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.

The prevailing land use regulation and land tax laws in the United States make the Kelo case and the use of eminent domain for private development particularly dramatic, especially compared to other countries.

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

En las ciudades de América Latina, y especialmente en las más grandes, la ubicación de las viviendas es crítica para los grupos más vulnerables. En Buenos Aires, la población de las villas miseria en el área del centro se duplicó en el último período intercenso (1991-2001), si bien la población total declinó aproximadamente el 8 por ciento. En Rio de Janeiro, durante la misma década, los asentamientos informales de mayor crecimiento fueron los que se percibían como mejor ubicados, generalmente cerca de la costa en los barrios de clase media y alta, si bien éstos eran ya los barrios más hacinados y congestionados.

También se observa esta tendencia en Chile, no obstante el problema de los asentamientos informales es mucho menor que en el resto de América Latina. Sólo alrededor de 28.600 familias (el 1 por ciento de la población total de Chile) viven en 533 asentamientos precarios identificados (los cuales son denominados campamentos). Los catastros sucesivos demuestran que al mismo tiempo que los campamentos más antiguos se van reordenando, se continúan creando campamentos nuevos. Más de la mitad de los campamentos existentes fueron establecidos entre 1991 y 2007 (Fundación un Techo para Chile, 2007).

Hay varias explicaciones para esta persistencia de campamentos, aun en Chile, donde la política de vivienda se considera más desarrollada que en otros países, y donde ya queda poca tierra urbana disponible para ser invadida. Algunas familias que viven en campamentos pueden representar un grupo residual en transición entre su llegada a la ciudad y su reubicación en viviendas de interés social u otro tipo de vivienda formal. Otros pueden tener preferencia por tener su propia casa en un campamento en vez de tener que compartir cuartos con otra familia o parientes en una vivienda más formal.

Vivir en un campamento también puede ser comparable a anotarse en una lista de espera para poder acceder a un programa de vivienda de interés social, ya que el programa del gobierno que se concentra en este tipo de familias (Chile Barrio) tiene por finalidad atender a sus necesidades y facilitar su acceso a la vivienda de interés social. Como algunas de las familias que viven en campamentos aún no cumplen con las condiciones necesarias para participar en el programa de viviendas de interés social, siguen allí hasta poder encontrar otras opciones.

Por otro lado, la continua existencia de campamentos no se puede atribuir a altos niveles de pobreza o a una política débil de regularización de asentamientos. Por el contrario, en los últimos 20 años la pobreza en Chile se redujo a la mitad, y ahora se estima que alcanza al 13,7 por ciento de la población (CASEN, 2006). Al mismo tiempo, el gobierno implementó una política de vivienda que entrega bonos a las familias para comprar una casa. Este programa ha sido respaldado por sucesivas administraciones de gobierno y ha beneficiado hasta ahora a dos millones de familias, a un promedio de 100.000 familias por año, o casi el 3 por ciento de los 3,6 millones de hogares urbanos de Chile en 2002.

Independientemente de su éxito en términos de cobertura, los programas de vivienda han generado una concentración de viviendas de interés social en la periferia de Santiago y otras ciudades principales. Históricamente, los proyectos de viviendas de interés social han creado grandes zonas socialmente homogéneas que han producido la segregación de familias de bajos ingresos, con consecuencias negativas. Algunas de estas zonas ahora sufren de serios problemas sociales, como un alto nivel de desempleo y deserción escolar, como también sentimientos generalizados de falta de esperanza y inversión de los valores sociales entre sus residentes (Sabatini, Cáceres y Cerda, 2004).

También hay mayor inestabilidad e inseguridad laboral en la economía chilena en la actualidad que en el pasado, y una transformación radical del sistema político ha desestabilizado las relaciones cotidianas entre las clases populares y los líderes de los partidos políticos. A medida que estas formas tradicionales de cohesión social se van debilitando, ciertos factores, como la ubicación de una casa en la ciudad, se hacen más relevantes, ya que una buena ubicación puede brindar acceso a una mejor “geografía de oportunidades”, o sea a lugares que se perciben como de mayor y mejor acceso a servicios públicos y privados, como escuelas, mercados, parques y redes de transporte, como también acceso a mejores trabajos y proximidad a redes sociales y familiares.

