El acceso universal a internet de alta velocidad es un sueño generalizado en estos tiempos. Todos, desde el presidente de Google, Inc. hasta cualquiera de nosotros, lo hemos anhelado. Y la prensa tecnológica se inunda de irritadas críticas, preguntándose por qué las velocidades de banda ancha habituales en los Estados Unidos están tan retrasadas con respecto a las que existen, por ejemplo, en Corea del Sur.

Sin embargo, hace sólo cinco años este no era un tema candente. En aquel entonces, el debate (y las acciones) no era liderado por el gobierno federal o el sector privado. Los primeros en movilizarse fueron diversos municipios con un pensamiento innovador: ciudades y distritos como Chattanooga, Tennessee; Lafayette, Louisiana; Sandy, Oregón; y Opelika, Alabama.

De más está decir que los motivos y las soluciones eran variadas. No obstante, ahora que la conectividad de alta velocidad se está reconociendo como una infraestructura urbana fundamental, Chattanooga se ha convertido en un caso de estudio muy útil. El proceso por el cual llegó a autodenominarse “gigaciudad” (en referencia a la disponibilidad de conexiones a Internet con velocidades de transferencia de datos de 1 gigabit por segundo, es decir, hasta 200 veces más rápidas que la velocidad habitual de banda ancha que tienen muchos estadounidenses) comenzó con una iniciativa municipal visionaria desarrollada mediante una meditada coordinación entre el sector público y el privado. Recientemente esta medida ha comenzado incluso a mostrar efectos tangibles en la planificación y el desarrollo de la ciudad, especialmente la nueva imagen que se le está dando al centro de la ciudad, rezagado durante tanto tiempo. En resumen, Chattanooga está comenzando a responder a una pregunta crucial: Una vez que una ciudad tiene acceso a Internet de primera clase, ¿qué hace en realidad con ello?

Esta historia comienza hace más de una década, cuando EPB, la empresa de energía eléctrica propiedad de la ciudad de Chattanooga, planificaba una mejora importante en su red eléctrica. El director ejecutivo de EPB, Harold Depriest, abogaba por un plan que consistía en el despliegue de cables de fibra óptica que también pudieran usarse para el acceso a Internet. Una vez eliminados los obstáculos normativos locales, el nuevo sistema se construyó hacia el año 2010, y cada cliente de energía eléctrica de EPB en el área de Chattanooga (lo que significó prácticamente todos los hogares y negocios) obtuvo acceso a Internet de 1 gigabit. Sin embargo, había que pagar por este servicio, al igual que se pagaba la electricidad, y el precio que se estableció al principio para el acceso a la velocidad más rápida de Internet fue de aproximadamente US$350 al mes.

“Tenían muy, muy pocos clientes”, recuerda Ken Hays, presidente de The Enterprise Center, una organización sin fines de lucro que, desde el año 2014, se ha enfocado (a petición de los funcionarios municipales electos) en desarrollar estrategias en torno a lo que los habitantes de Chattanooga denominan “el giga”. Según Hays, el presidente de Lamp Post Group, una exitosa empresa de capital de riesgo dedicada a la tecnología, expresó su adhesión inmediatamente. Sin embargo, a nivel ciudadano, “no teníamos el mismo entusiasmo” que el debate sobre el acceso a Internet de 1 giga genera hoy en día. En 2010 “no había muchos buenos casos de estudio”, concluye Hays.

Sin embargo, un gran cambio estaba en marcha. El anuncio de Google Fiber (la incursión del gigante de las búsquedas en Internet en el desarrollo de infraestructura de Internet de alta velocidad) despertó nuevo interés. Además, en el año 2013, Jenny Toomey, directora de la Fundación Ford que se dedica a los derechos en Internet, ayudó a organizar una especie de cumbre para que los funcionarios de municipios como Chattanooga, Lafayette y otras ciudades pudieran reunirse y comparar notas. “Todavía era muy incipiente en ese momento”, recuerda George W. McCarthy, presidente y director ejecutivo del Instituto Lincoln y economista, quien, en ese entonces, era director de la iniciativa Oportunidad Metropolitana de la Fundación Ford. Sin embargo, según McCarthy, esa cumbre marcó el inicio de nuevas conversaciones sobre la forma en que tales iniciativas podrían hacer más competitivas y equitativas a las ciudades, así como también menos dependientes de las soluciones que provienen exclusivamente del sector privado y que, con frecuencia, consideramos más eficientes que las ofrecidas por el gobierno. “Y dos años después de esa cumbre, el tema acaba de explotar”, concluye McCarthy.

De hecho, la cumbre se convirtió en ese tipo de acontecimiento extraño que dio a luz a una nueva organización, Next Century Cities, fundada en 2014 y que actualmente posee una membresía de más de 100 municipios. Esta organización comparte las buenas prácticas basadas en un plan según el cual el acceso a Internet de alta velocidad es una cuestión de infraestructura fundamental e independiente que las comunidades pueden y deben controlar y diseñar.

Contra este telón de fondo, Chattanooga estaba tomando medidas para demostrar cómo podría aprovecharse “el giga”. The Lamp Post Group se había trasladado al centro de la ciudad y el acceso a Internet de alta velocidad era sólo el comienzo para los jóvenes emprendedores y especialistas en tecnología que deseaba atraer. “Si no tenemos opciones de vivienda, si no tenemos un espacio abierto, si no tenemos cafeterías de moda… se irán a ciudades que sí los tengan”, señala Kim White, presidente y director ejecutivo de River City Company, una organización de desarrollo sin fines de lucro.

A partir de 2013, River City propuso, mediante un plan para el centro de la ciudad y un estudio de mercado, estrategias para mejorar la accesibilidad a peatones y ciclistas, los espacios verdes y, en especial, las opciones de vivienda. Más de 600 personas participaron en el proceso de planificación posterior, el cual tuvo como meta final la revitalización (o demolición) de 22 edificios. Hoy en día, según White, la mitad de dichos edificios están en proceso de redesarrollo y se han invertido más de 400 millones de dólares en el centro de la ciudad. En el próximo año y medio se incorporarán 1.500 apartamentos al mercado de la zona del centro, además de nuevas viviendas para estudiantes y plazas de hotel. La ciudad ha ofrecido incentivos fiscales, algunos de los cuales se han diseñado con el fin de que un cierto porcentaje de las nuevas viviendas sea económicamente asequible. La ciudad también invirtió 2,8 millones de dólares en un parque en el centro de la ciudad, que representa una parte “clave” del plan para “ofrecer áreas donde la gente pueda reunirse y disfrutar del espacio público”, según señala White. Uno de los proyectos de apartamentos, el edificio Tomorrow, ofrecerá “microunidades” y un restaurante a pie de calle. “No creo que hubiéramos podido atraer estos tipos de negocios ni la curiosidad de los jóvenes” sin el empuje brindado por el aspecto tecnológico y de acceso a Internet de alta velocidad, concluye White. “Esto nos ha dado a conocer”.

Según Hays, el giga también inspiró una iniciativa respaldada por el municipio, consistente en identificar estrategias clave de desarrollo que dieron como resultado un “distrito innovador” en el centro de la ciudad impulsado por Enterprise Center. El fundamento de esta iniciativa consiste en restaurar un edificio de oficinas de 10 pisos para transformarlo en el Centro de Innovación Edney, que tendrá espacios de trabajo compartido y alojará a la sede de CO.LAB., una organización incubadora de negocios locales. La Universidad de Tennessee en Chattanooga tiene un proyecto consistente en un laboratorio de impresoras 3D en el distrito innovador; incluso se ha remodelado la oficina del centro de la Biblioteca Pública de Chattanooga, para incluir un espacio educativo tecnocéntrico.

