Population density has been identified by many analysts as a key indicator of the efficiency and sustainability of human development patterns.
Many historic centers in Latin America have been the focus of government and private initiatives seeking to rehabilitate the building stock and position the areas to serve the tourism industry. In most cases these efforts have led to the displacement of lowincome residents or of residential activities altogether, due to gentrification and commercialization of the district (Scarpaci 2005). More recently, the rehabilitation of these historic cores has been framed as part of broader debates and efforts that pursue the recovery of the city centers (historical or otherwise) because of their key role as collective symbols or spaces of social interaction, or because of their potential efficiency as dense, well-serviced urban districts (Pérez, Pujol, and Polèse 2003; Rojas 2004).
This article seeks to advance this discussion based on the experience in Panama City’s historic center, “Casco Antiguo.” It describes some recent, innovative policies that have explored the intersections of tourism, affordable housing, employment, and culture in a historical context, and draws some general insights and lessons.
Weidong Qu is a research fellow at the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy in Beijing, and an associate professor in the Department of Land and Real Estate Management at Renmin University of China. Dr. Qu’s research interests include real estate appraisal, land and cadastral management, fuzzy cluster analysis, GIS programming and analysis for real estate valuation, and real estate investment analysis and finance.
Since 2003, he has focused much of his research on property tax reform in China. Dr. Qu has authored five academic books and published over twenty papers for both international and domestic Chinese journals and conferences. He earned his Ph.D. in real estate appraisal at the Geodetic Institute of the University of Hannover, Germany, in 2000.
Dr. Qu also serves as director of the China Association of Real Estate Academicians and executive secretary general of the Global Chinese Real Estate Congress. He is also conducting research in Munich on real estate mortgage valuation and risk analysis as a Humboldtianer fellow of Germany’s Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, and taking part in a research project on property tax reform in Germany.
Land Lines: How did you become associated with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy?
Weidong Qu: After returning to China in 2002 following my studies Germany, I took part in a training seminar on urbanization and smart growth that was cohosted by the Lincoln Institute and Renmin University. Then, in December 2003, I was invited by officials in the City of Shenzhen to participate in an international symposium on property taxation organized by China’s State Administration of Taxation and the Lincoln Institute. At a later conference on property taxation in Beijing in 2007, I met Joyce Yanyun Man, the director of the Institute’s China Program and the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy, and she invited me to join the Center’s research group to lead the property tax team.
Land Lines: Why is research on property taxation in China so important?
Weidong Qu: China’s real estate market has developed rapidly over the past 30 years as economic reforms have been introduced. At the same time, real estate–related taxes remain relatively complicated, with a lack of distinction between taxes and fees, and widespread use of administrative fees in place of taxes that may not otherwise have been approved by central regulatory authorities. The steady increase in the use of taxes and fees has begun to influence development costs in the residential housing sector, with the combined charges estimated to account for 40 percent of total costs for new housing stock. This situation is a growing source of criticism from both property developers and residents, who see this increase in charges as one of the factors pushing China’s urban housing prices ever higher.
Another tax-related issue confronting the sustainable growth of China’s real estate sector is the preference for levying taxes and fees on the developer rather than the ultimate owner. To date, China has not established a property tax system, and taxes and fees levied on property owners remain comparatively low, which has contributed to overinvestment and speculation in the property market.
In addition, due to China’s centralized tax system and the lack of a stable local revenue source such as a property tax, local governments have become heavily dependent on revenues from land transfer fees to fund public expenditures and infrastructure investments. According to China’s Ministry of Land and Resources, during the 11th Five-year Plan (2006–2010), more than 33 million mu (more than 200 million acres) of land was transferred by local governments for development, generating revenues of 7 trillion renminbi (approximately US$1.1 trillion). This land-based approach to public finance undermines economic stability and puts pressure on land prices, with the potential to contribute to a real estate bubble.
Land Lines: What challenges differentiate property tax issues in China from the experience in the United States, Europe, or other developed economies?
