Lisbon polished, but emptying out
Lisbon city, its municipality and its protected Metropolitan Area, in less than two decades, has been profoundly transformed, hampering its development process. The effects of the austerity crisis at the beginning of the previous decade were deepened and amplified by the “big stop” of 2020/2021, the new crisis that emerged from the pandemic. The cumulative effects of these two crises constitute a recessive cycle that supplies the entire socioeconomic structure of the metropolis, previously marked by inequalities and restrictions accumulated over a long period of time.
The choices made in this metropolis are the most decisive in defining the profile of the country’s economy and the absorption regime that intertwines the financial sector and the real estate sector, for defining the roles and functions of the State in various fields and, consequently, of the conditions for the emergence of new markets and business models. On the other hand, Lisbon, in the triple dimension that it began by announcing, which is at the center of competition between metropolises on a transnational scale.
The cross impact of urban and housing policies supporting real estate interests, the seductive package of international flows of dormant capital (accumulated waiting for a destination) and the privilege of industrial policies and expansive transport activities for tourism were decisive for the metropolis to now presents itself as the space where the country’s major problems have a deeper expression.
These findings are well identified and noted in a recent publication by the Observatory on Crises and Alternatives.
The Lisbon Metropolitan Area was, and continues to be, the most relevant stage of the country’s economic disqualification over the last decade. Continuing with activities of low added value, low limits, precariousness and inequalities, more weaknesses will be induced within the metropolis, namely in its socio-territorial configuration, and from it will emanate negative impacts for national policies.
The city of Lisbon was polished on the outside, right from the start in the spaces promoting recreational and touristic consumption. It has become seductive for those who circulate there and for strangers who seek observation and occasional kinship in it. At the same time, she emptied herself inside. Many of the people who lived there were pushed to the periphery; the vast majority of those who work there are now satisfied with commuting to and from work or having meals; the families of students who attend their universities are more exploited; only a tiny minority of young people can dream of living in Lisbon.
Part of this path was traversed with the complacency, or amazement, of a Chamber and respective president elected against the Right. At the end of the term, the people, disillusioned by feeling driven out or a secondary complement to the ludic-tourism promotion, opted to hand over the city to the Right, even with the Right without a program and preparation to govern.
At the end of the introduction to the aforementioned work, it is said that, if there is pressure, perhaps steps can be taken towards “eradicating pockets of poverty” and “situations of severe housing shortage”. Because of this restlessness.
6th Report of the Observatory on Crises and Alternatives “The Second Crisis in Lisbon – A Fragile Metropolis” | Ana Drago (Coord.) |Observatory on Crises and Alternatives/Almedina| 2022*Researcher and university professor