polycentric metropolitan areas_kra

7/28/2019 Polycentric Metropolitan Areas_KRA

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/polycentric-metropolitan-areaskra 1/85

A Strategic Knowledge andResearch Agenda on PolycentricMetropolitan Areas



A Strategic Knowledge and Research Agendaon Polycentrism

Source: Shutterstock 63084790



Polyentric Metropolitan Areas in Europe 4 5 Polycentric Metropolitan Areas in Europe

European Metropolitan network Institute

Laan van N.O. Indië 3002593 CE The HaguePostbus 907502509 LT The Hague

Phone +31(0)70 344 09 66Fax +31(0)70 344 09 67Email [email protected] www.emi-network.eu

Authors:

Dr. Evert Meijers (programme manager)Koen Hollander, MScMarloes Hoogerbrugge, MSc

The responsibility for the contents of thisreport lies with European Metropolitannetwork Institute. Quoting numbers or textin papers, essays and books is permittedonly when the source is clearly mentioned.No part of this publication may be copiedand/or published in any form or by anymeans, or stored in a retrieval system,without the prior written permission of EMI.

Contents

1 Introduction 15

1.1 From City to Polycentric Metropolitan Area 151.2 ThePolycentricMetropolitanArea:towardsadenition 161.3 Polycentric metropolitan areas: a widespread phenomenon 181.4 The need for a Practice Led Research Agenda 211.5 Methodology to develop the agenda 231.6 Structure of the Research Agenda 23

2 Polycentric metropolitan areas: key conceptin regional development policy 25

2.1 European policy context 252.2 National and regional policy context 272.3 Challenges from the EU and national perspective 28

3 Polycentricmetropolitanareas:scientic state of the art 31

3.1 Introduction 313.2 Applied European research projects on Polycentric Development 313.3 State of the art in research on polycentric metropolitan areas 333.4 Challengesidentiedbyresearchers 40

4 Polycentric metropolitan areas in Europe inpractice: viewpoints of urban professionals 45

4.1 Introduction 454.2 Selection of cities, respondents and response 454.3 Results 464.4 Conclusion: challenges for urban practitioners 54

5 Introduction to the case studies 55

5.1 Cases 555.2 Selection criteria 555.3 Structure of the case studies 55

6 Linköping-Norrköping 57

6.1 Introduction to the region 576.2 Strategies for regional cooperation and integration 606.3 State of integration 616.4 SWOT analysis 646.5 Conclusions 65

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.emi-network.eu/

http://www.emi-network.eu/

mailto:[email protected]




7 Porto Metropolitan Area 67


8 Milan Metropolitan Area 79

8.1 Introduction to the region 79

8.2 Strategies for regional cooperation and integration 818.3 State of integration 858.4 SWOT analysis 918.5 Conclusions 92

9 Tri-CityRegion(Gdańsk-Gdynia-Sopot) 95


10 Case study Mitteldeutschland 107


11 Rotterdam – The Hague Metropolitan Area 121


12Synthesiscasestudies 139

12.1 Metropolitan development strategies 13912.2 Spatial-functional integration 13912.3 Cultural dimension 14012.4 Institutional dimension 14112.5 Challenges and questions addressed by urban practitioners 142

13 Knowledge & Research Agenda 145

13.1 ‘Metropolisation’ 145

13.2 A research agenda on polycentric metropolitan areas 14713.3 Conclusion 149

14 References 151

Annex 1: List of interviewees case studies 157

Annex 2: Respondents questionnaire 161




Management Summary

Polycentric metropolitan areas –Polycentric metropolitan areas are collec-tions of historically distinct and both admin-istratively and politically independent citieslocated in close proximity and well-connect-ed through infrastructure. They have poten-tial for further integration, which would al-lowreapingthebenetsofagglomerationin

a network of cities. The coalescing of cities

into regional metropolitan entities resultsfrom either a process of ‘incorporation’,when dominant cities extend their sphere of inuenceovereverlargerterritories,there-by incorporating once independent smallercities, or, it results from the ‘fusion’ of close-ly located cities as a result of the continuingspatial scaling up of the behaviour of peopleandrms.

An increasingly dominant urban form – Using conservative standards, the numberof people living in polycentric metropolitanareas in Europe amounts to 166,6 million.This is 48,5% of the total urban populationinEurope.Atamorene-grainedspatialscale, many more such polycentric metro-politanareasareidentiable,resultingin

polycentric metropolitan areas becoming thedominant urban form in Europe.

Policy challenge – Over the past decade,polycentric metropolitan areas have becomean increasingly widespread but relativelynew policy issue at the European, nationaland regional levels. There are high expecta-tions when it comes to integrated develop-ment of polycentric metropolitan areas. Forexample, it is often assumed that the citiesconstituting such polycentric metropolitanareas are more competitive because theygain political and economic mass. At thesame time, a polycentric structure is be-

lieved to be helpful in avoiding typical costsof agglomeration such as congestion, crimeand socio-economic disparities.

Research challenge – However, researchis not conclusive as regards these assumedpotentialities. Many theories and methods inscienticresearchhavebeendevelopedwith

the increasingly obsolete image of ‘the sin-

gle city surrounded by a rural hinterland’ inmind. These theories and methods do notacknowledge the fact that metropolitan ar-eas nowadays are often formed by collec-tions of such once independent, but nowincreasingly interwoven cities. This impliesthat studying polycentric metropolitan areasrequires the development of new theoriesand perspectives. Over the last one and ahalf decade, when research into polycentricmetropolitan areas started to expand, muchof the attention of researchers has beendevoted to conceptual and agenda-settingissues. It is time to move on towards a morecritical examination of their performance inordertoarriveatempiricallyjustieddevel-opment strategies for polycentric metropoli-tan areas.

Objective EMI’s Knowledge and

Research Agenda – So far, importantknowledge questions as regards the pro-cesses at play in polycentric metropolitanareas and how these affect metropolitanperformance remain largely unanswered.EMI’s knowledge and research agenda on ‘Polycentric Metropolitan Areas’ presents themain challenges derived from the transitionfrom single, monocentric cities to polycentricmetropolitan areas and the knowledgeneeds that emerge from these challenges.Confrontation of these needs with the cur-rentscienticstateoftheartresultedina




research agenda that will help makeEuropean cities and their metropolitan areasmore competitive and sustainable, and willenhance the well-being of their citizens andtheproductivityoftheirrms.Leadingprin-cipleindeningthisknowledgeandresearchagenda has been ‘research based, practice

led’ .

Methodology – EMI’s Knowledge andResearch Agenda on PolycentricMetropolitan Areas is based on extensiveinput of both urban practitioners and aca-demic researchers. This data and informa-tion was organized by means of a variety of methods. We analysed the position of polycentric metropolitan areas in contem-porary policy strategies across Europe andstudiedthescienticliteratureonpolycen -tric metropolitan areas. A roundtable withprominent key experts (Prof. WimHafkamp; Prof. Sir Peter Hall; Mr. JaapModder; Prof. Hugo Priemus; Prof.Catherine Ross; Prof. Alain Thierstein) wasorganized during the annual conference of the Regional Studies Association. We ac-quired a broad overview of the ideas of ur-ban professionals about polycentric metro-politan areas in general, their level of inte-

gration, and the knowledge questions theyhave, by conducting a questionnaire amongthe 100 largest Functional Urban Areas inEurope. This was complemented by a morefocused and detailed series of case studies(by means of on-site visits): Linköping-Norrköping (SE), Porto metropolitan area(PT),Tri-CityRegion(Gdańsk-Gdynia-Sopot) (PL), Milan metropolitan area (IT),Metropolregion Mitteldeutschland includingLeipzig, Halle and Dresden (DE) and theMetropoolregio Rotterdam–The Hague (NL).For each case study, we interviewed 10-20

stakeholders representing government,rmsanduniversities.

Resultsroundtableandreviewscientic

literature – The roundtable and review of thescienticliteraturehavemadeclearthat

in the upcoming years much progress canbe made if efforts concentrate on (1) sub-stantiating the many claims made about

polycentricity, (2) analysing metropolitangovernance, (3) empirically exploring dy-namics in the functional geography of polycentric metropolitan areas, and (4) get-ting a better understanding of the institu-tionalisation of such regions and how peopleidentify with these. It will be crucial for re-searchers to be able to visualize the positiveand negative effects of further integrationbetween cities in polycentric metropolitanareas, and how these can have differentimpactsonindividualcities.Scienticpro-gress can only be made if and when themany theories, concepts, models and meth-ods, once developed with the in some re-spects outdated image of the monocentriccity in mind, are reframed and linked to thenew spatial reality of polycentric metropoli-tan areas.

Results questionnaire – The responserate to our questionnaire was substantial:43%. Respondents stated that polycentricdevelopment and integration between citiesare important issues that should be ex-plored and analysed more in-depth withinthe coming years. Results dispute the as-sumption that functional, cultural or institu-tional/political contexts of these metropoli-tan areas are similar. With some minor ex-ceptions, however, these differences arenot related to the location of metropolitanareas. Challenges are largely similar in

polycentric metropolitan areas all acrossEurope.

Case studies: unity in variety – The sixcase studies represent the great variety inapproaches towards (integration within)polycentric metropolitan areas. In some of

our cases, attention was predominantly fo-cused on exploiting internal potentialitiesthrough enhanced integration, while otherswererstofallseekingtoexploitexternalopportunities, e.g. achieve additional fund-ing, or a better marketing of the region. Wefound considerable differences in functional,cultural and institutional integration between ‘incorporation-type’ and ‘fusion-type’ polycentric metropolitan areas.

Case studies: Functional integration – As could be expected, the extent to which

cities in polycentric metropolitan areas areintegrated is very much dependent on the(time) distance between the cities, as wellas their sizes. Main drivers behind functionalintegration are infrastructure/transit sys-tems and complementarity. Good infrastruc-tural and transport networks between cities

are an essential precondition to achieve thebenetsofalargecityinanetworkofsmall-er cities. Complementarity, to be understoodasmutuallybenecialspecialisationsofcit-ies in polycentric metropolitan areas, limitspotentially wasteful competition, fostersintegration and eases cooperation.

Case studies: Cultural integration –Many inhabitants of polycentric metropolitanareas cognitively consider themselves partof such a wider metropolitan area, while atthe same time they feel much more

Figure I Themes that cities want to have addressed by research to help

them guide and improve future metropolitan development




attached to their own city. It appears thatstrong local identities do not hamper region-al co-operation as much as political leadersin our case study regions sometimes appearto think. ‘Symbols’ fostering identity areoften still local rather than regional symbols.

Case studies: Institutional integration

– In attempting to achieve coherent metro-

politan development strategies a number of contextual issues were found to be impor-tant. One of these issues is the relation withthe overarching regional government(s). Itis far from self-evident that the agendas of region and cities are made to be similar, butif these levels were to create a complemen-tary/joint agenda it would make a consider-able difference to the coherence. The bal-ance in importance of the different munici-palities in the polycentric metropolitan areawas found to be another important issue.The large interdependencies should preventthe larger central city (cities) from taking atoo dominant or self-interested role, whileother local jurisdictions need to be betteraware of how their performance also de-pends on the central cities faring well andthe policy agendas that lead to such a goodperformance. Institutional co-operation is

also highly dependent on political leadershipand a culture of co-operation, which takestime to build. There also is a danger of ‘over-institutionalisation’, if and when met-ropolitan cooperation and coordination startsto become a goal in itself, rather than aninstrument. Another complicating factor isthe democratic ‘gap’: local representativesneeding to think regionally, while beingelected to safeguard the local interests.Without hard research evidence on how de-cisions taken for ‘the regional good’ trickledown locally, and how regional performance

affects local performance on the long run aswell, it is hard to overcome this gap.

The challenge & solution: the process of

‘metropolisation’ – The way to truly gainpolitical and economic power and visibility forcities in polycentric metropolitan areas is toenter the upward spiral of metropolisation,move up in this spiral through fostering func-

tional, cultural and institutional integration,andhenceallowingtoreapthebenetsof

agglomeration by jointly borrowing size fromeach other. There is much to gain from aprocess of metropolisation in polycentricmetropolitan areas. Meta-analysis researchhas shown that a city double the size of an-other one is, on average, 5,8% more produc-tive. The reason for such agglomerationeconomiesarewell-dened:largercitiesal -low for a larger and more multi-functionallabour pool, the presence of better infrastruc-ture and public and private facilities andamenities. They are also more likely to ac-commodate knowledge generating institu-tions, have greater innovation potential, andtheir diversity makes them resilient. If, forinstance, Rotterdam and The Hague, agglom-erations with both about 1 million inhabit-ants, would fully integrate and subsequently

enjoythebenetsofbeingacityof2millioninhabitants, expressed in a 5.8% increase inproductivity, this would mean that the poten-tial gain of metropolisation would amount to4.5 billion euro. Yearly, that is. As these citiesare already integrated to a certain degree,and hence, also borrow size from each other,the gain would be somewhat less. But themessage is clear: metropolisation is a highlyurgentandbenecialstrategy.

A knowledge and research agenda on

polycentric metropolitan areas and me-

tropolisation – The process of metropolisa-tion provides the basis for a challengingknowledge and research agenda. Throughall the methods that were applied, EMI iden-tiedcriticalgapsinourknowledge.

Knowledge that is deemed essential by ur-ban practitioners and researchers alike. Adetailed knowledge and research agenda ispresented in chapter 13.

The process of metropolisation providesthe overarching framework for EMI’s knowl-edge and research agenda. How exactly ismetropolisation linked to performance inpolycentric metropolitan areas? How cancities enter, and move upward in the spiralof metropolisation? Which factors foster orhinder moving upwards in this spiral, andhow exactly are functional, cultural and in-stitutional integration related? How can cit-ies ‘borrow’ size from each other in order toexploit their joint critical mass? How far

have polycentric metropolitan areas movedupwards in this spiral, what have theygained, and perhaps lost, and what is left tobe gained? What are the negative effects of metropolisation, or how can the costs of agglomeration be kept limited in polycentricmetropolitan areas?In addition, research should focus also onthe individual elements of this process of metropolisation. This includes the spatial-functional dynamics in polycentric metropoli-

tan areas, such as how the roles and func-tions of cities change in a process of integra-tion. Also, the cultural side to metropolisa-tion is important and under-researched.Howdopeopleandrmsidentify,orperhaps

even feel attachment to different territorialunits, and does it, for instance, affect theirspatial behaviour? Then there is the institu-tionaldimension,whichisaboutndingef -fectiveandefcientwaystoarriveata(tobedened,andcontext-dependent)optimal

level of regional coordination and coopera-tion. The development of instruments that

Figure II The process of metropolisation




1 Introduction

1.1 From City to PolycentricMetropolitan Area

From the 19th century onwards, the classicmonocentric model of cities started tochange slowly. Cities grew massively due toindustrialisation processes. Suburbanisationstarted late in the 19th century, and wasaccelerated by rising income levels, which,

combined with the invention of, and increas-ing affordability of the automobile and othertransportation systems and the large scaleconstruction of road infrastructure, allowedto live in less dense places, where housingaffordability was higher, and typical agglom-eration disadvantages as congestion, crimeetc. were less present. During the 20th cen-tury, these processes gained ever more mo-mentum. Suburban centres developed nextto central business districts, while suburbansatellites developed next to the city. Hence,the polycentric city emerged, with a morespatially specialised metropolitan layout in-corporating many different types of centres

(Roberts et al., 1999; Hall, 2001). It is wide-ly acknowledged nowadays that all post-industrial cities are in fact polycentric (Hall,1997).

Yet, this process does not stop with theemergence of polycentric cities. Spatial dy-namics continue to scale up, which meansthat we are now entering a new phase of

urbanisation, in which sets of in itself polycentric cities start to coalesce intopolycentric metropolitan areas. Once ratherdistinct and relatively independent cities areincreasingly linked together. Hence, tradi-tional interpretations of the ‘city’ as being asingle urban core surrounded by a rural hin-terland are rapidly giving way to more re-gionalized interpretations of urbanity. Whatis urban nowadays spreads out over a vastterritory encompassing many urban andsuburban communities that once were rela-tively distinct entities but that are now in-creasingly linked together by infrastructuresandowsextendingoveranincreasingly

Figure 1 The evolution of polycentric metropolitan areas.

Source: based on Champion, 2001; adopted from Lambregts, 2009

allow for trade-offs to balance the ‘regionalgood’ and local interests will be particularlycrucial.

Invitation – EMI is strongly convinced thatconnecting academic researchers with urbanpractitionerswillcreatesignicantadded

value for both worlds. EMI aims to form coa-litions of urban practitioners and researchers

to further address this knowledge and re-

search agenda. The aim is to create a strict-ly ‘research-based, practice-led’ researchprogramme for, of and by cities, which isrmlyrootedinasolutions-orientedap-proach. EMI invites all interested cities, ur-ban professionals, umbrella organisationsand academic institutes to take part in thisprogramme.




wide metropolitan territory. This apparentcoalescing of cities into regional urbanizedentities is linked to the transition from anindustrial to a post-industrial era and assuch, can be considered the way changes ineconomic, political-institutional and techno-logical processes, most notably globalisa-tion, in our society manifest themselvesspatially (Scott, 1998; Scott et al., 2001;Phelps and Ozawa, 2003; Kloosterman andLambregts, 2007).

That we are living in ‘a regional world’, asStorper(1997)hasputit,isreectedinthe

many recent concepts that consider the citya regional phenomenon, including ‘net-worked cities’ (Batten, 1995), ‘the RegionalCity’ (Calthorpe and Fulton, 2001), ‘GlobalCity Regions’ (Scott, 2001a), ‘polycentricurban regions’ (Kloosterman and Musterd,2001), ‘megalopolitan areas’ (Lang andDhavale, 2005), ‘polycentric mega-city-re-gions’ (Hall and Pain, 2006), the ‘polycentricmetropolis’ (Lambregts, 2009), or simply ‘mega-regions’ (Regional Plan Association,2006; Florida et al., 2008; Ross, 2009) toname some of the most well-known. Allthese concepts stress two important charac-teristics of such metropolitan areas:polycentricity and strong linkages be-tween these centres.

Such an important spatial transformationcomes coupled with ‘extraordinary per-

plexing challenges to researchers andpolicy-makers alike’ (Scott, 2001b: 813).The European Metropolitan network Institutetakes up this challenge, by providing thisknowledge and research agenda that willadvance science with the aim to provideEuropean cities and regions with the bestknowledge to enable them to cope with thechallenges posed by this transformation topolycentric metropolitan areas.

1.2 The Polycentric MetropolitanArea:towardsadenition

Polycentricity is a concept that means differ-ent things to different people and tends tobe interpreted differently on different spatialscales (Davoudi, 2003). Lambregts (2009)makes a useful distinction between threerelated but yet distinct approaches topolycentricity.Therstseespolycentricde-velopment as a normative planning strat-

egy applied at national and particularly

transnational scales (see for instanceAlbrechts, 1998; Davoudi, 2003; Shaw andSykes, 2004; Waterhout et al., 2005). Thesecond considers polycentric developmentas a spatial process, resulting from theoutward diffusion of (often higher-order)urban functions from major centres to near-by centres (Kloosterman and Musterd,2001; Hall and Pain, 2006). A third ap-proach considers the spatial outcome of

this process,andintheliteraturewenda

plethora of concepts describing the resultingspatialcongurationofcontemporaryurban

areas (see previous section). Although thelabels of these concepts nearly all containthe word ‘polycentric’ in various connectionsto such territorial concepts as ‘city’, ‘urbanregion’, ‘mega-city-region’, ‘metropolitanarea’, and ‘global city region’, in practice wendgreatlydiverginginterpretationsofwhat

makes such territories polycentric, as well asdiverging approaches to measuring polycen-tricity. Here, we interpret polycentricity asthe spatial outcome of the scaled-up spatialtendencies rather than as a normative plan-ning concept.

Itiscommontodenepolycentricmetropoli-tan areas on the basis of their key characteris-tics. For instance, Hall and Pain (2006:3) de-neitas‘anewform:aseriesofanything

between 10 and 50 cities and towns, physicallyseparate but functionally networked, clustered

around one or more central cities, and drawingenormous economic strength from a new func-tional division of labour.’ Florida et al.(2008:459) simply refer to ‘integrated sets of cities and their surrounding suburban hinter-lands across which labour and capital can bereallocated at very low cost’. Kloosterman andLambregts (2001) refer to polycentric metro-politan areas as collections of historically dis-tinct and both administratively and politicallyindependent cities located in close proximityand well connected through infrastructure.

Here,weadoptthislastdenition,whichdif -fers from the others in that it allows to includeareas which have potential for further (func-tional) integration (as infrastructure is pre-sent), which implies that strong (functional)ties do not have to be present yet. This is inline with the current state of play in Europe:there are many clusters of close-by cities inwhich there is strong potential for improvedperformance, but that may not have material-ized yet due to a variety of barriers that needto be overcome.Despitethisdenitionstressingthecommoncharacteristics as polycentricity and the po-tential for strong linkages between centres,it is also necessary to distinguish two differ-ent types of polycentric metropolitan areas.The difference between them lies in the evo-lution of their spatial structure and the de-gree to what extent a dominant city is pre-

sent. Figure 1 gives an overview of both theevolution and the outcome of polycentricdevelopment as a process of spatial trans-formation.

Polycentric metropolitan areas may take theform of dominant cities extending theirsphereofinuenceovereverlargerterrito-ries, thereby incorporating once distinctsmaller cities – the incorporation mode -,or the fusion of several such polycentric cit-ies in a (at least morphologically) more bal-anced settlement system – the fusion

mode. A clear example of the incorporationmode is for instance London, that exerts itsinuenceovertheGreaterSouthEastofthe

United Kingdom (Allen, 1992; Coe andTownsend, 1998), thereby incorporatingsmaller, distinct cities such as Reading orCambridge. Similar processes occur aroundParis and Madrid to name but a few exam-ples. A clear example of ‘fusion modepolycentric metropolitan areas’ are regionssuch as the Randstad in the Netherlands, orthe central Belgian urban network that is

often labelled the ‘Flemish Diamond’ (Albrechts, 1998), where independent citieshave coalesced to form metropolitan re-gions. While both the incorporation modeand the fusion mode result in polycentricmetropolitan areas, there is a major differ-ence between the two in terms of hierarchy.The fusion mode takes place in more bal-anced regions, whereas the incorporationmode is present in regions dominated by asingle larger city-region. In terms of spatialorganisation, as well as performance, theremay be important differences between bothtypes of polycentric regions (Hall and Pain,2006; Meijers and Burger, 2010).

Figure 1 also is useful to stress what we donot mean when we talk about polycentricmetropolitan areas, which is important toavoid any confusion. Just to make sure: we

do not mean ‘polycentric city’ (phase 2), inwhich the centres are pockets of employ-ment density within cities or surroundingsatellite towns. Rather, centres in polycentricmetropolitan areas (phase 3) are constitutedby individual cities, which on a lower spatialscale exhibit all the features of a polycentriccity.1 Finally, the literature makes a distinctionbetween morphological and functional

1 EspeciallyintheUS,therstassociationof

polycentricity tends to be ‘polycentric cities’.




polycentricity (e.g. Green, 2007; Burger andMeijers, 2012). This refers to the questionwhether polycentricity is about the morpho-logical aspects of the urban system orwhether it should also incorporate relationalaspects between the centres making up theurban system in question. The morphologi-cal dimension, referred to as morphologicalpolycentricity, basically addresses the size

and territorial distribution of the urban cen-tres across the territory, and equates morebalanced distributions with polycentricity(see e.g. Kloosterman and Lambregts,2001; Parr, 2004; Meijers and Burger,2010). The relational dimension, referred toas functional polycentricity, takes the func-tional connections between the settlementsinto account, and considers a balanced,multi-directional set of relations to be morepolycentric (ESPON 1.1.1, 2004; Green,2007; De Goei et al., 2010; Burger andMeijers, 2012). Such functional relationshipstaketheshapeofinter-rmrelationships

(input-output),andconcernsowsofpeo-ple, capital, knowledge, goods etc. Again, asour starting point is the morphology of theurbansystem(seeourdenition),andnot

whether there are strong functional ties be-tween the cities already (as we do not want

to exclude those metropolitan areas), weadhere here to the morphological view.

The morphological and functional dimen-sionsconnectwelltothedenitionof

Kloosterman and Lambregts (2001) adoptedatthepreviouspage.Thisdenitionformsthe starting point for our understanding of the concept of polycentric metropolitan ar-eas, and also includes metropolitan areaswithout (strong) functional ties:

1.3 Polycentric metropolitanareas: a widespreadphenomenon

How widespread is the phenomenon of polycentric metropolitan areas? Some recentresearchprojectsmaygiveussomerst

clues. A very interesting study is the studyon ‘Metropolitan Areas in Europe’ conductedby the Federal Institute for Research onBuilding, Urban Affairs and SpatialDevelopment (BBSR; 2011), in which peaksofmetropolitanfunctionsareidentiedirre-spective of, and not departing from a given,pre-denedclassicationofmetropolitanareas.Instead,thesearedenedonthebasis of the substantial presence of suchmetropolitanfunctionsintheeldofpolitics,

economy, science, transport and culture. In

the study, 94 metropolitan areas are consid-ered monocentric, and 31 are consideredpolycentric, the Dutch Randstad being per-haps most polycentric with 7 main cores of metropolitan functions in it. Table 1 sums upthese 31 polycentric metropolitan areas:Even though the absolute number of polycentric metropolitan areas accordingto this study is smaller than the numberof metropolitan areas with one dominantlocation of metropolitan functions, thenumber of people living in these polycen-tric metropolitan areas amounts to ap-

Polycentric metropolitan areas as collec-tions of historically distinct and both ad-ministratively and politically independentcities located in close proximity and wellconnected through infrastructure, whichhave the potential for (further) functionalintegration.

proximately 166,6 million. This is 48.5%of the total metropolitan population inEurope that lives in metropolitan areas.Yet, it can be assumed that in practicethis number is even substantially higherwhen we would look at a more fine-grained spatial scale. For instanceBirmingham (generally considered to bepart of the very polycentric West mid-lands conurbation), Lille (part of LilléMetropole including also Tourcoing andRoubaix) and Eindhoven (part of polycen-

tric Brabantstad) are generally consideredto be polycentric metropolitan areas, justlike Leipzig and Porto which are present-ed in this knowledge and research agendaas case studies. In reality, we may safelyassume that the number of people liv-

ing in polycentric metropolitan areas

far exceeds the number of people liv-

ing in cities with a single metropoli-

tan core.

The ESPON 1.1.1 project (Nordregio et al.,2005) tried to get an understanding of the

potential of further integration of cities withtheir neighbouring cities. They compared na-tionallydenedfunctionalurbanareas(FUAs;

in general: daily urban systems centred onone urban core) with the number of peoplethat can be reached from the centre of theFUA within a 45 minute isochrones drive bycar (which they label ‘PUSH’ area: PotentialUrban Strategic Horizon). Obviously, if thePUSH area is much larger than the FUA area,then there is a lot to be gained (in terms of critical mass, e.g. an enlarged labour market

and more support for metropolitan functions)from further integration. In Figure 2 suchareasthatwouldbenetstronglyfromfurther

integration are coloured yellow/orange/red.In particular the red ones gain enormousweight when strengthening their relationshipswith their neighbours. Green-coloured FUAsindicate that there is not much to be gainedfrom the surrounding areas. However, as canbe seen in Figure 2, there is much to begained for the vast majority of FUAs inEurope, perhaps more for the medium-sizedrather than the largest cities.

Number of clusters of

metropolitan functions within

metropolitan area

Names of the metropolitan areas

7 clusters Randstad Holland

5 clusters Brussels, London, Paris, Rhine-Ruhr,

4 clusters Øresund (Copenhagen-Malmo)

3 clusters Helsinki, Maas-Rhine, Manchester-Liverpool, Moscow, Rhine-Main,Rhine-Neckar, Stockholm, Vienna-Bratislava and Zurich

2 clusters Athens, Barcelona, Basel, Bremen, Cardiff-Bristol, Gent, Istanbul,Leeds, Luxembourg, Milan, Munich, Newcastle, Oslo, Oxford, Romeand Venice-Padua

Source: BBSR – Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development (2011)

Table 1 Polycentric metropolitan areas according to BBSR study




Figure 2 Comparison of population gures for nationally dened FUAs and PUSH areas according to

45 minute isochrones.

Source: Nordregio et alia (2004), ESPON 1.1.1

Figure 3 Detail of a map depicting polycentric

metropolitan areas.

Source: IGEAT et alia. (2007), ESPON 1.4.3

Figure 3 presents results from a follow-upESPON project, ESPON 1.4.3 (IGEAT et al.,2007), in which a number of ‘poly-FUAs’ (polycentric Functional Urban Areas) wereidentied.Itisbasedondatafrom2002,andtheyhavebeenidentiedonthebasis

of the distance separation between cities,using a 60km threshold for cities of morethan 500.000 inhabitants and 30 km forsmaller cities, as well as the fact that theirlabour basins touch each other (see IGEAT-ULB et al., 2007, p.19).

Note that these rules prevent smallerpolycentric metropolitan areas to be identi-ed(whichdonotmeetthesesizethresh-olds), so in practice, Europe contains manymore polycentric metropolitan areas. In ad-dition to poly-FUAs, the map also includeswhat is called ‘super-poly-FUAs, which arecombinations of poly-FUAs.

What these ESPON projects show, is theenormous potential gain in critical

mass,andhenceinagglomerationbenets,

that can be achieved through stronger inte-gration in the many polycentric metropolitanareas across Europe.

1.4 The need for a practice ledresearch agenda

EMI’s knowledge and research agenda on ‘Polycentric Metropolitan Areas’ addressesthe main economic, environmental, social,institutional and governmental challengesrelated to the transition of cities towardsbecoming part and parcel of larger polycen-tric metropolitan areas. The objective is tostrengthen European metropolitan regionsby means of integrated, coordinated andoverarching knowledge. Leading principle indeningthisknowledgeandresearchagen-




da is research based, practice led , which isessential to bridge the gap between urbanknowledge and urban practice.All across Europe numerous benchmark ac-tivities take place and “best practices” areshared between cities. And for good rea-sons. Rather than reinventing the wheelagain and again, it makes sense for cities tolearn from experiences in other cities. Many

urban policies are based upon these evalua-tions of experiences in other cities. However,the transfer of policies from one place intoanotherspecicurbansettingcallforpru-dence, as different circumstances may implythat what works in one place is not neces-sarily effective in another place. Yet, thiswidespread practice of policy transfer under-lines the fact that European cities are oftenfacing similar and common challenges and calls for a more integrated approach towards addressing them.

Even though local, regional, or national in-stitutional contexts may differ, the basicchallenge posed by the transformation fromcity to polycentric metropolitan area remainsthe same across countries. The basic ques-tions and principles are similar.At the same time researchers and knowl-

edge institutions have insight into processesshaping European cities and ways to im-prove their performance, but often fail toget this across to urban practitioners andpolicy makers. This shows a potential forsolid research and improvement of the linkbetween knowledge and urban policy inEurope. We are convinced that by connect-ing academic researchers with urban practi-tionersitispossibletocreateasignicantadded-value for both worlds.

This agenda presents the main challenges deriving from the transition from monocen-tric cities to polycentric metropolitan areasand the knowledge needs of cities that comecoupled with these challenges. But there ismore. Being part of a polycentric metropoli-tan area also offers new potentialities for

cities to become more competitive for anumber of reasons:

– It allows metropolitan areas to betterexploit their critical mass in order toprovidemorebenetsofagglomerationtotheircitizensandrms,suchas

more/better services, amenitiesand an attractive living and workingenvironment;

– It provides possibilities to avoid internalcompetition and foster innovationandefciencyinordertobecome

economically more competitive;– It can help to reduce negative

externalities that come with moreinterwoven spatial dynamics, such asincreasedtrafcowsandcontradictive

land claims.

Although these potentialities are often stat-ed in policy documents, there is not yetenough insight in the ways in which, and

under what conditions, these potentialitiesmay materialize in practice. EMI’s knowl-edge and research agenda on ‘PolycentricMetropolitan Areas’ addresses exactly thesequestions: What knowledge do cities andmetropolitan areas need in order to face themain economic, environmental, social, insti-tutional and governmental challenges of thetransition of cities towards becoming partand parcel of larger polycentric metropolitanareas, and how can they reap the potentialbenetsofthistransition?

1.5 Methodology to develop theagenda

This knowledge and research agenda hasbeen informed by the extensive input of both urban practitioners and academic re-searchers across Europe. This input wasorganized through different methods. First,since polycentric metropolitan areas feature

often in regional development policies, weanalysed its position in contemporary policystrategies across Europe. This gives insightin the policy context of European polycentricmetropolitan areas.

In a second phase, we analysed the scien-ticliteratureonpolycentricmetropolitan

areas, thereby particularly focusing on theknowledge agenda as put forward by re-searchers. In addition, during the RegionalStudies Association annual European confer-ence in Delft, the Netherlands in May 2012,we organized a roundtable in which key aca-demicsintheeldparticipatedandgaveusour view on several key issues surroundingthe concept of polycentric metropolitan ar-eas. After this stage, we organized the input

from cities, or urban professionals, in twoways. First, we acquired a broad overview of their ideas about polycentric metropolitanareas in general, the knowledge questionsthey have, and the level of integration of their city with neighbouring cities by con-ducting a questionnaire among the 100 larg-est Functional Urban Areas in Europe. Thisbroad overview was complemented with amore focused and detailed series of on-sitecase studies, conducted in six differentEuropean polycentric metropolitan areas.

1.6 Structure of the ResearchAgenda

Having introduced the theme of polycentricmetropolitan areas and the objectives of thisKnowledge and Research Agenda in thischapter, chapter 2 will discuss the positionof polycentric metropolitan areas in key poli-cy documents. Here we distinguish between

European-level policies and national andregional policies. The third chapter presentsthescienticstateoftheartonpolycentricmetropolitan areas. In chapter four, we pre-sent the viewpoints of urban professionalson polycentric metropolitan areas as gath-eredthroughourquestionnaire.Chapterve

presents the six case studies that were con-ducted. A central element in these casestudies is the question to what extent inte-gration between the cities constituting thesemetropolitan areas has progressed, and howthis is fostered or hampered. All these chap-tersculminateintothenalchapter,which

is the de-facto Knowledge and ResearchAgenda.




2 Polycentric metropolitan areas: key conceptin regional development policy

Polycentric metropolitan areas took centrestage in many regional development policiesin Europe over the past 15 years. In particu-lar polycentricity has sustained as a policyconcept due to the fact that it is a ‘bridgingconcept’ that holds a promise for the manyactors involved in regional development.Obviously, the potentialities of polycentricmetropolitanareastofullseveralcommon

policy objectives relating to overarching objectives as competitiveness, sustainabilityand social equity is widely recognised. Inthis chapter we provide an overview of thepolicy context, addressing the Europeanpolicycontextrst.Thisisfollowedbyan

account of the concept of polycentric metro-politan areas in national and regional policyof European countries.

2.1 European policy context

2.1.1 European Spatial DevelopmentPerspective (1999)

TherstEUpolicydocumentwithaterritorialperspective was the European SpatialDevelopment Perspective (ESDP) from 1999.It takes on a very balanced view of spatialdevelopment: “The concept of polycentric

development has to be pursued, to ensureregionally balanced development, becausethe EU is becoming fully integrated in theglobal economy. Pursuit of this concept willhelp to avoid further excessive economic anddemographic concentration in the core areaof the EU.” The fact that the EU basically hasone economic core zone (the pentagon be-tween London, Paris, Milan, Munich andHamburg) is not considered in line with thisambition. Therefore, the creation of severalof such macro-regional ‘zones of global eco-nomic integration’ plays a key role in improv-

ing the spatial balance within Europe.On a smaller spatial scale, polycentric devel-opment must also occur within the variouseconomic core zones. These can be networksof cities of different sizes and characteristics:cross-border and transnational regions,smaller city regions or functional relation-ships between cities and their rural hinter-lands. The concept of economic complemen-

tarity is used here to underpin the need forbalanced development: cities should build oneach other’s (dis)advantages in order to beeconomically competitive. Outside the eco-nomic core zones, networks between townsand cities in more rural areas should makesure that viable markets and important (so-cial) services are maintained.

The ESDP also proposes policy measures fordynamic and attractive cities. However,these are disconnected from the polycentricequal development debate. Instead theyfocus on more thematic issues: limitingphysical expansion, promoting social inclu-sion and improving accessibility, sustainabil-ity and natural/cultural assets.

2.1.2 Recent EU policy documents onterritorial cohesion

Since 1986, the objective of cohesion policyhas been to strengthen economic and socialcohesion. The Lisbon Treaty (2007) intro-duced a third dimension: territorial cohe-

sion. Hence, territorial policy documents arenowmorermlyanchoredintothegeneral

EU policies. The Green Paper on Territorialcohesion (2008) and latest version of theTerritorial Agenda (2011) focus more on thespatial scale of cities and city regions, in-cluding their relationships with the sur-rounding intermediate and rural areas. Bothdocuments acknowledge the crucial position




of large cities as centres for economic activ-ity, but stress that a more balanced territo-rial development is necessary.

Core of the Green Paper is the analysis thateconomic activities are disproportionatelyconcentrated in urban regions when relatedto the scattered settlement pattern of theEU. Although the areas in which this activityisconcentratedbenetfromthis,italsoleads to diseconomies like pollution, crime,deprivation and congestion. While on theother hand the typical EU settlement pattern

also poses various opportunities: it avoidsthe diseconomies of large cities and can beseenasmoreresource-efcientthantheurban sprawl that characterizes large cities.Therefore the Green Paper proposes thefollowing policy measures:– Large cities should focus on reducing the

negative externalities of agglomerationandmakesureallgroupsprotfromtheireconomic activities;

– Intermediate regions are under pressureto maintain their functions and services.They should develop interconnected

use of landscape and/or environmental po-tentials.

2.1.3 Europe 2020 and Fifth Report onEconomic, Social and TerritorialCohesion (2010)

Europe 2020 represents the EU high endstrategy. It outlines three main priorities:smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.

