La infraestructura (que comprende energía, telecomunicaciones, transporte, abastecimiento de agua potable y alcantarillado) cumple un papel muy importante en el desarrollo del suelo urbano y ejerce una influencia en la productividad, tanto de las ciudades como del campo. Los datos acerca de la cantidad de obras de infraestructura a nivel nacional (aunque no a nivel metropolitano) se encuentran disponibles en relación con muchos países en vías de desarrollo y de altos ingresos. Dichos datos respaldan varios de los resultados que se resumen en el presente artículo.

La cantidad de obras de infraestructura per cápita en los diferentes países se encuentra estrechamente relacionada con los niveles de ingresos per cápita: en aquellos países en donde los ingresos se duplican, sucede casi lo mismo con las obras de infraestructura. Sin embargo, las obras de infraestructura de un país no se encuentran esencialmente relacionadas con su nivel de urbanización una vez que se han tomado en cuenta los ingresos de dicho país. Y esto resulta sorprendente, ya que las ciudades poseen grandes cantidades de obras de infraestructura. No obstante, las ciudades también presentan una gran densidad de población que utiliza la infraestructura de manera intensiva, por lo que los niveles de obras de infraestructura urbana per cápita son similares a los niveles nacionales.

La composición de las obras de infraestructura también varía sistemáticamente según los ingresos per cápita. Las carreteras representan la mayor proporción de obras de infraestructura en los países con menor cantidad de ingresos, seguidas de los sistemas de agua potable en segundo lugar y los sistemas de energía eléctrica en tercer lugar. A medida que los ingresos de un país se incrementan, la cantidad de obras de infraestructura relacionadas con los sistemas de energía eléctrica aumentan con más rapidez que los niveles de ingresos. La infraestructura correspondiente a los sistemas de agua potable y alcantarillado aumenta a una intensidad menor y, en el caso de las carreteras, el cambio se da en proporción a los ingresos. Como resultado, en los países con altos ingresos, los sistemas de energía eléctrica conforman el mayor componente de las obras de infraestructura, seguidos de las carreteras, mientras que los sistemas de agua potable, alcantarillado y telefonía representan sólo una pequeña proporción de la infraestructura.

Teniendo en cuenta las tasas de crecimiento económico recientes, y utilizando las relaciones existentes entre la infraestructura y los ingresos per cápita, los países en vías de desarrollo probablemente deben invertir alrededor del 5 por ciento de su PIB en infraestructura (3 por ciento en expansión y 2 por ciento en mantenimiento), que en la actualidad se aproxima a los US$750 mil millones anuales, para poder mantener la relación existente entre la infraestructura y el PIB. En los países con altos ingresos, el gasto total sería menor, es decir, un 1,7 por ciento del PIB (dividido equitativamente entre obras de expansión y de mantenimiento), que en la actualidad se aproxima a US$700 mil millones anuales. Aquellos países que crecen con más rapidez que el promedio deben invertir una proporción mayor de su PIB, con el fin de que las obras de infraestructura vayan a la par del crecimiento económico.

En algunos países, una alternativa a las nuevas inversiones consiste en mejorar la eficiencia de la producción de servicios a partir de la infraestructura existente. Por ejemplo, la pérdida promedio de energía eléctrica en los diferentes países llega a alcanzar hasta el 25 por ciento; por otro lado, el agua potable que no se factura y las filtraciones de agua pueden llegar a exceder el 30 por ciento. La reducción de estas pérdidas de gran magnitud puede evitar la necesidad de capacidades adicionales. No deja de ser sorprendente el hecho de que el rendimiento de los diferentes sectores dentro de un mismo país varíe en tan gran medida, pues el rendimiento eficiente que puede tener un país en un determinado sector de infraestructura no se condice con su rendimiento en otros sectores.

¿De dónde provendrán estos fondos de inversión, en particular para los países en vías de desarrollo? La asistencia internacional y el financiamiento brindado por los bancos de desarrollo para obras de infraestructura en los países en vías de desarrollo actualmente llegan a un total de aproximadamente US$40 mil millones anuales. Dicha cifra se ha triplicado (o más) desde el año 1990, en dólares en curso legal. La inversión privada en infraestructura en los países en vías de desarrollo alcanzó recientemente los US$160 mil millones anuales y ha crecido ocho veces más desde el año 1990, también en dólares de curso legal. La asistencia internacional está dirigida principalmente a los sistemas de energía, transporte, agua potable y alcantarillado, mientras que casi no se han destinado fondos a las telecomunicaciones.

Por el contrario, más de la mitad del financiamiento de origen privado se invierte en telecomunicaciones (en particular, telefonía móvil), seguidas por el sector energético. Las telecomunicaciones y la energía atraen más inversiones privadas en los países en vías de desarrollo debido a que los ingresos que obtienen por los aranceles cubren una gran parte de los costos operativos, mientras que los ingresos por aranceles y tarifas de usuarios cubren una menor parte de los costos de transporte, agua potable y alcantarillado. En la década de 1990, las inversiones privadas en infraestructura se concentraron en América Latina y en Asia Oriental; sin embargo, a partir del año 2000, se distribuyeron de forma más uniforme por diferentes regiones del mundo.

A pesar del crecimiento experimentado en cuanto al financiamiento internacional, existen grandes áreas metropolitanas en crecimiento en países en vías de desarrollo que aún deben recaudar importantes sumas de dinero para poder financiar las inversiones en infraestructura. Entre los métodos de recaudación podemos mencionar los siguientes: el aumento de los aranceles que se cobran a los usuarios, el aumento de los impuestos (en particular, los impuestos inmobiliarios) sobre aquellas propiedades cuyo valor se incrementa debido a las inversiones en infraestructura y el establecimiento de mercados municipales de bonos, tales como el que se está desarrollando en África del Sur.

En mis tiempos de becario en la Universidad de Cambridge, durante la década de 1990, mi colega y amigo Wynne Godley, que ya no está entre nosotros, pasaba a buscarme los domingos para llevarme a una de las iglesias medievales de las que pueden verse en todo lugar en los pueblos de East Anglia. Wynne decía frecuentemente que “una iglesia es más un proceso que un edificio. Se desarrolla a lo largo de los siglos e involucra a generaciones de familias en su construcción y mantenimiento”. Wynne tenía buen ojo para los detalles arquitectónicos, por lo que podía señalar un contrafuerte o un campanario que ilustraba la práctica de una técnica específica, el uso de materiales fuera de lo común, o ambos. Una sola iglesia ofrecía un registro vivo y estratificado de la forma en que cada generación en una comunidad resolvía el desafío de construir y mantener grandes espacios cerrados y abiertos que posibilitaran la belleza del culto.

En este sentido, las ciudades tienen mucho de iglesias medievales. A medida que transcurre el tiempo, las ciudades ilustran la colaboración de generaciones de residentes, así como también la evolución de las herramientas económicas, técnicas e, incluso, sociales que se utilizaron para construirlas y mantenerlas. Las reliquias de mármol que encontramos en Roma son un testimonio vivo de la estética y los valores antiguos y de la ingenuidad en la construcción, mientras que la ciudad moderna florece a su alrededor. El icónico horizonte de Manhattan, en apariencia inmóvil, en realidad fluye constantemente y hoy en día evoluciona en forma radical a fin de responder a las demandas de sustentabilidad, resiliencia, desarrollos mixtos y otras cuestiones del siglo 21.

Los límites de las ciudades también evolucionan y narran otra historia de importancia crucial. Es posible que el futuro de nuestro planeta dependa de nuestra capacidad de comprender dicha historia y desarrollar las herramientas y la voluntad colectiva necesarias para gestionar el patrón y la progresión del crecimiento urbano. Shlomo (Solly) Angel documenta esta trayectoria en el Atlas of Urban Expansion (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2012), en el que se utilizan imágenes satelitales captadas a lo largo de décadas con el fin de llevar un registro de la evolución espacial de 120 ciudades en todo el mundo, desde Bamako y Guadalajara hasta Shangai y Milán. El último medio siglo de crecimiento urbano ha proporcionado un cuento con moraleja sobre la seducción de la expansión urbana descontrolada, un camino sin mucha resistencia que genera beneficios económicos de forma rápida pero cuyo desarrollo es poco sustentable. Nuestra capacidad para controlar la huella ecológica que dejamos y minimizar nuestro impacto a nivel mundial estará estrechamente relacionada con nuestra capacidad para planificar y construir asentamientos humanos más densos y eficientes. En vista de la predicción de las Naciones Unidas en cuanto a una población urbana mundial que casi se duplicará para llegar a las 6 mil millones de personas en el año 2050, la suerte del planeta dependerá de si los humanos, como especie, podremos adoptar un paradigma de desarrollo más apropiado en este medio siglo por venir.

A medida que nos esforzamos en reinventar nuestros asentamientos urbanos, nos enfrentaremos a un viejo enemigo: el suelo que ya ha recibido mejoras y desarrollo pero que debe adaptarse a usos nuevos. Aunque no desconocemos este proceso tan polémico, podemos decir que todavía no hemos logrado descifrar el código para gestionarlo. En este número de Land Lines analizamos algunas de las necesidades impulsoras que requerirán enfoques creativos para el redesarrollo en diferentes ciudades y contextos: cómo cubrir la demanda insatisfecha de vivienda que lleva a millones de trabajadores en Beijing a habitar en viviendas subterráneas; cómo financiar la infraestructura para gestionar la presión de la población en Río de Janeiro y otras ciudades de Brasil; o cómo darle nuevos usos al suelo ante la agonía derivada de un completo ajuste industrial, demográfico y fiscal en Detroit. Estos lugares son diferentes entre sí, pero todos enfrentarán desafíos similares a medida que evolucionen en las décadas futuras.

