Recodification of the Latin American City: Emerging Urban Legislation in the Pandemic Era

Yeimis Pichihua

doi:10.21625/essd.v8i3.953

Yeimis Pichihua

https://doi.org/10.21625/essd.v8i3.953

Issue
Special issue (2023): Health of Livable Cities: Environmental Resiliency and Climate Change Mitigation

Submitted
March 1, 2023

Accepted
March 30, 2023

Published
March 31, 2023

Keywords:

Pandemic, urban codes, informality, housing, Latin America

PDF XML

Abstract

In recent years, urban policies have been transformed in response to the pandemic. The new normality has translated into a new urbanity, in the broadest sense of the word; that is, into new rules that shape daily life and the production of urban space itself. However, in Latin America, most of these measures have been contingent on the emergency, as they have not been translated into structural or long-term policies.

This research focuses on the changes experienced in urban legislation as of 2020. Period where national governments had to simultaneously confront health problems and pre-existing urban dysfunctionalities. This is a descriptive study outlining the landscape of emerging urban policies. It focuses on visible changes at the Latin American level,

The results reveal that many Latin American countries have changed their urban policies during the pandemic, including a growing interest in social housing. Among the issues addressed are land regulation, the right to the city, the management of public spaces, informal settlements, etc. In conclusion, the pandemic was the scene of a change of course based on new urban policies. These policies improve the management of our cities and make it possible to build more sustainable and equitable spaces.

Full text article

Generated from XML file

References

Andreucci, M. B., Marvuglia, A., Andreucci, M. B., & Marvuglia, A. (2021). Investigating, Implementing and Funding Regenerative Urban Design in a Post-COVID-19 Pandemic Built Environment: A Reading Through Selected UN Sustainable Development Goals and the European Green Deal. 395–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71819-0_22

Angiello, G. (2021). Toward greener and pandemic-proof cities: North American cities policy responses to Covid-19 outbreak. TeMA - Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment, 14(1), 105–111. https://doi.org/10.6092/1970-9870/7922

Azuela, A., Giglia, Á., & Gómez del Campo, G. (2016). La ciudad y sus reglas: sobre la huella del derecho en el orden urbano (1st ed.). Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales.

Blofield, M., Lustig, N., & Trasberg, M. (2021). La protección social durante la pandemia: los casos de Argentina, Brasil, Colombia y México. Pensamiento Iberoamericano, 1(10), 108–122.

Bolton, L. (2020). Tactical Urbanism in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs). https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/15652

Deslatte, A., Hatch, M. E., & Stokan, E. (2020). How Can Local Governments Address Pandemic Inequities? Public Administration Review, 80(5), 827–831. https://doi.org/10.1111/PUAR.13257

Duarte, N. V., Marcela, A., & Pinto, A. (2020). Políticas de movilidad y gestión de la pandemia en ciudades latinoamericanas. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10139165/

Grant, M. (2022). Land-Use Planning and Urban Governance: Lessons from the Pandemic. Journal of Comparative Urban Law and Policy, 5, 9–21. https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/jculp/vol5/iss1/5

Guaralda, M., Hearn, G., Foth, M., Yigitcanlar, T., Mayere, S., & Law, L. (2020). Towards Australian Regional Turnaround: Insights into Sustainably Accommodating Post-Pandemic Urban Growth in Regional Towns and Cities. Sustainability 2020, Vol. 12, Page 10492, 12(24), 10492. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU122410492

Henao, G., Acosta, C., & Hofman, J. (2019). Manual de derecho urbano. In Manual de derecho urbano (1st ed.). Editorial Universidad del Rosario - Jurisprudencia. https://doi.org/10.2307/J.CTVX1HWPF

Kosovac, A., & Pejic, D. (2021). Y ahora, ¿qué? Nuevas formas de diplomacia de ciudades y gobernanza urbana global. Monografías CIDOB, 81(1). https://www.cidob.org/layout/set/print/content/download/77527/2508678/file/91-100_ANNA+KOSOVAC+%26+DANIEL+PEJIC_CAST.pdf

Lauren, A., Bryson, J. R., & Moawad, P. (2021). Temporary Urbanisms as Policy Alternatives to Enhance Health and Well-Being in the Post-Pandemic City. Current Environmental Health Reports, 8(2), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40572-021-00314-8/FIGURES/3

Leborgne, D., & Lipietz, A. (1993). El posfdismo y su espacio. Investigación Económica, 53(205), 173–204. https://doi.org/10.2307/3541068

