More than two decades have passed since a government-led megaproject set out to transform Puerto Madero, the oldest sector of the port district at the mouth of the River Plate in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Once a center of decay that was hastening decline in the adjacent downtown, Puerto Madero is now a tourist icon and hub of progress, drawing in residents and visitors alike to its park and cultural amenities, housing approximately 5,000 new inhabitants, and generating 45,000 service jobs. Home to a number of new architectural landmarks—including Santiago Calatrava’s Woman’s Bridge (Puente de la Mujer) and César Pelli’s YPF headquarters—the redeveloped port has contributed to the reactivation of the city center, influencing development trends throughout the Argentinean capital.

Encompassing 170 hectares near the downtown presidential palace (Casa Rosada), Puerto Madero was one of Latin America’s first urban brownfield renewal projects of this scale and complexity. The project was conceived as part of a wider strategy for city-center development that also included changes in land use regulations, building refurbishments, and social housing in heritage areas. This article draws on two decades’ worth of evidence and experience with the project to examine the extent to which Puerto Madero has achieved its central objectives: to contribute to the reversal of undesirable development patterns in the city, assert the downtown as the eminent center of Buenos Aires, stimulate the local economy, and improve the living conditions of all porteños.

The Port in Crisis

Puerto Madero was abandoned as a port at the beginning of the 20th century, when operations transferred to Puerto Nuevo. By the late 1980s, Puerto Madero had suffered several decades of neglect and underutilization. The federal General Administration of Ports owned the land, but the city and national governments both had jurisdiction over planning. Similarly, greater Buenos Aires—home to 35 percent of Argentina’s population and producer of 46 percent of its GDP—is governed by an overlapping set of institutions that often have trouble coordinating. To simplify this inter-jurisdictional governance, a public limited corporation, with shares divided equally between the national and city governments, was formed to manage the project. In 1989, the federal government transferred ownership of this sector of the port to the new corporation, CAPM (Corporación Antiguo Puerto Madero).

After receiving the federal land transfer, the role of CAPM was to develop the site plan, define a self-funded financial model, undertake the site improvements associated with the project, commercialize the land, and supervise the development process in accordance with the established time frames and guidelines of the master plan. Unlike similar ventures elsewhere in the world, which generally rely on substantial public financing or access to credit, CAPM by decree would receive no public resources besides the land transfer and would generate its own revenue to cover operating costs. The port redevelopment could not have happened otherwise, as the federal government was focused on fiscal recovery and job creation amidst a nationwide economic crisis.

Context and Chronology of the Megaproject

As in most Latin American cities, the displacement of activities from Buenos Aires’s traditional downtown had curtailed use of the public transit system and led to the slow decline of historical buildings, many of which had lapsed into substandard housing. The proposed redevelopment of Puerto Madero was part of the city’s broader strategy to protect heritage, promote downtown development, stimulate the local economy, and contribute to the reversal of these undesirable settlement patterns.

Development took place in four stages. During the first phase (1989–1992), CAPM sold the old docklands on the western end of the port, initiating the redevelopment process and covering initial project costs. In 1991, the city and Society of Architects signed an agreement to facilitate the Puerto Madero National Ideas Competition. In 1992, the three winning teams collaborated to create the Draft Urban Project for Puerto Madero. The redevelopment required a new subdivision geometry that would allow for construction without requiring the demolition of valuable landmark structures. Many of the historical port buildings, such as the warehouses, would be restored with new functions, thereby combining valuable historic patrimony with new development.

During the second phase (1993–1995), the winners of the Ideas Competition were awarded the master plan contract. The original proposal called for the development of 1.5 million square meters of floor area concentrated in a central location to help revive the downtown. With a 20-year horizon, the plan comprised commercial activities, cultural and recreational facilities, cafes, restaurants, amenities, professional studios, and medium-sized commercial activities (e.g. printing, packaging, and storage companies), which the 16 renovated former port warehouses could adequately accommodate. Provisions for green space, to compensate for an observed deficit in the extended city center, included a metropolitan central park, ecological reserve, and rehabilitated southern esplanade. Given the original assumption that office buildings would predominate, the number of anticipated dwelling units was to be fewer than 3,000. (Residential use experienced higher demand, however, leading to approximately 11,000 dwellings units today.)

During the third phase (1996–2000), most of the public works were built, and project expenditures peaked along with land sales. Throughout this phase, the cost per square meter of construction did not vary significantly, oscillating from around $150 to $300 per square meter up to the end of the decade. (Note: All prices are in U.S. dollars.) By this third phase, the investor profile had evolved from an initial pioneer group of small and medium firms that faced high levels of risk (1989–1993) to large firms that invested in proven products. By 2001, there was little public land left to sell, and the public corporation had enough liquid assets to complete the public works required by the project.

The fourth phase of development includes two segments, from 2001 to 2003 and from 2004 to today. Initially, the project suffered from the economic, financial, and political turmoil associated with the 2001 fiscal crisis propelled by the government’s default on its external debt payments. Throughout that period, CAPM faced high levels of governmental uncertainty, and land sales stalled. After the 2003 presidential elections, however, the country resumed international negotiations, restructured its external debt, and significantly improved economic conditions. Simultaneously, CAPM was able to resolve litigation on some parcels, which it then proceeded to sell, using the revenues to complete the public works on site.

As the land in Puerto Madero became scarce, developers looked to the surrounding downtown areas as alternative investment locations. The scale and complexity of the port redevelopment attracted investors with closer links to national and international financial markets. Many developers chose to invest downtown instead of in the suburbs. Thus the project succeeded in redirecting market trends to align with urban policy priorities—a shift that would not have happened without state intervention.

Project Achievements

Now the project is almost complete, with approximately 1.5 million square meters of floor area as planned. From start to finish, project funds were derived entirely from land sales and concessions.

By 2011, CAPM had sold approximately $257.7 million worth of property and invested $113 million in public works, with an overhead of about $92 million, including management fees and other operating expenses. Land prices escalated from $150 in the early 1990s to $1,200 per square meter today, and the project has attracted considerable private investment in addition to the state’s land transfer.

The project added four major bodies of water totaling 39 hectares and 28 hectares of green space to the city’s parks system. It also facilitated the opening of the ecological reserve and enabled renewed access to the southern esplanade, the Costanera Sur, designed at the beginning of the 20th century by Jean-Claude Nicolas Forestier, who designed Paseo de Prado in Havana, Cuba. The adjacent downtown again serves as the undisputed reference point for public office and high-level administrative, financial, and commercial activity.

Puerto Madero spurred local economic growth, which has ultimately translated into higher tax revenues. As a state initiative, it triggered more than $2.5 billion of private investment, with a present value exceeding $6 billion. Although a full accounting is not available, revenues from corporate income taxes are estimated at $158 million, and taxes paid by the public corporation are $19.86 million. The new property owners pay approximately $12.4 million per year in property taxes to the city government. Once construction is complete, property tax revenues are expected to reach $24.3 million per year.

The project also stimulated job market growth. To date, private construction in Puerto Madero involved about $450 million in labor costs—the equivalent of 900,000 months of work or 3,750 jobs per year distributed over 20 years. The project investments in public works created 313 jobs per year for 20 years plus 26,777 administrative jobs as of 2006 and 45,281 services jobs by 2010. These figures demonstrate the vital role the project has played in stimulating the local economy.

Diminished Returns

Despite the overall success of Puerto Madero, its social outcomes are considered unsatisfactory by many observers. Largely to blame was the fast sale of big land parcels during the most dynamic sales period, from 1996 to 1999. Some of these parcels were the size of an entire city block and are now occupied by towers that function in some ways like vertical gated communities. Furthermore, large, fully equipped firms were needed to perform the tremendous volume of construction, which excluded smaller and medium-sized companies. Thus, the morphology of large land parcels essentially defined the types of businesses and products being offered as well as the social profile of prospective buyers.

