Evolución y crisis de la región metropolitana de Madrid 1985-2007. Análisis de las diversas perspectivas para la transformación del gobierno urbano: una revisión crítica del planeamiento

La Región Metropolitana de Madrid (RMM) ha sufrido una gran transformación urbana en el periodo 1985-2007, en el cual ha crecido la población, ha crecido fuertemente el cuerpo físico, pero sobre todo han crecido su coste y su consumo, lo que supone que se ha vuelto más insostenible. Para tratar de comprender esta evolución asimétrica se ensayan sucesivos modelos que tratan de explicar la transformación de la realidad a través de la articulación de las formas de poder y sus políticas asociadas dentro del contexto local-metropolitano. Si se compara la transformación urbana en el periodo 1985-2007 respecto a la registrada durante el desarrollismo previo al presente periodo democrático, se encuentran similitudes, como el amplio consumo de suelo, pero el modelo desarrollista se inscribe en otras lógicas y tiene otros parámetros de contexto y es congruente ya que las últimas décadas del Régimen Franquista se caracterizan por un importantísimo aumento poblacional que se correspondía con el fuerte crecimiento industrial de la RMM. Esa congruencia relativa se pierde en el periodo estudiado, a pesar de que en 1985, se aprueba el Plan General de Ordenación Urbana de Madrid centrado en la ciudad existente y con un crecimiento contenido, y que puede considerarse un modelo abortado. Tras numerosas transformaciones políticas, económicas, sociales y urbanísticas se llega a una situación opuesta a la prevista en el citado Plan. Más de veinte años después, en 2007, se presentan no solo síntomas de agotamiento del modelo finalmente adoptado, sino su quiebra dramática tanto en su dimensión inmobiliario-financiera como del espacio del bienestar. Es precisamente la supresión de los mecanismos de regulación lo que ha caracterizado la evolución de los modelos urbanos, en correspondencia con la desregulación de las actividades económicas y de los flujos de capital propios del modelo "neoliberal". La actual crisis financiera internacional, en especial en algunos países periféricos europeos como España, ha demostrado cómo las políticas económicas que se han llevado a cabo, fuera de toda regulación, han resultado insostenibles. Pero no se trata solo de una crisis económica. En el caso español, de todas las dimensiones de la crisis, destaca la dimensión urbana, o el auge y caída del ciclo inmobiliario, debido a la urbanización intensiva del territorio en relación con el circuito secundario de la acumulación capitalista, habiendo tenido especial incidencia en algunos territorios como la RMM. En la Región Metropolitana de Madrid la situación actual es de crisis urbana, causada principalmente por el divorcio entre las necesidades y la producción de ciudad, pues no se ha basado el crecimiento en la creación de nuevos hogares, u otras cuestiones demográficas, sino en la acumulación de capital a través del crecimiento de la ciudad. Además, dicho crecimiento está conformado por una expansión urbana descontrolada, con mayores requerimientos energéticos que el modelo compacto y complejo tradicional, lo que unido a la escala de los procesos, supone un sistema urbano progresivamente ineficiente. El caso de la RMM resulta paradigmático, ya que la región ha desempeñado un papel como laboratorio de nuevas formas de gobierno y planificación que han dado un mayor protagonismo al espacio, que ha entrado en las dinámicas centrales principalmente por el apoyo al crecimiento físico, a la vez que han confluido circunstancias específicas, como un nuevo impulso al centralismo, lo que ha potenciado ciertas políticas, como considerar la ciudad como motor de crecimiento económico y de competitividad en el concierto europeo y mundial de ciudades. El estudio del papel de la planificación y sus crisis en la sucesión de los modelos, muestra su función nuclear en la propia constitución de estos —es parte fundamental de su aparato de regulación— y su valor no solo para poder entender el periodo, sino para poder proyectar otro futuro urbano. Este enfoque conduce a establecer la relación del planeamiento con las diferentes crisis económicas en el periodo de estudio lo que permite diferenciar tres momentos de dicha relación: la planificación urbanística austera bajo la influencia de la crisis fordista, la salida de la crisis a través de la imposición de un modelo urbano basado en el sobreproducción de espacio urbano, y la entrada en una crisis inmobiliaria y de financiarización en relación a la adopción de un modelo multidimensionalmente insostenible. El análisis de este periodo es la base para apuntar perspectivas que permitan transformar el gobierno urbano hacia un modelo urbano más deseable, o mejor aún, otros futuros posibles, que se enmarcan dentro de la alternativa principal que supone la sostenibilidad. Madrid's Metropolitan Region (MMR) has undergone a major urban transformation in the period 1985-2007, where the population has grown up, the built environment has grown strongly, but mostly its cost and consumption have grown, which means that it has become unsustainable. To try to understand this evolution successive asymmetric models are tested in order to explain the transformation of reality through the articulation of forms of power and its associated policies in that localmetropolitan context. Comparing the urban transformation in the period 1985-2007 to the existing during developmentalism in the current predemocratic period, both have similarities in terms of land consumption, but the previous developmentalism model is part of another logics and has got other context parameters. It is consistent since the last decades of the Franco Regime was characterized by an important population increase that corresponded to strong industrial growth of the MMR. This relative consistency is lost during the study period, although in 1985, with the approval of the Master Plan of Madrid that was focused on the existing city, with a limited growth, and it may be considered an interrupted model. After numerous political, economic, social and urban changes, there is the opposite situation to that foresight under that Plan. Over twenty years later, in 2007, there are not only signs of exhaustion of the model which was finally adopted, but also its dramatic collapse in both real estate and financial dimension of space as well. The urban transformation under analysis has relaunched the hegemony of the sectors that rule the growth of the Madrid's Metropolitan Region and it is supported by decision making and financing of the different administrations with the passivity of the social stakeholders and citizens. This has meant the removal of regulatory mechanisms that have characterized the evolution of urban models, corresponding to the deregulation of economic activities and capital flows according to "neoliberal" model. The current international financial crisis, especially in some European peripheral countries like Spain, has shown how economic policies that have been carried out, without any regulation, have proven unsustainable. But it is not only an economic crisis. In the Spanish case, of all the dimensions of the crisis, it is the urban dimension that is highlighted, or the rise and fall of real estate cycle, due to intensive urbanization of the territory in relation to the secondary circuit of capital accumulation, having had a particular impact in some territories such as the Madrid's Metropolitan Region. In Madrid's Metropolitan Region there is the current situation of urban crisis, mainly caused by the divorce between needs and the city (space) production, because no growth has been based on creating new homes, or other demographic issues, but in the capital accumulation through growth of the city. Furthermore, this growth is made up of urban sprawl, with higher energy requirements than the traditional compact and complex one, which together with the scale of processes, is increasingly an inefficient urban system. The case of Madrid's Metropolitan Region is paradigmatic, since the region has played a role as a laboratory for new forms of governance and planning have given a greater role to space, which has entered the core dynamics supported mainly by physical growth, while specific circumstances have come together as a new impulse to centralization. This has promoted policies such as considering the city as an engine of economic growth and competitiveness in the international and the European hierarchy of cities. The study of the role of planning and crisis in the succession of models, shows its nuclear role in the constitution of these models is a fundamental part of its regulatory apparatus- and also its value not only to understand the period, but to anticipate to other urban future. This approach leads to establish the relationship of planning with the various crises in the study period, allowing three different moments of that relationship: the austere urban planning under the influence of Fordist crisis, the output of the crisis through imposition of an urban model based on the overproduction of urban space, and entry into a housing crisis and financialisation in relation to the adoption of a multi-dimensionally unsustainable model. The analysis of this period is the basis for targeting prospects that translate urban governance towards a more desirable urban model, or better yet, other possible futures, which are part of the main alternative that is sustainability.