En el Instituto Lincoln somos profundamente conscientes de la necesidad de nuevas ideas y nuevas prácticas que faciliten el redesarrollo sustentable del suelo que ya se ha desarrollado o ya se encuentra ocupado. Durante el próximo año, comenzaremos a generar un emprendimiento intelectual para tratar los múltiples desafíos de la regeneración urbana, extrayendo lecciones de las medidas tomadas tiempo atrás en los Estados Unidos y en otros países desarrollados después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, buscando maneras nuevas y creativas de financiar la infraestructura para mejorar el suelo en asentamientos informales que ahogan a las ciudades en los países en vías de desarrollo, o reavivando la salud fiscal de ciudades tradicionales del acervo estadounidense, como Detroit, descubriendo las causas que provocaron la insolvencia y probando soluciones para remediarla.

Las iglesias medievales que visité durante la década de 1990 ofrecían lecciones en piedra: técnicas y materiales innovadores que permitían a los arquitectos medievales desafiar a la gravedad. Y tal vez lo que resulta más importante es el hecho de que eran monumentos al esfuerzo comunitario y al compromiso a largo plazo de las congregaciones que construyeron y sostuvieron estas iglesias durante siglos. Al fin y al cabo, la supervivencia humana podría depender de nuestra habilidad para superar, de forma similar, las fuerzas centrípetas que socavan la acción colectiva, y construir y mantener las estructuras sociales y los marcos normativos con el fin de desarrollar y redesarrollar nuestras ciudades para el bien mutuo y para la posteridad.

Recent court decisions have made economic development and tax policy front-page news. The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London raised a public outcry when it allowed local governments dramatic latitude in acquiring private property for economic development purposes. This case had a fiscal aspect as well, for it illustrated how financial pressures can lead local governments to seek alternatives to direct investment for economic revitalization and redevelopment.

Economic development was also the focus of a major lower court decision on state tax policy. In Cuno v. DaimlerChrysler, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Ohio’s investment tax credit, intended to attract businesses from other states, violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Hellerstein 2005). These and other, similar cases raise many questions about the connections between economic development and tax policy.

Is there a relationship between economic development and infrastructure spending?

Infrastructure, that vast network of capital-intensive services including roads, water provision, sewer services, and electrical supply, is critical to current and future economic activity. However, serious economic examination of the link between infrastructure spending and economic productivity only began in the late 1980s. Aschauer (1989, 194–197) argued that declining infrastructure spending resulted in less economic growth. More recently, Bougheas et al. (2000, 520) reported findings that “highlight the importance of infrastructure accumulation” for productivity gains.

Other researchers have pointed out that the most significant recent changes in infrastructure spending have occurred at the state and local levels, rather than the federal level. Gramlich (1994, 1178) argued that federal infrastructure spending has been fairly consistent over time, but state and local spending has decreased. Holtz-Eakin (1993) cautioned that while public expenditures on infrastructure may be important, they may not directly affect economic productivity. He argued that differing state and local needs may account for many infrastructure spending disparities, and that maintenance of existing infrastructure assets may be more important than new spending for capital acquisition. Boarnet (1997) considered efficient pricing for infrastructure use as important as its actual provision.

Nevertheless, the American Society for Civil Engineers (ASCE) is sufficiently concerned about the condition of infrastructure in the U.S. to assign it a grade of “D.” ASCE (2005) argues that the country needs to spend about $1.6 trillion over the next five years to improve the situation.

What is the relationship between infrastructure spending and local tax systems?

The mechanisms for funding infrastructure and its role in state and local spending are complex. Research in this area deals with such topics as fiscal illusion (i.e., when the complexity of the revenue system obscures the true cost of public goods and services) and specific capital financing strategies used to fund infrastructure. However, there has been little research on the impact of local tax structures on infrastructure spending.

Economists have long argued that the value of publicly provided goods and services, such as infrastructure and its maintenance, are reflected in the value of the property served by those goods. Accordingly, a tax that captures the value of these public goods and services may be an important revenue source for funding them. However, in the last 30 years, local governments have moved away from such a tax, the property tax, to other sources of revenue. In many communities, this shift has produced an increased reliance on state aid, local sales tax revenues, and user fees.

In analyzing infrastructure spending in Utah, it is clear that the local revenue structure affects per capita operating and maintenance spending and new capital acquisition expenditures. Preliminary analysis indicates that communities are more likely to increase per capita infrastructure spending when it is financed by property taxes, all other funding sources held constant. It also appears that as per capita sales tax revenue increases, per capita spending for infrastructure services declines.

How constrained are local revenue systems?

One reason that local government revenue structures affect spending on infrastructure is that the states impose various constraints on local revenue sources. Although the past ten years have seen no dramatic changes in the roles of the property tax, intergovernmental aid, or the sales tax in overall local government revenues, the ratio of total revenues to personal income has fallen about 7.5 percent. This real decline highlights the increasing pressure on local governments to identify new revenue sources.

Yet, local governments face serious constraints when they seek to change their revenue systems. States impose intergovernmental restrictions, such as limits on sales tax rates that localities can impose. Less tangible but equally important is political opposition to tax increases. The third factor is the set of tax and expenditure limitations that many states have enacted, ranging from Proposition 13 in California in 1978 to the more recent taxpayer bill of rights enacted in Colorado, which drastically limited increases in government spending.

These constraints have forced local governments to become more innovative in their revenue-raising methods. An entire cottage industry of financial advisors, bond attorneys, and other public and private sector innovators has emerged to help local governments find ways of loosening or circumventing these limitations. Some strategies may have increased economic efficiency, although they give rise to equity concerns (for example, the movement toward the increased use of fees and charges); others are nearly invisible to the taxpayer. In nearly all cases, local governments have been seeking to use land as a revenue-generating device—a trend that shows no sign of abating.

What are alternative ways to finance capital infrastructure?

Two types of debt traditionally have financed infrastructure projects: general obligation (GO) bonds, backed by the full faith and credit of the issuing locality; and revenue bonds, backed by income from the capital project. Both types of debt have significant restrictions on their use, such as voter approval requirements and caps on maximum indebtedness. These debt limitations, the difficulty in raising property taxes, and the fear of political opposition have increased the use of alternative capital finance methods based on land use.

One longstanding method, tax increment financing (TIF), utilizes the increases in property value to help finance redevelopment projects. Originally designed as a financial instrument to eliminate blight and provide affordable housing, this instrument has become increasingly popular in many states for a variety of projects. Forty-seven states and the District of Columbia now allow this technique.

Capturing the property tax increment attributable to government-sponsored redevelopment in order to service this debt makes economic sense if the new development would not have occurred without the formation of the tax district. Moreover, this debt does not have to be approved by voters, but rather by a group designated by the city government. Not even these two factors explain the extraordinary recent growth in the number and size of TIF districts, however, raising suspicion that this tool may be used more often to attract and subsidize economic growth than to eliminate blight. For example, in 2003–2004, California had 33 TIF redevelopment projects, each of which covered more than 6,000 acres, a surprisingly large area to be declared “blighted” in any one jurisdiction (see Figure 1).

Another popular tool in several states is the community facilities district (CFD), which usually funds new development. Landowners within a region form a CFD to issue debt to finance the infrastructure needed to develop raw land. District members’ votes are typically a function of the amount of property each landowner holds. The local government must approve CFDs, although they are not a formal part of the government and their debt issuance is not subject to approval by the general public.

A lien for CFD assessments is placed on each lot in the district, and the CFD tax liability appears on the property tax bill of each district member as a separate line item. Variations of this technique may utilize sales taxes, impact fees, and user charges. Many rapidly growing local governments encourage the formation of these districts to help finance their community’s growth. Nevertheless, CFDs can be very complex, and may fail if anticipated growth does not occur (see Figure 2).

TIFs, CFDs, and other such techniques present an ethical dilemma to local government. Sometimes they are not fully understood by the political decision makers who authorize their use, let alone by members of the general public who will bear the burden of paying this debt in the future. Yet they remain a popular tool to finance crucial infrastructure that is basic to improving the economic well-being of the community.

Could a land tax help finance infrastructure for economic development?

The land component of property value is another potential source of revenue to encourage economic development. Since the supply of land is fixed in the short run, an increase in a land tax will not affect the tax base. However, it will encourage more intensive use of the land and may slow urban sprawl. Unfortunately, the lack of empirical data makes it difficult to determine if this theory is accurate. One example in the U.S. is the City of Pittsburgh, which in 1979–1980 restructured the tax on land to be five times that on improvements. Building activity showed a dramatic increase, although other factors may have contributed to the change as well (Oates and Schwab 1997). Pittsburgh later returned to a single-rate property tax system.

Increased use of a land tax poses significant problems. In particular, accurately assessing land can be challenging, although statistical and econometric techniques may help address this in the future. A second concern is that more intensive use of land value taxation will lead to denser development, exacerbating many of the problems associated with congestion. These effects must be weighed against the positive benefits of reducing long-distance commuting. A third problem concerns equity. Owners whose property has a high land/improvement ratio will face an increased tax liability. This shift might be mitigated by adjustments in the tax rate, special exemptions or targeted tax credits.