Lecka, I., Haczynski, J., Haczynski, H., Kozlowski, R., Przemysław, P., Legutko-Kobus, P., Rosenberg, M., Pantyley, V., & Nowak, M. J. (2022). Assessing Urban Policies in a COVID-19 World. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(9), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH19095322

Lorenzini, D. (2020). Biopolitics in the Time of Coronavirus. Critical Inquiry, 47(S2), S40–S45. https://doi.org/10.1086/711432

Lustig, N. (2020). Covid-19 and social protection of poor and vulnerable groups in Latin America: a conceptual framework. UNDP - Argentina, 1(1). https://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/46939

Nelson, R. H. (1979). A Private Property Right Theory of Zoning. The Urban Lawyer, 11(4), 713–732. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27890908

Neuman, M., Chelleri, L., & Schuetze, T. (2021). Post-Pandemic Urbanism: Criteria for a New Normal. Sustainability, 13(19), 10–26. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU131910600

Patel, A., & Shah, P. (2020). Rethinking slums, cities, and urban planning: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. Cities and Health, 5(sup1), S145–S147. https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2020.1790252

Sánchez-Cruzat, J. B. (2022). El derecho a la ciudad y el buen gobierno urbano: Los nuevos retos de la gobernanza urbana sostenible para el siglo XXI.

Santamaría, J. (2020). La gobernanza de los parques urbanos de México: el reto de crear ciudades resilientes. In Un Mejor Estado: Lecciones de la Pandemia para Administrar lo Público (1st ed., Vol. 1). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.15296.25600

Shertzer, A., Twinam, T., & Walsh, R. P. (2022). Zoning and segregation in urban economic history. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 94, 103652. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.REGSCIURBECO.2021.103652

Shi, Y., Jang, H. S., Keyes, L., & Dicke, L. (2020). Nonprofit Service Continuity and Responses in the Pandemic: Disruptions, Ambiguity, Innovation, and Challenges. Public Administration Review, 80(5), 874–879. https://doi.org/10.1111/PUAR.13254

Talen, E. (2009). Design by the Rules: The Historical Underpinnings of Form-Based Codes. Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(2), 144–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360802686662

Tella, G. (1996). La zonificación urbana en su primer escenario. Web Architecture Magazine, 1(1).

Urbina-Mendoza, E. J. (2022). Nuevas tendencias del derecho urbanístico global. In dialnet.unirioja.es (1st ed., Vol. 47). Editorial Jurídica Venezolana - Cuadernos de la Cátedra Fundacional Allan Brewer-Carías.

Authors

Yeimis Pichihua

PhD Candidate at Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain

[email protected] (Primary Contact)

Pichihua, Y. (2023). Recodification of the Latin American City: Emerging Urban Legislation in the Pandemic Era. Environmental Science & Sustainable Development, 8(3), 01–08. https://doi.org/10.21625/essd.v8i3.953

Download Citation

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:

Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;

With the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.

The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher's final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
Upon Publisher's request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author's own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
The Author represents and warrants that:

The Work is the Author's original work;
The Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
The Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
The Work has not previously been published;
The Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
The Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.

The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author's breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 7 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher's use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Received 2023-03-01
Accepted 2023-03-30
Published 2023-03-31

1. Introduction

The pandemic has been an exclusively health problem capable of conditioning the actions of governments, both globally and locally. The threat of an unknown virus led the WHO to declare it a global problem on March 11, 2020. Since then, most nations have implemented measures to reduce contagion, inaugurating a state of sanitary emergency. This is an eminently legal phenomenon, the consequence of an explicit rule that limits individual rights to safeguard the common welfare. In other words, the pandemic has legal consequences that deserve to be analyzed.

Cities were the scene of the restrictive measures, as they were the hardest hit areas due to large agglomerations, among other factors. Consequently, urban space also had to be regulated, as it was the main means of contagion. During the initial stage, social distancing and confinement were the most important measures in the context of an urban state of emergency. Public spaces became spaces of militarized control. It should be noted that this situation was produced by national regulations, which were adapted to the evolution of the pandemic itself. This created a scenario of legal uncertainty that had to be corrected on the fly, adapting the measures to the characteristics of the territory and the cities.

Governments recovered the principle of authority and their capacity to manage urban activities from the demand side. That is, from the content of cities: people. Many Latin American countries experienced for the first time the rigor of norms, since life itself depended on them. Cities became docile spaces, in contrast to the traditional evasion of the law or culture of informality. However, this situation was reversed as restrictions became more flexible and citizens returned to occupy the streets with a certain degree of normality. Consequently, the city was once again ungovernable.

