This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Iván Tosics Metropolitan Research Institute, Budapest
City 2011 – city space management International conference Katowice, 16 May 2011
Structure of the presentation
1. Challenges for urban development 2. Government interventions: potential dangers 3. Towards an improved system of government interventions: innovative practices 4. Proposal for a new model of integrated territorial governance Background: Cities of Tomorrow project
Challenges for urban development
Cities face serious challenges:
– collapse of the normal functioning of the climate – growing problems with fossil fuels – difficult problems of ageing societies and of potential migrant flows, – sharp conflicts due to growing inequalities between social and ethnic strata and/or different areas.
These challenges have to be handled by improved and concerted government interventions.
Government interventions: potential dangers
Government interventions not always lead to the aimed results 1. often government failures occur – a more inefficient allocation of goods and resources than would occur without that intervention 2. the territorial system of government is often imperfect and unable to function properly 3. in growing number of cases the democracy deficit prevents governments from acting
1. Government failures: interventions with controversial outcomes
• Answersing the challenges one-by-one create controversial interactions: the easiest answer on any of the challenges usually makes things worse regarding the others. • The negative results are either environmental or social outcomes of the government actions or unintended consequences
– One-sided emphasis on economic efficiency might lead to threatening examples of “left behind” cities (e.g. Detroit, monoindustrial Russian cities). – Costly investments into CCS technologies or over-ambitious environmental aims might crowding out financial means for economic development and social inclusion. Zero-carbon new construction is many times more expensive than energy-saving through renewal of existing buildings. – Improving living conditions within ghettoes or building new social housing leads in many cases to the final exclusion of the poor groups from the mainstream society. Concentration on affordable policies might lead to richer people leaving the cities.
2. Outdated territorial administrative systems of government
• Outdated territorial systems: administrative boundaries do not express economic realities any more. In Europe we have to run the 21st century economy with 20th century governments and 19th century territorial boundaries • This is not only European problem: „America’s metropolitan areas can no longer afford the crazy quilt of tiny, fragmented governments that they have inherited from the 19th century. … The result is a fundamental mismatch between the real metro-scaled economy of innovative firms, risk-taking entrepreneurs and talented workers and the inefficient administrative geopgraphy of government.” Katz, 2010
CITIES (million) London Berlin Madrid Rome Paris Bucharest Budapest Warsaw Vienna Barcelona Milan Prague Lisbon Manchester Liverpool Bratislava Katowice Lille
Admin city 7,43 3,44 3,26 2,55 2,18 1,93 1,70 1,69 1,60 1,58 1,30 1,17 0,53 0,44 0,44 0,43 0,32 0,23
MUA 8,27 3,78 4,96 2,53 9,59 2,06 2,12 2,00 1,67 3,66 3,70 1,18 2,32 2,21 1,17 0,44 2,28 0,95
MUA/city 1,1 1,1 1,5 1,0 4,4 1,1 1,2 1,2 1,0 2,3 2,8 1,0 4,4 5,0 2,7 1,0 7,1 4,1
FUA 13,71 4,02 5,26 3,19 11,18 2,06 2,52 2,79 2,58 4,25 4,09 1,67 2,59 2,56 2,24 0,71 3,03 2,59
FUA/city 1,8 1,2 1,6 1,3 5,1 1,1 1,5 1,7 1,6 2,7 3,1 1,4 4,9 5,8 5,1 1,7 9,5 11,3
Negative effects of fragmented local government systems
• sustainable cities, if dealing with environmental problems only for the territory of the city, put the unwanted materials (garbage, etc.) and the NIMBY (‘Not In My Back Yard’) functions outside the city border • tax competition between local governments of the same urban area, leading to sub-optimal allocation of firms • conflicts betwen rich suburbs (collecting the taxes of their high income residents) and less rich central cities
– suburbanites as free-riders using subsidized public services without fully contributing to their costs – socio-spatial segregation, not running in richer settlements services for the poor
• municipalities on the border of larger administrative units: special difficulties of cross-regional and cross-border cooperation
3. Democracy deficit
• ’post-democracy’, Colin Crouch (2004): the growing complexity of political decisions and the rising power of globalized private firms lead to a situation in which politics seems to be subordinated to economic interests • democratic elections seem to lose importance: no matter, who will be elected, policies will approximately be the same • citizens are pushed into a more and more passive role – the ’riot’ cases of the last years show that local residents are increasingly dissatisfied with (local) politics • new economic view on the relation between equity and efficiency: more equality between social groups may result in economic growth, because of increase of economic output and also due to the benefits from more stability and less social conflict
Towards an improved system of government interventions
