the polyce projectweb.natur.cuni.cz/ksgrrsek/cvmr/publikace/polyce_finalevent.pdf · population mr...
TRANSCRIPT
The POLYCE ProjectIdea, Targets, Outcomes
Metropolitan Development in Central EuropeJune 01, 2012Vienna UT, Wien
Rudolf Giffinger, Ludek Sykora, Nataša Pichler-Milanovič
IDEA & TARGETSRudolf Giffinger
The research group
City partners
Lead Stakeholder: City of WienDepartment of Urban Development and Planning
City of BratislavaDepartment for Spatial Systems Coordination
City of LjubljanaDepartment of Spatial Planning
City of PrahaCity Development Authority
City of BudapestStudio Metropolitana Nonprofit Ltd.
ObjectivesPractical knowledge
• Polycentric situation in the Danube Region• Governance initiatives• Metropolitan strategies
Relation between metropolisation and polycentric development• Definition of concepts• Influence on urban growth and positioning• Impact on competitiveness and inclusion
Recommendations for future urban development• For the 5 metropolises & within Central Europe• Strengths and weaknesses as urban preconditions (metropolitan profiles)• Most relevant activities (stakeholder discussion)• Recommendations for competitive and inclusive development within and
between metropolises• First recommendations for the wider Danube Region
Quantitative analyses of territorial developmentElaborating enhanced polycentric development• Definition and delimitation of spatial model of 5
metropolises• 2 dimensions: morphological and relational• 3 levels: micro, meso, macro
Modelling urban size and metropolisation• Cost & benefit functions regarding size (sample: 59
metropolises)
Comparative identifying metropolitan profiles• Characteristics describing 5 fields of urban
development (sample: 50 metropolises, incl. POLYCE cities)
Qualitative analyses of territorial developmentInterviews with relevant actors• Assessment of urban development trends• Perspectives for future developments• Meaning of cooperative initiatives for metropolitan
development
5 workshops: discussion and expertise on thematic fields• Elaboration of perspectives (thematic fields) with
most important activities • Elaboration of Metropolitan Agenda
Comparison of Metropolitan Agendas and Planning Documents• Common activities• Programmes and documents supporting cooperative
activities
What do stakeholdershave in mind?
Policy relevance
Polycentricity
Inclusion
Competitiveness
SmartMetropolitanDevelopment
Technological Innovations
EconomicRestructuring Sociodemographic
Processes
Governance
Metropolisation
Evidence and place-based approachà strengthening territorial cohesion through polycentric developmentà coordination of activities regarding competitiveness & inclusion
POLYCENTRICITYLudek Sykora
The concept of polycentricityPolycentric urban system
• Several urban nodes (=cities) linked through functional relations
Polycentricity in governance approaches• Enhancement of mutual interests, complementarities, synergies and
potentials for collaboration
Functional relations• intra-urban (micro) level• inter-urban (meso or macro) level
POLYCE metropolitan areas
POLYCE Cities and their Functional Metropolitan Areas and Metropolitan Regions
POLYCE metropolitan areasIndicators Vienna Prague Budapest Bratislava Ljubljana
Population CC 1 550 123 1 169 106 1 777 921 442 291 256 881
Population FMA 2 227 580 1 391 579 2 545 841 655 674 456 915
Population MR 2 900 846 2 291 579 3 208 658 1 337 586 650 119
Jobs CC 821 458 746 427 856 193 317 322 178 020
Jobs FMA 1 060 921 837 017 1 051 127 403 309 230 135
Jobs MR 1 306 051 1 230 856 1 231 143 733 496 299 037
No of FMA municipalities 220 236 109 100 24
No of MR municipalities 507 1149 284 372 35
No of FMA centers 20 20 47 19 14
No of MR centers 26 27 26 18 15
area CC 415 496 525 368 275
area FMA 6 490 2 104 3 479 2 385 2 206
area MR 14 625 11 510 10 291 7 082 4 014
Polycentric urban systems compared Ireciprocal flows (%)
ViennaFMA 58,76
MR 59,40
Prague FMA 42,81
MR 36,80
Budapest FMA 37,12
MR 35,76
Bratislava FMA 11,69
MR 23,72
Ljubljana FMA 30,76
MR 35,85
43 / 37 % 37 / 36 %
12 / 24 %31 / 36 %
59 / 59 %
Polycentric urban systems compared II
Relational polycentricity: research networks
• Central role of Wien• Strong triangle of cooperation:
Wien, Budapest, Praha• Strongest relation: Wien -
Budapest• Weakest relations: Bratislava-
Praha, Bratislava-Ljubljana• Comparably important role of
Ljubljana (according to size)• Wien more outward oriented
(stronger integration in Western European research networks)
Relational polycentricity: firm networks
• Strong triangle of cooperation: Wien, Budapest, Praha
• Strongest relation: Praha-Budapest
• Comparably important role of Bratislava (according to size)
• Ljubljana as the remote outpost of the region (more connected to Mediterranian and Balkans)
• Higher-ranked locations rather situated in Vienna than in Prague and Budapest
Relational polycentricity: web search intensity
POSITION IN EUROPE• national command and control
centers • gateways• Vienna and Budapest: ambitions to