A land tax has the important advantages of transparency and accountability. In particular, if land value increases because of government activities, there is strong justification for recovering at least some of those costs through a tax on the land component. We would even propose a name for this additional tax—a positive externality tax (PET). We recognize that, like any proposed increase in the property tax, such a shift would be politically controversial.

Conclusions

Our current research analyzes relationships among economic development, infrastructure, and the tax system. The fiscal problems of local jurisdictions are made more complex by the use of intricate methods of infrastructure financing, such as TIFs and CFDs, to fund economic development. The use of financing mechanisms based on a land tax may be one part of a potential response to this challenge.

Jeffrey Chapman is professor and director of the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University in Tempe. He specializes in state and local finance and administration of financial resources, and has recently published in the area of local land use responses to fiscal stress.

Rex L. Facer II is assistant professor of public management at the Romney Institute of Public Management of the Marriott School of Management at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. He specializes in city management, public finance, public management strategy, and public policy analysis.

Infrastructure (comprising energy, telecommunications, transportation, water supply, and sanitation) plays an important role in urban land development, and it influences city and country productivity. Data on the amount of infrastructure stocks at the national (but, alas, not the metropolitan) level are available for many developing and high-income countries and support several results summarized here.

The amount of infrastructure stocks per capita across countries is strongly related to per capita income levels—when country incomes double, infrastructure stocks nearly double as well. However, country infrastructure stocks have essentially no association with a country’s level of urbanization once country income is taken into account. This seems surprising because cities have large amounts of infrastructure. But they also have dense populations that use the infrastructure intensively, so per capita urban infrastructure stocks are similar to national levels.

The composition of infrastructure stocks also varies systematically with per capita income. Roads have the largest share of infrastructure stocks in the lowest income countries, with water systems second and electric power systems a close third. As country incomes increase, the infrastructure related to electric power systems increases more rapidly than income levels. Infrastructure for water and sewer systems increases less rapidly, and for roads the change is in proportion to income. As a result, in high-income countries electric power systems are the largest component of infrastructure, followed by roads, whereas water, sanitation, and telephone systems comprise only a modest share of their infrastructure.

Based on recent rates of economic growth, and using the existing relations between infrastructure and per capita income, developing countries are likely to need to spend about 5 percent of their GDP on infrastructure (3 percent for expansion and 2 percent for maintenance)—currently about $750 billion annually—to maintain existing ratios between infrastructure and GDP. For high-income countries, total spending would be lower, at 1.7 percent of GDP (about evenly divided between investment and maintenance)—currently about $700 billion annually. Countries growing faster than average need to invest a higher share of their GDP so that infrastructure stocks can keep up with economic growth.

In some countries, improving the efficiency of service production from existing infrastructure is an alternative to new investment. For example, average electricity losses across countries range as high as 25 percent, and leakage and unbilled water can exceed 30 percent. Reducing such high losses can forestall the need for additional capacity. Somewhat surprisingly, performance within countries across sectors varies greatly—efficient performance by a country in one infrastructure sector is uncorrelated with performance in other sectors.

What sources will provide these investment funds, particularly for developing countries? Foreign assistance and development bank financing of infrastructure in developing countries currently total about $40 billion annually, and that figure has more than tripled since 1990 in current dollars. Private investment in infrastructure in developing countries has recently reached $160 billion annually and has grown eight-fold since 1990, also in current dollars. Foreign assistance is directed mainly at energy, transport, and water and sanitation systems, with virtually no funding for telecommunications. In contrast, more than half of private funding goes to telecommunications (particularly mobile telephony), followed by energy. Telecommunications and energy draw more private investment in developing countries because their tariff revenues cover a large share of operating costs, whereas tariff revenues and user fees cover a much smaller share of costs for transport and water and sanitation. Private investment in infrastructure was concentrated in Latin America and East Asia in the 1990s but has spread more evenly across global regions in the 2000s.

Despite the growth in international funding, large and growing metropolitan areas in developing countries still need to raise significant sums to finance infrastructure investments. This will involve raising tariffs charged to users, increasing taxes (particularly property taxes) on properties whose value is enhanced by infrastructure investments, and establishing municipal bond markets such as the one being developed in South Africa.

When I was a scholar at Cambridge University in the 1990s, my now-departed colleague and friend Wynne Godley would drop by on Sundays to take me to visit one of the ubiquitous medieval churches in the villages of East Anglia. Wynne frequently noted that “a church is more a process than a building. It unfolds over centuries and involves generations of families in its construction and maintenance.” He had a keen eye for architectural detail and would point out a buttress or belfry that illustrated distinct technical practices, unusual materials, or both. A single church offered a living, layered record of how successive generations of a community solved the challenge of making and keeping large, enclosed, open spaces for worship feasible and beautiful.

In this way, cities are much like medieval churches. Over time, they illustrate the collaboration of generations of residents, as well as the evolution of economic, technical, and even social tools used to build and maintain them. Rome’s marble relics stand testament to ancient values, aesthetics, and building ingenuity, while a modern city thrives around them. Manhattan’s iconic skyline, seemingly fixed, is ever in flux, and is now evolving dramatically to respond to 21st-century demands for sustainability, resilience, mixed-use development, and other concerns.

The boundaries of cities evolve, too, and tell another critically important story. The future of the planet may depend on our capacity to understand that story and to develop the tools and collective will to manage the pattern and progression of urban growth. Shlomo (Solly) Angel documents this trajectory in the Atlas of Urban Expansion (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2012), which uses satellite images collected over decades to track the spatial evolution of 120 cities around the world, from Bamako and Guadalajara to Shanghai and Milan. The last half-century of urban growth has provided a cautionary tale about the seduction of sprawl—a path of least resistance that generates quick profits but unsustainable development. Our ability to manage our ecological footprint and minimize our global impact will be tied inextricably to our ability to plan and construct more dense and efficient human settlements. Given the United Nations’ prediction that the global urban population will nearly double to 6 billion by 2050, the fortunes of the planet will depend on whether we, as a species, adopt a more appropriate development paradigm over this half-century.

As we endeavor to reinvent our urban settlements, we will confront an old foe—land that is already improved and developed, but needs to be adapted to new uses. While we are not unfamiliar with this highly contentious process, it is safe to say that we have not yet cracked the code on how to manage it. This issue of Land Lines considers some of the driving needs that will require creative approaches to redevelopment in different cities and contexts: satisfying the unmet demand for housing that leads millions of workers in Beijing to subterranean habitationfinancing infrastructure to manage population pressure in Rio and other Brazilian citiesrepurposing land in the throes of a complete industrial, demographic, and fiscal overhaul in Detroit. These places are quite distinct, but all will face similar challenges as they evolve in the coming decades.

At the Lincoln Institute, we are keenly aware of the need for new ideas and new practices to facilitate sustainable redevelopment of land that is already developed or occupied. Over the next year, we will begin to build an intellectual enterprise around addressing the manifold challenges of urban regeneration—extracting the lessons learned from earlier efforts in the United States and other developed countries since World War II, finding new and creative ways to finance infrastructure that improves the land under the informal settlements that choke cities in developing countries, or rekindling the fiscal health of legacy cities like Detroit by unpacking the causes of insolvency and testing remedies for it.

The medieval churches that I visited during the 1990s offered lessons in stone. These included innovative techniques and materials that permitted medieval architects to defy gravity. Perhaps more importantly, they were monuments to the communal efforts and long-term commitment of the congregations that built and sustained them over centuries. In the end, human survival might hinge on our ability to override similarly the centripetal forces that undermine collective action, and to build and maintain the social structures and policy frameworks to develop and redevelop our cities for mutual and long-term posterity.

The sound of electricity hums deep inside the Tate Modern, the power plant turned art sanctuary on the south bank of London’s River Thames. Despite the 4 million visitors per year now streaming inside since the galleries opened in 2000, the switching plant is still generating 2 megawatts of power for its neighborhood, making the Tate one of the most unusual mixed-use urban redevelopments ever concocted.

But an even more far-reaching hum is reverberating all around the Tate—that of regeneration. Connected to central London by the arching spine of Lord Norman Foster’s Millennium Bridge and further magnetized by the whirling mega-folly of the London Eye Ferris wheel nearby, the Tate has catalyzed well over $200 million worth of other redevelopments to the area. Yet, even as it joins other high-end arts institutions in the “Bilbao effect” of high art sparking higher-end gentrification, the Tate is working hard to nurture an economically and ethnically diverse live/work/play urban neighborhood.

“We’ve had impacts,” says Donald Hyslop, head of education for the Tate and coordinator of its community initiatives. “We attract 4 million visitors a year, and 12 million now move between the Tate and the London Eye. The question for us became, ‘How do we spread that wealth?’”

Such models of urban regeneration lured the 2006 Loeb Fellows from Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design to London for their annual study trip abroad, cosponsored by the Lincoln Institute. Aided by Jody Tableporter’s connections as the former director of regeneration for London Mayor Ken Livingston, the group gained a first-hand look at the leaps, stumbles, and lessons to be learned from one of the world’s most rapidly redeveloping cities.

