed some troubling outcomes in terms of equity and transit use: The higher-income residents who move into TOD areas, which rapidly become expensive places to live, don’t tend to use the transit; whereas residents who do use transit must move farther from the stations, to more affordable neighborhoods—a displacement that raises the costs and complexity of their commutes. In a third of TOD sites studied, ridership actually went down after new development went in.
In another presentation, Judith Grant Long, associate professor of urban planning at the GSD, looked at mega-events, such as the World Cup and the Olympics, which also inspire cities to invest billions in infrastructure. There is little evidence of a payoff in terms of permanent jobs, revenues, or even branding, she said. The International Olympic Committee could help cities plan better and deliver more compact, “right-sized” games, Long suggested. Barcelona, Rome, Tokyo, Munich, Montreal, and London all have had some success in transforming Olympic villages for long-term use that benefits a broader population after the games are over.
Public-private partnerships, private roadway building and operation, and tolling systems have marked recent innovations in the financing of infrastructure, said Jose A. Gomez-Ibanez, professor at the GSD and the Harvard Kennedy School. But, arguably, since the completion of the interstate highway system, the federal role has been unclear; the challenge is showing the public who benefits from projects, in order to justify how they are paid for, he said.
Governments are going to have to become smarter and more targeted in building future transportation and other types of infrastructure, especially as metropolitan areas seek to become more resilient in the face of the inevitable impacts of climate change, several presenters said.
Rich Cavallaro, president of Skanska USA Civil, Inc., cited the D+ grade in the latest “report card” on infrastructure issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers. That group estimates that the nation needs to spend $1.6 trillion more than currently planned to bring infrastructure across all sectors to an acceptable level. In contrast to hugely expensive projects, such as floodgates similar to those on the Thames River in the United Kingdom, Cavallaro spoke in favor of more achievable steps, such as equipping subway tunnels with giant inflatable plugs, raising up grates and power substations, and designing parking garages and similar facilities so they can be flooded and then cleaned up when the waters recede.
Several nations are better at coordinating disaster relief and recovery efforts, according to surveys by Robert B. Olshansky, professor of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and Laurie A. Johnson, principal at Laurie Johnson Consulting|Research. Building long-term resilience as part of that process was the subject of the recent Lincoln Institute report, Lessons from Sandy.
Susannah C. Drake, principal at dlandstudio pllc, detailed creative approaches such as retooling the waterfront apron of lower Manhattan and capping sunken highway trenches through urban neighborhoods. The nation cannot simply seek to rebuild what existed before a disaster—especially now that advances in technology make infrastructure less expensive, compared to the massive investments of the New Deal. Marcus M. Quigley, principal at Geosyntec Consultants, explored how smart technology and dynamic, intelligent controls can transform major facilities. “We can change the way our infrastructure acts on our behalf,” he said. “Every time we repave a street or a sidewalk, we’re burning an opportunity.”
The dark side of smart infrastructure was also discussed. Ryan Ellis, postdoctoral research fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School, addressed the complex challenge of security and infrastructure, revealing the cloak-and-dagger world of cyber attacks, vulnerabilities, and zero days. Hackers routinely hijack emails and can sabotage our power grid, air traffic control, and financial systems. The key, Ellis said, is to “design for security now,” because “it’s hard to bolt on after the fact.” For planners engaged in building smart cities, he said, security must be part of the conversation.
The interconnected impacts of global urbanization require a broader framework for urban infrastructure, outside the “box” of individual metropolitan areas, said Neil Brenner, professor of urban theory at the GSD. “We need to update our cognitive map of urbanization,” he said. Pierre Bélanger, associate professor of landscape architecture at the GSD, predicted that working with nature—and even allowing certain abandoned areas to return to a wild state—would eclipse the traditional approach of controlling water and putting streams in pipes.
Political leadership is the key to reinventing and designing new infrastructure in the urban environment, said landscape architect Margie Ruddick. Fortunately, mayors have become some of the most innovative leaders to take on these kinds of challenges, said David Gergen, senior analyst at CNN and director of the Center for Public Leadership at the Harvard Kennedy School. Mayors may not routinely become president, but they are practical problem solvers at center stage, said Gergen, who was the guest speaker at the forum’s traditional evening gathering at the Nieman Foundation’s Walter Lippmann House. “Cities are where the experimentation is taking place,” he said.
