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

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

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

————————

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

Bierbaum, Marty
Plan de desarrollo del estado de Nueva Jersey

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

Fulton, Bill
Planificación para el cambio climático en California

Galland, Daniel
El marco nacional de planificación espacial de Dinamarca

Geppert, Anna
Planificación espacial en Francia

Grist, Berna
La estrategia nacional espacial de Irlanda

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

Lewis, Rebecca
Plan de desarrollo del estado de Delaware

Needham, Barrie
La estrategia espacial nacional de los Países Bajos

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

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

Tewdwer-Jones, Mark
Planificación nacional en el Reino Unido

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

————————

Un marco de planificación espacial en Europa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Estrategias y marcos espaciales nacionales europeos

Francia

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

Dinamarca

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

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

Países Bajos

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

Reino Unido

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

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

Irlanda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Planes estatales y marcos de planificación estatal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusión

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

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

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

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

Sobre los autores

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

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

Referencias

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

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

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

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

More than any other single variable, the change in land values across time and over space provides important insights into the shifting spatial structure of a city. Whereas a typical property sale reflects the combined value of the land and buildings, the land value alone represents the actual current worth of a location and suggests expectations about the future. Even if a parcel bears the burden of an outmoded construction, the price of the land reflects the present discounted value of the stream of returns that could be earned from the highest and best use of the parcel. Rapidly rising land prices in an area of a city are a clear indication that people expect the neighborhood to be in high demand for some time to come, signaling investment opportunities to developers. Changes in land values may also serve to alert city officials that an area may require zoning changes and investments in infrastructure.

Land value is also an important component in the cost approach to property assessment, which is one of the three commonly used assessment methods (including the sales comparison and income approaches). The cost approach has three major components: (1) the cost of building the existing structure if it were new at the time of assessment; (2) the depreciation of the building to its current condition; and (3) the price of the land parcel. Adding (1) to (3) and subtracting (2) generally produces a good estimate of overall property value. In standard property transactions, however, land values are not easily separated from the value of structures. Sales of vacant land, which more clearly indicate a site’s value, are relatively rare in large, built-up urban areas; as a result, relatively few studies of vacant land sales exist (see Ahlfeldt and Wendland 2011; Atack and Margo 1998; Colwell and Munneke 1997; Cunningham 2006). Teardowns can sometimes be used to measure land values, because land represents the entire value of a property when the existing building is demolished immediately following a sale (McMillen 2006; Dye and McMillen 2007). However, teardowns tend to be concentrated in certain high-value neighborhoods, and the data on demolitions can be hard to obtain.

Among U.S. cities, Chicago is uniquely fortunate to have a data source, Olcott’s Land Values Blue Book of Chicago, which reported estimates of land values for every city block and for blocks in many Cook County suburbs for most of the 20th century. Olcott’s provided a critical input to the cost assessment procedure: After determining the building cost and depreciation, the overall value of a property can be assessed by multiplying the parcel size by the land value provided in the Blue Book series. This article is based on a sampling of data from the Olcott volumes (box 1). It includes a series of maps that provide a clear picture of the spatial evolution of Chicago during the 20th century, similar in spirit to the classic book, One Hundred Years of Land Values in Chicago (Hoyt 1933).

————————

Box 1: Data Sources for Chicago Land Values

Olcott’s Land Values Blue Book of Chicago covers the City and much of suburban Cook County with a series of 300 maps, each printed on one page of a book. The city itself comprises 160 individual maps with an impressive level of detail. Most block faces have a value representing the price per square foot for a standard 125-foot-deep lot. Land use is also indicated. Large lots and most industrial land have prices quoted by the acre or occasionally by the square foot for an unspecified lot depth. The data represent land values for 1/8- x 1/8-mile square grids, which closely follow Chicago’s street layout and thus resemble city blocks. Each year’s data set includes 43,324 observations for the entire city.

The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy has provided funding to digitize the data contained in Olcott’s Blue Book for a series of years spanning much of the twentieth century: 1913, 1926, 1932, 1939, 1949, 1961, 1965, 1971, 1981, and 1990. A more thorough description of the procedure used is presented in Ahlfeldt et al. (2011). Digitizing the maps involves bringing them into a GIS environment. Average land values are calculated for 1/8- x 1/8-mile squares overlaid on the maps. The full data set has more than 600,000 data points across the 10 individual years.

Olcott’s stopped publication in the early 1990s, and the last year of digitized data is 1990. To supplement Olcott’s records for recent years, the authors obtained data on all vacant land sales in the city from 1980 to 2011. More than 16,000 sales were successfully geocoded, and they display the dramatic increase in land prices during the period prior to the collapse of the housing market at the end of 2006. These combined data sets provide a unique opportunity to analyze the changing spatial structure of an entire city over an extended time.

————————

Spatial Variation in Land Values

Despite its flat terrain, Chicago has never been a truly monocentric city. Lake Michigan has long been an attractive amenity for its scenic value, its moderating effect on the climate, and the series of parks lining its shore. The Chicago River also has had a significant influence on the location of both businesses and households. Development to the north of the Central Business District (CBD) was delayed because the bridges over the main branch of the river had to open so often for river traffic that commuting to the Loop business area was unpredictable and time consuming. The north and south branches of the river attracted both industrial firms and low-priced residential developments for laborers while repelling high-priced homes designed for CBD workers. The locations of major streets, highways, and train lines also had significant effects on development patterns. Thus, there is ample reason to expect that the rate of change in land values varies across the city.

The maps in figure 1 show this spatial variation in land values in Chicago over time. In 1913, land values were highest in a large area around the CBD, and they were also quite high along the lakefront and along some of the major avenues and boulevards leading out of the downtown area. In 1939, this pattern was generally similar, along with the rise of the north side relative to the south side of the city: Land values were very high all along the northern lakefront and extending well inland on the north side. The area at the edge of the city due west of the CBD (the Austin neighborhood) also had relatively high land values in 1939.

By 1965, the pattern of land values had changed markedly. Very high land values were confined to a relatively small area in the CBD. The high-value area of the west-side Austin neighborhood was much smaller in 1965 than in 1939, and nearly all the formerly high-value areas had shrunk in size.

By 1990, however, the situation changed dramatically. The area with very high values extended much farther north and inland than previously. Areas on the south side had relatively high land values in 1990, particularly around the South Loop (near the CBD) and Hyde Park (along Lake Michigan south of the CBD).

After 1990, the pattern of continued redevelopment of the city is based on an analysis of actual sales of vacant land. The expansion of the high-value area to the north and west of the CBD is remarkable, and the near south side also enjoyed a resurgence during this time.

Figure 2 addresses how the recent recession affected the growth of land values in Chicago by expressing land values as a function of distance from the CBD. The plots show the change in average (log) land values over time for tracts with centroids falling within 2-, 5-, and 10-mile rings around the CBD. In 1913, average land values were far lower 10 miles from the CBD than in the closer rings. By the 1960s, there was little difference between land values across these distances. Since then, average values grew much more in the 2-mile ring than in more distant locations. During the Great Recession, land values declined rapidly in the 2-mile ring, less rapidly in the 5-mile ring, and not at all in the 10-mile ring. Thus, the areas that had the highest rates of appreciation during the period of extended growth also had the highest rates of decline during the recession.

Figure 3 provides a different perspective on the spatial variation in land values over time. The three panels show smoothed land value surfaces for 1913, 1990, and 2005. The 1913 and 1990 surfaces are estimated using Olcott’s data, while the 2005 estimates are based on sales of vacant land. In all three years, land values are far higher in the CBD than elsewhere. In 1913, there are a large number of local peaks in land values at the intersections of major streets. These areas were relatively small commercial districts that served local residents in a time before car ownership was commonplace. In 1990, the land value peak in the CBD is accompanied by a much lower plateau just to the north along the lakefront. In 2005, the plateau has grown to a large area that extends well into the north side and inland along the lakefront. The region of high land values has also extended south along the lakefront, with a local rise much farther south in Hyde Park.

Persistence of Spatial Patterns

Historical land values are interesting not only because they reveal how an urban area has changed over time, but also because the past continues to exert substantial influence on the present. Cities are not rebuilt from scratch in every period. Buildings last a long time before they are demolished, and sites that were attractive in the past tend to remain desirable for a long time. One of the unique features of the Olcott’s data set is that it allows us to compare land values from 100 years ago to current land values and land uses.

Figure 4 shows the average date of construction for the 1/8- x 1/8-mile squares. The recent recentralization of Chicago is evident in the donut shape of building ages around the CBD. The newest buildings are close to the CBD, while the oldest buildings are in the next ring. Buildings in the most distant region were most likely built between 1940 and 1970.

Figure 5 summarizes this relationship by comparing the mean construction date to distance from the CBD. The oldest buildings are in a ring just over 5 miles from the CBD.