“London has proven the relationship between transportation planning and economic growth,” observed Luis Siqueiros, a planner who has worked in Juarez/El Paso, Guadalajara, and other Mexican cities. “They are mixing all kinds of activities together in their buildings. In North America, we talk about these things a lot, but they are showing us how to do it and why.”

The Beginnings of London’s Regeneration

The story of London’s regeneration is long and complicated. It begins in the Thatcher years with a bold refocusing of government aid to cities that created urban redevelopment agencies and enterprise zones to assemble land and better focus new development and transportation infrastructure projects. The most conspicuous early success was Canary Wharf, the sleek, steel-and-glass commercial new town that became the first major project in the Royal Docklands, and in the Thatcher government’s vision for a larger, regional corridor of redevelopment, dubbed the Thames Gateway, stretching all the way to the North Sea.

Despite the misfortunes of Canary Wharf’s original developer, Olympia & York, the larger Docklands redevelopment agency and enterprise zone resulted in the Jubilee Line tube extension and the first phase of the Docklands light rail line. Today, with more than 100,000 workers, Canary Wharf is competing with downtown London to be the center of the financial services sector, decidedly shifting the momentum of the city’s growth to the east.

While Margaret Thatcher’s free-market programs—particularly the release of huge tracts of government-owned land for redevelopment—broke a long freeze on urban redevelopment, subsequent Labor Party policies have guided recent successes. In the 1980s, forecasts of 4 million new households by 2020 led John Major’s government to create the Urban Task Force overseen by architect Richard Rogers. The resulting 2000 Urban White Paper made urban renaissance official national policy.

The reverberations have been widespread, stretching from Leeds to Norwich, but the epicenter is London. Projects like Canary Wharf and the Tate established momentum that gained further steam with the city’s election of its first mayor, Ken Livingston, to set policy for the metropolitan region’s 24 boroughs. Livingston has unleashed a panoply of internationally attention-getting initiatives, from the much-lauded “congestion pricing” of automobiles traveling into the core to a series of bold, new buildings and public spaces by top-rung architects like Rogers and Norman Foster. Now, with the Olympics scheduled for 2012, London has succeeded Barcelona as the “It girl” of European cities, while luring other English cities onto the dance floor.

“Having an architect like Richard Rogers involved in the destiny of cities was a major force,” Tableporter says. “His work with the Urban White Paper spawned a whole batch of English cities that all of a sudden are attuned to design standards and urban principles via master planning.”

But for all the excitement and the dozens of major projects underway, the Loeb Fellows agreed that London’s growth will live or die in the details. As Jair Lynch, a developer from Washington, DC, put it, “The question is, can they give these new places soul.”

Guiding Land Use Principles

While far more modest than some of the huge redevelopments that have been and are being completed, the Tate Modern offered the kind of careful instrumentality that attracted the Loeb Fellows, by both seeding major new development in the long-dormant south bank and spreading the benefits to the existing community.

Under Hyslop’s guidance, the Tate joined a national pilot program to create one of England’s first Business Improvement Districts (BIDs). This initiative developed an employment training program called START, helping to bring more than 40 percent of the museum’s employees from the nearby, and historically downtrodden, South London districts. It started a new community group now boasting 450 members who wanted more open space, meeting places, and a movie theater. Their efforts moved the Tate to open up rooms for public use, develop a community garden, and host a new neighborhood film club.

“The Tate is trying to create a dual function for an arts institution,” noted Lisa Richmond. A long-time arts administrator and activist who has worked on community development projects for the Atlanta Olympics and the Seattle Arts Commission, Richmond says most major U.S. cultural institutions focus solely on audience development. “On the one hand, the Tate has a major global impact, representing the U.K. to the world, but it is also taking responsibility for its immediate community,” she observed. “I don’t know of any U.S. arts institution trying anything like it.”

By combining a major attraction, top-notch architecture, public space, and transportation infrastructure, the Tate became an early standard setter. But, it is rapidly gaining many potential equals, from the centrally located King’s Cross, where a new Channel Tunnel station designed by Norman Foster is triggering a 50-acre redevelopment with 1,800 new homes plus retail and commercial uses, to the outlying Wembly Stadium, the building and master plan designed by Rogers, including a plaza and grand boulevard lined with shops, bars, and restaurants, as well as 4,200 homes.

The primacy of the pedestrian is another common denominator. With Michael Jones, a director at Foster and Partners, the Loeb Fellows toured the newly renovated British Museum. There, the breathtaking glass roof—gently domed in a Fibonacci sequence of diamond-patterned steel structure—covering the 2½-acre Queen Elizabeth II courtyard has garnered all the headlines. But the restoration of the museum’s forecourt—ripped out in the 1960s for a road—has transformed the area into a new magnet for lunching, lounging, and strolling tourists and locals alike.

Nearby, Jones pointed out the similarly transformed Trafalgar Square. This traffic-choked cameo player has set the scene of “busy London” in so many movies. But it is now costarring in Livingston’s remake of the city through a “World Squares for All” campaign that will link Trafalgar with Westminster Abbey and Parliament Square as a major pedestrian corridor.

“For too long London’s public realm has been neglected and ignored,” Livingston said in a 2005 speech, as he unveiled plans to build 100 new public spaces for the Olympics. “Now we have an opportunity to get things right by rebalancing the spaces of the city for people and cars. I believe that the street is the lifeblood of city life.”

The Loeb Fellows also saw some of the method behind Livingston’s Midas touch in the work of Space Syntax, a dynamic new studio pioneering techniques of measuring and shaping traffic—both on wheels and on foot. Growing out of research at University College London by Professor Bill Hillier in the 1970s, and now a four-year-old company with offices in Sydney, Tokyo, Brussels, and South Africa, Space Syntax has developed new software to algorithmically model impacts on congestion and movement. It is based on a simple principle: people’s urge to take the shortest route.

In early studies of the potential impact of the Millennium Bridge, for instance, the city’s planners guessed it would be crossed by 2 million pedestrians annually. Space Syntax’s formulas predicted at least 4.4 million, but already more than 9 million are crossing the bridge each year. Jones added that similar studies eased planners’ minds about the benefits and impacts of removing streets at the British Museum and Tralfalgar Square.

“Space Syntax is using the traffic engineer’s language for the urban designer’s goals,” noted Etty Padmodipoetro, a Boston urban designer who designed several key open spaces for the Big Dig highway project. “In the United States, we could learn a lot from how they have harvested academic research for use in the profession.”

Challenges to Redevelopment Goals

Such innovations, however, only mitigate some of the risks in London’s bold experiments in regeneration. So far, London’s greatest successes have been catalytic projects within the existing city fabric that humanize the public realm while generating new developments that attract new residents and jobs. On the horizon are dozens of larger-scale projects that will determine whether London’s mastery of regeneration is a moment or an era. Some are widely considered to be mirages, like the Battersea Power Station, where an all-star cast of designers—Cecil Balmond, Nicholas Grimshaw, Ron Arad, and Kathryn Gustafson among them—has teamed up for a Tate-like power station to arts remodel as part of a proposed $1.5 billion transformation of 40 acres into hotels, offices, retail spaces, and flats. But other projects, like the soon-to-break-ground Silvertown Quays, teeter precariously in the gusts of London’s transformation.

Land Ownership

As the Loeb Fellows learned from Timothy Brittain-Catlin, a historian and lecturer at the Architectural Association, enormous swaths of London’s land base are owned by a small number of families who first gained control when King Henry VIII abolished church land ownership, handing the land over to his cronies whose descendants, like the Duke of Marlborough, still control it. In short, most of central London’s land is leased rather than sold. Most of these areas are also protected under the city’s strict historic preservation policies. With Livingston’s hopes of building 120,000 new units of housing in the next 10 years, the success of projects like Silvertown Quays—outside the core, on government-owned land less bound by historic codes and neighborhood NIMBYs—is essential.

Partnering with the Government

But “developing in London is not for the faint-hearted,” even in partnership with the government, according to James Alexander of KUD International, the company codeveloping Silvertown Quays. Borrowing a page from its successful playbook in the United States, in which it has partnered with local governments to build aquariums and stadiums, KUD is working with the Docklands Redevelopment Agency to transform the now largely empty 60-acre Quays site. At the center will be the Terry Farrell-designed Biota!, Europe’s largest aquarium, along with 5,000 units of housing, 420,000 square meters of commercial space, and 73,000 square meters of retail and leisure facilities.

Mixed-use development is new to KUD, better known as a horizontal developer that leverages land values with large-scale infrastructure. But KUD’s techniques are new to London: sharing equity with the redevelopment agency and offering a guaranteed delivery price for infrastructure and the aquarium. Even in partnership with the agency, according to Alexander, getting to a final deal has taken four years—tracing deeds, completing archeological surveys, dealing with watchdog groups, and hopping other regulatory hurdles, not to mention negotiating against Livingston’s demand for 50-percent social housing (talked down to 30 percent).

KUD’s Alexander was candid about the firm’s worries. It will be betting $250 million up front on reclaiming the land and building the aquarium with no profit projected for seven years. The affordable housing goals remain aggressive, particularly with no guarantee that government grants, estimated at $20,000 per unit in the development agreement, will come through. Project delivery also will converge with the Olympics, which is guaranteed to trigger construction inflation and capacity issues. And, with many developers following the current boom and the government’s housing goals, Alexander adds, “an equal challenge will be to maintain value over time as the market inevitably drops off.”

