This article was downloaded by: [Open University]On: 16 September 2013, At: 00:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Planning PerspectivesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rppe20

The Barcelona model: and an originalformula? From reconstruction to strategicurban projects (19792004)Francisco-Javier Moncls aa Departament d'Urbanisme i Ordenacio del Territori, UniversitatPolitcnica de Catalunya, Escola Tcnica Superior d'Arquitectura de Valls,Barcelona, Spain E-mail:Published online: 01 Dec 2010.

To cite this article: Francisco-Javier Moncls (2003) The Barcelona model: and an original formula? Fromreconstruction to strategic urban projects (19792004), Planning Perspectives, 18:4, 399-421, DOI:10.1080/0266543032000117514

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0266543032000117514

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Planning PerspectivesISSN 0266-5433 print/ISSN 1466-4518 online 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journalsDOI: 10.1080/0266543032000117514

Planning Perspectives, 18 (October 2003) 399421

*Francisco-Javier Monclus is an architect and Titular Professor of Urban Planning at the Polytechnic University ofCatalonia (Barcelona). He researches aspects of planning history and theory in Spanish cities and is convenor of the11th IPHS Conference to be held in Barcelona in July 2004. He was co-editor of the Historical Atlas of EuropeanCities and editor of La ciudad dispersa. Suburbanizacion y nuevas periferias, published by the Centre de CulturaContempora`nia de Barcelona.

The Barcelona model: an original formula? Fromreconstruction to strategic urban projects(19792004)

F R A N C I S C O - J AV I E R M O N C L U S *

Departament dUrbanisme i Ordenacio del Territori, Universitat Polite`cnica de Catalunya, EscolaTe`cnica Superior dArquitectura de Valle`s, Barcelona, Spain (e-mail: javier.monclus@upc.es)

The experience of Barcelona from the start of the 1980s up until the end of the 1990s has been widelydescribed in academic and professional media alike. However, it is not easy to find globalinterpretations from an urban planning perspective. Some authors refer to the Barcelona model,focusing on design issues and the quality of public urban spaces. Others highlight the capacity tomanage unique flagship events such as the 1992 Olympic Games, converting them into levers andstrategic instruments of urban renewal and regeneration. Both versions tend to consider the Barcelonamodel as something singular, something almost unique in the panorama of international urbanism. Towhat extent can the Barcelona model, in fact, be considered as a unique phenomenon? Starting outfrom the diversity of the interpretations concerning the changes produced in the international planningculture and, at the same time, an approach closer to the processes and strategies developed in Barcelonaduring this period, this paper seeks to analyse the so-called Barcelona model, in order to reach a betterunderstanding of its connections, the parallels and its specific characteristics compared withexperiences in other cities.

Introduction

Many architects, planners, urban designers and planning historians from different parts ofthe world have expressed special interest in the changes that have taken place in Barcelonain the last two decades. The experience has been widely cited and described in academic andprofessional media alike, although it is not easy to find global interpretations that take intoaccount the different variables at play, even from a strictly urban planning perspective. Somehave highlighted the formal dimension of these changes, the good design and the quality ofthe public urban spaces [1]. For others, the most significant element would be the capacity tomanage a unique flagship event such as the 1992 Olympic Games, converting it into a leverand strategic instrument of urban renewal and urban regeneration [2].

Dow

nloa

ded

by [O

pen U

nivers

ity] a

t 00:1

1 16 S

eptem

ber 2

013

400 Monclus

In addition to these dual perceptions, it is interesting to note a certain contrast in theextensive literature generated over the last few years, between the approaches used by thosewho observe the Barcelona experience from outside and the more local visions over thesame process which have come forward from within, often from those managers andprofessionals directly involved in the said experience [3]. On few occasions has there beenany attempt to combine the international perspective with the local perspective. However, ifone wishes to understand the degree of originality of the urban processes and the planningstrategies undertaken in this period, it would seem clear that both perspectives need to betaken into consideration.

To what extent can the Barcelona model be considered as a unique phenomenon? Or, onthe contrary, is it possible to consider this model as a more or less original version of thediscourse and urban planning practices experienced in other cities in the same period?Starting out from the diversity of the interpretations concerning the changes produced in theinternational planning culture and, at the same time, an approach closer to the processes andstrategies developed in Barcelona during this period, this paper seeks to analyse the so-calledBarcelona model to reach a better understanding of its connections and parallels withexperiences in other cities. In addition, it seeks to discover the specifics and relativeoriginality of the said model. In genera, the Barcelona experience tends to be seen as a uniqueepisode, especially in the local literature referred to previously. In one instance, the originality

Figure 1. Barcelona and the first metropolitan ring, with the four Olympic Areas and other areas ofurban intervention in the 1980s and 1990s (source: Atlas historico de ciudades europeas, vol. 1).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [O

pen U

nivers

ity] a

t 00:1

1 16 S

eptem

ber 2

013

The Barcelona model: an original formula? 401

of the Barcelona experience was attributed to the special situation of the city, in the contextof the then recently achieved democracy and of citizen movements, together with the singularrole of the planners who had already formed the bases of the new Barcelona in the1970s [4]. In contrast to these more local views, some foreign authors place it in theframework of the increasingly globalized planning of the 1980s and 1990s, albeit as aninternationally unique thought [5].

In any event, it appears clear that the Barcelona experience has become a type of referencepoint and model, especially in the area of the local powers and for planners from otherEuropean and Latin American cities. As McNeill indicates from a critical perspective, theNew Barcelona is a city considered as efficient, clean, cultured . . . a model of how the citiesshould look in the New Europe [6]. Other authors coincide in this consideration ofBarcelona as an authentic planning model, becoming . . . one of the most potentinternational models of urban planning of the late 20th century [7]. As much from the mostcritical assessments as from the most official accounts, there seems to be an agreement in therecognition that what one is faced with is a unique case, in which a formula or model hasbeen used which has shown to be successful. What is less clear is whether this formula hasbeen discovered by Barcelona, or whether Barcelona is simply the place where the model hasbeen able to be applied more or less correctly and efficiently. Of course, there are differentways of understanding the meaning of a model. However, the concept of a planning modelhas been drawn upon frequently in urban and planning historiography in the last decades.Furthermore, from Haussmanns Paris in the nineteenth century to Londons green beltconcept and the United Kingdoms New Town planning in the post-war period, to BerlinsIBA (Internationale Bauaustellung International Building Exhibition) in the 1980s,different formulae or models have been implemented in certain cities and in different timeperiods. The case of Barcelona could simply be considered as one more in a long series offormulae widely considered as a synthesis of what should be done in cities, especially withinthe time frame of the 1990s. Furthermore, for one of the key professionals directly involvedin Barcelonas planning, the important thing was that urban transformations and theOlympic Games put Barcelona on the map and the Barcelona model was propagated as itsmodus operandi [8].