The political difficulties of transforming the urban landscape were also noted by Janette Sadik-Khan, former transportation commissioner of New York City and now at Bloomberg Associates. She noted that bike lanes, a bike-share program, and car-free spaces in Times Square had prompted opposition from drivers, business owners, and others who viewed the initiative as impractical and “vaguely French.” But many shopkeepers have since reported a big uptick in business because of increased foot traffic, and the moveable chairs in the car-free areas are continually occupied.
“When you expand options, people vote with their feet, their seats, and their bike share key fobs,” she said. “New Yorkers have changed in what they expect from their streets.”
The forum traditionally includes two sessions devoted to “practicing the craft.” Brian McGrory, editor of The Boston Globe, detailed efforts to integrate “searingly relevant” journalism in a digital business model that is sustainable. The Globe has more readers than ever, he said. Inga Saffron, architecture critic for The Philadelphia Inquirer, who won the Pulitzer Prize shortly after the forum, joined Chicago Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin, Jerold Kayden from the GSD, and Gregory K. Ingram and Armando Carbonell from the Lincoln Institute in a conversation on the interaction between journalists and expert sources. Several participants among the 40 journalists and Nieman fellows filed dispatches, including Roger K. Lewis at The Washington Post, Tim Bryant at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Christopher Swope at Citiscope, and Josh Stephens writing for Planetizen.
Anthony Flint is a fellow and director of public affairs at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, and author of Wrestling with Moses: How Jane Jacobs Took on New York’s Master Builder and Transformed the American City (Random House, 2011). He was a Loeb Fellow in 2000–2001.
SHARE
Seeking to address housing affordability and transportation congestion issues, the executive directors of the 25 largest public-sector metropolitan regional councils gathered in Los Angeles in September 2003 for their second regional forum. The three-day conference was sponsored by the Lincoln Institute, the Fannie Mae Foundation and the National Association of Regional Councils (NARC).
Case Studies
The opening session featured presentations on three case studies that illustrate different approaches to growth and development: Atlanta, Chicago and Los Angeles.
The Atlanta region is home to 3.6 million people in 10 counties. Charles Krautler, of the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), noted that the commission was created in 1947 and in 1952 presented its first regional plan. “It proposed a tight development pattern with an urban growth boundary close to where I-285 circles our region,” he explained. “It was rejected outright. Instead, we adopted a plan with growth in concentric circles. We did not have unplanned sprawl, we planned for it and we got it.” However, he continued, “now we have two societies. Many people moved to the northern part of the region and took their wealth with them. We encouraged them to trade long drives for big houses. But poverty remains concentrated in Atlanta and Fulton County.”
No slowdown is forecasted for 2030, as the population is expected to grow to 5.4 million people and employment to 3.1 million jobs. That means more congestion, and Atlanta faces other constraints as well. The region is the largest metropolitan area with the smallest water supply, and there is no opportunity for significant expansion of the supply. “If we keep doing what we’re doing, then what we have today is the best its going to be,” Krautler stated. “We’re trying to encourage a movement back to the city. After losing population for the last 30 years, the city has grown by 16,000 since the 2000 census. In a further effort to rewind the sprawl clock, ARC has designated 44 activity/town centers as part of its regional development plan linking transportation and land use. Each center receives planning and, more important, infrastructure resources to concentrate development.”
The Chicago metropolitan area is the “hub of the Midwest,” according to Ron Thomas of the Northeast Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC). With more than 8 million residents in 6 counties with 272 incorporated municipalities, Chicago has built its strength around the waters of Lake Michigan. The NIPC region hosts almost 4.5 million jobs and 62 companies that are listed in the Fortune 1000. The 4,000-square-mile region stretches north to Wisconsin and east to Indiana. And yet, Thomas laments, “our urban growth ‘edge’ is beyond our region. That means that the people who are attempting to control this growth are not at our table.”
