Keywords

Introduction

One of the objectives of the URBAN Initiative was to improve the quality of life in urban areas with high levels of socio-spatial vulnerability in their respective cities. Thus, at least implicitly, it sought to rebalance the city by bringing these areas closer to the urban dynamic as a whole, both from a physical (public space, urban mobility, accessibility, etc.) and socio-economic point of view (unemployment, social exclusion processes, etc.).

This chapter aims to evaluate this implicit objective of the URBAN Initiative. In order to do this, we will contextualise in each city the change in the levels of socio-spatial vulnerability of the intervention areas at a time before and after the implementation of the URBAN projects (1991 and 2001). As explained below, this exercise focusses on the historical centres of major cities, one of the main targets of this Initiative. These Spanish urban areas were at the centre of debate and public interest in the 1980s. At the time, this was due to their urban and socio-economic disadvantage. Nowadays, these urban areas remain highly debated within the discussion of gentrification.

The URBAN Initiative as a Socio-Spatial Rebalancing Policy in the City: Contextualised Improvements and Changes

Integrated urban regeneration programmes involve intervention in urban areas that are deemed to be, for various reasons, out of step with the overall dynamics of the city. Whether they are implemented in peripheral areas with a high concentration of social problems, or in ‘degraded’ areas of the historic city, they seek to increase levels of social cohesion in the city by improving these vulnerable areas. One of the central ideas is thus to improve the city by transforming its neighbourhoods (Navarro et al., 2016; van Gent et al., 2009).

This idea was key to the URBAN I Community Initiative, as well as the broader framework of the urban dimension of EU policies in which it was developed, as shown, for example, in documents such as the Aalborg Charter (1994) and the European Commission report Europe 2000+ (1995). The diagnosis provided in these documents assumed that a key component in the decline of large cities was due to the decay of urban fabric and the concentration of social exclusion processes in certain areas and, therefore, the existence of socio-spatial segregation processes in these areas (De Gregorio Hurtado, 2014). It was, therefore, a matter of developing programmes to ensure the socio-spatial rebalancing of European cities. In particular, one of the central goals proposed by the URBAN was the incorporation of vulnerable areas into the social and economic dynamics of their cities through the attraction of economic activity, as well as the generation of confidence and security for the population residing in those areas (European Commission, 1994).

Nevertheless, did the URBAN Initiative manage to rebalance the cities where it was implemented? More specifically, did it achieve its objective of bringing the areas where it was applied into closer alignment with the urban dynamics of their respective cities? To answer this question, we must know not only whether these urban areas improved but also whether or not they did so to the same extent as the cities where they are located. The achievement of pursued goals should be shown as improvements in the socio-spatial conditions of the urban areas targeted by the URBAN Initiative. However, if these improvements are similar to all the other city urban areas, one might think it shows a more general process of improvement in the city rather than a consequence of the programme implementation. In other words, there would be an impact in terms of urban rebalancing if the intervention area shows more significant improvement than its respective city as a whole.

Additionally, it should be noted that the existing literature has pointed out that public intervention can be one of the primary causes of gentrification (Hackworth & Smith, 2001; Paton & Cooper, 2016) and, ultimately, an unintended effect of urban regeneration policies (Zuk et al., 2018). Moreover, gentrification has been used as a tool for urban renewal (Davidson, 2008). In this regard, most analyses about gentrification based on aggregate data at the neighbourhood (or census tract) level compare the change in specific urban areas with the change in the city as a whole in order to show population replacement trends pointed out in gentrification processes (Fernández-García, 2021). Therefore, it will be necessary to consider whether the possible improvements detected between the different temporal points may reflect this type of replacement process due to led-state gentrification rather than improving the living conditions of the traditional inhabitants of targeted neighbourhoods.

Methodology: Case Selection and Analysis Strategy

The previous ideas comparatively analyse the changes observed in the intervention urban areas with those of their respective cities. To this end, we will use as a territorial unit the homogeneous urban areas (HUA) defined in each city (see Chapter 7) and compare the changes in their socio-spatial vulnerability levels between 1991 and 2001.

We have chosen URBAN I cities where there are at least 30 HUA. Specifically, and in order of their demographic size, they are Madrid, Valencia, Seville, Zaragoza, and Malaga. This means that the analysis focusses on historical centres, the territorial target of URBAN I projects in these cities. In part, this highlights the importance of the problems facing historic centres at that time. Different urban processes had important consequences throughout the second half of the twentieth century.

