The POLYCE ProjectIdea, Targets, Outcomes

Metropolitan Development in Central EuropeJune 01, 2012Vienna UT, Wien

Rudolf Giffinger, Ludek Sykora, Nataša Pichler-Milanovič

IDEA & TARGETSRudolf Giffinger

The research group

City partners

Lead Stakeholder: City of WienDepartment of Urban Development and Planning

City of BratislavaDepartment for Spatial Systems Coordination

City of LjubljanaDepartment of Spatial Planning

City of PrahaCity Development Authority

City of BudapestStudio Metropolitana Nonprofit Ltd.

ObjectivesPractical knowledge

• Polycentric situation in the Danube Region• Governance initiatives• Metropolitan strategies

Relation between metropolisation and polycentric development• Definition of concepts• Influence on urban growth and positioning• Impact on competitiveness and inclusion

Recommendations for future urban development• For the 5 metropolises & within Central Europe• Strengths and weaknesses as urban preconditions (metropolitan profiles)• Most relevant activities (stakeholder discussion)• Recommendations for competitive and inclusive development within and

between metropolises• First recommendations for the wider Danube Region

Quantitative analyses of territorial developmentElaborating enhanced polycentric development• Definition and delimitation of spatial model of 5

metropolises• 2 dimensions: morphological and relational• 3 levels: micro, meso, macro

Modelling urban size and metropolisation• Cost & benefit functions regarding size (sample: 59

metropolises)

Comparative identifying metropolitan profiles• Characteristics describing 5 fields of urban

development (sample: 50 metropolises, incl. POLYCE cities)

Qualitative analyses of territorial developmentInterviews with relevant actors• Assessment of urban development trends• Perspectives for future developments• Meaning of cooperative initiatives for metropolitan

development

5 workshops: discussion and expertise on thematic fields• Elaboration of perspectives (thematic fields) with

most important activities • Elaboration of Metropolitan Agenda

Comparison of Metropolitan Agendas and Planning Documents• Common activities• Programmes and documents supporting cooperative

activities

What do stakeholdershave in mind?

Policy relevance

Polycentricity

Inclusion

Competitiveness

SmartMetropolitanDevelopment

Technological Innovations

EconomicRestructuring Sociodemographic

Processes

Governance

Metropolisation

Evidence and place-based approachà strengthening territorial cohesion through polycentric developmentà coordination of activities regarding competitiveness & inclusion

POLYCENTRICITYLudek Sykora

The concept of polycentricityPolycentric 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

POLYCE metropolitan areas

POLYCE Cities and their Functional Metropolitan Areas and Metropolitan Regions

POLYCE metropolitan areasIndicators Vienna Prague Budapest Bratislava Ljubljana

Population CC 1 550 123 1 169 106 1 777 921 442 291 256 881

Population FMA 2 227 580 1 391 579 2 545 841 655 674 456 915

Population MR 2 900 846 2 291 579 3 208 658 1 337 586 650 119

Jobs CC 821 458 746 427 856 193 317 322 178 020

Jobs FMA 1 060 921 837 017 1 051 127 403 309 230 135

Jobs MR 1 306 051 1 230 856 1 231 143 733 496 299 037

No of FMA municipalities 220 236 109 100 24

No of MR municipalities 507 1149 284 372 35

No of FMA centers 20 20 47 19 14

No of MR centers 26 27 26 18 15

area CC 415 496 525 368 275

area FMA 6 490 2 104 3 479 2 385 2 206

area MR 14 625 11 510 10 291 7 082 4 014

Polycentric urban systems compared Ireciprocal flows (%)

ViennaFMA 58,76

MR 59,40

Prague FMA 42,81

MR 36,80

Budapest FMA 37,12

MR 35,76

Bratislava FMA 11,69

MR 23,72

Ljubljana FMA 30,76

MR 35,85

43 / 37 % 37 / 36 %

12 / 24 %31 / 36 %

59 / 59 %

Polycentric urban systems compared II

Relational polycentricity: research networks

• Central role of Wien• Strong triangle of cooperation:

Wien, Budapest, Praha• Strongest relation: Wien -

Budapest• Weakest relations: Bratislava-

Praha, Bratislava-Ljubljana• Comparably important role of

Ljubljana (according to size)• Wien more outward oriented

(stronger integration in Western European research networks)

Relational polycentricity: firm networks

• Strong triangle of cooperation: Wien, Budapest, Praha

• Strongest relation: Praha-Budapest

• Comparably important role of Bratislava (according to size)

• Ljubljana as the remote outpost of the region (more connected to Mediterranian and Balkans)