Weidong Qu: Property tax levies in developed countries are generally based on an assessed value, and most jurisdictions utilize computer-assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) systems to administer their property taxes. At this time, however, none of the taxes or fees levied on China’s real estate sector are based on an assessed value and, consequently, there is a critical shortage of experienced assessors and officials. Most current assessors focus primarily on individual properties, and they lack experience with mass appraisal techniques.
Administering a modern property tax also requires an integrated geographic and property database. My research indicates that more than 90 percent of China’s cities do not yet have such a property database, and many local governments cannot document the number of parcels within their jurisdictions, or even the ownership of each parcel.
Land Lines:How does property taxation in China relate to the country’s rapid urban development and growth?
Weidong Qu: According to a projection from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, China’s rate of urbanization will be 52.28 percent in 2015, 57.67 percent in 2020, and 67.81 percent in 2030, after which the rate is expected to stabilize. This trend will produce a rapid increase in the urban population and the need for significant expansion of basic infrastructure, such as schools and hospitals, as well as more residential housing. Supplying land for this new infrastructure will be an ongoing challenge and will eventually render China’s current land-based public financing approach unsustainable.
Land Lines: How do you approach property taxation in China through your own research?
Weidong Qu: The first official mention of property tax reform came in a report from the third plenary session of the 16th Central Committee of the Chinese Community Party in 2003. That report directed the government to “reform city and village construction taxes and fees, and levy a property tax on fixed assets when the conditions are ready, including the concomitant cancelation of overlapping taxes.” This statement was one of the major impetuses for the Lincoln Institute to become involved with property tax research in China and to collaborate with the State Administration of Taxation in Shenzhen, as well as the beginning of my own work in the area.
With the central government’s support, policy makers selected six Chinese cities to serve as initial property tax reform pilot cities for internal sample valuations and research. The study was later expanded to ten cities, including Beijing. These pilots have built upon China’s ongoing stamp tax reform, which refers to a value-based tax paid during the sale of a property and has been invaluable in pushing jurisdictions to formulate their own assessment standards. According to the Ministry of Finance, China will transition to an assessed-value standard for the stamp tax by 2012, which will require each jurisdiction to develop its own computer-assisted mass appraisal system.
In my opinion, four key issues merit research attention. First, it is important to define what we mean in China by a property tax, because considerable disagreement exists among policy makers and scholars about what such a tax should include. Second, property databases remain incomplete or inaccurate, so it is vital to conduct a national-scale survey of housing stock and ownership. Without this data, government agencies are unable to assess property values for all parcels within their jurisdictions or ensure that property tax bills are mailed to the correct property owner.
Third, further research into mass appraisal theories and techniques is still needed. Although China’s tax officials have made progress in their knowledge of the basic principles of mass appraisal, they generally lack specialized real estate training, and their limited understanding threatens to lead to ill-informed policy making. Fourth, before any progress can be made, it is necessary to overcome opposition from China’s political and economic elites, who often own multiple properties and have emerged as one of the biggest obstacles to property tax reforms. Given the uncertainty as to the final direction of property tax reform in China, these interest groups have seen delaying the imposition of a property tax as their best strategy.
Land Lines: What challenges has the PKU-Lincoln Center’s property tax demonstration project sought to address?
Weidong Qu: Since property tax reform in China was first mentioned in 2003, the Lincoln Institute has contributed to this important issue by hosting training seminars and international conferences on property tax assessment and theory, along with lessons from other international experiences. The property tax demonstration project represents the logical next step in the Institute’s work, with a goal of identifying and addressing the practical challenges of such reform. Many of these challenges, such as the importance of cross-ministerial information sharing and CAMA valuation codes, are not the high-profile issues focused on by officials, but they are equally important in ensuring the success of any property tax reform.
Specifically, the demonstration project has focused on 18 properties on Financial Street in western Beijing, the location of the People’s Bank of China and the headquarters of a number of other major domestic and international financial companies. We chose Financial Street because it is one of the most developed districts in Beijing; however, even in such a modern area it took us several months to collect all of the geographic, property, and tenant information needed. This underscores the importance of constructing standards for data gathering and information sharing among government agencies.
Land Lines: What are the biggest remaining obstacles to implementing an effective residential or commercial property tax in China?
