URBACT Summer University 2013 - Masterclass - Ivan Tosics "Designing Urban Policies in an Integrated Way"

DESIGNING URBAN POLICIES IN AN INTEGRATED WAY

Iván TosicsThematic Pole

Manager

WHO ARE YOU?• RED: local politician• BLUE: city officer-practitioner• GREEN: advisor-researcher• YELLOW: private sector• WHITE: other

Urban policies in integrated way 2

STRUCTURE OF THE MASTER CLASS1. WHY is integrated development needed? 2. WHAT has to be done to achieve more integration?3. HOW can better integration be achieved?4. Discuss the problems of integration!5. Closing up

3Urban policies in integrated way

LINKS BETWEEN PROBLEMS• The main challenges of the upcoming decades:

– demographic (ageing)– economic (growing global competition), – environmental (less renewable energy sources, more carbon

produced) – socio-spatial (migration with growing inclusion problems,

growing inequalities within society)

• All these challenges have to be handled AT ONCE


http://www.google.hu/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ruhrnachrichten.de/storage/scl/mdhl/fotostrecken/lokales/rn/dortmund/lokales/mitte/2011/02-2011/plovdiv1/2297054_m0w756h504q75v3295_zzdo-Plovdiv_und_Stolipinovo_Roma_Dortmund_Delegation_Foto_Bandermann_113.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ruhrnachrichten.de/bilder/fotostrecken/detail/cme103626,2297068&h=501&w=756&sz=91&tbnid=V5DM4OXQ8AePpM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=136&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dstolipinovo%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=stolipinovo&docid=_N_z3FGViDXXoM&hl=hu&sa=X&ei=lNwJT_-sKbOL4gTv1JUJ&ved=0CH8Q9QEwCg&dur=12920

http://www.google.hu/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ruhrnachrichten.de/storage/scl/mdhl/fotostrecken/lokales/rn/dortmund/lokales/mitte/2011/02-2011/plovdiv1/2297054_m0w756h504q75v3295_zzdo-Plovdiv_und_Stolipinovo_Roma_Dortmund_Delegation_Foto_Bandermann_113.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ruhrnachrichten.de/bilder/fotostrecken/detail/cme103626,2297068&h=501&w=756&sz=91&tbnid=V5DM4OXQ8AePpM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=136&prev=/search?q=stolipinovo&tbm=isch&tbo=u&zoom=1&q=stolipinovo&docid=_N_z3FGViDXXoM&hl=hu&sa=X&ei=lNwJT_-sKbOL4gTv1JUJ&ved=0CH8Q9QEwCg&dur=12920





MONO-SECTORAL ANSWERS ARE PROBLEMATIC• For each challenge „best” solution(s) can be found

– Apply most modern technologies– Eliminate energy inefficient housing– Create new housing areas for the poorest– Develop urban areas in compact way– Concentrate support on the most excellent regions– Regulate migration

• However, these „best” solutions create huge externalities (negative outcomes) regarding the other challenges


Urban policies in integrated way

INTEGRATED ANSWERS ARE NEEDED• Instead of mono-sectoral („best” for the given sector)

interventions integrated answers are needed • The smart, sustainable and inclusive aspects of growth have

to be linked to each other• However, there are strong interests against integrated

planning: – „opportunity planning” in east-central European countries

(subordinate urban development to investors)– „revanchist regeneration” (making inner cities attractive in

order to maximize tax incomes) in western Europe– free market led development without planning and public

control (Spanish and Irish examples)


CRISIS MAKES INTEGRATION NOT EASIERNovelties of the present situation:•for a number of years there will be no economic growth

– and even later the present form of economic growth will be questioned as sacrifying the scarce environmental resources and increasing socio-spatial inequalities

•the capacities of the public sector will be – for long time – much more limited than so far•the tolerance level of the people (regarding inequalities and democracy deficits) is sharply decreasing


Large drop in public resources makes difficult to continue earlier welfare and development policies

STRUCTURE OF THE MASTER CLASS1. WHY is integrated development needed?

