Cuba is a striking country. Its historic capital city of Havana boasts 400 years of architectural heritage. Many areas are in a state of sad decay but some represent very creative approaches to preservation and economic development. Because of the focus on rural development after the 1959 revolution, Cuba did not experience the same kind of popular migration from the countryside to the cities as did other parts of Latin America. What modern redevelopment did occur happened largely outside the historic core of Havana. The good news is that the city’s architectural heritage is still standing; the bad news is that it is just barely standing.

Architects and planners in Cuba are struggling with the basic tasks of improving infrastructure and housing while encouraging economic development appropriate to their socialist vision. They are developing models of neighborhood transformation through local organizing and self-help programs, and are creating models of “value capture” in the process of historic preservation and tourism development.

Through connections with the Group for the Integrated Development of the Capital (Grupo para el Desarrollo Integral de la Capital, GDIC), nine environmental design professionals traveled to Cuba in June to explore the issues of decay and innovation in the built and natural environment. The team included nine of the eleven 1997-98 Loeb Fellows from the Harvard University Graduate School of Design.

The Loeb Fellowship in Advanced Environmental Studies was established in 1970 through the generosity of Harvard alumnus John L. Loeb. The Fellowship annually awards ten to twelve leaders in the design and environmental professions with support for a year of independent study at Harvard University. A recent tradition of the Fellowship program is for the Fellows to take a trip together at the end of the academic year, to solidify their ties developed over the year, explore a new environment together, and share their knowledge and expertise with others.

The Loeb Fellows who traveled to Cuba have a variety of interests that together represent a cross-section of the environmental design professions:

• Charles Birnbaum, a landscape architect who advocates the preservation of significant landscapes.
• Toni Griffin, an architect concerned with economic and community development in urban neighborhoods.
• Pamela Hawkes, an architect specializing in historic preservation.
• Daniel Hernandez, an architect who creates affordable housing.
• Leonard McGee, a community leader who works to transform and improve inner-city communities.
• Julio Peterson, a community developer interested in economic development in inner cities and developing countries.
• Peter Pollock, a city planner who specializes in growth management issues.
• Anne Raver, a journalist interested in people’s relationship with the natural environment.
• Jean Rogers, an environmental engineer and planner who focuses on ameliorating the impacts of industrialization on the environment.

The Fellows were hosted in Havana by GDIC, which was created in 1987 as a small, interdisciplinary team of experts advising the city government on urban policies. “The group intended since its very beginning to promote a new model for the built environment that would be less imposing, more decentralized and participatory, ecologically sound and economically feasible-in short, holistically sustainable,” according to Mario Coyula, an architect, planner and vice-president of GDIC. He and his GDIC colleagues put together a series of informative seminars and tours for the Fellows in Havana, and made arrangements for them to visit planners and designers in the cities of Las Terrazas, Matanzas, and Trinidad.

Several foundations and groups lent support to the project: the Arca Foundation, the William Reynolds Foundation, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, the Loeb Fellowship Alumni Association, and the Harvard University Graduate School of Design Loeb Fellowship Program. Each Loeb Fellow will write an essay on a relevant area of research and its relationship to conditions in Cuba. These papers will be compiled and made available to GDIC, Harvard University and potentially to others through publication in a journal or special report.

Peter Pollock is director of community planning for the city of Boulder, Colorado. In 1997-98 he was a Loeb Fellow at Harvard and a visiting fellow at the Lincoln Institute.

The Lincoln Institute is collaborating with the city of Cordoba, Argentina, on a major project to change approaches to and instruments used for physical planning in the city. Cordoba presents an especially interesting case because of its strategic location at the center of the core development area of Mercosur.

The first phase of the project was a three-day seminar held last April titled “Towards an Urban Integrated Management: Implementing a Strategic Plan for the City of Cordoba.” Its main aim was to bring together the principal “actors” in Cordoba to discuss and debate planning goals and instruments in the context of new developments in urban management.

The seminar included presentations by international experts and discussions among municipal officials, developers, business and commercial interests, non-governmental organizations and planning practitioners. The Institute played an important role in providing an open forum for the local participants to come together for the first time to discuss difficult planning and development issues and to begin the process of establishing new management policies and procedures.

Three principal themes emerged from the discussions. The first dealt with prioritizing land to be urbanized, with particular concern for equitable access to land, infrastructure, and housing for the popular sectors, as well as appropriate mechanisms to carry out integrated planning on a regional basis. The second theme addressed environmental and fiscal impacts of large commercial establishments on existing urban structures, historic districts and residential neighborhoods. The third theme focused on various actors and sectors involved in industrial development in Cordoba, with attention given to dispersal of industry, infrastructure limitations, and social and environmental costs.

In addition to giving the Cordovan participants a broad perspective on urban management issues in other cities, the seminar raised two important points: 1) that planning for development is not just about regulation or land use control, but that fiscal and taxation policies are equally important in affecting land values; and 2) that local officials must learn to assess benefits and costs of urban planning projects in order to deal effectively with private sector developers.

The seminar has already had specific impacts on collaborative commercial activities in the historic center and on improved management programs for providing new infrastructure and services while also reducing deficits. In addition, the program stimulated participants to develop an appreciation for the importance of long-term strategic planning in charting general directions for policy changes and in understanding the effects of particular kinds of development on the social and physical environment.

The Institute is continuing to work with municipal officials to help develop new management paradigms that can support more effective private/public collaborations and better analytical and planning techniques. Follow-up programs will assist policymakers and private developers (operating in both formal and informal markets) in better understanding the functioning of urban land markets and the consequences of policy changes for urban development.

The next course on “Land Market Behavior in Cordoba: Implications for the Urban Structure” will explore research on formal land markets in Cordoba, stressing the effects of economic policies and local government interventions. It will be followed by a regional seminar where experience will be shared with participants from at least three other countries. At the same time, the Institute and Cordoba officials are developing a training program directed to a broad spectrum of local and regional officials and developers, concentrating on general management, urban planning, and project preparation and implementation.

Douglas Keare is a visiting fellow of the Lincoln Institute. He has extensive experience in strategic planning for large cities in developing countries through previous research and project management at the World Bank and the Harvard Institute for International Development. Ricardo Vanella is director of the Department of Economic Development for the city of Cordoba.

