Affordable Housing for All: Redefining the Roles of Public and Private Sector
The Albanian Urban Mix-from Utility to Livability Dritan Shutina, Rudina Toto, Zenel Bajrami , Institute for Habitat Development
Tiranë, 4 September 2017
This presenta,on is a milestone in the ALURMIX research project of Co-‐PLAN. Contributors are: Zenel Bajramai, Dritan Shu,na, Rudina Toto, Rodion Gjoka, Silvi Jano, Ger, Delli, Ada Lushi, Aida Ciro, Franci Linxa, Merita Boka, Ani Shtylla, Xhesika Hoxha, Edlira Xhafaj, Alma Ajazi, Florian Hoxha, Mario Gjimaraj, Fiona Imami dhe Kris, Bashmili
Popula'on change 2001-‐2011 % Source: INSTAT
Major urban areas grew twice and more in size
¯
¯ BERAT: 1988: 402 ha 2007: 521 ha 2014: 32 ha
ELBASAN: 1988: 724 ha 2007: 1547 ha 2014: 79 ha Legend
Legend
1988
1988
2007
2007
2014
2014 0
1
2
4 Km
0
1.25
2.5
5 Km
¯
¯ FIER: 1988: 844 ha 2007: 1030 ha 2014: 93 ha
LUSHNJE: 1988: 459 ha 2007: 313 ha 2014: 44 ha Legend
Legend
1988
1988
2007
2007 0
1
2
4 Km
2014
2014 0
1
2
4 Km
8,000
No. of buildings with a permit
7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000
Non residen,al buildings
3,000
Residen,al buildings
Formal Construction: INSTAT 1995-2016
2,000
42,647 buildings or 334 km2 of construction area
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
0
1995
1,000
Approximate value of buildings versus infrastructure works: 76% vs. 24%
140,000 120,000 100,000
80,000 Civil Engineering Works 60,000
Buildings
40,000
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
0
1995
20,000
Approximate value in ‘000Lekë
Informal Construction: App. 400,000 buildings
18 Func'onal Urban Areas
Location Index
Connectivity Index
Size Index
IS
IS
IS
FI
NO
FI
NO
SE
SE
EE
DK
AT
HU
RS BG
VA
AL
MK PT
TR
GR
IT
GI
Location Index
77.4 - 83.5
52.1 - 57.9
83.6 - 91.6
22.3 - 32.1
58.0 - 60.5
91.7 - 100.0
32.2 - 39.3
60.6 - 77.3
no data
Natural Breaks
RS BG
AL
PT
TR
¯
Size Index
0
140 280
560
Prepared by: Co-PLAN, 2015 Source: ESPON 1.1.1, 2005, "Potentials for polycentric development in Europe"; INSTAT, 2011, own calculations
840
80.5 - 84.1
66.5 - 73.9
84.2 - 87.5
35.5 - 49.0
74.0 - 77.3
87.6 - 97.0
49.1 - 63.3
77.4 - 80.4
no data
0 140 280 560 1,120 Natural Breaks Kilometers Prepared by: Co-PLAN, 2015 Source: ESPON 1.1.1, 2005, "Potentials for polycentric development in Europe"; INSTAT, 2011, own calculations
RS BG
AL
MK GR
IT
IT
GI
Legend
MT
63.4 - 66.4
RO
ME
VA
ES
HU
BA
IT
MK
MD
HR
SM
MC AD
IT
GI
AT
CH LI
SI
GR
Legend
MT
39.4 - 52.0
FR
RO
IT
IT
Legend
SK
ME
VA
ES
HU
BA
IT
AD
CZ
MD
HR
SM
MC
ME
IT
ES
SI
BA
SM
MC AD
UA
DE
BE LU
AT
CH LI
FR
PL
NL
SK
RO
BY
CZ
MD
HR
LT
UK
UA
DE LU
SI
IE
PL
NL BE
CZ
DK
UK BY
UA
CH LI
LT
UK
PL
SK
PT
IE
DE LU
FR
DK
UK
BY
NL
LV
LV
LT
UK
BE
EE
EE
LV
IE
RU
RU
SE
UK
FI
NO
RU
¯
Connectivity Index
840
MT
46.7 - 52.7
67.2 - 70.6
52.8 - 60.9
70.7 - 73.8
18.5 - 26.4
61.0 - 63.5
73.9 - 77.1
26.5 - 46.6
63.6 - 67.1
no data
0 140 280 560 1,120 Natural Breaks Kilometers Prepared by: Co-PLAN, 2015 Source: ESPON 1.1.1, 2005, "Potentials for polycentric development in Europe"; INSTAT, 2011, own calculations
840
1,1
