THE URBAN SPRAWL: AN OVERVIEW OF USA, MEXICO AND SPAIN
Arq. Blanca Esmaragda Arellano Ramos.1
Goverment of Baja California State
Jefa del Depto. de Vivienda y Reserva Territorial.
Calz. Independencia 994, 4º. Piso Centro Cívico C.P. 21000 Mexicali, B.C. México.
esmaragda.arellano@gmail.com
+52 686 558 1000 ext. 1479
+52 686 558 1965
Secretaria de Infraestructura y Desarrollo Urbano del Estado.
Calz. Independencia 994, 4º. Piso Centro Cívico C.P. 21000 Mexicali, B.C. México.
barellano@baja.gob.mx
+52 686 558 1000 ext. 1405
+52 686 558 1965
Dr. Josep Roca Cladera.
Director del Centro de investigación de Política de Suelo y Valoraciones.
josep.roca@upc.edu
Departamento de Construcciones Arquitectónicas I.
Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña.
Avda. Diagonal 649, 4ª planta 08028, Barcelona, España.
cpsv.info@upc.edu.
+34 93 401 63 96
+34 93 333 09 60
Pau Queraltó i Ros
Investigador del Centro de Política de Suelo y Valoraciones.
pau.queralto@upc.edu
Departamento de Construcciones Arquitectónicas I.
Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña.
Avda. Diagonal 649, 4ª planta 08028, Barcelona, España.
cpsv.info@upc.edu.
+34 93 401 63 96
+34 93 333 09 60
Key words: urban sprawl, diffuse city, sustainable city, land consumption.
1
The presentation, developed in contribution by investigators of the Government of Baja California and Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya
(UPC, Centre of Land Policy and Valuations), is refered in some of the works carried out within the Urban and Architectonic Management and
Valuations doctorate program of the above mentioned UPC.
We thank specially Malcolm C. Burns, Yraida Romano, Bahaadinne Alhaddad and Nicola Colannino for their collaboration from the Centre of Land Policy and Valuationss
(CPSV) of the Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña (UPC).
Abstract:
It is a fact that the urban sprawl, known as the process of gradual spread out of urbanization has become
a worldwide phenomenon. The growing consumption of land, as a result of the extension of highway
networks, open up vast space of territory, which seems to have become an unstoppable cancer, and
affects virtually all the contemporary metropolis.
The expansion of the cities had its origin in the model of suburban life, which began with the generalized
use of the automobile. A lifestyle based on the "american dream”, one single family-home, one (or more)
car (s)." But it has been since late 70’s of the last century, when it has had a more dramatic
development, as a consequence of the crisis of metropolitan areas linked to what, it is called PostFordism economy and some authors have characterized as counter-urbanization (Berry) desurbanization
(Berg), edge-cities (Garreau) metapolis (Asher) or diffuse city (Indovina). Despite the diversity of urban
development, the increasing consumption of land, the excessive use of land as a scarce resource, it is a
constant in the urbanization process in the early twenty-first century.
The object of our contribution is to make an overwiew about urban sprawl in USA, Mexico and Spain.
The use of technologies related to satellite imagery (remote sensing) allow the characterization of the
phenomenon of consumption, pathological or not, of land. And this analysis suggests some hypothesis
about the plurality of the contemporary urbanization processes. Roughly two models stand out: On one
hand, urban development based on low densities, where the unsustainable consumption of land is
presented as a paradigm of economic development and, on the other hand, an urban development with
a compact city model, where recycling land, and not just increasing the consumption of land, is one of
the key objectives of urban policies. The work presented here, suggests that in the second model seems
to appear a change in the paradigm towards a more efficient and sustainable use of the territory.
1. - Introduction
The second half of the twentieth century was undoubtedly the time with a faster urban growth worldwide.
The urban population has grown from 750 million in 1950 to 2860 million in 2000, and now represents
over 50% of the world population. Spain and Mexico have been no exception. The urban transformation
generated in both countries is a phenomenon of great magnitude. In the mid-twentieth century, both
Spain and Mexico were basically countries with an agricultural profile. Over 50% of the two countries
population worked in agriculture. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, however, less than 20%
(10% in Spain) of the employed population is engaged in agricultural activities. Industry but above all,
services represent the majority of jobs.
Following the great ecologist Ramón Margalef, there has been a real inversion in the topology of the
landscape. Highway networks, which only a few decades before were isolated elements throughout the
countryside, are now present throughout the territory, setting a new "landscape", in which the rural
become "islands" throughout the highly urbanized land, and this change has occurred in the course of
one generation. Women and men born in 1950 have been witness of the extent of the changes, that from
the 70’s have been characterized not only by the progressive development, but by the continue increase
in the per capita consumption of land: this process has been called urban sprawl4.
It is true that the urban sprawl, the process of gradual spread out of urbanization has become a
worldwide phenomenon, especially in the developed world and its environs. The growing consumption of
land, as a result of the extension of highway networks in urban areas, seems to have become an
unstoppable cancer and affects virtually all the contemporary metropolis worldwide.
The expansion of the cities was originated in the model of suburban life, which began with the
generalized use of the car. A lifestyle based on the “American Dream: one single family-home, and one
(or more) car (s)”, that means mobility and homeownership. However, it is not until the late 70’s when it
has a more dramatic development, as a consequence of the crisis of metropolitan areas linked to what is
called Post-Fordism economy.
Some authors have characterized it as counter-urbanization (Berry) desurbanization (Berg), edge-cities
(Garreau) metapolis (Asher) or diffuse city (Indovina). Despite the diversity of urban development, the
increasing consumption of land, the excessive use of land as a scarce resource, it is a constant in the
urbanization process in the early twenty-first century.