Moreover, the marketing strategy of private developers colored the general project discourse, diluting socially inclusive public policy objectives in favor of creating an exclusive neighborhood. Wealthy citizens and high-end entrepreneurs covet Puerto Madero’s residential and commercial spaces. CAPM has difficulty protecting the public character of even the district’s new open spaces, such as the ecological reserve, as affluent port district residents strongly discourage entertainment and sport activities that would appeal to all porteños citywide. In this regard, CAPM limited itself to articulating the interests of private entrepreneurs and current residents and ignored policies designed to benefit many inhabitants of the city. Affordable housing and other elements that would have ensured diversity in the residential demographics were not part of CAPM’s mandate. Several social programs with this objective were planned as part of the broader downtown strategy, but they did not materialize, isolating Puerto Madero as an elite development area.

The project scale of Puerto Madero, which would have been risky and unmanageable for private investors at the time, proves that the public sector can assume a leading role in developing the city. It also demonstrates, however, that socially progressive standards are difficult to maintain once a project becomes prestigious and rising land values increase the pressure from private developers. Puerto Madero’s ability to self-finance was a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it enabled a state-led development process without incurring government costs. Because the public corporation could defer the payment of dividends to shareholders, it was able to capitalize on the proceeds of land sales and reinvest in site works and public amenities. The open and accessible neighborhood, dotted with public infrastructure and open space, largely protected the public interest. Furthermore, the project stimulated economic activity and contributed to a more efficient overall development pattern citywide, fulfilling two important public policy objectives.

Outcomes would have improved if financial support from multilateral agency loans had been available, to better pace the rhythm of sales and enable long-term decisions that would enhance the public benefit of the project. Flexible bidding requirements on large plots in the second half of the 1990s increased sales but ensured that the majority of the incremental land value from the last increase in real estate prices accrued to the large investors who commited early.

In 2011, CAPM transferred the maintenance of all developed areas to the city and determined to complete the remaining public works by 2013. Today, CAPM’s income and expenditure are balanced; income is limited to rents from the piers and the parking lots. Corporate assets include several properties (offices, lots) whose proceeds constitute the company profit and whose market value is estimated at $50 million. These profits could seed new capital ventures or be transferred to shareholders when they decide to dissolve CAPM. The soundness of CAPM’s financial statements is verified, though the criticism it inspired during the development of Puerto Madero may cost it access to new ventures from the government.

The initial public investment in Puerto Madero was $120 million, including the land (originally assessed at $60 million) and a set of intangible services such as project design, expertise, and consulting. Total land sales amounted to $257.7 million with a general cost (administration, taxes) of around $92 million (excluding start-up costs, which did not involve monetary transactions), which leaves a modest rate of return. Although prices should have been promotional during the initial stage of development, sale values could have increased over time, if sales had been timed to take advantage of increased market prices. Higher rates of return would have required higher average sales value, better paced land sales, and more modest public works commitments, such as infrastructure, public space, and parks. CAPM could have saved considerably if construction of bridges and walkways had not extended beyond the project perimeter, under municipal jurisdiction.

The results of the project would have differed greatly had the land been sold unimproved or had it landed in the hands of private developers. In this regard, it is important to note that at the time of project inception the risk was generally considered high, and the scale of investment surpassed the capacity of local private investors. Similarly, international investors would have been unwilling to take on such a high level of risk without major concessions on the part of the government. Furthermore, private developers were interested in promoting large projects with access restricted almost exclusively to owners. A number of final project attributes, such as the public space contributions and holistic character of the development, were guaranteed by the control exercised by the government via the public corporation to ensure benefits for the community.

Conclusion

The original objectives of the project—to stimulate economic activity, affirm the role of the city center, contribute to the reversal of undesirable development patterns, and improve living conditions—have arguably been met. Puerto Madero created jobs, stimulated the local economy, and brought higher levels of investment and complexity downtown, contributing to its supremacy and leading to improvements in the surrounding area. It created high-quality open space, enhanced the metropolitan park system, and improved the overall development pattern in Buenos Aires.

However, the relaxation of quality controls, wide scope of the projects, and rapid pace of land sales at certain times reduced potential project revenues accruing to the public sector and reduced the initiative’s redistributive capacity. Access to credit would have strengthened CAPM’s position and allowed the careful staging of land sales and site improvements. It is encouraging that residential occupancy has greatly exceeded original projections, consolidating a trend to repopulate the city center, though the project should have included a percentage of affordable housing.

These results reveal the complexity of undertaking multiple initiatives to achieve a balanced social outcome. Puerto Madero fell short of incorporating a greater social mix, because other strategies for the downtown, including the rehabilitation of heritage buildings, were unrealized. Future urban project management initiatives should contemplate factors that would ensure the continuity of policies. Within this framework, it is important to encourage participation among the beneficiaries of specific interventions, such as affordable housing, as their involvement and commitment is the strongest guarantor of policy continuity.

Finally, Puerto Madero indicates the state’s capacity to proactively lead the urban development process. In this case, the state stepped out of a regulatory role and took charge of a significant redevelopment initiative. CAPM demonstrated a capacity to sustain a complex urban regeneration project over a long period of time and stay afloat through a turbulent political climate and severe economic crisis. The creation of the public corporation represents a creative innovation in urban management, as it offers an example of how to achieve project self-financing and interjurisdictional cooperation in urban governance. In this regard, the Puerto Madero experience serves as a convincing model for interjurisdictional urban management and reaffirms the positive role that the state can play in city planning initiatives.

About the Authors

Alfredo Garay was secretary of planning in Buenos Aires when the Puerto Madero megaproject began, and he still serves on the board of CAPM. An architect and chair professor at the University of Buenos Aires, he has received numerous national and international awards for urban management and the assembly of large interventions.

Laura Wainer is an architect and urban planner in Buenos Aires. In 2012, she received a Fulbright Scholarship, the Delta Kappa Gamma International Fellowship, and the President’s Scholarship from the New School in New York. Contact: wainer.laura@gmail.com

Hayley Henderson has worked as an urban planner in Buenos Aires and Brisbane, Australia. She is now a PhD candidate in urban planning at The University of Melbourne, Australia. Contact: hayleyhen@gmail.com

Demian Rotbart is an architect, urban planner, and assistant professor of urban planning at the University of Buenos Aires. Contact: demian.rotbart@gmail.com

When I was a scholar at Cambridge University in the 1990s, my now-departed colleague and friend Wynne Godley would drop by on Sundays to take me to visit one of the ubiquitous medieval churches in the villages of East Anglia. Wynne frequently noted that “a church is more a process than a building. It unfolds over centuries and involves generations of families in its construction and maintenance.” He had a keen eye for architectural detail and would point out a buttress or belfry that illustrated distinct technical practices, unusual materials, or both. A single church offered a living, layered record of how successive generations of a community solved the challenge of making and keeping large, enclosed, open spaces for worship feasible and beautiful.

In this way, cities are much like medieval churches. Over time, they illustrate the collaboration of generations of residents, as well as the evolution of economic, technical, and even social tools used to build and maintain them. Rome’s marble relics stand testament to ancient values, aesthetics, and building ingenuity, while a modern city thrives around them. Manhattan’s iconic skyline, seemingly fixed, is ever in flux, and is now evolving dramatically to respond to 21st-century demands for sustainability, resilience, mixed-use development, and other concerns.

The boundaries of cities evolve, too, and tell another critically important story. The future of the planet may depend on our capacity to understand that story and to develop the tools and collective will to manage the pattern and progression of urban growth. Shlomo (Solly) Angel documents this trajectory in the Atlas of Urban Expansion (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2012), which uses satellite images collected over decades to track the spatial evolution of 120 cities around the world, from Bamako and Guadalajara to Shanghai and Milan. The last half-century of urban growth has provided a cautionary tale about the seduction of sprawl—a path of least resistance that generates quick profits but unsustainable development. Our ability to manage our ecological footprint and minimize our global impact will be tied inextricably to our ability to plan and construct more dense and efficient human settlements. Given the United Nations’ prediction that the global urban population will nearly double to 6 billion by 2050, the fortunes of the planet will depend on whether we, as a species, adopt a more appropriate development paradigm over this half-century.

As we endeavor to reinvent our urban settlements, we will confront an old foe—land that is already improved and developed, but needs to be adapted to new uses. While we are not unfamiliar with this highly contentious process, it is safe to say that we have not yet cracked the code on how to manage it. This issue of Land Lines considers some of the driving needs that will require creative approaches to redevelopment in different cities and contexts: satisfying the unmet demand for housing that leads millions of workers in Beijing to subterranean habitationfinancing infrastructure to manage population pressure in Rio and other Brazilian citiesrepurposing land in the throes of a complete industrial, demographic, and fiscal overhaul in Detroit. These places are quite distinct, but all will face similar challenges as they evolve in the coming decades.

