La utilización de modelos computarizados en la planificación del uso del suelo y el transporte y para analizar los mercados de viviendas urbanas tiene una larga y variable historia. Una aplicación pionera de modelo computarizado a gran escala que relacionaba el uso del suelo con el transporte urbano fue el Estudio sobre el Transporte en el Área de Chicago de 1960. Este estudio utilizaba un modelo con desglose espacial que incluía una detallada red de transporte y abarcaba los clásicos pasos de uso del suelo, generación de viajes, elección de la modalidad y asignación de redes de toda la planificación de transporte urbano.

Un modelo de gran repercusión, con un enfoque más analítico para predecir patrones de uso del suelo, fue el formulado por Ira Lowry en 1964 para Pittsburgh, en el que se empleaba la teoría de base económica para distribuir la actividad económica orientada a la exportación. Luego se utilizó la distribución de residencias y empleo comunitario dentro del área metropolitana para obtener patrones de desplazamiento por razones de trabajo y compras.

A comienzos de la década de 1970 se prestó más atención a los modelos con desglose espacial para los mercados de viviendas urbanas, tales como el Modelo de Vivienda del Instituto Urbano (que representaba los cambios ocurridos en el mercado de la vivienda durante una década) y el Modelo de Simulación Urbana de la Oficina Nacional de Investigación Económica (un modelo microanalítico que proyectaba anualmente el comportamiento de los miembros de 85.000 hogares según el lugar de trabajo y la ubicación residencial). Ambos modelos se utilizaron para analizar el impacto de los programas de asignación de viviendas y se aplicaron más en el análisis de políticas que en la planificación.

A finales de la década de 1970, el énfasis se puso en el desarrollo y la aplicación de bocetos de modelos de planificación, en especial en los referidos al transporte. Aunque estos modelos seguían presentando un desglose espacial, utilizaban decenas (en lugar de centenas) de zonas de tránsito, y las redes de transporte se representaban con menor detalle. Estos modelos fueron adaptados para representar los resultados relacionados con el transporte más allá de los flujos de las redes, tales como emisiones vehiculares, exposición de la población a la contaminación del aire, kilómetros de viaje por vehículo y consumo de energía. En la década de 1980, estos modelos más pequeños pasaron a gestionarse desde computadoras centrales a computadoras personales, lo que facilitó su aplicación. Las necesidades de datos continuaban siendo muy importantes, pero muchos de los modelos utilizaban de manera más sistemática los datos provenientes de censos con desglose espacial que se encontraban disponibles, por lo que se vieron facilitadas la transferencia y la calibración de modelos entre los diferentes lugares.

En las dos últimas décadas, la llegada de sistemas de información geográfica (SIG) y el desarrollo de programas de representación visual de datos en tres dimensiones han ido transformando la manera en que se utilizan las computadoras a la hora de llevar a cabo una planificación. Los datos compatibles con SIG hoy están disponibles gracias a los satélites, las fuentes encargadas de realizar censos y las agencias gubernamentales. Los municipios locales se han adaptado rápidamente a fin de combinar sus datos catastrales con información sobre actividad delictiva, transporte y demografía, y dichos archivos de datos municipales con frecuencia se encuentran disponibles en Internet. Aunque resulta evidente que se ha incrementado la disponibilidad de datos provenientes de SIG, la gran variedad de formatos, definiciones y tipos de cobertura puede representar un desafío a la hora de combinar la información de diferentes fuentes en un conjunto unificado de datos para una región metropolitana.

La utilización de visualizaciones en tres dimensiones de datos con desglose espacial ha transformado la presentación de los datos y los resultados de los modelos. Estas técnicas, tales como los mapas en 3D a nivel metropolitano y la capacidad de “volar” a través de una calle o barrio a nivel del proyecto, facilitan la consulta popular. Además, resulta mucho más fácil para aquellos que no son especialistas comprender y participar en el proceso e interpretar los resultados de escenarios de planificación alternativos.

Junto con los avances en cuanto a los datos y a la presentación de los mismos, los programas de computación son en la actualidad más fáciles de usar y se encuentran cada vez más disponibles en plataformas de código abierto. Aunque los códigos de muchas de las primeras herramientas de planificación computarizadas han estado a disposición del público en general, la utilización de dichas herramientas generalmente ha requerido tener conocimientos avanzados de programación. A medida que una mayor cantidad de estas herramientas se presenten en formatos fáciles de usar e integradas a otros módulos, la utilización de métodos computarizados para comparar y contrastar escenarios de desarrollo alternativos se hará cada vez más accesible. De hecho, actualmente muchas agencias de planificación son capaces de usar las herramientas de planificación de escenarios con el fin de producir posibles futuros alternativos que brinden un fundamento para el debate y la consulta popular, con el objetivo de identificar cuáles son los resultados deseables y cuáles deben evitarse.

Tal como se informa en este número de Land Lines, el Instituto Lincoln apoya el uso de distintas herramientas de planificación para investigar y evaluar la efectividad de las políticas que apuntan a mejorar los resultados referentes al desarrollo del suelo.

For planning processes to resolve the pressing issues of our day—such as climate change, traffic congestion, and social justice—plans must be made at the appropriate scale, must promulgate appropriate implementation tools, and must be enforced with legitimate authority. That is, our ability to meet critical challenges depends on the legal and institutional foundations of planning.

