Israel fits in Badajoz yet builds houses; Spain has land but stacks flats

Why Israel fits in Badajoz while Spain lacks land for villas

Spain does not have a land shortage problem. It has a problem regarding who profits from it. Israel occupies an area comparable to the province of Badajoz, sustains 10 million inhabitants, and builds kibbutzim that look like luxury subdivisions. Spain is 20 or 25 times larger yet continues to cram its people into apartment blocks. This issue resurfaces whenever Middle East conflicts bring attacked Israeli agricultural communities back into the headlines. It leaves a simple question: if the country with the most land lives worst, is the problem geography or price?

Kibbutz Magen, Ein Harod and Nahalal: low-rise homes raised in the desert

Kibbutz Magen, Ein Harod, Nir David or Nahalal share a recognizable pattern: single-family homes, gardens, greenery and space. They are located in arid zones or reclaimed from the desert, some near hot borders. The contrast used is not with Beverly Hills, but with Móstoles. And the detail emphasized is not luxury: it is that this model holds without paying speculation prices for the land.

That is where the entire thesis begins. If the kibbutz can afford detached houses in the middle of nowhere, the Spanish problem is not a lack of hectares, but the cost of placing a house on a plot. The photographic comparison between a green kibbutz and an urbanization of blocks is the striking effect that orders the argument.

The 'bite' of the land: what makes housing expensive without building it

Building is cheap. The land is expensive. That is the idea that structures the thesis: housing is not expensive because of bricks, cement or labor, but because of the land it stands on and the value gain someone charges when converting rustic land to developable status. It is described as a transfer of income between individuals: one owner charges another the difference that urban planning gifts at once.

From there comes the comparison with kibbutzim, which —according to this narrative— would not pay that premium. And from there the conclusion: if the cost of land disappears from the equation, the rest, including gardens and low-rise homes, fits within almost any average budget.

Why doesn't Spain liberalize land if there is enough terrain?

Here politics enters. The criticism points to parties blocking land liberalization in the name of the right to dignified housing, and to those arguing that land should not be touched because it is a source of revenue and control. Part of the analysis defends that there are surplus hectares and a lack of will; the opposing view warns that releasing land without planning triggers speculation instead of curbing it.

It is not just about political labels either. Developable land is a source of income for administrations and an asset for owners. Touching that piece moves too many interests for anyone to dare. It is argued that the State prefers concrete blocks —easy to assess, easy to tax— over scattered low-rise homes, which generate less fiscal benefit.

In parallel appears the non-real estate factor: the weight of pensions and public personnel. It is estimated at around 200 billion euros per block, up to 400 billion annually combining both.

• Israel: surface comparable to the province of Badajoz and 10 million inhabitants
• Spain: between 20 and 25 times larger than Israel
• Public spending attributed to pensions and civil servants: up to 400 billion a year

Tel Aviv is not cheap either: the counterexample that causes discomfort

The narrative has a sustancia ilegal. Tel Aviv has carried a notable real estate bubble for years and prices that do not match local salaries. The country of the kibbutz also has its very expensive city where no one fits. That weakens the idea that the Israeli territorial model is a paradise without nuances.

Even so, the comparison made is not between Tel Aviv and Móstoles, but between average Israeli housing and average Spanish housing. And there, the distance, it is defended, is measured in square meters and garden space. Another point in the debate adds that until recently Israel's educational results were worse than Spain's, dismantling the merit excuse as an explanation for the difference.

Some prefer apartments, and that doesn't fix the problem

Not everyone wants a villa. Some defend the center, the terrace, the café downstairs and neighborhood life, and others assure they wouldn't use the garden. It is a legitimate preference. The point is different: being able to choose. When land price decides for you, the preference —for the center or the periphery— becomes an alibi. You live where you can, not where you want.

---

If the land thesis holds, the next decade should bring pressure to release developable land and lower entry costs for housing. There are no signs this will happen soon: incentives for those charging the premium point in the opposite direction. It is likely the issue cools down until the next price surge. And returns.