Cities of Tomorrow: how to make it happen

Governance challenges and policy implications

Iván TosicsMetropolitan Research Institute, Budapest

DG Regio Conference

20-21 December 2010

Brussels

Challenges for urban development

• Challenges are more or less known: climate-change and energy-problems, problems of the globalizing economy, demographic changes, increasing migration and sharpening social inequalities.

• Separate analyses of them lead to different apocalyptic views: – collapse of the normal functioning of the climate– unmanageable problems of the ageing societies and of the

potential migrant flows, – sharp conflicts due to growing inequalities between social and

ethnic strata and/or different areas. • The potential answers to address these problems one-

by-one create conflicting interactions: the easiest answer on any of the problems usually makes things worse regarding the others.

EU2020: contradicting goals

• One-sided emphasis on economic efficiency might lead to threatening examples of “left behind” cities (e.g. Detroit, mono-industrial Russian cities). It is already proved that EU2020 will cause sprawl in peri-urban areas (PLUREL).

• 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.

• Concentration on affordable policies might lead to richer people leaving the cities. 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.

The challenge for us: to prove that urban areas are crucial for EU2020

• The integration of the three goals of EU2020 can best be assured on broader urban level (functional urban regions, metropolitan areas, city-regions, rural-urban regions) where economic, environmental and social challenges can best be addressed at once (to handle new investments, sprawl, traffic congestion, exclusion of migrant and minority population groups).

• Functional urban regions are usually weak in administrative-political sense. Europe has 21st century economy, 20th century governments, 19th century territorial systems. The latter have to be changed or at least incentives should be given that innovative developments happen in the functional urban areas.

Defining City-regions

There is no universal agreement, neither on the term (metropolitan area, functional urban zone…) nor on its content. Two potential definitions:

• ‘The concept of the City-Region can be understood as a functionally inter-related geographical area comprising a central, or Core City, as part of a network of centres and rural hinterlands.’ (ODPM, 2005).

• ‘The concept of [the] City-Region covers not only the commuting hinterland of the city but also the whole area which is economically, socially and culturally dominated by the city’ (Davoudi, 2003).

Potential ways to delimit city regions

Parameters for definition may be grouped as follows (SURF study):

• Labour-market definitions. Predominantly focused on TTW.

• Economic activity-based definitions. Besides access to labour markets other factors might also be important (e.g. the supply chain)

• Housing-market definitions: the city-region might be defined as the area in which households search for residential locations

• Service-district definitions. For example retail catchments, access to hospitals, theatres, international airports etc.

• Administrative definitions.

Basic definitions and data

• The regional level can be defined in different ways. The Committee of Regions believes in the administrative regions, Metrex deals with the Functional Urban Regions and Areas while new approaches emphasize creative and flexible governance.

• There are in the wider Europe some 120 metropolitan regions and areas, which have 500 thousand or more population in contiguous urban areas. Such regions contain 60%, appr 280 million of the 470 million population.

ESPON data on European functional areas

• ESPON has identified in the enlarged Europe 1595 FUA-s with over 50 th population, 149 groups of FUA’s and 64 Metropolitan Growth Areas.

• The 64 MEGA’s consist of the following categories:– Global nodes: 2 (Paris and London)– European engines: 13 (Munich … Stuttgart)– Strong MEGA’s: 10 (Stockholm … Gothenburg)– Potential MEGA’s: 23 (Lyon … Bratislava)– Weak MEGA’s: 16 (Naples …Valetta)

• ESPON results suggest that there are probably some 150 to 180 metropolitan FUA’s, that have many strategic issues in common. Of these, perhaps 40 to 60 are of particular significance for the wider European economy.

1) METREX: There is a need for effective metropolitan governance

• European spatial planning objectives can most effectively realised on the metropolitan level. Both sustainability and polycentricity need effective metropolitan governance, based on integrated economic, social, environmental and spatial actions on metropolitan level.

• For effective metropolitan spatial planning metropolitan regions need the necessary – competencies (authority to adopt, implement and

safeguard a metropolitan spatial strategy), – capabilities (knowledge and understanding to take

informed decisions) – processes (means to regularly monitor, review and

update the strategy).

