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:

• Determine how to measure success. A clear, measureable objective for a corridor redevelopment or revamped strip mall can be critical to ensuring that the project stays on track. Is the goal to increase retail sales, transit ridership, or affordable housing? During the course of a project, city commissions and planning, zoning, and transportation boards will need to make seemingly minor decisions—such as increasing or decreasing allowed parking—with potentially major effects. Municipalities are more likely to reach their long-term goals if they clearly articulate and define the measures of success from the outset.
• Manage redeveloped places for all income and age groups. Many cities and towns are leveraging expanded transit lines to transform their suburban landscapes, which will attract more minorities, lower-income residents, and young people in search of walkable neighborhoods. Municipalities need to plan accordingly and accommodate these new demographics with affordable housing, employment opportunities, and retail options.
• Respect and celebrate local and regional uniqueness. Fundamentally, compelling neighborhoods have a strong sense of place, with unique streetscapes, architectural styles, or public art. As communities transform their suburban landscapes, leaders can allow neighborhoods to grow organically and authentically—and avoid replacing generic malls with generic town centers that will fare no better over the long run.

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.

El impacto de las regulaciones del uso del suelo en América Latina

Cynthia Goytia es profesora en los programas de posgrado en economía urbana y políticas públicas de la Universidad Torcuato Di Tella (UTDT) en Buenos Aires, Argentina. Es directora de los dos programas de maestría en economía urbana de la UTDT y del Centro de Investigación de Política Urbana y Vivienda (CIPUV) de la misma universidad. Además, ha impartido conferencias en la Universidad de Cambridge y en la London School of Economics.

Desde el año 2009, el Instituto Lincoln ha apoyado la tarea de investigación de Cynthia sobre el impacto de las regulaciones del uso residencial del suelo en la informalidad, la expansión urbana y los valores del suelo en las ciudades de América Latina. En su calidad de asesora profesional, ha trabajado con varios ministerios del gobierno argentino y de otros países latinoamericanos, así como con distintas organizaciones internacionales, tales como el Banco Mundial, el Instituto Mundial de la UNU de Investigaciones de Economía del Desarrollo, y el Banco de Desarrollo de América Latina, entre otros.

Cynthia tiene una maestría en economía urbana y un doctorado en planificación regional y urbana por la London School of Economics and Political Science.

LAND LINES: La regulación del uso del suelo a nivel municipal es un tema difícil de tratar. Aunque la zonificación y otras intervenciones pueden llegar a ser una solución sólida para disfunciones del mercado, también tienen efectos negativos imprevistos. ¿Cómo decidió usted llevar a cabo este tipo de investigación?

CYNTHIA GOYTIA: Comencé a interesarme en el análisis económico de las intervenciones sobre el uso del suelo cuando empecé a reconocer que los mercados del suelo tienen que ver con algo más que el suelo y la ubicación. En los últimos 30 años, aproximadamente, la regulación del uso del suelo y la zonificación se han vuelto mucho más importantes que la tributación del suelo para determinar la calidad de vida de la gente en las ciudades. A lo largo del tiempo, he notado que las intervenciones en el uso del suelo diseñadas para lograr fines sociales positivos a veces han generado consecuencias negativas indeseadas que los planificadores y gestores de políticas no fueron capaces de prever. Por ejemplo, las normas gubernamentales afectan el acceso a una amplia gama de bienes públicos y, como consecuencia, pueden dar como resultado una mayor segregación residencial y un mayor desarrollo informal.

Todo esto me animó a investigar los efectos de las intervenciones del gobierno en el mercado del suelo. También me di cuenta de que parte de la falta de información sobre los efectos regulatorios en América Latina era el resultado de la falta de datos comparables y sistemáticos sobre el uso del suelo. Así, en el año 2005 comencé un exhaustivo programa de investigación sobre este tema, que comenzó como un proyecto de cooperación con el gobierno nacional de Argentina, y que luego obtuvo el sólido apoyo del Instituto Lincoln.

LL: ¿Hasta qué punto son relevantes para América Latina los resultados de estudios recientes según los cuales el exceso de regulación del uso del suelo en países desarrollados incrementa los precios de la vivienda?

CG: Nuestra investigación empírica ofrece pruebas de que, al aumentar los precios en el mercado formal del suelo (y, por ende, reducir la oferta de viviendas sociales para hogares de bajos recursos), algunos aspectos de la regulación del uso del suelo podrían fomentar un mayor desarrollo de la informalidad. Por ejemplo, la Ley del Uso del Suelo promulgada en la Provincia de Buenos Aires hace 38 años definió nuevos requisitos relativos al tamaño mínimo de los lotes y obligaba a los desarrolladores a financiar la infraestructura para nuevas subdivisiones. Estos requisitos empujaron a los hogares de bajos ingresos del mercado legal del suelo hacia el sector informal, debido al aumento de los precios.

Aunque los objetivos generales de esta ley no eran malos, tuvieron consecuencias imprevistas sobre el acceso a la vivienda. Como resultado, el mercado del suelo se vio marcadamente sesgado hacia el segmento de altos ingresos, mientras que el submercado de bajos ingresos (hogares que, anteriormente, habían podido construir sus propias viviendas en lotes residenciales) prácticamente desapareció cuando se promulgaron y entraron en vigor las nuevas normas sobre el uso del suelo. No es de sorprender que estos tipos de limitaciones dieran como resultado la ocupación ilegal de terrenos en casi dos tercios de las jurisdicciones municipales que forman parte de las áreas metropolitanas de Argentina, incluida el área metropolitana de Buenos Aires.

LL: Muchos analistas sostienen que los códigos de edificación que tienden a la exclusión y del uso del suelo son los responsables, en gran medida, de la existencia de la informalidad desmedida en la región. ¿Cómo respondería usted a esta crítica?

CG: En mi última investigación sostengo que la regulación del uso del suelo no sólo se utiliza para corregir las disfunciones del mercado sino que también puede ser una manera de lograr, además, objetivos de exclusión. Nuestros resultados indican que los municipios con grandes proporciones tanto de hogares educados como de poblaciones de menores recursos tienden a imponer una zonificación residencial más restrictiva con el fin de maximizar los beneficios que los propietarios formales reciben de sus gobiernos municipales.

Existen algunas correlaciones interesantes entre el uso de medidas de exclusión en algunas jurisdicciones y las condiciones en las áreas vecinas. Por ejemplo, los municipios de Buenos Aires que poseen políticas estrictas de provisión de infraestructura se encuentran rodeados de municipios con una gran proporción de hogares que carecen de los servicios básicos. De hecho, la escasez de infraestructura es una característica principal de la idea de exclusión urbana. Así, el gobierno municipal tal vez intente regular de forma indirecta el desarrollo informal al no asfaltar los caminos o no proporcionar conexiones a los servicios de agua corriente y alcantarillado. La decisión de proveer pocos servicios a los asentamientos informales tal vez sea una herramienta estratégica para desalentar la migración hacia áreas que están experimentando la presión del crecimiento de la población, las cuales ya poseen un alto nivel de población y de ingresos y no están dispuestas a compartir su base tributaria con migrantes de bajos ingresos.

LL: Entre los diferentes factores que llevan a la informalidad en América Latina, ¿en qué lugar colocaría usted la regulación del uso del suelo?

CG: Nuestra investigación proporciona pruebas de que existe una relación entre la regulación del uso del suelo y la elección de la vivienda por parte de los hogares urbanos en Argentina. Los municipios que han emitido más medidas regulatorias del suelo también poseen sectores informales de mayores proporciones, lo que sugiere que el entorno regulatorio limita en gran manera el desarrollo de los mercados formales del suelo y de la vivienda para hogares de bajos recursos. Por ejemplo, el requisito de tamaño mínimo de lotes establece niveles de consumo de suelo que los hogares de menores ingresos no pueden permitirse. Además, estas regulaciones determinan la cantidad de viviendas que pueden construirse en los lotes, estableciendo alturas máximas, coeficientes de utilización del suelo o asignación de espacios abiertos, lo que provoca un sesgo en la oferta de viviendas hacia el mercado de altos ingresos. Los costos de aprobación de proyectos relativamente altos (tanto en términos de tiempo como de dinero) también tienen un impacto negativo, ya que elevan el costo final de la vivienda y/o desalientan a los desarrolladores a la hora de construir viviendas para hogares de bajos recursos. A la vez; no obstante, las políticas de inclusión (tales como la recuperación de plusvalías o las contribuciones por mejoras, las tarifas de impacto y la conservación de suelo vacante destinado al desarrollo de viviendas sociales) reducen la probabilidad de que los hogares recurran a los mercados informales del suelo.