On the one hand, processes of relocation and de-industrialisation marked the decline of the industrial city (Fernández Salinas, 1994), turning cities, especially their central areas, into specialised tertiary activities and consumer services districts. On the other hand, dynamics of sub-urbanisation were initiated that promoted the demographic growth of metropolitan areas to the detriment of their centres (Gil-alonso & Bayona-i-carrasco, 2012; Nel-lo, 2004). The result of these processes for urban centres was ambivalent: they were turned into spaces of opportunity for commercial activity due to their central localisation and the disposal of significant cultural heritage, but they concentrated high rates of unemployment, population ageing, infrastructure deficits, and urban problems in old housing stock that was, sometimes, in deplorable condition.

The diagnosis of the projects analysed combines these two challenges. On the one hand, there are severe problems of social exclusion, such as high levels of unemployment, pockets of poverty, ageing dynamics, and a whole range of problems related to social disorganisation, such as petty crime, drug dealing and consumption, and prostitution (Sampson et al., 1997; Shaw & McKay, 1969). On the other hand, there has been a significant deterioration of the urban environment regarding housing conditions, a lack of basic infrastructure and neglected public spaces, and some decline in commercial activities in the area.

Based on this common diagnosis, project strategies propose actions to improve the urban environment (re-urbanisation processes, improvement of infrastructure and environmental conditions), boost the economy, foster socio-cultural development and social welfare, and provide employment-training services. Of course, the strategies are shaped by the priorities set out for the URBAN programme itself, but what is remarkable is that the projects share a common vision regarding the problems that need to be addressed and the policy actions required to do so.Footnote 1

To analyse the extent to which the projects generated improvements in the intervention areas and some degree of territorial rebalancing, we analysed the Socio-Economic Level Indicator (INSE), which measures socio-spatial inequalities between urban areas in 1991 and 2001. It combines four other indicators that would account for the presence of risks concerning social exclusion processes (percentage of unemployed population and percentage of the adult population without a primary education), an approximation of income from occupation (socio-economic status) and physical environment (housing conditions). The INSE is elaborated as a synthetic standardised indicator, so its mean value equals 0 (Fernández-García et al., 2018).

In order to know the relative position of these areas in their respective cities, we have established a ranking of that indicator among all their HUAs, both for 1991 and 2001. To compare it between cities, we have standardised this ranking according to the number of HUAs in each of them (i.e., relative HUA position = HUA position in ranking/number of HUAs in the city). In addition, we have standardised the relative positions of all HUAs in each city on 0–1 scales to facilitate their comparative analysis. By analysing the change (the differences) in these relative positions between 1991 and 2001, we will know their relative improvement level in the context of their cities.

Starting Conditions in the Intervention Areas: Severity of the Socio-Spatial Vulnerability

Table 11.1 shows that, due to the framework established by the URBAN programme, the public effort of the projects (investment per inhabitant) is quite similar between them, except for Madrid, since this case was classed as a particular situation (Goyanes López, 2000). However, the starting conditions for the areas were different (Table 11.1). In the cases of Madrid and Zaragoza, these areas had better starting socio-spatial conditions than those in Valencia, Seville or Malaga (levels of socio-spatial vulnerability), particularly regarding the unemployment rate and the presence of housing in poor conditions. However, these are not the areas with the lowest scores in their cities; even in the cases of Madrid and Malaga, they have values well above the city average. Therefore, the preference of local authorities to include these areas in the URBAN I programme compared to more vulnerable ones could be explained by the centrality of the issue of historic centres in Spain since the 1980s, as mentioned earlier. However, it could also be explained by their central location in the city, as well as their heritage resources, thereby offering more favourable starting opportunities to boost development, at least, compared with urban areas of public housing estates with high levels of physical and social vulnerability on the outskirts of cities, another of the targets of the URBAN Initiative and other similar programmes (Fernández-García, 2018; Navarro et al., 2016). Furthermore, although the historic centres of these Spanish cities have declined significantly since the 1970s (Fernández Salinas, 1994), their central position and their large geographical scale cause the phenomena of vulnerability to be concentrated in specific areas, and they contain a certain social mix of residents from different socio-economic strata (Borja & Muxí, 2001).