Our contribution is to make some reflections about the urban sprawl process in Mexico and Spain. The
use of technologies related to satellite imagery (remote sensing) allows the characterization of the
phenomenon of consumption, pathological or not, of land. And this analysis suggests some hypothesis
about the plurality of contemporary of urbanization processes. Roughly, two models stand out: one
based urban development at low densities, where the unsustainable consumption of land is presented as
a paradigm of economic development and, in another hand, an urban development with a compact city
model, where recycling land, and not just increasing the consumption of land, is one of the key objectives
of urban policy. The work presented here suggests that, in recent years, a change in the paradigm
towards a more efficient and sustainable use of the territory appears.
2. - The origins of urban sprawl.
The low density and diffuse forms of urbanization have their origin in the improvement of urban transport
systems that emerged throughout the nineteenth century. The appearance of subways was especially a
key element that led to the gradual separation of residential and work, causing the incipient process of
suburbanization that took place during the last third of the nineteenth century.
As it is well known, the generalized use of the car as a way of private transportation in the early decades
of the twentieth century reinforced the trend towards the dispersion of the population, generating new
forms of suburban development and the construction of the ideal of “mobility and homeownership", which
soon spread from the United States to the world.
According with Dematteis (1997), the urban development between the XIX and XX centuries, brought to
the western world, the coexistence of two models of expansion:
- In the traditional Mediterranean until the nineteenth century, the city is not beyond the medieval
walls. It is not until the industrial age when the countryside is colonized by high-density suburbs.
- In northern Europe, the city expands with the “Civita”, the urban landscape replaces the previous
rural and recreates them in some of its elements, the garden city emerged as one of the
paradigms of urban development of late nineteenth and early twentieth century.
It was up to the last decades of the last century, when the process of urban sprawl had reached high
levels, getting practically the entire planet. The crisis of the so-called "Fordist-Economy", based on the
predominance of the industry and its concentration, to an economic system characterized by the
dominance of the services and the gradual dispersion of the industrial production processes, has
generated new patterns of urbanization characterized not only by the dispersion of residential activities,
but also by the progressive suburbanization in the outskirts of the city of economic activity and
employment.
The "counter urbanization", reported by Berry (1976), has made presence not only in countries with a
longer history of suburban growth, but also in cities characterized by a compact model, as the Latin
Mediterranean. In this sense, the majority of authors have recognized the worldwide generalization of the
urban sprawl process.
The territorial model has a significant evolution in the recent decades, becoming from an urban
continuum model with medium and high densities, to a diffuse and dispersed city, driven by technological
innovation processes, separation of functions and finding proximity to nature. This redefinition of the
territorial model was based on the new highways and communication networks, and has as a result a
dispersed and unsustainable city, thus, a city with high consumption of land.
Table num. 1: Population Density of urban areas over 500,000 inhabitants (2007).
Average
population
per Square
kilometer of
urban areas
Density
Compared
to United
States
Urban
Density
Cases
Population
(Millions)
Average
population per
Square Mile of
Urban areas
HIGH INCOME WORLD
Western Europe
Western Europe: Outside UK
Western Europe: UK
United States
Canada
Western Hemisphere Except Canada $ US
Australia
New Zealand
Japan
China (Hong Kong & Macao)
China: Taiwan
Asia: Outside China & Japan
Total/average
61
51
10
65
8
1
5
1
23
1
6
21
192
101.5
82.4
19.1
142.1
14.0
2.2
10.4
1.1
79.1
6.5
14.9
53.2
424.9
7,700
7,200
10,600
2,800
3,900
2,500
3,700
5,500
10,700
76,200
17,900
17,200
7,800
3,000
2,750
4,100
1,100
1,500
950
1,450
2,100
4,100
29,400
6,900
6,650
3,000
2.75
2.57
3.79
1.00
1.39
0.89
1.32
1.96
3.82
27.21
6.39
6.14
2.79
MIDDLE AND LOW INCOME WORLD
Europe Except Russia
China
India
Russia
Asia except China, India & Russia
Africa
South & Central America
Total/Average
29
100
69
38
97
81
101
515
41.6
153.4
134.5
46.6
191.7
134.3
195.3
897.3
10,900
17,400
40,600
12,900
20,900
21,300
16,500
20,900
4,200
6,750
15,700
5,000
8,050
8,200
6,350
8,050
3.89
6.21
14.50
4.61
7.46
7.61
5.89
7.46
Urban Areas Total: Threshold Population
707
1,322.3
17,400
6,700
6.21
8,000
2,050
2.86
1,454.2
8,700
48,7%
Source: Demographia World Urban Areas (2007)
3,350
3.11
Area
WORLD URBAN POPULATION ( 2002)
Share of World Urban Population in Threshold Urban Areas
Urban Areas Below Threshold
TOTAL: ALL LISTED URBAN AREAS
Share of world Urban Population
595
1,302
2,985.0
44.3%
131.9
Table Nº 1 suggests a clear differentiation of the consumption of land patterns, depending on socioeconomic status of the population. Countries with high and middle income tend to sprawl more than lowincome countries. For example, if we limit ourselves to urban areas over 500,000 inhabitants, the urban
density in the USA (1,100 inhabitants per km2), Australia (950 inhabitants/km2), Canada (1,500
inhabitants/km2) or Western Europe density (3,000 inhabitants/km2) is lower than the density of cities in
Russia (5,000 inhabitants/km2), rest of the Americas (6,350 inhabitants/km2), Africa (8,200
inhabitants/km2), China (6,750 inhabitants / km2), India (15,700 inhabitants/km2) or the rest of Asia
(8,050 inhabitants/km2).
Growing consumption of land, therefore, while being a worldwide phenomenon is concentrated in the
developed world and its environs. The graphic 1 displays how the countries with high income, with few
exceptions, are the geographic areas characterized by higher consumption of land.
Graphic num. 1: Density & Prosperity
Source: Demographia World Urban Areas (2007)
The new metropolises of the developed world, of which Atlanta is only the most noticeable
example, show the infinite development of the built-up spaces, the vouch for the car as almost
the only form of transportation, as well as the exponential growth of the energy consumption that
the dispersed urbanization entails. The environmental unsustainability is an inseparable
consequence of the model of sprawl. As a result, the agencies and institutions responsible for
the regulation of the urban and territorial planning, intend to generate alternatives that imply to
return to the order of the sustainable compactness. The debate on the limits of the urban sprawl
has carried to alternative approaches like the proposal of the compact as new paradigm, the
"smart growth" or the "new urbanism" in which the control of the indiscriminate process of
consumption of ground appears as one of the fundamental objectives of the new urban politics.