The way in which the official British circles have embraced Barcelonas planning issignificant. In 1999, the professional body of British architects, the Royal Institute of BritishArchitects (RIBA), awarded its prize to the city of Barcelona. This marked the first time thata city had achieved the prize, previously awarded to architects. Prior to this, in 1987, the cityhad achieved the American Harvard prize for its good design. However, the RIBAs RoyalGold Medal for Architecture in 1999 was given to the politicians and professional architectsof the city council, for their commitment to planning, including the combination ofspectacular urban projects and of small-scale improvements of squares and streets [9].Therefore, the small-scale operations relating to public open space were highlighted as muchas the larger strategic urban projects, representing two types of urban planning interventionassociated with corresponding periods of the citys renewal. On the other hand, also in 1999,in the widely publicized report Towards an Urban Renaissance prepared by a group ofexperts and co-ordinated by the leading architect Richard Rogers at the request of the thennew Labour Government there were significant references to the case of Barcelona. In thisdocument, it is suggested that in the quality of our urban design and strategic planning, we

Dow

nloa

ded

by [O

pen U

nivers

ity] a

t 00:1

1 16 S

eptem

ber 2

013

402 Monclus

are probably 20 years behind places like Amsterdam or Barcelona [10]. In the report,attention is focused on two types of planning intervention in Barcelona: the capacity toregenerate or treat central spaces through small operations of urban reform but alsostrategic projects characteristic of later intervention. Of particular significance is the factthat the former mayor of Barcelona, Pasqual Maragall (198297) was also asked to providethe foreword to the said publication. Maragalls message is clear: It is critical to understandthat improving public spaces is relevant to solving social and economic problems. The initialsmall-scale operations were followed by large-scale strategic urban planning projects. Thetrick in Barcelona was quality first, quantity after [11].

In the texts previously referred to, just as in the observations from the Rogers Report, twodimensions of urban planning which have attracted international attention stand out:qualitative urban planning and strategic urban planning. It proves necessary, therefore, toclearly differentiate between these two components and two phases in the elaboration ofthe Barcelona model. These two lines of action are not, however, that far from correspondingtraditions of international planning culture. What, therefore, is the originality of theBarcelona experience? Is it basically a question of a process of adaptation from these urbanplanning traditions? Or can it be better described as an elaboration of such importance thatit represents a model from which other cities are learning? In a recent essay, Stephen Wardsuggests the possibility that both hypotheses are not mutually exclusive, but rathercomplementary:

Today, paradoxically, Barcelonas planning and other lessons are being widely studied, borrowed and,to varying degrees, adapted in both the post-industrial and Hispanic developing worlds. . . . Maragallhas played on the world stage, importing and adapting external planning models (for example, fromBaltimore) and, even more, promoting the international spread of the Barcelona model [12].

What is absent from the report cited above, is reference to the metropolitan processes thatin these same twenty years have transformed the wider structure and form of themetropolitan Barcelona the real city to which Maragall often refers into a metropolitanregion ever more dispersed and less Mediterranean. Neither the green urban planning northe metropolitan planning of Barcelona is considered as a relevant model in these works.The contrast which some authors observe between the important involvements of the Britishplanning system in some of these aspects, such as controlling suburban growth, and thegeneralized weakness of the corresponding initiatives in Barcelona as in other cities ofSouthern Europe is striking [13]. Furthermore, such weaknesses seem to be a sufficientmotive to explain this lack of interest or the more critical visions of other British authors.

The reconstruction of the city and qualitative planning: the projects of recoveringpublic space during the 1980s

In addition to considering the specific features of the city of Barcelona in the first half of the1980s corresponding to a special historical moment (the change in the political situation withthe recovery of democracy in Spain) it is important to understand the extent of this completerevision and change in the planning cycle at the international scale. If one wishes tounderstand Barcelonas planning during this early democratic period, it seems important to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [O

pen U

nivers

ity] a

t 00:1

1 16 S

eptem

ber 2

013

The Barcelona model: an original formula? 403

refer as much to the new conditions deriving from the final stages of earlier urban growth, as tothe atmosphere and the conceptual references in which urban planning practice developed inthe new period. Without excessively stressing economic determinism, it is important to pointout the parallels between the spread of the new planning ideas and the substantial changes thatwere produced both by the slowing of demographic and urban growth in European cities andthe effects of the economic crisis of the 1970s and early part of the 1980s.

It is certainly not possible to establish a simple and mechanical relation, because themovements that question conventional planning and functional urbanism based upon theAthens Charter actually date from the 1960s and early 1970s. It was in those years when, inEurope as much as in North America, there grew a new appreciation of the traditional cityand its traditional collective components: streets, squares, closed street-blocks, etc. Thiscontrasted with the negation or the abstract role of public space and a proliferation of blocksin the schemes of modern urbanism. It is also in that period when detailed morphologicalanalysis of the city and identification of the architectural types began to be adopted, makingconsideration of the urban context the starting point of any small-scale project or planningdevelopment. It is possible to speak of a new generation of plans and projects and of a wholecycle of urban planning during the 1970s and early part of the 1980s interested in contextand in restoring the links between architecture and urban planning. In particular, the formalaspects of urban planning were emphasized, while fundamentally architectural urbanprojects were also seen to be successful. All of this occurred, with different variants, also inSpanish cities, with Barcelona in the lead [14].

It is necessary to recall the energy with which these new urban planning conceptions werespreading as a reaction to the abstraction and limitations of modernist urban planning,which had dominated the actions carried out during the years of significant urban growth(1950s1970s). Despite different meanings in each cultural and national ambit, variousdiscourses and their corresponding slogans seem to run through architectural and urbanplanning culture, from the 1970s up to the early 1980s. The first of these is that of thearchitecture of the city, stemming from the book of the same title by Aldo Rossi (1966) [15],but also from a current with a particular echo in Italy, France and Spain (especially inBarcelona). Another of these slogans was the reconstruction of the European city, withdifferent meanings, but which revealed the renewed interest for the existing city. In the moreinstrumental sphere, it is interesting to note the progressive importance of the urbanproject, as a more or less architectural alternative to the generalist planning that, withcertain variants, had become consolidated in the years of high urban growth. All this tendedto bring an overall vision to situations that, logically, reflected diverse historical and urbancircumstances. It is not difficult to find similarities and affinities in the ideas that dominateeven the most distinctive operations during the 1980s in different cities: as much thoseproduced in Barcelona, as the grands projets and operations remodelling parts of Paris, orabove all, those of the IBA in Berlin [16]. The shared elements are clear: new appreciation ofthe historic city (especially that of the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth centuries),the reclaiming of traditional public spaces (streets, squares and parks), the integration ofurban planning and architecture as a reaction to the abstraction of an all-encompassingplanning. In relation to urban planning, the idea of tackling urban problems through specificprojects, especially the regeneration of public space and community facilities, gained groundgradually everywhere [17].

Dow

nloa

ded

by [O

pen U

nivers

ity] a

t 00:1

1 16 S

eptem

ber 2

013

404 Monclus

The problem posed in the urban planning historiography is that the same phenomena havebeen interpreted from somewhat specialized or sectional points of view. Some have centredtheir attention on the deregulation of urban planning and the decline of the conventionalplan [18] while others have been more interested in the formal dimension, closer toarchitecture and urban design [19]. Finally, there are those who consider all these changes aspart of the emergence of so-called post-modern urbanism [20]. It is certain that the rootsand trajectory of this movement are many and varied, and that they develop over a longerperiod than that of the crisis (from Jacobs in the 1960s to the Krier brothers in the 1970s andearly 1980s). However, nearly always, one finds a notable dissatisfaction with and mistrustof the principles and methods of modern urban planning. It proved to be significant in thereturn, in a cyclical historic or pendular movement, more or less directly to the principles ofprevious urban planning: some from the nineteenth century, others from Urban Art fromthe start of the twentieth century, but all predating the formulations of the ModernMovement [21]. The situation recalls that at the end of the nineteenth century, when CamilloSittes culturalist conceptions of urban planning were dominant, along with othersconcerning with the artistic construction of the cities [22]. The re-issue in differentlanguages of certain classic texts from the urban planning of the nineteenth and early partof the twentieth centuries is clearly indicative of this. In effect, the texts of Sitte, along withthose of Raymond Unwin or Werner Hegemann began to be reconsidered, with newprologues authored by renowned contemporary theorists [23].