Weidong Qu: Assessing a property tax on residential housing stock and on commercial real estate are two separate issues in China. As mentioned, many factors hinder the implementation of a property tax on residential housing stock, including the opposition of powerful interest groups and the current lack of reliable property transaction and ownership data. As in most countries, citizens’ historic opposition to paying taxes on owner-occupied property is also a challenge.
In terms of a property tax on commercial real estate, the current consensus is to leave the existing tax burden unchanged by eliminating the present land use fee and the rental-income and original-value-based real estate taxes levied on commercial property and then establishing a single assessed-value property tax. This approach should not generate the same opposition as that seen against a residential property tax.
In my view, there are two key challenges remaining. The first is to revise China’s existing laws related to taxes on property and then to draft new legislation. The second challenge is the current variety of commercial real estate and the lack of consensus on what valuation method should be used for each type. The demonstration project conducted by the PKU-Lincoln Center in 2009 focused exclusively on top-grade commercial real estate, such as office space, hotels, and apartments. There remains a need for further research on the best valuation methods for property such as gas stations, hospitals, shopping centers, and informal shops in China.
Siqi Zheng is an associate professor at the Hang Lung Center for Real Estate and the deputy head of the Department of Construction Management, both at Tsinghua University in Beijing, China. She specializes in urban economics and China’s housing market, particularly urban spatial structure, green cities, housing supply and demand, housing price dynamics, and low-income housing policies.
Her innovative and diverse research projects have been supported by international research institutions including the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the International Growth Center at London School of Economics, and various departments of the Chinese government including the National Science Foundation of China, the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, and the National Statistics Bureau of China.
Dr. Zheng received her Ph.D. in urban economics and real estate economics from Tsinghua University, and she pursued post-doctoral research in urban economics at the Graduate School of Design at Harvard University. She is a research fellow at both the Peking University-Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy and the Center for Industrial Development and Environmental Governance at Tsinghua University.
Dr. Zheng is also the vice secretary-general of the Global Chinese Real Estate Congress. She has won awards such as the Homer Hoyt Post-Doctoral Honoree (2010) and the Best Paper Award from the American Real Estate Society (2005). She is also on the editorial boards of Journal of Housing Economics and International Real Estate Review.
Land Lines: How did you become associated with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and its programs in China?
Siqi Zheng: I first learned about the Lincoln Institute when I did my postdoctoral research at Harvard University in 2005-2006. I joined the Peking University-Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy (PLC) as a research fellow soon after it was established in 2007. From that time I became fully involved in PLC’s research activities, such as conducting research projects, reviewing research proposals, and participating in conferences. I was awarded an international research fellowship by the Lincoln Institute in 2008-2009, with my colleagues Yuming Fu and Hongyu Liu, to study urban housing opportunities in various Chinese cities. I now lead the housing team at PLC in conducting policy-relevant research in the areas of housing market analysis and low-income housing policies.
Land Lines: Why is the study of the urban economics and the housing market so important to China’s future?
Siqi Zheng: China is experiencing rapid urbanization at a rate of about 50 percent in 2011, but it is expected to reach 70 percent over the next 10 to 20 years. Up to 1.5 million new migrants already move to Chinese cities per year. Such rapid urban growth offers potentially large economic benefits, as cities offer much better opportunities to trade, to learn, and to specialize in an occupation that offers an individual the greatest opportunity to achieve life goals.
However, rapid urbanization also imposes potentially large social costs, such as pollution and congestion, and urban quality of life suffers from a fundamental tragedy of the commons problem. Urban economics research addresses these issues and tries to figure out a way to maximize agglomeration economies and at the same time minimize congestion diseconomies. This is crucial for China’s future, because urbanization is the engine for China’s growth.
The housing sector is a key determinant of both the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of urban growth. Along the quantitative dimension, everyone in the city needs some place to live. Housing supply has important influences on a city’s overall size and its living cost, and thus the labor cost. Along the qualitative dimension, intensive social interactions happen in vibrant urban communities and neighborhoods. The spillover effect arising from such activities reduces the cost of learning and contributes to human capital improvement.