2. WHAT has to be done to achieve more integration?

3. HOW can better integration be achieved?4. Discuss the problems of integration!5. Closing up


TYPES OF INTEGRATION POLICIES• between policy areas (horizontal, in terms of policy

management), coordinating the policy fields• between neighbouring municipalities (territorial, in

terms of geography), allowing for cooperation in functional urban areas

• between different levels of government (vertical, in terms of government), allowing for multi-level governance


INTEGRATION BETWEEN POLICY AREAS• Avoiding silos • All sectoral decisions should be controlled regarding their

effects on other sectors• Needs strong initiatives:

– policy schemes (national, regional or local) for integrated planning; – appropriate tools (for investments, for management); – special organizations managing the integrated process; – citizen participation

Integrated development might require sub-optimal solutions along each dimension in order to reach good balance between all dimensions


EXAMPLES ON POLICY INTEGRATION• Neighbourhood regeneration: improving the physical

environment with measures helping local people into jobs and promote social and cultural cohesion– Duisburg area with 13 th people (RegGov; URBACT Results:54)

• Neighbourhood management: to bring local services together to address long-standing problems in the area. Participation of local communities is crucial.– Nijmegen Integrated Community Centre, with joined-up plan

‚Behind the front door’ to address anti-social behaviour (CoNet; URBACT Results:55)


COORDINATION BETWEEN MUNICIPALITIESCooperation between neighbouring municipalities in functional urban areas is crucial to•avoid the negative effects of competition (investments, services, taxes) between local authorities •help to integrate policies – economic, environmental and social challenges can best be addressed at once on broader urban level •reach the economy of scale – size matters in economic terms and in services However, functional urban areas are undefined and usually weak in administrative-political sense


CITIES (million) Admin city MUA/city FUA/city

London 7,43 1,1 1,8

Berlin 3,44 1,1 1,2

Madrid 3,26 1,5 1,6

Paris 2,18 4,4 5,1

Budapest 1,70 1,2 1,5

Vienna 1,60 1,0 1,6

Lisbon 0,53 4,4 4,9

Manchester 0,44 5,0 5,8

Liverpool 0,44 2,7 5,1

Katowice 0,32 7,1 9,5

Lille 0,23 4,1 11,3

…

AVERAGE (40 cities) 42.63 mill 1,7 2,3Sources: ESPON, 2007: Study on Urban Functions. ESPON Study 1.4.3 IGEAT, Brussels. Final Report March 2007 www.espon.eu City population: http://www.citypopulation.de

http://www.espon.eu/

http://www.citypopulation.de/

Territorial levels around Budapest

Popula-tion

(million)

Administrative status

Functional importance

Budapest municipality

1.7 local government

Agglomeration of Budapest

2.5 none (statistical unit)

job market, housing market,

infrastructure

Region of Budapest

2.9 NUTS II planning level

none

Economic area of Budapest

4.0 none economic area (investors)

OECD delimitation of functional urban areas

• OECD identification of FUAs– population grid from the global dataset Landscan (2000). Polycentric cores

and the hinterlands of FUAs identified on the basis of commuting data, including all settlements from where at least 15% of the workers commute to any of the core settlement(s).

• OECD defined four categories (total functional urban area): – small urban areas with a population of 50 – 200 thousand; – medium-sized urban areas (200 – 500 thousand), – metropolitan areas (500 thousand – 1,5 million); – large metropolitan areas (above 1,5 million population).

• 29 OECD countries: 1175 functional urban areas. Public database: www.oecd.org/gov/regional/measuringurban

• European OECD countries: 659 functional urban areas (29 large metropolitan areas and 88 metropolitan areas).

http://www.oecd.org/gov/regional/measuringurban

European OECD Countries

Large metro-

politan area

(1,5 mill - )

Metropolitan area

(0,5 mill-1,5 m)

Medium sized urban

area

(200 th–500)

Small urban area

(50 th– 200 th)

SUMM Share of population in

FUAs (%)