3.- The Sprawl in the USA
In the USA land consumption has gone from 161 square miles per 1,000 inhabitants in 1950 to 243 in
1970, and 293 in 1990 in the metropolitan areas (SMA) of more than one million inhabitants.
It has represented an increment of 384 square miles per each new 1,000 inhabitants between 1950 and
1970; figure that has increased to 527 in the period 1970-1990.The land consumption has been
accentuated, therefore with the post-fordism, arriving at its paroxysm between 1970 and 1990. Graphic
number 2 shows us the metropolitan areas with greater growth between 1970 and 1990.
Graphic num. 2: Top ten metropolitan areas SMA in consumption of land (1970-1990)
Source: Bureau of Census USA
Figure number 1 shows us the urbanized areas in the continental U.S.A., where one can see a bigger
concentration in the West side, especially in the northwest coast.
Figure num. 1: Map of the U.S.A. with Sprawl in 2000
Source: Transferred from en.wikipedia; transferred to Commons by User:Sfan00_IMG using CommonsHelper.
The study has been focused on the sprawl analysis of the 12 urbanized areas which in 2000 had
populations in excess of 3 million inhabitants.
Table num. 1: Urbanized areas with more than 3 million population in 2000
Urbanized Areas
New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA
Chicago, IL-IN
Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD
Miami, FL
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX
Boston, MA-NH-RI
Washington, DC-VA-MD
Detroit, MI
Houston, TX
San Francisco-Oakland, CA
Atlanta, GA
Pop. 2000
17,799,861
12,492,983
8,307,904
5,149,079
4,919,036
4,145,659
4,032,484
3,933,920
3,903,377
3,822,509
3,782,562
3,499,840
Source: Elaborated from information of the U.S. Census Bureau
The aforementioned urbanized areas (UA) are analyzed by comparing the land consumption in 1990 and
2000. The yellow tone of Figures 2-13 indicates the urbanized areas in 1990 with the red tone indicating
the urbanized land in 2000. For each of the areas land consumption is expressed as a measure of area
per 1,000 inhabitants.
Figure num. 2: Urban growth of the UA of New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT
Source: Elaborated from information of the U.S. Census Bureau,
Geography Division, Cartographic Products Management Branch, 2001.
According to the information from the U.S. Census Bureau these are the values for New York-Newark,
NY-NJ-CT urbanized area:
Year
1990
2000
Population
16,044,493
17,799,861
Km2
Dens km2 Ha/1,000hab m2/hab
7,302.98 2,196.98
45.52
455.17
8,683.20 2,049.92
48.78
487.82
The urbanized area of New York--Newark, NY-NJ-CT has a land consumption of 487.82 m2 per 1,000
inhabitants in 2000.
Figure num. 3: Urban growth of the UA of Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA
Source: Elaborated from information of the U.S. Census Bureau,
Geography Division, Cartographic Products Management Branch, 2001.
According to the information from the U.S. Census Bureau these are the values for Los Angeles-Long
Beach-Santa Ana, CA urbanized area:
Year
1990
2000
Population
11,402,955
12,492,983*
Km2
4708,79
5.204,05
Dens km2 Ha/1,000hab m2/hab
2.421,63
41,29
412,94
2.400,63
41,66
416,56
The urbanized area of Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA has a land consumption of 416.56 m2
per 1,000 inhabitants in 2000.
UA
Los Angeles--Long Beach--Santa Ana, CA
Mission Viejo, CA
Santa Clarita, CA
TOTAL Los Angeles in 2,000
Pop. 2000
11,789,487
533,015
170,481
12,492,983
Km2
4,708.79
354.53
140.72
5,204.05
Figure num. 4: Urban growth of the UA of Chicago, IL-IN
Source: Elaborated from information of the U.S. Census Bureau,
Geography Division, Cartographic Products Management Branch, 2001.
According to the information from the U.S. Census Bureau these are the values for Chicago, IL-IN
urbanized area:
Year
1990
2000
Population
6,792,211
8,307,904
Km2
4,180.08
5,498.10
Dens km2 Ha/1,000hab
1,624.90
61.54
1,511.05
66.18
m2/hab
615.42
661.79
The urbanized area of Chicago, IL-IN has a land consumption of 661.79 m2 per 1,000 inhabitants in
2000.
Figure num. 5: Urban growth of the UA of Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD
Source: Elaborated from information of the U.S. Census Bureau,
Geography Division, Cartographic Products Management Branch, 2001
According to the information from the U.S. Census Bureau these are the values for Philadelphia, PA-NJDE-MD urbanized area:
Year
1990
2000
Population
4.222.000
5.149.079
Km2
2.890,57
4.660,70
Dens km2 Ha/1,000hab
1.460,61
68,46
1.104,79
90,52
m2/hab
684,64
905,15
The urbanized area of Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD has a land consumption of 416.56 m2 per 1,000
inhabitants in 2000.
Figure num. 6: Urban growth of the UA of Miami, FL
Source: Elaborated from information of the U.S. Census Bureau,
Geography Division, Cartographic Products Management Branch, 2001
According to the information from the U.S. Census Bureau these are the values for Miami, FL urbanized
area:
Year
1990
2000
Population
3,152,798*
4,919,036
Km2
1,748.46
2,890.67
Dens km2 Ha/1,000hab
1,803.19
55.46
1,701.67
58.76
m2/hab
554.57
587.65
The urbanized area of Miami, FL has a land consumption of 587.65 m2 per 1,000 inhabitants in 2000.