A good measure of structural density is the ratio of building area to lot size. Economic theory predicts that structural densities will be high where land values are high. Structures last for a long time. How well do past values predict current structural density? Figure 6 compares the structural density of buildings in the 2003 Cook County assessment rolls to land values in 1913 and 1990. This data set includes the building area of every small (six units or fewer) residential structure in Chicago.

The height of the bars indicates the structural densities: Tall bars have relatively high ratios of building areas to lot sizes. The color of the bars indicates land values: Red bars have relatively high and values. Thus, we should expect to see a large number of tall red bars and low green bars. In general, the two panels do indicate a positive correlation between structural density and land values. The correlation is particularly evident on the north side and along the lakefront. The correlation with 1990 is less clear on the south and west sides. Several elevations in the density surface are not matched by correspondingly high land values. One explanation for these results, which are in line with the reorientation of high-priced areas toward the north side, is that the relatively high densities in these areas are artifacts of a past when those blocks were relatively more valuable and when there were incentives to use the land intensively. The 1913 panel of figure 6 suggests that land values are actually more closely correlated with building densities for 2003 than are the 1990 values. The root of this apparently anomalous result is that building density reflects the economic conditions at the time of construction, and most of the buildings in that part of the city date from long ago. The past continues to exert a major influence on the present.

Conclusion

Olcott’s data provide a clear picture of the changes in Chicago’s spatial structure during most of the 20th century. Never a truly monocentric city, Chicago began the century with very high land values in the CBD, along the lakefront, and along major avenues and boulevards leading out of the downtown area. Values were also high in neighborhood retail areas at the intersections of major streets. By 1939, the north side of Chicago had already begun to display its economic dominance. The city then suffered an extended period of decline, with the CBD holding the only major cluster of high land values in the 1960s. Since then, the city has undergone a remarkable resurgence. High land values now extend over nearly the entire north side, and land values have also rebounded in parts of the south side. Our analysis also shows the strong role that history continues to play in the current spatial structure of the city. A result of this persistence is that land values from a century ago are better than current land values at predicting the density of the current housing stock.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy for generous funding and support, and are grateful to the Centre for Metropolitan Studies at the TU-Berlin for hosting a team of researchers during the project work. Kristoffer Moeller and Sevrin Weights are acknowledged for their great contribution to designing and coordinating the compilation of the data set. Philip Boos, Aline Delatte, Nuria-Maria Hoyer Sepulvedra, Devika Kakkar, Rene Kreichauf, Maike Rackwitz, Lea Siebert, Stefan Tornack, and Tzvetelina Tzvetkova provided excellent research assistance.

About the Authors

Gabriel M. Ahlfeldt is associate professor at the London School of Economics and Political Sciences (LSE) in the Department of Geography and Environment and Spatial Economics Research Centre (SERC).

Daniel P. McMillen is professor in the department of economics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Resources

Ahlfeldt, Gabriel M., Kristoffer Moeller, Sevrin Waights, and Nicolai Wendland. 2011. “One Hundred Years of Land Value: Data Documentation.” Centre for Metropolitan Studies, TU Berlin.

Ahlfeldt, Gabriel M., and Nicolai Wendland. 2011. “Fifty Years of Urban Accessibility: The Impact of the Urban Railway Network on the Land Gradient in Berlin 1890–1936.” Regional Science and Urban Economics 41: 77–88.

Atack, J., and R. A. Margo. 1998. “Location, Location, Location! The Price Gradient for Vacant Urban Land: New York, 1835 to 1900.” Journal of Real Estate Finance & Economics 16(2) 151–172.

Colwell, Peter F., and Henry J. Munneke. 1997. “The Structure of Urban Land Prices.” Journal of Urban Economics 41: 321–336.

Cunningham, Christopher R. 2006. “House Price Uncertainty, Timing of Development, and Vacant Land Prices: Evidence for Real Options in Seattle.” Journal of Urban Economics 59: 1–31.

Dye, Richard F., and Daniel P. McMillen. 2007. “Teardowns and Land Values in the Chicago Metropolitan Area.” Journal of Urban Economics 61: 45–64.

Hoyt, Homer. 1933. One Hundred Years of Land Values in Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McMillen, Daniel P. 2006. “Teardowns: Costs, Benefits, and Public Policy.” Land Lines, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy 18(3): 2–7.

El impacto de las regulaciones del uso del suelo en América Latina

Cynthia Goytia es profesora en los programas de posgrado en economía urbana y políticas públicas de la Universidad Torcuato Di Tella (UTDT) en Buenos Aires, Argentina. Es directora de los dos programas de maestría en economía urbana de la UTDT y del Centro de Investigación de Política Urbana y Vivienda (CIPUV) de la misma universidad. Además, ha impartido conferencias en la Universidad de Cambridge y en la London School of Economics.

Desde el año 2009, el Instituto Lincoln ha apoyado la tarea de investigación de Cynthia sobre el impacto de las regulaciones del uso residencial del suelo en la informalidad, la expansión urbana y los valores del suelo en las ciudades de América Latina. En su calidad de asesora profesional, ha trabajado con varios ministerios del gobierno argentino y de otros países latinoamericanos, así como con distintas organizaciones internacionales, tales como el Banco Mundial, el Instituto Mundial de la UNU de Investigaciones de Economía del Desarrollo, y el Banco de Desarrollo de América Latina, entre otros.

Cynthia tiene una maestría en economía urbana y un doctorado en planificación regional y urbana por la London School of Economics and Political Science.

LAND LINES: La regulación del uso del suelo a nivel municipal es un tema difícil de tratar. Aunque la zonificación y otras intervenciones pueden llegar a ser una solución sólida para disfunciones del mercado, también tienen efectos negativos imprevistos. ¿Cómo decidió usted llevar a cabo este tipo de investigación?

CYNTHIA GOYTIA: Comencé a interesarme en el análisis económico de las intervenciones sobre el uso del suelo cuando empecé a reconocer que los mercados del suelo tienen que ver con algo más que el suelo y la ubicación. En los últimos 30 años, aproximadamente, la regulación del uso del suelo y la zonificación se han vuelto mucho más importantes que la tributación del suelo para determinar la calidad de vida de la gente en las ciudades. A lo largo del tiempo, he notado que las intervenciones en el uso del suelo diseñadas para lograr fines sociales positivos a veces han generado consecuencias negativas indeseadas que los planificadores y gestores de políticas no fueron capaces de prever. Por ejemplo, las normas gubernamentales afectan el acceso a una amplia gama de bienes públicos y, como consecuencia, pueden dar como resultado una mayor segregación residencial y un mayor desarrollo informal.

Todo esto me animó a investigar los efectos de las intervenciones del gobierno en el mercado del suelo. También me di cuenta de que parte de la falta de información sobre los efectos regulatorios en América Latina era el resultado de la falta de datos comparables y sistemáticos sobre el uso del suelo. Así, en el año 2005 comencé un exhaustivo programa de investigación sobre este tema, que comenzó como un proyecto de cooperación con el gobierno nacional de Argentina, y que luego obtuvo el sólido apoyo del Instituto Lincoln.

LL: ¿Hasta qué punto son relevantes para América Latina los resultados de estudios recientes según los cuales el exceso de regulación del uso del suelo en países desarrollados incrementa los precios de la vivienda?

CG: Nuestra investigación empírica ofrece pruebas de que, al aumentar los precios en el mercado formal del suelo (y, por ende, reducir la oferta de viviendas sociales para hogares de bajos recursos), algunos aspectos de la regulación del uso del suelo podrían fomentar un mayor desarrollo de la informalidad. Por ejemplo, la Ley del Uso del Suelo promulgada en la Provincia de Buenos Aires hace 38 años definió nuevos requisitos relativos al tamaño mínimo de los lotes y obligaba a los desarrolladores a financiar la infraestructura para nuevas subdivisiones. Estos requisitos empujaron a los hogares de bajos ingresos del mercado legal del suelo hacia el sector informal, debido al aumento de los precios.

Aunque los objetivos generales de esta ley no eran malos, tuvieron consecuencias imprevistas sobre el acceso a la vivienda. Como resultado, el mercado del suelo se vio marcadamente sesgado hacia el segmento de altos ingresos, mientras que el submercado de bajos ingresos (hogares que, anteriormente, habían podido construir sus propias viviendas en lotes residenciales) prácticamente desapareció cuando se promulgaron y entraron en vigor las nuevas normas sobre el uso del suelo. No es de sorprender que estos tipos de limitaciones dieran como resultado la ocupación ilegal de terrenos en casi dos tercios de las jurisdicciones municipales que forman parte de las áreas metropolitanas de Argentina, incluida el área metropolitana de Buenos Aires.

LL: Muchos analistas sostienen que los códigos de edificación que tienden a la exclusión y del uso del suelo son los responsables, en gran medida, de la existencia de la informalidad desmedida en la región. ¿Cómo respondería usted a esta crítica?

