best-konferansen 2014 - greg clark, the business of cities ltd

Oslo Metropolitan Region

Greg Clark

February 2014

Overview

Oslo today and tomorrow Why metropolis? How metropolis?

© The Business of Cities Ltd 2014

2010 metropolitan populaCon:


2050 metropolitan populaCon:


>$25bill

$10-25bill $4-10bill

6

PARIS

NEW YORK TOKYO

LONDON

Seoul

Hong Kong

Singapore

San Francisco San Jose

Los Angeles Washington DC

Sydney

Melbourne

Shanghai

Beijing

Moscow Stockholm

Hamburg Berlin Frankfurt Munich

Calgary Toronto

Boston

Houston Taipei

Chicago

Where is the money going? Top 30 ciCes for direct commercial real estate investment 2010 – 2011

Source: Jones Lang LaSalle

Rio de Janeiro

San Diego

Oslo


Oslo’s peers: 25 High quality of life (HQoL) ciCes

•  Adelaide •  Amsterdam •  Auckland •  Barcelona •  Berlin •  Boston •  Brisbane •  Calgary •  Cape Town •  Copenhagen •  Frankfurt •  Melbourne •  Munich

•  OSLO •  Perth •  San Diego •  SeaBle •  Singapore •  Stockholm •  Sydney •  Tel Aviv •  Toronto •  Vancouver •  Vienna •  Zurich

Another group of peers?

Aberdeen Abu Dhabi Brisbane Calgary Houston Hmmmmmm?


Another group of peers?

Stockholm Copenhagen Helsinki Really ??????????


Oslo’s peers: 25 High quality of life (HQoL) ciCes

•  Adelaide •  Amsterdam •  Auckland •  Barcelona •  Berlin •  Boston •  Brisbane •  Calgary •  Cape Town •  Copenhagen •  Frankfurt •  Melbourne •  Munich

•  OSLO •  Perth •  San Diego •  SeaBle •  Singapore •  Stockholm •  Sydney •  Tel Aviv •  Toronto •  Vancouver •  Vienna •  Zurich


Oslo in a global context Among the 25 most liveable ciCes in the world:

•  Above average economic performance, but only the 19th most globalised. (GaWC, 2013)

•  4th largest trade and tourism sector (by proporCon).

•  2nd smallest manufacturing sector

Source: Brookings Institution (2012)

Per capita income, 1993-2012 (1993=100)

100#

110#

120#

130#

140#

150#

160#

1993#

1994#

1995#

1996#

1997#

1998#

1999#

2000#

2001#

2002#

2003#

2004#

2005#

2006#

2007#

2008#

2009#

2010#

2011#

2012#

Brisbane#

Tel#Aviv#

Oslo#

Toronto#

Auckland#

Cape#Town#


Amongst the HQoL CiCes….

CompeCCve ‘middleweight’ ciCes: ü 1-‐5 million metropolitan populaCon ü highly liveable (top 25 as measured in 20 city benchmarks on infrastructure, life outcomes, visitor percepCon and resident saCsfacCon) ü diverse economies ü a\racCve to entrepreneurs and SMEs

Among the 25 most liveable ciCes, Oslo’s: ü economic structure most resembles Vancouver, Melbourne and Amsterdam. ü degree of global business linkages (79th globally) is closest to Auckland (72nd), Vancouver (76th) and Brisbane (80th). ü economic performance (income, employment) since the recession is closest to Munich, Brisbane and Vancouver

Source: Brookings Institution (2012) © The Business of Cities Ltd 2014

What unites high quality of life (HQoL) ciCes?

i.  A\racCve climate, scenic assets, green and blue regions ii.  Comfortable commute across well connected regions iii.  AuthenCc culture with strong sense of belonging iv.  High quality of regional ameniCes v.  Walkable and inclusive communiCes -‐ broad access to

housing vi.  Liveability has become part of city idenCty and DNA vii.  They compete on specialisaCon and QUALITY The must seek scale through partnership and regional integraCon


HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE CITIES HAVE GROWING REGIONAL POPULATIONS


Oslo: Global leader for resident liveability

Quality of life • Top 10 city for all-round prosperity and living standards

World’s very best urban infrastructure • Highly effective systems

One of the world’s five greenest cities • Renewable energy, green space, efficient building


Oslo: World-‐class knowledge strengths not fully harnessed

Among world’s top 10 ciSes for human capital

AON, People Risk Index 2013 (low score = better)

But could become a more compelling commercial proposition… • Moderate risk of re-‐locaSon for foreign firms (AON ConsulSng) • Smaller high-‐tech employment base than Stockholm or Helsinki (Eurostat) • Behind Stockholm and Vienna for producSvity (UN-‐Habitat)

0" 20" 40" 60" 80" 100"

Singapore"

Vancouver"

Zurich"

Boston"

Copenhagen"

San"Diego"

Stockholm"

Oslo"

Sea@le""

Helsinki"

Frankfurt"

Auckland"

Vienna"

Tel"Aviv"

Ra#ng&

0"

10"

20"

30"

40"

50"

60"

Oslo"

Stockholm

"

Zurich"

Copenhagen"

Brussels"

Helsinki"

Amsterdam"

Munich"

Malmo"

Gothenburg"

Vienna"

Frankfurt"

%"

2001" 2011"

Proportion of workforce educated to high level in science, technology and humanities (Eurostat)

Oslo: Medium involvement in global networks

•  Fairly strong passenger throughput given distance from

key markets.

No. of rotating international meetings (ICCA)

No. of passengers through airports in 2011

•  Room to grow in the academic and business conferences market

0"

20"

40"

60"

80"

100"

120"

140"

160"

180"

200"

Vienna"

Singapore"

Copenhagen"

Stockholm

"

Helsinki"

Munich"

Oslo"

Zurich"

Melbourne"

Vancouver"

Boston"

Cape"Town"

San"Diego"

2008"

2012"

0"

5"

10"

15"

20"

25"

30"

35"

Sea*le"

Melbourne"

Zurich"

Copenhagen"

Vienna"

Oslo"

Brisbane"

Stockholm

"

Vancouver"

San"Diego"

Helsinki"

Auckland"

million&&passengers&


Oslo: improving global appeal

•  Impressions of Oslo’s reputaSon just behind leading liveable European and North American ciSes, in global top 20.

•  But Stockholm, Copenhagen and Edinburgh all ahead

Top 25 cities by global citizen perception (City RepTrak, 2013)

60#

62#

64#

66#

68#

70#

72#

74#

76#

78#

Sydney#

Toronto#

Stockholm

#

Vienna#

Venice#

Florence#

Edinburgh#

Zurich#

London#

Copenhagen#

Geneva#

Helsinki#

Munich#

Vancouver#

Melbourne#

Frankfurt#

Oslo#

Montreal#

Amsterdam#

Dublin#

New#York#

Paris#

Barcelona#

Auckland#

Rome#


Oslo: business brand could be clearer Other liveable ciCes are viewed as amore synonymous with commerce …

…despite an improving prospect for talent • Top 10 labour a\racCveness (TBOT, 2013)

IPSOS-MORI, % of global citizens that identify city as a place to do business, 2013

0"

2"

4"

6"

8"

10"

12"

Zurich"

Berlin"

Singapore"

Sydney"

Toronto"

Amsterdam"

Stockholm

"

Boston"

Oslo"

Auckland"

Copenhagen"

Cape"Town"

Tel"Aviv"

%"


EIU Hotspots -‐ 'Physical

Capital'

Mercer -‐ Top

CiSes fo

r Infrastructure

UN State of the

World's

CiCe

s 'Infrastructure

Inde

x'

Date Feb-‐12 Dec-‐12 Jul-‐12

# of ciCes 120 50 69

Munich 2

Vancouver 1 9

Oslo 2 18 1

Zurich 2 24 1

Vienna 2 16 9

Stockholm 1 18 10

Amsterdam 1 23 10

Auckland 25 43 18

Adelaide 37

Brisbane 37

Tel Aviv 44

Cape Town 90 28

Infrastructure

2thinkno

w Con

sulCng

Inno

vaCo

n CiCe

s Global Ind

ex

EIU/CiCgrou

p Ho

tspo

ts,

'Hum

an Capita

l'

