The Lincoln Institute’s C. Lowell Harriss Dissertation Fellowship Program assists PhD students whose research complements the institute’s interest in valuation and taxation. The program provides an important link between the institute’s educational mission and its research objectives by supporting scholars early in their careers.
The application deadline is 6 p.m. EST on March 1, 2024.
Details
Submission Deadline
March 1, 2024 at 6:00 PM
Downloads
Keywords
Land Market Regulation, Land Value, Land Value Taxation, Land-Based Tax, Local Government, Property Taxation, Taxation, Valuation, Value-Based Taxes
What Will Make Home Buyers Consider Climate Risk? What Happens Once They Do?
By Jon Gorey, November 17, 2023
SHARE
Realtor Gabriella Beale stopped for lunch at a cafe in downtown Norfolk, Virginia, this summer, on her way to show her buyers a home in nearby Larchmont, a neighborhood of tree-lined streets and early 20th-century houses. Then a late August downpour dumped more than two inches of rain on the city, forcing Beale to cancel the showing—because she could no longer get to the house. She watched helplessly from the cafe as flash flooding filled the road outside.
“I couldn’t even get to my car because part of the road essentially became a river,” Beale said. This wasn’t a hurricane, or even a tropical storm—just a rainy Monday in this low-lying city of 238,000. Situated between the Elizabeth River and Chesapeake Bay, Norfolk is experiencing the fastest relative sea-level rise on the East Coast—more than two inches just since 2012—so there isn’t much room for extra water. Parts of the city flood even without rainfall during king tides, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration projects that the city’s dozen or so annual “sunny-day flooding” incidents could double as soon as 2030.
The encroaching water hasn’t gone unnoticed, Beale said: more buyers ask about flooding than in years past, even in neighborhoods outside the 100-year floodplain. She dutifully counsels all her clients on flood risk, discussing insurance costs, personal safety, and the potential drop in future resale value. Some buyers want nothing to do with a floodplain house, but others don’t mind the risk—or can’t afford to be picky. Beale acknowledges that she can’t make decisions for them. “People have different ideas of what level of flood risk they’re comfortable with, and it’s not really up to me to say, ‘This is a bad house.’”
Flooding in the Larchmont neighborhood of Norfolk, Virginia. Credit: Aileen Devlin/Virginia Sea Grant via Flickr.
By the time the stormwater finally subsided on that rainy Monday, Beale’s car was toast; she wasn’t sure it could be repaired. “I can tell that story, and some buyers still want to live in that neighborhood,” she said. Indeed, her buyers rescheduled their showing for the very next day.
* * *
BEALE’S CLIENTS are hardly alone in their pursuit of risky real estate. Even as climate change delivers more intense and more frequent storms, wildfires, and heat waves, home buyers across the United States continue to move into areas at greater risk of climate impacts like flooding, wildfire, drought, and extreme heat—in fact, they’re doing so at a faster pace.
That the climate is changing, and not for the better, is hard to miss. The US experienced a record 23 separate billion-dollar weather disasters in just the first nine months of 2023; the previous annual record of 22 was not even three years old, set in 2020. The number of buildings destroyed by wildfire in California each year has spiked 335 percent since 2009, according to First Street Foundation, a research nonprofit seeking to make climate risk data more accessible. Nationwide, we’re now losing an average of more than 17,000 structures a year to wildfire, a number that is forecast to top 33,700 by 2053—meaning we can soon expect to lose the equivalent of Daytona Beach, Florida, or Asheville, North Carolina, to fire every single year.
Yet home buyers still don’t seem to factor in climate risk when they make one of the biggest decisions of their lives. We keep building and buying homes in the fire-prone “wildland-urban interface” where town meets wilderness, and moving closer to the water, not away from it.
The most flood-prone counties in the US had 384,000 more people move in than out in 2021 and 2022, according to a Redfin analysis, roughly double the net increase of the prior two years. That includes Lee County, Florida, which gained 60,000 net new residents in two years even as Hurricane Ian destroyed nearly 10,000 homes in 2022.
Counties facing the greatest wildfire risk, meanwhile, netted 426,000 new residents in that time. And those most threatened by heat collectively gained 629,000 net residents—including Maricopa County, Arizona, where 76,000 newcomers sweltered in temperatures that topped 110º Fahrenheit for 31 straight days last summer and left hundreds dead.
And yet, the housing market in Maricopa County has been almost as hot as the sidewalks that gave residents third-degree burns in July: median home prices rose a staggering 64 percent in four years, from $290,000 in June 2019 to $475,000 in 2023, as more residents moved in. Prices in Florida’s Lee County rose 70 percent in that time, compared to 40 percent nationwide. Accounting for likely long-term flood damage—to say nothing of drought or wildfire risk—a study published in Nature Climate Change estimated that the residential real estate market in the US is collectively overvalued by as much as $237 billion.
New construction in Maricopa County, Arizona, which has seen record heat, drought, and growth. Credit: halbergman via iStock/Getty Images Plus.
The disconnect is largely driven by short-term affordability concerns, said Daryl Fairweather, chief economist at Redfin. “People are leaving places like San Francisco because their rent is too high, and then they’re moving to places like Tampa or Las Vegas because they can actually afford to buy a home there,” Fairweather said. “But what they’re not thinking about is how their housing expenses might change in the future, how the value of their home might change in the future, and also how the livability of those places might change in the future.”
Where the planet is sending us flashing red “stop” signals, home buyers and developers seem to see green lights. Why? And what will it take to get them to heed the stop signs?
Tell Me About It
One reason a driver might recklessly blow past a stop sign, putting themselves and others in danger, is if the sign itself isn’t visible—if it’s concealed by overgrown foliage, for example.
Sometimes warnings of flood or fire risk aren’t immediately obvious to home buyers, either.
“One thing that we’ve learned is that information is just so critical,” said Patrick Welch, policy analyst at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. “Even though there is so much information out there about climate risks, it’s not necessarily that accessible—people don’t know about it.”
In 23 states, for example, home sellers aren’t typically required to disclose a home’s flood history to potential buyers, including in vulnerable coastal states like Florida, Massachusetts, and Virginia. Only two states, California and Oregon, require some disclosure of wildfire risk. And often such notices are confusing or reach buyers too late for them to act on the information—after the home inspection, for example, or buried in a stack of forms signed at the closing.
California requires some disclosure of wildfire risk, but it doesn’t apply to every property, and often comes late in the homebuying process. Credit: f00sion via E+/Getty Images.
Getting clear, accurate risk assessments into home buyers’ hands can help them make more climate-informed decisions about where they choose to live, Welch said.
“Disclosure of risks is very uneven across states,” agreed Margaret Walls, senior fellow at the nonprofit Resources for the Future. In fact, disclosure rules can even vary within a state, which is how Walls and her colleagues were able to isolate the impact of disclosing fire risk on home values in California in a new working paper.
California requires home sellers located in a moderate, high, or very-high Fire Hazard Severity Zone to disclose that fire risk to buyers—but only if the home falls within a state responsibility zone, meaning the state manages wildfire prevention and response. In areas where the local jurisdiction is responsible, sellers aren’t required to disclose moderate or high fire risk.
That allowed Walls to compare homes that share the same level of fire risk—as well as school districts, walkability, and other location-based amenities—but have different disclosure requirements. By comparing years of sales data for neighboring homes on either side of the disclosure divide, the researchers were able to show that homes with a disclosed fire risk sold for an average of 4.3 percent less than similar nearby properties with undisclosed risk.
In other words, buyers who were made aware of the risks seemed to adjust their behaviors in a rational way—exactly what you’d hope to see in a well-functioning market. “We can’t expect markets to work and prices to reflect something unless we have all the information,” Walls said.
The effect of risk disclosure on sale prices seems to be strengthening as fire seasons intensify. The eight largest wildfires in California history have all occurred since 2017, burning more than 4 million acres, and 2020 was the state’s worst fire year on record. “We found a stronger effect in the more recent years,” Walls adds. “It’s getting more salient to people after these bad fire years.”
Past research has found that strict flood disclosure rules yield a similar price penalty of about 4 percent. In the absence of flood disclosures, though, home buyers can still get some idea of a home’s flood risk from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA’s flood maps aren’t perfect—they’re based on historical flooding, for one thing, not future climate models—but they’re freely available. Anyone can access them online, though Beale says most home buyers don’t think to do so until she recommends it. And even then, it’s hard to get a price quote for flood insurance without applying for coverage. In fact, because lenders require borrowers to purchase flood insurance on homes located within a FEMA high-risk floodplain, loan officers are often the ones breaking the bad news about flood risk and insurance premiums—typically very late in the process.
“Usually at that point, the buyers can’t get out of the contract,” Beale said. The average annual flood insurance premium nationwide was $888 in 2022, “so that’s not a huge impact if you’re spreading it out over 12 months,” she notes. But rates can vary dramatically by property, even cresting five figures. “If it comes back at $10,000, and you can still technically afford the house according to the lender … you can’t walk away.”