Althoughthedocumentdoesnotspecicallymention polycentric development, the prin-ciples of polycentric development as men-tioned in the ESDP, Green Paper onTerritorial Cohesion and Territorial Agendado promote a more inclusive European terri-tory. Every three years, the EU publishes areport on economic, social and territorialcohesion, detailing progress in these areas.The Fifth Report emphasises that new pro-grammes with a particular focus on “the roleofcities,functionalgeographies,specic

geographical or demographic problems andmacro-regional strategies” are necessary forreaching the goal of territorial cohesion: itmentions the possibilities to prepare opera-tional programmes also at the level of groups of towns, and to reinforce local andregional partnerships. It also acknowledgesthat increased urban-rural linkages works

positively for the access that people have toaffordable and quality infrastructures andservices.

2.2 National and regional policycontext

Also national and regional governments arepaying more and more attention towards thepotentialities of polycentric metropolitanareas. This section discusses the increasingattention for polycentric metropolitan areas

in the national and regional context.The European Spatial Planning ObservationNetwork, ESPON, collected information onthe use of the concept of polycentricity inplans and strategies at the national levelthroughout the 29 ESPON countries. At thattime (2003), the word ‘polycentricity’ wasnot very frequently used in policy docu-ments, but several other concepts denoted

the same (e.g. balanced development etc.),therefore, spatial policies in a wider sensewere taken into account. The results of thisstudy indicated that 18 out of the 29 coun-tries pursued a polycentric development inonewayoranother.Theactualdenitionof

polycentric policy differs from country tocountry. According to ESPON 1.1.1, the mainobjectives for which polycentric develop-ment is considered instrumental are toachieve cohesion in order to diminish dis-parities between urban areas, and to en-hance urban competitiveness. In many cas-es, urban competitiveness is promoted byinter municipal cooperation, or by adminis-trative reform. The types of urban dispari-ties addressed are different from country tocountry. For example, in countries such asDenmark, Estonia, France, Ireland andLatvia the focus is on the gap between the

capital regions and the rest of the cities. InGermany, Italy, Norway and Poland thereare North-South or East-West disparities,while countries such as Finland, Greece andPortugal focus on the need to strengthen themedium-sized cities in their urban hierar-chies.

Clearly, traditional regional policies based onredistribution approaches have been re-placed in many cases by polycentric devel-opment strategies based on ‘potential basedapproaches’ (Davoudi and Wishardt, 2005)


networks in order to maintain or expandtheir functions;

– In rural areas there is a real process orthreat of depopulation. Small towns arequite important service centres withinthese areas, and play a key role inmaintaining the attractiveness of ruralareas.

So, here, further integration within networksof cities, and hence linking the cities inpolycentric metropolitan areas stronger to-gether, is considered essential to maintain agood level of service provision. However,both policy documents do not connect urbanand more rural policies in one overarchingframework. Large cities should mainly focusonxinginternalproblems(thedynamic,attractive cities within the ESDP and reduc-ing negative externalities in the GreenPaper), while towns in rural areas need todevelop more interconnected networks toexpand or maintain economic activities.

The Territorial Agenda stresses more thereciprocal relationship between cities, inter-mediate areas and rural hinterlands than theGreen Paper and ESDP. Where possible, cit-ies should look beyond their administrative

borders and focus on their functional region.Cities and their hinterlands are interdepend-ent, be it macro-regional, cross-border or atthe regional level, which means that metro-politan regions should be aware that theyhave responsibility for the development of their wider surroundings. It is suggestedthat integrated management of potentialssuch as cultural heritage, city networks andlabour markets can be better utilized to pro-mote the economic competitiveness of thewhole region. For more rural areas, territo-rial cooperation could focus more on making




or for instance ‘a search for winners ap-proach’ (Antikainen and Vartiainen, 2005).All these strategies carry elements of cohe-sion as well as competitiveness in them.Within these approaches the focus has shift-ed from a zonal to a nodal approach, fromlagging regions to the development of thecities or urban networks, as ‘motors of theeconomy’ within those regions (Waterhout

et al., 2005)

If we narrow our focus down from polycen-tric development to polycentric metropolitanareas, we can also conclude that these fea-ture prominently and explicitly in strategic

regional development strategies in manyEuropean countries, albeit that such regionalclusters of cities are generally not referredto as polycentric metropolitan areas back in2003. Rather, policy makers often referredto them as ‘urban networks’ or ‘city net-works’. Use is made of the network meta-phor to emphasise the alleged or desiredcomplex and strong relationships betweenthe cities and as such the coherence andunity of the region. Table 1, taken fromMeijers (2007), lists several European coun-tries in which polycentric metropolitan areashadbeenidentiedasanobjectiveofstrate-

gic policy-making, also giving examples of networks and the policy label given to thepolycentric metropolitan areas. This list if farfrom being exhaustive.

We have strong indications that the list of countries addressing polycentric metropoli-tan areas has been extended considerablyover the last decade. This often concernsnot just national policies, but also regionalpolicies or joint metropolitan developmentstrategies of the group of cities concerned.Yet, a thorough, systematic review of these

Table 2 Planning for polycentric metropolitan areas in European countries in 2003

Country Concept Examples

Belgium

(Flanders)

‘urban network’ e.g. Flemish Diamond (Brussels-Antwerp-Ghent-Leuven)

Denmark ‘Regions of competence’,polycentric ‘Nationalcentres’1

Struer – Holstebro – Herning – Ikast;Middelfart – Kolding – Vejle – Fredericia

Estonia ‘urban network’ Ida-Viru county: Jõhvi – Kohtla-Järve – Narva

France ‘réseaux des villes’

(urban networks)e.g. Normandie Métropole (Caen-Le Havre-Rouen)

Germany ‘European MetropolitanRegion’1, ‘Städtenetze’ (urban networks)

e.g. RheinRuhr (Bonn-Cologne-Düsseldorf-Essen-Dortmund);Bergisches city triangle (Remscheid- Solingen-Wuppertal); Sachsendreieck (Dresden-Leipzig-Chemnitz/Zwickau)

Greece ‘twin poles’ or ‘bi-poles’ e.g. Larissa-Volos

Italy ‘city network’, ‘multicentricmetropolitan system’

e.g. Veneto (Padua-Venice-Treviso)

Ireland ‘linked gateways’ Letterkenny-Derry; Athlone-Tullamore-Mullingar

Lithuania ‘Metropolis Vilnius-Kaunas’

Vilnius-Kaunas

The Netherlands ‘urban networks’ e.g. Randstad (Amsterdam-Rotterdam-The Hague-Utrecht); Brabantstad (Breda-Tilburg-Den Bosch-Eindhoven-Helmond)

Poland ‘Duopols’ Warsaw-Lodz;Torun´ -Bydgoszcz

Switzerland ‘vernetzte

Städtesystem’,

‘polycentric system’

Northern part of the country (among which Zürich-Basel-Bern-Winterthur-Luzern)

1 Thisconceptisnotspecicallydevelopedforpolycentricmetropolitanareas,butinitselaborationitalso

identiessuchareas.

source: Meijers, 2007

strategies has not yet been carried out, al-though a special issue of Urban Research & Practice on polycentric development policiesdoes so for Central Europe (Sykora et al.,2009).

We can conclude that polycentric metropoli-tan areas are an increasingly widespread,

relatively new policy theme that has be-

come a common feature of regional devel-opment strategies in many European coun-tries over the last decade. Planning forpolycentric metropolitan areas in many cas-es involves planning on a relatively newscale, based upon new starting points andtaking on board new strategic objectives(Lambregts, 2000).

2.3 Challenges from the EU andnational perspective

The territorial perspective is gaining impor-tance from a EU and national perspective.Historically, the focus of EU policies wasmore on social and economic cohesion, butin 2007 territorial cohesion has joined.Hence, special policy documents like theGreen Paper on Territorial Cohesion and the

Territorial Agenda were produced. The ter-ritorial policy of the EU is heavily focused onstimulating balanced spatial developmentsand reduces territorial disparities. Nationalspatial policies initially also focused on thisaspect, and concepts like polycentricity andurban networks were used as a tool thatcould counter these uneven developments.Nations, however, seem to have taken on aperspective that is also more competitive-ness-oriented: urban networks are supposedto be the engines of the national economies.Links between urban nodes enable more

activities that add value and provide cohe-sion at the same time. Yet, it is also ac-knowledged that the role of polycentricity in

bringing about economic competitivenessand balanced spatial developments have tobe studied further.




3 Polycentricmetropolitanareas:scientic

state of the art

3.1 Introduction

Polycentric metropolitan areas pose funda-mental challenges not just for policy-makersand administrators, but also for researchers.The rise of polycentric metropolitan areas asa policy-concept is inextricably linked to therising attention for such metropolitan areas

inthescienticliterature.Wewillstartouroverview of the state of the art in the scien-ticdebatewithabriefsummaryofseveralkey applied research projects that werefunded by ESPON as well as groupings of cities such as METREX and Eurocities.Second, in section 3.3, we present the mainndingsonpolycentricmetropolitanareasas

theycanbefoundinthescienticliterature.Wenishwithasynthesisofthemainchal-lenges for research in the next years.

3.2 Applied European researchprojects on PolycentricDevelopment

More and more policy attention for polycen-tric development across Europe, resulted inseveral projects on this theme. This section

discusses several projects initiated by differ-ent (European) organisations.

3.2.1 ESPONThe European Spatial Planning ObservationNetwork, ESPON, initiated different projectsas targeted analyses (next to more funda-mental research projects – ‘applied projects’ in ESPON terms, the results of which will bediscussed in the next section). These analy-ses represent a new type of projects sup-porting the use of existing results in part-nership with different groups of stakehold-

ers. ESPON put emphasis on “the operation-al use of results of the analyses in practice’’.

POLYCE is one of ESPON’s targeted analy-ses on ‘metropolisation’ and polycentric de-velopment. The project focuses on theDanube Region in Central Europe. The net-workconsistsofvecities:Vienna,Prague,

Budapest, Bratislava and Ljubljana. Thesevecitieswishtostrengthentheirposition

as network of metropolises within theEuropean and global territory. The aim of the project is to select opportunities for sus-tainable urban development at macro-re-gional and city level. Therefore the projectcarried out a territorial analysis at both lev-els. It was found, amongst others, that alack of polycentric structures in the metro-politan regions of Budapest, Prague, andViennacamecoupledwithndingsonurban

sprawl as a risk and potential cost factor(ESPON POLYCE, 2012). It was also foundthatintegrationbetweenthesevecitieswas rather absent, which can be attributedto the quite long distances between them.Whilethevemetropolitanareasexhibit

features of polycentricity, this does not holdfor the network of metropolitan areas.

Another project of ESPON isMETROBORDER . This project focused oncross-border polycentric metropolitan re-gions. Triggered by the liberalisation of theEuropean borders, new dynamics areemerging between cross-border cities. Theproject found that cross-border polycentricmetropolitan regions are an importantemerging phenomenon of European spatialorganisation having large development po-tentials. These potentials lie in combiningthe characteristics on either sides of the




border in a complementary way. This refersto differences in retail markets, in economicspecialisations, in cultural offer and land-scape differentiation. Also, it is about organ-izing critical mass. Such complementaritiesare considered to lead to more differentia-tion than can occur on domestic metropo-lises – which would provide cross borderpolycentric metropolitan areas with a unique

selling point. Yet, functional integration re-mained limited, and this should be consid-ered a huge unused potential. Yet, the ex-ploitation of these complementarities de-pends largely on the will and the strategiesof the actors to cooperate within a complexmulti-level context that is characterized byan asymmetric organisation of competenceson different political and administrative lev-els on either side of the border (ESPONMETROBORDER, 2010).

3.2.2 EurocitiesEurocities, a network organisation of European cities, also pays attention to the(polycentric) development of metropolitanareas. Eurocities’ Working GroupMetropolitan Areas produced a paper on ‘Cities co-operating beyond their bounda-ries: evidence through experience in

European cities’ (Eurocities, 2012). The pa-per shortly discusses the process of urbansprawl and argues that it is unrealistic totalk about a dualistic relationship betweencities and rural. Instead, mixed urban/ruralareas have now emerged, which make itdifculttodenewhatisurbanandwhatis

not. According to Eurocities, it is importantto consider that due to these processes, therise of functional urban areas is a realityrather than a theoretical concept. Functionalurban areas include towns and villages thatmay be physically separated, but at the

same time are economically and sociallyhighly dependent on an urban core.

According to the paper, the pooling to-

gether of resources from local authoritiesis needed. Some decisions (economic clus-tering, stimulating R&D) should be taken ona metropolitan level. Metropolitan coordina-tion can help to avoid the negative effects of

inter-municipal competition, can help to ironout mismatches in the local tax system andmaydelivermoreefcientservicestociti-zens.

The paper strongly focuses on the govern-ance perspective of metropolitan develop-ment. There is a call for more support at thenational and EU-level to stimulate bottom-up initiatives from metropolitan areas. Theunderlying goal of the working group is toinuencedecisionmakingattheEUlevel.Thiscanbedoneinthreeways:(1)toinu-ence policy initiatives that reinforce the roleof metropolitan areas, (2) to include metro-politan areas in EU funding programmes,and (3) to encourage metropolitan coopera-tion through pilot initiatives supported bythe European Commission.

This research reveals that changing the in-stitutional governmental structure is a cum-bersome process. Therefore, new govern-

ance arrangements are preferred overnew layers of government. In this way, ex-isting governmental bodies such as prov-inces or regions are most likely to supportthe idea of metropolitan cooperation.Because of differing contexts, tailor-madesolutions are the best. Hence, imposed gov-ernance arrangements from national or EUinstitutes will not work: it should be up tolocalauthoritiestodenethemostrelevant

solution for their metropolitan area. Thereport advised that core cities should be thedriving force behind metropolitan coopera-tion. Continuity, stakeholder involvementand trust are very important elements with-in this process.

3.2.3 METREXThe paper ‘Intra-metropolitan polycentricity

inpractice:reections,challengesandcon-clusions’, was produced by the METREX ex-pert group (2010). The central objective istoidentifymajorchallenges,toreectcur-rent methods, practices, routines and de-bates and to share lessons and experienceswith regard to the performance, applicabilityand implementation of the concept of polycentricity. The expert group consisted of urban and regional planners from twelvemetropolitan areas in Europe. The intra-metropolitan perspective means thatpolycentrism on a spatial scale is limited tosomething between the city-regional scaleand mega-regional level. Both ‘incorporationmode’ and ‘fusion mode’ polycentric metro-politan areas were selected. Some metro-politan areas are mixtures of both modes.

The concept of polycentrism within this

study is applied in a normative way, i.e. thegoal is to apply polycentrism as a tool forintra-metropolitan planning. Pursuingpolycentrism is regarded by the expertgroup as an overarching tool to combat

excessive urban sprawl and climate

change; and help promote economic

competitiveness and target-oriented la-

bour divisions.

Given the fact that polycentrism is regardedas a tool, the expert group puts forward twocentral messages:

– There are a number of preconditions forthe application of polycentricity. First of all, stakeholders need to realize that it isa long term effort. There is a clear needto understand market mechanisms andtheir territorial impact better. Furthermorea better understanding of the differentconcepts is needed and stakeholders’ mental maps need to be enlarged.

– Second, the capacity of the governancesystem matters. There is a clear need forclear strategies and solid instruments to manage different interests, agendasand/or territorial logics.

Yet, it was observed that discussions onwhich governance tool and form of polycen-trismismostttingwillalwaysremainun-decided. It is interesting to note that withrespect to urban sprawl and climate changethe experts can give good arguments as towhy polycentrism is a useful tool to combatthem; but when it comes to economic com-petitiveness and functional labour divisionsthey cannot. It turned out to be rather dif-cultfortheexpertstograsprelationsbe-tween centres or to identify promising com-plementarities/synergies.

3.3 State of the art in research onpolycentric metropolitan areas

In general terms, research on polycentricmetropolitan areas has taken off only in thelast one and half decade, when this spatialphenomenon started to become more clearlyvisible. Until then, the strong focus on largecities (e.g. Sassen’s Global Cities) dominat-ed the urban research agenda. There is per-haps one exception of a polycentric metro-politan area that has been explored more




thoroughly for a longer period of time, whichis the Randstad area in the Netherlands,made up of the core cities Amsterdam,Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht and sev-eral medium-sized cities, which counts as aclassic example of a fusion-mode polycentricmetropolitanarea,thatwasidentiedal-ready decades ago, amongst other by PeterHall (1966). As a consequence, the region

serves as a ‘research and policy laboratory’ (Dieleman & Musterd, 1992; see also Jenkset all., 2008) and is perhaps overrepresent-ed nowadays in the academic literature onpolycentric metropolitan areas.

In order to structure our discussion of thestate of the state of the art as regards sci-enticresearchintopolycentricmetropolitanareas, we may take the research agenda assketched by Kloosterman and Musterd in theintroductiontooneoftherstspecialissues

on this theme (Urban Studies, 2001), as ourpoint of departure. They put forward fourissues that deserve future attention: physi-cal or spatial form, governance, functionalrelationships and economy, and, identity andrepresentation. In addition, they stress theneed for a better understanding of the rela-tionships between those four issues or di-

mensions, and how it affects the perfor-mance of metropolitan areas. Now, over adecade later, let us explore the progressmade.

3.3.1 Spatial formObviously, an analysis of spatial form is cru-cialsincethedeningcharacteristicof

polycentric metropolitan areas appears to beits form: polycentric, and, according tosomedenitions,alsofunctionallytiedto-gether.Recallthatwedenedpolycentric

metropolitan areas as ‘collections of histori-

cally distinct and both administratively andpolitically independent cities located in closeproximity and well connected through infra-structure’. This is perhaps the least restric-tivedenitiononecanuse(seeChampion,2001), as it does not refer to a certain mini-mum extent of spatial interaction betweenthese centres, or an even more restrictivecondition such as a minimum level of spe-

cialisation among centres (see for instanceParr, 2004).

As regards spatial form, the most consider-able difference of opinion in the debate restson the question of whether polycentricityrefers just to morphological aspects of theurban system or whether it should also in-corporate relational aspects between thecentres making up the urban system inquestion (Green, 2007; Meijers, 2008a). Themorphological dimension, referred to asmorphological polycentricity, basically ad-dresses the size and territorial distribution of the urban centres across the territory, andequates more balanced distributions withpolycentricity (see e.g. Kloosterman andLambregts, 2001; Parr, 2004; Meijers andBurger, 2010). The relational dimension,referred to as functional polycentricity, takes

the functional connections between the set-tlements into account, and considers a bal-anced, multi-directional set of relations tobe more polycentric (ESPON 1.1.1, 2004;Green, 2007; De Goei et al., 2010).Proponents of the functional polycentricityapproach generally claim that nodes withoutbalanced relations would not form apolycentric system (ESPON 1.1.1, 2004).There is also a third approach, which is alsoabout functional or relational polycentricity,and which considers the strength of theinteractions between cities (Green, 2007).

There is much to say for such a functionalperspective on polycentricity, since thestrength and orientation of linkages betweencentres or cities could well be a major expla-nation of the performance of the urban sys-tem as a whole (Burger and Meijers, 2012).

As these conceptual debates start to crystal-lize out, much recent effort has been put in

measuring the level of polycentricity of met-ropolitan areas, and the way to do so de-pends on whether one adheres to a morpho-logical, functional or a combined approach(Burger and Meijers 2012). According toHoyler et al. (2008: 1058), combining mor-phological characteristics and functional re-lations in one approach ‘contributes to aconationoftwoanalyticallydistinctdimen-sions of polycentricity’. Naturally, a balancein the size distribution of centres does notnecessarily imply that there are functionallinkages between the different centres, letalone an equal distribution of these linkagesandtheexistenceofmulti-directionalow

patterns. Some morphologically polycentricmetropolitan areas do have strong and mul-ti-directional patterns of interaction betweenthe centres, some do not (see e.g. Hall andPain, 2006; Burger and Meijers, 2012). A

metropolitan area that is morphologicallypolycentric is not necessarily polycentricfrom a functional point of view.

Finally, there is also the issue of scale: theextent to which regions are polycentric de-pends largely on the scale at which the net-works are studied (Taylor et al., 2008).

3.3.2 Metropolitan governanceMetropolitan governance is a general chal-lenge for urban professionals all across theglobe. Kearns and Paddison (2000) highlight

why cities today are no longer able, or notas able as they thought they were previ-ously, to direct urban development in a ‘command and control’-way. The main rea-son is globalisation, which brings alongmobile capital investments, the emergenceof worldwide economic sectors and interna-tionalinstitutions.InEurope,theinuenceoftheEuropeanUnionalsoleadstoarede-

nition of the role of the national govern-ment, which has in turn its impact on met-ropolitan governance as well. For urban gov-ernments, globalisation and internationalisa-tion ‘has meant a loss of control over urbaneconomies, and new activities and respons-es’ (Kearns and Paddison, 2000: 845). Italso implies a more entrepreneurial attitudeof urban government, since competition isincreasingly between metropolitan areasrather than between countries. In such acompetition, cities have started to developandstrengthentheirproletoattractmobile

investment, tourists and in particular also ahighlyqualiedlabourforce.

In addition, there is a quite common trendin Europe that lower levels of governmentare being strengthened, largely due to pro-cesses of decentralisation of functions from

central government to local and regionallevels of government. An even more recenttrend is that it is now more accepted thatwithin a nation-state, similar territories maybe governed differently: there is increasingdiversity, variation and even asymmetry(Stead and Cotella, 2011). More than be-fore, urban governments are permitted

to follow their own path.

Then there is increased complexity in deci-sion-making and policy development – thereare many interacting authority structures at




work in the emergent global political economy.Different levels of governance, as well as so-cial society, get increasingly entangled, requir-ing us to think of urban government as multi-level governance. ‘Multi-level’ does not justrefer to different hierarchical layers of govern-ment, but also to horizontal layers of govern-ment: e.g. between municipalities or regions.

Multi-level governance is of great impor-tance in particular also for polycentric met-ropolitan areas. In particular because glo-balisation articulates itself at the regionalscale in more complex patterns of interac-tions, and a new division of labour, whichmakes that many issues cannot be dealtwith by local jurisdictions. We need to real-ize that institutional fragmentation is a factof life in all polycentric metropolitan areas.

3.3.3 Functional geographyFunctional linkages can be used to study thefunctioning of the metropolitan area itself,but also to delineate a metropolitan area. Asregards the functional geography of polycen-tric metropolitan areas, two key questionshave emerged in the literature: a. to whatextent is a division of labour developing be-tween the centres making up the polycentric

metropolitan area?, and b. how can we iden-tify polycentric metropolitan areas? The lat-ter question is obviously closely linked todenitionalissues,seeparagraph3.3.1.

It may be safely assumed that cities glob-ally, as well as regionally, are becomingmore linked to each other, and the questionis whether in this process of integrationthere is also a process in which the roles

and functions of cities are changing.Thierstein et al. (2008) show that in theemerging polycentric metropolitan area in

Northern Switzerland, advanced urban func-tions increasingly concentrate in the centralcities of a mega-city region, while associatedfunctions disperse. It may well be that theprocess of globalisation and its tendency toparticularlybenet(aswellascreate)well-

connected places, turns some places inpolycentric metropolitan areas into winnerswhile others stay relatively behind. Hard

empirical evidence addressing the complexinterrelation between regional assets andintra-regional dynamics on the one handand the impact of global circulations andextra-local dynamics on the other is how-ever not yet available.

One approach to identify whether a divisionof labour is developing is to measure com-plementarities between the cities making upa polycentric metropolitan area.Complementarity refers to the idea thatdifferentcitiesfulldifferentandmutually

benecialroles(HagueandKirk,2003).While specialisations of cities tend to bemeasured by location quotients, this methoddoes not account for the specialisation of cities relative to the specialisations of a setof other cities. For this reason, correspond-ence analysis techniques have been em-

ployed recently to measure complementarityin the context of polycentric metropolitanareas, and these enable the calculation andplotting of the division of labour betweenthe cities making up the mega-city region.Using this method, it has been shown that astrong division of labour exists between thecities making up the Randstad Holland(Meijers, 2007). As far as service sectoractivities are concerned, its cities are twiceas specialized in comparison to each otherthan the cities in the German Rhein-RuhrArea. In addition, regarding sectoral spe-

cialisations, some found that the extent towhich cities complement one another tendsto decrease (Meijers, 2007; Cowell, 2010),while others report a trend towards moredifferentiation (Franz and Hornych, 2010).This is not, however, the whole picture.Correspondence analysis techniques havebeenappliedtogeneralsectoralclassica-tions of employment, whereas it has been

suggested that nowadays cities specialize byfunction rather than by sector (Durantonand Puga, 2005) – in other words, by ‘whatpeople do’ rather than ‘where they work’.Functional specialisations can be proxiedwith occupational data (Barbour andMarkusen, 2007), and in a pilot project forU.S. polycentric mega-regions, it was foundthat these functional specialisations of dif-ferent parts of cities were increasing insome regions, but decreasing in others(Meijers, Ross and Woo, 2011).

The second issue addresses the questionhow polycentric metropolitan areas can beidentied.Existingapproachestoidentify

functionally coherent urban areas havesevere shortcomings, certainly when appliedto the scale of polycentric metropolitan ar-eas. For example, their preoccupation with

‘daily urban systems’, whereas ‘weekly’ or ‘monthly urban systems’ seems more appro-priate for polycentric metropolitan areas,requiring a move beyond indicators such ascommutingtowardsawidervarietyofows

(e.g. trade, capital, goods, people, knowl-edge) (Dieleman and Faludi, 1998). Anothershortcoming is that the multiplicity of net-works is not taken into account – a regioncan appear to be spatially integrated basedontheanalysisofonetypeofowsbut

loosely connected based on another (Burger,2011). A third shortcoming is the preoccu-

pationwiththequantityofows,rather

than their ‘quality’ or value for the region.More interaction between the cities is notnecessarily better, certainly if one takes en-vironmental considerations into account.Finally,thefocusongatheringowdataisunderstandable, and perhaps preferable, butsuch data is hardly available, certainly not ina harmonized and consistent form across

Europe (IGEAT et al., 2006; Limtanakool etal., 2007).

Analysing the functional geography of polycentric metropolitan areas clearly re-quires researchers to develop new theories

and concepts and innovative methods toanalyse this, since existing approaches stilldepart from the outdated model of mono-centricity.

3.3.4 Identity and representationThere is also a cultural dimension topolycentric metropolitan areas that needs tobe taken into account. This cultural dimen-sion refers to the polycentric metropolitanarea as being a frame of reference, orienta-tion, and interpretation that structures theconsciousness and behaviour of a regionalsociety and is reproduced and reconstructed

by the acts of the regional population. Thesocio-cultural dimension addresses the issueof popularidentication,attachment andinstitutionalisation of polycentric metropoli-tan areas. The relevance of studying thesocio-cultural dimension of mega-city re-gions lies in the fact that enhanced popularidenticationwiththepolycentricmetropoli-tan area may express itself in activity pat-terns and travel behaviour that has a moreregional scope (Paasi, 2009), and as thismayfosterfurtheridenticationwith,and

institutionalisation of polycentric metropoli-




tan areas, this may turn out to lead to anincreasingly upward spiral of regionalisation-institutionalisation-identication.Popularidenticationisalsodeemedcrucialforde-veloping regional organizing capacity(Meijers and Romein, 2003), and will in-crease the democratic legitimacy of plat-forms for regional governance.

The institutionalisation of a polycentricmetropolitan area is the process throughwhich such an area becomes established,gains status in the broader regional struc-tureandmaybecomeasignicantunitofregionalidenticationoridentity(Paasi,

2009). Such institutionalisation appears tobe stronger in metropolitan areas that arecharacterised by a certain territorial shape(clearly demarcated), by a symbolic shape(regional symbols), by institutions takingthe region as their territorial organisingprinciple (cf. Paasi, 1996), and by the regionbeing a political space (cf. Keating, 1997).So far, analyses of the process of institution-alisation has focused on ‘fusion-mode’ polycentric metropolitan areas, where it wasfound that the institutionalisation of suchregions is particularly hampered by the lackof a common culture in a region. Major

sources of cultural differences include lan-guage, ethnicity, religion and political pref-erences, which, if present, may preventpeople from identifying with the polycentricmetropolitan area – Central Belgium is acase in point (Albrechts and Lievois, 2003;Meijers and Romein, 2003). It remains rath-er unclear, however, why one polycentricmetropolitan area is more institutionalizedthan another, and in particular, what conse-quences this has on the performance of polycentric metropolitan areas as it appearsto affect collective action.

It is likely that a strong institutionalisationof a metropolitan area comes coupled withsome attachment to that area. Here, it isimportant to disentangle an affective (oremotional) bond with places from a morecognitivebondwithplaces(theidentication

of the self being a member of a physicalspace) (see Paasi, 2003). This distinctionbetweenattachmentandidenticationis

relevant, as feeling part of polycentric met-ropolitan area does not have to go hand-in-hand with having a positive attachment toit. However, research that takes into accountcombinationsofattachmentandidentica-tion across scales is thin on the ground(Lewicka, 2011). Also the relation that at-tachment and identity have with activity-and travel patterns is far from settled(Keating, 2001; Paasi, 2003; Gustafson,2009; Lewicka, 2011).

3.3.5 PerformanceIn circles of urban planners, particularly alsoat the European scale, the concept of polycentricity, and more precisely polycen-tric development, tends to get a positivereview as it is considered to bring alongmany advantages. Throughout the last cen-tury, a major rationale for actually pursuing

metropolitan planning has been the belief that particular models of spatial organisationof metropolitan areas are able to mitigateand limit the persistence of typical urbanproblems. Polycentric spatial settlement pat-terns are assumed to be a remedy to eithersprawl related problems or the typical bigcityproblems.Therstincludesthelackof

support for amenities, including transit orthe consumption of open, green areas, whilethe latter refer to, amongst others, conges-tion, lack of housing affordability and con-centration of pollution.

Perhaps polycentric spatial forms do providea remedy towards these problems, but thetruth is that this is little more than an edu-cated guess. Tremendous efforts have beenundertaken to describe urban form or envi-sion possible future forms and urbanisationoptions. However, with some notable excep-tionsintheeldoftransportationstudies

(e.g. Cervero and Wu, 1998; Schwanen et

al., 2004) and economic performance(Cervero, 2001; Lee and Gordon, 2007;Meijers and Burger, 2010), hardly any sys-temic evidence has been gathered on theeconomic and environmental consequencesof different urban forms, let alone its impacton social urban problems (Bailey and Turok,2001; Banerjee, 2009). This is particularlytrue for ‘fusion-type’ polycentric metropoli-tan areas (Lambooy, 1998; Kloosterman andMusterd, 2001; Parr, 2004; Turok andBailey, 2004; Cheshire, 2006; Parr, 2008;Meijers, 2008b).

However, more recently, as the conceptualdebate advanced, polycentricity was mademeasurable, and some linkages with perfor-mance can now be drawn. Departing from ameasure that combines morphological andfunctional characteristics of polycentricity,

Veneri (2010) found that polycentricity inItalian metropolitan areas is a more envi-ronmentally sustainable urban form: it isassociated with a reduction in CO2 emis-sions due to commuting, and polycentricitydoes not imply longer travel times. In fact,polycentricity was associated with closerproximity between residence and workplace.

How ever, polycentricity, in particular whennot accompanied with a tangential but radialtransport and infrastructure system may atthe same time mean that labour markets

may become fragmented, certainly for low-earning workers (Halbert, 2004). On theEuropean scale, it was already shown thatthe often mentioned link in policy docu-ments between a polycentric urban systemand cohesion, measured in terms of thepresence of regional disparities, does notexist (Meijers and Sandberg, 2008). Thisndingwasrecentlyconrmedinastudyby

Veneri and Burgalassi (2012), now at thescale of Italian regions. Evidence pointseven at the opposite: the higher the degreeof polycentricity, the more unequal incomedistribution appears to be.

The study by Veneri and Burgalassi (2012)also explored links between polycentricityand economic competitiveness. Some evi-dence was found that a dominant prime city(monocentricity) increases agglomeration

benets. Meta-analysis research has shownthat a city double the size of another one, ison average 5,8% more productive (Melo etal 2009) Importantly, it was found also thata high degree of functional polycentricityseems to be associated with a higher levelof labour productivity. This would suggestthat networks substitute for proximity (cf.Johansson and Quigley, 2004). Earlier,

Meijers and Burger (2010), analysing U.S.metropolitan areas, found already that ag-glomerationbenetsarelesspresentthe

more (morphologically) polycentric a metro-politan area was.At the same time, however, it was foundthat agglomeration costs were also less, asthebalancebetweenagglomerationbenets

and agglomeration costs was better in morepolycentric metropolitan areas, leading tohigher labour productivity. The lack of ag-glomerationbenetsmanifestsitselfinthe

lower presence of higher-order urban func-




tions, for instance specialized retail (Meijers,2008b; Burger et al., forthcoming).Polycentric regions that fared better thanother polycentric regions were characterisedamongst others by its constituent centresbeing located more proximally, a relativestrong concentration of retail in one centre(a less polycentric distribution of retail com-pared to population), and less competitionfrom centres outside the region (Burger etal., forthcoming).

3.3.6 ConclusionOverseeing the state of the art, it is clearthat during the last one and a half decade,much of the attention of researchers hasbeen devoted to conceptual issues, which isnormal for the agenda-setting phase.However, much progress can be made in theyears following when efforts concentrate onsubstantiating the many claims made forpolycentricity, analysing metropolitan gov-ernance, empirically exploring dynamics inthe functional geography of polycentric met-

ropolitan areas, and getting a better under-standing of the institutionalisation of suchregions and how people identify with these.Such a progress can only be made when themany theories, concepts and models thatwere once developed with the outdatedmonocentric city in mind, are reframed andlinked to the new spatial reality of polycen-tric metropolitan areas.

3.4 Challengesidentiedbyresearchers

Thisparagraphbrieydiscussesthere-searchchallengesidentiedbyacademics.

These challenges are distilled out of aca-demicliteratureandappliedscienticre-search. In addition, EMI organized a paneldiscussion with eminent researchers in thiseldduringtheRegionalStudiesAssociation(RSA) Conference. First, a brief overview of the panel discussion is given followed by theresearchchallengesastheyareidentiedin

several key research projects on polycentricmetropolitan areas.

3.4.1 Panel discussion RSA ConferenceIn May 2012 the Regional StudiesAssociation organised its annual EuropeanConference in Delft, The Netherlands titled ‘Networked regions and cities in times of fragmentation: Developing smart, sustain-

able and inclusive places’. EMI took the op-portunity to organize a panel discussion onthe topic of polycentric metropolitan areas.Five eminent experts took place in the panelthat was moderated by Professor HugoPriemus of Delft University of Technology. 2 The panel was asked to give a reaction onseveral statements and to identify researchgaps that require more academic research.

The panel discussed the tendency towardsurban hierarchies with prime cities that arecharacterized by a concentration of activitiesand functions, leaving less for the secondarycities in the region. Due to these urban hier-archies some cities will lose out while othercities will gain. The appearance of urbanhierarchies in polycentric metropolitan rea-sons, with prime cities having the most posi-tive business climate, might explain why

some cities gain in the process of metropoli-sation while other cities lose. If you manageto develop a seamless web within thepolycentric metropolitan area you have acompetitive advantage in comparison withother areas. Further academic researchshould focus on the underlying factors ex-

2 Prof. Sir Peter Hall – University College London;

Prof. Catherine Ross – Georgia Institute of

Technology; Prof. Alain Thierstein – TU Munich;

Mr. Jaap Modder – City region Arnhem-Nijmegen;

Prof. Wim Hafkamp – EMI/JPI Urban Europe.

plaining the factors that cause urban hierar-chies within, and between, polycentric net-works of cities.

Another point of discussion concerned thequestion whether it is possible to organizethesamebenetsofalargemetropolisina

network of small- and medium-sized cities.The panel argued that this depends on the

ability of these cities to ’borrow size’ fromeach other. To a certain extent, people andrmsalreadymakeuseofthepolycentricregion, but often politicians are still stronglyoriented on local (municipal) affairs. A senseof urgency is needed for them to start coop-erating with their neighbouring cities, butthe majority of the cities do not (yet) seethe advantages. It is not so much aboutrivalry between cities, but more about igno-rance. Consequently, more research is need-ed about how a network of small- and me-dium sized cities can borrow size from eachother, and what the advantages are of this.New methodologies should be developed toanalyzethebenetsofstrongerintegrationwithin the polycentric metropolitan area.Urban practitioners and politicians will neverbe convinced of the advantages of coopera-tion if researchers cannot visualize the ex-

ternalities.

Furthermore, according to the panel moreacademic research is needed to actuallyunderstand the dynamics within polycentricmetropolitan areas. Researchers should ana-lyze the multi-scalarity of polycentrism inmore detail; the advantages at a smallerscale may at the same time imply a nega-tive impact on a larger regional scale. Howto deal with this tension? Additionally, it isimportant to analyze the awareness per-spective of polycentrism as there is a major





gap between research and the agenda of politicians.

3.4.2 Future research needs according toresearchers

The research agenda of Kloosterman andMusterd (2001) was already mentioned atthe beginning of section 3.3 and will not berepeated. The POLYNET project ‘Sustainable

management of European polycentric mega-regions’ ran from 2003 to 2006 and exam-ined changes in functional connections andinformationows(physical/transportationand virtual/ICT) between and within eightpolycentric metropolitan areas in North WestEurope (NWE). As suggestions for futureresearch, it includes:– A deeper need for understanding solu-

tions to economic and social inequityacross Europe;

– Need to extend knowledge on analyses of functional specialisation and spatial com-plementarities;

– The role of (investments in) transport ande-infrastructure in developing city region-al economies;

– Polycentricity alone fails to provide a sus-tainable solution to territorial inequities(social and economic). Therefore, scepti-

cism exists about planning for polycen-tricity.

As an offspring of this project, a special is-sue was published, edited by Halbert,Convery and Thierstein (Built Environment,2006). The last paper of this special issuefurther details some of these generalPOLYNET recommendations for research.Next to functional and spatial complementa-rities, they call for a better understanding of the interrelationships between advancedbusiness services and the wider economy.

Also, more research should focus on intra-and inter-regional functional linkages(Halbert et al., 2006). The latter idea is tak-en forward by Hoyler et al. (2008) in an-other special issue, who move beyond theimmediate parameters of the POLYNET pro- jectwhendeningaresearchagenda.

– Intherstplace,theycallforafurther

understanding of the relationship between

therstcityinapolycentricmetropolitanarea and the rest. It seems that thereis a further concentration of high-endproducer services in these cities, whilelow-added related activities disperse overthe region. This may eventually threat therstcityasitbecomeslessdiverse,eventhough the whole metropolitan area maybecome the scale at which diversity isorganized.