UA
Miami--Hialeah
Fort Lauderdale--Pompano Beach--Hollywood, FL
TOTAL Miami, FL
Pop. 1990
Km2
1,914,689 887.87
1,238,109 860.59
3,152,798 1,748.46
Figure num. 7: Urban growth of the UA of Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX
Source: Elaborated from information of the U.S. Census Bureau,
Geography Division, Cartographic Products Management Branch, 2001
According to the information from the U.S. Census Bureau these are the values for Dallas, TX urbanized
area:
Year
1990
2000
Population
3,198,199
4,145,659
Km2
3,156.11
3,644.50
Dens km2 Ha/1,000hab
1,013.34
98.68
1,137.51
87.91
m2/hab
986.84
879.11
The urbanized area of Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX has a land consumption of 879.11 m2 per 1,000
inhabitants in 2000.
Figure num. 8: Urban growth of the UA of Boston, MA-NH-RI
Source: Elaborated from information of the U.S. Census Bureau,
Geography Division, Cartographic Products Management Branch, 2001
According to the information from the U.S. Census Bureau these are the values for Boston, MA--NH—RI
urbanized area:
Year
1990
2000
Population
2,774,717
4,032,484
Km2
2,378.78
4,496.67
Dens km2 Ha/1,000hab
1,166.45
85.73
896.77
111.51
m2/hab
857.31
1,115.11
The urbanized area of Boston, MA-NH-RI has a land consumption of 1,115.12 m2 per 1,000 inhabitants
in 2000.
Figure num. 9: Urban growth of the UA of Washington, DC-VA-MD
Source: Elaborated from information of the U.S. Census Bureau,Geography Division, Cartographic Products Management Branch, 2001
According to the information from the U.S. Census Bureau these are the values for Washington, DC--VA-MD urbanized area:
Year
1990
2000
Population
3,363,047
3,933,920
Km2
2,293.84
2,996.01
Dens km2 Ha/1,000hab
1,466.12
68.21
1,313.05
76.16
m2/hab
682.07
761.58
The urbanized area of Washington, DC-VA-MD has a land consumption of 761.58 m2 per 1,000
inhabitants in 2000.
Figure num. 10: Urban growth of the UA of Detroit. MI
Source: Elaborated from information of the U.S. Census Bureau,
Geography Division, Cartographic Products Management Branch, 2001
According to the information from the U.S. Census Bureau these are the values for Detroit, MI urbanized
area:
Year
1990
2000
Population
3,697,424
3,903,377
Km2
2,897.50
3,267.14
Dens km2 Ha/1,000hab
1,276.07
78.37
1,194.74
83.70
m2/hab
783.74
837.00
The urbanized area of Detroit, MI has a land consumption of 837.00 m2 per 1,000 inhabitants in 2000.
Figure num. 11: Urban growth of the UA of Houston. TX
Source: Elaborated from information of the U.S. Census Bureau,
Geography Division, Cartographic Products Management Branch, 2001
According to the information from the U.S. Census Bureau these are the values for Houston, TX
urbanized area:
Year
1990
2000
Population
2,902,449
3,822,509
Km2
2,948.55
3,354.72
Dens km2 Ha/1,000hab
984.36
101.59
1,139.44
87.76
m2/hab
1,015.88
877.62
The urbanized area of Houston, TX has a land consumption of 877.62 m2 per 1,000 inhabitants in 2000.
Figure num. 12: Urban growth of the UA of San Francisco-Oakland. CA
Source: Elaborated from information of the U.S. Census Bureau,
Geography Division, Cartographic Products Management Branch, 2001
According to the information from the U.S. Census Bureau these are the values for San Francisco-Oakland, CA urbanized area:
Year
1990
2000
Population
3,629,864
3,782,652*
Km2
1,896.97
1,735.45
Dens km2 Ha/1,000hab
1,913.51
52.26
2,179.59
45.88
m2/hab
522.60
458.80
The urbanized area of San Francisco--Oakland, CA has a land consumption of 458.80 m2 per 1,000
inhabitants in 2000.
UA
San Francisco--Oakland, CA
Concord, CA
Livermore, CA
Half Moon Bay, CA
Vallejo, CA
Total San Francisco--Oakland en el 2000
Pop.2000
Km2
2.995.769
1107,75
552.624
75.202
No data
158.967
457,02
54,06
28,68
87,94
3.782.562
1.735,45
Figure num. 13: Urban growth of the UA of Atlanta. GA
Source: Elaborated from information of the U.S. Census Bureau,
Geography Division, Cartographic Products Management Branch, 2001
According to the information from the U.S. Census Bureau these are the values for Atlanta, GA
urbanized area:
Year
1990
2000
Population
2,157,344
3,499,840
Km2
2,925.55
5,083.06
Dens km2 Ha/1,000hab
737.41
135.61
688.53
145.24
m2/hab
1,356.09
1,452.37
The urbanized area of Atlanta, GA has a land consumption of 1,452.38 m2 per 1,000 inhabitants in 2000.
4. - The Urban Sprawl in Spain
In Spain there has been an intense increase in the land occupation in the recent decades, due to the
highly dynamic process produced by the artificial land uses.
Based on data provided by the CORINE Land Cover project we can say that the artificial land use has
increased in Spain between the years 1990 and 2000, 168,460 ha. This represents a 25.14% of the
artificial land at the beginning of this decade.
Comparing with other European countries (see table numer 2), Spain is the most dynamic country in
urban expansion, ahead of Germany (158,843 ha), France (122,880 ha) and Italy (82,633 ha). In relative
terms, is the third country with the most pronounced urban growth in the studied decade, after Portugal
(38.64%) and Ireland (30.67%).