Low-income housing is a major policy issue in China. Income inequality is rising and housing prices are very high in major Chinese cities, so low-income households face severe affordability problems. For years the Chinese government had overlooked the supply of affordable housing, but it has recently began to understand that well-designed policies for low-income housing are crucial for achieving more inclusive urban growth opportunities for all residents.
Land Lines: How do you approach the study of urban economics and China’s housing market?
Siqi Zheng: I am doing cross-city and within-city studies on the intersection of urban and environmental economics. With increasing labor mobility across cities, China is moving toward a system of open cities. Under the compensating differentials framework, I use city-level real estate prices to recover households’ willingness-to-pay for urban amenities, such as better air quality, more green space, and educational opportunities. My basic finding is that Chinese urban households do value quality of life. As China’s urbanites grow richer over time, their desire to live in clean, low-risk cities is rising.
Within a city, I examine the jobs-housing spatial interactions–where people live, where they work, and how they choose their commuting mode. I use household survey data and real estate transaction data to model these behaviors, since individual choices determine the basic pattern of urban form. Those individual behaviors (“snowballs”) also have important implications for the interrelationships among land use, transportation, and the urban environment, because car ownership is rising and the increase in vehicle miles traveled has become a major contributor to pollution in Chinese cities.
I also focus on housing market dynamics and low-income housing policies. Our Tsinghua team constructed the first quality-controlled hedonic price index based on transaction data in 40 Chinese cities. My coauthors and I estimate the income elasticity of housing demand and the price elasticity of housing supply, and examine the determinants of such elasticities. Using microdata, I investigate how land and housing supply and public investments affect price and quantity dynamics in the urban housing market. I pay close attention to the housing choices of low-income households and rural migrants. Based on my behavior-based empirical study using microdata, I explore the kinds of urban and housing policies that can improve the position of these disadvantaged groups in both housing and labor markets.
Land Lines: What challenges do you think China will face in this field in the coming decade?
Siqi Zheng: The major challenge is how to achieve a successful transition toward sustainability. China’s rapid economic growth in recent years was largely export-based and benefited from low labor, land, and regulatory costs. The environmental disasters and social unrest that have occurred in many places in China indicate that the current approach is not sustainable for the long term.
Policy makers should reshape urban policies in a variety of ways. Remaining institutional barriers on labor mobility should be removed. Negative externalities of urban production and consumption activities (such as pollution and congestion) should be priced correctly so that individuals’ behaviors are consistent with the socially optimal solution. Income inequality and spatial inequality issues should be addressed. More investment in human capital is needed. Housing plays a pivot role because it is the largest asset a household owns, and it also affects accessibility to urban opportunities and the quality of social interactions.
Land Lines: What are some potential policy implications of this research on the housing market?
Siqi Zheng: Most of my work is empirical analysis with microdata, so I can focus on the incentives and choices made by individuals, firms, and governments. I also look at how these choices determine urban form, local quality of life, the labor market, and housing market outcomes. In this way I can provide key parameters for policy makers to support their policy design. For instance, I identify the cities with different housing supply and demand conditions, and suggest that officials should offer different low-income housing policy choices. Cities with an abundant housing stock can use demand-side instruments such as housing vouchers, but those without enough housing should use supply-side instruments such as building more public housing.
Land Lines: Is China’s experience with housing market development useful to share with other developing countries?
Siqi Zheng: Yes, because many countries also face difficult situations in their housing sectors. Some of the common challenges are how to house the vast numbers of rural migrants in cities; how to provide more affordable housing for increasing numbers of low-income people; where and by what means to provide such housing; and, as cities expand spatially, what are the appropriate urban planning policies and infrastructure investment strategies that can achieve efficient and inclusive urban growth? Through the research conferences and publications produced by the Peking University-Lincoln Institute Center, China’s experiences are already providing lessons for other developing countries.
Land Lines: Can you describe some examples of housing supply in the informal housing sector?
Siqi Zheng: Nations such as Brazil, India, and China have many poor migrants living in squatter and informal areas. Local governments have little incentive to provide public services to such areas because the improvements, including clean water and sewerage facilities, will simply stimulate more urban migration.