Uno de los conceptos más importantes que debemos comprender es que la informalidad no es simplemente un problema de pobreza, sino una distorsión del mercado del suelo que afecta a hogares de todos los niveles de ingreso. Por lo tanto, la regulación del uso del suelo debería contribuir al diseño de políticas que logren solucionar las causas fundamentales de la informalidad y mantengan bajos los precios de los terrenos con servicios.

LL: La relación entre la eficiencia y la equidad parece ser el centro de los debates sobre la regulación del uso del suelo. Esta relación se da según diferentes normas, dependiendo de si hablamos de áreas urbanas de altos ingresos o de bajos ingresos, tal como lo demuestran claramente las zonas especiales de interés social (ZEIS) de Brasil, es decir, áreas de bajos ingresos que el estado preserva con el fin de construir viviendas sociales.

CG: Efectivamente. Las normas tales como las regulaciones de zonificación urbana para fines generales son bastante diferentes de las normas en pro de los pobres que se establecen en las ZEIS. La zonificación para fines generales tiene como objetivo mejorar la eficiencia del uso del suelo urbano, especialmente en el mercado formal de la vivienda. La planificación adecuada facilita la inversión oportuna en infraestructura y el desarrollo urbano a gran escala. En general, el uso eficiente del suelo contribuye a una mejor productividad urbana. No obstante, muchas veces la eficiencia no garantiza en sí misma el acceso a la vivienda por parte de los grupos de menores recursos.

Por el momento no contamos con una evaluación rigurosa de los efectos de las ZEIS; sin embargo, es importante considerar dos aspectos cuando pensamos en las normas menos rígidas establecidas para la vivienda destinada a hogares de menores recursos. En primer lugar, el razonamiento para permitir que existan diferentes regulaciones para distintos segmentos del mercado de la vivienda radica en que esta división mejora el bienestar general. En segundo lugar, la solución pragmática de regularizar las áreas informales genera el cuestionamiento hacia los municipios sobre la razón por la cual no permiten mayores densidades desde un principio, siempre que exista la infraestructura apropiada. En teoría, permitir el desarrollo de mayor densidad en áreas formales aumentaría la oferta general de suelo edificable, lo que, a su vez, reduciría los precios y aumentaría la disponibilidad de viviendas sociales.

LL: ¿Existe algún buen ejemplo de regulaciones del uso del suelo políticamente factibles y con inclusión social?

CG: En la mayoría de los países en vías de desarrollo, el desafío radica en diseñar políticas que traten las causas fundamentales de la informalidad y promuevan la inclusión social. Las jurisdicciones que han adoptado e implementado efectivamente medidas de inclusión pueden hoy en día proporcionar opciones de viviendas más asequibles en el mercado formal. No obstante, existen al menos dos tipos de enfoques distintos que adelantan la agenda de la regulación del uso del suelo en nuestras ciudades por caminos diferentes y con distintas implicaciones.

El primer tipo de enfoque tiene que ver con relajar las restricciones del uso del suelo que afectan de manera desproporcionada la oferta de viviendas para hogares de bajos recursos. Somos conscientes de que los costos del suelo más altos debido al “consumo forzoso” dificultan cada vez más la posibilidad de que los hogares de bajos ingresos accedan a la vivienda. Revisar este tipo de normas (tales como permitir unidades de condominio en áreas de baja densidad, que es donde vive la mayoría de los hogares de bajos recursos; aumentar los coeficientes de utilización del suelo; y reducir los tamaños mínimos de los lotes para las subdivisiones en las que la infraestructura se está introduciendo progresivamente) ayuda a mejorar la accesibilidad a la vivienda en el mercado formal. Estas medidas también permiten que el desarrollo de viviendas para hogares de bajos recursos sea más rentable, lo que, a su vez, aumenta los incentivos para ofrecer unidades en este segmento del mercado. Hoy en día existen algunos ejemplos de desarrolladores formales que están construyendo subdivisiones para hogares de bajos ingresos, así como también unidades habitacionales asequibles en algunos municipios donde tanto la población como la demanda de viviendas sociales han crecido mucho, tal es el caso de La Matanza, en el área metropolitana de Buenos Aires.

El segundo tipo de innovación en cuanto al uso del suelo tiene que ver con realizar cambios en los marcos regulatorios. Las jurisdicciones gubernamentales en todos los niveles actualmente están emitiendo diferentes políticas que cumplen una función más activa en el desarrollo y el financiamiento del suelo y la infraestructura: estas políticas guían el crecimiento urbano y los desarrollos en terrenos baldíos, a la vez que permiten recuperar las plusvalías derivadas de las inversiones públicas a gran escala. Uno de los ejemplos más claros de estas políticas es el caso de la ciudad de Rosario, Argentina. El gobierno otorga derechos de construcción (principalmente en áreas de altos ingresos) siempre y cuando el beneficio se utilice para financiar las inversiones públicas que sean necesarias para edificar en densidades altas y para proporcionar terrenos con servicios para viviendas sociales o asentamientos informales.

Ya he subrayado la importancia del gasto en infraestructura. Durante la última década, las aglomeraciones metropolitanas en Argentina se expandían a razón de un 3,5 por ciento anual en promedio, mientras que la población crecía a razón de un 1,2 por ciento anual. Este ritmo de desarrollo hace que el financiamiento de la infraestructura sea un tema prioritario. Algunos gobiernos municipales han respondido a esta situación implementando contribuciones por mejoras. Trenque Lauquen es un ejemplo de esto. El municipio ha utilizado estas contribuciones no sólo para financiar las inversiones en infraestructura sino también para gestionar el crecimiento urbano y tener terrenos disponibles para diferentes usos, incluido el de la provisión de viviendas para hogares de bajos ingresos. El éxito de esta medida, aunque con un alcance limitado, demuestra que las contribuciones para mejoras son un instrumento factible y flexible que puede ayudar a extender los servicios urbanos. Además, evita que los responsables de las subdivisiones informales del suelo exploten el vacío que queda entre los precios de terrenos formales con servicios y sin servicios.

LL: Según lo que sabemos y lo que desconocemos acerca de la regulación del uso del suelo en América Latina, ¿cuáles son, a su criterio, los temas de investigación que el Instituto Lincoln debería priorizar?

CG: HEl Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo ha estado realizando una magnífica labor en la generación de conocimientos acerca de la regulación del uso del suelo en América Latina a través del apoyo a las investigaciones, los seminarios y otras actividades, además de fomentar valiosas interacciones entre un amplio público de planificadores urbanos y gestores de políticas en la región. Ahora debemos continuar trabajando sobre estos conocimientos a fin de promover políticas que mejoren el acceso al suelo y a la vivienda e identificar las fuentes que generan distorsiones en la oferta de viviendas y que tienen como resultado un bajo nivel de cumplimiento y una informalidad generalizada.

Esto significa mejorar nuestra comprensión del impacto que tienen las innovaciones en materia de regulación que se están produciendo en la región. Aunque tenemos algunos casos de estudio sobre los efectos de estas nuevas herramientas, debemos llevar a cabo una revisión integral sobre la manera en que las ciudades, los municipios, los estados y los organismos nacionales definen sus marcos regulatorios. La creación de una base de datos integral que contenga esta información en relación con las principales aglomeraciones urbanas en la región permitiría realizar comparaciones a lo largo del tiempo y entre municipios.

Con este fin, el CIPUV ha llevado a cabo una encuesta nacional a funcionarios de planificación acerca de las regulaciones del uso del suelo en las áreas metropolitanas de Argentina. El conjunto de indicadores utilizados en el Índice de Políticas de Suelo del CIPUV (CILP) proporciona información detallada sobre parámetros tales como la existencia de planes de uso del suelo, las autoridades responsables de los cambios de zonificación y de los procesos de aprobación de proyectos residenciales, la existencia de restricciones de edificación, los costos relacionados con la aprobación de proyectos y la implementación de instrumentos de recuperación de plusvalías.

A medida que ha transcurrido el tiempo, nuestra investigación ha comenzado a reformular las actitudes de los planificadores en cuanto a los marcos regulatorios. Hemos iniciado el diálogo con los planificadores y con los funcionarios públicos para comprender mejor la función que cumplen los mercados de suelo en las ciudades, así como también el impacto que tienen las regulaciones. Además, nuestros índices estandarizados han permitido realizar la comparación entre diferentes regulaciones en distintos municipios, así como llevar a cabo un análisis a nivel metropolitano y estatal. Como resultado, algunas jurisdicciones municipales y provinciales en Argentina recientemente han actualizado (o se encuentran en el proceso de actualizar) sus planes y leyes sobre el uso del suelo, algunas de las cuales datan de casi medio siglo.

