Towards a Dual City? Suburbanization and Centralization in Spain's Largest Cities
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
doi:10.5477/cis/reis.176.35
Towards a Dual City? Suburbanization
and Centralization in Spain’s Largest Cities
¿Hacia una ciudad dual? Suburbanización y centralización
en las principales ciudades españolas
José Manuel Torrado, Ricardo Duque-Calvache and Roberto Nogueras Zondag
Key words Abstract
Metropolitan Areas Large cities and metropolitan areas are being transformed by different
• Centralization migratory and economic processes and also, in a relevant way, by
• Gentrification residential mobility. This study focuses on the latter, analyzing profiles
• Residential Mobility of the participants in centralization and suburbanization movements in
• Urban Segregation Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Seville and Bilbao, based on data from
• Suburbanization the 2011 census. Using binomial logistic regression models, we have
• Suburbanization of measured a greater tendency to seek out urban centers of middle
Poverty classes, educated population and people living in non-traditional
households. At the same time, there is a growing suburbanization
of young, working-class people involved in family projects. The
combination of both movements (which could be individually seen as
examples of social mix) is causing an increase in urban segregation,
now on a metropolitan scale.
Palabras clave Resumen
Áreas metropolitanas Las principales metrópolis están siendo transformadas por diferentes
• Centralización procesos migratorios, económicos y también, de manera relevante, por
• Gentrificación la movilidad residencial. Este trabajo se centra en esta última, analizando
• Movilidad residencial los perfiles de los participantes en los movimientos de centralización
• Segregación urbana y suburbanización en Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Sevilla y Bilbao, a
• Suburbanización partir de los datos del censo de 2011. Utilizando modelos de regresión
• Suburbanización de logística binomial, se ha constatado la mayor tendencia a buscar los
la pobreza centros urbanos de las clases medias, con estudios y en hogares no
convencionales, frente a una creciente suburbanización de jóvenes, de
clase trabajadora y embarcados en proyectos familiares. La combinación
de ambos movimientos (que tratados individualmente podrían
considerarse avances en la convivencia social) ocasiona un incremento
de la segregación urbana, pero ahora a escala metropolitana.
Citation
Torrado, José Manuel; Duque-Calvache, Ricardo and Nogueras Zondag, Roberto (2021). “Towards
a Dual City? Suburbanization and Centralization in Spain’s Largest Cities”. Revista Española de In-
vestigaciones Sociológicas, 176: 35-58. (doi: 10.5477/cis/reis.176.35)
José Manuel Torrado: Universidad de Huelva | jose.torrado@dstso.uhu.es
Ricardo Duque-Calvache: Universidad de Granada | ricardoduque@ugr.es
Roberto Nogueras Zondag: Universidad de Granada | rnogueras@protonmail.com
Reis. Rev.Esp.Investig.Sociol. ISSN-L: 0210-5233. N.º 176, October - December 2021, pp. 35-5836 Towards a Dual City? Suburbanization and Centralization in Spain’s Largest Cities
Introduction1 gan to grow significantly in Spain’s major ci-
ties (Módenes, 1998) and became their main
By the middle of the 20th century rural to ur- structuring element. Among the causes that
ban migration flows in the West had largely explain the emergence of these metropolitan
ceased and we find a resulting concentration processes in Spain, we find a combination of
of populations in and around major cities. The demographic, political economic and residen-
culmination of these urbanising processes led tial factors that are, to a great extent, found in
to the beginning of a new metropolitan era all areas of the country. The arrival of the age
in which the residential mobility of urban po- of emancipation of numerous Spanish baby-
pulations became the main factor structuring boom cohorts (Donat, 2010), the saturation
cities. Since then, the majority of Western ci- and inadequacy of the housing supply in the
ties have undergone processes of population main cities (López-Gay and Recaño, 2009)
growth, exceeding previous administrative and housing policy that favoured the cons-
boundaries and expanding their areas of in- truction of private market housing and access
fluence to increasingly distant municipalities. to home ownership (Leal and Martínez, 2016),
This reality has given rise to numerous stu- have all fostered an increase in suburbaniza-
dies on urban mobility in the Spanish (Feria, tion.
2010; Palomares-Linares, Feria and Susino, However, it was not until the first decade
2017) and international context (Cadwalla- of this century when this trend toward met-
der, 1992; Duhau, 2003). According to this ropolitanisation became more pronounced
research, residential mobility can be an in- (Palomares-Linares, Feria and Susino, 2017;
dicator of the state of development of urban Módenes, 2007; Nel-lo, 2004). Comittment
processes due to its dual nature: at the macro to a growth model at the end of the nineties
level these flows are the primary way in which based on the massive construction of hous-
cities grow and transform, while at the micro ing generated an expansionary economic cy-
level mobility is a social action taken by indi- cle that, along with a policy of easy credit, led
viduals and households and shaped by their to a surge in new housing at ever increasing
desires, possibilities and limitations (Susino, prices (Górgolas, 2019). This dangerous com-
2003). As a result, the spatial relocation of in- bination of an oversupply of housing and ris-
dividuals affects the social, economic and ing prices translated into an unprecedented
even physical structure of urban areas, so increase in suburbanization and led to central
that residential mobility becomes, in a broad cities becoming largely unaffordable for much
sense, an element of social change: “moving of the population of metropolitan areas (Leal,
within the city is moving the city” (Palomares- 2002; Sorando and Leal, 2019). This was
Linares, 2017: 26). In the Spanish case, the further exacerbated by the speculative dy-
delay in urbanising processes in the country’s namics generated by urban regeneration and
main cities meant that the emergence of a functional reconversion policies implemented
new urban metropolitan structure arrived with at the end of the past century and beginning
a certain lag in comparison to other Euro- of this one (Antolín, Fernández-Sobrado and
pean countries (Cheshire, 1995). It was not Lorente-Bilbao, 2010; Díaz-Orueta, 2012). A
until the eighties when residential mobility be- number of studies have emerged that have
revealed gentrification processes in the cen-
1 This paper is part of the research results of the tres of Spain’s major cities (Díaz-Parra, 2009;
projects “Multi-methodological Approach to Residen- Fernández, 2014). At the same time, others
tial Behaviour and Everyday Life (MARBEL)” (PID2020- have identified a growing suburbanization of
119569GA-I00) and “Movilidad, Vivienda y Com-
portamiento Residencial en Andalucía (MOVICRA)” poverty and working classes (López-Gay and
(PY20_00571). Recaño, 2008, 2009; Torrado, 2018). These
Reis. Rev.Esp.Investig.Sociol. ISSN-L: 0210-5233. N.º 176, October - December 2021, pp. 35-58José Manuel Torrado, Ricardo Duque-Calvache and Roberto Nogueras Zondag 37
are two complementary trends that seem to rred. In the first decade of this century there
reinforce a dual city model at the metropoli- were two contextual factors that conditioned
tan-level. the development of residential dynamics: the
In this study we analyse whether resi- so-called real estate boom and the establis-
dential mobility at the beginning of the 21st hment of policies aimed at the functional re-
century may have contributed to deepen- conversion of spanish central cities. These
ing tendencies toward urban dualisation at two complex causal factors led to greater in-
the metropolitan level in Spain. To do this, equality and urban segregation (Díaz-Orueta,
we first examine the existing literature, fo- 2012; Sorando and Leal, 2019).
