Polycentric Development and Governance

1
Polycentric Development and Governance

• PROGRESDEC
• European Territorial Policies and Regional
  Governance 5 June 2008, Rome
• Simin Davoudi
• Professor of Environmental Policy and Planning
• Deputy Director, Institute for Research on
  Environment and Sustainability (IRES)
• Simin.Davoudi_at_ncl.ac.uk

2
European Spatial Development Perspective

• Adopted in 1999 in Potsdam
• By the EU Informal Council of Ministers for
  Spatial Planning
• Non-binding but influential

3
American Spatial Development Perspective (ASDP)
4
ESDPs key spatial policy theme

• Development of a balanced and Polycentric urban
  system and a new urban-rural relationship

5
The concept of polycentricity

• It is not an invention of the ESDP
• It has been around since the early 20th century
• Yet, its precise meaning has remained elusive

6
Outline

• 1. The concept of polycentricity and its multiple
  interpretations at various spatial scales
• 2. The way in which polycentricity is interpreted
  in the ESDP
• 3. The role of governance

7
Polycentricity and multiple spatial scales

• The intra-urban or city scale
• The inter-urban or regional scale
• The inter-regional or European scale

8
The relentless growth of cities
9
Intra-urban scale and monocentric models

• The monocentric model describes the city as a
  circular residential area surrounding a central
  business district
• (Ernest Burgess, 1925)

10
The inadequacy of monocentric models

• The monocentric model, fit for the ideal 19th
• C. city, became irrelevant in the face of
• Decentralisation of economic activities
• Increased mobility
• Complex criss-cross movements
• Changes in household structures and lifestyles

11

• Polycentric city
• A centre and an organised system of concentrated
  sub-centres
• Dispersed city
• An unorganised urban sprawl

12
2. Inter-urban scale

• What is a polycentric urban region (PUR)?
• Three or more cities
• Historically and politically separate
• Weak hierarchical ranking
• Reasonable proximity
• Functional interrelationships

13
European examples of PUR

• Flemish Diamond
• in Flanders, Belgium
• Brussels
• Leuven
• Antwerp
• Ghent

14
European examples of PUR

• Padua-Treviso-
• Venice Area
• in Northern Italy

15
Other examples of PUR

• Kansai in Japan
• Osaka
• Kyoto
• Kobe

16
A classic example of PUR

• Randstad in Holland
• A ring of 4 large cities around the Green
  Heart
• Amsterdam
• Utrecht
• The Hague
• Rotterdam

17
Randstads daily commuter flows one PUR or two?

• North Wing
• Amsterdam and Utrecht city regions
• South Wing
• Rotterdam and Hague city regions

Source Polynet Project
18
Randstad as a Delta Metropolis

• Promoting Randstad as a single coherent region
• As a European Delta Metropolis
• Competing with World Cities such as London and
  Paris

19
Problems of definition and measurement

• A PUR consists of 3 cities within reasonable
  proximity and with functional interconnections
• What is a reasonable proximity?
• One hour (Geddes, 1915)
• 40 minutes (Blumenfeld, 1971)
• 30 minutes (Batten, 1995)
• 45 minutes (ESPON, 2004-6)
• How do we measure functional interconnections?
• Labour market areas (common criterion but
  inadequate )
• Non-work trip-generating activities (necessary
  but difficult to measure)
• Inter-firm flows of goods, information and know
  how (necessary but almost impossible to measure)

20
3. Inter-regional scale

• Megalopolis
• East coast of America coalescence of a chain of
  metropolitan areas, each of which has grown
  around a substantial urban nucleus
• (Gottman, 1957)

21
Ecumenopolis - World city?

• BeSeTo
• Urban Corridor
• in East Asia
• Beijing
• Seoul
• Tokyo
• Population 98 m.
• Area 1500 Km.
• Air travel time 1.5 h

22
ESDP and polycentricity at the EU scale

• Challenging the uneven development of the EU,
• Where a prosperous, highly connected core stands
  against an underdeveloped periphery
• Economy, Labour market, Demography, Environment,
  Hazards, Accessibility, Spatial structure

23
Depicting the EU coreperiphery image

• European Megalopolis (Gottman, 1976)
• Golden Triangle (Cheshire Hay, 1989)
• The Blue Banana (Brunet, 1989)
• The pentagon (ESDP, 1999)

24
The pentagon

• London, Paris, Milan,
• Munich and Hamburg
• 20 of area
• 40 of population
• 50 of GDP
• 75 of RD
• Seen as the only globally competitive economic
  zone in EU

25
The main thrust of the ESDP

• Promote the creation of multiple zones of
  globally significant economic growth
• By adopting polycentricity as its underpinning
  spatial strategy

26
Challenging the core-periphery view of Europe

• European Bunch of Grapes
• (Kunzmann Wegener, 1991)
• A more balanced development of the EU territory

27
Polycentricity as a normative agenda

• Promoted as a way of achieving the ESDPs policy
  goals of making the EU
• economically more competitive
• socially more equitable
• spatially more cohesive
• Mixing competitiveness with the traditional
  distribution-based regional policy

28
Paris et le Désert français!

• Jean-François Gravier, 1947, argued for a
  counter-Parisian spatial strategy
• Based on the creation of the métropoles
  dequilibre, or the growth poles outside Paris
• By pouring resources into French provisional
  cities (e.g. Lille, Lyon, Toulouse, Marseilles)
• To make France territorially more cohesive!