It is interesting, therefore, to consider the affinity between these international currents andthe attention to the existing city and its possibilities of reconstruction in the specific case ofBarcelona. The fluid dialogue between Barcelona and the different schools of urban design(Venice, Milan, Geneva, Brussels, Versailles and Paris, etc.) is a clear manifestation in thissense. Although the more historicist versions of the discourse of the reconstruction of theEuropean city led by the Krier brothers have not had a direct impact in Barcelona, thedifferences are not that great, as demonstrated by the translation of a number of their mostimportant texts and projects and the interest which some of them gained in the local planningculture [24]. It is unusual, though, to see this return to a more architectural, qualitative andcontextualist urban planning approach in considering the possibilities offered by actions inBarcelonas public spaces in the wider relationship to these cultural trends in European urbanplanning. Certainly, part of the movement of regeneration relates to the citys own needs andapproaches so that excessively simplified visions of lineal diffusions of thought andarchitectural practice from other countries make little sense. The results, in Barcelona andelsewhere, actually show extremely varied forms, reflecting both the nature of each movementand the historical circumstances of the different cities. However, there is an element that has acentral role in the interventions of Barcelona and also has an important place in the discourseof the reconstruction of the European city. This relates to the renewed interest for the role andthe formalization of public space. Following a long period of disinterest in this theme, from themid1970s the need to recover streets and squares, hitherto empty spaces in housingdevelopments, was pursued as a means of improving urban quality. The progressiveobsolescence and abandonment of extensive properties in more or less central city locations,such as former industrial areas, port and railway facilities, all contributed to this change ofvision. In a similarly pragmatic fashion, action on public space was conceived as requiringeconomically viable projects capable of relatively simple management.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [O

pen U

nivers

ity] a

t 00:1

1 16 S

eptem

ber 2

013

The Barcelona model: an original formula? 405

The so-called culture of the urban project was highlighted in the City Councils firstpublications, albeit in an absolutely empirical fashion. However, it is in the well-known bookby Oriol Bohigas Director of Planning between 1980 and 1984 titled significantlyReconstruccio de Barcelona, in which the principles of a new architectural and contextualistform of urban planning are put forward [25]. In the book the efficacy of small-scale urbanprojects as an alternative to the abstraction of conventional planning was proposed. Themessage is simple but strong: to overcome the limitations of planning one has to give way toarchitecture. At the same time the public spaces of the historic city, its squares and streets,etc., are recovered. It is not necessary to think in terms of a literal adoption of the principles

Figure 2. Del Liceu al Seminari Project for new public spaces and cultural facilities in the Old City(source: Barcelona City Council).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [O

pen U

nivers

ity] a

t 00:1

1 16 S

eptem

ber 2

013

406 Monclus

of the reconstruction of the European city. However, a number of the convergent elementsare clear. Above all, there is an understanding of the city essentially as architecture and anextraordinary emphasis on its morphology. This conception struck a chord as well with thevisions of the fragmentary construction of the city or city collage of Colin Rowe [26].Parallels can also be found in the ideas which dominate the urban transformations of othercities during the 1980s. Bohigas himself cites Berlin as the clearest reference in affirming thatan interesting way has been experienced there: a city in which a reconstruction of the centrestarting from the absolute respect for the road and the traditional form of the street [27] iscarried out.

Yet, despite this apparent similarity between the discourses of the reconstruction of theEuropean city and that of the Barcelona model in its first phase, one should not forget theunique historical circumstances of Barcelona. In particular, the conjunction of the recoveryof democracy and the important role played by the neighbourhood associations hasjustifiably been highlighted [28]. It is also important to bear in mind the special role playedby the architects, in relation to other professionals and civil engineers, in particular. This waspossibly one of the most distinctive aspects of the Barcelona experience during the1980s [29]. Excessively generalized interpretations have tended to see a progressiveabandonment of overall planning in this period. However, in Barcelona this was preciselywhen urban planning actions that were based upon the Plan General Metropolitano deBarcelona (PGM), formally adopted in 1976, were consolidated. It seems true, though, thatthe PGM became converted into a mere framework, or starting point, enabling the actual

Figure 3. View of the Old City (Raval) and Museum of Contemporary Art (MACBA).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [O

pen U

nivers

ity] a

t 00:1

1 16 S

eptem

ber 2

013

The Barcelona model: an original formula? 407

operations of qualitative urban planning to be carried out. Through the City Councilsnumerous publications (another characteristic of Barcelona), it is possible to analyse andexplain the way these discourses were implemented in relation to urban form and theimportance of the treatment of public spaces as a key strategy in the regeneration of thecity. In reality, it is possible to see the different actions, through plans and municipalprojects, as a way of redefining the urban structure, passing from projects of the urbansector to those at city and metropolitan scales [30]. Finally, it is appropriate to highlightBarcelonas urban planning in relation to other cities which shared the same generalprinciples about necessary improvements, but where comparable urban planning opera-tions were not carried out. Within Barcelona, approximately 150 operations of creating orrecovering public space were realized during the 1980s, bringing international attentionand awards.

Figure 4. New urban public spaces: Via Julia and Parc Nord (source: Barcelona City Council).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [O

pen U

nivers

ity] a

t 00:1

1 16 S

eptem

ber 2

013

408 Monclus

Strategic planning: infrastructure and major urban projects of the mid-1980s and the 1990s

As in the early 1980s, what occurred subsequently in Barcelona can be understood as partof an international movement that, with distinct temporal rhythms and technical variations,developed in different North American and European cities. The quickening experiencedwith the economic regeneration from the mid1980s relates to a trend that was obviouslynot exclusive to Barcelona. Yet the citys success, in October 1986, in winning the 1992Olympic Games marks the fundamental difference between Barcelona and other locations.Again, therefore, the imposition of the new strategic visions associated with the urbanplanning culture of the 1990s resulted from a process initiated earlier.

Here, the intention is not to refer exclusively to the so-called Strategic Plans, but to amore generic attitude centred in the functional and productive dimension of the city. Thismanifests itself in the roles of a diverse range of large urban projects and infrastructures.Understood in this way, those ideas would not necessarily be novel. In reality, modern urbanplanning grew out of the idea of the city factory and sought to apply Taylors thesis in itsproposals, in which the city would acquire the character of a company [31]. All of this canbe seen as a reaction to the architectural urban planning of the previous period. Similarly, itrecalls the change produced at the start of the last century in North American cities, whenthe City Beautiful was replaced by the City Efficient slogan [32]. Once again, then, apendular or cyclical movement is apparent, with some components returning to importantelements of a previous cycle. Thus the late twentieth century planning trends recall the greatcity aspirations of many European cities, including Barcelona, at the start of the century. Ina certain way, the urban ambitions of the 1990s, seeking to convert Barcelona into theCapital of the West Mediterranean, can be seen as a realization of the much earlier dreamsof the Great Barcelona as Paris of the South [33]. Now, though, it sought to adapt the cityto the pressures and opportunities derived from economic globalization, a process thataccelerated in the 1990s and from which no large city would want to be excluded.