At the Lincoln Institute, we are keenly aware of the need for new ideas and new practices to facilitate sustainable redevelopment of land that is already developed or occupied. Over the next year, we will begin to build an intellectual enterprise around addressing the manifold challenges of urban regeneration—extracting the lessons learned from earlier efforts in the United States and other developed countries since World War II, finding new and creative ways to finance infrastructure that improves the land under the informal settlements that choke cities in developing countries, or rekindling the fiscal health of legacy cities like Detroit by unpacking the causes of insolvency and testing remedies for it.

The medieval churches that I visited during the 1990s offered lessons in stone. These included innovative techniques and materials that permitted medieval architects to defy gravity. Perhaps more importantly, they were monuments to the communal efforts and long-term commitment of the congregations that built and sustained them over centuries. In the end, human survival might hinge on our ability to override similarly the centripetal forces that undermine collective action, and to build and maintain the social structures and policy frameworks to develop and redevelop our cities for mutual and long-term posterity.

Universal high-speed Internet access is a popular dream these days—everyone from the president to Google, Inc., has embraced it. And the tech press is full of testy critiques wondering why typical broadband speeds in the United States lag so far behind those in, say, South Korea.

Just five years ago, this wasn’t such a hot topic. Back then, the discussion—and action—wasn’t led by the federal government or the private sector. The first movers were a number of diverse but forward-thinking municipalities: cities and towns like Chattanooga, Tennessee; Lafayette, Louisiana; Sandy, Oregon; and Opelika, Alabama.

Motives and solutions varied, of course. But as high-speed connectivity is becoming recognized as crucial civic infrastructure, Chattanooga makes for a useful case study. Its journey to self-proclaimed “Gig City” status—referring to the availability of Internet connections with 1 gigabit-per-second data transfer speeds, up to 200 times faster than typical broadband speed for many Americans—started with visionary municipal initiative, built upon via thoughtful private and public coordination. Most recently, this effort has even begun to show tangible effects on city planning and development, particularly in the form of an in-progress reimagining of a long-sleepy downtown core. In short, Chattanooga is starting to answer a vital question: once a city has world-class Internet access, what do you actually do with it?

The story begins more than a decade ago, when Chattanooga’s city-owned electric utility, EPB, was planning a major upgrade to its power grid. Its CEO, Harold Depriest, argued for a plan that involved deploying fiber-optic cable that could also be used for Internet access. After clearing local regulatory hurdles, the new system was built out by 2010, and every EPB power customer in the Chattanooga area—meaning pretty much every home or business—had gigabit access. But you had to pay for it, just like electricity. And the early pricing for the fastest access was about $350 a month.

“They had very, very few takers,” recalls Ken Hays, president of The Enterprise Center, a nonprofit that since 2014 has focused, at the behest of local elected officials, on strategizing around what Chattanoogans call “the gig.” The head of Lamp Post Group, a successful local tech-focused venture firm, made a point of signing up immediately, Hays continues. But on a citywide level, “we didn’t have the excitement” that talk of gig-level access generates today. And in 2010, he adds, “there weren’t many good case studies out there.”

But broader change was afoot. The announcement of Google Fiber—the Internet search giant’s foray into building out high-speed online infrastructure—sparked new interest. And in 2013, Jenny Toomey, a Ford Foundation director focused on Internet rights, helped organize a summit of sorts where officials from municipalities like Chattanooga, Lafayette, and elsewhere could meet and compare notes. “It was still pretty nascent at the time,” recalls Lincoln Institute President and CEO George W. McCarthy, an economist who was then director of metropolitan opportunity at the Ford Foundation. But that summit, he continues, helped spark new conversations about how such initiatives can make cities more competitive and more equitable, and less reliant on the purely private-sector solutions we often assume are more efficient than government. “And over the course of two years since, this issue has just exploded,” he says.

In fact, that summit turned out to be the rare event that actually spawned a new organization: Next Century Cities, founded in 2014, now has more than 100 member municipalities. They share best practices around an agenda that treats high-speed Internet access as a fundamental, nonpartisan infrastructure issue that communities can and should control and shape.

Against this backdrop, Chattanooga was taking steps to demonstrate how “the gig” could be leveraged. The Lamp Post Group had moved into downtown space, and superlative Internet access was just a starting point for the young, tech-savvy workers and entrepreneurs it wanted to attract. “If we don’t have housing, if we don’t have open space, if we don’t have cool coffee shops—they’re going to go to cities that have all that,” says Kim White, president and CEO of nonprofit development organization River City Company.

Starting in 2013, a city-center plan and market study conducted by River City proposed strategies to enhance walkability, bikeability, green space, and—especially—housing options. More than 600 people participated in the subsequent planning process, which ultimately targeted 22 buildings for revitalization (or demolition). Today, half of those are being redeveloped, says White, and more than $400 million has been invested downtown; in the next year and a half, 1,500 apartments will be added to the downtown market, plus new student housing and hotel beds. The city has provided tax incentives, some of which are designed to keep a certain percentage of the new housing stock affordable. The city has also invested $2.8 million in a downtown park that’s a “key” part of the plan, White continues, to “have areas where people can come together and enjoy public space.” One of the apartment projects, the Tomorrow Building, will offer “micro-units” and a street-level restaurant. “I don’t think we would have attracted these kinds of businesses and younger people coming to look,” without the gig/tech spark, White concludes. “It put us on the map.”

The gig was also the inspiration for a city-backed initiative identifying core development strategies that led to the Enterprise Center pushing a downtown “innovation district,” says Hays. Its centerpiece involves making over a 10-story office building into The Edney Innovation Center, featuring co-working spaces as well as the headquarters of local business incubator CO.LAB. The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga has a project involving a 3D printer lab in the Innovation District, and even the downtown branch of the Chattanooga Public Library has been made over to include a tech-centric education space.

EPB, whose original fiber-optic vision set the Gig City idea in motion, has long since figured out more workable pricing schemes—gig access now starts at about $70 a month—and drawn more than 70,000 customers. More recently, it has also offered qualified low-income residents 100-megabit access, which is still much faster than most broadband in the U.S., for $27 a month. And its efforts to expand into underserved areas adjacent to Chattanooga have become an important component of broader efforts to challenge regulations in many states, from Texas to Minnesota to Washington, that effectively restrict municipalities from building their own high-speed access solutions.

In short, a lot has changed—in Chattanooga and in other cities and towns that have pushed for Internet infrastructure that the private sector wasn’t providing. “Most of this work right now is happening at the local level,” says Deb Socia, who heads Next Century Cities. “It’s mayors and city managers and CIOs taking the steps to figure out what their city needs.” The implications for crucial civic issues from education to health care to security are still playing out. And precisely because the thinking and planning is happening on a municipal level, it won’t be driven solely by market considerations that favor what’s profitable instead of what’s possible. “The beauty of it is,” McCarthy summarizes, “it’s a both/and argument.”

Rob Walker (robwalker.net) is a contributor to Design Observer and 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.

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.

El proceso de globalización de las inversiones, las nuevas tecnologías de comunicación y la generalizada movilidad corporativa y personal están provocando una verdadera transformación de las “ciudades-región” del mundo entero. Desde hace muchos años los estudiosos de asuntos urbanos han advertido sobre la emergencia de una nueva clase de asentamiento humano, con estructuras económicas y sociales particulares y sus formas físicas asociadas.

Estas fuerzas globales fueron el tema central de la Conferencia realizada en el Instituto Lincoln, Cambridge, en septiembre de 1995. Este consorcio estuvo organizado por los investigadores David Barkin, Gary Hack y Roger Simmonds, quienes estudiaron doce grandes ciudades-región de Europa, Asia y las Américas. Si bien cada una de las ciudades del estudio exhibe sus propias características y patrones exclusivos, todas cumplen con los siguientes criterios:

• Una gran población, pero no necesariamente de la categoría de mega ciudad;
• Una economía de mercado diversificada, más que una economía planificada
• Una dominada por una sola industria;
• Patrones particulares de crecimiento y cambio desde 1960; y
• Antecedentes de intentos gubernamentales (exitosos o no) de moldear la forma regional.