cusing on two issues: the broad contextual It was, without a doubt, the growth in the
factors that may have contributed to proc- real estate market that took place between
esses of suburbanization and centralization, 1998 and 2008 that had the greatest impact
and the relevant individual factors in subur- on residential mobility at the beginning of
ban and central city mobility. Subsequently, the century. Starting in 1998 public authori-
we examine how the aggregation of individ- ties committed to an economic development
ual choices can transform metropolitan ar- model primarily based on the massive and
eas. After, we specify the geographic areas, largely unregulated production of housing,
data sources and methodology employed. generating a real estate boom. The passage
Regarding geography, we focus on Spain’s in 1998 of a new Land Law made it easy to
major cities and metropolitan areas: Madrid, reclassify unprotected lands for development,
Barcelona, Valencia, Seville and Bilbao, as this, along with a loose credit policy and a
these are places where the processes de- housing policy that favoured access to home
scribed have had the greatest impact. Lastly, ownership and discouraged the construction
we analyse the role of movements of cen- of social housing, increased housing demand
tralization and suburbanization in the period in an artificial manner (Górgolas, 2019; Leal
2001 to 2011 through an analysis of their and Martínez, 2016). Along with this political-
profiles and determinants. With these data institutional framework, we must also con-
it is possible to reevaluate the impact these sider the emergence at the end of the nineties
and beginning of this century of a growing
processes had in the broader framework of
demand for housing fed by the massive in-
changes connected to the socioeconomic
flux of foreign immigration and large cohorts
and residential transformations that occurred
of young people entering the housing market
in Spain’s major metropolitan areas at the
(Módenes, 2007; Leal and Martínez, 2016).
beginning of this century. In addition, we re-
flect on how these residential movements The immediate result of this model was
may be currently fostering dualizing trends. a large and unbalanced increase in hous-
ing supply. This, however, did not translate
into a decline in housing prices due to the
Conceptual framework artifical sustaining of demand resulting from
both easy access to credit and speculation
The structural context of residential (Górgolas, 2019). As a result, Spain’s main
mobility in Spain in the first decade of cities began a rapid expansion of their ter-
the 21st century ritorial borders towards previously undevel-
opable land in adjacent municipalities; at
To understand the role of residential mobility the same time, housing prices grew, partic-
in the transformation of Spain’s most impor- ularly in relation to wages. In this context of
tant metropolitan areas, we must first unders- deregulation and a major expansion of the
tand the structural context in which it occu- housing market, metropolitan cities began
Reis. Rev.Esp.Investig.Sociol. ISSN-L: 0210-5233. N.º 176, October - December 2021, pp. 35-5838 Towards a Dual City? Suburbanization and Centralization in Spain’s Largest Cities
to be structured into large spaces differen- Salguero-Montaño, 2012), such as the Uni-
tiated by levels of social prestige and, ulti- versal Exposition in Seville, the Olympic
mately, cost of housing (Leal, 2002; Sorando Games in Barcelona, the establishment of
and Leal, 2019). Each socioeconomic strata the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao and the
was increasingly likely, given their economic City of Arts and Sciences in Valencia. Lastly,
and credit possibilities, to access a particu- broader marketing strategies to construct ur-
lar segment of the growing housing stock, ban identities (city-branding) in attempts to
leading to a substantial increase in urban position these cities within a global market of
social segregation. At the metropolitan level, cities were also a part of these policies. This
the cycle of an expanding housing market was a new model of “city as commodity”
translated into a larger suburbanising cy- that was justified by its alleged ability to at-
cle (Módenes, 2007; Nel-lo, 2004; Susino tract capital and skilled workers (Glaeser and
and Duque-Calvache, 2012). The central Gottlieb, 2006), but in practical terms it per-
cities of these metropolitan areas became mitted the rapid enrichment of a few at the
spaces of conflict, where extreme inequal- cost of long-term indebtedness for the gen-
ity existed within a small geographic area. eral population.
Certain neighborhoods became elite spaces The two contextual factors together re-
(García-Pérez, 2014; Sequera, 2013), inac- sulted in a growth in suburbanization proc-
cessible for much of the population, their esses, particularly among the less well-off,
less well-off inhabitants being pushed out. and the increasing centralization of the mid-
However, city centres still remain home to dle-classes (López-Gay and Recaño, 2008;
pockets of a poor and a marginalised popu- Torrado, 2018). The onset of the crisis meant
lation (in many cases, pending future gentri- the end of the expansive real estate cycle,
fication). Foreign immigrants often choose and with it, the end of a great wave of subur-
these locations because of their proximity to banization (Pujadas, Bayona and Gil-Alonso,
the service jobs that exist in central city ar- 2012; Pujadas, López-Villanueva and Bayona,
eas and the continued existence of certain 2016) and a resurgence in recentralising flows
low-priced housing. In general, this process (López-Gay, 2014, 2017). However, the crisis,
has allowed sectors of the traditional work- far from ameliorating dualising trends at the
ing-class that resided in central cities to sell metropolitan level, seems to have increased
or rent their housing and move to neighbor- them (Jamoschka, 2018). It led to a collapse
hoods in better conditions in the surround- in housing prices in both areas distant from
ing metropolitan rings (Módenes, 2007). central cities and within the less desirable ar-
In parallel with the urban and real estate eas of those cities. At the same time, city cen-
expansion taking place, public authorities tres only suffered a short period of adjustment
implemented policies aimed at the functional and saw a rapid return to increasing hous-
reconversion of the main cities of Spain’s ing values, which contributed to their ongoing
largest metropolitan areas (Antolín, Fernán- elitization in conjunction with the pauperiza-
dez-Sobrado and Lorente-Bilbao, 2010; tion of urban peripheries.