One has to remember, though, that the crisis of the models of conventional urban planningand the new strategic activities occurred long before the economic recovery, during the crisisof the 1970s. At first, the large projects were seen as an antidote to economic and urbandecline. Later, a number of projects were undertaken as a mechanism for the recovery andre-launching of cities. It was then that urban marketing became general, the differentvariants of urban promotion, and the renewal of the image of the city, coherent with theconversion of an industrial economic base into one of services. A discourse directed atimproving the competitiveness of cities and their ranking in the international urban leagueand so widespread that some commentators have even interpreted it as a unique urbanplanning thought which would continue to have an effect throughout the 1990s [34]. Thisdiscourse was encouraged as a variation of the Eurocities conception, particularly by social-democratic local governments [35].

As indicated by Peter Hall, urban planning underwent a substantial modification duringthe 1970s:

planning turned from regulating urban growth, to encouraging it by any and every possible means.Cities, the new message rang loud and clear, were machines for wealth creation; the first and chief aimof planning must be to oil the machinery. The planner increasingly identified with his traditionaladversary, the developer; the gamekeeper turned poacher.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [O

pen U

nivers

ity] a

t 00:1

1 16 S

eptem

ber 2

013

The Barcelona model: an original formula? 409

The art of leverage was the formula that spread in the form of the strategic urban projectsthroughout all Europe (with a clearly North American source). Hall explains that theLondon Docklands followed the US model, in the fundamental respect of using public capitalto encourage private investment [36]. Yet, it is important to stress that the strategicconceptions of planning dominant in the 1990s cannot be mechanically associated to theneo-liberal ideas of urban planning associated with British Thatcherism or its internationalhomologues (although neither can it be understood without these precedents). It is rather acase of a new attitude, based upon the conviction that urban planning interventions must beselective and orientated towards improving the economic and functional efficiency of thecity. Also, within this new cycle, some planners invented diverse slogans to characterize thisnew form of urban planning. References appeared to third generation plans and tostrategic urban projects. As in the previous case of qualitative urban planning, there existdifferent roots and versions: from the more traditional urban projects with certain strategiccomponents to the socio-economic Strategic Plan. In this way, it is possible to distinguishthose led by the public sector from those resulting more from business initiatives. Portascharacterizes these third generation urban projects in terms of the mediation processesinvolved in their realization and the preference for these large projects, one of whoseprincipal objectives would be that of facilitating the consensus and compromise of theactors [37].

A particular typology of the new urban strategic projects comprises those correspondingto the planning of large international flagship events. The Olympic Games constitute a clearexample of such events [38]. A two-fold objective is pursued in all of them: the renewal of theimage of the city and the use of the events as catalysts for pursuing specific operations ofurban redevelopment. In this sense, there is an important contrast between the OlympicGames of Los Angeles (1984) and those of Barcelona. Most commentators have stressed thedifferences between the largely dominating private logic in Los Angeles, as opposed to publicleadership in the case of Barcelona. The originality of Barcelona lies in the efficiency of public

Figure 5. Place promotion (international press advertisement 1986).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [O

pen U

nivers

ity] a

t 00:1

1 16 S

eptem

ber 2

013

410 Monclus

sector leadership, reflecting the significant political and social consensus of the moment.However, certain parallels exist when consideration is given to the other conceptions beyondthe scope of the Olympic Games. Some commentators have argued that the Strategic Plan ofBarcelona was presented in a rising economic cycle, more akin to that of Los Angeles thanto other cities affected by economic crisis [39]. In both cities, the respective strategic planswere conceived in contexts of economic growth, rather than the economic crisis that wasusual in most cities. Therefore, it was not a question of finding an antidote, but a tool tomotivate and guarantee growth.

On the other hand, it is useful to compare other cities that have concentrated their renewalstrategies on a strong idea: that of the renewal of river frontages or waterfronts. In this area,some have found more or less direct inspiration in the models from the USA: Baltimore,Boston and other North American ports [40]. Effectively, the remodelling of Barcelonas OldHarbour (Port Vell) reflects these influences: the conversion of former port facilities forrecreational, leisure and tourism uses in the Rouse style (after the developer of BaltimoreHarborplace and Bostons Quincy Market, James Rouse). If Port Vell has a clear pedigree, awider view gives a more complex picture. The Barcelona waterfront includes a wide varietyof operations, according to its different sections. It is important also that the redevelopmentof the Barcelona waterfront within the former port area was the responsibility of the PortAuthority, whereas the redevelopment of the section stretching from Barceloneta to PobleNou was the responsibility of the City Councils Planning Department. Besides Port Vellthere is about six kilometres of seafront, in which a more Mediterranean variant of theinternational waterfronts was applied [41]. In particular, the conception of the OlympicVillage (between 1982 and 1987) reflected a more complex vision of the generalizedconversion of port and industrial facilities into thematic parks, in contrast to what happenedin the Port Vell. In addition to the formalization of this urban area, there was a sort ofproject-plan that sought to reconcile the global scale of the plan with the demands of the

Figure 6. View of Barcelona waterfront, 1992 (source: Atlas historico de ciudades europeas, vol. 1).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [O

pen U

nivers

ity] a

t 00:1

1 16 S

eptem

ber 2

013

The Barcelona model: an original formula? 411

urban context. This can be seen as an example of these intermediate scale plans or complexprojects reinvented by the Barcelona architects and planners [42].

In addition to the coastal and waterfront projects directly linked to and spurred on by theOlympic Games, there was another series of large projects in the city. These were developedand formalized from the mid-1980s and also fell into this category of strategic urbanprojects. These include the so-called areas of new centrality, the interventions in the cityroad system and other projects centred on large infrastructures, associated with theimplementation of the ring roads and road accesses (Fig. 8). In relation to the ten areas ofnew centrality, it must be said that these developed ideas already foreseen in the PGM of1976. They borrowed from the Italian Centri Direzionali, as in the inter-municipal Plan ofMilan [43]. Their novelty is that they were now extended with a view to achieving aredistribution of central land uses. To these the two new Olympic sectors were also added(Montjuc and Diagonal), making a total of 12 areas. These benefited from special planningconditions to attract the new types of management and tertiary uses in the services andfacilities sectors, in spaces with obsolete uses but with good accessibility [44]. Meanwhile,there would also be operations associated with the remodelling of the port, the transport hubin the Delta del Llobregat, the airport, the high speed train and the Sagrera area, theDiagonal Mar operation, etc. [45].

During this last phase, in the period leading up to the preparation for the Olympic Games,these more strategic visions were imposed and the message of leverage was betterunderstood. Barcelona was not an exception in the context of European planning, dominatedas it was by city entrepreneurism during the 1980s and 1990s [46]. Undoubtedly,Barcelonas urban policy was focused on converting it into a more competitive and dynamiccity, using the Olympic Games as an occasional catalyst for these strategic projects. Thisstrategy proved so convincing that another major event currently underway the Forum of

Figure 7. View of Port Vell redevelopment (source: Barcelona City Council).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [O

pen U

nivers

ity] a

t 00:1

1 16 S

eptem

ber 2

013

412 Monclus

Cultures 2004 and the second opening to the sea has been planned on lines not dissimilarto those of the international Olympic Games [47]. This is despite its exceptional nature, andits not being linked to a more typical and formally recognized urban event [48].