A proud outpost of America’s Industrial Revolution, Johnstown, Pennsylvania, survived the Great Flood of 1889, when a 40-mph wave swept the city into the Conemaugh River. Johnstown rebuilt itself into a dynamic city teeming with factories and steel mills. Yet what the flood couldn’t kill, a changing economy nearly has.

In the space of a generation, Johnstown has hemorrhaged 40 percent of its population and seen its job base disintegrate–joining the growing ranks of U.S. industrial cities teetering on the brink of terminal illness. They are becoming places without purpose, experts say, ill-prepared for a new economic era except as recipients of transfer payments and warehouses for the poor, the aged, the infirm and, in big cities, the violently deviant. “Johnstown is a place where wealth has moved out, where there is no middle class and where the town frantically searches for a magic solution to stay alive,” said anthropologist Bruce Williams of the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown.

As the Information Age unfolds, urban scholars see a disturbing new set of forces converging viselike on Johnstown and many U.S. cities. While the problems of a New York City or a Detroit command popular attention, smaller cities such as Johnstown–those with populations of 25,000 to 100,000–might be suffering most from wrenching economic changes. No longer are place and distance such vital factors. The new economy is driven by technological changes that allow those with means to live and work largely where they want. New suburbs are still the number one choice for both business and residential developers seeking large plots of cheap land.

Struggling for Relevance

Many old industrial cities, meanwhile, struggle for relevance. Their residents lack the training for–and access to–the modern work force. New offices and industries require less labor. Isolation and segregation of the urban poor feed a cycle of despair. Advantages such as a coast, river or rail line matter less. With dwindling public investment and little or no market for their services or products, scores of these older cities can’t nurse themselves back to health.

“If a city lacks the basics for economic viability, what does it have left except some type of massive support by the federal government?” said Dr. Irving Baker, a retired political scientist at Southern Methodist University. “Those cities . . . are expendable,” he said.

This phenomenon links aging central cities, decaying inner-ring suburbs and exploding Mexican border cities. One of every five U.S. cities larger than 25,000 people has a poverty rate greater than 20 percent–a prime symptom of urban decay, an analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data indicates. Dallas and other Sun Belt cities are repeating the trajectory of distressed Northern cities, where poverty rates soared and the concentration of poor worsened.

As the debate continues over Washington’s shifting budget role, some experts wonder whether one result might be disposable cities, like the 19th-century ghost towns that predated federal bailouts. Solutions seem elusive, the experts agree, because neither government-run urban renewal nor private enterprise alone appears equal to the task.

“I think we are in a struggle for America’s heart right now,” said Peter C. Goldmark, president of the Rockefeller Foundation, whose programs support efforts to revitalize communities. “Because I don’t think America can live if its cities are dying.” Neal Peirce, an urban affairs commentator and writer, noted: “As I see it, we have a civilization to defend. If we really come to the point of writing places off as cities and neighborhoods of no return, we have reached the point of giving up what made this country the civilization I think many of us really have much pride being in.”

Disturbing Trends in Distressed Cities

Analysis by The Dallas Morning News–based on more than 125 interviews, a review of hundreds of reports and creation of a computer-generated index of 148 distressed communities–documented a number of alarming urban trends:

The United States remains an urban nation. But of all urban dwellers, 60 percent now live in suburbs — not in the nation’s 522 central cities.

Concentrations of the poor are increasing in all cities, including Sun Belt cities. In 1968, 30 percent of the nation’s poor lived in cities. Now the figure is 42 percent.

Jobs are leaving cities in massive numbers and are not being replaced. About 70 percent of new jobs, most requiring extensive technical training, are being created outside cities. Although the number of poor Americans dropped in 1994 for the first time in four years, the gap between rich and poor continued to widen as low-skill, low-wage jobs disappeared, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Many older cities are burdened with foul physical sites created for a smokestack economy that no longer exists. Mayor Freeman Bosley said St. Louis’ dramatic population decline–a 50 percent loss since 1950–relates directly to his city’s inability to reclaim contaminated properties, known as brownfields. “Right now, there is no way the city of St. Louis can attract business to abandoned industrial sites,” he told a congressional panel recently. “The existing cleanup standards and related costs exceed the property’s value, and there are no compensating incentives.”

The revival of rural America comes at the expense of many cities. Following a decade of decline, three in four rural counties gained population between 1990 and 1994. Most of the gain was caused by migration from cities, not urban encroachment.

Few places have been able to reverse these trends once decline sets in. Said Brian Berry, an internationally recognized professor of urban geography at the University of Texas at Dallas: “To be blunt and brutal about it, there’s very little that policymakers can do [about these cities] short of bringing in the aspirins and making people feel a little better.”

The success stories of recent years have enjoyed some attractive geographic asset or been the target of a sustained intentional effort. Hoboken, New Jersey, once a rundown manufacturing hub, capitalized on its waterfront view of the Manhattan skyline. It is now a trendy suburb for young couples with children. Cleveland, Pittsburgh and St. Louis have stabilized after shedding population for decades. Yet even though each has poured tens of millions into successful downtown revitalization efforts, many neighborhoods remain deeply troubled.

Smaller cities such as Johnstown dominated The News’ list of distressed communities. “Small and medium-sized cities don’t have the great urban assets to draw on,” said David Rusk, former mayor of Albuquerque, New Mexico, and now an urban consultant in Washington, D.C. “They don’t have the legacy of parks, museums and recreational facilities that big cities have. And, most of all, they don’t have the old downtown core.”

What can be done to assist these communities? Gary Orfield, a professor of education and social policy at Harvard University, said, “If I were a mayor, my number one effort would be to try to help people to understand how serious these problems are and to convince the people in the rest of the society that if they don’t share in the solution, they are going to be sharing in a much, much more radical problem in the future.”

______________

Chris Kelley is urban affairs writer at The Dallas Morning News. This article is excerpted from a four-part series titled “Whither the Cities?” which ran December 3-6, 1995. A series reprint is available by calling The News at 1-800-431-0010, ext. 8472, or on the Internet at http://www.pic.net/tdmn/tdmn.html. Kelley participated in the Lincoln Institute’s 1995 Land Policy Forum for Journalists.

