34
INFONAVIT / HARVARD GSD
a favorable location when compared to the cost of land in infill sites and construction costs of building vertically, the subsidy doesn’t help to align this effective cost to that in a peri-urban zone. In the case of Celaya specifically, the size of land parcels that could be used as potential infill developments are not large enough to enable development that is sufficiently dense so as to make the current subsidy structure viable. Beyond the financial considerations of the existing subsidy model, it has also been unintentionally incentivizing expansion in peripheral urban areas, significantly adding to the infrastructure burden of the city. The type of housing development this proliferates is typical of fringe developments in Mexico, comprised of single story, single-family homes repeated in parallel rows unconnected
to the surrounding urban fabric. It bears noting that the population without access to an INFONAVIT credit far exceeds those who do have access by nature of their employment in the formal sector. In spite of this gap, the two groups have similar incomes and spending on expenses, particularly housing. It might therefore be considered that this segment of the population offers a vast potential for mortgage loans over the next few years.1 To plan for this anticipated growth, INFONAVIT AND CONAVI policies will need to be heavily restructured to incentivize sustainable urban development and thoughtful urban design practices among the diverse actors involved in city building. 1. Among those that could acquire housing and in addition need it, only 17% could be attended exclusively by the commercial banks. The remaining 83% of the cases would require the support of the federal government (BVVA Bancomer, Real Estate Outlook, Mexico, BVVA Research, January 2013)