How have infrastructure investments shaped global city regions? What have been the effects on the residents? Do the effects differ among residents in different sections of the city? Is the process different by type of infrastructure, such as highways, mass transit, airports or seaports? What if high-technology telecommunications infrastructures are included among our considerations? When the forces of globalization and technological change interact, do cities fare differently? Do their residents experience these changes differently?

These were among the questions generated at the second meeting of the global city regions consortium coordinated in July by Roger Simmonds, senior lecturer of planning at Oxford Brookes University. Most of the participants at the first conference held at the Lincoln Institute in September 1995 reconvened in El Escorial, Spain, to present the results of their latest research on the relationship between the location and timing of infrastructure development and the spatial form of the region. Teams from 11 city regions made presentations: Ankara, Turkey; Bangkok, Thailand; Madrid, Spain; San Diego, California; Santiago, Chile; and Sao Paulo, Brazil; Seattle, Washington; Taipei, Taiwan; The Randstad, Holland; Tokyo, Japan; and West Midlands, England.

Commenting on the relationship between infrastructure, governance and regional planning, Pedro Ortiz Castano, director of planning for the municipal government of Madrid, described the municipality’s extensive infrastructure plan. Existing highways, roads and transit lines will be woven together with other planned development to cover the region in a matrix or grid. This configuration is meant to reduce congestion and increase accessibility across city sectors as well as among social and economic classes.

Madrid’s grid-system of infrastructure and settlements presents a sharp contrast to the concentric rings of highways found in Seattle, as described by Anne Vernez-Moudon, professor of architecture and urban planning at the University of Washington. Despite the presence of Puget Sound to the west and the Cascade Mountains to the east, Seattle reflects the typical North American affection for beltways. Furthermore, with one highway dubbed the “Boeing Beltway,” the relationship between government-funded infrastructure and the private sector is clear.

This comparison also illustrates the role of Madrid’s strong regional government in attempting to have infrastructure-whether government-funded or privatized-shape the urban form. In most global city regions with weaker governments, infrastructure only plays catch-up with existing demand.

Consortium commentator Gary Hack argued that the polynucleated ‘spread city’ is the more typical reality, usually accompanied by an increase in spatial segregation by class. Since the powerful economic and technological forces at work around the globe are likely to accelerate and reinforce these trends, he concludes that planners should focus on specific sites within city regions where they can exert their influence with the most positive results.

The comparative analysis between Ortiz’s metropolitan-wide infrastructure plan and Hack’s site-specific approach reminds us that, despite the similarities among forces shaping city regions across the globe, the ways these forces play out vary widely. These variances reflect important differences in institutional arrangements, history, culture, attitudes about private property, and notions of the public interest, among other factors. Furthermore, these differences also affect how researchers see their own cities in comparison to others.

The role of informal markets, for example, illustrates the challenge researchers face in attempting to understand both the unique and common features of international forces. While it is hard to understand land markets and land use in cities as different as Ankara and Santiago de Chile without understanding the informal sector, western European and North American researchers rarely attempt to understand their cities’ land markets from this perspective.

The regional city teams are continuing to work on their respective reports in preparation for publication of a book by International Thomson Publishing in the United Kingdom.

Rosalind Greenstein is a senior fellow of the Lincoln Institute and director of the Program on Land Use and Regulation.

Despite the long-term and continuing trend away from central business districts and toward suburban development, a number of factors are motivating recent attention to rail transit. These factors include:

concerns about the negative impact of auto-oriented sprawl desires to reduce air pollution and energy consumption interest in rebuilding urban communities need to provide access and mobility to those without autos desires to save the costs and avoid the impacts of new or widened roadways

Many metropolitan areas in the United States are considering the addition or expansion of light rail and commuter rail systems to link employees with business centers. The land use characteristics of the corridors where transit lines operate have been shown to influence transit ridership, but much of the previous work is more than 20 years old and based on data from a limited number of regions.

Our national research project, conducted for the Transit Cooperative Research Program with Jeffrey Zupan, expands and updates earlier research. We analyzed information on 261 stations on 19 light rail lines in 11 cities, including Baltimore, Cleveland and St. Louis, and 550 stations on 47 commuter rail lines in the six city regions of Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Philadelphia and Washington, DC.

The study shows that light rail and commuter rail serve distinctly different markets and land use patterns. Light rail with its closely spaced stations attracts more riders per station when it is located in denser residential areas. Feeder bus service helps to boost ridership. Light rail can function in regions with a wide range of CBD sizes and employment densities. Commuter rail depends more on park-and-ride lots at stations in low-density, high-income suburban areas farther from the CBDs, which tend to be larger and more dense than those in light rail areas.

Light rail, with its more frequent service, averages about twice as many daily boarders per station as commuter rail, even though light rail is more often found in smaller metropolitan areas. Figure 1 shows that light rail is most effective in attracting passengers close to the CBD. Figure 2 shows that commuter rail attracts the largest number of its riders about 35 miles out from the CBD. In both figures, other factors affecting ridership, except CBD employment density, are held constant.

Because most transit systems emanate from and focus on a region’s CBD, the amount of employment concentrated downtown clearly affects the demand for transit. Figures 1 and 2 also show that ridership increases with CBD density for both light rail and commuter rail. For light rail, the effects of CBD density on ridership are most pronounced for stations within 10 miles of the core, while for commuter rail the larger impacts occur at stations 20 to 50 miles outside the city.

Changes in Employment and Residential Density

CBD employment density (as measured by employment per gross CBD acre) is nearly twice as important for commuter rail ridership as for light rail. Our study shows that a 10 percent increase in CBD employment density produces 7.1 percent more commuter rail riders, but only 4.0 percent more light rail riders. Commuter rail boardings are more strongly influenced by CBD employment density because these systems usually have a single downtown terminal. Higher-density CBDs assure that more jobs are within walking distance of the commuter rail station. Employment density in city centers is less important in light rail regions since they have more stations distributed throughout the CBD.

On the other hand, a 10 percent increase in station area residential density (as measured by number of persons per gross acre within two miles of a station) boosts light rail boardings by 5.9 percent and commuter rail boardings by only 2.5 percent. Throughout the study these effects are measured holding constant transit system characteristics such as parking availability, station distance to the CBD and station area income levels.

Light rail, with its relatively short lines, is most effective in attracting passengers when stations are in higher-density residential areas close to the CBD. Commuter rail ridership rises more slowly with residential density because commuter rail is a high-fare mode, and its higher-income riders tend to live in more expensive, lower-density places. Moreover, the higher speeds and longer distances on commuter rail tend to increase ridership to the CBD from precisely those places outside the city where residential densities tend to be low.

Cost-efficiency and Effectiveness

In this study, cost-efficiency is measured by annual operating costs plus depreciation per vehicle mile. Effectiveness is measured by daily passenger miles per line mile. For light rail, these measures indicate a strong positive relationship with CBD employment size and residential density. A weaker but still significant relationship occurs for CBD employment density and for the line distance from the CBD. This suggests that medium to large cities with higher density corridors work best for light rail. For commuter rail, larger, denser CBDs attract more riders per line mile, but add to the cost per vehicle mile, creating a trade-off between effectiveness and cost-efficiency.

The length of the rail line is important for both light rail and commuter rail. Longer light rail lines are both slightly more cost-efficient and effective, but ridership diminishes beyond 10 miles. Commuter rail lines are much more cost efficient when they are longer, but their effectiveness declines beyond 50 miles.

This summary does not address many other significant factors in rail transit usage and land use patterns, including operating, capital and environmental costs saved as a result of not using other modes of transportation, notably automobiles and buses. Cities considering investment in new or expanded rail systems need to examine carefully all transportation alternatives in a corridor, including site-specific conditions and local preferences. Further, our study makes clear the need to integrate transit planning with land use planning at the earliest possible stage.

___________________________

Judy S. Davis is an urban planner and Samuel Seskin is a senior professional associate with Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas in Portland, Oregon. As a faculty associate of the Lincoln Institute, Seskin also develops and teaches courses linking land use and transportation. This article is derived from a report titled Commuter and Light Rail Transit Corridors: The Land Use Connection. It will be published by the Transit Cooperative Research Program in the summer of 1996 as part of Volume 1 of An Examination of the Relationship Between Transit and Urban Form, TCRP Project H-1.

The land market allocates land and access to urban amenities, and it does so with impressive efficiency. Yet, economists and planners continue to debate the extent to which the market fails to achieve broader social goals, how far regulation can offset for that failure, and even whether regulation results in land market outcomes being even farther from the socially desired outcome than would be the case without any regulation. To examine this debate and the underlying issues, more than 30 economists and planners met at the Lincoln Institute in July 2002 to encourage new policy-relevant analysis on land markets and their regulation, and to foster more fruitful communication between the disciplines.

At the center of the substantive debate was the basic question of regulation within a market economy and the unintended consequences that can result. The discussions touched upon many themes including gentrification, the use of public resources for private consumption, distributional issues, urban form and its regulation. If perspectives regarding market regulation differed between the two disciplines, so too did views regarding the strengths and limitations of the analytic tools that academics from different disciplines bring to such thorny problems. Among the challenges are the basic questions of how to define the problem, how to measure the current conditions in light of limited data, and how to interpret findings. Throughout the conference, the differences in the perspectives, assumptions, tools and references between planners and economists were ever present, in particular with regard to the role of politics in planning and policy making.

Unintended Consequences of Land Market Regulations

Despite their differences, concern for land markets and their centrality to social, political and economic life was the common focus of both economists and planners at the conference. They agreed that land markets are about far more than land. These markets have an important role in delivering life experiences and conditioning the welfare of the majority of people in developed and developing countries alike who live and work in cities. In addition, their regulation has both direct and indirect economic effects that extend into many areas of economic life and public policy. For example, the urban poor are likely to have worse schools and to experience higher levels of neighborhood crime because land markets capitalize the values of neighborhood amenities, such as better school quality and lower crime, thereby pricing poorer households into less desirable neighborhoods.

This power of land markets to reflect and capitalize factors that affect a household’s welfare was revealed in a study of impact fees levied on new development in Florida. Ihlanfeldt and Shaughnessy found that impact fees appear to be fully capitalized into house prices for owners of new and existing houses by redistributing the costs of new infrastructure provision from existing taxpayers to a reduced value of development land. In fast-growing Miami the cost of impact fees was borne by developers, yet offset by the increases they received in higher prices for new housing, “while buyers of new homes are compensated for a higher price by the property tax savings they experience. In contrast to the neutral effects that fees have on developers, landowners, and purchasers of new housing, impact fees provide existing homeowners a capital gain” (Ihlanfeldt and Shaughnessy, 26).

One complement to their story of Florida’s impact fees was illustrated in several other papers concerned with the unintended outcomes of regulation. British participants reported that Britain’s containment policy has generated higher densities within urbanized areas, but cities leapfrog out across their Greenbelts (or growth boundaries) to smaller satellite settlements; the consequence is that development becomes less contiguous and travel times increase. Villages become high-density suburbs surrounded by a sea of wheat: London in functional terms extends to cover most of southeastern England.