Julie Campoli, a landscape architect, land planner and principal of Terra Firma Urban Design in Burlington, Vermont, and Alex MacLean, a photographer, trained architect and principal of Landslides Aerial Photography in Cambridge, Massachusetts, have worked collaboratively for more than two years to research and document the phenomenon of residential density. They have developed a catalog of more than 300 aerial photographs that illustrate a wide range of density in both established and newer neighborhoods around the country. The Lincoln Institute has supported their work, which has been presented through lectures and courses and is available as a digital working paper titled “Visualizing Density” on the Institute’s website.

How did you join forces to begin this work on photographing and measuring density as a visualization tool for community planning?

We both have a longstanding interest in using visual images to illuminate land use issues. For years Alex has recorded human imprints on the land quite eloquently through his aerial photography. I am constantly experimenting with graphic techniques to communicate design ideas and to express how we shape the built environment. In our first collaboration, Above and Beyond (written with planner Elizabeth Humstone, APA Planners Press, 2001), we employed aerial photographs, many of which were digitally enhanced, to show how and why landscapes change over time. Our intent was to help readers understand the land development process by representing it in a very graphic way.

As we completed that book, we could see that fear of density was emerging as a major obstacle to the type of compact, infill development we were advocating. It became apparent to us that, although people liked the idea of channeling growth into existing areas, they seemed to balk at the reality. We saw many instances where developers trying to build higher-density housing met stiff resistance from a public who equated density with overcrowding. In many communities density is allowed and often encouraged at the policy level, but it is rejected at the implementation stage, mainly because the public has trouble accepting the high numbers associated with dense development.

We became interested in this ambivalent attitude and wanted to look more closely at those density numbers. It seemed to us that a preoccupation with numbers and a lack of visual information was at the heart of the density problem. We thought that some of the graphic approaches we used in Above and Beyond might help people understand the visual aspects of the density issue. We wanted to translate the numbers that were associated with various density levels into mental images, specifically to show what the density numbers mean in terms of real living places.

Why is density such a difficult concept to understand and visualize?

Anything is difficult to visualize if you have only a few pieces of information from which to conjure your mental image. Density is most often represented as a mathematical ratio. It is the number of units divided by the number of acres, or the gross floor area of a building divided by the size of its site. These measurements describe a place as a numerical relationship, which only takes you so far in being able to imagine it. Such information fails to convey the “look and feel” of density and often creates confusion in the community planning process.

An individual’s response to the issue of density often depends on past experience and the images that happen to be part of one’s visual memory. Someone might associate higher-density numbers with an image of Boston’s historic Beacon Hill neighborhood or central Savannah, but high-density development is more frequently imagined as something negative. This is the gap between density as it is measured and density as it is perceived. One is a rational process. The other is not.

What does your density catalog illustrate?

The catalog contains aerial photographs of neighborhoods in several regions of the country. They are arranged according to density level, ranging from exurban houses on 2-acre lots to urban high-rise apartments at 96 units per acre. Each site is photographed from a series of viewpoints to show its layout, details and context. The catalog can be used to compare different neighborhoods at the same density or to see how the design and arrangement of buildings changes as density levels rise. We included a wide array of street patterns, building types and open spaces, demonstrating how the manipulation of these components can create endless variations on neighborhood form.

What becomes apparent to anyone looking at the catalog is that there are many ways to shape density, and some are more appealing than others. We don’t try to suggest which images are “good” or which are “bad”; we let the viewer draw his or her own conclusions. Our hope is that after viewing the catalog people will not only have a clearer idea of what 5 units or 20 units per acre looks like, but, more important, they will be able to imagine attractive, higher-density neighborhoods for their own communities.

How do you measure density?

In the first phase of our project we focused on residential density as measured in units per acre. Using the 2000 U.S. Census, it is possible to find the number of housing units for any census block in the nation. We photographed neighborhoods across the country and calculated the number of units per acre for each site by determining the number of units from the census data and then dividing by the acreage.

Units-per-acre is a measurement commonly used in local zoning and in the review of development projects. It is familiar and understandable to the average person dealing with local density issues and provides a relatively accurate measure for primarily residential neighborhoods. In calculating the density of mixed-use or commercial sites, floor area ratio is a more precise measurement. We plan to extend our analysis to mixed and other uses with this measurement in the next phase of our work, to see how various design approaches can accommodate higher densities.

What is the connection between density and design

Design plays a profound role in the success of compact development. Although it seems that the smart growth movement is confronting a density problem, it’s really more of a design challenge. It is not density but design that determines the physical character and quality of a place. This was made clear to us when we found examples of existing neighborhoods with widely varying character yet the same density. One area might have a sense of spaciousness and privacy, while another appears cramped. Different design approaches can dramatically affect one’s perception of density. This defies the commonly held belief that fitting more people into a smaller area inevitably results in a less appealing living environment. Higher densities, especially on infill sites, pose a greater challenge to designers, but they do not dictate a certain type of form or character.

As we measured the density of existing neighborhoods and assembled the catalog, we began to see specifically how design accommodates density. The most appealing neighborhoods had a coherent structure, well-defined spaces and carefully articulated buildings. They were the kinds of places that offered a lot of variety in a small area. If planners and developers want to promote density, it is essential to identify the amenities that make a neighborhood desirable and to replicate them wherever possible. Interconnected neighborhoods with high-quality public, private and green spaces, and a diversity of building types and styles, will win more supporters in the permit process and buyers in the real estate market than those neighborhoods without such amenities.

How can planners, developers and community residents use the catalog to achieve the principles of smart growth in their local decision making to design new neighborhoods?

The catalog can be used as a tool to refocus the density discussion away from numerical measurements and onto design issues. In our workshops we ask participants to examine several photographs from the catalog showing nine neighborhoods that have a similar density but very different layouts. In articulating their impressions of the places they see, what they like and why, they are forced to think about how the design—the pattern of streets, the architecture or the presence of greenery—affects the quality of the place.

In a town planning process, if residents participate in a similar exercise, they will take the first steps toward a community vision for compact neighborhoods. They can see that the same design principles behind those preferred places can be used to create appealing dense neighborhoods in their own communities. Once they develop a vision for what they want, they can use the planning and regulatory process to guide development in that direction.