Table num. 2: Artificial land use process in Europe (1991-2000)
Urbanized
land
1990
Urbanized
land
2.000
Variation
1990-2000
Increment
Urbanized land
Population
Density
1990
Population
Density
2000
AUSTRIA
340.169
350.581
10.412
3,06%
22,90
23,21
0,31
33,39
BELGIUM
607.568
542.247
624.433
545.315
16.865
3.068
2,78%
0,57%
16,40
16,12
16,38
14,57
-0,02
-1,55
15,73
-259,85
BULGARIA
Variation
Density
90-00
Inc. Pob. /
Inc SU
475.904
480.882
4.978
1,05%
21,66
21,23
-0,43
-19,46
GERMANY
2.738.368
2.897.211
158.843
5,80%
29,18
28,44
-0,74
15,63
DENMARK
298.682
311.548
12.866
4,31%
17,25
17,19
-0,07
15,64
ESTONIA
89.562
91.537
1.975
2,21%
17,32
14,88
-2,43
-95,37
SPAIN
FRANCE
669.993
2.538.988
838.453
2.661.868
168.460
122.880
25,14%
4,84%
58,13
22,47
48,59
22,35
-9,53
-0,12
10,67
19,93
CZECH Rep.
294
313
19
6,46%
91,63
88,33
-3,30
37,32
GREECE
254.733
289.934
35.201
13,82%
40,22
37,98
-2,24
21,78
CROATIA
162.433
166.841
4.408
2,71%
28,00
26,96
-1,04
-11,38
HUNGARY
521.543
529.419
7.876
1,51%
19,84
19,25
-0,59
-19,96
104.435
1.348.146
136.468
1.430.779
32.033
82.633
30,67%
6,13%
33,72
42,14
28,30
40,44
-5,42
-1,70
10,62
12,65
-331,38
GIBRALTAR
IRELAND
ITALY
LITHUANIA
213.320
213.978
658
0,31%
17,35
16,28
-1,07
LUXEMBOURG
20.840
22.610
1.770
8,49%
18,54
19,51
0,97
30,94
LATVIA
NETHERLANDS
85.208
370.704
85.325
453.827
117
83.123
0,14%
22,42%
31,04
40,60
27,68
35,29
-3,36
-5,32
-2422,93
11,57
1.026.665
1.041.477
14.812
1,44%
37,25
36,86
-0,40
9,42
172.916
239.739
66.823
38,64%
57,72
42,90
-14,82
4,55
ROMANIA
1.488.613
1.495.941
7.328
0,49%
15,57
14,73
-0,84
-155,40
SLOVENIA
54.184
54.446
262
0,48%
35,71
36,50
0,79
199,75
SLOVAKIA
276.169
276.522
353
0,13%
19,12
19,48
0,37
306,21
POLAND
PORTUGAL
SAN MARINO
625
698
73
11,68%
39,14
39,41
0,27
41,73
Un. KINGDOM
1.783.646
1.817.051
33.405
1,87%
32,17
32,53
0,36
51,92
By provinces and autonomous regions, the land consumption has been different. In absolute terms, first
of all is the growth in Madrid (29,789 Ha) and Valencia (29,308 ha), well ahead of Andalucia (19,652 Ha),
Castilla-Leon (16,635 Ha), Catalonia (13,250 Ha), Castilla-La Mancha (12,834 Ha), Murcia (10,143 ha)
and other regions. Meanwhile, by provinces, besides Madrid, Alicante has grown (15,697 Ha), Murcia,
Valencia (9,699 ha) and the Balearic Islands (8,140 ha).
In relative terms, the geography of urban growth has affected mainly the region of Murcia (52.63%),
Navarre (50.96%), Madrid (49.09%), Valencia (47, 65%) and Balearic Islands (42.75%), compared to
Canary Islands (8.43), Catalonia (10.84%) and Galicia (12.66%), which have experienced a content
smart growth.
The expansion of urbanization has occurred, if we leave aside the exceptions of Navarre and Madrid, on
the Mediterranean coast (with the exception of Catalonia and Andalucia). So out as the provinces with
the highest relative growth Alicante (59.90%), Castellon (59.83%), and two districts near Murcia which
have grown higher. In the rest of Spain with the cases of Navarre and Madrid already mentioned, there is
to highlight the relative growth in some provinces of the two Castillas, like Soria (60.17%), Leon
(44.56%), Salamanca (42.22%), Guadalajara (41.60%) and Valladolid (40.68%). It is also noteworthy
Ourense, with a relative growth of 42.51%, well above the other provinces of Galicia. The Provinces with
less dynamic urban growth in the decade 1990-2000 have been Teruel (5.35%), Palmas (6.29%), Girona
(6.84%), Almeria (7.41%), Pontevedra (7.90%), Coruña (8.88%), Guipuzcoa (9.71%) and Barcelona
(10.38%).
In particular, Centre of Land Policy and Valuations of the UPC has studied urban growth produced by a
group of Spanish urban areas between 1956 and 2006, specifically the urban areas of Barcelona,
Madrid, Cordoba, Murcia and the coast of Alicante. In these five areas the population has doubled in the
period studied, but more important is that the land consumed by urbanization has grown much more
pronounced: a 258%. A total of 673 km2 urbanized, of which 320 have been developed in the Madrid
area, 126 in the coast of Alicante, 98 in the coast of Murcia, 72 at the Barcelona metropolitan area and
57 km2 in the municipality of Cordoba. The consumption of land per 1,000 inhabitants has increased in
these five urban "landscapes" from 6.31 ha in 1956 to 9.19 in 1990 and 11.04 in 2006. This has
represented a consumption of 12.48 Ha. per 1,000 new residents of land, if we consider only the
increase of land use in relation to the balance of population, between 1956 and 1990, and just 6.31ha.
up until 1956. This ratio of land consumption increased between 1990 and 2006, reaching 35.37 Ha. per
1,000 new inhabitants.
Figure num. 14: Barcelona urban growth evolution (1956-2006)
Source:CPSV
I.e. in the last 15 years there has been a relative increase in land consumption (per person per year),
three times higher than in the first 35 years studied. The sprawl is, therefore, a pathological condition in
contemporary Spain.
For urban areas, the greater exponent of the model which might be called compact city, is the
metropolitan area of Barcelona, whose per capita consumption of land has been maintained throughout
the past 50 years into moderate level. This has gone from a consumption of 4.84 ha. per 1,000
inhabitants to 6.11 in 2006. More moderate than the increases experienced by the agglomeration of
Madrid (10.15 in 2006 versus 7.27 in 1956).
