Football is not the only area where we can learn from Spain. Energy transition, infrastructure construction and urban planning are some others. This one is about urban planning.
An essay in Works in Progress examined how traditional apartments have declined across Europe, except in Spain, and the role played by late development and public policy. It also underlines how Spain uniquely got all the basics of urban planning right - land readjustment, infrastructure development, mixed-use, densification, connected street network, walkability, mass transit, and low car usage.
This is a good description of mixed-use density in Spanish cities that promote walkability and mass transit commutes, and limit sprawl and carbon emissions.
Spain’s cities are unusual. They are much denser, tighter, and more deliberate than other European cities, let alone North American ones. They reject picket fence for apartment block and choose balcony over front lawn. Two thirds of Spaniards live in flats, against 41 percent of Poles, 36 percent of the French, and just 10 percent of the Irish. Of the remaining third, most live in terraced rowhouses. In Spain’s cities, over four fifths of people live in an apartment. At the edge of Madrid or Valencia, dense mid-rise blocks stand beside open countryside without sprawl in between, something that has almost never happened in an English-speaking country, and that has been rare in France or Germany for a century… Spain’s settlements have some of Europe’s lowest per capita transport emissions, in part because about 70 percent of trips in Madrid and Barcelona are made on foot, tram, or metro. Almost every neighborhood is mixed use; almost all urban Spaniards live in the ‘fifteen-minute cities’ that seem like remote ideals in most affluent societies.
This is a good comparison with other Southern European cities, and even here, Spain stands out.
Spain is not alone in Europe in having become wealthy only recently: most Southern European countries have a similar economic history. And Portugal, Italy, and Greece do share the distinctive features of Spanish urbanism to some extent, with relatively dense cities and relatively high shares of people living in apartments (46 percent in Portugal, 53 percent in Italy and 59 percent in Greece compared to 65 percent in Spain). In other ways, however, Spain is distinctive in Southern Europe. The cities of Portugal, Greece, and Southern or Central Italy are generally surrounded by ragged fringes of unplanned suburban development: their urban cores are dense in the same way as Spain’s, but their peripheries are a chaotic mixture. The transport situation is also dramatically different. About half of journeys in Lisbon and Athens are by car; in Rome, the figure is two thirds, with another substantial share on mopeds; in Nicosia, it is 85 percent, the highest of any European capital. In Madrid, the modal share of cars is below 30 percent. Cities tend to be dense all over Southern Europe, but they have not all achieved the transport outcomes that urbanists associate with density: in this respect, Spain is the outstanding model.
Public policy has played an important role in making this difference. In Britain and the US, the government develops the main arterial roads and allows development that follows the development control regulations, which results in fragmented urban forms (in terms of plot sizes and types of development). In Spain, the authorities undertake land re-adjustments like the Town Planning Schemes of Gujarat and thereby lay down clear boundaries and forms of development.
This also means a high level of infrastructure development with a high density of roads, based on plans that connect streets and localities to promote pedestrians and cyclists.
This has yielded cities with exceptionally good infrastructure. About 28 percent of Madrid’s surface area is taken up by roads, almost exactly the 30 percent recommended by UN specialists. This compares to 21 percent in Paris, 19 percent in London and 20 percent in New York. Even Los Angeles, a famously road-heavy city, uses only 25 percent for roads. As we have seen, these roads are also more skilfully interconnected, which is indispensable for pedestrians and cyclists.
A large road network has not detracted from policy focus on public transport.
Despite having far superior road infrastructure, Spanish cities also have high public transport use. Around 60 percent of trips in the Madrid metropolitan area and over 70 percent of trips in the Barcelona metropolitan area are made through public or active travel, similar to other major European cities and far higher than American, Canadian, or Australian cities, which typically fall below 30 percent. In other words, Spanish cities have Los Angeles-tier road infrastructure and Paris-tier public transport access. This is paired with some of the continent’s best intercity transport. Spain has significantly more motorways than any other European country: 17,228 kilometers, versus 13,183 in Germany and 11,671 in France. It has the second-longest high-speed rail network in the world, after China.
In fact, public policy played perhaps an even more important role by keeping infrastructure construction costs low and ensuring construction was done within budget and without delays. It was able to utilise something like €200 billion in cohesion funding received from the EU between the late 1980s and 2020.
More importantly, Spain kept costs low… Spain, combined with its non-EU injections, built 4,000 kilometers of high-speed rail, 10,000 kilometers of motorway, and numerous metros, trams, ring roads, and radial arterials, because it kept costs extremely low. It did this by maintaining good practice: flexible environmental rules (although these have since become more problematic), top-tier in-house capacity in engineering and contracting, a commitment to a steady pipeline of projects over decades, and, above all, rapid decision-making, avoiding the costly delays and redesigns common elsewhere. Another part of this was giving small areas the power to decide on and fund infrastructure, like the Madrid Metro, avoiding the ping pong between authorities seen in some high-cost countries.
Together, this has allowed it to build metros more than 20 times cheaper than in New York City. For the price of one mile of the New York’s Second Avenue Subway extension, Spanish builders covered the entire 35-mile 1995–1999 expansion of the Madrid Metro. As a result, Spanish transport infrastructure is both abundant and cheap. Madrid’s metro underwent one of the fastest growth spurts in the worldbetween 1995 and 2007, adding around 203 kilometers of new lines to its already impressive footprint. Barcelona has been continuously expanding its metro network since the Second World War: in a period of astonishing activity between 1990 and 2010 there were 18 separate extensions, and seven more since.