EPB, cuya visión original de la fibra óptica puso en movimiento la idea de la gigaciudad, ya hace tiempo que ha logrado dar con una solución respecto a los precios (en la actualidad, el acceso a Internet de velocidad de 1 giga cuesta desde aproximadamente US$70 al mes) y ha atraído a más de 70.000 clientes. Desde hace poco también ofrece a los residentes de bajos recursos que reúnan ciertos requisitos acceso a Internet de 100 megabit, mucho más rápido que la mayoría de las conexiones de banda ancha disponibles en los Estados Unidos, por US$27 al mes. Además, las acciones de EPB para expandirse a las áreas adyacentes a Chattanooga que no reciben servicios se han convertido en un componente importante de las medidas más amplias que están surgiendo para desafiar las normas en muchos estados, desde Texas a Minnesota o Washington, las cuales limitan efectivamente a los municipios a la hora de ofrecer sus propias conexiones a Internet de alta velocidad.

En resumen: las cosas han cambiado mucho, tanto en Chattanooga como en otras ciudades y distritos que han impulsado el desarrollo de una infraestructura de Internet que el sector privado no estaba ofreciendo. “La mayor parte de este trabajo se está dando en este mismo momento a nivel municipal”, comenta Deb Socia, directora de Next Century Cities. “Son los alcaldes, los administradores municipales y los gerentes de sistemas los que están tomando medidas para averiguar qué necesitan sus ciudades”. Las implicaciones que esto tiene para cuestiones cívicas fundamentales como la educación, la salud, la seguridad, etc. todavía están en pleno desarrollo. Y, precisamente debido a que el debate y la planificación se están dando a nivel municipal, esta cuestión no dependerá solamente de consideraciones de mercado que favorecen lo redituable sobre lo posible. “Lo mejor de esto”, resume McCarthy, “es que se trata de una cuestión integradora, no excluyente”.

Rob Walker (robwalker.net) es colaborador de Design Observer y The New York Times.

In a report titled A Rise in Downtown Living, the Brookings Institution and the Fannie Mae Foundation (1998) highlighted an emerging land use movement in 24 U.S. cities. The release of the 2000 U.S. Census data verified the progress in those cities in another brief, Downtown Rebound (Sohmer and Lang 2001). While these publications alerted the nation to a possible trend, they did have some limitations, which inspired Eugenie Birch’s follow-up study, A Rise in Downtown Living: A Deeper Look, funded by Lincoln Institute, the University of Pennsylvania and the Fannie Mae Foundation.

This study, initiated in summer 1999, employs census data analysis, survey research, personal interviews and field visits to the sample cities. Birch draws on a larger and more representative sample of 45 cities, including 37 percent of the nation’s 100 most populous cities selected for balanced regional distribution, and of these 100 percent of the top 10 and 62 percent of the top 50. The sample includes 19 percent of the 243 cities having a population of 100,000 or more. Birch defined each city’s downtown by census tracts to create a baseline for mapping and collected data on nine population and housing factors for the downtowns and their cities and Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) over three decades. Birch administered two mail surveys, in 1999 and 2001, of city officials and business improvement district leaders to identify their respective roles in encouraging downtown housing, and she is currently making site visits to all 45 cities to verify the census data and survey results.

In this article, Birch summarizes seven key findings of her research, which were also presented at a Lincoln Institute lecture in March 2002 and reported in the APA Journal (Birch 2002).

The Definition of Downtown

Although most people think they understand what downtown is, there is no single socioeconomic meaning or geographical definition for the term. While U.S. downtowns share several common characteristics (a central business district at the core, access to substantial transportation networks, a supply of high-density buildings, expensive land), they differ dramatically in their age, size, functions, contents and character. Furthermore, downtowns are in a state of flux as their boundaries and contents are changing. Tracking downtown boundaries over time reveals that in almost all the cities in the sample, the downtowns of today are remarkably different in size (measured in the number of census tracts included) than they were 20 years ago. Downtowns that are incorporating residences are also attracting more community-serving facilities, such as supermarkets or cineplexes that used to be in neighborhoods. Maps of the several downtowns, created as part of this study, illustrate the size variations.

Residential Populations by the Numbers

The rates of increase in downtown residential populations vary enormously among cities. While downtown growth rates are impressive, numerical counts for MSAs still overshadow those of downtowns. Measuring the growth against basic benchmarks (1970 population levels for the defined downtowns and comparative growth rates with city and MSA) reveals just how fragile this movement is. For example, only 38 percent of the sample cities had more downtown residents in 2000 than in 1970. Only one-third had a downtown population growth rate between 1970 and 2000 that was greater than that of their cities. For the same period, 42 percent of the sample showed a negative downtown growth rate even when their cities had positive numbers. Finally, only seven cities (Chicago, Cleveland, Los Angeles, New York, Norfolk, San Francisco and Seattle) had downtown growth rates that exceeded those of their MSAs in the entire 30-year period.

Looking at the data decade-by-decade tells a different story. Not surprisingly, downtown population declined most severely in the 1970s, when 89 percent of the sample showed losses that ranged from 2.4 percent (Des Moines) to 60 percent (Orlando). In contrast, by the 1990s more than three-quarters (78 percent) of the sample posted increases. However, only four cities (Los Angeles, New York, San Diego and Seattle) had gains in all three decades. Comparing city and MSA data shows similar nuances.

Downtowns also vary in the amount and level of residential development. In 2000 for example, 24 percent of the sample cities had 20,000 or more downtown residents, while 20 percent had fewer than 5,000, and a great deal of diversity exists within the categories. Denver’s downtowners number just over 4,200, but most observers perceive the city’s record in attracting residents as a stand-out success, while Cincinnati, with about 3,200 downtown residents, is struggling to maintain a critical mass. At the other end of the scale, Chicago’s 73,000 and Philadelphia’s 78,000 downtowners are integrated into their larger metropolises.

Differences in the proportion of a city’s population that lives downtown are also striking. For example, Boston and Philadelphia have roughly equal downtown populations, but Boston’s comprises 14 percent of the total while Philadelphia’s is only 5 percent. Finally, a simple numerical listing of the sample downtowns is misleading. Downtown population growth has occurred at varying rates with some cities experiencing the phenomenon for a longer time than others. This may account for the greater success of some cities. Also, given the varying geographical size of the different downtowns, density measures as well as demographic analysis should be added to any assessment in order to gauge the potential impact (economic, political, social) of new residents.

Approaches to Creating Downtown Housing

Over the past decade, policy makers and investors have relied on six types of approaches to create downtown housing, and they often blend more than one of these:

• fostering adaptive reuse of office buildings, warehouses, factories and stores;
• building on “found” land such as a reclaimed waterfronts or remediated brownfields sites;
• redeveloping public housing through HOPE VI;
• constructing residentially driven, high-density, mixed-use projects;
• targeting niche markets such as senior or student housing; and
• using historic preservation to forge a special identity.