A MERE REFLECTION OF UTILITY ENHANCEMENT OR NET BENEFIT MAXIMISATION, RESULTING FROM INDIVIDUAL RATIONAL CHOICES
A MERE REFLECTION OF UTILITY ENHANCEMENT OR NET BENEFIT MAXIMISATION, RESULTING FROM INDIVIDUAL RATIONAL CHOICES
A MERE REFLECTION OF UTILITY ENHANCEMENT OR NET BENEFIT MAXIMISATION, RESULTING FROM INDIVIDUAL RATIONAL CHOICES
The closer to the sea
The higher on the hill
The bigger and the denser
“SINCE THE BEGINNING OF MODERN TIMES, ATTITUDES AND POSITIONS DESIGNED FOR INDIVIDUAL UTILITY
MAXIMISATION HAVE PREVAILED” (GRUNEWALD & BASTIAN, 2015B, P.27).
HEGEL’S THEORY ON PROPERTY RIGHTS ESTABLISHES A CONSTITUTIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRIVATE PROPERTY, PERSONAL IDENTITY AND COMMUNITY (ALEXANDER & PENALVER, 2012, P. 65).
IN HIS PERSONALITY THEORY OF PROPERTY
(ALEXANDER & PENALVER, 2012) HEGEL
VIEWS HUMAN BEINGS
AS WITH FREE WILL, BUT NEEDING THE PROPERTY TO CONNECT TO THE EXTERNAL WORLD AND DEVELOP INTO A MEMBER OF AN ETHICAL COMMUNITY (RAYMOND, 2003).
A relatively new policy field A place that supports
Utility Utility
versus
Livability
For both, individuals and communities
quality of life wellbeing health Builds on social justice and equity
Livable neighborhoods: • Compact: conserve land, density supports services and infrastructures • Diverse: use energy and resources efficiently and generate little waste
Utility
versus
• Green: public areas, common and private gardens, vertical greening
Livability
• Mix: housing choices, mix social status, mix uses and businesses • Healthy: clean, safe, social, pleasant, relaxing • Accessible: well-connected, pedestrian, universal access
What to measure: • Housing quality • Accessibility and transport • Health • Economic & Social • Education
Utility
versus
Livability • Culture and leisure • Solid waste • Air pollutants • Water quality & use • Public space • Basic services
The MIX
Pros: Alleviates spatial mismatches Increased information & accessibility to the job market Better affordability to mobility costs Conflicting interest solved through cooperation Balance between density and infrastructures Quality of public space educates people Social exchange & bonding social capital Criminality decreases Avoids segregation
:Cons Fear of high densities – leads to worsening of infrastructures and services Social mix may lead to reduction of property value Increases social harassment, noise, odors, traffic congestion, &infrastructure dilapidation
1
2
3
4
5
6
Area
Average population: 2,780 inhabitants Average area: 2 ha
FAR
PCR
Public space
Roads
1
4.6
75%
0
36%
2
4.3
65%
0
36%
3
5
68%
16%
10%
4
3.8
54%
0
22%
5
6.1
62%
11%
43%
6
3.3
59%
4%
29%
Average density: 420 residential units/ha
Residential
No. of floors
Residential & Services Services Public Services Parking Open space Infrastructures Sidewalk
Minimum distances between buildings: 2.6-4m, with one area of 0.5 m Maximum distances between buildings: 10 – 19.2m, with one area of 1.5 m Average distances between buildings: 8-10 m with one area of 1 m
SIDEWALKS Minimum width: 0.5-‐2m Maximum width: 2.5-‐4m Average width: 1.5-‐3m
SIDEWALKS Minimum width: 0.5-‐2m Maximum width: 2.5-‐4m Average width: 1.5-‐3m