En este contexto, examinaremos algunos de los factores que influyen en el continuo desarrollo y persistencia de los campamentos, a pesar de la disponibilidad de programas gubernamentales masivos de vivienda, como también un sistema legal que protege los derechos de propiedad.

Una encuesta de preferencias de localización de vivienda

Usando datos de la Región Metropolitana de Santiago, diseñamos tres conjuntos de muestras con un total de 1.588 unidades familiares: familias que viven en campamentos (812); familias que viven en viviendas de interés social y que se mudaron de campamentos que fueron erradicados (510); y familias que viven en viviendas de interés social pero que no se mudaron de un campamento (266). Las tres muestras fueron tomadas, respectivamente, de un inventario de moradores de campamentos preparado en 2007; y el registro del programa Chile Barrio, que identifica a familias que vivían en campamentos y que adquirieron viviendas de interés social entre 1999 y 2005; y familias del mismo proyecto de viviendas de interés social que no provenían de un campamento. Las encuestas en los campamentos fueron efectuadas de puerta en puerta en agosto de 2008, y en los barrios de proyectos de vivienda de interés social en diciembre de 2008.

Los resultados de la encuesta muestran que al vivir en campamentos, las familias logran optimizar las preferencias de localización de su vivienda con una mayor probabilidad de éxito, entendiendo dichas preferencias fundamentalmente como la proximidad a una buena geografía de oportunidades. Casi el 70 por ciento de las familias que antes vivían en campamentos y ahora viven en viviendas de interés social se quedaron en el mismo distrito, comparado con el 51,7 por ciento de las familias que viven en viviendas de interés social y que no vinieron de campamentos (ver Cuadro 1). Por lo tanto, sin alterar radicalmente la ubicación de su vivienda, las familias que antes vivían en campamentos pudieron acceder a subsidios de vivienda que les permitieron mejorar su estándar de vida y obtener un título legal.

Ver Cuadro 1 en anexo: Origen de las muestras de hogares en la Región Metropolitana (RM) de Santiago (porcentajes)

Las familias que viven en campamentos también perciben que tienen mayor prioridad que otras familias similares para acceder a viviendas de interés social, y una mayor probabilidad de acceder a viviendas de interés social en su localización preferida. Alrededor del 63 por ciento de las familias que viven actualmente en campamentos reportaron tener ventaja en el acceso a viviendas de interés social en comparación con otras familias. Esta percepción coincide con la realidad, ya que entre 1996 y 2007 la cantidad de campamentos en Chile declinó de 972 (105.888 familias) a 533 (alrededor de 28.600 familias) y el déficit de viviendas asociado con campamentos se redujo en un 75 por ciento.

Para examinar el precio del suelo como factor en la selección de vivienda, utilizamos la tasación fiscal en zonas de características similares (ZCS) y, como referencia, el valor máximo obtenido por cada distrito. En este análisis, el 71,4 por ciento de las familias que se mudaron de un campamento a una vivienda de interés social se transfirieron a una localización mejor o equivalente (ver Cuadro 2).

Ver Cuadro 2 en anexo: Valor actual del suelo comparado con el valor en el distrito de origen

La encuesta también muestra que la mayoría de las familias de campamentos (60,6 por ciento) llegó entre 2000 y 2008, un período de gran expansión en la oferta de viviendas para familias de menores ingresos, indicando una preferencia por vivir en un campamento bien ubicado antes que en una vivienda de interés social en otro lado (ver Cuadro 3).

Ver Cuadro 3 en anexo: Año de llegada de la muestra de familias que viven en campamentos

Los resultados de la encuesta se deben interpretar teniendo en cuenta los siguientes factores contextuales.