To accomplish these ends, cities have engaged in creative financing, leveraging public funds, tax credits, gap financing pools and other tools at their disposal. Philadelphia, Boston and Lower Manhattan present examples of the office conversion trend, while Atlanta, Minneapolis, Cincinnati and Cleveland have employed warehouse store adaptive reuse. Charlotte represents a combination of HOPE VI, new construction and historic preservation. The found-land approach is seen in Milwaukee with its riverfront redevelopment (including brownfields remediation), Cincinnati with its expressway diversion/riverfront development, Des Moines with its construction of a new downtown neighborhood, and New York at Battery Park City. Chicago is the king of mixed-use new construction. Columbus (Georgia), Lexington and Chattanooga have fostered historic districting as a means to protect older, downtown residential neighborhoods.

Deep Roots of Success

Today’s growth in downtown living is the fruit of more than five decades of sustained attention to downtown revitalization. It has come about because cities have steadily improved their environments through downtown planning and additions of new elements to reinvent their old central business districts. In so doing, they have transformed their downtowns into new, hip places, thus making them competitive and attractive for housing. Although specific municipal policies such as favorable tax treatment, zoning amendments and infrastructure investments have, without doubt, flamed the private market activities in downtown housing, public investment in large-scale projects dating from the mid-1950s to the present have helped create a sympathetic climate for this investment. Preliminary evidence shows a strong relationship between investor choices and the presence of new downtown amenities. For example, developers in Los Angeles, Denver, Baltimore, Detroit and Memphis cite the presence of stadiums or sports arenas as important factors in their location decisions.

Demographic Characteristics of Downtowners

Downtowners are more affluent, more highly educated and more white than the city dwellers overall, but more diverse than those in the MSA. Singles, empty-nesters, gays, and childless or small households are more highly represented in downtowns than in MSAs. Families with children are present but not dominant. Other submarkets are students and the elderly. In some cities where the housing market is tight, notably Boston, New York, Chicago and San Francisco, low- and moderate-income groups are reporting difficulty in finding space for affordable housing. In other cities like Charlotte that have an excess of downtown land, much of it devoted to parking lots, the issue is not space but cost. In these contexts, questions arise as to what resources should be devoted to high-rent downtown units.

Private Development Efforts

Promoting downtown housing has emerged as a central strategy of private downtown groups, mainly business improvement district (BIDs), working with municipal government, often city planning and/or economic development departments. In 59 percent of the sample, BIDS or other privately sponsored organizations have engaged in pro-housing campaigns. As membership organizations their internal needs drive the agenda, so the amount and nature of their efforts vary widely.

Contribution to Citywide Growth

Downtown growth has contributed to the numeric changes in citywide populations in many cities. While the percentage contribution to overall municipal growth is often quite small, in 53 percent of the sample cities the downtown numerical contribution is a significant portion of the total, and in another 22 percent of the sample cities the downtown portion has offset losses in other parts of the city. In other words, without the downtown population growth, 60 percent of the sample would be worse off. In Boston, for example, downtowners constituted 25 percent of the increased number of people living in the city, while in Pittsburgh the additional downtowners reduced the city’s population loss by only one percentage point.

Conclusions

Reviewing these seven findings reveals a few themes. Downtowns are ever-changing places. Their functions, their boundaries and their very characters have been evolving in the postwar period. They are like complicated jigsaw puzzles with players (urban leaders) fitting the pieces together slowly. Just as assemblers first frame a puzzle and then fill in the center, city leaders have provided infrastructure outlines—streets or street improvements, schools, redeveloped river edges, improved open space—and now are adding other parts. Downtown living is one of these. In many places it has fit very well, especially in the past ten years. In a few cases, new downtown residents contribute significantly to the numerical growth of their city’s population. Just as certainly, many downtowns have not really kept up with their MSAs, and a majority of cities have yet to recover their 1970 populations. Nonetheless, having formerly vacant and/or abandoned buildings occupied (and eventually paying taxes) and having more (and more diverse) people on the streets night and day, weekday and weekend, are positive factors for urban life.

Making sense of this housing phenomenon requires not only placing it in the context of contemporary metropolitan development but also making it part of an evaluation of past urban redevelopment programs. Downtown living is not a silver bullet for curing urban ills but one element of an ongoing planning and investment effort for a part of the city.

Public/private partnerships have been essential in achieving changes in downtown living. The existence of productive interplay between focused interest groups, especially the growing number of business improvement district leaders, and public planning and economic development units has resulted in bold, imaginative, creative and thoughtful approaches to creating housing opportunities.

The findings and themes in this research give rise to other questions related to individual downtowns. These include an evaluation of the costs and benefits of attracting different types of downtowners and an assessment of the reasons why some places have been more successful than others in gaining the populations. This information that would be useful, for example, for policy makers in cities having less developed downtowns who first must decide whether a downtown living approach is appropriate for their cities and, second, must determine whether supportive incentives or complementary activities are needed. Other questions revolve around how to spread downtown progress to nearby neighborhoods without provoking displacement or unwanted gentrification and how to resolve the inevitable political disputes that will arise with the newcomers.

All in all, the rise in downtown living is as complex and layered as any urban issue. While widely reported in the popular press, it deserves a balanced, scholarly appraisal. This study raises important planning and development issues that still need attention: for example, information on the critical mass of residents required to make a difference in downtown life, the relationship between downtown housing units and employment, and the number of households needed to support community-serving functions. All of these issues lead to questions of balancing appropriate density for new development and quantity for adaptive reuse with other downtown functions like office, parking, retail and entertainment. No one really knows the proper composition of a balanced downtown.

Eugenie Ladner Birch is professor and chair of the Department of City and Regional Planning at the University of Pennsylvania.

References

Birch, Eugenie Ladner. 2002. Having a Longer View on Downtown Living. Journal of the American Planning Association 68 (1):5-21.

Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and Fannie Mae Foundation. 1998. A Rise in Downtown Living. Washington, DC.

Sohmer, R.R., and Lang, R.E. 2001. Downtown Rebound (FMF Census Note 03, May). Washington, DC: Fannie Mae Foundation and Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.

Since its inception just over a year ago, the Northeast State Planning (NESP) Leadership Retreat has been a valuable professional development tool for state planners from Maine to Maryland. This collaboration between Lincoln Institute and Regional Plan Association (RPA) brings together high-level state officials to discuss current state planning issues. After only two annual meetings the participants from 11 northeast states already have implemented ideas discussed with their peers, and a few states have initiated and built smart growth planning and community development schemes inspired by this interstate exchange.

At the second retreat held in March 2000, the participants shared new ideas and success stories, addressed “the do’s and don’ts” of building state planning programs, and took steps toward establishing an economic development program for the northeast corridor. They compared state growth management initiatives in the Northeast to those occurring in the rest of the country, and traded caveats and suggestions on how to sustain political support in the face of a changing economy, bipartisan politics and conflicting interests.

Smart Growth Across the Nation

According to John M. DeGrove, Eminent Scholar of Growth Management and Development at Florida Atlantic University, a new and bipartisan commitment to smart growth is developing across the United States. No longer is the nation enshrouded in a “no-planning” or “planning in isolation” mindset by state and local governments.

As the keynote speaker at the retreat, DeGrove outlined prerequisite factors crucial to a sustainable smart growth program. A primary realization is that the protection of natural systems and the revitalization of urban systems on a local level should happen concurrently with support and coordination from state agencies. Executive leadership can strengthen state legislative initiatives and is usually crucial to program development and implementation. The involvement of diverse coalitions can also be critical in accelerating a smart growth agenda at the state level.

For a progressive smart growth program to survive, there must be an impetus to place growth management in a state or regional framework bolstered by strong incentives and disincentives. State actions linked to federal programs-TEA 21, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the possible renewed funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund-can enhance the success of strategic, comprehensive planning. Finally, bottom-up coalition building, grassroots efforts, and state agency coordination should be used in place of or in conjunction with top-down approaches. Experiences in Maryland and Pennsylvania have shown that such processes are effective.