Austria 1 2 3 - 6 56,5Belgium 1 3 4 3 11 58,9Czech Rep 1 2 2 11 16 45,6Denmark 1 3 - - 4 53,8Estonia - 1 - 2 3 55,3Finland - 1 2 4 7 49,7France 3 12 29 39 83 62,8Germany 6 18 49 36 109 64,3Greece 1 1 1 6 9 49,8Hungary 1 - 7 2 10 49,7Ireland - 1 1 3 5 50,3Italy 4 7 21 42 74 50,8Luxembourg - - 1 - 1 80,2Netherlands 1 4 11 19 35 72,1Norway - 1 3 2 6 44,5Poland 2 6 16 34 58 55,2Portugal 1 1 3 8 13 53,9Slovak Rep - 1 1 6 8 36,9Slovenia - 1 1 - 2 39,1Spain 2 6 22 46 76 62,7Sweden 1 2 1 8 12 52,7Switzerland - 3 3 4 10 55,6UK 3 12 44 42 101 73,0SUMM 29 88 225 317 659

COORDINATION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT LEVELS• Multilevel governance means sharing responsibilities

between different levels of government • Rationale: higher levels of government are concerned

with outcomes at the lower level, agreeing in co-assignment of responsibilities

• Cities can strive for more integration, BUT cities can not achieve the most important goals without regional and national frameworks

• Examples:– Law on Communaute Urbain (France)– New Deal for Communities (UK, …)


THE FRENCH ‘URBAN COMMUNITIES’• Created by the French Parliament in 1966 as compulsory

settlement associations in metropolitan areas of Bordeaux, Lille, Lyon and Strasbourg.

• 1999 Chevenement law: strengthening the roles of settlement associations while keep them voluntary to create– 2009: 16 urban communities in France with a combined population

of 7,5 million inhabitants. All urban areas in France over half million inhabitants are urban communities, except for Paris.

• Purpose: to achieve cooperation and joint administration between large cities and their independent suburbs.

• Urban communities are voluntary in their creation. However, if created, broad range of compulsory functions and single business tax regime are compulsory.


PROGRAMME FOR THE POOREST COMMUNITIESEngland: New Deal for Communities, 1998-2008•A budget of £2 billion, distributed over 10 years, was allocated to 39 areas, each containing around 4,000 households. Each of the areas received around £50 million•The following key issues were set on the agenda: reduce worklessness and crime and improve health, education, and community safety as well as housing and the environment. •Implementations included collaboration between agencies or initiatives. Local partnerships were formed between residents, community organisations, local authorities and local businesses


Economy/jobs

Sustainability/energy Social/inclusion

PLL

UK/FR CZ

HU

EST

ITLV/LI

How to measure integration?

City, size

Areas around the city Functions of the different areas

Legal background

Birming-ham (1,04 mill)

1. Greater Birmingham and Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership (1,9 million) Birmingham, Solihull + 7 settlements

2. Birmingham agglomeration (2,3 mill): physically built area + 10 km green belt

3. West Midland Metropolitan County (2,55 mil): two main parts, Birmingham – Black Country

4. Birmingham Metropolitan Area (3,6 million): County + towns with 30-60 th. inhabitants including rural areas

5. West Midlands Region (5,3 mil)

1. Not clearly decided yet: may contain strategic planning, economic development, transport, culture and the creative industries, tourism and inward investment, business support, skills, the green economy and housing. Finance comes from business oriented public measures.

2. No functions

3. County: Integrated Transport authority (crosses several LEPs, containing only some part of the Birmingham LEP) under geographical reorganisation.

4. Non

5. Non

1. LEP system introduced in 2010 (local governments had the right which LEP to choose). Voluntary partnership. It has boards and working groups, members are mixture of political leaders and business leaders.

2. No organisation

3. The County was established by national law in 1974, and originally had a council. The council was abolished in 1986 and replaced by the current governance by the political leaders of the 7 districts.

4. There has never been any governance arrangements at the Birmingham Metropolitan Area level

5. The Region was just abolished in 2010.

STRUCTURE OF THE MASTER CLASS1. WHY is integrated development needed? 2. WHAT has to be done to achieve more integration?

3. HOW can better integration be achieved?4. Discuss the problems of integration!5. Closing up


HOW CAN BETTER INTEGRATION BE ACHIEVED?1. tools to achieve integration of policies2. institutional aspects (top-down view)3. participation-inclusion of citizens (bottom-up view)4. involvement of the private sector 5. who should do what


TOOLS TO ACHIEVE INTEGRATION OF POLICIESSpecial tools are needed to achieve coordination between policy areas, territories, government levels.Possible coordination tools: •area based programmes

– illustration: Budapest, Magdolna quarter urban regeneration

•strategic planning– illustration: strategic plan of Budapest

•large project– illustration: London Olympics


COORDINATION THROUGH AREA BASED PROGRAMME

• To overcome the difficulties of coordination small spatial units can be selected to focus on.