CG: En mi última investigación sostengo que la regulación del uso del suelo no sólo se utiliza para corregir las disfunciones del mercado sino que también puede ser una manera de lograr, además, objetivos de exclusión. Nuestros resultados indican que los municipios con grandes proporciones tanto de hogares educados como de poblaciones de menores recursos tienden a imponer una zonificación residencial más restrictiva con el fin de maximizar los beneficios que los propietarios formales reciben de sus gobiernos municipales.

Existen algunas correlaciones interesantes entre el uso de medidas de exclusión en algunas jurisdicciones y las condiciones en las áreas vecinas. Por ejemplo, los municipios de Buenos Aires que poseen políticas estrictas de provisión de infraestructura se encuentran rodeados de municipios con una gran proporción de hogares que carecen de los servicios básicos. De hecho, la escasez de infraestructura es una característica principal de la idea de exclusión urbana. Así, el gobierno municipal tal vez intente regular de forma indirecta el desarrollo informal al no asfaltar los caminos o no proporcionar conexiones a los servicios de agua corriente y alcantarillado. La decisión de proveer pocos servicios a los asentamientos informales tal vez sea una herramienta estratégica para desalentar la migración hacia áreas que están experimentando la presión del crecimiento de la población, las cuales ya poseen un alto nivel de población y de ingresos y no están dispuestas a compartir su base tributaria con migrantes de bajos ingresos.

LL: Entre los diferentes factores que llevan a la informalidad en América Latina, ¿en qué lugar colocaría usted la regulación del uso del suelo?

CG: Nuestra investigación proporciona pruebas de que existe una relación entre la regulación del uso del suelo y la elección de la vivienda por parte de los hogares urbanos en Argentina. Los municipios que han emitido más medidas regulatorias del suelo también poseen sectores informales de mayores proporciones, lo que sugiere que el entorno regulatorio limita en gran manera el desarrollo de los mercados formales del suelo y de la vivienda para hogares de bajos recursos. Por ejemplo, el requisito de tamaño mínimo de lotes establece niveles de consumo de suelo que los hogares de menores ingresos no pueden permitirse. Además, estas regulaciones determinan la cantidad de viviendas que pueden construirse en los lotes, estableciendo alturas máximas, coeficientes de utilización del suelo o asignación de espacios abiertos, lo que provoca un sesgo en la oferta de viviendas hacia el mercado de altos ingresos. Los costos de aprobación de proyectos relativamente altos (tanto en términos de tiempo como de dinero) también tienen un impacto negativo, ya que elevan el costo final de la vivienda y/o desalientan a los desarrolladores a la hora de construir viviendas para hogares de bajos recursos. A la vez; no obstante, las políticas de inclusión (tales como la recuperación de plusvalías o las contribuciones por mejoras, las tarifas de impacto y la conservación de suelo vacante destinado al desarrollo de viviendas sociales) reducen la probabilidad de que los hogares recurran a los mercados informales del suelo.

Uno de los conceptos más importantes que debemos comprender es que la informalidad no es simplemente un problema de pobreza, sino una distorsión del mercado del suelo que afecta a hogares de todos los niveles de ingreso. Por lo tanto, la regulación del uso del suelo debería contribuir al diseño de políticas que logren solucionar las causas fundamentales de la informalidad y mantengan bajos los precios de los terrenos con servicios.

LL: La relación entre la eficiencia y la equidad parece ser el centro de los debates sobre la regulación del uso del suelo. Esta relación se da según diferentes normas, dependiendo de si hablamos de áreas urbanas de altos ingresos o de bajos ingresos, tal como lo demuestran claramente las zonas especiales de interés social (ZEIS) de Brasil, es decir, áreas de bajos ingresos que el estado preserva con el fin de construir viviendas sociales.

CG: Efectivamente. Las normas tales como las regulaciones de zonificación urbana para fines generales son bastante diferentes de las normas en pro de los pobres que se establecen en las ZEIS. La zonificación para fines generales tiene como objetivo mejorar la eficiencia del uso del suelo urbano, especialmente en el mercado formal de la vivienda. La planificación adecuada facilita la inversión oportuna en infraestructura y el desarrollo urbano a gran escala. En general, el uso eficiente del suelo contribuye a una mejor productividad urbana. No obstante, muchas veces la eficiencia no garantiza en sí misma el acceso a la vivienda por parte de los grupos de menores recursos.

Por el momento no contamos con una evaluación rigurosa de los efectos de las ZEIS; sin embargo, es importante considerar dos aspectos cuando pensamos en las normas menos rígidas establecidas para la vivienda destinada a hogares de menores recursos. En primer lugar, el razonamiento para permitir que existan diferentes regulaciones para distintos segmentos del mercado de la vivienda radica en que esta división mejora el bienestar general. En segundo lugar, la solución pragmática de regularizar las áreas informales genera el cuestionamiento hacia los municipios sobre la razón por la cual no permiten mayores densidades desde un principio, siempre que exista la infraestructura apropiada. En teoría, permitir el desarrollo de mayor densidad en áreas formales aumentaría la oferta general de suelo edificable, lo que, a su vez, reduciría los precios y aumentaría la disponibilidad de viviendas sociales.

LL: ¿Existe algún buen ejemplo de regulaciones del uso del suelo políticamente factibles y con inclusión social?

CG: En la mayoría de los países en vías de desarrollo, el desafío radica en diseñar políticas que traten las causas fundamentales de la informalidad y promuevan la inclusión social. Las jurisdicciones que han adoptado e implementado efectivamente medidas de inclusión pueden hoy en día proporcionar opciones de viviendas más asequibles en el mercado formal. No obstante, existen al menos dos tipos de enfoques distintos que adelantan la agenda de la regulación del uso del suelo en nuestras ciudades por caminos diferentes y con distintas implicaciones.

El primer tipo de enfoque tiene que ver con relajar las restricciones del uso del suelo que afectan de manera desproporcionada la oferta de viviendas para hogares de bajos recursos. Somos conscientes de que los costos del suelo más altos debido al “consumo forzoso” dificultan cada vez más la posibilidad de que los hogares de bajos ingresos accedan a la vivienda. Revisar este tipo de normas (tales como permitir unidades de condominio en áreas de baja densidad, que es donde vive la mayoría de los hogares de bajos recursos; aumentar los coeficientes de utilización del suelo; y reducir los tamaños mínimos de los lotes para las subdivisiones en las que la infraestructura se está introduciendo progresivamente) ayuda a mejorar la accesibilidad a la vivienda en el mercado formal. Estas medidas también permiten que el desarrollo de viviendas para hogares de bajos recursos sea más rentable, lo que, a su vez, aumenta los incentivos para ofrecer unidades en este segmento del mercado. Hoy en día existen algunos ejemplos de desarrolladores formales que están construyendo subdivisiones para hogares de bajos ingresos, así como también unidades habitacionales asequibles en algunos municipios donde tanto la población como la demanda de viviendas sociales han crecido mucho, tal es el caso de La Matanza, en el área metropolitana de Buenos Aires.

El segundo tipo de innovación en cuanto al uso del suelo tiene que ver con realizar cambios en los marcos regulatorios. Las jurisdicciones gubernamentales en todos los niveles actualmente están emitiendo diferentes políticas que cumplen una función más activa en el desarrollo y el financiamiento del suelo y la infraestructura: estas políticas guían el crecimiento urbano y los desarrollos en terrenos baldíos, a la vez que permiten recuperar las plusvalías derivadas de las inversiones públicas a gran escala. Uno de los ejemplos más claros de estas políticas es el caso de la ciudad de Rosario, Argentina. El gobierno otorga derechos de construcción (principalmente en áreas de altos ingresos) siempre y cuando el beneficio se utilice para financiar las inversiones públicas que sean necesarias para edificar en densidades altas y para proporcionar terrenos con servicios para viviendas sociales o asentamientos informales.

Ya he subrayado la importancia del gasto en infraestructura. Durante la última década, las aglomeraciones metropolitanas en Argentina se expandían a razón de un 3,5 por ciento anual en promedio, mientras que la población crecía a razón de un 1,2 por ciento anual. Este ritmo de desarrollo hace que el financiamiento de la infraestructura sea un tema prioritario. Algunos gobiernos municipales han respondido a esta situación implementando contribuciones por mejoras. Trenque Lauquen es un ejemplo de esto. El municipio ha utilizado estas contribuciones no sólo para financiar las inversiones en infraestructura sino también para gestionar el crecimiento urbano y tener terrenos disponibles para diferentes usos, incluido el de la provisión de viviendas para hogares de bajos ingresos. El éxito de esta medida, aunque con un alcance limitado, demuestra que las contribuciones para mejoras son un instrumento factible y flexible que puede ayudar a extender los servicios urbanos. Además, evita que los responsables de las subdivisiones informales del suelo exploten el vacío que queda entre los precios de terrenos formales con servicios y sin servicios.