Patricia Salkin, associate dean and director of the Government Law Center of Albany Law School in New York, is also at the forefront of growth management research. She has compiled and analyzed information about state planning programs across the country, citing gubernatorial support and legislative reforms as the primary factors driving smart growth programs. She reported that gubernatorial support is generally strong in the Northeast and is growing in such states as Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, North Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin.

Salkin mentioned three main categories of legislative reform: 1) recodification and tightening of existing laws, 2) authorization for innovative and flexible controls, and 3) major overhauls. As examples, Oklahoma’s Senate Bill 1151 created a Planning and Land Use Legislative Study Task Force to evaluate the effectiveness of current laws, review model legislation, and identify public information needs; California’s Assembly Bill 1575, encourages innovative land use policies such as unified county plans; and Tennessee is undertaking a study to overhaul its planning and growth management framework and replace it with a smart growth program.

Sustaining Political Support

Sustaining political support for smart growth plans is a challenging task. Bipartisan politics, influential lobbying interests, changes in administration, and home rule are just a few of the most commonly mentioned obstacles to comprehensive, regional programs that address urban, suburban, rural and conservation issues. Arguably, the current strong economy may be facilitating smart growth incentives as many states, especially in the Northeast, offer monetary and capital rewards to municipalities whose policies are consistent with state and regional plans.

A number of common practices on this topic were outlined at the retreat. State agencies such as the office of planning or the department of community affairs may develop coalitions with entities other than fellow state agencies, especially if the “state” is seen as a meddling force in local issues. Some success stories tell of coalition building with elder communities, religious leaders and faith-based communities. Others have tried the silent partner approach in a public/private venture. Most importantly, the political force of local voices can be potent in getting local officials, state congressional representatives and agencies involved.

One key area that requires cautious handling is the presentation and dissemination of information. When plans move from general to specific, care must be taken to allow a broad range of interests to perceive personal and community benefits at the present time and through continued participation in the future. The use of proper terminology is also crucial. For example, in a politically driven world, executives may strive to separate themselves from counterparts with original ideas and phraseology. A state can gain distinction by interchanging the prevalent term “smart growth” with “community preservation,” or “locally designated growth areas” with “urban growth boundaries.”

Political support also can be sustained by creating educational programs to address the planning needs of a community. Training and curricula can be developed for elected public officials and for citizens appointed to planning boards, board of appeals and historic preservation committees. Some efforts have even begun to institutionalize planning studies at the elementary, middle and high school levels. Stamford, Connecticut, for example, is engaged in a program modeled after the recycling movement to encourage school children to bring home planning issues and initiate their family’s involvement in the development and growth of their communities.

Revitalizing the Northeast Corridor

Numerous areas around the globe have adopted the regional corridor concept of economic development. Major capital campaigns are in the process of feasibility analysis or implementation in such diverse locations as California’s San Francisco to San Diego corridor and China’s Beijing to Shanghai corridor. Representatives from several northeast states reported that they are working collaboratively to encourage the economic development of their corridor. Transportation, especially the utilization of rail, is an essential component of the strategy to move goods and people more efficiently throughout the Northeast. Of particular interest is linking the economies of mid-sized cities with the region’s megalopolis anchors-Washington, DC, New York and Boston. The intermediary cities include Providence, RI; Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport and Stamford, CT; Newark and Trenton, NJ; Philadelphia, PA; Baltimore, MD; and Wilmington, DE.

This planning group, led by the Regional Plan Association, will create a vision and mission statement for the project and then conduct an economic analysis to quantify the benefits. Once a plan is formulated, its cost will be calculated and a timeline will detail the phasing-in of each segment. The participants will then begin an outreach effort to gain backing from various state and local officials, as well as advocacy groups and community representatives. Amtrak, the main source of passenger rail in the corridor, plans to have its high-speed regional train service on-line in late 2000, and a number of partnerships could evolve from the already active advocacy efforts of several groups, such as the National Corridors Initiative/NCI, the I-95 Corridor Coalition, and the Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG). A diverse coalition of business, civic and nonprofit organizations may be instrumental in advancing a regional economic development instrument.

A Southeastern Massachusetts Case Study

The planning retreat culminated with an exercise that looked at the rural southeastern region of Massachusetts where the Commonwealth and the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) are planning to cultivate a bioreserve. Now in its initial stages, this program seeks to preserve vast tracts of valuable land, including forests and wetlands, and curb haphazard and uncoordinated development. The area of concern is the largest high-yield, sole-source aquifer in Massachusetts, with close to 70,000 acres of cranberry bogs, areas of endangered habitat, and a cluster of pine barrens. The Commonwealth is exploring various avenues to preserve these natural resources.

Through a statewide Community Preservation Initiative, the Commonwealth has begun to provide technical assistance to towns in the region by helping them forecast their commercial/industrial buildouts based on current zoning and population estimates. The EOEA hopes this information will help the communities make better decisions regarding future development and put this knowledge to use on a cooperative regional level to create beneficial growth plans for all nearby cities and towns.

The participants emphasized three considerations that specifically addressed the issues raised by the EOEA, and that are transferable to other regional planning initiatives. First, negotiated processes, whether between state government and a municipality, between municipalities, or between a community and a state agency, are effective in consensus building and cutting costs. Investing in consensus building at the beginning of the planning process can preclude litigation costs and the costs of stalled development due to community opposition. Second, technical assistance must be provided in a manner that keeps communities engaged throughout the entire analysis stage. Engagement increases support for the results and demystifies the “technical experience,” thus giving a sense of empowerment and control to those most affected by the final plan. Finally, local government involvement is key to any planning process, since local officials usually have their fingers on the pulse of community vitality and needs, and can use that knowledge to ensure effective programs.

Alternatively, participants mentioned a few pitfalls that need to be avoided in the context of this southeastern Massachusetts case. The original mapping of the bioreserve maximized the layout of open spaces and land in need of protection. However, in the desire to classify maximum acreage for protection, some new boundaries would have cut through municipalities, leaving the potential of an insider/outsider dichotomy. In areas where home rule is a coveted prize, as in Massachusetts towns, government programs are often met with suspicion and resistance. Further, if state government presents an agenda for preservation with lines drawn and boundaries sited without local input, communities will often react adversely to any plans, regardless of the goodwill and intent of the program. The ideal action to preclude these problems is to offer technical assistance to achieve through collaboration the preservation that the state ultimately wants. Preferably, the entire municipality should be represented in any regional framework for southeastern Massachusetts to facilitate inter- and intra-muncipal support for the desired program.

In conclusion, the discussions at the Second Annual NESP Retreat offered a great deal of insight into the experiences of the 11 states represented. Though they share a common geographic location, they have taken many approaches to address future growth and development. The retreat offered instructive lessons on the common theories, practices and principles that are useful in building a diverse array of programs appropriate to each state’s local conditions, and it underscored the value of continuing such meetings.

Robert D. Yaro is executive director and Raymond R. Janairo is senior research associate of the Regional Plan Association, based in New York City.

Cuba is a striking country. Its historic capital city of Havana boasts 400 years of architectural heritage. Many areas are in a state of sad decay but some represent very creative approaches to preservation and economic development. Because of the focus on rural development after the 1959 revolution, Cuba did not experience the same kind of popular migration from the countryside to the cities as did other parts of Latin America. What modern redevelopment did occur happened largely outside the historic core of Havana. The good news is that the city’s architectural heritage is still standing; the bad news is that it is just barely standing.