Volatile Housing Markets

Indeed, with more than 90 percent of new housing permits in London’s pipeline designated for flats, a recent study, “New London,” by Knight Frank estate agency predicted a softening market for flats, signs of which are already appearing. More critical, the study suggested, is an already failing market for flats in other, less robust English housing markets that have followed the London model.

Citing a range of studies showing the dramatic tilt nationwide to brownfield/flat development over greenfield/single-family houses, historian Peter Hall also expressed concern in a recent paper presented at a Lincoln Institute conference that government and private developers are failing to meet a critical market for workforce housing, particularly single-family houses for young families. Several Loeb Fellows worried about the continued focus on large-scale, Bilbao-style attractors like Biota!. “The Tate’s BID model seemed potentially ground-breaking,” Lisa Richmond reflected, “while the aquarium (at Silvertown Quays) felt like a disaster in the making.”

Ambitious Plans for Olympic Village

On the 23rd floor of Barclay’s building overlooking the sleek Canary Wharf development and the future Olympic Village beyond, Tim Daniels of the London Olympic Delivery Authority offered the Loeb Fellows an overview of what will be London’s most ambitious attempt at regeneration. The Olympic Village dates to the Thatcher government’s launch of the Thames Gateway corridor, but it is finally sprouting under Livingston’s mix of go-go capitalism with a larger social agenda.

Livingston cannily separated the usual single Olympic authority into two separate agencies—one for building facilities, the other for marketing. Consequently, London is keeping one eye on the long game of what Daniels calls the “regeneration dividend.” In the short term, a new velodrome, stadium, tennis center, and the much-anticipated aquatics center by architect Zaha Hadid, along with a major new Euroline transit hub ushering in visitors from all over Europe, will anchor what will be the first village to fully integrate athletes’ housing with sports facilities. The goal, Daniels says, is to have more than 50 percent of the participants within walking distance. But long after the Olympic Games close, those facilities will anchor a mixed-use neighborhood in which the bedrooms originally built for 23,000 athletes and support staff will become 4,300 units of family housing.

Numerous speed bumps lie ahead, however, ranging from the tough deals still being negotiated for land assembly with owners looking to cash in, to finding new homes for “travelers”—gypsies who under British law have the right to squat on unused land. More than 6 kilometers of rivers and canals need to be dredged and remodeled, and 40 bridges either refurbished or built anew. Since the village site is cut off from any existing neighborhood by a major freeway and rail line, at least two major 50-meter “land bridges” are being proposed to make the awkward link to nearby Stratford.

But challenges aside, “it’s a great way to look at the Olympics,” noted Jair Lynch, a developer and former Olympic medalist who now sits on the U.S. Olympic Committee. “The whole thing can be taken over by the marketing people, but by splitting the authority, they can keep a strong focus beyond the event.” He and other Loeb Fellows concluded that the key for the village, along with all of London’s increasingly larger, bolder efforts at regeneration, will be keeping—and, in many cases, creating—a sense of local connection. As Lynch put it, “How do you create a real sense of neighborhood at those scales?”

Closing Observations

At the end of our study tour, most Loeb Fellows felt that Donald Hyslop of the Tate Modern offered the clearest, most hopeful, and most far-reaching aspirations for London’s bold, new brand of large-scale urban neighborhood building. With architects Herzog & de Meuron adding on to their celebrated first phase with an eye-catching, high-rise annex, the Tate will move out the electrical switching station and reclaim the huge, decommissioned fuel tanks beneath the building for a new 400-seat theater, more restaurants and shops, and more spaces for flexible programming.

Hyslop says the goal will be to develop a “life-long learning center” spawning a “16-hour-a-day” corridor along the 15-minute walk between the Tate and the rapidly regenerating Elephant & Castle neighborhood. Rather than being merely a catalyst for development, the Tate hopes to be an active agent in creating a neighborhood—a transformer, if you will, rechanneling financial and social wealth throughout the community.

Randy Gragg is the architecture and urban design critic for The Oregonian in Portland.

Loeb Fellows, 2005–2006

Teresa Brice-Hearnes, Program Director, LISC Phoenix (Local Initiatives Support Corporation), Phoenix, Arizona

Barbara Deutsch, Urban Greening and Green Roof Consultant, Washington, DC

Randy Gragg, Architecture and Urban Design Critic, The Oregonian, Portland, Oregon

Jair Lynch, CEO, Jair Lynch Companies, Washington, DC

Etty Padmodipoetro, Urban Design and Transportation Planning Consultant, Boston, Massachusetts

John Peterson, Architect, Peterson Architects, San Francisco, California

Lisa Richmond, Community Cultural Planning Consultant, Seattle, Washington

Luis Siqueiros, International Planning Consultant, Mexico City, Mexico

Kennedy Smith, Principal, The Community Land Use and Economics Group, LLC, Arlington, Virginia

Jody Tableporter, Chief Executive, Peterborough Urban Regeneration Company, Peterborough, United Kingdom

David Vetter (Ph.D., Universidad de California) ha trabajado por más de cuatro décadas en temas de financiamiento y economía urbana en América Latina. He ejercido la docencia y dirigido investigaciones urbanas en Brasil durante 17 años en el Instituto Brasileño de Geografía y Estadísticas (IBGE), el Programa de Ingeniería para Graduados (COPPE), el Instituto de Planificación y Estudios Urbanos y Regionales (IPPUR) y la Fundación Getúlio Vargas. En 1990 se incorporó al Banco Mundial, donde desarrolló programas de inversión y reformas subnacionales para Argentina, Brasil, Chile y Ecuador. A fin de fomentar una mayor participación del sector privado en el financiamiento urbano, ingresó en Dexia Credit Local en 1998 en calidad de vicepresidente, y estableció programas de préstamo en Argentina, Brasil y México. Desde su regreso a Brasil en 2004, ha trabajado como consultor e investigador para varios clientes, como el Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo y el Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, donde ha sido visiting fellow desde julio de 2014. Ha escrito recientemente dos artículos para Land Lines: “Residential Wealth Distribution in Rio de Janeiro” (Distribución de la riqueza residencial en Rio de Janeiro, enero de 2014) y “Land-Based Financing for Brazil’s Municipalities” (Financiamiento basado en el suelo para los municipios brasileños, octubre de 2011).

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

David Vetter: Por muchos años, ya sea en mis trabajos de investigación y consultoría, o en el Banco Mundial o el sector privado, encontré con frecuencia información sólida del Instituto Lincoln que me ayudó. Más recientemente, el Instituto financió mis investigaciones sobre riqueza residencial y finanzas municipales en Brasil.

Land Lines: ¿Qué investigará como visting fellow y por qué?

David Vetter: Me concentraré en estrategias de financiamiento de infraestructura urbana en Brasil. Como otros países latinoamericanos, Brasil necesita realizar inversiones sustanciales en forma continua para poder mantenerse al día con el rápido crecimiento de nuevos hogares y reducir la cantidad de hogares que no tienen acceso a infraestructura urbana. Entre 2000 y 2010, la cantidad de hogares en Brasil creció en más de 12 millones, o sea, casi 7 veces más que los 1,8 millones de hogares del área metropolitana de Boston-Cambridge en 2010. Dada esta presión demográfica, la cantidad absoluta de hogares de Brasil sin acceso a infraestructura urbana siguió siendo alta en 2010, a pesar de las considerables inversiones efectuadas en la década anterior. Y los déficits de algunos tipos de infraestructura en realidad han aumentado. Entre 2000 y 2010, por ejemplo, la cantidad de hogares urbanos en Brasil sin un sistema adecuado de alcantarillado creció aproximadamente en 2 millones, que es más que la cantidad total de unidades de vivienda en el área metropolitana de Boston en 2010.

El Ministerio de las Ciudades de Brasil estimó que los sistemas de sanidad básicos (agua potable, aguas residuales, residuos sólidos, y alcantarillado) costarían más de US$80.000 millones sólo entre 2014 y 2018. Las carreteras, pavimentación de calles, seguridad pública, salud y educación demandan inversiones de similar magnitud, y estos montos frecuentemente exceden con mucho las fuentes de financiamiento existentes.

Land Lines: ¿Cómo se podría recuperar las plusvalías de estas inversiones en infraestructura para poder financiarlas?

David Vetter: Los beneficios de las inversiones en infraestructura se capitalizan en los precios del suelo y los edificios. Los foros del Instituto Lincoln sobre instrumentos notables de intervención urbana de 2013 demostraron que muchos gobiernos de América Latina están utilizando eficazmente una amplia variedad de herramientas de recuperación de las plusvalías creadas por sus inversiones de infraestructura, como puede comprobarse en el minucioso repaso de la bibliografía realizado por Martim O. Smolka (2013): venta de derechos de desarrollo; contribución por mejoras para pavimentación de calles, alcantarillado y otras mejoras; y alianzas público-privadas (APP) de recuperación de plusvalías, como en el caso de la estructuración financiera de la renovación masiva del puerto de Rio (Porto Maravilha). También sería útil contar con una cobranza más efectiva del impuesto sobre la propiedad y de los impuestos de transmisión de propiedades.