Cities including Valencia, Bilbao, Seville, and Málaga all built metro or light rail systems in the 1990s and 2000s. Madrid and Barcelona have both joined their old suburban rail lines up into Cercanías/Rodalies systems, similar to London’s Crossrail scheme but far more comprehensive (though not always well run). The upshot of this is that, despite having some of the world’s best road infrastructure, Spain still has relatively low levels of car use and ownership: the modal share of driving is low not because driving is a bad option, but because other options are so good.
Since the late 2000s, changes in laws placing a series of restrictions on buildings have adversely impacted Spanish urban planning. For example, before 2007, Spanish land was buildable by default; the same was inverted to allow housing construction only if specifically zoned by the local council. Today, in an emulation of the planning practices followed in the US and Europe, building in Spain has become extremely restrictive.
Planning a major Spanish urban extension now depends on agreement from the municipality, the community (the regional government), the landowners, and, individually, each of the environmental, water, roads, electricity, public transportation, and social housing authorities. The result is that creating new city plans now takes an enormously long time. Creating the plan takes between six to eight years, while designing the streets and plots takes another three to seven… This is leading to high prices. Madrid asking prices are now nearly €6,000 per square meter, and Barcelona over €5,000, above Hamburg, Berlin, Frankfurt, Brussels, Milan, and Rome… But Spanish wages are low… This has left leading Spanish cities with some of the worst house price to income ratios in Europe.
Spain offers important lessons for cities in developing countries like India. Spain’s late development means that its experience has even greater relevance for us.
Spain's cities are unusual not on any single dimension but on the combination - density, mixed use, mid-rise (not high-rise) apartments, walkability, cheap and abundant transit, high car ownership but low car use, infrastructure preceding development, and municipally planned street grids. Spain is unique in getting all the dimensions right.
Indian cities, from metros to the lower-tier ones, are characterised by a far lower share of multi-tenement units, rigid land-use restrictions, high setbacks, poorly maintained or absent footpaths, infrastructure coming well after habitations emerge, and sorely deficient mass transit facilities (especially bus networks).
In India, exclusive land-use zoning is the norm, with mixed-use permitted only beyond generally 15-18 m roads and above, which are present in a very small proportion of the localities. In the older areas, commercial facilities in residential areas have emerged informally over time, whereas in the planned colonies and new developments, mixed use is restricted.
Indian cities have among the lowest share of urban households living in multi-tenement units, with Spanish cities being at the other extreme. Only 31% of urban Indian households live in flats (NSS 2018) compared to about 80% in Spanish cities, with Mumbai being the exception. The India NSS “flat” includes chawls, single-storey shared tenements, and informal walk-ups - so Indian numbers overstate what a Spaniard would recognise as a flat.
Similarly, Indian cities have among the lowest share of road network, not even a third of the UN Habitat norm. Most Indian metros are 6–12%, with only Delhi, the only Indian city with municipally planned extension, getting close.
I can think of at least a few big takeaways. Foremost, there’s no alternative to mixed-use, densified development for both greenfield and brownfield areas.
Given its high share of detached housing, Indian cities have a great opportunity to reinvent themselves. This can be done by increasing FAR, and more importantly, doing it in a manner that allows upzoning adjacent to 9 m and 12 m roads. As I blogged here, the current upzoning deregulation, confined to plots with road width greater than 18 m, is largely superfluous.
This must be coupled with planning norms like allowing for relaxations of setbacks, even dispensing with them and encouraging row housing, multi-tenement units, and mixed-use in terms of encouraging commercial amenities. The latter is about ensuring that people living in a locality should be able to buy their regular groceries and other household items and services from within there. Further, the local government fee and property tax regimes must consider lowering the layout development charges, building permission fees, and property taxes to encourage the realisation of these objectives.
These policies and instruments must be deployed with a long-term perspective (as against expectations of immediate results). The objective should be that they would shape incentives and enable the gradual redevelopment of brownfield areas as densified communities.
Second, we must use urban planning to lay down street network configurations that enable connectivity and walkability. Master plans and their development plans should keep this in mind. Minimising or even eliminating setbacks would be one step to enable such street networks. The prioritisation of walkability requires the infrastructure of footpaths and street connectivity to be able to walk, and the supply in terms of mixed-use amenities to create the demand. And all this must be combined with local campaigns to promote the culture of keeping footpaths free of encroachments.
Third, the current dominant trend across Indian cities of the emergence of gated communities in the suburbs must be examined. These communities, while attractive for their residents and developers, go against all principles of sustainable urban development. These are largely monocultures of upper-middle and higher-income housing (the maids and drivers, and others, commute from distant places), with exclusive residential zoning, limited or no mass transit connectivity, exclusively car-based, and very poor external street connectivity (large gated enclaves with one or two entry/exit points). They impose massive negative externalities on the city and locality, while appropriating all the benefits.
Fourth, mass transit must be at the core of all developments. All greenfield areas, in particular, must be planned around mass transit, in the form of transit-oriented development (TOD). This post discusses some principles for TOD in Indian cities, and this post outlines some of the challenges. This would require going beyond the current norm of merely giving higher FAR and offering significant incentives on fees and taxes to make it more attractive for developers to build inside the TOD zones.
Like in Spain, the challenge is to get the combination more or less right. The good thing is that all of them lie with the states and mostly with the cities themselves. It is only required for 2-3 cities to take the lead and strike out on their own in following these principles and reinventing themselves. They can be the lighthouses that guide urban development in India.
