Intra-metropolitan polycentricity in practice

Transcription

1 Intra-metropolitan polycentricity in practice Results from our questionnaire survey - 11 metropolitan areas Naples, Mazovia, Frankfurt/Rhein-Main, Veneto, Paris, Rotterdam, Helsinki, Emilia-Romagna, Tri-City, Saxon-Triangle, Stockholm, METREX Expert Group on Intra-Metropolitan Polycentricity Kick-off Workshop Stockholm 26-27th February 2009

2 Conceptual UNDERSTANDING of Intra-Metropolitan Polycentricity What are the key characteristics? a network of cities of different sizes which forms a complex set of different relations form of decentralised concentration activities are clustered more evenly throughout a region rather than merely being concentrated in one city a regional urban system - with a certain hierarchy (from flat to steep) functional complementarities/differentiation/ specialisation of cities at different levels

3 Conceptual UNDERSTANDING of Intra-Metropolitan Polycentricity What are the key characteristics? includes different dimensions (economic, institutional, cultural etc.) and scales (local, sub-regional, regional) different development paths result in different types of polycentricity not only an analytical concept also a promising tool for spatial planners/decision-makers a way of governing/managing complex metropolitan areas enables aggregation of potentials of each municipality - maintaining at the same time their own individual structure and identity

4 What we expect: Potential ADDED-VALUE of Intra-Metropolitan Polycentricity A tool for promoting balance, equity and cohesion (more) balanced urban structure at the regional level greater social justice fair sharing of costs and benefits - spatial solidarity reduce of excessive concentration of activities mitigate disadvantages of living in the suburbs equitable and better access to (labour) markets, services, knowledge, infrastructures etc. more efficient use of Public Transport reduction of costs for commuting/energy

5 What we expect: Potential ADDED-VALUE of Intra-Metropolitan Polycentricity A tool for promoting diversity, complementarities and growth sub-regional (more aesthetical) growth areas with an attractive set of specialised functions and an own identity diversity of places in terms of culture, landscapes, economic profiles, traditions to spread spill-over effects - a way to organise local growth to create functional nodes within larger networks

6 What we expect: Potential ADDED-VALUE of Intra-Metropolitan Polycentricity A tool for promoting diversity, complementarities and growth increase the metropolitan area s competitiveness without loosing the identity and individual features of each city to form a critical mass that enables to compete globally mobilise synergies among centres fruitful competition between different centres development corridors between centres create a unique image of the area

7 What we expect: Potential ADDED-VALUE of Intra-Metropolitan Polycentricity A tool to promote good governance a stimulus for new/more efficient forms of metropolitan governance sharing and promoting common interests between the major centre and the others better balance of power and decision-making

8 What we expect: Potential ADDED-VALUE of Intra-Metropolitan Polycentricity A tool to promote sustainable development better Quality of Life better environmental sustainability better energy efficiency/lower CO 2 emissions better redistribution of resources to combat urban sprawl - reduce further land consumption maintain open spaces and prevent degradation of the natural environment efficient waste management system

9 About YOUR WORK with Intra-Metropolitan Polycentricity Achieved results so far explicit strategy in the regional plan Polycentric thinking integrated in the adoption procedure of the regional plan through several sub-regional planning conferences Functional Nodes with different profiles for concentrated centre development are designated in the current regional plan Intra-Metropolitan polycentricity is still a relatively new concept, it has been adopted in the new strategic plan, but with reservations the concept has broadened the discussion, both from the point of view of governance, and spatially

10 About YOUR WORK with Intra-Metropolitan Polycentricity Lessons learned so far: international competitiveness demands global gateways thus a multi-functional node within the metropolitan area consistency of different plans (e.g. regional, transport, sub-regional) is crucial for intra-metropolitan polycentricity elaboration and consultation process of regional landuse plan has brought many experiences with regard to intra-metropolitan polycentricity high potential as a hidden guiding concept for sectoral planning (transport, biodiversity, economic development)

11 About YOUR WORK with Intra-Metropolitan Polycentricity Challenges (part 1): to relieve the centre by adding more functions/urban quality to current rather mono-functional sub-centres improve the transport infrastructure to assure the accessibility of the growth centres current regional plan gives new attention on the historically dense major centre (!) higher densities in the new towns to limit traffic and sprawl

12 About YOUR WORK with Intra-Metropolitan Polycentricity Challenges (part 2): combination between polycentricity and compactness ( compact polycentricty ) regeneration of the city and its identity important for striving for intra-metropolitan polycentricity new development shall be promoted through corridors which shall also help to reduce urban sprawl unfruitful competition among municipalities to create a cohesive polycentric structure requires new rail investment to the outer lying areas and to promote a hierarchical structure of regional centres