LL: ¿Sería factible desarrollar una versión internacional del Índice de Políticas de Suelo del CIPUV?

CG: Sí. Desarrollar esta iniciativa tendría dos efectos muy importantes. En primer lugar, permitiría comparar distintas áreas metropolitanas en toda América Latina y mejorar la visibilidad del éxito que algunas ciudades han logrado al aumentar el acceso al suelo. En segundo lugar, brindaría un terreno fértil para que los gestores de políticas e investigadores aprendieran cuáles son las iniciativas que tuvieron mejores reultados. Esta iniciativa no sólo es factible sino también un desafío primordial que debe tratarse en los próximos años.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loeb Fellows, Class of 2001

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

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

Anthony Flint, reporter, The Boston Globe

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

Anthony Irons, city architect, San Francisco.

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

Paul Okamoto, architect, San Francisco

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

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

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

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

In Santo Andre and all Brazilian cities, the value per square meter of land is fixed by law, thus hindering the capacity of the city administration to tax real estate property according to its market value. In 1993 the Santo Andre city administration passed a law to grant a 40 percent discount on the property tax, which was to be valid only for that year. However, this reduction has been maintained as a result of several legal clauses that determined that the value of the tax in the current year could not exceed its value in the previous year, thus establishing a tax cap.

Value capture in Santo Andre

The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Municipality of Santo Andre in Sao Paulo State organized a three-day program on “Instruments and Techniques for Land-based Finance for Urban Development” in May 1998 where organizers and participants shared their expertise on zoning instruments, value capture, and local economic development in such diverse settings as New York City, Mexico City and Colombia. Their discussions addressed three broad topics: value capture and urban finance; urban planning and the land market; and negotiations and public/private partnerships.

This article explores the lessons learned from the Santo Andre program and the need to develop better measurements of land value increments resulting from zoning changes to promote value capture through more efficient taxation systems.

In many Brazilian cities, land and building taxes are significantly underutilized. According to data from the Brazilian Institute of Municipal Administration (IBAM), for example, in half of the municipalities with more than 50,000 inhabitants the property tax represents less than 30 percent of total tax resources. Considering that for most of these municipalities, local tax revenues represent less than 30 percent of total resources, the property tax does not amount to more than 10 percent of financial resources (including intergovernmental transfers). These percentages are even less in smaller municipalities. Other land-based taxes, such as the real estate transfer tax and betterment tax, show a similarly disappointing pattern.

Especially since Brazil’s new constitution of 1988, when the major responsibility for land use planning was transferred to the local level, municipalities have become increasingly aware that land use regulation and public investments in infrastructure create changes in land values. Many public officials are now looking for planning strategies aimed at capturing part of the “unearned” benefits that may result. In addition, local governments are facing problems with traditional planning instruments such as the Plano Diretor, a constitutional provision that requires cities with a population of 20,000 or more to develop a master plan. These cities have become increasingly involved in the debate about the flexibility of the regulatory framework on land use. Consequently, the idea of flexible zoning in exchange for developers’ contributions has also become popular.

To investigate the economic, financial and urban planning aspects of these negotiated land use changes, the Lincoln Institute and the Municipality of Santo Andre in Sao Paulo State organized a three-day program on “Instruments and Techniques for Land-based Finance for Urban Development” in May 1998. During the first two days, municipal officials from Santo Andre met with invited guest speakers who shared their expertise on zoning instruments, value capture and local economic development in such diverse settings as New York City, Mexico City and Colombia. Their discussions addressed three broad topics: value capture and urban finance; urban planning and the land market; and negotiations and public/private partnerships.

The program ended with a public debate involving a regional audience of some 200 planners, developers, and representatives from non-governmental organizations, the private sector and local communities within the Greater ABC region-(seven municipalities around Sao Paulo, including Santo Andre, which constitute the densest industrial core area in Latin America). A panel discussion on the effectiveness of land-based negotiations and public/private partnerships in the Brazilian context included the participation of guest speakers from the University of Sao Paulo, the real estate sector and the local governments.

A number of conclusions were drawn from this program. First, negotiated land use changes typically proliferate in an environment where property taxes do not work well. In Santo Andre, for example, existing legal and operational restrictions make it difficult to overhaul the property tax system. (See Figure 1.)

Second, negotiated land use changes in Santo Andre seem to accompany the ongoing shift from industrial land uses toward uses associated with the tertiary and modern service sector. Through the negotiation process more flexibility is brought to the existing legal framework, as is seen in recently completed negotiations between the Plaza ABC shopping center and Pirelli, the multinational tire company.

Third, although land use negotiations apparently fulfill expectations in terms of complementing the dynamics of the local economy, there is no well-established methodology and framework to allow transparent and stable rules based on solid cost-benefit analysis. Compared with international experiences, for example in New York, it remains difficult to predict what monetary compensations can be expected in Brazilian cities and whether these compensations are really Pareto efficient compared to situations where the development permit would have been denied.

Finally, negotiated land use changes should be seen as an essential element of the overall local economic development strategy. In the Greater ABC region, various strategic partnerships among key stakeholders from the private and public sectors are increasingly important in light of the ongoing process of local and regional economic restructuring that has had dramatic negative effects on employment and income levels.

Among the lessons to be learned from the Santo Andre program is the need to develop better measurements of land value increments resulting from zoning changes in order to then develop the means to capture those values through more efficient taxation systems. The New York experience further shows that it is better to collect taxes at a lower rate through a universal and stable system rather than on an arbitrary, case-by-case negotiated basis that can be susceptible to abuse and corruption.

Jeroen Klink, an urban economist, is the adviser to the mayor of Santo Andre. He is a former Lincoln Institute Dissertation Fellow who is completing his Ph.D. thesis on “Sources of Urban Finance: The Applicability of the Standard Economic Model to the Brazilian Case” at the School of Architecture and Urbanism, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Luis Carlos Afonso, an economist, is the secretary for finance in Santo Andre. Irineu Bagnariolli Jr., an urban sociologist, is the secretary for housing and urban development in Santo Andre.

Figure 1: Restraints on Revising the Property Tax

In 1993 the Santo Andre city administration passed a law to grant a 40 percent discount on the property tax, which was to be valid only for that year. However, this reduction has been maintained as a result of several legal clauses that determined that the value of the tax in the current year could not exceed its value in the previous year, thus establishing a tax cap.

Another restriction on a more aggressive use of the tax, especially as a way to promote more equity, is the interpretation given by the Supreme Court that the tax cannot be progressive. The only exception is its application as punishment for unused or underutilized property, a clause that itself depends on additional federal lawmaking and has not even been discussed by Congress. (See Claudia M. De Cesare, “Using the Property Tax for Value Capture: A Case Study from Brazil,” Land Lines, January 1998.)

During 1990 and 1991, a previous Santo Andre administration had tried to give discounts on the property tax based on the physical characteristics, current use and size of the property, but that effort was subsequently rejected by Court rulings because of its supposed hidden progressive character. Thus, the cap on the property tax, despite being formally revoked by a subsequent law, remains basically unchanged because if taxes were increased the poorer segments of the population would be most negatively affected.

Finally, in Santo Andre and all Brazilian cities, the value per square meter of land is fixed by law, thus hindering the capacity of the city administration to tax real estate property according to its market value.

Most urban areas are experiencing significant disinvestment in older industrial-warehouse areas, along with a net loss of employment, tax base and related activity. The few recent surveys done to measure vacant industrial land suggest that, in Northeastern and Midwestern cities, 15 to 20 percent of industrial sites are inactive. In major cities such as Chicago or Philadelphia, vacant land can amount to several hundred parcels comprising several thousand acres. Often there are significant financial liabilities associated with the ownership of these “brownfield” sites due to the high incidence of contamination and related safety and environmental problems.

Vacant or underused properties are often located in areas suffering generally from physical decline, concentrations of low-income households and high crime rates. Thus, older cities are faced with the dual challenge of improving the capacity of the resident population to participate productively in the labor force and restoring the competitive market standing of areas with declining fiscal capacity.

While recent economic changes have resulted in a net decline in business activity in older industrial areas, many of these sites have the potential for residential, commercial or office reuse, with varying degrees of investment required. However, reuse is often constrained by factors including fragmentation in ownership, risks associated with the ownership or use of contaminated property, and the high market risks associated with front-end investment in environmental assessments, market studies, land assembly and area planning.

Currently, federal laws and regulations dealing with contaminated sites add to the high risk for new owners, investors and users who might otherwise contribute to reinvestment in and reuse of these areas. Also, federal and state clean up programs tend to operate independently of concerted area-wide redevelopment strategies and programs.

