Urban Peripheral Areas and Public Space[1].
Bogotá Case Study.
Olga Lucia
Ceballos Ramos
Pontificia
Universidad Javeriana
In the current debate about the
living conditions that a city should offer to its inhabitants, the protection
of public spaces as meeting places appropriate for the construction of
citizenship, as well as its function of structural element of the urban
spatiality notably stand out. Even though these principles of
democratic organization and of urban space are now more tangible, they are not
comprehensible when the citizen’s vision in that regard is not considered as an
important fact in making city planning decisions.
In
Bogotá, with the country’s greatest
urban population, has had to face these consequences within the spatial
configuration process, especially in its peripheral areas. On one hand the unplanned
settlements focus on obtaining the maximum advantage of the land, thus
minimizing the area intended for public space. On the other hand the planned urbanizing
processes[2], according to the
flexibility of the urban law statements that aim on driving forward the
construction sector as an important economic field, shares the same logic about
advantaging the land. This is demonstrated in a recent study about urban
patterns that underlie in these urban processes, because nonetheless
considerable differences could be expected from essentially antagonic management
procedures, equally leading to the construction of deficient public space, both
in qualitative and quantitative terms. (Tarchopulos and Ceballos, 2004)
A common point considers that the reduction
of the private space as being balanced with an increase of the public space,
but in the case of Bogotá, this does not seem to be true. A revision of the
legal regulations that have ruled the development of city peripheral areas
shows an interest focused on private space areas, while the public areas are
marginalized. An urban peripheral location area that for social-spatial
segregation reasons, concentrates the housing production aimed at the low
income sectors, in zones where balanced fair urban development has not been
foreseen.
The tendency thus found is the reduction
of private areas, an increase of built density per area unit (metric hectares),
and a decrease of the space intended for public use. Nonetheless, Bogotá’s Master
Territorial Plan (Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial –POT-) recently adopted by
the city, has been unable to change this tendency, even though it overcomes
several faults of previous planning concerning housing activity in peripheral
areas.
As for intervening the outer city areas,
several upgrading programs have been developed and applied, which specially aim
to unplanned settlements. These practices counted on the community’s
participation, for the creation of spaces where the population could be integrated
on the task management and preservation of their public space. But planning has
not tried to solve structurally the problem of deficient public space in these
areas, so that the development of these programs is rather curative, specially regarding
the situations in which the community is not taken into account when making
decisions. Citizens engage in upgrading and maintenance actions of their very deficient
public space to solve the problems created by an urban planning that does not provide
them with a good life quality because it
focuses its actions on other interests. As a consequence of this situation it
is an impossibility to solve the lack of public space it these city areas.
The evolution of urban planning lets
us see which have been the main concerns of the local government about this
subject, derived from the macro-policy of the Colombian government regarding
the growth housing industry’s growth as an important economic sector for the
country’s development. This way of
addressing the problem allows us to understand the relationship between the
State and the society, and to establish whether there has been a general
consent to control the decisions relating to the configuration of urban periphery
in an efficient, stable, and legitimate manner. In other words, to recognize if
a dialogue has been sought out between government, private sector, commerce,
civil society, and local communities. And if, at the same time, a way of
strengthening the society’s civil organizations has been sought after, these
are organizations created to deal with issues of public interest either directly
or in association with government, in convergence and the negotiating partners.
The necessary starting point for
this revision is the development and later adoption of the study about minimum
standards for low cost housing projects (ICT, DAPD y DNP, 1972)[3] which in 1972 collected the guidelines
referring to the housing industry’s economic policy, intending simultaneously
to contribute to the solution of the problem of lack of housing for the lowest
income citizens. Its proposal is based on providing urban infrastructure to be
improved progressively by the promoter, and the building of houses by the users
themselves; in the case of Bogotá, it contributed to the decrease of the number
of spontaneous settlements. A sector of the demand was attracted to the legal
production of low cost housing, because it was not put into practice
exclusively by the government, but it could also be adopted by private
promoters. The applicability of its statements for the peripheral settlements´
development ruled during the next three decades.