– Second, they demand attention for issuesof social cohesion and equity, for instancewhether there is increased polarisation.

– Thirdly,theydeneseveralchallengesrelated to new trends that may affectthe internal relationships in polycentricmetropolitan areas, such as rising energyprices, the option of multiple locationhouseholds and the management of resources. In addition, they mention the

need for new methods to study the scaleof polycentric metropolitan areas and callfor research beyond Europe on polycentricmetropolitan areas.

A number of recent PhD theses has beenpublished on the subject of polycentric met-ropolitan areas, in particular in theNetherlands, Germany and Italy. Most havebeen referred to yet. Some of these thesesalso include a research agenda. Burger(2011) argues that future analytical workshould focus more on the causes and conse-

quences of the spatial organisation of urbansystems and mentions in particular mixedspatial structures, the dynamics of urbansystems, the measurement of functionalcoherence within regions, and the relation-ship between the spatial organisation of ur-ban systems and urban and regional perfor-mance.

Meijers (2007) calls for more detailed re-search into complementarities, in particulardeningtheminfunctionaltermsrather

than in a sectoral way. Also, he stresses theneed for more research into the spatial or-ganisation of polycentric metropolitan areas,particularly whether this organisation tendstowards the so-called network model.Finally, he lists the linkage between spatialstructureandagglomerationbenetsandcosts as a crucial challenge for further re-search.

Finally, also the applied research projects onpolycentric metropolitan areas have listedresearch ambitions.

The Eurocities Working Group MetropolitanAreas paper remarks that development of new knowledge, such as better understand-

ing of the ‘metropolisation’ process inEurope, and exchange of experiences isneeded. Future research on this theme isrequired. The role of functional metropolitanareas is becoming more important acrossmost European Member States, as all levelsof public administration are adapting to newcircumstances and policy challenges andseekingtondbetterandmoreeffectivesolutions. Next to exchanging experiencesamong cities, academic surveys and analysisshould be funded in order to better under-stand current changes in the ‘metropolisa-

tion’ process in Europe, its components andimpact on the way Europe faces global chal-lenges.

The POLYCE project point at the enormousdata limitations that hampers the study of polycentric metropolitan areas and the me-tropolisation process. In particular the avail-abilityofowdataisaconcern,particularly

also cross-border relational data andthrough time. This also means that thereare still many research challenges ahead. Amajor challenge is the process of metropoli-sation. Second, the issue of relationalpolycentricity needs to be explored at a vari-ety of spatial scales. They also call for anin-depth research on the role of medium-sized cities as carriers of polycentric devel-opment, which is deemed essential for ter-ritorial cohesion. Another issue is moremethodological and concerns the develop-ment of more sophisticated methods to de-limit metropolitan areas, based on morpho-logical and relational aspects.

Also the ESPON Metroborder project stress-es the lack of the right data to analysepolycentric metropolitan areas. It was inparticular stressed that time-series data was

needed in order to do more research intocausal relationships.

Finally, the METREX project underlinesthe importance of more research into re-lations between cities. It was found to berather difficult for experts to grasp rela-tions between centres, and to identify thepromising complementarities and syner-gies.




4 Polycentric metropolitan areas in Europe inpractice: viewpoints of urban professionals

4.1 Introduction

In the fall of 2011, a questionnaire was sentout to urban professionals working in the100 largest European metropolitan areas,addressing issues regarding the morphologyof the urban system in their metropolitanarea, the strength of functional integration,

the level to which regional governance wasexistent and the cultural unity of the metro-politan area. Also, we asked them to indi-cate the knowledge questions that they con-sider essential for further academic re-search. This chapter presents an analysis of the results of this questionnaire.

4.2 Selection of cities,respondents and response

The questionnaire was sent to respondentsidentiedineachofthe100largestmetro-politan areas in Europe. The selection is of these metropolitan areas is based on thework carried out in the ESPON 1.4.3 projecton Urban Functions (IGEAT et al., 2007) inwhichaclassicationofFunctionalUrban

Areas (FUAs) all across Europe (EU25 +

Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Lichtenstein)ispresented.Thisclassicationreckonsthepolycentric character of many metropolitanareas in Europe. Basically, metropolitan ar-easweredenedasfunctionallycoherent

entities. The report also discernsMorphological Urban Areas (MUAs), whichare contiguous built-up areas and whichresemble cities and adjoining suburbanareas.

The largest FUA is London, the #100 isStrasbourg (607.000). The list of 100 larg-

est FUAs is quite different from a list of 100MUAs (cities). For instance cities such asGhent or Eindhoven rank not among the 100largest MUAs, but the FUAs of which theyare part (‘the Flemish Diamond’ and ‘NorthBrabant/Brabantstad’ are high on the list of

100 FUAs (5th

and 30th

respectively). In or-der to acknowledge the fact that some FUAsare clearly polycentric, we approached allcities (in fact, the central cities of MUAs)with over 300.000 inhabitants that arelocated in the top 100 of largest FUAs inEurope. For instance, in the Randstad areain the Netherlands, we approachedAmsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague andUtrecht. In some cases, FUAs did not con-tain a MUA of at least 300.000 inhabitants,and in these cases we sent out the question-naire simply to the largest MUA (for instance

Polycentric Metropolitan Areas in Europe




Nijmegen). In total, we approached 123cities (MUAs) in 100 FUAs. The question-naire was sent to urban professionals em-ployed by local or metropolitan govern-ments,andgenerallyworkingintheeldof

strategic spatial, economic development orurban/regional planning. E-mail addresseswere largely gathered through internetsearches.Intheend,wegotentirelylled-

in questionnaires from 47 MUAs, located in43 different FUAs. Hence, the response rateis 43% (FUAs) or 38% (MUAs), dependingon the perspective. The response was wellbalanced and no parts of Europe were over-or underrepresented.

4.3 Results

4.3.1 Related cities and degree of ‘relatedness’

In our questionnaire we asked the urbanprofessional the open question of which cit-ies in the wider metropolitan area are mostrelated to the city they are working for/workingin.Respondentscouldllinupto5other cities. The vast majority was able toidentify 5 cities (66%), 4 cities were identi-edby8.5%oftherespondents,12.7%

identiedthreeothercities,8.5%identiedtwoothercitiesandjust4.3%identiedonly one other city. This underlines thatthere is a tendency towards metropolitanareas that are constituted by multiple cities.On average, the distance to these other cit-ies was 28.2 kilometres, with a StandardDeviation of 22.3 km, which gives an idea of the average size or surface of Europeanmetropolitan areas (Figure 4). The maxi-mum distance amounted to 129 km, theclosest by city was just 2 km away. The av-erage distance between cities in the same

metropolitan area is depicted in Figure 5.This shows that some respondents haveidentiedtheirreallycloseneighbours,while

many others think of the metropolitan areaas a larger entity in which inter-city distanc-es of around 50 km are common.

Foreachcitythatwasidentied,weasked

about the extent to which the prime city

(where the respondent was located) is re-lated to that other city. We asked the re-spondents to score the extent to which theircity and each individual other city in theirwider metropolitan area are functionallyintegrated with respect to a. the labour mar-ket, b. the housing market, c. business-rela-tionsbetweenrms,d.theuseofleisureamenities (shopping, culture, sports) and e.the market for education and health care.

In such a way, we had 199 relations be-tween pairs of cities evaluated by local ur-ban professionals. We added distances be-tweeneachpairofcities‘asthecrowies’to our database, since distance appears tobe a key factor for integration to occur. Arstndingfromourquestionnaireisthat

the ‘distance decay’ factor is different fortheseve‘markets’,seeFigure6.

Figure 6 shows that a pair of cities within ametropolitan area tends to be more stronglyintegrated in terms of the labour market andspatial scope of business relations than interms of the market for leisure activities andin particular for education and health careas well as the housing market. Common,however, is a strong decline of the level of integration over short distances. From rath-er strong integration with close-by cities, wesee that the level of integration drops sharp-ly towards a distance of about 30 km, and

Distancebetweencities(km)

Figure 6 Level of integration (5=strongly integrated, 1 = hardly integrated)

between cities and distance decay

Figure 4 Distance to other cities in the

metropolitan area (km)

Figure 5 Average distance (km) to all other

cities in the metropolitan area




then start to increase again. This may haveto do with the fact that cities located morefar away tend to be larger or more impor-tant than those located nearby, as we sel-dom see larger cities in the immediate sur-roundings of the main city in the metropoli-tan region (these close-by cities tend to bemore satellite towns). Another explanationof the rise of the level of integration with

cities at a 30-60 km distance could be thatsome urban professionals have consideredonly close-by satellite town types of cities,whereas others have considered sets of more distant and distinct cities. To controlfor this, we applied ordinal logistic regres-sion in which we control for the ‘regionalscope’ of the respondent by including theaverage distance to the cities they men-tioned. In addition, we added dummy vari-ables to control for the location of a metro-politan area in Europe (North, East, South,West). The results showed that to go 1 stepdown on the 1-5 scale of the level of inte-gration, the distance decay on the housingmarket is 26 km, on the market for educa-tion and health facilities 30 km, on the la-

Figure 7 Comparison of distance decay of

integration between cities for different

‘markets’

Not coherent ext. Coherent ext.

presentation presentation

Figure 8 Extent to which cities in metropolitan

areas present themselves externally

as coherent metropolitan areas (1=

no, not at all; 5= yes, to a high

degree).

bour market 35 km, and on the market forleisure activities 36 km. By far least spatiallyconstraint is the market for relations be-tweenrms:66km.Wecanvisualisethesedifferences in distance decay as the radiusof these markets around cities, see Figure 7.

4.3.2 External positioning of the

metropolitan areaWe asked our respondents whether the cit-ies in their metropolitan area (which theymentioned) position themselves externallyas a coherent metropolitan area. Scoreswere rather normally distributed, see Figure5, and the number of respondents that stat-ed that they certainly do position them-selves externally as a coherent metropolitanarea (scores 4 and 5) was similar as thosewho did not (both 31.9%). Most respond-ents opted for the average score of 3.

We sought for explanatory variables for this

pattern, using ordinal regression techniques,and included the level of spatial fragmenta-tion, the level of institutional fragmentationand the location in Europe. Box 1 explainstheir measurement. It turned out that loca-tion in Europe and institutional fragmenta-tion do not affect the external positioning of metropolitan areas.There was weak evidence of spatial frag-mentation (being more polycentric) leadingto lower scores on the extent to which citiesposition themselves externally (Wald statis-tic 2.903; p= 0.088; linking option=probit).

Box 1. Explanatory variables

Spatial fragmentation: ratio of the size of the largest morphological urban area rel-ative to the functional urban area. Acts asan indirect proxy of the level of monocen-tricity (high values) and polycentricity(low values).

Institutional fragmentation: ratio of thesize of the municipality in which the maincity was located relative to the size of thefunctional urban area. A low value indi-cates that the metropolitan area is di-vided in many local jurisdictions. A highvalue indicates that a large share of thepopulation lives in one of these jurisdic-tions.

Location in Europe: dummy variables in-dicating whether a metropolitan area islocated in Northern, Eastern, Southern orWestern Europe. Figure 9 Rivalry and belonging together

in metropolitan areas (1= strong

rivalry; 5 = strong sense of belonging

together).

Rivalry Strong sense of

belonging together

Obviously, this is something that could beexpected

4.3.3 Cultural identity: between rivalryand a sense of belonging together

We measured the feeling of belonging to-getheronavepointscalerangingfrom1(a culture of strong rivalry between cities) to5 (a strong sense of belonging together).

None of the respondents reported a strongcultural rivalry – see Figure 9.

Arstconclusionisthatwhilereallystrongrivalry between cities does not seem to ex-ist, rivalry can still be found in many metro-politan areas (26% scored ‘2’). A strongsense of belonging together was only re-ported for one metropolitan area (Bilbao).Most metropolitan areas can be positionedin between.Again we explored whether spatial fragmen-tation, institutional fragmentation or location




inEurope(seeBox1)hadaninuenceon

the cultural identity. However, this was notthe case.Spearman’sRhocorrelationcoefcientbe-tween cultural identity and external posi-tioningissignicant:0.497**(N=47).Inother words, it seems that a feeling of be-longing together culturally is important to beable to market a metropolitan area exter-

nally.Therearenosignicantcorrelations(Pearson) between cultural identity and spa-tial fragmentation, institutional fragmenta-tion (see box 1) and average distance toother cities in the metropolitan area. In oth-er words, the sense of feeling that one be-longs together with other cities, and theabsence of rivalry between them, is not re-lated to distance, or to the morphology of

the urban system, nor to the institutionaldivision of the metropolitan area. This isperhaps remarkable, especially in morefragmented metropolitan areas.

4.3.4 Cooperation within the metropolitanarea

Our respondents were asked to characterisethe cooperation between the cities of their

metropolitan area, and they were able totick several pre-given options describing thecooperation, as well as add new optionsthemselves. Figure 10 gives the results of this question.

The most common form of cooperation be-tween cities within metropolitan areas isbilateral cooperation on a voluntary basis,


while also the development of joint regionalprojects such as the joint development of regional business parks or a joint project onmetropolitan transit is common in almosttwo-thirds of the European metropolitanareas. Cooperation also takes the form of joint regional spatial development strategiesor joint spatial visions in about one-third of the metropolitan areas. Less often, coopera-

tion takes the form of joint marketing strat-egies for tourism, business or education(28%) or in joint regional developmentagencies that control regional developmentfunds (19%). Perhaps the most far-reachingform of cooperation is through an overarch-ing regional authority that has formal pow-ers for metropolitan development, and thisis the case among 17% of the respondents.Only 6% stated that there is no cooperationat all.

Respondents were also given the option toinclude other types of cooperation in theirmetropolitan area. Generally, this was a par-ticularisation of the cooperation, for instancethe stage in which a type of cooperation wasor the issues that these platforms for coop-eration were addressing.As was the case with the other issues, we

also explored whether the type of coopera-tion is dependent on spatial fragmentation,institutional fragmentation or location inEurope(seeBox1forthedenitionofthese

variables). Now, we used binary logistic re-gression models including these three fac-tors as independent variables explainingwhether a particular type of cooperationexisted. It was found that the options ‘nocooperation’, ‘joint regional projects’, ‘jointspatial strategy’ and ‘overarching regionalauthority with formal powers’ were not re-lated to the shape of the urban system (spa-

Figure 10 Characteristics of cooperation in

European metropolitan areas.

tial fragmentation), the shape of the institu-tional system (institutional fragmentation)nor to the part of Europe in which the met-ropolitan area was located. However, wefound some evidence that bilateral coopera-tion on a voluntary basis was more commonin less institutionally fragmented metropoli-tan areas (Sig.=0.077). The same holds for

joint marketing strategies (Sig.=0.081).Joint regional development agencies weremore established in less spatially fragment-ed areas (Sig.=0.078). Hence, it seems thatmetropolitan areas with a dominating urbancore and in which a large part of the popula-tion lives within one and the same local ju-risdiction can more easily develop suchforms of cooperation.

4.3.5 Needs for future researchOurnalquestioninthequestionnairewas

about the themes that should be addressed




by academic researchers as these wouldhelp the urban professional to guide andimprove future metropolitan development.Figure 11 gives the results of this question,indicating the quest for more academic re-search into the topic of polycentric metro-politan areas.

About 60% up to two-thirds of the European

metropolitan areas demand more researchinto the theme of polycentric metropolitan

areas. The respondents are particularly keento get a better understanding of the func-tional dimension (the spatial organisation of the metropolitan area) and the governancedimension (including instruments for region-al coordination). Particularly the question of metropolitan transit and infrastructure,which covers both functional and govern-ance dimensions, is on the list for further

research. Less interest is in the cultural as-pects of polycentric metropolitan areas (only


Figure 11 Response to the question ‘Which themes should be addressed

by academic researchers to help you guide and improve future

metropolitan development?’

19%), but as we will see below, the urbanprofessionals that are interested in thisquestion tend to be located in metropolitanareas that are characterised by a high level

of spatial fragmentation (in practice, areasthat are polycentric, i.e. have multiple urbanclusters).

Those that suggest other themes for aca-demic research list sustainability, the legal-institutional framework, urban-rural coop-eration, regional spatial-economic dynamics,and instruments to make trade-offs (2x), forinstance to coordinate future retail develop-ment. Different metropolitan areas, differentneeds?Using binary logistic regression models, we

considered whether responses to the needfor research on any of these themes wereinuencedbythelevelofspatialfragmenta-tion, institutional fragmentation or the loca-

tion of a metropolitan area in Europe. It wasfound that the request for more research ona) the functional integration between thecities in a metropolitan area, b) successfulregional governance, c) policy instrumentsfor regional coordination and d) metropoli-tantransitandinfrastructurewasnotinu-enced by any of these variables. In otherwords, these needs are universally feltacross Europe. However, the request forresearch on the role and functions of indi-vidual cities within their metropolitan areawas felt less strong in Eastern Europe than it




is in particularly Northern and WesternEurope. The need for research into ‘localattachments versus regional identities’ turned out to be more strongly (or evenonly) felt in metropolitan regions that arespatially fragmented, or in other wordspolycentric in the sense that multiple urbanclusters can be found in the metropolitanarea.

4.4 Conclusion: challenges forurban practitioners

The questionnaire that was sent out to themajor cities in the 100 largest metropolitanareas in Europe was well-responded to. Ithas provided a broad overview of a widerange of dimensions that are relevant to thedevelopment of polycentric metropolitanareas including a functional dimension, acultural dimension and a regional govern-ance/institutional dimension. The knowledgeneeds of the respondents indicated thatpolycentric development and integrationbetween cities are important issues thatshould be explored and analysed more in-depth within the coming years. There is stilla lot unknown about the actual dynamics

behind metropolitan development and theway how policies could foster synergies be-tween the cities of a polycentric metropoli-tan area. It has shown that even thoughpolycentric metropolitan areas are becomingthe general type of metropolitan areas inEurope (with varying degrees of morphologi-cal polycentricity and different paths of evo-lution), it is by no means true that function-al, cultural or institutional/political contextsof these regions are similar. With some mi-nor exceptions, however, these differencesdo not appear to be related to the location

of metropolitan areas in different parts of Europe. This suggests some convergence

at the European scale, and makes the devel-opment of a knowledge and research agen-da for polycentric metropolitan areas clearlya pan-European affair. The different contextsalso show that it is worthwhile to comple-ment the broad overview generated througha general questionnaire with in-depth case

studies.

5 Introduction to the case studies

The second criterion was the incorporationof different types of polycentric metropolitanareas (fusion mode/incorporation mode).Milan and Porto are both ‘incorporationmode’ regions as the metropolitan area con-sists of one central city extending its sphereofinuenceoveralargerterritory.Theother

four case studies are ‘fusion mode’ regionssince these regions consist of a constellation

of multiple central cities that have started tobecome more interwoven, or have the po-tential to do so. It can be assumed thatchallenges and key questions differ to someextent between those different types of polycentric metropolitan areas.

5.3 Structure of the case studies

The case studies serve three objectives.First, they are meant to identify the mainchallenges that come coupled with the tran-sition from monocentric to polycentric urbanstructures, and to explore which new per-spectives on solving urban problems arisewhen these urban issues are regarded froma larger, regional perspective rather than alocal perspective. Second, to learn whatcities do to let the (theoretical) potentialities

of a polycentric urban structure materialize.In practice, this means exploring the level towhich the individual cities within thesepolycentric metropolitan areas have becomeintegrated. Third, there is the obvious rea-son to identify the knowledge needs of citieswith respect to the themes of polycentricityand integration.

When pursuing the three objectives abovewe focused on multiple dimensions of inte-gration. These have also been discussed inchapter 3, but we re-introduce them here

5.1 Cases

Across Europe six case studies were con-ducted to gain better insights in the chal-lenges these cities are facing, and to identifytheir knowledge needs with respect to thetheme of polycentric metropolitan areas.The in-depth studies complement the moregeneric questionnaire amongst urban pro-

fessionals. Case studies are written aboutthe following six metropolitan areas:

1. Linköping-Norrköping in Sweden2.Tri-CityRegion(Gdańsk,Gdynia,Sopot)

in Poland3. Mitteldeutschland (including Leipzig,

Halle, Dresden) in Germany4. Rotterdam-The Hague in the Netherlands5. Porto in Portugal6. Milan in Italy

During these on-site visits, EMI interviewed10-20 key experts and metropolitan stake-holders located in these metropolitan areas.These key experts have different back-grounds varying from various governmentauthorities (policy makers at local, metro-politan and regional level), research insti-tutes and universities (academics in this

researcheld)and(semi)-privateorganisa-tions (amongst other chamber of commerceor regional investment agencies). See Annex1 for a complete list of all interviewees.

5.2 Selection criteria

The six European metropolitan areas havebeen selected on the basis of two criteria.Therstisgeographicspreadacross

Europe: Figure 12 illustrates the location of the different case studies across Europe.




shortly. In the process of metropolisationthree different dimensions of integra-

tioncanbedened.First,thereisthespa-tial-functional dimension which addressesthe size and territorial distribution of theurban centres across the territory as well asthe functional relations between them (with-intheeldoflabourmarket,housingmar-

ket, amenities, services etc.). Regions thatare highly functionally integrated often func-tion as one daily urban system meaning thatthere are many crisscross relations of peopleandrmswithintheregion.Theyareused

to travel around between the cities that arepart of the broader metropolitan region.

Second, the cultural dimension tackles theidenticationandattachmentthatpeople

have with the wider metropolitan area. If such a regional identity is present, this canfor example be translated into more support

6 Linköping-Norrköping

6.1 Introduction to the region

Linköping and Norrköping lie in the heart of Sweden, some 200 kilometres southwest of Stockholm. Furthermore, Linköping is thecapital of the county of Östergötland. It cov-ers an area of about 10.000 km2 and hasapproximately 430.000 inhabitants. Theregion consists of 13 municipalities, of which

Linköping and Norrköping are the largest.Both cities have around 130.000 inhabit-ants. The regional level includes three differ-ent authorities: the County AdministrativeBoard, which is the national government’srepresentativeofceintheregionandalsoa

supervisory authority; the County Council,

which is responsible for health, medical careand starting in 2012 also public transport inthe region; and the Regional Council (calledÖstsam), which is in charge of regional de-velopment issues, with political representa-tion from the local authorities and theCounty Council.

Both cities and their immediate surround-

ings differ substantially. While Norrköping atraditionally was the larger city and the in-dustrial and cultural core of the region, therole of the city has declined in the post-in-dustrialeraassomemanufacturingrms

closed down, as well as several public ser-vices, such as the army. Nevertheless,

Figure 13 Linköping and Norrköping in Sweden

Source: Google Maps, 2012

Figure 12 Geographic spread of selected case

studies across Europe

for governance arrangements at the metro-politan scale, or an overarching brandingstrategy of the area.

Third, there is the institutional dimension of integration. Many (spatial) issues these dayscall for an approach that is formulated andimplemented at multiple scales and/or

across administrative tiers. Obviously, gov-erning a polycentric urban region is an intri-cate affair. Putting such multi-level govern-ance into practice is a complex task, even if politicians and administrators agree on itsusefulness. All chapters three of the casestudies discuss the three dimensions of inte-gration.




Norrköping and its surrounding towns arestill home to important transport companiesdue to the presence of a large harbour, andmanufacturing companies like Siemens (lo-cated nearby Finspång). Today, Norrköpingis recovering from the crisis of the 1970-80’s. The opening of the LinköpingUniversity campus in the heart of the citybrought new energy, and the many old in-

dustrial buildings along the river in the cen-tre of the city now form an attractive atmos-pherefornewbusinessesintheeldof–amongst others – media and visualisation.Linköping traditionally was the smaller city,but has always been the regional capital.But with a local economy based on R&D, theUniversity and the Saab airplane manufac-turing division it has recently taken over thetraditional dominant (economic) positionfromNorrköping.Linköpingalsoproted

from the decentralisation of public servicesout of Stockholm. Due to its recent growth,the city has a less ‘urban’ character thanNorrköping, with the latter boasting a his-toric inner city.

Regional challenges and integration

The region and both cities share commonproblems. First, the region is well devel-

oped, but shows signs of lower growth num-bers than the rest of Sweden, in particularthe three larger metropolitan areas inSweden, of which Stockholm, Göteborg andMalmo are the centres. Second, there is ashortage of skilled labour, which in the nearfuture is expected to grow due to a growingnumber of retirements the coming years.Another problem is the substantial numberof graduates (50-60%) that migrates to oth-er metropolitan areas in Sweden becausetheyareunabletondsufcientemploy-ment opportunities, or because they are

attracted to a more ‘metropolitan’ climatethat particularly Stockholm can offer.Similarly,headquartersofthelargerrms

tend also to move out of the region towardsStockholm. The region is unable to providethem with the right business climate, whichrequires the close presence of other deci-sion-making institutions (private and pub-lic), easy access to highly educated profes-

sionals and the support of highly specializedbusiness services.

However, the region does have an attrac-tion on families with small children, andsome of the professionals that migratedbefore to larger metropolitan areas inSweden return in this stage of their life.This has much to do with the presence of natural assets and good value for money onthe regional housing market, even thoughsalaries are about 15% less than inStockholm. The relatively short distance toStockholm also allows an increasing num-ber of people to commute between the re-gion and Sweden’s capital, while for in-stance also people may go several times ayear to Stockholm for shopping. For com-panies, strong pull factors of East Swedenare the lower costs for rent and salaries in

East Sweden. Some have voiced the ideathat eventually, and dependent on the con-struction of a connecting high-speed raillink, the region may become part of thewider metropolitan area of Stockholm.Decision-makers are well aware that thismay mean that more employment may belost to the capital if the region is not attrac-tive enough, and are trying to be well-pre-pared for this stage, amongst others by joining forces between Linköping andNorrköping.

For now, both cities are located close toeach other, without another large citynearby. Due to processes of scale enlarge-ment, the two cities are functionally inte-grating (for example regarding the labourmarket), and the cities feel that coopera-tion increasingly is a necessity. They joint-ly developed a common (municipal) levelspatial plan, which had not occurred inSweden before. The common problems

identiedabovehighlightthis.Thefact

that both cities are situated in the samecountyisbenecialforcooperationandisstimulated by the Regional CouncilÖstsam. The Council until recently posi-tioned itself as the fourth city region of Sweden, after Stockholm, Gothenburg andMalmö. But since the fourth position is notthat distinctive, the region now refers toitself as ‘East Sweden’.

Figure 14 Old industrial area of Norrköping, now part of the Linköping University Campus (l) and

Linköping Cathedral (r)

Source: © Thuresson (l) and Paul Richter (r)




Linköping-Norrköping as case study

Until recently Linköping and Norrköpingwere cities with their backs towards eachother,withercerivalrybetweenthem.The

last 15 years a shift is going on, however.Despite their differences the two cities havestarted to cooperate, by sharing certain ur-ban functions in order to achieve economiesof scale (e.g. public salary administration,

redefence).Itisinterestingtoseehowcooperation occurs in two cities that arevery different in character. Strategic devel-opment policies aimed at their integrationhave been in place for several years, so thisallows to evaluate its results. Furthermore,albeit both cities may be relatively smallfrom an international perspective, they areyet exemplary for the processes at playwhen relatively equally sized cities start tomerge together. But very useful knowledgemay be gathered there, that could be ap-plied at a larger scale too. This is whyLinköping-Norrköping has been selected as acase study for the research agenda onPolycentric Metropolitan Areas.

6.2 Strategies for regionalcooperation and integration

A distinction can be made between institu-tions that are already in place, promotingregional cooperation and integration, andspecicstrategies/instrumentsthatarede-ployed by these institutions. The regionallevel includes three different authorities: theCounty Administrative Board, which is thenationalgovernment’srepresentativeofcein the region and also a supervisory author-ity; the County Council, which is responsiblefor health and medical care in the region;and the Regional Council, which is in charge

of regional development issues, with politicalrepresentation from the local authorities andthe County Council.

The County Council is an old institution dat-ing back to the 17th century and is the ad-ministrative body of the County of Östergötland. It has policy making powers intheeldofhealthcareand,sincethestart

of 2012, public transport. Because the coun-ty encompasses a region which more or lessoverlaps the functionally integrated area of Linköping and Norrköping, this body helps inpromoting regional integration. The Council’shealth care strategy of specialisation of thehospitals in the region, aimed at achieving amore rational spread of health care, effec-tively forces people (patients) to adopt amore regional focus when they requiretreatment, since not each and every hospitalprovides the full array of medical care. Itsdecision making powers for regional trans-port help to promote commuting within theregion as well.

The Regional Council Östsam itself acts as aplatform in which all municipalities of Östergötland can coordinate their activities.The Regional Council was established in

2002 based on a new law – Law on coordi-nation entities within the counties – whichgave regional bodies possibilities to assumeresponsibility for regional development is-sues. In the Law on coordination entitieswithin the counties it is supposed that mu-nicipalities and the County Council jointlyestablish a municipal association that bythe government becomes appointed as co-ordination entity and as such assumes cer-tain national tasks. The Östsam RegionalCouncil started its operations on the 1st of January 2003, as an association of munici-

palities to which the government has trans-ferred certain tasks and mandates. TheRegional Council allows for cooperation be-tween civil servants and local administra-tors from 13 municipalities and makesthem aware of the fact that they are part of a larger region. It also coordinates externalpromotion of the region. In order to do so ithas adopted the strategy to become the

‘fourth largest city region in Sweden’, withthe objective to create a functional regionwith economic growth and competitiveness.They consider it important to achieve con-sensus between stakeholders in the pro-cess. The Regional Council is focusing onthe following areas of activity: spatial de-velopment planning, culture & creativityand entrepreneurship & employability.Regarding the latter, Sweden has divided itsterritory into functionally integrated region-al labour markets, based on statistics oncommuting. Östergötland currently consistsof two labour markets around Linköpingand Norrköping. The Regional CouncilÖstsam deploys instruments to promotefurther integration, and it is expected thatboth will merge in the near future. In orderto address the shortage of skilled labour,the aim is to raise the general educational

level in the region as well as the skills levelwithinspecicindustries.Inaddition,ef -cient matching between skills supply, edu-cation and labour market demands is also akey issue. The ‘Growlink’ programme catersto this need.

Next to the activities deployed by these re-gional authorities, there are a number of private or semi-public strategies that haveperhaps not been explicitly aiming for re-gional integration, but that turned out to beofgreatsignicanceforactualintegration.

The single most important action that haslinked both cities more strongly has beenthe opening of a campus by the LinköpingUniversity in the neighbouring city of Norrköping in the mid-1990s. This is done insuch a way that the campus is home tosome top research, making it a full-growncampus rather than a subsidiary. The cam-pus is also complementary in location: it is

located in the heart of Norrköping’s city cen-tre. This also leads to further integrationbetween the two cities. Students are in-creasingly required to take courses in theneighbouring city as well, and free shuttlebuses provide for quick and convenienttransport.

One can mention some very concrete exam-ples of achieving advantages of scale, whichisthatbothcitiesnowshareonerebri-gade, municipal salary administration andhave arrangements for people who want toswitch kindergartens between the two cities.

Another interesting strategy by the privatesector is the merging of the business clubsof the professional ice hockey team inLinköping and the professional soccer teamin Norrköping, thereby avoiding strong re-

gional competition for limited sponsor mon-ey and allowing for a platform for businessmen and women to meet both in summerand winter.

6.3 State of integration

6.3.1 Spatial-functional integrationThe travel distance between Linköping andNorrköping, a distance of about 35-40 km,can be covered within half an hour, certainlyby car, and shuttle trains run every 20 min-




utes next to long distance trains that halterat both cities. All interviewees agree thatthe level of interaction between the citieshas been rising steadily over the years. The just mentioned travel of students betweenthe two university campuses is exemplary.Also of great relevance here is the soon-toexpectofcialstatisticalmergingofthela-bour markets of Linköping and Norrköping,whichreectsincreasedcommutingbetween

these formerly strictly separate labour mar-kets. Also interaction with cities in surround-

ing regions has been increasing. It was al-ready stated that in the future it could wellbe that the region will come under thesphereofinuenceofStockholm.Butalso

interaction with other cities such asJönköping, Örebro and Katrineholm is in-creasing. Health care is at this momentplanned for a larger region including Östsamand Jönköping and Kalmar county. Thismight change in the future given the currentdiscussions on a new regional division inSweden.

Both cities and their surrounding labourmarkets have a ‘natural complementarity’ intheir local economies. Linköping is orientedmore towards R&D, government and otherbusiness functions, while Norrköping isstrong in avant-garde cultural businesses,transport and industries. This natural spe-cialisation is likely to stimulate economicdevelopment in both cities, as the cities to-gether offer a more diverse business envi-ronment, and hence, are able to cater to thediverging locational needs that business

have. Linköping and Norrköping are alsocomplementary in their residential environ-ments and cultural atmosphere. WhileLinköping has a more ‘small-town’ character,Norrköping has always been the culturalcapital of the region with more urban at-mosphere and amenities. It used to be thethird largest city of Sweden a century ago.Today this is enhanced by the industrial her-itage that Norrköping possesses. The sur-rounding smaller towns and villages offer anattractive environment in particular for fami-lies.

Figure 15 a modern train operated by Östgötatraken (l) and Linköping City Airport (r)

Source: ©Skistar (r)

Yet, both cities have developed out-of-townshopping malls that are rather similar. Thereis no strong sign of the development of top-level urban functions that build on the criti-cal mass of the entire region rather thanindividual cities. The airport discussion is agood example. Both cities have airports,with limited connections (to Helsinki andCopenhagen from Norrköping, and to

Copenhagen and Amsterdam fromLinköping), and it could be argued that it ismoreefcienttooperateoneairport.Are-cent study advised to merge the two organi-sations running the airports. However, thematter is so politically sensitive that there isno discussion about concentrating air travelon one of the two airports.

6.3.2 Cultural integrationDespite decreasing feelings of rivalry (thatby now is becoming a sort of folklore), thereis still a threat that these feelings will live upagain if one city outperforms the other. Thishas been the case over the last decades, asLinköping was often more on the ‘lucky’ side, as for instance central governmentorganisations were decentralized to the city(computing centres, military defence, newuniversity), while in Norrköping manufactur-

ing companies were closing down. This gaverise to same feelings of neglect inNorrköping, which had to reinvent itself in away several times in the last decades.

Regarding the media, it is interesting to notethat both cities have their own journals,which are in fact owned by the same com-pany. But apparently, it is not consideredimportant for inhabitants of Linköping tolearn more about what is happening inNorrköping, and vice versa. Obviously, suchinformation is easily spread through the

internet, but only ends up with people al-ready actively searching for this information.

While in the past few years the region posi-tioned itself as ‘the fourth city-region inSweden’, this was later considered to be notsufcientlyappealing.Thereisnowdiscus-sion about a new ‘brand’ that may unify theregion and its inhabitants, and for instance

‘East Sweden Business Region’ has come upin this discussion.

6.3.3 Institutional integrationTheregionprotsfromthefactthatitis

part of the same old (17 th century) adminis-trative authority – the county, which meansthat there is regional organizing capacityand regional development powers at thescale of the polycentric metropolitan area.What is more, the regional authority activelypromotes integration, which is not self-evi-dent. At this moment, there is talk of anenlargement of the county (as part of a re-gional reform to limit the number of regionalauthorities), but this might imbalance thenew region and the activities aimed at re-gional integration. In fact, opinions differbetween Linköping and Norrköping in whichway the region should be extended,

Norrköping traditionally being more focusedon the northern and eastern areas, whereasLinköping is more oriented towards thesouth and the west.

The regional development policy of the re-gion appears to be adopted by all relevantstakeholders, meaning that the regionalcoordination has been effective. There ap-pears to be a well-developed sense of be-longing together and a shared understand-ing of the challenges of the region and theway forward.





6.4 SWOT analysis

Strengths Weaknesses

• Natural complementarity: equal size, both economically(different sectors) as for the housing market (L=moresuburban, N=more dense and urban) and culturally(N offers more qualities and old abandoned factories).Complementarity limits competition and stimulatescooperation.

• The fact that the old administrative region of Östergötlandcounty captures the functional region of the two cities ratherwell. This means that formal governmental powers havebeen in place since the 17th century, and hence promotesregional cooperation. What is more, this regional level of government actively strives after regional coordination andintegration,anddoesnotappeartobeinconictwiththe

cities over competencies.• There is a common strategy and shared understanding of

challenges.• Good balance between agglomeration advantages andagglomeration disadvantages: both cities are not too smalland not too big.

• In regional cooperation there is a focus on functionalelements, which create bonding and trust.

• Surrounding villages are often already connected to theregion (either Linköping of Norrköping) because of the largeshare of commuting.

• Branding of the region (economically and as aplace to live) is not yet developed.Less growth of jobs and innovation than onaverage in Sweden.

• Uncoordinated planning of functions (airport,shopping centres), also new joint spatial strategydoes not aim for increasing development of thearea between the cities.

• Regionistoosmalltobeafully-edgedlabour

market and offers too few metropolitan qualitiesto compete with Stockholm, Gothenburg andMalmö.

Opportunities Threats

• Increasing functional integration and successful co-operationin the past allows to address the more politically sensitiveissues on the table that require trade-offs between thecities.

• Enlarging of the mental maps of people: still, many peopleare not looking at the scale of the region when it comes to

jobs.• Critical mass of the region is not yet fully exploited: there is

scope for organizing more specialized urban functions in theregion.

• The University promotes cooperation between Linköping andNorrköping and further integration is also in their interest.

• While the region is able to attract students from all over the

country and increasingly also abroad, it is not able yet toprovidethemwithsufcient(job)opportunitiestostayafter

graduation. Only 50-60% of university the graduates remainin the region. There are jobs, but students are attracted tothe big companies that are settled in Stockholm.

• Potential to foster a more regional attitude of people andrmsisnotyetfullyused–forinstancelocalmediacould

inform people better about opportunities in the wider regionby merging local newspapers and TV-station.

• IntegrationwithStockholmmightbenettheregion,

stimulated by the high speed rail link. People may leaveStockholm and settle in Östergötland, while continue to workin Stockholm.

• Shared focus on improving internal transport to furtherintegrate the region.

• Linköping might become used to success and mayforget to anticipate on future developments thatare unfavourable for the city. Also, when one cityis outperforming the other, it may not want to beassociated with that city. If interests of both citiesin co-operation become more imbalanced, the co-operation may come to an end.

• Mismatch labour market: need for skilledvocational trained people, but people are eithertoo highly educated or too low.

