THE EVOLUTION OF URBAN

FUNCTIONAL SPACE – SOUTH

AFRICA AND INDIA
Herman Geyer*, Prof. Debnath Mookherjee**,
Prof. Manie Geyer*
*CRUISE Centre, Stellenbosch University
**Western Washington University
 OVERVIEW
• The previous presentation at the Canterbury IGU dealt with
the National Capital Region of Delhi as a Polycentric Urban
Region (PUR)
• This presentation links with the previous presentation by
further exploring the centricity continuum from monocentric
cities to PURs
• When is a city a city and when is it a Urban Region? What
are the functional and morphological boundaries?
• Clark (1967): ‘urbanisation is the macro-location of industry
and populations tending towards ever-increasing
concentrations in a limited number of areas while their
micro-location tends towards an increasing diffusion, or
sprawl.’
URBAN CONCENTRATION -
DIFFUSION
 DAILY/WEEKLY URBAN SYSTEMS
• Previous presentation explored the linkage between cities
and PURs
• A logical progression: monocentric cities – multinodal cities
- polycentric cities – PUR
• The above share functions & morphology but the scale
differs
• However the difference between the city and the region can
be defined through rates of interaction
• Cities have daily interaction, regions have regular (weekly)
interaction
• Traditionally, only urban locations that share the same core
in daily commute/ serve as dormitory areas and are
contiguous are regarded as cities
FUNCTIONAL AND MORPHOLOGICAL
SPACE
• However contiguity not essential, because green belts often
outcome of containment policy distortions, and many
residents outside green belts commute daily to the city
• Weekly urban centres consist of satellite cities within the
urban hierarchy of a PUR but don’t have a daily urban
commute to PUR cores, yet still some functional linkage
• Satellite cities – regional aspect cannot be regarded as part
of the polycentric city
• But satellite cities still derive benefits from proximity to PUR
core – forms part of the PUR urban hierarchy
• Cities must therefore be defined according to functional
space, not morphological definitions
• Yet the boundaries between daily/weekly functions is fuzzy
 ADMINISTRATIVE CITIES
• Urban development is responsive to natural population
movements and cannot be artificially contained or
dispersed
• The administrative boundaries of local authorities are often
not responsive to these natural settlement pressures
• In the NCR, populations naturally agglomerate at the core
despite policy attempts to disperse populations
• Whereas Delhi’s population are agglomerating, Gauteng’s
population are concentrating at the periphery, despite
containment policy to the contrary
• Recent analysis of Gauteng metropolis comes to the same
conclusions: that the functional and morphological city
extends beyond the limits of administrative barriers
 GAUTENG INTRODUCTION
• Gauteng is a province containing the metropolitan cities of
Johannesburg and Pretoria, together with numerous edge
and satellite cities along the urban periphery.
• Gauteng forms the largest PUR in Africa with a population
of 11.3 million and is the largest economic centre in Africa
GDP $811 Billion (10% of African GDP)
• The three metropolitan municipalities Tshwane, Joburg and
Ekurhuleni, and nine peripheral municipalities in three
district municipalities
• All have a well defined urban edge policies and numerous
municipal and provincial plans to encourage urban
containment, however urban containment limited by sprawl
in adjacent municipalities
 GAUTENG DECONCENTRATION
• Natural population movements are away from core to
the periphery, despite containment policies
o Path dependency – cannot rebuild low density settlements
o Existing communities – social and territorial embeddedness
o White flight to the periphery – Gated housing at edge
o Informal settlements at the periphery – deferred urbanisation
o Low friction of distance – Rents decline faster from centre
than transportation costs increase
• Containment polices ignored by National Housing
National dept. has priority over provincial dept.
• Containment is also ignored by informal settlements –
legal settlement entitlements without ownership
 GAUTENG OVERVIEW

Bertraud 2004
 DELHI NCR INTRODUCTION
• Delhi NCR is a Metropolis which developed at the
confluence of three different states: Uttar Pradesh, Haryana
and Rajasthan
• Delhi experienced high post-colonial growth rates – anti-
thesis to India’s principle of balanced urban/rural
development
• The Delhi NCR was established as an inter-statal
cooperation in 1988 – power devolution
• States created an cooperative policy framework to diffuse
population from the core to the periphery
• Primary focus was to halt city growth at the cost of the
periphery and redistributing wealth spatially and to develop
a polycentric region- with strong corridors and nodes
• Periphery is seen as space for new economic opportunities
DELHI NCR CONCENTRATION
• Despite diffusion policies Delhi and its subcentres
Faridabad, Noida, and Gurgaon are continuing to grow at
higher rates than satellite cities Ghaziabad and Sonipat
• Indicates that natural population agglomeration, with the
highest population growth in the centres closest to Delhi
• Daily subcentres (+-10km radius) grew at an average of
104% while weekly satellite cities (10-20km radius) grew at
an average of 64% between 1991 and 2001
• Morphologically Delhi has developed as a multinodal city
with a high level of integration characteristic of monocentric
cities
• Functionally the region might become an integrated PUR in
future – provided infrastructure growth can be implemented
to encourage commuting and networking from distant areas
CONCLUSION – SOUTH AFRICA
• Official delimitations of local authorities often limit
rather than promote growth in PUR – no policy
alignment – fractured city development
• Individual rational, group irrational
• Although municipalities prioritise containment, the
natural population movement is towards the periphery
• The natural movement over space is capacitated by
multiple municipalities which enable populations to
disperse to the region of choice
• However the municipalities still form part of the same
PUR, and thus functionally forms one city
• Rationale of New Regionalism – make administrative
space and functional space the same
 CONCLUSION – INDIA
• NCR provides a unique model for intra-regional development
where the disparate planning functions of different
administrative local authorities are integrated
• Delhi uses an integrated planning approach following New
Regionalist perspectives on PUR in developing countries
• Delhi does not form a true PUR because the functional
linkage between the core and the periphery has not been
established
• Rather it functions as a multinodal city, with high rates of
agglomeration
• Natural population movements predominantly to the core at
the cost of the periphery – Incentive for infrastructure
investment