In a U.S. example based on an econometric simulation, Elena Irwin and Nancy Bockstael found that a clustering policy intended to preserve open space could instead backfire. Using Maryland data, they simulated the effects of a policy that was intended to preserve rural open space and found that it would instead accelerate development if “small to moderate amounts of open space are required to be preserved (specifically, 20 acres or less) and would slow the timing of development if larger amounts of open space are required to be preserved” (Irwin and Bockstael, 26). Their simulation results yield an interpretation that is highly nuanced and requires careful thought. That is, under certain conditions the cluster policy can backfire, while under other specific conditions the policy can yield an intended policy outcome.

These hypothetical clusters in Maryland may be echos of a real situation that Jean Cavailhès and his colleagues observed in the French countryside, where some urban dwellers moved to farm regions to create a mixed-use area that is neither entirely urban nor entirely rural. These former urbanites appear to value their proximity to a functioning rural landscape in exchange for longer commutes and (surprisingly) smaller residential lots. The authors hypothesize that these peri-urban dwellers benefit in different ways from living among the farmers.

In another example of the unintended consequences of regulations, Donald Shoup analyzed curbside parking. Many U.S. municipalities require developers to provide minimal parking per square foot of new commercial or, in some communities, residential space. The requirement for off-street parking, coupled with a systematic underpricing of curbside parking, has a double impact, according to Shoup. It imposes a substantial tax on affected developments (equivalent to up to 88 percent of construction costs), increases land taking, and means that public revenues annually lost an amount equal to the median property tax.

In these cases of unintended consequences of policy or regulatory interventions in the market, the authors argued for more careful design of both policies and regulations so state and local governments could reasonably achieve their policy goals. Despite the fact that the conference debate tended to pit regulation against the market, there was probably a tendency—if not full-fledged consensus—to favor market incentives and disincentives to achieve policy goals, rather than to rely strictly, or even largely, on regulation. Roger Bolton’s comments on Shoup’s paper cogently reflected this viewpoint. He said that Shoup’s work was valuable because it urges us to pay attention to a whole package of “important and related phenomena: inefficient pricing of an important good, curb parking; inefficient regulation of another good, privately owned off-street parking; and missed opportunities for local government revenue.”

Data and Measurement Challenges

Growth management and urban form were referenced extensively throughout the conference. The paper presented by Henry Overman, and written with three colleagues (Burchfield et al.) provided useful grounding to that conversation. They attempted to measure the extent of sprawl for the entire continental U.S. Using remote sensing data they calculated and mapped urban development and the change in urban land cover between 1976 and 1992. They defined sprawl as either the extension of the urban area, or leapfrog development, or lower-density development beyond the urban fringe. They concluded that only 1.9 percent of the continental U.S. was in urban use and only 0.58 percent had been taken for urban development in the 16-year period covered by the study. Furthermore, during this period, urban densities were mostly on the increase.

This study found development to be a feature of the “nearby urban landscape,” whether that was defined as close to existing development, or near highways or the coasts, and thus was perceived as encroaching on where people lived or traveled. The authors use this last observation to reconcile the apparent contradiction between their finding that less than 2 percent of the continental U.S. has been developed and the fact that containing and managing sprawl is at the center of policy agendas in many states and regions across the U.S. While relatively little land might have been consumed by new development in aggregate during the study period, many people see and experience this development on a daily basis and perceive it to represent significant change, often the kind of change they do not like.

The conference discussion touched upon some of the data questions raised by this work. The paper’s discussant, John Landis, noted some challenges he has faced in working with these and similar data to measure growth patterns in California. The estimates by Burchfield et al. are extremely low, possibly for technical reasons, according to Landis. Among the reasons is the difficulty in interpreting satellite images and the different outcomes that can occur when different thresholds are used for counting density, for example. That is, an area can be classified as more or less dense depending on what threshold the analysts establishes. “Ground-truthing” is required to remove some of the arbitrariness from the analysis, but this is an enormously costly undertaking.

Policy analysts are always faced with data limitations. Sometimes the problem is missing data, while other times it is data with questionable reliability. Yet, all too often researchers spend very little time paying attention to how serious that deficiency is for the policy problem at hand. When the available data is a very long time series with frequent intervals that relies on a well-structured and well-understood data collection method, and where few transformations occur between data collection and data use, most researchers and policy analysts would feel extremely comfortable interpolating one or two or even a handful of missing data points. Econometricians relying on data collected at regular intervals from government surveys frequently face this situation and are quite adept at filling in such “holes in the data.” In the world of limited data, that might be considered the best-case scenario.

At the other extreme we might have data that are collected using relatively new methods and that require significant transformation between collection and use. Data reliability likely decreases under these circumstances. Given the imperfect world in which we live, the answer is probably not to insist on using only the “best data.” However, researchers and policy analysts do have the obligation to use care in interpreting results based on weak data and to convey that weakness to their audience.

Another side of the limited data problem is the translation from concept to measure, and it explains why the conference participants spent so much time discussing “What is sprawl?” For researchers this question becomes “How does one define sprawl in such a way that one can measure it?” Burchfield et al. define sprawl as leapfrog or discontiguous urban development. Landis argues for “a more multi-faceted definition of sprawl, one that also incorporates issues of density, land use mix, and built-form homogeneity.”

Definitions are not trivial in policy analysis. If we cannot define the problem or the outcome, and we cannot measure it, how can we know if it is getting better or worse, and if our policies are having an impact? On the other hand, a very precise definition of a different but perhaps related concept may lead to unnecessary intervention. The new policy may improve the score on the measure but have little or no effect on the problem. For a variety of reasons (perhaps in part the customs and cultures within different disciplines) the economists at the conference tended to favor concepts that are simple and for which the data exist. On the other hand, the planners tended to favor concepts that are messy. In the end, one is left with weaknesses on both sides. The uni-dimensional definition, and therefore the uni-dimensional measure, may provide many of the desirable properties that allow statistical analyses. Multi-dimensional concepts are difficult to translate into measures. Which is better for policy making?

The Political Nature of Land Policy

Planning as a political activity was emphasized by several authors, notably Chris Riley (discussant of papers by Edwin Mills and Alan Evans), to emphasize the importance for economists to recognize this role and the constraints it imposes on significant change (particularly given the capacity of land markets to capitalize into asset values the amenities generated by planning policies themselves). Richard Feiock added there was also evidence that the forms of planning policies that communities selected (both the severity of such policies and the degree to which they relied on regulation in contrast to market instruments) could be largely accounted for by the political structure and socioeconomic and ethnic composition of those communities.

Participants reacted differently to the political nature of land policy and planning. For some this was problematic: it meant that the market was not being allowed to work. For others, it meant that the political process in a democracy was being allowed to work: the people had spoken and the policy reflected the expressed will of the body politic.

Reflections on Debate

The differences between economists and planners will continue, and differences among practitioners in different countries and even different parts of the same country (notably the large United States) can either stimulate or thwart future debates over the study of land market policies and implementation. Perhaps, though, the word debate itself thwarts our efforts. In debates, the debaters rarely change their minds. They enter the debate with their point of view firmly fixed and do not get “points” for admitting that their debating opponent taught them something or that they have consequently changed their own mind. However, one purpose of a professional conference is, indeed, for thoughtful people to consider their own assumptions and to be informed and changed by the points of view of others. In the future, perhaps debates will be supplanted with reflective conversation.

Paul Cheshire is professor of economic geography at the London School of Economics, England; Rosalind Greenstein is senior fellow and cochair of the Department of Planning and Development at the Lincoln Institute; and Stephen C. Sheppard is professor in the Department of Economics at Williams College, Massachusetts. They jointly organized the Lincoln Institute conference, “Analysis of Urban Land Markets and the Impact of Land Market Regulation,” on which this article is based.

Conference Papers

The conference participants whose papers are cited in this article are noted below. All conference papers and discussants’ comments are posted on the Lincoln Institute website (www.lincolninst.edu) where they can be downloaded for free

Burchfield, Marcy, Henry Overman, Diego Puga and Matthew A. Turner. “Sprawl?”

Cavailhès, Jean, Dominique Peeters, Evangelos Sékeris, and Jacques-François Thisse. “The Periurban City.”

Feiock, Richard E. and Antonio Taveras. “County Government Institutions and Local Land Use Regulation.”

Ihlanfeldt, Keith R. and Timothy Shaughnessy. “An Empirical Investigation of the Effects of Impact Fees on Housing and Land Markets.”

Irwin, Elena G. and Bockstael, Nancy E. “Urban Sprawl as a Spatial Economic Process.”

Shoup, Donald. “Curb Parking: The Ideal Source of Public Revenue.”

Seeking to address housing affordability and transportation congestion issues, the executive directors of the 25 largest public-sector metropolitan regional councils gathered in Los Angeles in September 2003 for their second regional forum. The three-day conference was sponsored by the Lincoln Institute, the Fannie Mae Foundation and the National Association of Regional Councils (NARC).

Case Studies

The opening session featured presentations on three case studies that illustrate different approaches to growth and development: Atlanta, Chicago and Los Angeles.

The Atlanta region is home to 3.6 million people in 10 counties. Charles Krautler, of the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), noted that the commission was created in 1947 and in 1952 presented its first regional plan. “It proposed a tight development pattern with an urban growth boundary close to where I-285 circles our region,” he explained. “It was rejected outright. Instead, we adopted a plan with growth in concentric circles. We did not have unplanned sprawl, we planned for it and we got it.” However, he continued, “now we have two societies. Many people moved to the northern part of the region and took their wealth with them. We encouraged them to trade long drives for big houses. But poverty remains concentrated in Atlanta and Fulton County.”

No slowdown is forecasted for 2030, as the population is expected to grow to 5.4 million people and employment to 3.1 million jobs. That means more congestion, and Atlanta faces other constraints as well. The region is the largest metropolitan area with the smallest water supply, and there is no opportunity for significant expansion of the supply. “If we keep doing what we’re doing, then what we have today is the best its going to be,” Krautler stated. “We’re trying to encourage a movement back to the city. After losing population for the last 30 years, the city has grown by 16,000 since the 2000 census. In a further effort to rewind the sprawl clock, ARC has designated 44 activity/town centers as part of its regional development plan linking transportation and land use. Each center receives planning and, more important, infrastructure resources to concentrate development.”

The Chicago metropolitan area is the “hub of the Midwest,” according to Ron Thomas of the Northeast Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC). With more than 8 million residents in 6 counties with 272 incorporated municipalities, Chicago has built its strength around the waters of Lake Michigan. The NIPC region hosts almost 4.5 million jobs and 62 companies that are listed in the Fortune 1000. The 4,000-square-mile region stretches north to Wisconsin and east to Indiana. And yet, Thomas laments, “our urban growth ‘edge’ is beyond our region. That means that the people who are attempting to control this growth are not at our table.”

Building on the Burnham plan, the first regional plan in the country created in 1909, Chicago’s urban fabric is held together by a series of 200 town centers, an extensive rail network and an expansive highway system. The good news, Thomas said, is that “90 percent of the region’s population is within one mile of a transit line.” Three satellite cities, Elgin, Joliet and Aurora, create a polycentric region around Chicago’s western fringe. The net result is that the region still has the capacity to absorb the projected growth of more than 2 million new people in the next 30 years.