• Insufcientregion-wideinformationmaking

people unaware of the opportunities (for work,leisure, shopping) in the region.

• Integration with Stockholm might harm theregion, stimulated by the high speed rail link.Businesses and young people may leave forStockholm at an even higher rate.

• Most low hanging fruit is already being picked,more politically sensitive issue may come on thetable, but then interest in the common strategymay fade. The airport discussion can also becomea political breakpoint.

• A lack of an inspiring leader to furthercooperation.

• Enlargement of the county might bringimbalances to the new region.

6.5 Conclusions

Before talking about best practices andknowledge questions that derived from thiscase study, we highlight four main impres-sions. Despite differences in history, econo-my, residential qualities and urban amenitiesbetween the major cities Linköping andNorrköping, and some rivalry that comes

with this, the cooperation between themworks quite well. An important reason forthis is that Linköping (the more academic,governmental and suburban city) andNorrköping (the more historical, industrialand cultural city) complement each other ina ‘natural’ way. Both naturally focus on de-veloping their own strengths and this works

out well: albeit there is cultural rivalry (thatby now is becoming a sort of folklore), thereis no strong competition. However, when theissues go beyond this natural complementa-rity and require coordination in spatial plan-ning, there is no real cooperation. An exam-ple is the airport, which is such a sensitiveissue that it is not on the political agenda atall, and the uncoordinated building of large

scale shopping facilities at the opposingsidesofbothcities.Arststepisbeingsetwith a joint municipal spatial plan.

Another reason why regional integrationseems to work is the strong focus on func-tional elements. The focus on integrating theregional labour markets, through the coop-




eration within the Growlink initiative, hascreated stronger working relationships be-tween civil servants within the various mu-nicipalities. The decision in the mid 1990’sto place a University campus in Norrköpinghas tightened the bonds between the twocities. The new campus stimulated the re-vival of the old industrial town thatNorrköping was, putting the old disadvan-

taged feelings towards Linköping somewhatto the background. Other initiatives are themergingofthetwocities’rebrigadesandthe municipal salary administrations. It cre-ated trust between the two cities and sup-port for cooperation among citizens, but hasalso created a problem: the low hangingfruit has been picked; now they need tothinkofmoredifcultissuestointegrate(for example the airport). It could turn outthat moving beyond what are clearly win-win situations and to address several locallywin-losesituationsthathavebenetsfortheregionatlargemayturnoutdifcultand

may jeopardize regional co-operation andcoordination.

For the long term future, both cities and theregion as a whole are aware of the extraneed of cooperation. It is widely acknowl-

edged that the region in the long run cannotcompete with the three major Swedish cities(Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö) if goodcooperation does not position the regionbetter, certainly when the region may gradu-ally be incorporated in the wider Stockholmmetropolitan area. A critical issue is thatÖstergötland does not offer the metropolitanqualities and quantitative, specialised labourmarket to match Sweden’s largest cities.The postal addresses and managementfunctionsoflarge(>250employees)rms

are already moving to Stockholm, but often

backofcesremainintheregionandyoung

families move back, some of them still work-ing in Stockholm. This creates more interac-tion with the capital. If this process contin-ues, the region needs to compete with othersuburban cities near Stockholm (most nota-bly Uppsala) but has the disadvantage of being located rather far away. The high-speed rail linkage with Stockholm can then

become vital in this respect for both cities.By joining forces, Linköping and Norrköpingcan become the ‘best of the rest’ afterStockholm, despite the large distances.

In general, the strong role of the public sec-torhasapositiveinuenceonthefunctionalintegration of the region. The Swedish statehas divided the territory into several labourmarkets,whichformclearlydenedplat-forms for cooperation. In the end it is up tothe municipalities themselves to use thisplatform. In Östergötland this is donethrough the Growlink network. But the gov-ernmentalinuenceinregionalintegrationis

also noticeable in the sphere of health care.ThecountyofÖstergötlandhasdeneda

strategy for the public regional hospitals and ‘rstcontactpoints’basedoncomplementa-rity, meaning that every hospital has its own

specialisation. The county is also responsiblefor arranging the regional public transport,and together with local municipalities thereis a heavy support for enlarging the modalsplit of public transport within the region.Furthermore,theextensiveamountofnan-cial support for businesses that are startingup appears to be working well.

7 Porto Metropolitan Area


Porto is the second largest metropolitanarea of Portugal and located in its northernpart. Although Lisbon is the capital with allgovernmentalandnancialinstitutions,thenorthern Portuguese region (ranging fromBraga in the north to Aveiro in the south) isthe economic powerhouse of the country. A

large part of the Portuguese research capac-ity is based here and the region boastssome important industries like the produc-tion of shoes, furniture, textile, cork and of

course port wine, as well as mechanical in-dustry. The accession to the EU, and in par-ticular the introduction of the euro, has con-tributed to the steady transformation of Portugal into a service economy. This doesnotnecessarilyappeartobetothebenetof the Porto region, since the area is hometo many traditional industrial sectors thatnowadays seem to be a bit overlooked. Yet,

inthiseraofnancialcrises,itisclearthatthe industrial exports of the northern regionare key to Portugal’s recovery from the cri-ses. Historically Porto is more oriented to-

Figure 16

Porto metropolitan

area in Portugal





wards northern Europe, whereas the focusof Lisbon was more on the Portuguese colo-nies.

The municipality of Porto in itself is not verylarge. For some decades it faced heavy sub-urbanisation. In 1991, Porto counted over300.000 inhabitants, but right now the num-ber of inhabitants has dropped to around

238.000. The metropolitan area as a wholeis nevertheless growing and counts a largeshare of relatively young, well educatedpeople. In total it counts around 1,3 millionpeople and consists of a multitude of mu-nicipalities. Porto is a very polycentric regionfor quite some time already: from the indus-trialisation onwards Porto served as the ser-vice hub amidst industrial ‘new towns’.Currently, the area directly around Porto isstrongly urbanized (including the towns of Matosinhos, Maia, Valongo, Vila Nova deGaia, Gondomar). In fact, the largest mu-nicipality of the Porto metropolitan area isnot Porto but Vila Nova de Gaia with morethan 300.000 inhabitants. Around this urbancore lays an outer layer of smaller townsand more rural areas.At the metropolitan scale there is the AMP(Área Metropolitana do Porto), a platform for

the sixteen mayors of the metropolitan areathat allows for discussion about metropolitanpolicy issues. It does not have any formalpowers. Portugal is divided into eighteendistricts, of which Porto District is one.These districts however lack formal powersexceptintheeldofpublicsecurity.Thestate has also appointed a North RegionalCoordination and Development Commission(CCDRN), aimed at adding a regional focuson national planning and development.However,thisbodyhasnoofcialpolicy

making competencies, although they are

responsible for the management of RegionalOperational Programmes. Rather, it acts as aregional think-tank, carrying out studies ona wide range of spatial development issues.At the local level Portugal counts over 300municipalities. Their local tax base is limited.Directscaltransfersfromthecentralstate

account for 85-90% of local revenues. Thecentralstatethushasastronginuencein

local policy making, while a strong regionallayer is absent.

Regional challenges and integration

The region of Porto needs to modernize itseconomy. The current industries mentionedabove are focused on serial industrial pro-duction, while there is a need to base thelocal economy more on knowledge, researchand R&D. Moreover, the accession to the EUand the arrival of the euro have not hadoverlyclearbenetsforthenorthernpartof

Portugal. European funds have led to invest-ments in infrastructure and the airport, butthese have not intrinsically changed the na-ture of the regional economy. Growth in theservice economy is mainly thanks to the riseof tourism. Moreover, the transition of Portugal to a democratic republic in 1974 ledto the nationalisation of many institutions,

causing many of them to be located in andaround Lisbon. Porto used to have a strongbanking sector, but because of nationalisa-tion policies these were relocated to Lisbon.This process of politically steered centralisa-tion fuelled the distrust of many people fromPorto towards Lisbon. But besides these po-litically steered processes of centralisation,there is also an increasing market force thatsteers towards further clustering of services(e.g.nancialinstitutions)atahigherspa-tial scale. Not only Lisbon is a competitor forPorto, but Madrid and Barcelona are com-

petitors too. Despite these negative process-es, strengthened by the current euro crisis,

there are positive aspects as well. As said,the Porto metropolitan area is growing, andhas a large supply of young labour. With itsgood entrepreneurial spirit it offers opportu-nities for people with new and innovativeideas.

Another challenge is posed by the continuingprocess of suburbanisation away from Porto’scity centre. Both inhabitants and businessesleave the inner city and relocate to the sur-rounding municipalities. There are severalreasons for this. First, several decades ago

the harbour together with other industriesstarted to move out of Porto, more towards

the sea. This caused a serious decline in em-ployment in the city centre. Second, Portugalhas a peculiar housing policy that leads torather low rents. In large municipalities asLisbon and Oporto, rents were “frozen” since1948. In 1974, rent controls were extendedto the whole country. Later on (in 1981 and1985, but also in 1990 and 2006), new legis-lation softened these controls. Now, in thecase of new contracts, rents can be freelyestablished; there is the possibility of an an-nual increase of rents, based on an indicatorpublished by Statistics Portugal; and there

Figure 17 A modern landmark in Porto: the Casa da Musica

Source: © Osvaldo Gago




arespecicmeasuresdirectedto“oldrents”.

Problematic is that the successive legislativechangesdidnothaveasignicantimpacton

the “old rents sector”. Low renting pricesmean that house owners have no incentive toimprove their housing stock, nor money tospend on maintenance, and hence the qualityis downgrading. The result is that anyoneable to pay for higher quality housing is mov-

ing out, and by now the inner city is inhab-ited mostly by vulnerable social groups, whilethere are also many abandoned buildings,particularly in the UNESCO-world heritageneighbourhood Ribeira. In many other placesin the world, this district would probably begentried.Anewproposalisnowindiscus -sion, aiming to develop the private rentedmarket. And third, the surrounding munici-palitieshavebenetedfromalocalbuildingtax, which sometimes accounted for 80% ormore of the municipal revenues. Hence, theeasy supply of suburban housing led tostrong suburbanisation in the economicallygood times, but it also has led to a hugeoversupply of housing: by now 12.7% of allhouses in the Greater Porto area is vacant,and in the Porto municipality it is even ashighas18.8%(guresfor2011).

This move away from the city centre leadsto negative developments that require policyattention. A metropolitan area needs ahealthy centre to function smoothly and toperform the gateway functions of a centralcity for its neighbouring municipalities. Yet,the importance of Porto as a gateway is notrecognized by the surrounding municipalitieswho prefer to follow their own agenda of development and fail to coordinate largescale developments, leading to suboptimaloutcomes at the metropolitan scale.However, Porto certainly is no Detroit: the

Porto University is very much rooted in Portoand its health and cultural facilities (hospitalSão João, the Casa da Música and SerralvesFoundation), together with the integrativefunction of the Porto Metro, make sure Portoremains the most central city within the re-gion. But businesses and retail are movingmore and more to large shopping malls inthe suburbs. Each municipality is developing

its own mall and increasingly they are com-peting. Due to the economic crisis, the mallsare not faring well, because of their over-supply of retail space and the malls alsobeing rather non-descript and lacking char-acter and atmosphere. It would be mostbenecialforthewholeregionifthesemat-ters were to be coordinated through sharedpolicies on the housing and real estate mar-kets and for instance a metropolitan devel-opment plan.However, the process of suburbanisation hasa paradoxical impact on regional integration.On the one hand, as described above, theregion lacks integration on the political andplanning side. Local politicians don’t seem tobe aware of the strength of a coherent met-ropolitan area. But on the other hand, sub-urbanisation has led to a metropolitan areawith a relative similar cultural background

(many people that originally come fromPorto). Many people live and work through-out the region and to the outside world;inhabitants from the region refer to them-selves as being from Porto. So from a func-tional and cultural perspective, the Portometropolitan area already functions as aquite well integrated metropolitan area.

Porto Metropolitan Area as case study

This interesting paradox is an important rea-son to further study the integration of thePorto metropolitan area. This mismatch be-

tween local politics and local realities seems tolead to the conclusion that regional integrationdoes not necessarily have to be followed by,or be preceded by political integration, even if the region’s problems clearly state the needfor integrated regional governance. Portoseems to have it all: good road infrastructureand a growing airport, a downgraded but po-tentially highly attractive inner city, an inte-

grated metropolitan labour market, a regionalhinterland (the Douro region) that is distinc-tive as a brand, strong human capital, but yetitfailstoreapthebenetsduetoitsweak

regional organizing capacity.


This of course does not mean that there areno regional policies involved. Below we high-light some of the platforms and policies thatare being or have been implemented tostrengthen regional coherence and regionalgovernance.

The Área Metropolitana do Porto (AMP) isthe backbone of the metropolitan region andconsists of sixteen municipalities. It acts as

a platform on which various regional topicsare discussed between the mayors. With its(limited) annual budget of 2 million euro(the municipalities contributing half of theamount per year) it performs studies forregional integration, such as a study for dif-ferent management models for the PortoAirport, and the municipalities involved co-operate for EU funded projects. But sincethe platform does not have any formal re-sponsibilities, it acts more as a political fo-rum rather than a decisive administrativebody. There are no clear criteria for munici-

palities to become a member of the AMP.There are some examples of cooperationandcoordinationintheeldofmetropolitan

services. The Porto metro system becameoperational in 2002 and operates multiplemetro lines throughout the metropolitanarea. With these lines there is an increasevisible in commuting between Porto and thesuburbs, thus contributing to regional inte-

gration. When the opportunity arose to buildthe metro, there was a sense of unity withinthe AMP. Also the extension of the airportand development of a cruise terminal weresupported by all municipalities in the metro-politan region. However, the main key tosuccess within these three regionally sup-ported projects was that the investmentswere not subjected to political debate. Theairport and cruise terminal were only feasi-ble at one location, and the Porto Metro wasmainlynancedbyEUfunds.Furthermore,

all sixteen municipalities have decided touse the same companies for waste manage-ment and water supply.

As mentioned, the CCDRN is a long-standingeffort to regionally coordinate spatial plan-ning and development. It is the only initia-tive thus far that acts on a regional scale

withintheseelds,butitisnoindependentregional authority but rather a local agencyrepresenting the central state. TheCommission does however produce valuablestudies that contain starting points for com-mon regional policies and have a role in themanagement of the Regional OperationalProgrammes.Recently another body has been erectedthat is not so much a platform for coopera-tion, but could rather promotes regionalintegration. The Autoridade Metropolitanade Transportes Porto (AMTP) or




Metropolitan Authority of Transports Portohas the task to harmonize the public trans-port system of the Porto region. The follow-ing paragraph will detail on this a bit more.


7.3.1 Spatial-functional integration

The current state of metropolitan integrationis largely steered by the suburbanisationpatterns that have developed. The move-ment of businesses and people out of Portohas led to a very integrated crisscross pat-tern of commuting patterns. Hence, peopleand businesses operate very ‘polycentric’ (undertaking activities at multiple places)and you can easily speak of one integratedlabour market. However, this is supportedforemost by car mobility. The role of publictransportisnotverysignicant:thePorto

Metro is relatively recent and does not havea fully developed network, and the nationaltrain network mainly provides connectionswith towns located further away. Bus con-nections are fragmented: state-owned com-panies compete with private companies andoften have a concession for individual linesinstead of coherent areas. The result is that

a multitude of operators operate within theregion, often operating lines that overlap,with different tariff systems. The recentlyerected Metropolitan Authority of Transports(AMTP), an agency established by the cen-tral state, has the task to harmonize publictransportinthePortourbanarea.Arst

step is being set by harmonizing the tariff system for the whole region. This could helpthe region to integrate, but a more coherentpublic transport network is needed. An ex-tension is however costly.

The metropolitan area as covered by theÁrea Metropolitana do Porto (AMP) does notfunction as one coherent urban area. Theurbanringasdenedonpreviouspages(surrounding municipalities that are part of the same built-up area as Porto) is very wellintegrated in terms of commuting patterns,but the outer ring of more rural municipali-ties has less strong ties with Porto. The need

for regional coordination appears to bestrongerwiththe‘rsturbanring’,wherethe high degree of functional integration hasevolved more or less unplanned. The task isnow to coordinate this process better: newservices should complement each other andthe municipalities should specialize in at-tracting certain businesses and services.Between the urban core and the more ruralouter layer there is instead much less func-tional integration. The urban core is morefocused on services and industries, while therural layer around (Douro region) boastsattractive landscapes and traditional indus-tries.Theurbancorecanprotmorefrom

these rural characteristics by integratingboth territories better, through better infra-structural connections or coherent (tourist)promotion. At the moment this is done fornorthern Portugal as a whole, but promotion

at the metropolitan scale might be better forregional integration. For instance, visits tothe Douro river valley could be promoted incombination with a trip to Porto.

From a larger regional perspective it is pos-sible to enlarge the functional region by in-corporating the cities of Braga andGuimarães in the north and Aveiro in thesouth. Taken together this is the economicpowerhouse of Portugal in research and ex-ports. The three universities from Braga (witha campus in Guimarães), Porto and Aveiro

have started a collaboration in which theymake use of each other’s strengths: Porto’suniversity is strong in engineering, architec-ture, telecommunications and health and lifesciences, Aveiro’s university in aeronauticsand telecommunications and Braga’s/Guimarães’ university in software. This coop-eration of universities can be linked with theregion’s (traditional) industries to make them

more competitive. At an even higher scale,Porto envisions to be the centre of part of thenorthwestern part of the Iberian Peninsula,within the Galicia-North Euregio.

7.3.2 Cultural integrationPortugal is a country in which regional identi-tiesdonotplayalargerole.Thisisreected

in the absence of regional layers of govern-ment, which are common in otherMediterranean countries like France, Spainand Italy. The Porto region is likewise nothampered by inter-municipal cultural rival-ries. Due to suburbanisation and the criss-cross patterns of businesses and commuters,there is a large cultural equality throughoutthe metropolitan area, strengthened by the

fact that the region offsets itself mainlyagainst Lisbon (a unifying force), and thecentral role of the strong and successful localsoccer team FC Porto within the metropolitanarea. To highlight this integration, inhabitantsfrom the Porto metropolitan region mostlyrefer to themselves as being from Porto whenintroducing themselves to ‘outsiders’.

Figure 18 Ponte Dom Luis I

Source: © Mano Darbas




‘Porto’ is quite a strong brand name for acity that in reality is not very large. Portohas a strong image that is distinctive fromother cities, with its distinctive inner citythat is on the UNESCO World Heritage listand the Douro region around the corner.Tourist promotion, combined with a regionalperspective from the Douro region, is con-sidered to be very useful for the region.Tourists can revitalize the inner city and

tourism is growing, thanks to the new air-port and connections by Ryanair and otherlow cost carriers. Besides being a city of soccer and port wine, the city wants to pro-mote itself as science city too. As said, thisis now done for northern Portugal as awhole,butwouldtthemetropolitanarea

very well.

7.3.3 Institutional integrationThe fact that political cooperation within themetropolitan area is not very well developedcan largely be explained by two factors.

First, there is a strong individualistic culture.Cooperation is not something that people,and hence policy makers, have grown upwith; also within municipalities there is astrong separation between the activities of each policy sector. There have been someexperiments with public private partnerships(PPP), but to the public these left a negativetaste. These projects (construction of high-ways and hospitals) were associated with

higherpricesthatowedintothepocketsofthe private operators.

Second, local political leaders often havenational political ambitions. Politicians withnational ambitions are nominated in Lisbon,and once elected often adapt themselves tothe ‘Lisbon way’. Without the presence of astrong ‘mediating’ regional layer, these dual-istic attitudes (local vs. national) becomeeven more pronounced. All in all, this doesnotbenetthedevelopmentofco-operation

in the region. Politicians are focused at their

electorate either at the local level or thenational level, and regional integration is notsomething that has a strong impact on peo-ple’s everyday lives. It means that local poli-ticians, although in words supporting region-ally coordinated policies, in practice prior-itize the daily problems within their ownmunicipalities. These factors largely explainwhy unity for regional projects within the

metropolitan area of Porto is only presentwhen it doesn’t affect a municipality in anegative way or when the nature of the project doesn’t allow for geopolitics, as de-scribed in paragraph 2.

Role of the central state and

municipalities

Theconstitutionof1975denesthreelevels

for the organisation of the government (cen-tral, regional and local), in which the dis-tricts are supposed to be replaced by re-gions. However, the regional level of admin-istration was never enacted. Instead there isa regional agency representing the centralstate, in the north in the form of theCCDRN. A referendum that was held in the1990s about the creation of a regional bodywith formal powers was voted against.Therefore, the Portuguese state in practice

is shaped by the central state and the 300+municipalities. These municipalities are rela-tively large from the European perspective.There have been some discussions aboutmerging municipalities, but the general feel-ing among the population is that mergingwould lead to municipal services being lo-cated too far away.

The state’s strong competences can directlylimit possibilities for regionally coordinatedpolicies. An example illustrates this best.The government in Lisbon has put forward a

proposal to merge the two authorities thatmanage the Lisbon and Porto harbour sepa-rately.BylocatingthenewofceinLisbon,

the Porto harbour would be controlled fromLisbon. But the Porto harbour is an assetthat is of regional importance for the Portoarea, and the proposal would make it veryhard to formulate a harbour developmentstrategythatisbenecialforPortoandits

surroundings. Many aspects that togetherdenethecompetitivenessoftheregionsinPorto are a national competence, such asthe tax system and education policies.

Future possibilities for metropolitan

governance

It is generally perceived that the ÁreaMetropolitana do Porto (AMP) should havemorecompetencesinordertobetterfullacentral role within the Porto metropolitanarea. At the moment, there is a nationaldebate, fuelled by the “rescue agreement” with EC-ECB-IMF, on the organisation of local authorities. The AMP commissioned astudy involving the University of Porto and auniversity in Madrid to contribute to thisdebate, and it suggests transferring respon-sibilitiesintheeldofeducation,economic

development and tourism from the central

government to the level of the AMP.

All in all, this would entail both that the stateand municipalities would transfer some re-sponsibilities to the metropolitan level. Withintwo years there are local elections, and anew national law states that mayors are notto be appointed for longer than three terms.As a result, many mayors need to leave anda new generation should get an opportunity.This could be a decisive moment to discussnew responsibilities of the AMP.





7.4 SWOT analysis


• Good infrastructure (highways), growing airportwith good (cheap) connections

• Porto and the region are well-known, positivebrands

• Growing metropolitan population, highpercentage of young people and high humanskills and high entrepreneurial spirit

• The metropolitan area already operates as onefunctional region (particularly the city and itsrst‘sub’urbanring,theurbancore),partly

thanks to the development of the Porto metrosystem

• Shared cultural identity within the metropolitanarea, thanks to many people s uburbanizing fromPorto and the local FC Porto football club

• Individualistic culture has led to few experiences incooperation

• Fragmented public transport system (tariffs;operations) and management limit regionalintegration

• The region’s economy is heavily based on industries(but see also opportunities)

• Portopoliticiansseemunabletoinuencedecisionmaking at the national level, which is oftenfavouring Lisbon

• Housing and building policies promoteuncoordinated suburbanisation of businesses andpeople and hamper redevelopment of inner city.The organising capacity to tackle this is missing.

• AMP and CCDRN due to lack of competences cannotpromote regional integration and cooperation (butsee also opportunities)


• Economic crisis as combined withentrepreneurial spirit poses opportunities forinnovation and could create sense of urgencyamong municipalities to cooperate

• Large research capacity, also on a largerscale: Improve regional economy by linkingup northern Portugal and three importantuniversities (in Porto, Braga’s/Guimarães andAveiro)

• Tourism can be a vehicle that promotes regionalintegration, especially between urban core and

more rural outer layer (linked with the Douroregion)

• Platforms like the AMP, CCDRN and the publictransport agency AMTP provide opportunitiesfor future integration, when granted morecompetences

• Next local elections will see the departure of many mayors. New mayors can bring a freshnew breeze in regional cooperation.

• The traditional industries form a logical basisfor future strategies of smart specialisation,in which the traditional industries are to bemodernized.

• Domination of the central state that centralizesservices. Especially in these times of cutbacks.

• Businesses that continue to leave (to suburbs,Lisbon and Madrid) may in term lead to depart of human skill too, because an attractive central city isvital element for competitiveness

• Neglect of the core city (Porto), whose fortunes aredecisive for surrounding municipalities also.

• Governance culture and institutional structuredoes not allow reasoning from a metropolitanperspective, while this will be increasingly

necessary

7.5 Conclusions

Functionally, the metropolitan area of Portois quite well integrated. Due to suburbanisa-tion processes the towns directly aroundPorto have merged, together with Porto, intoone coherent urban area. People move incrisscross patterns across the region, whichmay be fostered by and continues to foster

a shared regional identity. To the outsideworld, people from all over the region referto themselves as being from Porto. However,building and housing policies promoted sub-urbanisation but at the same time impededrenewal of the central city of Porto. Bothbusinesses and inhabitants have moved outand continue to do so. Although the city of Porto remains the most important centre forservices (hospitals), education (theUniversity) and culture (Serralves, Casa daMusica), this position is steadily being un-dermined. A competitive metropolitan areaneeds a strong urban centre, but the rise of ofcesandshoppingmallsinthesuburbsatthe cost of businesses in central Porto andthe outmigration of people will lead to theopposite. Regionally coherent policies areneeded to balance these developments, butthemetropolitanareadoesn’thaveatting

institutional platform to do so. This partlyreectsthelackofrecognitionoftherolePorto plays as a gateway to the world forthe whole metropolitan areas.

Besides the internal process mentionedabove, external pressures also force theregion towards more cooperation, coordina-tion and integration on various levels. Theeconomic crisis has led to a huge problemon the housing market (about 12% of thehouses in the region are vacant) and shop-ping malls that have recently been con-

structedarefacingdifculties.Thetransition

towards a service, tourism and researchbased economy seems to ask for integrationfrom multiple perspectives. At the level of the built-up area, cooperation should focuson better balancing the development of sub-urbs and the Porto city centre. From a tour-istic point of view, integrated and coordi-nated promotion of both urban amenities

and rural attractions (Douro valley, tradi-tionalindustries)willbenetthewholemet-ropolitan area. Finally, for economic com-petitiveness cooperation is needed on aneven larger scale. Porto needs to hook upwith its neighbouring cities of Aveiro in thesouth and Braga in the north. The coopera-tion between the three universities in theregion offer a promising start. Linking theactivities of these universities to the entre-preneurial spirit in the region (through busi-ness-to-researchplatforms)withaspecic

regional focus could help the region to diver-sifyandrenewitseconomy.Portocanprot

from Guimarães as the current capital of culture.

A culture of governance is lacking in Porto tostimulate regional cooperation and coordina-tion. Although entrepreneurial, the prevail-

ing culture is also quite individualistic.Therefore, cooperation is not in the ‘genes’ of Portuguese people. The dualistic relation-ship with the national government in Lisbonadds to that. As said, politicians are eitherfocused on the national or local (municipal)level, and the regional perspective loses outbecause this has no strong impact on peo-ple’severydaylives.Althoughofciallysup-porting regionally coordinated policies, localpoliticians in practice prioritize the dailyproblems within their own municipalities.Thismakesitdifculttocreateaclearinter-




8 Milan Metropolitan Area


The Milan Metropolitan Area, also known as ‘Grande Milano’ or ‘Greater Milan’, is theurban agglomeration around the city of Milan. The metropolitan area of Milan ishome to 7 million inhabitants. The city of Milan is its dominant urban core in terms of economy, but in terms of population or terri-

tory Milan is rather small with ‘only’ 1,3 mil-lion inhabitants. Located within the wealthi-est region of Italy – the region of Lombardy– Milan is the capital city and it is widelyconsidered to be the driver of the regional,and even national, economy. The metropoli-tan areas’ strong economic sectors include

nancial,commercialandjuridicalservices,

marketing and bio-health. Furthermore,Milan is famous for its fashion and designbusinesses, which are strongly linked to thetextile and furniture clusters in the munici-palities in the northwest and northern partof the region.

The metropolitan area is characterized by a

high institutional fragmentation. The areaincludes in total 248 municipalities; all mu-nicipalities in the province of Milan and theprovince of Monza e Brianza, 49 municipali-ties in the province of Varese, 43 municipali-ties in the province of Como and 45 munici-palities in the province of Lecco. Dealing with


Figure 19 Milan Metropolitan Area in Italy

mediate layer of government or governancein between.

All in all, it seems that the cooperation ef-forts within the metropolitan area of Portoare coming to a decision point. The currenteconomic crisis that severely hits Portugalcan be a blessing in that respect, because itcan create a sense of urgency as never be-

fore experienced throughout the region. A joint investment of sixteen municipalitiesthat together form the Área Metropolitana

do Porto (AMP) in the development of a bal-anced metropolitan area (and maybe be-yond), fuelled by the entrepreneurial spiritthat always prevailed in the Porto region andupcoming local elections for mayors twoyears’ time could offer a road towards re-forms and eventually economic growth. Butthe crisis may also lead to further entrench-ment of the various stakeholders, leading to

ever more splintered metropolitan govern-ance.




the institutional fragmentation in the regionis a main challenge for all authorities. Thedrastic extension of Milan’s metropolitan areaduring the last decades can be explained bytwo processes. First, the growth is inspiredby the establishment of large industrieswhich caused a growth in population as well.

Second, the rise of household income causedhigh dynamics on the real estate market.During the process of suburbanisation manyhouseholds from the city of Milan movedaway towards small- and medium sized mu-nicipalities in the surroundings of the city.These small villages transform to large sub-urbs which are closely integrated to the dailyurban system of Milan. Currently, there is aprocess of counter-urbanisation going-onwhich can be explained by changes in theresidential preferences and the rise of house-hold incomes. Among other factors, this cen-

tripetal process caused dynamics on the realestate market, leading to very high and risingreal estate values in the central core.

Regional challenges

The Milan Metropolitan Area is facing sev-eral challenges. The main challenge for the

region is to remain competitive on a longerterm and be attractive for people and busi-ness, especially in the light of the currenteconomic crisis. From the 1970s onwardsthe population of the city of Milan has beendeclining although this process has stabi-lised nowadays due to immigration andcounter-urbanisation. For the strong subur-banisation a multitude of causes can belisted. Firstly, the car made it possible forpeople to commute to work, allowing themto reside in the suburbs. Secondly, the everrising housing costs in Milan pushed the

lower- and middle income households out.Also, the negative externalities of uncoordi-nated spatial development such as conges-tion, pollution and a lack of green spacewas a driving force of suburbanisation. Thesuburbanisation processes have had astrong impact on the mobility patternswithin the region. More and more peopletake the car to drive to work, shops or en-

tertainment, which results in major conges-tion problems. In the region all roads andrail lines are pointing towards Milan. Thisradial infrastructure system causes majorproblems and solving them is considered amajor issue for Milan to remain attractivefor people and business. Moreover, the me-tropolis is facing environmental problemssince the city is extremely polluted. Thereis also a lack of recreation green space inthe city. Issues such as ‘liveability’ and ‘quality of life’ are increasingly important toattract high-skilled people or expats to thecity, and these issues have been underpressure. Challenges relating to the im-provement of quality of life need to be seenin the context of the transformation of asuccessful industrial city towards a service-oriented city, even though industrial activi-ties are still an important economic sector

of Milan’s economy (OECD, 2006) Thestrong economic growth of Milan in the lastdecadeshascausedsignicantproblems

such as a lack of available land for newdevelopments and negative externalities of growth such as pollution, congestion and alack of affordable housing. The comingyears Milan needs to face these challengesin order to remain competitive on the long-er term. Obviously, such challenges crossmunicipal borders and hence cannot besolved locally, but need a coordinated re-gional response.

Milan Metropolitan Area as case study

The Milan Metropolitan Area is a prototypeof an ‘incorporation mode’ polycentric met-ropolitan area, meaning that this polycentricarea is dominated by a large city that ex-tendsitssphereofinuencetoonceratherdistinct other, but much smaller cities in thewider metropolitan area. Milan’s dominanceis not only in terms of population, but also

the fact that Milan is the driver of the na-tional economy. Since Milan is gradually run-ning out of space to accommodate new de-velopments, the city is increasingly moredependent on possibilities offered in thebroader region. This requires Milan and thesurrounding region to cooperate better witheach other.

The case study is based on in-depth inter-views with key-experts in Milan MetropolitanArea.3 A broad range of actors has beeninterviewed; from representatives of gov-ernment authorities of three different levels(local, provincial and regional) to academicsspecialized in urban and regional planningas well as metropolitan associations. Besidesinterviews also policy documents available inEnglish and other documents on Milan’spolycentric urban structure are used to de-

velop this case study.


Regional strategy

TheRegionofLombardydenesthe(spatial)

strategy for the entire region which consistsof 12 Provinces and 1546 municipalities.Italian regions are highly autonomous and

3 See Appendix 1 for list of interviewees

Figure 20 Two of Milan’s main tourist attractions: the Galleria Vittorio Emmanuelle II (l)

and the Duomo (r)




have strong competencies as regards thecoordination of spatial planning, transportplanning, health and education. TheLombardia Territorial Plan aims to promote apolycentric structure of the region by assign-ing strategic areas that should be developedinto new urban poles. Figure 21 illustrates

thevenewpoleswhichareintroducedin

the plan. By pursuing the development of various urban poles spread throughout theterritory a more equal development of theregion is aimed for to counterbalance thedominance of Milan. However, this plan is apurely strategic document and does not have

New urban pole Objective

Milan conurbation New transport connections in order to relieve congestion of the existing roadnetwork.

Malpensa Develop a h igh leve l and dense u rban isat ion accompan ied by a sat is fyingaccessibility system.

Lodi-Crema-Cremona Develop a main pole for agriculture innovation biotechnologies and foodtourism

Brescia-Mantova-Venezia Develop better airport connections.

Lomellina-Novara Make optimal use of new transport projects (e.g. TEN railway systemGenova-Rotterdam). Develop Novara as a complementary pole of Milan interms of jobs and service functions

Figure 21 Five urban poles within the Region Lombardy

Source: Regione Lombardia, 2011

large implications on local land use develop-ment nor on investment decisions (like biginfrastructure projects) taken by theEuropean Union, Italian national governmentand the transport department of the Regionof Lombardy itself. The best way for theRegion to steer developments are its compe-tences on infrastructure development andregional public transport. The idea is that

new connections will improve the (economic)performance of the region and further pro-mote regional integration. Surprisinglyenough,theregionhasnospecicordetailed

policy or framework for the MilanMetropolitan Area. The metropolis is just oneoftheveurbanpoleswithintheregion.

Provincial and municipal strategy

The Region of Lombardy consists of 12 prov-inces; two of these provinces are fully part of the metropolitan area of Milan and threeprovinces (Commo, Lecco and Varesa) arepartlydealingwiththeinuenceoftheme-tropolis. In the case of the Milan MetropolitanArea, the north-eastern municipalities de-cided to split from the Provincia di Milano byforming a new province: Provincia di Monza eBrianza, which became operational in 2009.Italianprovincesdeneterritorialpoliciesin

which they can protect agricultural land andregulate infrastructure programming andenvironmental issues. Due to reforms in thelight of the economic crisis, the central gov-ernment plans to drastically reduce the roleof the provinces. The Provincial parliamentswill not be directly elected anymore but needto act more as regional platforms for coop-eration. The provinces have mainly a coordi-nating role with limited powers and they donot have much powers to steer land use de-velopments. An important strategy for re-gional cooperation that was launched in

2005, is the ‘City of Cities Strategic Project’.In this project the Province cooperated withthe Department of Architecture and Planningof the Polytechnic University of Milan (seeBalducci et al , 2011). The name of this report ‘City of Cities’ refers to the polycentric struc-ture of Milan’s metropolitan area. The mes-sage is clear: ‘Grande Milano’ cannot be seenas one city but consists of various cities.

In total, 248 municipalities are part of theMilan Metropolitan Area. The municipalitiesare small in size and large in numbers,which creates a patchwork of relative au-tonomous areas. The provinces have littlecompetences to enforce cooperation be-tween the municipalities. The municipalitiesarerelativelyautonomoustodenetheir

own plans, policies and land use. In prac-tice, this often means that each municipalityplans its own industrial area at the outskirtsof the centre, which results in negative spillover effects (e.g. noise, pollution) for neigh-bouring municipalities. There is coordinationbetweenmunicipalitiesintheeldofsocial

welfare and labour markets. For examplethe Piani di Zona which is a zoning plan thateach municipality has to make to coordinatewelfare delivery, overlooked by the province.

This form of coordination is obliged by law,andhencedoesnotreectpro-activeinitia-tives for inter-municipal cooperation. The Accordo di Programma is another tool that isfrequently being used to implement public-private projects in a coordinated way. Thisadministrative procedure allows municipali-ties to bypass differing policies or regula-tions and coordinate public and private ac-tivities in complex decision making process-es. The frequent use of the Accordo di

Programmareectsatendencyforpro-ac-tive cooperation between public and private




actors. It is, however, not a proof of morecoordination between different municipali-ties.

Metropolitan strategy?

Across Europe various metropolitan authori-ties appear, but there is not one formal orinformal institute at the level of MilanMetropolitan Area. In Italy there is not anypolicy stimulating metropolitan governance(yet). In the early 1990s a law was put inplace for the development of metropolitan

areas, but the law was never implemented(Dell’ Agnese and Anzoise, 2011). If such alaw was adapted, it could have formed thebasis for more equal and institutionalisedcooperation in the metropolitan area. Forthe moment cooperation is still dependenton voluntary efforts of the different govern-ment levels. Such efforts, or policies for co-operation, have been developed by theRegion of Lombardy, the provinces and themunicipalities. Many of the strategies forregional cooperation are related to the com-petences of the region, provinces and mu-

nicipalities. The strategies and policies areoftentiedtospecicsectorssuchasland-

use planning, transport or economy. There isa lack of coordination and cooperation be-tween these separated departments.AlthoughtheLombardyRegionhasdened

an overarching spatial strategy which is aguidance for lower tiers of government, itdoes not have the competences to imple-ment this strategy. Furthermore, the coordi-nating role of the Province of Milan is heavilyundermined due to the dominance of the

city of Milan and limited competences. Atthe moment, regionally coordinating effortsare pursued by more informal means of mu-nicipal cooperation. The Milano Metropoliagency is a platform for cooperation andhandles the interests of the municipalitiesaround Milan. At the moment, its focus is onsmall, acupunctural projects within theProvince of Milan. Centro Studi PIM is anorganisation erected in the 1960s with asimilarobjective.Theydeliverscientic-

technical and operational support towardsthe associated municipalities as well as the

Province of Milan and other public entities.These organisations will be mentioned inthis report later on in more detail. Key mes-sage is that although they perform activitiesthat support a metropolitan thinking, theydon’t have the scope and capacity to de-velopfullyedgedmetropolitandevelop-ment strategies.