• El grupo de familias que viven en los campamentos es pequeño comparado con la población que potencialmente se puede beneficiar de programas de subsidio de vivienda. Las familias que antes vivían en campamentos eran sólo el 2,2 por ciento de todas las familias que vivían en viviendas de interés social en 2001 (INVI, 2001).
• El proceso de segregación de las familias más pobres a la periferia urbana es una tendencia que se ha mantenido a lo largo de los últimos 30 años. En la década de 1980 se instituyó una política de erradicación masiva de campamentos, y las familias fueron reubicadas desde los distritos del centro a la periferia. En la década de 1990, a medida que la democracia echó raíces en el país, la nueva administración adoptó una política de construcción de viviendas de interés social en gran escala para prevenir la formación de nuevos campamentos. No obstante, muchas de estas viviendas de interés social se están construyendo en zonas aún más periféricas, causando una segregación residencial a escala regional.
• Como resultado de estas políticas, grandes sectores de la región metropolitana de Santiago se caracterizan por su homogeneidad social. Por ejemplo, el distrito periférico de La Pintana creció 2,5 veces entre 1985 y 1994 (de 80.000 a 190.000 habitantes) debido a la reubicación de familias de menores ingresos que antes vivían en distritos actualmente habitados por familias de ingresos medios y altos en el Gran Santiago (Las Condes, Providencia, Ñuñoa y La Reina, entre otros).
• A pesar de la tendencia predominante, y en contraposición a lo que ocurrió en décadas anteriores, las familias que ahora viven en campamentos parecen tener una ventaja sobre las familias que no vinieron de campamentos para obtener un subsidio de vivienda en su localización preferida.

Interacciones entre pobreza y los valores del suelo

La mitad de las familias que viven en campamentos (51 por ciento) no son pobres, de acuerdo a la Encuesta de Caracterización Socioeconómica (CASEN). En nuestra muestra, la mayoría de las familias que vivían en campamentos tienen un mayor porcentaje de jefes de familia masculinos, menor tamaño familiar, y un ingreso per cápita casi el doble de la mayoría de las familias de bajos ingresos de la Región Metropolitana. Este resultado contradice la creencia convencional de que las familias más pobres viven en los campamentos. Lo que parece estar ocurriendo es la expresión de una estrategia por parte de familias de menores ingresos para superar su vulnerabilidad y aprovechar al máximo las oportunidades para mejorar su situación, usando para ello la ubicación de su vivienda como un recurso en el proceso de movilidad social.

La incidencia de pobreza en los campamentos varía en función del precio promedio del suelo en el distrito donde se encuentra el barrio. Menos de la mitad de las familias que viven en campamentos ubicados en distritos de valor bajo y alto del suelo son pobres, mientras que aquéllas que viven en distritos de valor medio del suelo tienen niveles de pobreza mucho mayores (ver Cuadro 4). Las familias que viven en distritos de valores bajos y altos del suelo también tienen una mayor proporción de trabajadores en los sectores de servicios privados y domésticos, y menos empleados por cuenta propia.

Ver Cuadro 4 en anexo: Pobreza y empleo en las familias que viven en campamentos, por valor del suelo en el distrito

Los residentes perciben que la localización objetiva de los campamentos es mejor que el de las viviendas de interés social, porque es más probable que los campamentos se encuentren en los distritos de mayor valor del suelo, en comparación con las viviendas de interés social: 27 por ciento, comparado con 7,9 por ciento (ver Cuadro 5). Al mismo tiempo, las familias que viven en campamentos tienen una percepción mucho mejor de su proximidad a los servicios y puestos de empleo, y encuentran que su distrito es socialmente más diverso que el de las familias que viven en viviendas de interés social (ver Cuadro 6).

Ver Cuadro 5 en anexo: Distribución de familias por valor del suelo en sus distritos respectivos (porcentajes)

Ver Cuadro 6 en anexo: Percepciones de localización de la vivienda

Si se usan los valores del suelo como indicador de acceso a servicios, queda claro cuán significativa es la localización para las familias. Los campamentos ubicados en distritos donde los valores del suelo son altos exhiben ventajas significativas sobre aquellos en distritos de precio del suelo bajo, sobre todo con respecto a la ubicación del trabajo del jefe de familia y su cónyuge (ver Cuadro 7).

Ver Cuadro 7 en anexo: Percepciones de localización por valor del suelo en el distrito entre las familias que viven en campamentos (porcentaje)

Preferencias declaradas de localización

Las familias que viven en campamentos valoran su localización. Al preguntar: “Si tuviera la oportunidad de mudarse a otra casa, ¿qué elegiría?”, el 28,8 por ciento declaró que preferiría quedarse en el mismo lugar y el 57,6 por ciento se mudaría a otra ubicación dentro del mismo distrito. La tercera opción, mudarse a otro distrito, fue seleccionada sólo por el 13,6 por ciento de las familias.

Con respecto a sus expectativas para el futuro, la mayoría de las familias que viven en campamentos declaran que esperan vivir en una vivienda de interés social dentro de cinco años. El sesenta y siete por ciento cree que vivirá en una vivienda de interés social dentro del mismo distrito y el 25 por ciento de ese grupo cree que vivirá en una vivienda de interés social construida en el mismo lugar donde se encuentra el campamento donde vive ahora.

