the true size of london: london's functional urban region
DESCRIPTION
The Definition of London: maps and information about the London Functional Urban Region and its historyTRANSCRIPT
Measuring Metropolitan London: a rationale
Alan FreemanGLA Economics
It is important to know London’s ‘true’ boundaries Need to compare London’s performance with
other cities on a consistent basis Need to analyse the forces at work in London’s
economy – this requires a definition based on an economic, not just an administrative, rationale.
The ‘administrative’ boundary does not cease to be important – this is where ‘London’ policies operate.
GLA boundary also happens to correspond well to its ‘economic core’, because of the Green Belt
However it does not include a wider area which interacts with London on a daily basis, principally through commuting.
A case in point: London and Paris
GLA London – Population (MYE 2004) 7,420,000– Area 1,584 Km2
Little Paris (TBA) Isle de France Paris
– Population 11,362,000 – Area 12,012 Km2
Hence our current activities: a London-Paris comparison, and a sensitivity testing– Method will be extended to other cities– We are working with BAK on sensitivity testing
Benchmarking – not just a London issue
Governments need common standards – to compare the performance of cities– to allocate and implement policy resources.
Urban regions are relevant spatial units for the application of significant policy functions.
An Urban region is an ‘economic unit’ We have to be able to measure and compare
cities on the basis of their economic function Comparability is paramount It is a distinct issue from ‘how should cities be
governed’ although it can inform the governance agenda
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
-0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5
Supplier 1
Supp
liers
2 a
nd 3
Supplier 2Supplier 3
Estimates from the different suppliers
would be the same if they lay on this line
Why a standard is needed
Estimates of 10-year
productivity growth rates
from 23 cities and 3 suppliers
What kind of standard?
City definition cannot take political or administrative boundaries as a starting point. It should arise from socio-economic study of what a city is and does.
We need comparisons across the world and at least with ‘world cities’ hence US, Europe and ideally Japan
There are broad continental variations – US cities evolved historically differently from European cities leading to different patterns of settlement. This has to be recognised.
For the GLA, the requirement for a standard dominates over the requirement of scope for local variation.
But we want to know how big the difference really is before decisions are made.
Four main existing approaches US metro system
+ long period of development+ existing data for comparisons- different historical course of evolution
GEMACA+ Sound and robust methodology+ Already tested and demonstrated– Not much extended outside Europe
Urban Audit+ official buy-in and support- uses administrative unit as core- permits a wide degree of local variation- not really a standard
- TWA approach
What is in common and what differs?
TWA is a distinctive approach. We will discuss separately Common feature of US, UA, and GEMACA is a ‘core-
hinterland’ or ‘Functional Urban Region’ (FUR) Core may be either as an area of high population density
or of high job density (or otherwise eg building density) Commuting field: people that regularly communicate
with, or travel to, the core, for economic purposes principally work.
Both thresholds and criteria vary. – US system has ‘core’ defined by population, with a relatively low
density (1000/500 per square mile = 4/ha), but relatively high commuting threshold (25 percent but includes out-commuting)
– GEMACA has ‘core’ defined by employment with 7/ha = 1813/sq mile density threshold, and 10 per cent in-commuting threshold
Issues
Core defined by population, work density, or other criterion such as morphology
What are the economic purposes of travel and communication?
What size units are appropriate to define the core What is the threshold density for the core What threshold densities for in- and out-
commuting? What size units to define the hinterland City-Regions: what criteria lead to the exclusion or
separation of distinct conglomerations which fall statistically within a metro area eg Reading, Harlow?
Some initial results
FUR size highly sensitive to the size of core ‘building block’ FUR size relatively insensitive to the choice between
population or work density Core size varies with core threshold densities, but FUR size
varies by small magnitude over large spectrum of densities We have not yet investigated the sensitivity of FUR size to
commuting densities or to the inclusion of out-commuting FUR size sensitive (for London) to whether the hinterland is
composed of NUTS3 or NUTS4 building blocks. This is a significant problem since statutory Eurostat data is
available only at NUTS3 level, which are relatively large in the UK
If NUTS3 used, the issue boils down to the inclusion or exclusion of one NUTS3 area (Kent) with a population of about 1,300,000 [London FUR without Kent = 13,700,000]
Maps
1000 employees per square mile
1500 employees per square mile
1813 employees per square mile
2000 employees per square mile
2500 employees per square mile
1000 employees per square mile
1500 employees per square mile
1813 employees per square mile
2000 employees per square mile
2500 employees per square mile
1813 residents per square mile
1813 employees per square mile
1813 employees per square mile
1813 residents per square mile
London FUR – Jobs
568585217
446
477
487
498
533
1,659
2,294
2,884
Thurrock Medway Towns LutonBuckinghamshire CC Berkshire Surrey
Hertfordshire Essex Kent CCOuter London Inner London
Thousands of workforce jobs in 2004
Inner London
Outer London
Commuter Belt
Paris FUR – Jobs
434
530
428
850
526
498
422274201
152
1,656 4,313
Seine-et-Marne Yvelines Essonne Hauts-de-Seine
Seine-Saint-Denis Val-de-Marne Val-d'Oise Oise
Eure Eure-et-Loir Paris
Thousands of workforce jobs in 2004
Paris
Some summary indicators
Population 2003 (000s of resident population)
Workforce Employment 2003 (000s of
workforce jobs)
GVA 2003 (€billion current)
Inner London 2,892 2,485 160 GLA 7,371 4,431 260 Surrounds 6,617 3,358 171 FUR 13,988 7,789 431
Paris 2,166 1,656 141 Surrounds 9,872 3,961 277 FUR 12,038 5,616 418
Sensitivities and data summary
Employment Density Threshold Level 1000 1500 1813 2000 2500
Lowest/ Highest Density
LAU2 units in total FUR 1,786 1,736 1,676 1,685 1,613 90% Resident population of total FUR 13,310,717 13,017,914 12,766,609 12,729,043 12,407,213 93% Workplace population of total FUR 6,653,364 6,495,638 6,388,281 6,349,001 6,197,473 93% Geographic area (sq mi) 5,230 4,913 4,757 4,716 4,355 83% LAU1 (NUTS4) units enclosing FUR 83 85 83 82 80 96% Resident population of LAU1 units enclosing FUR 12,645,988 12,868,188 12,660,293 12,454,272 12,255,906 97% Workplace population of LAU1 units enclosing FUR Geographic area (sq mi) 4,578 4,263 4,103 4,019 3,732 82% Number of NUTS3 units enclosing FUR 14 14 14 13 12 86% Resident population of NUTS3 units enclosing FUR 13,922,024 13,922,024 13,922,024 13,737,653 12,407,935 89% Workplace population of NUTS3 units enclosing FUR Geographic area (sq mi) 5,855 5,855 5,855 5,838 4,470 76%