Argentina and Uruguay Urban Planning Study Tour Reflections Patrick Fensham, Principal and Partner, SGS Economics and Planning December 2013 argentina uruguay study tour report Patrick Fensham December 2013 argentina uruguay study tour report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background to the study tour 1 1.2 Acknowledgements 1 1.3 Contents 2 2 REFLECTIONS 3 2.1 Fragmented governance: A poor constitutional legacy? 3 2.2 A difficult policy making context: Planning in a hyper-charged political environment 4 2.3 A broken financial system: Urban development in a country without credit 4 2.4 The unstoppable growth of urban areas: Poverty and privacy on the metropolitan fringe 6 2.5 Metropolitan planning in Argentina: Challenges and opportunities 11 3 CONCLUSION 26 APPENDIX 1 DIARY OF THE TRIP 29 My presentations 29 Day to day activities 30 Argentina and Uruguay Urban Planning Study Tour Reflections 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the study tour In March 2013 a group of urban planners from Argentina and Uruguay participated in the Planning Connections Program organised by the Planning Institute of Australia (PIA) and supported by the Council on Australian Latin America Relations. During their study tour of Australian cities they attended the PIA’s national conference in Canberra. While in Australia they also visited Sydney and Melbourne. I assisted in organising the group’s Sydney program and enjoyed hosting the delegation in the Sydney office of SGS Economics and Planning on the first morning of their tour where I presented on metropolitan planning in Sydney. I joined the group on some social outings and also hosted Federico Bervejillo from Uruguay at my house. I enjoyed many stimulating exchanges with these visitors from Latin America. Subsequently, I was fortunate to be selected to undertake a two week funded urban planning study tour of Argentina and Uruguay from 21st September to 6th October 2013, organised by the Council of Professional Architects of Buenos Aires (CPAU), assisted by the Planning Institute of Australia (PIA). In the two week period I visited the cities of Buenos Aires, Cordoba, Rosario and Montevideo (in Uruguay) and gave 13 presentations, as well as participating in a number of professional exchanges and city tours. I renewed many of the great connections I had made in March in Sydney. After the formal program I spent a further week in Buenos Aires continuing the professional exchanges while consolidating friendships and continuing to explore the city. During this time I was joined by my friend and fellow urbanist Craig Allchin and we both extended our love of cities in the course of a number of Buenos Aires encounters and adventures. A more detailed description of the contents of my presentations and a daily account of my activities over the three weeks I was in South America is included in Appendix 1. 1.2 Acknowledgements I had a wonderful, educational and stress free time in Argentina and Uruguay and for this I have to acknowledge a number of people. Firstly of course I should thank the selection panel for choosing me to participate in the study tour, and the contribution of PIA including their Executive Officer International Michelle Riepsamen in particular. The formal part of my visit was meticulously planned and organised by CPAU and I cannot thank them enough, particularly the efforts of Pedro Linares and Néstor Margariños, who spared nothing to ensure I was delivered to presentations on time, could find repose in comfortable accommodation, was well fed (!) and had wonderful hosts in the cities I visited. As well as Pedro and Nestor I would also like to offer heartfelt thanks to many people who have become good friends along the way, including: Marcelo Corti and Celina Caprossi (hosts in Cordoba) Majo Beneite (host in Rosario, general travel assistant and lovely companion) Federico Bervejillo (host in Montevideo and ‘friend of the family’ from his Sydney visit) Carolina Ipes (manager of some tricky travel logistics and wonderful company) Daniel Kozak (Buenos Aires tour guide, city history guru and lender of bicycles) Demian Rotbart (social companion and passionate urbanist) Andres Borthagaray (sometime translator and urban all-rounder) Fredy Garay (for stimulating insights into planning at Puerto Madero and Buenos Aires in particular) Cecilia Larivera (host of a fascinating tour of Villa Hidalgo) Isabel San Vicente Martinez and Hector Floriani in Rosario (both fine dinner companions and, in Hector’s case, excellent translator as well) Carlos Mendive (architect of Uruguay’s innovative financing model for low income housing). Argentina and Uruguay Urban Planning Study Tour Reflections 1 There were numerous other people who made time to meet me, hosted events for me or who otherwise assisted behind the scenes, and I extend my thanks to them as well. Hayley Henderson, an Australian formerly resident in Buenos Aires and now in Melbourne, is a driving force in this current Australia-Argentina exchange and she assisted greatly, particularly with advice in the lead up to the trip which helped my preparations enormously. I should also thank my partners and colleagues at SGS Economics and Planning. SGS has a sabbatical program for Partners and it enabled me to take time out from my day to day consulting responsibilities and participate in the study tour. 1.3 Contents Section 2, following this one, contains reflections on what I learnt about urban governance and planning challenges in Argentina (and Uruguay) including comments on: the difficult and fragmented governance context for urban planning the highly politicised policy making context urban development in a country without credit housing development on the metropolitan fringe the practice of metropolitan planning in the cities I visited. Section 3, draws some comparisons between Australia and Argentina and also highlights lessons that might be shared between the two countries. The material is based on my own reflections, drawn from my own observations and many conversations. There are some references to material I found or was given on my travels but it is otherwise not scholarly research. Argentina and Uruguay Urban Planning Study Tour Reflections 2 2 REFLECTIONS 2.1 Fragmented governance: A poor constitutional legacy? Argentina has a federal system of government with national, provincial and local governments – plus the ‘Federal Capital’, the City-state of Buenos Aires. Despite a number of discussions on the topic with my hosts, I am yet to fully understand the relative split of powers and authority between the levels of government. I do know however, that combined with the challenging and highly politicised policy making environment, the rigidities of the governance arrangements work against comprehensive metropolitan planning. From a superficial perspective I would make the following observations about governance in relation to urban matters. The national government is at least notionally strong, with the power to directly finance urban infrastructure and housing development projects. The national parliament consists of two houses – the House of Representatives and the Senate (notionally the house of the Provinces). The system of local government varies from province to province but in some provinces there are very small local councils in rural areas – more or less single settlement local community boards – with virtually no bureaucracy or technical capacity. In Santa Fe Province these very small councils are one of three types of local council, which at the ‘highest’ level includes the City of Rosario with about one million residents. The weakness of much of the local government sector is compounded because it is often difficult to raise revenue at the local level given major gaps in the rate-payer base (many residents don’t or can’t afford to pay rates). This means local governments are often very reliant on the provinces and national government. The Provinces are clearly important and appear to have some independent authority in relation to investment in road infrastructure for example and in land management matters including the approval of land use laws and development codes. This may at least be in law, if not in practice, because it appears that local government has a relatively autonomous hand in the preparation of planning controls. This is particularly the case in the larger cities. The uneasy relationship between local authorities and the Provinces in relation to urban planning matters is strongly problematic in the large metropolitan areas. The significant political and financial power that resides in the ‘core’ City governments in metropolitan areas means that the Provincial government is unlikely to push for a metropolitan governance ‘marriage’ between the core City government and the local councils accommodating urban ‘overflow’. In Rosario the effectiveness of integrated partnerships between the City, Province (of Santa Fe) and national government highlights what can be achieved when the fragmentation is overcome. The three levels of government have established a partnership on the re-use of rail and port lands adjacent to the waterfront and the results are there for all to enjoy and experience. The transformation of this city, previously disconnected from the water by a mass of tracks, silos and docks, and now with waterfront access and parks, and some redevelopment, can scarcely be imagined. Similarly, a partnership between levels of government has led to the generally successful transformation and urban