The study was based on the proposal
of a theoretical model built on specific criteria items such as the increase of
urban densities, the definition of an urban layout that would diminish the
costs of urbanization and the creation of an urban structure allowing progressive
development, all these to establish the minimum standards in the matter of
urban design and public services. The model’s viability was supported by the diminution
of costs obtained when the basic principles were applied. As to urban
development for housing, important aspects were considered, such as areas
available for private space (enough for a decent housing unit) with a reduced
percentage of public space and specifications, which would be complemented
gradually until a level of normal developments would be obtained.
The urban standard principles were
meant to cover either new urbanization projects or the upgrading of the
existing ones that had problems coming from their spontaneous origin in infrastructure
or in deficient communal built-services. The definition of a minimum area for
the house plots (from 60 to 82 sqm), as well as a maximum level of occupancy
allowed (maximum net density: from 70 to 100 houses by hectare) would let to
reach the best advantage of the land in terms of total number of house
units. The standards for pedestrian
roads were included in the study, while the local administration had to set the
vehicular ones. In order to public space, a reduced percentage was recommended (18% of
the total urbanizing area), whose greatest percentage had to be located in a
single land globe so as to conform a community
center on a neighborhood scale. The remaining percentage was to be distributed
with no specific guidelines. Referring
to the community center, there was the possibility of public buildings so as to
conform a civic plaza. And last but not least, public and infrastructure
services were to be improved and well supplied until normal standards were
progressively reached.
A point discussed during this study was
the possibility of restricting design
principles and how this could bring about the reduction of private areas and
the increase of densities in terms of habitability. The conclusion to this
discussion was that multifamily projects were not viable for the low income part
of the population in view of its very high costs. Additionally, the urbanization
works and the construction of the progressive housing units, would allow an
acceptable standard of 10 built square meters per person, which would improve
any overcrowding condition.
It is very clear that there was a
lack of analysis of public space wherever it is considered to be an important
structural element of urban spatiality. With the increase of urban densities
the consequences in terms of citizens-space appropriation and sense of belonging
should have been taken into account. Neither was there any proposal related to
intervention on the urban processes going on at the time. Instead, the new urban model was attached to
the one already existing with the goal of increasing the low cost housing offer
without touching either the demand tendencies, or the voids in urban planning. The
voids in urban planning were mostly on the absence of specific patterns that
would regulate the urban spatiality on the peripheral areas of the city.
Indeed, these principles were
written on the next Bogotá’s urban legal planning regulations.[4] To be able to get higher
densities than those proposed on the previous study of minimum standards for
low cost housing, the minimum plot area for “individual housing”[5] required a front length minimum
5m and an area of minimum 60 sq m. The concept for “house grouping”[6] was introduced for which
the housing units had smaller areas as established in the local law regulation (Agreement 65 of 1967).[7] On a way, the net density
index was liberated on a certain measure, so that even with the maximum
allowed, that is 100 houses per hectare in “house grouping”, there was a
possibility of exceeding it with an average of 850 persons per hectare, without
establishing a corresponding average of persons by house unit. If the previous
study about the minimum standards had established an average of 6 persons by
house unit, the resultant density would be 141.66 houses by hectare, a number
that clearly exceeded the maximum allowed by the aforementioned study.
Regarding
the streets system, minimum sections were established for pedestrian and
vehicular ones, without considering a main street for access to each neighborhood.
Regarding the areas intended as public spaces there was a greater requirement
than that one contained in the previous study, (24.20%, of which 12.30% in
green zones and 11,90% in communal zones.) with a minimum of 50% in a single
land globe and residual areas of at least 1000 sq m.
Even
though the percentage of the grouped public area was reduced, the management of
residual areas was improved due to the reduction of the possibilities of their
becoming just a “left-over” space. However, instead of what was proposed in the
study of minimum standards, the conformation of a civic center that would help integrate
the community was not considered. Thus, the public space lost its character as structural
element for urban spatiality as outlined in the previous study. Additionally,
neither Agreement 65 of 1967 nor Decree 1259 of 1973 mentioned any requirement
or need of public communal buildings.
