Table 1.2 Impacts of Government Actions on Land Markets, the Size of

ticular case, and the table might not be applicable in all cases. For instance, the preservation of sensitive areas through urban growth boundaries may be combined with an increase in the fl oor area ratio and in the permissible transfer of development rights in a particular context so as not to cause necessarily a spike in land prices.

Most important in the one-system perspective is the fact that most government actions listed in table 1.2 have limited objectives and do not refl ect any consideration for the impacts on land supply and demand, the shape of the city in the long term, and the attendant implications for economic and resource ineffi ciency. For instance, in the construction of ring roads, the objective is usually to alleviate congestion by allowing through traffi c to bypass the city center. Little thought is given to the impact on the supply and the price of land.

Because the objectives of urban regulations and investments do not consider the one-system approach, it is not surprising that many government actions are contradictory. For instance, in Bangalore, India, the local government fi nances a bus rapid transit system that tends to concentrate jobs in the center of the city. At the same time, the fl oor area ratio has been kept lower in the central business district than in the suburbs, thereby preventing the concentration of jobs in the central business district, which would have been the justifi cation and rationale of the bus system in the fi rst place.

Table 1.2 Impacts of Government Actions on Land Markets, the Size of the Informal Sector, and the Spatial Structure of Cities

Source: Bertaud (2009). Increase = +; decrease = −; (?) = not known.

This type of contradictory action between two branches of local government—transportation and land use planning in this case—is rather typical. Transportation engineers want high densities along transit routes to ensure a large number of passengers for the transit they design. Planners, faced with congestion in the city center, fi nd it easier to regulate a decrease in densities to alleviate congestion. This is where a planning framework may be valuable. A framework helps ensure that the misalignment of actions is drastically reduced.

Targeting of policies: Recognize the diff erent needs of existing urban areas and new development One of the biggest factors infl uencing the sequencing of investments and their capital costs is the focus of the development, whether a newly urbanizing area or an existing part of the city. Most cities include both types of situations, and it is important to adjust and target the strategies accordingly.

NEW DEVELOPMENT

In newly urbanizing areas, the extent of onesystem integration is wide open. The major constraints may be the fi nancial resources and the capacity of the design team. The clear advantage of new urbanization is the opportunity to apply the best land use practices and spatial design principles and to integrate land use planning and the design of infrastructure systems. The stage may be set for cost-eff ective, incremental urbanization through optimal sequencing. Reserving rights-of-way for roads and services is easier, as is the allocation and designation of land for key government and utility functions and open spaces.

An example in Freiburg, Germany, is the alignment of transit services with land development planning. Because occupancy permits are not granted for new residences until light rail transit services have begun operations in a block, newcomers are discouraged from using cars for commuting. The road-building requirements in developments are thus kept to a minimum.

However, the pace of change may be a complex issue governed by the individual agendas and fi nancing capacities of various landowners and government actors. In most cities, one of the biggest roadblocks to the implementation of well-thought-through spatial plans in new areas is the ground-level realities of landownership and the limitations of the city’s infl uence on land and of the city’s fi nances. Special policies may be required to help unorganized landowners cooperate and to avoid incremental and largely unplanned expansion into new areas. An example of such a policy is urban land pooling and land readjustment. This method is particularly interesting because it tackles two problems at once: land and fi nance. It is briefl y described in box 1.5.

THE RETROFITTING AND REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING AREAS

One of the diffi culties we all face when we are confronted by urban problems is the illusion of permanence. The physical reality of buildings, roads, and trees conveys a strong message that only through superhuman eff ort will radical changes occur. But, of course, the reality is almost the reverse. Maintaining neighborhoods in their current form, delaying the deterioration of buildings and roads, and providing services to all residents and businesses typically require vast amounts of energy and time on a day-to-day basis. In fact, the operating and maintenance costs of many city neighborhoods are often so high that it is possible to justify a complete retrofi tting of neighborhoods and, in some cases, even redevelopment if the disruption to people’s lives and businesses is not an issue.

Badly planned cities represent a constant drain on resources. In dealing with existing urban areas, cities may rely on a range of measures to enable the existing built form to perform much more eff ectively. The measures