Tools Experiences in Latin America

  • Carlos Leite
  • Claudia Acosta
  • Fernanda Militelli
  • Guillermo Jajamovich
  • Mariana Wilderom
  • Nabil Bonduki
  • Nadia Somekh
  • Tereza Herling
Part of the Future City book series (FUCI, volume 13)


The 1990s brought urban planning and management tools for justice and social transformation to local governments in Latin America. Two countries led this movement: Brazil and Colombia, and progressively other countries as Uruguay, Argentina, and Ecuador. However, two decades have passed, and cities continue to reflect the enormous inequality in the use of land, land access conditions, housing, public space, infrastructure, and public services. Cities represent prosperity and a lack of opportunities, but there is also hope.

Social urbanism experiences with the implementation of urban planning and land-based tools and market-driven regulations are analyzed. With an emphasis on the pioneering countries of Brazil and Colombia, this chapter deals with the historical struggles, advances, and implementation of land-based tools that aim for better cities for everyone, in terms of support infrastructure, cultural heritage protection, and adequate housing conditions.

In a very positive way, other Latin American cities and countries are also moving towards social urbanism through land-based tools. They are local initiatives, which include social pressures for inclusive urban policies, responsible municipal fiscal policies, territorial equity plus legislative changes, and in this sense, the chapter also presents the cases of Uruguay and Ecuador.


Land policy tools Latin America Market driven regulations Social housing exactions Social urbanism Financing instruments Planning tools Betterment contributions Building rights Land value capture Land use regulations Colombia Brazil Uruguay 


