secondary cities in central and eastern europe the role ... · cz, pol. 10 – 12 % 15 ... randstad...
TRANSCRIPT
Secondary cities in Central and Eastern EuropeThe role and possibilities of functional urban
areas
Iván TosicsMetropolitan Research Institute
Budapest
Medium Sized Towns in European Spatial StructureHungarian Central Statistical Office
Budapest17 October 2018
I. Pecularities of urban development in the east-central European countries
II. Consequences on the urban structuresIII. Metropolitan areas around European
citiesIV. Benefits of metropolitan cooperationV. EU accession – a great opportunityVI. Institutional and political barriers to
metropolisation in east-central Europeancountries
difficult historical trajectories in the20th century
big backlog in infrastructuredevelopment
unprecedented quick market-ledchange from socialism to capitalism
negative tendencies in populationdevelopment
Capital cities of independent countries in East-Central EuropeBefore 1914 After 1920 After 1945 After 1992ViennaBelgradeBucharestSofiaCetinje(Montenegro)
Capital cities of independent countries in East-Central EuropeBefore 1914 After 1920 After 1945 After 1992Vienna ViennaBelgrade BelgradeBucharest BucharestSofia SofiaCetinje(Montenegro)
Budapest
WarsawPragueTiranaTallinnRigaVilnius
Capital cities of independent countries in East-Central EuropeBefore 1914 After 1920 After 1945 After 1992Vienna Vienna ViennaBelgrade Belgrade BelgradeBucharest Bucharest BucharestSofia Sofia SofiaCetinje(Montenegro)
Budapest Budapest
Warsaw WarsawPrague PragueTirana TiranaTallinnRigaVilnius
Capital cities of independent countries in East-Central EuropeBefore 1914 After 1920 After 1945 After 1992Vienna Vienna Vienna ViennaBelgrade Belgrade Belgrade BelgradeBucharest Bucharest Bucharest BucharestSofia Sofia Sofia SofiaCetinje(Montenegro)
Budapest Budapest Budapest
Warsaw Warsaw WarsawPrague Prague PragueTirana Tirana TiranaTallinn TallinnRiga RigaVilnius Vilnius
BratislavaLjubljanaZagrebSarajevoPodgoricaPristinaSkopjeMinskKievChisinau
Give-away housing privatization as one of the cornerstones of the changes• freeing up the public sector of the
responsibility for paying for the decades-long default in the maintenance of theolder multi-family housing stock
• allowing the residents to ’survive’ thechanges: housing was shock absorberinstead of agency of change
Countries Social (public) rental housing
Poverty rate
Old EU countries
NL, S, A 25 – 35 % 10 – 13 %
D, F, UK 15 – 25 % 14 – 18 %
ES, P, EL 1 – 5 % 19 – 23 %
Transitioncountries
CZ, POL 10 – 12 % 15 – 25 %
H, EST 3 – 4 % 20 – 30 %
ALB, BUL, ROM 1 – 3 % 30 – 40 %
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
1950
-195
5
1955
-196
0
1960
-196
5
1965
-197
0
1970
-197
5
1975
-198
0
1980
-198
5
1985
-199
0
1990
-199
5
1995
-200
0
2000
-200
5
2005
-201
0
2010
-201
5
2015
-202
0
2020
-202
5
2025
-203
0
2030
-203
5
2035
-204
0
2040
-204
5
2045
-205
0
In
thousands
EU27
Net migration
Natural increase
Population change
Source: United Nations 2008
-800-600-400-200
0200400600800
10001200
1950
-195
5
1955
-196
0
1960
-196
5
1965
-197
0
1970
-197
5
1975
-198
0
1980
-198
5
1985
-199
0
1990
-199
5
1995
-200
0
2000
-200
5
2005
-201
0
2010
-201
5
2015
-202
0
2020
-202
5
2025
-203
0
2030
-203
5
2035
-204
0
2040
-204
5
2045
-205
0
Migration
Natural inc reas e
P opulation c hange
EU10
Source: The ESPON 2013 ProgrammeDEMIFER (Demographic and migratory flows affecting European regions and cities) Reference scenarios, 2010:28)
