Urban governance and regeneration policies in historic city centres: Madrid and Barcelona

Abstract

In this article we seek to analyse and compare the models of regeneration of the city centres of Barcelona and Madrid in the light of the transformation of urban governance in Spain. New ways of network governance are emerging in European cities and Madrid and Barcelona are no exception. Urban policies are evolving towards the creation of more integrated strategies for regeneration that involve not only multiple public stakeholders, but also private actors including social and community organizations. Despite both cities showing some common trends, the analysis reveals significant differences between the two cities, both in terms of the composition and the dynamics of the governance networks, and the priorities and strategies for regeneration. The article concludes by discussing the possible explanatory factors for such differences and their political implications.

Keywords:

• integrated approach
• participation
• network governance
• urban regeneration

Notes

1. SEJ 2007-673888/CPOL project, Redes, participatción y políticas de regeneración urbana en centros históricos (Networks, participation and urban regeneration policies in historic centres) financed by the Ministry of Science and Innovation, Government of Spain. The main researcher is Ismael Blanco (IGOP), and the research team is Andrés Walliser (CIREM), Jordi Bonet, Mauro Castro, Marc Grau and Marc Martí (IGOP).

2. In 1950, Ciutat Vella (the district that includes the neighbourhoods in the historic centre of Barcelona) had 255,000 residents in an area of 4.3 km²; in the Raval neighbourhood, the densities were among the highest in Europe (10,000 inhabitants/ha). A similar process of densification took place in Madrid in the Centro District, which led to a degradation of living conditions in these areas. At the same time, the inability to absorb this population led to a growth of the periphery of the city in the form of shanty dwellings and self-constructed housing. The best known of these areas are Somorrostro, Camp de la Bota and Montjuïc in Barcelona and Pozo del Tío Ramundo, Orcasitas and Peña Grande in Madrid.

3. PERI (Plan Especial de Reforma Interurbana): special plan for inner-city reform.

4. This is a type of housing that was common in workers’ neighbourhoods in Madrid consisting of a block of small flats arranged in galleries around an interior courtyard.

5. Substandard housing is defined as a unit that is under 25 m² in size and/or does not have basic services (water, bathroom, lighting, ventilation and so on), according to the modification of the General Town Planning Programme (PGOUM) (Centro Office).

6. Since 1989 the rehabilitation of the centre was led by the Municipal Housing Company (EMV), which was part of the Town Planning Department. The EMV developed the ARIs in the centre and outlying areas, although only in strictly physical intervention programmes.

7. This flexibility would have its correlation in access to European Regional Development Fund, which despite not having been originally designed for urban regeneration were used to finance the creation of the Rambla in Raval. In Madrid European funds were also obtained for reform through participation in the urban programme. However, these were of less value and the tools used were less innovative (they were allocated to the creation of cultural pathways).