Special Situations for Industrial Reuse

Unfortunately, examples of successful reuse approaches which effectively orchestrate federal, state and local government policies and actions with private landowner, investor and business development actions are limited and tend to be concentrated in a few special situations. One circumstance involves a strong private owner such as a financially healthy major corporation which cannot avoid the liabilities associated with the site yet cannot afford the adverse publicity of simply abandoning it.

Another situation is when a strong private reuse market for the site creates a high reuse value relative to the current “as is” value. This typically involves waterfront or other property adjacent to growing downtowns or sites which happen to fit the development needs for a major, publicly subsidized facility such as a new stadium or convention center. In these situations, the private or public reuse benefit calls forth the financial and political resources necessary to acquire, clean up and redevelop the land.

However, most vacant or underused former industrial-warehouse properties do not meet these conditions. Generally the demand for reuse is weak or declining, in part due to deteriorating neighborhood conditions. Because of low land values, even for clean, ready-to-develop sites, finding investors for either equity or debt investment in acquisition, renovation or new development is problematic. These areas typically require more concerted efforts involving business, government and civic group participation.

Site-Specific vs Integrated Redevelopment

While interest in brownfields reuse has increased over the last several years, policy discussions at the national level and programs in the states tend to approach brownfields as a site-specific contamination cleanup problem rather than an area-wide reuse problem within the context of the metropolitan economy.

The case for integrating site treatment into a broader redevelopment strategy can be argued from several angles. One is simply that giving priority to cleanup expenditures may do little to foster area reuse and may preclude the more effective use of public funds. If the contamination is contained within a small area and the public can be protected from any potential harm, then area reuse may be more effectively fostered by focusing on the removal of other constraints to investment. These constraints may include improving access, removing unsightly buildings, installing landscape improvements, clearing sites of obsolete structures, and subdividing the area to better meet current facility demands.

Another argument for integrating site cleanup into an overall redevelopment strategy is that the cleanup costs are difficult to finance in a situation where the value of clean sites is very low. If an area-wide redevelopment effort focuses initially on increasing the overall demand to reuse sites, putting vacant clean sites into use will improve the demand/supply balance. Then, the cleanup costs can in most cases be funded out of the increased site value, and private owners of such sites will be motivated to clean up the sites voluntarily. Area-wide financing schemes using tax increment financing (TIF) and special taxing and benefit districts can also facilitate the funding required for remediation and indemnification against any future liabilities.

New Models and Strategies

The Lincoln Institute, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, is undertaking a research project to explore the problem of recycling urban industrial areas which fall outside of the special situations described above. The study builds on recent work conducted by the Lincoln Institute, the Northeast-Midwest Institute, the author and others who have researched reuse potential and demand/supply constraints in industrial areas. Some examples are the American Street industrial area in Philadelphia, the Collinwood area in Cleveland, the Southwest industrial area in Detroit, the south side of Chicago and several areas in Pittsburgh.

Research directed at discovering common opportunities and constraints and the related strategies most effective at addressing different types of situations is very limited. Therefore, our approach is to conduct a broad survey of industrial reuse markets based on a review of existing reports and interviews with local experts, and then to develop a series of in-depth case studies to assess alternative reuse strategies appropriate to common types of situations.

Each case study will include a survey and assessment of the city-wide situation and the conditions in various industrial subareas. Model solutions will focus on a single subarea chosen to represent a combination of factors, including the relevance of that case to other cities and the relative importance of the subarea to its city’s overall reuse plan. In each case, a group of development professionals familiar with the local real estate market will be involved in assessing opportunities and constraints, alternative strategies and implementation measures. Ultimately, our objective is to identify changes in federal, state and local techniques, policies and programs that would support the implementation of the strategies being developed.

J. Thomas Black, visiting fellow of the Lincoln Institute, is an urban development economist and the principal investigator for this project. The study is in its early stages and the author invites your insights, ideas and suggestions on the subject, particularly for case examples demonstrating opportunities, general strategies, particular techniques, financing methods or organizational structures that work well.

FYI

The Collinwood Yard in northeast Cleveland is a 48-acre, mainly vacant industrial site which has lost 20,000 jobs since 1970. Its access to Interstate 90 and the rail lines is a key element in the revitalization of the area.

The Union Seventy Center in St. Louis is a multi-tenant industrial/warehouse facility occupying a remodeled 2.7 million square foot General Motors assembly plant. It is part of a 171-acre redevelopment project which demonstrates the reuse and investment potential of older urban industrial areas.

The mighty Mekong, tenth largest river in the world, faces conflicting pressures for developing its floodplains and harnessing its powerful flow, which spans 4200 kilometers from the Himalayas through China, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam to the South China Sea. Turbulence characterizes the river’s upper portions, but the lower Mekong is more placid, and annual flooding supports a biologically diverse ecosystem. Agriculture is the primary economic activity along the river, complemented by fish production, transportation and electricity generation.

Hydropower development has long been a critical issue for the people, planners and government officials of the Mekong’s riparian countries, but the approach has changed over time. In a 1957 plan, the US Army Corps of Engineers proposed a cascade of seven large-scale dam projects that would create 23,300 megawatts of power and curb perceived flooding problems. The Indochina War halted implementation of this plan. Today, development planning has shifted from structural flood control to a regional approach based on participation and resource-sharing among countries.

Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam signed an Agreement on Cooperation for the Sustainable Development of the Mekong River Basin in April 1995. It provides that signatories shall “cooperate in all fields of sustainable development, utilization, management and conservation of the waters and related resources of the Mekong River Basin, including but not limited to irrigation, hydropower, navigation, flood control . . . and to minimize the harmful effects that might result.” These include inundation of large areas of agricultural lands and displacement of established populations, causing additional economic and cultural losses to this already endangered region.

In 1994, the four countries commissioned a study to determine the viability of Mekong hydropower development if it was deliberately constrained to minimize such impacts. Recognizing the negative effects of large reservoir-dependent dams, the study focused on a “run-of-river” dam structure that uses daily natural water flows rather than a reservoir to regulate the river. The study categorized nine sites (See map) according to social and environmental impacts, as well as by economic performance.

Conflicting Pressures on Land and Water Resources

The rationale for hydropower stems from Asia’s rapidly growing energy demand, which is doubling every 12 years. Yet, each country has its own unique concerns. Laos, for example, has enormous export capacity since it contains 80 percent of the Mekong’s potential hydropower energy, and its small population consumes only a fraction of this potential. Thailand, in contrast, has 8.5 million hectares of arable land but a limited water supply. It needs electricity for its rapid industrialization and could import energy to boost development of its poor northeastern region. Cambodia has witnessed an 80 percent reduction in irrigated land in the last 20 years due to war. It seeks to develop domestic energy capacities and to export hydropower in the long run. Vietnam is most concerned about the impacts of its upstream neighbors’ actions on the river’s flow through its land on the way to the sea.

Proponents of hydropower assert its comparative advantages over other energy sources, but opponents are concerned about the implications of the Mekong River Commission’s alleged pro-dam policies. When the Mekong Agreement was signed, for example, Thai nongovernmental organizations agreed with the concept of cooperation, but strongly opposed the influence of the dam-building industry. Along with other environmentalists, the Thai NGOs feared that the Agreement equated “development” of the Mekong with dam building and elimination of natural floodplains.

The International Rivers Network voiced concerns about the recommendations of the 1994 Run-of-River Study, in particular the impact on local populations. The nine proposed run-of-river projects would displace an estimated 61,200 people and increase land pressures in resettlement areas. Agriculture would be affected if the dams reduced or eliminated the nutrient-rich silts deposited by floodwaters, and the remaining floodplain soils would be threatened by salinization if reservoirs caused underground salt deposits to dissolve and leach to the surface. The fishing industry that supports many local economies would also be affected by blocked fish migration routes, loss of nutrient movements downstream, inundation of spawning areas and turbine mortality.

Recognizing Risks and Developing Alternative Plans

The river basin countries recognize the risks posed by hydropower development, but seem to be caught between two difficult positions. Cambodia, for example, acknowledges downstream impacts of dam construction, yet it still senses the urgent need to develop its hydropower potential. The fact that 85 percent of its own population depends on subsistence farming and the river as a source of protein and transportation does not make its choice any easier.

The US, with its long history of large-scale dam building, offers a number of lessons. Daniel Beard, former commissioner of the US Bureau of Reclamation, highlighted these in his address at the Mekong River Conference held in Washington, DC, in November 1995. First, large-scale developmental and operating costs cannot be repaid through user charges alone. Other effects have manifested themselves in soil salinization, elimination of fisheries, reduction of wetlands, and agricultural degradation. Now the government must determine how to solve and pay for these problems that were caused in part by top-down planning and lack of accountability to local officials and the public.