STQ Scenario: Status quo scenario: the demographic trends remain the same
as currently
The map below displays an East-West gap in
demographic terms
capital city led developmentgrowing gaps between capital and
secondary citiesrelatively good spatial distribution of
medium sized cities
Top Secondary Outperforms Capital:Germany, Austria, Italy, Belgium, Ireland
Top Secondary Lags Capital by 5-20%:Spain, UK, Netherlands, France
Top Secondary Lags Capital by 20-30%:Denmark, Poland, Sweden, Finland, Portugal
Top Secondary Lags Capital by 30-45%:Hungary, Romania, Lithuania, Greece, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Croatia
Top Secondary Lags Capital by 50-65%: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia
Productivity Capitals and Secondaries 2007
Varna
Cluj-Napoca
Daugavpils
Klaipeda
Poznan
Tartu
Gyor Porto
OstravaKosice
Split Maribor Thessalonica
Odense
Bilbao Milan
Salzburg
Gothenburg
Turku
Edinburgh
Antwerp
Randstad South
Timisoara
Katowice-Zory
Barcelona
Munich
Turin Tampere
Bradford-Leeds
Lyon
Cork
Sofia
Bucharest
Riga
Vilnius
Warsaw
Tallinn
Budapest Lisbon
Prague
Bratislava
ZagrebLlubljana
Valletta Nicosia
Athens
CopenhagenMadrid
Berlin
Rome
Vienna Stockholm Helsinki
London
Paris
Brussels
Dublin
Randstad North
Luxembourg
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
110,000
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
110,000City Case study Country Capital
Unitary regionalised
Unitary regionalised
Federal Federal
Federal Unitary
Unitary
Unitary
Unitary
Unitary
Unitary Decentralised
Nordic
Unitary Decentralised
Nordic
Unitary Decentralised
Nordic
Unitary centralised
former socialist
Unitary centralised
former socialist
The BUSINESS of CITIES 24
Most European metropolitan areas are growing
OECD, Metro population growth, 2000-2014
In Europe the administrative system of municipalities is historically rooted and does not correspond to the present realities of urban life
Europe has 21st century economy, 20th century governments, 19th century territorial systems
Analysis: areas with different functions around cities
Morphologic area (MUA): built up continuously
Functional Urban Area (FUA): day to day connections
Larger economic area: the territory which can be reached within one hour from the airport
Exploring and measuring functional areas around cities
Two databases: • ESPON research determining MUA and FUA areas
around all medium and larger European cities • recent OECD attempt to determine metropolitan (FUA)
areas around larger cities in the OECD countriesNo common understanding/definition exists for all cities onwhat a FUA is.
CITIES Admin city (million) MUA/city FUA/city
London 7,43 1,1 1,8
Berlin 3,44 1,1 1,2
Madrid 3,26 1,5 1,6
Paris 2,18 4,4 5,1
Lisbon 0,53 4,4 4,9
Manchester 0,44 5,0 5,8
Warsaw 1,69 1,2 1,7
Vienna 1,60 1,0 1,6
Budapest 1,70 1,2 1,5
Prague 1,17 1,0 1,4
Brno 0,38 1,0 1,4
Bratislava 0,43 1,0 1,7
AVERAGE (40 cities) 42.63 mill 1,7 2,3
Sources: ESPON, 2007: Study on Urban Functions. ESPON Study 1.4.3 IGEAT, Brussels. Final Report March 2007 www.espon.eu City population: http://www.citypopulation.de
OECD delimitation of functional urban areas
• OECD identification of FUAs– population grid from the global dataset Landscan (2000). Polycentric cores and
the hinterlands of FUAs identified on the basis of commuting data, including all settlements from where at least 15% of the workers commute to any of the core settlement(s).