Las doce ciudades del estudio son:

Ankara, Turquía
Bangkok, Tailandia
Yakarta, Indonesia
Lyon, Francia
Madrid, España
Randstad, Países Bajos
San Diego, Estados Unidos
Santiago, Chile
São Paulo, Brasil
Taipei, Taiwan
Tokio, Japón
Toronto, Canadá

Tomando las doce ciudades anteriores como casos de estudio, se diseño una investigación en varios niveles a fin de construir un modelo que representara a las ciudades-región y los motivos de sus características. El primer objetivo fue examinar los efectos de la economía política global en el crecimiento y desarrollo de las ciudades a lo largo del tiempo. ¿Qué efecto ha tenido la pérdida de la agricultura tradicional o han tenido las economías industriales y la introducción de nuevos capitales de inversión en el funcionamiento de las ciudades? ¿Cómo han respondido las ciudades ante estas poderosas fuerzas externas?

Un segundo objetivo de la investigación fue entender las relaciones entre la cambiante forma urbana y las inversiones en infraestructuras regionales tales como sistemas de transporte y nuevos centros tecnológicos. ¿Cómo se ha distribuido la población en torno a los nuevos centros económicos y redes de transporte? ¿Qué influencia tienen las labores de planificación regional en los cambios de la forma espacial y en el efecto sobre el medio ambiente?

En tercer lugar se exploraron las consecuencias de la dinámica de la globalización sobre la calidad de la vida urbana. ¿Qué problemas sociales y económicos enfrenta hoy la población urbana? ¿Qué están haciendo los gobiernos municipales y nacionales para resolverlos?

Previo a la conferencia, los equipos de investigación de todas las ciudades-región recopilaron datos para mapear el crecimiento y el movimiento de la población, los cambios en la infraestructura y el desarrollo económico e industrial a lo largo de las últimas tres décadas. A fin de que los datos fueran comparables más alláa de las fronteras nacionales, elaboraron planos de la evolución física de las doce ciudades-región en 1960, 1970, 1980 y 1990, y correlacionaron estos planos con cambios en los indicadores económicos y sociales fundamentales durante el mismo período. Asimismo, cada grupo elaboró un informe sobre los problemas especiales que enfrentan sus gobiernos y las acciones de los legisladores para conformar la forma espacial cambiante de la región.

Un retrato de las ciudades-región

Si bien las doce ciudades-región estudiadas presentan variaciones sustanciales, también tienen muchos patrones comunes en cuanto a crecimiento y cambio. Sus poblaciones oscilan entre unos 2 millones de habitantes, en Lyon, más de 32 millones en Tokio, la ciudad más grande del mundo y también una de las más ricas.

En todas estas ciudades el modelo predominante de crecimiento físico ha sido la dispersión desde el centro histórico y los anillos interiores adyacentes hacia espacios abiertos distantes y tierra agrícola. Esta dispersión implica desarrollo residencial y comercial —aunque a veces en direcciones diferentes— y se ha facilitado gracias al vertiginoso aumento en el uso y la disponibilidad del automóvil en todo el mundo. El ejemplo más notable es el de Taipei, en donde el número de automóviles aumentó desde aproximadamente 11 mil en 1960 a más de 1 millón en 1990; en ese mismo periodo, el número de personas por automóvil disminuyó de 127 a 5. Por otra parte, las ciudades de Ankara y Santiago, con 13 personas por automóvil en 1990, han sido las menos afectadas por el “síndrome automotor” hasta la fecha.

Incluso al mismo tiempo en que la mayoría de las ciudades se están dispersando hacia las afueras, ciertos núcleos interiores han visto aumentar su población gracias a la migración de clases adineradas y de empleos del sector de servicios hacia los centros nuevamente pujantes. La construcción de obras monumentales como estadios deportivos, centros de convenciones, hoteles de lujo y condominios residenciales han contribuido a avivar el turismo y la vida cultural de estos núcleos urbanos. La otra cara de la moneda, sin embargo, es el creciente deterioro que se observa fuera de los centros debido al desplazamiento de grandes números de pobres urbanos a zonas carentes de servicios.

Excepciones notables de este patrón son los centros urbanos deprimidos y los opulentos suburbios de baja densidad poblacional de los Estados Unidos. Ciudades como Bangkok y Taipei exhiben mayor integración vecinal de ricos y pobres que otras, pero su patrón predominante continúa mostrando zonas opulentas segmentadas y mayor definición de pobreza con el paso del tiempo.

Irónicamente, en esta nueva era de globalización los patrones residenciales están perdiendo importancia frente a los patrones de interacción, conforme los participantes de la economía global se comunican más a menudo con sus semejantes de otras ciudades u otros países —bien sea electrónicamente o en persona— que con sus propios vecinos.

Los cambiantes patrones demográficos han disminuido las tasas de crecimiento urbano a un 3 por ciento, en comparación con 6 a 8 por ciento en la década de 1960. La mayoría de las ciudades han experimentado una reducción en sus tasas de natalidad y de migración desde zonas rurales del interior del país o de las regiones inmediatas. No obstante, la turbulencia política y las cambiantes oportunidades laborales también están dando pie a nuevas olas de migración transnacional. Muchos nuevos inmigrantes se asientan en áreas de la ciudad separadas del sector pobre indígena, y presentan un nuevo grupo de problemas sociales y económicos para los gobiernos nacionales y municipales. En San Diego, por ejemplo, inmigrantes de México y Centroamérica contribuyen al crecimiento poblacional y a la mayor segmentación dentro de la región. Por otra parte, São Paulo ha experimentado una emigración neta, dado que las nuevas políticas y programas brasileños fomentan la descentralización hacia nuevas comunidades de ese vasto país.

Según los datos de 1990, los sectores económicos tienen una composición similar entre países. Por lo general, menos del 5 por ciento de la fuerza laboral se dedica a la agricultura y a la extracción de recursos, mientras que el 20 al 30 por ciento trabaja en el sector manufacturero y el 65 al 75 por ciento en el sector de servicios. Como interesantes excepciones en estas tendencias laborales son los casos de Yakarta, con una tasa de participación en el sector agrícola de casi el 16 por ciento en 1990, y San Diego, con un 83 por ciento de tasa actual en el sector de servicios. Bangkok y Taipei muestran los mayores declives en agricultura, desde un 20 por ciento en 1960 a menos del 2 por ciento en 1990. En ese mismo año, ambas ciudades mantenían tasas relativamente altas en el sector manufacturero; 32 y 36 por ciento respectivamente.

En cuanto a la distribución del ingreso en las regiones, se observan patrones similares: el 20 por ciento más pobre de la población suele recibir apenas un 5 a 7 por ciento de los ingresos totales, en comparación con un 40 a 50 por ciento de dichos ingresos que llega al 20 por ciento más rico de la población. Santiago, São Paulo y Yakarta exhiben las mayores concentraciones de riqueza en los niveles superiores, mientras que Tokio y Taipei, seguidos cercanamente por Randstad y Madrid, exhiben la menor desigualdad entre los niveles de ingresos. San Diego, a pesar de su ingreso per cápita relativamente alto, muestra una distribución de ingreso de rango medio del 44 por ciento para el extremo superior, pero apenas un 4 por ciento del ingreso ganado para el 20 por ciento más pobre de su población.

Una economía mundial llena de cambios y contradicciones

Durante la conferencia se revelaron varias realidades nuevas sobre el mundo en que vivimos. Quizás la más importante sea la dificultad que enfrentan las autoridades municipales y nacionales para diseñar políticas eficaces que modifiquen las poderosas fuerzas económicas que moldean las nuevas estructuras productivas de sus regiones.

Un tema recurrente en los análisis regionales fue la contradicción existente entre las inversiones privadas altamente centralizadas y los cambios arrolladores que surgen con la inserción de la ciudad-región en la economía internacional. En la mayoría de las regiones, los “corredores de élite” de la globalización presentan un agudo contraste con la precaria “ciudad residual”. Dichos enclaves adinerados, receptores de las inversiones de corporaciones transnacionales productoras para mercados mundiales, están redicadas cerca de las zonas donde viven y compran los participantes de esta economía. En estos centros financieros y comerciales, prósperas empresas de profesionales capacitados realizan operaciones de producción y marketing mundial para garantizar retornos atractivos a los inversionistas internacionales, casi siempre haciendo caso omiso de la economía local.

