SHARE
The Sun Belt grew at spectacular rates in the late twentieth century, and among western U.S. cities Phoenix and its metropolitan region led the pack. The Census Bureau reports that between 1990 and 2000 Maricopa County was the fastest growing county in the nation at 44.8 percent, increasing from 2,122,101 to 3,072,149 people. The county is the fourth largest in the nation in terms of total population. During the 1990s, the city of Phoenix topped one million people and became the sixth largest U.S. city. Its spatial expanse has eclipsed that of the city of Los Angeles. According to the Phoenix Planning Department’s data, the region is growing by about 63,000 residents per year and requires about 23,000 new housing units to meet the demand. Statewide, the population is growing by more than 2,000 residents per week, and the number of people in the state is expected to double in the next 20 years.
The weather, relatively affordable housing and abundant jobs attract a diverse array of newcomers, but increased population has numerous social and environmental consequences. Debate rages about the impacts of growth locally and nationally: Is it good? Is it deleterious? Can it be sustained? At what cost? Who benefits? Who suffers?
A group of Arizona State University (ASU) faculty has recognized that these phenomena represent an opportunity for both research and public service in this fast-growing urban environmental laboratory. Furthermore, knowledge gleaned from such inquiries could lead to smarter growth and more livable places in the future. This notion provides the intellectual foundation for a project named Greater Phoenix 2100 (GP 2100), which seeks to provide data and analysis to the region’s decision makers to help them make wise choices about the future.
Greater Phoenix 2100 Workshops
The Lincoln Institute helped ASU launch GP 2100 through workshops in April 2001 that brought together ASU faculty and staff, community leaders, national participants from institutions such as the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the National Research Council, and four distinguished speakers who stimulated debate and discussion. The panelists were ecologist and author Dan Botkin, professor emeritus of the University of California-Santa Barbara; Michael Crow, an authority on science policy and executive vice provost at Columbia University; political scientist Helen Ingram, formerly director of the Arizona Water Resources Research Center and now professor of human ecology at the University of California-Irvine; and Bob Yaro, executive director of the Regional Plan Association.
They observed that for the Phoenix metropolitan region to continue to prosper, three overlapping spheres of influence must be considered: the creation of knowledge capital, the enhancement of social capital, and the preservation of natural capital.
The GP 2100 workshop panelists and other participants suggested that ASU should become the convener for discussions on growth, as well as the data bank for computer-stored geographical information about these intersecting, mutually dependent spheres. As a result, ASU should create various scenarios for the future in a “Sim Phoenix” format and a “Decision Theater” that would be a physical and a virtual place where academic and community leaders could probe the consequences of possible actions.
Databases and Audiences
Still in its early stages, ASU’s GP 2100 seeks to coordinate federal, state and academic information programs relating to the environment of the region. The project will be linked with similar studies in other metropolitan areas and global city regions (Simmonds and Hack 2000). GP 2100 will answer questions that people care about by providing objective, scientifically based information using state-of-the-art forecasting and decision tools and theories. Coupled with the Central Arizona/Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research Project (CAP LTER) supported by the National Science Foundation, GP 2100 has the potential to launch a network of similar undertakings nationally and internationally.
GP 2100 will develop and present a wide variety of scientific and technical data on the past, present and possible futures of the Phoenix metropolitan region. The project builds on the premise that knowledge can be used to create better lives for future generations. GP 2100 will provide learning and research experiences to six major groups of people.
Goals and Benefits
The goal of GP 2100 is to make the best possible scientific and technical information available in ways that will enable wise, knowledge-based decision-making that can shape the region during the next 100 years. This time frame presents a purposefully longer-term view of the metropolitan region than has previously been developed. While short-term visioning is limited by immediate considerations, a century-long perspective requires the incorporation of mutigenerational concerns and changes in technology. A 100-year time frame also allows for evaluation of impacts of such geologically common events as droughts, major floods and gradual climate changes. In short, GP 2100 will be a strong scientific resource for consideration of the region’s long-term prospects and for creating the kind of future its residents want.
Two types of benefits will flow from the project. The first relates to the future quality of life in the region. An underlying assumption of GP 2100 is that better information will lead to wiser decision-making that will, in turn, result in healthier, more livable communities. Metropolitan Phoenix is expected to double from 3 to 6 million people in the next 20 or 30 years. Meanwhile, the global population will increase from 6 to 9 billion people and will become more urban. Such growth poses many challenges relating to land use, transportation, open space, biodiviersity, urban design, recreation, employment, equity, air quality, water quality and quantity, and the overall quality of life of city regions. The GP 2100 effort will be beneficial to those who are addressing these concerns in Phoenix by providing a prototype of how science-based tools and a regional perspective can better inform long-term decision-making. By viewing the Phoenix region as an urban environmental laboratory, the lessons learned will have implications for the broader scientific and policy communities.
