Search

This paper focuses on the interaction between land use planning and infrastructure provision, and offers an overview of the methods that are used in different development contexts to share the costs of local infrastructures and facilities between the public and the private sector. Over the last forty years or so, in the face of intense fiscal pressure and a drastic reduction in the transfer of resources from the central government, local authorities have increasingly been searching for alternative means to fund the provision of off-site infrastructures and facilities.

The paper is aimed at exploring the advantages of public authorities within the context of negotiating Public Private Partnership (PPP). In the last years many European cities have developed complex urban interventions through innovative forms of cooperation between the public and private sector. Given the limitations in public funds to cover investments and the need to increase the quality and efficiency of public services, these kind of Public Private Partnership allow public and private sectors to define different kind of agreements with respect to future urban development interventions. Starting from the analysis of the urban developments under PPP carried out in Lombardy Region over the last 15 years, the paper provides an overview of the surplus values as it results from land use change and intensification with aim of pointing out its allocation between public and private parties. Despite the difficulty of performing an ex-post evaluation of surplus value, meant as difference between the asset value before and after transformation, mainly for the limited and incomplete economic data recorded by the agreement, some preliminary insights have been drawn and a first operational framework is suggested in order to evaluate the sustainability of the urban development interventions under a public perspective.

This paper is focused on land value in urban development agreements based on public-private partnerships. The first part discusses the topic in relation to the neoliberal planning model emerged during the nineties which has characterized the most part of urban developments until today. According to this model, urban development agreements assume a negotiated variation from the local statutory plan, thus bringing flexibility to the planning systems, as well as making the planning choices more discretional than before. Very often the planning gain of developers is not balanced by the value capture from local authorities. In this context the ex-ante evaluation of urban developments proposed by private developers assumes a strategic role to support the negotiation process and to guarantee good public performances within the complex decisional frame where private players and public administration act. For this reason, the paper introduces an operational tool to compare the land value before the development and the surplus value generated by the intervention. The public perspective adopted in the this study has addressed the evaluation with the aim to show how to achieve a fair balance between private gains and public benefits.

In the following article we will lay out the urban development guidelines which two municipalities of Gran Canaria have undergone, Gáldar and Guía which, together with Agaete, make up the Northwest sector of the island. The urban expansion took place mainly on the coastal strip of both municipalities, below 300m of altitude above sea level due to the strong demographic increase that took place there at the beginning of the 20th century as a result of agricultural development, particularly in banana and tomato farming; and stemming from the fact that, from the sixties onwards, and more precisely the eighties, property developers realized that the transformation of rural land into urban could be very profitable. This fact caused an urban expansion in the aforementioned strip by means of the legal norm known as the Urban Development Agreement. With this agreement an abstraction was made of the Subsidiary Planning Regulations and furthermore a great connivance between local powers and property developers took place. All with the aim of warranting the private interests of the latter, over the general welfare of the community, in these municipalities., En el artículo que se presenta a continuación damos a conocer las pautas del desarrollo urbano que han experimentado dos municipios de Gran Canaria, Gáldar y Guía, que, con Agaete conforman el sector noroeste de esa isla. La expansión urbana tuvo lugar fundamentalmente en la franja costera de ambos municipios, localizada por debajo de los 300 m de altitud sobre el nivel del mar, porque fue allí donde a comienzos del siglo XX se produjo un fuerte crecimiento demográfico, como resultado del desarrollo agrícola, en particular de los cultivos del plátano y de tomate; y porque a partir de los años sesenta, y más concretamente de los ochenta, los promotores inmobiliarios vieron que la transformación del suelo rural en urbano podía ser muy rentable. Este hecho originó una expansión urbana, en la franja espacial mencionada mediante la utilización de una norma legal como es el Convenio Urbanístico. Con ella se hacía abstracción de las Normas Subsidiarias de planificación y además se producía una gran connivencia de actuación entre los poderes locales y los promotores inmobiliarios. Todo ello con el fin de garantizar los intereses particulares de estos últimos, por delante del bien general de la comunidad, en estos municipios. [fr] L’article que nous présentons ci de suite révèle quelles furent les normes qui favorisèrent le développement urbain de deux municipalités de la Grande Canarie : Gáldar et Guía, qui, avec Agaete, constituent le secteur Nord-Ouest de l’île. L’expansion urbaine eut lieu essentiellement le long de la frange côtière des deux villes, située à moins de 300 m d’altitude au-dessus du niveau de la mer. En effet, au début du XXe siècle, celles- ci avaient enregistré une forte croissance démographique due au développement de l’agriculture et, en particulier, des cultures de bananes et de tomates ; d’autre part, à partir des années soixante, et surtout dans les années quatre-vingt, les promoteurs immobiliers virent que la transformation du sol rural en sol urbain pouvait être très rentable. Cela provoqua un étalement urbain le long de la bande littorale grâce à l’utilisation d’une norme légale : la Convention d’urbanisme. Celle-ci permettait d’ignorer les Normes Subsidiaires d’aménagement urbain, alors qu’une importante connivence d’action se produisait entre les pouvoirs locaux de ces deux municipalités et les promoteurs immobiliers, afin d’assurer les intérêts particuliers de ces derniers par-dessus l’intérêt général de la communauté.