• Higher-ranked locations rather situated in Vienna than in Prague and Budapest

Relational polycentricity: web search intensity

POSITION IN EUROPE• national command and control

centers • gateways• Vienna and Budapest: ambitions to

play the role of a supranational center• Vienna, Prague and Budapest:

competitors for business investments • Vienna-Bratislava as an important core

of CED-region

INTERNAL ORGANIZATION• weak national spatial planning with

little attention to capital city regions• core cities and their regions are

separated under different jurisdictions• lack of coordinated spatial planning at

metropoliotan level• lack of regional coordination

Polycentricity in policy and planning

Metropolitan Growth and ProfilesNataša Pichler-Milanovič

The concept of metropolisation

20

• 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

21

Wien

Graz

Linz

Liège

Sofia

Praha

Berlin

Hamburg

MünchenFrankfurt am Main Stuttgart

Dresden

BremenHannover

MagdeburgFreiburg im Breisgau

Regensburg

Erfurt

Copenhagen

Tallinn

Madrid

Barcelona

ValenciaSevilla

Zaragoza

Helsinki

Paris

Lyon

Toulouse

Bordeaux

Athina

Budapest

RomaMilano

Napoli

Torino

GenovaFirenzeBologna

Vilnius

Riga

Amsterdam

Rotterdam

Utrecht

Groningen

Warszawa

Lodz

Wroclaw

Szczecin

Lisboa

Porto

Bucuresti

Stockholm

Ljubljana

Bratislava

London

Glasgow

EdinburghBelfast

y = 0.9997x + 0.0048R² = 0.7412

12.00

12.50

13.00

13.50

14.00

14.50

15.00

15.50

16.00

16.50

12.00 12.50 13.00 13.50 14.00 14.50 15.00 15.50 16.00

Log

real

pop

ulat

ion

Log predicted population

Database:

- 59 LUZ (Larger Urban Zone / Urban Audit)

-12 indicators (ESPON FOCI, UA, CORDIS, etc.)

Measuring the relationship between urban size with urban costs and benefits of European citiesDatabase &General findings througheconometric analysis

Urban size and metropolisation: findings

22

Positive impact on European agglomerations• Metropolitan power functions• Micro-level polycentricity

Results for POLYCE metropolisesPreconditions indicating chancesand risks for future growth

• Bratislava, Ljubljana: potential for further urban growth

• Budapest, Wien, Praha: Metropolitan functions < urban size

Metropolitan profiles

23

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 have a potential 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 à 25 factors à 5 key characteristics

Metropolitan profiles: factors and characteristics

24

ECONOMY PEOPLE

Economic Performance

Entrepreneurship

Knowledge-based Economy

Labor market

R&D Funding

International Embeddedness

Structural Disparities

Demography

Education

Ethnic Diversity

MOBILITY ENVIRONMENT

Public transport

Commuting

International Accessibility

Availability of ICT

Land Use

Environmental Conditions

Pollution

Resource Consumption

Environmental Quality

LIVING

Cultural facilities

Health facilities

Housing

Safety

Touristic Attractivity

Urban Services

Profiles of 50 metropolises in Europe

25

26

Profiles of 5 POLYCE metropolises

-0,8

-0,6

-0,4

-0,2

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

BRATISLAVA BUDAPEST LJUBLJANA PRAHA WIEN

Profiles of the 5 POLYCE Metropolises

Economy People Mobility Environment Living

-1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5

Economic Performance

Entrepreneurship

Knowledge-based Economy

Labor Market

R&D Funding

Internationl Embeddedness

Structural Disparities

Demography

Education

Ethnic Diversity

Public transport

Commuting

International Accessibility

Availability of ICT

Land Use

Environmental Conditions

Pollution

Resource Consumption

Environmental Quality

Cultural Facilities

Health Facilities

Housing

Touristic Attractivity

Safety

Urban Services

Metropolitan Area Wien

Note:

Economy People Mobility Environment Living

27

Main results• Top metropolitan profiles: Amsterdam, Munich, Stockholm…..• processes of urbanization, economic restructuring, socio‐demographic change

and metropolisation have different impacts on the metropolitan level;• heterogeneous metropolitan profiles and differences between cities: high ranked

cities have not only high economic performance but others as well;

Results for POLYCE metropolises• Vienna is ranked within the top-50 MEGA as a role model (Central) European

metropolis;• There are also differences - with some similarities - between POLYCE

metropolitan profiles: (i) Vienna / Prague, (ii) Bratislava / Ljubljana, (iii) Budapest;• High quality of living characterises (more or less) all of them;• There is a clear specialisation in other fields of metropolitan development,

indicating specific assets for city positioning and future strategic endeavors.