The pandemic has revealed the unsustainability of cities, accentuating numerous urban problems. It has questioned the way we occupy and produce space, as well as the role of norms in these processes. Governments have been concerned not only with the health system, but also with the city as a structured and structuring physical space. In other words, there is a new interest in reformulating urban policies and implementing new measures to correct preexisting problems. For a new normality is also a new urbanity; that is, new codes that adapt to emerging demands. In Latin America, this implies strengthening existing legislative frameworks. Given that the region is characterized by lax regulations, which is the cause of the phenomenon of urbanization without development.

2. Theoretical framework

Cities are as old as humanity itself; they are physical spaces that reproduce social structures. Likewise, the strategies for regulating space are just as old; living in a community implies adopting certain norms that maintain harmonious coexistence. Urban order is the result of the institutionalization of powers. It was born with the establishment of the first empires, which tried to contain the anarchy of common spaces, in essence plethoric. Since the laws of Hammurabi, the codes regulated the way of making a city, that is to say, its material foundations. Therefore, this is the differentiating factor of the urban: the control of space (Talen, 2009).

The history of urban planning is complex, as it varies from country to country. However, towards the end of the 19th century, this discipline acquired a new dimension, hand in hand with new tools such as zoning. This fact characterized modern or industrial capitalist urbanism (Shertzer et al., 2022). The popular overflow in the cities demanded new measures to contain it and thus return governability to the cities. Land and building laws emerged as ad hoc solutions to this problem; a legal framework to manage the physical space of cities. In Latin America, one of the first experiences was in Buenos Aires (1910), where zoning was implemented based on criteria of historical protection, aesthetics, building sanitation and use restrictions. This gave rise to a regulation that detailed the possible ways of making a city, giving identity to the Argentine capital (Tella, 1996). Similar cases occurred in Peru (1946), Colombia (1949), Chile (1951), among other countries. Consolidating urban planning in a modern version, which focused on the control of land, uses and building. It also prioritizes the relationship between city and architecture, translated into parameters and restrictions. Which implies a sacrifice of property rights in exchange for collective benefit (Henao et al., 2019).

Currently, urban regulation is crucial within the market economy; it creates certainties related to the growth of cities and their economic implications such as the cost of land, housing stock, among others. On a global scale, it promotes the localization and relocation of activities that stimulate national economies. Likewise, on a small scale, it specializes the territory to create productive chains in cities. It is the theory of regulation applied from and to space itself (Leborgne & Lipietz, 1993).

In Latin America, this approach contrasts with the informality-regulation amalgam; cities have historically grown outside the law. Creating sympathies towards deregulation or spontaneous growth, which is usually associated with self-management, collectivism, etc. Building the myth of popular capitalism or urban informality that has undermined the authority of the state. However, the panorama has changed as governments have placed greater interest in the regulatory component, the means that guarantees equity in cities. The opacity of the laws is taken advantage of for private enjoyment, at the expense of the collective. It consolidates an "urbanism à la carte" that simplifies the urban to mere investment probabilities, neglecting the social impact of spaces.

The pandemic produced innovations in urban norms and codes. Cities were the scenes of the emergency. The immediate response was the control of urban activities (content), but as time went by it was necessary to reformulate many more areas of the city (continent). The first stage was characterized by contingency measures, which changed according to the progress of the contagion. That is, temporary measures such as distancing, confinement and reduction of displacements. The need for control turned the urban space into a militarized and fear-producing environment. Consequently, governments implemented assistance programs in areas as diverse as food, housing, public services, employment, among others. These palliative measures helped the inhabitants to adapt to the new normality. In general, these actions were focused both socially and spatially, prioritizing attention to the most vulnerable groups. Among the global examples, the initiatives of the North American cities of Dallas, Chicago and New York stand out, where temporary shelters were offered to homeless people, food vouchers, renters' vouchers, tax reductions for small businesses and loans at lower interest rates (Shi et al., 2020). In Latin America, the subsidies implemented in Argentina (emergency family income), Brazil (emergency aid), Colombia (Familias en acción, Ingreso solidario, etc.) stand out. However, informality undermined the success of these actions (Blofield et al., 2021). While it is true that these aids are useful in emergencies, they could not become permanent actions, as they represent a greater government expenditure; therefore, they are unsustainable. Moreover, they do not reverse endemic urban poverty, which has been present for decades. Inequality cannot be solved with subsidies, since it is a condition that reproduces itself statistically [(Blofield et al., 2021); (Lustig, 2020)].