A governação de territórios metropolitanos. Contexto institucional e de planeamento nas regiões de Madrid, Barcelona, Paris e Lisboa / The regional metropolitan governance. Institutional mark and planning in Madrid, Barcelona, Paris and Lisbon

Resumo Em resposta aos desafios atuais de muitas grandes cidades, o contexto institucional e o planeamento territorial formam dimensões para melhorar a governação metropolitana. No quadro das regiões capitais do sudoeste europeu, quais poderão ser as inovações e diferenças nos seus modelos e processos em curso? Este artigo propõe uma investigação aplicada para apresentar a análise da governação metropolitana. Através do método de estudos de caso em perspectiva comparada, vários elementos e entrevistas são ponderados qualitativamente nas regiões de Madrid, Barcelona, Paris e Lisboa. As conclusões encontram uma tendência para o equilíbrio entre os esforços dessas duas dimensões da governação territorial metropolitana, não impedindo registrar os seus diferentes percursos: por exemplo Ile-de-France desenvolveu boas iniciativas em matéria de planeamento, que então pedem alguns ajustamentos no quadro político, enquanto Madrid teve “menos actividade” nos últimos anos, em resultado da sua grande estabilidade institucional. A região de Lisboa permanece talvez numa “posição intermédia”, com uma dinâmica de evolução pouco previsível. Mas de acordo com este argumento, admite-se que os seus processos podem levar a melhorias graduais no sistema de governação, com o seu próprio percurso, implementando acções que devem respeitar, em particular, a geografia do território. Abstract Addressing the running challenges of several greater cities, the institutional mark and regional planning are dimensions for improving metropolitan governance. Regarding the southwest European capital regions, what can be the innovations and differences in their currently processes and models? This paper proposes an applied framework to present the metropolitan governance analysis. Through a comparative case study methodology, various elements and interviews are qualitatively measured in the regions of Madrid, Barcelona, Paris and Lisbon. The conclusions find a tendency to balance between the efforts on those two regional metropolitan governance dimensions, which does not prevent to register their different paths: for example Ile-de-France has developed good initiatives in terms of planning, which then require some adjustments in the political mark, while Madrid had in recent years “less activity”, in result of his institutional stability. The Lisbon region maybe stays in an “intermediate position” with a dynamic evolution that is difficult to predict. But according to that argument, it’s possible to admit that his processes can gradually lead to small improvements in his governance system, with his own path, implementing actions that must respect, in particularly, the geography of the territory.