GP 2100 will also be an asset for ASU researchers and students, who will have the opportunity to collaborate in multidisciplinary teams and will have access to state-of-the-art GIS and visualization technologies. New and emerging theories in urban and landscape ecology, decision science, land use and environmental modeling, and biocomplexity will be explored.
Special Features
Several linked products are envisioned to flow from GP 2100. Existing data can be coalesced into a dynamic warehouse of continuously updated regional information. Such a data repository can be presented to the public through an Urban eAtlas, which will be made available in electronic and more conventional forms to provide documentation of existing conditions and enable the construction of future scenarios. The digital version will be available on-line so it may be continuously accessed and updated.
The data archives and Urban eAtlas will contribute to a third major product: Sim Phoenix, an interactive computer game that can help researchers, citizens and decision makers visualize the consequences of “what if” scenarios. Sim Phoenix is a step toward the creation of an even more ambitious visualization project: a Decision Theater where local leaders, citizens, students and researchers can explore future options for the region. The Decision Theater will be a physical space in which scientific data, group dynamics and interactive computer technology are used to develop simulations of the region’s futures and considerations of their consequences. The simulations and their representations will evolve with new computational and representational technologies as well as with new scientific information.
GP 2100 will complement and augment existing long-term monitoring activities being conducted at ASU, such as the CAP LTER project, one of only two such urban LTER sites in the nation. Launching a satellite in cooperation with NASA is one monitoring possibility. This “Phoenix-Sat” would pass over the region twice daily, enabling diurnal measurements of such dynamic parameters as traffic, air quality, soil moisture and construction. It is possible that the Phoenix-Sat could be part of a larger international remote-sensing program for urban resource monitoring. Tools such as the data archives, Urban eAtlas, Sim Phoenix, the Decision Theater and Phoenix-Sat will enable scholars and decision makers alike to probe the major issues that metropolitan areas like Phoenix will face in the coming century. As a result, problems may be foreseen and avoided and opportunities pursued with vigor.
Faculty in the life, physical and social sciences at Arizona State University are currently compiling a comprehensive suite of information about the region. Planners, policy analysts and educators also could identify a series of key response variables and parameters for a Decision Theater. Computer scientists could program this complex information so that it can be displayed in both two- and three-dimensional formats, as well as animated views illustrating changes through time. The data could be automatically updated from dynamic government and university databases, from hundreds of sensors throughout the metropolitan region, and from orbiting satellites.
In this first-of-its-kind Decision Theater, high quality audio and visual presentation systems will include a 180-degree screen, which provides an immersive, synthetic environment along with comfortable ergonomics. This arrangement enables decision makers and researchers to come together to explore, debate and analyze options for the future. The Decision Theater is capable of high-resolution stereoscopic viewing using shuttered glasses. A visitor can have her or his viewing position tracked (”head-tracking”), giving the impression of truly walking within the data and data results, pondering the possible landscapes of the future from different angles. It could be associated with an innovative Planetary Imaging Faculty set up jointly by ASU and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, as well as dance and visual representation projects from ASU’s Institute for Studies in the Arts. While real-time interaction with data and models in the Decision Theater is engrossing, a comparably rich on-line experience is also possible through the use of web-based multimedia, text, data download and upload, and modeling tools. The virtual Decision Theater allows a participant to interact with a Sim Phoenix-like game.
How will the Decision Theater be implemented? Four interactive parameters appear especially crucial for modeling the future: water availability, air quality, open space and land use. ASU and its community and government partners already possess an enormous storehouse of data on these parameters, but the challenge is to combine the data in meaningful ways. To this end, the Greater Phoenix 2100 team, in conjunction with the Arizona Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Geological Survey, is now developing a water availability prototype that would use the hydrologic cycle to model regional water availability using factors of precipitation, supply, evaporation and demand to illustrate water futures both graphically and spatially.
A Model for Other Metropolitan Regions
Generations of citizens and scholars will benefit from Greater Phoenix 2100. The project will result in products that will help community and business leaders make wiser decisions. It will assist local, state, and federal officials in planning and designing programs and policies. The project will aid teachers and students in their understanding of natural and social processes. Greater Phoenix 2100 presents uniquely complex targets for technological, scientific and policy analysis advancements. It will produce and facilitate interaction with massive, typically disparate, datasets. Because its major components are easily transferable to other urban regions, the project can provide a model for other places interested in pursuing similar initiatives. In this century, some two-thirds of the world’s population will live in urban areas. Greater Phoenix 2100 has far-reaching implications concerning the application of knowledge capital to regional and urban decision-making in order to maximize social capital while maintaining the natural capital of the metropolitan region.