La recuperación de plusvalías puede generar una realimentación positiva, creando un círculo virtuoso que genera recursos adicionales para más inversiones. Por ejemplo, el aumento del valor generado por las inversiones aumentaría la base gravable del impuesto sobre la propiedad, suponiendo que las valuaciones se mantengan actualizadas, y los ingresos resultantes se podrían usar para financiar otras obras.

Land Lines: ¿Hasta qué punto podrían las municipalidades de Brasil aumentar la recuperación de plusvalías?

David Vetter: Según la teoría económica, el valor generado por las inversiones de infraestructura debería ser aproximadamente igual a su costo. Como la oferta de infraestructura parecería ser poco elástica, debido a las restricciones de financiamiento público, el valor de mercado generado podría exceder en realidad el costo de las inversiones.

Por ejemplo, las municipalidades de Brasil invirtieron más de US$82.000 millones en infraestructura y equipos entre 2006 y 2010 (alrededor de US$16.000 millones por año). Pero solamente en 2010, el gobierno nacional y los gobiernos estatales invirtieron también más de US$50.000 millones. La recuperación de aunque sea un pequeño porcentaje de las plusvalías creadas podría proporcionar recursos de inversión significativos. Por ejemplo, la Región Metropolitana de Rio de Janeiro está recibiendo inversiones de infraestructura masivas del gobierno nacional, estatal y municipal, y también de socios privados, para varios proyectos como el cinturón vial Arco Metropolitano y una nueva línea de metro. Algunas son concesiones o APP que reciben un financiamiento significativo a tasas de interés inferiores a las del mercado por parte de los bancos de desarrollo públicos (BNDES y CAIXA).

Land Lines: ¿Qué papel debería cumplir la recuperación de plusvalías en la política de viviendas?

David Vetter: La inversión en infraestructura crea riqueza residencial, ya que su valor se capitaliza en la venta de viviendas. Las estructuras residenciales representan alrededor de un tercio del capital fijo neto de Brasil en las cuentas de riqueza nacional, como es habitual en otros países del mundo. Dada su importancia, nos preguntamos en nuestro trabajo sobre la Región Metropolitana de Rio de Janeiro: ¿Qué genera la riqueza residencial? ¿Cuánta riqueza residencial existe? ¿Quién la tiene? Descubrimos que hay ganadores y perdedores. Por ejemplo, el aumento en el valor generado por la inversión en infraestructura incrementa la riqueza residencial de los propietarios de vivienda, pero también aumenta los precios para los inquilinos en el área beneficiada y los costos de vivienda para personas que se quieren reubicar en esa zona.

Land Lines: ¿Una política de vivienda enfocada a la generación de riqueza residencial y la equidad de su distribución sería muy distinta de la mayoría de los programas de viviendas de bajos ingresos?

David Vetter: Sería bastante distinta. La mayoría de los programas de viviendas de bajos ingresos reduce sus costos construyendo en suelo de bajo valor. El precio del suelo es bajo cuando no tiene acceso a empleo y servicios urbanos básicos, así que las unidades de vivienda social frecuentemente están en estas áreas carentes de servicios. Una política de vivienda enfocada en la riqueza residencial enfatizaría el acceso a empleo y servicios básicos, que son los determinantes clave del valor de una vivienda.

Land Lines: ¿Pero no es esto una utopía? ¿Cómo podríamos recuperar las plusvalías para ayudar a aumentar la riqueza residencial de familias de bajos ingresos?

David Vetter: Sin duda el desafío es grande. Pero la recuperación de plusvalías de familias de mayores ingresos podría subsidiar a las de ingresos menores, sobre todo a los inquilinos que se quieran reubicar en zonas que se benefician de inversiones en infraestructura.

Le voy a dar un ejemplo. La cantidad de hogares en la Región Metropolitana de Rio de Janeiro aumentó en más de 600.000 entre 2000 y 2010 (esto es el doble de la cantidad de hogares en Washington, DC en 2010). Como consecuencia, los déficits de infraestructura urbana de la región siguen siendo altos a pesar de la gran cantidad de inversiones realizadas. Un reciente estudio de impacto del nuevo cinturón vial de Rio de Janeiro (Pontual et al., 2011) exploró la posibilidad de desarrollar nuevos vecindarios completos, socialmente integrados y con todos los servicios de infraestructura, para albergar a la enorme cantidad de hogares que se esperan a lo largo del cinturón. Este desarrollo podría financiarse en parte con la recuperación de las plusvalías generadas por las inversiones masivas en infraestructura planificadas y en proceso de implementación. Parte de las plusvalías recuperadas de familias de mayores ingresos se podría usar para financiar a las familias de menores ingresos.

El estudio de impacto analizó cuál sería la mejor ubicación para estos vecindarios. ¿Qué instrumentos de recuperación de plusvalías funcionarían mejor en este caso? Es interesante señalar que el sector privado ya está desarrollando lo que se describen como “barrios verdes” en las regiones aledañas al Río metropolitano. ¿Tiene sentido planificar proyectos de vivienda individuales cuando se va a producir un aumento tan grande en la cantidad de hogares?

Land Lines: ¿Las familias de bajos ingresos estarían en condiciones de pagar por la infraestructura?

David Vetter: En América Latina, los criterios de elegibilidad de programas de recuperación de plusvalías casi siempre incluyen una prueba de capacidad de pago. Por supuesto, la recuperación de plusvalías sólo se debería aplicar a familias que estén en condiciones de pagarla.

Land Lines: ¿Cómo respondería a los profesionales de Brasil dedicados a temas urbanos que argumentan que es imposible recuperar las plusvalías por razones legales o culturales?

David Vetter: Si bien la constitución de Brasil concede amplios poderes para recuperar plusvalías, sólo las municipalidades más grandes, como São Paulo y Rio de Janeiro, parecen usarlos. Otros gobiernos subnacionales y nacionales dedican mucho menos esfuerzo para recuperar las plusvalías de sus considerables inversiones públicas.

Ello probablemente se deba, en parte, a resistencia de aquellos que creen que la recuperación de plusvalía es legalmente imposible. Aun cuando la contribución por mejoras encuentra una resistencia similar, Silva y Pereira (2013) estiman que los ingresos totales por dicho concepto superaron los US$300 millones en las municipalidades de São Paulo, Paraná y Santa Catarina entre 2000 y 2010, a pesar de que relativamente pocas municipalidades utilizaron este instrumento. Esta cantidad no es muy significativa para estados de este tamaño, pero demuestra que las contribuciones por mejoras son viables.

Una de las razones por las que las contribuciones por mejoras fueron exitosas en Paraná y Santa Catarina fue que el Banco Mundial y el Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo exigieron medidas de recuperación de costos en sus proyectos de desarrollo municipal desde la década de 1980. Este éxito respalda la idea de que los incentivos de un programa nacional o estatal pueden fomentar el uso de la recuperación de plusvalías a nivel municipal.

Además, hay muchos casos de recuperación de plusvalías que pasan desapercibidos. En la ciudad de Rio de Janeiro, por ejemplo, la venta de suelo excedente del sistema de metro existente se usó parcialmente para financiar una nueva línea completa, y los desarrolladores instalan agua corriente y alcantarillado como condición para la aprobación de un proyecto en un vecindario de mayores ingresos, Barra de Tijuca.

Land Lines: ¿De qué manera podrían fomentar el uso de la recuperación de plusvalías los programas gubernamentales nacionales y estatales?

David Vetter: Una de las maneras sería proporcionar acceso a financiamiento como un incentivo para que las municipalidades hagan uso de la recuperación de plusvalías. El banco de desarrollo de Ecuador (Banco del Estado) utiliza este tipo de acceso para alentar a las municipalidades a usar las contribuciones por mejoras. El acceso a financiamiento se podría usar para implementar una gama más amplia de instrumentos de recuperación de plusvalías, como la venta de derechos de desarrollo y aranceles de impacto, además de las contribuciones por mejoras.

Land Lines: ¿Cómo puede estimular el Instituto Lincoln el financiamiento de infraestructura por medio de la recuperación de plusvalías?

David Vetter: Lincoln ha hecho un trabajo excelente para generar el conocimiento de la recuperación de plusvalías, por medio de investigaciones, foros, programas de capacitación y publicaciones. El Instituto podría ampliar su trabajo sobresaliente en recuperación de plusvalías en la región por medio de más foros y publicaciones, y asesorando en forma directa a los dirigentes políticos en lo que al diseño y ejecución de programas se refiere.

Compulsory purchase, expropriation, eminent domain, or simply “taking” are different names for the legal institution that allows governments to acquire property against the will of its owner in order to fulfill some public purpose. This tool has been used for a long time as a major instrument of land policy, but now it is subject to a number of criticisms and mounting social resistance in many parts of the world. Campaigns for housing rights, movements for the defense of property rights, and legislative and judiciary activism are among the factors changing the conditions under which governments exercise their power of eminent domain.

The current state of global urban development is unsettling and plagued with man-made and natural disasters. In many developing countries, the government does not have the fiscal and institutional capacity to build affordable housing and basic infrastructure for the growing urban population, resulting in a proliferation of informal settlements and slums. At the same time, natural disasters in some of these distressed regions have destroyed homes, roads, water and sewage systems, and other public facilities, exacerbating the already limited basic services available to the urban poor.

In response to these problems, many international aid agencies such as UN-HABITAT and the World Bank, as well as governments, scholars, and practitioners, are looking for new ideas or repackaging existing ways to rebuild cities. This article discusses a long-established land management tool that has attracted recent attention—land readjustment (LR)—and describes how selected elements of this tool are being adopted to assist post-earthquake reconstruction efforts in Chile.