Like every metropolitan region, Chicago is experiencing immigration from all over the world, but especially an influx of Hispanic families. New immigrants enter a region with longstanding socioeconomic patterns of segregation, especially in the southern counties. Thomas explained there are pockets of diversity in some suburban communities, but exclusionary zoning keeps the barriers high. While NIPC has successfully brought together the mayors in the metropolitan area to discuss critical issues, “we suffer from a lack of major universities, most of which are either downtown or 100 miles out,” Thomas noted. “Our political leaders are organized, and so is our business community. However, we run on parallel tracks and talk in stereo.” To address this disconnect, NIPC has created a broad-scale civic leadership process to undertake community-based planning. “We have created a tool called ‘paint the town,’ which allows interactive meetings in local city and town halls,” he continued. “We have a future to plan and it needs to be grounded where the people live, work and raise their families.”

Los Angeles has more than twice as many people as Chicago and more than 4.5 times the population of the Atlanta region, and yet “the urban portion of our region is the densest in the country,” according to Mark Pisano of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). “We have 187 municipalities in 6 counties. With 76 local officials in our structure, our congressional delegation comes to us for solutions to the tough issues we face. We do have a region that is large enough to cover the true regional economy, but the economic and social forces are relentless. Our economic bases are shifting faster than we can plan infrastructure to keep up with the changes.”

Like Chicago and Atlanta, Los Angeles is a polycentric region; it spreads across all of Southern California except San Diego County. “We were one of the first regions in the country to become a majority of minorities. Immigration drives development in our region,” said Pisano. Some of the trends are good. “Forty percent of our region is doing extremely well, but that means that 60 percent is not. We have been called the ‘new Appalachia’ by some, and we are banding together with other states along the border with Mexico to create the Southwest Authority. This, like other similar efforts around the country including the Appalachian Regional Commission, would create a federally supported multistate compact to address critical infrastructure needs required to support the economy of this large area.”

SCAG forecasts another 6 million people will arrive in the region by 2030, more than twice the population of the City of Chicago. As the new immigrants arrive, cities and towns already cramped by the constraints of Proposition 13 are beginning to close the door on new housing production. “Housing is the most undesirable land use in Southern California,” said Pisano. “We are seeing the fiscalization of land use. Our leaders tell me that they don’t want any more housing. They say this is sound fiscal policy. However, this approach just puts more pressure on places that already have housing. The net effect is that Los Angeles is three times more overcrowded than the rest of the region and eight times more crowded than New York City.”

To address these big-picture problems, SCAG is focusing on macro-level regional development patterns. “We can’t build our way out of the traffic congestion, but we have two scenarios under discussion,” Pisano continued. “The first focuses on infill development; the second proposes creation of the fifth ring of development in the high desert. Effective land use will generate three times more benefit than highway expansion.” Using a creative strategy of building truck lanes, paid for by the truckers, “we can create some relief and target key transportation logistics, i.e., moving freight out of the port of Los Angeles into the rest of the country. This strategy also addresses a key workforce issue, since you don’t need a college education to drive a truck. To fund such major infrastructure expansion, we are exploring how to create a tax credit that would allow significant private-sector investment in regional transportation projects.”

Discussion Sessions

Ruben Barrales, deputy assistant to President Bush and director of intergovernmental affairs for the White House, presented an overview of the executive branch’s current national priorities. During the discussion Krautler asked if a White House conference would be a possible response to the critical issues facing the largest metropolitan regions in the country. Barrales said the concept was worth discussing but would require considerable advance preparation to be effective. Pisano offered the resources of the group, working through NARC, to help with conference planning. Robert Yaro of the Regional Plan Association (RPA) suggested an interesting theme. “We’ve had several major eras of planning in this country,” he explained. “When Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, he spurred a major expansion in the nation’s land mass and then had to figure out what to do with it. One hundred years later Teddy Roosevelt appointed Gifford Pinchot to create the National Park Service. We’re due for another national planning initiative, but we now have many challenges that require a sophisticated response. We can’t build an economy based on people driving several hours to and from work each day. We need to focus on how we can create a place that is both pleasant and affordable.”

Armando Carbonell of the Lincoln Institute asked the group to expand on what national policies are needed to support the large metropolitan regions in the country. Comments included:

• We need to re-magnitize our regions, and modest incentives from Washington, DC, could help start that process.
• We need to partner with groups like the Urban Land Institute.
• We are flying blind and that’s dangerous. Even though we’re in the planning business, we need better data, better policies and different paradigms for managing our regional governance that include partners from our business and civic sectors as well as our political leaders.
• We can use a structure like the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), created for transportation, to address other critical issues like water and housing.
• The bad news is that we are growing, but the good news is that we are growing. We attract smart, entrepreneurial people from around the world.

Dowell Myers, director of the Planning School in the University of Southern California School of Planning, Policy and Development, moderated a session focused on transforming regional actions into local implementation. As part of the program, representatives of three regions commented on their strategies.

“Seattle grew a lot over the last 20 years and we grew in different ways,” said Mary McCumber of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). “Our new growth was outside of our historic cities. We knew we needed to do something and we got lucky. We got ISTEA [Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act], a state growth management law and a new regional council at the same time.” Using these tools, PSRC created Destination 2030, which was honored as the best regional plan in the country by the American Planning Association (APA). “But we have planned enough. We are a land of process. Now we need to have the courage to act.”

Martin Tuttle of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) reported, “We used our federal transportation dollars to create land use incentives for community design and backed it up with $500 million. We asked people, ‘Is Atlanta what we want?’” Using the best data available and a sophisticated feedback planning process, SACOG brought the planning to the people and took the people’s plan back to the council.

Bob Yaro of RPA reminded the group that it takes “patience, persistence and perseverance.” He presented New York City as an urban success story, where 8 million people ride the transit system per day. “The Regional Plan Association, created in 1929, oversees a three-state region, and those states don’t like each other much. They have different DNA,” Yaro noted. Despite that history, RPA created the first strategy for a multi-centered region. Unlike the other regional councils, RPA is a private-sector organization. “The real power is in the civic community, if you can get people organized and move them in the right direction,” Yaro added.

Tom Bell, president and CEO of Cousins Properties in Atlanta, introduced a private-sector perspective on engaging in regional policy development: “I was surprised to read in Time magazine that the Atlanta region is the fastest growing settlement in human history. We are gobbling up 100 acres a day. There is no common ground. Democracy and land planning go together like oil and water. But you [planners] are the people who can make a change. Developers will do a lot of work if we can see a payoff. Visions are in short supply and the status quo is not an option.”

Addressing income distribution in the regions, Paul Ong, director of the Lewis Study Center at UCLA, reported that poverty rates among the elderly have declined at the same time that rates among children have increased. More distressing, poverty is higher and more concentrated in urban areas. “We are seeing a working underclass—not people on welfare but people who have jobs.” Rick Porth from Hartford and Howard Maier from Cleveland responded with case studies from their regions on income and social equity. In Hartford, Porth said, “the disparity is getting worse. More important, 20 percent of our future workforce is being educated in our worst schools.” Maier noted, “our economy is in transformation. The Cleveland area was a manufacturing center for steel and car production, but now we have more healthcare workers than steel or auto workers. As a region of 175 communities, we have 175 land use policies based on 175 zoning codes and maps. Each community’s plans may be rational, but together they project a future of sprawl without the ability for coordinated public services or facilities.”

In other sessions several regions that had developed assessment and benchmarking studies presented their current work, and the conference concluded with presentations by each of the councils on a best practice study, strategy or methodology that they have implemented.

The conference theme—confronting housing, transportation and regional growth—underscores the complexity of the metropolitan environment and the necessity for an integrated response to regional dynamics. Traditional regional councils are unique in their ability to link multiple regional systems to focus on specific regional questions. Housing affordability, a seemingly intractable problem overwhelming metropolitan regions, can only be understood against the backdrop of the local government fiscal policy. Transportation systems, often understood as infrastructure designed to service an existing regional settlement pattern, must be seen as a key determinant of economic development policy as well as a primary driver of land use change in regions. The metropolitan regions of this country are the economic engines of our states and the country as a whole. A new, enriched dialogue with the White House could stimulate a series of policy initiatives. As that conversation proceeds, regional councils are the key organizations to engage business and civic leaders with local elected officials around the regional table.

David Soule is senior research associate at the Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University in Boston. He teaches political science and conducts research on urban economic development, tax policy and transportation systems. He is the former executive director of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), the regional planning agency representing 101 cities and towns in the Boston area.

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 7 del CD-ROM Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

Como Visiting Fellow en el Lincoln Institute y Loeb Fellow de la Harvard University Graduate School of Design durante el curso académico 2004–2005, Mario Navarro ha emprendido un análisis crítico de la innovadora política de financiación de vivienda desarrollada en Chile durante los últimos 30 años. El objetivo del estudio, resumido aquí, es ayudar a los diseñadores de políticas de vivienda de los países en vías de desarrollo a entender el modelo chileno como alternativa para proporcionar viviendas a personas de sectores de ingresos bajos y moderados.

Hasta principios de los años 70, los programas de vivienda de los países en vías de desarrollo consistían en iniciativas patrocinadas por el gobierno para diseñar, construir y vender viviendas usando préstamos con tasas de interés subvencionadas. Estas políticas eran generalmente de escala limitada e inaccesibles por las familias pobres o no claramente orientadas en las mismas, y a menudo eran ineficaces (mayo de 1999). Conscientes de estos problemas, las organizaciones de desarrollo internacionales de mediados de los 70 empezaron a dirigir sus préstamos y consejos a países en vías de desarrollo basándose en la nueva estrategia de nuevas “necesidades básicas”, que consistía en proporcionar sitios y servicios, mejora de asentamientos informales, y vivienda básica (Kimm 1986).

Al mismo tiempo, e independientemente de estas organizaciones de desarrollo, Chile dio comienzo a varias reformas en el sector financiero y en programas de viviendas sociales, entre las que se encontraba la creación del primer programa del mundo en subsidiar la demanda para comprar viviendas (Gilbert 2004). Este modelo chileno se estableció diez años antes del método de “habilitación de mercados de vivienda” promovido por organizaciones internacionales como la Agencia de EE.UU. para el Desarrollo Internacional (Kimm 1986), el Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (Rojas, Jacobs y Savedoff 1999) y el Banco Mundial (World Bank 1993). Según esta política habilitadora, los gobiernos generan incentivos y actúan como facilitadores, de modo que el sector privado produzca y financie las viviendas que necesita el país.

El modelo chileno ha influido en la política de vivienda de muchos países de América Latina, e incluso en la de otros continentes (Gilbert 2004; Gonzáles Arrieta 1997). No obstante, no se ha reconocido ampliamente como el primer programa en el que el gobierno desempeña la función de habilitador del mercado. Gilbert (2002), un experto importante del modelo chileno y su influencia en otros países, menciona que Chile se encaja en el modelo habilitador, pero mi estudio muestra que, más que sólo encajar, el modelo de vivienda chileno fue el precursor de la política. Las características principales de este programa (pagos puntuales en efectivo de una cantidad fija) corresponden “incuestionablemente al tipo de subsidio [para vivienda] que es menos problemático que otros” (Angel 2000).