Díaz-Orueta, 2012). These policies often
took the form of new public-private inter-
ventions and platforms, such as the “Barce- Individual factors related to
lona model” at the beginning of the nineties, suburbanization and centralization and
the Bilbao Metropolis 30 Association and their aggregate effects
the Centre for Strategies and Development
in Valencia. They included mega-events The structural factors that we have des-
and mega-projects ( Rodríguez-Medela and cribed led to the specialisation and divi-
Reis. Rev.Esp.Investig.Sociol. ISSN-L: 0210-5233. N.º 176, October - December 2021, pp. 35-58José Manuel Torrado, Ricardo Duque-Calvache and Roberto Nogueras Zondag 39
sion of central cities and surroundings as zation, which was based on the middle
differentiated environments, leading them classes. The European literature is not as
to attract and push different sectors of the clear with respect to the link between these
population. However, for these major po- patterns of mobility and social class, given
pulation flows to appear, thousands of in- that European urban centres did not ex-
dividual decisions related to the mobility perience the same severe processes of
and immobility of households and persons abandonment and deterioration as US cities
were necessary. These decisions were ba- (Ullán, 2014). In the Spanish case, a signifi-
sed on individual preferences, possibilities cant aspect of suburbanization movements
and limitations. In a country in which signifi- in the eighties and nineties was based on
cant proportions of the working classes had the movement of sectors of the middle
come to home ownership, a certain degree class (Susino and Duque-Calvache, 2012).
of resistance and negotiation over residen- In contrast, recent suburbanization proc-
tial changes was likely, and therefore, these esses have involved the working classes
changes were not as fast nor as dramatic as (López-Gay and Recaño, 2008; Torrado,
in other major cities in the world. Although 2018), while centralization processes have
the profile of the populations involved in been based on the residential mobility of
both movements differs depending on the the educated middle classes (Susino and
historical moment being analysed, studies Duque-Calvache, 2012).
on choosing residential environments have Researchers have found greater agree-
tended to identify suburbanization and cen- ment in analysing the role of lifestyles. Sub-
tralization as opposing movements. urbanization tends to lead to an increase in
With respect to the life course, subur- the distances between the spaces that are
banization has been found to be linked to part of daily life (work, home, commercial
the formation of the nuclear family house- centres, schools, etc.), in a search for resi-
hold; moving to the suburbs/metropolitan dential environments identified with such
rings is often chosen in anticipation of an things as nature, tranquility and safety, and
expanding household or in response to the the ownership of spacious homes fit for rais-
birth of a child (Michielin and Mulder, 2008). ing children (Alberich, 2010; Fishman, 1987;
Regarding centralization, it has been char- Mieszkowski and Mills, 1993). In contrast,
acterised as a complementary movement, centralization is based on lifestyles seeking
specific to stages either prior to or poste- the closeness and concentration of daily in-
rior to the formation of the family (Torrado, teraction in more urban settings (Contreras,
2020). Thus, studies have found that move- 2012). In this conception, centrality is a value
ments toward the central cities of metro- in itself; the location and symbolic value of a
politan areas are linked to both the eman- place is of greater importance than the hous-
cipation of young people and the choices ing (Pablos and Sánchez-Tovar, 2003). It is a
of older adults after the end of family life choice of individuals with a more individu-
projects in the metropolitan rings/suburbs alistic lifestyle, based on individual and pro-
(upon entering into the emply nest phase, fessional development (Schnell and Gracier,
or related to divorce or separation). 1993). We could qualify those who subur-
Regarding social class, there is more banise as having an “anti-urban” mentality,
controversy. A number of studies carried while those who centralize could be said to
out in the U.S. in the middle of the 20th cen- have a “pro-urban” mentality. Although ulti-
tury identified centralization with the mo- mately, both are equally urban, as both life-
bility of the working classes (Nelson and styles are the result of the housing supply in
Edwards, 1993), in contrast to suburbani- metropolitan areas.
Reis. Rev.Esp.Investig.Sociol. ISSN-L: 0210-5233. N.º 176, October - December 2021, pp. 35-5840 Towards a Dual City? Suburbanization and Centralization in Spain’s Largest Cities
What are the effects of these individ- bao. These cities were chosen because they
ual and group preferences and choices are at the top of the Spanish urban hierarchy
on the spaces of common life? If different (Feria, 2013) and are the ones where the pro-
forces converge in the same direction, is cesses of social division at the metropolitan
there a risk of the formation of a dual city, level associated with the real estate boom
with its outer rings increasingly proletarian- and functional reconversion have operated
ised and its urban centres increasingly gen- with the greatest force. We have chosen to
trified? The answer to this question is not analyse them together for two reasons: the
clear. Studies that have addressed the is- first and essential reason is to obtain a lar-
sue of segregation at the intra-urban scale ger sample size and, therefore, greater relia-
(usually at the level of census tract) have bility of our models. The second is to obtain
found contradictory results. While Sorando an overview of these phenomena in Spain’s
and Leal (2019) find that it is possible to largest cities and not one limited by the lo-
speak of tendencies toward the suburbani- cal context of each city, which would be the
zation of poverty and urban dualization, case if we studied them separately.
other authors (Porcel et al., 2018; Sarasa To reach our objectives we take two
et al., 2018) are sceptical about a relation- courses of action: 1) we analyse the profiles
ship between gentrification and the sub- of participants in each of the two residential
urbanization of poverty. However, the few movements, with the aim of identifying dif-
studies that have analysed the flows of ferent social groups’ preferences for the ur-
suburbanization and centralization in Spain ban core or outer rings of the metropolitan
seem to find arguments in favor of duali- area, and 2) we examine the individual de-
zation (López-Gay and Recaño, 2008; Tor- terminants of both centralization and sub-
rado, 2018). According to their authors, the urbanization movements to understand the
overall collective effect of these choices factors that either attact or push individuals
is shaping a dual city, in which the most to or away from metropolitan areas’ cen-
wealthy and skilled are attracted to the ur- tral cities. Our analysis of both movements
ban core, while the less skilled and poorly is based on an approach to processes of
situated social classes choose suburbaniza- metropolitan social reconfiguration already
tion. Therefore, it seems that the residential used by other authors (López-Gay and Re-
mobility of the population is not only modu- caño, 2008, 2009). Apart from the individ-
lated by an increasingly saturated housing ual impact of each type of movement, there
market in urban centres, but that, in paral- are combined effects from the existence
lel, it also contributes to segmenting urban of both, especially when they align (for ex-
space between metropolitan centres and ample, if the young adult population sub-
surrounding rings, leading to socio-spatial urbanizes and the older population central-
segregation, now on metropolitan scale. izes, the effect on the age structure is much
more accentuated).