In the United States, responsibility for establishing these foundations for planning rests with the states, which in turn have delegated most land use authority to local governments. In Europe, the foundations of planning are established by each country, whose planning systems often feature national and regional plans as well as a mosaic of local plans. For better and for worse, these institutional foundations have framed the planning process on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean for most of the post-war period. But as the scope of our planning challenges continues to broaden, and discontent with the status quo continues to spread, several states and European nations have begun to experiment with new and innovative approaches to planning.

The opportunity to explore and discuss these issues brought scholars, practitioners, students, and others to Dublin, Ireland, in October 2012 for a two-day seminar sponsored by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and organized by the School of Geography, Planning, and Environmental Policy at University College Dublin and the National Center for Smart Growth at the University of Maryland. Held in the historic Newman House on St. Stephen’s Green, the meetings featured overview papers on planning in the United States and Europe and case studies of five U.S. states and five European nations. Each presentation was followed by commentary from a high-level official from the corresponding state or nation (see box 1).

————————

Box 1: Papers Presented at the Dublin Seminar on Planning for States and Nation/States, October 2012

Bierbaum, Marty
The New Jersey State Development Plan

Faludi, Andreas
The Europeanisation of Planning and the Role of ESPON

Fulton, Bill
Planning for Climate Change in California

Galland, Daniel
The Danish National Spatial Planning Framework

Geppert, Anna
Spatial Planning in France

Grist, Berna
The Irish National Spatial Strategy

Knaap, Gerrit
PlanMaryland: A Work in Progress

Lewis, Rebecca
The Delaware State Development Plan

Needham, Barrie
The National Spatial Strategy for The Netherlands

Salkin, Patricia
Planning Frameworks in the United States and the Role of the Federal Government

Seltzer, Ethan
Land Use Planning in Oregon: The Quilt and the Struggle for Scale

Tewdwer-Jones, Mark
National Planning for the United Kingdom

For more information about the seminar, see the program website: http://www.ucd.ie/gpep/events/seminarsworkshopsconferences/natplansymp2012

————————

A Framework for Spatial Planning in Europe

Planning in Europe is governed by a variety of traditions and governance structures (Faludi 2012). Some European nations have “unitary” governance structures, in which all land use authority ultimately rests with the national government. Italy and Spain have “regional” governance structures, in which land use authority is constitutionally shared between the national government and regional governments. Austria, Belgium, and Germany have “federalist” governance structures, in which particular land use functions are distributed among the national, regional, and local governments. Within these frameworks a variety of planning cultures and traditions have evolved: “amenagement duterritoire” in France; “town and country planning” in the UK; “Raumordnung” in Germany; and “ruimtelijke ordening” in The Netherlands. While these terms generally connote what “urban planning” means in the United States, there are important, nuanced, and fiercely defended differences.

The expression for urban planning used by the European Union is “spatial planning” (European Commission 1997, 24).

“Spatial planning refers to the methods used largely by the public sector to influence the future distribution of activities in space. It is undertaken with the aims of creating a more rational territorial organization of land uses and the linkages between them, to balance demands for development with the need to protect the environment, and to achieve social and economic objectives.

“Spatial planning embraces measures to co-ordinate the spatial impact of other sectoral policies, to achieve a more even distribution of economic development between regions than would otherwise be created by market forces, and to regulate the conversion of land and property uses.”

The European Union has no authority to engage in spatial planning, but directly influences spatial planning outcomes through regional development initiatives, environmental directives, and structural and cohesion funding. This goal is articulated in the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) signed in 1998 by the ministers responsible for spatial planning in the member states and the members of the European Commission responsible for regional policy (Faludi 2002).

Modern spatial planning in the European context is broadly understood to include national, regional, and local planning, where national plans provide broad national development strategies and guidelines for plans at lower levels of government; regional plans integrate physical development with social, economic, and environmental policies but without site-level specificity; and local plans are site-specific and address the physical and urban design elements of the built environment. While none of the planning frameworks for the member nations matches this neat hierarchical ideal exactly, the ESDP has influenced planning activity in every nation.

The ESDP itself is based on longstanding European planning traditions dating to World War II, when national development or reconstruction plans were indisputably necessary for post-war reparations. Many European nations still have national development plans and complementary national spatial strategies. But the influence and importance of those plans has diminished steadily since reconstruction. In the last decade in particular, nations once known for their ambitious and extensive commitment to planning—France, Denmark, and the United Kingdom among them—have failed to adopt new national plans and expressly placed greater emphasis on regional and local plans.

National European Spatial Strategies and Frameworks

France

Although France is a unitary, centralized nationstate, the national government has never played a leading role in spatial planning. Rather, responsibility for spatial planning was officially transferred to regional and local governments in devolutionary reforms adopted in 1982 and 2003 (Geppert 2012). Although coordination between governments at different levels continues, this process results more often in joint investment strategies rather than in shared spatial visions or common objectives. Before most other nations, the French national government began focusing less on spatial planning and more on sectoral policies, leaving spatial issues for lower levels of government.

Denmark

Planning in Denmark historically began with a comprehensive national planning framework (Galland 2012). Over the last two decades, however, as a result of interrelated political and economic factors, the land use roles of national, local, and regional governments within the national territory have significantly transformed the scope, structure, and understanding of Danish spatial planning (figure 1).