Architects and planners in Cuba are struggling with the basic tasks of improving infrastructure and housing while encouraging economic development appropriate to their socialist vision. They are developing models of neighborhood transformation through local organizing and self-help programs, and are creating models of “value capture” in the process of historic preservation and tourism development.

Through connections with the Group for the Integrated Development of the Capital (Grupo para el Desarrollo Integral de la Capital, GDIC), nine environmental design professionals traveled to Cuba in June to explore the issues of decay and innovation in the built and natural environment. The team included nine of the eleven 1997-98 Loeb Fellows from the Harvard University Graduate School of Design.

The Loeb Fellowship in Advanced Environmental Studies was established in 1970 through the generosity of Harvard alumnus John L. Loeb. The Fellowship annually awards ten to twelve leaders in the design and environmental professions with support for a year of independent study at Harvard University. A recent tradition of the Fellowship program is for the Fellows to take a trip together at the end of the academic year, to solidify their ties developed over the year, explore a new environment together, and share their knowledge and expertise with others.

The Loeb Fellows who traveled to Cuba have a variety of interests that together represent a cross-section of the environmental design professions:

• Charles Birnbaum, a landscape architect who advocates the preservation of significant landscapes.
• Toni Griffin, an architect concerned with economic and community development in urban neighborhoods.
• Pamela Hawkes, an architect specializing in historic preservation.
• Daniel Hernandez, an architect who creates affordable housing.
• Leonard McGee, a community leader who works to transform and improve inner-city communities.
• Julio Peterson, a community developer interested in economic development in inner cities and developing countries.
• Peter Pollock, a city planner who specializes in growth management issues.
• Anne Raver, a journalist interested in people’s relationship with the natural environment.
• Jean Rogers, an environmental engineer and planner who focuses on ameliorating the impacts of industrialization on the environment.

The Fellows were hosted in Havana by GDIC, which was created in 1987 as a small, interdisciplinary team of experts advising the city government on urban policies. “The group intended since its very beginning to promote a new model for the built environment that would be less imposing, more decentralized and participatory, ecologically sound and economically feasible-in short, holistically sustainable,” according to Mario Coyula, an architect, planner and vice-president of GDIC. He and his GDIC colleagues put together a series of informative seminars and tours for the Fellows in Havana, and made arrangements for them to visit planners and designers in the cities of Las Terrazas, Matanzas, and Trinidad.

Several foundations and groups lent support to the project: the Arca Foundation, the William Reynolds Foundation, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, the Loeb Fellowship Alumni Association, and the Harvard University Graduate School of Design Loeb Fellowship Program. Each Loeb Fellow will write an essay on a relevant area of research and its relationship to conditions in Cuba. These papers will be compiled and made available to GDIC, Harvard University and potentially to others through publication in a journal or special report.

Peter Pollock is director of community planning for the city of Boulder, Colorado. In 1997-98 he was a Loeb Fellow at Harvard and a visiting fellow at the Lincoln Institute.

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 6 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

Hoy en día la mayoría de los países de América Latina son más urbanos que rurales y están tratando de desarrollar sus economías como partes integrales del mercado global. Este proceso introduce profundos cambios culturales y espaciales tales como mayor segregación y conflictos sobre el uso del suelo urbano.

Es sabida la necesidad de fortalecer la conciencia ciudadana sobre la liberalización de los mercados y la pérdida de protagonismo del Estado en los esquemas de economía y planificación. Este cambio en el papel del Estado —de “proveedor” a “facilitador”— crea un vacío en las necesidades sociales urbanas. Los participantes sugirieron tres abordajes para poder mejorar la gestión del suelo urbano y la igualdad social de manera simultánea.

Primero que todo, utilizar herramientas básicas para establecer y apoyar los sistemas de información urbana: un mecanismo de monitoreo con capacidad para identificar datos de agentes y transacciones, incluidos los precios del suelo; conocimiento de los “ciclos de vida” de las zonas urbanas; y modelos de predicción que permitan establecer la relación entre las economías municipales y nacionales y el mercado de bienes raíces.

En segundo lugar, instituir políticas urbanas que equilibren los mecanismos de mercado existentes, que suelen ser contradictorios. Por ejemplo, es difícil liberalizar los mercados y al mismo tiempo imponer límites en la expansión urbana cuando se intenta ofrecer suministros de suelo adecuados para satisfacer las necesidades de la población pobre trabajadora.

Tercero, reconocer y dar apoyo a las acciones positivas de grupos comunitarios y organizaciones no gubernamentales que se propongan combatir los patrones de segregación de clases, como también a los intentos municipales de utilizar instrumentos como reservas territoriales, mecanismos de financiamiento progresivos y mejoras en los procedimientos administrativos y fiscales.

Uno de los mayores problemas de la planificación territorial en América Latina es encontrar el “borde” de la ciudad, especialmente cuando la tenencia y ocupación del suelo responden a la necesidad social, más que a la ley. Entre las formas de propiedad urbana que funcionan fuera de los reglamentos comerciales está la tierra mantenida bajo el sistema de ejido , que ocupa más del 50 por ciento del territorio mexicano y forma parte de las zonas metropolitanas más importantes. El ejido dificulta el crecimiento natural del mercado de bienes raíces y propicia la expansión de mercados secundarios (informales) descontrolados.

Estos y otros temas afines concentraron la discusión en una reunión que tuvo lugar en México en el mes de abril. En ella, peritos y personalidades académicas compartieron sus puntos de vista sobre los procesos que afectan el orden territorial urbano y los instrumentos disponibles y necesarios para poder lograr una intervención pública eficaz, conducente al logro de objetivos de igualdad social y planificación territorial. Si bien los participantes del seminario manifestaron sus inquietudes por el efecto a largo plazo de la globalización en América Latina, también reconocieron que el escenario de acción, al menos durante los años venideros, será a nivel municipal más que a nivel nacional.

Sobre los autores

Luis Fernando Alvarez es investigador principal del Centro de Estudios Metropolitanos, Centro Universitario de Arte, Arquitectura y Diseño de la Universidad de Guadalajara, México.

William J. Siembieda es profesor de planificación de la Escuela de Arquitectura y Planificación de la Universidad de Nuevo México. El seminario sobre temas de suelo urbano y reserva territorial fue copatrocinado por el Instituto Lincoln y por el Centro de Estudios Metropolitanos en la Universidad de Guadalajara.

In their new book, Land Use in America, copublished by the Lincoln Institute and Island Press, Henry L. Diamond and Patrick F. Noonan propose a 10-point agenda to help America’s communities accommodate future growth in more environmentally sound and fiscally responsible ways.

Diamond is a partner in the law firm of Beveridge & Diamond in Washington, D.C., and Noonan is founder and chairman of The Conservation Fund in Arlington, Virginia. Together they founded the Sustainable Use of Land Project, from which the book is derived. Their research examined land use practices and trends over the past two decades. They report that while substantial gains have been made in many environmental areas, such as air and water quality, land use remains a highly emotional and complex topic.