To carry out these two aims we use dif-
Objectives, scope, source and ferent techniques. In the case of the first, a
methodology descriptive analysis the profiles of suburban
and central city movers is enough, while for
The aim of this study is to understand the the second objective, we use binary logis-
role that centralization and suburbanization tic regression. The use of the latter to cal-
have played in the socio-spatial reconfigu- culate the determinants of suburbanization
ration of five of Spain’s largest cities: Ma- and centralization allows us to operation-
drid, Barcelona, Valencia, Seville and Bil- alise these movements in a way that ap-
Reis. Rev.Esp.Investig.Sociol. ISSN-L: 0210-5233. N.º 176, October - December 2021, pp. 35-58José Manuel Torrado, Ricardo Duque-Calvache and Roberto Nogueras Zondag 41
proximates the actual process of residential tion about residential mobility during the
choice (ultimately, changing place of resi- 2001-2011 period. We have used this ques-
dence is a choice one either makes or does tion, covering a period further back in time
not make) and to analyse the individual ef- (instead of one regarding mobility in the
fect that the variables considered have on year prior to the census), because it re-
the likelihood that a subject will choose to flects more established trends, especially
change residence or not. We constructed when we consider that, due to the crisis,
two regression models, one for analysing 2010 was a year with low mobility. The first
the choice to reside in urban centres (cen- variable captures the decision to centralize:
tralization), and the other for the choice to moving from an outer ring toward the cen-
reside in outer rings (suburbanization). The tre (value 1) versus the likelihood of having
two models have different sub-samples, as carried out one of the other possible alter-
the first includes those that at the beginning natives: moving within or remaining seden-
of the period examined resided in the outer tary in the surrounding metropolitan area
rings, and the second, those that resided (value 0). The second variable refers to the
in the city centre. To compare the results of decision to suburbanise, to move from the
two models based on different subsamples, centre toward the outer rings (value 1), ver-
we calculated the average marginal effects sus the likelihood of having carried out one
(dy/dx), estimates that are usually employed of the alternatives: moving within or remain-
for this end (Williams, 2012). ing sedentary in the central city (value 0).
Our data source is Spain’s 2011 Popu- For the variables that refer to the char-
lation and Housing Census, which provides acteristics of the individuals that carry out
us with microdata that was used by Feria both movements, we have used all that the
and Martinez (2016) to delimit Spain’s met- census permits and grouped them into five
ropolitan areas. Using their boundaries al- blocks:
lows us to differentiate residential move-
1) Indicators related to the life course and
ments from migrations, which is particularly
basic demographic indicators: age, sex,
useful in working with metropolitan areas
marital status and household structure.
that include municipalities in different prov-
inces (such as Madrid and Barcelona), as 2) Social position: education level and em-
well as in distinguishing between munici- ployment and occupational status.
palities that are central and those part of 3) Lifestyles: number of domestic tasks ca-
an outer ring. The latter allows us to iden- rried out, ownership of second residency
tify the origins and destinations of residen- and place of work2.
tial movements and thus differentiate sub- 4) Prior residential trajectory: place of birth.
urbanization and centralization movements.
5) Housing characteristics: tenure status
In addition, the census also includes a wide
(ownership or rental), size and age of
range of individual variables that allow us to
housing3.
extend our characterisation of the individu-
als involved in these residential movements
beyond the basic demographic variables
2 We are aware of the limitations of these variables;
(sex and age) considered in other data-
however, we think it makes sense to include them in
bases (such as the spanish Residential Vari- this study due to the absence of other sources that we
ation Statistics). can use regarding these issues.
3 The inclusion of this block allows us to explore the
Regarding the dependent variables in
housing conditions to which both types of mobile indi-
the models, we have used two dummy vari- viduals have access, which is an idicator of the quality
ables constructed based on a census ques- of life they will enjoy after the movement.
Reis. Rev.Esp.Investig.Sociol. ISSN-L: 0210-5233. N.º 176, October - December 2021, pp. 35-5842 Towards a Dual City? Suburbanization and Centralization in Spain’s Largest Cities
Lastly, it must be noted that the sub- of suburbanization, as there are many fami-
samples used exclude those under 16 years lies with children in this process. Secondly,
of age, for two reasons: first, because these centralization actually involves both older and
individuals do not, in general, decide for younger persons than in the case of suburba-
themselves to change residence and, sec- nization, but the average age hides this fact.
ondly, because they are not included in the There is no single process of centralization,
variables that indicate social position. but rather different centralizing trends (To-
rrado, 2020). Regarding household structure
and marital status, both indicate that subur-
Results banization is a more family-based process,
in contrast to centralization, which involves a
Profiles of participants in higher presence of unmarried and divorced
suburbanization and centralization persons, as well as individuals living in non-
traditional households. Central cities seem to
Regarding the life course indicators, the simi- be spaces for transitional stages, as well as
larity in the average age of individuals partici- refuges for a broad range of households that
pating in suburbanization and centralization have broken with the nuclear family structure.
(Table 1) is surprising. There are two reasons This is in contrast with the outer rings that
for this: first, the data does not include those constitute a reproductive space which, to a
under 16 years of age, there inclusion would much greater extent, attracts married persons
significantly lower the average age in the case and families with small children.
Table 1. Profiles of residential mobility: life courses (%)
Suburbanization Centralization Differences
Age (mean) 39.7 39.1 –0.6
Sex
Man 51 51 0
Woman 49 49 0
Marital status
Single 36 44 7
Married 53 42 –11
Widowed 3 3 0
Separated or divorced 7 11 4
Type of household
Single-person 10 14 4
Non-family 1 4 3
Single parent with young children 4 5 1
Single parent with grown children 2 3 1
Couple without children 22 23 1
Couple with young children 45 31 –14
Couple with grown children 3 3 0
Other families 12 16 4
Source: By authors based on the 2011 Population and Housing Census.