• • • Government interventions have to avoid government failures (sectoral inefficiency), territorial malfunctioning (due to fragmentation) and democracy deficit Integrated approach is needed, on a broader territorial base, involving all affected stakeholders The integration of the different goals can best be assured on functional urban area level (metropolitan areas, city-regions, rural-urban regions) where economic, environmental and social challenges can best be addressed at once Integrated governance and planning for functional urban regions is needed, allocating new developments and managing the existing with regard to sprawl, traffic congestion, exclusion of migrant and minority groups
Innovative practices to improve sectoral and territorial governance in urban areas
A) Formal, fixed boundary metropolitan governance • The French ‘urban communities’ B) Informal, flexible methods of governance • The German Metropolitan Regions C) Strategic spatial planning as major governance tool • The Romanian Growth Pole method D) Socially creative strategies • The Hungarian Integrated Urban Development Plans
A) Formal, fixed boundary metropolitan governance: the French ‘urban communities’
• Ccreated by the French Parliament in 1966 as compulsory settlement associations for the metropolitan areas of Bordeaux, Lille, Lyon and Strasboug. • 1999: new legislation aiming for voluntary associations in functional urban areas • 16 urban communities in France with a combined population of 7,5 million inhabitants. All urban areas in France over half million inhabitants are urban communities, except for Paris. • Purpose: to achieve cooperation and joint administration between large cities and their independent suburbs. • The urban communities successfully unite the morphological areas but usually do not cover the whole functional urban areas.
Top‐down created cooperation
• On the level of the urban community a Council is formed, with delegated members from all municipalities (Lille 85, Lyon: 55). The council makes decisions and some important functions (planning, transport, housing) are compulsorily transfered to that level. • Some years ago the local business tax has been equalized by law among settlements. • As a step towards indirect democracy (democratizing the delegated system), communal councillors will be identified on the basis of direct elections, as people during normal elections have to identify which one candidate they want to see as representing the municipality in the urban community.
Formal governance solution: further examples
Municipal amalgamations in Scandinavian countries • Structural reforms in Denmark (2007): the number of municipalities decreased from 275 to 98, while their average size increased from 19.500 to 56.500. The changes were even more drastic in Greenland, while a more modest and gradual change is taking place in Iceland, Finland and Faroe Islands. • Danish national reform: top‐down initiative with some flexibility. General principles about the size and number of new municipalities given by the central level and some time was allowed for the local settlements to come to an agreement how to amalgamate – if this did not happen, the changes were executed by the central level. • The increased efficiency of public welfare services was valued higher than the loss in direct democracy.
B) Informal, flexible methods of governance: the German Metropolitan Regions
• Applications approved by the „Ministerkonferenz für Raumordnung” • Aim: to enhance economic development of urban areas around large cities towards better European competitiveness • Method: more integrated development in order to answer the globalization, climate and demographic challenges • From 1997 first 7 regions, since 2005 the number increased to 11 approved regions
Functions of metropolitan regions
• Decision‐making and control function, refering to the spatial concentration of political and economic centres, in which financial and information flows are being controlled. • Innovation and competition function: high density of scientific as well as research and development facilities and the presence of creative milieus. • Gateway function: good accessibility from international locations and multiple options for ‘face‐to‐face contacts’. High quality traffic infrastructure network.
Flexibility and bottom‐up character of metropolitan regions
• Metropolitan regions have to be understood as regional alliances with common responsibilities. • Spatial boundaries of metropolitan regions can only be decided by its basic participants, i.e. local authorities and regional players. Only the common will of all municipalities within the metropolitan region to co‐operate can result in stronger regional self‐government. • German metropolitan regions form an informal working association (Initiativkreis Europäische Metropolregionen in Deutschland), which has regular meetings and works also in six thematic groups. • The ’governance’ working group reports about a wide vatiety of governance solution across the 11 regions, from task‐ oriented associations till looser cross‐border cooperation.
Evaluation of metropolitan regions
• Competition betwen the German metropolitan regions and the administrative Länder exists but is not decisive, as most of the metropolitan regions are far in size of the administrative Länder and will never approach their political power. • German metropolitan regions are much larger and much more oriented towards win‐win type cooperations than the French compulsory urban communities. • German metropolitan regions are weak in political sense, do not address everyday problems and are not linked to the people of the area. They contribute to the further development of already developed areas. • Even so, they fulfil important role in marketing, solving traffic problems and increasing scientific‐economic links.