Among the implications of this reform, several spatial planning responsibilities have been decentralized to the local level while regional planning for Greater Copenhagen and other sectoral functions have been transferred to the national level. Moreover, the recent abolition of the county level of government has increased the risk of uncoordinated spatial planning and decreased coherence across diverse policy institutions and instruments.

The Netherlands

The Netherlands has perhaps the longest and best-known tradition of national spatial planning, and its plans include industrial as well as detailed spatial policies (Needham 2012). For several decades, Dutch national plans influenced the distribution of people and activities throughout the country. In the first decades after World War II, all levels of government—national, provincial, and municipal—tended to work together in their spatial planning. In the 1990s, however, they started to move apart. In response, the national government strengthened its own powers over the local governments (a form of centralization), and at the same time reduced its own ambitions to pursue a national spatial strategy (a form of decentralization). The latest national spatial strategy expressly withdraws from some planning tasks previously carried out by the national government.

United Kingdom

In the early 1900s, the UK Parliament divested its direct powers to plan; instead, the powers of intervention, new state housing development, and regulation of private housing development were handed over to local governments (Tewdwr-Jones 2012). In the following decades, the central government did acquire new planning powers of its own as a consequence of World War II and the need to rebuild cities, infrastructure, and the economy in the national interest. Since 1945, central government has retained these powers, while also permitting the monitoring of local authorities in their operation of the planning system.

These powers have changed dramatically over the last 70 years. After 1999, devolution in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland further fragmented the meaning of “national” in policy and planning terms. During the 2000s, the push toward regional spatial planning in England also rebalanced national planning matters toward sub-national interests. As a result of this trend in devolution, decentralization, regionalism, and localism over the last 20 years, it is increasingly questionable whether the UK now possesses anything that could be regarded as a national planning system, since so much has changed spatially and within policy-making institutions and processes across different parts of the country.

Ireland

Ireland is one of few European nations not following the trend toward decentralization of planning authority, partly due to the fact that its planning system has been fully decentralized (Grist 2012). Largely following EU guidelines, Ireland adopted a series of national development plans, the latest one being the National Development Plan 2007–2013. Based on recommendations in the previous national plan, the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government in 2002 developed the Ireland National Spatial Strategy. This strategy identified critical gateways and hubs and articulated plans to decentralize economic activity from Dublin and throughout the island.

Following a turbulent period that saw the rise and fall of the Celtic Tiger, blamed in part on lax local planning policies allied with extensive incentivizing of property development and political corruption, the country is now revisiting that strategy, strengthening regional development guidelines, and imposing new consistency requirements on local governments.

Under the new evidence-based planning regime, local plans must conform more closely with regional planning guidelines, and local plans will have quantitative limits on how much development can be allowed. The future role of the National Spatial Strategy is currently in the review process as the new government, elected following the property crash in Ireland, examines the planning and development issues that prevailed during the property bubble.

The Federal Government and Land Use in the United States

The U.S. federal government, like the European Union, has no authority to plan and manage land use, but probably has a greater influence on the location and nature of development patterns (Salkin 2012). Besides the billions of dollars it allocates for transportation infrastructure, social services, development, and redevelopment, the federal government is a major landowner of more than 630 million acres across the country. Federal regulations are also highly influential. The Clean Air and Water Acts, for example, impose no restrictions on land use per se, but in establishing targets for ambient air quality and nutrient loadings to rivers, lakes, and streams, both acts profoundly influence local land use plans, regulations, and development patterns.

More recently, President Barack Obama’s administration has established a new channel of federal influence on land use planning and regulation. While the federal government continues to refrain from direct intervention in local land use governance, the secretaries of the Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development and of the Environmental Protection Agency signed a memorandum of understanding establishing the Sustainable Communities Partnership. To promote six principles of sustainable communities, these agencies launched a number of new grants programs, including the Regional Sustainable Communities Planning Grants. To be eligible for such a grant, local governments must form inter-organizational consortia that include the metropolitan planning organization (MPO), the central city, the majority of local governments, and a representation of civic and advocacy groups.

While the stated purposes of these path-breaking grants include urban revitalization, environmental protection, social justice, and sustainable development, an equally important purpose is to establish new inter-institutional relationships by promoting greater inclusion and participation. Regional Sustainable Communities Planning is now underway in 74 metropolitan areas across the country. It remains to be seen, however, whether the incentives offered to local governments to engage in regional planning are sufficient to get them to participate in regional plan implementation without additional state-level intervention.

State Plans and State Planning Frameworks

Every state established a framework for local planning and regulation in the 1920s and 1930s based on the standard planning and zoning enabling acts prepared by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Despite expectations of extensive institutional change, characterized in the “Quiet Revolution” more than 40 years ago, most states merely authorize local governments to plan (Salkin 2012).

Others, like Oregon, mandate, review, and approve local plans (Seltzer 2012). If local governments do not submit plans that meet the state’s land use goals and guidelines, the state can withhold funds or the authority to issue building permits. Several unique land use institutions also support the Oregon planning system, including a state planning commission, a land use court of appeals, and a directly elected regional government. Though simple in structure, and frequently challenged in the courts and at the ballot box, the Oregon system has a reputation as one of the most, if not the most, effective land use systems in the United States (Ingram et al. 2009).