During the second stage (flexibilization or de-escalation), more profound and long-term measures were evidenced. Faced with the threat of a permanent pandemic, governments devised structural measures. Unprecedented urban regulations focused on a variety of issues. These sought to reconcile the new coexistence with existing urban spaces, which had been showing problems since pre-pandemic times. They are provisions to make a pandemicproof city (Angiello, 2021), which stands out for its interest in public space. Many cities around the world have implemented temporary and permanent bicycle lanes, adapted streets to pedestrian traffic, created terraces or boulevards, with the aim of encouraging new mobility habits and revaluing local businesses. One of the most outstanding examples were the superblocks in Barcelona. This initiative was conceived in pre-pandemic times and saw the opportunity to materialize during the emergency in the face of the restrictions. The city council intervened in nearly 14 blocks, significantly increasing the number of parks and gardens. Likewise, New York implemented the "Recovery for all" Plan, which considers the creation and expansion of the cycling network, as well as permanent open streets.

On the other hand, long-term policies were also developed; principles for the reorganization of cities as a whole. For example, Mexico City considered the creation of 13 urban corridors for the development of social housing, parallel to the creation of Bus Rapid Transit (BTR) routes and Urban Cable Cars. Seeking to reorganize the city from the Transport Oriented Development (TOD). At the European level, the Regenerative Urban Design initiative was created, based on principles of innovative infrastructure, circular economy, climate neutrality (Andreucci et al., 2021); aligning the objectives of sustainable development with the post-pandemic context. On the other hand, urban centralities were questioned to the point of creating initiatives of de-urbanization and territorial balance. Such is the case of Australia, where population distribution has been debated, seeking to redirect growth towards regional cities or intermediate capitals of the country. Promoting digital mobility and the growth of local economies (Guaralda et al., 2020). In short, these examples call for a shift towards resilience, supported by new urban policies, laws and specific codes.

It should be noted that contingent and structural measures have coexisted during the pandemic; that is, they were implemented simultaneously. The complementarity between the two can be seen in the context of economic recovery and even more so in the last stage or "end of the pandemic". For in 2022, many national governments have repealed the state of emergency. The problem with the return to normality is the disinterest in urban policies or return to the status quo [(Deslatte et al., 2020); (Lecka et al., 2022)]. That is, the lack of experimentation and consequent deterioration of urban living conditions. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the impact of the laws created during the pandemic. For these constitute the new rules of the game of the city. Despite their immateriality, the norms transcend socially and spatially. They remain for reasonable times and constitute the DNA of postpandemic cities and territories.

The meaning of "the urban" is diffuse, as it is a term that groups multiplicity of approaches and disciplines (Azuela et al., 2016). Condition that evidenced in the emergency measures, as state interventions were framed in the urban space. Even small measures such as the use of masks implicitly acquire an urban character, since they are implemented in the city. Therefore, it is necessary to retake the integrality of the urban problem, since it is not only a matter of managing physical spaces but also flows, displacements, employment, location, among other social dimensions (Patel & Shah, 2020). Recognize the city as a complex system where the continent and content have equivalent weights. Contrasting with simplifying visions that pigeonhole the urban in the physical space.

Finally, the pandemic has motivated debates on the governance of cities. For the initial restrictions revealed the capacity of local and national governments to manage urban spaces. These interventions used force and have become examples of extreme urban order. Nevertheless, these strategies are valid as they reflect their principle of authority. However, this success brought the threat of authoritarianisms deployed on cities, now turned into biopolitical playgrounds (Lorenzini, 2020). The most evident examples of this state of exception can be found in transportation (Duarte et al., 2020) and the use of open spaces (Santamaría, 2020). Consequently, participation emerges as a crucial issue. Likewise, collective or community management stands out as an alternative for both the management of future emergencies. In short, the pandemic is an opportunity to rethink both governance and city governance. Reclaiming the role of the state and citizenship around the problems that affect the city, in order to build a suitable framework for participation, spaces of possibility for the collective construction of the city [(Kosovac & Pejic, 2021); (Sánchez-Cruzat, 2022)].

3. Study approach

This is a descriptive qualitative research, whose object is the urban policies developed during the pandemic. It focuses on the major legislative changes manifested during this period in Latin America. It should be noted that we study the laws and regulations of higher hierarchy, which are usually approved in higher instances such as the congress, deputation, executive power, etc. Contrasting with others that arise as a response to an emergency, which are palliative and reversible. The study cannot be a comparative analysis, since the legal system and the structure of government is different in each country. Nevertheless, it is possible to outline regional trends in urban policies. Therefore, in the first stage, 11 Latin American countries were analyzed to identify the most recent reforms.