Table 11.1 Starting conditions in the intervention areas (1991)
Full size table

URBAN Policy Impact: Contextualising Changes Within the City

The starting conditions described above show that areas share certain features as historic centres but have different levels of socio-spatial vulnerability. Nevertheless, have they changed their position in the urban hierarchy of their respective cities? Was it similar for all of them? Furthermore, is this change due to the URBAN intervention? Fig. 11.1 shows the change in the relative position of the HUAs between 1991 and 2001. The line followed by the vast majority of the areas is almost straight, meaning there has been no change in their relative position within the urban hierarchy of their respective cities. There does not, therefore, appear to be a marked trend towards territorial rebalancing. However, some areas have improved their relative position (above the straight line) or have declined (below). There are also ‘extreme cases’ that usually involve new urban developments on the outskirts of cities during the period studied (e.g., the areas covered by specific urban planning projects).

Fig. 11.1
Five scatter plots of Madrid, Seville, Valencia, Zaragoza, and Malaga of ranking 2001 versus ranking 1991 for U A H intervened and not intervened. The U A H intervened is more in Madrid.

Change in the relative position of homogeneous urban areas in cities (1991–2001)

Full size image

Regarding urban areas where the URBAN Initiative was applied, those in Valencia and Seville saw the most remarkable improvement in their relative position within the city. Their distance from the straight line is more significant than most of the HUAs in their respective cities and the intervention areas in other cities. This result coincides with other comparative analyses on the level of change observed in Spanish cities at the neighbourhood level (Navarro et al., 2016). In both cases, the URBAN project initiated a profound transformation, moving these areas from pockets of poverty and marginalisation to regenerated areas that regain their physical and social connection with other areas of the city. In particular, these are the neighbourhoods within the Ciutat Vella district of Valencia, such as El Carmen, and in particular, the neighbourhoods of El Mercat and El Pilar, where the URBAN programme focussed its policy actions (Pérez & i Martí, 2013). In Seville, the targeted area mainly covers the San Luis-Feria-Alameda axis, where there has been an evident change in urban morphology and social composition (Díaz-Parra, 2015; Parra, 2009). In particular, in Valencia, the intervention area moves from the relative standardised position of 42 in 1991 to 67 in 2001 (up 25 relative positions), and in the case of Seville, from position 45 to position 62 (17 relative positions).

In the cases of Madrid and Zaragoza, where the areas started in a much more favourable situation than in the other cities, there were no remarkable changes in their relative position. In the first case, this might be because, although the targeted area was very large (almost all of its historic centre), the project was justified and its actions were carried out in a specific area recognised in the proposal as ‘the heart of the problem’, since it was the focus of a large proportion of the social conflicts affecting the centre, a high degree of urban deterioration, and a lack of services (De Gregorio Hurtado & Kocewicz, 2007). This might explain why the intervention area defined by the project did not present a high degree of vulnerability in 1991 and that the change in its relative position was less intense than in the other cities (from position 51 to 53). In the case of Zaragoza, although there is no such extensive delimitation of the intervention area, which is restricted to specific neighbourhoods (Magdalena-Tenerías), its relative position remains relatively stable (around the 47 mark), starting from a much more favourable situation than in the other cities (see Table 11.1).

Finally, in the case of Malaga, although the starting situation is similar to the cases of Seville and Valencia, its position in the urban hierarchy at the start of the intervention was reasonably high. This might explain why the improvement in its relative position has been less intense than in these cities but more so than in cases where the vulnerability situation was more unfavourable (Madrid and Zaragoza).

Overall, the results show that change in the urban hierarchy of the intervention areas targeted by URBAN is related to their starting conditions (Fig. 11.2). When an unfavourable starting situation is combined with a low position in the urban hierarchy, change within the urban hierarchy is more intense, showing a more evident effect of the URBAN Initiative (Seville and Valencia). However, when the relative starting position is higher, even though the severity of the problems is greater, the impact appears to be lower (Malaga). Finally, when the degree of vulnerability is lower, it seems that the impact of URBAN, in terms of relative improvement in the city as a whole, is considerably lower (Madrid and Zaragoza).

Fig. 11.2
A table of the improvement in the relative position in the urban hierarchy with respect to starting conditions that are more favourable or more unfavourable for Madrid, Seville, Valencia, Zaragoza, and Malaga.