Frederick Steiner, an internationally recognized expert on environmental planning, is dean of the School of Architecture at the University of Texas at Austin. He was formerly professor and director of the School of Planning and Landscape Architecture at Arizona State University.
Reference
Simmonds, Roger and Gary Hack, editors. 2000. Global City Regions: Their Emerging Forms. London: Spon Press.
SHARE
An apparent paradox exists in developing countries between a more progressive definition of property rights and current trends toward privatization. On one hand, most proposals and programs of urban management have required the adoption of a socially oriented approach to property rights, which guarantees broader scope for state intervention in controlling the process of land use and development. This is particularly the case with land regularization programs. On the other hand, the widespread adoption of liberalization policies and privatization schemes has reinforced a traditional, individualistic approach to property rights, thus undermining progressive attempts to discipline the use and development of urban property. Are these trends mutually exclusive or can they be reconciled to some extent?
Two related workshops for policymakers, urban managers and academics were held in Johannesburg, South Africa, in late July to address this paradox. The Sixth “Law and Urban Space” Workshop was cosponsored by the International Research Group on Law and Urban Space (IRGLUS) and the University of the Witwatersrand’s Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS). The Lincoln Institute supported that workshop and also sponsored a seminar on “Security of Land Tenure in South Africa, Sub-Saharan Countries, Brazil and India.”
The Conceptual Framework for Law and Urban Space
IRGLUS, a Working Group of the Research Committee on Sociology of Law of the International Sociological Association (ISA), seeks to discuss critically the legal dimension of the urbanization process, thus promoting a long-needed dialogue between legal studies and urban environmental studies. Most urban studies have reduced law-including legal provisions, judicial decisions and the overall legal culture-to its instrumental dimension. Law is dismissed by some as if it were just a political instrument of social discrimination and political exclusion. It is taken for granted by others as if it were merely a technical, unproblematic instrument that can provide immediate solutions to escalating urban and environmental problems.
Among urban scholars and professionals alike, there is little understanding of the reasons for the growing illegal practices identified in urban areas, particularly those concerning the use and development of land. Existing data suggests that if both access to land and construction patterns are taken into account between 40 and 70 percent of the population in the major cities in developing countries are somehow disobeying the prevailing legal provisions. And this figure is not confined to low-income land users.
Few studies have asked why this phenomenon of urban illegality has happened, why it matters and what can be done about it. Most observers fail to see the apparent divide between the so-called legal and illegal cities as an intricate web in which there are intimate though contradictory relationships between the official and the unofficial rules, and between the formal and the informal urban land markets.
The combination of the lack of an efficient official housing policy in most developing countries and the actions of largely uncontrolled market forces does not provide adequate housing solutions for the vast majority of the urban population. Far from being restricted to the urban poor, urban illegality needs to be addressed with urgency, given its grave social, political, economic and environmental consequences to the overall urban structure and society.
However, if urban illegality is but a reflection of the powerful combination of land markets and political systems, it is also the result of the often elitist and exclusionary nature of the legal system prevailing in many developing countries. Both the adoption of legal instruments, which do not reflect the existing social realities affecting access to urban land and housing, and the lack of proper legal regulation have had a most perverse role in aggravating, if not determining, the process of socio-spatial segregation.
Definitions of Property Rights
One the most significant problems affecting urban management in this context is that, despite the existence of rhetorical provisions, urban environmental policies frequently lack legal support in the basic provisions of the legal system in force, especially those of a constitutional nature. The central issue to be addressed in this regard is property rights, specifically urban real property. Indeed, in many countries the progressive, socially oriented assumptions of urban policies, implying as they do a broad scope for state action, are frequently at odds with the constitutional definition of property rights.
Several presentations in the IRGLUS/CALS Workshop discussed how the traditional approach to individual property rights prevailing in many developing countries, typical of classical liberalism, has long favored economic exchange values to the total detriment of the principle of the social function of property. Many significant attempts at promoting land use planning and control, including the legal protection of the environment and historical-cultural heritage, have been undermined by a dominant judicial interpretation that significantly reduces the scope for state intervention in the domain of individual property rights. Attempts to promote land regularization have also been frequently opposed by both landowners and conservative courts, even in situations where the land occupation has been consolidated for a long time.
Whereas the excessive, speculative hoarding of privately owned urban land has been tacitly encouraged, the effective implementation of a long-claimed social housing policy has been rendered more difficult due to the need to compensate the owners of vacant land at full market prices. In many countries, the individual property rights system inherited as a result of colonial rule often fails to take into account traditional customary values in the definition of property rights. Since these countries have largely failed to reform the foundations of legal-political liberalism, the discussion of so-called neo-liberalism is a false question in this context.