El gobierno chileno, a través del Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo, MINVU, fue el protagonista principal del éxito del modelo chileno. Durante los primeros 27 años de implementación de esta política (hasta 2001), el MINVU no sólo financió y gestionó los programas de subsidio, sino que también fue la compañía inmobiliaria más grande y el segundo banco hipotecario del país, en términos de número de viviendas construidas y número de préstamos hipotecarios concedidos.

Tres períodos de política de vivienda

¿Cuáles han sido los instrumentos y las cantidades de recursos públicos y privados que se adjudicaron a la construcción y a la mejora de la vivienda social en Chile? Mi estudio se divide en seis partes; las tres primeras revisan períodos bien definidos de la política de vivienda en los últimos 30 años, y las tres partes siguientes describen los acontecimientos más importantes en la evolución de esta política.

El primer período, de 1974 a 1984, estableció las bases de la política de vivienda basada en la habilitación de mercados. Durante esos 11 años, se llevaron a cabo profundas reformas en el sistema bancario. Los programas de subsidio a la vivienda fueron creados y después se ajustaron significativamente con el tiempo. Sin embargo, se dedicaron pocos recursos a los programas de vivienda, y el sector privado participó solamente en el suministro de vivienda para la clase media alta. Los recursos públicos no llegaron a los grupos más pobres, por lo que el déficit de la vivienda siguió aumentando.

El segundo período abarcó más de 17 años, de 1985 a 2001, y durante ese período la política se consolidó con una intervención estatal significativa. El terremoto que sacudió la zona central de Chile en marzo de 1985 marcó el máximo histórico de déficit de vivienda, llegando a más de un millón de unidades. Este acontecimiento precipitó una mayor atención al diseño de programas de vivienda y subsidio, así como un aumento del nivel de recursos adjudicados a estos programas. Estos dos factores fueron decisivos para atraer al sector privado al mercado de vivienda social. La continuidad de las políticas de vivienda implementadas por gobiernos democráticos que dieron comienzo en 1990 fue un esfuerzo estratégico para consolidar la confianza y los conocimientos que requería el sector privado para aumentar su participación en el mercado. El gobierno continuó su función en la construcción y financiación de viviendas para amplios sectores de la población, y el enfoque de los recursos mejoró con respecto al período anterior. Aunque la dedicación seguía siendo inadecuada, el gran logro de este período fue la reducción del déficit de vivienda a la mitad de lo que había sido a mediados de los 80.

El tercer período, de 2002 a 2004, corresponde a la implementación de la política de vivienda de habilitación de mercados. Aunque la política de la vivienda de Chile recibió reconocimiento internacional antes de 2001, sólo el 25 por ciento de sus recursos se adjudicaron a familias por debajo del nivel de pobreza. A ese nivel de rendimiento, se habrían tardado 24 años en eliminar el déficit de vivienda (Focus 2001). El MINVU estaba gastando más de la mitad de sus recursos en programas de construcción de vivienda directos y seguía funcionando como un banco, concediendo préstamos hipotecarios, aunque más del 70 por ciento de los pagos estaban vencidos (División Técnica 2001).

Política de vivienda actual

Para mejorar el enfoque de su adjudicación de recursos, en 2002 el MINVU empezó la transformación más importante de su política de vivienda desde 1974. Al mismo tiempo, el MINVU dejó de conceder préstamos hipotecarios y abandonó la construcción directa de viviendas. En 2004, el 96 por ciento de los recursos se dedicaba a programas de subsidio y sólo el 4 por ciento a programas de construcción. Los programas de vivienda más importantes para familias urbanas según esta nueva política de vivienda se describen aquí.

Para los residentes más pobres, el MINVU creó un programa de subsidio llamado Fondo Solidario de Vivienda (Financiación para Viviendas Cooperativas) con un subsidio inicial de US$8.400 por hogar. Los solicitantes necesitan tener US$300 en ahorros y deben presentar una propuesta de vivienda específica. El subsidio cubre el costo del suelo, la infraestructura y una unidad de aproximadamente 33 metros cuadrados que contenga cuarto de baño, cocina, espacio multiuso y dormitorio. Esto se considera como la primera fase de una vivienda que se construirá paulatinamente con el tiempo. El permiso de construcción municipal está aprobado de antemano suponiendo una ampliación de la unidad a un mínimo de 51 metros cuadrados.

Las familias deben hacer las solicitudes en grupos organizados de al menos 10 hogares y con el apoyo de una organización gestora, que puede ser una municipalidad, una organización no gubernamental o una firma de consultoría registrada en el MINVU. El ministerio ya no decide dónde y qué construir, ya que los grupos familiares presentan sus proyectos y el MINVU selecciona los mejores desde los criterios de desarrollo social de diseño y urbanístico. La organización gestora recibe los fondos para desarrollar el proyecto, implementar un plan de acción social y ayudar a las familias con apoyo técnico para ampliar sus unidades.

Las familias no reciben ningún otro subsidio para la ampliación, pero como no tienen que pagar una hipoteca pueden ahorrar para financiar los materiales y la mano de obra requeridos. El nuevo programa es flexible y también acepta proyectos que comprenden la compra de viviendas existentes o construcciones en espacios abiertos existentes dentro de una parcela para aumentar la densidad de las viviendas.

El mecanismo de selección beneficia a las personas que compran viviendas usadas por sobre las que compran viviendas nuevas. El objetivo era abrir un nuevo mercado para el sector de ingresos muy bajos, haciendo posible que compraran las viviendas que habían sido construidas por el gobierno durante los 30 años anteriores. Esta política también está considerada como una solución a los problemas tradicionales asociados con la mudanza de familias a nuevos proyectos urbanos en la periferia de las ciudades, lejos de redes sociales y laborales y más costosas a la hora de desplazarse al trabajo. Este programa se concentra en las personas que viven por debajo del nivel de pobreza (aproximadamente 632.000 hogares en Chile, equivalente al 19 por ciento de la población). Se han concedido casi 30.000 subsidios de esta clase al año desde 2002.

El segundo programa de subsidios fue diseñado para personas de bajos ingresos por encima del nivel de pobreza que eran los consumidores principales de los anteriores proyectos de vivienda desarrollados por el MINVU hasta 2001. Los subsidios pueden usarse para comprar viviendas nuevas o existentes o para construir una vivienda en su propio suelo. El subsidio es de US$4.500 para viviendas que cuestan US$9.000 o menos y disminuye linealmente hasta US$2.700 para viviendas hasta un límite de precio de US$18.000. Se han concedido casi 40.000 viviendas anualmente bajo este programa.

Debido a las mejoras de crédito ofrecidas por el MINVU, seis bancos privados firmaron acuerdos para conceder préstamos hipotecarios para viviendas con un valor inferior a US$18.000. Esta política fue capaz de reducir los requisitos de alquiler y permitir a los trabajadores informales reunir las condiciones necesarias para obtener préstamos hipotecarios. Para reducir los índices de morosidad, los préstamos requerían un seguro contra incendios y desempleo o la muerte de la persona. Se incluyen tres mejoras de crédito en los acuerdos del MINVU con los bancos.

1. Subsidio para costos de cierre: se da al banco una cantidad fija entre US$300 (si el costo de la vivienda es de US$9.000 o menos) y US$120 (para valores de la vivienda de hasta US$18.000) por cada préstamo concedido para financiar una vivienda subsidiada.

2. Subsidio implícito: el MINVU garantiza que el préstamo se venda en el mercado secundario al 100 por cien de su valor nominal. Si no ocurre esto, el MINVU paga la diferencia al banco.

3. Seguro contra impago: en caso de ejecución de hipoteca, el MINVU garantiza que el banco recuperará el saldo de la deuda y el costo de los trámites legales. Contrariamente a los préstamos de la FHA en EE. UU., la ejecución hipotecaria la realiza el emisor del préstamo, no el MINVU.

Algunos distritos temían que los subsidios se asignarían sólo al límite superior del precio permitido y que el mercado no proporcionaría ni vivienda ni crédito por viviendas de menos de US$15.000. Los resultados mostraron que la progresividad de los subsidios era suficiente para estimular el mercado a todos los niveles de precios enfocados por el subsidio (ver Figura 7.1.3.1 en archivo anexo).

El tercer tipo de subsidio es para viviendas entre 18.000 y 30.000 dólares estadounidenses para promover unidades para ingresos mixtos en proyectos de vivienda privados. Sólo se han concedido 6.500 subsidios de esta clase al año. El subsidio ofrece un capital inicial de US$2.700, pero las mejoras de crédito se eliminaron porque muchos bancos privados ya estaban originando préstamos hipotecarios en esta gama de precios.

Las tres últimas partes del estudio analizan (1) temas clave para generar una política de vivienda habilitadora de mercados, incluidos los costos de transacción, acceso a financiación bancaria, ahorros para viviendas y apoyo a familias para que puedan aprovecharse de los subsidios; (2) el impacto de los programas de vivienda en los ingresos familiares y la distribución de la renta nacional; y (3) lecciones sobre las finanzas de las viviendas aprendidas de la experiencia de Chile en los últimos 30 años o más.

Conclusión

Mi estudio analiza la política de vivienda chilena desde 1974, para entender mejor cómo se hizo posible incorporar la participación del sector privado y mejorar el énfasis en la asignación de recursos al sector más pobre. El estudio explora las decisiones tomadas, tanto las buenas como las malas, en los últimos 30 años, y particularmente en los tres últimos años, e identifica las funciones de diferentes actores sociales y económicos en el proceso. Los primeros resultados son alentadores. Al usar el mismo presupuesto para subsidios en cada uno de los cuatro últimos años, el MINVU aumentó al 57 por ciento el número de familias de los tres tramos de ingresos más pobres que se han beneficiado de subsidios de vivienda del gobierno (ver Figura 7.1.3.2 en archivo anexo).

A pesar del gran avance en viviendas sociales en Chile, quedan muchas tareas por hacer. Un informe del MINVU estima un déficit de vivienda de 543.000 unidades en 2000 y sugiere que se necesitan 96.000 unidades de vivienda nuevas cada año simplemente para satisfacer la demanda de familias nuevas (Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo de Chile 2004).

Los efectos en términos del uso del suelo también son notables. Hasta 2001, todas las unidades de vivienda construidas para familias de bajos ingresos en el área de Santiago fueron desarrolladas por el MINVU en nuevos proyectos de relleno en la periferia de la ciudad. El programa de Financiación para la Vivienda Cooperativa, establecido en 2003, alentó la adquisición de viviendas existentes y aumentó la densidad de las viviendas dentro de áreas ya urbanizadas. Como consecuencia, el porcentaje de estos tipos de viviendas empezó a aumentar considerablemente, de cero en 2001 al 23 por ciento en 2003 y hasta el 63 por ciento en 2004, con una disminución correspondiente del porcentaje de nuevas unidades de relleno desarrolladas en la periferia.

Chile tardó más de 28 años en implementar completamente la política de vivienda de habilitación de mercados. Espero que este estudio pueda ayudar a otros países a formular sus políticas de vivienda, de modo que todos los ciudadanos, sin importar su condición socioeconómica, pueden tener la oportunidad de ser propietarios de un hogar decente.