El resultado más interesante es que el 51,8 por ciento de las familias que viven en campamentos dicen que prefieren quedarse en el barrio (bajo las mismas condiciones) que mudarse a una vivienda de interés social lejos de su distrito actual, Esta preferencia también es expresada por el 58.7 por ciento de las unidades familiares que declararon estar dispuestas a ahorrar más de los aproximadamente 400 dólares estadounidenses que el estado exige actualmente como pago para participar en el programa; un pago más alto aumentaría aún más la probabilidad de quedarse en la misma localización.

Conclusión

Este estudio ofrece una nueva perspectiva sobre los patrones y preferencias de localización de las familias que viven en asentamientos precarios. Subyacente en la decisión familiar de vivir en un campamento está el interés de aumentar la probabilidad de obtener una vivienda de interés social en un período más corto y en el distrito de su preferencia. No parece haber ningún conflicto entre obtener una mejor localización y obtener un subsidio residencial de una vivienda formal. Por el contrario, el vivir en un campamento constituye una estrategia racional para alcanzar ambos objetivos.

Las familias que han seguido esta estrategia tienen un perfil un tanto distinto a la típica familia pobre de Santiago. La mayoría tiene un jefe de familia masculino y un nivel de ingresos que, si bien es bajo, se encuentra significativamente por encima de la línea de pobreza tal como se define en Chile. La localización del campamento parece cumplir un rol importante en favorecer la proximidad al trabajo tanto para el jefe de familia como para su cónyuge.

Los programas de vivienda de interés social en Chile se han guiado fuertemente por la noción del déficit de viviendas, donde las familias pasan a ser un número de una lista para obtener un subsidio de manera independiente, sin considerar aspectos tales como el mantenimiento de las redes sociales o las preferencias de localización. Esta política, basada en subsidiar la demanda y dar por sentado el valor del suelo, llevó a una segregación a gran escala en la periferia, donde los precios del suelo tienden a ser menores.

Este estudio demuestra que las familias optarán por una mejor localización, frecuentemente en la ciudad central, aunque ello signifique vivir en un campamentos o un lote más pequeño, demostrando los límites de la vivienda de interés social basada en los precios más bajos del suelo en la periferia. El programa Chile Barrio, creado en 1996, ha reemplazado el énfasis en el déficit de viviendas por un enfoque territorial que hace del campamento la unidad de intervención, y este nuevo enfoque parece haber mejorado las opciones de vivienda. La lección de política pública aprendida para programas de vivienda futuros es la necesidad de concentrarse en la calidad de la localización y en la inclusión social.

Referencias

CASEN. 2006. Ministerio de Planificación. www.mideplan.cl

Fundación un Techo para Chile. 2007. Informe catastro de campamentos. www.untechoparachile.cl/cis

Instituto de la Vivienda (INVI). 2001. Diagnóstico de medición de satisfacción de beneficiarios de vivienda básica. Santiago: Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Arquitectura y Urbanismo.

Sabatini, F., G. Cáceres, y J. Cerda. 2001. Segregación residencial en las principales ciudades chilenas: Tendencias de las tres últimas décadas y posibles cursos de acción”. EURE 27 (82) Diciembre.

Sobre los autores

Isabel Brain es socióloga y coordinadora del Programa de Apoyo a las Políticas Urbanas y de Suelo (ProUrbana) de la Universidad Católica de Chile Sus investigaciones se concentran en el desarrollo urbano, viviendas económicas, segregación residencial, mercados de suelos y asentamientos informales.

Pablo Celhay es economista e investigador de la Universidad Alberto Hurtado de Santiago, Chile. Recibió una maestría en políticas públicas de la Universidad de Chicago. En la actualidad está cursando la carrera de maestría en políticas públicas en la Facultad de Economía y Negocios de la Universidad de Chile.

José Joaquín Prieto es director del Observatorio Social de la Universidad Alberto Hurtado de Santiago, Chile. Sus investigaciones se concentran en políticas sociales y metodología de las investigaciones aplicadas.

Francisco Sabatini es sociólogo y profesor de planeamiento urbano en el Instituto de Estudios Urbanos y Territoriales de la Universidad Católica de Chile. Se especializa en segregación social, conflictos medioambientales y participación ciudadana.