Metropolitan competenciesIn order to be able to adopt, implement and

safeguard a metropolitan spatial strategy, the metropolitan authority needs the following competencies:

• National Spatial Plan availability• Formal terms of reference for the planning body• Powers to take decisions on conflicts of interests• Coherence of area (covering commuting,

housing, retail catchment area)• Power to implement and safeguard a strategy

Metropolitan capabilitiesThe metropolitan authority needs to have the

capabilities to plan, monitor, review, safeguard and implement the metropolitan strategy:

• Professional resources• Survey and data collection• Projections and forecasts• Assessment of urban development capacity• Policy analysis at the metropolitan level• Capability to prepare strategic scenarios and an

integrated strategy for the metropolitan area

Effective metropolitan planning process

The ongoing process of planning, regular monitoring and review will sustain a metropolitan strategy

• A pro-active, inclusive and transparent approach (assure possibility for public participation, including the general public)

• Implementation, monitoring and review (formal partnership agreements with key stakeholders, regular review taking the necessary revisions of programmes and projects)

The basic forms of effective metropolitan governance

Three different forms of effective metropolitan governance can be defined:

• Elected metropolitan authorities with comprehensive range of social, economic, infrastructural, enviromental and spatial planning powers

• Elected or appointed metropolitan authorities with selected core powers to address key issues

• Appointed metropolitan agencies or joint bodies with strategic planning responsibilities and advisory implementation functions

Examples on the three forms of regional authorities

• Elected metropolitan authorities: former Scottish Regional Councils, Hannover

• Elected or appointed metropolitan authorities with selected core powers: Verband Region Stuttgart, Area Metropolitana de Lisboa, Helsinki Metropolitan Area Council, Conseil Regional d’Ile-de-France

• Voluntary model: Glasgow-Clyde Valley Structure Plan Committee, Öresund Committee, Zürich, München, Berlin-Brandenburg

Metrex Practice BenchmarkOne of the main results of the 1999-2005 Metrex work is

the “Metrex Practice Benchmark”, defining 29 benchmarks, grouped in the following way:

• Competence benchmarks (8): to what extent has the region the powers to approve, implement and safeguard a metropolitan strategy

• Capability benchmarks (13): to what extent has the region the knowledge to take informed spatial planning and development decisions

• Process benchmarks (8): to what extent has the region in place the means to monitor, review, consult on and roll forward a metropolitan strategy.

Metrex’s political statement: the need for European Agenda for Metropolitan Europe

• Urban competitiveness and cohesion can be progressed most effectively through the establishment of effective means for strategic decision making and action over Functional Urban Regions and Areas and, in particular, those of metropolitan significance. This is the metropolitan dimension to European affairs.

• A top-down initiative is urgently required to stimulate and sustain progress with a European Agenda for Metropolitan Europe.

• A partnership of the European Commission and the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), supported by METREX, should be progressed through the agenda of the Informal Council of Ministers responsible for Regional Planning during the Luxembourg and UK Presidencies in 2005.

2) Creative city region governance: a more flexible approach to city regions

• Creative city region governance is a new phenomena, based on recent publications, among others the papers of Klaus Kunzmann and Italian colleagues (Balducci, Alessandro; Kunzmann, Klaus R.; Sartorio, Francesca S. Towards creative city region governance in Italy and Germany. DISP [Zurich] No. 158. 2004.)

• This approach differs significantly from the approach of Metrex, as the starting point is that top-down attempts to give unified definition to city regions usually fail to achieve their original aims, and that city regions with flexible boundaries and with flexible arrangements (but guarantees for longer term commitment) might work better. In this context creativity, innovation gains ground.

The difficulties of regional cooperation

• No valid European model exists so far for regional cooperation, which addresses the manifold challenges city regions are facing in different parts of Europe. Each city region has to find its own solution how to organize regional cooperation.

• Government attempts to give unified definition (Italy 1990: defining ten “Cittá Metroplitana”, Germany 1997: defining seven “metropolitan regions”) usually fail to achieve their original aims, but might have positive effects on bottom-up developments.

• Defining city-region boundaries is usually a long and controversial process, both in top-down or bottom-up way. Boundaries might be more flexible if the city region is less institutionalized. The best might be to connect flexible boundaries of a city region with flexible arrangements, but maintaining political stability and guaranteeing for longer term commitment.