Informal, flexible methods of governance: further examples
Katowice: bottom‐up city‐region building • Metropolitan Association of Upper Silesia has been established, concentrating Katowice and 13 other cities • Voluntary association, assembly, board Eindhoven knowledge region • One of the voluntary regional associations allowed by the Dutch law. These regions have statutory policy competences, such as economic development, transport and environment (and previously also spatial planning). • Eindhoven city‐region: 21 municipalities decided voluntarily also to create a joint fund to strengthen the economic structure of the area. Brainport Foundation, leading also to cross‐border strategic cooperation with knowledge‐based industries in Belgium, Germany and France.
C) Strategic spatial planning as main governance tool: the Romanian Growth Pole method
REGIONAL OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME OF ROMANIA 2007‐2013 “Support to sustainable development of urban growth poles” Allocated funds: 1.4 bill. Euro (30% of ROP financial allocation) Objective: to increase the quality of life and to create new jobs in cities Key area of intervention: Integrated Urban Development Plans implemented through projects addressing the following issues: • Rehabilitation of the urban infrastructure and improvement of urban services, including urban transport; • Development of sustainable business environment; • Rehabilitation of social infrastructure, including social housing and improvement of social services.
“Support to sustainable development of urban growth poles”
Three types of urban growth poles identified: Growth poles - 7 large urban centers and their hinterland, designated by the Government: Iasi, Constanţa, Ploieşti, Craiova, Timişoara, Cluj-Napoca, Braşov; Urban development poles – 13 cities, designated by Government Decision: Suceava, Bacău, Brăila, Galaţi, Piteşti, Râmnicu Vâlcea, Arad, Deva, Satu Mare, Baia Mare, Oradea, Sibiu and Târgu Mureş; Urban centers - towns over 10.000 inhabitants, other than growth poles and urban development poles.
Growth poles ‐ implementation arrangements
Seven coordinators, one for each growth pole; Association for Intercommunity Development (AID) created for each growth pole; it comprises the city identified as urban core of the growth pole and territorial administrative units in its hinterland (towns, communes). County Councils may also be members of this Association; Establishes the geographical area of the growth pole; Ensures the setting up of the technical team(s) of experts at the level of the growth pole, having the task to elaborate, monitor and implement the Integrated Urban Development Plan; Sets up the decision-making mechanism for the growth pole; Agrees the Integrated Development Plan, including an action plan containing a list of projects set up by AIDs;
Finanţarea polilor de creştere
Identificare Aria de influenţă urbană
Elaborare Plan integrat
STRUCTURI DE AFACERI
Elaborare Proiecte Individuale
Polul de creştere Timişoara ‐ componenţa
GROWTH POLE TIMISOARA
- BASIC DATA o
Population: 380.000 inhabitants(100%)
- core city: 330.000 inhabitants (87%) - influence area: 50.000 inhabitants (13%)
108.000 ha (100%)
- core city: 13.000 ha (12%) - influence area: 95.000 ha (88%)
Economic turnover (2003-2006):
- core city: - influence area: 91,4% 8,6%
Strategic spatial planning: further examples
The Hague Region: integrated planning • Regional Structure Plan of The Hague Region, aiming for open, green, accessible and high quality peri‐urban spaces in the whole of the daily urban system area around the city. • The Plan stimulates for a joint steering of area development and for a joint policy implementation. Specific platforms are established as alliances between government bodies, community based organizations, private partners. Montpellier: SCOT planning system • Plan of the urban community, subordinating all the development activities of 31 settlements to the forward looking strategic plan, taking all aspects of integrated development (especially public transport) into account.