What also stands out in these years is the efficacy of the Barcelona model in its ability todeploy all sorts of political and planning instruments to motivate the large-scale projects. Forthe majority of observers, Barcelona has been converted into a winning city in the new

Figure 8. Arees de Nova Centralitat/New Downtown in Barcelona, 1986 (source: Barcelona CityCouncil). 1, Diagonal-Sarria` (Operating surface: 34 ha. Functional Program: residential, offices, hotels,sports and recreational, commercial). 2, Carrer Tarragona (Operating surface: 12.5 ha. FunctionalProgram: offices, hotels). 3, RENFE-Meridiana (Operating surface: 30 ha. Functional Program:residential, offices, hotels, commercial). 4, Plaa Cerda` (Operating surface: 11 ha. Functional Program:residential, offices, hotels, commercial). 5, Carles I- Av. Ica`ria* (Operating surface: 55 ha. FunctionalProgram: residential, hotels, commercial). 6, Port Urba`/Port Vell (Operating surface: 12 ha. FunctionalProgram: offices, commercial). 7, Plaa Glo`ries (Operating surface: 67 ha. Functional Program:residential, offices, hotels, industrial). 8, La Vall dHebron* (Operating surface: 72 ha. FunctionalProgram: residential, commercial). 9, Sagrera (Operating surface: 80 ha. Functional Program:residential, offices, commercial, industrial). 10, Diagonal-Prim/Diagonal Mar (Operating surface:35 ha. Functional Program: offices, commercial). 11, Diagonal-Les Corts* (metropolitan facilities). 12,Montjuc* (metropolitan facilities).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [O

pen U

nivers

ity] a

t 00:1

1 16 S

eptem

ber 2

013

The Barcelona model: an original formula? 413

international economic and urban order. Such is the extent of this that the Barcelona modelhas also been identified with this second strategic component of its planning development.Its diffusion or export to different Latin American cities is a truly curious phenomenon, asindicated by some Brazilian authors. Thus, Arantes refers to the fact that the increasingnumber of cities, in Brazil and in Latin America in general, that are contracting theconsulting services of the Catalans and their disciples, or using their teachings, isimpressive [49]. It is in this sense that one can observe the maximum extent of the promotionof the Barcelona model: from publications edited by the World Bank to reports prepared byJordi Borja and Manuel Castells for the Habitat II Conference (Istanbul), in which the virtuesof the model were presented [50]. As well as the task of advising on large-scale urban projects(for example the waterfront redevelopment in Lisboa Expo98 or in Puerto Madero, the newwaterfront of Buenos Aires) and Strategic Plans for many other cities [51].

On the other hand, it is necessary to consider some differential features, indicating thelimits of the Barcelona formula. Up to this point what has been referred to is the legal cityas defined by its municipal limits, and not the real metropolitan urban region, the only onewith which other large European cities can effectively be compared. This metropolitanBarcelona has more than 4 million inhabitants and occupies a territory of more than3000 km2 (4.2 million inhabitants in an immediate area within a radius of 3045 km ofBarcelona). It would seem appropriate to refer briefly to the initiatives carried out or,perhaps, more correctly the weaknesses therein in this real and metropolitan city.

Figure 9. New Strategic Projects with the Forum of Cultures 2004 and new Seafront (source: BarcelonaRegional).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [O

pen U

nivers

ity] a

t 00:1

1 16 S

eptem

ber 2

013

414 Monclus

Urban renewal and suburbanization: metropolitan perspectives

One of the pretensions of the Barcelona model lies in the formulation of a Europeanalternative to the North American models characterized by the processes of central urbanrenewal and the increasingly extensive suburbanization. The idea of Barcelona as a compactcity seems to have been converted into another slogan associated with the strategiesdeveloped in recent years [52]. However, what is certain is that the processes of metropolitandecentralization experienced a spectacular acceleration precisely in the last 1520 years, aperiod in which the municipal local authority of Barcelona lost almost 250 000 inhabitants,declining from 1 752 617 in 1981 to 1 508 000 in 1996, and coinciding with thedecentralization of a significant number of jobs and economic activities [53]. In this contextsome have put forward the hypothesis that Barcelona would be expelling its problems to therest of the metropolitan region. The traditional process especially in southern Europeancities of opposition between the centre and the peripheries would thus seem to be persistingin the renovated structure of the metropolitan Barcelona.

To what extent is this, in fact, true? Can it be explained by a simple change in scale to themetropolitan ambit? Conversely, is it a matter of similar processes to those that take place inother North American or European cities, in which the central renewal forms part of thereconversion of the traditional cities in renewed urban regions? This is one of the mostsignificant and important debates that has been developing in recent years. If it were certainthat the model were dual, in the traditional sense of the processes that characterize Europeancities from the nineteenth century, the limits of the Barcelona model would be much moreevident. In the authors opinion, it seems excessively forced to think of a repetition of thetraditional processes characterized by the improvement of urban centres, contrasting withthe proliferation of peripheries without quality. It is better to think in terms of a progressive

Figure 10. Decentralization in the Metropolitan region of Barcelona: location of big companies, 1994(source: J. E. Sanchez, op. cit. [55]).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [O

pen U

nivers

ity] a

t 00:1

1 16 S

eptem

ber 2

013

The Barcelona model: an original formula? 415

convergence with the most advanced models of sprawl in the North American cities andwhich increasingly affect the European cities. The theses enunciated by K. T. Jackson do notappear out of step, in this sense, in which the argument is made that suburbanisation canbest be seen as part of an urban growth developmental model . . . American cities are not somuch different from those of other countries as ahead of them [54]. Clearly, the urbanrealities of the decentralized North American cities are still a long way off. However, it doesnot seem that one is facing a simple expansion of the compact and traditional urban structureof Barcelona. Whether it be called an urban region, a metapolis, a metropolitan region ora city of cities, what is certain is that a substantial modification of this urban reality is beingproduced which finds its most notable expression in the proliferation of the so-called newperipheries. This is a LatinEuropean version of the processes of decentralization andsprawl, but not as original as the excessively local interpretations at times seek toassert [55].

The abundance of available data concerning recent metropolitan growth and transforma-tions indicate an accelerated process of change. Some of the more significant indicatorsinclude those relating to the occupation of land from 21 482 hectares in 1972 to 45 036hectares in 1992, with a negligible overall growth. There has also been an exponentialincrease in mobility the daily entrances and exits of private vehicles in Barcelona increasedfrom 600 000 in 1988 to 1 200 000 in 1998. In turn, this is associated with processes ofdecentralization and integration of the metropolitan region in 1990, 64.4% of thepopulation worked within the same locality as their place of residence, changing to 59.5%in 1995 and 52.4% in 2000 (according to the most recent Metropolitan Survey 19952000).All of this has taken place in the Metropolitan region, without taking into account thephenomena of seasonal suburbanization, which extends the urban area far beyond thediffuse limits of the real city of Barcelona. What can also be witnessed is the clearincorporation within the overall metropolitan region of areas of formerly second homes nowfor first residential use. In reality, the decentralization phenomena alluded to previously arecommon throughout other large Spanish cities [56] and continue, albeit not necessarily inphase, with what has happened in other large European cities. As O. Nel.lo indicates it isnecessary to note that this evolution is in no way original. On the contrary, it faithfullyfollows the path of metropolitan transformation found in the majority of large Spanish andEuropean cities [57].