As
a synthesis, at this point of city planning it may be stated that the
modification of the model proposed by the study of minimum standards (by
reduction of some aspects, exclusion of others or an increase of some
percentages), surely responded to concrete demands related to profits on
urbanization processes. Probably, the increase in densities, with the
consequent reduction of plot size, and the use of the “house grouping” concept
as an efficient way to justify profits, together with the apparent appearance of
a greater residual area intended for public space, were not related to
technical considerations but rather to those of an economic nature.
These
are not the only changes on the initial model, which already had a slant
towards the growth of the construction industry as mentioned above. In other successive
regulations the tendency towards the reduction of the private space was
outlined as well as the increase in net density of houses by hectare, with a small
margin public space. In
In
addition, this regulation increased the densities allowed (between 150 and 180
house units by hectare), with the use of the bi-familiar, whose minimum area
was 60 sq m, the maximum 90 sq m and, a minimum front length of 5m. The areas
intended for public space were considerably reduced as compared with those of the
previous study (17%, distributed in 7% for green zones and 10% for communal
spaces). In the same case of regulations n· 65 of 1967 and 1259 of 1973,
nothing about communal equipment was defined. In Decree 1259 of 1973, continuity
was required with the surrounding urban road system as well as with the surrounding
neighborhoods. Maximum distances between vehicular streets (400m), pedestrian streets
(120m) as well as between houses and roadsides (12m) were established. As a
contribution in urban design, there was the requirement of a main access way,
as well as a connection to some of the main city-avenues.
There was a clear relationship between the
increase of densities with the use of bi-familiar houses and the reduction of the
area intended for public use, with unfavorable consequences for the quality
design of the houses. There were no longer projects with individual plots of
small areas, compensated with considerable public space as in the “housing groups”
of the previous model. Instead, a huge increase of the number of houses by
hectare was obtained.
According
to this, there was no compensation either in the private areas or in the public
ones for the increased densities. The private area was reduced by the use of
the bi-familiar unit and the public space lost a vast 7.2% in cessions from the
net area. Aspects of easy manipulation to obtain bigger densities were then: the
percentage of area required for public space, as well as minimum front length and
area for typical plots. Concerning the plots, it is equally effective to play at
reducing the areas through tricks such as the system of “housing groups” or the
use of bi-familiar units for which there are clear regulations that generate
advantages related to an increasing number of houses per hectare.
With
the Agreement 6 of year 1990, new regulations dictated by Legal decree 9 of
1989 about urban reform were integrated, in which the area and social function
of the public space are rescued. In this sense, Public Space is located in a preeminent
place in urban regulations and backed with a will to protect it. As to the
construction of the peripheral areas of the city, there were rigorous changes
proposed for the process of urbanization by progressive development. In this
case, the concept of progressive housing development (that was introduced in
the study of minimum norms) was defined by considerations derived from the experimental
management of it and, with the complementary application of the same minimum regulations
taken from the normal housing processes.
While
reviewing the general constraints in urban design applicable to both urbanization
modalities, important changes were found. For the individual house plot, front
length and minimum area remained at 5m and 60sq m respectively, in the “house
grouping”, plots of 3m front by a length of 11m for single family houses, or
As
far as criteria for free areas which are components of public space, their rank was reduced (between 17% and 25%) in comparison with the one in Agreement 7 of 1979, clearly against the regulation’s general ideology which gave initial priority to
public space. This meant a reduction of
the area intended for public space of 4%, compared to the previous norm. As to
urban design, new dimensional parameters for the area to be treated were
introduced, such as the front – depth relationship according to proportionality
criteria. The location of these areas was surprising, even if article 431 of
the Agreement 6 from 1990 had forbidden the use of flooding zones or plots with
slopes 25%. In paragraphs 1 and 2, the possibility of getting permission from
local authorities to use those locations was left open.
About
the areas for communal buildings, a percentage was stipulated for the area to
be given over for public space (40% of the total area). Regarding the permitted
uses, they were listed without any kind of guidelines for local authorities
that would establish any designing principles. For the street system, there was
mandatory continuity with the city and also with surrounding neighborhoods through
the connection of the main avenues with the principal local streets, even if
there were no definitions of the parameters for each case.