Major real estate sites Redfin and Realtor.com have started incorporating First Street’s climate risk data on their property listings—right alongside other typical home buyer concerns, such as school districts and taxes. And getting that information to a home buyer early in the process makes a real difference, according to a new working paper Fairweather coauthored.
Redfin and Realtor.com have started incorporating climate risk data from First Street Foundation into their property listings. Credit: Redfin.
Redfin started publishing flood risk data sitewide in February 2021. But before that, in late 2020, the brokerage leveraged a soft launch of the new feature to conduct a three-month experiment among 17.5 million users. Half of them saw detailed flood risk data and “Flood Factor” scores on the homes they searched, while the other half did not. That randomized flood risk information “had a significant and meaningful impact on users’ search behavior,” and influenced every stage of the home buying process, from initial search to making offers to the final purchase. Over time, buyers who encountered high Flood Factor scores on their initial home searches gradually adjusted their searches toward—and were later more likely to bid on—less flood-prone homes than were users who didn’t see flood risk information.
“Increasing information to home buyers, especially at the moment they’re buying a home, would help them make a different decision when it comes to taking on climate risk,” said Fairweather.
A Reckoning in the Insurance Market
One way markets traditionally communicate risk is through insurance rates; higher premiums quite clearly reflect a greater likelihood of losses. But right now, the home and flood insurance markets are struggling to adapt to a range of issues, with the costs of climate change-fueled disasters, reconstruction, and fraudulent claims all on the rise.
For decades, FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) has underpriced coverage, indirectly subsidizing homeowners in flood-prone areas by making it less expensive to live there than it should be. This is evident through simple math: The NFIP is $20 billion in debt, as premiums have failed to keep up with the actual cost of damages incurred.
FEMA took a step toward correcting that imbalance by implementing Risk Rating 2.0 in late 2021, a new methodology that better aligns premiums with an individual property’s flood risk. However, Congress capped NFIP rate increases at 18 percent a year to ease the impact on existing policyholders. A report by the Government Accountability Office found that median flood insurance premiums would still need to almost double, from $689 to $1,288, for the program to be actuarially sound, and that roughly one in 10 properties insured by the NFIP will eventually require at least a 300 percent rate hike. In Naples, Florida, for example, the average annual flood insurance premium among 1,568 policyholders was $2,228 in 2022; FEMA calculated the risk-based cost of those policies should average almost four times as much: $8,067 per year.
In Naples, Florida, the average annual flood insurance premium among 1,568 policyholders was $2,228. FEMA calculations suggest the risk-based cost of those policies should be nearly four times higher. Credit: Andrii Mischykcha via iStock/Getty Images Plus.
Meanwhile, private insurers (whose homeowner policies generally don’t cover flood damage) are increasingly finding it difficult or impossible to provide coverage at fair but profitable rates as windstorms and wildfires grow more destructive, and as reconstruction gets more expensive.
State Farm announced in May that it would no longer write new homeowner policies in California, where it is the largest insurer, citing “rapidly growing catastrophe exposure” and historically high construction costs. Soon after, Allstate announced that it would do the same, making permanent a pause on new policies instituted in 2022. More than a dozen insurance companies have pulled out of Florida and Louisiana in the past two years, leaving homeowners scrambling for coverage.
Insurance companies could theoretically just raise their rates enough to offset increased costs. But insurance is something of a necessity—lenders won’t approve a mortgage without it, and four in five home buyers rely on a home loan to finance their purchases. So, to protect consumers, big insurance premium hikes often must be approved by state regulators. And in California, insurers can only use past losses, not future risk estimates, to justify rate increases. That makes it hard for insurers to price their coverage accurately or profitably as risk intensifies.
As Michael Wara, director of the Climate and Energy Policy Program at Stanford, told KQED, the price of home insurance in California no longer matches the risk. “Our insurance system kind of pretends that climate change doesn’t exist, and that’s not workable anymore,” he said.
The price signals that private insurers ordinarily provide through premium adjustments are crucial to a functioning real estate market, “because that is ultimately how decisions get made,” University of Pennsylvania economist Benjamin Keys told Penn Today. “When there are incentives for the choices that homebuilders make, that homeowners make, that’s going to reshape where we live and where we build. When we don’t get that price signal, that distorts our perceptions of risk.”
A report by First Street Foundation asserts that millions of US homes face more climate risk than their insurance rates would indicate, creating a “climate insurance bubble” in the market. “You don’t want someone to live in a place that always burns,” First Street Head of Climate Implications Jeremy Porter told Grist. “We’re subsidizing people to live in harm’s way.” In that respect, it makes some sense for home insurers like State Farm and Allstate to stop writing new policies in the most high-risk areas—doing so could help dissuade developers from building in places most likely to burn.
According to a recent report from the First Street Foundation, millions of homes in the United States face more climate risk than their insurance rates indicate, creating a “climate insurance bubble.” Credit: First Street Foundation.
But millions of people already live in high-risk areas. And when those homeowners can’t get insurance on the private market, they must turn to state-run plans that offer less coverage at higher prices. These public options are meant to offer policies of last resort, but their role is growing; in Florida, the public Citizens Property Insurance Corporation is now the state’s largest insurer, according to the First Street report, with 1.3 million policyholders. The number of homeowners on California’s state-run FAIR Plan more than doubled between 2018 and 2022, to nearly 273,000.
“I worry that a larger state role in insurance markets will bring political pressure to keep premiums low without reflecting the growing climate risks,” Keys said. “It’s challenging for a state-backed plan to raise rates aggressively on homeowners in that state. There’s real political tension.” State-run plans also transfer financial risk to taxpayers: Florida’s Citizens Property Insurance Corporation expects to turn a profit in 2023, but lost more than $2 billion in 2022. That’s one reason Florida is phasing in a new law over the next four years requiring all Citizens policyholders to obtain flood insurance as well.
In September, California insurance commissioner Ricardo Lara announced emergency steps aimed at stabilizing the state’s wobbly home insurance market by the end of 2024. Under these new rules, insurers will be permitted to consider climate change and future catastrophe risk when setting premiums. However, they’ll also be required to cover a percentage of high-risk homes, to start transitioning homeowners off the FAIR Plan and back into the private market. That could well be enough to draw insurance companies back, Keys says: “When an insurer leaves a state, it doesn’t mean that they don’t want to write insurance policies. It means that they don’t want to write insurance policies under the current regulatory environment and with the current limits on premiums. They want to make a profit.”
As insurance rates rise to account for increased climate risk, one way to ease the impact on homeowners (without artificially suppressing premiums) is for insurers to offer discounts when property owners invest in preventative risk-reduction measures—such as raising a home’s mechanical systems above the base flood elevation, or clearing fire-fueling vegetation from around a house. A new California initiative called “Safer From Wildfires,” introduced in late 2022, requires insurers to recognize and reward fire resiliency measures by offering discounts to homeowners who create five-foot ember-resistant zones around their homes, for example, or who invest in upgraded roofs, windows, or vents.
“By incentivizing policyholders to implement wildfire-resistant measures, insurance companies can create a win-win situation,” the First Street report notes. That could create a positive cycle, reducing the frequency and severity of wildfire losses—and the resulting financial burden on both insurers and communities—while potentially preserving home values.
Change the Lending Landscape
As the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) that back most mortgages in the US, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wield tremendous influence over the real estate market—and could also help home buyers heed climate risk.
The GSEs already require borrowers purchasing a high-flood-risk home to secure flood insurance as a condition of their mortgage. But they could, in theory, take more aggressive steps to dissuade risky home purchases, such as requiring a bigger down payment on high-risk properties, charging higher interest rates on such loans, or factoring climate risk into valuations. Fannie Mae has started enlisting climate analytics companies like First Street to figure out how and whether it can fairly incorporate climate risk into its underwriting and lending guidelines.
It’s a delicate exercise, however. Adjusting valuation or lending criteria to make it more difficult or more expensive to get a mortgage in flood-prone areas would very likely devalue the affected homes. And it’s not just expensive beach houses. Due to historical discrimination and redlining practices, low-income households and people of color are disproportionately represented in the most flood-prone areas. These are some of the very communities Fannie and Freddie have been trying to better support through their “Duty to Serve” mandate.
A Redfin analysis of 38 US metro areas found that people in formerly redlined neighborhoods–areas categorized as undesirable on discriminatory federal lending maps in the 1930s–face higher flood risk and related financial and safety concerns than those in other neighborhoods. Credit: Redfin.
“It’s really a double-edged sword,” said Ellie White, senior associate on the buildings team at RMI. Like the Lincoln Institute, RMI is a member of the Underserved Mortgage Markets Coalition (UMMC), which seeks to hold Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac accountable for bringing housing finance opportunities to families not traditionally served by the private market.
