.Metropolisation & PolycentricDevelopment in Central Europe

Development of Urban Regions in Europe:Key Drivers & PerspectivesESPON Seminar: European Territorial Evidence for EU Cohesion Policy and Programming13-14 June 2012Aalborg, Denmark

Rudolf Giffinger

THE POLYCE PROJECTPartners – Objectives - Analytical Framework

Results - Conclusions - Recommendations

PartnersLead Partner

• Vienna University of Technology

Project Partners• University of Ljubljana• Slovak University of Technology Bratislava• University of Szeged• Czech Technical University in Prague• University of Prague• CEPS - Centre for Populations, Poverty and Public Policy Studies, Luxembourg• Politecnico di Milano

Stakeholder Cities• Bratislava, Budapest, Ljubljana, Praha, Wien

Project Duration• 10/2010 - 06/2012

Relation between metropolisation and polycentric development

• Understanding metropolisation and polycentric development

• Influence on urban growth and positioning• Impact on competitiveness and inclusion

Practical knowledge• Characteristics of metropolitan development• Strengths and weaknesses as urban preconditions • Most relevant activities (stakeholder discussion)• Governance initiatives & Metropolitan strategies• Polycentric situation in the Danube Region

Recommendations for future urban development• For the 5 metropolises as part of Central Europe• Evidence and place based strategic activities within and

between metropolises• for competitive and inclusive development

• First recommendations for the wider Danube Region

3 Objectives

Analytical FrameworkModelling urban size and metropolisation

Cost & benefit functions regarding size (n = 59 metropolises)Identifying most relevant factors and assessing preconditions for growth

Metropolitan profilesCharacteristics describing urban development (n=50 metropolises)Discussing their meaning as strengths and weaknesses

Polycentric structures: Morphological & relational | micro, meso, macroDefinition and delimitation of 5 metropolisesDescribing and assessing polycentric features

Actor surveyAssessing urban development trends and future perspectivesElaborating cooperative initiatives for metropolitan development

5 workshops: discussion and expertise on thematic fieldsElaborating perspectives, activities, metropolitan agendas

Comparison of agendas and planning documentsJoint activities, programmes, documents supporting cooperative activities

-1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5

Economic Performance

Entrepreneurship

Knowledge-based Economy

Labor Market

R&D Funding

Internationl Embeddedness

Structural Disparities

Demography

Education

Ethnic Diversity

Public transport

Commuting

International Accessibility

Availability of ICT

Land Use

Environmental Conditions

Pollution

Resource Consumption

Environmental Quality

Cultural Facilities

Health Facilities

Housing

Touristic Attractivity

Safety

Urban Services

Metropolitan Area Wien

Note: The represented deviations from the sample’s average result from selected indicators that may not draw a comprehensive picture of each factor’s performance within the metropolitan area. Underlying indicators comprising these factors are listed in the annex to this report chapter 10.1: ‘Metropolitan profiles: underlying structure’).

Economy People Mobility Environment Living

The concept of metropolisation

6

• A process of comprehensive urban restructuring• Based on a city’s ability to compete with others• Specific metropolitan functions• An area, where functional, structural, and strategic issues intersect administrative

borders

Specific aspects of the process• Concentration of (new) economic functions and population• Node in global networks• Knowledge intensive economic activities• Allocation of specialized functions as driving forces

Urban size and metropolisation Metropolitan profiles

Urban size and metropolisation

7

Wien

Graz

Linz

Liège

Sofia

Praha

Berlin

Hamburg

MünchenFrankfurt am Main Stuttgart

Dresden

BremenHannover

MagdeburgFreiburg im Breisgau

Regensburg

Erfurt

Copenhagen

Tallinn

Madrid

Barcelona

ValenciaSevilla

Zaragoza

Helsinki

Paris

Lyon

Toulouse

Bordeaux

Athina

Budapest

RomaMilano

Napoli

Torino

GenovaFirenze

BolognaVilnius

Riga

Amsterdam

Rotterdam

Utrecht

Groningen

Warszawa

Lodz

Wroclaw

Szczecin

Lisboa

Porto

Bucuresti

Stockholm

Ljubljana

Bratislava

London

Glasgow

Edinburgh

Belfast

y = 0.9997x + 0.0048R² = 0.7412

12.00

12.50

13.00

13.50

14.00

14.50

15.00

15.50

16.00

16.50

12.00 12.50 13.00 13.50 14.00 14.50 15.00 15.50 16.00

Log

rea

l pop

ulat

ion

Log predicted population

Database:

- 59 LUZ (Larger Urban Zone / Urban Audit)

-12 indicators (ESPON FOCI, UA, CORDIS, etc.)