Developers of urban infill housing often find themselves on the defensive in the permit process, arguing that density does not necessarily equal crowding. The catalog provides images that can help bolster their case. More importantly, it offers developers, architects and landscape architects visual information on historic and contemporary models of compact development. They can use the photographs to inform their design process, instilling features of the best neighborhoods into their own projects.

What are some of your conclusions about why understanding density is so important to the planning process?

Density is absolutely essential to building strong communities and preventing sprawl. It’s also a growing reality in the real estate market. Instead of denying it or barely tolerating it, we can embrace density. The trick is to shape it in a way that supports community goals of urban vitality and provides people with high-quality living places. At this point though, we seem to be a long way from embracing density. It may be a deep cultural bias or simply that many Americans are unfamiliar the benefits of density, such as more choices and convenience to urban amenities. And in many cases, they have not been shown that neighborhoods of multifamily homes, apartments and houses on small lots can be beautiful and highly valued. We hope that our residential density project and the digital catalog can provide some material to fill the void.

Julie Campoli is principal of Terra Firma Urban Design in Burlington, Vermont, and Alex MacLean is principal of Landslides Aerial Photography in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 1 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

Las políticas de gestión del suelo urbano y el funcionamiento de los mercados de suelo urbano han pasado a ocupar un papel más importante en el debate de políticas públicas urbanas, así como en el trabajo académico y las agendas de desarrollo en varios países de esta región. En los últimos diez años, la red de académicos y funcionarios apoyada por el Programa para América Latina del Lincoln Institute of Land Policy ha desarrollado seminarios, promovido investigaciones, organizado debates públicos, asesorado a tomadores de decisión, y publicado los resultados de su trabajo sobre estos temas tan pertinentes. Los miembros de dicha red se reunieron en Buenos Aires en abril de 2004 para evaluar sus actividades y preparar esta declaración sobre los temas centrales de políticas del suelo, los cuales son claves para la búsqueda de programas de desarrollo urbano más sostenibles en el futuro.

En América Latina, las políticas urbanas y las formas de funcionamiento de los mercados de suelo tienden a producir ciudades económicamente desiguales, política y socialmente excluyentes, espacialmente segregadas y ambientalmente no sustentables. Entre las consecuencias de dichas políticas están los altos y a veces irracionales precios de la tierra, producto, en parte, de la ausencia de efectivas formas de gestión de la tierra urbana.

La situación actual

Los mercados de suelo son estructuralmente imperfectos. Sin embargo, el funcionamiento de los suelos urbanos depende de relaciones sociales, que a su vez son afectadas por los resultados de las operaciones de dichos mercados. Esta conexión entre las relaciones sociales y los mercados de suelo hace a la vez posible y necesario influenciar dichos mercados. Lejos de neutralizar dichas imperfecciones, muchos de los instrumentos y políticas implementados más bien han contribuido a distorcionar aun más el funcionamiento del mercado de tierra urbana. Más aún, las políticas han mantenido las ‘reglas del juego’ inmobiliario urbano inalteradas y aparentemente intocables.

Una lectura más amplia del problema revela que, más que una racionalización inconsecuente, la disfuncionalidad de los mercados de suelo es el resultado de un conjunto de oportunidades perdidas para el desarrollo socialmente sostenible de las ciudades latinoamericanas. Sin embargo, existen oportunidades prometedoras e innovadoras para superar los cuellos de botella evidenciados en las políticas inadecuadas y destructivas del Estado, la dificultad de financiar el desarrollo urbano, y su capacidad deficiente de gestión.

Uno de los resultados negativos más sobresalientes de la situación actual es el relativo peso, importancia y persistencia de los mercados informales de suelo urbano caracterizado por prácticas exclusionarias, la entrega ilegal de títulos, la carencia de servicios urbanos y otros problemas. La desregulación en lugares donde habría que regular (las periferias pobres) y la sobre-regulación de las áreas ricas y reguladas, así como la privatización sin criterios sociales, son todos factores que contribuyen a impulsar estos procesos, especialmente la concentración espacial de la pobreza urbana. Si bien la mayoría de los programas de regularización están bien intencionados, la mayoría de ellos provoca efectos perversos, entre ellos los elevados costos del suelo para los sectores más pobres.

La planificación urbana y las normas urbanísticas tradicionales han perdido importancia y efectividad como instrumentos para orientar el desarrollo urbano, especialmente los mecanismos existentes para la gestión del suelo. Esta situación abre, no obstante, espacios de oportunidad para pensar en formas innovadoras de gestión y planificación urbana. En algunos lugares, ya se ha aprovechado dichas oportunidades a través de nuevos experimentos y propuestas que han provocado intensos debates al cuestionar los enfoques tradicionales.

En este marco, la creación de nuevas formas de gestión de la tierra tiene un requisito ineludible: repensar la tributación de la tierra urbana incorporando nuevos métodos y estar abierto a considerar instrumentos fiscales alternativos, entendidos como herramientas para reorientar el actual desarrollo de las ciudades y disciplinar el funcionamiento del mercado de tierra urbana. Dichas herramientas deben ser diseñadas no sólo para captar fondos para la construcción de infraestructura y la prestación de servicios urbanos, sino también para contribuir a una distribución más equitativa de los costos y beneficios, especialmente aquellos asociados con el proceso de urbanización y el retorno de las plusvalías de la tierra recuperada a la comunidad.

Propuestas de Acción

Reconocer el rol indispensable del Estado. Es impresdindible que el Estado (tanto a nivel local como nacional) tenga un rol activo en la promoción del desarrollo urbano. El nivel local debe comprometerse más con los cambios estructurales en la gerencia del suelo, y el nivel nacional debe fomentar dichas iniciativas locales activamente. El gobierno no debe ignorar su responsabilidad de adoptar políticas en torno al mercado de suelo urbano que reconozca el valor estratégico de la tierra y las características particulares del funcionamiento de sus mercados, para impulsar un uso sostenible del suelo al incorporar objetivos sociales y ambientales y beneficiar a los segmentos más vulnerables de la población urbana.