4. Results

Urban law is the set of norms that structure urban and rural land use, as well as the behavior of its inhabitants. Cities are structured from the law, as it has an instituting character on urban activities (Azuela et al., 2016)(Henao et al., 2019). It provides explicit rules that produce urban space from the physical and behavioral dimensions. In Latin America, urban law is paradoxical, since the growth of its cities occurs on the margins of the law. A sort of urban irregularity or self-urbanization that expands the conflict between social processes and management of the space of everyday life from jurisprudence (Azuela et al., 2016). On the other hand, urban law studies the tensions between property rights and the general interest. Living in the city implies adopting rules that affect property and, above all, land use. For this purpose, zoning, a basic tool for urban regulation that allows a redistribution of these rights on the basis of a division of the city (Nelson, 1979), is used for the most part. This results in the fragmentation of the city and the differential income generated on the basis of norms.

The pandemic has created the demand for a renewed regulatory framework to face the unusual challenges imposed by the emergency. Its greatest discovery has been the breadth of "the urban", as it includes provisions on proximity, compatibility of uses, displacements, schedules, among other problems usually ignored by the legislation trapped in the abstract urban space. Likewise, the impact of land management on health was evidenced, since physical space transcends the wellbeing of citizens (Grant, 2022). There are currently renewing currents in urban law, which can be grouped into three trends: the right to the city, mixture of uses and soft-laws or urban agendas (Urbina-Mendoza, 2022). All of them value positively the experimentation and improvement of norms, since urban problems are uncertain and therefore the law must adapt to them. In this context, tactical urbanism experiences emerge that intervene the urban space in an immediate and reversible manner, assessing their impact and then converting them into major policies [(Bolton, 2020); (Lauren et al., 2021); (Patel & Shah, 2020)]. However, they must be careful because they can build illusions of change, thus avoiding structural problems. Therefore, legislation occupies an intermediate role between experimentation, discourse and structural reflection of recent urban changes.

The panorama of urban law in Latin America is diverse. Its scope varies significantly among countries, due to a differential experience of the pandemic that clashes with the legal system. There is a consensus on the autonomy of intermediate scales of government (regions, municipalities, city councils) in urban issues; the ability to decide directly on the administered space based on local regulations [(Lecka et al., 2022); (Neuman et al., 2021)]. Thus, the greatest experimentations were manifested at the small scale: the district, the neighborhood, the block, the house. However, the national regulatory framework proposes general rules that are adapted to the local scale. These create the conditions for the possibility of an urban space resistant to the pandemic Figure 1.

Figure 1.Comparative of Latin American urban Laws in pandemic.

Most Latin American countries have passed comprehensive urban laws that address a wide range of issues such as housing, land use, equipment, planning, among others. This type of regulation is characterized by establishing the principles of urban planning, which are transformed into regulations that operationalize them. It is a first step that requires greater institutional measures. This is the reason for its importance and, at the same time, its fragility, since new laws run the risk of stagnating due to the delay of the regulations that complement them. This is repeated in the case of public agendas or soft-laws, declarations of principles that are not binding: for example, the Bolivian "Cities Policy". Despite this, there is evidence of urban innovation in Latin America.

Also noteworthy are the housing laws, a structural problem of cities. Most of the states modified their housing policies in pandemic; strengthening social housing programs and diversifying the acquisition modalities: purchase, social rent, rent to own, concession, among others. Of particular note are the creation of social rental programs (Argentina and Ecuador), extension of the maximum credit term (Colombia), increased housing subsidy coverage (Paraguay) and the promotion of cooperative housing participation and management (Mexico and Chile). In general terms, these regulations emphasize the role of the state as a housing promotion agent, granting them greater licenses for the expropriation, purchase and production of land suitable for housing, which must meet minimum conditions of habitability, as well as adequate connection with the urban system.

The third issue is urban informality, which translates into informal settlements such as slums, shantytowns, shantytowns, slums and slums. Only three countries have passed specific laws related to this issue: Chile, Colombia and Peru. All of them coincide in the creation of a regime of exceptionality and the extension of the terms for the regularization of neighborhoods located on non-urban land. The basic principle is the permanence or continuous possession of the inhabitants, which must be more than 10 years; likewise, for the application of the regulations, effective occupation of the land is required, i.e., abandoned land is not regularized. In all cases, local governments are in charge of guiding the legalization process in order to guarantee safe land for vulnerable families, who usually opt for this type of tenure. It should be noted that in all cases, explicit deadlines for regularization are proposed. Once this is finalized, occupations that do not comply with the general management plans will be prohibited.