Mario Navarro fue director de la política de vivienda en el Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo de Chile (MINVU) de 2000 a 2004. De 2004 a 2005 fue Loeb Fellow en Harvard y Visiting Fellow en el Lincoln Institute.

Referencias

Angel, S. 2000. Housing policy matters: A global analysis. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

División Técnica de Estudio y Fomento Habitacional. 2001. Informe de gestión: Diciembre de 2000. Santiago, Chile: Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo.

Gilbert, A. 2002. Power, ideology and the Washington consensus: The development and spread of the Chilean housing policy. Housing Studies 17(2): 305–324.

———. 2004. Helping the poor through housing subsidies: Lessons from Chile, Colombia and South Africa. Habitat International 28(1): 13.

Gonzáles Arrieta, G. 1997. Acceso a la vivienda y subsidios directos a la demanda: Análisis y lecciones de las experiencias latinoamericanas. Serie Financiamiento del Desarrollo (63).

Kimm, P. 1986. Evolving shelter policies for developing countries. Second International Shelter Conference, Viena, Austria.

Mayo, S. 1999. Subsidies in housing. Washington, DC: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo.

Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo de Chile. 2004. El déficit habitacional en Chile: Medición de los requerimientos de vivienda y su distribución espacial. Santiago, Chile: Política Habitacional y Planificación (321).

Rojas, E., Jacobs, M., and Savedoff, W. 1999. Operational guidelines for housing: Urban development and housing policy. Washington, DC: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo.

World Bank. 1993. Housing: Enabling markets to work. Washington, DC: Banco Mundial.

The community land trust (CLT) is one mechanism that addresses the need for affordable housing, and it also can be considered an institutional mechanism for capturing socially produced land value.

Land Lines April 2009 Report from the President

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Para que los procesos de planificación puedan resolver los temas candentes de la actualidad, tales como el cambio climático, la congestión de tráfico y la justicia social, los planes tienen que realizarse a la escala apropiada, tienen que promulgar herramientas de implementación apropiadas y tienen que hacerse cumplir por medio de una autoridad legítima. En otras palabras, nuestra capacidad para resolver los desafíos críticos depende de las bases legales e institucionales de la planificación.

En los Estados Unidos, la responsabilidad de sentar estas bases de planificación recae en los estados, los cuales a su vez han delegado la mayor parte de la autoridad sobre el uso del suelo en los gobiernos locales. En Europa, las bases de planificación se establecen en cada país, cuyos sistemas de planificación frecuentemente cuentan con planes nacionales y regionales, como también un mosaico de planes locales. Para mejor o peor, estas bases institucionales han enmarcado el proceso de planificación a ambos lados del océano Atlántico en la mayor parte del período de posguerra. Pero a medida que el tamaño de los desafíos de planificación sigue en aumento, y el descontento con el status quo sigue creciendo, varios estados y naciones europeas han comenzado a experimentar con metodologías de planificación nuevas e innovadoras.

La oportunidad para explorar y debatir estos temas congregó a académicos, profesionales, estudiantes y otros en Dublín, Irlanda, en octubre de 2012, en un seminario de dos días de duración patrocinado por el Lincoln Institute of Land Policy y organizado por la Escuela de Geografía, Planificación y Política Medioambiental de University College, Dublín y el Centro Nacional para el Crecimiento Inteligente de la Universidad de Maryland. Llevado a cabo en la histórica Newman House ubicada en St. Stephen’s Green, se presentaron ponencias sobre planificación en los Estados Unidos y Europa, y casos de estudio de cinco estados de los EE. UU. y cinco naciones europeas. Cada presentación fue seguida de un comentario por parte de un funcionario de alto nivel del estado o nación correspondiente (ver el recuadro 1).

————————

Recuadro 1: Presentaciones efectuadas en el Seminario sobre planificación por parte de estados y naciones/estados realizado en Dublín en octubre de 2012

Bierbaum, Marty
Plan de desarrollo del estado de Nueva Jersey

Faludi, Andreas
La europeización de la planificación y el papel de PEOT

Fulton, Bill
Planificación para el cambio climático en California

Galland, Daniel
El marco nacional de planificación espacial de Dinamarca

Geppert, Anna
Planificación espacial en Francia

Grist, Berna
La estrategia nacional espacial de Irlanda

Knaap, Gerrit
PlanMaryland: Un trabajo que está en vías de realizarse

Lewis, Rebecca
Plan de desarrollo del estado de Delaware

Needham, Barrie
La estrategia espacial nacional de los Países Bajos

Salkin, Patricia
Marcos de planificación en los Estados Unidos y el papel del gobierno federal

Seltzer, Ethan
Planificación del uso del suelo en Oregón: El mosaico institucional y la lucha por llegar a escala

Tewdwer-Jones, Mark
Planificación nacional en el Reino Unido

Para obtener más información sobre el seminario, visite el sitio web del programa: http://www.ucd.ie/gpep/events/seminarsworkshopsconferences/natplansymp2012

————————

Un marco de planificación espacial en Europa

En Europa, la planificación está regida por una serie de tradiciones y estructuras de gobierno (Faludi 2012). Algunas naciones europeas tienen estructuras de gobierno «unitarias», en las que la autoridad sobre el uso del suelo recae en última instancia en el gobierno nacional. Italia y España tienen estructuras «regionales» de gobierno, en las que la autoridad sobre el uso del suelo es compartida constitucionalmente entre el gobierno nacional y los gobiernos regionales. Austria, Bélgica y Alemania tienen estructuras de gobierno «federalistas», en las que las funciones particulares sobre el uso del suelo se distribuyen entre el gobierno nacional y los gobiernos regionales y locales. Dentro de estos marcos operativos ha surgido una variedad de culturas y tradiciones de planificación: “amenagement du territoire” en Francia; “town and country planning” en el Reino Unido; “Raumordnung” en Alemania; y “ruimtelijke ordening” en los Países Bajos. Si bien estos términos generalmente tienen la misma connotación que la «planificación urbana» en los Estados Unidos, existen diferencias importantes, sutiles y defendidas con vehemencia.

La expresión utilizada para la planificación urbana en la Unión Europea es «planificación espacial» (Comisión Europea 1997, 24).

“La planificación espacial se refiere a los métodos utilizados en general por el sector público para influir sobre la distribución futura de actividades en el espacio. Se adopta con el fin de crear una organización territorial más racional de los usos del suelo y vincularlos para equilibrar las demandas de desarrollo inmobiliario con la necesidad de proteger el medio ambiente y alcanzar objetivos sociales y económicos.

“La planificación espacial adopta medidas para coordinar el impacto espacial de otras políticas sectoriales, alcanzar una distribución más pareja de desarrollo económico entre regiones que lo que crearían de otra manera las fuerzas del mercado, y regular la conversión de suelos y el uso de las propiedades.”

La Unión Europea no tiene autoridad para elaborar planes espaciales, pero influye de manera directa en sus resultados por medio de iniciativas de desarrollo regional, directivas medioambientales y financiamiento estructural y de cohesión. Este objetivo está articulado en la Perspectiva Europea de Ordenación Territorial (PEOT) firmada en 1988 por los ministros responsables de la planificación espacial en los estados miembros, y por los miembros de la Comisión Europea responsables de las políticas regionales (Faludi 2002).

En general se acepta que la planificación espacial moderna en el contexto europeo incluye la planificación nacional, regional y local, donde los planes nacionales proporcionan estrategias amplias de desarrollo y pautas para los planes realizados en los niveles de gobierno menores; los planes regionales integran el desarrollo físico con las políticas sociales, económicas y medioambientales, pero sin especificar sitios individuales; los planes locales son específicos para ciertos lugares y definen los elementos físicos y de diseño urbano de la construcción. Aunque ninguno de los marcos de planificación de las naciones miembros se ajusta perfectamente a este ideal jerárquico, la PEOT ha influido en la actividad de planificación de cada una de las naciones.

La PEOT se basa a su vez en tradiciones europeas de planificación muy arraigadas que se remontan a la Segunda Guerra Mundial, cuando el desarrollo nacional o los planes de reconstrucción sin duda fueron necesarios para llevar a cabo las restauraciones de posguerra. Muchas naciones europeas siguen teniendo planes nacionales de desarrollo y estrategias nacionales espaciales complementarias. Pero la influencia e importancia de estos planes ha disminuido paulatinamente desde la reconstrucción. En la última década en particular, las naciones que antes se caracterizaban por un compromiso ambicioso y amplio con la planificación, como Francia, Dinamarca y el Reino Unido, no han adoptado planes nacionales nuevos y han puesto mayor énfasis en planes regionales y locales.

Estrategias y marcos espaciales nacionales europeos

Francia

Si bien Francia es una nación-estado unitaria y centralizada, el gobierno nacional nunca ha desempeñado un papel de liderazgo en la planificación estatal. Por el contrario, la responsabilidad de la planificación espacial se transfirió oficialmente a los gobiernos regionales y locales por medio de reformas descentralizadoras adoptadas en 1982 y 2003 (Geppert 2012). Aun cuando sigue habiendo coordinación entre los gobiernos de distintos niveles, este proceso genera con mayor frecuencia estrategias de inversión conjunta más que visiones espaciales compartidas u objetivos comunes. Antes que la mayoría de las naciones restantes, el gobierno nacional francés comenzó a centrarse menos en la planificación espacial y más en políticas sectoriales, dejando los temas espaciales para los niveles más bajos de gobierno.

Dinamarca

La planificación en Dinamarca comenzó históricamente con un marco de planificación nacional integral (Galland 2012). En las últimas dos décadas, sin embargo, como consecuencia de factores políticos y económicos interrelacionados, el papel del gobierno nacional y de los gobiernos locales y regionales con respecto al uso del suelo en el territorio nacional ha transformado significativamente el alcance, estructura y comprensión de la planificación espacial danesa (figura 1).

Como consecuencia de esta reforma, varias responsabilidades de planificación espacial han sido descentralizadas al nivel local, mientras que la planificación regional para el Gran Copenhague y otras funciones sectoriales han sido transferidas al nivel nacional. Además, la reciente abolición de los gobiernos de condado ha aumentado el riesgo de una planificación espacial descoordinada y ha disminuido coherencia entre las diversas instituciones e instrumentos de la política de suelo.

Países Bajos

Los Países Bajos tienen quizás la tradición más larga y conocida de planificación espacial nacional, y sus planes incluyen tanto políticas industriales como políticas espaciales detalladas (Needham 2012). Por varias décadas, los planes nacionales holandeses influyeron sobre la distribución de la población y las actividades del país. En las primeras décadas después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, todos los niveles de gobierno —tanto nacional como provincial y municipal— tendieron a trabajar conjuntamente en la planificación espacial. En la década de 1990, sin embargo, comenzaron a distanciarse. En respuesta, el gobierno nacional aumentó su poder sobre los gobiernos locales (una forma de centralización) y al mismo tiempo redujo sus propias ambiciones de formular una estrategia espacial nacional (una forma de descentralización). La estrategia espacial nacional más reciente deja de lado expresamente algunas tareas de planificación llevadas a cabo anteriormente por el gobierno nacional.