8.3.1 Spatial-functional integrationThe extent of spatial-functional integrationwithin the Milan Metropolitan Area differsfor various scales. A distinction can bemade between four levels of scale. Onthe megacity scale Milan and Turin areconsidered to be part of one urban system.The cities cooperate with each other sincethey both have important functions in termsof research, commerce and fairs. There is not(yet) much information available about thismegacity scale, but the exact relationshipsbetween both cities are being studied. Thesecond scale roughly encompasses theProvince of Milan, the Province of Monza eBrianza and the larger cities that are locatedaround both provinces such as Varese,

Novarra, Lodi, Lecco, Como and Bergamo.From a functional perspective both provincesare highly integrated in the metropolitanarea of Milan whilst the surrounding cities

are oriented towards Milan, but they are notas fully integrated in the metropolitan areaas the territories of the provinces. Thosecitiesoftenhaveaspecichistoryandofferqualities in their territories that are notpresent in the two provinces, such as forexample the historical city of Bergamo andComo, which is located at the edge of theAlps and the touristic Como Lake. Another

explanation of less functional relationsbetween Milan and cities such as Varese,Novarra and Lodi is the distance betweenthem. The city of Bergamo pursues a policyof complementarity with regard to Milan,and to do so cooperate with smaller townsaround the city (‘Bergamo Grande’) toimprove transport and coordinate services.The three airports that serve Milan arelocated at this scale (Malpensa, Linate andOrio al Serio) and these are all operatedby the ‘SEA Aeroporti di Milano’, a goodexample of coordination at this scale. Thecity of Bergamo, however, pursues a strategythat should direct passengers more towardsBergamo, instead of the airport simply beinga terminal for passengers to Milan too. Inorder to do so it has recently changed thename of the airport from ‘Milano Orio alSerio’ to ‘Bergamo Orio al Serio.’

The third scale encompasses the Provinceof Milan and Province of Monza e Brianza. Adiversity of locally rooted economic clustersis home to these territories (see Table 3).

NorthofMilan‘Brianzaregion’ Furniture

North-East of Milan ‘Vimercate’ Communication, media, ICT

North-South of Milan ‘Legnano’ Textile, elector mechanical industries

South of Milan Agro-food business

Figure 22 The old town of Bergamo (l) and the Parco di Monza (r) are two regional assets

Table 3 Economic clusters in the surroundings of Milan

Source: © Ashley Pomeroy (r)




These businesses are often characterisedby a small size, family-oriented structureand local orientation. They are lackinga managerial culture and many of thesebusinesses compete with each other at thislocal scale, while in the light of globalisationit would make sense for them to cooperateand compete at a more global scale. In orderto remain internationally competitive, it is

deemed vital to induce scale enlargement inthese businesses by letting them cooperateand compete with foreign businesses instead.

The economic integration at this scale is farfrom perfect, and cross-sector connectionscan be further developed. While there ismuch interrelationship (commuting, busi-ness links) between the suburban towns andMilan, there is quite little interaction be-

tween the suburban towns. Moreover, thesuburban area offers little variation in thehousing market and has few regionally im-portant services or attractions. The onlyexception is Monza, with its historic centre,the Villa Reale (albeit empty now), the Parcodi Monza en the Monza racing circuit.Increasingly, large retail stores are develop-ing next to highways, in response to therising land prices in the city of Milan.

The fourth scale is the city of Milan itself.The city is the ‘immaterial centre’, the meet-ing place and international marketplace, aswell as ‘material centre’ for services in theeldofnance,insuranceandmarketing.A

higher growth rate of jobs in the suburbanarea seems to hint at more balanced devel-opment within the region. This is supportedby the fact that commuting out of Milan isrelatively growing. Twenty years ago, Milanhad only two outgoing commuters for everyten incoming commuters and nowadays this

number is four. The growth of jobs can beexplained by an autonomous growth of busi-nesses outside Milan and because of thesuburbanisation of businesses out of Milan(such as the large retail stores). This subur-banisation also holds true for other urbanfunctions, despite the fact that Milan is re-luctant to see them leave. Although variousscalescanbeidentied,thiscasestudyfo-

cuses mostly on the scale that includesMilan and its suburban hinterland, i.e. theterritory corresponding with the Province of Milan and the Province of Monza e Brianza,while occasionally referring to cities in thelayer around the third scale level.

Metropolitan functions

Milan is making use of the critical mass of the broader metropolitan area. Only 15 per-cent of the total population actually lives inthe city of Milan and consequently Milanstrongly depends on its surrounding region.The main metropolitan functions, such as forexample (inter)national headquarters andhigh-end cultural amenities, are still locatedwithin the city. The policy of the municipalityof Milan strongly focuses on keeping thehigh-end functions within its borders. Thisleads to continued agglomeration of high-

end urban functions in Milan, thus raisingland and housing prices in the alreadycrowded city. Low-end functions, like large-scale retail, are therefore gradually pushedoutwards to the suburbs. The result is thatdisparities between Milan and its surround-ings will gradually exacerbate.

Since the crisis the municipality of Milan isespecially very keen on maintaining andattracting new metropolitan functions to itsterritory in order to remain competitive. Adecade ago there was a period of decentrali-

sation and there were actually plans to relo-cate the Museum of Contemporary Art andseveral university campuses to places out-side the city. In the end these plans werenot implemented. In fact, it marked thestart of a new phase of centralisation. Agood example is the effort the municipalityof Milan put in attracting the broadcastingcompany Sky to the city. In this case there

was a clear competition between Milan andmunicipalities in the north-eastern part of the area where more media-related compa-nies are clustered. As long as there is stillplace for new developments in Milan theprocess of centralisation will continue. Foreconomic reasons as well as symbolic rea-sons Milan wants to have investments of thereal estate sector within their territory. Thestrong competition between the municipali-tiescanbeexplainedbytheirscalprob-lems. The municipalities have less tax-in-come, but can earn substantial amountsmoney by giving planning permissions fornew developments. This partly explains whymunicipalities pay more attention to localrather than regional interests.

The replacement of the fair of Milan to theadjacentmunicipalityofRhomightbearst

sign of a changing attitude of the municipal-ity of Milan. Also some university facultieshave left the city for a location in one of thesurrounding municipalities. The medical fac-ulty of Bicocca University has moved toMonza, and another faculty is planned to bemoved to Desio. The philosophical faculty of the San Rafaelle University is housed inCesano Moderno. These developmentsstrengthen the relationships between Milanand its suburbs. There was, however, nometropolitan development rationale behindthese developments, since they happened

beyondtheinuenceofthemunicipalityof

Milan itself. Besides these success stories,other attempts to decentralize metropolitanfunctions failed. For instance, the building of another new university campus inGorgonzola failed. The municipality of Milanextended a metro line to the proposed siteof the campus. At the end, the campus wasnever realised and the site remains empty.

An adverse situation for both municipalities;the municipality of Gorgonzola has to dealwith empty land around the station thatthey cannot develop and the municipality of Milan invested in the extension of a metro-line and in land around the station whilethey cannot earn their investments backsince the campus is less likely to be build.

Mobility and transport

Each day, Milan effectively doubles in size byincoming commuters. Mainly motorised traf-csuchascarsandthefamousItalian

scooters are entering the city. The munici-pality of Milan has recently imposed a roadprice system for the inner city in order todiscourage people to enter the city with thecar. Milan did not notify the surroundingmunicipalities about their decision to intro-duce a road price system. This is remarkable

because they are particularly dealing withthe consequences of the road pricing. Peopleare parking their cars in these municipalitiesand take public transport from there to getinto the city. Consequently, this causes morecongestion in these neighbourhoods and ahigh pressure on the available parking plac-es.Within Milan Metropolitan Area regional andlocal public transport is badly integrated.Public transport is underused at a regionalscale due to lack of integration between thevarious transportation options. Especially



89 Polycentric Metropolitan Areas in EuropeSustainable Urban Mobility 88

the connection between the national/region-al trains and the city’s public transport (e.g.metro, trams, and buses, operated by theMilanese municipality) is weak. Additionally,regional trains also run on low frequencies.The current infrastructure system of Milanhampers a further regional integration. Thecity of Milan is trying to tackle this by build-ing parking spaces near metro stops at theoutskirts of the city and by extending thethree metro lines to surrounding municipali-ties. For example the red line towards themunicipality of Sesto San Giovanni and Rho

(location new fair) and the green line to-wards Abbiategrasso (see Figure 23).Remarkable is the investment of privatemoney in the extension of the green metroline to the south. By providing a better con-nection with the surrounding municipalitiesthe change might be that people move outof the centre of Milan to the end of the lines.The Passante is a new underground rail linethat connects various terminus stations witheach other (see the blue line in Figure 23).The line is developed to improve the region-al rail infrastructure. Regional trains are now

able to continue their journey beyond Milan.Criticism has been given to the newMilanese transport plan which mainly focus-es on improving the connections within thecity rather than improving the connectionswith the broader region. While precisely thisregional perspective in (rail) transport be-comes increasingly necessary to combattrafcjamsandpromotesthedevelopment

of sites outside the city for new services.There are plans to erect a regional transportauthority that should integrate the regionaltransport operators. A further integration of

local and regional trains into a one ticketsystem would be an ideal situation. For nowthe Milan transport operator (ATM) has astandardized ticket that is valid in buses,trams and metro.There are also plans to improve the roadinfrastructure within the region. For exam-ple, the Pedemontana is a new highway inthe north of Milan’s metropolitan area thatwill improve the east-west connection. Thishighway also connects Malpensa airport withthe airport of Bergamo. The highway is likelyto reduce the pressure on the (road) infra-

Figure 23 Map of Metro network of Milan

Source: © Jcornelius

structure of Milan as for now all roads arepointed towards Milan in a radial pattern.The promotion of a more concentric ratherthan radial infrastructure pattern will reducethe travel time between various parts of theregion. It is, however, unknown when thePedemontana highway will actually get im-plemented. The highway is an initiative andproject of the Region of Lombardy without

involvement of the municipality of Milan.

8.3.2 Cultural integrationWith regard to the cultural integration withinthe region, Milan has a quite homogenouscultural identity. Cultural differences withinthe metropolitan area gradually have beenmitigated due to increased functional inte-gration and suburbanisation the last dec-ades. Many people that do not live in Milanbut for example Sesto San Giovanni, will sayto the people from outside that they arefrom Milan. Especially immigrants, whichmake up an ever increasing share of thepopulation of the metropolitan area, have noconnection to ‘old’ local identities. For them,the whole metropolitan area (and even be-yond) is referred to as Milan.

This situation differs for the municipalities in

the northern part of Milan with historic citiessuch as Monza and Brianza. Traditionallythere is a strong local identity present in thisarea and the local inhabitants often opposethemselves to Milanese domination. TheMonza region is traditionally home to moreprosperous people and this allows them tobe more independent from Milan. Their ownidentity was the main reason for a group of municipalities in the Brianza region to splitaway from the Province of Milan and erectthe Province of Monza e Brianza. This deci-sion hampers a future regional integration

within the Milanese metropolitan area. WhileMonza and Milan are very much integratedfrom a functional perspective, there is nometro line running to and from Milan toMonza city centre. Instead, this M1 linestops in the middle, at Sesto San Giovanni.It would make sense to lengthen it towardsMonza, but the municipality of Monza ishampering this process. At the moment, an

extension of the metro line is under con-struction but the line will bypass the citycentre of Monza.From a marketing perspective, the brand´Milan is quite strong due to the city’s historyas important industrial city and its currenteconomic position. Businesses located in thesurroundings of Milan are generally makinguse of this brand. However, this brand is not(yet) translated into one coherent marketingstrategy of the Milan Metropolitan Area. TheUniversal Exposition ‘Expo 2015’ in Milancould be an important event to spur thisregional marketing identity. This upcomingexhibition poses opportunities for more co-ordinated efforts towards a joint regionalmarketing identity. Ofcialinstitutionalpart-ners of the Expo are the city and Province of Milan, the Lombardy Region and the nationalMinistry of Economics and Finance. Until

now, the event is largely focusing on theopportunities that Milan provides.Surrounding towns and municipalities, with-in the Province of Milan and beyond, arenow developing their own strategies to pro-mote their territories, while a coordinatedeffort could prove more valuable. Also thecityofBergamowantstoprotoftheup-coming Expo 2015 and is therefore develop-ing a strategy to draw more attention (andtourists) to the city.



Sustainable Urban Mobility 90 91 Sustainable Urban Mobility

8.3.3 Institutional integrationThe decisions of the municipalities to splitfrom the Province of Milano to form theProvince of Monza e Brianza is characteristicfor the extent of institutional integrationwithin the metropolitan area. Municipalitieshave problems with the dominant role of thecity of Milan and prefer to be on their own.Because of the many small municipalities

that are located around Milan and their frag-mented spatial planning policies, there is nostrong need for Milan to cooperate withthem to ‘get things done’. Instead, Milanprefers to cooperate directly with the re-gional authority and the national govern-ment in Rome. The lack of cooperation be-tween Milan and its direct neighbouring mu-nicipalities is therefore not so much causedby a political cleavage such as left and rightwing politicians or differing stakes. Instead,it is caused by the fact that Milan is so dom-inant that, for their own territory, they canoperate independently from neighbouringmunicipalities. The new mayor of Milan whois elected in May 2011 is more open for co-operation which might change the institu-tional situation slightly.

One of the reasons why there is not a strong

institutional integration within the region isthe hierarchical relation between the threetiers of government. There is limited coop-eration between the region, the provincesand the municipalities. Within the Milan met-ropolitan area, voluntary cooperation gainedmomentum in the early 1990s. The redevel-opmentofbrowneldsiteswasoneparticulartheme on which municipalities started to co-operate,sincebrowneldsbecameanin -creasing phenomenon around Milan due todeindustrialisation processes. The MilanoMetropoli agency was born out of this initia-

tive, and today has a much wider perspectivethanbrowneldredevelopment.Milano

Metropoli is a development agency with vari-ous public shareholders that tries to stimu-late coordination between the municipalities.Various municipalities around the city of Milan are member of the organisation as wellas Province of Milan and the Milan Chamberof Commerce. But the fact that the city of

Milan is not participating as a partner doesnot help institutional integration in this re-spect. Milano Metropoli does not formulatepolicies, but links together the municipalitiesthrough various projects in (amongst others)land use, marketing and industrial services.The shareholders provide capital for individu-al projects, but for stability reasons theagency is thinking about regular fees. Theactivities of these intermediate bodies arevery much project-oriented and do not (yet)have a strong impact on policy development.Better coordinated efforts should also be pur-suedwithintheeldofbusinessservices.At

the moment the Chamber of Commerce op-erates at the provincial level, but in practiceall municipalities have their own regulations.Thisisconfusingforrmsthatwanttoestab-lish themselves in the region.

Another example of intermediate bodies thataim to stimulate coordination and coopera-tion within the region is Centro Studi PIM,which is an organisation that is erected inthe 1960s by several municipalities. Theydeliverscientic-technicalandoperationalsupport towards the associated municipali-ties as well as the Province of Milan and oth-er public entities. One of their main tasks isto coordinate the local spatial plans of vari-ous municipalities although there are notanysignicantmarketfailuressuchasanextremeoversupplyofofcespace,ordupli-

cation of services. But the fact that eachmunicipalityhasdevelopeditsownofceparks does lead to negative externalities forneighbouring municipalities. Centro StudiPIM aims to avoid this kind of problems byintegrating the different plans. The activitiesof Milano Metropoli and Centro Studi PIMshow that there are interesting experiences

to stimulate coordination and cooperationacross scales and sectors, but their activitieshave relative little impact. At the momentthe problems of metropolitan governance orgovernance coordination have not beensolved yet. In any case, there is not a singlemetropolitan authority responsible for a fu-ture integration of the entire region.

8.4 SWOT analysisStrengths Weaknesses

• Strong functional integration in terms of housingmarket and labour market.

• Complementarity of economic sectors within theregion (Milan: city of design and fashion withfurniture and textile clusters in the surroundings).

• Milan is the focal point of the region and aninternational gateway for local economic clusters.

• Strong (inter)national brand of Milan and importantdriver of the national economy.

• There is little sign of awareness that ‘what isgood for Milan is good for its surroundings’ andvice versa.

• Hierarchical way of working between layers of government which causes a lack of coordinationand collaboration.

• Large amount of small municipalities withindividual land use plans, which leads tofragmented spatial planning and negativeexternalities.

• There appears to be strong local competitionbetweenrms(oftenfamily-orientedandlacking

a managerial culture), instead of reaping thebenetsofclusterstogether.

• The regional public transport system is not wellintegrated with the Milanese public transportsystem; trains run on too low frequencies.


• Milan starts thinking and acting beyond theirmunicipal borders (see example fair and extensionof metro lines).

• Suburbs could become less dependent on Milansince they experience a relatively higher growth of employment than Milan.

• Expo 2015 can create a stronger regional marketingbrand.

• Strong feeling of urgency to improve theinfrastructure system (road and rail) in order toreduce congestion (counts mainly for Region of Lombardy).

• Future governance arrangements can build on theactivities of existing inter-municipal platforms suchas Centro Studi PIM and Milano Metropoli.

• Negative externalities in Milan such as pollution,congestion, lack of affordable housing require aregional approach, but the conditions for suchan approach are hardly present.

• Continuing institutional fragmentation, suchas splitting up the Milan province in 2009,and a lack of a culture of c ooperation makesmetropolitan governance complicated.

• Lack of space for new development in Milan,and continued policies for centralisation of higher-order urban functions may hamper theirdevelopment.



93 Polycentric Metropolitan Areas in EuropeSustainable Urban Mobility 92

8.5 Conclusions

The city of Milan seems to make use of thecritical mass available in the broader met-ropolitan area. The concentration of high-end business services, high-level culturalamenities and important (governmental)institutions makes the city important, alsoon the international stage. The surrounding

municipalities have few resources to com-pete with Milan since their offer of housingisquiteundiversiedandtheyhavelittleregionally important services to offer. So, itseems that Milan ‘borrows size’ from itssurroundings and not vice versa. AlthoughMilan is the undisputed central city of thenorthern part of Italy, it is questionablewhether the city can hold this positionwithout using the opportunities provided byits wider metropolitan area. There appearsto be a lack of understanding of the impor-tance of the city and the region for eachother,whichisreectedinthelackofco -operation at the metropolitan scale, andthe at times individualistic operation of thecity.

The Milan Metropolitan Area is spatial-func-tionally integrated with regard to the labour

market, the housing market, business rela-tions and amenities. Due to the complemen-tarity of the different economic sectors pre-sent in the region there are strong linkages.Since economic clusters are an importantasset of the region, their potentials shouldbe regionally exploited. Regional policiescould let to more functionally integratedclusters and better overall competitivenessof Milan Metropolitan Area. Furthermore,there are initiatives taken to enhance a fur-ther functional integration of the region byreducing the congestion. It depends on the

actual implementation of all proposed infra-structure projects whether or not the situa-tion will change within the coming years.Moreover, it is questionable whether it iswise for Milan to put much effort in main-taining central urban functions within its cityborders, as the surrounding areas presentdevelopment opportunities that may allowthese urban functions to perform better. The

opening of a trade fair outside of Milan is acase in point. On the longer term, the citywill increasingly lack available space for newdevelopments and nowadays it is alreadydealing with many negative externalities of growth, such as pollution, congestion and alack of affordable housing and public greenspaces.

The Milan Metropolitan Area is integrated interm of cultural identity and marketing.Peopleandrmsconsiderthemselvesas

being part of Milan. Only the municipalitiesin the Province of Monza e Brianza prefer tobe autonomous and do not share theMilanese identity. The regional identity canbe enhanced by better exploiting the oppor-tunities offered by for example the Expo2015. The institutional integration is lackingbehind in the metropolitan area of Milan.

Municipalities, the provinces and the regionall work in quite a hierarchical way andthere is no metropolitan coordination withinthe area. The municipalities are small in sizeand large in numbers, which creates apatchwork of relative autonomous areas. Atthe same time, provinces have little compe-tences to enforce cooperation between themunicipalities. Metropolitan coordination isbeing pursued by voluntary and intermedi-ate institutes such as Milano Metropoli, buttheiractualinuenceisratherlimited.Thefact that Milan is not part of such a coopera-

tion platforms is a sign of its individualisticbehaviour.Overall, it would be wise for Milan, as wellas other cities, to recognise the crucial roleother municipalities play in the broader met-ropolitan region. A process should be started

that stimulates cooperation between munici-palities and make integrated policies thatenhance the region as a whole. This re-quires, however, more insights in the actualbenetsofstrongerfunctional,culturaland

institutional integration of the region.




9 Tri-CityRegion(Gdańsk-Gdynia-Sopot)


The Tri-City Region in Poland is located atthe Baltic Sea. As the name Tri-City Regionimplies, the region consists of three majorcities: Gdańsk, Gdynia and Sopot. Gdańsk isthe capital city of the Pomeranian Region;one of the sixteen Voivodeships (regions) in

Poland. The three cities are closely locatedto each other with a distance of 22 km fromthe city centre of Gdańsk to the centre of Gdynia, with the city of Sopot in between(see Figure 24). The capital of Poland,

Warsaw, is located at 300 km distance, andPoznan is 250 km away. This implies thatthere are no larger urban centres in the wid-er area surrounding the Tri-City region, alsomaking it the undoubted core urban area of its region.

The Tri-City Region counts nearly one million

residents: Gdańsk counts 450.000 residents,Gdynia250.000.Thepopulationguresforthe three cities are in decline due to subur-banisation, a process that is partly triggeredby the availability of affordable housing in

Figure 24The Tri-City Region

in Poland





suburban towns and villages. The populationof the metropolitan region as a whole, in-cluding several suburban towns, is ratherstable. The Tri-City Region is the largestacademicandscienticcentreofnorthern

Poland as well as the main cultural centre.Gdańsk appears to be the leading city butGdynia is a strong competitor with a compa-rableeconomicanddemographicprole.

The health-spa and tourist resort Sopot isone of the richest cities of Poland and is theresidenceofseveralkeyguresofthePolishculturalandpoliticalelite.Theproleofthe

cities is strongly determined by the historyof the region.

History The history of the region is highly relevantfor understanding the dynamics within theregion. In the 19th and early 20th centuryGdańsk and Sopot were part of differentadministrative forms managed by Polish andGerman rulers. After the First World WarGdańsk (German name Danzig) came underthe sovereignty of the League of Nations.The ‘Free City of Danzig’ was a semi-autono-mous city-state that existed between 1920and 1939, consisting of the Baltic Sea portof Danzig and surrounding areas (amongst

others Sopot). Due to the troublesome col-laboration over the joint use of the port of Gdańsk the new Polish government quicklydecided to build its own port, and chose asits location the then little Polish seaside re-sort village of Gdynia. Gdynia was to be-come the maritime capital of the SecondPolish Republic. The city was being builtfrom scratch and grew quickly from 6.000 to250.000 inhabitants. While Gdynia devel-oped into a power symbol for a rebornPoland, the emergence of a competing portright on its doorstep and the loss of its eco-

nomic hinterland led to a deep economiccrisis for Gdańsk. After the Second WorldWar, Gdańsk became part of the People’sRepublic of Poland. The city was resettled bya Polish population, itself mostly expelledfrom the pre-war Polish eastern territoriesannexed by the Soviet Union. In economicdevelopment terms, a special impetus wasgiven to the extension of the port and indus-

trial sites, notably the shipyards. The com-munist central state decided to foster devel-opment in Gdańsk as well as in Gdynia. Thisresulted in the fact that both cities grewspatially together, with the city of Sopotin-between them (Tölle, 2008).

Tri-City Region as case study

This case study discusses the polycentricdevelopment of the Tri-City Region by de-scribing the state of the art of the integra-tion of the three cities into one metropolitanarea. Gdynia is developed to be the com-petitor of Gdańsk and therefore it is inter-esting to analyse the role of cultural identityin this region. The case study is based onin-depth interviews held with the key-actorswithin the Tri-City Region during a threedays visit to the region.4 Moreover, policydocuments and (academic) papers about the

region are used for this study.


Pomeranian Region

After the reform of Poland in 1989 a processof decentralisation started which gave thelocal government level substantial powers. Incomparison with the local government, the

4 See for a list of interviewees Appendix 1

Figure 25 Polycentric structure of the Pomeranian Voivodeship

Source: Pomeranian Voivodeship, 2009

regional government is rather weak since theydonothavemuch(nancial)meanstosteer

developments. In 1998 the act on regionalgovernment has been adopted and sixteenVoivodeships (regions) were assigned inPoland. The regional authority is responsiblefor the European Union regional developmentpolicy programmes, such as the RegionalOperational Program 2007-2013, and thepreparation of the Regional DevelopmentStrategy till 2020. The Pomeranian Regionmainly focuses on developing strategic guide-lines for the region that should be followed by

the cities. Since the regional government can-not directly interrupt development processesthey cannot force the actual implementationof the plan at the local level.

The main objective of the ‘SpatialDevelopment Plan for PomeranianVoivodeship’ (approved in 2009) is to shapea functional-spatial structure of the region inorder to “create favourable conditions forbalancing utilisation of spatial qualities, val-ues and resources with economic growth,higher standard and quality of life and per-




manent preservation of natural environmen-tal values” (Summary; p.7). The plan em-phasises the role of the Tri-City Region andits polycentric diversity with regard to thecompetitiveness of the entire region. Figure25 illustrates the hierarchy of centres, ag-glomeration area and functional urban areasin the Pomeranian Region. In this documentthecentrehierarchyisdenedasfollows:

Gdańsk is the supra-regional centre, Gdyniathe agglomeration centre and Sopot is anagglomeration supplementary centre. Thethree cities are all part of one larger func-tional urban area. Noticeable is the hierar-chy made between the three cities ratherthandeningthecitiesasonesupra-region-al centre of the region.

Metropolitan planning

AccordingtothePolishPlanningActdenedin 2003 the marshal of the Voivodeshipshould prepare a special planning documentfor metropolitan areas which is more de-tailed in comparison with the plans for theentire Voivodeship. The same act also de-clares that the borders of metropolitan areasshould be indicated in the National SpatialPlanningConceptandinrstinstanceonly

Warsaw was indicated as a metropolitan

area. Last years the Polish government rec-ognizes more ‘metropolitan areas’ acrossPoland, and they also acknowledge the Tri-City Region as one of them. These metro-politan areas are selected on the criteria tobe strong centres of entrepreneurship andinnovationinuencingbothPolandand

Europe. As a metropolitan area the Tri-CityRegion does receive more attention but noadditional funding. To stimulate the metro-politan areas across Poland, the nationalgovernment proposed a Metropolitan Act in2008, but this act is not (yet) adopted by Source Gdan sk Metropolitan Area Association, 2011

Figure 26 Members of the Gdan sk Metropolit an

Area Association (l: communes,

r: counties)

theNationalAssembly.Thisactdenesa

new mode of governance for metropolitanareas and gives regional authorities compe-tences to prepare a more detailed spatialdevelopment plan for Polish metropolitanareas.In2003theMarshallOfceofthePomeranian Region initiated a ‘MetropolitanBoard’ with the aim of stimulating the inte-gration of the cities within the Tri-City re-

gion. Representatives of the Pomeranian

Region and the cities are present atthese meetings. The board is not a legalinstitution but is based on voluntaryparticipation of the cities. In addition tothe ‘Metropolitan Board there is an ‘ExpertCouncil’ that consist of several experts thatcome together every two or three weeks.The aim of the council, established in2011, is to push forward cooperation at themetropolitan level.

Metropolitan Area Associations

Taken into account the growing attention formetropolitan areas at national level, the city

of Gdańsk decided in 2011 to initiate a met-ropolitan area by themselves by setting-upthe Gdańsk Metropolitan Area Association.The association consist of 35 communes,including municipalities (see Figure 26 for allmembers of the association). From the out-sider perspective, and in contrast with theSpatial Development Plan of PomeranianVoivodeship (2009), it is surprising thatGdynia is not part of this metropolitan area.One of the reasons why Gdynia did not wantto be part of the Gdańsk association is thename. Gdynia did not want to be part of the

Gdańsk Metropolitan Area, and on their turn,Gdańsk did not want to use the nameGdańsk-Gdynia Metropolitan Area. Gdańsk

argued that they have a much stronger (in-ternational) brand in comparison to Gdynia.Another reason why they do not join thesame metropolitan association is the poor(personal) relations between the two may-ors who barely work together.

The aim of the Gdańsk Metropolitan AreaAssociation is to create an attractive marketfor investors in the region and to stimulatethe integration of the labour market, educa-tion and business (Municipality of Gdańsk,2012). The members of the association pay

Figure 27 Example of joint regional project within the Tri-City Region




a fee in order to create commitment and toprovidetheassociationwithnancialmeans.

Every month there is a meeting with theManagement Board of the GdańskMetropolitan Area Association which consistof nine people with the Marshal of Gdańskas the chair.

As a reaction on the Gdańsk Metropolitan

Association, Gdynia started their own metro-politan association with cities in their sur-roundings, called ‘Norda’ . The collaborationwith these municipalities is mainly focusedon the integration of the physical infrastruc-ture and coordination of regional servicessuch as collecting garbage, water reservoirset cetera. Striking enough some municipali-ties are member of both metropolitan asso-ciations. This indicates that there is a certainamount of overlap between them. ThePomeranian Region is not involved in one of the associations, since they do not want tosupport such separated initiatives of thecities. They want Gdańsk and Gdynia to ac-tually work together within one metropolitanassociation. Since both metropolitan asso-ciations are just recently set-up, it is un-known how they will develop within thecoming years. At the moment, Gdańsk

Metropolitan Area Association is thinking of preparing their own act on metropolitan ar-eas and prosing this act to the Polish parlia-ment. The Gdańsk Metropolitan AreaAssociation still hopes that Gdynia will be-come one of their members on the longerterm but whether this would actually happenis questionable.

To sum up: The Tri-City Region is lackingone coherent regional platform for coopera-tion. The Pomeranian Voivodeship tries tostimulate cooperation within the region but

this is not an easy task. Since the spatialdevelopment plan is not an act of local law,the plan can only relate to issues of supra-local and regional importance. The munici-palities must follow these regulations intheir local planning documents.Municipalities and communes are makingtheir own spatial plans and there is notmuch inter-municipal or regional integration

between these plans. Still, there are somepromisingrstsignsofcooperationbetween

the policy-makers of the three cities. Forexample, the joint efforts to create a region-al cycling infrastructure and a shared roadtrafcmanagementsystem.


9.3.1 Spatial-functional integrationThe labour market is highly integrated look-ing at the commuting patterns between thethree cities; many people live in Gdańsk, butwork in Gdynia (and vice versa). Duringrush hours there are major commutingstreams between the cities. The SKM trainline between Gdańsk and Gdynia, crossingSopot halfway, is an important public trans-port link. The train frequently runs between

the three cities and is, especially during rushhours, very busy. The SKM can be seen asthe backbone of the Tri-City Region. Alongthe line and its stations the area is highlyurbanized;ofces,housingandshopping

malls are all build in its proximity. The ca-pacity of the road infrastructure between thecitiesisinsufcient,cert0ainlygiventherapid increase of car-ownership, and everydaytherearelongtrafcjams.Thenomina-tion of Gdańsk as one of the playing cities of the UEFA European Football Championship2012 gives a major impulse to the city since

the national government invested heavily inthe road and rail infrastructure of the re-gion. Central and regional governments aremaking plans to develop a new ring road inorder to improve the connectivity of the cit-ies, and its suburbs. Besides the road infra-structure, the rail infrastructure will be im-proved as well with the development of thePomeranian Metropolitan Railway , which is anew rail line (20 km) that will link Gdańskand the airport of Gdańsk with the alreadyexisting rail line towards Gdynia. In total

eight new train stations will be developedand they are likely to give a major impulseto the area.

As well as the labour market the housingmarket of the Tri-City Region is rather inte-grated. There is, a regional market that iseven bigger than the Tri-City Region itself.This can be explained by the good informa-tion system within the region, such as fairsthat present new projects available in theentire region. Caused by a process of subur-banisation, the housing market is rather

spread out. People are leaving the city for amuch bigger house in a saver, greener andrelatively quieter environment. The housingprices in Sopot are more expensive in com-parison with Gdańsk and Gdynia; they evenbelong to the highest property prices inPoland. According to the interviewees, theamenities of the three cities differ from eachother and there is not much duplication.This seems to be the result of luck ratherthan good coordination between the cities.The cities strongly belief in the coordination

power of the market. It is believed that themarket prevents the development of anoversupply of housing, cultural amenitiesand sport facilities.

Enterprises and institutes are not limited atall by the municipal borders of the threecities when doing business. They chose theirlocation on the basis of the given conditions.The cities start to cooperate with each otherwithregardtothe(inter)nationalprolingof

the region. Since the cities are using differ-entbrandnamestheprolingisrather

Figure 28 Picture of the old city of Gdansk (l) and a more classic ship in the city of Gdynia

Source: © Rafal Konkolewski (l) and Tomasz Kolowski (r)




weak. The city of Gdańsk is convinced thatGdańsk is the strongest brand for the entireregion and they prefer this brand above theTri-City Region or Pomeranian Region.Gdynia, however, refuses to use Gdańsk asa brand name which limits the cooperationto attract business together.

The cities have a rather similar economic

prolewhichcanbeexplainedbythehis-toric reason that Gdynia was developed as arival port city to the port city of Gdańsk.Both cities depended for a long time onpowerful shipyards. In 1979 in port of GdyniatherstcontainerterminalinPoland

(Baltic Container Terminal) started to oper-ate.Itstronglyinuencedonthespecialisa-tion of the Gdynia port as a general cargoport. In the Gdańsk port the bulk cargodominated. In 2007 Gdańsk completed thedevelopment of a new deep-water containerterminal. At that moment, the port of Gdynia handled 80 percent of the containertrafcforallPolishports.Bydevelopinganew terminal in Gdańsk, the port authoritiesare often in competition with each other andthe capacity of all terminals together is notbeing fully used (yet). Stories go that ships,when they arrive in the area, start to negoti-

ate with both ports and then decide to optfor the one that promises the cheapest han-dling of their containers. Rather than devel-oping another terminal, it would probablyhave been wiser to invest in the connectingland infrastructure. The lack of good hinter-land connections, such as motorways,makes the Tri-City region not very competi-tive compared to other seaports in north-west Europe. There is a discussion going-onabout specializing the ports in order to makethem more complementary. Fact is that thetallestshipshavedifcultytoenterthe

Gdynia port, given the lack of space tomove. In this respect, the deep-water con-tainer terminal of Gdańsk is important forthe region. Interesting is the fact that in theSocialistera,theportswereuniedinone

port authority, and they got separated afterthe changes in 1989. In general, the publicopinion seems to be that competition be-tween the ports is better than for instance

merging the port authorities.

Within a few years, it is highly likely thatthere will be two airports in the Tri-CityRegion. Gdańsk has its own airport and cur-rently Gdynia is strongly supporting thetransformation of the military airport inKosakowo, a commune adjacent in the northof Gdynia. The planning is to transform thisformer military airport into a passenger andcargo airport. They want to develop a sup-plementary airport that can be used in timesof emergence, or when weather conditionsdo not allow to land at the nearby Gdańskairport.Inrstinstance,thecityofGdańskand the Pomeranian Region did not supportthe plan of (re)development of this militaryairport. With the development of thePomorskie Metropolitan Rail ’ that connectsboth airports with each other, they implicitly

approved the (re)development of the air-port. The recently renewed airport of Gdańskhasalimitedcapacitysincethereis

not much space for expansion such as a sec-ond landing ground, an additional cargo ter-minal or new parking plots. Taken this intoaccount, it is considered that the airport of Gdynia can be complementary to the airportofGdańsk.Nevertheless,thereisahigher

chance for competition since low cost carri-ersthatarenowyingonGdańskarelikelyto switch to Gdynia/Kosakowo if they canoffer a better price. Interesting is that the

city of Gdynia even has a share in the air-port of Gdańsk,andhence,protsfromthis

airport doing well. Obviously, one may doubt

whether a metropolitan area of just onemillion inhabitants is capable of supportingtwo airports, and this seems to be a crucialissue for regional coordination.

9.3.2 Cultural integrationAtrstimpression,thename‘Tri-City

Region’ may seem to be a modern label tomarket the area externally, and to foster asense of belonging together within the re-gion. In reality, however, the label ‘Tri-cityRegion’ (Trójmiasto in Polish) circulates al-ready for decades and its origins, some-

where in the post-War period, are hard totrace. The name tended to be used infor-mally by its inhabitants to indicate of which

part of Poland they come from. Within theTri-City Region there is not a culture of col-laboration, and this can be explained by thecultural-historical background of the region.Gdynia is developed to be a competitor of Gdańsk and consequently the cities are usedto be each other competitors rather thanco-operators. Given the history of both citiesit is understandable that there are not muchexamples of metropolitan coordination. Asstated before, mainly the mayors are usedto compete rather than cooperate with eachother. The recent election took place in

Figure 29 City Centre of Sopot




November 2010 and in both cities the samemayors were re-elected. The attitude of themayors towards each other and the citiesthey are representing seems to help them togetre-elected.Hence,thisseemstoreect

popular feelings of identity and rivalry.

It is certainly true that the citizens of Gdańsk, Gdynia and Sopot tend to have a

strong local identity leading to pride.Although Gdańsk and Gdynia are both portcities, the cultural identity differs. Gdynia’sresidents are proud of their efforts to de-velop the urban economy so quickly in the1930s and again after Second World War. Itis considered a truly Polish city, whereasGdańsk obviously was a former German city.Infact,therstshootingsofSecondWorldWar occurred in an attempt to regain thethen Free city of Gdańsk. After the war,Gdańsk was repopulated by people fromcentral Poland, what is now Latvia andUkraine, and cities such as Vilnius and Lviv.The new inhabitants made great efforts torebuild the devastated city. Now, Gdańsk, asthe capital city of the Pomeranian Region, ismore a city for public administration andrelated services. The city centre is stilllargely populated by the people who rebuilt

the city after the war and their children,whichalsoimpliesthatgentricationishardly an issue. It also means that the po-tential for commercial and tourist functionsis more limited than one would normallyexpecttond.Despitethestronglocalcul-turalidentities,peopleandrmsdonotfeellimited by the boundaries of their city.People live in Gdańsk, work in Gdynia andgo for entertainment to Sopot. The culturalidentity of the people does not hamper thefurther integration of the region. As stated

before, the cultural rivalry is mainly notice-able amongst the politicians of the cities.