The LR approach emphasizes the integration of the urban economy, city planning, law, and governance with land management to form a comprehensive urban development or upgrading strategy. It requires an interdisciplinary team of experts with different perspectives to work on a concrete land development project. Although many scholars such as Doebele (1982) and Hong and Needham (2007) have emphasized the importance of this integrated approach, some practitioners perceive it as merely a tool to facilitate land transactions. This narrow view has limited opportunities in some developing countries to resolve urban upgrading and development problems in a more comprehensive way.

The recent resurgence of interest in LR is due to the recognition of the importance of coordinating economic, legal, political, and social institutions in the design and implementation of urban (re)development plans. Practitioners are also contemplating the possibility of extending LR from management of peri-urbanization and post-disaster reconstruction to slum upgrading, for example in some rapidly urbanizing African cities. The application of this LR approach to countries where the technique has never been used is still at an experimental stage. Potential pilot projects are being designed, but have not been fully implemented, so further research is needed to test the validity of assertions about this approach.

Challenges of Urbanization

In 2010, about 50.7 percent of the world’s population (3.5 billion people) lived in urban areas (World Bank 2011). The percentage is expected to increase to 70 percent by 2050, mostly in the periphery of secondary cities in developing countries. According to UN-HABITAT (2011), one-third of the urban population in developing countries (1.2 billion people) lives in slums and, despite substandard living conditions, these populations are increasing, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Asia-Pacific region. Between 2000 and 2010, the number of slum dwellers increased by six million annually (Cities Alliance 2011).

Unfortunately, infrastructure and basic service development in most African countries have not increased at the same rate. Cities where sanitation, roads, water, and other services were already underdeveloped have limited fiscal resources and struggle with accommodating the unprecedented increase in population. Two major problems that hinder urban upgrading are holdouts in land assembly and lack of public funds to finance infrastructure—issues to which we will return.

Natural disasters also have taken a toll on urban populations. According to a United Nations estimate, earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, floods, and volcano eruptions caused economic damage totaling $109 billion in 2010, three times more than in 2009 (Reuters 2011). Cities in developing countries with poor infrastructure and fiscal health are particularly vulnerable and are facing increasing price tags for both post-disaster reconstruction and adaptation to future calamities. Again, solving the problems associated with land assembly and infrastructure financing are crucial.

Conventional solutions for dealing with land assembly problems, such as compulsory purchase (eminent domain) and market transactions, are onerous. With increasing global demands for democratic governance and the realization of human rights to adequate housing, secure tenure, and protection from forced eviction, the traditional approach of relying on coercive measures that take land from owners or occupants for urban expansion and redevelopment is encountering strong legal opposition and public protests (table 1).

Using the market to facilitate voluntary land transfers is also problematic. Holdouts by individual landowners could thwart the redevelopment project and increase compensation costs for land acquisition. In some African countries where market mechanisms are not yet fully developed, unequal access to information has led to land grabs and speculation by local elites. As a result, the urban poor were either forced out or bought out from their neighborhoods and were relocated to remote areas where access to employment, public transportation, and basic services are limited.

To make matters worse, the fiscal outlook for cities in developing countries is bleak, and the opportunities to speed up the construction or repair of housing and basic infrastructure are limited. The 2008 subprime mortgage market meltdown in the United States has had adverse repercussions for municipal finances around the world. The decline in demand for imports in industrialized nations and the tightening of liquidity in the financial markets has slowed global economic growth. As exports to developed countries decrease, income-tax and value-added-tax collections in less developed nations also drop. The reduction in tax revenues exacerbates the already tight local budgets and further undermines the ability of municipalities to repair disaster-damaged infrastructure or build new facilities to accommodate rapid population growth.

Land Readjustment as an Alternative

LR has been practiced in many countries to achieve policy goals ranging from farmland consolidation to inner-city revitalization (Doebele 1982; Hong and Needham 2007). Its basic principle is to organize landowners to act collectively—in cooperation with a municipality and/or private developer—to pool their land in order to accomplish a redevelopment project.

LR is often used to re-parcel land when existing parcel boundaries are in conflict with the current land use plan. One important outcome is that a portion of the readjusted land can be retained by the development agency for construction of necessary infrastructure and basic services. If LR is not used, this land would have to be acquired by the local government, which could entail a huge upfront cost.

In return for the owners’ or occupants’ land contribution to the project, each participant receives, upon completion of the program, a new parcel proportionate in size or value to the original one. The size of the parcel may be smaller, but the value is greater due to land improvements and infrastructure created by the project. In this way, LR generates desirable urban development patterns, increases land values, allocates these increments to the involved parties, and limits displacement.

What is important about the recent interest in LR is its renewed emphasis as a mechanism for building legal and social institutions to govern urban development. The major goal is to combine job creation, land use planning, urban densification, public-private partnerships, and value capture for public infrastructure financing in one comprehensive policy package.

Potential Advantages and Disadvantages

Different elements of this unified goal can be emphasized depending on the context. For instance, in the design of a LR project for urban upgrading in an African city where residents do not have legal property rights, policy makers can legitimatize the occupants’ claims to land and allow them to exercise their right to participate in the project. After land is pooled, readjusted, and serviced, the residents will be invited back to the neighborhood to rebuild their homes or receive an apartment unit with legal title. This is a win-win approach because it allows squatters to improve their living conditions and tenure security, and it increases development densities to enable the city to obtain much-needed land for urban expansion.

LR can also help implement citywide land use regulation incrementally. To ensure that individual LR projects add up to a coherent whole, they must be conducted as part of a comprehensive urban planning process. In situations where local governments lack the capacity to execute a large-scale master plan, related LR projects can be implemented in an orderly sequence and at a manageable scale to put into action a coordinated, long-term development strategy.

In addition, LR can engender democratic governance. The core principle of LR is to build consensus and cooperation among the parties involved in land development. These parties include formal landowners, informal landholders, renters, NGOs, national government agencies, city officials, and private developers. The process entails grassroots mobilization by giving the urban poor real bargaining power to approve LR proposals. Agreement from the supermajority of landowners and renters is required before LR can proceed, thus ensuring that the government (or a private organizing agency) will pay special attention to the needs of the underprivileged groups and avoid confrontation caused by the threat of forced eviction at the very beginning of the project.

Finally, LR can facilitate land value capture for financing local infrastructure and social services. In readjusting the land boundaries, land space is created by increasing development densities. This land space can then be sold in the market to raise funds to defray a portion of the infrastructure costs. This technique creates a clear connection between the development benefits received by landholders and the price that they need to pay to make the program financially viable.

Despite these potential advantages of LR over conventional land assembly methods, it is hardly quick or uncomplicated. LR is particularly difficult to implement in developing countries where public participation is not integrated into urban planning or where there is limited capacity to maintain ownership records and resolve competing land claims. When property owners do not recognize their obligation to pay for basic infrastructure and services, requests to give up a portion of their land to cover the project costs will be strongly resisted.

Another concern is that LR reduces plot sizes, causing problems in many informal settlements where people often rely on extra space to earn rental income or conduct agricultural and business activities. In some cases, urban legislation is often too rigid for facilitating LR. Furthermore, different stakeholders may value real assets in diverse ways, making consensus building difficult. Some see possible improvements in living conditions, neighborhood amenities, social networks, and cohesiveness of community as the predominant factors. Others may make their decision based solely on monetary gains.

The integrated LR approach is designed to target all of these issues by focusing on institutional design and development. It emphasizes learning from past LR experiences to illustrate the importance of local context and enhancing this tool to accommodate a wide range of variables and situations. In addition, future adoption of the technique will search for a good fit rather than a single best practice. Most fundamentally, the design of LR projects must be based on multiple perspectives ranging from political economy and anthropological approaches to legal investigation.

Designing Land Readjustment in Chile

On February 27, 2010, a massive earthquake and tsunami destroyed a large part of Central Chile. Three regions—O’Higgins, Maule, and Bio-Bio—comprising 5 major cities and 45 small towns were seriously damaged; more than 80,000 homes were destroyed, and about 108,000 units were severely damaged (figure 1).

In response to this unprecedented disaster, the Chilean government expanded its National Reconstruction Plan to include new mandates and more flexible policies to speed up its post-earthquake reconstruction efforts. This plan offers four types of assistance in the form of vouchers to affected families: (1) US$24,144 for rebuilding a new home on existing land; (2) US$19,083 for buying a new home in another neighborhood; (3) US$3,761 for repairing houses that were partially destroyed; and (4) a special bonus of US$4,200 if the destroyed house is located in a heritage zone (Ministry of Housing and Urban Development 2011).

Despite this financial assistance from the government, affected property owners are facing two major problems. First, because the reconstruction program gives priority to low-income households, the money provided by the state to middle-income families is insufficient for them to rebuild homes of the same size and quality or in the same neighborhood. Property owners without insurance coverage who want to build a similar house must sell their land and move to another neighborhood where the land price is lower. Those who live in tsunami-damaged areas now considered unsafe for redevelopment must resettle further inland, yet that may limit their access to jobs and public services.