Quebrar la compartamentalización entre las autoridades fiscales, normativas y jurídicas. La falta de cooperación entre autoridades locales es responsable por importantes ineficiencias, políticas poco efectivas, desperdicio de recursos escasos y poca transparencia pública. Más aún, las acciones incongruentes de diversas autoridades públicas dan señales confusas a los agentes privados y crean incógnitas, si no oportunidades, para que los intereses especiales puedan modificar planes gubernamentales. La complejidad y escala de los desafíos planteados por la realidad social urbana de las ciudades latinoamericanas requieren la toma de acciones multilaterales por parte de numerosos actores para incidir en el funcionamiento de los mercados de tierra urbana (formales e informales), asegurando de esta manera el logro de objetivos conjuntos: la promoción de un uso sostenible y justo de este recurso, la reducción de precios, la producción de suelo con servicios, el reconocimiento de los derechos al suelo por los pobres urbanos, y una repartición más equitativa de las cargas y los beneficios de la inversión urbana.

Estas autoridades también deben articular las políticas de desarrollo urbano con las políticas de tributación del suelo. Deben promover una nueva visión con una legislación urbanística que diferencie el derecho de propiedad del derecho de edificación y del uso del suelo, comprendiendo que las plusvalías generadas de los derechos de construcción no pertenecen exclusivamente a los propietarios de la tierra. Los gestores urbanos también deben también diseñar mecanismos creativos a través de los cuales las plusvalías se pueden usar para producir tierra urbana equipada para los sectores sociales de menores ingresos, compensando de esta manera las desigualdades urbanas.

Reconocer los límites de lo posible. Transformar los marcos regulatorios actuales que rigen la utilización de la tierra urbana exige desarrollar un nuevo pensamiento urbanístico y jurídico que reconozca que las desigualdades urbanas y la exclusión socio-espacial son un fenómeno intrínseco al predominante modelo de desarrollo de las ciudades. Incluso en los marcos de los modelos vigentes, hay grados de libertad no despreciables para políticas más socialmente responsables y transparencia del gobierno. Las regulaciones y normas urbanísticas deben considerar la complejidad de los procesos de valorización del suelo y asegurar el cumplimiento de los principios efectivos tradicionales tales como aquellos que limitan la capacidad de las agencias gubernamentales para disponer de recursos públicos o prohibir el “enriquecimiento sin causa” de los propietarios privados.

Revertir círculos viciosos. Se necesitan alternativas a los programas de regularización para romper el círculo vicioso de reproducción de la pobreza que los actuales programas de regularización perpetúan. Es importante reconocer el carácter paliativo de dichos programas y la necesidad de integración de las políticas urbanas, de vivienda y de tributación de la tierra. La dependencia de los subsidios a la vivienda, aunque inevitable, puede quedar anulado si no se cuenta con mecanismos que impidan que estos subsidios se traduzcan en aumentos de los precios del suelo. Los funcionarios de las ciudades deben priorizar la generación de oferta de tierra equipada sobre los programas de regularización ya que el derecho a la vivienda es un derecho social a ocupar un hábitat viable y con dignidad. También es importante entender que la baja producción de suelo servido per se contribuye a la retención de la oferta y por consiguiente a su alto precio, afectando así todos los aspectos del desarrollo urbano.

Además, las soluciones individuales (tales como procesos de titulación predio-por-predio o la entrega de subsidios caso por caso a familias individuales) son en última instancia más onerosas para la sociedad que las soluciones colectivas y más amplias que incorporan otros valores agregados, como la construcción de espacios públicos, la inversión de infraestructura y otros mecanismos que fortalecen la integración social. Muchos países latinoamericanos han sido testigos de programas de subsidios habitacionales, muchas veces con el apoyo de agencias multilaterales, que no consideran o menosprecian el componente suelo. Tales programas buscan suelo público rápidamente disponible o simplemente ocupan suelo en las áreas intersticiales de la ciudad. Tal desinterés en una política de suelo más amplia compromete la replicabilidad, expansión y sostenibilidad de estos programas de vivienda en una escala más amplia.

Repensar los roles de las instituciones públicas y privadas. La gestión de la tierra, dentro de una gran diversidad de intervenciones urbanas – desde la producción en escala masiva de suelo con servicios para los pobres hasta las operaciones de redesarrollo urbano mediante grandes proyectos, pasando por las intervenciones del tipo ‘face-lift’ o los proyectos de recuperación ambiental — obliga a pensar en las más variadas formas de intervención de parte de las instituciones públicas responsables del desarrollo de las ciudades y en diferentes modalidades de asociación público-privada. La utilización de las tierras vacantes y la flexibilización de usos e intensidades de ocupación pueden jugar un papel crucial siempre que tales proyectos cumplan con las orientaciones estratégicas de las instituciones públicas, sean sujetas a la contraloría ciudadana, e incorporen una visión compartida y participativa del desarrollo urbano.

La ejecución de proyectos demostrativos como El Urbanizador Social en Porto Alegre, Brasil, el proyecto de vivienda Nuevo Usme y la legislación sobre la recuperación de plusvalías de Bogotá, Colombia, constituyen ejemplos de esfuerzos sensibles y creativos que reconocen la importancia de una adecuada gestión de la tierra urbana y de un nuevo pensamiento sobre el papel de la tierra, en particular del potencial del valor del suelo como instrumento para promover un desarrollo más sostenible y equitativo para los pobres de nuestras ciudades.

Un pensamiento creativo y balanceado también queda de manifiesto en proyectos conjuntos de capital público y privado en La Habana, Cuba, con plusvalías capturadas a través de la mejoría de áreas históricas densamente pobladas.

Potencializar el papel de la tributación de la tierra en el financiamiento público para promover el desarrollo urbano. Los gobiernos nacionales, estaduales o provinciales y locales deben compartir la responsabilidad por la promoción del impuesto predial como un mecanismo idóneo y socialmente aceptable para el financiamiento y promoción del desarrollo urbano. El impuesto predial no se debe aplicar con criterios generalizados, sino que debe ser sensible a las ciudades latinoamericanas que tienen un fuerte legado de desigualdades económicas y socio-espaciales. Pueden existir buenos argumentos para gravar a todos los terrenos con una tasa más alta que las edificaciones, de forma racional y diferenciada, en particular en los terrenos periféricos sujetos a la especulación urbana y las tierras ofertadas ex-ante a los sectores sociales de menores ingresos, (asegurándose que su pago contribuye, además, a la construcción de ciudadanía de estos sectores). Y como ya se aseveró, es esencial crear instrumentos impositivos innovadores y adecuados a cada realidad y otras modalidades para captar las plusvalías generadas.