• URBAN programme (up till 2006): concentration on deprived areas.

• National examples imitating URBAN: national policy framework for deprived areas, selected on the basis of indicators. – Example: the socially sensitive urban regeneration programme

of Hungary, 2005 - onwards


A projekt terület

Nagyfuvaros utca - Népszínház utca – Fiumei út – Baross utca – Koszorú utca által határolt terület

Budapest belvárosának határán, Józsefváros középső részén

L: 12.068 fő

T: 263.800 m2

The project area

It’s bounded by Nagyfuvaros – Népszínház – Fiumei – Baross – Koszorú streets

Location: in the periphery of the downtown of Budapest, in the middle of the district 8. of Budapest

Inhabitant: 12.068

Area: 263.800 m2

Elhelyezkedés Location

Budapest, Magdolna quarter

• Strategic plan of district VIII for fifteen years (2005-2020)

• Socially sensitive urban regeneration programme:– Phase I (2005-2008): funded jointly by the Budapest and

the District 8th Municipalities – pilot project for Budapest Rehabilitation Fund socially sensitive subprogramme, 2.7 million eur total investment

– Phase II (2008-2011): ERDF funding (ROP) – key project and a model program, 7.2 million eur total investment

– Phase III – (2013-onwards) ERDF, 13 m eur total investment

• Integrated programmes: both physical and soft projects with extended partnership

Main pillars of the Magdolna I. programme

The aim of the programme is not to turn Magdolna into a rich area,but to bring back the colourfullness of Józsefváros and terminate deep poverty.

• Urban renewal: special programme for the tenants– To involve them into the renewal

• Programme for creating communities– Create a community house, give rooms for civil

organizations• Public space program

– Improve the central square (Greenkeys, Interreg IIIB)• Educational program, safety program

– De-segregate the school (from 98% to ‘normal’ share of Roma kids)

Hungarian national framework of urban regeneration

Follows the idea of EC Community Initiative ”Urban” Political commitment – IUDS incorporated in the Building Act

Strategic approach

Area-based approach

Integrated Urban Development Strategy•Strategic problem analysis•Mid-term development strategy•ANTI-SEGREGATION Programme

Intervention area 1

Intervention area 2

Intervention area N

Intervention Plan for Area 1

”Hard” components: Housing, Community facilities,

”Soft” components: Training, Employment, Community actions (Global grants)

Urban Development

Manual

Integrated approach

Main interventions of Phase II

• Hard investments– To improve housing conditions (60% of the

project): 7 condominiums, 16 social housing buildings (2 fully, 10 partially, 2 facades)

– To improve living environment: public spaces

• To strengthen local social services

• To improve the educational service

• To improve the employability of people

• To improve public safety conditions

COORDINATION THROUGH STRATEGIC PLANNING

• Strategic planning (since the 1980s): long-term concept and spatial view with frameworks, principles and conceptual spatial ideas.

• Only for strategically important parts of the city, to inject a spatial dimension into sectoral strategies, integrating economic, infrastructure and social policies in space.

• Strategic plans are usually not integrated with the regulatory aspects of the planning system and do not affect land rights, therefore they can be easily put aside if political leadership changes. – Example: Budapest. Eastern gate


PROVIDING BETTER ACCESS TO THE TRANSITIONAL ZONE BY CONSTRUCTING A NEW BRIDGE AND A RING ROAD

BUDAPEST

brownfield regeneration

residential development

centre development

green area recultivation

8 DEVELOPMENT AREAS

Danube

Heart of Budapest

Buda’s centre

North Budapest

South Budapest

East Gate project area

Urban subcentres

Line of No. 4 underground

Észak-BudapestÉszak-Budapest

BUDAPEST

Cultural axis Cultural axis 65-85 000 sqm65-85 000 sqmCulture, Culture, entertainment, entertainment, restaurant, services, restaurant, services, education, creative education, creative industries, industries, public park (tender)public park (tender)

