Feasible Neighborhood Plans

In these times of declining expectations, I would like to speak with some realism about how difficult it is to transform cities. Digitization allows us to have images available in just a few hours and renders of future projects with every detail. Never before have those in power and architects been able to accurately visualize what projects will look like "after construction." Now it's done with such precision that, sometimes, it's even difficult to distinguish between the real and the virtual. To illustrate: we know what the Vallcarca neighborhood will look like next to the viaduct, but it's much harder to manage the relocation of all the people living in apartments that will have to be demolished, obtain permits, approve budgets, contract construction work... Managing all these processes is increasingly complicated. And the reality is that we have many drawings that never end up being developed.

Jover, Morell, and Gras have compiled a report for the APCE (Association of Developers) and UPF that analyzes the phenomenon of frozen planning: from ideas to practical implementation, plans fall too far short of their feasibility. For years, urban development plans have tended to focus on regenerating land within the city rather than simply expanding into developable areas. This is the case in Barcelona: it has long accepted that it cannot grow beyond the rivers and Collserola mountain range, nor beyond demolishing or converting obsolete buildings into denser neighborhoods. It makes perfect sense to invest in recycling parts of cities, but we must acknowledge that it's more expensive and more complex: it requires modifying utility networks (water, electricity, gas, sewage), demolishing some buildings with irreparable structural problems, compensating landowners so they can relocate their businesses, and rehousing families living in apartments. We are very clear that this is the way forward, but the administration struggles to accept that it requires significantly more management effort. We need to restore cities' unique capacity to provide impetus, support, and administrative processes, and to create certainty in order to minimize risks.

As Jover, Morell, and Gras explain, growth around cities is easier because there are large fields with few owners, whereas regenerating neighborhoods within urban areas necessarily involves working with hundreds of tiny landowners who lack the drive to be developers. Someone has to propose contributing their land in exchange for certain compensation, with guarantees that they aren't being taken advantage of and that the neighboring landowner won't get more money simply because they have a more persistent lawyer.

The housing crisis will be resolved if we can expedite these processes and, above all, if hundreds of neighborhoods are simultaneously transformed into diverse urban centers. Neighborhood Plans offer an opportunity in this regard. Historically, neighborhood legislation was conceived with a commitment to social transformation, because it's true that demolishing a building to construct a new, more modern one changes nothing. But rehabilitation doesn't mean leaving everything untouched: sometimes, demolishing several blocks—and creating better streets, gaining plazas and apartments with more balconies, and making room for new amenities—is the only way to reverse the inertia of a part of the city showing profound signs of decline.

Demolishing and relocating people is expensive, but an attractive neighborhood is a great boost to the local economy. An economic stimulus may be necessary to cover the initial costs, but building 600 homes where there were previously only 200 makes economic and social sense. The neighborhood, the street, and the house are the main factors in maintaining stability for collective well-being, and improving them implies assuming collective responsibility.

However, we must work from three very clear premises. First, that a strong sense of belonging to the neighborhood is fundamental to any transformation, which means we must always begin by focusing on improving the conditions of those who already live there. Second, that the focus of the rehabilitation should be what the residents agree is most important, addressing, from a local perspective, what they perceive as most problematic. Third, that the new neighborhood must have spaces to provide decent housing for the most vulnerable people and to alleviate poverty. The rest can be used to attract people with greater purchasing power, who can also create an interesting mix in the schools and the neighborhood.

Everyone wants to live in vibrant neighborhoods. The challenge is to refine the tools so that the transformation is tangible and doesn't just remain on paper.