“A main roadblock of incorporating climate risk information into the valuation of a property revolves around this challenge of ensuring that we’re not devaluing properties in already high-risk, low-income, historically disadvantaged communities,” White said. “So I think the GSEs are very cautious, and rightfully so, about what it would mean if we had wide-scale incorporation of those physical risks into the valuation of property.”
The stakes are uniquely high in the US, where homeownership has long been a primary engine of wealth creation. “If not done correctly, this could really completely wipe out families’ generational wealth, and it would disproportionately impact low-income communities,” Welch said. “It’s a really complicated, tricky issue.” Local governments that rely heavily on property taxes could also see major shifts in their tax base if climate risk were fully reflected in home values. While municipalities can typically offset potential revenue loss by adjusting tax rates when property values decline, large shifts in the distribution of tax burdens can create political challenges.
But the GSEs could do other things, like using risk research and data to guide policy, and helping homeowners in high-risk areas pay for resiliency upgrades like elevating structures. “The GSEs can take more action on the community engagement front, to support educational programs and raise awareness of these risks and resilience solutions among home buyers,” White said.
Raising a house above flood level on Long Island, New York. Lenders could influence the market by dissuading the purchase of vulnerable properties and helping existing homeowners pay for resilience upgrades. Credit: John Penney via iStock Editorial/Getty Images Plus.
In a letter to Federal Housing Finance Authority Director Sandra Thompson in August, the UMMC made a wide range of policy recommendations. Among them: requiring the disclosure of both climate risk and energy performance on existing homes backed with GSE mortgages, and requiring new homes backed by GSE loans to meet more energy-efficient building codes. The latter would reduce long-term ownership costs for home buyers, while also reducing financial risk to the GSEs.
Zoning for the Future
Figuring out how to protect, insure, or move residents of existing neighborhoods that face increased climate risk is a thorny problem without many satisfactory solutions. But at the very least, experts say, we should stop creating more at-risk residents, and focus new development in climate-resilient places.
“New construction has been increasingly going in places with high climate risks, particularly when it comes to wildfire risk and drought risk,” Fairweather said. “And it’s exurban sprawl that is to blame. Because of single-family zoning, people build more and more into places that aren’t naturally equipped for climate change—they’re building into the forests in inland California, they’re building into the deserts, which don’t have access to water.”
Taking a gamble on new home construction in Nevada. Credit: 4Kodiak via iStock/Getty Images Plus.
Communities should instead be trying to shift development away from high-climate-risk areas, and encouraging more density and affordable housing in safer areas, says Michael Rodriguez, research director at Smart Growth America. “Climate-informed zoning can easily overlay with a lot of other priorities that a city has,” he said, such as transit-oriented development.
Right now, land markets clearly aren’t sending the right signals about climate risk, Welch said, but planners and elected officials could help correct that at a local level. “Updating zoning codes and land use regulations to reflect climate risks, whether it’s wildfire or flooding, are relatively simple ways that local governments can start to move the needle on this,” he said.
Back in Norfolk, Virginia, city leaders have taken the lead on climate-informed zoning. Over the past decade, Norfolk has adopted a pair of new land use plans: the short-term PlaNorfolk2030, and the long-term Vision 2100, along with accompanying zoning overlays.
The long-range plan divides the city into four color-coded sections. Red zones, which include the naval base and the downtown district where Beale watched stormwater surge through the streets, are densely developed and economically important, but very vulnerable to flooding; the plan calls for investments in flood protection and mitigation in these areas. Yellow zones indicate flood-prone residential and historic areas, where a resilience overlay will discourage new development but support existing residents’ adaptation efforts. Low-risk green zones are where the city wants to invest in denser, transit-rich neighborhoods. And purple zones, which also have a lower flood risk, are slated for infrastructure investments and lower-density development aimed at preserving housing affordability.
Leaders in Norfolk, Virginia, have developed land use maps that indicate areas where the city intends to invest in flood mitigation and resilience (red and yellow) and areas where new infrastructure and housing development will be encouraged (green and purple). Credit: PlaNorfolk2030.
Such a climate policy can influence land use and real estate decisions in a couple of ways, Rodriguez said. “It might work through literal policy incentives and disincentives, in a tangible sense, like money or regulations,” he said. “But then there’s also the signaling aspect. The city government has now put out a map, and that map in itself can send a signal that can have market impacts.”
Some people worried that, by officially declaring some places risky and others preferable for development, Norfolk’s plan could spook home buyers and investors and sink home values in the high-risk areas. But Rodriguez and his colleagues compared years of sales and permit data before and after the Vision 2100 plan was released, and, as they describe in a new working paper commissioned by the Lincoln Institute, there was no statistical impact on home prices.
That could be the result of the unusually strong pandemic real estate market during the years studied, the authors wrote, or a general lack of climate concern among area home buyers at the time. But it may offer some assurance to hesitant communities: Enacting climate-informed zoning to guide future development doesn’t necessarily have to wreak havoc on existing home values, at least in the short term.
“It’s a long-term solution—it’s not going to change the development patterns or reduce the risk today or tomorrow,” Welch said. “But it’s going to slowly incentivize and push development into less risky areas. And I think one of the takeaways from that study was that you can do this and not immediately crash the local housing market or cause a panic.”
Norfolk’s experience also showed that an inclusive process can ease perceptions of malicious remapping. “You’re drawing lines on the map, and you’re saying, ‘Build here, don’t build there,’” Rodriguez said. “That feels weird, and it feels a little bit like redlining in a historical context of planning. And that feels doubly weird when we know that a lot of the places facing the most climate risk tend to be poor, and tend to have more people of color. . . . There has to be a lot of community input and communication as to what it means to have climate-informed zoning to try and mitigate some of those concerns.”
In that sense, while Norfolk’s policy lacks “teeth” and the city has yet to implement follow-up measures such as density bonuses or the transfer of development rights (which would allow landowners in vulnerable zones to sell their development rights to builders in a low-risk zone), the city has already taken a huge step. “They were one of one of the few communities out there that did anything like this,” Rodriguez said.
States and municipalities have other levers they can pull, too—some more drastic than others.
In water-stressed Arizona, for example—where the Colorado River is overdrawn, and depleted underground aquifers are projected to eventually run dry at current usage levels—state officials recently announced a moratorium on new residential construction that relies on groundwater in the Phoenix metro area.
Even without placing an outright ban on new construction in high-risk areas, communities can, through zoning and other regulations, effectively stymie risky new development by refusing to fund or permit new streets, water service, and other key infrastructure in high-risk settings. The federal government uses a similar approach to protect sensitive coastal ecosystems through the Coastal Barrier Resources Act. The CBRA doesn’t explicitly outlaw development in those areas, but dissuades it by withholding federal support for things like infrastructure, flood insurance, and disaster relief. That disincentive has proven remarkably effective, research commissioned by the Lincoln Institute has shown, reducing development by 85 percent.
It’s worth noting that Norfolk didn’t outright ban new construction in high-flood-risk areas, either. But it did set stricter building codes in those zones, which can help the city’s built environment adapt to climate risk by accomplishing two things at once. “To the extent that you do build there, at least you’re going to build something that’s more resilient,” Rodriguez said. Meanwhile, higher design standards can add cost and complexity to construction in vulnerable areas, creating a disincentive to build there, and encouraging developers to locate projects on safer sites instead.
Local governments can also charge higher taxes or impact fees to discourage building or buying in high-risk areas—for example, raising water and sewage rates in water-stressed areas, or funding wildfire prevention efforts with a higher tax on fire-prone properties. “Higher fees in risky areas serve two purposes,” write Brookings Institute researchers Julia Gill and Jenny Schuetz. “They encourage price-sensitive households to choose safer locations, and they also provide local governments with more revenue to upgrade the climate resilience of infrastructure.”
All of these policies could help point home buyers toward making better, more rational decisions. But where we choose to live sometimes defies reason.
Flooding in Norfolk, Virginia, in 2021. Credit: Aileen Devlin/Virginia Sea Grant via Flickr.
Beale, the Norfolk realtor who counsels all her buyers about flood risk, understands why some of them still choose a high-risk home. For some, it’s straightforward economics. “If a buyer can only afford $150,000, and they want a detached house, Norfolk’s going to be it—and it’s maybe in a flood risk area,” Beale said.
But for others, it’s a deep-seated desire that isn’t so easily erased by rising insurance rates or flood disclosure forms. “These are beautiful neighborhoods” of century-old Colonials and tree-lined sidewalks, she said. “It’s not all about money. It’s this perceived dream of homeownership—this ideal of, ‘What do you want your life to be?’”
Unfortunately, the one thing that does seem to break through and change home buyer behavior is witnessing a weather disaster. Beale says many buyers still shy away from particular streets because they remember driving past flood-ravaged houses there after a bad storm.