QS Be

st Stude

nt CiCes

AON Peo

ple Risk Inde

x

Date Feb-‐13 Feb-‐12 Feb-‐12 Apr-‐13

# of ciCes 133 120 50 131

Munich 6 13

Vienna 3 30 5 38

Zurich 72 7 7 14

Stockholm 16 27 27 16

Vancouver 35 22 31 9

Amsterdam 9 28 36 19

Oslo 38 6 19

Tel Aviv 28 59 49

Brisbane 85 22

Auckland 91 21 42 Cape Town 119 40

Adelaide 29

Innovation and Talent

EIU/CiCgrou

p Ho

tspo

ts,

'Social and

Cultural

Character'

EIU/CiCgrou

p Ho

tspo

ts,

'Global A

ppeal'

City Rep

trak Top

Line Re

port

Euromon

itor top

city

de

sCnaCo

n rankings 2011

Date Feb-‐12 Feb-‐12 Sep-‐12 Jan-‐13

# of ciCes 120 120 100 100

Vienna 11 10 2 31

Amsterdam 16 7 41 26

Vancouver 16 42 1 72

Munich 12 51

Zurich 1 18 17 100

Stockholm 22 27 9

Oslo 45 46 5

Auckland 45 71 24 63

Brisbane 32

Adelaide 35

Cape Town 80 64 72

Tel Aviv 57 67 89

Global image and brand


Business and Finance

Knowledge economy

Image/Brand

Quality of Life

Environment and Sustainability

Culture and diversity

DesSnaSon Power

Global firm links ✓

✓✓

✓

✓✓

✓✓✓

¢

✓

✓✓✓

✓

✓

Financial services

FDI ¢

R&D ✓

Qualified Workforce ✓✓✓ HE

insStuSons ✓

Liveability ✓✓✓ Entertain-‐

ment ¢ Health and Security ✓✓

✓ CO2 ✓✓✓

PolluSon ✓✓✓

Land Use, Waste and Water

✓✓✓

Net Income ✓✓

Affordability ✓

Transport ✓✓✓

Core infra-‐structure ✓✓✓

No. of visitors ✓ Internat-‐

ional links ✓

Oslo: overall benchmark assessment ✓✓

Costs, wages and Affordability Transport and infrastructure

Events and meeSngs ✓ © The Business of Cities

Ltd 2014

What the world thinks about Oslo “Tucked away in the corner of Europe, Oslo with its thick winter jacket on seems far from the cultural and intellectual pulse, but again you would be surprised… As a city to live in, Oslo has two compeCng traits. In part it is entrepreneurial and vibrant, parCcularly in its eastern, immigrant quarter. At the same Cme it is the quintessenCal urban expression of the square-‐formed social democraCc 1970s: a city that thinks it knows be\er than you which way is North.”

The Economist, 2012

“These days, the most appealing areas in the famously expensive Norwegian capital lie on the periphery of the city center, in its newly trendy neighborhoods — hip Grunerlokka to the northeast, glamorous Tjuvholmen to the southwest — and beyond, in the glorious landscapes of the Oslo Fjord and the sprawling northern forests. ”

New York Times, 2013 “Compared with the other Nordic capitals, Oslo has never been much of a tourist desCnaCon…But there are [now] compelling reasons to visit the Norwegian capital.”

Financial Times, 2013


What must Oslo do?

i.  Have a plan for scale ii.  Organise the region iii.  Plan for populaCon growth iv.  Build the business brand and story v.  Develop clear economic strategy vi.  Talent a\racCon and retenCon vii. Tell world why you are relevant with one big

story © The Business of Cities Ltd 2014

OSLO NEEDS TO BE A METROPOLIS


Metro Regions: CiCes outgrow their boundaries

Metropolitan Areas offer: •  Scale •  Clout •  ProducCvity •  Visibility •  Diversity •  Coherence

But only if they are organised. Growth management or growth mis-‐managment.


