Metropolisation & Polycentric Development in Central Europe: Insights & Recommendations

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

2. THE POLYCEPROJECT Partners – Objectives - Analytical Framework Results - Conclusions- Recommendations

3. Partners • Lead Partner • Vienna University of Technology • Project Partners • University of Ljubljana • Slovak University of Technology Bratislava • University of Szeged • Czech Technical University in Prague • University ofPrague • CEPS - CentreforPopulations, Povertyand Public Policy Studies, Luxembourg • Politecnico di Milano • Stakeholder Cities • Bratislava, Budapest, Ljubljana, Praha, Wien • Project Duration • 10/2010 - 06/2012

4. 3 Objectives • Relation between metropolisation and polycentric development • Understanding metropolisation and polycentric development • Influence on urban growth and positioning • Impact on competitiveness and inclusion • Practical knowledge • Characteristics of metropolitan development • Strengths and weaknesses as urban preconditions • Most relevant activities (stakeholder discussion) • Governance initiatives & Metropolitan strategies • Polycentric situation in the Danube Region • Recommendations for future urban development • For the 5 metropolises as part of Central Europe • Evidence and place based strategic activities within and between metropolises • for competitive and inclusive development • First recommendations for the wider Danube Region

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

6. The conceptof metropolisation • A process of comprehensive urban restructuring • Based on a city’s ability to compete with others • Specific metropolitan functions • An area, where functional, structural, and strategic issues intersect administrative borders • Specific aspects of the process • Concentration of (new) economic functions and population • Node in global networks • Knowledge intensive economic activities • Allocation of specialized functions as driving forces Urban size and metropolisation •  Metropolitan profiles 6

7. Urban sizeandmetropolisation Measuring the relationship between urban size with urban costs and benefits of European cities Database & General findings through econometric analysis • Positive impact • Metropolitan power functions • Micro-level polycentricity • Database: • 59 LUZ (Larger Urban Zone / Urban Audit) • 12 indicators (ESPON FOCI, UA, CORDIS, etc.) 7

8. Urban sizeand metropolisation: findings Resultsfor POLYCE metropolises • Preconditionsindicatingchancesandrisksforfuturegrowth • Bratislava, Ljubljana: potential for further urban growth • Budapest, Wien, Praha: Metropolitan functions < urban size 8

9. Metropolitan profiles • Research questions: • What do the metropolitan profiles of the five POLYCE metropolises look like? • Do they show any decisive similarities or differences between each other and among a wider sample of European metropolises? • Which factors are regarded as drivers for further metropolitan development? • Details of empirical research • 50 metropolises • Different European data bases (ESPON, EUROSTAT, URBAN AUDIT) • Data reflect the situation before year 2008 • Definition of 123 indicators  25 factors  5 key characteristics 9

10. Metropolitan Profiles Western European metropolisesdominate Praha bestperformingunderaccesion countries 5 metropolises Living conditionsshow relative bestvalues Unequalprofilesasoutcomeofspezialisation Wien shows relativ bestperformance 10

11. The concept of polycentricity Polycentric urban system Several urban nodes (=cities) linked through functional relations Polycentricity in governance approaches Enhancement of mutual interests, complementarities, synergies and potentials for collaboration Functional relations Intra-urban (micro) level Inter-urban (meso or macro) level Core City (CC) Capital cities in their administrative delimitation Functional Metropolitan Area (FMA) Daily urban system (area of intensive commuting to work) Metropolitan Region (MR) Wider economicregionreflectingthe territorial networksof a city’seconomy (meso level)

12. Polycentricity Findings • Microlevel • Delimitationof a regional modeldefiningthemetropolisesfor POLYCE • Analysis • Morphological: workplaces, population • Functional: commuters • Strategic: planningdocuments • Results • Unequal in morphol. & functionalpolyc. • National command and control centers • Competition between local authorities for business and infrastructure investments • (unequal) lack of coordinated spatial planning at metropolitan level • Bratislava – Wien asTwinmetropolises?

13. Polycentricity Findings • Meso- & Macrolevel • Functionalrelations • Travel time (railway) • Research networks (CORDIS) • FIRE firm networks (GaWC) • Google: mutual web searchqueries • Results • Strong relations: Wien, Budapest, Praha • Competitors for business investments • Strive for becoming gateways and supranational centers • No vision for cooperating CE-metropolises (hardly any ideas for common activities) • Lack of strategic cooperation

14. General Findings • 1. Polycentric relations between metropolises differ strongly • Cities consider polycentric development differently (depending on geographic position and function) • micro: different experiences with urban-regional strategic endeavors • meso: Lack of strong common polycentric vision and activities between all 5 metropolises • 2. Metropolitan power functions and polycentricity … • … positive impact on demographic growth of metropolitan areas • … urban sprawl as a negatively influencing factor • Lack of polycentric development will negatively influence further demographic or economic growth • Metropolises are differently affected according to their pre-conditions • 3. Metropolitan profiles indicate challenges/chances of smart metropolitan development • A specialization in distinct fields of metropolitan development is observable • Discussion of quantitatively described strengths and weaknesses against stakeholders‘ perception indicating the need for more comparative studies and information exchange • Profiles and stakeholder discussions indicating specific assets for positioning and strategic endeavors

15. HOW TO ADDRESS CHALLENGES & POTENTIALS? Recommendations from POLYCE

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

17. Recommendations for Smart Metropolises • New definitions of metropolitan regions • Stakeholder cooperation within metropolitan regions • Relational capital through improved conditions of cooperation • Balanced strategies (competitive/inclusive) on the basis of metropolitan profiles • Include other metropolises in the Danube Region in cooperative activities • 5 POLYCE metropolises serve as good practice for strategic endeavors with attractive potential partners to which single relations already exist • The Danube Region Strategy offers distinct possibilities

18. THANK YOU! www.polyce.eu