play the role of a supranational center• Vienna, Prague and Budapest:
competitors for business investments • Vienna-Bratislava as an important core
of CED-region
INTERNAL ORGANIZATION• weak national spatial planning with
little attention to capital city regions• core cities and their regions are
separated under different jurisdictions• lack of coordinated spatial planning at
metropoliotan level• lack of regional coordination
Polycentricity in policy and planning
Metropolitan Growth and ProfilesNataša Pichler-Milanovič
The concept of metropolisation
20
• A process of comprehensive urban restructuring• Based on a city’s ability to compete with others• Specific metropolitan functions• An area, where functional, structural, and strategic issues intersect administrative
borders
Specific aspects of the process• Concentration of (new) economic functions and population• Node in global networks• Knowledge intensive economic activities• Allocation of specialized functions as driving forces
Urban size and metropolisation
21
Wien
Graz
Linz
Liège
Sofia
Praha
Berlin
Hamburg
MünchenFrankfurt am Main Stuttgart
Dresden
BremenHannover
MagdeburgFreiburg im Breisgau
Regensburg
Erfurt
Copenhagen
Tallinn
Madrid
Barcelona
ValenciaSevilla
Zaragoza
Helsinki
Paris
Lyon
Toulouse
Bordeaux
Athina
Budapest
RomaMilano
Napoli
Torino
GenovaFirenzeBologna
Vilnius
Riga
Amsterdam
Rotterdam
Utrecht
Groningen
Warszawa
Lodz
Wroclaw
Szczecin
Lisboa
Porto
Bucuresti
Stockholm
Ljubljana
Bratislava
London
Glasgow
EdinburghBelfast
y = 0.9997x + 0.0048R² = 0.7412
12.00
12.50
13.00
13.50
14.00
14.50
15.00
15.50
16.00
16.50
12.00 12.50 13.00 13.50 14.00 14.50 15.00 15.50 16.00
Log
real
pop
ulat
ion
Log predicted population
Database:
- 59 LUZ (Larger Urban Zone / Urban Audit)
-12 indicators (ESPON FOCI, UA, CORDIS, etc.)
Measuring the relationship between urban size with urban costs and benefits of European citiesDatabase &General findings througheconometric analysis
Urban size and metropolisation: findings
22
Positive impact on European agglomerations• Metropolitan power functions• Micro-level polycentricity
Results for POLYCE metropolisesPreconditions indicating chancesand risks for future growth
• Bratislava, Ljubljana: potential for further urban growth
• Budapest, Wien, Praha: Metropolitan functions < urban size
Metropolitan profiles
23
Research questions:• What do the metropolitan profiles of the five POLYCE metropolises look like? • Do they show any decisive similarities or differences between each other and among a wider
sample of European metropolises? • Which factors have a potential for further metropolitan development?
Details of empirical research• 50 metropolises• Different European data bases (ESPON, EUROSTAT, URBAN AUDIT)• Data reflect the situation before year 2008• Definition of 123 indicators à 25 factors à 5 key characteristics
Metropolitan profiles: factors and characteristics
24
ECONOMY PEOPLE
Economic Performance
Entrepreneurship
Knowledge-based Economy
Labor market
R&D Funding
International Embeddedness
Structural Disparities
Demography
Education
Ethnic Diversity
MOBILITY ENVIRONMENT
Public transport
Commuting
International Accessibility
Availability of ICT
Land Use
Environmental Conditions
Pollution
Resource Consumption
Environmental Quality
LIVING
Cultural facilities
Health facilities
Housing
Safety
Touristic Attractivity
Urban Services
Profiles of 50 metropolises in Europe
25
26
Profiles of 5 POLYCE metropolises
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
BRATISLAVA BUDAPEST LJUBLJANA PRAHA WIEN
Profiles of the 5 POLYCE Metropolises
Economy People Mobility Environment Living
-1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5
Economic Performance
Entrepreneurship
Knowledge-based Economy
Labor Market
R&D Funding
Internationl Embeddedness
Structural Disparities
Demography
Education
Ethnic Diversity
Public transport
Commuting
International Accessibility
Availability of ICT
Land Use
Environmental Conditions
Pollution
Resource Consumption
Environmental Quality
Cultural Facilities
Health Facilities
Housing
Touristic Attractivity
Safety
Urban Services
Metropolitan Area Wien
Note:
Economy People Mobility Environment Living
27
Main results• Top metropolitan profiles: Amsterdam, Munich, Stockholm…..• processes of urbanization, economic restructuring, socio‐demographic change
and metropolisation have different impacts on the metropolitan level;• heterogeneous metropolitan profiles and differences between cities: high ranked
cities have not only high economic performance but others as well;
Results for POLYCE metropolises• Vienna is ranked within the top-50 MEGA as a role model (Central) European
metropolis;• There are also differences - with some similarities - between POLYCE
metropolitan profiles: (i) Vienna / Prague, (ii) Bratislava / Ljubljana, (iii) Budapest;• High quality of living characterises (more or less) all of them;• There is a clear specialisation in other fields of metropolitan development,
indicating specific assets for city positioning and future strategic endeavors.
