Spanish Architect Returns from China: Spain Is a Decade Behind

Returning from China to find Spain 'a decade behind'

Four years are enough for a homecoming to turn into an inventory of grievances. A Galician architect who resided in China returned, and instead of keeping silent, he published fourteen points on what he found: aging infrastructure, prices decoupled from salaries, indifferent public service, and the impression that the country functions as a set for visitors. The example that has circulated most is the Chamartín station, currently under renovation, and the T1 terminal at the airport. The result was a pond of heated responses: some signed the entire diagnosis, others countered that someone who has been away for four years loses the right to comment.

What the Spaniard returning from China says about Spain

The first block is material: much of the infrastructure has fallen behind compared to developed Asia, 'like a decade,' and there are facilities directly third-world. Regarding the cost of living, the summary is that everything is absurdly expensive and there is no relationship between salaries and prices. The second block is human: front-of-house workers with indifference and bad attitudes, to the point that someone confronted them for requesting a service.

The third is demographic and surprised more than one. The author draws attention to the absence of teenagers between 13 and 18 years on Galician streets, which contrasts with what he saw in China, where at that age they study. He closes with two nuances that his critics usually ignore: the country, he says, remains a good place to live, although with obvious problems in the capital-labor relationship and a cost of living that is too high.

Why comparing Spain with China sparks rejection

The most repeated refutation has to do with scale. China is a country rebuilt in three decades with enormous resources, so having new infrastructure would not be merit, but an arithmetic consequence of starting from zero. It is added that Chinese development goes by zones and that hundreds of millions of people still live in subsistence agriculture or in shantytowns in cities.

There are even those who go further and argue that the portrait responds to an agenda: that the author acts as a loudspeaker for an interested narrative, that he has not set foot in the country or that he simply boasts of having lived abroad. On the other side, the defense is that one can be critical of both China and Spain, and that discrediting the messenger does not refute any of the fourteen points.

Another recurring argument goes in a similar direction: those who miss visible improvements should look at how much has been done in the last twenty years and not how much remains to be done. And a third, more uncomfortable one: the Chinese advantage in public works is financed with a model that no one here wants to import.

Bumercracy, mass tourism, and slowness: the points with the most reply

The description of Spain as a bumercracy has caught on. The idea is that the country is de facto governed by a generation that bought housing at prices from another era and defends its rents above any other consideration. In the tourism field, the diagnosis is that cities have become a stage for visitors, with explicit mention of Santiago de Compostela and A Coruña and the warning of what happens in Mallorca, Alicante, or Malaga.

Complacency and slowness complete the list. The author argues that hardly any relevant changes are perceived in almost five years, while in other latitudes transformations accumulate. The response from the other side is well-argued resignation: one lives reasonably well, there is a solid base, and there is no catastrophe justifying the apocalyptic tone.

Interestingly, almost no one disputes the specific points. They dispute the right to formulate them.

Is a Chinese citizen freer in their daily life?

Here the debate turns completely. It is argued that in China an expat does not perceive the pressure a national faces throughout their life and that the degree of social control, including denial of exit from the country, has no comparison with what is here. The counter-argument is that everyday freedom is measured in other things: opening a business, circulating, buying or selling a home without disproportionate fiscal burdens.

In other words, the discussion is not about the political system, which both sides take as known, but about what each understands by freedom. There is no possible agreement with that starting point. And the detail that throws everyone off is Chinese legislation itself: obtaining nationality there is, it is argued, practically impossible, which makes return the only available option for those who settle. Because the great underlying issue is not China. It is what one finds upon returning.