Reino Unido

A comienzos del siglo XX, el Parlamento del Reino Unido renunció a su autoridad de planificación; en su lugar, los poderes de intervención, el desarrollo de nuevas viviendas estatales y la regulación del desarrollo de viviendas privadas se transfirieron a los gobiernos locales (Tewdwr-Jones 2012). En las décadas siguientes, el gobierno central volvió a adquirir nuevos poderes de planificación como consecuencia de la Segunda Guerra Mundial y el interés nacional por reconstruir las ciudades, la infraestructura y la economía. Desde 1945, el gobierno central ha retenido estos poderes, pero a su vez ha permitido que las autoridades locales vigilen la implementación del sistema de planificación.

Estos poderes han cambiado en forma drástica en los últimos 70 años. Después de 1999, la autonomía de Gales, Escocia e Irlanda del Norte fragmentó aún más el significado del término «nacional» en términos políticos y de planificación. En la década del 2000, el impulso hacia la planificación espacial regional en Inglaterra también volvió a equilibrar los temas de planificación nacionales hacia los intereses subnacionales. Como resultado de esta tendencia a la transferencia de poderes, descentralizadora, regionalista y localista de los últimos 20 años, es cada vez más cuestionable que el Reino Unido posea algo que se parezca a un sistema nacional de planificación, puesto que tanto ha cambiado espacialmente y en el ámbito de las instituciones y procesos políticos en distintas partes del país.

Irlanda

Irlanda es una de las pocas naciones europeas que no sigue la tendencia hacia la descentralización de la autoridad de planificación, en parte debido a que su sistema de planificación se ha descentralizado completamente (Grist 2012). Siguiendo en gran medida las pautas de la Unión Europea, Irlanda ha adoptado una serie de planes de desarrollo nacionales, de los cuales el más reciente es el Plan de Desarrollo Nacional 2007-2013. Basándose en las recomendaciones del plan nacional anterior, el Departamento de Medio Ambiente, Comunidad y Gobierno Local desarrolló en 2002 la Estrategia Espacial Nacional de Irlanda. Esta estrategia identificó cruces y centros geográficos críticos, y articuló planes para descentralizar la actividad económica desde Dublín al resto de la isla.

Luego de un período turbulento que vio el surgimiento y caída del Tigre Celta, al que se culpó en parte de las políticas laxas de planificación local relacionadas con un incentivo excesivo del desarrollo inmobiliario junto con corrupción política, el país está reconsiderando ahora dicha estrategia, fortaleciendo las pautas de desarrollo regional e imponiendo nuevos requisitos de coherencia sobre los gobiernos locales.

Bajo el nuevo régimen de planificación basado en la evidencia, los planes locales tienen que ajustarse mucho más a las pautas de planificación regional, y los planes locales tendrán límites en cuanto a la cantidad de desarrollo inmobiliario que puedan permitir. En la actualidad se está revisando el papel futuro de la Estrategia Espacial Nacional, mientras que el nuevo gobierno electo después del crash inmobiliario en Irlanda examina las políticas de planificación y desarrollo que predominaron durante la reciente burbuja inmobiliaria.

El gobierno federal y el uso del suelo en los Estados Unidos

El gobierno federal de los Estados Unidos, como la Unión Europea, no tiene la autoridad para planificar y administrar el uso del suelo, pero tiene una gran influencia sobre la ubicación y naturaleza de los patrones de desarrollo (Salkin 2012). Además de los miles de millones de dólares que asigna para infraestructura de transporte, servicios sociales, desarrollo y revitalización, el gobierno federal es dueño de más de 275 millones de hectáreas en todo el país. Las regulaciones federales también tienen una gran influencia. Las leyes de aire limpio y agua limpia, por ejemplo, no imponen por sí mismas restricciones al uso del suelo, pero al establecer metas para la calidad del aire ambiente y la carga de nutrientes en ríos, lagos y arroyos, influyen profundamente en los planes y regulaciones del uso del suelo y en los patrones de desarrollo inmobiliario de los gobiernos locales.

Más recientemente, la administración del presidente Barack Obama ha establecido un nuevo canal de influencia federal sobre la planificación y regulación del uso del suelo. Si bien el gobierno federal continúa absteniéndose de intervenir en forma directa en el uso del suelo local, el Secretario de Transporte, el Secretario de Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano y la Agencia de Protección Ambiental han firmado un memorando de entendimiento que estableció la Sociedad de Comunidades Sostenibles. Para promover seis principios de las comunidades sostenibles, estas secretarías y agencias han lanzado una serie de programas nuevos de subvenciones, como las Subvenciones para la Planificación de Comunidades Sostenibles Regionales. Para poder acceder a esta subvención, los gobiernos locales tienen que formar consorcios interorganizacionales que incluyan a la Organización de Planificación Metropolitana (MPO por su siglas en inglés), la ciudad central, la mayoría de los gobiernos locales y representación de grupos cívicos y de defensa de los intereses medioambientales.

Si bien los propósitos explícitos de estas subvenciones novedosas incluyen la revitalización urbana, la protección ambiental, la justicia social y el desarrollo sostenible, un propósito igualmente importante es establecer nuevas relaciones interinstitucionales al promover una mayor inclusión y participación. La Planificación de Comunidades Sostenibles Regionales ha avanzado ahora en 74 áreas metropolitanas del país. Queda por ver, sin embargo, si los incentivos ofrecidos a los gobiernos locales para que se involucren en la planificación regional son suficientes para que participen en la implementación de planes regionales sin intervención adicional a nivel estatal.

Planes estatales y marcos de planificación estatal

Todos los estados habían establecido un marco para la planificación y regulación local en la década de 1920 y 1930, basándose en las leyes de planificación normalizada y zonificación preparadas por el Departamento de Comercio de los Estados Unidos. A pesar de las expectativas de un amplio cambio institucional, caracterizado por la «Revolución silenciosa» de hace más de 40 años, la mayoría de los estados se limitan a autorizar a los gobiernos locales a que planifiquen (Salkin 2012).

Otros, como Oregón, ordenan, revisan y aprueban planes locales (Seltzer 2012). Si los gobiernos locales no presentan planes que cumplen con las metas y pautas de uso del suelo del estado, el estado puede retener fondos de financiamiento o negar autorización para emitir permisos de edificación. Varias instituciones especializadas en el uso del suelo respaldan el sistema de planificación de Oregón, como son una comisión de planificación estatal, una corte de apelaciones de uso del suelo y un gobierno regional electo en forma directa. Aunque su estructura es simple, y es cuestionado frecuentemente en los tribunales y en las urnas, el sistema de Oregón tiene la reputación de ser uno de los más efectivos, si no el más efectivo sistema de uso del suelo en los Estados Unidos (Ingram et al. 2009).

California es uno de los estados que ha delegado una cantidad importante de autoridad para regular el uso del suelo a los gobiernos locales. Aun cuando los proyectos de desarrollo inmobiliario importantes tienen que pasar por un proceso complejo de mini Ley Nacional de Política Ambiental, y la Comisión Costera de California fuera una institución estatal innovadora en su época, la planificación local sigue siendo predominante. Pero en 2008 el estado adoptó una nueva y ambiciosa iniciativa para enfrentar el cambio climático: el proyecto de ley 375 del Senado, que exige a las organizaciones de planificación metropolitanas que desarrollen planes de transporte y de uso del suelo que cumplan con metas de emisión de gases de invernadero. La dificultad estriba en que son los gobiernos locales, no las organizaciones de planificación metropolitanas, los que tienen la autoridad sobre el uso del suelo en California. Las organizaciones de planificación metropolitanas y los gobiernos estatales están brindando incentivos a los gobiernos locales para adoptar planes compatibles con los planes metropolitanos, pero no está claro si la combinación de incentivos financieros y de otro tipo es suficiente para animar a los gobiernos locales a que sigan los planes de las organizaciones de planificación metropolitanas (Fulton 2012).

En el otro extremo, no son comunes en los Estados Unidos los planes que abarcan todo el estado. En respuesta a los requisitos federales, la mayoría de los estados tienen planes de transporte, y algunos tienen planes de desarrollo económico, planes para desarrollar la fuerza laboral o planes de acción climática, pero sólo cinco estados tienen planes estatales de desarrollo inmobiliario: Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Nueva Jersey y Rhode Island.

Nueva Jersey y Delaware tienen quizá los planes estatales más y menos conocidos, respectivamente. Nueva Jersey adoptó su Ley de Planificación Estatal en 1985, que exige que la comisión de planificación estatal desarrolle, adopte e implemente el Plan de Desarrollo y Revitalización del Estado de Nueva Jersey (Bierbaum 2012). El proceso de planificación incluyó un complejo procedimiento de aceptación conjunta para identificar y resolver las diferencias entre el gobierno estatal y los gobiernos locales. Desde su adopción, la influencia y atención recibida por el plan ha tenido altibajos a lo largo de las sucesivas administraciones estatales. Recientemente, la administración del Gobernador Chris Christie ha elaborado un plan estatal completamente nuevo, enfocado principalmente al desarrollo económico, pero sin el proceso de aceptación conjunta. La comisión de planificación estatal, sin embargo, no ha adoptado todavía dicho plan.

El plan de Delaware es mucho menos conocido y mucho menos controvertido que el plan de Nueva Jersey, y tanto el contenido como el proceso son menos complejos (Lewis 2012). El plan de Delaware comprende cinco designaciones de suelo generales (figura 2). El incentivo de cumplimiento por parte de los gobiernos locales recae en la coordinación estatal-local y se apoya en la amenaza de retener el financiamiento de infraestructura (sobre el cual el estado tiene una participación significativa). Como el estado no comenzó a recabar datos de seguimiento sobre los patrones del desarrollo inmobiliario hasta 2008, y no mantiene datos espaciales sobre los gastos estatales, es difícil discernir el impacto de esta estrategia sobre el desarrollo y la coherencia entre los gastos estatales y el mapa estatal de planificación.

Maryland es el único estado que está a la altura de California y Oregón en su adopción de estrategias nuevas y ambiciosas de planificación, que se asientan en su larga tradición de liderazgo en el uso del suelo y políticas medioambientales (Knaap 2012). Maryland estableció su primera comisión de planificación estatal en 1933 y apareció en la escena nacional en 1997, cuando adoptó su revolucionaria Ley de Crecimiento Inteligente y Conservación de Barrios. Desde 1997, el factor más importante de la estrategia de Maryland ha sido el uso de inversiones estatales para brindar incentivos al crecimiento inteligente. Mucho antes de que alguien pronunciara las palabras «crecimiento inteligente» en Maryland, sin embargo, el estado ya había adoptado en 1959 legislación que requería al Departamento de Planificación de Maryland que elaborara y adoptara un plan de desarrollo estatal. Más de 50 años después, la administración del Gobernador Martin O’Malley cumplió finalmente con dicho requisito.

El 19 de diciembre de 2011, el Gobernador O’Malley firmó el PlanMaryland, el primer plan de desarrollo estatal nuevo en muchos años en los Estados Unidos (figura 3). Pero a diferencia de los planes estatales de Nueva Jersey o Delaware, el plan de Maryland es más procedimental que sustantivo. Específicamente, establece seis categorías de designación de planes y, siguiendo una larga tradición en Maryland, permite a los gobiernos locales asignar suelo para cualquiera de estos usos designados. Las agencias estatales destinarían entonces fondos del programa para cada una de estas áreas. Desde que el plan fue firmado, las agencias estatales han estado desarrollando y perfeccionando los planes de implementación, y los gobiernos locales han comenzado sólo recientemente a presentar planes para su certificación estatal.