Alan Mallach es senior fellow no residente en el Programa de Políticas Metropolitanas del Instituto Brookings y senior fellow en el Centro para el Progreso Comunitario, ambos de Washington, DC; y académico visitante en el Banco de la Reserva Federal de Filadelfia. Ha sido profesional, promotor y académico en temas de vivienda, planificación y desarrollo comunitario por casi 40 años, durante los cuales ha realizado aportaciones en muchas áreas, como el desarrollo de viviendas sociales y de ingresos mixtos, la revitalización de barrios y la regeneración urbana. En 2003, fue nombrado miembro del Colegio de Socios del Instituto Norteamericano de Planificadores Certificados, en reconocimiento a sus permanentes logros como líder de la profesión de planificación urbana.

Mallach es también profesor visitante en el programa para graduados en Planificación Urbana del Instituto Pratt de Nueva York, y ha enseñado en la Universidad Rutgers y en la Escuela de Arquitectura de Nueva Jersey. Ha publicado numerosos libros y artículos sobre vivienda, desarrollo comunitario y uso del suelo; su libro Bringing Buildings Back: From Abandoned Properties to Community Assets (Reconstruyendo edificios: de propiedades abandonadas a activos de la comunidad) es reconocido como el estándar en la materia. Su libro más reciente: Rebuilding America’s Legacy Cities: New Directions for the Industrial Heartland (Reconstruyendo las ciudades industriales históricas de los EE. UU.: nuevas direcciones para el corazón industrial), fue publicado en 2012 por la American Assembly de la Universidad Columbia. Reside en Roosevelt, Nueva Jersey, y tiene una licenciatura por la Universidad de Yale.

Land Lines: ¿Cómo se involucró en el Instituto Lincoln?

Alan Mallach: Ya había sabido del Instituto Lincoln desde hacía muchos años, e inicialmente me involucré en la década de 1990 con mi trabajo sobre la revitalización de áreas industriales abandonadas. Desde entonces, trabajé como profesor en una serie de sesiones de capacitación patrocinadas por el Instituto y participé en reuniones y conferencias en Lincoln House. Hace alrededor de siete años, Nico Calavita, profesor emérito del Programa de Graduados en Planificación Urbana de la Universidad Estatal de San Diego, y yo comenzamos a investigar el tema de vivienda inclusiva. Este proyecto llevó a que el Instituto publicara en 2010 el libro que coeditamos: Inclusionary Housing in International Perspective: Affordable Housing, Social Inclusion, and Land Value Recapture (Vivienda inclusiva en perspectiva internacional: vivienda económica, inclusión social y recuperación de plusvalías). Más recientemente he estado trabajando con Lavea Brachman, directora ejecutiva del Centro de Políticas del Gran Ohio, en un informe de enfoque sobre políticas de suelo que investiga temas relacionados con la regeneración de las ciudades industriales históricas de los Estados Unidos (ver página 28).

Land Lines: ¿A qué se refiere como «ciudades industriales históricas»?

Alan Mallach: «Ciudades industriales históricas» es un término que se ha comenzado a usar en vez de «ciudades en retroceso», como una manera de describir las ciudades del país que han perdido una cantidad significativa de población y puestos de trabajo en los últimos 50 años o más. Ciertas ciudades icónicas, como Pittsburgh, Detroit y Cleveland se mencionan generalmente en este contexto, pero la categoría también incluye a muchas ciudades más pequeñas, como Flint, Michigan; Utica, Nueva York y Scranton, Pensilvania.

Land Lines: ¿Cómo se conectan los temas de las ciudades industriales históricas con las preocupaciones principales sobre la política de suelo del Instituto Lincoln?

Alan Mallach: Hay muchos puntos de conexión, pero creo que el más importante es cómo debería usarse el suelo en estas ciudades. Todas estas ciudades tienen una sobresaturación significativa de oferta tanto de edificios residenciales como no residenciales en relación con la demanda, por lo menos desde la década de 1960. Como consecuencia de una demolición extensiva a lo largo de décadas, se ha acumulado un gran inventario de suelo vacante o subutilizado. Sólo Detroit tiene más de 100.000 parcelas de suelo vacante separadas y otros 40.000 a 50.000 edificios vacíos. Si bien este inventario es una carga, también podría convertirse en un enorme activo para el futuro de la ciudad. Uno de los temas centrales que enfrentan estas ciudades industriales es cómo desarrollar estrategias efectivas para usar este suelo no solo de forma que beneficie al público sino que también estimule el crecimiento económico y la demanda del mercado.