Educar a los actores en la promoción de nuevas políticas. Todos los actores involucrados en estos procesos, desde los jueces a los periodistas pasando por los académicos y por supuesto los funcionarios públicos y sus mentores internacionales, requieren contar con formación y capacitación en profundidad sobre el funcionamiento de los mercados y la gestión de la tierra urbana para lograr estos objetivos. Es indispensable identificar los “campos de resistencia mentales”, particularmente en el pensamiento urbanístico, económico y en las doctrinas jurídicas, que constituyen obstáculos que hay que superar. Debemos reconocer, por ejemplo, que existe y opera un “derecho informal” que legitima social, si bien no jurídicamente, muchas transacciones sobre la tierra y crea redes y espacios de solidaridad e integración. Es urgente realizar acciones para introducir estos temas y propuestas en las agendas políticas en los distintos niveles gubernamentales, los partidos políticos, las organizaciones sociales, la academia y los medios de comunicación social.

One of the characteristics that makes working on land policy in Latin America so fascinating is the ever-present contrast between the characteristics that are common throughout the region and the anomalies that make each country’s relationship with land unique.

When the 2007–2008 class of Loeb Fellows from Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design met for the first time in May 2007 to discuss options for the study trip that would conclude a year at Harvard the following spring, we quickly agreed on a number of criteria. We were looking for a place where change was happening now; a place where a visit five years before or hence would be a different experience; a place dealing with significant environmental, transportation, and housing challenges; a place looking for ways to preserve some of its past while moving into the future; and a place where it was possible to see the role that outside designers and consultants were playing. Most of all, the Loeb Fellows were looking for a place where they could be inspired by the leadership and vision they would experience. China quickly moved to the top of the list of places to be considered.

Weidong Qu is a research fellow at the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy in Beijing, and an associate professor in the Department of Land and Real Estate Management at Renmin University of China. Dr. Qu’s research interests include real estate appraisal, land and cadastral management, fuzzy cluster analysis, GIS programming and analysis for real estate valuation, and real estate investment analysis and finance.

Since 2003, he has focused much of his research on property tax reform in China. Dr. Qu has authored five academic books and published over twenty papers for both international and domestic Chinese journals and conferences. He earned his Ph.D. in real estate appraisal at the Geodetic Institute of the University of Hannover, Germany, in 2000.

Dr. Qu also serves as director of the China Association of Real Estate Academicians and executive secretary general of the Global Chinese Real Estate Congress. He is also conducting research in Munich on real estate mortgage valuation and risk analysis as a Humboldtianer fellow of Germany’s Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, and taking part in a research project on property tax reform in Germany.

Land Lines: How did you become associated with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy?

Weidong Qu: After returning to China in 2002 following my studies Germany, I took part in a training seminar on urbanization and smart growth that was cohosted by the Lincoln Institute and Renmin University. Then, in December 2003, I was invited by officials in the City of Shenzhen to participate in an international symposium on property taxation organized by China’s State Administration of Taxation and the Lincoln Institute. At a later conference on property taxation in Beijing in 2007, I met Joyce Yanyun Man, the director of the Institute’s China Program and the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy, and she invited me to join the Center’s research group to lead the property tax team.

Land Lines: Why is research on property taxation in China so important?

Weidong Qu: China’s real estate market has developed rapidly over the past 30 years as economic reforms have been introduced. At the same time, real estate–related taxes remain relatively complicated, with a lack of distinction between taxes and fees, and widespread use of administrative fees in place of taxes that may not otherwise have been approved by central regulatory authorities. The steady increase in the use of taxes and fees has begun to influence development costs in the residential housing sector, with the combined charges estimated to account for 40 percent of total costs for new housing stock. This situation is a growing source of criticism from both property developers and residents, who see this increase in charges as one of the factors pushing China’s urban housing prices ever higher.

Another tax-related issue confronting the sustainable growth of China’s real estate sector is the preference for levying taxes and fees on the developer rather than the ultimate owner. To date, China has not established a property tax system, and taxes and fees levied on property owners remain comparatively low, which has contributed to overinvestment and speculation in the property market.

In addition, due to China’s centralized tax system and the lack of a stable local revenue source such as a property tax, local governments have become heavily dependent on revenues from land transfer fees to fund public expenditures and infrastructure investments. According to China’s Ministry of Land and Resources, during the 11th Five-year Plan (2006–2010), more than 33 million mu (more than 200 million acres) of land was transferred by local governments for development, generating revenues of 7 trillion renminbi (approximately US$1.1 trillion). This land-based approach to public finance undermines economic stability and puts pressure on land prices, with the potential to contribute to a real estate bubble.

Land Lines: What challenges differentiate property tax issues in China from the experience in the United States, Europe, or other developed economies?

Weidong Qu: Property tax levies in developed countries are generally based on an assessed value, and most jurisdictions utilize computer-assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) systems to administer their property taxes. At this time, however, none of the taxes or fees levied on China’s real estate sector are based on an assessed value and, consequently, there is a critical shortage of experienced assessors and officials. Most current assessors focus primarily on individual properties, and they lack experience with mass appraisal techniques.

Administering a modern property tax also requires an integrated geographic and property database. My research indicates that more than 90 percent of China’s cities do not yet have such a property database, and many local governments cannot document the number of parcels within their jurisdictions, or even the ownership of each parcel.

Land Lines:How does property taxation in China relate to the country’s rapid urban development and growth?

Weidong Qu: According to a projection from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, China’s rate of urbanization will be 52.28 percent in 2015, 57.67 percent in 2020, and 67.81 percent in 2030, after which the rate is expected to stabilize. This trend will produce a rapid increase in the urban population and the need for significant expansion of basic infrastructure, such as schools and hospitals, as well as more residential housing. Supplying land for this new infrastructure will be an ongoing challenge and will eventually render China’s current land-based public financing approach unsustainable.

Land Lines: How do you approach property taxation in China through your own research?