Conclusión

Los marcos de uso del suelo y planificación espacial varían mucho a lo largo de Europa y los Estados Unidos. A ambos lados del Atlántico, los gobiernos locales cargan con la mayor parte de las responsabilidades, sobre todo en lo que se refiere a la comunidad, los barrios y los detalles específicos de cada sitio. Pero el papel de las regiones, los estados y las naciones sigue siendo importante.

En contraposición con su reputación en los Estados Unidos, la planificación en muchas naciones europeas se ha descentralizado en gran medida. Pocas naciones europeas cuentan con planes nacionales integrales que guían las inversiones nacionales y las regulaciones sobre el uso del suelo. De hecho, la planificación en Europa, si bien mucho más integradora de detalles sectoriales que en los Estados Unidos, comparte muchas características en su política con su contraparte en los Estados Unidos. Una excepción interesante es Irlanda, que continúa expandiendo el papel del gobierno nacional y los gobiernos regionales, parcialmente como respuesta al período reciente de extrema descentralización de planificación que no tuvo en cuenta ni implementó la estrategia nacional. Irlanda es también uno de los pocos países que se adhiere a los principios amplios de planificación espacial formalmente adoptados por la Unión Europea.

En los Estados Unidos, ni la planificación estatal del desarrollo inmobiliario ni la aprobación estatal de planes locales son prácticas que estén creciendo con rapidez. En efecto, a pesar del éxito demostrado por el programa de Oregón y del creciente reconocimiento de la necesidad de integración horizontal y vertical de políticas, la planificación del uso del suelo en los Estados Unidos sigue siendo un asunto marcadamente local. Si bien tanto el estado de California como el gobierno federal están proporcionando incentivos financieros para la coordinación intergubernamental y la planificación a escala metropolitana, no está nada claro si únicamente con incentivos se podrán lograr los cambios necesarios en los planes y regulaciones locales para generar ajustes significativos en el consumo de suelo, el comportamiento del tráfico y el acceso a oportunidades.

Hacen falta nuevos enfoques para que las ciudades y áreas metropolitanas sean más productivas, equitativas y ecológicamente sostenibles a la luz de los desafíos que se nos presentan en el futuro. Si estos problemas no se pueden resolver adecuadamente, es posible que otros tipos de experimentos de reforma de planificación institucional se hagan más comunes en muchos países.

Sobre los autores

Gerrit Knaap es profesor de Estudios urbanos y planificación, director del Centro Nacional de Crecimiento Inteligente y vicedecano de la Escuela de Arquitectura, Planificación y Preservación de la Universidad de Maryland.

Zorica Nedovic-Budic es profesora de Planificación espacial y sistemas de información geográfica (SIG) en la Escuela de Geografía, Planificación y Política Medioambiental de University College, Dublín.

Referencias

Ministerio del Medio Ambiente de Dinamarca. 2006. The 2006 national planning report–In brief. Copenhagen. http://www.sns.dk/udgivelser/2006/87-7279-728-2/html/default_eng.htm

Comisión Europea. 1997. The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies. Luxemburgo: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

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

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

Many suburban areas in the United States are showing signs of deterioration, with foreclosed properties, vacant retail centers, and underutilized space. These landscapes have come to epitomize sprawl— places built for the car and accessed only by the car. But they also hold enormous opportunities for creative reinvention. A number of communities across the country are rescaling their suburbs into vibrant, walkable places built for people.

Reoriented for pedestrians, suburban neighborhoods can thrive and diversify to better support local economies, raise quality of life indicators, and improve local and regional environmental conditions. Even deteriorating suburbs plagued by disused structures and other dead zones have the potential to generate new housing infrastructure, transit access, open space, and local retail.

The University of Utah estimates that 2.8 million acres of parking lots and other greyfield areas are ripe for redevelopment, and 1.1 million acres are available in underutilized shopping areas, such as strip malls and vacant storefronts (Dunham Jones and Williamson 2009). Transforming these landscapes will be a 21st-century planning and development priority in the United States.

Many cities are steadily redeveloping and capitalizing on recent demographic trends supporting urban revitalization, but economically robust regions need flourishing suburban communities as well. Recent surveys by the National Association of Realtors and the American Planning Association found that a majority of potential homebuyers seek to live in walkable neighborhoods with a range of housing types and a mix of residential, business, and retail options. As baby boomers age and more of the millennial generation enter adulthood, an increasing number of Americans are leaving their cars behind to live in more centrally located, walkable environments. In 2012, roughly half the population preferred smaller houses in well-connected neighborhoods with places to live, work, shop, and play (National Association of Realtors 2011, American Planning Association 2014).

Despite this mounting evidence in favor of suburban redevelopment, many local leaders remain uncertain about how to begin. This article explores 10 ways that communities across the country have rescaled significant parts of their sprawling suburbs into thriving social hubs.

1. Share a Vision and Draft a Plan

Many communities start by imagining how they want to grow and then develop a plan to realize that vision. Do residents want more housing, a walkable entertainment center, a new arts district, or an urban farming zone? Is it most important to increase the tax base, reduce pedestrian and bike fatalities, or increase access to fresh food? Specific goals will help to steer redevelopment efforts.

Regional and neighborhood plans engage community members in a dialogue about where to target infrastructure investments and leverage redevelopment opportunities as they become available. Local governments can start with a small site—such as a vacant lot or city-owned building—and then build on that successful effort, generating the momentum to tackle an entire neighborhood, corridor, or even a cleaned-up superfund site. Building a shared sense of purpose for a place can be a powerful incentive for guiding future change.

Consider Midvale Slag and Sharon Steel, two adjacent superfund sites about 10 miles south of Salt Lake City in Midvale, Utah. Both underwent cleanup at approximately the same time, but only one is thriving.

In 2000, the Midvale City Council adopted the “Bingham Junction Reuse Assessment and Master Plan” for the 446-acre Midvale Slag site. City officials worked with residents, EPA officials, and other stakeholders to devise a strategy for redeveloping the site into a mixed-use commercial, residential, and recreation area. Now thriving, Bingham Junction created approximately 600 jobs, $1.5 million in annual property tax revenues, and a $131 million increase in the value of the site property (EPA 2011). Families have moved into new condominiums, and another 2,500 residential units are planned. Office buildings, a supermarket, and other stores have followed, and the community anticipates developing up to two million square feet of commercial office and retail space.

In contrast, the 250-acre Sharon Steel site, which did not have a redevelopment plan or future vision, remains vacant. Building on the success of Bingham Junction, however, city officials have begun the planning and visioning process.

2. Identify Assets

Many local governments struggle to determine where to focus their initial visioning and planning efforts. The following kinds of questions can help to identify which assets to leverage.

1. Is public transit available? If so, are there underutilized areas near or immediately adjacent to transit stops that could be redeveloped to enhance accessibility?

2. Where will existing infrastructure dollars be spent—for example, on roads, water, sewers, schools, civic structures, parks?

3. Are there vacant or underutilized parking lots, buildings, or strip malls near these infrastructure investments?

4. Which of these areas have redevelopment plans in place or neighborhood support for new development?

5. Which of these areas are near or adjacent to other public assets such as schools, libraries, parks, or open space?

6. Can any of these sites align with existing or emerging employment areas?

7. Are any of these properties available for redevelopment (i.e., are any owners willing to collaborate with the community on redevelopment goals and plans)?

This proposed assessment is not a linear, step-by-step process. Sometimes a site may become unavailable unexpectedly, or a federal grant may come through for road improvements on a major arterial. In other situations, an owner may be unwilling to cooperate, or a site may be deemed unfeasible. In any case, an assessment of existing conditions can help to target potential sites or neighborhoods as priorities.

3. Leverage Infrastructure Investments

To attract private investment and new development, local governments can make significant public investments, either by upgrading existing infrastructure or by investing in new infrastructure. Many cities and towns seize the opportunity to direct these investments to the neighborhoods they would like to revitalize. Research has shown that by leveraging public investments, communities can increase land value from 70 to 300 percent and can boost private investment, social capital, tourism, and retail activity by an average of 30 percent (Litman 2010). They can also achieve key “placemaking” goals, communally shaping public spaces to heighten their shared value.

Norman, Oklahoma, about 25 miles south of Oklahoma City, is an interesting work in progress. The town had $27 million to improve traffic flow and increase safety along a seven-block stretch of road that bisected a typical strip retail district with large parking lots on both sides of the street. The town came together to discuss how to use this money to make broader streetscape upgrades along with the necessary safety improvements. Business owners, university officials, and local leaders joined forces and engaged in strategic placemaking to discuss how they might create a walkable retail area.

Municipalities can also leverage capital improvement investments against other community goals. With shrinking resources, local governments can no longer reasonably afford to achieve single-objective outcomes from their infrastructure investments. For example, the city of Lenexa, Kansas (a suburb of Kansas City), determined to be a more sustainable and livable community, and they used green infrastructure projects to help achieve that goal. Tapping funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, city officials implemented a range of street-level storm water improvements that achieved key placemaking objectives, such as creating open spaces and promoting walking, while addressing storm water problems.

4. Align Codes and Ordinances

Outdated, disjointed codes and ordinances are among the greatest barriers to rescaling suburban environments. These land development regulations—from zoning ordinances to street standards, parking requirements, site coverage, and height limits—are often responsible for existing transportation and land use patterns, and serve as the default legal structure for new development. The upshot is that building a walkable mixed-use neighborhood is often illegal, requiring the developer to seek variances or special permits, which can create uncertainty and delays in the development process or discourage redevelopment in the first place.

Research has found that government support for development in targeted areas is the strongest predictor of private investment (Hook et al. 2013). One of the easiest ways to support new growth is to change the codes and ordinances to legalize pedestrian-friendly development. New codes can be embedded in an overlay zone or a neighborhood plan to allow for the type of construction needed to transform an area.

A number of resources are available to help local governments determine where and how to change their codes, such as the SmartCode (www.smartcodecentral.org) form-based codes (http://formbasedcodes.org), the American Planning Association’s Smart Codes: Model Land-Development Regulation (https://www.planning.org/research/smartgrowth), or EPA’s Essential Fixes series (www.epa.gov/dced/essential_fixes.htm).

For example, Columbia Pike in Arlington, Virginia—a 3.5-mile urban corridor across the Potomac River from downtown Washington, DC—was rescaled after the county modified the underlying development codes and ordinances. Located in an urban county that grew explosively in recent decades, Columbia Pike, by contrast, had seen little development and minimal investment in the past 30 years. In the late 1990s, county leaders created a form-based code to foster transit- and pedestrian-oriented infill redevelopment in the corridor. The code is an optional code (also known as a parallel code); all the underlying zoning remains in place, but incentives such as expedited review and approvals encourage its use. Since adopting the code in 2003, the Pike has seen more than 1,000 new housing units and 240,000 square feet of retail built, and another 600 housing units and 21,700 square feet of retail have been approved.

