*4.2. The Second Period (1992–2007)*

The Master Plans for this period were passed in 1997 (Manresa) and 1999 (Lleida) and had very different characteristics. First of all, it is important to underline the differing expectations for growth and land development in the two cities (Figure 4). In the case of Manresa (Table 2), there was a notable reduction in expected population growth, and therefore, very little land was classified and earmarked for urban development (164 ha of land for delimited/sectorialised urban development and 223.7 ha for non-delimited urban development). In the case of Lleida, the city took as its horizon the maximum population established by the regional plan, which was passed as part of Ley 1/1995 of the *Generalitat de Catalunya:* the *Pla Territorial General de Catalunya*. This foresaw the growth of the municipality to a maximum population of 200,000 in 2015. However, the demographic forecast that accompanied the document only foresaw (in the most optimistic of cases) the city's population reaching 144,600 by the same year. With this in mind, it classified a large volume of land, 503 ha of land delimited for urban development (385 ha of which was for

residential uses), and projected a total of 25,781 new housing units (on land reserved for urban development, but had not yet been consolidated as urban land).

The technical characteristics and contents of these plans corresponded to those identified in the second generation of Master Plans undertaken in Catalonia following the return to democracy [44]. The *Planes Generales* identified communications and transport infrastructure as being key concerns for medium-sized cities: It was believed that they would help to reinforce their functions as the capitals of their respective territories. This was one of the most outstanding issues in the Plan General for Manresa of 1997. This established "the correct integration of the city within its territory, ensuring optimum accessibility through its connection to road and rail transport infrastructure" [45] (point 2) as one of its most important objectives. The *Plan General* for Lleida identified the integration of the city within the high-speed railway network as one of its strategic projects; this was achieved when this infrastructure reached the city in 2003 [46].

The Master Plan documents also identified other key projects that could be considered strategic. Both plans proposed the transformation of the urban courses of rivers—the River Segre in Lleida and River Cardener in Manresa—into public spaces and the requalification the urban facades and banks of both rivers. Both documents also proposed the continuation of the task of recovering their respective historic centres, which was to be considered a key urban project. To achieve this, they created mechanisms for the active management and implementation of land policy through their respective municipal land management companies. Lleida's *Empresa Municipal de Urbanismo* and Manresa's *Forum* were both established in 1994.

Other projects regarded as strategic within the respective Master Plans were science and technology parks. The Manresa project for the *Parc Tecnològic de la Catalunya Central* began in 2005. It focused on 35 ha of land (22 ha of which were destined for the creation of a large park: the Parc de l'Agulla) shared with the neighbouring municipality of Sant Fruitós del Bages. In Lleida, work on the *Parc Científic i Tecnològic Agroalimentari de Lleida* (PCiTAL) also began in 2005 thanks to a consortium between the *Universitat de Lleida* (UdL) and the City Council, and with support from the European programme FEDER. Many of the PCiTAL's buildings were housed in what had previously been a military complex up on Gardeny hill—an elevated platform with a total surface area of 28 ha.

The biggest difference between the two Master Plans was in how they were to be developed and, in particular, the use of their *Planes Parciales* (Plans for Urban Development) to develop new urban land. In Lleida, 15 *Planes Parciales* were passed, and in Manresa, there were 16. The impact of their approval, as well as of the resulting urban land development, can be seen in Table 2, which compares figures relating to urban land corresponding to the last two Master Plans. In the case of Lleida, the difference in the amount of urban land between the Master Plans of 1999 and 2018 totalled 400 ha; in Manresa, the development of urban land was much more restricted, with an increase of around 130 ha between the Master Plans of 1997 and 2017.

Another of the issues that should be highlighted concerns the large number of modifications made to the Master Plans passed during this period. In both of the cases studied here, these modifications distorted the original Master Plans and their initial objectives. In the case of Manresa, there were fifty-nine modifications to the *Plan General* of 1997. In that of Lleida, there have been seventy-six since it came into force in 1999, although many of these have not involved fundamental changes.

**Figure 4.** *Plan General de Lleida* of 1999 (**left**) reprinted with permission from ref. [47] and *Plan General de Manresa* of 1997 (**right**) reprinted with permission from ref. [48].

## *4.3. The Third Period (2008–2019)*

Finally, there are the Master Plans corresponding to the most recent period: the *Plan de Ordenación Urbana de Lleida* of 2018 (which was initially passed, but then subjected to revision by the city's new management team following the municipal elections of 2019) and the *Plan de Ordenación Urbana de Manresa*, which was passed in 2017. The first things that should capture our attention in both cases are the restrictive previsions for growth and, in line with this, restrictions in the classification of land for urban development. In the case of Lleida (see Table 2), the area was 239.1 ha (with only 61.4 ha of this land being destined for residential uses). Even so, 531.3 ha were classified as non-delimited land for urban development, the majority of which was destined for industrial and logistical uses. In the case of Manresa, only 153.5 ha were classified as delimited land for urban development and 56.4 ha as non-delimited.