29
From France to Europe via ESDP

• Cohesion Territoire promoted by
• Jacques Delors
• Michelle Barnier
• Introduced in the Amsterdam Treaty, 1997
• ESDPs promotion of polycentricity is a spatial
  manifestation of this territorial cohesion agenda

30
1. Is polycentricity a panacea for solving
regional problems?

• An egalitarian idea but without its
  re-distributive dimension
• The emphasis has shifted away from
  distribution-based regional policy to
  potential-based spatial policy
• Focusing on maximising endogenous potential of
  the peripheral regions
• Through a polycentric approach to spatial
  development
• Is there a correlation between economic
  development and polycentricity as a specific
  spatial structure?
• Managing too much growth versus encouraging
  growth

31
2. Polycentricty at EU level may lead to
monocentricity at national level

• Dublin City Region
• 40 of national population
• 48 of national GVA
• 70 of major Co. HQs
• 80 of government agencies
• 100 of financial institutions

Source Polynet Project
32
The pull factors

• In Cohesion Countries, the EU funds have been
  absorbed by major urban centres, particularly
  capital cities due to their
• Critical mass
• Infrastructure
• Institutional capacity
• A similar trend is happening in many eastern and
  central European countries (new member states)

33
3. Is polycentricity sustainable?

• Little evidence to support this
• Commuting times are higher in most polycentric
  systems (e.g. Randstad) than in monocentric urban
  systems
• 
  (Schwanen et al,
  2003)
• A polycentric utopia is a recipe for traffic
  chaos, congestion and pollution.
• 
  ( Lambregts et al, 2006)

34
Polycentricity as a political discourse

• To promote spatial equity and balanced
  development
• To combat polarising effects of agglomeration
  economies
• To promote functional inter-connection between
  second tier smaller cities

35
Atlantic Gateways as counterbalance to Dublin
City Region

• Irish NSS aims to maximise the potential of
  smaller cities by encouraging them to develop a
  PUR
• SW Atlantic Gateway
• Cork
• Limerick / Shannon
• Waterford
• Galway

36
The Northern Way Megalopolis

• With 8 city regions
• Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds Sheffield, Hull,
  Central Lancashire
• Tees Valley, Newcastle /Gateshead
• Aiming to close the North-South divide in England

37
The focus of policy attention

• Can a PUR be planned for? and if so,
• What kind of policy intervention can facilitate
  the development of PUR?
• How can functional synergies between neighbouring
  cities be forged?

38
Potential areas for policy intervention

• Improving accessibility
• Coordinating economic specialisation
• Improving public transport
• Supplying suitable housing
• Providing education and training, etc
• Developing governing capacities
• Coordination and integration
• Leadership and strategic direction

39
The Mismatch

• Between functional areas and administrative
  boundaries
• Government operates on the basis of
  administratively defined areas
• Industries, businesses, and households operate
  within functionally defined areas
• 40 of the UK working population cross at least
  one local authority boundary during their journey
  to work.
• Journey to work is not the only journey we make!

40
A classic example of the mismatch

• Between the boundaries of
• The municipal city (political)
• The metropolitan city (physical)
• The city-region (economic)

41
Co-aligning functional and political boundaries

• On and off the UK policy agenda since the 1960s
• Metropolitan counties were established in the
  1970s and abolished in the 1980s and are now
  being reconsidered again!
• How to do it?
• Top-down formal re-structuring? Or,
• Bottom-up cooperation?

42
Problems of formal restructuring

• It is a costly and lengthy procedure
• It is politically sensitive and unpopular with
  the voters
• The geometry of functional areas varies depending
  on
• the methodology applied to define them
• different functions and markets

43
One size doesnt fit all!

• There is no single functional boundary which can
  catch all functions and services.
• Fuzzy functional areas do not fit in
  neatly-drawn administrative boundaries
• Fixed boundaries will soon become irrelevant in
  the face of the changing relational dynamics of
  PUR.

44
An alternative approach

• A variable geometry of informal inter-municipal
  collaborations
• Providing a more flexible, yet responsible and
  accountable, governance framework
• Capable of adapting to the emerging relational
  dynamics of the polycentric urban regions.
• Such partnerships are the hallmark of the
  transition from government to governance
• Leadership is driven by a common understanding
  and a shared vision

45
The role of national government

• Incentivizing inclusive, inter-municipal
  coalitions
• As a major part of facilitating PUR formation

46
Further Information

• Davoudi, S, 2003, Polycentricity in European
  Spatial Planning from an analytical tool to a
  normative agenda European Planning Studies, Vol.
  11(8) 979-999
• Davoudi, S., 2005, Understanding Territorial
  Cohesion, Planning Practice and Research, Vol.
  20(4) 433-441
• Davoudi, S., 2008, Conceptions of the
  city-region A critical review, Journal of Urban
  Design and Planning, forthcoming