Housing Recovery in Chile: a Qualitative Mid-Program Review
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PACIFIC EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER Housing Recovery in Chile: A Qualitative Mid-program Review Mary C. Comerio Department of Architecture University of California, Berkeley PEER 2013/01 FEBRUARY 2013 Disclaimer The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the study sponsor(s) or the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. Housing Recovery in Chile: A Qualitative Mid-program Review Mary C. Comerio Department of Architecture University of California, Berkeley PEER Report 2013/01 Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Headquarters at the University of California, Berkeley February 2013 ii ABSTRACT The magnitude 8.8 earthquake, and subsequent tsunami, which struck the south central region of Chile on February 27, 2010, affected 75% of the population of the country and damaged or destroyed 370,000 housing units (about 10% of the housing in 6 regions). Within 6 months, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development published a plan to repair or rebuild 220,000 units of low- and middle-income housing with government assistance within four years. In October 2012, at the midpoint of a 4-year program, 84% of those housing units have started construction and 54% are complete and occupied. Several factors contribute to the program’s success: (1) strong leadership at the national and local levels; (2) use of existing programs and institutions; (3) flexibility to adapt programs over time; (4) a strong technical staff; (5) a robust economy; and (6) political will. When compared to housing recovery programs in other countries, Chile’s program stands out, combining both top-down strong government management and bottom-up citizen participation. The reconstruction plan also included goals for improved design and construction of social condominiums, updated zoning plans, road and infrastructure improvements, heritage recovery, and new master plans for impacted cities. While the housing reconstruction will be completed within the four-year time frame, the master plans require a longer implementation time. Going forward, the earthquake may have a legacy far beyond the successful housing replacement. Chile’s efforts to use the recovery planning efforts to expand national urban policy will help to provide a larger planning framework at the local level where citizens can participate in the physical, social and economic decisions necessary for ongoing community development. Keywords: Housing, Recovery, Urban Planning, Reconstruction iii iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report is based on extensive interviews conducted during two trips to Chile: 5 days in February and 15 days in October 2012. The trips were organized by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (MINVU) and funded by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). Interviews were conducted with individuals with positions in the current government, the previous government, regional offices, technical assistance, academia, businesses, local officials and families who received government housing subsidies. These include Minister Rodrigo Peréz, Pablo Ivelic, coordinator of the Housing Reconstruction Program, Maria Ignacia Arrasate, Program manager, Felipe Kast, in charge of Emergency Camps, Andres Iacobelli, former undersecretary of MINVU, Pablo Allard, former coordinator of the Urban Design and Historic Patrimony Program, Fernando Fodón, former Regional Administrator of O’Higgins Region VI and currently working at the Ministry, Luis Eduardo Bresciani, former coordinator of urban development in the previous administration and currently an academic, Clarisa Ayala, Director of SERVIU in Maule, Luis Valenzuela, an academic planner involved in post-earthquake data collection, Pía Mora and María Ignacia Polanco, academics with the Center for Public Policy, Catholic University and Ned Strong, Director of the Harvard Program in Latin America. At the local level, Diego Vergara, Mayor of Paine, Claudio Guajardo, Mayor of Rio Claro, Román Pavez, Mayor of Vichuquén, Marco Marín, Mayor of Lolol, Gonzalo Tejos, Mayor of Emperado and Duverlis Valenzuela, Mayor San Rosendo. Builders included Julio Watson, South zone manager of Inmobiliaria Sinergía (MINGATEK), Linares; Franz Iraira Quezada, Yasna Iraira, and María Cristina Quezada, Constructora Iraira Limitada; Felipe Hernán Carrasco Hurtado and Hugo Ricardo Carrasco Hurtado, HURTADO Y CARRASCO; Bernardo Heredia and Rodrigo Pereira, SERVICIOS Y CONSTRUCCIONES LC.; Marcelo Retamal, Ingeniería y Construcción Cardenal; SALFA; Small builders include Sergio Reyes Valdivia. Architects included MOEBIS, designers of mitigation parks, and those involved in technical assistance: Patricia Jiménez, Rodrigo Cháves Rodríguez, Guillermo Vasquez, Carol Loyola, Claudio Deney, Yasna Cortez, Carolina Vergara, Cristián Lopez. Hardware store owners or managers include Ferretería Ramirez, Doñihue and Ferrever Ltda. in Lolol. Social Leaders included: Maria Angelica Torres, Ximena, Toledo, and Ivonne Vera in Dichato, and Cristina Carter, Las Heras, Talca. More than two dozens beneficiaries opened their homes and construction sites to show the work completed and in progress. Towns and cities visited include Paine in the Santiago Metropolitan region. In Region VI (O’Higgins) towns include Doñihue, Machalí, Rancagua, San Fernando, Santa Cruz and Lolol; in Region VII (Maule) towns include Curicó, Talca, Linares, Río Claro, Vichuquén, Curepto, Constitución, and Empedrado; in Region VIII (Biobío) towns include San Carlos, Chillán, Coliumo, Dichato, Tomé, Talcahuano, Concepción, Coronel and San Rosendo. Many thanks are due to all the people who gave so generously of their time, but in particular, Maria Ignacia Arrasate, without whom the research could never have happened. v Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the United Nations Development Program or the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center. vi CONTENTS ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................................................... v List of Figures ....................................................................................................................................... ix List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................... xi 1 Study Overview ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Housing Program Decisions And Implementation ............................................................. 3 2.1 Critical Decisions .................................................................................................................................. 4 2.1.1 Government Funding ..................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1.2 Use Existing Programs ................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Critical Decisions .................................................................................................................................. 7 2.2.1 Government Funding ..................................................................................................................................... 7 2.2.2 Use Existing Programs ................................................................................................................................... 7 2.2.3 Clarify Need and Identify Beneficiaries .................................................................................................. 7 2.2.4 Empower Local Communities .................................................................................................................... 8 2.2.5 Replace Housing On-Site ............................................................................................................................... 8 2.2.6 Codes, Local Management, and Housing Choice ................................................................................. 9 2.3 The Housing Program Options ......................................................................................................... 9 2.4 Implementation ................................................................................................................................. 11 2.4.1 Regional Management of Housing Subsidies .................................................................................... 11 2.4.2 Social Condominiums Program .............................................................................................................. 12 2.4.3 Completion Rates .......................................................................................................................................... 13 2.5 Integration of Urban Planning With Housing Reconstruction ........................................... 15 2.6 Heritage Construction .....................................................................................................................