The need for open decision making is critical to finding convergence between proponents and opponents of power projects, wherever they arise. Jon Kusler, of the Institute for Wetland Science and Public Policy, emphasizes the need for stakeholder involvement. Suraphol Sudara, of the Siam Environmental Club, believes that the Mekong River Commission could “play a more useful role if it looked to managing the river rather than building big projects.” He would include consideration of non-structural alternatives and a broader definition of “river system development” that recognizes the economic and cultural value of the floodplains.

Yasunobu Matoba, newly appointed CEO of the Mekong River Commission’s Secretariat, acknowledges, “In developing and using water resources, priority has to be given to the satisfaction of basic needs and the safeguarding of ecosystems.” It remains to be seen whether stated policy is ultimately implemented in the region’s development plans.

Trang D. Tu is an editorial/research assistant at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, and is completing her master’s degree in urban planning at Harvard University Graduate School of Design. In November 1995 she attended the Mekong River Technical Workshop on Sustainable Development in Washington, DC.

For Reference

Mekong Mainstream Run-of-River Hydropower: Executive Summary. December 1994. Prepared by Compagnie Nationale du Rhone, Lyon, France, in cooperation with Acres International Limited, Calgary, Canada, and the Mekong Secretariat Study Team, Bangkok, Thailand.

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

Como delegados en la cumbre del Foro Social Mundial (FSM) celebrada en Porto Alegre, Brasil, en enero de 2003, los autores analizaron las alternativas para el enfoque neoliberal en el desarrollo urbano, con miras a evitar los resultados negativos que muy a menudo suelen pasar inadvertidos en los medios de comunicación y hasta en el mundo académico. Aunque son muy contadas las alternativas a gran escala y de alcance nacional para el neoliberalismo, sí son frecuentes a nivel municipal. Los planteamientos de los autores parten de la realidad observada en Brasil y en sus países natales de México, Sudáfrica y Estados Unidos. Sus ponencias y seminarios en el Foro Social Mundial, así como otros programas relacionados de la Universidad de São Paulo y la Universidad Federal de Río de Janeiro, han contado en parte con el apoyo del Instituto Lincoln.

Los habitantes de distritos populosos en algunas de las ciudades más grandes del mundo sufren a causa de viviendas miserables, difícil acceso al empleo, abastecimiento de agua y alcantarillados inadecuados, servicios públicos deficientes y exposición a la violencia. En muchos casos, las condiciones empeoraron durante las “décadas perdidas” de los años 1980 y 1990, debido a la recesión y la disminución en la planificación y las inversiones públicas. Aquellos que tenían confianza en las mejoras que generaría la repartición hacia abajo de las riquezas esperaron en vano que los mercados privados aumentaran el ingreso familiar. En cambio, en muchos países los tres cuartos más pobres de la población sufrieron perdidas absolutas.

Forzados a atender estos tipos de problemas, los gobiernos de las ciudades consideran nuevos enfoques para abordarlos en términos de autoridad local contrapuesta a autoridad nacional, de eficiencia productiva contrapuesta a una redistribución de los servicios basada en las comunidades, y de conflictos entre los planes y los mercados. En el nivel municipal las complicaciones se hacen trágicamente evidentes. Los defensores populares de las reformas redistributivas luchan por sobrevivir en un entorno hostil, a menudo contra intereses comerciales privados, una clase media privilegiada y gobiernos centrales y provinciales conservadores. Los problemas de las ciudades son inmediatos y concretos y requieren negociación, concesiones, acatamiento en un marco legal que suele estar sesgado y un alto grado de competencia profesional y liderazgo. Los planificadores municipales y activistas no pueden derrocar todo el sistema, pero para lograr el éxito deben sacar provecho de cualquier rendija y hallar medios de acceso a las instituciones. A pesar de las fallas manifiestas de los regímenes neoliberales, los reformistas no encontrarán un camino fácil para regresar a una etapa anterior.

Esta breve discusión pone de relieve cuestiones complejas y tal vez plantee preguntas, más que responderlas. ¿Cómo podemos abordar las cuestiones de la tierra implícitas en la mayoría de los problemas urbanos, como son la tenencia, la regulación, los impuestos y el valor? ¿Cuánto margen de acción tienen los gobiernos municipales para buscar el desarrollo económico o redistribuir las necesidades básicas, entre las que se encuentran el ingreso familiar y el acceso a la tierra? ¿Cuánta diferencia hace en el nivel municipal que el régimen nacional avance o no con rumbo progresista y redistributivo? Para complicar la situación todavía más, la globalización se intensifica y desafía a las ciudades con una competencia de bajo costo, mayor penetración de las empresas transnacionales y una concentración cada vez mayor del poder en las instituciones multilaterales.

El Valor de la Tierra y los Mercados

Las ventajas de la urbanización requieren acceso público y privado a la tierra; sin embargo, el valor de los bienes raíces refleja grados distintos de acceso a las ventajas que ofrecen las ciudades. Los interesados de pocos recursos quedan excluidos de las tierras más deseables en la mayoría de los mercados inmobiliarios, sean estos formales o informales. Los pobres se ven obligados a refugiarse en la periferia de las ciudades o a atiborrar núcleos urbanos en deterioro. Los mercados inmobiliarios con escasa regulación ni siquiera garantizan el uso eficaz de las tierras urbanas desde un punto de vista económico, y menos aún aseguran los patrones de uso de la tierra que son vitales para la supervivencia del medio ambiente. Los gobiernos locales intervienen aplicando controles del uso de la tierra e impuestos, o facilitan el acceso a tierras urbanizadas de bajo precio, en el mejor de los casos con el propósito de lograr equidad, eficacia fiscal y viabilidad ambiental. Los resultados conseguidos en todos estos ámbitos son sumamente variables.

En México, al menos el 60% de la población urbana vive en áreas desarrolladas por la ocupación ilegal de la tierra que posteriormente termina recibiendo servicios y fomenta la vivienda construida con medios propios (o más bien, autofinanciada). Gracias a las tradiciones históricamente arraigadas acerca del derecho del pueblo a la tierra, los asentamientos informales han contado con el apoyo de infraestructura y prestación de servicios, programas de regulación e incluso créditos para el mejoramiento de la vivienda. De lo contrario, la situación de la vivienda urbana en México sería mucho peor. Durante la década de 1980, las instituciones públicas acumularon reservas considerables de tierras, que se destinaron con éxito a emplazamientos y servicios de bajo costo, unidades básicas de vivienda y proyectos de ayuda mutua como alternativas para el desarrollo urbano informal. Pero México eliminó la banca de crédito hipotecario, por influencia del Banco Mundial, lo que cercenó el alcance de la planificación para garantizar el desarrollo urbano equitativo y sustentable.

En los últimos años, en las ciudades han aumentado las viviendas formales producidas en masa. En sintonía con las recomendaciones del Banco Mundial, se ha reestructurado el sistema financiero de subsidios para las clases trabajadoras asalariadas y los sectores de ingresos medianos, lo que permite que los promotores inmobiliarios comerciales operen a gran escala mediante la adquisición de vastas extensiones de terreno barato en zonas rurales (y algunos emplazamientos en el casco urbano) con miras al posterior diseño, construcción y comercialización de viviendas industrializadas. Las ventajas iniciales son la prestación de servicios y una atmósfera suburbana de apariencia espaciosa. Las desventajas son la falta de acceso, la carencia de instalaciones recreativas urbanas, los patrones de reducción del espacio e insuficiencia de espacio para el crecimiento futuro. La proporción gigantesca de este tipo de desarrollo puede acabar con los asentamientos informales de residentes de ingresos medianos, lo que aumentaría la segregación social.

En Brasil, los gobiernos municipales han comenzado a experimentar con formas de regular la utilización de la tierra, tales como aumentos del impuesto a la propiedad asociado a una tributación progresiva (con exenciones a gran escala que benefician aproximadamente a la mitad de los propietarios) y la participación popular en la toma de decisiones en cuanto a los cambios de la regulación (planeación y zonificación) y a las inversiones en infraestructura urbana. Muchos cambios fueron aplicados primero por los alcaldes pertenecientes al Partido de los Trabajadores (PT) que actuaban en oposición a los gobiernos federal y estatales, con la ayuda de las modificaciones fiscales y normativas introducidas en la constitución de 1988. Ahora que el PT tiene poder nacional a través del gobierno del presidente Luis Inácio (Lula) da Silva, es posible que los gobiernos municipales de izquierda o centroizquierda tengan oportunidad de experimentar más. Sin embargo, hay obstáculos de gran magnitud. Incluso en la relativamente opulenta ciudad de Porto Alegre un tercio de la población vive en asentamientos informales.