The first part of the book presents Diamond and Noonan’s synthesis of the issues, numerous case studies and their agenda for community action. The second part includes the following papers contributed by leading figures in government, business, academia and the nongovernmental arena:

“Growth Management Plans”

Howard Dean, Governor of Vermont

“Ecosystem Management: An Organizing Principle for Land Use” Douglas P. Wheeler, Secretary, California Resources Agency

“Transportation: A Key Element in Sustainable Communities” James Lighthizer, Former Secretary, Maryland Department of Transportation

“Across the Barricades” William K. Reilly, Former Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

“Metropolitan Development Trends of the Late 1990s: Social and Environmental Implications” Christopher B. Leinberger, Managing Partner, Robert Charles Lesser & Company

“Our Critical Forest Resources” John A. Georges, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, International Paper Company

“Land Use Planning: A Farmer’s Perspective” Kenneth Buelt, Past President, Washington County Farm Bureau

“Patience, Problem Solving and Private Initiative: Local Groups Chart a New Course for Land Conservation” Jean W. Hocker, President/Executive Director, Land Trust Alliance

“Sustainability and Social Justice: The Changing Face of Land Use and Environmentalism” Charles Jordan, Director, Bureau of Parks and Recreation, Portland, Oregon

“Science and the Sustainable Use of Land” Norman L. Christensen, Jr., Dean, School of the Environment, Duke University

“Private Property Rights, Government Regulation and the Constitution: Searching for Balance” Jerold S. Kayden, Professor, Graduate School of Design, Harvard University

“An Economic Perspective on the Sustainable Use of Land” John A. Baden, Chairman, Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment

Conference to Explore the Sustainable Use of Land

In conjunction with publication of this book, the Lincoln Institute is presenting a conference on June 12 in Washington, D.C. Participants will discuss varied perspectives on the important political and jurisdictional issues raised by the authors and contributors. Some of these questions may be addressed:

How might the 10 agenda recommendations be implemented in the current climate of popular reaction against federal and state government regulation of local policymaking?

What is the political feasibility of developing broad-based and long-term land use plans, especially in pro-property rights states in the South and West?

Given the likelihood of decreased federal financial support, how can states and localities be encouraged to take the initiative in future land use planning?

How can private landowners and corporate entities with large holdings be motivated to engage in regional conservation plans and provide environmentally sensitive stewardship in the face of economic pressures for development of their land?

A Land Use Agenda for 21st Century America

Item 1.

Local governments must take the lead role in securing good land use. Initiatives in land use planning and growth management need to be anchored in a community-based process that develops a vision for the future.

Item 2.

State governments must help local governments by establishing reasonable ground rules and planning requirements, assisting small and rural areas, and providing leadership on matters that affect more than one local jurisdiction.

Item 3.

The rules governing land development need to be overhauled. They need to be more efficient and more flexible, encouraging–not hindering–new approaches to land development and conservation.

Item 4.

Landowners must be treated fairly and oppressive regulations fixed. But making government pay in order to apply environmental safeguards for the common good is a bad idea.

Item 5.

Many government policies and actions–agricultural, highway, and environmental programs–impact land use. If they are not better coordinated, they will continue to result in land use policy by accident.

Item 6.

In selective situations, public land acquisition is needed, and a reliable source of funds must be available to pay for it.

Item 7.

Older areas in cities and suburbs must become a focus for renewal. Government policies should help fill in vacant land in already built-up areas and renew older properties rather than promote unplanned expansion at the urban fringe.

Item 8. As most land is privately held, private landowners must be galvanized to assure a healthy land base. Corporate and individual stewardship must be encouraged by providing education, tax incentives and other benefits.

Item 9. A constituency for better land use is needed based on new partnerships that reach beyond traditional alliances to bring together conservationists, social justice advocates and economic development interests. These partnerships can be mobilized around natural and cultural resources that people value.

Item 10. New tools are required to meet the new challenges of land use. Land use disputes should be solved through negotiation or mediation rather than through confrontation and litigation. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and other advances in technology also offer new opportunities for improving land use decision making.

As we complete one academic year and plan for the next, I am impressed by the richness and multidimensional nature of the Lincoln Institute’s educational programs. We have developed a strong curriculum in two departments and in our Program on Latin America and the Caribbean. Most of our planning efforts for 2003-2004 are focused on consolidating and improving what we have established, but I thought it might be instructive to discuss some new initiatives that illustrate our forward thinking. The program is described fully in the Institute’s catalog, which will be available by late summer (see page 4).

There are a couple of new efforts in the Department of Planning and Development that I find especially exciting. The first involves documenting the relationship between land price changes and problems associated with providing affordable housing, and then using that research in a variety of educational programs to explore the effectiveness of policies to improve housing affordability. The second effort seeks to develop links among several one-day courses so they can be consolidated into longer, richer experiences for both faculty and participants.

We have offered a basic curriculum in the Department of Valuation and Taxation for several years, and we are continuing to enhance the program by developing additional second-level courses to supplement the introductory offerings. One such course will help participants develop the statistical and economic skills necessary for using mass appraisal techniques to measure land value, as part of our two-rate tax program.

The faculty, participants and Lincoln staff have been so enthusiastic about the week-long seminars offered at Lincoln House for our Latin American colleagues that for next year we are scheduling some refresher courses in Latin America for former participants, as well as some short introductory sessions for those who would like some orientation before attending the full-length courses in Cambridge.

Finally, everyone on our staff is trying to find ways to use the new technology to improve our effectiveness in getting information to those who need it. Over the past year our website has been redesigned and enhanced to provide easy access to information about courses, publications and other educational products, as well as online ordering options. In addition we now have more than 330 working papers and more than 350 Land Lines articles in English and Spanish that can be downloaded quickly from our website. Our Planning Fundamentals course for local planning and zoning board members is available on the web, and companion versions have been modified to fit the special circumstances of Vermont and Montana. We are also investigating other ways to use technology to help participants prepare for our face-to-face courses, to interact after attending courses, and to provide course materials for those who are unable to attend the course sessions.

I am proud of the many ways the Institute is providing assistance to practitioners, professionals and others involved in land and tax policy so they can do their jobs better. If you have ideas about other things we can and should be doing, please let us know.

We announced in the last issue of Land Lines that I will be stepping down next year as president of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Rather than use this column to talk about the many innovative programs we have undertaken in the past, I want to offer my view of the factors that will guide the work of the Institute in the future.

Most important, the staff and board are committed to continuing the Institute’s educational focus. We hope that this work will improve the quality of information available to decision makers in the areas of land policy and land-related tax policy, and will enhance public discussion and debate by disseminating ideas, information, analysis and experience to institutions and individuals engaged in these topical areas. Our focus on land and tax policy stems from our commitment to introduce the thinking and ideas of Henry George, especially as developed in his book Progress and Poverty, into contemporary policy making in the United States and through our international programs.

To help guide particular projects at the Institute, the staff has developed and the board has approved eight objectives.

1. To build capacity for better decision making by offering educational programs that provide information, ideas and analytical tools to public officials, professionals and citizens.
2. To identify, support and disseminate research that will lead to better understanding, decisions and actions.
3. To develop and demonstrate more effective, fair and efficient programs and policies for accomplishing public goals.
4. To advance the understanding and application of new methods, tools and techniques for achieving policy goals.
5. To foster and participate in communications and interactions with scholars, practitioners, public officials, policy advisers and civic leaders.
6. To encourage and support scholars who will pursue academic disciplines related to land policy and land-related tax policy.
7. To develop training materials and other educational resources that can be used in our programs and those of other organizations.
8. To identify relevant audiences in our topical areas and disseminate our work to them through the most effective means available, including courses, seminars, conferences, printed publications, Web-based materials, electronic media, audio and video resources, and other methods of communication.