Chengzhongcun (urban village) is a typical type of informal housing in large Chinese cities. It represents a match between migrants’ demand for low-cost housing and the supply of housing available in the villages being encroached upon by urban expansion. High crime rates, inadequate infrastructure and services, and poor living conditions are just some of the problems in urban villages that threaten public security and management. My research on Chengzhongcun shows that local governments at first liked this kind of low-cost informal housing because it can lower labor costs and thus contribute to higher GDP growth in their cities. However, the low quality of social interaction and the shortage of basic public services do not provide a sustainable way of life for the poor rural migrants.
As the industrial sector moves toward a more skill-intensive economy, local governments should consider how to improve the quality of human capital rather than focus on the quantity of cheap labor. This may provide the incentive to upgrade informal housing and transform it to formal housing, or provide public housing to those migrants so they can access more urban opportunities and improve their skills. This transitional process is now occurring in China, and will soon happen in other developing countries that can benefit from China’s experience.
Another example is the role of housing supply in urban growth. Many studies already show that housing supply can support or constrain urban growth because the size and price of housing stock influence labor supply and living costs. In developing countries land and housing supply are influenced by government regulations and behaviors to a greater extent than in developed countries. The design of housing supply policies needs to accommodate future urban growth for all sectors of society.
I have written many working papers on these topics and contributed to the 2011 Lincoln Institute book, China’s Housing Reform and Outcomes, edited by Joyce Yanyun Man, director of the Peking-Lincoln Center at Peking University.
En mis tiempos de becario en la Universidad de Cambridge, durante la década de 1990, mi colega y amigo Wynne Godley, que ya no está entre nosotros, pasaba a buscarme los domingos para llevarme a una de las iglesias medievales de las que pueden verse en todo lugar en los pueblos de East Anglia. Wynne decía frecuentemente que “una iglesia es más un proceso que un edificio. Se desarrolla a lo largo de los siglos e involucra a generaciones de familias en su construcción y mantenimiento”. Wynne tenía buen ojo para los detalles arquitectónicos, por lo que podía señalar un contrafuerte o un campanario que ilustraba la práctica de una técnica específica, el uso de materiales fuera de lo común, o ambos. Una sola iglesia ofrecía un registro vivo y estratificado de la forma en que cada generación en una comunidad resolvía el desafío de construir y mantener grandes espacios cerrados y abiertos que posibilitaran la belleza del culto.
En este sentido, las ciudades tienen mucho de iglesias medievales. A medida que transcurre el tiempo, las ciudades ilustran la colaboración de generaciones de residentes, así como también la evolución de las herramientas económicas, técnicas e, incluso, sociales que se utilizaron para construirlas y mantenerlas. Las reliquias de mármol que encontramos en Roma son un testimonio vivo de la estética y los valores antiguos y de la ingenuidad en la construcción, mientras que la ciudad moderna florece a su alrededor. El icónico horizonte de Manhattan, en apariencia inmóvil, en realidad fluye constantemente y hoy en día evoluciona en forma radical a fin de responder a las demandas de sustentabilidad, resiliencia, desarrollos mixtos y otras cuestiones del siglo 21.
Los límites de las ciudades también evolucionan y narran otra historia de importancia crucial. Es posible que el futuro de nuestro planeta dependa de nuestra capacidad de comprender dicha historia y desarrollar las herramientas y la voluntad colectiva necesarias para gestionar el patrón y la progresión del crecimiento urbano. Shlomo (Solly) Angel documenta esta trayectoria en el Atlas of Urban Expansion (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2012), en el que se utilizan imágenes satelitales captadas a lo largo de décadas con el fin de llevar un registro de la evolución espacial de 120 ciudades en todo el mundo, desde Bamako y Guadalajara hasta Shangai y Milán. El último medio siglo de crecimiento urbano ha proporcionado un cuento con moraleja sobre la seducción de la expansión urbana descontrolada, un camino sin mucha resistencia que genera beneficios económicos de forma rápida pero cuyo desarrollo es poco sustentable. Nuestra capacidad para controlar la huella ecológica que dejamos y minimizar nuestro impacto a nivel mundial estará estrechamente relacionada con nuestra capacidad para planificar y construir asentamientos humanos más densos y eficientes. En vista de la predicción de las Naciones Unidas en cuanto a una población urbana mundial que casi se duplicará para llegar a las 6 mil millones de personas en el año 2050, la suerte del planeta dependerá de si los humanos, como especie, podremos adoptar un paradigma de desarrollo más apropiado en este medio siglo por venir.