Paralelamente con el declive poblacional, las oportunidades de empleo también se han estancado. En cada una de las ciudades-región se observa el desplazamiento acelerado de la fuerza laboral hacia empleos a tiempo parcial de baja paga en el sector de servicios, con un concomitante desequilibrio de oportunidades económicas que condena a un segmento creciente de la población a la pobreza.

Esta amenaza está acompañada por cambios en el sector agrícola. Gran parte de los productores rurales de pequeña escala no pueden competir en los mercados internacionales con productores agrícolas de gran escala, quienes tienen acceso a un capital que les permite equiparse con las más modernas maquinarias para aumentar su producción. El proceso inexorable de expansión global también está provocando la salida del mercado de plantas manufactureras de pequeña y mediana escala.

La mayoría de los participantes de la conferencia aceptaron y adoptaron de buena gana la nueva dinámica de la globalización. Sus gobiernos trabajan activamente para reposicionar sus regiones a fin de atraer inversionistas extranjeros y promotores de bienes raíces que prometen la modernización, esperando poder convertir sus ciudades en guías que conduzcan a sus naciones hacia el proceso de integración mundial. Casi todos consideran que su tarea principal será la de desenmarañar los obstáculos —normativos y otros— de las épocas anteriores, y facilitar la iniciativa privada mediante el ofrecimiento, a veces gratuito, del suelo y de la infraestructura requeridos para las nuevas instalaciones.

Muchas de las ciudades están específicamente orientando sus estrategias de inversión en infraestructura para expandir la economía de servicios. Bangkok, Taipei y Tokio están esforzándose para convertirse en los centros financieros de Asia, esperando la caída de Hong Kong como primer competidor. Bangkok, en particular, está invirtiendo en redes sustanciales de transporte y comunicaciones y en la capacitación de su fuerza laboral. En Europa, Madrid está aprovechando su papel como centro mundial de la cultura española para mejorar sus servicios de comunicación; Randstad está promoviendo sus instalaciones de soporte aeroportuario; y Lyon se está convirtiendo en un novedoso centro de industrias tecnológicas emergentes.

Impactos en el desarrollo regional

Los casos estudiados y las discusiones durante la conferencia pusieron en evidencia numerosos problemas de ese entusiasmo por la globalización. El complejo y preocupante fenómeno de la expansión urbana se está generalizando en el mundo entero conforme el automóvil facilita la distribución de la población a centros de empleo satélites y suele reducir la densidad de las ciudades regionales. Dos excepciones interesantes de este patrón son Tokio, cuyo sistema de tránsito masivo contribuye a mantener centralizada la actividad económica, y Taipei, donde la geografía montañosa restringe el desarrollo hacia las afueras. Por otra parte, en Randstad se está observando el desarrollo acelerado de espacios vacantes que existían entre antiguos asentamientos, aun cuando la tasa de crecimiento general ha sido bastante lenta.

Parte de esta descentralización proviene de los esfuerzos gubernamentales para hacer frente a asuntos como el alto precio del suelo, el congestionamiento vehicular o la protección ambiental. En las afueras de Santiago, Lyon, Randstad, Taipei, Tokio y Yakarta se están construyendo nuevos pueblos o “tecnópolis”, mientras que en Bangkok se está construyendo un nuevo puerto a unos cuantos kilómetros del centro de la ciudad. En São Paulo, estrictos reglamentos de protección de las zonas de cuenca están forzando el desplazamiento de nuevos desarrollos a sitios distantes.

Más que moldear el desarrollo, la infraestructura suele seguirle los pasos a éste. Los inversionistas privados tienen capacidad de responder con mayor rapidez a planes de crecimiento dentro de sus regiones, de lo que pueden las agencias públicas responsabilizarse por implementar grandes proyectos de infraestructura. De esa manera el desarrollo privado presiona al sector público para que dote de servicios a zonas que ya están siendo urbanizadas. Este proceso tiene serias implicaciones para la planificación regional a largo plazo, si ésta continúa siendo impulsada por el desarrollo mientras que el gobierno le sigue los pasos para no quedarse atrás.

Otro tema que emergió durante la conferencia fue el de una mayor conciencia sobre los problemas ambientales. En la mayoría de las ciudades-región, la acumulación de riqueza y el consiguiente aumento de consumo están imponiendo enormes presiones sobre el medio ambiente. Con el paso acelerado de la integración regional y la desregulación de la economía, las corporaciones transnacionales pueden funcionar como les plazca en la economía internacional. Los participantes señalaron repetidamente las dificultades de controlar estos retos de manera constructiva en cada una de sus ciudades-región. Así y todo, la preocupación por el ambiente fue vista también como el principal factor de motivación de la planificación regional estratégica considerada.

Calidad de vida

La globalización promete un mundo de mayor prosperidad. La mayoría de las ciudades representadas en la conferencia experimentaron aumentos relativos en varios índices promedio de calidad de vida entre 1960 y 1990: ingreso per cápita, esperanza de vida y nivel de educación. Estas entradas crecientes, junto con los avances tecnológicos que incrementan la productividad y la mayor diseminación de información sobre bienes disponibles en los mercados mundiales, han permitido que habitantes urbanos de todas partes satisfagan sus necesidades con nuevos productos. No obstante, modelos globales poderosos de organización y producción están también imponiendo nuevos patrones homogéneos de consumo que amenazan con acabar la extraordinaria variedad de estilos de vida que caracteriza a la mayoría de las regiones urbanas.

El aumento en movilidad física resultante del automóvil particular ha abierto las puertas a un mundo de lugares donde vivir, comprar y trabajar. Al mismo tiempo, los viajes diarios entre la casa y el trabajo duran unos 45 minutos en promedio, desde menos de 30 minutos en San Diego a más de hora y media en Bangkok.

Los participantes de la conferencia estuvieron de acuerdo en que este aumento de movilidad ha minado el sentido de comunidad del pasado, conforme los seres humanos comienzan a identificarse con lugares urbanos más dispersos o a desarrollar identidades “sin tierra”. Prácticamente todos los representantes de las ciudades hicieron mención de la “McDonaldnización” de la cultura mundial, que abarca expresiones como la música, la ropa, la arquitectura y la comida. Igualmente, a medida que los mercados de bienes de consumo se globalizan, los habitantes de muchas ciudades-región están comenzando a depender de esos mercados para que suministren servicios que solían ser semipúblicos, tales como educación y recreación.

Los cambios en la función económica de grandes ciudades —de manufactura y transporte a finanzas y turismo— han causado también pérdidas importantes. Muchos centros históricos han sido modificados para fines de turismo cultural. Edificios o ciudades que en el pasado fueron fábricas o almacenes son ahora tiendas o museos. Los trabajadores u obreros portuarios de antaño que solían vivir cerca de sus trabajos, han desaparecido para dar lugar a visitantes que se desplazan por automóvil o avión desde otras ciudades o incluso otros países para admirar edificios que han sido restaurados en forma, pero cuya función ha sido completamente transformada. Nuevos rascacielos, centros de convención, estadios y hoteles de lujo son impuestos sobre el paisaje urbano, generalmente sin tomar en cuenta el contexto espacial y social.

Ciertos puntos del proceso de globalización son alentadores, especialmente si se consideran las contribuciones de la ciencia médica y aspectos básicos de educación y sanidad que pueden ofrecerse con inversiones públicas de relativo bajo costo. Sin embargo, el estándar de vida y las oportunidades de empleo se están deteriorando para números crecientes de la población mundial.

La mayoría de los nuevos trabajadores urbanos viven en un mundo de mercados laborales más flexibles y menos seguridad laboral, diferente al mundo en que laboraron sus padres como granjeros u obreros de plantaciones. Las nuevas tecnologías informáticas y financieras globales facilitan a las empresas buscar los sitios y mano de obra más baratos del mundo y cambiar los empleos de un país a otro en cuestión de semanas, de ser necesario.