These
new parameters made possible the increase of densities for single family house
units, following again two key resources: the reduction of the plot area, and the
reduction of the percentage of area to be given over for public use. The
discussion about plot size for “house grouping” got out of control. This meant
that it would be taken over by the house dealing commerce bringing the worst possible
consequences in terms of habitability. Once again, it was clear that benefits
were given over to the commercial sector, where topics related with the
conditions of public space’s appropriation and sense of belonging were totally
unknown. Instead, public space became an abstract sort of percentage to be
calculated as an alternative for extracting advantage from urban land and not
as a support of urban context and city life.
The POT of Bogotá[9], introduced new concepts
to obtain a more efficient urban local management. This document includes
concepts of sustainability and stands for the defense of an urban growth
keeping compact urban shapes. To reach these goals, it defines an urban model
based on the concept of sustainability. Public Space, as structural component
of urban spatiality is now being approached from different points of view: Main
Ecologic Structure, Complementary Services equipment system, Built Public Spaces
system and
As
for new urbanizing projects in peripheral areas, the document adopts a range of
regulations aiming at correcting the deficiencies found by the analysis of city
growth and planning. The requirements for all new urbanizing processes now
include a minimum plot size (10hectares for urban land and 20ha for suburban
expansion land), and that must be developed within the guidelines of the
proposed urban model by means of partial plans. This new planning tool (partial
plans) allows intervention from an intermediate point of the main urban project
to translate in a more specific way the general regulations of the POT. The
specific standards for each new process of urbanization in the peripheral areas
of the city will be defined in the partial plans. Additionally, this allows the
possibility of proposing ways to implement progressive housing projects. Differing
from previous regulations, the conditions for progressive development of
housing are not predetermined according to concrete parameters, but they will
be established for each particular case.
This
new frame adopted for urban planning includes new concepts on the definition of
design guidelines that will allow a better qualification of urban space. But it
generates doubts regarding the real possibilities of obtaining a homogenous
quality of specific city-planning aspects because somehow, all partial plans
must fulfill the general parameters of the POT. In these parameters there are
several advances in relation to the previous norms. In the public space aspect,
the location of given over areas in flooding zones or in zones with slopes of
25% are expressly forbidden, as well as in the implementation of the different ranking
scale of parks. The greater scale ones (metropolitan, urban and zonal) now require
their own master plan with parameters of management and design.
As
to the area to be handed over for public and communal uses, both the plots for
individual units as well as those for house grouping must show an increase on the
average (minimum of 25% of the total net area: 8% for public communal buildings
and the 17% for parks, plazas, and tree-lined avenues). As in previous norms, a
50% grouped on single land globe is mandatory and the remainder must have a
minimum of 1000 sq m. As far as the relation between front-depth of these areas,
there are now parameters according to different size possibilities. In the case
of zonal and local parks that result from new urbanizing processes, the
promoter shall propose and develop their design and implementation.
Regarding
the streets, their plan was assembled as part of the general street system
responding to the different kinds of roadways. Due to a lack of guidelines orienting
the new urbanizing projects towards a better integration with their immediate context,
the definition of an intermediate street net must be established, with which it
should be possible to overcome deficiencies in connectivity existing in the peripheral
areas. There are also important design guidelines that will contribute to the
development of new and better-structured projects; laying down parameters for the
areas that each street net should frame, and defining the roadway contours
required according to each street.
There
is better level of precision in the guidelines for the streets layout defined
by the new regulations. Different hierarchies have been established starting from
access streets to the main, local and pedestrian ones. The complementary
services equipment was classified according with its physical scale and
possible social impact. Its design and implementation must be controlled by the
local administration. The regulations regarding uses and covering-scales must
be made according to the master plan. As for architectural design guidelines,
volumetric shape, construction and occupancy index will be included within each
partial plan, together with its corresponding specifications. The positive flexibility
that the new regulations allow on the changing conditions of the demand for
housing must be underlined. The recognition and definition of what is needed and
where it is needed will be left to the master plans.