Weidong Qu: The first official mention of property tax reform came in a report from the third plenary session of the 16th Central Committee of the Chinese Community Party in 2003. That report directed the government to “reform city and village construction taxes and fees, and levy a property tax on fixed assets when the conditions are ready, including the concomitant cancelation of overlapping taxes.” This statement was one of the major impetuses for the Lincoln Institute to become involved with property tax research in China and to collaborate with the State Administration of Taxation in Shenzhen, as well as the beginning of my own work in the area.

With the central government’s support, policy makers selected six Chinese cities to serve as initial property tax reform pilot cities for internal sample valuations and research. The study was later expanded to ten cities, including Beijing. These pilots have built upon China’s ongoing stamp tax reform, which refers to a value-based tax paid during the sale of a property and has been invaluable in pushing jurisdictions to formulate their own assessment standards. According to the Ministry of Finance, China will transition to an assessed-value standard for the stamp tax by 2012, which will require each jurisdiction to develop its own computer-assisted mass appraisal system.

In my opinion, four key issues merit research attention. First, it is important to define what we mean in China by a property tax, because considerable disagreement exists among policy makers and scholars about what such a tax should include. Second, property databases remain incomplete or inaccurate, so it is vital to conduct a national-scale survey of housing stock and ownership. Without this data, government agencies are unable to assess property values for all parcels within their jurisdictions or ensure that property tax bills are mailed to the correct property owner.

Third, further research into mass appraisal theories and techniques is still needed. Although China’s tax officials have made progress in their knowledge of the basic principles of mass appraisal, they generally lack specialized real estate training, and their limited understanding threatens to lead to ill-informed policy making. Fourth, before any progress can be made, it is necessary to overcome opposition from China’s political and economic elites, who often own multiple properties and have emerged as one of the biggest obstacles to property tax reforms. Given the uncertainty as to the final direction of property tax reform in China, these interest groups have seen delaying the imposition of a property tax as their best strategy.

Land Lines: What challenges has the PKU-Lincoln Center’s property tax demonstration project sought to address?

Weidong Qu: Since property tax reform in China was first mentioned in 2003, the Lincoln Institute has contributed to this important issue by hosting training seminars and international conferences on property tax assessment and theory, along with lessons from other international experiences. The property tax demonstration project represents the logical next step in the Institute’s work, with a goal of identifying and addressing the practical challenges of such reform. Many of these challenges, such as the importance of cross-ministerial information sharing and CAMA valuation codes, are not the high-profile issues focused on by officials, but they are equally important in ensuring the success of any property tax reform.

Specifically, the demonstration project has focused on 18 properties on Financial Street in western Beijing, the location of the People’s Bank of China and the headquarters of a number of other major domestic and international financial companies. We chose Financial Street because it is one of the most developed districts in Beijing; however, even in such a modern area it took us several months to collect all of the geographic, property, and tenant information needed. This underscores the importance of constructing standards for data gathering and information sharing among government agencies.

Land Lines: What are the biggest remaining obstacles to implementing an effective residential or commercial property tax in China?

Weidong Qu: Assessing a property tax on residential housing stock and on commercial real estate are two separate issues in China. As mentioned, many factors hinder the implementation of a property tax on residential housing stock, including the opposition of powerful interest groups and the current lack of reliable property transaction and ownership data. As in most countries, citizens’ historic opposition to paying taxes on owner-occupied property is also a challenge.

In terms of a property tax on commercial real estate, the current consensus is to leave the existing tax burden unchanged by eliminating the present land use fee and the rental-income and original-value-based real estate taxes levied on commercial property and then establishing a single assessed-value property tax. This approach should not generate the same opposition as that seen against a residential property tax.

In my view, there are two key challenges remaining. The first is to revise China’s existing laws related to taxes on property and then to draft new legislation. The second challenge is the current variety of commercial real estate and the lack of consensus on what valuation method should be used for each type. The demonstration project conducted by the PKU-Lincoln Center in 2009 focused exclusively on top-grade commercial real estate, such as office space, hotels, and apartments. There remains a need for further research on the best valuation methods for property such as gas stations, hospitals, shopping centers, and informal shops in China.

Siqi Zheng is an associate professor at the Hang Lung Center for Real Estate and the deputy head of the Department of Construction Management, both at Tsinghua University in Beijing, China. She specializes in urban economics and China’s housing market, particularly urban spatial structure, green cities, housing supply and demand, housing price dynamics, and low-income housing policies.

Her innovative and diverse research projects have been supported by international research institutions including the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the International Growth Center at London School of Economics, and various departments of the Chinese government including the National Science Foundation of China, the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, and the National Statistics Bureau of China.

Dr. Zheng received her Ph.D. in urban economics and real estate economics from Tsinghua University, and she pursued post-doctoral research in urban economics at the Graduate School of Design at Harvard University. She is a research fellow at both the Peking University-Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy and the Center for Industrial Development and Environmental Governance at Tsinghua University.

Dr. Zheng is also the vice secretary-general of the Global Chinese Real Estate Congress. She has won awards such as the Homer Hoyt Post-Doctoral Honoree (2010) and the Best Paper Award from the American Real Estate Society (2005). She is also on the editorial boards of Journal of Housing Economics and International Real Estate Review.

Land Lines: How did you become associated with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and its programs in China?

Siqi Zheng: I first learned about the Lincoln Institute when I did my postdoctoral research at Harvard University in 2005-2006. I joined the Peking University-Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy (PLC) as a research fellow soon after it was established in 2007. From that time I became fully involved in PLC’s research activities, such as conducting research projects, reviewing research proposals, and participating in conferences. I was awarded an international research fellowship by the Lincoln Institute in 2008-2009, with my colleagues Yuming Fu and Hongyu Liu, to study urban housing opportunities in various Chinese cities. I now lead the housing team at PLC in conducting policy-relevant research in the areas of housing market analysis and low-income housing policies.

Land Lines: Why is the study of the urban economics and the housing market so important to China’s future?

Siqi Zheng: China is experiencing rapid urbanization at a rate of about 50 percent in 2011, but it is expected to reach 70 percent over the next 10 to 20 years. Up to 1.5 million new migrants already move to Chinese cities per year. Such rapid urban growth offers potentially large economic benefits, as cities offer much better opportunities to trade, to learn, and to specialize in an occupation that offers an individual the greatest opportunity to achieve life goals.

