Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
48 Galvin Orly Schiphol

48 Galvin Orly Schiphol

Ratings: (0)|Views: 248|Likes:
Published by W.J. Zondag

More info:

Published by: W.J. Zondag on Jan 07, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

10/04/2013

pdf

text

original

 
el    i     ne s 
AIRPORT REGION DEVELOPMENT
Coordinating Spatial Developmentin Airport Regions
Embeddedness and Experimentation at Paris Orly and Amsterdam Schiphol 
While most international airports are broadly recognized as strategic territories within theirmetro areas, Amsterdam stands out as an international example of coherent developmentin Europe. Orly is Paris’ second and oldest international airport, specialized in cargo and theFrench domestic market. Local stakeholders in Paris tried to define a coherent land strategy, taking into account numerous actors and territories, taking Schiphol as a possible referencestudy. Although both of them are quite different types of airports (one is a domestic andcargo airport, the other an international hub), in terms of managing spatial development in thedensely built urban areas, a relevant comparison can be made, and lessons can be learned.
Introduction
The Val de Marne Development Agency I worked for in 2006carried out a comparative research in order to bring relevantillustrations to Orly. Amsterdam airport was chosen as one of the major cases in this benchmark. As I continued my master’scourse at the University of Amsterdam, the Val de Marne Agen-cy asked to do a more detailed analysis in a thesis by developingthe Orly – Schiphol comparison. This article is based on the the-sis, resulting from the analysis carried out withthe Orly region authorities.Since 2007, growth strategies have been out-lined, and new actors that have been reorga-nized have been charged with implementingthese. However, the governance framework has been drastically changed in the same period.Orly now has a very different growth context,which is not based on local and regional stake-holders. Is Schiphol still a unilateral example, inthe end? What can the new practices observedat Orly bring to the debate on land developmentaround airports?
Schiphol and Orly 
Orly and Schiphol are two major transportation hubs in Europe.Both are ranked in the top ten of European airports, with Orlytransporting 27 million passengers and Schiphol 47 million.However, there are some important differences between Schiphol
airport, the fth-largest hub in Europe, and Orly airport, second-
largest airport in France, overtaken by Charles de Gaulle Airportafter that airport’s completion. Today, Orly airport is specialized
in regional and European passenger ights, carried out by nation
-
al airline Air France, but also by a signicant number of charter 
e-zine edition 48
by: Veronique Galvin
1
 
i ili illiiiiiiiiiiii illi iii ii i
 
ii lii iiilii iiill ii l ilii ii
Paris OrlyAmsterdam Schiphol
Trafc / European Rank 
26,4 million pax / 1047,8 million pax / 5
Network 
Regional: Europe/FranceWorldwide
Hub
Secondary Air France hubAfter Charles de GaulleairportFirst KLM hub
Airport authority & statusDistance from the Citycentre
ADP (Aéroports de Paris)Privatized in 200514km from ParisSchiphol Group, publicschareholders12km from Amsterdam
Regional Planning
Local governments andstate agencyLocal governments: re-gion and municipalities
Table 1:
 
Comparing two airport 
 
and low-cost airlines. Schiphol, on the other hand, specializesnot only in passengers, but is also a major freight and business
airport in Europe. With more and more low-cost companies y
-ing there, authorities are increasingly discussing the possibility
of moving charter ights to other regional airports. Furthermore,
when it comes to hub strategy, Amsterdam Schiphol and ParisOrly both compete with Paris Roissy Charles de Gaulle, home base of the Air France – KLM Group. Nevertheless, the two airports are located in similar environ-ments, each at a distance from their respective city’s downtownareas of approximately 13 kilometers. As a consequence, bothare confronted with land planning issues, as they are located inrather densely populated neighborhoods.Both cases happen to be interestingly dissimilar when it comesto planning competences around the airports: at Schiphol, theregional authority is the planning stakeholder, whereas at Orly, astate planning agency recently took hold of the planning compe-tence in the major strategic sites surrounding the airport.This article is an actor-oriented study on the main parties in-volved in land use planning. It analyses two different land de-velopment governance systems, each with the same objective:developing competitive economic hubs in their metro areas.
Governance Issues in Airport Regions
 From airport to airport cities
Main airports had to be built outside of cities because of theconsiderable amount of land they require, as well as having amajor impacton the environ-ment. However,in the 1990s,city planningstakeholdersnoticed thatairport regionswere becom-ing new urbancenters outsidethe cities, at-tracting major  business parksand facilities(“edge Cities”,as Joel Garreau(1991) calledthem). Orly andSchiphol air- ports, though,were never re- placed and thusstayed relatively central in the urban area, creating economic po-tential landside-wise, and environmental and social managementcomplexities airside-wise.Governments then started dealing with these opportunities andchallenges, in a context when cities were increasingly consider-ing the territories’ “competitiveness” in the international mar-ketplace. This is what Van Wijk (2007) calls “cityport” develop-ment. It has led to several major projects (such as the airport business parks around Frankfurt or Dallas Fort Worth) and con-cepts such as “airport cities” were developed (see Guller, 2001).
Coordination Prior to Land Development 
In a process involving many stakeholders, there has been an in-creasing need for cooperation and coherent development in theairport region, leading to the multiplication of stakeholders, andin particular, scale and status (Massadrier 2003). In this context,developing land requires a global agreement for growth before-hand, gathering actors in coalitions. When the idea of developinga new city centre around the airport is broadly shared by the ma- jor stakeholders, it becomes a growth coalition (Terhorst, 2005).
Coordination along the Land Development Process
Airport region development depends on many stakeholders dur-ing the entire process. First, the regulation/policy-making and
strategic land planning depends, by denition, mostly on state
ministries and local governments at different levels. The airportauthority, however, is usually in charge of planning within theinfrastructure’s borders. Next, the implementation phase (landdevelopment and facilities management) involves a variety of actors, ranging from private developers to municipal authoritiesor perhaps even airport authority agencies.Consequently, developing the airport region as a major centre in
the metro area (or “cityport”) also calls for efcient coordination
 between the different stakeholders during the process:
ñ
First, vertical coordination between different levels (national,regional, local), the structure of which usually depending on theextent of decentralization in the country.
ñ
Second, horizontal coordination between different actors ona same level (be it ministries, municipalities or local developers).
ñ
Third, public-privatecoordination.This variableis particularlystrategic in air- port region de-velopment. AsVan Wijk putsit, “govern-ments in coor-dinated marketeconomies areno longer thesingle dominantactors and theyincreasinglyshare taskswith marketactors” (VanWijk, 2007).Furthermore,new issues are brought forward as privatization of airport authorities tends tospread throughout Western countries.
Schiphol “Airport city”: A Strong and Decades-old GrowthCoalition
Schiphol airport has been one of the rst main airport regions
to develop as a major urban centre. It launched the concepts of “airport city” and, lately, “mainport”, in order to attract investors.Around Schiphol, coherent development is basically ensured by the existence of a strong agreement on growth, which gets
2
Map 1:
 