Los mismos nuevos medios de información y de transporte, que permiten a consumidores y trabajadores elegir entre una amplia variedad de artículos o empleos, también permiten que los criminales elijan de entre una amplia variedad de potenciales blancos. Algunos participantes de la conferencia argumentaron que la actual percepción de menor seguridad física es algo más imaginario que real, especialmente en los Estados Unidos. Lo cierto es que la percepción de por sí está claramente alentando la demanda mundial de urbanizaciones enrejadas o viviendas más seguras.

Los efectos positivos y negativos de la globalización en la calidad de vida, más que concesiones, son las dos caras de la moneda. Las mismas tecnologías de información y organización de mercados que difunden nuevos bienes de consumo alrededor del mundo en cuestión de semanas, también transmiten malas noticias, como el sida. Los mismos automóviles que facilitan el acceso a oportunidades de recreación en el campo para los habitantes urbanos, también dan lugar a ciudades que se expanden y ocupan tierras de la periferia que se convierten en patios privados en vez de vistas escénicas de granjas o bosques.

Debido a estas contradicciones, es de menester buscar otros modelos de producción y consumo, modelos que permitan a los habitantes fortalecer sus comunidades y proteger sus ambientes, que ofrezcan la posibilidad de crear empleos productivos para toda la población, y que restrinja el acelerado proceso de polarización.

El papel del gobierno

¿Hasta qué punto los ciudadanos de las ciudades-región piden a sus gobiernos municipales, metropolitanos o nacionales encontrar formas de eliminar los efectos negativos de la globalización? Como un ejemplo, los representantes de San Diego, Ankara y Tokio apuntaron al hecho de que las elecciones municipales se centran ahora en torno a quién se beneficia de la globalización. Los ciudadanos que se identifican más con la economía global que con la municipal exigen que los gobiernos inviertan en infraestructura de alta tecnología, construyan centros de convención o estadios y fomenten las oportunidades de educación con el fin de atraer empleos futuros.

En contraste, la mayoría de los peones y trabajadores de poca formación educativa ven la globalización como una amenaza más que una oportunidad, y les interesa más invertir los limitados recursos municipales en servicios públicos como escuelas y clínicas comunitarias. En cualquier caso, es posible que aquellos gobiernos que se concentran en los servicios municipales para no tener que tomar decisiones políticas impopulares, están únicamente postergando los impactos inevitables de la globalización, entre ellos sus efectos potencialmente beneficiosos a largo plazo.

A la larga, quizás la capacidad de gobiernos de cualquier nivel para manejar las fuerzas globales sea limitada. Existe una discrepancia inherente entre la economía global y el gobierno, no sólo en el sentido espacial de gobiernos municipales o fragmentados que están luchando para dominar las fuerzas económicas regionales o globales, sino en los modos operativos contrastantes de los mercados y los gobiernos.

La globalización ha dificultado cada vez más definir tanto “la región” que debería planificarse como “la comunidad” que debería participar en dichos planes. Los gobiernos municipales —e incluso la mayoría de los gobiernos nacionales— no tienen muchos recursos para proteger los negocios locales contra la competencia global. En casi todas las ciudades-región representadas en la conferencia se han multiplicado los grupos de interés especializados y las organizaciones no gubernamentales, al mismo tiempo que los gobiernos omnipresentes han comenzado a dar pasos hacia la fragmentación y descentralización. La devolución política, bastante avanzada en los Estados Unidos, está comenzando a sonar fuerte en otras partes.

La tendencia actual de los gobiernos de las ciudades-región es prescindir de técnicas de planificación espacial complicadas, y en cambio ajustarse a lo que uno de los planificadores de la conferencia denominó como “las nuevas reglas de la propiedad y la política”. Sin embargo, esta filosofía deja una herencia de muchas contradicciones: entre las oportunidades para las élites y los pobres; entre los defensores de una mayor autonomía municipal y aquellos comprometidos a patrones regionales emergentes de interdependencia; y entre políticas que favorecen el crecimiento en vez de la redistribución de recursos. Sin un sistema gubernamental eficaz, todas estas dicotomías tienen gran potencial para la confrontación.

As part of the American Planning Association (APA) 2003 national conference held in Denver in March, the Lincoln Institute assembled a group of planning directors from large and small western cities to discuss a set of topics they had previously identified as being important, including infill housing, maintaining the core vs. sprawling at the edge, paying for infrastructure, and transportation and land use. To explore these issues and exchange case histories, the planners met for a weekend retreat organized by Peter Pollock, Boulder’s planning director, before presenting their findings at an APA session titled “Urban Challenges and Opportunities in the Rocky Mountain West.” This report highlights key discussion points raised during both the retreat and the APA panel.

The West remains one of the fastest growing regions in the country. Not surprisingly, the liveliest discussions among western city planners center on issues of infill housing and the need to protect and maintain the viability of the urban core in the face of continued regional growth. As Chris Knight of Las Vegas noted, “protecting the core is important to the health of the entire region.” Louis Zunguze of Salt Lake City emphasized that “the core area has a real responsibility for the pace of sprawl,” adding that there is a practical need “to keep the area attractive from many perspectives.”

Neighborhood Responses to Infill Development

Part of that challenge has to do with neighborhood resistance to change and increased density. In Billings, Montana, for example (metro population approximately 100,000; county population 140,000), sprawl is becoming a significant issue, according to Ramona Mattix. Yet, despite substantial capital support for downtown revitalization and favorable zoning densities, the city faces considerable resistance from its residents, many of whom are attached to their traditional wide-open spaces.

Bill Healy of Colorado Springs (population 368,000) spoke of his earlier experience as a planner in Salem, Oregon (population 137,000), when he addressed the problem of how to “sell density” in older neighborhoods. As in Billings, the greatest opposition to infill housing in Salem, which involved rezoning established neighborhoods to accommodate multifamily housing, came from existing residents who would grow increasingly vocal if growth was slated to occur in their “back yard.” Healy explained, “The way we sold density [in Salem] was to couple it with better design standards.” People there found density much more acceptable if new development was designed compatibly with existing neighborhoods. A further benefit was that the city obtained new design standards. “Public acceptance of infill is like a sine curve,” Healy explained. “In urban areas there is great acceptance. But as you get out to the first-ring suburbs, there is a real fear of density. Way out where populations are sparce it’s not an issue.” In Colorado Springs, Healy noted, there is little economic incentive for infill. “Half our land area is vacant, so that is a disincentive for infill development. It’s an issue from a planning standpoint.”

Not all western city planners cited neighborhood opposition to infill development as a major obstacle to accommodating growth, however. Ellen Ittleson, for example, discussed Denver’s (population 555,000) recent success in “planning around resistance” in the city’s most recent plan, Blueprint Denver. While preparing the plan, the city looked at growth projections over the next 20 years and devised a way to accommodate the addition of 132,000 predicted new residents and 109,000 new jobs to the city and county. The metro area is expected to receive an additional 760,000 new residents over the same period. “Once we accepted the growth,” remarked Ittleson, “the real task became figuring out where to put it, because where the market or zoning would have put it was not acceptable.”

The Blueprint Denver plan identifies two types of infill areas. “Areas of change” are those parts of the city that would benefit from increased population densities, such as areas of economic need where land use change and transportation initiatives could go hand-in-hand with realizing mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented and transit-oriented development. The only strictly residential area of change is Cherry Creek, which is being transformed from a single-family neighborhood to one with single-family and attached housing. “Areas of stability” are represented primarily by traditional residential neighborhoods, but also include small commercial and even industrial districts where the effort will focus on how to protect the character of these areas rather than adding new households or jobs.

“There has been great consensus on where growth should be and where it should not be,” Ittleson remarked. Yet, there remains considerable controversy “at the edge, that is, how to transition from areas of change to areas of stability,” she continued. Another major obstacle facing the city’s housing initiative is land assembly. “We have the Denver Urban Renewal Authority, but it’s a politically supercharged thing to use. It’s expensive and politically complicated,” she added. Another difficulty is Denver’s “archaic legislation,” which offers far less acceptance of inclusionary zoning than in the East.

Salt Lake City (population 182,000; metro population 1 million) also has demonstrated considerable acceptance of the need for more infill and density downtown. Renowned for its abundant natural amenities, the city has a thriving tourist industry and has become a magnet for growth. As a result, land costs are very high to accommodate the new population, and there are serious discussions between the mayor, the city council and the development community on how to make the city more viable in the face of this challenge. Louis Zunguze remarked that the city is keenly aware that “what happens around us has a lot to do with what we do in the core.”

