Whats your take on this? *Caracas Takes Golf Courses for Housing*

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - Three major Caracas golf courses, long favored by the city's wealthy, are being expropriated to build housing for thousands of poor and middle class Venezuelans, officials said Tuesday.

The city expropriations, which will likely generate new friction between supporters and opponents of President Hugo Chavez, are part of an ambitious government effort to provide more homes amid an acute housing shortage that has driven up real estate prices.

http://home.bellsouth.net/s/editorial.dll?pnum=1&bfromind=907&eeid=5024930&_sitecat=1505&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=1&ck=&ch=ne

I'm all for it, the people need a place to live more than the elite need a place to hit a little white ball around a great big lawn. But one thing bothers me.


Barreto told state television as many as 50,000 homes would be built on 363 acres spanning the three golf courses.

Isn't this figure way to dense for a healthy environment?

While there might be some vindictiveness on Chavez's part in appropriating these symbols so dear to his opponents, there really is no greater waste of land in an urban area than a private golf course. As Barreto said, let them rebuild in the suburbs. The wealthy have much more access to transportation than the poor. They need to be where the jobs are.

As for population density, I'm no urban planner so I can't really comment on that. However, it's unlikely to be as bad as the conditions most of the poor currently reside in.

An acre being 22 yards x 220 yards in area.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acre So unless they build up into multi family units, I can't see how it would work.

it works out to about 300 square feet per. That's the size of my bedroom.

If you look at the probability that these apartments will each be at least 20 floors or so the numbers start to look better. According to Wikipedia the population of Manhattan is currently over 35,000 for a comparable amount of space. While this is a smaller number of people you have to take into account the vast amount of space taken up by businesses, so while tight I definitely see this as a workable project.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan#Demographics

Once again, I'd like to point out that I'm no Urban Planner, I'm just going by the information I've found online.

"Barreto told state television as many as 50,000 homes would be built on 363 acres spanning the three golf courses."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe there was an error in translation and Mr. Barreto actually meant 50,000 people rather than
homes.
;-)

I did some basic number crunching and came up with this. 363 acres equals 15812279 square feet. If you make a guess that in reality only about 25% of that space could be used for actual living area due to the need for roads, shops, public service buildings, etc... then approximately 3953070 square feet of living space. If each "home" were to average about 600 square feet then each building would only need to be eight floors high in order to achieve the needed living space for 50,000 units. That's certainly not that far fetched. Even if my estimate of 25% is generous (which for all I know it could very well be) then it's easy to extrapolate more realistic figures that still work. Let's say at 12.5% complexes would still only need to rise to 16 floors.

Of course, as I'm no math whiz, I could have easily screwed up my numbers. Anyone who wishes to cross check me is welcome to do so.

:D

And of course there's nothing that says stores and shops have to be at street level. Multi-story
shops used to be commonplace in this country but not much any more, however they still are in much
of the world.

That would leave room for environmental improvements such as parks and playgrounds. It's actually starting to sound like a pretty nice place to live. :)

The poor can't afford houses, even at LA prices.

Al Cervick - "Caddyshack"

I play golf but I can see how it would be an issue in Caracas...I've been there many times and there
isn't much flat real estate in that small valley. The poor people tend to live on the hillsides to the west and the rich on the south. Their domiciles are -very- different.

Future leaders of Venezuela - or any other country - may not always be so benevolent when they decide to steal private land.

We've seen in this country how easy it is to take someone's land to build a shopping center. Granted, that's not what we're talking about here, but it's not like we've never seen that. Eminent domain is used far too often, and I don't trust ANY government to use discretion when invoking it.

I like that Chavez gives Bush the hand wave under the chin every chance he gets, but taking from the rich in too brazen a fashion usually leads to a bad result. To some extent he needs to let rich guys know they will always remain rich if they pay their fair share. But this kind of thing scares them and scared people do stupid things.