(Note Starting conditions are the level of socio-spatial vulnerability in 1991 according to the INSE index)

Effect of the URBAN programme: starting conditions and trajectories of change in the intervention areas

Full size image

Urban Integrated Policies, Changes in Historical Centres, and Heterogeneous Policy Impacts

So far, the analyses show that the effects of the URBAN programme on processes of territorial rebalancing in the cities have been uneven, at least with regard to the change in the relative position of historic centres within the urban hierarchy of their respective cities. The main finding would appear to be that the starting situation of the area, in other words, the severity of its socio-spatial vulnerability, matters. The historical centres that started from a worse socio-economic situation seem to improve the most, especially if they did not occupy a prominent position in their respective cities at the outset.

In line with the analyses presented in other chapters, it is possible that the effect of some policy actions had not yet been shown when the changes were analysed, especially those explicitly targeted at residents. This may cause us to underestimate the impact of the programmes. However, in our analysis, this analysis period is similar for all the cases analysed. We have controlled for this possible effect in the comparisons made, and despite this, clear differences are observed.

Furthermore, we must consider that the role of public intervention in transforming historic centres does not start and end with the URBAN programme. To a large extent, this programme is often part of a broader urban strategy that aims to transform these degraded areas into ‘spaces of opportunity’ for the city. This would be shown, for example, in the existence of ‘strategic plans’ for the regeneration and development of historical centres, such as the Special Plan for the Centre (PEPRI) of Malaga (1990), Plan Riva I (1992) and Riva II (1998) in Valencia, PICH in Zaragoza (1997), the ARB Rehabilitation Project for the Northern Quarter of the Historic District of Seville (1999), as well as different strategies and agreements for the Rehabilitation of Residential and Urban Heritage in Madrid (Herraez, 2000). As with the URBAN programme, these strategies are supported by regional and state administrations, which account for the concentration of policy actions in the areas studied here. Their joint effects might well appear in the longer term.

However, the results presented show that the URBAN Initiative led to changes in the historic centres of large cities. In some cases, these changes were very intense, based on the empirical information used in our analyses at any rate. Nevertheless, this reduction in levels of socio-spatial vulnerability and improvement in their position in the urban hierarchy of their respective cities does not necessarily mean an ‘improvement’ for their residents. These results could reflect the ‘revitalisation’ of these neighbourhoods (improvement for their residents) or the existence of gentrification processes (the replacement of their residents by other population groups with a higher socio-economic status). As mentioned above, this may be an unintended outcome of urban regeneration programmes. With the data employed, common to other studies on gentrification, it is difficult to claim that such processes are taking place as we do not have specific individual data on residential mobility. Other analyses of these cities show that changes have occurred in these areas that point to gentrification (Díaz-Parra, 2015; Navarro et al., 2013; Prytherch & Boira Maiques, 2009; Sequera & Janoschka, 2015). Therefore, the concentration of policy interventions in these areas of the city might have given rise to processes of centre-fication, dynamics of socio-economic development based on the concentration of services and economic activities in these enclaves of the city, so that these areas, which were previously disconnected from the dynamics of the city centre, have been brought into line with their immediate surroundings (Rigol, 2010).

This is certainly an issue that requires further discussion, but in the case of Spain, for example, it is difficult to analyse because we cannot study residential mobility flows and the characteristics of those who move between pre- and post-intervention times. Another possible avenue of future research would be to define a smaller geographical scale to ‘detect’ more precisely urban changes and the possible role played by the integrated urban development strategy rolled out through the EU's URBAN programme in Spain. Furthermore, this analysis could be complemented by studying the impact of the same programme in other urban areas that were its specific target: peripheral neighbourhoods with high levels of socio-spatial vulnerability. This, together with the fact that such areas are situated on the outskirts of the city, might mean that the intensity of the impact of the URBAN Initiative (or other similar programmes) was not the same as in the historical centres. Other analyses have shown that similar initiatives’ impact and patterns of change are different depending on whether the intervention area is a ‘marginal neighbourhood’ or a ‘historical centre’ (Fernández-García, 2021; Navarro et al., 2016). In this chapter, we have shown how to use simple analysis techniques to approach this analysis, which could be improved with these and other possible ‘controlled comparisons’.