5. Get the Streets Right

A community’s street network is fundamental to any redevelopment efforts. Typical suburbs have wide, high-speed travel lanes designed to move cars efficiently through the area. But the primary focus of any suburban rescaling effort should be on moving people, not cars, through an area. This goal can be accomplished by building wide, inviting sidewalks; installing lanes and parking for bicycles; creating buffer zones between people and moving traffic; developing interesting places to walk; and making it safe to cross the road. Well-conceived streets can also kick-start investment and the redevelopment process. However, in many suburban communities, which tend to be less competitive, the public sector may need to catalyze growth by making up-front investments with support for infrastructure and amenities to attract private-sector funds.

For example, Lancaster, California, a mid-size city about 60 miles north of Los Angeles, transformed a five-lane arterial into a Main Street by investing in a number of streetscape improvements. They narrowed and reduced travel lanes, and added on-street parking and street vegetation, which slowed traffic from 40 miles per hour to 15 miles per hour. The city’s investment of $11.5 million attracted more than $300 million in private investment.

6. Get the Parking Right

Parking is a challenge for any development, but it’s particularly tricky in suburban areas where the community is trying to pivot from auto-dependence to auto-independence. Conventional wisdom holds that parking is essential to retail survival; consequently, many suburban areas have an oversupply, owing to various code, design, or bank requirements. But any successful effort to rescale a suburb will require planners to balance today’s parking needs with a creative vision for a less automobile-dependent future.

Communities can assess how much parking is needed and explore alternate ways to supply it by requiring on-street parking, permitting shared parking, or de-bundling parking spaces from housing units (EPA 2006). To foster a pedestrian-friendly streetscape, it’s critical to eliminate or reduce surface parking, or to place it behind retail areas. Larger redevelopment projects may require a parking garage, but it should be located at the back of the site and not immediately adjacent to other transit opportunities. It’s increasingly common to “wrap” a parking garage with smaller housing units or offices to provide parking without interrupting the pedestrian streetscape.

As a neighborhood decreases its dependence on cars, it can repurpose parking garages by converting top floors into community gardens or bottom floors into low-rent business incubator space. One community in Albany, New York, transformed an old parking garage and car dealership into luxury condominiums.

By planning for future uses, a neighborhood can maintain the parking spaces it needs now while allowing the area to evolve and change without losing the initial investments made during the revitalization process. Local governments can also rewrite zoning and building codes to demand that garage developers meet the minimum adaptability requirements (Jaffe 2013).

7. Add More Green

Suburban landscapes have been described as “hostile” and “unhealthy” because of their wide, underutilized zones dominated by hard surfaces. But many communities are bringing nature back into these built environments and transforming the streets and alleys between buildings into attractive, thriving pedestrian hubs.

Trees, plants, open green space, and recreational pathways afford a respite for individuals, provide social gathering areas, improve environmental conditions, and create more livable streetscapes (Benfield 2014). Suburban sites can make it easier to integrate green into a new development project because they often offer more land and flexibility than urban areas. As a public investment, green space can also serve to attract private development initiatives.

Green spaces can be incorporated at three scales—at the regional, neighborhood, and site level. At the site scale, municipalities are beginning to use green infrastructure to manage storm water by absorbing it into the ground or capturing it for later reuse. These strategies create more beautiful places, increase pedestrian safety, calm traffic, manage water flows, and develop a constituency to support effective storm water management. (Much like potholes, a conspicuous clogged bio-swale on a local street is more likely to generate calls to city hall than an invisible underground pipe leak would.) These site-level approaches can also build momentum for larger-scale suburban transformation while creating bustling public spaces from parking lots, alleys, buildings, landscaped areas, rooftops, or streets. Imagine, for example, a sea of cascading greenery descending from the roof of a parking garage or a pedestrian plaza with planters, trees, tables, and chairs in a section of a former parking lot.

At the regional and neighborhood level, green space can connect natural areas and working lands while also providing critical ecological functions. Additionally, these connections can support multi-use paths and trails, habitat corridors, and other “green fingers” integrated throughout the region. Regional approaches focus on the movement of wildlife, people, and natural resources, such as water. Neighborhood strategies target connections to larger regional networks, creating connected public gathering places, open spaces, coordinated multi-use paths, and a bike infrastructure network.

The redevelopment of Stapleton Airport outside Denver, Colorado, incorporated green space at the regional and neighborhood levels. Approximately one-third of its 4,700 acres serve as new parks and open space for the project’s 12,000 residential units. Every home is within a 10-minute walk of open space. The centerpieces are the 80-acre Central Park and 85-acre Westerly Creek corridor. More than 27,000 trees have been planted, and the 6 million tons of concrete that once formed the airport’s runways have been incorporated into the newly created parklands. Not only did the redevelopment rescale the airport into a thriving pedestrian place, it is also generating $22 million in annual property taxes and $13 million in sales tax revenue (Swetlik 2013).

8. Change Land Use

Many suburban areas are littered with abandoned or underperforming big box stores and outdated shopping centers. By reusing these buildings as libraries, schools, housing, and even churches, communities can activate a dead zone and create demand for a location. They can also prevent or slow an expanding sprawl pattern by reducing the need to build new big box stores on undeveloped parcels. Without a broader redevelopment strategy, however, reuse of big box stores will not change the physical landscape to support significant pedestrian activity.

Suburban developers often have to assemble land parcels and navigate the demands of multiple landowners, especially in retail corridors with multiple strip malls and single-use retail outlets. As a result, many developers are attracted to old mall sites, which often have significant acreage, single owners, existing roads, water and sewer service, and adjacent residential housing. The existing mega-structure may be torn down and replaced with moderate-density buildings, a traditional street grid, and a mix of commercial and residential uses. For example, the redevelopment of the 100-acre Belmar Mall, in Lakewood, Colorado, reconnected the street grid. The pedestrian-friendly streets now support 1,300 new homes, one million square feet of retail, and 700,000 square feet of office space. This approach has drawn many suburban communities to create a town center or similar large-scale redevelopment on those sites.

The process of shifting from a suburban landscape to a walkable, thriving neighborhood takes time and may require public infrastructure investments. Recognizing this, some municipalities plan to roll out several stages of redevelopment over decades and provide immediate funds for infrastructure in order to leverage future investments. A critical component for successful staged developments is compatible local government planning and zoning. Long-term agreements or planned densification can be designed to require density increases or large-scale redevelopment activities within a particular time frame, allowing market supply and demand to coevolve.

One example of successful staged development is Potomac Yards in Alexandria, Virginia. The former industrial site was remediated in 1997 and developed according to then-current zoning as a traditional strip mall. Tenants signed a 15-year lease, which was typical for the time and the space. Over the next several years, city officials obtained funding to open a new metro station in the back of the mall, and several adjacent mixed-use, high-density residential developments were built as well. Land value in Potomac Yards rose significantly as a result. In 2010, the city council approved a redevelopment plan, which is slated to begin in 2017 and will dovetail with the opening of the metro stop. The strip mall will be torn down to make way for a new walkable mixed-use neighborhood with 7.5 million square feet of office, retail, and residential development.

9. Provide Catalytic Leadership

Rescaling suburban neighborhoods for pedestrians requires coordination and cooperation among municipal departments that normally operate independently. Transportation departments manage road systems, housing departments manage affordable housing, and public works departments build sewers. But no single department can implement the complex range of strategies and physical changes needed to transform a single-use residential subdivision or retail district into a walkable mixed-use neighborhood.

Catalytic leadership is equal parts mediation, facilitation, and leadership. It is based on respecting each department’s traditional approach while acknowledging that no single department will have the answer or data to resolve some issues. Catalytic leadership can build the trust and respect needed to foster more collaborative and innovative approaches to the challenges presented by suburban placemaking. It is essential to orchestrating these efforts, mediating among parties with differing agendas, and achieving desired outcomes on time and within budget.

The successful redevelopment of downtown Silver Spring, Maryland, benefited from such leadership. The area had been a dynamic retail center in the postwar years. But, like many suburban centers, it lost much of its vibrancy to enclosed malls during the 1970s, and subsequent attempts to rebuild the retail base failed. In 1996, the county decided to redevelop the area into a pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use, transit-oriented community. The county executive knew that slow permitting would hinder the project, so he created a Green Taping program, which draws input from the local staff responsible for enforcing the range of building and site codes (building, electrical, fire, mechanical, accessibility, zoning, signage, sediment and storm water management, subdivision plan review, and inspection codes and standards). At “round table” sessions, the participants identified and resolved cross-department issues for proposed projects in the redevelopment zone. By gathering in one room, representatives from all the departments were able to resolve design, zoning, and code barriers more efficiently. As a result, Silver Spring has transformed its suburban landscape into a thriving community with more than 750,000 square feet of retail and entertainment space, 500,000 square feet of office space, and nearly 2,000 residences.

10. Anticipate What’s Next

The process of rescaling suburban communities can be long and difficult, but there are a number of possible starting points—from visioning and planning, to making infrastructure investments, to building the first project. As municipalities begin, leaders should keep several issues in mind:

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

America’s evolving suburban landscapes represent enormous opportunities to creatively rethink the nation’s built and natural environments. Rescaling these places for pedestrians can help restore activity in the street and create lively, prosperous places to live and work.

About the Author

The incoming president and CEO of the Congress for the New Urbanism, Lynn Richards was the 2013 Lincoln/Loeb Fellow at the Graduate School of Design at Harvard University and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Previously, at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), she held multiple leadership roles over 13 years including acting director and policy director in the Office of Sustainable Communities.

Resources

American Planning Association (APA). 2014. Investing in Place: Two Generations’ View on the Future of Communities: Millennials, Boomers, and New Directions for Planning and Economic Development. APA, May. https://www.planning.org/policy/polls/investing/pdf/pollinvesting report.pdf.

Benfield, Kaid. 2014. People Habitat: 25 Ways to Think about Greener, Healthier Cities. Island Press.

Dunham Jones, Ellen, and June Williamson. 2009. Retrofitting Suburbia: Urban Design Solutions for Redesigning Suburbs. Wiley and Sons.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Cleanup and Mixed-Use Revitalization on the Wasatch Front: The Midvale Slag Superfund Site and Midvale City, Utah. May.

EPA. 2006. Community Spaces, Parking Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions. EPA 231-K-06-001.

Hook, Walter, Stephanie Lotshaw, and Annie Weinstock. 2013. More Development for Your Transit Dollar: An Analysis of 21 North American Transit Corridors. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy.

Jaffe, Eric. 2013. “We Need to Design Parking Garages with a Car-less Future in Mind.” Atlantic Cities, November 14.

Litman, Todd. 2010. Evaluating Non-Motorized Transport Benefits and Costs. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. www.vtpi.org/nmt-tdm.pdf.

Lukez, Paul. 2007. Suburban Transformations. Princeton Architectural Press.

National Association of Realtors (NAR). 2011. The 2011 Community Preference Survey: What Americans Are Looking for When Deciding Where to Live. NAR, March. http://www.realtor.org/sites/default/files/smart-growth-comm-survey-results-2011.pdf.

Swetlik, Deana. 2012. “The Many Uses Blooming at Denver’s Old Airport: Stapleton.” Urban Land, October 11, 2012.