LL: Según lo que sabemos y lo que desconocemos acerca de la regulación del uso del suelo en América Latina, ¿cuáles son, a su criterio, los temas de investigación que el Instituto Lincoln debería priorizar?

CG: HEl Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo ha estado realizando una magnífica labor en la generación de conocimientos acerca de la regulación del uso del suelo en América Latina a través del apoyo a las investigaciones, los seminarios y otras actividades, además de fomentar valiosas interacciones entre un amplio público de planificadores urbanos y gestores de políticas en la región. Ahora debemos continuar trabajando sobre estos conocimientos a fin de promover políticas que mejoren el acceso al suelo y a la vivienda e identificar las fuentes que generan distorsiones en la oferta de viviendas y que tienen como resultado un bajo nivel de cumplimiento y una informalidad generalizada.

Esto significa mejorar nuestra comprensión del impacto que tienen las innovaciones en materia de regulación que se están produciendo en la región. Aunque tenemos algunos casos de estudio sobre los efectos de estas nuevas herramientas, debemos llevar a cabo una revisión integral sobre la manera en que las ciudades, los municipios, los estados y los organismos nacionales definen sus marcos regulatorios. La creación de una base de datos integral que contenga esta información en relación con las principales aglomeraciones urbanas en la región permitiría realizar comparaciones a lo largo del tiempo y entre municipios.

Con este fin, el CIPUV ha llevado a cabo una encuesta nacional a funcionarios de planificación acerca de las regulaciones del uso del suelo en las áreas metropolitanas de Argentina. El conjunto de indicadores utilizados en el Índice de Políticas de Suelo del CIPUV (CILP) proporciona información detallada sobre parámetros tales como la existencia de planes de uso del suelo, las autoridades responsables de los cambios de zonificación y de los procesos de aprobación de proyectos residenciales, la existencia de restricciones de edificación, los costos relacionados con la aprobación de proyectos y la implementación de instrumentos de recuperación de plusvalías.

A medida que ha transcurrido el tiempo, nuestra investigación ha comenzado a reformular las actitudes de los planificadores en cuanto a los marcos regulatorios. Hemos iniciado el diálogo con los planificadores y con los funcionarios públicos para comprender mejor la función que cumplen los mercados de suelo en las ciudades, así como también el impacto que tienen las regulaciones. Además, nuestros índices estandarizados han permitido realizar la comparación entre diferentes regulaciones en distintos municipios, así como llevar a cabo un análisis a nivel metropolitano y estatal. Como resultado, algunas jurisdicciones municipales y provinciales en Argentina recientemente han actualizado (o se encuentran en el proceso de actualizar) sus planes y leyes sobre el uso del suelo, algunas de las cuales datan de casi medio siglo.

LL: ¿Sería factible desarrollar una versión internacional del Índice de Políticas de Suelo del CIPUV?

CG: Sí. Desarrollar esta iniciativa tendría dos efectos muy importantes. En primer lugar, permitiría comparar distintas áreas metropolitanas en toda América Latina y mejorar la visibilidad del éxito que algunas ciudades han logrado al aumentar el acceso al suelo. En segundo lugar, brindaría un terreno fértil para que los gestores de políticas e investigadores aprendieran cuáles son las iniciativas que tuvieron mejores reultados. Esta iniciativa no sólo es factible sino también un desafío primordial que debe tratarse en los próximos años.

Edesio Fernandes is a Brazilian lawyer and city planner based in London, where he is a part-time lecturer at the Development Planning Unit of University College London. He is also coordinator of IRGLUS (International Research Group on Law and Urban Space), a partner of United Nations/HABITAT. His research and teaching interests include urban and environmental law, planning and policy; local government and city management; and constitutional law and human rights in developing countries. For the last two decades, he has focused on the field of urban land regularization in Latin America and other regions.

Fernandes has lectured and taught in courses at the Lincoln Institute for several years and he coordinates the Institute’s Latin American Network on Urban Land Regularization. He helped organize and teach a course on informal land markets and regularization held at Lincoln House in October 2001, and is teaching the course again in November 2002 (see page 19). This conversation with Martim Smolka, senior fellow and director of the Lincoln Institute’s Program on Latin America and the Caribbean, explores some of these issues.

Martim Smolka: How did you become interested in informal land markets and regularization policies?

Edesio Fernandes: My interest in the problems of informal land markets goes back to the early 1980s, shortly after I graduated from Minas Gerais Federal University Law School in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. I began working at PLAMBEL, the state agency in charge of the metropolitan planning of Belo Horizonte, one of Brazil’s few historic planned cities. However, its detailed plans and maps did not reserve areas for the lower-income people who built the city, and as early as 1895, two years before its inauguration, 3,000 people were already living in favelas.

This number grew considerably over decades of intensive urbanization. In 1976, a pioneering zoning scheme was approved, but the favelas were again ignored and treated as unoccupied areas. In 1983, I participated in the interdisciplinary Pro-FAVELA team that drafted a legal formula to incorporate these areas into a revised zoning scheme. It was through this early work as a city planner, and by building academic bridges between legal and urban studies, that I came to explore the nature of the relationship between law, planning and sociospatial exclusion in third world cities.

MS: Has that legislation had any effect on the status of favelas in Belo Horizonte and Brazil in general?

EF: Until the 1970s, the official policy in Brazil towards favelas was eviction or neglect, with the occasional introduction of limited services for political convenience. The Pro-FAVELA program was a groundbreaking experience that sought to materialize the city’s newly recognized democratic commitment to sociopolitical and sociospatial inclusion of the favelas into the urban fabric. The approved formula has become a paradigm for urban land regularization in most Brazilian cities. The notion is that “special zones of social interest” should be created within the city’s zoning scheme, permitting planning and zoning regulations to be adapted to the specific requirements of the favela dwellers. Moreover, the formulation of specific land tenure policies should be combined with both inclusive urban planning mechanisms and participatory institutional processes of city management. This allows for the integration of informal settlements into the formal planning apparatus and for the introduction of services and infrastructure to redress long-standing inequalities.

MS: Are these goals now well integrated into the legal and administrative systems in Brazilian cities?

EF: Urban legislation has evolved in Brazil, but most Brazilian law courses do not offer specialized modules on urban land use and development control. Legal professionals in Brazil, and throughout Latin America, have long been trained to adopt an obsolete and individualistic approach to legal matters, typical of unreformed classical liberal legalism, and particularly the notion of absolute property rights. As a result, they are still largely unacquainted with recent legal developments, uninformed about the legal implications of socioeconomic dynamics and the challenges posed by rapid urbanization, unaware of the potential of different legal principles supporting urban legislation, especially the notion of the social function of property, and thus they are unprepared to deal with inevitable conflicts over the use and development of urban land. A groundbreaking legal development, though, took place in Brazil in 2001, with the enactment of Federal Law No. 10.257, entitled City Statute, which aims to regulate the original chapter on urban policy introduced by the 1988 Constitution. The new law provides consistent legal support to those municipalities committed to confronting the grave urban, social and environmental problems that directly affect the 82 percent of Brazilians who live in cities. In conceptual terms, the City Statute broke with the long-standing tradition of civil law and set the basis for a new legal-political paradigm for urban land use and development control. Municipalities must formulate territorial and land use policies, balancing the individual interests of landowners with the social, cultural and environmental interests of other groups, and the city as a whole. They are also required to integrate urban planning, legislation and management so as to democratize the local decision-making process and legitimize a new, socially oriented urban-legal order. The City Statute also recognized legal instruments to enable municipalities to promote land tenure regularization programs and facilitate access to urban land and housing.

MS: Can you elaborate on the connections between regularization, security of land tenure and broader concerns of poverty and social justice?

EF: On one hand, regularization programs focusing on upgrading projects have tended to neglect underlying land tenure issues, for example in the highly acclaimed Favela-Bairro program in Rio de Janeiro. As a result, these programs have frequently produced unintended perverse effects, such as occupation by drug lords, expropriation by force, and even, given the increasingly complex relationship between formal and informal land markets, what has been called “eviction by the market.” On the other hand, regularization programs focusing exclusively on the formal titling of individual plots, such as the large-scale programs inspired by the ideas of Hernando de Soto, have tended to reinforce unacceptable housing and living conditions in unserviced areas that are frequently remote and environmentally unsuitable.

In my experience, those programs that have tried to combine the two dimensions, upgrading and legalization, tend to be the most sustainable in urban, social and environmental terms. Comprehensive programs also tend to have a more controlled impact on both formal and informal land markets. Thus, they can be more effective in guaranteeing that the ultimate beneficiaries of the public investment will indeed be the residents in informal settlements, not the land developers and promoters who, by failing to offer affordable, sufficient and adequate housing options to the poor, have provoked the process of informal development in the first place.

