A different kind of vacancy
Much writing on vacant property assumes a shrinking city: population has fallen, demand has dropped and buildings are left behind. In many fast-growing cities of lower- and middle-income countries, the picture can be nearly the opposite. Demand for space is high, informal settlements may be expanding, and yet some buildings and plots remain empty for years. The label “emerging markets” covers very different places, so what follows describes broad tendencies, not rules.
Why property sits empty in a growing city
Several causes recur, though their weight differs from city to city:
- Unclear or disputed ownership. Land records may be incomplete, out of date or contradictory. Inheritance across many family members can leave a plot with a dozen claimants, none able to sell or build alone.
- Speculative holding. When prices are expected to rise, an owner may leave land or a building empty rather than use it. This is a general behavior, not unique to any region.
- Unfinished construction. Buildings begun and then stalled because financing ran out, an owner emigrated or a permit dispute arose.
- Regulatory mismatch. Legal requirements for rehabilitation may be so costly that it is easier to leave the structure alone.
- Hazards. Land prone to flooding or unstable soil may remain empty because no one can safely or legally build.
This means that a city can have both severe housing shortages and large amounts of unused space. The two coexist because the unused space is not available on workable terms.
Informal land arrangements
In many places, a large share of homes and businesses sit on land whose ownership is not formally recorded, or where customary and statutory systems overlap. This changes what renewal means. Where residents have long used land without formal title, a plan to “activate” an apparently empty or underused plot may in fact override people’s livelihoods, such as small stalls, grazing or walking routes.
Approaches in this area differ and are debated. Some governments pursue formal titling, which can give households security and access to credit, but critics note it can also expose poor households to sale pressure and may not deliver the expected benefits on its own. Other approaches emphasize recognizing existing occupancy, community-based tenure or incremental upgrading. Outcomes depend heavily on the local legal system and on who is at the table.
Working with limited budgets
Public budgets for renewal are typically small compared with needs, which pushes cities toward lower-cost approaches:
- Use what exists. Incremental improvement of occupied or partly built structures often costs less than demolition and new construction.
- Permit interim uses. Allowing markets, play areas, workshops or temporary housing support on idle land can generate benefits without major capital. Tools like pilot projects can test an idea before more money is committed.
- Share costs. Partnerships with community groups, local businesses or nonprofit organizations may reduce public expense, though they raise questions about accountability and about who benefits.
- Prioritize basics. Water, sanitation, drainage and safe access sometimes matter more to residents than visual improvement of a building.
Land value capture and other financing tools are sometimes proposed to fund improvements, although they require administrative capacity, good records and enforcement, all of which may be in short supply.
Capacity and records
A city cannot activate what it cannot see. Many municipalities lack reliable parcel inventories or current vacancy surveys, which makes it hard to tell which buildings are truly abandoned and which are occupied informally. Satellite imagery and community mapping are sometimes used to fill gaps, with the caution that images do not show who has rights to a place or whether anyone uses it.
Staff and legal resources are also constrained. A policy that works on paper, such as forcing owners to repair or sell, may be hard to enforce when the owner cannot be traced or the court system is slow.
Risks to people already there
Renewal in fast-growing cities carries serious displacement risk. When an area is upgraded, rents and land values may rise, and households without secure tenure are usually the most exposed. Evictions connected with redevelopment have been widely criticized, and many international guidelines call for consultation, fair compensation and resettlement options, though practice varies. Plans that treat informal occupants as obstacles tend to produce conflict and delay.
Gentrification-type pressures can also affect small traders and workshops that rely on cheap, central space.
What seems to matter
No single method has proven reliable across contexts, but a few themes recur in the literature and practice:
- Start with a realistic picture of who holds rights and who uses the space.
- Favor stepwise, reversible changes over large cleared-site projects.
- Involve residents early, and give them real influence, not just notice.
- Match ambitions to the administrative capacity that actually exists.
- Be honest about uncertainty: many claims about the benefits of titling, partnerships or upgrading come from limited or mixed evidence.
Activation in these cities is less about finding empty spaces and more about fitting new uses to a landscape of overlapping claims, tight budgets and fast change.