La experiencia en Sudáfrica desde que se instauró la democracia en 1994 demuestra las inmensas dificultades que enfrentan aquellos que recurren a entidades públicas para ayudar a los pobres a tener acceso a la tierra. El gobierno sí logró subsidiar a más de un millón de familias que antes vivían en chabolas y habitaciones compartidas, pero prácticamente todas las casas nuevas estaban ubicadas en las periferias más alejadas de las ciudades. Un beneficio progresista clave es que muchas áreas metropolitanas grandes ahora se han unificado en gobiernos municipales únicos. Pero las inquietudes por el crecimiento económico y las crisis fiscales han limitado la capacidad de las nuevas jurisdicciones para redistribuir los recursos en favor de los estratos pobres. Los planificadores intentaron recaudar fondos considerables a través de los impuestos a las tierras centrales de gran valor, con los cuales pagar los subsidios para el desarrollo de los distritos más pobres, pero el valor de la tierra no se rigió por las predicciones y la recaudación resultó tremendamente insuficiente. Los mercados inmobiliarios siguen excluyendo, en conjunto, a los desfavorecidos y no han aportado suficientes ingresos tributarios. La falta constante de coordinación en la formulación de políticas ha provocado que en algunos casos los programas de tierras, vivienda, servicios, obras públicas y empleo choquen entre sí.

En los Estados Unidos, prácticamente todo el desarrollo de tierras y viviendas es “formal”, impulsado por el mercado y dominado por la banca privada, las sociedades de bienes raíces y desarrollo inmobiliario y las familias de mejor posición. Los resultados son absolutamente desiguales porque encontramos áreas residenciales adineradas enfrentadas a ciudades centrales más empobrecidas. Los esfuerzos por corregir el desequilibrio generalmente han quedado frustrados porque los mercados inmobiliarios no ofrecen gran rendimiento o justicia. El proceso está sumamente regulado, de manera que las desigualdades son provocadas no sólo por los mercados (inmobiliarios) mismos, sino también por grupos políticos tales como las “coaliciones de crecimiento” y por la encarnizada manipulación de la regulación en nombre de los distritos adinerados y de clase media privilegiada.

La regulación de los mercados inmobiliarios a través de la planificación, la banca de crédito hipotecario y la tributación constituye un territorio amplio para la intervención municipal en las políticas de tierras. Los gobiernos locales tienen un extenso potencial de autoridad y suelen contar con prerrogativas constitucionales para la planificación y los impuestos (aunque en la práctica sigan coartados por poderosas fuerzas nacionales). Pueden actuar para apoyar el crecimiento económico o redistribuirlo, incluso en un entorno provincial o nacional conservador. La planificación local sí restringe los mercados inmobiliarios, pero a menudo ello no trae como resultado la redistribución, puesto que los gobiernos municipales deben medir fuerzas con poderosos intereses financieros, patrones de privilegio y el poder afianzado. Se requiere competencia y coherencia profesional para explotar todo el potencial de los sistemas de registro de bienes raíces y de impuestos a la propiedad, y la descentralización financiera limita la posibilidad de los subsidios cruzados y las medidas de redistribución.

Gobierno local progresista

A pesar de las afirmaciones sobre la naturaleza conservadora de las restricciones rigurosas sobre la capacidad de redistribución de los gobiernos locales, los indicios encontrados en los cuatro países mencionados aquí sugieren que los municipios pueden en efecto hallar las maneras de redistribuir los bienes y servicios públicos en interés de los residentes en situación desventajosa. Los municipios también pueden servir como laboratorios para la experimentación social y como fuente del cambio ideológico progresista.

En México, la función que tienen los gobiernos municipales y estatales de lograr ciudades más equitativas es incuestionable y está consagrada en la constitución, pero igualmente está plagada de obstáculos. En los años 1990 las primeras derrotas electorales del Partido Revolucionario Institucional (o PRI, partido que dominó el mapa político desde los años 1920) ocurrieron en el nivel municipal y luego en el estatal. En todo el país hay ejemplos verdaderos de programas de redistribución social innovadores y exitosos dirigidos por gobiernos municipales, tales como la elaboración de presupuestos y planificación participativas y reciclaje comunitario. El gobierno del Distrito Federal de Ciudad de México está actualmente en manos del centroizquierdista Partido de la Revolución Democrática, que también controla la mayoría de las jurisdicciones más pobres y populosas del área metropolitana. En 2001 este gobierno introdujo un programa de inversión social dirigido a los distritos más pobres que preveía pagos mensuales en efectivo de 70 USD en 2002 a las personas mayores de 70 años, préstamos sin intereses para mejoras de viviendas en asentamientos informales y servicios públicos tradicionales y asistencia social. Este programa que en su momento fuera tildado de populista y electorero por la izquierda y la derecha, ahora es emulado a menor escala por el gobierno federal centroderechista y en plataformas electorales locales por el PRI. Sin embargo, pese a las evaluaciones positivas que tuvo al principio, todavía quedan interrogantes sobre los costos de la cobertura universal y la viabilidad en municipios más pobres y sobre el reforzamiento del clientelismo.

La experiencia brasileña con la redistribución emprendida por el gobierno municipal ha quedado documentada en muchos casos notorios, desde ciudades enormes como São Paulo, pasando por ciudades grandes como Porto Alegre, Santo André y Belém y hasta cientos de municipios más pequeños que han elegido gobernantes de izquierda o de centro en los últimos 15 años. El caso que más se discute es el de la elaboración participativa de presupuestos, un enfoque innovador que ha integrado a más del 10% de los residentes de Porto Alegre en las decisiones sobre la asignación de más de mil millones de dólares de gasto público en infraestructura y servicios. Otras innovaciones incluyen mejoras en los servicios de tránsito y la ampliación de los carriles para autobuses a fin de combatir la hegemonía del automóvil, que beneficia a una minoría privilegiada. Se ha logrado cierto avance en la vivienda, pero la capacidad del gobierno local es limitada.

El gobierno municipal en Sudáfrica ha surgido solamente en los últimos dos años desde su larga historia de división por el apartheid y la agitación de las reformas desde 1994; sin embargo las nuevas tendencias revelan un talante innovador en la esfera municipal. Aunque muchos aspectos del gobierno municipal se han “corporatizado” en Johannesburgo, la ciudad comienza a lograr avances considerables en la regeneración de las áreas deterioradas del casco urbano, a través de una compañía de propiedad absoluta (llamada Johannesburg Development Agency) como instrumento de cambio. Las entidades de este tipo parecen tener la capacidad para resolver algunos de los problemas que surgen de las relaciones intrincadas entre las diferentes instancias del gobierno –local, provincial (o estatal) y nacional- y para atraer un mayor interés privado que respalde la iniciativa municipal.

Los nuevos enfoques para la planificación en Sudáfrica también comienzan a dar señales de éxito. Estos enfoques participativos reúnen a las entidades de servicio público y los departamentos gubernamentales con grandes presupuestos, así como a los ciudadanos, para elaborar acciones municipales a corto y mediano plazo. Tales avances indican que la atención prestada a las conexiones existentes entre distintas entidades es crucial para aumentar la eficacia y mitigar la frustración durante la etapa democrática inicial. Algunos municipios comienzan a encontrar formas de intercambiar sus experiencias y de concebir nuevas modalidades de cooperación. Un ejemplo es la nueva red nacional de ciudades (Cities Network), que congrega nueve de los municipios más grandes del país como una manera de estimular la innovación y ampliar su efecto.

La innovación social y política también ha sido documentada en el ámbito municipal en ciudades de varios tamaños en todo el territorio de EE.UU., a menudo en situaciones que exigen oponerse a tendencias nacionales políticamente conservadoras. Algunas ciudades muy grandes como Cleveland y Chicago elaboraron planes municipales dirigidos explícitamente a la redistribución para brindar asistencia a los hogares necesitados y a los vecindarios marginados. Asimismo Chicago creó programas firmes para respaldar empresas pequeñas y de carácter más local, en contraste con los beneficiarios usuales entre las grandes compañías e intereses en el centro de la ciudad. Ciudades pequeñas como Burlington, en Vermont, y Santa Mónica, en California, elaboraron programas emprendedores de vivienda y control de alquileres con el propósito de ayudar a los electores con mayor necesidad. Como en los muy anunciados ejemplos de elaboración participativa de presupuestos en Brasil, estos programas municipales progresistas típicamente tienen limitaciones estrictas porque no pueden hacer mucho para mejorar el mercado laboral y así sólo pueden ofrecer pequeñas mejoras en los ingresos familiares en efectivo.