Framing concept: creative governance

• Agreements for variable geometries, coexistence of soft and hard forms of institutionalization

• Improving communication on regional level, initiating inclusive policies towards all actors in the region

• Developing alternative scenarios for the future to enhance more creative dimensions of the regional development process

• Identifying and involving creative actors (e.g. regional civil society) to overcome administrative and political routine and clientelism.

• Selecting unusual catalyst projects for enhancing identity building, using the symbolic and imaginative role of projects

• Identifying new, creative instruments for financing, e.g. private funds, cost sharing.

An Agenda for Creative Governance in City Regions (Kunzmann)

• Internationally competitive cities have to overcome the difficulties of negotiations with the expanding hinterland about all development possibilities (airport, highway, commercial and leisure developments, high income housing). At the same time they have to face growing inner polarization.

• German examples: only Hanover, Stuttgart and Bonn can be labelled as “successful”, while the others, like the city states (Hamburg, Bremen), the Ruhr association (too weak association of 12 million people area), the Berlin-Brandenburg, Frankfurt attempts are much more controversial.

Ten suggestions for innovative governance in city regions

• Allow flexible functional boundaries (based on a willingness of cooperation, guided by rules of participation and withdrawal), as these have to be changed over time and might differ from function to function.

• Build up regional information system to avoid prejudice and biased opinion, and plug-in all important stakeholders for the preparation of joint thinking.

• Develop a regional vision in the form of a concise policy paper, suggesting the direction to go and the principles on which future political decisions should be based.

• Promote city-region identity: to build up interior identification with a well-established regional identity, based on the exterior image of the area (through presenting good cases, showing outside competitors, building up common foreign policy, …)

• Strengthen regional innovation networks: to overcome the pragmatism and lethargic approach of established institutions and committees, ad-hoc networks of innovative regional actors and regional think-tanks are needed.

• Support the Third sector (intermediate organizations, institutions and community groups), which can partly replace the weakening public sector and the self-interested private sector in raising regional social and environmental awareness.

• Design catalyst projects for intra-regional cooperation, to bring public and private actors together, and to establish personal networks.

• Create opportunities for public and private actors to meet, even if no concrete actions are decided, no documents are signed.

• Communicate neighbourhood success stories across the city region, with the use of the regional media and the internet.

• Establish trust in regional cooperation, for all potential actors, to overcome sensitivities and communication deficits.

Strong leadership, creative processes and creative financing needed

• Creative institutions and creative actors: only newly established institutions with new persons in leading positions might have the momentum to cope with the new challenges.

• Sometimes the establishment of regional alliances for a limited time period with handpicked personalities from the region and the encouragement of a regional civil society may be appropriate.

• Creative strategies and processes: to leave behind routine procedures of decision-making often require the initiative and financing of higher tear government. The German City 2030 programme or the EU Interreg programme are good examples.

• Creative financing: the costs of regional initiatives have to be shared among larger number of contributors. Fees, city development funds, contributions from potential beneficiaries, local tax exemptions might be among the innovative ideas.

Creativity and Urban Governance (Patsy Healey)

City region governance and creativity – alternative meanings

• Creativity as innovation, promoting competitiveness with new means (e.g. development agency fostering new clusters)

• Creativity as enriching human existence, valuing aesthetic qualities of urban life (e.g. development of a music centre of excellence)

• Creativity as a process of making a new product (e.g. engage the public into a new development to become icon for the city or region)

Novelties of the new type of governance

Such new type of governance is very different from the old, rule-bound administrative approach, insofar it

• aims to encourage innovation in a context of dynamic complexity,

• allows experimentation with the chance for failures,

• introduces evaluation culture instead of precisely determined outcomes.

Different approaches to increase the significance of territorial cooperation

• Committee of the Regions: more power to the administrative regions!

• Metrex: more power to the functional urban regions!

• Creative governance: instead of unified definition to city regions with fixed boundaries, flexible arrangements (with guarantees for longer term commitment) create better ground for creativity, innovation.

URBACT 1 Metrogov results

• The co-operation between the cities and their surrounding had ups in the 1970s and 1980s, downs since then, and is at the beginning of the 21st century in upswing again

• The new city-region co-operation period will be different from the earlier one. The earlier abolished entities are unlikely to be reintroduced because of the general fear that any new stable entities would soon become too rigid, working on their self-interest.