After all, no one’s ideal dream of homeownership involves fleeing a fire or wading through floodwater. Fairweather expects attitudes to shift as risk increasingly becomes reality for more people. “I think experience will be a teacher,” she said, “as there are more hurricanes and more fire events. I think more homeowners will start to worry about it when they see it in real life.”
Jon Gorey is a staff writer at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Lead image: Tidal flooding in Norfolk, Virginia. Credit: Aileen Devlin/Virginia Sea Grant via Flickr.
Vivienda/trabajo
Aumentan las transformaciones de oficinas en viviendas: ¿qué significa esto para las ciudades?
Tiene tanto sentido, al menos en los papeles: un último cambio de las normativas en el lugar de trabajo ha dejado a muchos edificios de oficinas del centro mitad vacíos durante gran parte de la semana, así como a las tiendas de delicatessen, kioscos y cafeterías que por mucho tiempo dependieron de los dólares de los trabajadores que llegaban a diario. A medida que las vacantes aumentan, los valores de los inmuebles comerciales disminuyen, lo que podría afectar las rentas por tributos inmobiliarios. Mientras tanto, en los barrios más residenciales, fuera de aquellos adormecidos distritos del centro, una grave escasez de viviendas disparó los precios por encima de niveles sostenibles para compradores de propiedades e inquilinos por igual.
Entonces, ¿por qué no transformar algunas de esas oficinas vacías en las tan necesarias viviendas, y traer más personas (y consumo) al centro, a la vez que se propician beneficios en cuanto al clima y la sostenibilidad gracias a la reutilización de edificios y la generación de densidad urbana?
Esa es la pregunta que se están planteando en las ciudades en todo el mundo, a medida que los calendarios de trabajo remoto e híbrido pasan de ser una excepción a ser una regla para una parte considerable de la mano de obra. Pero, si bien la reutilización adaptativa de las oficinas como residencias parece ser una solución prometedora, la realidad es más complicada.
Según un análisis de Gallup de junio de 2022, más de la mitad de los trabajadores estadounidenses, unos 70 millones de personas, pueden realizar sus trabajos de forma remota, y un mero seis por ciento quiere volver a trabajar en una oficina a tiempo completo algún día (la mayoría dice que, si el empleador lo exigiera, buscaría otro empleo). Gallup predice que más de la mitad del personal con capacidad de trabajar remoto trabajará en un esquema híbrido en el futuro, y un 22 por ciento trabajará siempre fuera del establecimiento en los próximos años (Wigert y Agrawal, 2022).
A medida que los acuerdos de trabajo remoto e híbrido no solo se aceptan sino que también se esperan, las empresas están consolidando la cantidad de espacio de oficina que alquilan mientras intentan hacer que trasladarse hasta el lugar de trabajo valga el esfuerzo para el personal. A menudo eso se traduce en alquilar menos metros cuadrados en un edificio más costoso con terminaciones nuevas y de calidad superior, e instalaciones de última generación, lo que, en el ámbito de los bienes raíces comerciales, se conoce como espacio de clase A.
Esto obliga a las oficinas menos atractivas de clase B o clase C, que representan la mayoría de los espacios de trabajo construido, a tener que luchar para encontrar y mantener inquilinos. En todo el país, la tasa de vacantes de las oficinas superó el 17 por ciento en el cuarto trimestre de 2022, frente a un 12,1 por ciento a fines de 2019, según la empresa de bienes raíces comerciales, CBRE.
Esta tendencia no muestra señales de atenuarse, y a algunas ciudades les está yendo peor que a otras. CBRE calculó que, a finales de 2022, la tasa de vacantes comerciales en San Francisco será del 27,3 por ciento (antes de la pandemia era tan solo del 4,8 por ciento). Phoenix finalizó el año con casi el 24 por ciento de sus oficinas desalquiladas, frente a un 14,4 por ciento a finales de 2019 (CBRE 2023).
Y los distritos comerciales del centro, en particular, están tambaleando. Este ya es el tercer trimestre consecutivo que las oficinas del centro presentan niveles de vacantes superiores (17,6 por ciento) a los de las áreas urbanas (17,2 por ciento), lo que invirtió la tendencia histórica. A fines de 2019, la tasa de vacantes para los edificios de oficinas céntricos fue del 10,2 por ciento.
En la región de Upper Downtown de Denver, la tasa de vacantes de oficinas ya estaba aumentando antes de la pandemia y, para mediados de 2022, había alcanzado un 21 por ciento, explica Laura E. Aldrete, directora ejecutiva de Planificación y Desarrollo Comunitario. Pero los dirigentes de la ciudad están eligiendo ver esta situación como una oportunidad. “Hay una crisis de viviendas asequibles integrada a eso”, dice Aldrete. “Entonces, ¿cómo podemos crear una variable positiva de dos negativas?”.
Diversificar
Avanzada la pandemia, Aldrete notó algo mientras caminaba por la ciudad de Querétaro, México: en momentos en los que muchos centros estadounidenses aún parecían misteriosamente vacíos debido al cierres prolongados de oficinas, la ciudad de Querétaro estaba viva. En México, también habían cerrado muchos lugares de trabajo, pero el centro de la ciudad estaba lleno de personas, incluidas familias con niños pequeños. “Es una ciudad de la década de 1500 que tiene una serie de plazas públicas, con calles peatonales y residencias, oficinas y [tiendas] minoristas, y estaba prosperando”, relata Aldrete.
Vio un patrón similar emergente en secciones del centro de Denver. El distrito comercial central de la ciudad, Upper Downtown, es una vuelta hacia la era de la renovación urbana (edificios de oficinas de hormigón, calles de sentido único, espacios de estacionamiento) y aún tiene que despertar del sueño inducido por la COVID. Pero Lower Downtown (o “LoDo”), un barrio histórico con usos múltiples cuyos depósitos alguna vez vacíos se convirtieron en loft y restaurantes en las décadas de 1980 y 1990, permaneció bastante activo durante la pandemia. Lo mismo ocurrió con el barrio de Union Station, que experimentó su propio renacimiento de uso mixto en la década pasada, con la renovación, de gran repercusión mediática, de la estación de tren que puso una mayor foco en los parques y las viviendas de ingresos mixtos. “Hoy en día, en comparación con Upper Downtown, aquellos dos barrios céntricos siguen prosperando”, comenta Aldrete.
Los vecindarios Union Station y Lower Downtown de Denver están llenos de vida; Los líderes de la ciudad esperan que la conversión de oficinas vacías en apartamentos en el área del Upper Downtown cree una sensación similar. Crédito: Page Light Studios a través de iStock Editorial/Getty Images Plus.
Incluso antes de la pandemia, Aldrete pudo ver que el ambiente de oficina “de nueve a cinco” de Upper Downtown había perdido la vitalidad que buscaban los empleados del siglo XXI. “Históricamente, todos los bancos y las empresas de gas y petróleo se han peleado por tener una dirección en la 17th Street”, dice Aldrete, un tramo de Upper Downtown llamado “La Wall Street de las Rocosas”. Pero cuando BP estaba buscando una sede regional siete años atrás, la empresa ignoró la 17th Street y prefirió una ubicación cerca de Union Station. La COVID atacó, “y se hizo muy evidente que no teníamos un barrio [en Upper Downtown] . . . no había nadie”, dice. La pregunta que surgió es la siguiente: “¿Cómo podemos pensar en transformar nuestro distrito comercial central en un distrito barrial central?”.
Denver está elaborando un programa piloto en el que invitará a cinco propietarios de inmuebles a trabajar con la ciudad para convertir sus edificios de oficinas infrautilizados en residencias. Aldrete alentó a los propietarios del edificio histórico Petroleum, que está ocupado a medias, entre otros, a participar, debido a que ya tenían planes de transformar la torre de oficinas en más de 100 departamentos. Espera que unos pocos proyectos piloto puedan abrir camino a otros en el futuro.
“En el mercado inmobiliario, los primeros son los que asumen el mayor riesgo”, explica Aldrete. “Una de las funciones que el gobierno municipal puede desempeñar es trabajar con el sector privado . . . ¿Cómo nos presentamos como buenos socios para acompañarlos en el proceso?”.
El barrio ya tiene espacios de entretenimiento y quizás el mejor acceso al transporte público de la ciudad, incluidos colectivos y el metro ligero, comenta Aldrete, pero carece de otros servicios esenciales que atraerían a residentes por tiempo completo, “el corazón de toda comunidad”. Así que, al mismo tiempo, Denver está trabajando con socios de la comunidad para encontrar otras formas de crear un centro “que sea un barrio completo”, desde estrategias para atraer más establecimientos para el cuidado de las infancias y aumentar la cubierta de árboles afuera de las transformaciones residenciales, hasta la activación de espacios de venta minorista en planta baja a través de programas como PopUp Denver, que brinda a los empresarios locales vidrieras sin costo de alquiler por tres meses.