Reis. Rev.Esp.Investig.Sociol. ISSN-L: 0210-5233. N.º 176, October - December 2021, pp. 35-58José Manuel Torrado, Ricardo Duque-Calvache and Roberto Nogueras Zondag 43
A look at the characteristics of the hous- larger living spaces that are better suited
ing accessed in shifting residence (Table 2) to their needs and preferences. Residen-
reveals important differences between both tial mobility is affected by so-called room
movements. We find that those involved in stress. Another difference is the easy ac-
suburbanization reside in much newer and cess in the outer rings to home ownership,
larger housing stock. This is related to two especially through credit. Centralization
phenomena: first, the different characteris- again reveals the existence of certain inter-
tics of the housing stock in centre cities and nal differences within this population group,
outer rings, and secondly, the characteris- with a somewhat high proportion of fully
tics of the households. In contrast to cen- owned homes along with a high percentage
tralizers, suburbanisers moving to the outer of renters, which seems to be linked to dif-
rings, often with children, are able to find ferent life and residential trajectories.
Table 2. Profiles of residential mobility: characteristics of principal housing (%)
Suburbanization Centralization Differences
Type of tenancy
Fully paid ownership 13 17 4
Property under mortgage 69 47 –22
Rental 13 27 14
Ceded property 5 9 4
Size of housing
Less than 76 sq m 28 52 25
76 to 89 sq m 26 25 –1
90 to 120 sq m 22 15 –7
More than 120 sq m 25 8 –17
Age of housing
Before 1940 2 12 10
1940 to 1960 4 14 10
1961 to 1970 8 19 10
1971 to 1980 16 15 –1
1981 to 1990 9 6 –3
1991 to 2001 20 10 –10
After 2001 41 23 –17
Source: By authors based on the 2011 Population and Housing Census.
Regarding lifestyle indicators (Table 3), ments, which seems to point toward the
we find that suburbanization involves the hypothesis of sociospatial polarisation be-
dispersion of life spaces, including a clear tween central cities and rings. Thus, we
separation between location of residence see a centralization in which professionals
and work. This contrasts with centralization, and individuals with university education
which tends to reduce daily movements. are more prominent, suggesting a move-
There are no major differences in regards to ment of a skilled middle class. In contrast,
second residencies and domestic tasks. in suburbanization this class is less present.
Regarding social class (Table 4), we also Workers and individuals with secondary
find interesting differences. We see a cer- education, to a greater extent, choose the
tain complementarity between both move- metropolitan rings.
Reis. Rev.Esp.Investig.Sociol. ISSN-L: 0210-5233. N.º 176, October - December 2021, pp. 35-5844 Towards a Dual City? Suburbanization and Centralization in Spain’s Largest Cities
Table 3. Profiles of residential mobility: lifestyles (%)
Suburbanization Centralization Differences
Average No. domestic tasks 0.9 0.8 –0.1
Have a second residency
Yes 36 38 2
No 64 62 –2
Location of workplace
Same municipality 14 41 27
Another municipality 47 21 –26
Outside the area 2 2 0
Various municipalities 5 5 0
At home 5 6 1
Neither studying or working 27 26 –1
Source: By authors based on the 2011 Population and Housing Census.
Table 4. Profiles of residential mobility: social position (%)
Suburbanization Centralization Differences
Education level
Primary or below 10 10 0
Compulsory secondary 19 20 0
Vocational or Upper secondary 33 30 –2
University 32 40 8
Occupation/activity
Professionals 27 32 5
Administrators 20 20 0
Other service workers 11 12 2
Operators 11 10 –1
Business owners 7 7 0
Unemployed 1 1 0
Inactive 16 16 0
Other jobs 1 1 0
Source: By authors based on the 2011 Population and Housing Census.
As we can see, suburbanization and it does not allow us to see the isolated ef-
centralization reinforce the trend of a ris- fects of different variables, as many are, to
ing socioeconomic level among central city some extent, correlated. As a result, it is
inhabitants and the peripheralisation of the necessary to take an additional step and
working classes. However, this initial im- analyse the determinants of these move-
age is very affected by the class structure ments, in this way controlling for structural
of the specific places of origin of the par- effects and isolating the contribution of in-
ticipants in residential flows. In addition, dividual variables.
Reis. Rev.Esp.Investig.Sociol. ISSN-L: 0210-5233. N.º 176, October - December 2021, pp. 35-58José Manuel Torrado, Ricardo Duque-Calvache and Roberto Nogueras Zondag 45
Determinants of suburbanization and If we consider the three life course var-
centralization iables together, we obtain a view of the
overall effect of these two forms of mobil-
The models (Table 5) reveal themselves to ity on the structure of the urban popula-
be solid overall, both in terms of their sta- tion. On the one hand, older persons move
tistics of fit and the significance of the va- to the centre, linked to changing household
riables. The model for suburbanization fits structures and to non-family households,
slightly better, which strengthens the idea but couples without children also have im-
that centralization is a more internally di- portance in these residential flows. On the
verse movement. other hand, younger adults, married cou-
The age variable is significant in both ples and families in stages of household
models, but in opposite directions. Both expansion move to the rings of metropoli-
types of residential mobility therefore feed tan areas. From a demographic perspec-
the socio-demographic processes of age- tive, the overall effect is the rings are reju-
ing in centre cities, especially if we consider venated and central cities age.
that those that suburbanise are more likely The social consequences of residential
to be in phases of child-raising and house- mobility are even clearer. Education level op-
hold expansion. erates in a linear manner in both movements
In both movements there is a strong (see Graph 2). The central cities concentrate
presence of divorced, separated and wid- the more educated population. The result is,
owed persons, which is explained by the to a certain extent, counterintuitive, as the
greater mobility of persons after the dissolu- central cities, which concentrate the major-
tion of their households. However, the mar- ity of universities, do not see their graduates
ginal effects of these categories are much dispersing toward the rings but rather attract
greater in the case of centralization (double them. The combined effect boosts educa-
for the case of widowed persons and triple tion levels in the central cities and reduces
in the case of those who are divorced and the education levels of the population in the
separated). Central cities are more attrac- metropolitan rings, although the relatively re-
tive places for reconstructing lives after the duced volume of the population that partici-
breakdown of a household. Regarding be- pates in these changes each year limits our
ing single, it is only significant and nega- perception of this process.
tively correlated in the case of suburbani- Employment and occupational status
zation: the rings are not very interesting for (Graph 2) also follow a linear distribution, ex-
people who are single. cept for the group of employers. Although
Regarding household structure, its ef- the position of businessman/woman tends to
fects (Graph 1) are related with marital sta- be related with the middle classes and upper
tus. Centralization is more likely in non- middle classes in the collective imaginary,
family households, other households and the reality of the productive fabric in Spain
among couples without children. In con- and the outsourcing of services means that
trast, the only tendency in suburbanization the majority of the persons in this category
that stands out is households of childless are self-employed and owners of precari-
couples. While living in a family context is ous small businesses, with conditions closer
shown, as would be expected, to be a lim- to those of workers than to heads of larger
iting factor for both movements, it is much sized businesses. Overall, residential mobility
more so in the case of centralization, con- between the rings and central cities leads to
firming the more familist character of the a concentration of professionals in the cen-
suburbanization process. tres and the exit of workers to the suburbs.