In the following article we will lay out the urban development guidelines which two municipalities of Gran Canaria have undergone, Gáldar and Guía which, together with Agaete, make up the Northwest sector of the island. The urban expansion took place mainly on the coastal strip of both municipalities, below 300m of altitude above sea level due to the strong demographic increase that took place there at the beginning of the 20th century as a result of agricultural development, particularly in banana and tomato farming; and stemming from the fact that, from the sixties onwards, and more precisely the eighties, property developers realized that the transformation of rural land into urban could be very profitable. This fact caused an urban expansion in the aforementioned strip by means of the legal norm known as the Urban Development Agreement. With this agreement an abstraction was made of the Subsidiary Planning Regulations and furthermore a great connivance between local powers and property developers took place. All with the aim of warranting the private interests of the latter, over the general welfare of the community, in these municipalities. En el artículo que se presenta a continuación damos a conocer las pautas del desarrollo urbano que han experimentado dos municipios de Gran Canaria, Gáldar y Guía, que, con Agaete conforman el sector noroeste de esa isla. La expansión urbana tuvo lugar fundamentalmente en la franja costera de ambos municipios, localizada por debajo de los 300 m de altitud sobre el nivel del mar, porque fue allí donde a comienzos del siglo XX se produjo un fuerte crecimiento demográfico, como resultado del desarrollo agrícola, en particular de los cultivos del plátano y de tomate; y porque a partir de los años sesenta, y más concretamente de los ochenta, los promotores inmobiliarios vieron que la transformación del suelo rural en urbano podía ser muy rentable. Este hecho originó una expansión urbana, en la franja espacial mencionada mediante la utilización de una norma legal como es el Convenio Urbanístico. Con ella se hacía abstracción de las Normas Subsidiarias de planificación y además se producía una gran connivencia de actuación entre los poderes locales y los promotores inmobiliarios. Todo ello con el fin de garantizar los intereses particulares de estos últimos, por delante del bien general de la comunidad, en estos municipios. [fr] L’article que nous présentons ci de suite révèle quelles furent les normes qui favorisèrent le développement urbain de deux municipalités de la Grande Canarie : Gáldar et Guía, qui, avec Agaete, constituent le secteur Nord-Ouest de l’île. L’expansion urbaine eut lieu essentiellement le long de la frange côtière des deux villes, située à moins de 300 m d’altitude au-dessus du niveau de la mer. En effet, au début du XXe siècle, celles- ci avaient enregistré une forte croissance démographique due au développement de l’agriculture et, en particulier, des cultures de bananes et de tomates ; d’autre part, à partir des années soixante, et surtout dans les années quatre-vingt, les promoteurs immobiliers virent que la transformation du sol rural en sol urbain pouvait être très rentable. Cela provoqua un étalement urbain le long de la bande littorale grâce à l’utilisation d’une norme légale : la Convention d’urbanisme. Celle-ci permettait d’ignorer les Normes Subsidiaires d’aménagement urbain, alors qu’une importante connivence d’action se produisait entre les pouvoirs locaux de ces deux municipalités et les promoteurs immobiliers, afin d’assurer les intérêts particuliers de ces derniers par-dessus l’intérêt général de la communauté.