• Therefore co-operation models are the most likely way today how larger territorial units can be created.

• In the new co-operation period new types of co-operation are likely to develop, putting more emphasis on governance, on network-like structures and flexibility.

• The new units will not have overall decision making power but aim to serve as a discussion platform for the participating municipalities, how to create co-operation and public service agreements in the Functional Urban Area for those municipalities, who agree to do so.

• The city-regions have double task: to address the internal conflicts within the functional urban area and to fully explore the potentials of economic co-operation in the broader urban area. These tasks need different approaches.

Two-tier approach to city-regions

The two different approaches, the structured and pre-defined city-regions vs. the flexible approach should be applied simultaneously but on different spatial levels

• The problems emerging in the functional urban area can be addressed through co-operation in a wide range of public services (special purpose entities in flexible or set spatial set-up) and in land use planning, in a fixed area

• The opportunities emerging for a much larger area can be acquired through economic planning and through cooperation in some public services (transport, etc) in flexible bottom-up partnership.

No unified solutions exist

• Due to local differences everyone has to build the city-region in their own way, building up the narrow and broader area of co-operation, according to the relationship between the administrative and the morphological areas, and the Functional Urban Area.

• Both levels of city-regions have to be built up of local governments, aiming at stronger leadership and more fomalised institutional structure on the narrow level, while looser leadership and less fomalised institutional structure on the broader level.

• Leadership for the city-region level can be separately established for city-region, or can be the region itself, depending of local context. Conditions have to be created that private actors do not compete against each other and against the public sector in the city region.

1) Government and planning system

The strength of the government system

• The description of the system of territorial governments: the size of the different units (local municipalities, supra-local entities such as counties, regions), the power that rests with them: which levels play the most important role in land-use change

• Comparison of the size (population number) of the Rural-Urban Regions with the size of the administrative levels which have decisive role in land-use change.

The potential control over land-use changes resulting from the national government and planning systems

Value Countries

7

6 Denmark, The Netherlands, Portugal, United Kingdom

5 Belgium, Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Lithuania

4 Italy, Spain, Sweden

3 Austria, Bulgaria, Finland

2 Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Slovenia

1 Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia

2) Instruments indirectly affecting the regulation of peri-urban land uses

The local government financing system (from where and according to which parameters the local governments receive their revenues)

The taxation system (the existence of different types of taxes the local governments are allowed to levy and the spatially relevant consequences of these taxes)

Sectoral policies (infrastructure, economic development, transport, housing), regulations and subsidy systems

Regulations applied on new land developments• Growth management (e.g. balance between jobs and homes,

transport services, physical and social infrastructure requirements)

• Financial regulations: possibilities for the public sector to recapture some part of land value increase; taxes on green field investments, subsidies for brown field redeveloment

Municipal finance

• Local government finance: low share of local revenues, high share of upper level grants (mainly conditional, not general purpose). Consequence: no local government direct interest to increase population.

• Financing of public services: upper level financing covers the costs of public services. Consequence: no inter-jurisdictional spill-over effects.

• Special financial subsidies: no financial subsidy forms with the effect to strengthen urban sprawl

Taxation

• Taxation system: low share of local taxes and/or weak local government control over the conditions of taxes. Consequence: no or very little tax competition between neighbouring municipalities.

• Special taxation forms expressing public values: no taxation forms with effect to strengthen urban sprawl.

• Correction policies: efficient upper level public regulation efforts against tax competition.

Economic development and infrastructure

• Supra-local administrative or functional bodies control economic development and the development of infrastructure within the RUR area

• Local governments within the RUR area do not compete with each other for economic development opportunities

• No public subsidies, given to infrastructure or economic development, exist which have the effect to strengthen urban sprawl

Transport in urban – periurban areas

• The share of public transport use in the urban, peri urban and rural areas is high

• There are financial contribution and other special public subsidies given to encourage the use of public transport

• There any no transport-linked public subsidies which strengthen urban sprawl (such as tax deduction of travel-to-work costs by car)

• The RUR area is covered by public transport associations• There are efforts to ensure the internalization of external

costs of transport• Mobility management tools are considered in the most

dense urban areas in order to reduce congestions and improve the environmental conditions of transport

Housing development

• There are supra-local (regional, national) regulations, prescriptions existing, which influence local housing policy