MS: To what extent have these regularization programs really addressed or helped to resolve the problem of poverty alleviation?

EF: Regularization programs are always curative and need to be integrated with preventive urban planning policies, fiscal and legal measures, and management strategies aimed at promoting overall urban change, thus breaking with the cycle that has long produced urban informality. Moreover, they can only have a more significant impact on urban poverty if they are combined with programs aimed at broadening access to urban services and generating jobs and income to alleviate poverty.

There are many assumptions in this discussion that should not be taken for granted, especially given the findings of recent research. An enormous amount of money has been invested in regularization programs over the years, and it is about time that a comprehensive and critical review was promoted. There are many questions still left unanswered regarding the nature of the processes leading to irregular settlements, the means to address the issue and the method of actually implementing policies: How are informal settlements produced? Why is it important to regularize them? When and how should regularization programs be formulated? Who should pay for them, and how? What happens after the program is completed?

MS: What have you learned, as a lawyer, about the legalistic approach to titling policies?

EF: In particular, one should question critically the widely accepted argument that titling is the fundamental condition for residents in informal settlements to have access to services and credit, and thus to invest in their houses and businesses. On the whole, in consolidated situations where informal land occupation has been supported by sociopolitical mobilization of the residents, access to services and infrastructure has taken place regardless of their legal status. Research in several countries has already indicated that a set of socioeconomic and political-institutional circumstances may create a perception of security of tenure, thus encouraging people to invest in home improvements, even when the legalization process has not been completed. Research has also shown that jobless poor people have failed to gain access to formal credit even when they have titles, whereas untitled but employed people do get access to formal credit in some cases.

MS: Are you suggesting that the formalization of legal titles is not that important?

EF: No, what I mean is that it may indeed provide individual security of tenure, but it does not necessarily guarantee access to formal credit and does not produce sustainable settlements. Regularization alone usually fails to achieve what I think should be the ultimate objective of regularization programs—the sociospatial integration of the informal areas and communities. That said, titling is indeed important from many perspectives, such as to resolve domestic, family and neighborhood conflicts and to legally recognize sociopolitical rights. The challenge is to promote the recognition of individual security of tenure in a way that is compatible with the provision of social housing, thus reverting, or at least minimizing, the process of sociospatial segregation. The only way to do that is through a combination of urban planning mechanisms and city management strategies with innovative land tenure policies, stressing that there is a wide range of legal options other than individual freehold rights.

The importance of the topic is undeniable as the combined processes of urbanization and poverty are increasing internationally. UN figures suggest there are about 840 million people living in slums today, and reasonable projections suggest there will be 1.5 billion by 2020. This growing urbanization of poverty has already had many negative socioeconomic, political and environmental consequences, which tend to be aggravated by the processes of immigration and widespread organized crime.

MS: The Lincoln Institute has been deeply involved in these issues in Latin America for almost ten years. Do you have any final comments on how we can expand this work?

EF: The centrality of this discussion of intertwined land matters—land structure, access to land and housing, land management, and land use planning and development control—has been increasingly recognized internationally, confirming the relevance of the Lincoln Institute’s original mandate and overall research and teaching agenda. I believe the discussion of informal urban land development is of interest to all concerned about matters of social justice and human rights, as well as the conditions for market expansion in the context of economic globalization.

In closing, I would like to emphasize the importance of legal education. Urban change requires legal reform, which in its turn requires an adequate understanding of the nature, problems and shortcomings of the prevailing legal order, as well as the possibilities for change that it entails. The promotion of comparative research and teaching activities, such as those already supported by the Institute, is crucial, as well as support for academic and policy networks such as IRGLUS and the Latin American Network on Urban Land Regularization. The group of professionals in Latin America who have explored the interfaces between law and planning, and between legality and illegality, from a critical, sociolegal viewpoint is still quite small and needs to be widened. More than ever, it is imperative that we construct a sound legal discourse to provide support for new attempts to promote positive urban change, including by means of regularization programs. This is not an easy task, but we have been making progress.

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

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

Smart Growth Across the Nation

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

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

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

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

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

Sustaining Political Support

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

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

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

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

Revitalizing the Northeast Corridor

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

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

A Southeastern Massachusetts Case Study

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Santo Andre and all Brazilian cities, the value per square meter of land is fixed by law, thus hindering the capacity of the city administration to tax real estate property according to its market value. In 1993 the Santo Andre city administration passed a law to grant a 40 percent discount on the property tax, which was to be valid only for that year. However, this reduction has been maintained as a result of several legal clauses that determined that the value of the tax in the current year could not exceed its value in the previous year, thus establishing a tax cap.

Value capture in Santo Andre

The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Municipality of Santo Andre in Sao Paulo State organized a three-day program on “Instruments and Techniques for Land-based Finance for Urban Development” in May 1998 where organizers and participants shared their expertise on zoning instruments, value capture, and local economic development in such diverse settings as New York City, Mexico City and Colombia. Their discussions addressed three broad topics: value capture and urban finance; urban planning and the land market; and negotiations and public/private partnerships.

This article explores the lessons learned from the Santo Andre program and the need to develop better measurements of land value increments resulting from zoning changes to promote value capture through more efficient taxation systems.

In many Brazilian cities, land and building taxes are significantly underutilized. According to data from the Brazilian Institute of Municipal Administration (IBAM), for example, in half of the municipalities with more than 50,000 inhabitants the property tax represents less than 30 percent of total tax resources. Considering that for most of these municipalities, local tax revenues represent less than 30 percent of total resources, the property tax does not amount to more than 10 percent of financial resources (including intergovernmental transfers). These percentages are even less in smaller municipalities. Other land-based taxes, such as the real estate transfer tax and betterment tax, show a similarly disappointing pattern.

Especially since Brazil’s new constitution of 1988, when the major responsibility for land use planning was transferred to the local level, municipalities have become increasingly aware that land use regulation and public investments in infrastructure create changes in land values. Many public officials are now looking for planning strategies aimed at capturing part of the “unearned” benefits that may result. In addition, local governments are facing problems with traditional planning instruments such as the Plano Diretor, a constitutional provision that requires cities with a population of 20,000 or more to develop a master plan. These cities have become increasingly involved in the debate about the flexibility of the regulatory framework on land use. Consequently, the idea of flexible zoning in exchange for developers’ contributions has also become popular.

To investigate the economic, financial and urban planning aspects of these negotiated land use changes, the Lincoln Institute and the Municipality of Santo Andre in Sao Paulo State organized a three-day program on “Instruments and Techniques for Land-based Finance for Urban Development” in May 1998. During the first two days, municipal officials from Santo Andre met with invited guest speakers who shared their expertise on zoning instruments, value capture and local economic development in such diverse settings as New York City, Mexico City and Colombia. Their discussions addressed three broad topics: value capture and urban finance; urban planning and the land market; and negotiations and public/private partnerships.

The program ended with a public debate involving a regional audience of some 200 planners, developers, and representatives from non-governmental organizations, the private sector and local communities within the Greater ABC region-(seven municipalities around Sao Paulo, including Santo Andre, which constitute the densest industrial core area in Latin America). A panel discussion on the effectiveness of land-based negotiations and public/private partnerships in the Brazilian context included the participation of guest speakers from the University of Sao Paulo, the real estate sector and the local governments.

A number of conclusions were drawn from this program. First, negotiated land use changes typically proliferate in an environment where property taxes do not work well. In Santo Andre, for example, existing legal and operational restrictions make it difficult to overhaul the property tax system. (See Figure 1.)

Second, negotiated land use changes in Santo Andre seem to accompany the ongoing shift from industrial land uses toward uses associated with the tertiary and modern service sector. Through the negotiation process more flexibility is brought to the existing legal framework, as is seen in recently completed negotiations between the Plaza ABC shopping center and Pirelli, the multinational tire company.

Third, although land use negotiations apparently fulfill expectations in terms of complementing the dynamics of the local economy, there is no well-established methodology and framework to allow transparent and stable rules based on solid cost-benefit analysis. Compared with international experiences, for example in New York, it remains difficult to predict what monetary compensations can be expected in Brazilian cities and whether these compensations are really Pareto efficient compared to situations where the development permit would have been denied.

Finally, negotiated land use changes should be seen as an essential element of the overall local economic development strategy. In the Greater ABC region, various strategic partnerships among key stakeholders from the private and public sectors are increasingly important in light of the ongoing process of local and regional economic restructuring that has had dramatic negative effects on employment and income levels.

Among the lessons to be learned from the Santo Andre program is the need to develop better measurements of land value increments resulting from zoning changes in order to then develop the means to capture those values through more efficient taxation systems. The New York experience further shows that it is better to collect taxes at a lower rate through a universal and stable system rather than on an arbitrary, case-by-case negotiated basis that can be susceptible to abuse and corruption.