Sostener el centro
La reutilización adaptativa presenta desafíos logísticos, pero también posibilidades, como el potencial de revivir los centros en dificultades y sostenerlos de una forma nueva, explica Amy Cotter, directora de estrategias climáticas en el Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo. “Mucho se ha escrito sobre la evolución del espacio de oficinas como una sentencia de muerte para los centros de nuestras ciudades”, comenta Cotter, explanificadora que se centra en las políticas urbanas y la resiliencia climática. Pero convertir el exceso de espacio de trabajo en viviendas ofrece el panorama de una población que mantiene la ciudad activa y económicamente saludable las 24 horas de todos los días de la semana, “diferente de cuando teníamos distritos comerciales centrales con una población durante el horario de oficina y habitantes de los suburbios que venían a trabajar”, añade.
Las rutinas urbanas de las últimas décadas se volvieron predecibles e insostenibles, señala Cotter: “Durante el día, están los trabajadores de oficina que estacionan y comen en restaurantes, y luego, por la noche, hay propietarios de condominios y habitantes de departamentos que estacionan y salen a comer a restaurantes”, comenta. “Bien, ¿qué pasaría si no existiese ese recambio? ¿Qué pasaría si fuera siempre la misma población, no solo que trabaja, vive, come y se recrea en el mismo espacio, sino también que evita viajar todos esos kilómetros en auto, y, quizás, hasta evita tener un auto?”.
Suena un poco utópico, admite Cotter, pero no es impracticable. Después de todo, la reutilización adaptativa no es nada nuevo. Como consecuencia de la caída de la fabricación nacional a fines del siglo XX, las industrias y fábricas textiles vacantes en el Noroeste y en el Medio Oeste se redestinaron a estudios de arte y loft residenciales muy demandados. La merma en la asistencia a las iglesias dio origen a condominios reformados con techos de catedrales reales. Y, según un estudio publicado en enero por el Office Adaptive Reuse Task Force (Equipo de Trabajo de Reutilización Adaptativa de Oficinas) de la ciudad de Nueva York (ciudad de Nueva York, 2023), en Bajo Manhattan, las iniciativas de revitalización que comenzaron a mediados de los noventa y se aceleraron después del 11 de septiembre dieron lugar a alrededor de seis millones de metros cuadrados de espacio de oficina que se transformó en unas 17.000 viviendas.
Reutilización adaptativa en Boott Mills, un ex molino de algodón en Lowell, Massachusetts. Crédito: John Penney vía iStock Editorial/Getty Images Plus.
Readaptar una estructura, en lugar de demolerla y reconstruirla, evita que llegue más carbono a la atmósfera y más desecho de construcción a los vertederos. Según la Agencia de Protección Ambiental, en 2018, en los Estados Unidos se generaron 600 millones de toneladas de desecho de construcción y demolición, más del doble de nuestro desecho sólido municipal, y un 90 por ciento de este vino de la demolición de edificios existentes (US EPA 2022). Mientras tanto, los materiales de construcción convencionales emiten cantidades excesivas de carbono; la producción de acero y hormigón, por separado, representan al menos un ocho por ciento de las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero.
Este es el motivo por el que la reutilización adaptativa “casi siempre ofrece ahorros medioambientales en comparación con la demolición y la construcción nueva”, según el Laboratorio de Políticas e Investigación del Fideicomiso Nacional para la Preservación Histórica, que advierte que los edificios más nuevos necesitan entre 20 y 30 años de operaciones de alto rendimiento para, finalmente, compensar el impacto climático inicial de su construcción (Frey, Dunn y Cochran, 2011). Mantener intactos los cimientos y la estructura de los edificios a la vez que se le hace un lavado de cara a la fachada y se modernizan la calefacción, refrigeración, aislamiento y otros sistemas tiene el beneficio añadido de mejorar de forma radical la eficiencia energética del funcionamiento del edificio, lo que reduce el consumo de energía en hasta un 40 por ciento.
Además, puede ser económico. Si bien las transformaciones de oficinas pueden complicarse, Robert Fuller, director y jefe de estudio de la sede de Nueva York de la firma de arquitectura mundial Gensler, explica que “en comparación con demoler y construir de cero, por lo general, implican un menor costo por unidad que una construcción nueva”. CBRE calcula que el costo de acondicionar un edificio de oficinas para transformarlas en departamentos en Alexandria, Virginia, sería de US$ 213 por pie cuadrado, en comparación con US$ 275 por pie cuadrado si se construyera de cero. Además, el proceso puede acelerarse: algunos desarrolladores le contaron a Urban Land Institute que la reutilización puede ahorrar de seis a 12 meses de tiempo de construcción (Kramer, Eyre y Maloney, 2023).
La apatía de mediados de siglo
Lo que hace que el movimiento actual de reutilización sea más desafiante que la transformación de fábricas e iglesias es el tipo de edificios de oficinas que hay que transformar. Gran parte del espacio comercial vacante hoy en día se encuentra en torres de las décadas de 1960, 1970 y 1980, cuadradas y sin ningún tipo de glamour.
“Aún no se las considera realmente edificios históricos”, señala Fuller. Además de sistemas envejecidos, estos monolitos de mitad de siglo suelen tener plantas extensas de una cuadra de profundidad, que hacen que el corazón del edificio se encuentre elevado, a más de 10 o 15 metros de la ventana más cercana (que no puede utilizarse), así como fachadas monótonas y poco acogedoras.
Muchos edificios de Bajo Manhattan que se reformaron tras la catástrofe del 11 de septiembre eran construcciones previas a la guerra con placas de piso pequeñas y aperturas para ventanas con marcos tradicionales, comenta Fuller. “No quiero decir que hayan sido transformaciones sencillas, pero tenían mucho sentido. Algunos de estos edificios de las décadas de 1960 y 1970 . . . definitivamente presentan desafíos”.
De todos modos, los arquitectos pueden resolverlos, en general, se trata de una cuestión de viabilidad financiera. Por ejemplo, Fuller dice: “Si el edificio tiene una placa de suelo lo suficientemente amplia, en realidad, se puede crear un tragaluz en el centro”, y así se atrae la luz diurna hacia el corazón del edificio.
Ese espacio también puede reutilizarse de otras formas. Cuando, hace unos años, Gensler estaba transformando las oficinas de la Franklin Tower de Filadelfia en departamentos, la empresa decidió apilar los servicios nuevos del edificio, como el estudio de ciclismo Peloton, el centro fitnes y el teatro, en el centro del edificio a lo largo de diferentes pisos, y así le dio uso a un espacio que, de lo contrario, estaría ocioso, en el núcleo del edificio. “En lugar de hacer un servicio por piso, algo que suele ser muy común en los edificios residenciales”, explica Fuller, “puedes imaginarte esta columna vertical de servicios que atraviesa todo el edificio hasta arriba”.
Otro desafío al adaptar los edificios de oficinas más viejos es modernizar el muro cortina, la fachada externa no estructural. El fin de esto no es solo modernizar la estética y mejorar la eficiencia energética, sino también instalar ventanas que funcionen, que suelen faltar en la mayoría de los edificios de oficinas y que la mayoría de las ciudades exigen en las unidades residenciales.
A pesar de presentar estos obstáculos, los edificios de oficinas corrientes aún pueden ofrecer un buen cimiento para viviendas atractivas, así como ubicaciones codiciadas y características estructurales lujosas como los techos altos. Una altura de 3,5 metros de techo a techo no se considera un estándar de clase A para el espacio de oficina moderno, dice Fuller, “pero es muy generoso para un edificio residencial”.
Para ayudar a las ciudades a identificar candidatos potenciales para la reutilización, Gensler desarrolló un sistema de puntuación de propiedad que otorga puntos según la ubicación del edificio, la configuración, el servicio de ascensores y otros factores. “Es una forma de analizar rápido una franja amplia de edificios e identificar a los mejores competidores”, comenta Fuller, porque no todas las torres de oficinas vacantes son aptas para proyectos de transformación razonables.
Por ejemplo, solo 10 de los 84 edificios que Gensler evaluó en el distrito financiero de Boston alcanzaron el puntaje necesario para merecer que se los considere como objetivos de reutilización (Carlock 2022). Puede que esta no parezca una gran cifra. Pero, incluso si la mayoría de las torres de oficinas de mitad de siglo no califican para la reutilización residencial, convertir tan solo algunas puede generar cientos o, incluso, miles de viviendas nuevas en las ciudades carentes de ellas. “Dados los millones de metros cuadrados de espacio de oficina infrautilizados, incluso un pequeño porcentaje podría ser realmente significativo en lo que respecta a la vivienda”, afirma Fuller.