Figure num. 15: Madrid urban growth evolution (1956-1990-2000-2006)
Source: CPSV
Figure num. 16: Coast of Alicante urban growth evolution (1956-1990-2000-2006)
Source: CPSV
Figure num. 17: Coast of Murcia urban growth evolution (1956-1990-2000-2006)
Source: CPSV
Figure num. 18: Cordoba urban growth evolution (1956-1990-2000-2006)
Source: CPSV
In the opposite direction to Barcelona, there is the large sprawl of Cordoba (20.31 versus 4.92), Costa de
Alicante (21.61 versus 9.30) and, above all, Murcia (34.16 vs. 9, 16). The urban sprawl spreads primarily
by the Mediterranean coast, but is not exclusive monopoly of it, as evidenced by the high sprawl in an
intermediate city as Cordoba.
The analysis of the urbanization process occurred in Spain between 1956 and 2006 suggests, therefore,
the coexistence of two opposing models of urbanization. n one hand, the maintenance of the compact
city, as shown in the example of Barcelona, where the emphasis is on the revitalization of the built up
area rather than mass consumption of new land for urbanization. On the other hand, the model of the city
dispersed the paradigmatic examples of the Mediterranean coast, where low density and extensive land
use are linked to a speculative real estate development.
Consider two models more precisely:
• In the metropolitan area of Barcelona (RMB), an example of compact city, the urbanized land increased
between 1990 and 2000, 5875 ha., (9.9%). As the population increased by just 2.9%, a first
approximation would suggest that sprawl has also polluted the most compact in this decade. But if you
look at the growth of households, who are the truly applicants for urbanized land, the above conclusion is
not so obvious: the main housing units increased by 246,847 between 90 and 00, 18.1% more than the
increase in urbanized land. In turn, the workplaces, also applicants of urban space, grew by 16.8%, also
more than the artificial land. Therefore, in the period 1990-2000, land-use per household fell from 201.5
m2 to 188.6 m2. The sprawl was lower in the decade studied in Barcelona.
• Choosing the Alicante province as an example of a dispersed city, the urbanized land grew by 18,198
ha. in this decade, a 64.7% of the existing in 1990. The population increased by 13.1%, household
30.9% and 52.8% of jobs. And the consumption of land per applicant household- employment rose from
360.2 m2 in 1990 to 418.7 m2 in 2000. As shown, the growth of jobs and homes did not offset the
increase in urbanized land, so we can say there was a real process of sprawl in the studied decade.
Alicante consumes more than double urban land per household in Barcelona.
Both models, therefore, have distinct behaviors. While in the first model the processes are occurring in
order to maintain the compactness as one of the guiding elements of urban policy, in the second, the
established goal of maximum development towards an unsustainable urbanization, in which consumption
of natural resources as land and energy appears as distinctive features. This dual trend towards
maintaining the compactness and to the dispersion of urbanization, characterizes the urbanization
process in Spain now.
5. - The Urban Sprawl in Mexico.
In the case of Mexico, as in Spain, is in the second half of last century that cities experienced higher
growth, so from 12 metropolitan areas in 1960 (Unikel, 1978) to a total of 56 in 2005, which account for
56% of the national population, 78.6% of the national urban population and 75% of gross domestic
product (SEDESOL, CONAPO and INEGI, 2008).
Table num. 3: Metropolitan Areas Indicators in Mexico (1960-2005)
Indicator
1960
1980
1990
2000
2005
Metropolitan areas
Delegations and metropolitan Municipalities
Federative entities
Total population (million)
Percentage of national population
Percentage of urban population
12
64
14
9.0
25.6
66.3
26
131
20
26.1
39.1
71.1
37
155
26
31.5
38.8
67.5
55
309
29
51.5
52.8
77.3
345
29
57.9
56.0
78.6
Source: Delimitation of the metropolitan areas in Mexico 2005. SEDESOL, CONAPO and INEGI, 2008.
Our analysis is focused in the urban sprawl in the nine metropolitan areas over one million inhabitants in
2000: Valle de Mexico, Guadalajara, Monterrey, Puebla-Tlaxcala, Toluca, Tijuana, Leon, Juarez and La
Laguna. These nine metropolitan areas concentrated a 35.4% of the total national population.
Table num. 4: Population Growth in MA (1990-2005)
Source: Delimitation of the metropolitan areas in Mexico 2005. SEDESOL, CONAPO and INEGI, 2008.
In absolute growth in the five years from 2000 to 2005, the greatest increase in consumption of urban
land has been the metropolitan area of Puebla-Tlaxcala (17,448.61 ha.), followed by the metropolitan
area Valle de Mexico (10,997 ha.).
It is relevant, that especially in the case of Puebla-Tlaxcala, and the Metropolitan Area of Mexico City, in
addition to the sprawl, these areas have had a "metropolitanización”. That means, metropolitan area
Puebla-Tlaxcala has joined 15 municipalities in the studied time and ZM Valle de Mexico has added to its
surface 24 municipalities of Estado de Mexico.
Monterrey has filed a consumption of land of 7,611.62 ha in the same time and Guadalajara 4,830.89 ha.
It also highlighted the growth in the Tijuana area (3,887.66 ha). The cities with less consumption of land
of the nine MA’s were Toluca (2633.25), La Laguna (2988.37 has.), Leon (3075.78) and Juarez
(3134.55).