13 About YOUR WORK with Intra-Metropolitan Polycentricity Problems and Disappointments: Identifying and sustaining functions of individual centres and striving for complementarities is the goal for 20 years but the metropolitan area is still rather an aggregation of local systems enormous/unfruitful competition between centres instead of complementarities they are shaping identical profiles low level of awareness among the municipalities about the long-term challenge to implement intra-metropolitan polycentricity several municipalities give priority to other centres thus difficult to follow-up a regional integrative concept of establishing functional nodes

14 A tentative typology of our metropolitan areas: - existing degrees of polycentricity - Type 1 Characteristics: one dominant core strong hierarchy predominantly radial relations, but hardly crisscross ones Examples: Paris/Ile de France Warsaw/Mazovia

15 A tentative typology of our metropolitan areas: - existing degrees of polycentricity - Type 2 Characteristics: one dominant core less strong hierarchy criss-cross relations of different scope and intensity but the central core is the driving force Examples: Frankfurt/Rhein-Main Tri-City (Gdansk-Gdynia-Sopot) Naples

16 A tentative typology of our metropolitan areas: - existing degrees of polycentricity - Type 3a Characteristics: one dominant core relatively strong hierarchy to the secondary cores which have morphologically merged with central core predominantly radial relations, but hardly crisscross ones Examples: Stockholm Rotterdam Helsinki

17 Type 3a and 3b (almost combination of 1 and 2) Characteristics: second layer/level of polycentricity with criss-cross relations of different scope and intensity but mainly directed to the major centre Examples: Eastern Middle Sweden Randstad, Greater Helsinki

18 A tentative typology of our metropolitan areas: - existing degrees of polycentricity - Type 4a Characteristics: high degree of balanced polycentricity relatively weak hierarchy among the centre, larger inbetween areas without strong centres almost balanced crisscross relations Examples: Saxon-Triangle Veneto

19 A tentative typology of our metropolitan areas: - existing degrees of polycentricity - Type 4b Characteristics: Example: Emilia-Romagna like 4a: i.e. high degree of balanced polycentricity relatively weak hierarchy among the centre, but spatial configuration rather a band of cities almost balanced criss-cross relations, but stronger between close-by cities

20 Planning and Governance regimes structural pattern of interaction (modes of governance) tight coupling hierarchical organizations (e.g. county with formal planning competence) Club (e.g object-oriented community for land-use planning) Consensus-oriented Dialogue (e.g. regional conferences) Coalition/Federation (e.g. marketing-agency) loose coupling Multi-scalar system (e.g. city-hinterland association) Negotiation system (e.g. general agreements) Discourses (strategic alliances at best, otherwise totally informal) Projects (e.g. lighthouse projects with a limited time-frame) Source: Blatter, amended (2005:126)

21 structural pattern of interaction (modes of governance) rather tight coupling hierarchical organizations (e.g. county with formal planning competence) Mazovia Ile-de-France Veneto Region Emilia-Romagna Naples Province (part of Campania Region) Club (e.g. object-oriented association for land-use planning) Frankfurt/Rhein-Main Consensus-oriented Dialogue (e.g. regional conferences) Rotterdam Urban Region Stockholm Region Frankfurt/Rhein-Main Coalition/Federation (e.g. marketing-agency)? Source: Blatter, amended (2005:126) rather loose coupling Multi-scalar system (e.g. city-hinterland association) Tri-City Negotiation system (e.g. general agreements) Saxon-Triangle (temporary) strategic alliances (otherwise totally informal) Warsaw Metropolitan Area Randstad Holland Eastern Middle Sweden Greater Helsinki Region Projects (e.g. lighthouse projects with a limited time-frame) may take place elsewhere!

22 structural pattern of interaction (modes of governance) rather tight coupling hierarchical organizations (e.g. county with formal planning competence) Mazovia Ile-de-France Veneto Region Emilia-Romagna Naples Province (part of Campania Region) Club (e.g. object-oriented association for land-use planning) Frankfurt/Rhein-Main Consensus-oriented Dialogue (e.g. regional conferences) Rotterdam Urban Region Stockholm Region Frankfurt/Rhein-Main Coalition/Federation (e.g. marketing-agency)? Source: Blatter, amended (2005:126) rather loose coupling Multi-scalar system (e.g. city-hinterland association) Tri-City Negotiation system (e.g. general agreements) Saxon-Triangle (temporary) strategic alliances (otherwise totally informal) Warsaw Metropolitan Area Randstad Holland Eastern Middle Sweden Greater Helsinki Region Projects (e.g. lighthouse projects with a limited time-frame) may take place elsewhere!