Land Lines: ¿Cómo compararía este desafío con su trabajo en vivienda inclusiva?

Alan Mallach: Desde el punto de vista económico, es la otra cara de la moneda. La vivienda inclusiva es una manera de usar el proceso de aprobación de planificación para canalizar una fuerte demanda del mercado y crear un beneficio público en forma de vivienda social, ya sea de manera directa, incorporando una cierta cantidad de unidades de vivienda social en un emprendimiento inmobiliario que quiere ser aprobado, o en forma indirecta por medio de desarrollo de predios o contribuciones en efectivo por parte del emprendedor. Como tal, involucra, ya sea explícita o implícitamente, la recuperación de la plusvalía del suelo que se crea en el proceso de aprobación de planes. La vivienda inclusiva parte de una gran demanda en el mercado, y no puede suceder sin ella.

Las estrategias de reúso del suelo en ciudades industriales tratan de generar demanda donde hoy en día no existe, o alternativamente encontrar maneras de usar el suelo para beneficiar al público y que se puedan implementar aun en condiciones donde no se puede inducir demanda en el mercado, por lo menos en un futuro previsible. Estas estrategias se llaman frecuentemente de usos «verdes» del suelo, como es el caso de la agricultura urbana, los espacios abiertos, la restauración de humedales o la gestión del aguas lluvias. Puede ser difícil conseguir que los funcionarios locales y los ciudadanos reconozcan que las formas tradicionales de revitalización, como la construcción de casas nuevas, centros comerciales, etc., requieren de la existencia de un mercado para dichos productos. No obstante, en muchas de estas zonas devastadas la demanda simplemente no existe. Más aún, la demanda no se puede inducir artificialmente por medio de subsidios públicos masivos, si bien los fondos públicos pueden, bajo ciertas condiciones, actuar como un estímulo para crear demanda.

Land Lines: ¿La falta de demanda es evidente en todos lados en las ciudades industriales históricas?

Alan Mallach: No, y esta es una de las cosas más interesantes sobre estas ciudades. En algunas ciudades la demanda crece mucho más que en otras, pero en la mayoría de los casos la revitalización se limita a ciertas partes de la ciudad.

Una tendencia perceptible es que las zonas del centro, o cercanas al centro, particularmente aquellas que tienen un carácter urbano peatonal fuerte, como el corredor de Washington Avenue en St. Louis, o el Distrito de Almacenes de Cleveland, están mostrando un gran dinamismo, si bien en muchas otras partes de estas dos ciudades sigue habiendo pérdida de población y abandono de viviendas.

Parte de este dinamismo se debe al carácter peatonal y la fuerte forma urbana (ver el nuevo libro del Instituto Lincoln por Julie Campoli, Made for Walking: Density and Neighborhood Form (Hecho para caminar: densidad y forma del barrio) (2012), que examina 12 barrios peatonales y las fuerzas que han generado su reciente popularidad). Un segundo factor importante es que estas áreas atraen a un segmento demográfico en particular: individuos y parejas jóvenes. Este grupo no sólo está orientado cada vez más a la vida urbana, sino que su porcentaje en el total de la población norteamericana está creciendo.

Land Lines: ¿Qué otros temas está explorando en su trabajo sobre las ciudades industriales históricas?

Alan Mallach: Me estoy centrando en dos áreas de investigación: una más cualitativa y otra más cuantitativa. En el primer caso, estoy examinando cómo muchas de estas ciudades están pasando por una pronunciada reconfiguración espacial y demográfica, un proceso que está exacerbando las disparidades económicas entre distintas áreas geográficas y poblaciones en estas ciudades. Si bien los centros de las ciudades más viejas, como los de St. Louis, Cleveland, Baltimore y hasta Detroit, son cada vez más atractivos, particularmente para los adultos jóvenes, y están ganando población y actividad económica, muchos otros barrios en estas ciudades están perdiendo población a una velocidad cada vez mayor. En muchos lugares estas tendencias están acentuando divisiones raciales que ya eran problemáticas.