Mixed Mixed commercial use commercial use 100-120 000 100-120 000 sqmsqmoffice, hotel, office, hotel, conference,conference,residentialresidential

Graphisoft Graphisoft Park Park R&D R&D (completed)(completed)

Mixed commercial use Mixed commercial use 35-50 000 sqm35-50 000 sqmoffice, retailoffice, retail(tender)(tender)

Residential area Residential area (completed)(completed)

COORDINATION THROUGH LARGE PROJECT• Large projects (World Expo, Olympics, Capital of Culture, …) may

be used to coordinate efforts in planning of the city or one of its areas

• The more investments arrive suddenly to a deprived area the more difficult it is to make the development integrated (involving the residents)– Example: London, Olympics. The Olympic Park area was one of the most

deprived ones in London. 65% of residents were supportive for Olympics in London. Majority also agreed that the games contributed to the regeneration of their local area. Mainly long term benefits are awaited not immediate things… Investments came to the area but not jobs which would be directly accessible by the present generation of the residents.


INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTSCooperation forms have different institutional set-ups:•with some sort of institution/office: European Grouping of Territorial Coopeartion (EGTC), Multi-Party Contracts (e.g. LEPs)•without insitutional character: Policy Platforms (EU initiated), Territorial Pacts, Local action plans, Local strategic partnerships (see Tasan-Kok – Vranken, 2011)Strategic planning process may create new types of institutions which are important to stabilize in time strategic planning ideas. For territorial (metropolitan) cooperation it might be important to create some type of institution.


City, size Areas around the city

Functions of the different areas

Legal background

Stuttgart (0,6 mill)

1. Stuttgart Region (2,7 mill) 178 municipalities

2. Stuttgart Metropolitan Region (5,3 mill)

1. Land use planning, the organisation of public transport and the promotion of the economy

2. Voluntarily tasks in the field of transport, economic development, climate change

1. Stuttgart Region (Parliament with 91 delegates) and the Stuttgart Region Association and agencies

2. Committee with 36 nominated delegates.

PARTICIPATION-INCLUSION OF CITIZENS• Participation is crucial for integrated development. • Much depends how the participatiory aspects are implied

– it can range from participatory budgeting type deep involvement till manipulation (masquerading the dominance of economic interests).

• Recent scandals, as Stuttgart21, Berlin MediaSpree, Hamburg Gangeviertel might underpin the view that no integrated project is possible without participation.


EXAMPLES ON PARTICIPATION • Participation techniques need to be adapted to local

circumstances (CoNet handbook, URBACT Results:57)– Participatory budgeting (Berlin)– Neighbourhood Mothers (Berlin)– Organize popular family events (Zabrze)– Mixed methods and use of LSG (Alba Iulia)– Encourage social innovation through NGOs, CBOs

• URBACT projects (through LAPs and LSGs) and Strategic Planning might contribute to build social capital in governance structures.


INVOLVEMENT OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR• Barcelona Strategic Plan, Rotterdam Climate Initiative: broad

involvement of major economic actors. – Might be seen as corporate planning for economic development

goals with certain social and environmental aims attached.• New (2010) ideas to involve private capital to finance

investments of public interest: ‚impact development’, re-paying private investment from the savings on public expenditures. – Social Impact Bonds: investors/funders provide the initial capital

support and the government agrees to make payments to the program only when outcomes are achieved. So in principle government pays only for success.


EXAMPLES ON PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT• URBACT projects have relatively little experience and mixed

results in private sector involvement (URBACT Results:58).– RegGov: private actors (e.g. Housing Companies) need to be

involved as LSG members into neighbourhood regeneration – Duisburg, Södertälje

– Jessica4Cities: engaging the private sector might be expensive option for certain types of PPPs

• Could visionary planners change cities with the help of investors on the basis of public sector guarantees…? Not without real citizen participation …