There
is a noticeable relationship between the increased densities achieved by the
use of bi-familiar units and the corresponding reduction of the areas given
over for use as public spaces; this is having extremely bad consequences for
the general quality of housing and habitability conditions. Thus, for low cost housing
made up of single family units, the front-length and plot area were reduced from
the dimensions that historically had been applied (minimum front-length of 4.5m
and minimum area of 54 sq m). Concerning the house grouping system, the conditions
of minimum plot area for individual houses were not defined, which means that
it will be determined by offer and demand. A maximum density of houses by
hectare was not defined either, but an occupation index was fixed according to
the type of grouping.[11]
Reviewing separately what was proposed
for low cost housing by the individual plot system and the group formula there appear
marked differences in this component. In the first case, it is possible to
achieve a proportional relation between public and private space, even if it is
not strictly regulated due to the requirement of a minimum plot area. This,
together with the requirement of a percentage of areas given over for public
space, indirectly regulates the housing densities. In the second case, the
considered indexes of occupation may reduce the percentage of private area,
this, added to a lack of requirements
for a minimum plot area means an increase of densities and a dramatic reduction
of the house area. In this sense, regarding the relationship between public and
private space, especially in the case of the grouping system, the increase of
the percentage transferred to public areas is insufficient and unable to guarantee
its balance.
Even if it is a convenient measure to provide a
greater public space for locating the collective’s complementary services required
by the new housing projects, the unbalance between private and public space
that will not either be compensated through the transferred areas is still
there. ¿To what extent would it be possible for public space to play its role as
a structural element of the urban space and as the social integrator that was
proposed in the POT.
The
POT proposes the context of a city model, in which a specific shape for new
urbanizing processes stands out, with which it should be feasible to overcome
some of the deficiencies of previous planning. But, the present inequity in the
relation between public and private space shows an insistent interest in
keeping a favorable situation for the housing industry but not for the
citizens. In this sense, it is possible to say that the State has not changed its
relationship with society while continuing a preferred dialogue with the
construction industry sector, leaving aside civil society and local communities
as a whole. These should be integrated to a common controlling organization for
urban spatiality conformation.
The CONCLUSIONS
An
overall revision of Bogotá’s urban planning in the last the three decades shows
an interest favorable for the construction industry as a profitable market,
without considering the implications it has for the inhabitants. The public
space in this context has not been assumed as supporting element of the city spatial
configuration nor of citizen life but as a part of the components of urban development
subordinated to the profitable interests of urban promoters. The adoption of standards
for the definition of area percentages intended for private and public spaces
has not recognized the citizens’ needs in terms of urban life quality, nor its
improvement. Somehow it is surprising that a substantial change has not yet been
obtained in relation to what was dictated by Agreement 6 of 1990.
Even
though the Local Administration has developed programs aiming to stimulate citizen participation in the management and
maintenance of public space, its interest has been more of a "healing"
sort when facing deficiencies of an
urban planning that has not adopted
actions pro public interests. As
it happens in other sectors of national and local policies concerning citizens`
participation. The general idea is that citizens must solve by themselves what
the State has not been able to, not because it was unable to achieve its goal,
but for lack of real ethic commitment with its social function.
The
importance of involving the citizens in the decision making processes must not
go unrecognized. What may be discussed is the level in which their contribution
will take place. A city cannot be equitable when the decisions that affect its
general development are concerted with a few social sectors directly interested,
while the citizens of low income levels are left to deal themselves with the eventual
solutions to their problems.
Specifically
concerning the development of peripheral
areas (and the low cost housing processes), it may be said that it allows us to
understand how public space, not being recognized
as a spatial and social structuring element, leads to the construction of a
deficient, unequal, and excluding periphery. In this context it becomes difficult
for citizens to build strong solidarity threads or to control their tendency to
privatize the public space. A public space that has important deficiencies in both
qualitative and quantitative terms is, as well strongly excluding by a basic
principle of citizens´ life. It will be then necessary to start from a really
participative urbanism in which the inhabitant’s needs and the inhabitants
themselves would be considered not just as potential market, but mainly as
citizens of a democratic country where socially viable standards would prevail.