California is among the states that delegated substantial land use authority to local governments. Although major development projects have to pass a complex mini-National Environment Policy Act process, and the California Coastal Commission was an innovative new statewide institution in its day, local planning remains dominant. But in 2008, the state adopted a bold new initiative to address climate change—Senate Bill 375, which required MPOs to develop transportation and land use plans that meet state greenhouse gas targets. The difficulty is that local governments, not MPOs, retain land use authority in California. MPOs and the state governments are providing incentives for local governments to adopt plans that conform with metropolitan plans, but it remains uncertain whether the combination of financial and other incentives are sufficient to nudge local governments to follow the MPO plans (Fulton 2012).

At the other extreme, plans for entire states are not common in the United States. In response to federal requirements, most states do have transportation plans, and some have economic development plans, workforce development plans, or climate action plans, but only five have state development plans—Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.

New Jersey and Delaware have perhaps the best- and least-known state plans, respectively. New Jersey adopted its State Planning Act in 1985, requiring the state planning commission to develop, adopt, and implement the New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan (Bierbaum 2012). The planning process included a complex cross-acceptance procedure for identifying and resolving differences between the state and local governments. Since its adoption, the influence of and attention received by the plan has ebbed and flowed over successive gubernatorial administrations. Most recently, Governor Chris Christie’s administration developed an entirely new state plan, focused primarily on economic development without the cross-acceptance process. The state plan commission, however, has not yet adopted the plan.

The Delaware plan is much less well-known and far less controversial than the New Jersey plan, and both the content and process are less complex (Lewis 2012). The Delaware plan includes five general land designations (figure 2). It depends on state-local coordination and relies on the threat of withholding infrastructure funding (of which the state pays a significant share) to incentivize compliance by local governments. Because the state did not begin tracking data on development patterns until 2008, and does not maintain spatial data on state expenditures, it is difficult to discern the impact of the approach on development and the consistency of state spending with the state plan map.

Maryland is the only state that rivals California and Oregon in its adoption of bold new approaches to planning, based on its long tradition of leadership in land use and environmental policy (Knaap 2012). Maryland established the first state plan commission in 1933, and broke into the national spotlight in 1997, when it adopted the path-breaking Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation Act. Since 1997 the use of state expenditures to provide incentives for smart growth has been the signature feature of the Maryland approach. Long before anyone in Maryland spoke the words “smart growth,” however, the state had passed legislation in 1959 that required the Maryland Department of Planning to develop and adopt a state development plan. More than 50 years later, the administration of Governor Martin O’Malley finally met that requirement.

On December 19, 2011, Governor O’Malley signed PlanMaryland, establishing the first new state development plan in the United States in many years (figure 3). But unlike state plans in New Jersey or Delaware, the Maryland plan is more procedural than substantive. Specifically, it established six plan designation categories and, following a longstanding Maryland tradition, enabled local governments to allocate land for any or all designated uses. State agencies would then target programmatic funds to each of these areas. Since the plan was signed, state agencies have been developing and refining implementation plans, and local governments have just recently begun submitting plans for state certification.

Concluding Comments

The frameworks for land use and spatial planning vary extensively across Europe and the United States. On both sides of the Atlantic, local governments carry much of the load, especially with respect to community, neighborhood, and site-specific details. But the role of regions, states, and nations remains important.

Contrary to its reputation in the United States, planning in many European nations has decentralized extensively. Few European nations are engaged in full-scale national plans that guide national investments and land use regulations. In fact, planning in Europe, while still far more comprehensive in sectoral details than in the United States, shares many policy features with its North American counterpart. An interesting exception is Ireland, which continues to expand the role of national and regional governments partly as a response to the recent period of extremely decentralized planning that failed to take into account and implement the national strategy. Ireland is also one of the few countries adhering to the broad principles of spatial planning formally adopted by the European Union.

In the United States, neither state development planning nor state approval of local plans is a rapidly growing practice. Indeed, despite the demonstrated success of the Oregon program and the growing recognition of the need for horizontal and vertical policy integration, land use planning in the United States remains a fiercely local affair. Although both the state of California and the federal government are providing financial incentives for intergovernmental coordination and planning at the metropolitan scale, it remains far from certain that incentives alone will secure the changes in local plans and regulations required to institute meaningful adjustments in land consumption, travel behavior, and access to opportunities.

New approaches are needed to make cites and metropolitan areas more productive, equitable, and environmentally sustainable in light of anticipated challenges in the future. If these issues cannot be addressed adequately, other kinds of experiments in institutional planning reforms may become more common in many countries.

About the Authors

Gerrit Knaap is professor of urban studies and planning, director of the National Center for Smart Growth, and associate dean of the School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation at the University of Maryland.

Zorica Nedovic-Budic is professor of spatial planning and geographic information systems (GIS) in the School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Policy at University College Dublin.