 Economic and urban development surrounding Schiphol Airport. Courtesy of Amsterdam Airport Area
 
all of the land development stakeholders together. Its size is of such magnitude that Terhorst (2005) writes about a “growth co-
alition”, a notion used by many American scientists to dene a
territorially based coalition that includes local public actors and business actors to promote urban growth:Several decades ago, the growth coalition faced an “anti-growth”group, consisting of municipalities and local associations, beforeurban growth became the key issue among stakeholders. As Ter-horst (2005) explains, the pro-growth group today brings togeth-er stakeholders in several circles: a central “sustainable” groupconsisting of those that are the most concerned with airport de-velopment (airport authority, ministries). Land development ac-tors, in the second circle, are also part of the coalition.
 A Coherent Public-Private Development 
Strengthened by the growth coalition, the airport region develop-
ment process is more importantly coordinated by several specic
 bodies.First, in the land planning process, two forums help local gov-ernments and the airport authority coordinate their policies, and
dene land development guidelines. The province of North-Hol
-land, strategic land planning actor in the Netherlands (it publish-es the referent strategic plan), sits on two forums as a strategiccoordination body:
ñ
An administration forum, the so-called BestuursforumSchiphol (BFS), consists of the main urban-planning actors’ platform in the airport region, chaired by the Province, alongwith municipalities of Amsterdam and Haarlemmermeer as itsmembers.
ñ
On a larger scale, an administrative coordination group, theso-called Bestuurlijke Regiegroep Schiphol (BRS), also includesneighboring regions and municipalities that have interests in theairport’s airside’s further development.Secondly, the public-private actors system is coordinated by twostrategic bodies during the entire development implementation(building, management) :
ñ
Schiphol Area Development Company (SADC), set up by theBFS’ actors, has a ma- jor role in coordinat-ing public guidelinesand private interestsin a coherent land-development process.Functioning as aneconomic develop-ment agency, it is alsoauthorized to build,develop and manageland; which it doesin about ten projectsaround the airport.
ñ
Amsterdam Air- port Area is a public- private associationwhose diverse mem- bers range from mu-nicipalities and portauthorities to develop-ment funds. It handlesmarketing and com-munication on a larger 
dened “airport city” scale.
In conclusion, coordination is ensured during the land develop-ment process, from strategy development to land developmentimplementation. This coherent development framework has ledto a substantial growth in the Schiphol region, from logistics and business areas to mixed urban projects. In 2007, AAA supervisedand carried out the international marketing activities of over 30territories located between the port of Amsterdam and the southof the municipality of Haarlemmermeer (in which Schiphol islocated).
Orly Region: from Bottom-up to Top-down Development
 A Recent Growth Coalition Based on Local Stakeholders
In the early 2000s, local authorities started to focus on the devel-opment opportunities around Orly airport. Using the favorable
opinions of satised market actors settled around the airport as
an argument, two main stakeholders, the Val-de-Marne Départe-ment (province) and its economic development agency (Agencede Développement du Val-de-Marne) emphasized the regionalimportance of Orly as a business area.
In 2005, a conference was held for the rst time, and has been
held annually ever since: the “assises d’Orly”. It was initiallyaimed at the creation of a broad vision of regional developmentaround the airport. The conference attracted private developers, but also local governments and the airport authority communica-tion board. This pro-growth group created a common vision of land and economic development around Orly. At the end of thesecond “assises” in 2006, a document with strategic guidelineswas drawn up (Départements du Val de Marne et de l’Essonne,2006).This marked a change in the planning stakeholders’ point of 
views. Three years after the rst conference, the Parisian Cham
- ber of Commerce (CCIP, 2006) and Ile-de-France region incor- porated Orly as a major regional hub into their studies and intothe major regional-planning document (Schéma Directeur Ré-gional d’Ile-de-France (SDRIF)). All in all, land planning andmarket actors managed to enlarge the growth coalition, which,until then, almost en-tirely focused on air issues - by introduc-ing business develop-ment guidelines.
Government, not Governance
At the beginning of 2007, developmentin the Orly-Rungisterritory became soimportant that it waseventually integratedinto two national projects, which wereoriginally limited tosmaller territories.These special proj-ects are carried out by the French land planning ministry interritories that haveoutstanding devel-
3
Map 2:
 
 Economic and urban development on Île-de-France. Source: Institut d’Aménage-ment et d’Urbanisme de la Région Ile de France

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->