Metropolisation Polycentric Europe Development in Central Development of

Metropolisation & Polycentric. Europe Development in Central Development of Urban Regions in Europe: Key Drivers & Perspectives ESPON Seminar: European Territorial Evidence for EU Cohesion Policy and Programming 13 -14 June 2012 Aalborg, Denmark Rudolf Giffinger

THE POLYCE PROJECT Partners – Objectives - Analytical Framework Results - Conclusions - Recommendations

Partners Lead 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

3 Objectives 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

Analytical Framework Modelling urban size and metropolisation Cost & benefit functions regarding size (n = 59 metropolises) Identifying most relevant factors and assessing preconditions for growth Metropolitan profiles Characteristics describing urban development (n=50 metropolises) Discussing their meaning as strengths and weaknesses Polycentric structures: Morphological & relational | micro, meso, macro Definition and delimitation of 5 metropolises Describing and assessing polycentric features Actor survey Assessing urban development trends and future perspectives Elaborating cooperative initiatives for metropolitan development 5 workshops: discussion and expertise on thematic fields Elaborating perspectives, activities, metropolitan agendas Comparison of agendas and planning documents Joint activities, programmes, documents supporting cooperative activities

The concept of metropolisation • • 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 6

Urban size and metropolisation 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 Database: - 59 LUZ (Larger Urban Zone / Urban Audit) -12 indicators (ESPON FOCI, UA, CORDIS, etc. ) 7

Urban size and metropolisation: findings Results for POLYCE metropolises Preconditions indicating chances and risks for future growth • Bratislava, Ljubljana: potential for further urban growth • Budapest, Wien, Praha: Metropolitan functions < urban size 8

Metropolitan profiles ECONOMY PEOPLE Economic Performance Demography Entrepreneurship Education Knowledge-based Economy Ethnic Diversity Labor market R&D Funding International Embeddedness Structural Disparities MOBILITY ENVIRONMENT Public transport Land Use Commuting Environmental Conditions International Accessibility Pollution Availability of ICT Resource Consumption Environmental Quality LIVING Cultural facilities Health facilities Housing Safety Touristic Attractivity Urban Services 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 9

Metropolitan Profiles Western European metropolises dominate Praha best performing under accesion countries 5 metropolises Living conditions show relative best values Unequal profiles as outcome of spezialisation Wien shows relativ best performance 10

The concept of polycentricity Polycentric urban system Several urban nodes (=cities) linked through functional relations Polycentricity in governance approaches Enhancement of mutual interests, complementarities, synergies and potentials for collaboration Functional relations Intra-urban (micro) level Inter-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 Findings Micro 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 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 Findings Meso- & Macro level Functional relations • Travel time (railway) • Research networks (CORDIS) • FIRE firm networks (Ga. WC) • 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

General Findings 1. Polycentric relations between metropolises differ strongly Cities 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 development A 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

HOW TO ADDRESS CHALLENGES & POTENTIALS? Recommendations from POLYCE

Policy Framework Technological Innovations Economic Restructuring Sociodemographic Processes Inclusion Metropolisation Smart Metropolitan Development Polycentricity Competitiveness Governance Evidence and place-based approach • • strengthening territorial cohesion through polycentric development coordination of activities regarding competitiveness & inclusion

Recommendations for Smart Metropolises • 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

THANK YOU! www. polyce. eu