References

Denmark Ministry of the Environment. 2006. The 2006 national planning report–In brief. Copenhagen. http://www.sns.dk/udgivelser/2006/87-7279-728-2/html/default_eng.htm

European Commission. 1997. The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Faludi, Andreas. 2002. European spatial planning. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Ingram, Gregory K., Armando Carbonell, Yu-Hung Hong, and Anthony Flint. 2009. Smart growth policies: An evaluation of programs and outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Stephanie Pollack, subdirectora del Centro Dukakis de Política Urbana y Regional de la Universidad Northeastern, detectó una curiosa anomalía cuando analizó los resultados de una encuesta sobre las necesidades de transporte público de los residentes de bajos ingresos en Massachusetts. La encuesta pedía que se indicara el principal modo de transporte, y daba las opciones tradicionales, como tomar el tren o el autobús. Pero no había ninguna casilla para marcar lo que resultó ser el modo más común de transporte: docenas de encuestados respondieron “el automóvil de otra persona”.

Para Pollack, este descubrimiento subrayó la dificultad de diseñar sistemas de transporte acordes con las necesidades de la población, así como la necesidad de contar con mejores maneras para medir y hacer participar a la gente para poder suplir las verdaderas necesidades de transporte público de los usuarios. Como parte de un proyecto llamado The Toll of Transportation (La carga del transporte), el Centro Dukakis trató de determinar cómo llegan los residentes adonde tienen que ir en ciudades como Lynn, Worcester, Springfield y East Boston. Pero la categoría “automóvil de otra persona” no formaba parte de ninguna lista de datos estándar de transporte. “Medimos la equidad en educación y en sanidad, pero no en transporte”, dijo Pollack a los escritores y editores reunidos para el Foro periodístico sobre el suelo y el entorno edificado, realizado del 28 al 29 de marzo de 2014 en Cambridge, Massachusetts. “No tenemos el concepto de cómo debería ser un sistema de transporte ‘justo’”.

El tema del foro fue la infraestructura: para quién es, cómo planificarla y pagarla, y por qué necesitamos inversiones más inteligentes en los entornos urbanos del siglo XXI. Esta fue la séptima edición de esta reunión para periodistas de dos días de duración, patrocinada por el Instituto Lincoln, la Fundación Nieman de Periodismo de la Universidad Harvard, y la Escuela de Posgrado de Diseño (Graduate School of Design o GSD) de la Universidad Harvard.

Pollock compartió también con los participantes su investigación sobre el desarrollo orientado al transporte público (transit-oriented development o TOD), una política que se fomenta cada vez más en las ciudades por medio de reformas de zonificación e incentivos económicos. Los datos revelaron algunos resultados problemáticos sobre el uso y la equidad del transporte público. Los residentes de ingresos más altos que se mudan a zonas TOD (que se convierten rápidamente en lugares caros para vivir) en general no usan transporte público, mientras que los residentes que sí lo usan tienen que residir más lejos de las estaciones, en barrios económicamente más asequibles. Este desplazamiento aumenta el costo y la complejidad de sus viajes para ir al trabajo y volver. Además, en un tercio de las zonas TOD estudiadas, el uso del transporte público se redujo después de haberse introducido el desarrollo.

En otra presentación, Judith Grant Long, profesora asociada de Planificación Urbana en GSD, analizó megaeventos, como la Copa del Mundo y las Olimpiadas, que inducen a las ciudades a invertir miles de millones de dólares en infraestructura. Hay poca evidencia de un retorno positivo a la inversión en términos de puestos de trabajo permanente, ingresos o incluso la imagen de la ciudad, indicó Long. El Comité Olímpico Internacional podría ayudar a las ciudades a planificar mejor y organizar juegos “del tamaño correcto”, sugirió. Barcelona, Roma, Tokio, Múnich, Montreal y Londres han podido transformar con cierto éxito las villas olímpicas en áreas de uso a largo plazo que benefician a un sector más amplio de la población una vez que se acaban los juegos.

Las sociedades público-privadas, la construcción y operación privada de rutas y los sistemas de peaje han sido innovaciones recientes para el financiamiento de infraestructura, dijo José A. Gómez-Ibáñez, profesor de GSD y de la Escuela Kennedy de Harvard. Pero se puede decir que desde que se completó el sistema de rutas interestatales en los EE.UU., el papel del gobierno federal no ha sido claro. El desafío estriba en demostrarle al público quién se beneficiará de los proyectos, para poder justificar su financiamiento.

Los gobiernos deberán ser más inteligentes y enfocar bien el objetivo al construir futuros sistemas de transporte y otros tipos de infraestructura, sobre todo cuando las áreas metropolitanas tratan de aumentar su resiliencia en vista de los impactos inevitables del cambio climático, declararon varios ponentes.

Rich Cavallaro, presidente de Skanska USA Civil Inc., citó la calificación de D+ (en una escala de A a F) en el último “boletín de calificaciones” de infraestructura emitido por la Sociedad Americana de Ingenieros Civiles. Dicho grupo estima que el país tendrá que gastar 1,6 billones de dólares más de lo que indican los planes actualmente para poder contar con una infraestructura de nivel aceptable en todos los sectores. En contraste con proyectos inmensamente caros, como esclusas similares a las del río Támesis en el Reino Unido, Cavallaro se inclina por tomar medidas más asequibles, como equipar a los túneles del metro con tapones inflables gigantes, elevar las rejas de ventilación y subestaciones eléctricas, y diseñar los garajes de estacionamiento e instalaciones similares para que se puedan inundarse y limpiarse después, cuando las aguas retrocedan.