Measuring the relationship between urban size with urban costs and benefits of European cities

Database & General findings through econometric analysis

Positive impact•Metropolitan power functions•Micro-level polycentricity

Urban size and metropolisation: findings

8

Preconditions indicating chances and risks for future growth

•Bratislava, Ljubljana: potential for further urban growth

•Budapest, Wien, Praha: Metropolitan functions < urban size

Results for POLYCE metropolises

Metropolitan profiles

9

Research questions:•What do the metropolitan profiles of the five POLYCE metropolises look like? •Do they show any decisive similarities or differences between each other and among a wider sample of European metropolises? •Which factors are regarded as drivers for further metropolitan development?

Details of empirical research•50 metropolises•Different European data bases (ESPON, EUROSTAT, URBAN AUDIT)•Data reflect the situation before year 2008•Definition of 123 indicators 25 factors 5 key characteristics

ECONOMY PEOPLE

Economic Performance

Entrepreneurship

Knowledge-based Economy

Labor market

R&D Funding

International Embeddedness

Structural Disparities

Demography

Education

Ethnic Diversity

MOBILITY ENVIRONMENT

Public transport

Commuting

International Accessibility

Availability of ICT

Land Use

Environmental Conditions

Pollution

Resource Consumption

Environmental Quality

LIVING

Cultural facilities

Health facilities

Housing

Safety

Touristic Attractivity

Urban Services

Metropolitan Profiles

10

Western European metropolises dominate Praha best performing under accesion countries

Living conditions show relative best valuesUnequal profiles as outcome of spezialisationWien shows relativ best performance

5 metropolises

The concept of polycentricityPolycentric urban systemSeveral urban nodes (=cities) linked through functional relations

Polycentricity in governance approachesEnhancement of mutual interests, complementarities, synergies and potentials for collaboration

Functional relationsIntra-urban (micro) levelInter-urban (meso or macro) level

Core City (CC)Capital cities in their administrative delimitation

Functional Metropolitan Area (FMA)Daily urban system (area of intensive commuting to work)

Metropolitan Region (MR)Wider economic region reflecting the territorial networks of a city’s economy (meso level)

Polycentricity FindingsMicro level

• Delimitation of a regional model defining the metropolises for POLYCE

• Analysis• Morphological: workplaces, population• Functional: commuters• Strategic: planning documents

Results• Unequal in morphol. & functional polyc.• National command and control centers• Competition between local authorities for

business and infrastructure investments • (unequal) lack of coordinated spatial planning

at metropolitan level• Bratislava – Wien as Twin metropolises?

Polycentricity FindingsMeso- & Macro level

• Functional relations• Travel time (railway)• Research networks (CORDIS)• FIRE firm networks (GaWC)• Google: mutual web search queries

Results• Strong relations: Wien, Budapest, Praha• Competitors for business investments• Strive for becoming gateways and

supranational centers• No vision for cooperating CE-metropolises

(hardly any ideas for common activities)

• Lack of strategic cooperation

1. Polycentric relations between metropolises differ stronglyCities consider polycentric development differently (depending on geographic position and function)

micro: different experiences with urban-regional strategic endeavors meso: Lack of strong common polycentric vision and activities between all 5 metropolises

2. Metropolitan power functions and polycentricity …… positive impact on demographic growth of metropolitan areas… urban sprawl as a negatively influencing factor

Lack of polycentric development will negatively influence further demographic or economic growth Metropolises are differently affected according to their pre-conditions

3. Metropolitan profiles indicate challenges/chances of smart metropolitan developmentA specialization in distinct fields of metropolitan development is observable

Discussion of quantitatively described strengths and weaknesses against stakeholders‘ perception indicating the need for more comparative studies and information exchange

Profiles and stakeholder discussions indicating specific assets for positioning and strategic endeavors

General Findings

HOW TO ADDRESS CHALLENGES & POTENTIALS?

Recommendations from POLYCE

Policy Framework

Polycentricity

Inclusion

Competitiveness

SmartMetropolitan Development

Technological Innovations

Economic Restructuring Sociodemographic

Processes

Governance

Metropolisation

Evidence and place-based approach• strengthening territorial cohesion through polycentric development• coordination of activities regarding competitiveness & inclusion

• New definitions of metropolitan regions

• Stakeholder cooperation within metropolitan regions

• Relational capital through improved conditions of cooperation

• Balanced strategies (competitive/inclusive) on the basis of metropolitan profiles

• Include other metropolises in the Danube Region in cooperative activities

• 5 POLYCE metropolises serve as good practice for strategic endeavors with attractive potential partners to which single relations already exist

• The Danube Region Strategy offers distinct possibilities

Recommendations for Smart Metropolises

THANK YOU!

www.polyce.eu