Europe & Central Asia » Spain » Madrid
 |
1) Madrid Metropolitan (Regional) Plan: English Synthesis |
 |
|
| The 1996 Madrid Metropolitan Plan created a new and revolutionary method of metropolitan planning, the CiTiMethod, which is also applicable to other world metropolises.
The core of the Metro-Matrix Method, and its direct applications and adaptations to particular circumstances, presents numerous solutions for the very serious challenge the 21st Century is confronting: the explosion of urban growth and the establishment of metropolitan megalopolises. The Metro-Matrix Method is one way to address this issue and provides a solution for many metropolitan governments, as it has for Madrid since 1996. This methodology has been applied to many other metropolises subsequently. 1996 Madrid Metropolitan Plan is essential to understand how to tackle the challenging issue of metropolitan explosion for the future of world sustainability, preventing the actual trend of producing a 'world of slums'. The set of policy proposals, the way to address the metropolitan structure in an exploding context can be approached in his McGraw Hill Education book: The Art of Shaping the Metropolis Full Document of Madrid Metropolitan (regional) Plan: See General Documents |
|
 |
|
2) Madrid/Arpegio Land Management Model |
 |
|
| Madrid 1995. Arpegio was a publicly 100% owned private firm. 100% owned by the State Government of Madrid (Comunidad Autonoma). The purpose of the firm was to develop industrial real-estate to offer a good, affordable, accessible and competitive location for firms within Madrid State. In 1995, following July elections, the new government extended the purpose as well to residential real-estate development.
Madrid’s State Government developed in six months, through the Urban and Regional Planning General Directorate, the Metropolitan Plan of Madrid. Approved and enforced since March 1st, 1996. The strategic position and the role vocation of metropolitan areas were well established. Arpegio was able to address and negotiate with landowners the acquisition of developable land at market prices thought to be strategic for the development of Madrid. |
|
|
|
|
3) Plan Regional de Madrid 1996: Spanish |
 |
|
| The Madrid Metropolitan Plan was approved for political implementation the 1st of March 1996 as the vision and Government Guideline for territorial management and public infrastructure investment of the Regional Government of Madrid. Later, it was approved in draft phase (administrative implementing capacity) in 1997 by the Regional Parliament (Asamblea Regional). It was applied as a piece of enforceable planning until the new Planning Law of 2001 that remove the legal background for enforcement. It still influences many planning decisions in Madrid 16 years later (ie: Gran Transversal Ferroviaria of the National Government 2007).
The impact of the Regional Plan is due to several methodological reasons: The first is that it is based on the dialogue between the different administrations that are involved in Land Use decision-making. The second is that dialogue is approached from a very clear standpoint by the Regional Government. That standpoint (the Regional Plan) is flexible and adaptable, but capable of making precise decisions out of compromise and agreement by all parties. The third is that once Land Use planning decisions are made, the effect is long term. The side and derivative effects are multiple and concatenated. The fourth is that once the main pieces are set up on a chess board (MetroCiTi Method), the strategy of the game is set up forever. That had been the strategy of the Plan from 1996 to 1999. Since the Region of Madrid is evolving in a natural form, the way it was defined in that implementation period. Agreements with 66% of Lord Majors for the growth of their cities and villages, the future airport location, the linear-reticular reshaping structure of the M-45 layout, or the extension of the Commuter rail system and Metro-Sur (all part of the Regional Plan of 1996) have all been elements that have shaped the Madrid Metropolitan Structure forever. |
|
|
|
|
4) La Ordenacion Reticular del Territorio. Plan Regional de Madrid. Bilingual: Spanish-English |
 |
|
| The Metro CiTi Method was first applied to the Madrid Metropolitan (Regional) Plan of March 1, 1996, 50 years after Bidagor's last Madrid Metropolitan Plan of 1946. None has been drafted or approved since.
The method’s name was 'Ordenacion Reticular del Territorio' in Spanish. This article published in the 'Urban' magazine’s first issue explains the theory behind the method and its main lines of description and application, both in general and in the Madrid case. |
|
|
|
|
5) Madrid Metropolitan (Regional) Plan effects 10 years later. |
 |
|
| March 1st, 2006, marked the 10-year anniversary of the Regional Plan of Madrid’s revision and implementation.
The first 4 years, 1996-1999, were crucial to make agreements with the different institutions and levels of government involved in territorial decision making in Madrid (See the principles of this technical and political dialogue in the Inter-jurisdictional ‘General Document’: Long and Wide, Variable Geometry, Sliding Horizon, Diachronic and Synchronic Consensus). Those agreements have taken in many cases more than ten years to be realized. Urban Master Plans and large infrastructures take 8 to 12 years to program and 4 to 8 years to build up. Their decisions and sequential effects take even longer. Decisions taken in that short period have shaped the Metropolis of Madrid for the future. When you place the main chess pieces (Queen, Towers, Horses and Bishops) on a chessboard, the game is definitively determined. That was the strategy of the 1996 Regional Plan of Madrid. The future airport of Campo Real, the M-45 shaping Madrid in a linear form, the 50 UDE’s (BUD’s: Balanced Urban Development municipal units) agreements, the structuring logistic parks of Torrejon and Getafe, are all strategic decisions that have shaped Madrid the way the Plan envisioned. The Plan is no longer in force, but the decisions taken in that period, and up to 2001 by the responsible civil servants in subsequent charge of it, have determined (and continue to determine) the shape of Madrid Metropolis for years to come. |
|
|
|
|
6) Madrid Strategic Regional Plan |
 |
|
| ‘Actions for the metropolitan area: success and limitations’
Presentation of the Madrid Strategic Plan at the 40th ISoCaRP Congress in 2004, from Francisco Valverde (former civil servant in charge of the implementation of the Regional Plan with the 180 Madrid municipalities) and Teresa Franchini. |
|
|
|
|
7) Nuevo Prado: Pedro Ortiz and Cristina Chaves |
 |
|
| Madrid has shifted its axes of growth three times during its history.
1) The east-west axis of Arab and Christian Madrid from the 10th century to the 18th century along the Calle Mayor and Calle Alcala axis, across the Puerta del Sol towards the Plaza de Cibeles roundabout turning point. 2) The north-south axis of the industrialist Madrid of the 19th century Master Plan (1864) of Pedro Maria de Castro along the Castellana from Plaza de Castilla to Plaza de Atocha. The ‘Prolongacion de la Castellana’ project (Ricardo Bofill) is the last possible extension to the north of this axis which has been extending Madrid for a century and a half. 3) The east-west axis of the M-45 from the 20th Century onwards established by Madrid Metropolitan Plan of 1996. Madrid’s growth is limited to the north by environmental values that must be preserved. The next extensions have to take place to the south. The 19th century axis of the Castellana and the 21st century axis of the M-45 have to be linked together to articulate the Metropolis. The articulation takes place with the extension to the south of the Castellana throughout the Atocha Rail Station, which actually becomes a bumping zone that needs to be opened up for the benefit of Madrid expansion into a new dimension. This project, necessarily in metropolitan dimension, provides as well an occasion to extend and develop south the very relevant central quality urban space of ‘The Prado’ (and Museum) into a new urban centrality with enormous potential for social, institutional and cultural facilities as well as a reinforcement of Madrid Global City image. |
|
|
|