Metro Markets


Some Recurring Themes….. Sustainability / Eco-‐CiSes Siemens

GE Arup

Bombardier

CiSes of the

Future Audi

Deutsche Bank

Microsoa Atkins

GDF Suez

Liveability Mercer Monocle Grosvenor

Smart CiSes + Networks Cisco

Ericsson IBM

Cap Gemini Bird + Bird

Global CiSes JP Morgan Aecom

AT Kearney


Three metro governance opCons

1.  ConsolidaCon of municipaliCes: Auckland,

Toronto.

2.  CreaCon of 2 Cer authoriCes: Singapore, Miami.

3.  Closer collaboraCon between municipaliCes: Amsterdam, Manchester. © The Business of Cities

Ltd 2014

3rd Cycle Dynamics

1st Cycle Projects & Physical Renewal ProacCve city brand Tourism

2nd cycle Assets Strategic plans Specialist Agencies New funding tools. Programmes Economic space.

3rd cycle Managing growth Shaping the future PPPs Metropolitan sphere Broader leadership Integrated brand

4th Cycle


Managing success at the internaCatonal scale

Comparing the opCons

Metropolis off. •  Sectoral policies lead •  Autonomous bodies •  Hierarchical system •  SpaCal variaCon •  Low co-‐ordinaCon

equilibrium. •  Tax and transfer payments

Metropolis on. Integrated planning Cross cutng objecCves Networked governance SpaCal cohesion Cross cutng projects High co-‐ordinaCon equilibrium Financial innovaCon and

leverage


Metropolis Off or On ? Metropolis Off •  Vienna

•  Milan

•  Berlin

•  Sydney

Metropolis On •  Barcelona

•  Stockholm

•  Amsterdam

•  Melbourne


Barcelona Metropolitan Area

•  36 municipalities •  Population of 3.15 million •  Metro Area created by legislation in 2010


Barcelona Metropolitan Area (AMB) AMB: Union of MunicipaliCes

Transport Authority Environmental Authority

PEMB: The Strategic Metropolitan Plan of Barcelona – Vision 2020 -‐ Launched at same Cme as Metro Area was created by law -‐ Vision: consolidate AMB as one of the most a\racCve and influenCal European regions for innovaCve global talent by 2020 -‐ Growth strategy and prioriCes:

– Extend port capacity, boost connecCvity to NW Europe + Iberian Peninsula – Improve visibility for design, media, food, biotechnology, energy, sustainable mobility.

Barcelona Global • Private, independent civil society plaworm – made up of 200 of region’s business leaders • Develops and implements pracCcal soluCons to improve overall compeCCveness • Aim: to make Barcelona one of the most a\racCve ciCes in the world for business and talent. • Responsible for city-‐region’s brand management • Collaborates and works with PEMB


Stockholm Business Region

•  Stockholm City plus 49 surrounding municipalities •  3.6 million inhabitants © The Business of Cities Ltd 2014

Stockholm Business Region •  Stockholm -‐ The Capital of Scandinavia

–  Shared brand name for the Stockholm region –  CommunicaCon of scale

•  Stockholm Business Region Development –  Official investment promoCon agency for region –  Responsible for markeCng and provision of informaCon, advice and

assistance to investors and companies •  Goals

–  to become the leading sustainable growth region in Europe –  to become the world’s most innovaCon driven economy by 2025

•  Results –  Region receives 43% of foreign investment in Sweden –  Stockholm ranked No 1 in European CiCes and Regions of the Future, fDi

Intelligence 2012/2013 –  Ranked No 5 of in CiCes of Opportunity 2012, PWC


Amsterdam Metropolitan Area

•  Informal collaboration of 36 municipalities, 2 provinces (North Holland and Flevoland), and the Amsterdam City Region.