Building on the Burnham plan, the first regional plan in the country created in 1909, Chicago’s urban fabric is held together by a series of 200 town centers, an extensive rail network and an expansive highway system. The good news, Thomas said, is that “90 percent of the region’s population is within one mile of a transit line.” Three satellite cities, Elgin, Joliet and Aurora, create a polycentric region around Chicago’s western fringe. The net result is that the region still has the capacity to absorb the projected growth of more than 2 million new people in the next 30 years.
Like every metropolitan region, Chicago is experiencing immigration from all over the world, but especially an influx of Hispanic families. New immigrants enter a region with longstanding socioeconomic patterns of segregation, especially in the southern counties. Thomas explained there are pockets of diversity in some suburban communities, but exclusionary zoning keeps the barriers high. While NIPC has successfully brought together the mayors in the metropolitan area to discuss critical issues, “we suffer from a lack of major universities, most of which are either downtown or 100 miles out,” Thomas noted. “Our political leaders are organized, and so is our business community. However, we run on parallel tracks and talk in stereo.” To address this disconnect, NIPC has created a broad-scale civic leadership process to undertake community-based planning. “We have created a tool called ‘paint the town,’ which allows interactive meetings in local city and town halls,” he continued. “We have a future to plan and it needs to be grounded where the people live, work and raise their families.”
Los Angeles has more than twice as many people as Chicago and more than 4.5 times the population of the Atlanta region, and yet “the urban portion of our region is the densest in the country,” according to Mark Pisano of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). “We have 187 municipalities in 6 counties. With 76 local officials in our structure, our congressional delegation comes to us for solutions to the tough issues we face. We do have a region that is large enough to cover the true regional economy, but the economic and social forces are relentless. Our economic bases are shifting faster than we can plan infrastructure to keep up with the changes.”
Like Chicago and Atlanta, Los Angeles is a polycentric region; it spreads across all of Southern California except San Diego County. “We were one of the first regions in the country to become a majority of minorities. Immigration drives development in our region,” said Pisano. Some of the trends are good. “Forty percent of our region is doing extremely well, but that means that 60 percent is not. We have been called the ‘new Appalachia’ by some, and we are banding together with other states along the border with Mexico to create the Southwest Authority. This, like other similar efforts around the country including the Appalachian Regional Commission, would create a federally supported multistate compact to address critical infrastructure needs required to support the economy of this large area.”
SCAG forecasts another 6 million people will arrive in the region by 2030, more than twice the population of the City of Chicago. As the new immigrants arrive, cities and towns already cramped by the constraints of Proposition 13 are beginning to close the door on new housing production. “Housing is the most undesirable land use in Southern California,” said Pisano. “We are seeing the fiscalization of land use. Our leaders tell me that they don’t want any more housing. They say this is sound fiscal policy. However, this approach just puts more pressure on places that already have housing. The net effect is that Los Angeles is three times more overcrowded than the rest of the region and eight times more crowded than New York City.”
To address these big-picture problems, SCAG is focusing on macro-level regional development patterns. “We can’t build our way out of the traffic congestion, but we have two scenarios under discussion,” Pisano continued. “The first focuses on infill development; the second proposes creation of the fifth ring of development in the high desert. Effective land use will generate three times more benefit than highway expansion.” Using a creative strategy of building truck lanes, paid for by the truckers, “we can create some relief and target key transportation logistics, i.e., moving freight out of the port of Los Angeles into the rest of the country. This strategy also addresses a key workforce issue, since you don’t need a college education to drive a truck. To fund such major infrastructure expansion, we are exploring how to create a tax credit that would allow significant private-sector investment in regional transportation projects.”
Discussion Sessions
Ruben Barrales, deputy assistant to President Bush and director of intergovernmental affairs for the White House, presented an overview of the executive branch’s current national priorities. During the discussion Krautler asked if a White House conference would be a possible response to the critical issues facing the largest metropolitan regions in the country. Barrales said the concept was worth discussing but would require considerable advance preparation to be effective. Pisano offered the resources of the group, working through NARC, to help with conference planning. Robert Yaro of the Regional Plan Association (RPA) suggested an interesting theme. “We’ve had several major eras of planning in this country,” he explained. “When Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, he spurred a major expansion in the nation’s land mass and then had to figure out what to do with it. One hundred years later Teddy Roosevelt appointed Gifford Pinchot to create the National Park Service. We’re due for another national planning initiative, but we now have many challenges that require a sophisticated response. We can’t build an economy based on people driving several hours to and from work each day. We need to focus on how we can create a place that is both pleasant and affordable.”