9.3.3 Institutional integrationThe institutional integration within the re-gion is rather weak due to a lack of politicalwillingness to join forces. The recent initia-tive to set-up two metropolitan associationswithin the same metropolitan region is char-

acteristic for the regional cooperation withinthe Tri-City Region. Unfortunately, thePomeranian Region has not enough power tochange the current situation. Due to a weakpolitical integration there is a lack of metro-politan coordination in the region, especiallyat the strategic level. One regional plan forthe entire Tri-City Region requires that ei-ther Gdańsk or Gdynia has to take the lead.But since both cities do not want to be dom-inatedbyeachotheritisdifcult,andmay-beevenimpossible,todeneajoint(spa-tial) strategy. Exemplary of a lack of a jointstrategy is the development of two containerterminals and two airports within the region.Also the introduction of a public transportcard that is valid in all three cities took tenyears of discussion. Finally, the cities andthe public transport companies agreed onthe introduction of the Metropolitan Ticket.

The ticket is, however, more a tourist ticketsince it is too expensive for the daily com-muters between Gdansk and Gdynia to buythis card. For them it is still cheaper to buytwo or three different tickets, when travel-ling through multiple cities. On the longer term, institutional integrationmight improve within the coming years,since the politicians will get used to worktogether. There is, for example, an increas-ing amount of interaction and coordination

between the policy-makers at the city’sdepartments. Again the historical context isimportant here, since municipalities wereweak during the Communist rule and theyonly got powers again after the reform of 1989. This explains why the municipalities

are reluctant to give some power awayagain to other governmental levels. Giventhis situation, it is understandable that itwill take some time before politicians seethe advantages of cooperation and coordi-nation.

9.4 SWOT analysis


• Functional-spatial integration of the region interms of labour market, housing market, retailand leisure as well as business relations.

• Business and people are thinking and acting ‘regionally’ (strong cross-border behaviour).

• Establishment of two metropolitan areaassociations rather than one, which representsthe limited willingness to cooperate at themetropolitan scale.

• Similarurbaneconomicprole(twoseaports,two

airports) leads to strong competition and leavesroomforrmstoplayoffthecitiesagainsteach

other leading to suboptimal outcomes for themetropolitan areas.

• Use of different brands for the region(PomeranianVoivodeship,Tri-Cit yRegion, Gdańsk

Metropolitan Areas) weaken the (inter)nationalproling.

• The current institutional framework does notsupport metropolitan cooperation very well.


• High potential of the region: skilled working forcewithagoodworkingmentalityandaexible

attitude.• Enough space for new developments within the

region in combination with major infrastructureinvestments made by national government for theEuropean Football Championship 2012.

• Plans to improve (physical) connection betweenthe cities by road- and rail infrastructure projects.

• New elections might bring new political leadershipthat is more open to avoiding wasteful duplicationand regional cooperation and coordination.

• First signs of cooperation between the cities inseveral projects or programs (e.g. bicycling lanes,(inter)nationalproling,metropolitanticket).

• Improved hinterland connections may enhancecompetition with other metropolitan regions inPoland, which may raise awareness of betterpositioning the metropolitan area jointly.

• Lack of urgency to join forces since the citiesare doing relatively well in terms of economicdevelopment.

• Political rivalry between mayors and politicians

can instigate the cultural rivalry between citizensand business.• Lack of a culture of cooperation between the

cities; cities are used to competition.




9.5 Conclusions

Interesting in the Tri-City Region is the factthat strong functional integration comescoupled with a severe lack of regional gov-ernance and cultural unity, which may atrstsightraisequestionsovertheimpor-tance of regional cooperation and coordina-tion as it does not seem to hamper func-

tional integration. Despite the lack of politi-cal will to work together, business and peo-ple are thinking and acting ‘regionally’. Theyare not hampered by the municipalityboundaries and see the Tri-City Region asone regional functional entity rather thanthree different cities. The lack of politicalcooperation can be explained by the histori-cal-cultural background of the region.Gdynia is developed to be a competitor of Gdanskandthereforetheeconomicprole

of both cities is similar. Due to its historyand a lack of metropolitan coordination be-tween the cities there is less complementa-rity between Gdańsk and Gdynia; they areboth seaport cities with a container terminaland, in the near future, an airport. Last de-cennia, small steps are taken forward to-wards a more integrated, polycentric devel-opment of the Tri-City Region, and the

Pomeranian Region has particularly beensteering into that direction, even thoughpower lies almost entirely with the munici-palities. After years of discussion a ‘Metropolitan Ticket’ is launched that is validin the public transport of all three cities andalso in new infrastructure projects the citiesare intensively working together. The casestudy of the Tri-City Region teaches us thatpolitical commitment is not the most impor-tant factor for metropolitan development,since the functional integration of the regionis occurring even when the political leaders

are hampering this process. Perhaps it is just a matter of time that Gdańsk andGdynia forget their traditional role as beingeach other competitors and that they seethe advantages of regional coordinationrather than competition. The merge of Gdańsk Metropolitan Area with ‘Norda’ (Gdynia’s metropolitan association) withinthe Gdańsk-Gdynia Metropolitan Area might

beagoodrststep,butthisstepisnotforeseen in the near future. As long as thecities refuse to cooperate with each otherwithin one metropolitan area association,thePomeranianRegionhasadifcult,per-haps impossible, task to stimulate metro-politan coordination. Their role, however,strongly depends whether the Polish govern-mentwillnallyapprovethe‘Metropolitan

Act’ as was proposed in 2008. Obviously, itis unknown what could have been achievedalready when regional governance in theTri-City Region would have been developedbetter already. It seems that a lot of poten-tials of the metropolitan region are now notfully exploited.

10 Case study Mitteldeutschland


The metropolitan region ‘Mitteldeutschland’ is located in the eastern part of Germany(see Figure 30). The name of the region isperhaps somewhat misleading since the re-gion is no longer located in the central (mit-tel) part of Germany, but rather in its east-ern part close to the border with the Czech

Republic and Poland. The region has a his-torical-cultural name rather than a geo-graphical name.

The discussion concerning the ‘Metropolregion Mitteldeutschland’ has itsroots in a former spatial concept; the ‘Saxon

Triangle,’ which was introduced by the SaxonState Development Plan in 1994. ThisTriangle comprised a partnership betweenthe cities of Dresden, Leipzig, Halle,Chemnitz and Zwickau. In 2005 federal poli-ticians suggested to enlarge the ‘SaxonTriangle’ by involving the largest cities of thefederal states of Saxony-Anhalt andThuringia as well. At the moment, the met-

ropolitan region Mitteldeutschland consistsof eleven cities which are located in threefederal states (see Table 4).

The population of the MetropolregionMitteldeutschland is approximately 2,4 mil-lion and the total number of inhabitants of

Figure 30

Metropolregion

Mitteldeutschland

in Germany





the three federal states is 8,7 million.Dresden is the largest city in the region with530.700 inhabitants followed by Leipzig with522.900 inhabitants. Weimar, with 65.000inhabitants, and Dessau-Roßlau, with87.000 inhabitants, are the smallest cities inthe region. Generally, the distances betweenthe cities are considerable. BetweenDresden and Leipzig, for example, it is 112km, while one needs to travel 238 km fromMagdeburg to Zwickau. In contrast, the cit-ies Leipzig and Halle are located relativelyclose to each other at 38 km distance. It isalso a short distance between Chemnitz andZwickau and between Erfurt, Weimar andJena (also known as the ‘ImPuls-Region’ 5).

The Metropolregion Mitteldeutschland can beconsidered as a kind of polycentric mega-city region composed of several smallerpolycentric city-regions (Leipzig-Halle,Chemnitz-Zwickau, ImPuls-Region) as wellas a number of relatively more self-standingcities such as Magdeburg and Dresden.Characteristically, the region has a strongposition in heavy industrial sectors with me-

5 Since 2004 the cities Erfurt, Weimar and Jena are

working together in the ImPuls-Region.

chanical engineering, metal processing,chemicals and vehicle manufacturing beingthemostsignicantindustries.Inaddition

to these more traditional industries, the re-gion is increasingly focusing on the renew-able energy industry (such as solar industry)and on attracting high-tech companies.

Regional challenges

From1949tillthereunicationin1990theregion belonged to the German DemocraticRepublic. After the breakdown of theCommunist regime, the collapse of non-competitive former GDR-industries tempo-rarily caused severe economic problems. Inthe last decades, the region rapidly trans-formed towards a modern market economy.Massive investments in infrastructure havetakenplace,newrmshavebeenattractedto the region, and new clusters emerged.Despite a successful economic transforma-tion the region is still facing some majorchallenges. The region wishes to shift to-wards a more knowledge-driven economyand is therefore giving high priority to sci-ence and education in order to create “alargeworkforceconsistingofwell-qualied

and highly-motivated specialists.” (Wirtschaftsinitiative für Mitteldeutschland,

2010). Public expenditure on research anddevelopment in Mitteldeutschland is higherthan the national average and outstripscountries in Eastern Europe, like the CzechRepublic and Poland. With these investmentsMitteldeutschland is aiming to become “oneof Europe’s most attractive and pioneeringindustrial regions, combining dynamicgrowth with a high quality of life.” (Wirtschaftsinitiative für Mitteldeutschland,2010). During the last decades the regionhad to deal with a brain drain with highly-skilled people moving towards the western

Table 4 Partner cities of the Metropolregion

Mitteldeutschland

S axon y S axon y-An halt Thuringia

Chemnitz Dessau-Roßlau Erfurt*

Dresden* Halle Gera

Leipzig Magdeburg* Jena

Zwickau Weimar

* = capital cities of the federal states

part of Germany. At present, there are not asufcientamountofjobsavailableforall

graduate students. In economic and demo-graphic terms, Dresden has become one of the growth poles in an otherwise shrinkingregion. But in comparison with prosperousGerman cities like Munich, Frankfurt orHamburg, the position of Dresden is stillchallenging. According to the interviewees,

one of the main challenges of the region istoattractmorerms,andespecially(inter)

national headquarters. In order to attractheadquarters or other metropolitan func-tions it is important to create a strong(er)critical mass. It is a challenge to let theeleven cities function as one large city with2,4 million inhabitants and to make optimaluse of the diversity of the economic clusters.

Metropolregion Mitteldeutschland as case

study

The Metropolregion Mitteldeutschland hasbeen selected as one of the case studies of EMI’s Knowledge and Research Agenda on ‘Polycentric Metropolitan Areas’. The regionis a good example of a fusion type regionconsisting of a constellation of once ratherdistinct medium and small-sized cities,which are now becoming increasingly de-

pendent upon each other. The regional coop-eration within the MetropolregionMitteldeutschland is often called a ‘networkof cities’ or a ‘network of networks’. It isinteresting to analyse how the German citiesare functionally, culturally and institutionallyintegrated and what kind of metropolitanstrategy or vision is behind it.

The case study is based on in-depth inter-views with various key experts in the region,from representatives of government authori-ties (city of Halle, Leipzig and Dresden), to

academics specialized in urban and regionalplanning as well as representatives of themetropolitan association. Besides inter-views, policy documents and academic arti-cles on Mitteldeutschland’s polycentric urbanstructure have been used to develop thiscase study. The study discusses theMetropolregion Mitteldeutschland with a par-ticular focus on the cities Leipzig and Halle.

It is interesting to analyse how these twocities, located closely to one another, arefunctionally, culturally and institutionallyintegrated, and how they function within thebroader metropolitan region.


This chapter discusses the metropolitan de-velopment strategies that are in place bydescribing the formal and informal ways of regional cooperation within the metropolitanregion. According to Egermann, polycentricmetropolitan regions are expected to “play

an important role in spatial development in

Germany and in Europe. The question re-

mains unanswered whether these polycen-

tric regions can be building blocks of a met-

ropolitan policy” (Egermann, 2009:277).

National and federal state(s)

Following the policy of the European Union,the German national government supportsregional cooperation and the set-up of ‘European metropolitan regions’ across thecountry. In 1997, after years of discussion,theGermangovernmentofciallyacknowl-edged seven European metropolitan regionsin Germany. These regions are seen as theengines of societal (economic, social andcultural) development which ought to con-




tribute to the acceleration of the Europeanintegration process (Egermann, 2009). TheHalle/Leipzig-‘Saxon Triangle’ was one of theseven metropolitan regions. The region con-sistedofvecities:Dresden,Leipzig,Halle,

ChemnitzandZwickau.Inrstinstance,theSaxon Triangle remained a planning conceptbut after a while the cities started to cooper-ate by creating a standing working group.

The mayors of the cities agreed on a pro-gramme of action for the ‘Saxon Triangle’ metropolitan region and subsequently

signed a cooperation agreement outliningcloser cooperation in the future.In 2005 the situation changed drasticallyfollowing a discussion by the prime minis-ters of Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt andThuringia. They considered the metropolitanregion concept as a special opportunity forthe ‘Central German’ economic area to posi-tion itself favourably within the European

economic area as a whole. They suggestedthat the ‘Saxon Triangle’ metropolitan regionshould include the cities of Magdeburg,

Source: Google Maps, 2012 with own additions

Figure 31 Eleven cities of the Metropolregion Mitteldeutschland

(red = formerly Saxon Triangle, black = new member cities, blue = new partner cities)

Dessau-Roßlau, Erfurt, Weimar, Jena andGera as well (see Figure 31). From 2005onwards there were many discussions aboutthe formal extension of the metropolitanregion and how the decision-making struc-ture needed to be organised. Step by stepthe four new cities were accepted as fullmembers of the metropolitan regions, whilethe cities of Erfurt and Weimar are still rep-

resented by the city of Jena in both thesteering committee and the managementboard. Within the ImPuls-Region, Erfurt,Weimar and Jena are internally discussingissues. This enables Jena to represent allthree cities within the Metropolregion.Currently, it is still point of discussionwhether or not Erfurt and Weimar will be-comeofcialmembers.The three federal states do not develop orsupport one integral regional (spatial) strat-egy for the whole metropolitan region.Consequently, there is less coordination be-tween the spatial plans of the federal states.According to the interviewees, the federalborders remain considerable institutionalbarriers hampering further regional coordi-nation and cooperation between the cities.Due to the federal borders between the cit-ies Leipzig and Halle it is less likely that

these cities will integrate to become a singlecity-region, although there is a lot of poten-tial. The federal states appear to be hesitantabout the Metropolregion Mitteldeutschland.While ministries responsible for spatial plan-ning clearly support the partnership, thefederal governments of the three states donot wholeheartedly support the metropolitanregion. This is mainly because in some eyesthe metropolitan region is considered a pre-stageofunicationofthethreefederal

states, which would mean loss of power andcompetences.

Metropolregion Mitteldeutschland

The Metropolregion Mitteldeutschland is themain driver for regional cooperation be-tween the involved cities. There are, how-ever, strategies for regional cooperation atthe city-region level as well. TheMetropolregion Mitteldeutschland regards itsrole as that of “stimulus provider for innova-

tion and sustainable economic development

within the entire region”. As a ‘network of networks’ it aims to bring together energy,identities, potential and interests from theeconomy, science, politics and society(Metropolregion Mitteldeutschland, 2012). Incomparison with other German metropolitanpartnerships (like in Munich, Stuttgart andHamburg), the MetropolregionMitteldeutschland is a small organisation.Only two or three persons work for the coor-dinationofceoftheregion,whileinother

German metropolitan regions this number istripled or even quadrupled. The cities pay anannualfeeforthecoordinationofceofthe

metropolitan region. Being part of a metro-politan region is considered to be of strate-gicand(potentially)nancialimportance.

The management board of theMetropolregion comprises the nine mayorsof the member cities. They meet two or

three times each year, which enhances thecoordination between the cities, builds trustamong the partners and creates more com-mitment to the partnership. The steeringgroup consists of the city planners of thenine cities and they meet about six or seventimes each year. Representatives of theelevencitiesworktogetherinveworkinggroups, which also include participants fromgovernment, industry, science and society.

Workings groups

The themes of the working groups and the




main objectives are formulated by the cities(see Table 5).6 Generally speaking, the am-bitions of the working groups are high; theobjectives of each group are then translatedinto smaller and more concrete projects.According to the interviewees, the workinggroups do not address the main problemsand challenges of the region; they are morefocused on quick-wins such as joint publica-tions and marketing and branding activities.Some of the (preliminary) results of theworking groups will be discussed in the fol-lowing chapters.

The city representatives of the workinggroups discuss progress every six weeks.However, some cities are slightly reluctantto put much effort, time and money into theworking groups. This point to the danger of free-rider behaviour of one or more cities.Others are very enthusiastic and try to bring

6 Although Erfurt and Weimar are not part of

the management board and steering group

of the partnership, they actively contribute to

theveworkinggroupsoftheMetropolregion

Mitteldeutschland.

regional cooperation to a higher level. Eventhough most of the groups have faced somestart-up problems, they are now producingpromisingrstresults(likejointpublica-tions). For various reasons there is a lack of priority amongst the cities for setting upadditional working groups or other regionalactivities.

The working group ‘trans-regional coopera-tion’ is the result of a national demonstra-tion project (MORO) of the national Ministryfor Transport, Building and UrbanDevelopment.Theyrecentlynishedthe

project “Trans-regional partnerships: inno-vative projects on regional cooperation, net-working and shared large-scale responsibil-ity”. Several German metropolitan regionswere part of this project and theMetropolregion Mitteldeutschland was one of these ‘model regions’. The aim of this project was to prove that supra-regional part-nerships can actually work. The project ad-dressed the question ‘how’ to generate blue-prints and partnerships that “generategrowth and innovative capacity for the re-gion as a whole as well as optimally promote

Working groups Main objective of the group

Business & science Increase the economic power and compet it iveness of the region

Culture & tour ism Successfu l market ing of the ex isting cultura l and tourist potential of theregion

Transport & mobility Optimisation of the accessibility of all areas of the region andimprovement of domestic and international links

Family friendliness Creation of family-friendly living and working conditions by ensuring thatfamily and career are compatible

Trans-regional cooperation Creation of suitable governance structures by the further development of organisational forms of the region

Table 5 Main objectives of the ve working groups the contribution to the development of allsub-regions in accordance with their indi-vidual starting position.” (BMVBS, 2011:4).The development of a suitable organisationalmodel was one of the projects of theMetropolregion Mitteldeutschland.

To sum up:TheGermanreunicationisstill

fresh in the minds of many. In 1990, after

forty years of Communism, the federalstates and municipalities received autono-my, which enabled them to determine theirown policy. In comparison with the munici-palities in the western part of Germany, theeastern part of the country does not have asmuch of a culture of cooperation. The mu-nicipalities in, for example, the Ruhr-areahad more time to develop such a culture.Perhaps it is just a matter of time before themunicipalities start to cooperate more inten-sivelywitheachother.Despitethedifcult

start-up phase MetropolregionMitteldeutschland experienced, this platformcould play a pivotal role in supporting re-gional cooperation and coordination. Theinstitutional framework of the organisationforces representatives of the eleven cities tocooperate and collaborate with each other ata metropolitan level.


10.3.1 Spatial-functional integrationThe functional relations between the citiesare rather limited due to the large distancesbetween the cities. It is, for example, un-common to live in Dresden and to work inMagdeburg. The distances between thesecities are too extensive for having frequentconnections. This might be the main reasonfor the existing duplication of amenities in

the region, such as theatres and sport stadi-ums. People are unlikely to travel to anothercity to attend a concert when it takes morethan one hour. But even when it comes tocities in close vicinity to each other (Leipzig-Halle) one can see a duplication of amenitiesand living environments. The cities are notused to coordinating such metropolitan func-tions; they are more used to competing

rather than cooperating with each other.This can be explained by the historic back-grounds of the cities and the autonomy theyreceivedin1990aftertheGermanreunica-tion. They are not (yet) willing to give uptheir autonomy and they do not see the ad-vantages of intensive cooperation and coor-dination. Leipzig and Halle are both locatedin different federal states and the federalborders between the cities, to a certain ex-tent, limit further functional integration.Both cities can offer different business con-ditionsduetodifferentfederalnancialand

subsidy structures. A good example of inter-city competition is how both cities are at-tempting to attract a new BMW factory (au-tomotive company). When BMW announcedthat it intends to open a new factory in theregion, many cities offered the company anew plot for the building of its factory. Both

Leipzig and Halle put much effort into at-tracting the company by offering the bestplots.BMWnallydecidedtobuilditsfac-tory in Leipzig. Halle consequently ended upwith an empty plot of land. It is question-able whether such form of competition be-tween the cities is advisable. The employeesof the new BMW factory are likely to live inLeipzig and Halle. So, in theory, it is not thatimportant whether the factory is located inLeipzig or Halle since both cities will stillprot.Inpractice,Leipzigispleasedtohave

the factory within their municipal boundaries




given the tax income it generates and theprestige involved with having a new com-pany such as BMW open a factory in the

city. To the general public it seemingly re-mainsunclearthatbenetsofanewcom-panylocatedinLeipzigalsosigniesbenetsfor a place like Halle. More research is need-ed to develop instruments or mechanismsthatshowtheregionalbenetsofsuchloca-tional decisions. This will make the processmore transparent showing necessary trade-offs, but also help prevent suboptimal re-gional outcomes.

Leipzig and Halle are relatively well con-nected with each other by road and rail.

Functional relations between the cities varyfrom commuting, leisure and business rela-tions.Thenumberoftrafcjamsisverylow

and even during rush hour the trains be-tween both cities are relatively empty (seeFigure 32) – which probably also shows thatfunctional interactions between the citieshave not been fully developed. Intervieweesdid feel that the cities share one regionallabour market; people from Leipzig look for jobs opportunities in Halle and vice versa. Inorder to improve the functional integrationwithin the region, a new infrastructure project is currently under construction with thepotential to bring the region closer to eachother. This ‘city tunnel’ project consists of a

Figure 32 Train between Halle and Leipzig during rush-hour two km railway tunnel connecting LeipzigCentral Station to the Bayern CentralStation. The tunnel improves the accessibil-ity of Leipzig by rail and creates a betterconnection between Leipzig and Halle withChemnitz and Zwickau. This improved infra-structure connection can enhance the func-tional relations between the cities.

In the case of the airport Leipzig-Halle, thecities are used to cooperating with each oth-er. In order to demonstrate that the airportis a joint project of both federal states, theairport is located exactly on the federal bor-der. Although both cities cooperate when itcomes to this project, the amount of effortsput in by each city is rather lopsided.The working group ‘transport & mobility’ of the Metropolregion Mitteldeutschland tries tostimulate a further spatial-functional inte-gration within the region. Until now, thegroups are not (yet) very effective as thereis strong disagreement about priorities. BothLeipzig and Dresden want to improve theirroad connections with Berlin. But instead of agreeing on one strong lobby towards thenational government for a new connection,the decision-making process has entered animpasse; each city resents the other an im-

proved connection. This is exemplary for thecomplicated cooperation within certain work-ing groups.

The working group ‘business & science’ pre-sents the region as an innovation know-howcentre with outstanding knowledge networksin business and science. With 48 universitiesand colleges along with well over 100 re-search centres, the region has a good(knowledge) basis. The practical transfer of knowledge between industry and science is

facilitated by numerous networks of excel-lence and cooperation projects. Still, there isnot so much cooperation between the uni-versities in the region. The national govern-ment recently challenged regions to create ‘centres of excellence’ and this initiative trig-gered them to intensively cooperate witheach other.

Besides the MetropolregionMitteldeutschland, the ‘Wirtschaftsinitiativefür Mitteldeutschland GmbH’ supports astrong external marketing strategy for theregional economy.7 The Wirtschaftsinitiativeis a private initiative with the objective topromote and strengthen regional competi-tiveness. Sixty members are part of thisorganisation (including international privateinvestors such as BMW and Siemens) as wellas the cities of Leipzig, Halle, Magdeburg,Jena, Gera and Dessau, the chambers of commerce and the three federal states. Inorder to make the region more attractive toinvestors and creative forces theWirtschaftsinitiative selected eight success-ful clusters.8 By promoting these clustersthey try to attract more business and highly-skilled people to the region. This is done by,for example, organising excursions to inter-

esting parts of the region and showing theunused potential that can be drawn upon.

7 Since 2011 both organisations are located in

the same building which supports short linkages

between their activities. They are exploring ways

of further cooperation.

8 The clusters of the region are (amongst others):

automotive, biotech/life sciences, chemical

industry and plastics, food industry, information

technology, solar energy, optoelectronics and

microelectronics




The cities seem to be relatively complemen-tary to one another and the differences ineconomic sectors have actually increasedover the last years (Franz and Hornych,2009). However, it remains unclear to whichextent the potential of a complementaryeconomyproleisutilized.Urbanactorsstillstruggle with the question how the diversityof economic clusters can be used in themost optimal way.

10.3.2 Cultural integrationThe metropolitan region is not characterisedby a shared regional identity. People strong-ly identify themselves with their federalstate or the city in which they live. The fed-eral states of Thuringia and Saxony in par-ticular traditionally have a strong sense of pride and regional identity, which may ham-per further regional integration. Amongstinhabitants there is little awareness thatthey would be part of a metropolitan region.Interviewees suggest that a majority of the

inhabitants has never heard of the ‘Metropolregion Mitteldeutschland’. Mostlikely, the former Saxon Triangle was moreappealing to them. The brand ‘Mitteldeutschland’, introduced in 2009, isstill very new and it takes a while beforeinhabitantsandrmsstartusingit.

In contrast to the limited shared identityamong inhabitants is the conviction among

rmsthatthispartofGermanyrequiresbetter external positioning and marketing.They demand action from the government,and organized themselves in theWirtschaftsinitiative together with local au-thorities and business chambers. They arestriving for a successful development andmarketing of the regional economy.Apparently, the key corporations in the re-gion are aware that the fragmented spatialstructure and urban system is detrimental tothis external positioning. They feel the needto market the region as a single entity.

Figure 33 The city of Dresden

Here, one needs to consider that the mar-keting of the region is mainly focused on theexternal rather than on the internal, whichmay explain the lack of a regional identityamong inhabitants. The strategy of theWirtschaftsinitiative strongly focuses on at-tracting new business and economic clustersto the region triggered by the urgency tocatch up with other German metropolitan

regions. On the longer term joint economicprolingcancreateasharedregionaliden-tity amongst residents as well. All citieshave a more or less similar history as formerGDR industrial cities, which are nowadaystransforming to more knowledge-driven eco-nomic clusters such as the solar cluster. Thisshared identity can create a mutual sense of belonging but for now it is too early to speakof a regional identity.

The working groups of the MetropolregionMitteldeutschland also try to stimulate cul-tural integration. The working group ‘culture& tourism’ aims to reinforce the culture of democracy in the region and to promoteintegration processes by, for example, stim-ulating integrated cross-border offers forresidents and visitors of the region. One of the products of the working group is a travel

brochure for the entire region. However, thepublication of this brochure led to rising ten-sions between the cities. Some citiesclaimed that there was a disproportionateamount of attention paid to certain cities inthe brochure. These cities would have likeda more prominent position in the publica-tion. Due to these kind of disagreements ittook almost four years before the brochurewasnallynished.Thisexamplecanbe

considered as exemplary for the cooperationwithintheveworkinggroupsofthe

Metropolregion Mitteldeutschland.

10.3.3 Institutional integrationFrom 2005 onwards there were many dis-cussions about the formal extension of co-operation, for example, about veto rights of the new cities. Step by step, the four newmember cities were allocated a seat in themanagement board and the steering com-mittee of the region. This process triggereda new discussion about the name of the

partnership. Cities in Saxony-Anhalt andThuringia (like Jena, Magdeburg and Gera)did not want to cooperate under the label ‘Saxon Triangle’. They proposed the nameMitteldeutschland. Dresden disagreed withthis name since the name could potentiallyharm their relationship with Polish cities asWroclaw. The name Mitteldeutschland im-plicitly suggests that if Dresden is located inthe central (mittel) part of Germany, Polandwould as a consequence be East-Germany.Afterlongdebates,allpartnersnally

agreed with the name. Another point of dis-cussion was the location of the coordinationofceoftheMetropolregionMitteldeutschland. Since the cities could notndagreementtheydecidedtohavearo-tatingofce,thatis,changethelocationeverytwoyears.Theofcewasrstlylo-cated in Leipzig, then in Chemnitz and

Dresden, after which it relocates to Leipzigagain. Dresden did not complete their two-year term, since the other cities complainedthat they did not put enough effort in coor-dinating all activities. The two-year circula-tionoftheofcehasturnedouttonotbe

veryefcient.Thestart-upphasesinthedifferent cities and the frequently changingcoordinators meant a loss of valuable timeand expertise. The management board re-centlydecidedthattheofcewillbeperma-nently based in Leipzig.




The strategies for regional cooperation aremainly based on voluntary participation of the cities rather than on decisive powers.The veto right of each mayor complicatesthe decision-making process of the metro-politan region. In practice it turns out that itisdifculttoformulateplansthatwillbe

approved by all mayors. The organisationalstructure of the metropolitan region might

change within the coming years since thereare proposals to set up an association. Thiswas one of the results of the working grouptrans-regional cooperation within the ‘Supra-regional partnership’ pilot for theMetropolregion Mitteldeutschland (BMVBS,2011). It is, however, uncertain whether thecity councils will approve this proposal. Bygiving the Metropolregion Mitteldeutschlanda formal status, the city councils might fearlosing a certain amount of autonomy.Anotherdifcultdecisionthatneedstobe

addressed concerns the role of the countiesin the metropolitan region. At the moment,Metropolregion Mitteldeutschland is a net-work of main cities rather than a networkpresenting the entire region including thesmaller counties. But if all counties join, thecooperation platform will be enlarged fromeleven to over one hundred members. This

problem of ensuring involvement of countiescan be solved by developing city-regionsaround the eleven main cities, and subse-quently having the main cities represent thesurrounding counties in their city-region.

The institutional integration within the re-gion strongly depends on the relationshipbetween the cities and the three federalstates.Afterreunication,thethreefederalstatesusedtoreceivesignicantbudgetsof

the national government and the western

federal states. With the second SolidarityPact which came into force in 2006, the fed-eral state will receive additional funding until2019.9 In terms of budgets, the metropoli-tan region is light years apart compared tothe (budgetary) power of the federal states.At the moment, the federal states are notvery supportive of the metropolitan region,since they do not want the region to become

too important. The mayor of Jena once sup-ported the idea of a common federal state ‘Mitteldeutschland’ and he argued that themetropolitan region is one step in that direc-tion. The federal states as well as the capitalcities of these states (Dresden, Erfurt andMagdeburg) do not support the idea of onecommon federal state since they are fearlosing their superior position. Rumour has itthat these capital cities want to keep an eyeon the process and therefore are participat-ing in the metropolitan initiative. The politi-cal colour of the cities and the federal gov-ernments also impedes the institutional inte-gration. With the exception of Dresden allcities are social-democratic while the threefederal states and the city of Dresden areconservative. Because of the political colourof Dresden, the federal states want Dresdento be part of the metropolitan region so they

caninuencetheprocessthatwouldother-wise be entirely determined by the social-democratic party. This ‘strategic’ position of Dresden can harm the future institutionalintegration of the metropolitan region. SinceDresden obviously has shown little enthusi-asm for the cooperation within the metro-politan partnership over the past few years,

9 TheSolidarityPactIIprovidesthenancialbasis

for the advancement and special promotion of the

economy of the new federal states until 2019.

and it has been suggested that it would bebetter for the cooperation if Dresden wouldno longer be a member.

To sum up: The institutional integrationwithin the Metropolregion Mitteldeutschland,with its eleven cities in three individual fed-eral states, turns out to be complicated.Lengthy discussions took place concerning

the name of the partnership, the location of thecoordinationofceandtheorganisation-al structure. But perhaps these are just typi-

cal problems characteristic for the start-upphaseofsuchinitiatives.Theveworking

groups are likely to enhance a stronger in-stitutional integration within the region sincethey provide a certain alignment for regionalactivities and cities must necessarily worktogetherinthesegroups.Still,itisdifcult

to say something about the success of theseworking groups since most of the groups

have only been up-and-running for two orthree years.

10.4 SWOT analysis


• Traditionalindustrialproleoftheregion(like

automotive, chemicals) in combination with variousnew economic clusters.

• Cooperation in working groups; alignment of (regional) activities.

• Good infrastructure connections between the cities.• Institutional framework of the metropolitan

partnership with a management board, steeringgroup,workinggroupsandacoordinationofce.

• Metropolitan region depends on a varying supportof the cities and federal states, and in fact,strongly diverging support for further cooperationand integration.

• Lack of a functional rationale, or at leastuncertainty about the extent to which the citiesactually form a metropolitan region in practice.

• Mitteldeutschland is a network of major citiesrather than a network of the entire region includingsmaller municipalities.

• The institutional structure of the Metropolregion ispoint of discussion (e.g. veto positions of membercities).


• Sense of urgency for more regional cooperation,coordination and integration (especially focusedon the economy) in order to catch up with otherGerman metropolitan regions.

• Strong involvement of the private sector throughthe ‘Wirtschaftsinitiative für Mitteldeutschland’.

• Increasing attention for metropolitan developmentin European and national policy.

• Citieshaveshownthattheycantakedifcult

decisions even without the support of the federalstates.

• Working groups are not addressing the mainissues but mainly focusing on quick wins as jointpublications and marketing.

• Free-rider behaviour of cities: some cities onlyprotfromcooperationwithoutputtinganyeffort,

time or money in it• Lack of trade-off mechanisms to enhance regional

cooperation and collaboration.• Diverging (hidden) political interests and agendas

of the three federal states versus the cities, andamong the cities.




10.5 Conclusions

Mitteldeutschland is a polycentric metropoli-tan region that is weak in its functional, cul-tural and institutional integration. The dis-tances between the cities are too long forhaving frequent functional interactions. Infact, the metropolitan region should be con-sidered a network of several polycentric city-

regions (Leipzig-Halle; Erfurt-Weimar-Jena;Chemnitz-Zwickau) and some more mono-centric city-regions (Dresden, Magdeburg).In the case of the three smaller polycentriccity-regions, more functional relations exist,but sometimes there are considerable insti-tutional barriers (Leipzig-Halle) hamperingthe process of integration.

The sense of urgency, that is the fear thatthe region will lose out to other Germanmetropolitan regions, is the main driver fora metropolitan strategy. The aim is tostrengthen the economic competitiveness of the region with a strong externally-orientedeconomic marketing strategy. Most activitiesandproductsoftheveworkinggroupsare

focused on ‘getting the region on the map’ andattracting(andkeeping)rmsandhigh-ly-skilled people in the region. The creation

of one regional identity for inhabitants isseen as important but obviously has a lowerpriority.

Institutional integration, with eleven cities inthree different federal states, turns out to bevery complicated, especially since the capitalcities of the federal states take a more stra-tegic position in the partnership. Debatesabout the name, the location of the coordi-nationofce,andtheorganisationalstruc-ture of the partnership are illustrative forthe complicated collaboration between the

cities. Nevertheless, the cities have proventhattheycantakesomedifcultdecisionsin

the interest of the region and that they arewilling to cooperate and collaborate in theworking groups. These groups appear to befocused on the easy quick-wins of coopera-tion, and it remains to be seen whether theycansustainandaddressmoredifcultques-tions and challenges. Although it is ques-

tionable whether such complicated issueswill ever make it on the metropolitan agendaintherstplace,giventhediverginginter-ests and level of commitment of the mem-ber cities. There is much to be said for fo-cusing and intensifying cooperation and co-ordination within several parts of what isnow the Metropolregion Mitteldeutschlandand for limiting the focus of this entire met-ropolitan region to external positioning andmarketing.

Itisdifculttopredictthefuturedevelop-ment of the MetropolregionMitteldeutschland. The municipalities andfederal states in the eastern part of Germany are not yet familiar with a cultureof coordination or cooperation. As long asthe advantages of joining forces are notclear to them, it is unlikely that they will put

more effort, time and money into the metro-politan initiative. On the other hand, there isincreasing attention for metropolitan devel-opment at the European and national level.This might offer multiple opportunities for afurther functional, cultural and institutionalintegration within the region.

11 Rotterdam – The Hague Metropolitan Area


The Metropoolregio Rotterdam-The Hague islocated in the south-western part of theNetherlands (see Figure 34). Rotterdam(617.000 inhabitants) and The Hague(500.000 inhabitants) are the main cities of the Metropoolregio together with another 22small- and medium-sized municipalities. In

total, around 2.2 million people live in themetropolitan region. The region is located inthe economic heart of the Netherlandswhere a major part of the gross nationalproduct is earned. The region is well con-nected; there are highways to the othermajor cities of the Netherlands, beingAmsterdam, Utrecht and Eindhoven.Furthermore,anefcientrailnetworkispro-vided and used with high intensity. A highspeed train connects Rotterdam withAmsterdam, Schiphol Airport, Antwerp,Brussels and Paris. International destina-tions can also be reached from the seaportRotterdam and Rotterdam-The HagueAirport.

The Metropoolregio is an area with a mix of characteristics and a high diversity:Rotterdam and its surrounding municipalities

boast a large sea port with many relatedindustrial and transport activities, while TheHague and its surrounding towns are hometo many national and international politicaland juridical institutions. The city of Delft,which hosts many knowledge-generatinginstitutions, lies right in between them. TheWestland area and the area aroundLansingerland and Pijnacker-Nootdorp ishome to world leading clusters of horticul-ture businesses, while Zoetermeer is a typi-calnewtownthatrecentlyprolesitselfasa

‘leisure city’ by boasting large leisure facili-

ties (indoor skiing, water rides etc.).Furthermore, there are important clusters inclean technology, medical technology, archi-tecture and design and security.