•  ~2.4 million inhabitants •  Comprises the ‘North Wing’ of larger Randstad region •  The story of the 35 Deputy Mayors…..

Amsterdam Metropolitan Area Regional agreements have been put in place concerning traffic and transport, the economy, urbanisaCon, landscape and sustainability • Amsterdam Economic Board (est. 2011)

–  Encourages cross sector collaboraCon; provides informaCon and support on business, finance and housing

–  Focuses on 8 regional clusters: CreaCve industry; logisCcs; financial and business services; flowers and food; ICT/ e-‐Science; Tourism and ConvenCons; Life Sciences and Health; High Tech Materials

–  Members = CEOs, scienCsts, academics and public sector representaCves –  Funded by government, industry and knowledge insCtuCons

• Goal –  To be in top 5 European metro regions, and thereby secure a posiCon as a

global business hub, and a hub of commerce, people and informaCon • Results

–  #1 place in Europe for tech start-‐ups in 2011 –  #1 EIU Hotspots ‘Physical Capital’ –  #6 Worldwide for Livability (Global Power City Index)

Berlin Berlin-Brandenburg Region: •  6 million people •  30 000 square km •  Geographic Heart of

the EU


Berlin Helmut Kohl’s vision of ‘New Berlin’ + explosive growth post 1989 – not realised. Why? • Partly because of intense compeCCon from Brandenburg region – especially for housing and retail investment. Use of zoning and tax incenCves. • ‘Blockades’ from wider region prevented infrastructural development e.g. Berlin – Brandenburg airport delays • CompeCCon lead to a degree of hollowing out of centre + suburbanisaCon of people and business

3050000

3100000

3150000

3200000

3250000

3300000

3350000

3400000

3450000

3500000

1980 1985 1991 1993 1995 1998

Berlin – PopulaCon Growth Before and A�er 1989

720000

740000

760000

780000

800000

820000

840000

860000

880000

900000

1980 1985 1991 1993 1995 1998

Brandenburg MunicipaliCes – PopulaCon Growth Before and A�er 1989


Berlin / Brandenburg – why did they compete not collaborate?

•  Sociological factors -‐ Cold War years isolated Berlin from its periphery; deep seated city-‐suburb antagonisms and mistrust; East/ West rivalries

•  Planning regions radiaCng out from Berlin fragmented the metropolitan area

•  1996 referendum on administraCve ‘merging’ of Berlin + Brandenburg -‐ populace voted NO

•  OrchestraCng the global city promoted an inward-‐oriented perspecCve in Berlin’s poliCcal and business elite: ideas to develop a regionalist strategy largely resisted

•  Fiscal system of populaCon-‐based and business-‐tax-‐generated local revenues encouraged compeCCon rather than collaboraCon


Grande Milano

•  7 million inhabitants •  Strong urban core (city of Milan, 1.2 million inhabitants) with

large suburban hinterland.

Milan Milan’s global posiCon has slipped since its industrial heyday, when it could count itself as Europe’s 3rd City. Now it is globally ranked anywhere between # 11 (GaWC World CiCes) and #47 (EIU Hotspots) Why? • Milan has sprawled to merge with a wider industrial region. • The new metro-‐region is highly fragmented with a three-‐Cer administraCve system: 248 municipaliCes, the Province of Milan and the Region Lombardy.

• Poor co-‐operaCon between municipaliCes and city has led to few concrete collaboraCve projects.

• Public infrastructure and services have not kept pace with the need for linkages across the enlarged metro-‐region.

• Housing shortages and poor suburban public transport provision have lead to liveability bo\lenecks – direct impact on the region’s ability to a\ract talent. © The Business of Cities Ltd 2014

Vienna •  Vienna’s hinterland is

spread across 4 countries: Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary

•  4 different languages

•  Overlap with other ciCes esp. BraCslava – only 60km apart

•  > 6.5m people

•  EU Interreg III project – Centrope – to establish formal mulCnaConal region from 2003


Vienna Vienna is a world leading metropolis: long-‐term global leader in Quality of Life + new strengths emerging as a Green and Smart city. BUT wider metro-‐region has not benefi\ed from Vienna’s success.

