How (not) to write a neighborhood impact report.

The urban planners of the Urbanists for Brasília movement, more than a hundred professionals in a position of independence from the GDF (Government of the Federal District), have been mobilizing in OPPOSITION to this expansion of the Hotel Sector, for fundamental reasons: (1) because of the tremendous distortion of Brasília's Urban Plan; (2) because it imposes land use that only corresponds to the interests of speculators (on a plot that should be primarily occupied by public institutions in the Nation's Capital); (3) because it is a "response" that does not correspond to any existing problem (the local hotel network can expand in the totally abandoned centers of neighborhoods such as Samambaia, Santa Maria, Recanto das Emas, among dozens of others, and receive more attention from bourgeois businessmen and bourgeois politicians); (4) because it imposes a tremendous impact on traffic in a city with increasing congestion, consuming urban infrastructure resources that should be especially dedicated to the primary functions of the Republic's Capital and not to speculators.

There are more reasons, and I don't do justice to the arguments of the Urban Planners for Brasília movement (which can be examined on the websites). http://urbanistasporbrasilia.wordpress.com/ ou http://urbanistasporbrasilia.weebly.com/ There is much more to reveal.

The big problem with this Neighborhood Impact Report is that... "there is no NEIGHBORHOOD" considered. Where is the "neighborhood" of a huge isolated area like 901 North? This seems to be a genetic problem of a sectorized city: "everyone in their own square," keeping their mouths shut.

However, this is not the spirit of our time (which desires respect for citizenship, transparency in public acts, sustainability – as opposed to congestion and urban and environmental imbalance). Nor is it the spirit of the Law, especially the City Statute.

Neighborhood impact cannot be omitted from a neighborhood impact report, according to the City Statute.

What is the neighborhood of Block 901?

In a city like Brasília, a sector of its central area is of interest to the ENTIRE community of residents.

According to the City Statute (Federal Law 10.257, of July 10, 2001), urban communities should have much more voice and power over any and all modifications in their cities that alter their quality of life, their expectations of peace, mental and physical health, work, intellectual activity – among so many other positive aspects of an orderly community life.

It is an excellent law, which provided a good set of instruments for the management of Brazilian cities of any size: the City Statute applies broadly to São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro or Brasília, as well as to small towns in the Amazon or the Brazilian Midwest. But, evidently, it is not a panacea, and it also has a good variety of problems.

One of these crucial problems lies precisely in the issue of "community empowerment," and its administration by those who do not want to empower the community: despite strongly emphasizing Popular Participation when applying any of its various instruments (such as "Consortium Urban Operations," "Urban Master Plans," or "Neighborhood Impact Studies"), the law cannot prevent urban governments from behaving evasively, cunningly—and partially or totally manipulating Popular Participation. And urban governments do this, for various reasons. Empower the community, the populace? Never!

Understanding these reasons is extraordinarily important: for most people, speculative operations, favoritism, and cover-ups perpetrated by public agents (directors of TERRACAP, district deputies, offices of Secretaries of State and the Governor of the Federal District himself, in particular) are pure scandal, bad news. For urban planners, they are indications of forms of urban transformation that must be studied, monitored, and understood – to be combated or redirected through Plans and Laws, through concrete measures of public and urban management, through public policies worthy of the name.

The City Statute stems from a theory of urban ills.

The City Statute itself was created from a "theory of cities" that primarily focused on combating the evils of real estate speculation – especially speculative hoarding, aimed at increasing the value of "my" property at the expense of others, at the expense of cities (as the University of Brasília does with the entire Superquadra 207 Norte). The City Statute itself, at only 11 years old, has generated several new situations that are still lacking research and are not yet well understood.

(Parenthesis: It is remarkable how averse the University of Brasília is to these studies, and literally expels scholars who dare to advance the critique of real estate speculation (understandably, the University of Brasília has notoriously contrary interests to this critique, in addition to having professors unequivocally involved with land grabbing in "irregular condominiums").)

In the case of Block 901 North, this Neighborhood Impact Report is shockingly incomplete and biased. It should be read and discussed. To conclude, for now, one question:

"What does a HUGE INCREASE IN CONSTRUCTION POTENTIAL for this lot, from the previous 118.000 m2 (one hundred and eighteen thousand square meters) to the proposed (by TERRACAP, which profits from the project) 425.009,10 m2 (four hundred and twenty-five thousand and nine square meters), represent in the hands of a MEGA-PRIVATE OWNER of a single lot in the heart of Brasília, in terms of IMPACT ON THE CITY?"

This is the proposal revealed in the Neighborhood Impact Report, prepared by TERRACAP itself. The neighborhood should beware, because the impact will be lasting and very strong. All that's left is for them to discover a "Cachoeira Connection" in this terrible real estate operation by TERRACAP. Watch out, Brasília.