The Metropoolregio has to operate in avery fragmented institutional structure.The Metropoolregio covers most of theurbanized (hence most important) parts of

the Province of South-Holland. Within theMetropoolregio there are currently tworegional authorities operational, which fallunder the ‘WGR+’ legislation: StadsregioRotterdam (including Rotterdam and sur-rounding municipalities) and StadsgewestHaaglanden (including The Hague and sur-rounding municipalities). The WGR+ re-gions are currently point of political dis-cussion since there are plans to abolishthem in order to cut budgets and reducebureaucracy. It is, however, still unknownwhether these plans will be executed.Realizing that metropolitan governance isstill needed if the WGR+ regions will beabolished, the 24 municipalities intend to join forces and continue to cooperate with-in a larger platform: the ‘MetropoolregioRotterdam-The Hague’ – from now on re-ferred to as ‘Metropoolregio’ in this report.

The city councils, however, have not de-cided yet on cooperation at a larger metro-politan scale.

Regional challenges

One of the main challenges of theMetropoolregio is to improve the interna-tional competitiveness of the region and toincrease their contribution to the nationaleconomy. In Europe and worldwide metro-politan areas are increasing seen as theright scale to compete. The productivitygrowth in the South Wing is relatively low




and much focus is put on generating ortransporting high volumes instead of morevalue-added economic activities (OECD,2007). Problems concerning congestion,mismatch in the housing market and lack of high-quality education and research anddevelopment (R&D) investments are allpoints of attention that threaten the com-petitive position of the Rotterdam-The

Hague region. At the same time, theAmsterdam Metropolitan Area in the north-ern part of the Randstad has been outper-forming its southern part over the last dec-ade. The acknowledgement of the perceivedslowly but steady decrease of the interna-tional competitiveness is an important moti-

vation for the cities in the south wing of theRandstad to join forces.

Another challenge the region is facing has amore spatial character since Rotterdam andThe Hague are steadily growing towardseachother.Housing,retailandofcedevel-opments (although currently tempered be-cause of the economic crisis), agricultural

and horticulture activities, green areas andspace reserved for climate adaption lay anincreasing claim on the land that is onlyscarcely available. The Metropoolregio willneed to deal with a variety of land useclaims that can contradict or harm each oth-er. Another challenge is to deal with the in-


Figure 34 Metropoolregio Rotterdam-The Hague in

the Netherlands

stitutional fragmentation within the region.The relatively proximity of cities in theRandstadmakesitdifculttodenethe

boundaries of the Metropoolregio. The 24municipalities do not form a ‘closed system’ since cities as Leiden and Dordrecht canvery well be considered to be part of thesame region. The Hague has strong relationswith Amsterdam as well and on a mega-

region scale Rotterdam has relations withBreda and Antwerp. The challenge is to dealwithallthesedifferentdimensionsinaex-ible and adaptive way and to cooperate withlocal, regional, and national authorities onthe one hand and semi-public and privateactors on another hand. This new coopera-tion builds on some tradition of cooperation,since there are already several other plat-forms for cooperation in the South Wingregion, and the area of the Metropoolregiocorresponds for a large part also with theeconomic core of the Province of South-Holland. As we see it, the position of theMetropoolregio with respect to these gov-ernance and government structures needsto be clear in order to make the cooperationwork, and to really tackle the challenges justmentioned.

Metropoolregio Rotterdam- The Hague ascase study

Randstad Holland, together with the Ruhr-area in Germany and the Flemish Diamondin Belgium, is a well-known example of apolycentric region with four medium-sizedcities that are often considered part of onelarger mega-city region. Dutch plannershave for decades wavered between the op-tion of either positioning the RandstadHolland as the right scale for metropolitandevelopment, or focus on its North Wing

(Amsterdam, Utrecht) and South Wing(Leiden, The Hague, Delft, Rotterdam,Dordrecht and Gouda) separately. At thismoment, opinions are strongly in favour of afocus on the both wings of the Randstadsincethiswouldreectdailyurbansystemsbetter. This was also underpinned by studieson functional coherence within the Randstadwhich showed that the both wings were

more appropriate units for metropolitan co-operation than the Randstad as a whole(RPB/PBL, 2006). It is interesting to analyzehow Rotterdam and The Hague are joiningforces at the metropolitan level since themetropolitan initiative developed in a fastpace recent years.

Input for the case study is generated duringa roundtable discussion attended by repre-sentatives of the local and regional authori-ties.10 Policy documents and (academic) pa-pers about the region have also been usedfor this study. Furthermore, EMI researchersattended the ‘Metropoolregiodag’, a confer-ence organized by the Metropoolregio toinform all politicians in the region about theprogress of regional cooperation. Anotheraim was to create a stronger commitmentamongst all involved actors.


This paragraph discusses the strategies thatfoster regional cooperation and integrationat the metropolitan level. Within theMetropoolregio, a range of formal and infor-

10 See appendix 1 for a list of the participants of the

roundtable discussion




mal strategies and policies are pursed.Formal regional policies and strategies

In the Netherlands, provinces are a directlydemocratically chosen regional layer of gov-ernment dating back to the late MiddleAges. The ProvinceofSouthHolland hasa coordinating role in various policy spheres,butitsmostnotableactivitiesareintheeld

of spatial planning. The province makes ter-ritorial structure plans that in principle arenot binding for the municipalities, but incase municipalities make local plans thatcontradict the provincial plans, the provinceis allowed to overrule municipalities andmake ‘integration plans’. To a certain extent,the province is responsible for infrastructuredevelopments, like contracting the publictransport operators within its territory withexception of the WGR+ regions. As will bementioned more in detail in paragraph 3.3,the Province of South-Holland is looking withsome suspicion to the Metropoolregio initia-tive, as the metropolitan region covers mostof the urbanized (hence most important)parts of the province (see Figure 35).

The territory of the province contains two

WGR+ regions; the Stadsregio Rotterdam

includes 15 municipalities and theStadsgewest Haaglanden encompasses 9municipalities. Their main tasks lay in coor-dinating environmental, economic and spa-tial planning; and to allocate budgets foryouth care, infrastructure and transport(BZK, 2010). For the latter they receivegrants from the national government andthey have the same tasks and responsibili-ties as the Dutch provinces. Additionalbudget from both the national governmentand contributions from the participating mu-

nicipalities make sure these regions are abletooperateandnancetheircoordinating

activities in environmental, economic andspatial planning. The Stadsregio Rotterdamand Stadsgewest Haaglanden are not sepa-rate layers of government as the responsi-bilities are carried by the individual munici-palities, while the Province of South-Hollandand the national government are the over-

arching layers of government.

The WGR+ regions are used to cooperatewith each other since they are located ineach other’s proximity. They have to cooper-ate on issues such as public transport sincebusses, trams and light-rail connections arealmost everywhere crossing the border of the city-regions. The RandstadRail is themost notable cooperation project.Stadsgewest Haaglanden and StadsregioRotterdam are strong supporters of theMetropoolregio, partly because of the factthat there already is so much interactionbetween the two territories, partly becauseregional cooperation between the two areasneeds to be maintained if the WGR+ regionswill be abolished.

Informal regional strategies and policies

In the Netherlands there is a long traditionof voluntary informal collaborations at thescale of the Randstad, the North Wing andSouth Wing. The ‘SouthWingPlatform’ isa good example of informal ways of coop-eration and coordination. The platform iscoordinated by various partners amongstothers the Province of South-Holland, theStadsregio Rotterdam, StadsgewestHaaglanden, Holland-Rijnland (cooperatingmunicipalities around Leiden), Midden-Holland (cooperating municipalities around

Gouda), Drechtsteden (cooperating munici-palities around Dordrecht), and the cities of Rotterdam and The Hague. The South Wingplatform has a focus on coordinating eco-nomic policies, urban/green developmentand transport planning.11 The platformstrongly focuses on a transit-oriented devel-opment strategy of the region. The project ‘StedenbaanPlus’ aims for a concentration of

urban developments around public trans-port-systems. It should ensure the harmoni-sation and implementation of the spatialdevelopment policies of the participatingcities and regions, while at the same timerespecting the provincial plans.

From 2010 onwards, the Metropoolregio has taken off in a fast pace. Once started asan informal cooperation between severalcities on a project-basis, the Metropoolregiois nowadays a platform with strategies, poli-cies and a proposal for a legitimate institu-tional structure. The Metropoolregio is not anew layer of government, but depends onthe voluntary efforts of the participatingmunicipalities. The individual councils of theparticipating municipalities all appoint a rep-resentative for the daily management of theMetropoolregio.Thetasksthatowfromthe

activities will be managed by the variousdepartments from the municipalities. InDecember 2011, the mayors of Rotterdamand The Hague presented a regional coop-eration strategy for the Metropoolregio.Focus of the document is to stimulate coop-eration in and integration of the region,therebyprovidinginhabitantsandrmsinthe region with more opportunities(Metropoolregio Rotterdam Den Haag,

11 See for more information the website:www.zuidvleugel.nl

2012b). It is the ambition of theMetropoolregio to work on a sustainable andinternational area, with an internationallycompetitive business climate. The documentidentiesthreestrategiestofosterthepro-cess of metropolitan development within theregion:

The rst strategy is to make better use of

the daily urban system in the region. Everyday approximately 500.000 commuters aretravelling around in the region to work,sport or leisure. It is the ambition of theMetropoolregio to improve the connectivityof the region, for example by making sureall important assets of the region are acces-sible within 45 minutes. The plan of the na-tional government to assign a special trans-port authority to the Metropoolregio is stillpoint of political discussion. But in case thisauthority will be established, this implies acertain budget granted by the national gov-ernment to implement the authority andcontract public transport operators. Thetransport authority will also make plans forroad projects. The second strategy of theMetropoolregio is to make better use of andinvest in the knowledge and innovation po-tential of the region. As stated before, the

region consists of various economic sectorsand many knowledge and research institutesare located in the region. The third strategy is a better exploitation the amenities andservices that the region offers. Hereby it isimportant to put the metropolitan region onthementalmapofpeopleandrmssotheycan make optimal use of the amenities, ser-vices and green offered in the region.

In order to implement these three strategies,each strategy is linked to pillars and within

http://www.zuidvleugel.nl/

http://www.zuidvleugel.nl/




each pillar concrete actions are listed (seeTable 6). Cooperation within these pillars isdriven by the needs of all societal stakeholdersandtheneedformoreefciency.Withineachpillar representatives of the local and regionalauthorities are joining forces to translate thestrategies into policy and practice. For each

pillar, two politicians from the region havebeen made responsible, in order to makesure that there are ‘problem-owners’ andto prevent that issues remain unaddressed.The (voluntary) cooperation within the sevenpillarsis still inits infancy, soit isdifcult

to predict the success of these attempts of regional cooperation, although the regularmeetings of the pillar-groups look promising.

The future of the Metropoolregio largelydepends on the political decision to abolish

the WGR+ regions. At the moment, it is stillunknown what the national government willdecide. Currently, there are two politicalscenarios; in the rst scenario the WGR+

regions remain to exist and the regions willmerge into the WGR+ Metropoolregio. In thiscase, the two regions will merge their budgets

and no major changes will appear with regardto their current tasks and responsibilities. Inthe second scenario the WGR+ regions willbe abolished and the municipalities continuecooperation within the Metropoolregio withthe transport authority as its fundamentalpillar. In this scenario, the region will receivean annual funding of the national governmentspecicallyfororganizingregionaltransport.

Informal cooperation regarding spatialplanning and other matters will continue aswell. In both scenarios the municipalities pay

Figure 35 Stadsgewest Haaglanden (green) and Stadsregio Rotterdam (yellow) within the territory of

the Province of South-Holland.

a relatively small part of the budget which islikely to decrease rather than increase withinthe coming years.


11.3.1 Spatial-functional integrationThe spatial structure of the region is domi-nated by the two city-regions of Rotterdamand The Hague which largely corresponds

with the boundaries of StadsgewestHaaglanden and Stadsregio Rotterdam. Thecity-region of Rotterdam consists of Rotterdam and the neighbouring municipali-ties (such as Capelle a/d IJssel, Schiedamand Vlaardingen) that are morphologicallypart of the Rotterdam conurbation, and thatdo not have a strong, characteristic econom-icprole.ThesamegoesforTheHague,where municipalities like Rijswijk andLeidschendam-Voorburg are physically andfunctionally closely connected to the city.Theidenticationofbothcity-regionsmakes

the functional relations between cities suchas Capelle a/d IJssel (Rotterdam) andRijswijk (The Hague) not so obvious. Othermunicipalities (like Delft, Westland,Zoetermeer, Lansingerland and Pijnacker-Nootdorp) can be considered part of bothcity-regions. They have functional ties withboth city-regions and have more character-istic economic activities.

The ambition of the Metropoolregio is make

better use of the potentials within the re-gion. The second and third strategy, as in-troduced in the previous chapter, shouldmake sure that potentials within thespheres of regional economy, knowledge,spatial development and cultural amenitiesare better coordinated. Because of theseefforts, the functional linkages within theMetropoolregio can be strengthened aswell, both between the larger cities andbetween the smaller municipalities of thecity-regions. As stated before, the region isnot a closed daily urban system, since sig-

Source: Metropoolregio Rotterdam Den Haag, 2012b

Strategies Pillars

Make better use of the opportunities of the daily urban system 1. Transport authority

Make better use of and invest in the knowledge and innovationpotential of the region

2. Regional economy3. Greenport4A. Knowledge & innovation4B. Education & labour market

Fully exploit the wide diversity in amenities, services andlandscape assets of the metropolitan region

5. Spatial planning & living6. Green7A. Culture7B. Sports7C. Metropool-card

Table 6 Seven pillars of the metropolitan strategies of the Metropoolregio




nicantcommutingpatternsarecrossing

the borders. Consequently, it is importantfor the Metropoolregio to facilitate and co-ordinate these functional linkages at a re-gional scale.

Transport and mobility

Every day around 500.000 people are trav-elling crisscross the metropolitan region by

public transport, by car and by bike.Between Rotterdam and The Hague there isa dense network of road and rail infrastruc-ture. In order to facilitate strengthenedfunctional linkages, the Metropoolregio aimsto increase the capacity of infrastructure andto reduce travel times within the area. TheRandstadRail, a light rail connection between

Rotterdam and The Hague, is an importantproject that enhanced the functional integra-tion of the region. The Stadsregio Rotterdamand Stadsgewest Haaglanden jointly cooper-ated to transform a formerly national railline from The Hague to Zoetermeer andRotterdam into a light rail connection thatconnects the central rail stations of bothcities (see Figure 36). Both public transport

operators of Rotterdam and The Hagueneeded to make use of part of this line,which required extensive (technical) coop-eration. The RandstadRail service becameoperational between 2006 in 2011 and theresults are very positive, with large increas-es in passengers compared to the formernational rail line. Many more people now

Figure 36 Proposed and planned projects to improve the accessibility of

the region

Source: Metropoolregio Rotterdam-Den Haag, 2012

make use of it, thereby helping to furtherintegrate the region.

During rush hour, the capacity of the roadinfrastructureisinsufcientresultingin

manytrafcjams.Thereareplanstoim-prove this by creating more highways (seeFigure 36). Most notable is the extension of the A4 highway from The Hague, via Delft

towards Rotterdam. This plan got in a politi-calimpassefrommorethanftyyearssince

the highway negatively affects the greenareasofMidden-Deland(areain-between

Rotterdam and The Hague). Despite theseenvironmental concerns, national politiciansrecently decided to extend the high-waybased on a proposal developed by the re-gional authorities under supervision of theProvince of South-Holland. The extension of only7kmofhigh-waywillbenishedin

2015 and is likely to have a positive impacton the further functional integration of theregion. Another major infrastructure projectis the expansion of the rail capacity betweenThe Hague and Rotterdam.

Politicians and policy-makers in the regioncontinue to work intensively together onissues concerning transport and mobility.

Even when they do not know whether theplans of the former national government toassign a transport authority to the metro-politan level will be implemented. With atransport authority it would be easier tocoordinate all the different (local) transportservices, but the example of theRandstadRail shows that the transport ser-vices are also able to cooperate with eachother without such an overarching author-ity.

Economic competitiveness

One of the strategies of the metropolitanregion is to make better use of, and investin, the knowledge and innovation potentialof the region. The region consists of a di-verse pattern of economic clusters and sec-tors varying from the port-related industriesand services in Rotterdam to the govern-mental services in The Hague. It is the ob-

jective of the metropolitan region to makeoptimal use of the complementarity of theeconomic sectors within the region.Complementarity is considered to be moreefcientandmorecompetitive,sinceitleads

to diversity and avoids the duplication of services. Moreover, the Metropoolregio aimsat generating extra spinoff by better con-necting the universities and other educa-tions to the various economic sectors andcreate triple helix constructions. Recently,the Leiden University (with a campus in TheHague), Erasmus University Rotterdam andDelft University of Technology have put for-ward their intention for closer collaboration.The Schools of Arts of Rotterdam and TheHague decided to merge, since they havethe idea that they can offer a better qualitytogether than alone. The schools will inten-sively start to cooperate with each other, for

example by exchanging teachers and a jointlobby towards the national government formore (art) subsidies. The diversity in theregion offers opportunities for spin-offs be-tween different economic sectors. For exam-ple,aspin-offrmfromtheDelftUniversity

of Technology could do work (or research)thatbenetsthehorticulturalclustersinWestland and Lansingerland, settle in theharbourareaofRotterdamandbenetfrom

the patent registration knowledge availablein Rijswijk and The Hague. The diversity of

http://mrdh.nl/documenten





economic activities within theMetropoolregio can result in innovationswithin and between economic sectors.

However, a study by the predecessor of theNetherlands Environmental AssessmentAgency from 2006 showed that businessrelations between The Hague and Rotterdamare not as fully developed as expected,

based on the mass of both cities (RPB/PBL,2006). This ‘underachieving’ could have todowiththedifferingeconomicprolesofboth cities/city-regions boast: political-gov-ernmental institutions in/near The Hague donot have much in common with harbour andtransport related activities in/nearRotterdam. It suggests that we need tomove away from an understanding of com-plementarity as just being different to anunderstanding of complementarity as beingdifferent, but related. This apparent lack of ‘relatedness’mightmeanthatrmlinkages

between Rotterdam and The Hague will re-mainlimited.Thermslocatedinthesea-

port of Rotterdam are very often more con-nectedtorelatedrmsinDordrechtand

Antwerp rather than The Hague. Vice versa,thermsandinstitutionsinTheHaguemight be more connected to the service-oriented cities Leiden and Amsterdam. Thisexample is indicative for the multi-scalarityof the metropolitan region. It might meanthat the Metropoolregio is more about inte-

grating the labour market, the housing mar-ket and the market for services and ameni-tiesthanthatitshouldfosterinter-rmlink-ages on a large scale.

Diversity in the region: signicant choiceof housing, amenities and landscape

assets

The third strategy of the metropolitan regionis to fully exploit the wide diversity in amen-ities, services and landscape assets of theregion. The diversity of the region offers anattractiveandsignicantchoiceforpeople

and is an important indicator for quality of life. The Metropoolregio considers landscape

assets also as an important indicator of quality of life. This explains why ‘green’ isone of the seven pillars of the metropolitanstrategy. The cities, in close cooperationwith the province, want to keep the greenareas open, enhance the agricultural use of thelandscapeandsupportanefcientand

effective maintenance of the landscapes.Moreover, they jointly promote the leisure

function of these areas, for example by im-proving the cycling lanes in order to improvethe accessibility of the areas. Also ameni-ties, cultural services, sport- and leisureactivities determines the (inter)national at-tractiveness of the region. Although the re-gion offers a widespread variety of theaters,cinemas and cultural events, common devel-opments can further enhance the attractive-ness and quality of them and prevent dupli-cation of similar events.

With regard to the housing market, theMetropoolregio wants to match the demandand supply on the regional housing marketby coordinating the housing programs of themunicipalities. A wide variety of living envi-ronmentsoffersconsumersasignicantchoiceandhasapositiveinuenceonthe

attractiveness of the region. At the scale of

the city-regions, the municipalities makealready such agreements about, amongstothers, the spread of different types of housingoramountofofcespaceacrossthe

region. The question remains what the rightlevel of scale is for coordination and coop-eration on the housing market as the metro-politan scale might be too comprehensive.

11.3.2 Cultural integrationThe external (international) marketingstrategy of the Metropoolregio is importantto promote the economic diversity of the

region and the region’s knowledge-drivenand innovative potential. At the moment,various organisations actively promote var-ious parts of the Metropoolregio area. Forexample the West-Holland ForeignInvestment Agency (WFIA), which pro-motes the area of The Hague, Westland,Zoetermeer, Lansingerland and extends itto Leiden. The Rotterdam Investment

Agency (RIA) is responsible for the brand-ing and marketing of the city of Rotterdamand immediate surroundings. The presenceof various organisations within theMetropoolregio is seen as a positive thing: “Cooperation in promotion and acquisitionoffers mutual opportunities, but at thesame time some degree of competition isan incentive for providing the best offer toorganisations settling in the region.” (Metropoolregio Rotterdam Den Haag,2012b). Both organisations work togetherbased on a covenant signed for the period2010-2014. Within the Metropoolregio,cities are busy coordinating the differentcultural activities and to promote each oth-er’s events. Rotterdam supports, for exam-ple, The Hague to become Cultural Capital2018 while The Hague on their turn sup-ports Rotterdam in its bid for the Olympic

Games of 2028 (in cooperation withAmsterdam).

The expectation is that the external mar-keting strategy will ‘trickle down’ to citizenson the long run. There is not regional iden-tity in the Metropoolregio since identitiesare very much attached to the two largestcities Rotterdam and The Hague, while alsoDelft has a distinct identity. Suburban mu-nicipalities like Rijswijk or Wassenaar (nearThe Hague) or Capelle a/d IJssel (borderingRotterdam) are predominantly culturally

Figure 37 Diversity in the region: Inner-city living/working environment, Ro tterdam (l) and

greenhouse horticulture activities within the Westland area (r)

Source: © Michelverbeek (l) and CC-by (r)




linked to their larger neighbour rather thanthe broader region. The inhabitants of Rotterdam are proud of their hands-onmentality, which is linked to the industrialand harbour related history of the area.The Westland area is a distinct area with ahigh degree of entrepreneurship in horticul-ture and a strong sense of community.There is no intention that the citizens call

themselves inhabitants of theMetropoolregio, but it is important thatthey see the advantages of a strongly inte-grated region. The region offers them abroad choice of amenities and services. Themain objective of the pillar group ‘culture’ is to make the advantages of the regionvisible. For example by introducing a ‘metropool-card’; a discount card for cul-tural amenities in the region. Another toolto strengthen the regional identity is thebundling of the magazines of the twoWGR+ regions in a new magazine named ‘#MRDH’ (abbreviation for MetropoolregioR otterdam Den Haag). This is primarily tar-geted to politicians and civil servants withinthe area and emphasizes the need for co-operation among politicians and policymakers in the area. Another step to createa joint regional identity is the renaming of

the airport from Rotterdam Airport intoRotterdam The Hague Airport (see Figure38). This may appear as a symbolic actionattherstsight,butisatthesametimea

powerful message to the public at largethat both cities belong together.

11.3.3 Institutional integrationVarious joint projects and policies (such asthe RandstadRail, the Metropool-card andthe joint efforts to keep the area betweenRotterdam and The Hague green) has en-hanced the institutional integration within

the region. From 2010 onwards, the processof institutional integration accelerated, trig-gered by the national discussion about abol-ishing the WGR+ regions and the quest foran authority that covers the metropolitanscale (including its daily urban systems) andthat is capable to deal with certain tasks andresponsibilitiesinreturnforsignicantbudg-ets.

Political leadership

The mayors of Rotterdam and The Hagueplayed a catalyst role in the metropolitaninitiative. Without the strong political com-mitment of these political leaders, the cur-rent intensively cooperation between citieswould be less likely. The mayors both under-line that cooperation and coordination isneeded to remain competitive in today’sglobalizing world. The mayors of Delft,Lansingerland, Westland, Vlaardingen andCapelle a/d IJssel are also very supportiveto the metropolitan region. Noticeable isthat there is less political commitmentamongst the politicians of the smaller par-ticipating municipalities. They fear that thelocal councils will be overruled by a domi-nant metropolitan authority and that a fur-ther integration means that ‘big city prob-

lems’ (like crime, pollution) will be exportedto their municipality. Until now, theMetropoolregio is mainly an initiative of thelarger municipalities, and the smaller mu-nicipalities have the feeling that they mayget less out of the cooperation and mightlosetheirinuence.Inordertogetmore

support of the smaller municipalities moreprove of the added-value of the metropoli-tan region is needed. Hereby it is importanttomakeclearhowtheycanbenetfromtheMetropoolregio.Togethertheyshoulddene

ways how they can improve the competitive

position and the business climate of the re-gion since this is of importance for all cities.Deninga‘commondenominator’couldtie

all involved stakeholders together.

Dealing with multi-scalarity

The metropolitan region operates withina densely populated area that extendsto Leiden, Dordrecht, Gouda, Breda,

Amsterdam, Utrecht and on a larger scaleeven to Antwerp. The 24 municipalitiesdo not form a ‘closed system’ since TheHague has strong relations with Leidenand Amsterdam while Rotterdam is morefocused on cities as Dordrecht and Antwerp.Consequently, there is not one appropriatespatial scale of cooperation. There is atension between looking inward to theparticipating municipalities and outward,which could cause a status quo in the

development of the metropolitan region.In order to deal with the multi-scalarity of the region, the Metropoolregio introduceda three-ring-model that can deal with thedifferent levels of institutional integration(Metropoolregio Rotterdam-Den Haag,2012b):

1 Mandatory cooperation between the 24

cities whereby budgets, tasks and re-sponsibilities are shared and designated(for example the transport authority orinvestments in green spaces).

2 Mandatory cooperation and joint decision-making of the 24 cities without sharedbudgets (for example with regard to pro-grammingrealestate;housing,ofces,retail, business parks).

3 Voluntary cooperation between certainmunicipalities and business, knowledge-

Source: Shutterstock ID 6504124Source: Shutterstock ID 1787965

Figure 38 Rotterdam-The Hague Airport and the Randstadrail




12 Synthesis case studies

Thissectiondiscussesthemainndings

of the six case studies. In line with thecase studies it is divided in the (spatial)-functional, cultural and institutionaldimensionofintegration,butrstthe

metropolitan strategies and policies will bediscussed.

12.1 Metropolitan developmentstrategies

MetropolitaninitiativescanbendallacrossEurope. Part of the explanation is also theincreasing attention of the European Uniontowards metropolitan areas. Although vari-ous reasons were given why the cities aredeveloping a metropolitan developmentstrategy or policy, they all identify ‘to im-prove international competitiveness’ as amain motivation, which goes hand-in-handwith the increasing awareness that metro-politan areas are the right scale to competeinternationally. The metropolitan develop-ment strategies are focusing on fosteringcooperation and coordination at the regionalscale in order to become economically morecompetitive.

The metropolitan strategy of theMetropoolregio Rotterdam-The Hague is byfarthemostdetailedone.Theydenedthree strategies linked to seven pillars thatare of importance for the region. In contrastwith the other case studies cities, they ar-gue that the metropolitan region is alreadythere, and functioning as a daily urban sys-tem, but that the potentialities of this arenotsufcientlyexploited.Oneofthestrate-gies it to facilitate the daily urban systemsin the region better and improve the region’sconnectivity and accessibility. Also the met-

ropolitan strategy of Linköping – Norrköpingis well developed, and striking is the urgen-cy felt among stakeholders to exploit thebenetsofthesharedcriticalmassofbothcities.

The metropolitan development strategies of Porto and Milan are strongly focused on theexternal branding or marketing of the re-

gion. For the Tri-City Region andMetropolregion Mitteldeutschland the maintrigger is the national attention for metro-politan areas. By setting up a metropolitanauthority the region is more likely to receiveadditional funding.There appears to be a difference in perspec-tive between these cases and the Dutch andSwedish case. The latter are much morefocused on exploiting internal potentialitiesthat are present, while the other four areseeking to exploit external opportunitiesthat may arise. Obviously, there is a mixtureof both in all six cases, but there are strikingdifferences in focus.

12.2 Spatial-functional integration

Citizensandrmsincreasinglymakeuseof

the opportunities offered at a regional scale,even without supporting policies from thevarious cities that make up the region. Withexception of the case of Mitteldeutschland,most metropolitan areas are functionallyintegrated in terms of labour market,(higher) education, and the use of high-end services and metropolitan functions.Theextentofintegrationisinuencedbythe size of the cities and distance betweenthem; the smaller the size of a city and themore the distance between the cities, theless integration within the region, very much




as predicted by Newton’s law of gravity.Consequently, polycentric metropolitanregions like Linköping-Norrköping andMitteldeutschland are less integrated incomparison with metropolitan areas likeRotterdam-The Hague and Milan, which ontheir turn appear less strongly integratedthan the Polish Tri-City Region and Porto.

Based on the case studies one can concludethat the main drivers behind (further) func-tional integration are physical connections(infrastructure; transit systems) and com-plementarity. One cannot emphasise enoughhow important good connections betweenthecitiesareinordertoexploitthebenets

of critical mass.

Infrastructure and transportation are thecondition sine qua non to enter the processof metropolisation, and hence reap the ben-etsofagglomerationinanetworkofcities.

New or improved infrastructure connectionsfoster both functional integration, culturalintegration and institutional integration. Thecases of the Tri-City Region, Rotterdam-TheHague and Porto illustrate the importance of a light-rail for further functional integration,and the same holds for the train shuttle in

Linköping-Norrköping.

The second driver, complementarity, can beinterpreted as the avoidance of duplicationbetween cities in terms of urban amenitiesand services, as well as in terms of the pres-ence of related economic clusters.Complementarity limits internal competitionandstimulatesinhabitantsandrmsto

make use of what other cities than theirhome-town have to offer. Functional integra-tion follows naturally from complementarity,and it enhances the need for institutional

integration given dependence on one an-other, while also easing this co-operation.Rotterdam-The Hague and Linköping-Norrköping are cases in point. Culture, la-bour market, higher education, services andhealthcarearealleldsinwhichintegration

can be stimulated, and most metropolitanareas have common policies in at least oneoftheseelds.Examplesaretheshared

cultural agenda of the Tri-City Region, andthe way hospitals are made more comple-mentary in Sweden, hence fostering integra-tion.The latter is an important issue to empha-sise: it is the combination of complementa-rity and integration that yields enormouspotential for polycentric metropolitan areas.

12.3 Cultural dimension

Perhaps due to rather strong levels of spatial-functional integration in many of ourcases, many inhabitants cognitively considerthemselves part of the wider (polycentric)metropolitan area, while at the same timethey feel much more attached to their owncity. In metropolitan areas where a largecentral city dominates the metropolitan

area the cognitive effect was quite strong.Often this effect is fostered through symbolsthat unite a metropolitan area, such as forinstance a famous sports team in the centralcity. Local identities (often tied to individualcities) are omnipresent, but generally donot appear to stand in the way of awarenessthat the scale of the larger metropolitanareas provides many opportunities forcitizensandrms.Ourimpressionwasthat

politicians often feel reluctant to engagein regional co-operation because of theirperception of strong local identities standing

such co-operation in the way. Yet, it appearsthat the spatial behaviour of people andrmsisoftenalreadyonahigherscale,

and as long as ‘regional identity’ (cognitive)and ‘local attachment’ (affective) are notconfused, it should not stand such co-operation in the way.

This leads to the conclusion that it is easier

for an incorporation-type metropolitan areato develop a coherent external/internalbranding/marketing strategy for the entireregion that is supported by the surroundingcities as well. The Porto metropolitan area isa good example in this respect since the citycombines the urban amenities of the centralcity with the rural amenities of the Douroregion. Indeed, most metropolitan areaswith a balanced pattern of settlements (fu-sion-type) do not have such integratedbranding strategies, but a strong and his-torically institutionalised regional govern-ment (like Östergötland for Linköping-Norrköping) can overcome this.

Strategies promoting a regional identity arealso more externally (business) orientedthan internally towards the citizens and ex-istingrmswithintheregion.Theimplicit

hope of politicians and policy makers is thatthe effects of an externally oriented brand-ing policy will gradually ‘trickle down’ to theinhabitantsandrmswithin the metropoli-tan area. It is not the idea that the inhabit-ants should take on a regional identity, butrather that they develop a regional ‘mentalmap’ which enables them to make betteruse of possibilities offered in the whole met-ropolitan region.

12.4 Institutional dimension

For coherent metropolitan policies andcoordination, it was found that somebasic institutional characteristics areimportant. First of all, the relationship withthe overarching regional government ishighly important. A regional governmentwith many competences and a strong

metropolitanfocuscanbeverybenecialfor the formation of coherent policies onthe metropolitan level. On the other hand,if metropolitan areas are part of severalregions, or if the region doesn’t have ametropolitan focus nor much competences,the municipalities of the metropolitan areaare left to coordinate matters themselves.Second, the differences in importance of municipalities within metropolitan areasare important. There is a tension betweenlarger and smaller municipalities in that thedominating larger ones often tend to followtheir own agendas, which is party causedby the act that the agendas of smallermunicipalities are sometimes strikinglydifferent. Particularly in Milan and to a lesserextent Porto, it was evident that the centralcity often operates independent from othermunicipalities. This may be harmful when

issues that require a regional response areat stake.

Second, it appears that institutional coop-eration is highly dependent on political lead-ership and a culture of cooperation. For theMetropoolregio Rotterdam-The Hague themayors of both cities played a catalyst role.Also, in metropolitan areas where a cultureof cooperation is more developed, interme-diary bodies that cut across policy sectorsand municipalities are more capable of or-ganising policy coordination. However, this




can sometimes lead to the danger of ‘over-institutionalisation’, in which metropolitancoordination efforts becomes a goal in itself for politicians and policy makers.

Ofcoursethereareothermattersthatinu-ence institutional integration. Problems re-lated to unbalanced regional developments,the economic crisis and international com-

petitiveness increasingly make politiciansand policy makers aware of the fact thatregional coordination and cooperation isnecessary. Nevertheless, politicians are stillappointed by the local population which,together with a perception of historicallygrown inter-city rivalry, leads to an empha-sis on short-term, locally coloured politicalagendas. Without hard evidence on howdecisions taken for ‘the regional good’ trickledown locally, and how regional performanceaffects local performance, also on the longrun, it is hard to overcome this gap betweenregional issues and local administration.

We saw that in case cities were complemen-tary, it was easier to develop regional coor-dination and cooperation. However, this doesnot mean that co-operation between com-plementary cities is necessarily more fruit-

ful. Perhaps on the contrary, potential gainsseem also large in the case of co-operationbetween more homogeneous cities, sincethe issues of duplication and competitionarise more prominently.

One policy sector that made case for region-al cooperation and coordination point-blankis the development of new urban areas.Without regional coordination, local buildingand housing policies may create regionalimbalances and oversupply. Opportunities tobuild or maintain regionally important assets

(new housing, shopping malls, and airports)are eagerly seized by individual municipali-ties, which have led to severe oversupply of such new urban amenities. Porto is a veryclear example, but it basically also holds forthe other metropolitan areas where highvacancyratesintheofcessectorandon

business sites are at least partly due to alack of coordination. The economic crisis has

made the consequences particularly clear.Finally, there is also a tension between thescale of co-operation (which local actors areinvolved?) and the scale at which spatialissuesarise.Whilethersttendstobemorexed,suchpolicyissuesariseatawidevari-etyexiblescales.Thisisacomplicatingfactor for any platform for regional coopera-tion.

12.5 Challenges and questionsaddressed by urbanpractitioners

The case studies demonstrate a widespreadconviction that regional coordination andcooperationisneededintheeldsof

transport, economy, spatial development,labour market etc. in order to improve

the international competitive position of the metropolitan areas as a whole and tomake it a more attractive city-region tolive and work. But despite this awareness,European metropolitan areas are stillfacing considerable challenges such as theprevailing focus on local interests over thecommon regional good.

It seems that functional integration betweenthe cities in the various cases is taking placeeven without dedicated supporting policies.Therefore it can be concluded that political

commitment is not the most importantfactor that stimulates functional integration:it is the scaling-up of activities undertakenbypeopleandrmsthemselvesthatoften

drives integration. Policies for regionalintegration should focus on certain aspectsthat really need a certain boost. Policiesregarding transport and complementarity/related economic clusters are ways to

identify common goals for the wholemetropolitan area.

The interviewees employed by local and re-gional government authority indicate thatthey are often uncertain about the role othercities play in the metropolitan area and theeffects these other cities have on the perfor-mance of their own city. They often havedifcultiesinassessingwhichinter-cityrela-tionshipsaremostbenecialforfurtherde-velopment. There is a huge demand for in-sightinto(spatialandnancial)instruments

that allow trade-offs to be made for thegreater regional good, while, at the sametime,accountingforthefactthatbenets

and costs of such coordinated decisions arenot balanced over the various actors in-volved and are often also not balanced intime.

Besides these overall challenges, it is inter-esting to assess the difference between ‘fu-sion-type’ and ‘incorporation-type’ regions.For incorporation-type regions, the strongrelationships between the central city andsurrounding cities are a given fact and moststakeholders acknowledge and accept theleading role of the central city. Stimulatingintegration is therefore not so much on theagenda, but the issue is more how to ac-

commodate the strong relationships. Issuesrelated to suburbanisation and (de)centrali-

sation of urban functions prevail, and oftencause tensions between the municipalitiesinvolved. The central city will often rely onthe logics of the market to draw functionsinto their territory, while the smaller sur-rounding municipalities want a piece of thepie as well. It seems that they are increas-ingly well positioned to meet the market’sdemand: jobs follow people. And often, not

all urban functions can be accommodated inthe central city. Finding a balance betweencentralisation and decentralisation of urbanfunctions is a major challenge. Positively,branding strategies that make use of thestrong international identity of the centralcity are widely accepted within the widerregion.

In contrast, the challenge for fusion-typemetropolitan is more focused on the need toincrease integration in order to start a pro-cess of metropolisation or ‘borrowing size’ toexploitagglomerationbenetsinanetwork

of cities. The historical development trajec-tory of the involved cities have been muchmore individual (often leading to rivalry) andonly in the last decade or so has evidencebecome widespread that larger metropolitanareas may be more competitive in an era of

globalisation, and are a more relevant scaleto consider the activities of people andrms.Thisrequirescleardatatoconvince

the involved stakeholders that increasedregionalintegrationdoesbenettheregionand their individual city. But even then an-other challenge will remain: namely the co-ordinationofspecicurbanfunctions.While

incorporation-type metropolitan areas havea clear focal point where urban functionsconcentrate, in fusion-type metropolitanareasseveralcitiesfullthisrole.Creating

clusters of functions that allow cities to ‘bor-




row size’ from each is essential, but politi-cians will not be eager to give up possibili-ties to build or maintain important assetslike airports, shopping malls.