SIDEWALKS Minimum width: 0.5-‐2m Maximum width: 2.5-‐4m Average width: 1.5-‐3m
Costs of the Albanian Development Model Hypothesis: • Unplanned mixed-use plot-based development model has placed a significant economic and social cost over the citizens as compared to the planned area-based livable model • Utility approach costs are higher than livability approach costs
FAR: 5
Roads: 10%
Public Space: 16%
PCR: 68%
THE AREA IN 2000
UPGRADE IN 2017
THE AREA IN 2017
COST 0-‐A
COST A-‐B2
Upgrade the current situation
Unplanned & Plot-based
COST 0-‐B NOTE: HYPOTHETICAL PLANNED AREABASED IN 2000, TWO OPTIONS
Development controls, such as FAR, PCR, etc. are based on the law and the Tirana 2030 Plan for the area Option B is chosen for comparison to the current situation (typology and profit)
COST of transforma'on 0-‐A = 14,335,491 EUR
COST of transforma'on A-‐B2 = 3,795,889 EUR
Total COST for Plot-‐based transforma,on + Upgrade in 2017 = 18,131,381 EUR COST of transforma'on 0-‐B = 11,078,428 EUR
Avoided COST if Area-‐based transforma,on would take place in 2000 = 7,052,953 EUR
Other costs •
Time lost in traffic: 30,660 EUR/Year
•
Health costs from traffic emissions within the area: 165,166EUR/Year
•
Lack of O2 from lack of vegetation: 136,919 EUR
•
Damage of vehicles from low-standard traffic calming: 12,264 EUR/Year
•
Material damage from floods due to soil sealing: 7,880 EUR/event
•
Heath costs due to noise levels: 18,000 EUR/Year
•
Hypothetical cost of replacing the missing playgrounds with private solutions: 62,100/Year
•
Cost of parking due to missing parking space: 123,500 EUR/Year
Understanding the costs The case study area had a surface of 2ha; We suppose only 10% of 30km2 from the core urban Tirana has developed with the same pattern This brings to a total of 1 Billion EUR Comparing 1Billion EUR to local budgets of 2016: Tiranë
104 Mln EUR x 10 times = 1 Billion EUR
Durrës
25.5 Mln EUR x 40 times = 1 Billion EUR
Elbasan
25 Mln EUR x 40 times = 1 Billion EUR
Fier
20 Mln EUR x 50 times = 1 Billion EUR
Sarande
7,5 Mln EUR x 140 times =1 Billion EUR
Kuçovë
4
Mln EUR x 260 times =1 Billion EUR
1 Billion EUR lost in 10% of urban core Tirana 75 Mln € X 13
125 Mln € X 8
60 Mln € X 20
61 Mln € X 16 New Boulevard of Tirana
National Arena, Tirana
250 Mln € X 4
Arbri Highway
Skandërbeg Square, Tirana
“LUNGOMARE” Project, Vlora
Kërraba Tunnel
11 Mln € X 90
10 Mln € X 100 Olympic Park of Tirana
128 Mln € X 8
Incinerator of Tirana
15 Mln € X 65
Passengers Terminal, Tirana
Development phases
Co-PLAN’s approach
2009-2017 2000-2011 1998-2006 1990-2000
The way forward Enemies or Partners
City Made by People
Energy and Chaos
Making Cities Work
Participation should be reinvented – engagement brings together private and public interests Establishment of neighborhood development funds Balance costs and benefits
Between Vacuum and Energy
Making Policies Work via Knowledge for Change
Between Utility and Livability
Making Governance Work
Territorial governance is the new path Achieve TG for neighborhoods – partnerships, land instruments, but be transparent and aware of corruption