However, without a doubt, what should most attract our attention was the detailed organisation and regulation of the urban land that was already more or less consolidated (Figure 5). In the case of Lleida, it is relevant to add that seven *Planes de Mejora Urbana* (special plans for urban improvement) were proposed, including seventy-five areas/sectors for more detailed urban redevelopment, all of which have been used as instruments for the transformation of urban land. In Manresa, on the other hand, the current Master Plan contemplates fifty-three *Planes de Mejora Urbana* (special plans for urban improvement), seven of which only contemplate very specific transformations, in addition to a further eighty-five for more detailed urban redevelopments. Amongst these interventions, it is relevant to highlight those dedicated to dynamising the urban centres (historic centres and areas of historic urban growth), which have placed an important emphasis on fostering the regeneration of the urban fabric and reorganising mobility.

Another interesting question concerns the specific treatment that was given to land that could not be subjected to urban development in order to try to protect spaces of special natural, environmental, and landscape interest. Both cities' Master Plans sought to combine the conservation of their areas of greatest interest—in terms of land not destined for urban development—with their use as productive spaces and for leisure purposes. Along these lines, it is important to highlight, firstly, the proposal for extensive green belts, which would permit bicycle routes and footpaths crossing the municipal areas, and, secondly, regulations to protect and maintain the productivity of the rich orchards and market gardening areas that surround both these urban nuclei. In the case of Manresa, one place of particular relevance is the agricultural park. Such action was already proposed in the Plan Director Urbanístic del Bages of 2007.

**Figure 5.** *The Plan de Ordenación Urbana Municipal de Lleida* of 2018 (**left**) reprinted with permission from ref. [49] and the *Plan de Ordenación Urbana de Manresa* of 2017 (**right**) reprinted with permission from ref. [50].

#### **5. By Way of Conclusions**

In Spain, urban planning has been one of the most important instruments used to catalyse expectations for economic growth. Since at least the middle of the 20th century, this has been based on the consumption of territory and the production of new urban land.

However, the objectives, strategies, and instruments of urban planning changed considerably over the course of the analysed period (1979–2019). Urban planning passed from meeting the initial demand of regulating activities and growth (1979–1991) to facilitating the development of land and construction via a form of urban planning that was neoliberal in nature and clearly expansive and speculative (1993–2007) and to reaching the present situation, with a form of urban planning in which the previously mentioned tendencies coexist with other new orientations.

An analysis of urban planning documentation also leads us to conclude that the key principles of the neoliberal city have been transferred to urban planning via overdimensioning, the reclassification and requalification of land, strategic urban projects, and the mercantilisation of areas that are expected to have a high value.

In the last period, it seems that urban planning has largely gone back to focusing on the more or less consolidated parts of the cities. The main emphasis has now apparently returned to urban regeneration and rehabilitation, rather than urban growth. Even so, it is not yet clear whether the existing and established mechanisms, their development, and their management will—or will not—generate even greater urban fragmentation. The content and objectives of urban plans should perhaps give greater attention to the social dimension and understand that the ultimate objective of urban planning should be to make the lives of the people who live in our cities easier and more pleasant, rather than to promote property business.

The impact of two recent crises, the economic crisis of 2007 and the current (COVID-19) crisis, have led to questions being asked about the speculative approaches to urbanism that were used to produce new land and urban artefacts—including housing—while ignoring local needs and contexts. The result has been an urbanism that ignores the city and plans that lack a model for either the city or the territory. In this new context, and with the deployment of the UN International Urban Agenda (United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 11), first-level urban planning can perhaps recover its other classical mission—that of establishing the urban model and serving as an effective instrument that is adapted in order to meet the needs of cities.

Having an awareness of regional planning and conserving natural assets and landscape values have been relevant topics in the recent spatial planning agenda in Catalonia. In 2017, the Catalan government proposed a draft project for a Law of Territory that was to be an instrument for structuring the existing legislation on urban planning, regional planning, and landscape conservation. Its objectives included moving from extensive growth to urban recycling, ensuring the efficiency and competitiveness of the territorial system through formulas of supramunicipal governance, and adapting existing instruments to the diversity of the territories, interventions, and conjunctures encountered.

This draft bill did not proceed, but the need for new instruments and more agile, flexible, and comprehensive mechanisms remains imperative.

**Funding:** The current work was carried out within the framework of the research project entitled: "The evolution of urbanistic policies in Spain's medium-sized cities and their urban areas: 1979–2019" (RTI2018-096435-B-C21), which is financed by Spain's Ministry of Science and Innovation with the support of FEDER (EU) funding.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.