Figures num. 19&20: Leon and De la Laguna urban growth (2000-2005)
Table num. 5: Population & Land Consumption in MA (2000-2005)
Metropolitan Area
POB_00
POB_05
DIF. POB
SUE_URB_00
SUE_URB_05
DIF. SU
Increase
ZM De la Laguna
1,007,291
1,110,890
103,599
21,226.99
24,215.36
2,988.37
14.08%
ZM Guadalajara
3,699,136
4,095,853
396,717
50,067.80
54,898.69
4,830.89
9.65%
ZM Juarez
1,218,817
1,313,338
94,521
27,334.53
30,469.08
3,134.55
11.47%
ZM Leon
1,269,179
1,425,210
156,031
16,113.27
19,189.05
3,075.78
19.09%
ZM Monterrey
3,299,302
3,738,077
438,775
63,654.65
71,266.27
7,611.62
11.96%
ZM Puebla-Tlaxcala
1,885,321
2,470,206
584,885
49,834.05
67,282.66
17,448.61
35.01%
ZM Tijuana
1,274,240
1,575,026
300,786
26,879.79
30,767.44
3,887.66
14.46%
ZM Toluca
1,451,801
1,633,052
181,251
33,989.83
36,623.07
2,633.25
7.75%
ZM Valle de Mexico
18,396,677
19,239,910
843,233
211,616.51
222,613.51
10,997.00
5.20%
In relative terms, the results vary. The metropolitan area with higher urban growth is again, PueblaTlaxcala (35.01%), followed by Leon (19.09%), Tijuana (14.46%) and La Laguna (14.08%). In a second
group of high growth were the metropolitan areas of Monterrey (11.96%), Juarez (11.47%) and
Guadalajara (9.65%). Finally the regions that have lower urbanization are Toluca (7.75%) and the
metropolitan area Valle de Mexico (5.20%).
Figure num. 21: Juarez Metropolitan Area urban growth (2000-2005)
This is explained by the different stages of transformation during the “life” of the cities and their
municipalities. On one side we have cities with high global population growth, resulting in high demands
for land for housing and new urban centers for trade and services. Such is the case of metropolitan
areas of Juarez. On the other side Puebla-Tlaxcala, where the highest growth occurred in the periphery,
like in Juarez (14.6%) and San Andres Cholula (6.5%), but the urban growth of this metropolitan area is
due too and over all, to the incorporation of 15 municipalities that were not part of the metropolis in 2000.
That does explain the high consumption of land in this short period of time.
Figure num. 22: Puebla-Tlaxcala Metropolitan Area urban growth (2000-2005)
Figure num. 23: Guadalajara Metropolitan Area urban growth (2000-2005)
Figure num. 24: Monterrey Metropolitan Area urban growth (2000-2005)
Also, the three largest metropolis of the country are in Absolute Relative Phase of Decentralization. In
the case of Guadalajara, with high growth rates in Tlajomulco de Zuñiga (10.8%) and El Salto (5.2%) and
negative growth rates in the central city of Guadalajara, losing in absolute numbers, 45 thousand
inhabitants.
The case of the ZM Monterrey with high population growth in Garcia (10.7%), Apodaca (7.1%) and
Salinas Victoria (6.9%) and loss of population in the San Nicolas de Garza (20 thousand inhabitants).
Finally, the case of the Metropolitan Zone Valle de Mexico, won population in Chicoloapan (14.8%),
Tecamac (8.2%), Huehuetoca (8.1%), Cuautitlán (6.8%), Ixtapaluca (6.7%) and Tezoyuca (5.4 %). The
central municipalities and delegations, in absolute terms, have the greatest losses, in which
Nezahualcóyotl highlights (with a loss of 85 thousand inhabitants), Gustavo A. Madero (42 mil),
Tlalnepantla (38 mil), Naucalpan (37 thousand), Iztacalco (16 thousand), Azcapotzalco (16 thousand)
Venustiano Carranza (15 thousand) and Coyoacán (12 thousand).
This phenomenon of urbanization has resulted in at least three metropolitan areas which concentrated
over one quarter of the total inhabitants of Mexico.
As already mentioned, the urban sprawl has increase in the last decades of the last century, and Mexico
was no exception. It is also important to mention, the momentum of the housing finance sector in the
beginning of this century. In this sense, the INFONAVIT (main source for financing housing) granted in
the period 2000 to 2007 136% more than in the previous 27 years of existence of the Institute. This
resulted in 2’593,321 housing credits.
However, the growth of this sector has been directed to developments of single-family homes, and low
and medium density of vertical and horizontal buildings, and always auto-oriented developments.
Figure num. 25: Toluca and Valle de Mexico (DF) Metropolitans Areas (2000-2005)
The metropolitan area who sprawls more in the period 2000-2005 is Juarez, with a consumption of 33.16
hectares for every thousand inhabitants. And the opposite, the MA who sprawls less is Guadalajara with
12.17 hectares per thousand inhabitants and Tijuana with 12.92.
If we analyze the average of urban densities of the nine metropolitan areas, the tendency to sprawl can ,
again, be observed. All the MA’s have declined in density in this five years, with the exception of Tijuana,
whose density has increased slightly from 83.9 inhabitants/ha in 2000 to 85.8 inhabitants/ha in 2005.
Table num. 6: Urban Density in MA (2000-2005)
Metropolitan Area
ZM De la Laguna
ZM Guadalajara
ZM Juarez
ZM Leon
ZM Monterrey
ZM Puebla-Tlaxcala
ZM Tijuana
ZM Toluca
ZM Valle de Mexico
DMU_00
87.8
137.6
91.1
142.2
120.1
93.9
83.9
67.1
170.7
DMU_05
83.3
133.2
76.9
128.9
116.6
82.5
85.8
66.8
166
Figure num. 26: Tijuana Urban Growth (2000-2005)
The sprawl in Mexico is present in all metropolitan areas studied, as a result not only of the high mobility
obtained with the generalized use of the car, but also by socio-economic issues.
Among them, there is the preference of developers to locate new housing of low and medium density in
the suburbs of the city. This is due mainly to the costs of land. It seems more profitable to buy land at low
cost, which is classified as land for future grow or land even outside the city limits, and develop this land
bringing high demands of roads, transportation and services, that will be difficult to absorb by
governments, thus, delaying the consolidation of the city and the development of urban services such as
recreation, education, sports or health.