Los esfuerzos municipales con respecto a la utilización de la tierra y a la vivienda en Estados Unidos a menudo se ven coartados por el control local o “regla de la casa” que aísla las zonas residenciales más adineradas y numerosas que literalmente rodean las ciudades centrales más pobres. La riqueza y la mayor potestad tributaria de estas jurisdicciones separadas se combinan con una particularidad estadounidense –el financiamiento local de escuelas públicas- para recargar a los habitantes de la ciudad con desventajas descomunales. Dado que aproximadamente el 90% de los niños de Estados Unidos asisten a escuelas públicas, el control local de las escuelas es un tema espinoso en la política estadounidense. Los estudiosos interpretan el control público de derecho de las zonas residenciales como una privatización de facto: con la compra de casas en las zonas residenciales, los hogares compran también el control de las escuelas locales, por lo que excluyen a los demás, como por ejemplo los inmigrantes y grupos étnicos, especialmente a la población negra.

Los ecos de tal privatización y división urbanas estadounidenses se perciben en los distritos rígidamente separados de Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo y otras ciudades de Brasil; en las enormes separaciones de los distritos centrales privilegiados y la periferia sin servicios públicos en Ciudad de México; y en la estructura espacial del apartheid que aún sobrevive en Johannesburgo. Notamos que los gobiernos municipales sí actúan en contra de estas desigualdades, al menos parcialmente debido a un compromiso ideológico y a que los problemas resultantes amenazan su capacidad para gobernar. Algunas localidades pueden convertir sus contados triunfos en elementos constitutivos de estructuras progresistas mayores a escala nacional, tal como se hizo evidente en Brasil.

Reforma Urbana a Escala Nacional

Los asuntos urbanos son un tema crítico en Brasil y se han estado gestando varias leyes, prácticas administrativas, presupuestos y regulaciones desde que la nueva constitución de 1988 prometió mejorar la condición de las ciudades. Después de más de una década de prolongado debate público, se promulgó una nueva legislación en el Estatuto de la Ciudad de 2001 una ley federal sobre políticas urbanas. El Nuevo gobierno de centroizquierda encabezado por el presidente da Silva hace apuestas con un nuevo ministerio nacional que busca integrar las distintas actividades y hallar enfoques más eficaces para los persistentes problemas urbanos. Este Ministerio de las Ciudades (Ministerio das Cidades) se estableció a principios de 2003 con el objetivo de mejorar la vivienda, el tránsito y los servicios comunitarios para las mayorías pobres, preservar y renovar los centros históricos, fomentar el desarrollo económico y estimular enérgicamente la participación. Los dirigentes nacionales buscan hacer hincapié en las preocupaciones de los alcaldes, los ayuntamientos y los ciudadanos más necesitados en los planes federales. A otros países generalmente les falta recorrer un largo trecho para llegar a una política urbana así, y se observará el experimento brasileño con detenimiento.

México es un claro ejemplo de cómo los derechos constitucionales a cuestiones como una vivienda decente, atención médica y educación pueden considerarse importantes, pero no se les da el valor suficiente para garantizar su cumplimiento; lo mismo sucede con todas las buenas intenciones estipuladas en la muy compleja legislación sobre planificación. Ni siquiera las enmiendas constitucionales favorables a los municipios que se hicieron en los años 1980 han socavado por completo el alto grado de centralización de todas las políticas públicas, incluidos el gasto público y prácticamente toda la regulación ambiental. En consecuencia, los planes urbanos y sociales de las diferentes dependencias gubernamentales a menudo compiten entre sí, en lugar de complementarse, y siempre resultan insuficientes para satisfacer la demanda.

Sudáfrica ha tratado de formular una nueva política nacional en el ámbito urbano, comenzando con una estrategia nacional para el desarrollo urbano después de las elecciones democráticas de 1994. Pero se ha logrado relativamente poco ya que la estrategia ha tendido a quedarse más como un compromiso teórico con miras a dar buenos resultados que como un programa concreto o una obligación real para que los distintos departamentos e instancias del gobierno trabajen juntos en la consecución de metas comunes. Parte del problema ha sido la rivalidad entre las distintas dependencias sobre quién debe definir el programa. Las diversas esferas de poder, desde el despacho presidencial hasta el ministerio de finanzas, el departamento de administración local del gobierno nacional, algunos gobiernos provinciales y la asociación nacional de municipios, todas se disputan el protagonismo de la formulación de la política urbana.

La carencia de una política urbana coherente en Sudáfrica igualmente debe situarse en el contexto del programa central del gobierno, el cual pone énfasis no sólo en lograr crecimiento económico, sino también en continuar dando poder de decisión a la mayoría negra previamente marginada. No existe de ninguna manera consenso sobre las funciones que cumplen las ciudades en el logro de cualquiera de estos objetivos. Un solo ministerio encargado de las cuestiones urbanas parecería un sueño para muchos observadores, pero otras maneras de alcanzar objetivos semejantes mediante la reorganización de las relaciones entre las partes sugieren que el progreso es posible.

En Estados Unidos, el programa federal de política urbana ha sido endeble desde finales de los años 1970, y las restricciones fiscales generales se han combinado con la indiferencia del electorado suburbano hacia las ciudades. Estos problemas se han agudizado en gran medida con las consecuencias de los ataques terroristas del 11 de septiembre de 2001, con las demandas de la economía de guerra de EE.UU. y con la naturaleza conservadora de la redistribución aplicada por el gobierno del presidente Bush.

Este espectro de experiencia internacional sugiere que los cambios nacionales profundos y la legislación pueden tener inmensas repercusiones locales. Un gobierno nacional puede brindar apoyo fiscal, normativo y administrativo para toda una serie de mejoras municipales, muchas de las cuales serían implementadas con entusiasmo por los gobiernos locales. Los gobiernos nacionales (incluso los acuerdos internacionales, como en el caso del anterior mercado común europeo) pueden frenar y hasta prohibir medidas tales como la competencia por la reducción de los impuestos municipales dirigida a captar la inversión privada, con lo que se evitaría una situación adversa para todas las partes en los presupuestos públicos. Sin embargo, hasta en el mejor escenario, estas oportunidades son limitadas, difíciles políticamente y complicadas desde el punto de vista técnico.

Conclusiones

En el contexto de la economía globalizadora, los políticos y funcionarios públicos de las ciudades se enfrentan a incertidumbres asombrosamente semejantes en Brasil, Sudáfrica, México y Estados Unidos. A medida que las economías se han vuelto más abiertas, ciertos sectores industriales han resultado muy afectados, mientras que otros han sabido aprovechar las nuevas oportunidades (como en el caso de los exportadores de vehículos automotores en Sudáfrica) y han surgido nuevos nichos de mercado. El panorama geopolítico actual plantea desafíos para los gobiernos de las ciudades, por lo que cobra mucha importancia la manera en que ellos interpreten su función en este período de inestabilidad traída desde afuera. Existe una tensión entre los que piensan que su función como gobierno municipal es entablar la competencia con otras ciudades y aquellos que vislumbran funciones más cooperativas.

Las ciudades mismas necesitan desarrollar su capacidad para formular planes y ejecutarlos. No basta con que dependan del arsenal de profesionales y organismos externos que han definido cada vez más los planes urbanos. Parte del intercambio necesario puede llevarse a cabo fructíferamente en un ámbito académico, especialmente cuando las investigaciones a largo plazo contribuyen a fundamentar las opciones. Es de singular importancia ampliar las oportunidades para el intercambio entre los funcionarios municipales y los académicos del Sur global y el Norte, para el beneficio recíproco de ambos.

Priscilla Connolly es profesora de sociología urbana y planificación en la Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana Azcapotzalco, México.

William W. Goldsmith dirige el Programa de Estudios Urbanos y Regionales de la Universidad Cornell.

Alan Mabin es profesor asociado de la Escuela de Posgrado de Gestión del Desarrollo en la Universidad de Witwatersrand en Johannesburgo, Sudáfrica.

As I have reported previously, the Lincoln Institute is actively engaged in an array of land and tax policy initiatives in China that will have a profound impact on the socioeconomic transformation and institutional change currently under way there. The first of three projects that illustrate this potential is described in this issue of Land Lines, and the others will be reported in the future.

Farmland Preservation: We are working with the central government’s Ministry of Land and Resources (MLR) to develop a farmland preservation and retention strategy in an era of rapid urbanization. China is home to 20 percent of the world’s population, but accounts for only 7 percent of the world’s total of farmland. Moreover, the majority of human activity in China—where people live, farm, have businesses or build infrastructure—is located in the fast-growing eastern part of the country. As the population expands and access to farmland becomes more limited, concerns about the nation’s future food supply have increased.