References:
Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá, Decreto Número 734, Bogotá, 1993
_________________, Decreto Número 1259, Bogotá, 1973a.
_________________, Decreto Número 1260, Bogotá, 1973b.
_________________, Decreto Número 2489, Bogotá, 1980.
Concejo Distrital, Acuerdo Número 6, Bogotá, 1990.
_________________, Acuerdo Número 7, Bogotá, 1979.
_________________, Acuerdo Número 20, Bogotá, 1972.
_________________, Acuerdo Número 65, Bogotá, 1967.
Departamento Administrativo de Planeación Distrital, DAPD, Plan de ordenamiento Territorial de Bogotá, Documento Técnico de Soporte, Bogotá, 2000a.
_________________, Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial, Decreto Número 619, 2000b.
Instituto de Crédito Territorial, ICT, Departamento Administrativo de Planeación Distrital, DAPD, Departamento Administrativo de Planeación Nacional, DAPN, Estudio de Normas mínimas de Urbanización, servicios públicos y servicios comunitarios, Bogotá, 1972.
Tarchópulos, Doris, Ceballos, Olga Lucía, Patrones urbanísticos y arquitectónicos de la vivienda dirigida a los sectores de bajos ingresos en Bogotá. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Instituto Javeriano de Vivienda y Urbanismo, INJAVIU, Bogotá, 2004.
[1] The present document is based on the following studies:
TARCHÓPULOS, Doris. CEBALLOS, Olga. (2003)
“Patrones Urbanísticos y Arquitectónicos en
CEBALLOS, O.
CARRASCAL, Rodrigo (ongoing research), “La cualificación de la periferia urbana
desde la construcción del espacio público en Bogotá”, Pontificia Universidad
Javeriana, Instituto Javeriano de Vivienda y Urbanismo, Bogotá
[2] The planned urbanizing processes concept
refers to the settlements in which the urban planning law regulations are
applied, while the unplanned urbanizing
processes refers to those that did not follow the urban planning
regulations on terms of building and
urbanizing license, unplanned levels of occupancy, poorly built, and
others.
[3] During the 70`s, Colombian government faced the growing housing
deficit problem for the poorest, as well as an increase of unplanned urbanizing
processes (within social and urban contexts) with the largest impact in Bogotá.
This situation demanded the exploration of new alternatives for a better and
more efficient government management, one of which alternatives was to be
followed by a study of minimum standards for low cost housing in peripheral
areas.
[4] There were
Published: (local regulation) Decree 1259 from year 1973, through which were
defined the urban design guidelines, complementing the very poor standards
proposed in the previous urban planning regulations that dealt with progressive
housing developing projects. (Local regulations) Decree 1260 from year 1972,
ruled all technical aspects dealing with public services.
[5] This refers
to those housing projects where no co-property tenure exigencies are required.
[6] This refers to those housing
projects where there are requirements of co-property tenure for communal areas
and/or for the plots themselves.
[7] According
with paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 29, within the “house grouping” it was
permitted to reduce the size of the plots as long as the residual area was used
for communal buildings and to increase the density as long as it did not double
the basic one allowed on the zoning regulations.
[8] The Decree
2489 was adopted from 1980 onwards with the goal of putting together on a
single regulation all items related to progressive development urbanization.
[9] This urban planning regulation was adopted through Decree 619 form
year 2000, and modified by Decree 469 of year 2003 (Departamento Administrativo
de Planeacion Distrital, Bogotá, 2000)
[10] The area to be handed over by new urbanizing projects would be used
within the complementary services equipment system, and the built public space
system.
[11] As Decree 619 from 2000 /article 325, number 6, letter b), in the
case of house grouping (applies for single family units or bi-family units),
the occupancy index is 0.25 with no transferences and 0.30 with transferences,
and a maximum construction index of three stories. Regarding multifamily
housing groups, it is also 0.25 without transferences and 0.28 with
transferences. The construction index on urbanizing net area was defined
according with the size of the projects. Should they be smaller than