   Each program and activity of the Institute is designed to serve one or more of these objectives. I believe that the conformation of our educational focus with these specific program objectives will provide valuable guidance to the Institute’s leadership to improve ongoing programs and develop new ones in the future.

The Pawcatuck Borderlands illustrates what is fast becoming one of the major puzzles in land use policy—how to plan across boundaries. Countless examples across the country (and arguably the world) demonstrate two fundamental points (Foster 2001; Porter and Wallis 2002; McKinney et al. 2002). First, the territory of many land use problems transcends the legal and geographic reach of existing jurisdictions and institutions (public, private, and other). In the Borderlands area, the spatial dimension of the problems created by increasing population growth and demand for municipal services cuts across multiple jurisdictions.

This mismatch between the geography of the problem and the geography of existing institutions leads to the second point: the people affected by such problems have interdependent interests, which means that none of them have sufficient power or authority to adequately address the problems on their own, yet self-interest often impedes cooperation.

These observations are not new. The history of regionalism in America dates back to at least the mid-nineteenth century and the writing of John Wesley Powell (McKinney et al. 2004). As we move into the twenty-first century, there seem to be two basic responses to this planning puzzle. The first is to create new regional institutions or realign existing institutions to correspond to the territory of the problem, and the second is to start with more informal, ad hoc regional forums.

Some of the more notable examples of regional land use institutions include the Lake Tahoe Regional Planning Authority (1969), Adirondack Park Agency (1971), New Jersey Pinelands Commission (1979), and the Cape Cod Commission (1990). The impetus to establish such entities requires a significant amount of political commitment upfront, or sometimes legal pressure from influential court cases. Once the regional organizations are established, they tend to require a great deal of effort to sustain. This largely explains why there have been so few proposals to create such institutions in the past few decades (see Jensen 1965; Derthick 1974; Robbins et al. 1983; and Calthorpe and Fulton 2001).

Rather than create new institutions, leaders in more than 450 regions across the country have realigned existing institutions to form regional councils, which generally do not have the authority to make and impose decisions per se, but are designed to foster regional cooperation and the delivery of services. In New England, these organizations have evolved to fill the vacuum left by weak county government, and their boundaries often follow county boundaries, which may or may not correspond to the territory of the problem.

The second response, which is more common these days, is to bring together the “right” people with the best available information in tailor-made, ad hoc forums. This approach, which might be termed “regional network governance,” is more bottom-up than top-down, and depends largely on the ability of the participants to build and sustain informal networks to get things done. In some cases these ad hoc forums lay the groundwork to create more formal regional institutions in the future.

Obstacles to Regional Networks

Of course, building and sustaining regional networks is easier said than done. Our research and experience suggest there are four primary obstacles to planning across boundaries. First, the very nature of thinking and acting like a region raises questions about the participants and scope of the problem: Who should take the lead in organizing and convening regional conversations, and who else should be involved? What issues should be on the agenda? How should the region be defined? How can multiple parties—public, private, and nonprofit—share the responsibilities and costs to achieve identified goals? Even where regional planning councils exist, the rules governing or guiding such efforts are not clear.

Second, the value of working together is not always apparent or shared. As with other forms of multiparty negotiation, it is difficult to mobilize and engage people unless and until they believe that they are more likely to achieve their objectives through regional collaboration than by acting independently. Public officials may be reluctant to engage for fear that such efforts will undermine their authority, and business leaders and real estate developers may view collaboration as something not worth their time. Local citizens often cringe at the idea of regional planning, thinking that someone who does not live in the local area will be making decisions about their land. Other stakeholders may simply have different priorities or a better alternative to satisfy their interests.

Third, many people are unfamiliar with the process of regional collaboration, and that uncertainty makes them feel uncomfortable and reluctant. In addition, people may lack the skills to organize and represent their constituency, deal with scientifically complex issues, and negotiate effectively in a multiparty setting. Others may be uneasy with the organic nature of ad hoc regional forums, and how they should be linked to formal decision-making processes.

Even if participants can overcome these obstacles, their effectiveness at regional collaboration is often limited by a fourth factor: lack of resources. In an assessment of about 75 established regional initiatives in the West, nearly all participants said that “limited resources” was the primary obstacle to more effective collaboration (McKinney 2002). Among the resources cited were time, money, information, and knowledge. People trying to initiate and support regional land use projects in three recent projects (in the San Luis Valley in south-central Colorado, the Flathead Valley in northwestern Montana, and the Upper Delaware River Basin) reported struggling due to a lack of financial resources and staffing capabilities.

In sum, the challenge of addressing multijurisdictional land use issues is not primarily a scientific or technical challenge, nor is it simply about managing land use more effectively and efficiently. At its core, regional land use is a sociopolitical challenge. It is a question of whether we can integrate the needs, interests, and visions of multiple jurisdictions, sectors, and interests. It is also a question of how society addresses shared and competing interests—in this case, land use.

An Emerging Framework

During the past few years, the Lincoln Institute has taken a leadership role in studying and evaluating regional collaboration on land use issues through policy and research reports, educational programs, and regional land use clinics. This collective body of work suggests at least three overarching lessons.

First, regional initiatives vary greatly in terms of who leads the project, as well as its scale, purpose, issues, activities, and structure, including funding and time frame. While some initiatives augment existing government institutions, others are more ad hoc in nature, filling gaps in governance at different levels. Whether formal or ad hoc, regional initiatives create public opportunities that would not otherwise exist to address land use issues that cut across multiple jurisdictions.

Second, regional collaboration includes both a procedural element (how to plan across boundaries) and a substantive element (policies, programs, activities, and other outcomes to address a particular regional land use issue). The Lincoln Institute’s work on the procedural aspects of regional collaboration complements and builds on its land use dispute resolution program, although it is different in two fundamental ways: regional collaboration deals primarily with multiple jurisdictions, which raises the key question of convening diverse stakeholders; and it has more to do with designing new systems of governance (both formal and informal) than with resolving disputes per se.

Third, there is no single model for planning across boundaries, but rather a set of principles to guide regional collaboration (see Figure 1). This “theory of change” posits that the implementation of something like this set of principles leads to better informed, more widely supported, and more effective solutions to multijurisdictional land use issues (see www.umtpri.org).

Guiding Principles for Regional Collaboration

• Focus on a compelling purpose
• Mobilize and engage the “right” people
• Define regional boundaries based on people’s interests
• Jointly name and frame issues
• Deliberate and make collaborative decisions
• Take strategic action
• Be flexible and adaptive to sustain regional collaboration

Some Outstanding Questions

Who should take the lead in organizing and convening regional conversations?

In many professional circles there is an ongoing debate about the role and ability of government to convene effective collaborative processes. Many people argue that government cannot successfully organize and convene such efforts given its built-in institutional resistance and lack of responsiveness. Citizens, by contrast, often can provide more effective forums through organic, grassroots initiatives. Throughout the West, there is a growing movement where citizens, frustrated by government’s lack of responsiveness, are convening place-based groups to address a variety of land use issues—ranging from growth management to endangered species to water allocation (Kemmis 2001). In the Northeast, citizens in adjacent towns and states are recognizing their shared resources, values, threats, and opportunities. They are committing to joint planning projects, regional economic development campaigns, and applications for official designation for their regions.

Recent studies indicate, however, that participation by one or more levels of government is essential to the effectiveness of the more ad hoc, citizen-driven processes (Kenney 2000; Susskind et al. 1999; Susskind et al. 2000). Governments not only provide financial and technical assistance, but also become critically important if the intent of a regional initiative is to shape or influence land use policy. Official government institutions, after all, constitute the formal public decision-making processes in our society.