Armando Carbonell of the Lincoln Institute asked the group to expand on what national policies are needed to support the large metropolitan regions in the country. Comments included:
Dowell Myers, director of the Planning School in the University of Southern California School of Planning, Policy and Development, moderated a session focused on transforming regional actions into local implementation. As part of the program, representatives of three regions commented on their strategies.
“Seattle grew a lot over the last 20 years and we grew in different ways,” said Mary McCumber of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). “Our new growth was outside of our historic cities. We knew we needed to do something and we got lucky. We got ISTEA [Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act], a state growth management law and a new regional council at the same time.” Using these tools, PSRC created Destination 2030, which was honored as the best regional plan in the country by the American Planning Association (APA). “But we have planned enough. We are a land of process. Now we need to have the courage to act.”
Martin Tuttle of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) reported, “We used our federal transportation dollars to create land use incentives for community design and backed it up with $500 million. We asked people, ‘Is Atlanta what we want?’” Using the best data available and a sophisticated feedback planning process, SACOG brought the planning to the people and took the people’s plan back to the council.
Bob Yaro of RPA reminded the group that it takes “patience, persistence and perseverance.” He presented New York City as an urban success story, where 8 million people ride the transit system per day. “The Regional Plan Association, created in 1929, oversees a three-state region, and those states don’t like each other much. They have different DNA,” Yaro noted. Despite that history, RPA created the first strategy for a multi-centered region. Unlike the other regional councils, RPA is a private-sector organization. “The real power is in the civic community, if you can get people organized and move them in the right direction,” Yaro added.
Tom Bell, president and CEO of Cousins Properties in Atlanta, introduced a private-sector perspective on engaging in regional policy development: “I was surprised to read in Time magazine that the Atlanta region is the fastest growing settlement in human history. We are gobbling up 100 acres a day. There is no common ground. Democracy and land planning go together like oil and water. But you [planners] are the people who can make a change. Developers will do a lot of work if we can see a payoff. Visions are in short supply and the status quo is not an option.”
Addressing income distribution in the regions, Paul Ong, director of the Lewis Study Center at UCLA, reported that poverty rates among the elderly have declined at the same time that rates among children have increased. More distressing, poverty is higher and more concentrated in urban areas. “We are seeing a working underclass—not people on welfare but people who have jobs.” Rick Porth from Hartford and Howard Maier from Cleveland responded with case studies from their regions on income and social equity. In Hartford, Porth said, “the disparity is getting worse. More important, 20 percent of our future workforce is being educated in our worst schools.” Maier noted, “our economy is in transformation. The Cleveland area was a manufacturing center for steel and car production, but now we have more healthcare workers than steel or auto workers. As a region of 175 communities, we have 175 land use policies based on 175 zoning codes and maps. Each community’s plans may be rational, but together they project a future of sprawl without the ability for coordinated public services or facilities.”
In other sessions several regions that had developed assessment and benchmarking studies presented their current work, and the conference concluded with presentations by each of the councils on a best practice study, strategy or methodology that they have implemented.
The conference theme—confronting housing, transportation and regional growth—underscores the complexity of the metropolitan environment and the necessity for an integrated response to regional dynamics. Traditional regional councils are unique in their ability to link multiple regional systems to focus on specific regional questions. Housing affordability, a seemingly intractable problem overwhelming metropolitan regions, can only be understood against the backdrop of the local government fiscal policy. Transportation systems, often understood as infrastructure designed to service an existing regional settlement pattern, must be seen as a key determinant of economic development policy as well as a primary driver of land use change in regions. The metropolitan regions of this country are the economic engines of our states and the country as a whole. A new, enriched dialogue with the White House could stimulate a series of policy initiatives. As that conversation proceeds, regional councils are the key organizations to engage business and civic leaders with local elected officials around the regional table.
David Soule is senior research associate at the Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University in Boston. He teaches political science and conducts research on urban economic development, tax policy and transportation systems. He is the former executive director of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), the regional planning agency representing 101 cities and towns in the Boston area.