Policy Assistance in Beijing: The Institute is collaborating with the Beijing Municipal Urban Planning Commission to develop a master plan that will recognize market forces as a mechanism in urban development. The Institute’s program in Beijing marks the first time this commission has asked foreign experts from a market-based country to provide technical assistance. Our primary role is to demonstrate the linkages among market forces, planning and urban policy so planners can play a leading role in directing urban development in ways that adequately address economic, social, environmental and fiscal issues.

Property Taxation: The Institute is also assisting in the design and development of a property (land) taxation system in China. The central government has decided to implement a major reform of its tax system by 2007–2008. The Institute has been invited to collaborate on the research and design of a property taxation system with the Development Research Center of the State Council, China’s principal policy think tank. The objective is to develop a value-based tax that will be levied on property across categories—a landmark change that will restructure intergovernmental relationships and provide an important revenue source for local government.

Brown to Retire; Presidential Search Announced

H. James Brown, president and CEO of the Lincoln Institute since 1996, has notified the board and staff that he intends to retire from the Institute in 2005. Katie Lincoln, chairman of the Institute board, stated, “We will miss Jim’s leadership, but we are grateful for his many contributions to the Lincoln Institute over the past eight years. We wish him well in his retirement.” A full report on Brown’s tenure at the Institute will be published in a future issue of Land Lines.

Jack Huddleston is professor of urban and regional planning and is affiliated with the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He received his Ph.D. in economics from Oklahoma State University and worked as chief economic development planner and chief of local fiscal policy analysis for the State of Wisconsin prior to joining the university. He teaches planning methods and financial planning in the graduate planning program at Madison and is a faculty member in the land resources, water resources management, and energy analysis and policy programs within the Gaylord Nelson Institute. His recent research has focused on applied local government finance issues in the U.S. and the former Soviet Union; energy subsidy schemes in the Dominican Republic and Indonesia; and watershed management and sustainable development in western Mexico.

Land Lines: What do planners need to know about local budgeting, and why?

Jack Huddleston: Planners tend to think narrowly within the boundaries of the functional or physical areas for which they plan. For example, planners charged with preparing and implementing land use plans often are mainly concerned with forecasting land use needs, reconciling land use conflicts, and developing and administering implementation tools such as zoning ordinances. They are not overly concerned with such facts as over the last decade the city’s tax base has been growing at only one percent per year, city spending has been growing by three percent per year, and the city’s bond rating has slipped from Aa to B. The thinking is, “planners plan; others budget.”

Arguably, planners have more impact on the fiscal health of cities and regions than any other civil servant or elected official. They set the path for tax base growth and local government spending patterns far into the future. The things planners do on a daily basis—land use planning, transportation planning, environmental planning, social services planning and so forth—directly affect local government budgets.

When planners approve development on the urban fringe, for example, they have just affected economic conditions throughout the region. Decisions to approve commercial rather than industrial development have similar impacts. The final development project will determine the specific impact on local government revenues and spending, but the decisions made by planners set the direction and relative dimensions of the tax base and local government spending impacts that will occur later. Thus, it is important that planners understand what the local government budget represents, how it is composed, and how it changes over time if they are to understand how their activities affect local budgets.

LL: What kinds of direct impacts can planners have on the community budgeting process?

JH: The local budget serves both existing development, such as current residents, businesses, churches, commuters and visitors, and new development. Public revenues from property, sales and income taxes and user charges from existing activities are relatively stable over time, after adjusting for the impacts of inflation. Similar stability exists for local government spending to support existing activities.

Planners have their greatest impact on local government budgets when they adopt or approve plans for new development. It is here that the dimensions of new tax base growth are determined. It is also here that local government spending patterns are established. Residential development will require new streets and schools; commercial development will require streets, storm water management, and transportation system improvements; and industrial development will require special kinds of fire protection, major shipping services, and so forth. All types of development will involve the exhaustion of excess capacity in existing public infrastructure and require investment in new infrastructure.

LL: How do you get planning board members and planning practitioners to become concerned about and interested in these issues?

JH: There is actually very little need to get planning board members more interested in the fiscal side of planning than they already are. They feel the political pressure to keep taxes low on almost every decision they make. Their concern is largely how to measure the fiscal impacts of their decisions, in terms of both revenues and spending. In addition, they want to know how to evaluate the fiscal impact of their decisions against other goals and constraints, such as economic growth, social justice and fairness, environmental sensitivity, and so forth.

The knowledge/motivation gap for practicing planners is more significant and probably started during their graduate studies and training. Courses dealing with the fiscal side of planning, if available, are often the course taken after all the “useful and fun” courses are completed. After all, planning job listings often announce positions for “land use planners” or “transportation planners,” but few advertise for “financial planners.”

The key to getting practicing planners more interested in the fiscal side of planning is to establish the view that good planning without good finance is largely nonsustainable planning. At the University of Wisconsin-Madison we have included financial planning in the basic toolbox of skills and knowledge we think all planners should command. These skills, which we call intrinsic planning skills, include other tools such as map making, public participation, public speaking and effective communications.

LL: What current trends in local budgeting are relevant to planning goals?

JH: Most of the trends in local budgeting that directly affect attainment of planning goals come from external sources. For example, federal and state governments increasingly are getting out of urban development and redevelopment efforts. The need for such efforts has not diminished and, if anything, has increased, but higher levels of government have decided that such efforts are primarily of local interest. At the same time local governments are being required to fund new programs for efforts such as homeland security and environmental remediation. In general, pressures have been building for ever-increasing spending on the part of local governments.

On the revenue side of the local budget, state statutes limit the amount of revenues that local governments can raise. State governments have preferred reserving the high-yield income tax to fund state government, leaving the property tax as the primary source of funds for local governments. This reliance on the property tax has led to the property tax “revolts” and “restraint movements” that we read about across the country. In general, the sentiment to reduce property tax burdens has led local governments to find alternatives to the property tax, placing more importance on user charges and other locally based financial tools such as tax increment financing.

LL: How can planners address public resistance to property tax increases?

JH: Planners will need to become part planner and part public educator. Citizens value the public goods and services provided by local governments, but they also perceive that the costs of government are getting too high. To some extent there is a disconnect between the value of public goods and services received by local residents and businesses and the need to fund these services. Most of us appreciate the fact that citizenship has a price, but we are more willing to pay when we understand the uses to which public resources are being put and the benefits that will be generated.

This is where the planner as educator comes in. As planners, we often think of our activities as acres of land, dwelling units per acre, traffic flow per hour, or biological oxygen demand of the river [BOD is a measure of water pollution]. These same concepts can be translated into fiscal terms. We need to be able to talk about how various planning activities will affect the local budget, both in the short run and in the long term.

Comprehensive plans, for example, will affect the property tax base of a community for years into the future. Development patterns will affect how cities and regions spend their limited resources over time. Public infrastructure projects not only affect how and when development will take place, but they also place financial commitments on current and future residents. Sustainable development requires that planners be able to anticipate physical, social and financial needs and constraints, and that they are able to communicate these factors convincingly to interested citizens and decision makers.

LL: How is your work with the Lincoln Institute helping to broaden awareness about fiscal planning?

JH: I am working with Roz Greenstein, co-chair of the Institute’s Department of Planning and Development, on an effort to “train the trainers” in the fiscal dimensions of planning. The concept is to assemble leading scholars and practitioners in the fields of public finance and planning in order to develop educational materials that can be used initially in graduate planning programs and subsequently in professional continuing education programs. The materials will cover the basics of municipal budgeting and finance for planners and will stress both how the activities of planners affect local budgets and how local fiscal conditions affect the activities of planners.

The first year of this effort is producing educational materials on the legal and institutional context for local budgets, the intersection between planning and local budgets, the content and process for developing local government operating and capital budgets, property tax administration and policy, fiscal impact analysis and fiscal impacts of development. This material will be presented and discussed in a workshop at the Lincoln Institute in July 2005. Invited participants include senior and junior faculty and professionals from across the U.S. and Canada. This group will not only test the first phase of these materials, but also will develop the agenda for topics to be covered in future sets of materials.

The goal of the overall effort is to increase planners’ understanding of the fiscal dimensions of planning. In concept, participants in the July workshop will be better able to incorporate fiscal thinking into courses at their respective institutions. Educational materials will also be made available to the broader academic community for the same purposes. The Institute’s investment in this important initiative has the potential to enhance planning education in the near term, but more importantly to change the way planning practitioners think about the work they do on an everyday basis.

Related Publication

Venkatesh, Harini. 2004. Local public finance: A glossary. Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/Pub-Detail.asp?id=982

Peter Pollock, FAICP, is the Ronald Smith Fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Since July 2006 he has been working with the Department of Planning and Urban Form to manage the Institute’s joint venture projects with the Sonoran Institute and the Public Policy Research Institute of the Universtiy of Montana.