Second, selling their land to finance reconstruction may not be a viable option for all affected residents. Some landowners refuse to sell to private developers who offer a low price because the property is so badly damaged. Others who are unable to sell their land may not have sufficient financial resources to rebuild. This persistence of unlivable houses and vacant lots covered with debris further dampens the private incentive to reinvest in the neighborhood.

To assist the post-earthquake reconstruction effort, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the ProUrbana Program in the Public Policy Center at the Catholic University of Chile (the team) put forward a joint proposal to the Chilean government to experiment with LR.

The Pilot Project: Las Heras, Talca

The team decided to conduct its first pilot in the Las Heras neighborhood in Talca for four reasons.

First, Las Heras was ripe for redevelopment even before the earthquake. It is a middle-class neighborhood with large old houses and a beautiful main square. Good social networks exist among its residents, organized by the church and local NGOs, although its development had stagnated for many years due to economic restructuring of the Chilean economy. The central government was offering Las Heras assistance in developing affordable housing through the national voucher program, and these housing subsidies later became an important potential funding source for the proposed LR project.

Second, the Public Policy Center has another program called Puentes (Bridges) that conducts collaborative research projects with local municipalities, including a preexisting work agreement with Talca, which facilitated prompt support and cooperation from city officials.

Third, Talca has a master plan that allowed the team to design a series of related LR projects to be implemented step-by-step, so it could fulfill the city’s long-term development plan. Preliminary land ownership and demographic information, land use data, and property damage assessments in different neighborhoods are also available.

Fourth, the local government and private developers in Talca were interested in increasing urban densities. Densification provided the much-needed profit incentive for the private sector to redevelop damaged sites, and it could help the local government achieve its objective of increasing and upgrading the housing supply.

Buy-In from All Involved Parties

Following the integrated LR approach, the team recognized the importance of gaining support from the central government. It organized a seminar in Santiago in May 2010 to present the concept of LR and exchange views with top officials from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (MHUD). After several rounds of follow-up discussions, the director of the National Program of Housing Reconstruction agreed to purchase reserved land generated from the proposed LR project, thus providing a guarantee for one of the funding sources, and agreed to go to Talca with the team to encourage property owners to participate.

To obtain critical local government involvement, the team travelled to Talca in September 2010 to present the LR ideas to city officials. The team also met with selected property landowners to determine if they might be interested in contributing all or part of their land as capital to finance the reconstruction of their homes and neighborhood. In another visit, some team members also met with school and community leaders, emphasizing the need for broad community support for the project’s success.

The team next began to gather detailed data about the area by conducting a survey of residents in eight blocks comprising 217 lots near the main plaza of Las Heras (figure 2). Team members completed 135 questionnaires over the telephone and then interviewed selected residents. The survey results indicated that 77 percent of the respondents trusted their neighbors, and the majority of them (65 percent) wanted to stay in the neighborhood and were willing to work with their neighbors to rebuild the community. Only 12 percent of respondents planned to sell their property and relocate to another area. This information revealed that organizing property owners for LR was feasible.

Project Design

Because the majority of residents in Las Heras are unfamiliar with the concept of LR, the strategy started with a small pilot project to demonstrate the applicability of this method. The team chose a block near the plaza and proposed three scenarios for combining 8 to 12 sites for LR. The number of lots included in the proposed project would depend on the levels of difficulty involved in negotiating with affected property owners. To facilitate the participation process, the team prepared visual images of what the neighborhood environment might look like after the project (figure 3).

The team also conducted detailed financial and legal feasibility studies for the project. A tentative plan for financing the pilot included a careful calculation of the amount of land that each owner would need to contribute based on the availability of government subsidies, estimated building costs, compensation for temporary relocation, and a projected land price at the completion date of the project. The financial study also revealed that constructing housing units at an estimated future price of US$46,000 per unit would allow the project to be self-financing and provide the developer with a 10 percent profit margin—under the assumption that MHUD would purchase the reserved land to build affordable housing for low- and low-to-middle-income households after LR. It was also estimated that 24 percent of the housing units within the block would be affordable for low-income households. This would help the MHUD attain its policy goal of social integration through the provision of subsidized housing.

The Real Estate Co-ownership Law in Chile requires all participating owners of the LR project to sign a legal document specifying their rights and liabilities. For example, any sale of land held by the designated organizing agency would require the consensus of all participating owners. A legal contract signed by the agency and each participating owner would specify explicitly the number of housing units that the owner would receive at the end of the project and the date of the delivery. The contract would also guarantee compliance by requiring the agency to pay compensation to owners in case of failure to transfer properties in a timely manner and of acceptable quality. The agency also needs to submit the proposed plan to the city. The Municipal Works Department would review the project, approve the building plan, and authorize the transfer of land. The approved plan would then be recorded by the registrar.

Although the research conducted by the team shows that LR is feasible in Las Heras, progress in convincing landowners to participate has been slow due to five key challenges.

First, most property owners are unfamiliar with LR, and there is no existing example in Chile to show how the idea could work. The lack of precedents makes community organizing difficult.

Second, city officials have not provided sufficient support in organizing community meetings or interacting with property owners directly about the proposed project.

Third, many affected property owners who received assistance from their extended families or friends have already relocated to other areas. These owners are in no hurry to rebuild their homes and are delaying the transfer of their land until they receive a higher offer from a private developer or the government. In Chile, there is no LR law that can force these owners to transfer their real assets.

Fourth, not all buildings in the neighborhood were destroyed by the earthquake, and the owners of the unaffected homes are not willing to give up their existing plots for a neighborhood-wide redevelopment.

Fifth, although the survey shows that many owners are willing to work on rebuilding with their neighbors, solving local problems through collective action is not a social norm in Chile. Some property owners have a strong sense of entitlement to receive public resettlement assistance, which contradicts the idea of community self-help.

Interim Assessment

Although the LR approach in Las Heras is still a work-in-progress and it is too soon to predict if the team will be able to overcome local challenges, the project has already generated several observable impacts on Chile’s post-earthquake reconstruction policy (Public Policy Center 2011).

First, LR gives property owners in Las Heras an additional option for reconstructing their homes. Before the proposal, they had to either sell their properties to a private developer and move to another area or take the government’s subsidies and rebuild a house of smaller size and lower quality. LR provides residents with the opportunity to remain in the neighborhood and to attain the highest possible living standard by using their land as capital for home reconstruction.

Second, LR opens a new channel for the central government to work with local communities on reconstruction projects. The main reasons that the LR proposal for Las Heras could go forward are MHUD’s willingness to buy land, provide assistance in encouraging landowners to participate in LR, and give participating landowners the first priority to receive government housing vouchers to finance reconstruction.

Third, the introduction of LR has influenced the government’s overall post-earthquake reconstruction strategy. Through this holistic approach, public officials are designing a comprehensive reconstruction plan to rebuild the entire neighborhood coherently, rather than giving subsidies to individual homeowners to rebuild their houses separately. The MHUD has also invited the team to assist its reconstruction effort in the earthquake-damaged city of Constitución, indicating that the government has taken LR seriously as a viable option for other projects.

Fourth, all discussions among the central and local governments, landowners, NGOs, developers, scholars, and urban designers about LR have engendered an environment of mutual learning and understanding, which in turn is reshaping the governance structure for post-earthquake reconstruction. The involved parties have begun to realize that neither a top-down nor a bottom-up approach is sufficient to generate satisfactory solutions. Cooperation among all interested parties is paramount. The LR experiment has fostered a social discourse that helps all segments of society learn how to solve their problems collectively.

Conclusion

Like all policy experiments, the current proposals to test the integrated LR approach for urban upgrading and post-disaster reconstruction in countries where the idea is new will face uncertainties and challenges. Yet, given the mixed outcomes of conventional land assembly methods in many (re)development situations, LR could offer another option for policy makers, practitioners, and other interested parties to consider.

About the Authors

Yu-Hung Hong is a senior fellow of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and a visiting assistant professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Isabel Brain, a sociologist, coordinates the ProUrbana Program (Program of Urban and Land Policy) at the Public Policy Center, Catholic University of Chile in Santiago.

References

Cities Alliance. 2011. World statistics day: A look at urbanisation. Washington, DC. http://www.citiesalliance.org/ca/node/2195

Doebele, William A. 1982. Land readjustment: A different approach to financing urbanization. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Hong, Yu-Hung, and Barrie Needham. 2007. Analyzing land readjustment: Economics, law, and collective action. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Government of Chile. 2011. Reconstruction Plan (English version). Santiago, Chile: Ministry of Housing and Urban Development.

Public Policy Center. 2011. Land readjustment project, second report. Santiago: Catholic University of Chile. May.

Reuters. 2011. Cost of natural disasters $109 billion in 2010. January 24. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/24/us-disasters-un-idUSTRE70N26K2…

UN-HABITAT. 2011. State of the world’s cities 2010/2011–Cities for all: Bridging the urban divide. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Human Settlements Program.

World Bank. 2011. Data: Urban population. Washington, DC. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the other members of the LR project team for their contributions to this article: Armando Carbonell, Department of Planning and Urban Form, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy; Pia Mora, ProUrbana, Public Policy Center, Catholic University of Chile; Julio Poblete, DUPLA/Urban Design and Planning; Alejandra Rasse, Catholic University of Maule; Francisco Sabatini, Institute of Urban and Territorial Studies, Catholic University of Chile; and Martim Smolka, Program on Latin America and the Caribbean, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.