Jeroen Klink, an urban economist, is the adviser to the mayor of Santo Andre. He is a former Lincoln Institute Dissertation Fellow who is completing his Ph.D. thesis on “Sources of Urban Finance: The Applicability of the Standard Economic Model to the Brazilian Case” at the School of Architecture and Urbanism, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Luis Carlos Afonso, an economist, is the secretary for finance in Santo Andre. Irineu Bagnariolli Jr., an urban sociologist, is the secretary for housing and urban development in Santo Andre.

Figure 1: Restraints on Revising the Property Tax

In 1993 the Santo Andre city administration passed a law to grant a 40 percent discount on the property tax, which was to be valid only for that year. However, this reduction has been maintained as a result of several legal clauses that determined that the value of the tax in the current year could not exceed its value in the previous year, thus establishing a tax cap.

Another restriction on a more aggressive use of the tax, especially as a way to promote more equity, is the interpretation given by the Supreme Court that the tax cannot be progressive. The only exception is its application as punishment for unused or underutilized property, a clause that itself depends on additional federal lawmaking and has not even been discussed by Congress. (See Claudia M. De Cesare, “Using the Property Tax for Value Capture: A Case Study from Brazil,” Land Lines, January 1998.)

During 1990 and 1991, a previous Santo Andre administration had tried to give discounts on the property tax based on the physical characteristics, current use and size of the property, but that effort was subsequently rejected by Court rulings because of its supposed hidden progressive character. Thus, the cap on the property tax, despite being formally revoked by a subsequent law, remains basically unchanged because if taxes were increased the poorer segments of the population would be most negatively affected.

Finally, in Santo Andre and all Brazilian cities, the value per square meter of land is fixed by law, thus hindering the capacity of the city administration to tax real estate property according to its market value.

Most urban areas are experiencing significant disinvestment in older industrial-warehouse areas, along with a net loss of employment, tax base and related activity. The few recent surveys done to measure vacant industrial land suggest that, in Northeastern and Midwestern cities, 15 to 20 percent of industrial sites are inactive. In major cities such as Chicago or Philadelphia, vacant land can amount to several hundred parcels comprising several thousand acres. Often there are significant financial liabilities associated with the ownership of these “brownfield” sites due to the high incidence of contamination and related safety and environmental problems.

Vacant or underused properties are often located in areas suffering generally from physical decline, concentrations of low-income households and high crime rates. Thus, older cities are faced with the dual challenge of improving the capacity of the resident population to participate productively in the labor force and restoring the competitive market standing of areas with declining fiscal capacity.

While recent economic changes have resulted in a net decline in business activity in older industrial areas, many of these sites have the potential for residential, commercial or office reuse, with varying degrees of investment required. However, reuse is often constrained by factors including fragmentation in ownership, risks associated with the ownership or use of contaminated property, and the high market risks associated with front-end investment in environmental assessments, market studies, land assembly and area planning.

Currently, federal laws and regulations dealing with contaminated sites add to the high risk for new owners, investors and users who might otherwise contribute to reinvestment in and reuse of these areas. Also, federal and state clean up programs tend to operate independently of concerted area-wide redevelopment strategies and programs.

Special Situations for Industrial Reuse

Unfortunately, examples of successful reuse approaches which effectively orchestrate federal, state and local government policies and actions with private landowner, investor and business development actions are limited and tend to be concentrated in a few special situations. One circumstance involves a strong private owner such as a financially healthy major corporation which cannot avoid the liabilities associated with the site yet cannot afford the adverse publicity of simply abandoning it.

Another situation is when a strong private reuse market for the site creates a high reuse value relative to the current “as is” value. This typically involves waterfront or other property adjacent to growing downtowns or sites which happen to fit the development needs for a major, publicly subsidized facility such as a new stadium or convention center. In these situations, the private or public reuse benefit calls forth the financial and political resources necessary to acquire, clean up and redevelop the land.

However, most vacant or underused former industrial-warehouse properties do not meet these conditions. Generally the demand for reuse is weak or declining, in part due to deteriorating neighborhood conditions. Because of low land values, even for clean, ready-to-develop sites, finding investors for either equity or debt investment in acquisition, renovation or new development is problematic. These areas typically require more concerted efforts involving business, government and civic group participation.

Site-Specific vs Integrated Redevelopment

While interest in brownfields reuse has increased over the last several years, policy discussions at the national level and programs in the states tend to approach brownfields as a site-specific contamination cleanup problem rather than an area-wide reuse problem within the context of the metropolitan economy.

The case for integrating site treatment into a broader redevelopment strategy can be argued from several angles. One is simply that giving priority to cleanup expenditures may do little to foster area reuse and may preclude the more effective use of public funds. If the contamination is contained within a small area and the public can be protected from any potential harm, then area reuse may be more effectively fostered by focusing on the removal of other constraints to investment. These constraints may include improving access, removing unsightly buildings, installing landscape improvements, clearing sites of obsolete structures, and subdividing the area to better meet current facility demands.

Another argument for integrating site cleanup into an overall redevelopment strategy is that the cleanup costs are difficult to finance in a situation where the value of clean sites is very low. If an area-wide redevelopment effort focuses initially on increasing the overall demand to reuse sites, putting vacant clean sites into use will improve the demand/supply balance. Then, the cleanup costs can in most cases be funded out of the increased site value, and private owners of such sites will be motivated to clean up the sites voluntarily. Area-wide financing schemes using tax increment financing (TIF) and special taxing and benefit districts can also facilitate the funding required for remediation and indemnification against any future liabilities.

New Models and Strategies

The Lincoln Institute, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, is undertaking a research project to explore the problem of recycling urban industrial areas which fall outside of the special situations described above. The study builds on recent work conducted by the Lincoln Institute, the Northeast-Midwest Institute, the author and others who have researched reuse potential and demand/supply constraints in industrial areas. Some examples are the American Street industrial area in Philadelphia, the Collinwood area in Cleveland, the Southwest industrial area in Detroit, the south side of Chicago and several areas in Pittsburgh.

Research directed at discovering common opportunities and constraints and the related strategies most effective at addressing different types of situations is very limited. Therefore, our approach is to conduct a broad survey of industrial reuse markets based on a review of existing reports and interviews with local experts, and then to develop a series of in-depth case studies to assess alternative reuse strategies appropriate to common types of situations.

Each case study will include a survey and assessment of the city-wide situation and the conditions in various industrial subareas. Model solutions will focus on a single subarea chosen to represent a combination of factors, including the relevance of that case to other cities and the relative importance of the subarea to its city’s overall reuse plan. In each case, a group of development professionals familiar with the local real estate market will be involved in assessing opportunities and constraints, alternative strategies and implementation measures. Ultimately, our objective is to identify changes in federal, state and local techniques, policies and programs that would support the implementation of the strategies being developed.

J. Thomas Black, visiting fellow of the Lincoln Institute, is an urban development economist and the principal investigator for this project. The study is in its early stages and the author invites your insights, ideas and suggestions on the subject, particularly for case examples demonstrating opportunities, general strategies, particular techniques, financing methods or organizational structures that work well.

FYI

The Collinwood Yard in northeast Cleveland is a 48-acre, mainly vacant industrial site which has lost 20,000 jobs since 1970. Its access to Interstate 90 and the rail lines is a key element in the revitalization of the area.

The Union Seventy Center in St. Louis is a multi-tenant industrial/warehouse facility occupying a remodeled 2.7 million square foot General Motors assembly plant. It is part of a 171-acre redevelopment project which demonstrates the reuse and investment potential of older urban industrial areas.

The Lincoln Institute’s Latin America program pursues education and research projects with universities and local governments throughout Central and South America and the Caribbean. These activities are especially salient now given many political and economic changes affecting Latin American land markets. For example, the (re)democratization of the continent is engaging a larger segment of the society in designing viable, innovative programs for local administrations of competing political parties.

In addition, institutional and in many cases constitutional reforms are affecting land values and landownership rights and regulations. Structural adjustment programs to curb inflation and overcome the economic crises of the 1980s are changing attitudes regarding holding land either as an investment or a reserve of value. Frequent speculative switches between land holdings and other financial assets according to the caprices of the prevailing ‘economic environment’ have been a planner’s nightmare in Latin America.

The forces of globalization and urbanization also contribute to significant and changing pressures on the use of land. More and more, Los Angeles-style landscapes can be found in certain suburbs of Sao Paulo, Santiago or Mexico City. While loss of the region’s biodiversity is well documented, Latin America is also at risk of losing its land use diversity.

In spite of these common themes, Latin America is hardly a homogeneous entity. Its diversity emerges clearly when examining the landownership and land market structures of different countries. For example:

The Chilean glorification of land markets contrasts with Cuba’s virtual elimination of land markets and resulting residential segregation.

Mexico had a unique experience with communal (ejido) lands that are now being privatized with important implications for new urban expansion.

