Suchergebnisse

During the period immediately after World War II, planning in North America and Europe followed highly centralized, top-down, command-and-control approaches that were based on the rational-comprehensive model of planning, which implies an all-knowing, all-powerful government. Part and parcel of this approach was the government's control of development land and its value. Beginning in the 1970s, as the precepts of an all-knowing, interventionist state clashed with the reality of uncontrollable global forces driven by multinationals and international finance, it became clear that planning had become a market-driven process, a "servant of the market", and that inflexible, detailed plans would not work in most real-life situations. Consequently, such plans were either ignored or overridden. This crisis of planning spurred a search for alternatives based on public-private partnerships, negotiation, and flexibility including ways to transfer increased land values to the public trough the development process. This approach is generally known as Land Value Recapture (LVR). This paper presents an example of LVR in the US, a rather unique example in the US. It concludes by suggesting that the belief that the increase in land values is not the result of the landowner's activities, and are therefore "unearned" and should be recaptured for the public benefit, is not part of the American planning culture. LVR, then, might have a hard time supplanting other market-based regulatory strategies that are voluntary for developers and less restrictive of property rights for the landowner.DOI: http://dx.medra.org/10.19254/LaborEst.09.11

Southern Italian cities are often characterized by widespread phenomena of illegal settlements, that have resulted – among other things – in a worsening of the quality of life in the urban-rural interface, and the weakening of the considerable architectural interest of the entire city. The goal of this paper is to propose an approach that would help rehabilitate what is already built, and in so doing improving on the quality and liveability of those cities. This approach is based on a particular methodology based on the promotion of Urban Complex Programs (PUC), which provide a system of development rights resulting from the demolition of unfinished illegal settlements. The benefits of this approach are many, including improvements in efficiencies and safety, meeting demands of environmental protection and reducing consumption of energy, seismic risk prevention and improving the liveability and attractiveness of the areas with illegal settlements. These benefits can be obtained only on one condition: that they are based on a system of collective and public amenities in accordance with the principle of sustainability in multiple dimensions (environmental, cultural, technological, political, institutional, social and economic). But for this approach to be viable it needs also to be convenient for the private actors aswell. With this paper we hope to provide first an original approach that can improve the conditions of cities burdened with the problems of illegal settlements that is both sustainable and convenient and, second, an instrument that can provide information for both the public and private sectors on the fairness of the procedure and their mutual interest in pursuing this approach.DOI: http://dx.medra.org/10.19254/LaborEst.09.13