I'm not a fan of taking land for shopping malls, either, but this sounds like a necessary use of eminent domain. To allow the poor to live in substandard conditions or even live without homes at all is a crime against humanity. Surely the inconvenience of relocating a golf course to a less centralized area is merited in this case.

As for trusting government discretion, no one should do that in any situation. Each decision should be reviewed for its merits and non-acceptable land grabs should be rejected. HOwever, to suggest that the government should never have the power to claim land for the benefit of its citizens is to condemn the thousands who often need the use of land for the convenience of a few wealthy individuals. The situation in Caracas is a prime example of this.

If the power of eminent domain was, in certain cases, yoked to the people's ability to hold referendums, I would say there would be fewer land expropriations for unworthy causes as deemed by the people, especially on the city or state level.

When voting for or against politicians this is definitely an issue I would want to be addressed. As I say there are many occasions that warrant the use of eminent domain and many that don't. Knowing the difference is a key qualification for office in my opinion.

I would propose that the problem with eminent domain, as well as many other issues, is not the fault of the system, but the people who lazily ignore the stances of their politicians. I don't see how referendums would change that as they generally fall on the side of the party with the most money to spend on advertising. That's not to say I'm against referendums, I just think we need to be realistic with regards to their likely benefit.

If you have a mildy corrupt Democrat running for mayor against a total corporate whore like Cheney on the Republican side, of course you're going to vote for the Democrat if there is no other choice, but say this Democrat happens to be in bed with real estate developers, and they want to bulldoze the poor neighborhoods to make way for upscale condos and strip malls but can't get that unless the people are removed, I would say to let the Democrat call the shot, and then we will give the issue to the people.

If he invokes eminent domain to evict the residents to build condos and strip malls, then I think the people of the city should have the ability to halt the move by introducing a formal petition calling for a referendum on the move. Put the issue before the public for debate. They could choose to kill the move, endorse the move, or recommend he go back to the drawing board and alter the plan. Then resubmit it for further review.

If you are forced to eat a block of cheese with some mold on it in the corner, I don't expect you to eat the whole block without first cutting off the bad portions.

Two I can think of off the top of my head would be recall and petioning for referendum on the ballot. My issue with turning eminent domain over to referendum in every case is that there are a lot of cases of it that happen. In some communities (or states) it would be massively expensive to run a referendum campaign for each one.

I'm not saying I don't agree that your idea is the best in theory, I just don't think it would work so well in practice.

If a local municipality decided to use eminent domain to move a relatively small amount of people or convert a small amount of land, then it probably should not qualify as one challengeable by referenda. If we're talking about razing a whole city block or several to make way for a big project, then yes, it's going to end up before voters. (I'm thinking about New Orleans as being an excellent example) The scope of the law enabling referenda in these cases should be clearly defined and narrow so we don't have polls being opened every time somebody in the city powers up a bulldozer.

With respect to these golf courses in Caracas though, it's the federal government itself coming into the city and saying what pieces of land can be used or not used for. It would be difficult to apply this little discussion here to that case, since the federal government itself answers to all of Venezuela's citizens as a whole, not just to the citizens of Caracas. If the mayor of Caracas himself ordered eminent domain, yeah, it could be put up for referenda, especially for large tracts of land like golf courses.

I could see your method working but in the end I think that the real answer lies in a more informed citizenry. So who's being unrealistic now, huh? :D

If you ask the people of four villages to vote on the construction of a waste disposal plant in one of those villages then all the people in that one will vote no, and most of the rest will vote yes - nimbyism is a powerful force.

I think that the power of eminent domain, if it's going to exist, has to be exercised by an independent commission subject to strict, objective rules rather that to referendum - although having their decisions informed by referendum/census/poll is good.

In this little confederation of communities, the first step is to allow the city mayors to decide the issue. One would think a neutral ground that is beneficial to all would be negotiated that doesn't lie on top of or near the dwellings of any of the communities. You would think, "Then why did you bring up the issue of referenda in the first place if the city leaders came up with a plan they accept?"