JACQUIER: Multilevel : yesterday, today and may be tomorrow

A building process : the role of urban and regional policies

Until nowFormer Organisation

Polarized Spaces

"Hardware" Policies

Central State

Province

Commune

Now

Transition

ThenNew organisation

Homogeneous spaces

"Software" Policies

European Union

TransborderRegions

National Regions

Metropolitan

Areas

Neighbourhoods

VectorsSustainable Urban

Development

Integrated Policies as operators for transition

Social Cohesion Policy

SDEC, INTERREGCIP URBAN, URBACT

Regional PoliticiesDOCUP OPInterreg

National IPSUD

(Big Cities programmePolitique de la ville,

Soziale Stadt, ...)CIP Urban

Area-based approaches

STRUCTURE OF THE MASTER CLASS1. WHY is integrated development needed? 2. WHAT has to be done to achieve more integration?3. HOW can better integration be achieved?

4. Discuss the problems of integration!5. Closing up


TABLE DISCUSSIONS FOR 15 MINUTESDiscuss one of the following questions in your group:•What kind of experiences, successes or failures, do you have with the different types of integration policies (horizontal, territorial, vertical)? •What kind of experiences do you have with the different types of coordination mechanisms (area-based, strategic planning, large project)? Do you have additional ideas for coordination?In each group a note-taker should be selected who will send me the notes today via email.


STRUCTURE OF THE MASTER CLASS1. WHY is integrated development needed? 2. WHAT has to be done to achieve more integration?3. HOW can better integration be achieved?4. Discuss the problems of integration!

5. Closing up


LINK TO EU POLICIES• Integrated urban development is the key to achieve the

EU2020 targets. Thus national and EU level support is needed to initiate cross-sectoral and cross-territorial planning towards green and social economy strategies.

• The new EU tools (ITI, CLLD, Horizon2020) in the upcoming 2014-2020 period can help integrated planning and development.


RegionalERDF OP

National/sectoralERDF OP

ESF OP

CF OP

Integrated sustainable urban development

City 3

Example: Member State A

Total allocationfor ITI at least 5% of Member State’s ERDF, delegated to cities

ITI

+ additional ESF and CF, if appropriate

City 1City 2City 3City 25City …

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT AND EUROPEAN POLICIES

• ITIs, led by cities, in conjunction to CLLDs, led by public-private-thirdsector partnerships in neighbourhoods might help integration in narrow functional areas– there is a need for defined boundaries and (at least

delegated) fixed institutional structure

• regional innovation strategies, led by administrative regions and Horizon2020 innovation partnerships might help integration in broader metropolitan areas– can and should be kept on flexible spatial level


NATIONAL POLICIES NEEDED• The national level is of crucial importance in initiating

integrated urban development across policy sectors, in functional areas and across levels of policy making– Good examples can be discovered e.g. in France, Germany,

Switzerland, Finnland; promising discussions seem to go on in Sweden, Poland, Norway, Belgium, UK

• Cities have to lobby (referring to the EU and to URBACT) their national and regional governments with arguments and ideas towards integrated urban development


TOWARDS MORE DEMOCRATIC DEVELOPMENTGive important role to bottom-up initiatives.However, avoid the dangers of

technical optimism – do not devolve too much power to non-political, non-elected actorslocal democracy optimism – the situation would not improve a lot “If Mayors Ruled the World”

Bottom-up initiatives should be embedded into well-defined top-down frameworks

French Urban Communities, Berlin neighbourhood fund, Hungarian Integrated Urban Development policy…


DO MORE WITH LESS PUBLIC MONEYDevelop more efficient public policies with integrating the economic, environmental and social policies:

fight against urban sprawl with densification of inner residential and brownfield areasconnect green economies to inclusive job creation (e.g. energy efficient renewal of deprived areas): GREEN SOCIAL ECONOMYuse social innovation to handle the problems of youngsters, unemployed, migrants…

Integrated strategic planning on the level of functional urban metropolitan areas could be the starting point for al this.


SHORT DEBRIEFINGPlease answer shortly the following questions on the coloured papers (and leave them on your seat):•WHITE What are your main conclusions from this session (3 most relevant messages)?•RED What are the main challenges in your context that prevent integrated urban development? •GREEN Is there anything you have learned during this session that you think you can use in your work?


Thank you for your attention!

[email protected]

Business

URBACT Summer University 2013 - Masterclass - Ivan Tosics "Designing Urban Policies in an Integrated Way"