Varios países realizan una mejor tarea de coordinación y recuperación en casos de desastres, según las encuestas realizadas por Robert B. Olshansky, profesor de Planificación Urbana y Regional de la Universidad de Illinois en Urbana-Champaign, y Laurie A. Johnson, presidenta de Laurie Johnson Consulting|Research. La construcción de resiliencia a largo plazo como parte de este proceso fue objeto de un reciente informe del Instituto Lincoln, titulado Lecciones de Sandy.

Susannah C. Drake, presidenta de dlandstudio pllc, describió enfoques creativos, como el rediseño de la protección de la costa en el sur de Manhattan y el sellado de trazados subterráneos que pasan debajo de barrios urbanos. La nación no puede simplemente reconstruir lo que existía antes de un desastre, sobre todo ahora que los avances en tecnología han abaratado el costo de infraestruc-tura, en comparación con las inversiones masivas que se realizaron en el New Deal. Marcus M. Quigley, presidente de Geosyntec Consultants, exploró el uso de tecnología inteligente y controles dinámicos para transformar la construcción de grandes obras de infraestructura. “Podemos cambiar la manera de construir la infraestructura para que actúe a nuestro favor”, dijo. “Cada vez que repavimentamos una calle o acera, estamos perdiendo una oportunidad”.

También se habló sobre el lado negativo de la infraestructura inteligente. Ryan Ellis, fellow posdoctoral de investigación en el Centro Belfer de Ciencias y Asuntos Internacionales de la Escuela Kennedy de Harvard, abordó el complejo problema de seguridad e infraestructura, revelando el submundo de ciberataques, vulnerabilidades y “días cero”. Los hackers espían el correo electrónico continuamente y podrían sabotear nuestra red eléctrica, el control del tráfico aéreo y los sistemas financieros. La clave, dijo Ellis, está en “diseñar ahora teniendo en cuenta la seguridad”, porque “es difícil incorporar la seguridad después”. Y añadió que los planificadores involucrados en construir ciudades inteligentes deben tener muy presente el tema de la seguridad.

El impacto interconectado de la urbanización global requiere un marco más amplio para la infraestructura urbana que exceda las áreas metropolitanas individuales, dijo Neil Brenner, profesor de Teoría Urbana en GSD. “Tenemos que actualizar nuestro mapa cognitivo de la urbanización”, dijo. Pierre Bélanger, profesor asociado de Arquitectura del Paisaje de GSD, predijo que trabajar con la naturaleza -incluso dejando que ciertas áreas abandonadas vuelvan a su estado silvestre- podría eclipsar el enfoque tradicional de controlar el agua y canalizar los arroyos.

El liderazgo político es la clave para reinventar y diseñar nueva infraestructura en el entorno urbano, dijo la arquitecta paisajista Margie Ruddick. Afortunadamente, los alcaldes son algunos de los líderes más innovadores para abordar estos tipos de desafíos, dijo David Gergen, analista senior de CNN y director del Centro de Liderazgo Público en la Escuela Kennedy de Harvard. Es raro que un alcalde llegue a ser presidente, pero resuelven problemas prácticos importantes, dijo Gergen, que fue el orador invitado en la velada nocturna tradicional del foro en la Casa Walter Lippmann de la Fundación Nieman. “Es en las ciudades donde se están llevando a cabo los experimentos”, dijo.

Janette Sadik-Khan, ex comisionada de la Ciudad de Nueva York y en la actualidad miembro de Bloomberg Associates, también se refirió a las dificultades políticas de transformar el paisaje urbano. Hizo notar que las ciclovías, el programa de bicicletas compartidas y los espacios peatonales en Times Square provocaron la oposición por parte de automovilistas, dueños de negocios y otros que consideraban estas iniciativas poco prácticas y “vagamente francesas”. Sin embargo, muchos comerciantes han reportado desde entonces un gran aumento de su actividad debido a un mayor trán-sito de peatones, y que las sillas portátiles de las áreas peatonales están continuamente ocupadas.

“Cuando se ofrecen más opciones, la gente vota con sus pies, con sus asientos y con los candados de sus bicicletas”, expresó. “Los neoyorquinos han modificado las expectativas respecto a sus calles”.

El foro incluye tradicionalmente dos sesiones dedicadas a la “práctica del arte”. Brian McGrory, editor de The Boston Globe, describió los esfuerzos para integrar un periodismo “ardientemente relevante” en un modelo de negocio digital que sea sostenible. The Globe tiene más lectores que nunca, expresó. Inga Saffron, crítico de arquitectura de The Philadelphia Inquirer, ganadora del Premio Pulitzer poco después del foro, junto con el crítico de arquitectura Blair Kamin del Chicago Tribune, Jerold Kayden de GSD y Gregory K. Ingram y Armando Carbonell, ambos del Instituto Lincoln, mantuvieron un coloquio sobre la interacción entre periodistas y fuentes expertas.

Varios participantes de los 40 periodistas y fellows de Nieman publicaron notas sobre el foro, incluyendo Roger K. Lewis del Washington Post, Tim Bryant del St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Christopher Swope de Citiscope y Josh Stephens de Planetizen.