The consequences of this substantial change in the real city of Barcelona have been widelystated. There exists a certain degree of agreement in relation to the positive aspects associatedwith the reduction of excessive densities and the general improvement of the metropolitanterritory, derived from the outward shift of former centrality and the creation of communityfacilities. However, the problems arising from the new forms of metropolitan growth areincreasingly demonstrated, by way of environmental, economic and social costs. Thedispersed city turns out to be more costly than the compact city. The question posed here isthat of the inevitability, or not, of the new forms of sprawl. This already historical debatein English and North American cities is now becoming increasingly familiar in the SouthernEuropean setting. A number of researchers have highlighted the complexities and theparadoxes of the anti-sprawl campaigns [58]. In any event, both sides of the phenomenonhave to be distinguished. On the one hand it suggests decentralization and on the other,extreme physical and uncontrolled dispersion. The first process proves difficult to avoid. Not

Dow

nloa

ded

by [O

pen U

nivers

ity] a

t 00:1

1 16 S

eptem

ber 2

013

416 Monclus

even the countries benefiting from a firmer planning system have achieved this, as in the caseof the Netherlands and the decentralization of the Randstad. The second aspect, in contrast,may be tackled with certain possibilities of relative success. There exists an important scopewith regard to the accelerated occupation of land, to the emergence of suburban residential,industrial and commercial models of low-density development and the consequentialunnecessary fragmentation and artificialization of open spaces. Certain urban planningstrategies have proved decisive in other countries. Decentralized growth can be produced ina more or less controlled and compact manner, with or without indifference to the preciselimits between urbanized areas and natural surroundings. Good examples of these areoffered by the English cities, with a long tradition of strategies of containment and greenbelts [59].

It seems clear that Barcelona still has a considerable amount to learn from certain greenand metropolitan urban planning traditions. Seen from this perspective the Barcelonamodel can be considered more a follower than a leader [60]. In effect, the green urbanplanning which constitutes one of the most important components of any advancedurban planning model of recent years, is still somewhat far from the comparable maturityfound in other Northern and Central European countries. With regard to the maintenanceof a sustainable, or simply a reasonable, urban structure with a progressive integrationof metropolitan growth in the agricultural, forestry and natural environment, Barcelonahas a considerable amount to learn and little to show. In this sense it seems that a certainlack of concern for what would occur beyond the existing, consolidated city, has beenrelevant in understanding the lack of capacity to control these types of processes.Barcelona has followed a path common in other cities, undergoing central urban renewaland a conversion into an increasingly less Mediterranean urban region, i.e. a lesscompact and more dispersed urban region. One could imagine that at this point what liesahead is a LatinEuropean variant of these processes [61]. In other cities in which thesesame dispersal processes are in a more advanced phase, the dominant concern is nowwith maintaining the vitality of the central areas. Nevertheless the unordered nature ofthe new peripheries in these LatinEuropean cities is also notable. What has taken placein Barcelona is an urban planning resulting from the original re-elaboration and, aboveall, from the application of formulae outlined in other locations, relating to qualitativeand strategic urban planning. However, from the metropolitan perspective it is more aquestion of an urban planning that appears to be thinking locally (in the legal city) andimplemented globally (in the real city). It is, therefore, the reverse of the environmen-talist movements maxim (thinking globally and acting locally) which has tended toprevail in recent years.

Epilogue and conclusions

The main point to highlight is that the so-called Barcelona model has been extremelysuccessful in the renewal and redevelopment of the existing nuclei of the city the centreand other metropolitan nodes. At the same time, however, it has limitations as analternative to the extensive and dispersed form of urban planning so characteristic ofNorth American and, increasingly, other European cities. What is being faced is not a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [O

pen U

nivers

ity] a

t 00:1

1 16 S

eptem

ber 2

013

The Barcelona model: an original formula? 417

reference in the struggle for a greener and sustainable urban planning. Not even examplesof high quality landscaping can detract from a lack of effective control of the new peri-urban landscape and of the new peripheries, even though they may be interestingpalliatives.

It is understandable, therefore, that those who analyse Barcelonas experience from theoutside have focused on the impressive results of qualitative and strategic urban planning.With regard to the former component of the model qualitative urban design it seemsclear that the reconstruction of Barcelona initiated strongly in the first part of the 1980s,constitutes an improved version of what has been carried out subsequently in other cities.For its quality and integration, Richard Rogers affirmation regarding the 20 year timelag in relation to the British cities does not seem exaggerated. A vast number of highquality redevelopments and urban improvements have been carried out in the centralareas, maintaining and increasing the vitality and urban quality of the different urbancentres (taken to mean not just the official central business district, but also all thecentral nuclei of the metropolitan region of Barcelona). It is precisely here where the mostcreative and novel aspects of the model have been demonstrated. All of this, despite theperhaps excessive trust in the good design, can help to explain not only the scantconsideration for the wider metropolitan problem, but also what occurred at the sametime in the citys new recreation/leisure and cultural commercial areas. In this sense, it isimportant not to lose sight of the nature of these successful new public/private spaces,such as Maremagnum at Port Vell, La Maquinista and Glorias. These large-scale shoppingcentres have experienced a genuine boom, contrasting with (or complementing, accordingto the optimists) the urban quality of the traditional squares and streets. In the case of theIlla Diagonal development, it involved an intrinsically interesting model of urban designthat, especially in its exterior, was somewhat removed from the rhetoric of theMediterranean city. Yet, the design also facilitated the developments redefinition in use, inthe more private and autonomous sense.

Turning to the second component of the Barcelona model the strategic planningassociated initially with the preparations for the Olympic Games this has beensubsequently maintained with as much, if not more, energy. This has promoted Barcelonainto a high position in the international urban ranking. The negative consequences, relatingto polarization and social exclusion, so much denounced in other cities, do not appear tohave been produced in Barcelona. This is despite the greater importance given in the lastpost-Olympic phase to the logic of the private sector and flexible planning, whereby certainprocesses of a clearly North American origin, such as marketing and theme labelling of thecity, have accelerated. These correspond to a highly globalized type of planning especiallythat associated with Strategic Plans which at the same time has converted Barcelona intoa reference for other cities, especially those in Spain and Latin America.

In any event, the capability demonstrated by the new Barcelona to borrow, adapt andelaborate original syntheses relating to the most advanced formulae of international urbanplanning culture, allows one to consider the possible reorientation of its objectives and urbanplanning strategies over the next few years. In particular, the operations associated with theForum of Cultures 2004 will probably indicate Barcelonas capacity to tackle the challengesthat are still outstanding. Until now, the notable success of city marketing strategies, linkedto the new symbolic economy or cultural economy and based upon urban tourism, the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [O

pen U

nivers

ity] a

t 00:1

1 16 S

eptem

ber 2

013

418 Monclus

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper was given to the 10th IPHS Conference in London (2002).The author is grateful to the anonymous referees for their useful comments.