Reis. Rev.Esp.Investig.Sociol. ISSN-L: 0210-5233. N.º 176, October - December 2021, pp. 35-5846 Towards a Dual City? Suburbanization and Centralization in Spain’s Largest Cities
Table 5. Models for explaining suburbanization and centralization in Spain’s principal metropolitan areas
Centralization Suburbanization
dy/dx (%) SE dy/dx (%) SE
Age 0.04*** 0.0001 –0.01*** 0.0000
Age-squared 0.00*** 0.0000 0.00 0.0000
Sex (ref.=Woman)
Man 0.16*** 0.0002 0.04*** 0.0001
Marital status (ref.=Married)
Single 0.04 0.0003 –0.10*** 0.0001
Widowed 0.41*** 0.0006 0.23*** 0.0002
Divorced/Separated 0.62*** 0.0004 0.22*** 0.0002
Household type (ref.=Single-person)
Non-family 0.76*** 0.0008 0.01 0.0004
Single parent with under-age children –0.39*** 0.0006 –0.32*** 0.0002
Single parent with grown children –0.23*** 0.0006 –0.45*** 0.0003
Couple without children 0.18*** 0.0004 0.20*** 0.0002
Couple with under-age children –0.31*** 0.0004 –0.14*** 0.0002
Couple with grown children –0.89*** 0.0006 –0.48*** 0.0002
Other families 0.27*** 0.0004 –0.07*** 0.0002
Education level (ref.=Primary or below)
Secundary/Compulsory secondary 0.23*** 0.0004 –0.07*** 0.0002
Upper secondary/Vocational 0.59*** 0.0004 –0.09*** 0.0002
University 1.29*** 0.0005 –0.24*** 0.0002
Occupation/activity (ref.=Administrators)
Professionals 0.18*** 0.0003 –0.05*** 0.0001
Other service workers –0.07 0.0004 0.03* 0.0002
Operators –0.49*** 0.0004 0.06** 0.0002
Business owners –0.14** 0.0005 0.03 0.0002
Unemployed –0.59*** 0.0011 –0.27*** 0.0004
Inactive –0.09* 0.0004 –0.22*** 0.0002
Other occupations 0.16 0.0010 –0.09 0.0005
No. domestic tasks –0.08*** 0.0002 0.10*** 0.0001
Have second residencies (ref.=No)
Yes 0.23*** 0.0002 –0.18*** 0.0001
Location of workplace or place of study (ref.=Same municipality)
Other municipality –1.39*** 0.0003 1.48*** 0.0001
Outside the area –0.92*** 0.0008 0.83*** 0.0003
Various municipalities –0.74*** 0.0006 0.94*** 0.0002
At home –0.56*** 0.0005 0.68*** 0.0002
Neither studying or working –0.71*** 0.0003 0.85*** 0.0001
Tenancy (ref.=Property under mortgage)
Fully paid property –0.76*** 0.0003 –0.85*** 0.0001
Reis. Rev.Esp.Investig.Sociol. ISSN-L: 0210-5233. N.º 176, October - December 2021, pp. 35-58José Manuel Torrado, Ricardo Duque-Calvache and Roberto Nogueras Zondag 47
Table 5. M
odels for explaining suburbanization and centralization in Spain’s principal metropolitan areas (Con-
tinuation)
Centralization Suburbanization
dy/dx (%) SE dy/dx (%) SE
Rental 0.66*** 0.0003 –0.27*** 0.0001
Ceded and other forms 0.26*** 0.0004 –0.37*** 0.0002
Place of birth (ref.=Central city)
Metropolitan ring –1.21*** 0.0003 0.11*** 0.0002
Other city –0.57*** 0.0005 –0.46*** 0.0002
Other ring –1.51*** 0.0011 –0.15*** 0.0003
Outside of metropolitan area –0.74*** 0.0004 –0.16*** 0.0001
Foreigner 0.12** 0.0004 0.36*** 0.0002
Residency size (ref.=Less than 75 m²)
76 to 90 m² –0.42*** 0.0003 0.12*** 0.0001
91 to 120 m² –0.71*** 0.0003 0.31*** 0.0001
More than 120 m² –1.31*** 0.0004 0.83*** 0.0001
Age of housing (ref.=Before 1940)
1940 to 1960 –0.34*** 0.0005 0.18*** 0.0003
1961 to 1970 –0.92*** 0.0004 0.44*** 0.0003
1971 to 1980 –1.65*** 0.0004 0.82*** 0.0003
1981 to 1990 –1.76*** 0.0005 0.89*** 0.0003
1991 to 2001 –1.86*** 0.0005 1.15*** 0.0003
After 2001 –1.13*** 0.0004 1.43*** 0.0003
N 505.613 401.128
Sig 0.000 0.000
Log-Lik empty model –907.388 –1.837.000
Log-Lik full model –705.601 –1.224.000
Pseudo R² 0.220 0.330
Note: ***p-valor48 Towards a Dual City? Suburbanization and Centralization in Spain’s Largest Cities
Graph 1. M
arginal effects on the probability of suburbanization and centralization based on household structure
(%)
1.00 Suburbanization
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
–0.20
–0.40
–0.60
–0.80
n
n
n
n
n
ily
es
re
re
re
re
re
am
ili
ld
ild
ld
ild
ld
m
hi
hi
hi
-f
ch
ch
fa
tc
tc
tc
on
er
g
e
ul
ul
ou
N
ag
un
th
ad
ad
ith
r-
yo
O
de
ith
nt
w
nt
re
un
w
e
re
pl
pa
e
pa
ith
ou
pl
le
ou
w
C
le
ng
ng
e
C
Si
pl
Si
ou
C
1.00 Centralization
0.50
0.00
–0.50
–1.00
–1.50
n
n
n
es
n
n
ily
re
re
re
re
re
ili
am
ld
ld
ild
ld
ild
m
hi
hi
hi
ch
ch
fa
-f
tc
tc
tc
on
er
g
e
ou
ul
ul
un
N
ag
th
ad
ad
ith
O
yo
r-
w
de
ith
nt
nt
re
e
un
w
re
pl
pa
e
pa
ou
ith
pl
le
C
ou
w
le
ng
ng
e
C
Si
pl
Si
ou
C
Source: By authors based on the 2011 Population and Housing Census.