D) Socially creative strategies Hungarian Integrated Urban Development Plans
Hungarian ROP 2007‐2013 – the IUDS is compulsory requirement for all larger cities • Based on long‐term goals (for 15‐20 years, with outlook for the city‐region) • The IUDS is a medium term (7‐8 years) strategic document for the city, with sectoral and territorial aims, oriented to implementation • Necessary to revise every 3‐5 years • To be discussed and approved by a resolution of the municipal assembly to ensure legitimacy
Chapters of the IUDS
1. Analysis (the city in the settlement network, the inner structure of the city, economy, society, environment, public services, experience gained in respect of the developments of the previous period, segregation analysis) 2. Strategy • The vision of the city • Development objectives for the city and city districts • Interventions - designation of action areas • Sustainability aspects: horizontal program for the environment and antisegregation program • External and internal correlation of the strategy • Major risks in implementing the strategy 3. Implementation tools • Municipal activities of non-investment nature to achieve the objective • Organisational requirements related to the implementation • Mechanism for inter-settlement coordination • Elaboration of the real estate management concept • Partnership and monitoring
Assignment of action areas
• Indicative assignment of action areas, including SF supported 1) Function-enhancing urban rehabilitation (extension of the functions of city centres or sub-centres) and 2) Social urban regeneration of deteriorated urban areas • Detailed plans for the realistically do-able programs
– – – – Budget Assessment of resources Priorization Alternative scenarios
• The ROP allocates fixed amount of money for larger cities. The projects of the city are only approved if the IUDS is approved by the city and the anti-segregation plan counter-signed by an independent social mentor
Anti-segregation plan (horizontal)
Status assessment (included in the IUDS): • Delimitation of segregated areas and areas threatened by deterioration and segregation (indicators) • Status assessment of the delimited areas • Assessment of the segregational impacts of envisaged developments and individual sectoral policies Anti-segregation programmes (interventions) • Defines a vision for the degraded area whether it will be eliminated or will be integrated into the urban fabric by way of rehabilitation, determines the main directions of interventions • Objectives: decrease the degree of segregation and avoid the increase of it somewhere else as a result of interventions • Complex system of tools: housing, education, social care, health care (soft programmes) • Mobilisation programme: elaboration of guidelines
Socially creative strategies: further examples
Berlin: extending the neighbourhood programme (Soziale Stadt) • first 10, later 34 areas of interventions were selected. In these districts with special development needs 390 th inhabitants were living who got decisive role in the spending of the dedicated financial means. • new experiment: how to modernize the Soziale Stadt approach, how to apply the lessons learnt in the deprived areas to the case of the whole of the city, how can the task be re-organized between the different levels of districts-city-national ministries? • new perspective: the target-group specific scope is extended to include territorial reference with a focus on the social situation. This should lead to the expansion of the neighborhood approach, beyond the most deprived areas. The aim is to achieve much closer relationship with the residents and between the districts and the Senat level.
Summary of innovative solutions
• The French Urban Communities: to assign functional area for compulsory cooperation • The German Metropolitan Regions: to launch additional, ‘weak’ level for win-win economic cooperation • The Romanian Growth Pole method: to delimit metropolitan area in which integrated planning is required • The Hungarian Integrated Urban Development Plans: to include social aspect into integrated planning
Proposal for a new model of integrated territorial governance
• It is not the artificially bordered cities but the metropolitan areas (FUA-s) where integration of the different policies (which all have several externalities) can best be achieved. On the other hand, some of the socially creative strategies work the best in small neighbourhoods. Metropolitan areas and neighbourhoods are functional levels where usually no elected governments exist. • To create new administrative institutions on these functional levels would be difficult and these functional areas change in time anyway. • Functional geographies (metropolitan areas, neighbourhoods) should be kept as flexible levels, where creative governance, strategic spatial planning and socially creative strategies are performed in less formal ways.
Claude JACQUIER: a new model for multi-level governance of functional urban areas, with links to administrative units
Until now Now Then
Polarized Spaces "Hardware" Policies Transition
Homogeneous spaces "Software" Policies
Sustainable Urban Development
Integrated Policies as operators for transition
Social Cohesion Policy SDEC, INTERREG CIP URBAN, URBACT
Transborder Regions National Regions
Regional Politicies DOCUP OP Interreg
(Big Cities programme Politique de la ville, Soziale Stadt, ...) CIP Urban
Functional and administrative levels
• The functional area logic does not substitute the fixed area governments logic. These two hierarchies can and should exist at the same time as they have different tasks and legitimations. • As the entities of the functional logic do not turn into fully institutionalized forms, they have better chances to get accepted by the administrative levels. • On the new functional levels the capacities for integrated planning and monitoring can be developed and the more open, participatory governance processes can be applied. • One basic question remains: how can it be assured that the plans, ideas developed in creative ways on the new functional levels get finally officially, formally accepted by the existing administrative structures?
National and EU tasks to do
• To create the double hierarchy of administrative and functional levels and organize their interrelations is national and European interest at the same time. • The modernisation of the administrative-functional governance systems is the task of the national governments (as conditions vary across Europe). • However, they have to be supported from the European level. This can happen in different forms:
– modifying existing EU policies and regulations to involve the logic of functional governance levels – create separate financial mechanisms to initiate the development of integrated models – to support exchange of experiences and good practices
Options for the post-2013 EU regulation for integrated urban planning
1.Option: EU Integrated Territorial Development Framework Directive 2.Option: EU Integrated Territorial Development Conditionality 3.Option: EU Integrated Territorial Development Community Initiative 4.Option: Open Method of Coordination for Integrated Territorial Development in Functional Regions 5.Option: EU Reference Framework for Integrated Territorial Development in Functional Regions
Thanks for your attention! firstname.lastname@example.org
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.