Anthony Flint es fellow y director de relaciones públicas en el Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, y autor de Wrestling with Moses: How Jane Jacobs Took on New York’s Master Builder and Transformed the American City (Luchando con Moisés: Cómo Jane Jacobs se enfrentó al Jefe de Construcciones de Nueva York y transformó la ciudad norteamericana) (Random House, 2011). Fue fellow Loeb en 2000–2001.

The Impacts of Land Use Regulations in Latin America

Cynthia Goytia is a professor in the urban economics and public policy graduate programs at Torcuato Di Tella University (TDTU) in Buenos Aires, Argentina. She serves as the director of both TDTU’s M.Sc. in urban economics program and its Urban Policy and Housing Research Center (CIPUV). Cynthia has also lectured at the University of Cambridge and London School of Economics.

Since 2009, the Lincoln Institute has supported her research on the impacts of residential land use regulations on informality, urban extension, and land values in Latin American cities. In her consulting practice, she has worked with a number of government departments in Argentina and other Latin American countries, as well as several international organizations such as the World Bank, UN University World Institute for Development Economics Research, and the Development Bank of Latin America, among others.

Cynthia holds a M.Sc. in urban economics and a Ph.D. in regional and urban planning from the London School of Economics and Political Science.

LAND LINES: Local land use regulation is a difficult topic to tackle. Although zoning and other interventions can be a strong remedy for market failures, they can have unplanned adverse effects. How did you come to take on this type of research?

CYNTHIA GOYTIA: I became interested in the economic analysis of land use interventions as I began to recognize that land markets are about more than just land and location. Over the last 30 years or so, land use regulation and zoning have become much more important than land taxation in determining quality of life for people in cities. And over time, I noticed that land use interventions designed to achieve socially desirable ends sometimes had unintended negative consequences that planners and policy makers had totally failed to anticipate. For example, government regulations affect access to a wide range of public goods and, as a result, may lead to increased residential segregation and informal development.

All these facts encouraged me to research the effects of government interventions on the land market. I also realized that part of the knowledge gap about regulatory effects in Latin America resulted from the lack of comparable and systematic data on land use. So in 2005, I began an extensive research agenda on this subject, which started as a cooperative effort with Argentina’s national government and later gained the strong support of the Lincoln Institute.

LL: How relevant to Latin America are the results of recent studies claiming that over-regulation of land use in developed countries drives up housing prices?

CG: Our empirical research provides evidence that by increasing prices in the formal land market, thus reducing the supply of housing affordable to low-income households, some aspects of land use regulation could promote more informal development. For example, the Land Use Law enacted in Buenos Aires Province 38 years ago defined new requirements for minimum lot size and forced developers to finance the infrastructure for new subdivisions. These requirements priced low-income households out of the legal land market and into the informal sector.

While the overall objectives of the law were not bad, they had unintended consequences for housing affordability. As a result, the land market was severely skewed to the higher-income segment, while the low-income submarket—households that previously had been allowed to construct their own houses on residential lots—was practically dismantled by the time the new land use standards were enacted and enforced. Not surprisingly, these types of constraints have led to illegal occupation of land in nearly two-thirds of the municipal jurisdictions forming Argentina’s metropolitan areas, including Buenos Aires Metropolitan Area.

LL: Many analysts assert that exclusionary building and land use codes are largely responsible for rampant informality in the region. How would you respond to that criticism?

CG: My recent research supports the claim that land use regulation is used not only to correct for market failures, but it can constitute a way to achieve exclusionary aims as well. We have found that municipalities with large shares of both educated households and disadvantaged populations tend to impose more restrictive residential zoning to maximize the benefits that formal home owners receive from their local governments.

There are some interesting correlations between the use of exclusionary measures in some jurisdictions and conditions in nearby areas. For example, municipalities in Buenos Aires with stringent policies about infrastructure provision are surrounded by municipalities with large shares of households that lack basic services. Indeed, under-provision of infrastructure is central to the idea of urban exclusion. The local government may thus attempt to indirectly regulate the scope of informal development by failing to pave the roads or provide connections to water and sewerage services. Under-servicing informal settlements may be a strategic device to discourage migration to areas experiencing population growth pressure, which are already highly populated, richer, and reluctant to share their tax base with lower-income migrants.

LL: Among the many factors accounting for informality in Latin America, where would you place land use regulation?

CG: Our research provides evidence of a link between land use regulation and the housing choices of urban households in Argentina. Municipalities that have enacted more land regulatory measures also have larger informal sectors, suggesting that the regulatory environment severely constrains development of formal low-income land and housing markets. For example, minimum lot sizes set up land consumption levels that low-income households cannot afford. Moreover, these regulations determine the amount of housing that can be built on lots by setting maximum heights, floor area ratios, or allocation of open space—skewing the supply to the upper-income market. Relatively high project approval costs (in terms of both time and money) also have negative impacts by raising the final cost of housing and/or discouraging developers from building housing for low-income households. At the same time, however, inclusionary policies—including value capture or betterment levies, impact fees, and setting vacant land aside for affordable housing—reduce the likelihood that households resort to informal land markets.

One of the most important concepts we need to understand is that informality is not merely a poverty issue, but rather a land market distortion that affects households of all incomes. Therefore, land use regulation should contribute to the design of policies that are able to address the fundamental causes of informality and hold down the prices of serviced land.