On the other hand, there is evidence of a series of unconnected laws and regulations, which in themselves do not form part of a defined movement, although they express the concerns of national governments on a variety of issues such as the protection of and contributions to public spaces (Peru and Chile), the protected areas regime (Brazil) and the soil classification methodology (Ecuador). In most cases, the topic dealt with is soil protection, in the broadest sense of the word. However, their scopes are diverse and even contradictory. For example, measures are proposed to mitigate the impact of large real estate projects on urban space, by means of onerous compensation proportional to the property tax of such developments (Chile). In this context, the creation of programs to promote urban and peri-urban agriculture is also noteworthy, in the case of Bolivia and Argentina. In both cases, the governments have created the necessary institutional framework for these projects, which involves budget allocations, promotion, training and a sectoral regulatory framework that allows land use to be granted to cooperatives and associations of urban farmers. Given that the municipalities are responsible for managing the activities of the city based on a plan of compatibility of use.

Finally, the issue of transportation and mobility is the most conspicuous absentee in this set of rules. This makes it possible to identify the limits of urban law, atavistically separated from the management of transport itself. This is explained, to a certain extent, by the sectoral or ministerial division of the states; that is, in the competencies assigned to specific institutions and the consequent lack of coordination between them. Of all the Latin American countries analyzed, only two inaugurated innovative documents related to mobility: Uruguay and Venezuela. In the first case, the Ministry of Housing, together with international cooperation, created a manual for sustainable urban mobility, detailing the process of mobility plans and suggesting urban design criteria for roads and other urban elements related to transportation. In the second case, a law was passed to promote urban cycling, which grants benefits to users of this modality such as subsidies, access to loans, preferential attention, among others. It also obliges the municipalities to maintain and expand the infrastructure of bicycle paths and complementary services. On the other hand, it should be noted that this gap in urban law contrasts with the numerous local measures implemented in the pandemic, since, as explained above, the most recurrent responses were the creation of bicycle paths and the promotion of pedestrian spaces. For the purposes of this study, published national laws were analyzed, i.e., norms of higher hierarchy that in themselves presuppose continuity over time. This strategy is also replicated in subsequent stages.

5. Conclusions

The pandemic was a propitious scenario for experimentation with regulatory measures, most of which were characterized by their temporary and palliative nature. However, this promoted the ideation of more profound and, to a certain extent, structural measures. Urban law in pandemic was the object of these changes. For most Latin American countries inaugurated new laws and reforms focused on the management of the city, a situation that reveals a growing interest in "the urban", in the broadest sense of the word. However, the set of norms made in pandemics is disjointed and divergent, as these norms tend to be short or palliative, so that they do not end up being aligned with larger policies. In general, they focus on the housing problem and its implications, and lack regulatory measures on urban transportation.

It should be noted that the existence of new laws does not represent a solution in itself. In essence, these are enunciative documents that guide the actions of the different levels of government. However, the absence of complementary rules and regulations jeopardizes their contribution to urban development. The reengineering process of Peruvian urban law is slowed down by the slowness of the approval process of documents that materialize the principles of the new laws. For example, the delay of the regulations accompanying the DUS law or the Law of Public Spaces, with a wait of a year and a half in both cases. Contravening the guideline of not exceeding 60 calendar days. In other words, the law is the first step that should be accompanied by continuous and consistent measures over time.

The data reveal that Latin America experienced significant advances in the field of regulation. While it is true that these emerged during the pandemic, many of them stemmed from previous initiatives, including historical trends that were recently recovered. In this sense, the pandemic served as a trigger or accelerator of these processes; it maintained the tension of a new normality or social contract that requires new and better rules of the game. Therefore, innovations must be contrasted with the preceding norms, to which they are indebted. In other words, the continuity of these measures and their dependence on the trajectory or traditions of Latin American urban law must be assessed.

Finally, the structuring role of urban norms must be rescued, since they together shape our cities. The essence of urban law is to regulate property and favor the common benefit; however, these principles can be distorted to the point of falling into the realm of discretion in the face of the "ambiguity" of the rules of the game in force. In other words, they respond to disciplinary biases and even particular interests. The ideation, proposal, debate and approval are processes that are usually in the hands of political representatives. People who theoretically make decisions in favor of the majorities, but who are occasionally influenced by particular demands. This situation allows and justifies urban corruption, based on a legal system made by stealth from the citizens. Therefore, it is pertinent to strengthen citizen participation in the field of urban law; to create solid foundations for effective governance in our cities. For it is only through the search for consensus that an equitable distribution of the burdens and benefits derived from urban management can be achieved. Thus guaranteeing the construction of a more sustainable urban space, in the broadest sense of the word.