• There are no housing-linked public subsidies with the effect to strengthen urban sprawl

• There is cooperation between the municipalities of the RUR area (or smaller subsets of it) regarding housing policy

Steering new land development

• Across the RUR region a substantial share of developable (already re-zoned) and potentially developable (agricultural, which could easily be rezoned if demand increases) land is in the ownership of the public sector

• Local governments can re-capture some portion of land value increase, due to rezoning of land or issuing building permission, from private actors

• Local municipalities can be influenced by higher level public actors in their decisions regarding rezoning of land or issuing building permission

Comparison of the A) national government/planning and the B) local instruments/policies aspects

Value Countries

7

6 Denmark, The Netherlands (I), Portugal, United Kingdom (I)

5 Belgium, Cyprus, France (I), Germany (I), Greece (II), Ireland, Lithuania

4 Italy (I), Spain, Sweden

3 Austria, Bulgaria, Finland

2 Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland (III), Slovenia (II)

1 Czech Republic, Hungary (III), Romania, Slovakia

Connection between the national and regional-local level of anti-sprawl analysis

• In countries with weak formal government system and planning framework potential (values 1-2) the analysed regions face financial and sectoral policies which usually create favourable conditions towards urban sprawl, and local authorities in these regions (with the exception of Koper) have only very limited tools to control urban sprawl.

• In countries with high national level control potential (values 5-6) regions are subject of financial and sectoral policies which are potentially against urban sprawl, and local authorities in these regions (with the exception of Thessaloniki) have strong tools to control urban sprawl.

Two extreme types of countries

Strong public control over land market processes

• The Netherlands, UK and France: potentially strong control assured by the formal government system and planning policies over RUR processes, underpinned by the financial, taxation and sectoral policies and regulatory tools which are used in practice. Result: good chances to control peri-urban developments and avoid urban sprawl – especially if also informal governance agreements can be reached among the partners into this direction.

Weak public control over land market processes

• Mainly new EU member states: formal government institutions and planning policies are weak; the practically used financial, taxation and sectoral policies and regulatory tools are also weak. Most likely consequence: extensive urban sprawl.

The German Metropolitan Regions

• Approved by the „Ministerkonferenz für raumordnung”

• Aim: to enhance the 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

New ideas for integrated planning

Iván Tosics

• New territorial levels of planning (Jacquier)• The Hungarian Integrated Urban Development

Plans• The Romanian Growth Pole method:

metropolitan planning required• The Polish dilemma and the Silesian

innovation

JACQUIER: Multilevel : yesterday, today and may be tomorrow

A building process : the role of urban and regional policies

Until nowFormer Organisation

Polarized Spaces

"Hardware" Policies

Central State

Province

Commune

Now

Transition

ThenNew organisation

Homogeneous spaces

"Software" Policies

European Union

TransborderRegions

National Regions

Metropolitan

Areas

Neighbourhoods

VectorsSustainable Urban

Development

Integrated Policies as operators for transition

Social Cohesion Policy

SDEC, INTERREGCIP URBAN, URBACT

Regional PoliticiesDOCUP OPInterreg

National IPSUD

(Big Cities programmePolitique de la ville,

Soziale Stadt, ...)CIP Urban

Area-based approaches55

Integrated Urban Development Strategy (IUDS)

ROP 2007-2013 – compulsory requirement for all larger cities

• Based on long-term goals (15-20 years, city-region wide)

• The IUDS is a medium term (7-8 years) strategic document, 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

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 anti-

segregation program• External and internal correlation of the strategy• Major risks in implementing the strategy3. 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

Chapters of the IUDS

Assignment of action areas

• Indicative assignment of all 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

• Municipality must be in initiating and influencing role

• Details about the realistically do-able programs– Budget – Assessment of resources– Priorization – Alternative scenarios

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 policiesAnti-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: decreasing the degree of segregation and avoid increase of it somewhere else as a result of intervention

• Complex system of tools: housing, education, social care, health care (soft programmes)

• Mobilisation programme: elaboration of guidelines

The Urban Dimension of Romania’s Cohesion Policy

REGIONAL OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME 2007-2013

Gabriel FRIPTUHead of the Managing Authority

for Regional Operational Programme Ministry of Regional

Development and Housing

“Support to sustainable development of urban growth poles”- Objective & key area of intervention -

Allocated funds: 1.4 bill. Euro (30% in ROP financial allocation)Objective: To increase the quality of life and to create new jobs in cities, by

rehabilitating the urban infrastructure, improving services, including social services, as well as by developing business support structures and entrepreneurship.