The Workshop participants placed special emphasis on the legal-political conditions for the recognition of security of tenure. It was noted that agents as diverse as social movements, NGOs and international finance organizations have increasingly made use of different though complementary humanitarian, ethical, sociopolitical and, more recently, economic arguments to justify the need to adopt public policies on this matter. Legal arguments also need to be adopted, including long-standing provisions of international law and the fundamental principles of the rule of law concerning housing and human rights, so that a new, socially oriented and environmentally friendly approach to property rights is recognized.
Much of the discussion focused on whether security of tenure can only and/or necessarily be achieved through the recognition of individual property rights. In fact, the analysis of several experiences suggested that the mere attribution of property rights does not entail, per se, the achievement of the main goal of most regularization programs-that is, the full integration of illegal areas and communities into the broader urban structure and society. The general consensus was that a wide range of legal-political options should be considered, from the transfer of individual ownership to some forms of leasehold and/or rent control to more innovative forms, still unexplored, of collective ownership or occupation with varying degrees of state control.
It was argued that the recognition of urban land tenure rights has to take place within the broader, integrated and multi-sectoral scope of city (and land use) planning, and not as an isolated policy, to prevent distortions in the land market and thus minimize the risk of evicting the traditional occupants. Examples from case studies in Brazil, India and South Africa have shown that, whatever the solution adopted in a particular case, it will only work properly if it is the result of a democratic and transparent decision-making process that effectively incorporates the affected communities.
Above all, it was accepted that the redefinition of property rights, and therefore the recognition of security of tenure, needs to be promoted within a broader context in which urban reform and law reform are reconciled. Law reform is a direct function of urban governance. It requires new strategies of urban management based upon new relations between the state (especially at the local level) and society; renewed intergovernmental relations; and the adoption of new forms of partnership between the public and the private sectors within a clearly defined legal-political framework.
Law reform fundamentally requires the renovation of the overall decision-making process to combine traditional mechanisms of representative democracy and new forms of direct participation. Indeed, many municipalities in several countries have recently introduced new mechanisms to allow the participation of urban dwellers in several stages of the decision-making process affecting urban management. Examples are at the executive level through the creation of committees, commissions, etc., or the legislative level through popular referendums or by recognizing individual and/or collective initiatives in the law-making process, as well as the formulation of popular amendments to proposed bills. A most interesting and promising experience is that of the “participatory budgeting” adopted in several Brazilian cities, in which community-based organizations participate in the formulation of the local investment budgets.
Finally, the need to promote a comprehensive legal reform and judicial review can no longer be neglected, especially in order to promote the recognition of collective rights, to broaden collective access to courts and to guarantee law enforcement. India and Brazil, for instance, have already incorporated the notion of collective rights in their legal systems to some extent, thus enabling the judicial defense of so-called “diffuse interests” in environmental and urban matters by both individuals and NGOs.
In other words, urban reform and the recognition of security of tenure are not to be attained merely through law, but through a political process that supports the recognition of the long-claimed “right to the city” not only as a political notion, but as a legal one, too. There is a fundamental role to be played in this process by lawyers, judges and prosecutors for the government. However, the collective action of NGOs, social movements, national and international organizations, and individuals within and without the state apparatus is of utmost importance to guarantee both the enactment of socially oriented laws and, more importantly, their enforcement.
If these are truly democratic times, the age of rights has to be also the age of the enforcement of rights, and especially of collective rights. It is only through a participatory process that law can become an important political arena to promote spatial integration, social justice and sustainable development.
Edesio Fernandes is a lawyer and a research fellow at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies of the University of London. He is coordinator of IRGLUS-International Research Group on Law and Urban Space and coeditor (with Ann Varley) of Illegal Cities: Law and Urban Change in Developing Countries (Zed Books, London and New York, 1998).
SHARE
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:
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.
SHARE
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.
SHARE
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.
SHARE
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.
SHARE
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.
SHARE
Population density has been identified by many analysts as a key indicator of the efficiency and sustainability of human development patterns.
SHARE
Many historic centers in Latin America have been the focus of government and private initiatives seeking to rehabilitate the building stock and position the areas to serve the tourism industry. In most cases these efforts have led to the displacement of lowincome residents or of residential activities altogether, due to gentrification and commercialization of the district (Scarpaci 2005). More recently, the rehabilitation of these historic cores has been framed as part of broader debates and efforts that pursue the recovery of the city centers (historical or otherwise) because of their key role as collective symbols or spaces of social interaction, or because of their potential efficiency as dense, well-serviced urban districts (Pérez, Pujol, and Polèse 2003; Rojas 2004).
This article seeks to advance this discussion based on the experience in Panama City’s historic center, “Casco Antiguo.” It describes some recent, innovative policies that have explored the intersections of tourism, affordable housing, employment, and culture in a historical context, and draws some general insights and lessons.
SHARE
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.