References

Andreucci M.B., Marvuglia A., Andreucci M.B., Marvuglia A.. Investigating, Implementing and Funding Regenerative Urban Design in a Post-COVID-19 Pandemic Built Environment: A Reading Through Selected UN Sustainable Development Goals and the European Green Deal. 2021;395-413. DOI
Angiello G.. Toward greener and pandemic-proof cities: North American cities policy responses to Covid-19 outbreak. TeMA - Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment. 2021; 14(1):105-111. DOI
Azuela A., Giglia Á., Campo G.. Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales. 2016.
Blofield M., Lustig N., Trasberg M.. La protección social durante la pandemia: los casos de Argentina, Brasil, Colombia y México. Pensamiento Iberoamericano. 2021; 1(10):108-122.
Bolton L.. Tactical Urbanism in Low. 2020. Publisher Full Text
Deslatte A., Hatch M.E., Stokan E.. How Can Local Governments Address Pandemic Inequities?. Public Administration Review. 2020; 80(5):827-831. DOI
Duarte N.V., Marcela A., Pinto A.. Políticas de movilidad y gestión de la pandemia en ciudades latinoamericanas. 2020. Publisher Full Text
Grant M.. Land-Use Planning and Urban Governance: Lessons from the Pandemic. Journal of Comparative Urban Law and Policy. 2022; 5:9-21. Publisher Full Text
Guaralda M., Hearn G., Foth M., Yigitcanlar T., Mayere S., Law L.. Towards Australian Regional Turnaround: Insights into Sustainably Accommodating Post-Pandemic Urban Growth in Regional Towns and Cities. Sustainability. 2020; 12(24)DOI
Henao G., Acosta C., Hofman J.. Manual de derecho urbano. 2019. DOI
Kosovac A., Pejic D.. Y ahora, ¿qué? Nuevas formas de diplomacia de ciudades y gobernanza urbana global. Monografías CIDOB. 2021; 81(1)Publisher Full Text
Lauren A., Bryson J.R., Moawad P.. Temporary Urbanisms as Policy Alternatives to Enhance Health and Well-Being in the Post-Pandemic City. Current Environmental Health Reports. 2021; 8(2):167-176. DOI
Leborgne D., Lipietz A.. El posfdismo y su espacio. Investigación Económica. 1993; 53(205):173-204. DOI
Lecka I., Haczynski J., Haczynski H., Kozlowski R., Przemysław P., Legutko-Kobus P., Rosenberg M., Pantyley V., Nowak M.J.. Assessing Urban Policies in a COVID-19 World. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(9):53-72. DOI
Lorenzini D.. Biopolitics in the Time of Coronavirus. Critical Inquiry. 2020; 47(S2):40-45. DOI
Lustig N.. Covid-19 and social protection of poor and vulnerable groups in Latin America: a conceptual framework. UNDP - Argentina. 2020; 1(1)Publisher Full Text
Nelson R.H.. A Private Property Right Theory of Zoning. The Urban Lawyer. 1979; 11(4):713-732. Publisher Full Text
Neuman M., Chelleri L., Schuetze T.. Post-Pandemic Urbanism: Criteria for a New Normal. Sustainability. 2021; 13(19):10-26. DOI
Patel A., Shah P.. Rethinking slums, cities, and urban planning: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. Cities and Health. 2020; 5(sup1):145-147. DOI
Sánchez-Cruzat J.B.. El derecho a la ciudad y el buen gobierno urbano: Los nuevos retos de la gobernanza urbana sostenible para el siglo XXI. 2022.
Santamaría J.. Un Mejor Estado: Lecciones de la Pandemia para Administrar lo Público. 2020. DOI
Shertzer A., Twinam T., Walsh R.P.. Zoning and segregation in urban economic history. Regional Science and Urban Economics. 2022; 94DOI
Shi Y., Jang H.S., Keyes L., Dicke L.. Nonprofit Service Continuity and Responses in the Pandemic: Disruptions, Ambiguity, Innovation, and Challenges. Public Administration Review. 2020; 80(5):874-879. DOI
Talen E.. Design by the Rules: The Historical Underpinnings of Form-Based Codes. Journal of the American Planning Association. 2009; 75(2):144-160. DOI
Tella G.. La zonificación urbana en su primer escenario. Web Architecture Magazine. 1996; 1(1)
Urbina-Mendoza E.J.. In dialnet.unirioja.es. 2022.

Plum Analytics

Read Counter : 1112 Download : 713

Share Now

[BIBR-1] Andreucci M.B., Marvuglia A., Andreucci M.B., Marvuglia A.. Investigating, Implementing and Funding Regenerative Urban Design in a Post-COVID-19 Pandemic Built Environment: A Reading Through Selected UN Sustainable Development Goals and the European Green Deal. 2021;395-413. DOI

[BIBR-2] Angiello G.. Toward greener and pandemic-proof cities: North American cities policy responses to Covid-19 outbreak. TeMA - Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment. 2021; 14(1):105-111. DOI

[BIBR-3] Azuela A., Giglia Á., Campo G.. Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales. 2016.