As part of its efforts to contain the pace of sprawl and attract new development to the downtown, Salt Lake City is putting together a major housing initiative and has studied downtown sites suitable for infill. With the ambitious goal of creating 40,000 new housing units in and around the downtown area, amounting to a three-fold increase in density, a considerable challenge will be to “strike a balance” with more traditional neighborhoods. Strategies include block consolidations for small subdivisions and amending the zoning ordinance to allow for more height in certain appropriate areas, “so more density can be accommodated gradually.”

Salt Lake City has considerable assets working in its favor, notably the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormon Church), whose world headquarters is located downtown. “The Church is a significant entity from both a social and financial standpoint,” Zunguze noted. In addition to complementing the city on key housing and economic initiatives, the Church works hard to induce corporations to relocate downtown near the Church’s own headquarters. The Church partners with new development and redevelopment in other ways as well. For example, it has built a new conference center and recently bought the Crossroads Mall located downtown (that is still taxable) and other projects as additions to Church facilities.

Cheyenne (population 53,000; county population 81,000) is the largest community in Wyoming but the smallest city represented on the APA panel and it does not have issues with infill housing. “We’re a landlocked, small community,” notes Mike Abel. “Residential areas are close by, so residential development downtown is not a huge issue right now. We’re more interested in community development issues . . . our infill focus is on commercial redevelopment.”

Regional Planning

According to John Hester, Reno (population 200,000; metro population 550,000) relies heavily on regional planning. The city has a state-mandated regional plan, updated every five years and designed to account for growth and development over a 20-year period. The recently revised plan promotes the objective of directing development to existing areas and infrastructure. It also introduces a new conceptual framework for identifying and prioritizing those districts and transit corridors most suitable for infill and development. On a broad scale the plan presents the idea of Municipal Service Areas designed to capture what has already been built and approved. Urban and suburban land uses are allowed only in these service areas. Then, within these areas, the plan identifies activity centers and auto-dependent transit corridors most suitable for high-intensity land use and development. One specific target for the city, noted Hester, “is to capture 35 percent of all regional metro housing over the next 20 years within the McCarran Ring, a four-mile radius from downtown.”

For David Richert, the cities of Phoenix (population 1.4 million; metro population 3 million) and Reno appear to share similar planning approaches toward managed growth. The Phoenix plan identifies six growth areas as overall targets for development and infill. To alleviate traffic congestion within and among the designated growth areas, the plan also recommends redirecting growth to certain strategic perimeter areas. “They become edge cities within a village system,” he explained. “There are one hundred years worth of growth in the Phoenix plan. We’re putting in infrastructure where we think growth is going to occur.” Richert noted, however, that it was important to keep in mind that “getting the infill requires getting the people who want it, too. . . . Among our goals is to get a fair share of everything that happens in the valley and to set a good example.”

Las Vegas (population 500,000; metro population 1.5 million) has been the nation’s fastest growing region for more than 60 years. But, according to Chris Knight, “the city is still young, with an outward focus and large expanses of vacant land. We tear things down if we don’t like them. If it’s bad, we just blow it up and move elsewhere. Redevelopment is difficult because some of the more prominent redevelopment tools such as eminent domain are taboo.” Downtown Las Vegas is perceived to be in trouble, and its revitalization is at the top of the mayor’s agenda. “One obstacle is that the private owners of downtown properties need to buy in on fixing the problem,” Knight explained. Another problem he noted is that “a number of downtown property owners believe they own the site of ‘the next big casino,’ so land prices are very inflated.”

The mayor of Las Vegas has been a champion of regional planning and recognizes that protecting the core is vital to the health of the region. “The mayor wants to leave the legacy of a new downtown,” Knight added. Part of that legacy would include the introduction of new medical research facilities and 40,000 units of housing to the downtown area. “Big retailers are already coming in,” added Knight, and the city is “looking for tall buildings.” The city is also beginning to investigate transportation-related development to support the existing monorail system, “but our zoning standards may be archaic and will be in the way. We have to figure out how to remove them,” he explains.

Infrastructure and Land Management

Maintaining control of a city’s services and proper fiscal strategies may help in managing growth. Salt Lake City is well endowed with transportation facilities: light rail, bus (local and Greyhound) and train (Amtrak) services, and an airport that is within ten miles of downtown. Moreover, the streets in Salt Lake are so wide that it’s easy to install new rail lines down the center for new transit services. The city also has three large malls within the downtown area, which help keep the city viable. In addition, there is considerable willingness on the part of developers “to look at the barriers in the way of the kind of the development we want downtown (i.e., mixed-use along transit),” Louis Zunguze noted. In Salt Lake, “the city development and finance communities are beginning to come to the table together to discuss what type of housing should be developed and how to finance it. . . .The banks are willing to look at new ways to finance mixed-use developments,” he noted. While work still needs to be done in terms of putting the most viable financing tools together, Zunguze cited land use regulations as the city’s major obstacle to its infill efforts. The city is faced with “contradictions of wanting to do things but the process being very slow. . . . Developers seem to have no problem assembling land, but projects are seriously challenged by the review and permitting processes,” he explained.

Reno has less than half the population of Las Vegas, but as the second largest city in the nation’s fastest growing state, growth management is a high priority. John Hester cited two other factors, in addition to strong regional planning, that have been instrumental in shaping the city’s response to growth. First is the need to work within the limitations imposed by the city’s physical constraints: Reno is landlocked and must also contend with limited water supplies. Second is the city’s concern for fiscal equity and accountability. Taxpayers subsidize growth, and the city, in consultation with outside fiscal consultants, has made concerted efforts to ensure that only those who receive municipal services pay for them, and that taxpayers in one area are not subsidizing the provision of municipal services elsewhere. “A lot of what we try to do is use the fiscal system to make people realize they can’t keep building out,” says Hester. He also noted that the city has a unique tax structure that enables depreciation.

David Richert considers the situation in Phoenix to be very similar to that in Reno only on a bigger scale. “We have our land constraints—the Indian reservations . . . and the state trust lands. Only 13 percent of the State of Arizona is in private hands,” he explained. However, the city itself has no constraints on water. “Phoenix is in the business. It sells water to other communities,” he noted. But controlling the allocation of water “provides a measure of growth control in other areas. In Arizona, you need a 100-year water supply for everything you do.”

Phoenix is also trying to achieve “a balance of transportation,” with efforts to enhance existing transportation rather than building new. Greenspace planning is also becoming increasingly important within the Phoenix region. As an example, Richert cited the recent introduction of special zoning for drainage washes and meanders. The city also passed a bill to collect taxes to pay for park acquisition. “It won’t be enough,” he added, “because once you start buying land you create a market. Land values go up and you can’t buy as much.”

Cheyenne is a city poised for change. As the “northern anchor” of the Colorado Rocky’s Front Range, Cheyenne is only 90 miles from urban Denver. Because of its strategic location on north-south and east-west highways and railroad lines, the city is looking to capitalize on its potential as a major regional transportation hub. “Regionally, we have a lot going for us as a transportation center. Businesses are looking at Cheyenne because of its proximity to other major centers,” Abel explained. Moreover, for businesses Wyoming has a very attractive tax structure, and Cheyenne is also proving popular for commercial development because it is “ready to build.” The city has many greenways, and the strong pedestrian orientation within the community is appealing to new development and infill initiatives. Already, Abel stated, “once-vacant city blocks are beginning to change, and there’s a new parking structure downtown.” Growth is not without obstacles, however. Specifically, water will be the limiting factor in the city’s growth cycle. Like many western cities, noted Abel, “we’re dependent on our water resources and future enhancements. Without sufficient snowpack to balance out the high mountain reservoirs during a drought situation such as we have now, Cheyenne could be out of water in less than three years.”