Metropolitan profiles: results

Conclusions and RecommendationsRudolf Giffinger

Conclusions

Evidence- and place-based metropolitan agenda• Metropolitan positioning and cohesive territorial development• Activities assessed in competitive or inclusive character• Combination of recommendations based on strengths and weaknesses

Strategic endeavors for polycentric development in the CED-zone as part of the Danube Region• Most important strategic activities in front of general findings and stakeholders’

perception

Polycentricity – its differentiated understanding and importance for cohesive metropolitan developmentà functional polycentric relations on the meso level between

metropolises (in terms of research and firm relations) differ stronglyacross cities

à from stakeholders’ perspective: cities consider polycentric developmentthrough their function and position in different ways:

• Vienna and Bratislava are seen in a clear twin-city-situation• stakeholders in Praha, Ljubljana and Budapest see the position of their

metropolis in a specific geographic context

à Lack of strong common polycentric vision and activities between all five metropolises

• infrastructure-based accessibility between them is rather unequallydeveloped

Conclusions

Metropolitan growth and its preconditions

à Metropolises show clear different polycentric preconditions in morphological and functional terms

à Metropolitan power functions and polycentricity have• a positive impact on demographic growth of metropolitan areas, • trends of sprawl are identified to have a negative impact

à Less developed polycentric structures in the metropolitan regions ofBudapest, Praha and Wien go along with findings on urban sprawl as a risk and potential cost factor.

à a lack of polycentric development will negatively influence furtherdemographic or economic growth

Conclusions

Metropolitan profiles indicating challenges and chances of smart metropolitan development

à differences between metropolitan profiles are observable – also between the fivePOLYCE metropolises.

à differences indicate• (1) that processes of urbanization, economic restructuring, socio-demographic change

and metropolisation are having different impacts on the metropolitan level and• that (2) a high quality of living characterizes all of them

à there is a clear specialization in distinct fields of metropolitan development

à Profiles and stakeholder discussion are indicating specific assets for positioningand future strategic endeavors

Conclusions

… supporting smart metropolitan development

à Based on the new definition and delimitation of the corresponding metropolitan area and metropolitan region

Empirical study for the five cases showed that

Recommendations for 5 metropolises

• morphological and functional polycentricityhave to be considered

• there was no adequate approach defined which was either accepted from an analytical or a strategic point of view

• spatial development shows different conditions but similar challenges (urban sprawl, accessibility, land use)

… supporting smart metropolitan development

à enforce and rely on cooperation of different stakeholders (including researchers) within metropolitan regions

Recommendations for 5 metropolises

• Cooperative activities should be enforced on urban-regional level (between cities of metropolitan region) meeting the challenges of urban sprawl and traffic congestion and identifying a common vision

• Collaboration for assessing recent assets and challenges are insufficient from respective analytical and socio-political perspectives

-0,8

-0,6

-0,4

-0,2

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

BRATISLAVA BUDAPEST LJUBLJANA PRAHA WIEN

Profiles of the 5 POLYCE Metropolises

Economy People Mobility Environment Living

• Activities steering competitive and inclusive development are not comprehensively discussed

• Strengths and weaknesses of (non-)cohesive development are not yet assessed• Up to now there is no discussion between metropolises (besides Bratislava - Wien)

• regarding their role and common meaning in the Danube Region• regarding improvements of the public transport system

• The 5 metropolises need an evidence- and place-based strategy, tailored to their specific conditions of growth and assets

… supporting smart metropolitandevelopmentà aim at a mix of strategic endeavors

(agenda) steering the process of competitive and/or inclusive development in front of metropolitan profiles

Recommendations for 5 metropolises

Recommendations from CE to Danube Region

… strengthening the urban/metropolitan system in CE (DanubeRegion)àCreate a basic common vision and common activities regarding the role of the

five metropolises for better positioning and lobbying

• Information exchange and support of bilateral strategic activities

• Metropolises should activate and enforce their links to other medium sized cities for strengthening the city network in Central Europe

• Common lobbying for European metropolitan politics based on

• new delimitations• a re-definition of programme areas in the

forthcoming financing period

• In front of missing polycentric development: • cities have different preconditions and challenges• cities should start to organize meetings (workshops,

small conferences) of interested metropolises

… strengthening the urban/metropolitan system in CE (DanubeRegion)

àImprove and enforce relational capital between stakeholders through improved conditions of cooperation

Recommendations from CE to Danube Region

… strengthening the urban/metropolitan system in CE (DanubeRegion)

àInclude other metropolises in the Danube region into cooperative activities of the five metropolises

• 5 CE 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:• fields of activities like capacity building, transportation networks

Recommendations from CE to Danube Region

Many Thanks for Your Attention

Further informationhttp://www.interact-eu.net/danube_region_projects/polyce/327/5491http://www.espon.eu/main/Menu_Projects/Menu_TargetedAnalyses/polyce.htmlhttp://www.polyce.eu/