Esta es una de las razones por las cuales el Office Adaptive Reuse Task Force de la ciudad de Nueva York está recomendando 11 cambios de políticas que permitirían y fomentarían la conversión de más edificios de oficinas en más barrios (ciudad de Nueva York, 2023). “Queremos garantizar que los edificios de oficinas obsoletos puedan transformarse para darles un uso más demandado, como las viviendas que los neoyorquinos necesitan desesperadamente”, escribe el director de planificación, Dan Garodnick. Algunas de las recomendaciones del equipo de trabajo, posteriores a un estudio de cinco meses, son: flexibilizar las reglas para permitir la transformación de la mayoría de los edificios de oficinas construidos antes de 1991 y ofrecer incentivos de impuestos a la propiedad para apoyar la creación de viviendas asequibles e instalaciones para el cuidado de las infancias en edificios restaurados.
The Cornerstone de Peoplefirst Developments, un proyecto de reutilización adaptativa en Calgary, creará una residencia destinada a familias (izquierda) a partir de un edificio de oficinas comerciales (derecha). Crédito: cortesía de Peoplefirst Developments.
Para mejor o para peor, Calgary, Alberta, le lleva ventaja a muchas ciudades que recién están empezando a explorar las transformaciones de oficinas. Calgary, una ciudad de 1,3 millones, ha tenido sus auges y caídas como capital corporativa de la industria de gas y petróleo de Canadá. Pero la baja de los precios del petróleo crudo en 2014 arrastró con ella al mercado de bienes inmobiliarios comerciales. Los edificios de oficinas del centro de Calgary perdieron alrededor de US$ 16.000 millones de su valor inmobiliario desde 2015, lo que generó una pérdida de recaudación tributaria que afecta a toda la ciudad.
“Las conversaciones en torno a nuestro problema de vacantes de oficinas comenzó cerca de 2015”, relata Natalie Marchut, gerenta de programa del equipo de estrategia del centro de Calgary. “Las vacantes de oficinas habían empezado a escalar, no veíamos ninguna reabsorción y la situación se tornó alarmante”. Para el momento de los cierres por la COVID en 2020, no quedaban muchos trabajadores de oficina en el centro para enviar a sus hogares.
Así que los funcionarios de la ciudad trabajaron junto a desarrolladores, empresarios y otros socios para idear un plan. Con alrededor de un tercio del espacio de oficina del centro que permanecía vacante (unos 4 millones de metros cuadrados), la ciudad estableció un objetivo de eliminar dos millones de metros cuadrados de existencias de oficinas en los próximos diez años, idealmente a través de conversiones residenciales.
Pero, como diría Isaac Newton, un objeto en reposo tiende a permanecer en reposo, a menos que se vea afectado por una fuerza externa. A pesar de que convertir un edificio de oficinas ocupado por la mitad en viviendas, por lo general, cuesta menos que demolerlo y reconstruirlo de cero, muchos propietarios de bienes inmobiliarios no tienen la capacidad o el deseo de asumir proyectos de esta magnitud y, en cambio, sucumben a la inercia y permiten que los edificios permanezcan inactivos. “Algo importante que notamos fue que la mayoría de los propietarios de edificios no estaban tomando la iniciativa de reconvertir esas torres de oficinas vacantes por sí mismos”, dice Marchut.
Así que Calgary decidió ofrecer incentivos financieros para impulsar el proceso. El ayuntamiento de la ciudad aprobó una financiación municipal inicial de US$ 100 millones en 2021, y otra de US$ 53 millones a fines de 2022, para apoyar proyectos de reutilización adaptativa en el centro, lo que permitió reembolsar a los desarrolladores US$ 75 por pie cuadrado de espacio de oficina convertido.
Incluso con esa tasa generosa, que se calculó para cubrir cerca de un tercio del costo estimado de US$ 225 por pie cuadrado de tales transformaciones al principio del programa, a algunos desarrolladores les resultó difícil hacer que los números cerraran, explica Marchut, dado el aumento en las tasas de interés y la inflación. Pero las dos primeras rondas del programa reunieron muchas más propuestas de proyectos que los fondos disponibles. Los primeros diez proyectos aprobados le restarán más de 300.000 metros cuadrados de espacio de oficina al mercado comercial del centro para convertirlos en unas 1.200 viviendas nuevas.
Una preocupación que solía surgir en los primeros debates es que se suelen imponer tarifas más altas para los bienes inmobiliarios comerciales que para los residenciales. “Este fue un aspecto importante que tuvimos que descifrar, pero, además, hacerle entender a nuestro consejo: al convertirlos en inmuebles residenciales, se les impone una tarifa menor, por lo que no vamos a obtener lo que podríamos recibir si fueran espacios comerciales totalmente ocupados”, explica Marchut. “Sí. Pero no vamos a ver la absorción de 4 millones de metros cuadrados de espacio de oficina. Nunca llegaremos allí”.
En este momento, la situación es tan alarmante, que algunos edificios del centro se valúan únicamente por el valor del suelo, añade. “Por supuesto que se necesitan bienes inmobiliarios comerciales en el centro, y por supuesto que siempre pagarán más a la ciudad en forma de recaudación tributaria, pero no si están todos vacíos”, comenta Marchut. Pero, al eliminar el exceso de existencias se debería reducir la tasa de vacantes, lo que ayuda a estabilizar e, incluso, restaurar el valor del espacio de oficinas restante.
Para acelerar las transformaciones y atraer todas las solicitudes posibles, la ciudad simplificó el programa, de manera intencional, y no incluyó requisitos específicos para la vivienda asequible, por ejemplo. Marchut dice que dejó que la ciudad priorice los proyectos que mejor se alineen con sus objetivos de equidad, clima y planificación.
“Cada proyecto que llega en línea por medio de este programa está haciendo más que solo convertir las oficinas en residencias”, dice Marchut. “Hemos recibido algunos que van a hacer viviendas asequibles . . . tenemos otros que están haciendo mejoras en el espacio público, y esto es opcional. No lo exigimos, pero los postulantes se sientan a la mesa con propuestas verdaderamente sólidas, porque saben que el programa es muy competitivo, así que hacen su mejor apuesta”.
El primer proyecto de conversión del programa, The Cornerstone de Peoplefirst Developments, con planes de terminarse a fines de este año, está creando 112 unidades destinadas a familias, 40 por ciento de las cuales tendrán un precio asequible, explica Marchut. “También están construyendo unidades de tres dormitorios, que escasean en el centro”, señala. Otro proyecto, Palliser One de Aspen, con 176 unidades, planifica incluir un parque público y una pista de patinaje en planta baja.
La ciudad también está invirtiendo US$ 163 millones en proyectos para el espacio público y de placemaking (creación de espacios), como la renovación de calles peatonales clave y la extensión de RiverWalk hasta West End. “Lo otro que estamos realmente considerando es cómo obtener más espacio para parques”, dice Marchut. “El centro, y en especial West End, carece de espacios públicos abiertos, y si estamos considerando traer a nuevos residentes, familias e infancias, y todo lo que eso conlleva, necesitarán un lugar donde salir y jugar”.
Una opción que permanece en la mesa para crear más parques en el centro mientras se reduce la saturación de espacio comercial es la demolición de edificios de oficinas vacantes que no pueden convertirse en algo más útil (una próxima etapa del programa también subsidiará otros tipos de transformaciones de oficinas, como locales de arte y de venta minorista). “Estamos explorando el incentivo de la demolición para bienes inmobiliarios muy específicos”, dice Marchut. “Existen edificios de clase C construidos en la década de 1970 que están llenos de amianto, y a su vez, quizás no pueden realmente modernizarse para cumplir con el código de edificación, simplemente llegaron al final de su vida útil”.
Calgary no enfrenta el tipo de crisis de viviendas que enfrentan ciudades más grandes como Toronto o Vancouver, pero aún se espera que, para 2046, Alberta reciba dos millones de residentes nuevos, en su mayoría población urbana. “Con tales cifras”, dice Marchut, “necesitamos construir más viviendas asequibles, y necesitamos construir más viviendas en el centro . . . y estos proyectos de transformación brindarán tasas de alquiler inferiores a las de las construcciones nuevas”. Esto es algo que ayudará a los habitantes de Calgary actuales y futuros. “Veremos un producto terminado muy pronto”, comenta Marchut. “No veo la hora de finalmente ver que uno abre su puertas y recibe a residentes nuevos”.
No es (solo) una cuestión de dinero
Más allá de los incentivos financieros, Calgary está dando otros pasos para fomentar las transformaciones. La mayoría de los bienes inmobiliarios del centro, por ejemplo, están exentos de requisitos que permiten el cambio de uso. “Esto ahorra, en promedio, seis meses”, señala Marchut, y elimina el riesgo de que los proyectos queden empantanados o bloqueados por completo.