However, rapid urbanization also imposes potentially large social costs, such as pollution and congestion, and urban quality of life suffers from a fundamental tragedy of the commons problem. Urban economics research addresses these issues and tries to figure out a way to maximize agglomeration economies and at the same time minimize congestion diseconomies. This is crucial for China’s future, because urbanization is the engine for China’s growth.

The housing sector is a key determinant of both the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of urban growth. Along the quantitative dimension, everyone in the city needs some place to live. Housing supply has important influences on a city’s overall size and its living cost, and thus the labor cost. Along the qualitative dimension, intensive social interactions happen in vibrant urban communities and neighborhoods. The spillover effect arising from such activities reduces the cost of learning and contributes to human capital improvement.

Low-income housing is a major policy issue in China. Income inequality is rising and housing prices are very high in major Chinese cities, so low-income households face severe affordability problems. For years the Chinese government had overlooked the supply of affordable housing, but it has recently began to understand that well-designed policies for low-income housing are crucial for achieving more inclusive urban growth opportunities for all residents.

Land Lines: How do you approach the study of urban economics and China’s housing market?

Siqi Zheng: I am doing cross-city and within-city studies on the intersection of urban and environmental economics. With increasing labor mobility across cities, China is moving toward a system of open cities. Under the compensating differentials framework, I use city-level real estate prices to recover households’ willingness-to-pay for urban amenities, such as better air quality, more green space, and educational opportunities. My basic finding is that Chinese urban households do value quality of life. As China’s urbanites grow richer over time, their desire to live in clean, low-risk cities is rising.

Within a city, I examine the jobs-housing spatial interactions–where people live, where they work, and how they choose their commuting mode. I use household survey data and real estate transaction data to model these behaviors, since individual choices determine the basic pattern of urban form. Those individual behaviors (“snowballs”) also have important implications for the interrelationships among land use, transportation, and the urban environment, because car ownership is rising and the increase in vehicle miles traveled has become a major contributor to pollution in Chinese cities.

I also focus on housing market dynamics and low-income housing policies. Our Tsinghua team constructed the first quality-controlled hedonic price index based on transaction data in 40 Chinese cities. My coauthors and I estimate the income elasticity of housing demand and the price elasticity of housing supply, and examine the determinants of such elasticities. Using microdata, I investigate how land and housing supply and public investments affect price and quantity dynamics in the urban housing market. I pay close attention to the housing choices of low-income households and rural migrants. Based on my behavior-based empirical study using microdata, I explore the kinds of urban and housing policies that can improve the position of these disadvantaged groups in both housing and labor markets.

Land Lines: What challenges do you think China will face in this field in the coming decade?

Siqi Zheng: The major challenge is how to achieve a successful transition toward sustainability. China’s rapid economic growth in recent years was largely export-based and benefited from low labor, land, and regulatory costs. The environmental disasters and social unrest that have occurred in many places in China indicate that the current approach is not sustainable for the long term.

Policy makers should reshape urban policies in a variety of ways. Remaining institutional barriers on labor mobility should be removed. Negative externalities of urban production and consumption activities (such as pollution and congestion) should be priced correctly so that individuals’ behaviors are consistent with the socially optimal solution. Income inequality and spatial inequality issues should be addressed. More investment in human capital is needed. Housing plays a pivot role because it is the largest asset a household owns, and it also affects accessibility to urban opportunities and the quality of social interactions.

Land Lines: What are some potential policy implications of this research on the housing market?

Siqi Zheng: Most of my work is empirical analysis with microdata, so I can focus on the incentives and choices made by individuals, firms, and governments. I also look at how these choices determine urban form, local quality of life, the labor market, and housing market outcomes. In this way I can provide key parameters for policy makers to support their policy design. For instance, I identify the cities with different housing supply and demand conditions, and suggest that officials should offer different low-income housing policy choices. Cities with an abundant housing stock can use demand-side instruments such as housing vouchers, but those without enough housing should use supply-side instruments such as building more public housing.

Land Lines: Is China’s experience with housing market development useful to share with other developing countries?

Siqi Zheng: Yes, because many countries also face difficult situations in their housing sectors. Some of the common challenges are how to house the vast numbers of rural migrants in cities; how to provide more affordable housing for increasing numbers of low-income people; where and by what means to provide such housing; and, as cities expand spatially, what are the appropriate urban planning policies and infrastructure investment strategies that can achieve efficient and inclusive urban growth? Through the research conferences and publications produced by the Peking University-Lincoln Institute Center, China’s experiences are already providing lessons for other developing countries.

Land Lines: Can you describe some examples of housing supply in the informal housing sector?

Siqi Zheng: Nations such as Brazil, India, and China have many poor migrants living in squatter and informal areas. Local governments have little incentive to provide public services to such areas because the improvements, including clean water and sewerage facilities, will simply stimulate more urban migration.

Chengzhongcun (urban village) is a typical type of informal housing in large Chinese cities. It represents a match between migrants’ demand for low-cost housing and the supply of housing available in the villages being encroached upon by urban expansion. High crime rates, inadequate infrastructure and services, and poor living conditions are just some of the problems in urban villages that threaten public security and management. My research on Chengzhongcun shows that local governments at first liked this kind of low-cost informal housing because it can lower labor costs and thus contribute to higher GDP growth in their cities. However, the low quality of social interaction and the shortage of basic public services do not provide a sustainable way of life for the poor rural migrants.

As the industrial sector moves toward a more skill-intensive economy, local governments should consider how to improve the quality of human capital rather than focus on the quantity of cheap labor. This may provide the incentive to upgrade informal housing and transform it to formal housing, or provide public housing to those migrants so they can access more urban opportunities and improve their skills. This transitional process is now occurring in China, and will soon happen in other developing countries that can benefit from China’s experience.

Another example is the role of housing supply in urban growth. Many studies already show that housing supply can support or constrain urban growth because the size and price of housing stock influence labor supply and living costs. In developing countries land and housing supply are influenced by government regulations and behaviors to a greater extent than in developed countries. The design of housing supply policies needs to accommodate future urban growth for all sectors of society.

I have written many working papers on these topics and contributed to the 2011 Lincoln Institute book, China’s Housing Reform and Outcomes, edited by Joyce Yanyun Man, director of the Peking-Lincoln Center at Peking University.

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

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

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

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

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

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