A medida que nos esforzamos en reinventar nuestros asentamientos urbanos, nos enfrentaremos a un viejo enemigo: el suelo que ya ha recibido mejoras y desarrollo pero que debe adaptarse a usos nuevos. Aunque no desconocemos este proceso tan polémico, podemos decir que todavía no hemos logrado descifrar el código para gestionarlo. En este número de Land Lines analizamos algunas de las necesidades impulsoras que requerirán enfoques creativos para el redesarrollo en diferentes ciudades y contextos: cómo cubrir la demanda insatisfecha de vivienda que lleva a millones de trabajadores en Beijing a habitar en viviendas subterráneas; cómo financiar la infraestructura para gestionar la presión de la población en Río de Janeiro y otras ciudades de Brasil; o cómo darle nuevos usos al suelo ante la agonía derivada de un completo ajuste industrial, demográfico y fiscal en Detroit. Estos lugares son diferentes entre sí, pero todos enfrentarán desafíos similares a medida que evolucionen en las décadas futuras.
En el Instituto Lincoln somos profundamente conscientes de la necesidad de nuevas ideas y nuevas prácticas que faciliten el redesarrollo sustentable del suelo que ya se ha desarrollado o ya se encuentra ocupado. Durante el próximo año, comenzaremos a generar un emprendimiento intelectual para tratar los múltiples desafíos de la regeneración urbana, extrayendo lecciones de las medidas tomadas tiempo atrás en los Estados Unidos y en otros países desarrollados después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, buscando maneras nuevas y creativas de financiar la infraestructura para mejorar el suelo en asentamientos informales que ahogan a las ciudades en los países en vías de desarrollo, o reavivando la salud fiscal de ciudades tradicionales del acervo estadounidense, como Detroit, descubriendo las causas que provocaron la insolvencia y probando soluciones para remediarla.
Las iglesias medievales que visité durante la década de 1990 ofrecían lecciones en piedra: técnicas y materiales innovadores que permitían a los arquitectos medievales desafiar a la gravedad. Y tal vez lo que resulta más importante es el hecho de que eran monumentos al esfuerzo comunitario y al compromiso a largo plazo de las congregaciones que construyeron y sostuvieron estas iglesias durante siglos. Al fin y al cabo, la supervivencia humana podría depender de nuestra habilidad para superar, de forma similar, las fuerzas centrípetas que socavan la acción colectiva, y construir y mantener las estructuras sociales y los marcos normativos con el fin de desarrollar y redesarrollar nuestras ciudades para el bien mutuo y para la posteridad.
Es una tarde de jueves en Cincinnati, y las personas que se encuentran en la biblioteca pública del centro de la ciudad están haciendo cosas. En una esquina, se oye el zumbido de una cortadora y grabadora láser Full Spectrum, que cuesta US$14.410 y sirve para crear cualquier cosa, desde piezas de arte hasta unos humildes posavasos, utilizando papel, madera y acrílico. Cerca de las ventanas, se oye a la replicadora MakerBot, una de las cuatro impresoras 3-D de la biblioteca, que se usa para fabricar una amplia gama de objetos, desde juguetes hasta un pedal de bicicleta personalizado que sea compatible con los zapatos especiales que usa un usuario con una discapacidad física. Cerca de allí, un joven diseñador crea un cartel de vinilo a todo color utilizando una impresora y cortadora profesional Roland VersaCAMM VS-300i para formatos grandes. “Este es nuestro taller”, dice Ella Mulford, líder de equipos en el Espacio de Fabricación del Centro Tecnológico de la biblioteca, mi guía en este recorrido, y me comenta que esta máquina cuesta US$17.769. La mayoría de nosotros no podríamos pagar un precio tan alto por un equipo. Pero, evidentemente, muchos residentes de Cincinnati piensan que pueden hacer muchas cosas útiles con esta máquina, ya que, según Mulford, funciona prácticamente sin parar durante el horario en el que la biblioteca está abierta y generalmente la reservan con dos semanas de anticipación.