Como los desarrolladores necesitan invertir una cantidad enorme de tiempo y dinero en un proyecto incluso antes de proponérselo a la ciudad, el solo hecho de mostrar un apoyo general para las transformaciones implica un impulso importante para la confianza, dijo Marchut. “Obviamente, no se puede garantizar la aprobación hasta que el plan esté definido ante tus ojos y pueda contrastarse con las reglas. Pero una respuesta teórica del estilo: ‘Sí, la ciudad apoya lo que intentas lograr en este lugar’, sirve mucho para reconfortar a los desarrolladores”.
De regreso en Denver, Aldrete no tiene incentivos en dólares para promover la inversión, así que espera que un proceso de aprobación y revisión “más minucioso”, dirigido por un coordinador interno dedicado a las transformaciones de oficinas, reduzca radicalmente el tiempo que les lleva a los desarrolladores hacer avanzar el proyecto. “Básicamente, acortas entre dos y tres meses de cada ciclo de revisión que pueda reducirse, para que salgan a la calle y se empiecen a construir. Esto representa mucho dinero para los desarrolladores”, comenta. “Así es como estamos intentando persuadirlos”.
Fuller dice que, aunque algunas ciudades se adhieren a la reutilización, otras se están quedando atrás. “Este es el momento para cambiar algunas políticas legislativas y de zonificación que podrían ayudar a catalizar este tipo de conversión”, dice, mientras enfatiza que la calidad y la seguridad no deberían sacrificarse. “Hemos llegado a entender que, en realidad, tener una combinación de usos en el mismo lugar es sano para las ciudades, en cuanto a la generación de actividad las 24 horas de todos los días de la semana, y a la vigilancia en las calles y todas esas cosas que sabemos que son buenas. Así que soy optimista respecto a los beneficios que esto conllevará”.
Cotter también es optimista en cuando a que este fuerte incremento de interés pospandémico en las transformaciones de oficinas creará una tendencia duradera. “Se está realizando todo tipo de reutilización adaptativa, lo que les dará a los arquitectos, las empresas de construcción y los funcionarios de códigos de la ciudad experiencia sobre cómo puede hacerse, y sentará las bases para que pueda hacerse con mayor facilidad”, dice Cotter. “¿Y no nos beneficiaríamos todos si nuestros edificios, una vez construidos, pudieran evolucionar con nosotros?””
Jon Gorey es redactor de personal en el Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo.
Imagen principal: Un área común transformada de la Franklin Tower de Filadelfia. Crédito: Robert Deitchler, cortesía de Gensler.
The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy invites proposals for original research on land policies and urban development in Latin America and the Caribbean. Our objective is to understand how land policies are overcoming—or can overcome—systemic challenges to sustainable development in the region, including housing affordability and informality, spatial segregation, fiscal autonomy, and climate change. We need to think holistically to produce structural changes to address these challenges, so we are seeking to shed light on current policy debates across the region on key research areas of interest to the Lincoln Institute. These areas include the implementation of land-based financing instruments for infrastructure finance and fiscal stability, approaches to informal settlements’ upgrading and regularization, policies to reduce housing deficits, and enabling nature-based solutions for climate action.
Application guidelines and proposal submissions are also available in Spanish and Portuguese.
Details
Submission Deadline
January 15, 2024 at 11:59 PM
Keywords
Adaptation, Climate Mitigation, Housing, Inequality, Informal Land Markets, Infrastructure, Land Market Regulation, Land Use, Land Use Planning, Land Value, Municipal Fiscal Health, Planning, Property Taxation, Public Finance, Public Policy, Urban Development, Urban Upgrading and Regularization, Value Capture, Water
Course
Máster en Políticas de Suelo y Desarrollo Urbano Sostenible
January 15, 2024 - March 19, 2025
Online
Offered in Spanish
SHARE
El máster en Políticas de Suelo y Desarrollo Urbano Sostenible es un programa académico online en español que reúne de manera única los marcos legales y herramientas que sostienen la planificación urbana, junto con instrumentos fiscales, ambientales y de participación, desde una perspectiva internacional y comparada. El programa está dirigido especialmente a estudiantes de posgrado y otros graduados con interés en políticas urbanas desde una perspectiva jurídica, ambiental y de procesos de participación, así como a funcionarios públicos. Los participantes del máster recibirán el entrenamiento teórico y técnico para liderar la implementación de medidas que permitan la transformación sostenible de las ciudades.
El programa fue pensado de manera modular: los participantes pueden elegir realizar uno, dos o tres módulos, cada uno de los cuales otorga el diploma de experto universitario. Si llevan a cabo los tres módulos y finalizan con éxito el programa de fin de máster, obtienen el título de máster de formación permanente, otorgado por UNED.
Details
Date
January 15, 2024 - March 19, 2025
Registration Period
September 11, 2023 - November 30, 2023
Location
Online
Language
Spanish
Educational Credit Type
Lincoln Institute certificate
Keywords
Climate Mitigation, Development, Dispute Resolution, Environmental Management, Exclusionary Zoning, Favela, Henry George, Informal Land Markets, Infrastructure, Land Market Regulation, Land Speculation, Land Use, Land Use Planning, Land Value, Land Value Taxation, Land-Based Tax, Local Government, Mediation, Municipal Fiscal Health, Planning, Property Taxation, Public Finance, Public Policy, Regulatory Regimes, Resilience, Reuse of Urban Land, Urban Development, Urbanism, Value Capture
Fellowships
China Program International Fellowship 2024-25
Submission Deadline:
November 30, 2023 at 11:59 PM
The Lincoln Institute’s China program invites applications for the annual International Fellowship Program. The program seeks applications from academic researchers working on the following topics in China:
Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the future of cities;
Climate change and cities;
Urban development trends and patterns;
Urban regeneration;
Municipal finance and land value capture;
Land policies;
Housing policies;
Urban environment and health; and
Land and water conservation.
The fellowship aims to promote international scholarly dialogue on China’s urban development and land policy, and to further the Lincoln Institute’s objective to advance land policy solutions to economic, social, and environmental challenges. The fellowship is provided to scholars who are based outside mainland China. Visit the website of the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy (Beijing) to learn about a separate fellowship for scholars based in mainland China.
Application period: September 29 to November 30, 2023, 11:59 p.m. EST.
Details
Submission Deadline
November 30, 2023 at 11:59 PM
Downloads
Graduate Student Fellowships
2023–2024 Programa de becas para el máster UNED-Instituto Lincoln
El máster está dirigido especialmente a estudiantes de posgrado y otros graduados con interés en políticas urbanas desde una perspectiva jurídica, ambiental y de procesos de participación, así como a funcionarios públicos. Los participantes del programa recibirán el entrenamiento teórico y técnico para liderar la implementación de medidas que permitan la transformación sostenible de las ciudades.
Plazo de matrícula ordinario: 11 de septiembre al 30 de noviembre de 2023
El inicio del máster es el 15 de enero de 2024.
El Instituto Lincoln otorgará becas que cubrirán parcialmente el costo del máster de los postulantes seleccionados.
Términos de las becas
Los becarios deben haber obtenido un título de licenciatura de una institución académica o de estudios superiores.
Los fondos de las becas no tienen valor en efectivo y solo cubrirán el 40% del costo total del programa.
Los becarios deben pagar la primera cuota de la matrícula, que representa el 60% del costo total del máster.
Los becarios deben mantener una buena posición académica o perderán el beneficio.
El otorgamiento de la beca dependerá de la admisión formal del postulante al máster UNED-Instituto Lincoln.
Si son seleccionados, los becarios recibirán asistencia virtual para realizar el proceso de admisión de la Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), el cual requiere una solicitud online y una copia del expediente académico o registro de calificaciones de licenciatura y/o posgrado.
Aquellos postulantes que no obtengan la beca parcial del Instituto Lincoln podrán optar a las ayudas que ofrece la UNED, una vez que se hayan matriculado en el máster.
Fecha límite para postular: 20 de agosto de 2023, 23:59 horas de Boston, MA, EE.UU. (UTC-5)
Anuncio de resultados: 8 de septiembre de 2023
Details
Submission Deadline
August 20, 2023 at 11:59 PM
Keywords
Climate Mitigation, Development, Dispute Resolution, Environmental Management, Exclusionary Zoning, Favela, Henry George, Informal Land Markets, Infrastructure, Land Market Regulation, Land Speculation, Land Use, Land Use Planning, Land Value, Land Value Taxation, Land-Based Tax, Local Government, Mediation, Municipal Fiscal Health, Planning, Property Taxation, Public Finance, Public Policy, Regulatory Regimes, Resilience, Reuse of Urban Land, Urban Development, Urbanism, Value Capture
Who Owns America: The Geospatial Mapping Technology That Could Help Cities Beat Predatory Investors at Their Own Game
With sophisticated market research powered by prodigious profits, corporate real estate investors have long had the upper hand over vulnerable homeowners and the groups trying to protect them.