In Brazil, frequent land conflicts, many with tragic consequences to the landless, can be attributed to a long-promised land reform yet to be implemented.

In Paraguay, until its recent democratization, land was traditionally attributed by the hegemonic political party, simply by-passing the market. In Argentina, on the other hand, the state uses its considerable stock of fiscal land to facilitate international investments in property developments directly through the market.

Nicaragua’s past land redistribution is probably responsible for the vigor of the recently liberalized property market and the strong land reconcentration processes now under way.

The booming land markets of Ecuador and Venezuela have often been attributed to the ease of laundering drug money from neighboring Colombia, where regulations are stricter.

Given this diversity, the Institute’s Latin America program is focusing its education and research efforts on building a network of highly qualified scholars and policymakers. Representing different countries and a variety of academic and professional backgrounds, they help identify topics of proven relevance for the region. Some examples of current topics grounded in public officials’ actual and anticipated needs are: rekindling the debate on the functioning of urban land markets; closing the gap between formal and informal land markets; and implementing new land policy instruments.

Access to land by the low-income urban population is the issue that best captures the hearts and minds of many researchers and public officials. Two connected research themes are 1) the mechanisms that generate residential segregation or exclusion through the market by private or public agents; and 2) the strategies of ‘the excluded’ to access land and subsequently formalize their ‘inclusion.’ Most of the Institute’s education programs being developed in Latin America to deal with land management and instruments of public intervention are informed directly or indirectly by this issue.

For many public officials in the region, land reform is a sensitive issue and capturing land value increments generated by public action is still seen suspiciously as a subversive idea. Thus, the Lincoln Institute is in a unique position as a neutral facilitator capable of collaborating with Latin American scholars and public officials as well as experts from the United States to provide a comparative, international perspective on land policy ideas and experiences.

_____________

Martim Smolka, Senior Fellow of the Institute since September 1995, is on leave as associate professor at the Urban and Regional Research and Planning Institute at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

I am pleased to report that the Lincoln Institute has signed an agreement of understanding with the Ministry of Land and Resources in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to work together on researching and teaching about land and tax policies. Many places in the world face fundamental problems in land allocation and land taxation, but it is difficult to imagine a place and time where the resources of the Lincoln Institute could be more influential and could help more people than in China during the early twenty-first century.

Land and tax policy makers in China are faced with enormous challenges as a result of the extraordinary urbanization of the past two decades. The number of established cities in China grew from 182 in 1982 to 324 in 1985, and reached 666 by 1996, and the average urban population grew by 227 percent between 1957 and 1995. Some cities grew by 200 percent from 1985 to 1995, and the urbanized area of Beijing doubled from 1985 to 1992. However, the extent of urbanization in the future will dwarf that of the recent past. Based on forecasts of population growth and migration, China must provide enough urban land and infrastructure to accommodate more than 450 million persons over the next 20 years. If all of the additional urban population were put in new cities of 10 million persons each, China would need to develop and finance 45 such cities.

China initiated fundamental and revolutionary land use reforms during the mid-1980s. The first reforms established privately held land use rights. The second set of reforms included multiple elements, such as land banking, land trusts, land readjustments, and development of land markets in both urban and rural areas. We believe that the Institute can make a real difference in assisting these reform measures by sponsoring education and training for government officials, supporting research and publications by U.S. and Chinese scholars, and facilitating more in-depth interactions through workshops and conferences.

Over the past two years the Institute has led two training programs in Beijing and participated in meetings between Chinese officials and scholars and Institute board members, faculty and staff. The Institute also sponsored several sessions on land and housing markets in the PRC at the First World Planning Congress in Shanghai in 2001. We anticipate several more training and exchange programs this year, but we believe this is still just the beginning of an expanded effort by the Institute to have a positive impact on land and tax policy in the world’s most populous country. In this issue, Institute faculty associates Chengri Ding and Gerrit Knaap examine some of the recent reforms and current trends in urban land policy in China.

The twenty-first century will witness record growth in the number and distribution of private residential communities. Collectively referred to as common interest communities (CICs) or common interest developments (CIDs), these communities rely on covenants, conditions and restrictions to privately govern and control land use, design decisions, services and social conduct. The communities own, operate and manage the residential property within their boundaries, including open space, parking, recreational facilities and streets. Although CICs historically have been the domain of the affluent, they are now becoming a viable choice for both suburban and urban residential development. Taking the form of condominiums, cooperatives, and single- and multifamily homes, both gated and nongated private communities are spreading among diverse economic and social classes.

A Worldwide Phenomenon

The proliferation of private communities in the United States is causing an unprecedented transition from traditional individual ownership to collective governance of property, signaling a remarkable shift in the American political and economic landscape. This trend establishes a new micro-scale level of governance beneath existing municipal structures, and highlights other tensions between the public and private sectors.

Indeed, the numbers provide a clear indication of this movement’s strength. At the end of the twentieth century, about 47 million Americans lived in condominiums, cooperatives and homeowner associations (HOAs). Growing from only 500 in the 1960s to an estimated 231,000 in 1999, HOAs now comprise almost 15 percent of the national housing stock, with an estimated addition of 8,000 to 10,000 private developments each year. In the 50 largest metropolitan areas, more than half of all new housing is now built under the governance of neighborhood associations. In California—particularly in the Los Angeles and San Diego metropolitan areas—this figure exceeds 60 percent (Treese 1999).

Recent press coverage and research from Europe, Africa, South America and Asia suggest that CICs are rapidly being popularized in other parts of the world as well. Although gated communities are still rare in Britain, former prime minister Margaret Thatcher reportedly moved into such a community in South London. In South Africa, where secure communities were an unavoidable consequence of racism, post-apartheid gated developments are inhabited by all races, and not only by the wealthy. In Saudi Arabia private compounds of linked houses provide extended families with privacy and identity. Those compounds seem to be a reaction to the single residential typology imported from abroad during the country’s modernization period.

Since the economic reforms of the early 1980s, many residential areas in Chinese cities have walls to improve security and define social status. Often these developments are designed by U.S. companies and based on U.S. planning and design standards. Private communities in Southeast Asia, such as in Indonesia, are marketed as places that allow the differentiation of lifestyle and give prestige and security to their inhabitants. In Latin America sprawling gated communities at the metropolitan edges of Santiago, Chile, Bogotá, Colombia, and other cities have become the norm for a growing professional class in need of a secure lifestyle in an environment dominated by social and economic poverty. The deteriorating political and economic state of affairs in Buenos Aires, Argentina, has resulted in situations where developers and private companies provide privatized “public” services that attract large sectors of the population to private developments housing up to half a million people (Environment and Planning B 2002).

Dual Governance, Rules and Outcomes

The spread of CICs in the U.S. is driven by the mutual interests of developers and local governments, including planning officials. Developers benefit because they can maintain profits—despite the high costs of land and infrastructure—by introducing efficient land design schemes and, often, higher densities. Local governments prefer CICs because they privatize infrastructure and reduce public costs. At the same time, consumers see a way to protect their property values through the ability to control their neighborhood character by using compliance and enforcement mechanisms. CICs also provide consumers greater infrastructure options, recreational amenities and community services.

The growing fiscal crisis experienced by many local governments means they are often unable to respond to such traditional community demands as building and maintaining streets, collecting garbage, snowplowing and other services. The establishment of a separate legal mechanism within a private neighborhood association allows collective control over a neighborhood’s common environment and the private provision of common services. Perhaps more important, this trend creates a de facto deregulation of municipal subdivision standards and zoning, because cities and towns allow for a different, more flexible set of standards to be implemented in private developments. Often, the results are innovative spatial and architectural layouts and, sometimes, unusually sensitive environmental design. This shift in neighborhood governance enables a resultant shift in the design of residential developments that heretofore has not been fully appreciated.

A recent nationwide survey of public officials and developers gauges the impacts of subdivision regulations on the design of residential developments and the practices of developers in rapidly growing regions of the country (Ben-Joseph 2003). It assesses attitudes and perceptions and identifies the issues regarding subdivision regulations that members of the housing industry and the regulatory agencies feel are affecting housing development.

Excessive Regulations

As early as 1916 Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., commented on subdivision standards and regulations.