La biblioteca pública de Cincinnati y el condado de Hamilton continúa ofreciendo el servicio de préstamo de libros y búsquedas en otros medios de comunicación electrónicos. Sin embargo, el amplio Espacio de Fabricación, que abrió a principios de 2015 y contiene una gran cantidad de herramientas tecnológicas que pueden usarse gratis, es un ejemplo impresionante de cómo la idea de biblioteca se está adaptando a una era digital que no siempre ha sido amable con los libros. Más específicamente, estamos viendo indicios de una evolución en la función que cumplen las bibliotecas en las ciudades, ya sean grandes o pequeñas, contribuyendo con nuevas aportaciones al entramado municipal del que han formado parte durante tanto tiempo.
En Cincinnati, el proceso que dio como resultado el Espacio de Fabricación se inició hace un par de años, tal como lo explica Kimber L. Fender, directora de la biblioteca. Unas cuantas bibliotecas del país estaban experimentando con la tecnología como un nuevo componente que podrían ofrecer al público. “Y parte de nuestro plan estratégico”, continúa Fender, “era introducir nuevas tecnologías en nuestra comunidad, por lo que nos pusimos a analizar: ‘¿Qué significa exactamente esto? ¿De qué se trata?’”. Agregar una impresora 3-D al centro informático que ya existía en la biblioteca fue un experimento de bajo riesgo, y atrajo la atención de todos los canales de televisión de la ciudad. “Fue el tema de conversación por excelencia”, recuerda Fender, “por lo que pensamos: “Mmm… esto nos está ayudando a cumplir nuestro objetivo’”.
Enrique R. Silva, fellow de investigación e investigador asociado senior del Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo, señala que no existe una verdadera razón para atar el destino de la biblioteca como infraestructura cívica al destino del libro físico. “Es un espacio comunitario para el aprendizaje”, señala. Según un estudio del Centro de Investigaciones Pew realizado en 2015, el público está de acuerdo con esta idea: aunque existen signos de que los estadounidenses han acudido a las bibliotecas con bastante menos frecuencia que hace algunos años, también se observa que muchos aceptan de buena gana la idea de que se ofrezcan nuevas alternativas educativas en este contexto específico, incluso la tecnología. “No es difícil dar este salto”, concluye Silva.
De hecho, dar este salto no sólo amplía sino que actualiza la función que han cumplido las bibliotecas en muchos planes municipales en los Estados Unidos. Uno de los desarrollos más importantes en esta historia fue la explosiva diseminación de instituciones fundadas por Andrew Carnegie en las décadas anteriores y posteriores al comienzo del siglo XX. Con sus orígenes en Pensilvania, se construyeron cerca de 1.700 bibliotecas denominadas “Carnegie” con diferentes temáticas, tales como bellas artes, renacimiento italiano u otros estilos clásicos. Estas iniciativas facilitaron y promovieron un movimiento mucho más amplio de construcción de bibliotecas, que representaron hitos significativos en los centros municipales de todo el país. Aunque es notable, hoy en día, por lo general, se subestima a este omnipresente elemento de la infraestructura cívica.
Observa Silva, “Creo que, en la planificación moderna, se considera a la biblioteca como algo que eres afortunado si la tienes como un activo que forma parte del esqueleto de la ciudad a la que buscas encontrarle la vuelta”. Al menos en los Estados Unidos, la construcción de nuevas bibliotecas con importancia arquitectónica es algo inusual (la biblioteca central de la Biblioteca Pública de Seattle, inaugurada en 2004 y diseñada por Rem Koolhaas y Joshua Prince-Ramus, es una excepción notable). Así, la planificación suele ocurrir alrededor de las bibliotecas, que quedan como elementos “heredados” de “infraestructura social y cívica”, en palabras de Silva. En un informe del Centro para un Futuro Urbano realizado en 2013 sobre la ciudad de Nueva York, se sostiene que las bibliotecas han sido “subestimadas” en la mayoría de los “debates sobre políticas y planificación en cuanto al futuro de la ciudad”.
