Who Captures the Value of Urban Growth?
A CTD case study on land value capture in Bratislava’s CMC Petržalka development area
Urban planning creates land value. This CTD case study examines how Amendment No. 10 to Bratislava’s Master Plan changed the development potential of CMC Petržalka, how much of the resulting land value increment was captured for public benefit, and why, according to the study’s qualified estimate, Bratislava captured only around 8.5 to 10 percent of the publicly created value in the analysed case. It raises a broader question for growing cities: how can planning-created value be measured, valued and returned to the public in support of a higher quality of urban life?
Published by Centre for Territorial Development
December 2025
Key Figures
The study asks a simple question: when a public planning decision increases land value, how much of that value is returned to the city, the district and the area where it was created?
Using CMC Petržalka as a case, the analysis estimates the land value increment created by Amendment No. 10 to Bratislava’s Master Plan and compares it with the value captured through developer contributions, the development fee and affordable housing commitments.
8.5 – 10%
Estimated share of publicly created value captured in the analysed case
According to the study’s qualified estimate, Bratislava captured only a small share of the value created by the planning change.
€118 – 446 million
Estimated value capture gap
If the city aimed to capture 20 to 40 percent of the value created, the estimated gap would amount to €118 to €446 million in potential public value.
+33%
Increase in development intensity after Amendment No. 10
The increase in the floor area ratio changed the scale of possible development and created additional development potential in the area.
+81%
Increase in development-usable land resulting from the change in functional regulation
The change in land-use regulation expanded the area available for more intensive urban development in the strategic CMC Petržalka location.
Less than 2%
Social mix in the planned housing stock
Municipal rental housing is expected to account for less than 2 percent of the planned housing stock in CMC Petržalka. According to the study, this share is not sufficient to create a meaningful social mix; the remaining housing is economically positioned mainly for households with around 2.5 to 3 times the median household income in Petržalka.
One bridge or 200 homes
A weakness in the design and implementation of Bratislava’s affordable housing methodology
The planned pedestrian bridge across the Danube has an estimated cost of around €35 million. According to the study, this corresponds to approximately 200 municipal rental homes in CMC Petržalka and illustrates how the current methodology insufficiently distinguishes between infrastructure benefits and the goal of affordable housing.
In Brief
The CMC Petržalka case study shows that urban planning is not only a technical tool for regulating development. It is also a mechanism through which public decisions create public value. By changing the intensity and land-use regulation of the area, Amendment No. 10 to Bratislava’s Master Plan significantly increased its development potential. The central question of the study is whether the public benefit captured in return is proportionate to the economic effect of that decision.
According to the study’s qualified estimate, Bratislava captured around 8.5 to 10 percent of the publicly created value in the analysed case. If the city aimed to capture 20 to 40 percent of the value created, the estimated gap would amount to €118 to €446 million. This represents potential public value that could have been translated into affordable housing, infrastructure and public spaces.
The study also points to a structural weakness in Bratislava’s current affordable housing methodology: it is based primarily on additional floor area, rather than on the land value increment created by planning decisions. In strong development locations, this creates a risk that the city undervalues the value it creates and fails to return it systematically to the public benefit.
The relevance of the analysis extends beyond CMC Petržalka. If Bratislava is to strengthen quality of life through future strategic planning decisions, it needs a transparent, value-oriented framework that connects urban planning, land economics and public finance.
How the Study Estimates the Land Value Increment
The study uses three complementary scenarios. Scenarios A and B estimate the land value increment created by Amendment No. 10 to Bratislava’s Master Plan in CMC Petržalka. Scenario C serves as a reference method, showing how land value increments can be assessed when more detailed market, cost and project-level data are available.
Scenario A: Increased Development Intensity
This scenario estimates the land value increment resulting from the increase in the floor area ratio from 1.8 to 2.3. This represents an increase of more than 33 percent in permitted development intensity.
Scenario B: Change in Land-Use Regulation
This scenario estimates the land value increment associated with the change in land-use regulation. In selected functional categories, Amendment No. 10 increased development-usable land by more than 81 percent.
Comparison with Captured Value
The results of Scenarios A and B are compared with the value captured by the city through developer contributions, the development fee and affordable housing commitments.