The models also suggest two clearly dif- ences in lifestyles should not be interpreted
ferentiated lifestyles linked to residential mo- in an isolated manner, as they fit well with
bility. Centralization is associated with a life- what we have seen regarding the life course
style based on residential and workplace and class position. It is more typical of indi-
proximity, while the suburban lifestyle is char- viduals in transitional stages of the life course
acterised by a growing fragmentation of the and of the middle-class to focus more on lei-
spaces of daily life. However, these differ- sure and work, and to integrate the different
Reis. Rev.Esp.Investig.Sociol. ISSN-L: 0210-5233. N.º 176, October - December 2021, pp. 35-58José Manuel Torrado, Ricardo Duque-Calvache and Roberto Nogueras Zondag 49
spaces of daily social interaction. Suburbani- (availability of a second residence and the
zation, which is more family-based, privileges number of household tasks carried out) are
the type and size of housing, even at the cost less easy to interpret and, as we have seen
of necessitating more daily movements. The in the descriptive part of this text, appear to
rest of the variables included in the model have much less of an overall effect.
Graph 2. Marginal effects on the probability of suburbanization and centralization based on education level (%)
0.00 Suburbanization
–0.10
–0.10
–0.20
–0.20
–0.30
–0.30
Compulsory secondary H.S. grad/Vocational University ed.
1.60 Centralization
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Compulsory secondary H.S. grad/Vocational University ed.
Source: By authors based on the 2011 Population and Housing Census.
Reis. Rev.Esp.Investig.Sociol. ISSN-L: 0210-5233. N.º 176, October - December 2021, pp. 35-5850 Towards a Dual City? Suburbanization and Centralization in Spain’s Largest Cities
Graph 3. M
arginal effects on the probability of suburbanization and centralization based on employment and
occupational status (for main categories) (%)
0.10 Suburbanization
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
–0.10
–0.10
–0.10
Professionals Other services Operators Business owners
0.30 Centralization
0.20
0.10
0.00
–0.10
–0.20
–0.30
–0.40
–0.50
–0.60
–0.70
Professionals Other services Operators Business owners
Source: By authors based on the 2011 Population and Housing Census.
We have not included a specific analysis ence and migrations, as both suburbaniza-
of prior residential trajectory because it does tion and centralization movements seem to
not have contrary effects on suburbanization be closely linked to two types of prior trajec-
and centralization, as do other variables. tories. On one hand, there are movements of
However, it is important to connect it with return by prior residents, and on the other,
the broader contexts of residential experi- the mobility of foreigners. Although the link
Reis. Rev.Esp.Investig.Sociol. ISSN-L: 0210-5233. N.º 176, October - December 2021, pp. 35-58José Manuel Torrado, Ricardo Duque-Calvache and Roberto Nogueras Zondag 51
of centralization with the return of prior resi- tance of having grown up in a certain type
dents is an established thesis in the litera- of urban space and its relation to a concep-
ture, the importance of these trajectories in tion of an ideal space for future phases of
suburbanization is a new finding that would life. For their part, the greater likelihood of
be interesting to explore further. Perhaps foreigners participating in both movements
the most appropriate approach would be reflects a general pattern of greater mobility
qualitative research to explore the impor- among this population group.
Graph 4. Marginal effects on the probability of suburbanization and centralization based on place of work (%)
1.60 Suburbanization
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Other municipality Outside the area Several municipalities At home
0.00 Centralization
–0.20
-0.40
–0.60
–0.80
–1.00
–1.20
–1.40
–1.60
Other municipality Outside the area Several municipalities At home
Source: By authors based on the 2011 Population and Housing Census.
Reis. Rev.Esp.Investig.Sociol. ISSN-L: 0210-5233. N.º 176, October - December 2021, pp. 35-5852 Towards a Dual City? Suburbanization and Centralization in Spain’s Largest Cities
Graph 5. Marginal effects on the probability of suburbanization and centralization based on housing age (%)
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
1940 to 1961 to 1971 to 1981 to 1991 to after
1960 1970 1980 1990 2001 2001
0.00
–0.50
–1.00
–1.50
–2.00
–2.50
1940 to 1961 to 1971 to 1981 to 1991 to after
1960 1970 1980 1990 2001 2001
Source: By authors based on the 2011 Population and Housing Census.
Lastly, we have variables referring to and new housing. Centralization is more di-
housing stock: type of tenancy, age and verse, and includes an important propor-
size. Suburbanization as a movement is as- tion of rental housing and the search for
sociated with access to property, mainly smaller and older housing. These patterns
through credit in the form of mortgages, as are related to the differences in the housing
well as with the search for more spatious stock in central cities and metropolitan rings,
Reis. Rev.Esp.Investig.Sociol. ISSN-L: 0210-5233. N.º 176, October - December 2021, pp. 35-58José Manuel Torrado, Ricardo Duque-Calvache and Roberto Nogueras Zondag 53
but also reflect individual conditioning and First is the usefulness of contrasting
preferences. In the case of suburbanization, these two main residential dynamics that
the importance of family life and parenting mark metropolitan development as they
projects encourage the search for residential have often been examined independently.
stability and longterm investment in housing. Both the centralization of the skilled middle
In terms of centralization, the more transitory classes and the suburbanization of working
nature of certain periods of the life course class sectors that our results reveal have
are related to the preference for renting, and been considered by a part of the literature
access to smaller housing is explained by as positive trends (Lees, 2008). This is be-
the characteristics of these households, usu- cause, on the one hand, they foster social
ally smaller and less conventional. In addi- coexistence among different social groups
tion, the general preference that centralisers and the revaluation of stigmatised spaces
seem to have for older housing (built prior to (an objective frequently labelled as “social
1940) does not seem to be explained by the mix” in the Anglo-Saxon literature); on the
characteristics of the housing stock in cen- other, because they reflect the rising social
tral cities, as this segment of the stock barely mobility of workers and their access to mid-
accounts for 6.5% of housing in the cities dle-class patterns of consumption. How-
analysed. Therefore, it is probably a result ever, the overall effect of both tendencies,
of the preferences of individuals who move in parallel with other social forces, con-
to central cities for older housing located, tributes to the shaping of a divided urban
in general, in or around historic city centres space: metropolitan areas of increasingly
and with a certain architectural value. As a exclusive central cities and rings that serve
result, if we consider this tendency to live in as refuge for their former working class in-
historic buildings, with their elevated social habitants. Given that the centres are also
profile, it seems clear that centralization is a the location of the best jobs and the best
movement closely linked, at least in the five educational opportunities and that distance
metropolitan areas analysed, to processes of continues being an important factor limiting
gentrification. It should also be mentioned, access, residential mobility raises important
however, that in addition to housing in build- challenges in urban planning and manage-
ings of historical value, there are also cen- ment if we want to avoid new problems re-
tralizing flows that seek newer housing, thus, sulting from the peripheralisation of poverty.
in the cases studied, gentrification coexists The increasing deterioration and system-
with processes of urban regeneration and atic lack of investment in metropolitan pub-
the occupation of previously industrial or va- lic transport at a time when its users are in-
cant urban spaces. creasingly poorer is no coincidence.