Notes and references

1. See, for instance: P. Buchanan, Barcelona, A City Regenerated. The Architectural Review, August(1992); P. Buchanan, Regenerating Barcelona: Projects versus Planning Nine Parks and Plazas.The Architectural Review, June (1984); P. Rowe, The Urban Public Spaces of Barcelona 198187.Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press, 1991; and P. Rowe, Civic Realism. Cambridge MAand London: The MIT Press, 1997; B. Sokoloff, Barcelone, ou comment refaire une ville.Montreal: Les Presses Universitaires de Montreal, 1999; J. Gehl and L. Gemzoe, New City Spaces.Public spaces, public life. Copenhagen: The Danish Architectural Press, 2001.

2. T. Marshall, City Entrepeneurialism in Barcelona in the 1980s and 1990s. European PlanningStudies 4, 2 (1996) 147165; N. Portas, Lemergenza del progetto urbano. Urbanistica 110(1998); S. Ward, Planning the Twentieth-Century City: The Advanced Capitalist World. London:WileyEurope, 2002, pp. 5165.

3. J. Acebillo, El progresivo cambio de escala en las intervenciones urbanas de Barcelona(19801992). Urbanismo COAM 17 (1992) 3542; J. Busquets, Barcelona. Evolucion urbansticade una capital compacta. Madrid: Mapfre, 1992; J. Borja, Barcelona: a model of urbantransformation 19801995. Quito-Ecuador: Urban Management Series (PGU-LAC), 1995; J.Esteban, El projecte urbanstic. Valorar la perife`ria i recuperar el centre. Barcelona: AulaBarcelona, 1999. See, also, the main official publications of the Barcelona City Council, allpublished by Ajuntament de Barcelona, Barcelona: Plans i projectes per a Barcelona, 19811982(1983); Plans cap al 92 (1987); Barcelona. La segona renovacio (1996); 1999 Urbanisme aBarcelona (1999); Barcelona 19792004. Del desenvolupament a la ciutat de qualitat (1999).

4. J. M. Muntaner, El modelo Barcelona. Geometra 10 (1990) 219; N. Calavita and A. Ferrer,Behind Barcelonas Success Story: Citizens Movements and Planners Power. Journal of UrbanHistory 26, 6 (2000)

5. D. McNeill, Urban Change and the European Left. Tales from the New Barcelona. London:Routledge, 1999; O. Arantes, C. Vainer and E. Maricato, A cidade do pensamento unico.Desmanchando consensus. Petropolis (Brasil): Ed. Vozes, 2000, 2nd edn.

6. D. McNeill, ibid., pp. 114.7. S. V. Ward, op cit. [2], p. 371. See also S. V. Ward, Re-examining the International Diffusion of

Planning, in R. Freestone (ed.) Urban Planning in a Changing World. The twentieth centuryexperience. London: E & FN Spon, 2000, pp. 4059.

media and leisure, contrasts with much less attention paid to other important aspects: publictransport and, above all, housing. Tackling these issues in a more convincing way wouldmark a second stage of a wide reaching and really successful planning model, althoughlikely to remain somewhat under-proportioned in relation to the concerns with image andeconomics. Thus, the culture of the city as a promoter of values (as advocated by theEurocities movement) would remain, for the time being, notably subordinate to culture as amotor of industrial, economic and tourism development.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [O

pen U

nivers

ity] a

t 00:1

1 16 S

eptem

ber 2

013

The Barcelona model: an original formula? 419

8. J. A. Acebillo, El modelo Barcelona desde el punto de vista urbanstico. Espacio urbano ycomplejidad, in Pasqual Maragall (ed.) Europa proxima. Europa, regiones y ciudades. Barcelona:Ed. U. Barcelona and UPC, 1999, p. 229.

9. P. Wintour and V. Thorpe, Catalan cool will rule in Britannia. Barcelona to set the style forregeneration of 10 cities. The Guardian (May 1, 1999).

10. R. Rogers, Towards an Urban Renaissance. Final Report of the Urban Task Force Chaired by LordRogers of Riverside. London: E & FN Spon, 1999.

11. P. Maragall, Foreword, in R. Rogers, ibid., p. 5.12. S. V. Ward, Re-examining . . . op. cit. [7], p. 56.13. M. Hebbert, El Grupo de Trabajo Task Force y el nuevo enfoque del urbanismo britanico.

Urban 4 (2000) 8290.14. F. Teran, Historia del urbanismo en Espana (vol. III). Siglos XIX y XX. Madrid: Catedra,

1999.15. Aldo Rossi, Architecture of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1982.16. P. Rowe, Civic Realism, op. cit. [1]; B. Sokoloff, op. cit. [1].17. It is important to point out that this process has not been exclusive to Barcelona, having been

experienced in other Spanish cities and starting in Madrid: R. Lopez de Lucio, Madrid 19791999.La transformacion de la ciudad en 20 anos de Ayuntamientos democraticos. Madrid: A. Madrid,1999.

18. P. Hall, Cities of Tomorrow. An intellectual history of urban planning and design in the twentiethcentury. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988.

19. G. Broadbent, Emerging concepts in urban space design. London-New York: Van NostrandReinhold, 1990; A. Corboz, Lurbanistica del XX secolo: un bilancio. Urbanistica 101 (1990).

20. N. Ellin, Postmodern Urbanism. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1996; G. Amendola, La CiudadPostmoderna. Madrid: Celeste ediciones, 2000.

21. M. de Sola`-Morales, La segunda historia del proyecto urbano. UR 5 (1987) 2127.22. A. Sutcliffe, Why Planning History?. Built Environment 7, 2 (1981).23. F. J. Monclus, Arte urbano y estudios historico-urbansticos: tradiciones, ciclos y recuperaciones.

3ZU. Revista dArquitectura 4 (1995) (ETSAB-Ambit) 92101.24. R. Krier, Stuttgart. Teora y practica de los espacios urbanos. Barcelona: G. Gili, 1976; L. Krier,

Preface to W. Hegemann and E. Peets, The American Vitruvius: an Architects Handbook of CivicArt (1922). New York: Princeton A. P., 1988.

25. Barcelona City Council, Plans i projectes . . ., op. cit. [3]. O. Bohigas, Reconstruccio de Barcelona.Barcelona: Edicions 62, 1985 (also in Spanish, Madrid: MOPU, 1986).

26. C. Rowe and F. Koetter, Ciudad Collage. Barcelona: G. Gili, 1981 (English edition, 1978).27. O. Bohigas, op cit. [25], p. 118.28. N. Calavita and A. Ferrer, op cit. [4].29. Ll. Moix, La ciudad de los arquitectos. Barcelona: Anagrama, 1994.30. J. Esteban, op. cit. [3].31. F. Ascher, Metapolis, ou lavenir des villes. Pars: Ed. Odile Jacob, 1995.32. P. Hall, op. cit. [18]; J. L. Cohen, Learning from Barcelona; vingt ans de projects urbains et leur

reception, in P. Subiros (ed.) Ciutat real, ciutat ideal. Barcelona: Centre de Cultura Contemporaniade Barcelona, 1998, pp. 99108.