Despite this sobering prospect, the city remains more than optimistic about its future. Recently, a local property owner offered the city a massive 17,000-acre ranch that appears to have several water sources, and with them significant development capability. The city has taken the option to purchase the ranch for its water rights, but the city would acquire both the land and its water. “With this purchase, we could double the size of Cheyenne overnight,” exclaimed Abel, adding that “it will force the city to look differently at land use in the area for commercial and urban development. It’s an opportunity to develop the next generation of Cheyenne.” David Richert commented, “17,000 acres is huge. . . . You’ll need a lot of expertise from the private sector. But you’re doing a very progressive thing; your government has a chance to control development.”

Armando Carbonell is a senior fellow and cochairman of the Lincoln Institute’s Department of Planning and Development, and Lisa Cloutier is a research assistant in the department.

photo:

Participants in the Lincoln Institute-sponsored retreat for planning directors of western cities: Top row, from left: Mike Abel, Cheyenne; Bill Healy, Colorado Springs; Chris Knight, Las Vegas; John Hester, Reno. Middle row: Louis Zunguze, Salt Lake City; Ramona Mattix, Billings; Ellen Ittleson, Denver. Bottom row, from left: Armando Carbonell, Lincoln Institute; David Richert, Phoenix; Peter Pollock, Boulder. Photo credit: Lisa Cloutier

The Lincoln Institute has been collaborating with the Loeb Fellowship Program at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design for several years. The program was established in 1970 through the generosity of alumnus John L. Loeb, and each year invites about 10 mid-career professionals to study independently and develop insights and connections that can advance their work in revitalizing the built and natural environments. In May 2004 this year’s group of Loeb Fellows took their class study trip to China. They held a seminar on land use planning for the Beijing Municipal Planning Commission and were hosted by senior planning officials on land use tours in Beijing and Shanghai. This article offers some brief observations by four of the fellows.

China’s great cities are rushing toward a tipping point where a rich legacy of innovative styles of urban living may be swept away by unbridled modernization. The country’s land planners face Herculean challenges in shaping the fastest growing urban settlements the world has known, and it is easy to imagine how nuanced planning can be lost in this rapid tide of change. In China’s quest to catch up with the West, it might be tempting to simply replicate Western patterns and practices. However, not all of those approaches are worthy of emulation, and in some cases China may be emulating the wrong ones.

The Car Culture

In a time of global concern over dependence on oil, Chinese officials seem to be encouraging the car to prevail over other transportation infrastructure and policy options, although the rate and extent of development of Beijing’s public transit system is commendable. Following the decision to award the 2008 Olympic Games to Beijing, the municipal government announced it would complete construction of its light rail system along with Metro lines 5 and 8 by 2005, extending the rail systems by 85 km to a total of 138 km. The city also plans to start on Metro lines 4 and 9 during the next five years. Yet, there are also plans to build the 5th and 6th ring roads around the capital, reflecting both the phenomenal growth of the city and the anticipated explosion in car ownership and use. Also troubling is the constant relegation of existing dedicated bicycle lanes to additional vehicular traffic, thereby creating a vicious cycle of ever more citizens surrendering their bikes for cars.

Beyond the social, cultural, environmental and economic consequences of this process, which are in themselves largely irreversible, these asphalt expansions result in irreparable damage to the city’s urban fabric and structures. While this condition is obvious to local planners, they seem to have bowed to the citizens’ strong yearnings for car ownership. These aspirations are spurred by a national policy of accelerating automobile production for domestic use, conceived as a leading catalyst in the country’s industrial and economic advancement.

Acknowledging these trying circumstances, the enforcement of mitigating measures within the jurisdiction of local government could help restrain the increase in car use. For example, a curb on parking would decrease commuter traffic substantially, but would only indirectly challenge the nation’s automobile consumption policy, since these coveted status symbols would remain available for noncommuting needs. Car sharing, a commercial enterprise that has enjoyed great success in Europe and more recently in transit-rich U.S. cities, is an alternative that would give many more Chinese the benefits and convenience of car usage without necessitating the cost and impact of individual automobile ownership. Many nations, including Singapore and most European Union countries, have automobile-related taxes on purchasing prices, fuels and registration, as well as parking and tolls. These taxes are intended to internalize the costs of pollution, infrastructure, traffic congestion, accidents and noise, but they also act as financial disincentives to car ownership.

The conditions in Beijing appear particularly favorable to introducing transportation management policies. While many cities might be wary that such measures could dampen inner-city development, these propositions would not alter the projected growth in Beijing’s core. Regarding a parking policy, for instance, rapid development over the past decade has already produced a substantial number of covered parking spaces, arguably meeting minimum needs. Conversely, the extent of projected development would render these measures particularly effective in limiting additional traffic.

Local policies that focus on controlling car use would also benefit Beijing’s cultural destinations, where cars already encroach on pedestrian sidewalks in parks and around lakes. From an environmental perspective, beyond the reduction in carbon emissions due to fewer cars, a sharp reduction in the extent of roadways, parking lots and related construction of impervious surfaces would contribute to increased groundwater recharge to replenish the already parched aquifer on which the city’s water supply depends.

Scales of Urban Living

Despite China’s vast expanse, population pressures in the cities dictate that every bit of land in metropolitan regions be put to work. Each road leading out of the city is lined for many kilometers with nurseries of trees, shrubs and flowering plants to provide mature landscaping for every new park, building, road, plaza and mall as soon as the project is completed. The result is surprisingly green boulevards and generously planted parks. The plantings tend to be both water- and labor-intensive varieties, but that might change as water resources are likely to become scarce before cheap labor does.

Beijing and Shanghai demonstrate the uniquely complex ways of living that have evolved over many years (e.g., small-scale farming, sidewalk markets, bicycles and motorcycle taxis), but these urban features can be jarring when juxtaposed against the dynamic scale of current development. Even as these authentic, small-scale living arrangements are being buffeted, and perhaps eradicated, by large-scale planning and the concomitant rush toward modernization in many city districts and neighborhoods, new innovations in urban living are emerging. For instance, the illegal motorcycle taxis observed at a 50,000-unit suburban housing development are a creative and practical solution to the problems of getting around a huge pedestrian-unfriendly project with inadequate public transit and amenities that are concentrated in a large core rather than scattered within walking distance.

Other new districts, such as Pudong in Shanghai, represent instances where a grandiose scale results in dissatisfying urban places that look like American cities of the Sunbelt, designed around cars with too much open space and decorative landscaping. These vast plazas may be appreciated from the air or the upper floors of nearby high-rise buildings, but they are incoherent at ground level. Pedestrians avoid the arid spaces, preferring the charm of the older urban districts with their more human scale, shade, shops and seating. More participation in the planning process by those who live and work in these areas would likely yield an environment more tailored to quality of life than a monument to progress.

Indeed, more resident participation in the planning process is one of the Western practices that is seldom replicated, but can most contribute to better-quality outcomes. Perhaps not understood is that residents, provided with enough background, will often point to similar but more helpfully nuanced ways of achieving the goals sought by planners. Enfranchisement in planning and economic outcomes can make allies of those in historic districts and on the urban frontiers who are currently a growing political and public relations problem for officials. Such a process can also improve market efficiency, since residents often know best what is needed and will work locally.

The willingness to create a culture of participation, dissent and engagement is a far from certain proposition, even for planning and development purposes. As design professionals observing Chinese cities for much too short a time, we can only hope that in the future more can be done to preserve successful forms of traditional urban living and create uniquely new Chinese forms that will contribute to the higher quality of life the policy makers, planners and architects we met seem so eager to embrace.

Loeb Fellows, 2003–2004

Ann Coulter, Executive Vice President, RiverCity Company, Chattanooga, Tennessee

Stephan Fairfield, CEO, Covenant Community Capital, Houston, Texas

Gerald Green, Former Director, San Francisco Planning Department, San Francisco, California

Michael Houck, Executive Director, Urban Greenspaces Institute, Portland, Oregon

Yan Huang, Deputy Director, Beijing Municipal Planning Commission, Beijing, China

Cheryl Hughes, Director of Program Development, Mayor’s Office of Special Events, Chicago, Illinois

Matthew Jelacic, Architect, New York, New York

Ofer Manor, Chief Architect, City of Jerusalem, Israel

David Perkes, Director, Jackson Community Design Center, Jackson, Mississippi

Rodolpho Ramina, Environmental Design Consultant, Curitiba, Brazil

Harriet Tregoning, Executive Director, Smart Growth Leadership Institute, Washington, DC