Mi segunda área de investigación gira alrededor de lo que hace falta para promover una regeneración exitosa y sostenida. Lavea Brachman y yo hablamos de esto en nuestro informe de enfoque sobre políticas de suelo, pero espero poder investigar este tema más profundamente, examinando incluso algunas ciudades europeas que se han visto en situaciones similares a las de las ciudades industriales norteamericanas. Creo que las experiencias de las ciudades del norte de Inglaterra, por ejemplo, o el valle del Ruhr en Alemania, son similares a nuestras ciudades industriales históricas.

Land Lines: ¿Qué quiere decir con «regeneración exitosa»?

Alan Mallach: Esta es una cuestión muy importante. Yo creo que frecuentemente hay una tendencia a ver un evento en particular (las Olimpiadas de Barcelona o un edificio importante como el Museo Guggenheim en Bilbao, España, por ejemplo) como evidencia de regeneración, cuando en el mejor de los casos es un impulso discreto para obtener un cambio más sustancial. Creo que la regeneración tiene que ser consecuencia de cambios en tres áreas fundamentales: primero, el bienestar de la población, que se refleja en parámetros tales como el desempeño en educación superior, nivel de ingresos y menor desempleo; segundo, un mercado inmobiliario más fuerte y mayor fortaleza de los barrios; y tercero, la creación de nuevos sectores económicos orientados a la exportación para reemplazar el sector industrial perdido. El crecimiento de población por sí solo (es decir, la reversión de la disminución histórica de población) puede ser o no una prueba de regeneración. Es más probable que sea una consecuencia de estos tres cambios en vez de una causa.

Land Lines: ¿Cómo ve el futuro de las ciudades industriales norteamericanas?

Alan Mallach: Veo un futuro mixto. Como hemos mostrado en el informe sobre enfoque en políticas de suelo, a algunas ciudades les está yendo mucho mejor que a otras. Pittsburgh y Filadelfia están mostrando signos fuertes de resurgimiento, mientras que Cleveland, Detroit y Buffalo están perdiendo terreno. Creo que las ciudades industriales tienen dos desafíos importantes a medida que miran hacia el futuro.

El primer tema es cuál será el motor económico de estas ciudades. Las ciudades que han tenido mayor éxito hasta ahora han podido concentrar los grupos más significativos de universidades de investigación nacional y centros médicos. Estas instituciones tienden a dominar las economías de sus ciudades. Si bien han ayudado a ciudades como Pittsburgh y Baltimore a reconstruirse en la era postindustrial, creo que quedan muchas preguntas por contestar en lo que se refiere a su sostenibilidad como motores económicos de largo plazo.

La segunda cuestión es demográfica. Los centros pueden estar atrayendo a personas solteras y parejas jóvenes, pero muchos de los barrios residenciales de estas ciudades fueron construidos hace alrededor de 100 años, como comunidades principalmente para parejas casadas que estaban criando a sus hijos. Ahora se están descomponiendo incluso muchos barrios que habían permanecido estables hasta hace relativamente poco. Esta demografía de parejas casadas con niños está disminuyendo en todo el país, y más aún en las ciudades más viejas. Hoy, por ejemplo, sólo el 8 por ciento de los hogares de Baltimore está en esta categoría. Creo que el futuro de estos barrios es muy importante para el destino de estas ciudades, y estoy muy preocupado por sus perspectivas.

Land Lines: A pesar de estos desafíos, ¿cree que su trabajo marca la diferencia?

Alan Mallach: El hecho es que muchas ciudades están avanzando. Pittsburgh ha realizado una excelente tarea al valorizar sus activos para desarrollar nuevos motores económicos, mientras que Baltimore y Filadelfia están haciendo grandes avances al reorganizar muchas de sus funciones gubernamentales para resolver los desafíos de propiedades vacantes y problemáticas. Baltimore, por ejemplo, ha iniciado un programa llamado De vacantes a valor (Vacants to Value) que integra el cumplimiento de códigos de edificación y las propiedades problemáticas con estrategias más abarcadoras de construcción de mercados. He tenido la fortuna de haber participado directamente en algunas ciudades, como Filadelfia y Detroit; por otro lado, siempre me gratifica cuando funcionarios locales o líderes comunitarios me cuentan que usan mi trabajo, o que mis pensamientos han influido en ellos. Esto hace que el esfuerzo valga mucho más la pena.