Pero, tal vez, este error implique una oportunidad: estas estructuras existentes pueden comenzar a cumplir una nueva función que las convierta de nuevo en algo importante para los planes municipales en constante evolución. Un ejemplo de ello es cómo la biblioteca de Cincinnati reconsideró lo que significa ser un centro comunitario de aprendizaje e información compartida. Tal como ocurrió con las bibliotecas Carnegie, el uso inteligente de los recursos filantrópicos fue un factor importante: según Fender, la biblioteca recibió un legado discrecional de US$150.000, que decidió utilizar en el Espacio de Fabricación. Con el objeto de hacer lugar a este espacio, la biblioteca reorganizó su colección de revistas y periódicos.
Luego, la biblioteca decidió tomar una postura audaz sobre el tipo de tecnologías que podría ofrecer. La institución posee un pequeño estudio de grabación con micrófonos de calidad profesional, que utilizan los aspirantes a disc jockey o los que desean transmitir podcasts
Resulta que muchos tipos de emprendedores, desde aspirantes a fundar nuevas empresas a vendedores de Etsy, aprovechan lo que ofrece la biblioteca. Hay también estaciones de trabajo colaborativo con computadoras conectadas por Wi-Fi, que utilizan todo tipo de personas, desde diseñadores que trabajan con sus clientes hasta estudiantes que se reúnen para realizar sus tareas escolares.
Y aquí observamos una tendencia mucho más amplia. La biblioteca pública de Chattanooga ha convertido lo que solía ser el equivalente a un desván en un centro de fabricación y laboratorio tecnológico público, denominado “Cuarto Piso”, en donde, con regularidad, se realizan actividades públicas relacionadas con estos temas. La “Biblioteca de las Cosas” de la biblioteca pública de Sacramento permite a la gente probar cámaras GoPro y tabletas, entre otros aparatos tecnológicos. Y, así, abundan muchos otros experimentos, desde Boston a St. Louis, a Washington, D.C., o Chicago: según una encuesta, más de 100 bibliotecas han incorporado, desde 2014, algún tipo de espacio de fabricación; y otro informe afirma que más de 250 bibliotecas tienen disponible al menos una impresora 3-D.
Así, el pensamiento progresista y la creatividad de las bibliotecas se alinea con los objetivos de muchos planificadores: conservar y explotar los puntos de encuentro comunitarios que, por lo general, se encuentran profundamente integrados a los espacios públicos más importantes, así como también expandir la cantidad de ciudadanos que acuden a estos espacios. Resulta interesante destacar que algunos pensadores urbanos han comenzado a analizar el potencial de los espacios de fabricación que están surgiendo desde el sector privado o desde organizaciones comunitarias como un componente de “una nueva infraestructura cívica”. Tal vez bibliotecas como la de Cincinnati ya la estén desarrollando.
Según Fender, uno de los desafíos que existen es la falta de amplio consenso sobre los índices para medir los efectos que estas decisiones tienen sobre una institución dada o, por extensión, sobre su entorno cívico. Así, Cincinnati ha estado haciendo sus propios cálculos: en septiembre de 2015, el Espacio de Fabricación recibió 1.592 reservas para utilizar equipos, entre las que se cuentan 92 para el MakerBot, 157 para la grabadora láser y 298 para la impresora de vinilo. Todas las reservas reflejan un interés continuo o creciente (como consecuencia, la colección del Espacio de Fabricación está creciendo, con la incorporación de una máquina de libros Espresso que imprime libros bajo demanda).
“El Espacio de Fabricación le recuerda a la gente que la biblioteca está allí, pero también les ayuda a verla de una manera diferente y decir ‘Ah, están pensando en el futuro, en las necesidades de la comunidad y en cómo pueden ofrecer algo más que los libros que hay en los estantes’”, concluye Fender.
Rob Walker (robwalker.net) es colaborador de Design Observer y The New York Times.