  1. Acosta C (2015) The Brazilian federal program “Minha casa, minha vida” is a regulator-shadow of Municipal urban planning norms? Master’s thesis. Fundação Getulio Vargas, Sao Paulo. Accessed July 2018
  2. Aulestia D y Rodriguez V (2013) Incentivos para el cobro de Contribución Especial de Mejoras y el financiamiento de la infraestructura pública en Ecuador. Working paper, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Disponible at:
  3. Biderman C (2018) Value capture and the role of land in the equality of opportunities: the case of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Research report. Lincoln Institute of Land PolicyGoogle Scholar
  4. Brener N (2015) Lecciones aprendidas sobre recuperación de plusvalías en Uruguay en el marco de la nueva ley 18308 de Ordenamiento Territorial y Desarrollo Sostenible. Facultad de Arquitectura, Universidad de la República. Tesis de Maestría en Ordenamiento Territorial y Desarrollo Urbano.Google Scholar
  5. Calavita N, Mallach (ed) (2010) Inclusionary Housing in international perspective. Affordable housing, social inclusion, and land value recapture. Lincoln Institute of Land PolicyGoogle Scholar
  6. Carvalho & Rossbach (org) (2010) The Statute of the City of Brazil. A comment. Cities Alliance, National Secretary of Urban Programs, Ministry of Cities of Brazil, Sao PauloGoogle Scholar
  7. De Hoyos A (2012) Declaration of Priority Development in Bogotá, 2008–2011. Research report. Lincoln Institute of Land PolicyGoogle Scholar
  8. Feldman S (2001) Advances and limits in the historiography of urban planning legislation in Brazil. In: Brazilian Journal of Urban and Regional Studies, No. 4, pp 33-47.,_Sarah._Avancos_e_Limites_na_Historiografia_de_Legislacao_Urbanistica_do_Brasil.pdf. Accessed May 2018
  9. Fernandes E, Alfonsin B (eds) (2013) A lei e a ilegalidade na produção do espaço urbano. Editorial Del Rey and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Sao PauloGoogle Scholar
  10. Furtado F, Acosta C (2013) Capital gains recovery in Brazil, Colombia and other countries in Latin America. Working paper. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. A Accessed Sept 2013
  11. Goytia C, Dorna G, Cohen J, Pasquini R (2015) An empirical analysis of land use regulation determinants, Working paper. Lincoln Institute of Land PolicyGoogle Scholar
  12. Granizo A (2012) Planning of the development, territorial ordering and soil management in Ecuador – “New Paradigms and Legal Reform in Ecuador”. In: Urban and Environmental Law Forum Magazine – FDUA. year 1, n. 1, jan fev. Belo Horizonte: Forum, pp 35–42Google Scholar
  13. IPEA (2015) Compulsory installment or compulsory installment and IPTU in time: Regulation and Application. In: Series thinking the right, n. 56, BrasíliaGoogle Scholar
  14. Jaramillo J (2003) Urban reforms in Colombia. In: Urban reform and territorial development: experiences and perspectives of application of the laws 9ª of 1989 and 388 of 1997. Edited by Maria Mercedes Maldonado, pp 99–103. Bogota Mayor’s Office, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and othersGoogle Scholar
  15. Kushner JA (2003) Comparative Urban Planning Law: an introduction to urban land development law in the United States through the lens of comparing the experience of other nations. North Carolina, Southwestern University School of law. Carolina Academic Press, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  16. LILP (2016) Instruments of pressure to idle properties: Installments, Building and Compulsory Adoption (Brazil) and Declaration of Development and Priority Construction (Colombia). In: Documents Distance Education, Latin America and the Caribbean Program. Lincoln Institute of Land PolicyGoogle Scholar
  17. Maceiras N (2015) Lessons learned on the recovery of capital gains in Uruguay within the framework of the new law 18308 on Territorial Planning and Sustainable Development. Master’s thesis. Faculty of Architecture, University of the Republic, UruguayGoogle Scholar
  18. Mejia A (2012) Planning of the development, territorial ordering and soil management in Ecuador – “New Paradigms and Legal Reform in Ecuador”. In: Urban and Environmental Law Forum Magazine - FDUA. year 1, n. 1, jan fev. Belo Horizonte: Forum, pp 35–42Google Scholar
  19. Pereira G, et al (2013) Recuperação de Mais Valias Urbanas por meio de Contribuição de Melhoria. O Caso do Paraná, Brasil, entre os Anos 2000 e 201. Working paper, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Disponible at:
  20. Pinilla P, Felipe J (2013) Project announcement and benchmark valuations as a control mechanism for land prices: case study of the New Usme Operation, Bogotá-Colombia. Research report. Lincoln Institute of Land PolicyGoogle Scholar
  21. Rojas E, Cristina M, et al (2017) Mechanisms and strategies of land and housing policy for social inclusion. The case of Bogotá D.C. 2000–2015 period. Research report. Lincoln Institute of Land PolicyGoogle Scholar
  22. Smolka M (2013) Implementing value capture in Latin America: policies and tools for urban development. Policy focus report. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge. Accessed Oct 2018
  23. Turner J, Fichter R (1972) Freedom to build. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Whitehead C (2014) Neo-liberalism and the city: or the failure of market fundamentalism. J Hous Theory Soc 31:19–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlos Leite
    • 1
    • 2
  • Claudia Acosta
    • 3
    • 4
  • Fernanda Militelli
    • 1
    • 5
  • Guillermo Jajamovich
    • 6
  • Mariana Wilderom
    • 7
  • Nabil Bonduki
    • 7
    • 8
  • Nadia Somekh
    • 1
    • 9
  • Tereza Herling
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Architecture and UrbanismMackenzie Presbyterian UniversitySão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.PPG-CIS-Uninove and Institute of Advanced StudiesUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  3. 3.Fundação Getulio VargasSão PauloBrazil
  4. 4.Lincoln Institute of Land Policy for the Latin AmericaWashington, DCUSA
  5. 5.Universidade PaulistaSão PauloBrazil
  6. 6.Institute of Latin American and Caribbean StudiesUniversity of Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina
  7. 7.School of Architecture and UrbanismUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  8. 8.University of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  9. 9.Institut d’Urbanisme de ParisUniversity of Cergy-PontoiseCergyFrance

Personalised recommendations