153
efforts must include, therefore, both an economic and a
financial analysis. The economic analysis asks whether the
proposed investments are worth undertaking: do their benefits
to society as a whole exceed their costs? The financial analysis,
on the other hand, examines the specific costs and benefits that
different groups will experience as result of these investments,
and asks whether each such group will individually gain or
benefit from them.
The Rubik’s Cube
Like the great and elegant puzzle known as Rubik‟s cube,
where aligning the mosaic of one face tends to undo the
matched colors of the other face of the cube, so too trying to
match sensitive architecture and urbanism, sound municipal
finances, adequate incentives for the private sector, concern for
the poor and the destitute, and community involvement and
participation while promoting socio-economic diversity and
pluralism also seem impossible to resolve. Like Rubik‟s cube,
however, the solution, though very difficult, is possible. It re-
quires
patience, dedication and imagination. But it is possible.
To understand better the faces of the Rubik‟s Cube and
the thread to be followed for a solution, we must start by
identifying the multiple actors, the different levels of decision
making, and above all a leitmotif that we must not lose sight
of: who pays and who benefits?
The actors are many: The government, national and local,
the international community and its agencies, the tourists, both
national and local, who visit the historic cities, the private
sector, both international and national, who will invest in the
old historic core, for commercial or real estate development,
and the local residents, be they owners or renters, the poor,
who risk being displaced by the unaffordability of the changes,
not to mention the local community, for whom this is not just