While such regulations are intended only to guard against the evil results of ignorance and greed on the part of landowners and builders, they also limit and control the operations of those who are neither ignorant nor greedy; and it is clear that the purpose in framing and enforcing them should be to leave open the maximum scope for individual enterprise, initiative and ingenuity that is compatible with adequate protection of the public interests. Such regulations are, and always should be, in a state of flux and adjustment—on the one hand with a view to preventing newly discovered abuses, and on the other hand with a view to opening a wider opportunity of individual discretion at points where the law is found to be unwisely restrictive. (Olmsted 1916, 3)

Indeed, developers in the 2003 survey clearly expressed their frustration with the excessive and often unwarranted nature of physical improvements and standards associated with subdivision development. When asked to indicate which types of requirements present the greatest expense in conforming to regulations, an overwhelming majority (80 percent) pointed to requirements associated with site design. When asked to indicate which specific requirements they perceived as excessive, 52 percent of the respondents indicated those relating to street design and construction, with almost 45 percent indicating land dedication and 43 percent storm sewer systems (underground piping for storm water mitigation). When asked about which physical standards within each category were seen as excessive, those most frequently cited were street widths (75 percent of the respondents), street rights-of-way (73 percent) and requirements of land for open space (73 percent). Most developers also mentioned water and sewer hook-up fees (85–90 percent) and payments in lieu of land dedication (79 percent) as being excessive monetary requirements associated with physical improvements (see Table 1).

While one might expect that developers would criticize regulations as interfering in their business, it is important to note that most respondents were selective in their answers to the survey. Out of 29 requirements listed in Table 1, only 13 were considered excessive by the majority of developers, while 16 others were deemed reasonable. Such results indicate that many developers are tuned in to construction and design performance, and their attitude toward regulation cannot always be assumed to be negative.

Furthermore, the surveyed public officials (town planners and town engineers) often concurred with the developers’ observations. Generally these officials agreed that the regulatory process, such as the enforcement of subdivision regulations, has become more demanding and complex. Over the past five years, for example, 70 percent of the jurisdictions where these public officials work have introduced new requirements, and 57 percent have increased specifications, such as those for setbacks and lot sizes. Only 16 percent of these jurisdictions have decreased their specifications, mostly by reducing street widths.

Relief from Subdivision Regulations

Two-thirds of residential developers consider government regulations, particularly those pertaining to the design and control of subdivisions, the main culprit in prohibiting design innovation and increasing the cost of housing. More specifically, they see these regulations as an impediment to increasing densities, changing housing types, and reconfiguring streets and lots.

One way developers try to relax these regulations is through requests for relief in the form or zoning or design variances. More than half of the surveyed developers (52 percent) had to apply for some sort of relief in at least half of their projects, while 37 percent had to apply in at least three-fourths of their projects. When asked to point to the type of changes they requested, many indicated higher-density single-family projects, more multifamily units, and more varied site and structural plans. The majority of the developers in the survey responded that they sought to increase the density of housing units on their sites, but 72 percent noted that because of existing regulations they had to design lower-density developments than they wanted. Some developers reported that regulations forced them to build in greenfield locations away from major urban areas, where restrictions and abutters’ objections were less onerous.

Although almost all of the public officials (83 percent) reported that their jurisdictions require private developments to follow established subdivision regulations, the enforcement of these standards through the approval process is malleable. In some cases, when such a development is classified as a condominium, which may include attached and/or detached dwelling units, no formal review of street standards is required. In fact, the majority of public officials surveyed (61 percent) indicated that their jurisdictions allow for narrower streets to be constructed within private developments. One respondent stated, “Variances are more easily granted within private road systems since the county will not have any maintenance responsibility or liability.”

The practice of building narrower roadways and offering smaller building setbacks within private subdivisions has become widely accepted over the last decade. A street standards survey completed in 1995 showed that 84 percent of the cities responding allowed for different street standards in such developments, and that they more readily accepted the introduction of different paving materials, changes in street configurations, and the employment of traffic calming devices (Ben-Joseph 1995).

Design Benefits

Both public officials and developers acknowledge the design benefits associated with private subdivisions (see Table 2). Fifty-seven percent of officials indicated that private developments are introducing innovative design in the form of building arrangements and unit clustering. Forty-one percent felt that such developments permit the introduction of housing types not found elsewhere in their communities, and 61 percent indicated that they allow for narrower street standards to be incorporated.

While public officials see the benefits of pushing the design envelope within the confines of the development itself, many are also concerned about the social implications and impacts of these private developments on their surrounding communities. “As a matter of policy,” a survey respondent wrote, “gated private communities are discouraged as they are not in keeping with the urban form, which calls for an interconnecting network of vehicular and pedestrian movement. In addition, the walling of neighborhoods from arterial roadways should be avoided by alternatives such as the placement of other compatible uses along the periphery.”

Both developers and public officials believe that common subdivision regulations restrict alternative solutions, and they see privatizing subdivisions as a vehicle for simplifying the approval process and introducing design innovation. As one of the developers remarked, “Regular subdivision codes don’t allow flexibility. Lots are too standardized and streets use too much area. If I could build narrow streets and small lots, developments controlled by covenants and HOAs will not be necessary.” The ability to provide design choices and efficient layouts and to avoid a lengthy approval process drives both public and private sectors to offer CICs rather than typical subdivisions. Indeed, it seems that in the last decade most innovation in subdivision design has sprung from within the private domain and under the governance of community associations rather than within the public realm through traditional means.

Toward Better Subdivisions

The proliferation of CICs, with their ability to plan, design and govern outside of public boundaries, can be seen as an indicator of a failed public system. When developers and public officials resort to privatization to achieve a more responsive design outcome, and when local jurisdictions acknowledge that privatized communities provide a straightforward way to grant variations and innovation, then something is wrong with the existing parameters of subdivision codes and regulations.

For the last 25 years the subdivision approval process has increased in complexity, in the number of agencies involved, in the number of delays, and in the regular addition of new requirements (Seidel 1978). Both developers and public officials acknowledge that the application for variances and changes in subdivision regulations are lengthy and cumbersome. Therefore, it is not surprising that developers see private projects governed by HOAs as not only responding to market demands and trends, but also introducing planning and design concepts that are often not allowed or are difficult to get authorized under the typical approval process.

CICs are enabling developers to maintain profits and keep the design process relatively open-ended and flexible. The ability to operate outside the regular, common set of subdivision regulations allows developers to offer various design solutions that fit the local setting, the targeted site and the prospective consumers. In some cases these can be attractive, high-density yet affordable single-family developments, and in others low-density, high-end yet ecologically sensitive construction (McKenzie 2003).

The concept of private communities as environmentally sensitive developments may seem a contradiction in terms. However, some of these developments provide examples of responsible construction that minimizes environmental impact while maximizing economic value. In Dewees Island, South Carolina, there are few impervious road surfaces, allowing full restoration of the underground aquifer. Only vegetation indigenous to the local coastal plains is allowed. This xeriscaping approach removes the need for irrigation, fertilizers and pesticides. In addition, homes are required to use water conservation fixtures, reducing water consumption by 60 percent.

Paradoxically, while CICs are often controlled and managed by strict covenants and regulations, their initial design is very much outside the mainstream regulatory apparatus. It is precisely for this reason that they prove to be more flexible in their design solutions and more agreeable to developers, consumers and local governments.

How can such flexibility be integrated in the regular planning process? Can subdivision regulations be made more accommodating and less prescriptive? Will such an approach level the playing field and allow for more housing choices and greater design variety in the public domain? Will such changes promote developers to plan subdivisions endowed with CICs’ design qualities without their restrictive covenants and privatized shared spaces? And conversely, can CICs, while exhibiting great variation in architecture and site design features, be made less controlling in their management policies?

There are many issues raised by the spread of CICs, but none is more important than the realization that public policy and subdivision regulations must allow and promote more variety in housing styles and development options. Consumers should not be forced into CICs because they are the only type of development that offers a lively choice of features. CICs should be seen as a catalyst to change subdivision standards and regulations and as a vehicle to create a bridge between public officials and developers. Through the use of CICs developers are not only able to circumvent existing regulations, lower development costs and in some cases produce quite innovative community design solution, but also enable jurisdictions to secure new taxpayers with less public expenditure.

Not all CICs are created equal, and many are far from perfect. But, in terms of design efficiency, utilization of space, and integration of social and environmental amenities, private communities illustrate the shortcomings of many standards applied to typical subdivisions.

References

Ben-Joseph, Eran. 1995. Residential street standards and neighborhood traffic control: A survey of cities’ practices and public officials’ attitudes. Berkeley: Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Berkeley.

———. 2003. Subdivision regulations—Practices and attitudes: A survey of public officials and developers in the nation’s fastest growing single-family housing markets. Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. 2002. Theme issue: The global spread of gated communities 29(3).

McKenzie, Evan. 2003. Common-interest housing in the communities of tomorrow. Housing Policy Debate 14(1/2):203–234.

Olmsted, Frederick L., Jr. 1916. Basic principles of city planning. In City planning: A series of papers presenting the essential elements of a city plan, John Nolen, ed., 1–18. New York: D. Appleton and Company.

Seidel, S. 1978. Housing costs and government regulations: Confronting the regulatory maze. New Brunswick: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.

Treese, Clifford. 1999. Community associations factbook. Alexandria, VA: Community Associations Institute.

Eran Ben-Joseph is associate professor of landscape architecture and planning in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. This article is based in part on his survey and research that were supported by the Lincoln Institute.