Metropolitan profiles: results
Conclusions and RecommendationsRudolf Giffinger
Conclusions
Evidence- and place-based metropolitan agenda• Metropolitan positioning and cohesive territorial development• Activities assessed in competitive or inclusive character• Combination of recommendations based on strengths and weaknesses
Strategic endeavors for polycentric development in the CED-zone as part of the Danube Region• Most important strategic activities in front of general findings and stakeholders’
perception
Polycentricity – its differentiated understanding and importance for cohesive metropolitan developmentà functional polycentric relations on the meso level between
metropolises (in terms of research and firm relations) differ stronglyacross cities
à from stakeholders’ perspective: cities consider polycentric developmentthrough their function and position in different ways:
• Vienna and Bratislava are seen in a clear twin-city-situation• stakeholders in Praha, Ljubljana and Budapest see the position of their
metropolis in a specific geographic context
à Lack of strong common polycentric vision and activities between all five metropolises
• infrastructure-based accessibility between them is rather unequallydeveloped
Conclusions
Metropolitan growth and its preconditions
à Metropolises show clear different polycentric preconditions in morphological and functional terms
à Metropolitan power functions and polycentricity have• a positive impact on demographic growth of metropolitan areas, • trends of sprawl are identified to have a negative impact
à Less developed polycentric structures in the metropolitan regions ofBudapest, Praha and Wien go along with findings on urban sprawl as a risk and potential cost factor.
à a lack of polycentric development will negatively influence furtherdemographic or economic growth
Conclusions
Metropolitan profiles indicating challenges and chances of smart metropolitan development
à differences between metropolitan profiles are observable – also between the fivePOLYCE metropolises.
à differences indicate• (1) that processes of urbanization, economic restructuring, socio-demographic change
and metropolisation are having different impacts on the metropolitan level and• that (2) a high quality of living characterizes all of them
à there is a clear specialization in distinct fields of metropolitan development
à Profiles and stakeholder discussion are indicating specific assets for positioningand future strategic endeavors
Conclusions
… supporting smart metropolitan development
à Based on the new definition and delimitation of the corresponding metropolitan area and metropolitan region
Empirical study for the five cases showed that
Recommendations for 5 metropolises
• morphological and functional polycentricityhave to be considered
• there was no adequate approach defined which was either accepted from an analytical or a strategic point of view
• spatial development shows different conditions but similar challenges (urban sprawl, accessibility, land use)
… supporting smart metropolitan development
à enforce and rely on cooperation of different stakeholders (including researchers) within metropolitan regions
Recommendations for 5 metropolises
• Cooperative activities should be enforced on urban-regional level (between cities of metropolitan region) meeting the challenges of urban sprawl and traffic congestion and identifying a common vision
• Collaboration for assessing recent assets and challenges are insufficient from respective analytical and socio-political perspectives
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
BRATISLAVA BUDAPEST LJUBLJANA PRAHA WIEN
Profiles of the 5 POLYCE Metropolises
Economy People Mobility Environment Living
• Activities steering competitive and inclusive development are not comprehensively discussed
• Strengths and weaknesses of (non-)cohesive development are not yet assessed• Up to now there is no discussion between metropolises (besides Bratislava - Wien)
• regarding their role and common meaning in the Danube Region• regarding improvements of the public transport system
• The 5 metropolises need an evidence- and place-based strategy, tailored to their specific conditions of growth and assets
… supporting smart metropolitandevelopmentà aim at a mix of strategic endeavors
(agenda) steering the process of competitive and/or inclusive development in front of metropolitan profiles
Recommendations for 5 metropolises
Recommendations from CE to Danube Region
… strengthening the urban/metropolitan system in CE (DanubeRegion)àCreate a basic common vision and common activities regarding the role of the
five metropolises for better positioning and lobbying
• Information exchange and support of bilateral strategic activities
• Metropolises should activate and enforce their links to other medium sized cities for strengthening the city network in Central Europe
• Common lobbying for European metropolitan politics based on
• new delimitations• a re-definition of programme areas in the
forthcoming financing period
• In front of missing polycentric development: • cities have different preconditions and challenges• cities should start to organize meetings (workshops,
small conferences) of interested metropolises
… strengthening the urban/metropolitan system in CE (DanubeRegion)
àImprove and enforce relational capital between stakeholders through improved conditions of cooperation
Recommendations from CE to Danube Region
… strengthening the urban/metropolitan system in CE (DanubeRegion)
àInclude other metropolises in the Danube region into cooperative activities of the five metropolises
• 5 CE metropolises serve as good practice for strategic endeavors with attractive potential partners to which single relations already exist
• The Danube Region Strategy offers distinct possibilities:• fields of activities like capacity building, transportation networks
Recommendations from CE to Danube Region
Many Thanks for Your Attention
Further informationhttp://www.interact-eu.net/danube_region_projects/polyce/327/5491http://www.espon.eu/main/Menu_Projects/Menu_TargetedAnalyses/polyce.htmlhttp://www.polyce.eu/