LL: The efficiency-equity trade-off seems to be at the heart of debates about land use regulation. This trade-off is played out under different rules when it comes to higher-income and lower-income urban areas, as plainly revealed in Brazil’s special zones of social interest (ZEIS)—low-income areas preserved for affordable housing by the state.

CG: You are right. Rules such as general-purpose urban zoning regulations are quite different from the pro-poor standards allowed in ZEIS. General-purpose zoning is meant to improve the efficiency of urban land use, especially in the formal housing market. Adequate planning facilitates timely infrastructure investment and large-scale urban development. Overall, efficient land use contributes to improved urban productivity. But many times, it does not in itself ensure affordability for lower-income groups.

At present, we do not have a rigorous evaluation of ZEIS effects, but it is important to consider two facts when it comes to the less stringent standards set for low-income housing. First, the rationale for allowing different regulations for particular segments of the housing market is that doing so enhances general welfare. Second, the pragmatic solution of regularizing informal areas raises the question of why municipalities do not allow higher densities in the first place, provided that the appropriate infrastructure is put in place. In theory, allowing higher-density development in formal areas would increase the overall supply of buildable land, thereby reducing prices and increasing the availability of affordable housing.

LL: Are there any good examples of politically feasible, socially inclusive land use regulations?

CG: In most developing countries, the challenge is to design policies that address the fundamental causes of informality and promote social inclusion. Jurisdictions that have adopted—and effectively implemented—inclusionary measures are now better able to provide more affordable housing options in the formal market. But there are at least two distinct types of approaches, which push the land use regulation agenda in our cities in different ways and have various implications.

The first type of approach focuses on easing land use restrictions that disproportionately affect the supply of low-income housing. We know that higher land costs due to “forced consumption” make housing less affordable to lower-income families. Revising these types of standards—such as allowing condominium units in low-density areas (where most low-income households live), increasing floor area ratios, and reducing minimum lot sizes for subdivisions where infrastructure is phased in—helps to improve housing affordability in the formal market. These measures also make it more profitable to develop low-income housing, thereby increasing the incentives to supply units for this market segment. There are now some examples of formal developers building low-income subdivisions and affordable housing units in some municipalities where population and affordable housing demand have been growing fast, such as La Matanza, in the Buenos Aires metro area.

The second type of land use innovation involves making changes to regulatory frameworks. Government jurisdictions at all levels are now enacting a variety of policies that play a more active role in land and infrastructure development and finance, guiding urban growth and infill development while also capturing the value of large-scale public investments. Rosario, Argentina, provides a great example. The government there grants building rights—notably in high-income areas—as long as the proceeds are used to fund the public investments necessary to support higher densities and to provide serviced land for affordable housing or for informal settlements.

I have already underscored the importance of infrastructure spending. Over the last decade, metropolitan agglomerations in Argentina were expanding 3.5 percent annually on average while the population was growing by 1.2 percent annually. This development path makes the financing of infrastructure imperative. Some municipal governments have responded by implementing betterment levies. Trenque Lauquen is a case in point. The municipality has used the levies not only to finance infrastructure investments, but also to manage urban growth and make land available for different uses, including low-income housing. Although limited in scope, this success shows that betterment levies are a feasible and flexible instrument that can help expand urban services. It also prevents informal land subdividers from exploiting the gap between the prices of raw and fully serviced formal land.

LL: Based on what we know and do not know about land use regulation in Latin America, which research priorities do you think the Lincoln Institute should pursue?

CG: The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy has been doing a great job in generating knowledge about land use regulation in Latin America through its support of research, seminars, and other activities, and by encouraging valuable interactions among a broad audience of urban planners and policy makers in the region. Now we need to build on this knowledge to promote policies that improve land and housing affordability, and to identify the sources of supply distortions that lead to low compliance and widespread informality.

This means improving our understanding of the impacts of regulatory innovations now taking place in the region. Although we have some case studies about the effects of these new tools, we need to carry out a comprehensive review of the ways cities, municipalities, states, and national offices define their regulatory frameworks. Creating a comprehensive database of this information for the main urban agglomerations in the region would allow comparisons over time and across municipalities.

To this end, we at CIPUV performed a nationwide survey of planning officials about local land use regulations in Argentina’s metropolitan areas. The set of indicators assembled in the CIPUV Index of Land Policy (CILP) provides detailed information on such parameters as the existence of land use plans, the authorities involved in zoning changes and residential project approval processes, the existence of building restrictions, the costs related to project approvals, and the implementation of value capture instruments.

Over the years, our research has started to reshape planners’ attitudes about regulatory frameworks. We have initiated a dialogue with planners and public officials in the hope of gaining new insights about the role of land markets within cities and the impacts of regulations. In addition, our standardized indices have enabled comparisons of regulations across municipalities as well as analysis at the metropolitan and state levels. As a result, some municipal and provincial jurisdictions in Argentina have recently updated, or are in the process of updating, their land use plans and laws, some of which date back nearly half a century.

LL: Would it be feasible to develop an international version of the CIPUV Index of Land Policy?

CG: Yes. Taking up such an initiative would have two important effects. First, it would allow comparisons of metropolitan areas throughout Latin America and increase the visibility of successes that some cities have had in increasing land affordability. And second, it would provide fertile ground for policy makers and researchers to learn which initiatives lead to better outcomes. It is not only feasible, but a central challenge that should be addressed in the coming years.

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.