Well, the short answer is I would suggest this power as the last chance for debate, the last line of defense against making a potential mistake, especially on controversial plans in the light of politicians who may have questionable judgment on the issue. If, for some reason, there was some dirty deals cut between three of the mayors against one of them who didn't want a part of it, then it is exactly those situations why I would say the power of referenda is necessary, to check the abuses of power.

With these Caracas golf courses, I understand the central government coming into the city and saying this land should be used for this purpose or that purpose can be a bit nerve-racking for people who generally don't trust centralized bureaucracy, which is why I would say instead of letting the government decide the issue, put it to a vote of the people.

Gentlemen Only Ladies Forbidden.

And they are bad for the environment, too.

The Chavez government has concerns about the constitutionality of the mayor's plan.

I am against eminent domain by any govt (local, state, national)
for any reason.

I'm sure that at one time these golf courses were some public space. Too much of the commons has been taken for uses that don't benefit the masses.

people decide whether that land should be appropriated or not. If we're talking about land for essential housing, then let the people who will be affected decide.

Or is that not a supportable position either?

public open space is invaluable & it never comes back once its built over.

every square foot except for the golf courses is pretty much 100% full of houses and businesses. Even up the sides of the surrounding mountains except to the north.

I know where 2 of them are but can't remember a 3rd one.

2 in the center north of the city & one to the northeast.

they're so small, its absurd to think that this will solve any overpopulation problems they have there - it seems punitive more than anything.

planetarium...never noticed the northeast one...I guess that's out past Petare? I need to get that
Google earth thing, thanks for reminding me. ;-)

I'm sure most people in need of a place to live would agree.

densify existing areas instead. if they're going to take property, then redevelop some oligarch's manse rather than pave over trees & grass. or, heaven forfend, take a ramshackle hillside barrio & develop that into high density housing with running water & sewers. but paving the little remaining open space in the city is unwise in the long run.

building on these golf courses won't solve the population pressure. but opening the golf courses to the public as parks will make life in caracas much more enjoyable.

not to mention the cooling effect of green spaces.

-an architect who'd rather not build.

As I posted above, if the planning is done well, there should be room for 50,000 homes with area left over for parks and other environmentally pleasing landscapes. If that is done then it sounds like the best of both worlds to me.

On the other hand, as an architect, maybe you have better insight than the numbers I came up with. If you want to check them out and critique I would be appreciative.

363 acres x 43,560 SF/acre = 15,812,280 SF/50,000 homes = 316 SF per home, or 138 units/acre.

to retain parks, lets pick a %, say 25% as the amount of existing green space to be retained. that leaves 272.25 acres to develop. the required density goes up to 184 units/acre.

streets are going to take up another 25% of the site, easy. the density is now 275 units/acre.

lets imagine a 25 story apartment building, w/ (10) 500 SF units/floor (small for even a 1 br.) = 6000 SF footprint min. with circulation & elevators, total of 250 units/building. you need 200 of those to get to 50,000. that's 1,200,000 SF. at the minimum. how close are they to each other? is this a desirable living arrangement for families? etc. etc.

overall, i guess your calcs are right, but, man, i wouldn't want to live there.

Right now there are thousands living in hillside shacks with no running water, garbage collection or parks. Even if you ignored the logistics of displacing these people while you razed their current homes and built new structures there as well as parks, steep inclines are not the best environment for children to be playing on. As for confiscating the homes of the wealthy, I think the golf course seizure is less likely to cause the same amount of uproar. Plus, cities need their wealthy citizens just as they need their poor.

I appreciate your critique of my numbers but I do have a couple of questions. First, is 25% a solid number for green space? Living in the Detroit area, I can promise that there is nothing close to that here and I can't say that I've been to too many major cities that could boast that number. Now while I'm not holding this city up as a model for anyone I can say that I would rather live here than in the hillside shacks of Caracas. Second, Would increasing the number of units per floor decrease the percentage of necessary footprint? I've seen many apartment complexes with more than ten units per floor so I'm not sure why that would be a bad thing if it provides more environmentally friendly areas.