A (short) list of challenges and questionsaddressed by urban practitioners acrossEurope:– Makingvisiblethebenetsandcosts

of regional integration and the role of regional coordination and cooperation inachieving processes of ‘borrowing size’

– How to enter into a process of metropolisationtoreapthesebenets

– Making clear the (dynamics in)interdependencies and interactionsamong cities and their roles and functions(complementarities)

– Developingeffective,exibleplatformsforco-operation and regional coordination,that take into account the multi-scalarityof spatial development issues and thatget support from the public

– Developing instruments to allow for thetrade-offs between the regional good andlocal interests

13 Knowledge & Research Agenda

13.1 ‘Metropolisation’

In essence, the research needs of citiesthemselves overlap largely with the researchagendasdescribedinthescienticliterature.

In most parts of Europe, polycentric metro-politan areas present the new scale at whichpeopleandrmstendtoconcentratemany

of their activities. Polycentric metropolitan

areas are there to stay and will become in-creasingly important as processes of scaling-up continue. They might not always be dailyurban systems already, but have the poten-tial of becoming (more) functionally inte-grated. Polycentric metropolitan areas are,and will be, the new scale at which agglom-eration effects manifest themselves.

Urban professionals are generally well awareof this important spatial transformation fromcity to polycentric metropolitan area.However, they clearly present that they arein need of more knowledge: they are oftenwilling to look beyond their jurisdictionalborders and co-operate with nearby cities,but with which city, for what issue, and whatis the potential gain?

As regards the potential gain, research has

suggested that a polycentric urban formimplies the presence of less agglomerationbenets.Atthesametime,agglomeration

costs are also less, the more polycentric ametropolitan area is. Therefore, the majorquest for polycentric metropolitan areas isto organize a higher level of agglomerationbenets,commensurablewiththescaleofthe whole metropolitan area, while keepingthe extent to which agglomeration costsappear limited to the scale of single cities.The literature suggests the way to do so:

increased networking between the citiesmaking up the polycentric metropolitanarea. Networking may relate to a variety of dimensions: functional, institutional andcultural. These dimensions are not separate,on the contrary, they are strongly linked andinuenceeachotherpositively:themore

one undertakes activities all across thepolycentric metropolitan area (functional),

the more one starts to identify with thispolycentric metropolitan area (cultural), thelarger the need and support for regionalgovernance (institutional), which may leadto investments that allow for easier travelwithin the metropolitan area and fostersmore regional activity patterns of peopleandrms(functional),etc.Thisprocesscanbe labelled ‘metropolisation’, a euro-Englishterm that refers to the process in which aperhaps rather loose collection of nearbycities gains in terms of performance throughincreased functional, cultural and institu-tional integration, see Figure 39.The challenge for cities in polycentric metro-

politan areas is to enter the upward spiral of

metropolisation, move up in this spiral

through fostering functional, cultural and

institutional integration allowing to reap the

benets of agglomeration by jointly borrow -

ing size from each other.

Potential gains quantied Now, how can we quantify this potential gainin metropolitan performance that polycentricmetropolitan areas can achieve when theybecome fully integrated? We can provide thebeginning of an answer by examining howagglomerationbenetsincreasewithsize.Melo et al. (2009) found in a meta-analysisof the estimates of urban agglomerationeffects, that in the Western world, the aver-




potential in larger metropolitan areas.Moreover, the often diverse industry mix inan economically dense area increases theodds of interaction, generation, replication,modicationandrecombinationofideasand

applications across different sectors (VanOort, 2004) and protects a region from vola-tile demand (Frenken et al., 2007). Finally,the presence of a large internal market of-

fers a larger degree of stability and lowertransport costs (Siegel et al., 1995).

Let us give a simple example of the potentialgain of a metropolisation strategy in apolycentric metropolitan area, based on oneof our cases, the Rotterdam – The HagueMetropolitan Area. The general conviction isthat this area is still made up of two dailyurban systems centred on The Hague andRotterdam respectively. Both have about 1million inhabitants. If they would manage toenter the process of metropolisation andreach the scale at which both daily urbansystems would have merged into one dailyurban system, then they could reap the ben-etsofagglomerationnormallyonlyfoundin

a 2-million inhabitants metropolis. In theory,

Figure 39 The upward spiral of metropolisation

age elasticity of size is 5.8%. This meansthat on average, a city that is twice as large,has a productivity that is 5.8% higher. So ina city (or daily urban system) of 1.000.000people, labour productivity tends to be 5.8%more high than in a city of 500.000. If a cityin a polycentric metropolitan area is not re-lated to the other cities in this area, theywill not ‘borrow size’ from each other. They

will be separate daily urban systems. If they join forces, however, they can increase theirlabour productivity substantially.Labour productivity is generally considered ameasure that shows the balance betweenagglomerationbenetsandcosts.Therefore,

it certainly is not just an indicator of eco-nomic performance. If a city has high crimerates, or a not attractive natural environ-ment, it will not be able to maintain or at-tract the higher skilled workers that are in-creasingly demanding in terms of quality of life.Those familiar with agglomeration theoriesknow that the reasons for this are well-known. When the labour market is larger,rmswillbeabletohiretherightpersonfor

the job more easily. Likewise, in a largerlabour market, employees will be able tondajobthatmatchestheirskillsandinter-

ests better. Obviously, such good matchesmake workers more productive. Meijers andBurger (2010), among many others, men-tionthemainbenetsofagglomeration.Itis

the availability of a large and multi-function-al labour pool and the presence of a goodinfrastructure and public facilities in denseeconomic areas that are the sources of ag-glomerationbenets.Relativelymoreurban-ized areas are also more likely to accommo-date universities, R&D laboratories, tradeassociations, and other knowledge-generat-ing institutions, leading to larger innovation

it would mean that labour productivity wouldgo up 5.8% (they double their size).Average labour productivity in 2009 in thispart of the Netherlands was about 39.000europercapita.5.8%*39.000*2million

inhabitants = more than 4.5 billion euro. So,the potential gain of a metropolisation strat-egy in the Metropoolregio Rotterdam – TheHague is 4.5 billion euro. Per year, that is! If

they would extend it to include the city-re-gions of Leiden and Dordrecht as well, itwould mean a potential gain of 6-7 billioneuro. Of course, Rotterdam and The Hagueis not a loose collection of nearby cities, buthave integrated already to quite some ex-tent, which means that the potential gainsare less, but nevertheless amount to billionsof Euros each year. These numbers makeclear that metropolisation in polycentricmetropolitanareasisahighlybenecialde-velopment strategy.However, important knowledge questionsneed to be addressed in order to developempirically based regional developmentstrategies for polycentric metropolitan ar-eas.

13.2 A research agenda on

polycentric metropolitan areasThe process of metropolisation sketchedin the previous section provides the basisfor our research agenda on polycentricmetropolitan areas. This agenda can besubdivided by the different elements of theprocess as sketched in Figure 39. The mainset of research topics concern the entireprocess of metropolisation and how it islinked to metropolitan performance (see13.2.1). Yet, we can both broaden the scope– by looking at how general societal and

economic trends impact upon this processof metropolisation (13.2.2), and narrowthe scope – how individual elements of this process of metropolisation are linked(13.2.3), or by examining research issuesthat address single elements of this process(13.2.4-13.2.6). Research topics are listedbullet wise.

13.2.1 The process of metropolisation– Gain more insight into the potentialbenetsoftheprocessofmetropolisationin polycentric metropolitan areas – howcan cities exploit their joint critical mass?

– Analyse how cities can enter the upwardspiral of metropolisation

– Analyse the extent to which polycentricmetropolitan areas have progressed inthe upward spiral of metropolisation andhowithasbenetedtheirmetropolitan

performance– Analyse in great detail how networks/

integration can provide a substitute foragglomeration

– Analyse in great detail how functional,institutional and cultural integration arelinked to each other

– Analyse which factors foster orhamper entering the upward spiral

of metropolisation and the process of moving up in this spiral– Analyse how functional, cultural and

institutionalfactorsinuencethe

regionalisation of agglomerationbenetsandhowtheycanavoidthe

regionalisation of agglomeration costs – if at all

– Does the process of metropolisationdevelop differently in ‘incorporation-type’ versus ‘fusion-type’ polycentricmetropolitan areas?




13.2.2 Urgency of metropolisation inpolycentric metropolitan areas

– Explore how general economic andsocietal trends drive the development of,and impact upon polycentric metropolitanareas (past, present, future)

– Explore whether globalisation affectsthe division of labour within polycentricmetropolitan areas, and whether this

enhances performance– Explore whether polycentric metropolitanareas with a strong division of labour,a shared identity, a regional brandingstrategy and/or integrated governancearrangements between its constituentparts perform better than otherpolycentric metropolitan areas.

– Explore the importance of agglomerationin regional development, also vis-à-visthe importance of international networks

– Explore the idea that metropolisation is agood strategy to combat the economic/nancialcrisisinEurope

13.2.3 Links between functional, cultural,and institutional integration

– Analyse for which type of persons/householdsandforwhichtypeofrms

the polycentric metropolitan area is a

functional entity– Explore whether strong local identitieshamper institutional and functionalintegration, perhaps limiting one’sopportunities

– Explore whether functional integrationand a regional identity enhances supportfor institutional integration

13.2.4 The functional geography of polycentric metropolitan areas

Analyse whether a division of labour (func-tional/sectoral) is developing within polycen-

tric metropolitan areas as they integratefurther, and how different cities performdifferent functions– Analyse the extent to which cities are related

and the role of transportation systems andinfrastructure investments in this

– Develop new methods to identify valuable(potential) relationships between pairsof cities from the viewpoint of labour

mobility, innovation and productivity– Analyse how a top-level of urban/metropolitan functions (in terms of amenities and services, infrastructureprovision, specialised residential andbusiness environments) can be arrangedin polycentric metropolitan areas

– Develop new ways to delineatepolycentric urban regions, usinginnovativedatatomonitorowsand

interactions between cities

13.2.5 The cultural embeddedness of polycentric metropolitan areas

– Analyse the extent to which polycentricmetropolitan areas have institutionalizedand hence become a frame of referenceand orientation for its inhabitants andrms

– Analyse how the rise of the new scale of

polycentric metropolitan areas impactsupon local pride and identity and regionalattachmentandidentication

– Explore whether polycentric metropolitanareas are becoming more culturally ho-mogeneous or whether the process of integration leads to a strengthening of local identities and hence more culturalheterogeneity

– How does external marketing of polycen-tric metropolitan areas relate to internalprocessesofidenticationwithsuchmet-ropolitan areas

13.2.6 The institutional challenge of polycentric metropolitan areas

– Analyse different governmentalarrangements and assess theireffectivenessandefciencyinterms

of addressing issues for regionalcoordination in polycentric metropolitanareas

– Analyse decision-making systems within

cooperative platforms and their capabilityto move beyond decision-making on ‘win-win’ situations

– Analyse how local actors can be wellinformed about how decisions in theinterest of the metropolitan area maybenetlocalactorsindirectly

– Explore which instruments allow to maketrade-offs between local actors that are inthe interest of the region, but whose ben-etsandcostsarenotspreadevenly.

13.3 Conclusion

Polycentric metropolitan areas rather thanindividual cities will become the most appro-priate unit for social and economic organisa-tion soon, and in some cases present al-ready the spatial scale at which society is

organized. Polycentric metropolitan areasare, or will soon be, the new scale at whichagglomeration effects manifest themselves.The city has regionalized. This spatial trans-formation poses tremendous challenges forurban policy-makers and researchers alike.The past decade, much research effort hasbeen put in identifying this spatial transfor-mation, and capturing it in concepts andtheories. Now, we need to move beyond thisagenda-setting and conceptual phase: newresearch should deliver the knowledge thatEuropean cities need to face this spatial

transformation and turn it to their advan-tage. Cities in polycentric metropolitan areaswill need to engage in a process of metropo-lisation – an upward spiral of continuouslyincreasing functional, cultural and institu-tional integration. This will enable them toreapthebenetsoftheenormouscritical

mass that is organized in polycentric metro-politan areas. If you were to put a value on

this process of metropolisation, it easilyreaches the level of billions per polycentricmetropolitan area per year, as metropolisa-tion will lead to productivity increases. Thismakes the further development of polycen-tric metropolitan areas a key issue for re-gional development, especially in times of crises. However, important knowledge ques-tions need to be addressed in order to de-velop empirically based regional develop-ment strategies for polycentric metropolitanareas that will allow to reap these hugegains. The European Metropolitan networkInstitute calls upon all European cities tohelp address these important research chal-lengesforthebenetofourrmsandciti-zens.




14 References

Albrechts, L. (1998), The FlemishDiamond: precious gem and virgin area,European Planning Studies, 6(4), 411-424

Albrechts L. & G. Lievois (2003),Flemish Diamond, in: E. Meijers, A. Romein& E. Hoppenbrouwer (Eds), Planningpolycentric urban regions in North WestEurope, Delft: Delft University Press, 81-117

Allen, J. (1992), Services and the UK

Space Economy: Regionalisation andEconomic Dislocation, Transactions of theInstitute of British Geographers, 17, 292-305

Antikainen, J., & P. Vartiainen (2005),Polycentricity in Finland: From structure tostrategy, Built Environment, 31(2), 143-152

Balducci, A., V. Fedeli & G. Pasqui (2011),Strategic Planning for Contemporary UrbanRegions: City of cities, a Project for Milan.Milan: Politecnico di Milano

Bailey, N. & I. Turok (2001), CentralScotland as a Polycentric Urban Region:Useful Planning Concept or chimera?, UrbanStudies, 38, 697-715

Banerjee, T. (2009), Mega-regions orMegasprawls? Issues of Density, UrbanDesign and Quality Growth, in Ross. C. (ed)Mega-regions: planning for global competi-tiveness. Washington, D.C: Island Press

Barbour, E. & A. Markusen (2007),Regional Occupational and IndustrialStructure: Does One Imply the Other?International Regional Science Review, 30,72-90

Batten, D. (1995), Network Cities:Creative Urban Agglomerations for the 21stCentury, Urban Studies, 32. 313-327

BBSR - Federal Institute for Research onBuilding, Urban Affairs and SpatialDevelopment (2011), Metropolitan Areas inEurope, Bonn, BBSR-Online-Publikation01/2011

Berg, van den, Meer, J. van der,

Otgaar, A. & C. speller (2006), Porto’sexperience with the Serralves Foundation,in: Empowering metropolitan regionsthrough new forms of governance, 205-223

BMVBS – Federal Ministry for Transport,Building and Urban Development (2011),Supra-regional Partnerships, a MORO re-searcheld.Berlin:BMVBS

Burger, M. (2011), Structure and coopti-tion in urban networks, Rotterdam: ERIM(PhD thesis)

Burger, M., & E. Meijers (2012), Formfollows function? linking morphological andfunctional polycentricity. Urban Studies,49(5), 1127-1149

Burger, M., Meijers, E. & F. van Oort (forthcoming), Shopping Heavens andDeserts: Retail amenities and RegionalSpatial Structure, Regional Studies

BZK - Ministry of Interior and KingdomRelations (2010), Plussen en minnen, evalu-atie van de Wgr-plus. Den Haag: Ministerievan Binnenlandse Zaken enKoninkrijksrelaties

Calthorpe, P. & W. Fulton (2001), TheRegional City. Planning for the end of Sprawl, Washington D.C: Island Press

Cervero, R.(2001),Efcienturbanisa-

tion: Economic performance and the shapeof the metropolis. Urban Studies, 38(10),1651-1671

Cervero, R. & K.L. Wu (1998),Subcentreing and Commuting: Evidencefrom the San Francisco Bay Area, 1980-1990, Urban Studies, 35, 1059-1076

Champion, A. (2001), A changing demo-graphic regime and evolving polycentric ur-ban regions: consequences for the size,composition and distribution of city popula-tions, Urban Studies, 38, 657–677




Cheshire, P. (2006), Resurgent cities,urban myths and policy hubris: what weneed to know, Urban Studies, 43, 1231-1246

Coe, N.M. & A.R. Townsend (1998),Debunking the Myth of LocalizedAgglomerations: The Development of aRegionalized Service Economy in South-EastEngland, Transactions of the Institute of

British Geographers, 23, 385-404Cowell, M. (2010), Polycentric regions:Comparing complementarity and institution-al governance in the San Francisco bay area,the Randstad and Emilia-Romagna, UrbanStudies, 47, 945-965

Davoudi,S.(2003), Polycentricity in eu-ropean spatial planning: From an analyticaltool to a normative agenda, EuropeanPlanning Studies, 11(8), 979-1000

Davoudi,S.,&M.Wishardt(2005), Thepolycentric turn in the irish spatial strategy,Built Environment, 31(2), 122-132

Dell’Agnese,E.&V.Anzoise(2011),Milan, the Unthinking Metropolis,International Planning Studies, 16(3), 217-235

Dieleman, F. & A. Faludi (1998),Polynucleated Metropolitan Regions inNorthwest Europe, European Planning

Studies, 6, 365-377Dieleman,F.M.&S.Musterd(1992),The Randstad: A Research and PolicyLaboratory. The Geo-Library Volume 20.Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers

Duranton, G., & D. Puga (2005), Fromsectoral to functional urban specialisation,Journal of Urban Economics, 57, 343-370

Egermann, M. (2009), The SaxonTriangle – a polycentric metropolitan regionfrom an actor-oriented perspective. In:Urban Research & Practice 2 (2009) 3,p.269-286

ESPON METROBORDER (2010), Cross-border Polycentric Metropolitan Regions,Final Report 31/12/2010

ESPON POLYCE (2012), POLYCE -Metropolisation and Polycentric Developmentin Central Europe, (Draft) Final Report,Version 27 February 2012

EUROCITIES Working Group MetropolitanAreas (2011), Cities co-operating beyond

their boundaries: evidence through experi-ence in European cities, background paperEuropean Commission (1999), European

Spatial Development Perspective.Luxembourg:OfceforOfcialPublications

of the European CommunitiesEuropean Commission (2008), Green

Paper on Territorial Cohesion. Brussels:European Commission

European Commission (2010), Europe2020, a strategy for smart, sustainable andinclusive growth. Brussels: EuropeanCommission

European Commission (2010), Investing inEurope’sfuture,fthReportonEconomic,

Social and Territorial Cohesion. Brussels:European Commission

Florida, R., Gulden, T. & C. Mellander

(2008), The rise of the mega-region,Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and

Society, 1, 459-476Franz,P.&C.Hornych(2010), Politicalinstitutionalisation and economic specialisa-tion in polycentric metropolitan regions: Thecase of the east german ‘saxony triangle’,Urban Studies, 47, 2665-2682

Frenken, K., Oort, F.G. van & T.

Verburg (2007), Related Variety, UnrelatedVariety and Economic Growth, RegionalStudies, 41, 685-697GdańskMetropolitanAreaAssociation

(2011),MapofthemembersoftheGdańskMetropolitan Area Association

Goei, B. de, Burger, M. J., Oort, F.G.

van, & M. Kitson (2010), Functionalpolycentrism and urban network develop-ment in the greater south east, united king-dom: Evidence from commuting patterns,1981-2001. Regional Studies, 44(9), 1149-1170

Green, N. (2007), FunctionalPolycentricity:AFormalDenitioninTerms

of Social Network Analysis, Urban Studies,44, 2077-2103Gustafson, P. (2009), Mobility and

Territorial Belonging, Environment andBehaviour, 41, 490-508

Hague, C. & K. Kirk (2003),Polycentricity scoping study, London: ODPM

Halbert, L. (2004), The Decentralisationof Intrametropolitan Business Services inthe Paris Region: Patterns, Interpretation,Consequences, Economic Geography, 80,381-404

Halbert, L., Pain, K. & A. Thierstein

(2006), European polycentricity and emerg-ingmega-cityregions:‘Onesizetsall’poli-cy?, Built Environment, 32(2): 194-218

Hall, P. (1966), The World Cities. London:Weidenfeld & Nicolson

Hall, P. (1997), Modelling the industrialcity, Futures, 29, 311–322

Hall, P. (2001), Global City-Regions in theTwenty-First Century, in: Scott, A.J., (2001)Global City-Regions; Trends, Theory, Policy.Oxford: Oxford University Press

Hall, P. & K. Pain (2006), The PolycentricMetropolis: Learning from Mega-city Regionsin Europe, London: Earthscan

Hoyler,M.,Kloosterman,R.&M.Sokol

(2008), Polycentric puzzles - EmergingMega-City Regions seen through the lens of advanced producer services, RegionalStudies, 42, 1055-1064

Hungarian Presidency (2011), Territorial

Agenda of the European Union 2020, to-wards an inclusive, smart and sustainableEurope of diverse regions

IGEAT et alia. (2007), ESPON 1.4.3 Studyon Urban Functions, Project report,Brussels: ULB

Jenks,M.,Kozak,D.&P.Takkanon

(2008), World Cities and Urban Form;Fragmented, polycentric, sustainable?

London: Routledge.Johansson, B. & J. Quigley (2004),Agglomeration and networks in spatial econ-omies, Papers in Regional Science, 83, 165-176

Kearns, A., & R. Paddison (2000), Newchallenges for urban governance, UrbanStudies, 37(5-6), 845-850

Keating, M. (1997), The invention of re-gions: political restructuring and territorialgovernment in Western Europe,Environment and Planning C: Governmentand Policy, 15, 383-398

Keating, M. (2001), Rethinking the re-gion: culture, institutions and economic de-velopment in Catalonia and Galicia,European Urban and Regional Studies, 8,217–234

Kloosterman, R.C. & B. Lambregts

(2001), Clustering of Economic Activities in

Polycentric Urban Regions: The Case of theRandstad, Urban Studies, 38, 717-732Kloosterman, R.C. & B. Lambregts

(2007), Between accumulation and concen-tration of capital: Toward a framework forcomparing long-term trajectories of urbansystems, Urban Geography, 28(1), 54-73

Kloosterman,R.C.&S.Musterd

(2001), The Polycentric Urban Region:Towards a Research Agenda, Urban Studies,38, 623-633

Lambooy, J. (1998), Polynucleation andeconomic development: the Randstad,




European Planning Studies, 6, 457-466Lambregts, B. (2000), Theoretical back-

groun. EURBANET projectLambregts, B. (2009), The Polycentric

Metropolis Unpacked. Amsterdam: UvA (PhDthesis)

Lang, R. & D. Dhavale (2005), America’smegalopolitan areas, Land Lines: Newsletterof the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 17,

1-4Lee, B., & P. Gordon (2007) Urban spa-tial structure and economic growth in U.S.metropolitan areas. Paper read at the 46thAnnual Meetings of the Western RegionalScience Association, at Newport Beach, CA

Lewicka, M. (2011), Place attachment:How far have we come in the last 40 years?Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31,207-230

Limtanakool, N., Dijst, M., & T.

Schwanen(2007), A theoretical frameworkand methodology for characterising nationalurbansystemsonthebasisofowsofpeo-ple: Empirical evidence for france and ger-many. Urban Studies, 44(11), 2123-2145

Meijers, E.J. (2007), Clones orComplements? The division of labour be-tween the main cities of the Randstad, theFlemish Diamond and the RheinRuhr Area,

Regional Studies, 41, 889-900Meijers, E.J. (2008a), MeasuringPolycentricity and its Promises, EuropeanPlanning Studies, 16(9), 1313-1323

Meijers E.J. (2008b), Summing smallcities does not make a large city: PolycentricUrban Regions and the provision of Cultural,Leisure and Sports Amenities, UrbanStudies, 45, 2323-2342

Meijers E.J. & M. Burger (2010), SpatialStructure and Productivity in U.S.Metropolitan Areas, Environment and

Planning A, 42, 1383-1402Meijers, E.J. & A. Romein (2003),

Realizing potential: building regional organ-izing capacity in polycentric urban regions,European Urban and Regional Studies, 10,173-186

Meijers, E.J., Ross, C. & M. Woo

(2011), Functional versus sectoral speciali-sations in U.S. Mega-regions, Paper present-

ed at the 3th Global Conference onEconomic Geography, Korea: SeoulMeijers,E.J.&K.Sandberg(2008),

Reducing regional disparities by means of polycentric development: panacea or pla-cebo?, Science Regionali – The ItalianJournal of Regional Science, 7(2), 71-96

Melo P., Graham D., & R. Noland

(2009), A meta-analysis of estimates of ur-ban agglomeration economies, RegionalScience and Urban Economics, 39, 332-342

METREX - Expert Group on Intra-Metropolitan Polycentricity (2010), Intra-metropolitan polycentricity in practice -Reections,challengesandconclusionsfrom12 European metropolitan areas, Final re-port

Metropolregion Mitteldeutschland (2012),Website Metropolregion Mitteldeutschland.Available at www.region-mitteldeutschland.

com/Metropoolregio Rotterdam Den Haag(2012), Bereikbaarheidspakket Zuidvleugel.Available at www.mrdh.nl/documenten

Metropoolregio Rotterdam-Den Haag(2012b) Vernieuwend besturen in demetropoolregio Rotterdam Den Haag, zien-swijzedocument 1 mei 2012

Municipality of Gdansk (2012), Website of GdańskMetropolitanArea.Availableat

www.investgda.pl/MIO/

Nordregio et alia (2004), ESPON 1.1.1:Potentials for polycentric development inEurope, Project report, Nordregio/ESPONMonitoring Committee, Stockholm/Luxembourg

OECD (2006), Territorial Reviews: Milan,Italy. Paris: OECD Publishing

OECD (2007), Territorial Reviews:Randstad Holland, Netherlands. Paris: OECD

PublishingOort, F.G. van (2004), Urban Growth andInnovation, Spatially Bounded Externalitiesin the Netherlands, Aldershot: Ashgate.

Paasi, A. (1996), Territories, Boundariesand Consciousness: the ChangingGeographies of the Finnish-Russian Border,Chichester: John Wiley and Sons

Paasi, A. (2003), Region and place:Regional identity in question, Progress inHuman Geography, 27, 475-485

Paasi, A. (2009), The resurgence of the ‘Region’ and ‘Regional Identity’: theoreticalperspectives and empirical observations onregional dynamics in Europe, Review of International Studies, 35, 121–146

Parr, J. (2004), The Polycentric UrbanRegion: A Closer Inspection, RegionalStudies, 38, 231-240

Parr, J. (2008), Cities and regions: prob-

lems and potentials, Environment andPlanning A, 40, 3009-3026Phelps,N.A.&T.Ozawa(2003),

Contrasts in agglomeration: proto-industrial,industrial and post-industrial forms com-pared, Progress in Human Geography, 27,583–604

Pomeranian Voivodeship (2009), SpatialDevelopment Plan for the PomeranianVoivodeship

Regional Plan Association (2006), America2050: A prospectus, New York: RPA

Regione Lombardia (2011), PianoTerritoriale Regionale. Milan: RegioneLombardia

Roberts, M., Lloyd-Jones, T., Erickson,

B.,&S.Nice(1999), Place and space in thenetworked city: Conceptualizing the inte-grated metropolis, Journal of Urban Design,4(1), 51-66

Ross, C. (2009), Mega-regions: planning

for global competitiveness. Washington,D.C: Island PressRPB/PBL – Netherlands Environmental

Assessment Agency (2006), ‘Vele stedenmaken nog geen Randstad. Den Haag:Ruimtelijk Planbureau/Planbureau voor deLeefomgeving

Schwanen,T.,Dieleman,F.M.&M.

Dijst (2004), The Impact of MetropolitanStructure on Commute Behaviour in theNetherlands: A Multilevel Approach, Growthand Change, 35, 304 – 333

Scott,A.J.(2001a), Global City Regions,Trends, Theory, Policy, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press

Scott,A.J.(2001b), Globalisation and therise of city-regions, European PlanningStudies, 9, 813-826

Scott,A.J.,J.Agnew,E.W.Soja,&M.

Storper(2001), Global City-Regions, in:

Scott, A.J. (Ed) (2001) Global City Regions,Trends, Theory, Policy, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 11-30

Shaw,D.,&O.Sykes(2004), The con-cept of polycentricity in european spatialplanning:Reectionsonitsinterpretation

and application in the practice of spatialplanning, International Planning Studies,9(4), 283-306

Siegel,P.,T.Johnson&J.Alwang

(1995), Regional Economic Diversity and

http://www.region-mitteldeutschland.com/



http://investgda.pl/MIO/

http://investgda.pl/MIO/







Diversication,GrowthandChange,26,

261-284Stead,D.&G.Cotella(2011)

Differential Europe: Domestic Actors andTheir Role in Shaping Spatial PlanningSystems, DisP, 186-3/2011

Storper,M. (1997), The Regional World:Territorial Development in a GlobalEconomy. London and New York: Guilford

PressSýkora,L.,Muliček,O.&K.Maier

(2009), City regions and polycentric territo-rial development: concepts and practice,Urban Research & Practice, 2(3), 233–239

Taylor, P., D. Evans & K. Pain (2008),Application of the interlocking network mod-el to Mega-City-Regions: Measuring polycen-tricity within and beyond city-regions,Regional Studies, 42, 1079-1093

Thierstein,A.,Lüthi,S.,Kruse,C.

Gabi,S.&L.Glanzmann(2008), Changingvalue chain of the Swiss knowledge econo-my:Spatialimpactofintra-rmandinter-

rmnetworkswithintheemergingMega-City Region of Northern Switzerland,Regional Studies, 42, 1113-1131

Tölle, A. (2008),CityproleGdansk.In:

Cities, 25 (2008) pp.107-119Tsai, Y. (2005), Quantifying urban form:

Compactness versus ‘sprawl’, Urban Studies,42(1), 141–161

Turok, I. & N. Bailey (2004), The Theoryof Polynuclear Urban Regions and itsApplication to Central Scotland, EuropeanPlanning Studies, 12, 371-389

Veneri, P. (2010), Urban polycentricity

and the costs of commuting: Evidence fromItalian metropolitan areas, Growth andChange, 41(3), 403–429

Veneri, P. & D. Burgalassi (2012),Questioning Polycentric Development and itsEffects.IssuesofDenitionand

Measurement for the Italian NUTS-2Regions, European Planning Studies, 20(6),1017-1037

Waterhout, B., Zonneveld, W., & E.

Meijers (2005), Polycentric developmentpolicies in Europe: Overview and debate,Built Environment, 31(2), 163-173

Wirtschaftsinitiative für Mitteldeutschland(2010), Mittelpunkt – the industrial initiativefor Central Germany magazine. Date of go-ing to press: 31 August 2010.

Annex 1: List of interviewees case studies

Linköping – Norrköping

Ulf Arumskog, Strategic development of-cer,NorrköpingmunicipalityJan Axelsson,ChiefStrategyOfcer,

Innovationskontor ETT, Linköping UniversityKarin Elfström, Head of ComprehensivePlanning, Linköping municipalityRoger Ekström, vice-President, LundbergsFastigheter

Göran Felldin, director of marketing,Linköping universityAnna Jansson, Project manager,Innovationskontor ETT, Linköping UniversityPaul Håkansson,CEO,ÖstgötatrakenMats Helander, Regional development poli-cyofcer,ÖstsamRegionalDevelopment

CouncilPeter Karlsson, Director culture and crea-tivity, Östsam Regional Development CouncilJoakim Kärnborg, DirectorEntrepreneurship & Employability, ÖstsamRegional Development Council LenaMiranda, CEO, SkillMats Philipsson, CEO, ALMIFöretagspartner ABPeter Whass, CEO, Lundbergs FastigheterRichard Widén, Regional planner,Landstinget I ÖstergötlandPorto Metropolitan Area

Ana Paula Abreu, Director of Department,Área Metropolitana do PortoLuisBragadaCruz, Chairman Board of Directors, Serralves Foundation; former na-tional Minister of Economy; former presidentof the CCDRNIsabelBreda-Vazquez, Professor urbanplanning and researcher at CITTA, Faculty of Engineering, University of PortoPaulo Conceicao, Auxiliar Professor urbanplanning and researcher at CITTA , Facultyof Engineering, University of Porto

VladimiroFeliz, Councillor, Municipality of PortoLino Ferreira, CEO, Área Metropolitana doPortoEmídio Gomes, Dean of the Faculty of Biotechnology, Catholic University of Portugal; former Head of ExecutiveCommission of the Área Metropolitana doPorto)

Alcibíades Guedes, Vice President, INEGIAntónio José Lacerda, Director strategicplanning and research, Municipality of PortoJoao Marrana, Executive Board, AutoridadeMetropolitana de Transportes do PortoIsabel Martins, Department of strategicplanning and research, Municipality of PortoRui Moreira, President, Porto Chamber of CommerceCarlos Oliviera, Researcher at CITTA,Faculty of Engineering, University of PortoDianaSilva, junior researcher at CITTA,Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto

Tri-City Region

TomaszDrozdowski - President in chargeof City Development Strategy from theDepartment for Economic and BusinessPolicy,CityofGdańskAnnaGolędzinowska - Senior specialist of

the Department of Regional and SpatialDevelopment,OfceoftheMarshalof

Pomorskie VoivodeshipAnna Górska –GdańskConventionBureauPaulina Górtowska - Regional PomeranianChamber of CommerceMarekKarzyñski – Director City PlanningOfce,CityofGdynia

Maria Magdalena Koprowska – Chief of theUrbanDesignteam,Gdańsk

Development AgencyZaneta Kucharska - Economic Policy




Department, Bureau of MetropolitanCooperation,CityofGdańskPiotr Lorens – Professor and Head of theDepartment of Urban Design and RegionalPlanning,FacultyofArchitecture,Gdańsk

University of TechnologyIwonaMarkešić – Department ManagerCityPlanningOfce,CityofGdyniaKatarzynaMatuszak - Manager of the

Entrepreneurship Development DepartmentAleksandra Niemyska - RegionalPomeranian Chamber of CommerceMarcin Piatkowski - Manager of „Invest inPomerania‟,PomeraniaDevelopment

AgencyJustynaPrzeworska-GdańskDevelopmentAgency(ZPU),CityofGdańskJózefReszke - Starosta Wejherowski andvice-chairmanoftheGdańskMetropolitanArea AssociationThomas Richert - Regional PomeranianChamber of CommerceMaciejRogocz – Chief of the UrbanProgrammingTeam,GdańskDevelopmentAgency,CityofGdańskPrzemysławRot-ManagerBusinessPromotionDivision,CityofGdańsk23IwonaSagan – Professor at the UniversityofGdańsk,DepartmentofEconomic

Geography and chair of the MetropolitanExpert CouncilMarcinSkwierawski – Head of theStrategic Development Department, City of SopotDariuszWieczorek - Regional PomeranianChamber of CommerceKazimierzWiśniewski - Deputy DirectorofCountyLabourOfce,CityofGdańsk

Milan Metropolitan Area

Professor Gabriele Pasqui - Researchgroup Planning & Urbanism, DipartimentoArchitettura&Pianicazione,Politecnico

MilaanPaolo Riganti – Coordinamento Sviluppodel Territorio, Agenzia Mobilità AmbienteTerritorioProfessor Giorgio Goggi – Politecnico

MilaanAndrea Piccin - Assistente di Direzionedella, DG Territorio e Urbanistica, RegioneLombardiaMarina Zambianchi - Servizio sviluppoterritoriale e Politiche della casaChiara Penassi - Director BIC La FucinaFulvio Adobati – Referente SettorePianicazioneTerritorialeCentroStudisulTerritorio ‘Lelio Pagani’ Alberto Celani – Graduate student atRegione LombardiaGianlucaSala–Milano MetropoliMarina Zambianchi - Servizio sviluppoterritoriale e Politiche della casa, BergamoLaura Brioschi-SettorePianicazioneter-ritoriale e Parchi, Provincia di Monza e dellaBrianza

Metropolregion Mitteldeutschland

Wolfgang Besch-Frotscher, UrbanPlanning Department, City of HalleMarkus Egermann, Dipl.-Geograph,Leibniz-Institut für ökologischeRaumentwicklungDr.PeterFranz, Halle Institute forEconomic ResearchDr. Albrecht Kauffmann, Halle Institutefor Economic ResearchRüdiger Kubsch, Economic Department,City of Dresden

Jörn-Heinrich Tobaben, ManagingDirector Wirtschaftsinitiative fürMitteldeutschlandReinhard Wölpert,HeadoftheOfce,

Metropolregion Mitteldeutschland andDeputyHeadofCityPlanningOfce,CityofLeipzig

Metropoolregio Rotterdam-The Hague

Harold van Antwerpen, Policy AdvisorHorticulture and Greenports, City of LansingerlandFrank van den Beuken, Policy AdvisorSpatial Planning at the Department of UrbanDevelopment, City of RotterdamHarry Blanke, Senior Policy Advisor, City of The HagueLinda Frinking, Strategic Policy Advisor,City of WestlandArjan Harbers, Researcher urban planning,Netherlands Environmental AssessmentAgencyWilbert Hoondert, Manager EconomicDevelopment at the Department CityMarketing and International Affairs, City of DelftFrank van der Knaap, Project LeaderTransport Authority and Head of theAdministrationOfce,Stadsgewest

HaaglandenJan Willem Kooijmans, (former) CityPlanner, City of The HagueLodewijk Lacroix, Senior Process Manager,Stadsgewest HaaglandenHansSlagboom, Head of DepartmentLiving, Green and Environment, StadsregioRotterdamCeesStoppelenburg, Policy Advisor,Stadsregio RotterdamTheoStrijers, Program Manager Metropool,City of The Hague

AndreaSvedlin, Policy Advisor at theDepartment of Culture, City of RotterdamInge van de Water, Strategic PolicyAdvisor, City of DelftMarcel Wijermans, Senior Urban Planner,City of The Hague




Annex 2: Respondents questionnaire

Urban stakeholders from the following European metropolitan areas responded to our ques-tionnaire:

AlicanteAmsterdamBarcelonaBerlinBilbaoBirmingham

BonnBraunschweigBrighton & HoveBrusselsCologne/KolnDen Haag/The HagueDresdenDüsseldorf Eindhoven regionFrankfurt am MainGdan skGijonGrazHamburgHelsinkiLeicesterLille métropoleLisbon

MadridMalagaMalmöManchesterNewcastle upon TynePalermo

PortoPortsmouthPraguePrestonRigaRotterdamSevilleStockholmStrasbourgStuttgartSzczecinThessalonikiTorinoUtrechtViennaVilniusWarsaw

polycentric metropolitan areas_kra

Documents