[BIBR-4] Blofield M., Lustig N., Trasberg M.. La protección social durante la pandemia: los casos de Argentina, Brasil, Colombia y México. Pensamiento Iberoamericano. 2021; 1(10):108-122.

[BIBR-5] Bolton L.. Tactical Urbanism in Low. 2020. Publisher Full Text

[BIBR-6] Deslatte A., Hatch M.E., Stokan E.. How Can Local Governments Address Pandemic Inequities?. Public Administration Review. 2020; 80(5):827-831. DOI

[BIBR-7] Duarte N.V., Marcela A., Pinto A.. Políticas de movilidad y gestión de la pandemia en ciudades latinoamericanas. 2020. Publisher Full Text

[BIBR-8] Grant M.. Land-Use Planning and Urban Governance: Lessons from the Pandemic. Journal of Comparative Urban Law and Policy. 2022; 5:9-21. Publisher Full Text

[BIBR-9] Guaralda M., Hearn G., Foth M., Yigitcanlar T., Mayere S., Law L.. Towards Australian Regional Turnaround: Insights into Sustainably Accommodating Post-Pandemic Urban Growth in Regional Towns and Cities. Sustainability. 2020; 12(24)DOI

[BIBR-10] Henao G., Acosta C., Hofman J.. Manual de derecho urbano. 2019. DOI

[BIBR-11] Kosovac A., Pejic D.. Y ahora, ¿qué? Nuevas formas de diplomacia de ciudades y gobernanza urbana global. Monografías CIDOB. 2021; 81(1)Publisher Full Text

[BIBR-12] Lauren A., Bryson J.R., Moawad P.. Temporary Urbanisms as Policy Alternatives to Enhance Health and Well-Being in the Post-Pandemic City. Current Environmental Health Reports. 2021; 8(2):167-176. DOI

[BIBR-13] Leborgne D., Lipietz A.. El posfdismo y su espacio. Investigación Económica. 1993; 53(205):173-204. DOI

[BIBR-14] Lecka I., Haczynski J., Haczynski H., Kozlowski R., Przemysław P., Legutko-Kobus P., Rosenberg M., Pantyley V., Nowak M.J.. Assessing Urban Policies in a COVID-19 World. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(9):53-72. DOI

[BIBR-15] Lorenzini D.. Biopolitics in the Time of Coronavirus. Critical Inquiry. 2020; 47(S2):40-45. DOI

[BIBR-16] Lustig N.. Covid-19 and social protection of poor and vulnerable groups in Latin America: a conceptual framework. UNDP - Argentina. 2020; 1(1)Publisher Full Text

[BIBR-17] Nelson R.H.. A Private Property Right Theory of Zoning. The Urban Lawyer. 1979; 11(4):713-732. Publisher Full Text

[BIBR-18] Neuman M., Chelleri L., Schuetze T.. Post-Pandemic Urbanism: Criteria for a New Normal. Sustainability. 2021; 13(19):10-26. DOI

[BIBR-19] Patel A., Shah P.. Rethinking slums, cities, and urban planning: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. Cities and Health. 2020; 5(sup1):145-147. DOI

[BIBR-20] Sánchez-Cruzat J.B.. El derecho a la ciudad y el buen gobierno urbano: Los nuevos retos de la gobernanza urbana sostenible para el siglo XXI. 2022.

[BIBR-21] Santamaría J.. Un Mejor Estado: Lecciones de la Pandemia para Administrar lo Público. 2020. DOI

[BIBR-22] Shertzer A., Twinam T., Walsh R.P.. Zoning and segregation in urban economic history. Regional Science and Urban Economics. 2022; 94DOI

[BIBR-23] Shi Y., Jang H.S., Keyes L., Dicke L.. Nonprofit Service Continuity and Responses in the Pandemic: Disruptions, Ambiguity, Innovation, and Challenges. Public Administration Review. 2020; 80(5):874-879. DOI

[BIBR-24] Talen E.. Design by the Rules: The Historical Underpinnings of Form-Based Codes. Journal of the American Planning Association. 2009; 75(2):144-160. DOI

[BIBR-25] Tella G.. La zonificación urbana en su primer escenario. Web Architecture Magazine. 1996; 1(1)

[BIBR-26] Urbina-Mendoza E.J.. In dialnet.unirioja.es. 2022.

Article Sidebar

Abstract

Full text article

References

Authors

Article Details