ECONOMICS UNIQUENESS

222 ■ THE ECONOMICS OF UNIQUENESS
Understanding the context, objectives, and constraints of the diff erent private
actors is, as Serageldin observes, like a Rubik’s cube that “requires patience, dedication
and imagination” to fi gure out (Serageldin 1999). Although it is diffi cult,
it is certainly feasible to pursue and mobilize private-sector investment and form
partnerships with the public sector for the development of urban brownfi eld
sites. Th e next sections of this chapter highlight the role of the public sector as
prime mover and catalyst in leveraging resources and programs, and then examine
four types of fi nancial partnership between the public and private sectors for
urban brownfi eld investments.
The Catalyst Player: The Role of Government
Addressing urban brownfi elds presents particular challenges to national and
regional policy-makers due to these sites’ signifi cant heritage legacies (cultural
or natural) and potential for further development. Th ese areas are oft en
left abandoned due to contamination, decay from lack of maintenance, limited
access to transport, and depressed local economies. As numerous examples indicate
(for instance, in Latin America; Marker et al. 2007), the high cost of facilitating
the reintegration of rehabilitated sites—including natural areas and historic
districts—into the property market and the lack of expertise in this fi eld oft en
slow the process of transforming brownfi elds into new uses (Jackson and Garb
2002). In general, public-sector fi nancial assistance is needed to make a sitereuse
project economically viable, because remediation and preparation costs
render many projects economically uncompetitive, at least initially (Kurdila and
Rindfl eisch 2007; Meyer and Lyons 2000; Wernstedt et al. 2006). Th is can be
overcome, however, by providing a range of coordinated inputs (e.g., policies,
instruments, planning, funding, and training) to increase site attractiveness to
the point where the market will take hold of the sites and exploit their potential,
especially given their central locations. (See box 8.3.)
Th e management of an increasing stock of derelict land and structures in
inner-city locations is a pressing concern for urban planners and propertyrelated
private stakeholders. When one considers the ongoing consumption of
open space for housing, retail, and industry, it is clear that the goal of maintaining
a sustainable built environment cannot be met without reintegrating brownfi elds
into the property market and encouraging development back into central urban
locations (RESCUE 2004). When new developments are built on city peripheries,
the historic and post-industrial quarters in city centers almost always remain
abandoned or partially occupied; for instance, this process is especially evident in
the Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltic countries, as in the case of Tallin,
the capital of Estonia (Cocconcelli and Medda 2010).