Secondly, we think that we can learn cer-
tain lessons regarding the recent past and
Conclusions: toward a dual suggest certain future trends based on our
city? findings. The housing and urban regeneration
policies applied during the real estate boom,
The joint and systematic analysis of the which covered the majority of the period an-
characteristics and determinants of subur- alysed, generated a deregulated process of
banization and centralization movements in residential mobility. The absence of social
Spain’s largest metropolitan areas in a pe- housing policy, along with the real estate cri-
riod of both economic expansion and crisis, sis, resulted in a substantial increase in ur-
has led us to two essential and closely rela- ban social segregation in Spain’s main cit-
ted findings. ies (Sorando and Leal, 2019). Based on our
Reis. Rev.Esp.Investig.Sociol. ISSN-L: 0210-5233. N.º 176, October - December 2021, pp. 35-5854 Towards a Dual City? Suburbanization and Centralization in Spain’s Largest Cities
results, this segregation has begun to man- Contreras, Yasna (2012). Cambios socio-espacia-
ifest on the metropolitan scale. The rise in les en el centro de Santiago de Chile: Formas de
anclarse y prácticas urbanas de los nuevos habi-
housing prices in the central cities, fuelled by
tantes. Dureau, Francoise and Mattos, Carlos de
processes of urban regeneration and gentri-
(dirs.), Chile: Pontificia Universidad Católica de
fication, along with the large supply of hous- Chile. [Doctoral Thesis].
ing available in the suburbs, have resulted Cooke, Thomas J. (2010). “Residential Mobility of
in contrasting dynamics of a centralization the Poor and the Growth of Poverty in Inner-Ring
of wealth and a suburbanization of poverty. Suburbs”. Urban Geography, 31(2): 179-193. doi:
Although these dynamics were still just in- 10.2747/0272-3638.31.2.179
cipient in the period we have examined, cur- Díaz-Orueta, Fernando (2012). “Periferias urbanas y
rently Spain’s main cities are located within reconfiguración de las políticas urbanas en Es-
a similar framework as the world’s major cit- paña”. Gestión y Política Pública, 21: 41-81.
ies in terms of urban social problems (Cook, Díaz-Parra, Ibán (2009). “Procesos de gentrificación
2010; Hochstenbach and Musterd, 2018). en Sevilla en la coyuntura reciente. Análisis com-
parado de tres sectores históricos: San Luis-Ala-
The continuance of housing polices that fed
meda, Triana and San Bernardo (2000-2006)”.
the real estate boom (Leal and Martínez, Scripta Nova: Revista Electrónica de Geografía y
2016), the deepening of gentrification proc- Ciencias Sociales, 13(304).
esses (Janoschka, 2018), along with new Donat, Carles (2010). “La incidencia de las dinámi-
processes of touristification that affect cen- cas demográficas en las necesidades residen-
tral cities (Sequera, 2013), seem to suggest ciales y en la oferta de vivienda en la Región Me-
that, far from slowing down, these trends tropolitana de Barcelona”. Ciudad y Territorio.
shaping a dual city could speed up in the fu- Estudios Territoriales, 174: 1-18.
ture. Lastly, the forgotten medium-sized and Duhau, Emilio (2003). “División social del espacio
small cities should be mentioned. While the metropolitano y movilidad residencial”. Papeles
de Población, 9(36): 161-210.
largest cities are now immersed in seemingly
Feria, José M. (2010). “La movilidad residencial y
irresoluble processes of dualisation and seg-
los procesos de urbanización metropolitanos
regation, it may not be too late to succeed in
en España”. In: Feria, J. M. and Albertos, J. M.
shaping more socially just and integrated cit- (coords.). La ciudad metropolitana en España:
ies among those of smaller sizes. procesos urbanos en los inicios del siglo xxi .
Madrid: Thompson-Routers.
Feria, José M. (2013). “Towards a Taxonomy of
Bibliography Spanish Metropolitan Areas”. Boletín de La Aso-
ciación de Geógrafos Españoles, 63: 349-378.
Alberich, Joan (2010). “La metropolitanització del doi: 10.21138/BAGE.1618
territori català: una anàlisi a partir dels espais de Feria, José M. and Martínez, L. (2016). “La defini-
vida de la población”. Treballs de la Societat Ca- ción y delimitación del sistema metropolitano
talana de Geografía, 69: 39-65. español. Permanencias y cambios entre 2001 y
Antolín, Enrique; Fernández-Sobrado, José M. and 2011”. Ciudad y Territorio. Estudios Territoriales,
Lorente-Bilbao, Eneko (2010). “Estrategias de re- 48(187): 9-24.
generación urbana y segregación residencial en Fernández, Miquel (2014). Matar al chino. Entre la
Bilbao: apariencias y realidades”. Ciudad y Terri- revolución urbanística y el asedio urbano en el
torio. Estudios Territoriales, 42(163): 67-81. barrio del Raval de Barcelona. Barcelona: Vi-
Cadwallader, Martin T. (1992). Migration and Resi- rus.
dential Mobility: Macro and Micro Approaches. Fishman, Robert (1987). Bourgeois Utopias: The
Wisconsin: Wisconsin University Press. Rise and Fall of Suburbia. New York: Blackwell.
Cheshire, Paul (1995). “A New Phase of Urban De- García-Pérez, Eva (2014). “Gentrificación en Madrid:
velopment in Western Europe? The Evidence for de la burbuja a la crisis”. Revista de Geografía
the 1980s”. Urban Studies, 32(7): 1045-1063. doi: Norte Grande, 91: 71-91. doi: 10.4067/S0718-
10.1080%2F00420989550012564 34022014000200005
Reis. Rev.Esp.Investig.Sociol. ISSN-L: 0210-5233. N.º 176, October - December 2021, pp. 35-58You can also read
