social housing & urban form in latin american cities · nora r libertun de duren...
TRANSCRIPT
Social Housing & Urban Form in Latin American Cities
1. Context2. Casestudy3. Conclusions
Nora R Libertun de [email protected]
Source:Sebastiao Salgado_AmazonasPictures
Context
1960’s Rural to Urban Migration
2010’s Urban to Rural Expansion
Source: Own elaboration based on UN Habitat 2014, State of Cities; and Angel et al, 2011. The Dynamics of Global Urban Expansion
Urban Area
4%
2%Urban
Population
1960 2010 2025
Urban areas grew faster than urban population
The urban footprint is rapidly expanding
Santiago de Chile
Sao Paulo, Brazil
Ciudad de Mexico
1960’s: informal settlements as peripheral places
Average density
60o residents/ha
2010’s: social housing in urban peripheries
Average density
40o residents/ha
% area of the urban periphery by land use (1960-2010)
City
Rural uses
Shantytowns
Gated …
Social Housing
Remaining area
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
32%Urban residents live in informal neighborhoods
55 millionLack access to adequate housing
57%Of urban residents work in the informal economy
InequalityLatin-American cities are the most unequal in terms of coverage & quality of services
High levels of informalityUneven access to urban services
Bogotá.Fuente:Caracol RadioCurrent state of Latin American Cities
HOUSING demand in Latin American Cities
Qualitative Quantitative(
HOUSING demand in Latin American Cities
Qualitative QuantitativeQualitative
HOUSING Subsidies in Latin American Cities
Urban outcome
Case studyMEXICO
DEFICIT7% Quantitative93% Qualitative (10m urban households
SUBSIDIES6% repairs to existing units94% credit for new units(+55million usd)
Fed.Governmentannualtarget:
750k socialhousingunits
# of Housing Units sold per year
25% housing units were built after 2000
22 Km average distance to downtown
87% ofunitswerebuiltonthe2nd ringoftheurbanperiphery
11% ofunitswerebuiltonthe1st ringoftheurbanperiphery
Social housing geography
Puebla
Peripheral vs CentralSocialhousing Development
+Interviews to developers +review policy instruments
26,600US$
37,000US$
Social Housing spatial rationale
Peripheral vs CentralECONOMIES OF SCALE
Average company size500+ vs 70 employees
PortfolioAll vs only social housing
Social Housing spatial rationale
Peripheral vs CentralCOST STRUCTURE:
land + infrastructure
30%land infrastructure
Social Housing spatial rationale
Peripheral vs CentralCOST STRUCTURE:
Economies of scale
10% savings with 500+ units
More negotiation powerSmall vs big municipalities…
Social Housing spatial rationale
National programs determine Funding structureArchitectural standards
Municipal governments determineLand use
Social Housing spatial rationale
The challenge of cities today is the expanding urban fringe, not the growing urban population.
Conclusions
Central and Peripheral Social Housing Developers Have similar cost structures
Gain is based on -economies of scale & -power asymmetries
Conclusions
National PoliciesMismatch between need and demand(subsides for new vs improved)
Subnational policiesPush social housing to periphery
Lack metro coordination leads to expanded urban footprint
SuggestionsPROACTIVE
ü Match subsidies to demand
ü Support rental housing & improvement programs
ü Increase urban densities & metropolitan planning
ü Limit maximum social housing complex size
SuggestionsREACTIVE
ü Support jobs in peripheries
ü Improve transport connections
ü Develop public spaces of quality
ü Facilitate legal processes
ü Improve environmental performance