Neither top-down nor bottom-up approaches are inherently superior, and in the final analysis the two ends of the spectrum need to come together to facilitate positive change. Whether a regional initiative is catalyzed and convened by citizens, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, or public officials, it is most effective when the people initiating the process exercise collaborative leadership. Such leaders facilitate development of a shared vision by crossing jurisdictional and cultural boundaries; forging coalitions among people with diverse interests and viewpoints; mobilizing the people, ideas, and resources needed to move in the desired direction; and sustaining networks of relationships. In this respect, regional collaboration is more like organizing a political campaign than preparing a regional plan.

Three vignettes—the first two based on regional clinics sponsored by the Lincoln Institute—illustrate the need to have the right convener and to employ the characteristics of collaborative leadership. In the Upper Delaware River Basin, two government agencies initiated a regional conversation, but they framed the problems and solutions prior to consulting with other stakeholders or citizens. Not surprisingly, many people who were not part of the initial process criticized both the definition of the region and the scope of the project.

In the San Luis Valley in Colorado, citizens and interest groups tried to organize a regional land use planning effort, but the local elected officials dragged their feet and characterized the participants as “rabble rousers.” This experience shows what can happen when citizens get ahead of decision makers, that is, when civic will outpaces political and institutional will.

On a more encouraging note, leaders from the public, private, and nonprofit sectors, as well as academics, the media, and others, have jointly convened Billings on the Move—a conversation on what is needed to promote and sustain the economic vitality of the region in and around Billings, Montana. One of the primary reasons for this project’s success is that all of the key stakeholders bought into the project from the beginning, and they jointly identified problems and framed solutions.

Is it possible to mobilize and engage people “upstream” in a proactive, preventive way, rather than “downstream” after a crisis, threat, or regional land use dispute has emerged?

In the San Luis Valley, citizens and leaders from all walks of life came together some years ago to fight and defeat a proposal to export precious groundwater out of the valley. This effort clearly demonstrated sufficient civic will and political capacity to organize regionally in response to a real external threat. However, the same people are now struggling to organize around land use issues when there is no immediate crisis. Some observers believe that if they do not act soon, however, the valley will eventually become another expensive tourist destination like Aspen, Sun Valley, or Jackson Hole.

In response to this concern, we are working with the Orton Foundation to determine if the use of technology—in particular the visualization and scenario-building software known as Community Viz—may provide the necessary leverage to mobilize and engage people, to help them see what is at stake, and to evaluate how regional collaboration can help to address issues of common interest. The challenge here is not only to focus on a tangible problem, but also to build the social and political capacity of the region to think and act more proactively.

How do we measure the success of regional collaboration?

The question of what criteria or metrics should be used to evaluate efforts to plan across boundaries takes us back to the distinction between the procedural and substantive aspects of regional collaboration. If one agrees with this distinction, then any framework to evaluate success should include metrics that focus on both process and outcomes.

A recent study evaluated the success of 50 community-based collaborative initiatives in the Rocky Mountain West that were regional in nature, encompassing two or more jurisdictions (McKinney and Field 2005). Twenty-seven indicators measured participants’ satisfaction with the substantive outcome of the effort, its effect on working relationships, and the quality of the process itself. The evaluation framework also allowed participants to reflect on the value of community-based collaboration relative to other alternatives.

The people who responded to the survey were generally satisfied with the use of community-based collaboration to address issues related to federal lands and resources. Seventy percent of the respondents said that all 27 indicators were important contributors to their satisfaction with both the process and its outcomes. Eighty-six percent of participants stated they would recommend a community or regional process to address a similar issue in the future.

Participants tended to rank “working relationships” and “quality of the process” as more important than “outcomes,” suggesting that people are at least as interested in opportunities for meaningful civic engagement and deliberative dialogue as in achieving a preconceived outcome. These results also support the value of community-based or regional collaboration—particularly when compared to other forums to shape land use policy and resolve land use disputes. Future evaluation research is necessary to affirm or refine these findings, and to clarify the impact of regional collaboration on various social, economic, and environmental objectives.

Conclusion

Planning across boundaries—or regional collaboration—is slowly emerging as an essential component of land policy and planning in the twenty-first century. For example, the 2005 White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation—only the fourth White House conference ever held on conservation—convened several sessions on reaching across boundaries to promote shared governance. Whether the issues to be addressed in such forums focus on rapid growth and its consequences or the need to retain and expand the local economic base, these problems are often best addressed by planning across the boundaries created by government jurisdictions, economic sectors, and academic disciplines. Indeed, in many cases, this is the only way these problems will be resolved effectively.

The Pawcatuck Borderlands

The Pawcatuck Borderlands on the Connecticut and Rhode Island state line is part of a largely undeveloped region within the megalopolis that stretches from Boston to Washington, DC. This landscape is one of the largest intact, forested areas in southern New England, and its abundant wildlife ranges from bears to songbirds. The remarkable diversity of the Borderlands includes hardwood forests, pitch-pine woodlands, wetlands, lakes, and rivers, as well as numerous small, rural communities where people have lived and worked for centuries.

Nearly 40 percent of the Borderlands is protected by the Pachaug State Forest and the Arcadia Management Area, and the relatively undisturbed natural character of the region creates a high quality of life for its residents. However, this open space in the heart of the northeastern megalopolis is also popular with visitors for its recreational opportunities and world-class tourist attractions. Located between Providence and Hartford, the Borderlands faces increasing demands for housing, roads, and shopping centers. Unlike many other rural areas, the opportunities for employment and investment are good, making this a financially attractive location for families and businesses.

Between 1960 and 2000, the population of Borderlands towns grew by more than 95 percent. Traffic is escalating on local roads and highways, and finite water resources are being overused, impacting both the quality and quantity of water in local watersheds. This increasing activity is eroding the existing infrastructure and requiring local residents to pay for additional roads, schools, and other essential services. All of these trends threaten longstanding social, historic, and environmental values.

Choices about the rate and pattern of future land conservation and development in the Borderlands must be addressed by decision makers in two states and ten towns. As in much of New England, each town retains land use authority and is governed through town meetings and the decisions of numerous local commissions and boards. Each of these jurisdictions has historically tackled land use issues independently, but the nature of existing trends and emerging challenges calls out for a different approach.

About the Authors

Matthew McKinney is director of the Public Policy Research Institute at the University of Montana, Helena. He was founding director of the Montana Consensus Council and has taught many courses for the Lincoln Institute on both regional collaboration and land use dispute resolution.

Kevin Essington is director of the Pawcatuck Borderlands Program for the The Nature Conservancy in Connecticut and Rhode Island. He works on land acquisition, land and watershed restoration, planning, and consensus building.

References

Calthorpe, Peter, and William Fulton. 2001. The regional city: Planning for the end of sprawl. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Derthick, Martha.1974. Between state and nation: Regional organizations of the United States. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Foster, Kathryn A. 2001. Regionalism on purpose. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Jensen, Merrill. 1965. Regionalism in America. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Kemmis, Daniel. 2001. This sovereign land: A new vision for governing the West. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Kenney, Doug. 2000. The new watershed sourcebook. Boulder: The University of Colorado Natural Resources Law Center.

McKinney, Matthew, et al. 2002. Regionalism in the west: An inventory and assessment. Public Land and Resources Law Review: 101–191www.ars.org.