 Key area of intervention: Integrated Urban Development Plans implemented through projects

addressing the following issues :A. Rehabilitation of the urban infrastructure and improvement of urban

services, including urban transport; B. Development of sustainable business environment; C. Rehabilitation of social infrastructure, including social housing and

improvement of social services.

“Support to sustainable development of urban growth poles”- Urban growth poles -

Three types of urban growth poles identified:

Growth poles - 7 large urban centers and their hinterland, designated by Government Decision: Iasi, Constanţa, Ploieşti, Craiova, Timişoara, Cluj-Napoca and 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.

“Support to sustainable development of urban growth poles” Growth poles - implementation arrangements (I)

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 growth poles and territorial administrative units in their hinterlands (towns, communes). County Councils may also be members of this Association;

Establishes the geographical area of the growth pole; Ensure the setting up of the technical team(s) of experts at the

level of each growth pole, having the task to elaborate, monitore and implement the Integrated Urban Development Plan;

Set up the decision-making mechanisms for each growth pole; Agree the Integrated Development Plans, including an action plan

containing a list of projects set up by AIDs;

“Support to sustainable development of urban growth poles” Growth poles - implementation arrangements (II)

Projects are financed from all operational programmes of NSRF, National Programme for Rural Development, as well as from national programmes and other sources: EIB, EBRD, etc;

Priority given by other Managing Authorities for SOPs to projects promoted by growth poles;

Regional Operational Programme allocates up to 50% (about 630 mil. Euro) from the financial allocation of ROP Priority Axis 1.

“Support to sustainable development of urban growth poles” Urban development poles - implementation

arrangements

The projects are implemented within the administrative borders of cities designated as urban development poles;

Integrated Development Plans, including an action plan with a list of projects are set up by municipalities; they should contain at least two types of projects out of the three eligible categories of activities: urban infrastructure, business structures and social infrastructure;

The projects are financed from the funds allocated to ROP Priority Axis 1 (up to 20% - about 253 mil. Euro), as well as from national programmes, private sources etc.

“Support to sustainable development of urban growth poles” Urban centers - implementation arrangements

Urban centers are small and medium sized towns with over 10,000 inhabitants;

Integrated Urban Development Plans, including an action plan with a list of projects are set up by municipalities; they should contain at least two types of projects out of the three eligible categories of activities: urban infrastructure, business structures and social infrastructure;

Integrated urban development plans are implemented in “urban actions zones” with at list 10.000 inhabitants, geographically delineated within urban centers;

The projects are financed from the funds allocated to ROP Priority Axis 1 (up to 30% - about 503 mil. Euro), as well as from other sources.

“Support to sustainable development of urban growth poles”- Implementation system -

A. Growth poles Submission of the Integrated Urban Development Plans (IUDP) to

the ROP MA for endorsement; Submission of the projects included in IUDP’s action plan to the IBs

of MA for ROP – in the case of projects financed under ROP and to the MA for SOPs – in the case of projects financed under other operational programmes for evaluation.

B. Urban development poles and urban centers Submission of the integrated development plans together with the

projects included in IUDP’s action plan to the IBs of MA for ROP for evaluation.

Polii de creştere din România

Adrian MariciucCoordonator Pol Timișoara, ADR Vest

Iasi Constanta

Ploiesti

Brasov

Timisoara

Cluj

Craiova

Finanţarea polilor de creştere

INFRASTRUCTURĂ

STRUCTURI DE AFACERI

IdentificareAria de influenţăurbană

ElaborarePlan integrat

SOCIAL

Elaborare Proiecte Individuale

Polul de creştere Timişoara - componenţa

o Population:Population: 380.000 inhabitants(100%) 380.000 inhabitants(100%)- core city: 330.000 inhabitants (87%)- core city: 330.000 inhabitants (87%)

- influence area: 50.000 inhabitants (13%)- influence area: 50.000 inhabitants (13%)

o Surface:Surface: 108.000 ha (100%) 108.000 ha (100%)