This city model, also generated by the influence of the "American way of life" in Mexico, leads to an
unsustainable city, as the dispersion generates environmental, social and economic impacts. Example of
this, the high energy and land consumption, the decrease in leisure-time, that redounds in a lower quality
of life, and a high demand for urban services and infrastructure.
Another big problem generated by the diffuse city is the public transport, as it requires a large
investment to reach all areas of the city, so people must solve their problem of mobility with the use of
private cars.
Also, the dispersed city leads in many cases to lack of identity and insecurity, which results in the
fragmentation of the city. Such is the case of the “gated communities” in all Mexican metropolitan areas,
which are built for people with middle and high income and promotes the privatization of public space, in
search of safety and quality of public space (neighborhood park and playground basically), excluding the
rest of the citizens and without “looking out” and building a city that makes no city.
However, the urban policy in Mexico in the last years is about making cities with sustainable
development and to increment the urban densities.
5. Spain and Mexico, two opposite models?
Spain and Mexico (New Spain in the colonial language) took the 8th and 9th place in the ranking of world
economies. There are traits, therefore, that make them similar, but also elements that differentiate them.
The per capita income, as the geography and history of both countries make them different.
But talking about the urban sprawl is not very different. Contrary to the hypothesis of income level,
Mexico seems to sprawl more. However the trend seems to be to increase greatly in Spain rather than in
Mexico.
Spain, until now characterized by a compact urbanization, has denoted worrisome trends toward sprawl
in recent decades. Between the 90’s and 2000 was the European country with the highest consumption
of land.
At detail, we can find that there are two contradictory phenomena: the Barcelona and Bilbao “model”, in
which we find the regeneration of the existing urban land and a non-extensive growth, compared to the
Mediterranean coast “model”, characterized by the high dispersion of urbanization.
Diagnosis of Mexico in the years 2000 to 2005 suggests a process of fewer sprawls than in Spain. On
the density of population (or per capita consumption of land), the Mexican AM seem denser than
Spanish Metropolitan Provinces. Especially in the metropolitan areas of Valle de Mexico, Leon and
Guadalajara (see graphic number 3).
Table num. 7: Population and Urban Land in Mexico and Spain (2000)
Metropolitan Area
Pob_00
Sue_Urb_00
1007291
21226.99
ZM Guadalajara
3699136
50067.80
ZM Juárez
1218817
27334.53
ZM León
1269179
16113.27
ZM Monterrey
3299302
63654.65
ZM Puebla‐laxcala
1885321
49834.05
TZM Tijuana
1274240
26879.79
ZM Toluca
1451801
33989.83
ZM Valle de Mexico
18396677
211616.51
Barcelona (province)
4804606
76952.13
Madrid (province)
5372433
86860.43
Valencia (province)
2227170
43574.87
Sevilla (province)
1747441
31022.83
Málaga (province)
1302240
24633.04
Vizcaya (Bilbao)
857565
19313.34
México ZM De La Laguna
Spain
Graphic num. 4: Land Consumption (square meters per inhabitant) in Spain and Mexico (2000)
On another hand, if we look to the "real plaintiffs": the consumption of land for housing and employment
(lesser extent) suggests that there is more sprawl in Mexico. As we can see in graphic number 5, in
Mexico there is a greater sprawl of housing and jobs than in Spain.
Graphic num. 5: Urban Land per home and employment in Spain and Mexico (2000)
Finally, we can say that it is necessary to assess the convenience of designing a compact, denser and
sustainable city in order to create cities that make city and, thus, improve the quality of life.
Even though there is too much to study and analyze about the urban sprawl process in both countries,
we can say that the regeneration, land recycling, compact and integrated developments, may be the way
forward.
Bibliography
DEMATTEIS, Giuseppe. Suburbanización y periurbanización. Ciudades anglosajonas y ciudades latinas.
Dentro de La ciudad dispersa. Suburbanización y nuevas periferias. Barcelona: Centro de Cultura
Contemporánea de Barcelona, 1998.
EWING, R., PENDALL, R. & CHEN, D. Measuring Sprawl and Its Impact, Smart Growth America, 2002.
MONCLÚS, Javier. Estrategias urbanísticas y crecimiento suburbano en las ciudades españolas: el caso
de Barcelona. Dentro de La ciudad dispersa. Suburbanización y nuevas periferias. Barcelona: Centro de
Cultura Contemporánea de Barcelona, 1998.
SALINGAROS, Nikos. La ciudad compacta sustituye a la dispersión. Dentro de La ciudad de baja
densidad. Lógicas, gestión y contención. Por Francesco Indovina. Diputació de Barcelona, España:
2007.
COUCH y Karecha. Controllig urban sprawl: some experiences from Liverpool. Published in Cities,
Volumen 23, No. 5, 353-363. Inglaterra, Octubre 2006.
GALSTER, George, Royce Hanson y Michael R. Ratcliffe. Wrestling sprawl to the ground: Defining and
measuring an elusive concept. Housing Policy Debate, Volumen 12, Number 4. Fannie Mae Foundation,
USA, 2001.
INDOVINA, Francesco. Algunas consideraciones sobre la ciudad difusa. Dentro de Doc. Anál. Geogr.
Número 33. Venecia Italia, 1998.
MARMOLEJO, Carlos y Mariana Stallbohm. Paisajes en transición, la reconfiguración espacial del uso
del suelo en la RMB: ¿Hacia un cambio de paradigma urbanístico?. Barcelona, España, 2008.
SCHNEIDER, Annemarie y Curtis Woodcock, Compact, Dispersed, Fragmented, Extensive? A
Comparison of Urban Growth in Twenty-five Global Cities using Remotely Sensed Data, Pattern Metrics
and Census Information. Published in Urban Studies, Vol. 45, No. 3, 659, Inglaterra, march 2008.
SEDESOL, CONAPO e INEGI, Delimitación de las zonas metropolitanas de México 2005; INEGI,
Edición 2008.
TSAI, Yu Hsin. Quantifying Urban Form: Compactness versus ‘Sprawl’. Published in Urban Studies. Vol.
42, No. 1, 141–161, England, January 2005.