Why? • Metro region encompasses 4 different countries and languages – pracCcal barriers • Total dominance of powerful Vienna has lead to co-‐operaCon failures

–  By far largest city (1.6m ppn to next biggest BraCslava’s 430,000) –  20% of region’s populaCon but 46% of R&D personnel, 37.3% of students –  Eastern regional municipaliCes have new and relaCvely unstable

administraCve structures, insCtuConally unprepared for cross-‐border co-‐operaCon

•  Issues with Centrope project -‐  Underorganised. Li\le done to promote clusters / interacCon between firms

in industries spanning naConal boundaries e.g. ICT, biotech, automoCve -‐  Decision making, financial flows and implementaCon in hands of the

Austrian-‐only steering commi\ee and consorCum -‐  Eastern regions have limited resources available for full parCcipaCon


Regional Strategic Planning


Why do ciCes do strategic planning? TacCcs

i.  Tackle short termism – ii.  Integrate iii.  Governance – iv.  Influence v.  Advocate vi.  Engage vii.  Leverage viii.  PrioriCse ix.  Promote the future – x.  IdenCfy catalysts


IdenCty, Vision, and Metro Brands

IdenCty IntegraCon

Visitor Brand

Investor Business Brand

CiCzen Resident Brand

Innovator / Leader Brand


Regional Brands

Brand family: i.  An a\ack brand ii. Sub brands (geographies, market segments, themes) iii. Works with local brands (‘an overbrand’ ). Greater Manchester Barcelona © The Business of Cities Ltd 2014

Manchester •  MarkeCng Manchester – promoCon agency for the Manchester city-‐region

(naConal and internaConal) •  Looks to :

–  Develop the Manchester brand, focussing on contemporary and tradiConal strengths of the city-‐region's culture.

–  Increase visitors through the creaCon of a world-‐class events programme. –  PosiCon Manchester as a gateway to the NW and an alternaCve gateway to

Britain. –  Further establish the city as one of Europe's leading business desCnaCons. –  Develop tourism infrastructure.

•  Visit Manchester is the tourist board for the city-‐region and a division of MarkeCng Manchester

•  Example Projects –  HosCng of Soccerex European Forum 2013 – networking event for football industry. –  Presence at MIPIM, Cannes –  CreaCon of a new image and media bank for the city. © The Business of Cities

Ltd 2014

Barcelona •  Barcelona Global -‐ responsible for the city-‐region’s brand protecCon. •  Currently, Barcelona brand well known in tourism and leisure sectors. But much

weaker in business. Barcelona Global intends to address this. AcCviCes: •  Trademarking of ‘Barcelona’ as a ‘collecCve brand’ •  AcCve protecCon of the Barcelona trademark. •  CreaCon of a private-‐public Barcelona brand management agency: Barcelona

Growth / Barcelona Creixement. •  Monitoring the evoluCon and impact of the city brand in its target markets

•  PromoCng a storytelling approach to the Barcelona brand, in order to make Barcelona a global centre for business.

•  Setng up a Barcelona Business Council made up of major companies in the city-‐region that want to contribute to the improvement of Barcelona’s posiConing.


Regional Advocacy

•  The Capital City Region in a NaCon State Problem.

•  How to get NaConal Government on your side? – New common regional story. – Focus on opCmising contribuCon to naCon. Evidence.

– Build links to other regions. The Dublin Story……. © The Business of Cities Ltd 2014

Regional InsCtuCons

Get region governance right. Then consider: Regional Business and Civic Leadership Regional Economic Agency Regional Leadership Board © The Business of Cities Ltd 2014

7 Secrets of Regional Success

i.  See the big global trends. MetropolitanisaCon. ii.  Focus on the real compeCCon, not the neighbours. iii.  Manage and shape growth acCvely. iv.  Get NaConal Government on side. v.  Think and act for long term, big impact

intervenCons. vi.  A leadership role for all leaders. vii.  Clear mechanisms of affiliaCon for all.