Scenario C: Reference Residual Land Value Method
Scenario C presents residual land value analysis as a reference method for more advanced assessment of land value increments. Using the example of Gowanus in New York City, it shows how the value created by a public planning decision can be assessed when more detailed market, cost and project-level data are available.
What the Findings Show
1. Public decisions created measurable land value
Amendment No. 10 increased the development potential of CMC Petržalka through higher development intensity and changes in land-use regulation. The study shows that these public planning decisions had a direct economic effect on land value.
2. The public return was limited
According to the study’s qualified estimate, Bratislava captured around 8.5 to 10 percent of the publicly created value in the analysed case. Compared with the international reference levels used in the analysis, this represents a low share of public return.
3. The current formula measures floor area, not value
Bratislava’s affordable housing methodology is based mainly on additional gross floor area, rather than on the land value increment created by planning decisions. This weakens the city’s ability to capture the economic effect of its own decisions.
4. Without affordable housing, there is no meaningful social mix
Municipal rental housing is expected to account for less than 2 percent of the planned housing stock in CMC Petržalka. Based on an affordability assessment using median household income, the remaining housing is economically positioned mainly for households with around 2.5 to 3 times the median income in Petržalka. This raises the question of whether the area is becoming an inclusive 15-minute city, or rather an exclusive district of short distances. In the context of Bratislava’s housing affordability crisis, a symbolic share is not enough; the regulated housing segment needs to be significantly stronger.
5. The CMC case reveals a wider gap in urban policy
Without a transparent and value-oriented framework for land value capture, future planning decisions may continue to create significant public value without ensuring that a fair share is systematically returned to the public benefit.
Why This Matters
Land value capture is not a technical detail of urban planning. It is a way to connect public decisions, land economics and public benefit in support of better urban development.
1. Urban planning is also a financial tool of the city
Decisions about development intensity and land use do not only define urban form. They also create economic value. If the city cannot measure and capture that value, it loses resources for its own development.
2. Public benefit should reflect the scale of the public decision
Major planning changes should not be assessed only through square metres or formal contributions. The key question is whether the public return is proportionate to the value created by the city’s decision.
3. Affordable housing is not a side effect of development
If new urban districts fail to create a social mix, fragmented urban growth can deepen social segregation. High-quality urban development must connect development intensity with housing affordability and public benefit.
4. Future brownfields will test Bratislava’s strategic capacity
CMC Petržalka is not an isolated case. Similar questions will arise in other transformation areas. Bratislava therefore needs a transparent, value-oriented framework that is predictable for both the public and private sectors.
Download the Poster
What does the value capture gap mean in practice?
The CTD poster summarises the key figures, the value capture mechanism and the public implications of the CMC Petržalka case. It visually explains how a public planning decision creates land value, how much of that value is returned to public benefit, and why Bratislava needs a more modern framework for major development areas.
Publication Details
Full title
Evaluation of Land Value Capture in the Development of CMC Petržalka
Authors
Branislav Machala, Július Golej, Paulo Sandroni
Publisher
Centre for Territorial Development
Place of publication
Bratislava, Slovakia
Year of publication
2025
Language
Slovak and English
Format
print, PDF and HTML
ISBN
ISBN 978-80-975224-0-7 (print)
ISBN 978-80-975224-1-4 (PDF)
ISBN 978-80-975224-2-1 (HTML)
Recommended Citation
Machala, B., Golej, J. and Sandroni, P. (2025): Evaluation of Land Value Capture in the Development of CMC Petržalka. Bratislava: Centre for Territorial Development.
Copyright and Permissions
Copyright © 2025 Centre for Territorial Development. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced or distributed without the prior written permission of the Centre for Territorial Development, except for short quotations used in accordance with copyright law and with proper bibliographic reference.
Requests for permission to reproduce, distribute or otherwise use the content should be addressed to info@ctdonline.org.
This publication may contain third-party materials, including graphic elements, maps and photographs, whose further use may be subject to separate licensing conditions.
Disclaimer
This publication was prepared in cooperation between the Centre for Territorial Development and the City District of Bratislava-Petržalka. The views, interpretations and conclusions presented in the publication, as well as any errors or omissions, are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centre for Territorial Development or the City District of Bratislava-Petržalka.