Investors can identify distressed homes in otherwise gentrifying neighborhoods, snap them up at a discount, and leave them empty for years waiting for nearby home values to rise. They can target longtime, elderly homeowners who may need to sell at a discount. And with plenty of cash on hand—and a new playbook that includes renting out houses rather than just flipping them—they can outbid individual homebuyers as they turn bedrooms into balance sheet items.
Now, a new data mapping tool from the Lincoln Institute’s Center for Geospatial Solutions (CGS) can help equip nonprofits, advocates, and local governments with similarly powerful technology to help identify and defend affordable housing stock threatened by real estate speculators and absentee landlords.
“It’s a very uneven playing field between private investors, who have the capital and are willing to invest the capital to get this market intelligence, and nonprofits that are struggling to keep the doors open, let alone invest in platforms like this,” says Jeff Allenby, CGS director of Geospatial Technology. “What you see is governments and nonprofits continuously trying to play catch up.”
Down-to-the-Parcel Data
In the wake of the Great Recession, corporations increasingly started purchasing and then renting out not just apartment buildings, but also single-family homes—especially in Sun Belt metro areas and postindustrial legacy cities, where rents remained stable despite lower property prices. Often, that’s had a cascade of negative impacts on low-income communities.
For one thing, it leaves more renters dealing with absentee corporate landlords, who can be quick to force an eviction and raise rents, but slow to fix a leaky roof or resolve code violations. It also reduces the supply of affordable housing stock available to would-be homebuyers, robbing local renters of opportunity.
In Baltimore’s Harlem Park neighborhood, for example, just 53 of the 464 homes sold since 2017—12 percent—were purchased by owner occupants. In 2022, one of every five homes sold in the neighborhood (19.2 percent) was purchased by an out-of-state business, and nearly half were bought by in-state corporations with multiple-property portfolios.
Rowhouses in Baltimore’s Harlem Park neighborhood slated for demolition in 2018 as part of an urban redevelopment effort by the city. The area has now become a target for institutional investors seeking to convert housing into rental properties. Credit: Baltimore Heritage via Flickr CC BY 2.0.
“You just saw this backfill of corporate ownership come into this neighborhood, and it’s going to take years to come back from that,” Allenby says. Where real estate investors once focused on flipping houses for a quick buck, they now see rental properties as a long-term moneymaker. “These houses are just gone, likely in perpetuity, from a homeownership perspective.”
This grim, granular data is courtesy of a CGS initiative called “Who Owns America?” Starting with Baltimore, CGS used a variety of public data sources to map every parcel in the city by its ownership characteristics, cross-checking postal information with deeds and other records to distinguish owner-occupied properties from those owned by private landlords and large or out-of-state businesses.
After coding city-owned residential parcels, Allenby explains, CGS filters for all properties where the owner’s mailing address doesn’t match the physical address—meaning it isn’t owner-occupied. After that, CGS can differentiate between private, off-site owners—local “mom-and-pop” landlords who may own one or two properties, for example—and more formal corporations, checking the names against a series of business-related keywords and acronyms, such as LLC, LLP, incorporated, and so on. Further filtering reveals whether a business is based in or out of state, and whether it owns multiple properties in the city.
The resulting color-coded maps make it clear where owner occupancy is more prevalent and where corporate landlords are most active. Empowered with this intuitive, down-to-the-parcel data, communities can identify housing stock likely to be targeted by speculators. Then they can take steps to defend (or even reclaim) affordable housing before it’s lost to corporate ownership.
The Right to Fight Back
One policy cities can employ to thwart predatory investors is a right of first refusal rule, which gives tenants the option to purchase their home before it’s sold to a corporation. Knowing where such investors are active can help community leaders support the rollout of such a program with more targeted public outreach, says Senior Research Fellow Robert “R.J.” McGrail, director of the Lincoln Institute’s Accelerating Community Investment initiative.
“That’s the neighborhood you do flyers in, where you have some community organization go knock on doors to tell people, ‘Just so you know, if the out-of-state company that you write your rent check to ever sells your house, you have the first chance to buy it,’” McGrail says. “The ‘just-so-you-know’ conversation can be incredibly agency building and empowering for an individual, in a way that I think is another downstream potential benefit from this tool.”
Allenby is quick to point out that the formalization of property ownership isn’t in itself a bad thing. For example, if a local landlord dies and his children inherit his three rental properties and put them all into an LLC, that doesn’t fundamentally alter the local real estate landscape. And true investment—companies that buy vacant, dilapidated buildings, restore them to good condition, and get them back into the housing market—is almost always welcome.
“Investor owner doesn’t necessarily mean bad owner,” McGrail agrees. But by overlapping additional layers of parcel-level datasets, CGS can provide more context and reveal bad actors. For example, mapping where corporate ownership coincides with code violations—reports of broken deck railings, lack of heat, leaky toilets, and so on—“tells a dramatically more nuanced, useful story around what is happening and what to do about it,” he says.
In that case, McGrail notes, mapping might offer chronically understaffed inspectional departments a better way to prioritize their code enforcement. Similarly, layering vacancy data over out-of-state ownership maps can inform discussions around land use policies such as a split-rate tax.
“So many times, policy discussions happen in a vacuum of data,” Allenby says. “You’re talking about theoreticals, abstract numbers, abstract concepts, and you don’t really have a good handle on the scale of the issue that you’re talking about. And these tools allow you to frame that conversation very specifically.”
Beyond Baltimore
CGS can provide a granular data map customized to an organization’s or community’s needs in just a couple of weeks, Allenby says. And it’s not just a tool for cities. CGS has also mapped the entire state of Massachusetts for a housing nonprofit, and is currently documenting timberland ownership across Alabama.
CGS also partnered with the International Land Conservation Network to combine the research of multiple conservation organizations in search of “Consensus Landscapes”—areas that meet not just one conservation priority, such as biodiversity, habitat connectivity, or carbon storage potential, but many such goals, all at once. The goal of this collaborative mapping framework, according to CGS, is to identify “places that everyone can agree are important, and should be the immediate focus of collective conservation efforts” as the United States works to protect 30 percent of its land by 2030.
The Center for Geospatial Solutions created a framework for mapping “consensus landscapes” by assessing and integrating the research of several conservation organizations. Credit: Center for Geospatial Solutions.
Jim Gray, senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute, is now working with CGS to study ownership trends among manufactured housing communities, which have also garnered the attention of real estate investors in recent years for their relatively low costs and reliable rents. Gray calls CGS’s work “invaluable” for its ability to transform a largely anecdotal challenge into real data.
“Knowing the extent of the problem, who is responsible, and where the problem is most acute will help inform and target which communities need to prioritize preserving this affordable housing stock, and how to go about that,” he says.
To learn more or to work with the Center for Geospatial Solutions, visit the CGS website or contact cgs@lincolninst.edu.
Jon Gorey is a staff writer at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Lead image: This Center for Geospatial Solutions image combines spatial analysis with land parcel data to illustrate different types of property ownership, part of a project intended to help communities better understand how institutional investors are affecting local land markets. Credit: Center for Geospatial Solutions.
Fellowships
Premio Lincoln al periodismo sobre políticas urbanas, desarrollo sostenible y cambio climático
Submission Deadline:
September 17, 2023 at 11:59 PM
El Lincoln Institute of Land Policy convoca a periodistas de toda América Latina a participar del concurso “Premio Lincoln al periodismo sobre políticas urbanas, desarrollo sostenible y cambio climático”, dirigido a estimular trabajos periodísticos de investigación y divulgación que cubran temas relacionados con políticas de suelo y desarrollo urbano sostenible. El premio está dedicado a la memoria de Tim Lopes, periodista brasileño asesinado mientras hacía investigación para un reportaje sobre las favelas de Rio de Janeiro.
Convocamos a periodistas de toda América Latina a participar de este concurso, dirigido a estimular trabajos periodísticos de investigación y divulgación que cubran temas relacionados con políticas de suelo y desarrollo urbano sostenible. Recibimos postulaciones para el premio hasta el 17 de septiembre de 2023. Para ver detalles sobre la convocatoria vea el botón "Guía/Guide" o el archivo a continuación titulado "Guía/Guide".
Details
Submission Deadline
September 17, 2023 at 11:59 PM
Downloads
Keywords
Adaptation, BRT, Bus Rapid Transit, Climate Mitigation, Community Development, Community Land Trusts, Conservation, Development, Dispute Resolution, Eminent Domain, Environment, Favela, Growth Management, Housing, Inequality, Informal Land Markets, Infrastructure, Land Reform, Land Speculation, Land Use, Land Use Planning, Land Value, Land Value Taxation, Local Government, Municipal Fiscal Health, Natural Resources, Planning, Poverty, Public Finance, Public Policy, Resilience, Security of Tenure, Segregation, Slum, Stakeholders, Sustainable Development, Transport Oriented Development, Transportation, Urban Development, Urban Revitalization, Urban Sprawl, Urban Upgrading and Regularization, Urbanism, Value Capture, Water, Water Planning, Zoning