Capstone
The city's view
The same ALMA densification, seen from the municipality. New residents bring tax but cost more in services; the city receives serviced land & a cession value, and must fund the transport, schools and health infrastructure the new population needs. Everything below reacts to the density & mix inputs. est = working estimate, not an appraised figure.
Infrastructure is not fixed — metro, tunnel and facilities scale aliquot to the resident count. But the net position still grows strongly with density, because the tax revenue on a growing stock outpaces the aliquot infrastructure and the marginal services it needs.
Residential floor area becomes dwellings, dwellings become people, people over the urbanised 2.459 km² give the population density that drives metro viability.
C · City P&L est
The whole municipal case as a P&L — what the city earns (revenue) vs spends (opex + capex), netting to the bottom line. The same money phased over time is in D · Cashflow. Bus, tunnel, schools, health & metro are city capital; IBI, IAE, IVTM, plusvalía & ICIO are city income.
What the development gives the city (cession, construction tax, recurring tax) against what it costs (operating + capital), netting to the bottom line. Full detail in the P/L table below (②).
| Recurring · €/yr | ||
| IBI — property tax (% cad · % mkt) | €0 | €0 |
| Economic activity (IBI + IAE · retail/office/hotel) | €0 | €0 |
| Waste tax · tasa de residuos (€/dwelling · mandatory 2025) | €0 | €0 |
| IVTM + terraces + vados (€/dwelling) | €0 | €0 |
| Plusvalía · IIVTNU (% built value/yr) | €0 | €0 |
| State transfer · PIE (€/resident · ingresos del Estado) | €0 | €0 |
| Current transfers · PICA + grants (€/resident · CM/State/EU corrientes) | €0 | €0 |
| One-off · income | ||
| ICIO — construction tax (% private build) | — | €0 |
| Works licence fee (% private build) | — | €0 |
| Cession · net realisable (20% of rights, built & sold) | — | €0 |
| └ gross sales of the 20% − construction − builder margin | — | — |
| Total revenue | €0 | €0 |
| Bus operating (€1.5M / line) | €0 | €0 |
| Local services & admin (€/res · water·sewage·lighting·cleaning·police·admin) | €0 | €0 |
| Green & parks maintenance (€/m²/yr · corridor + parks) | €0 | €0 |
| Infra maintenance (% of capex) | €0 | €0 |
| Total opex | €0 | €0 |
| Transport | ||
| Bus fleet — 0 line(s) (8 × €400k) | — | €0 |
| Metro (line + stations · §E) | — | €0 |
| Road tunnel (0×0 m) | — | €0 |
| Social | ||
| Schools — 0 (€5M ea.) | — | €0 |
| Health centres — 0 (€4M ea.) | — | €0 |
| Civic, sports & culture (€M) | — | €0 |
| Parks & green creation (€/m²) | — | €0 |
| Total capex | — | €0 |
| Capital transfers · co-funding (PIR · State · EU · regional metro — % of capex) | — | €0 |
| = Net CAPEX the city self-funds | — | €0 |
D · Cashflow — when does the money move? est
The same P&L money phased over the build. The P&L (C) counts the public assets the CAPEX creates; this cash view does not — it shows the funding gap the city must pre-finance before taxes & cession catch up.
CAPEX is spent on an S-curve (slow–fast–slow); operating & tax recur once delivered. The city does not get the cession up-front — it arrives in lumps as each phase completes (~3 yr each). The deepest cumulative point is the funding the city must pre-finance before the development pays it back. Flows are escalated (CPI materials/services + HPI). Absorption homes/yr → build 15 yr · each phase yr · + tail yr → horizon 30 yr
Build period is derived from density: more density → more dwellings → at a fixed market absorption rate, a longer buildout. Calibrated to real Madrid PAUs — Valdebebas (~14,000 homes) built out over ~15–20 yr, metro only ~yr 20 (2030).
E · Metro sourced
Figures confirmed by Metro de Madrid (M. D. Ortiz Sánchez, 2026): line €100–110 M/km (complete operational km), station €30–50 M (depth 25–45 m, 2–4 slabs), and a density floor of ~5,000 inhab/km² "to begin considering a metro" — looking at density alone, before technical factors. Lead time 1.5 yr design + 2.5 yr construction.
Note: 5,000 is the threshold to begin considering, not comfortable viability — Madrid's densest districts (e.g. Chamberí) exceed 30,000 inhab/km².
| Metric | El Cañaveral (neighbour) | ALMA (this model, live) |
|---|---|---|
| Residents | >17,000 now · ~37,000 full | 0 (at current density) |
| Density · inhab/km² | ~6,962 (full build) | 0 net · 0 gross |
| vs 5,000 floor | ×1.4 | ×0 (net) |
| Occupied | since ~2017 (~9 yr) | from 2027–28 |
| Metro | none — buses, no date | not on the current plan |
| Development | Homes | Residents (target) | Occupied | Metro | Waiting |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| El Cañaveral | ~14,000 | ~37,000 (>17k now) | ~2017 | none · buses | ~9 yr, no date |
| Valdebebas (NE) | ~14,000 | ~40,000 | ~2013 | Cercanías; metro ~2030 | ~13 → ~17+ yr |
| Valdecarros | 51,656 | ~135,000 | urbanising | planned ~2030+ | from start |
| Los Berrocales | 22,285 | ~58,000 | homes 2027–29 | L9 Ahijones-Berrocales ~2030 | first to get it |
| Los Ahijones | 18,724 | ~49,000 | homes 2027–29 | L9 station ~2030 | first to get it |
| ALMA (this model) | ~14,000 | ~37–40,000 | 2027–28 | not on the current plan | TBD |
How many residents the area has versus the minimum the density floor needs (= floor × 2.459 km²). Surplus = metro justified; deficit = residents still missing.
Road tunnel — schematic
Bury the main road under a deck that reconnects the new neighbourhood to the park. Deck area = length × width; cost = area × €/m².
F · Value coefficient by use
Homogenisation weight for value across uses (free-market = 1.00). Affordable/social carries a 0.50 policy weight; the city's 20% cession is taken on these weighted value units.
| Use | €/m² | Coefficient | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free-market residential | €0 | 1.00 | |
| Affordable / social | €0 | 0.00 | |
| Economic | €0 | 0.00 |