- core city: 13.000 ha (12%)- core city: 13.000 ha (12%)- influence area: 95.000 ha (88%) - influence area: 95.000 ha (88%)

o Economic turnover (2003-2006): Economic turnover (2003-2006): 100,0%100,0%

- core city: - core city: 91,4% 91,4%- influence area: 8,6%- influence area: 8,6%

GROWTH POLE TIMISOARAGROWTH POLE TIMISOARA- BASIC DATA -- BASIC DATA -

The Polish dilemma and the Silesian innovation

Levels of strategic and planning

documents

There is no metropolitan level of the adminstration

ESPON meeting – 15 December 2010

Legal context:metropolitan spatial planning

ESPON meeting – 15 December 2010

National Spatial Arrangement Policy, 2001 - currently obligatory planning document - prepared in the other legal system (invalid today) and Poland wasn’t a member of EU.

Project of National Spatial Arrangement Policy 2030 – in the preparatory phase:

–It is a main government strategic document defying the guidelines of the national spatial policy for 30 years;

–It combines components of spatial planning and socio-economic development aspects;

It presents a spatial development vision based on the functional network of national growth centers, which create a polycentric network metropolis (comprising of the biggest cities and other sub-regional and peripheral centers related to them) - open to the influence of the European metropolitan centers (it is a new approach to the spatial development vision of Poland than in the document from 2001)

National level:Poland’s spatial development (1)

ESPON meeting – 15 December 2010

Regional level:Voivodeship Spatial Development Plan, 2004

(1)EXISTING STATUS – the reference to Silesian Agglomeration („Silesia” Metropolis):

–Silesian Agglomeration (14 cities - boroughs) showing the tendency of: polycentric development and the migration of the population beyond the Agglomeration’s area (the development of the neighboring areas);

–Katowice is the biggest city of Agglomeration and the administrative capital of the Voivodeship;

Its periodical evaluation form2006

ESPON meeting – 15 December 2010

VISION - elements of the of the spatial structure:

–4 metropolitan areas with the centers in particular agglomerations (Silesian, Częstochowska, Rybnicka, Bielska Agglomerations) = they make Consolidated Sileisain Metroplitan Area (being a part of Silesian and Cracow Europolis);

–Multifunctional zones (of agricultural and residential, recreational and forest, agricultural and truism type, etc.) with local centers – evenly distributed in the entire Consolidated Silesian Metropolitan Areas;

–Development bands (transport and settlement corridors) – connected functionally with metropolitan areas and economically stimulated by location the development t and environmental friendly functions;

Regional level:Voivodeship Spatial Development Plan, 2004 (2)

Northern Metropolitan Area

Central Metropolitan Area

Western Metropolitan Area

Southern Metropolitan Area

Consolidated Silesian Metropolitan Area

ESPON meeting – 15 December 2010

The border of the Consolidated Silesian Metropolitan Area

The border of the Metropolitan Area

Agglomerations

Agglomeration of the European status (an element

of Europolis)

European center

National center

Supra local center

Local center

Centers supporting the agglomeration’s development

European and national development bands

Mulifunctinal zones

THE SPLANNED PATIAL STRUCTURE - reference to Silesian Agglomeration („Silesia” Metropolis):

–Silesian Agglomeration (consisting of 24 cities) is a center of the main metropolitan area of the European significance (along with Agglomerations of: Rybnik, Częstochowa, Bielsko-Biała - which are the centers of remaining of supportive metropolitan areas)

–Cities of the Agglomeration make one integrated area in terms of transport, economic and technical connections, which as a whole needs concentrated revitalization and restructuring actions.

The concept of the spatial structure

ESPON meeting – 15 December 2010

Regional level:Voivodeship Spatial Development Plan, 2004 (3)

Introduction – „Silesia” Metropolis

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katowice

ESPON meeting – 15 December 2010

35

km

60 km

Basic data

„Silesia” Metropol

is

[%] The Silesia

Voivodeship

[%]

area 1218 sq km

10% 12 334 sq km

100%

population

2 mln 43% 4,6 mln 100%

Summary on innovative solutions

• The Hungarian Integrated Urban Development Plans: to include social aspect into integrated planning

• The Romanian Growth Pole method: to delimit metropolitan area in which planning is required

• The Polish metropolitan dilemma and the Silesian innovation: to cover the administrative region with four functional areas