33. F. J. Monclus, Barcelonas planning strategies: from Paris of the South to the Capital of WestMediterranean (The European Capital City, Amsterdam). GeoJournal 51, 12 (2000) 5763.

34. O. Arantes, C. Vainer and E. Maricato, op cit. [5].35. Barcelona being a leading player in or inspiration behind the model of the Eurocity which other

(often Left controlled) urban regimes have followed. D. McNeill, op. cit. [5], p. 132.36. P. Hall, op. cit. [18], pp. 355 and 368.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [O

pen U

nivers

ity] a

t 00:1

1 16 S

eptem

ber 2

013

420 Monclus

37. N. Portas, Lemergenza del progetto urbano. Urbanistica 110 (1998).38. B. Chalkley and S. Essex, Urban development through hosting international events: a history of the

Olympic Games. Planning Perspectives 14 (1999) 369394. International Exhibitions could beseen in a similar perspective: A. Garca-Espuche, M. Guardia, F. J. Monclus and J. L. Oyon,Modernization and urban beautification: the 1888 Barcelona Worlds Fair. Planning Perspectives6 (1991) 125138.

39. The Barcelona economist Antoni Castells (director of the Commission supporting the Economicand Social Strategic Plan Barcelona 2000), clearly points in this direction: L.A. shares moresimilarities than other U.S. cities with the case of Barcelona, which is why we have been moreinterested in knowing about it . . . A. Castells, Los Angeles 2000: a Model of Strategic Planning.Barcelona Metropolis Mediterra`nia 15 (1990) 121128.

40. J. Busquets, Spanish Waterfronts. Aquapolis 34 (1999) 506; A. Font, Reforma del Port Vell deBarcelona. La explotacion parasitaria de la centralidad urbana. Urbanismo COAM 27 (1996)3237; S. V. Ward, Re-examining . . . op. cit. [7].

41. M. Sola`-Morales, La ciutat i el port: la histo`ria continua. Barcelona Metro`polis Mediterra`nia 1(1986). O. Nel.lo, A transformaao de frente de mar de Barcelona. Cidade olmpica, DiagonalMar e Beso`s, in V. M. Ferreira and F. Indovina (org.) A cidade da Expo98. Lisbon: Bizancio,1999.

42. D. McKay, La recuperacio del front maritime. Aula Barcelona, 2000; H. Meyer, City and port.Urban planning as a cultural venture in London, Barcelona, New York and Rotterdam. Changingrelations between public urban space and large-scale infrastructure. Utrecht: Utrecht InternationalBooks cop., 1999.

43. N. Calavita and A. Ferrer, op cit. [4].44. Barcelona City Council, Arees de nova centralitat /New downtown areas. Barcelona: Ajuntament

de Barcelona, 1987. J. Esteban, op cit. [3].45. BARCELONA REGIONAL, Barcelona New Projects. Barcelona: Ajuntament de Barcelona,

199946. T. Marshall, op cit. [2].47. J. Clusa, La experiencia urbanstica de Barcelona 19861992 y las expectativas del Forum 2004.

Ciudades 5 (1999) 8596. O. Bohigas characterizes this new stage as the second phase of theReconstruction of Barcelona: O. Bohigas, Ciudad y acontecimiento. Una nueva etapa delurbanismo barcelones. Arquitectura Viva 84 (2002) 2327. See the website of the Forum ofCultures 2004: www.barcelona2004.org.

48. In addition to this continuity in the visions of economists and architects, it is also interesting toshow the use of a culturalist discourse as a replacement variant in the urban strategy adopted bythe City Council. Replacing the usual discourse on Expos or Olympics, a new discourse on theculture of cities is now emerging as can be seen in the words of Joan Clos, the present Mayor ofBarcelona at the 2002 Eurocities meeting:[notes-ext]Culture is becoming, more and more, a strategic instrument for our cities development.The challenges posed by globalisation, the multiculturality of our societies and the technologicaltrends of our economies, require answers to achieve the management of cities. For this reason, wemust also consider culture as a priority strategy to create cities as real shared civic spaces . . . (J.Clos, opening of Eurocities Conference, Barcelona, 2002 (website: www.bcn.es/eurocities2002bar-celona/))An interesting discourse which could be also seen from a more critical perspective: S. Zukin, TheCultures of Cities. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1995.

49. O. Arantes, C. Vainer and E. Maricato, op cit. [5].50. J. Borja, op cit. [3]; J. Borja and M. Castells, Local & Global. London: Earthscan: 1997.51. F. Santacana, El planejament strategic. Barcelona: Aula Barcelona, 2000, p. 36.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [O

pen U

nivers

ity] a

t 00:1

1 16 S

eptem

ber 2

013

The Barcelona model: an original formula? 421

52. J. Busquets, op cit. [3].53. Mancomunitat de Municipis del Area Metropolitana de Barcelona, Dina`miques metropolitanes a

larea i regio de Barcelona. Area Metropolitana de Barcelona, Barcelona, 1995. Different studiesconsider that the legal city of Barcelona is increasingly becoming converted into the CBD of themetropolitan region: see T. Vidal, Barcelonians: from 1996 into the future, in Autores varios,18561999. Contemporary Barcelona. Barcelona: CCCB, 1996. For a global view of metropolitanplanning in Barcelona: M. Torres Capell, La formacio de la urbanstica metropolitana deBarcelona. Lurbanisme de la diversitat. Barcelona: A.M.B. Mancomunitat de municipis deBarcelona, 1999.

54. K. T. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. Oxford C: OxfordU.P., 1985, p. 303.

55. F. J. Monclus, (ed.), La ciudad dispersa. Suburbanizacion y nuevas periferias. Barcelona: Centre deCultura Contempora`nia de Barcelona, 1998. See, especially, J. E. Sanchez, Barcelona: trans-formaciones en los sistemas productivos y expansion metropolitana, in F. J. Monclus (ed.), ibid.,pp. 81. See also: O. Nel.lo, Ciutat de ciutats. Barcelona: Ed. Empuries, 2001.

56. Again, comparisons with Madrid show many similarities: J. Angelet, La descentralizacion delempleo y de la residencia en las areas metropolitanas de Barcelona y Madrid. Efectos sobre lamovilidad urbana. Urban 4 (2000).

57. O. Nel.lo, op cit. [55], p. 115. Other studies by a key actor who was Head of Planning at theGeneralitat (Regional Government of Catalonia) during the 1980s and 1990s adopt differentperspectives: J. A. Solans, Locupacio de en el sistema metropolita` central durant el perode19801998, in AA.VV., Ciutat compacta, ciutat difusa, Papers. Regio Metropolitana de Barcelona36 (2002) 5172.

58. R. Bruegmann, The paradox of anti-sprawl reform, in R. Freestone (ed.) Urban Planning in aChanging World. The twentieth century experience. London: E & FN Spon, 2000, pp. 15870.

59. M. Hebbert, op cit. [13].60. S. V. Ward, op cit. [2].61. F. J. Monclus, Decentralization, containment and green corridors: Compact city strategies in

Spanish cities, in R. Freestone (ed.) The twentieth Century Urban Planning Experience:Proceedings of the 8th International Planning History Society Conference and 4th AustralianPlanning History Conference, Sydney: University of New South Wales, 1998, pp. 64753.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [O

pen U

nivers

ity] a

t 00:1

1 16 S

eptem

ber 2

013