• OECD defined four categories (total functional urban area): – small urban areas with a population of 50 – 200 thousand; – medium-sized urban areas (200 – 500 thousand), – metropolitan areas (500 thousand – 1,5 million); – large metropolitan areas (above 1,5 million population).
• 29 OECD countries: 1175 functional urban areas. Public database: www.oecd.org/gov/regional/measuringurban
• European OECD countries: 659 functional urban areas (29 large metropolitan areas and 88 metropolitan areas).
European OECD Countries
Large metro-
politan area
(1,5 mill - )
Metropolitanarea
(0,5 mill-1,5 m)
Medium sized urban
area
(200 th–500)
Small urban area
(50 th– 200 th)
SUMM Share of population in
FUAs (%)
Austria 1 2 3 - 6 56,5Belgium 1 3 4 3 11 58,9Czech Rep 1 2 2 11 16 45,6Denmark 1 3 - - 4 53,8Estonia - 1 - 2 3 55,3Finland - 1 2 4 7 49,7France 3 12 29 39 83 62,8Germany 6 18 49 36 109 64,3Greece 1 1 1 6 9 49,8Hungary 1 - 7 2 10 49,7Ireland - 1 1 3 5 50,3Italy 4 7 21 42 74 50,8Luxembourg - - 1 - 1 80,2Netherlands 1 4 11 19 35 72,1Norway - 1 3 2 6 44,5Poland 2 6 16 34 58 55,2Portugal 1 1 3 8 13 53,9Slovak Rep - 1 1 6 8 36,9Slovenia - 1 1 - 2 39,1Spain 2 6 22 46 76 62,7Sweden 1 2 1 8 12 52,7Switzerland - 3 3 4 10 55,6UK 3 12 44 42 101 73,0SUMM 29 88 225 317 659
Source: GerQházi, É –Hegedüs, J – SzemzQ, H –Tosics, I – Tomay, K – Gere, L (2011) The impact of European demographic trends on regional and urban development. Synthesis report. Hungarian Presidency of the Council of the European Union. Budapest, April 2011
Coordination between neighbouring municipalities in functional urban areas is crucial to
avoid the negative effects of competition (investments, services, taxes) between local authorities
help to integrate policies – economic, environmental and social challenges can best be addressed at once on broader urban level
reach the economy of scale – size matters in economic terms and in services
in shrinking urban areas manage shrinking in sustainableway
The metropolitan area is the appropriate spatial level for effective integrated approaches to sustainable development, helping to bridge urban-rural issues and achieve more balanced development.
ANALYSIS OF THE METROPOLITAN AREAS
Functions and institutional forms of collaboration around40 European cities explored by EUROCITIES, Metropolitan Areas In Action (MAIA ) survey :• content/functions of cooperation: from loose talks
through single or more functions till strong joint multi-functional planning
• institutional forms of cooperation: from no form or statistical unit through weak delegated council till strong (elected or delegated) council
• spatial dimension of collaboration compared to FUA39
Functions
Institution
Networking Some functions
Strong planning
Noorganization
Brussels,Brno
Vienna
Delegatedorganization
Bratislava Amsterdam Frankfurt
Electedorganization
Stuttgart
Metropolitan functions and organizations: European examples
Good practices of metropolitan coordination: governance and planning solutions
Successful metropolitan organizations• New Metropolitan City (2014) gets EU funding: Bari. Pact signed
with government on €230 mill, plus another €40 mill in the Open peripheries project. New ringroad, metropolitan platform onjobs, public transport development.
• Metropolitan area formed and gets funding: AMB aroundBarcelona. Third largest budget after Catalunya and Barcelona city. €30 mill ERDF project was signed between AMB and Catalunya. This was success as there were many enemies and also the MA and Brussels had to be convinced.
• Cohesion Policy ITI measure initiates metropolitan cooperation inPL, CZ, RO
Barcelona Metropolitan AreaPopulation: Barcelona 1,6 mill, First Zone 1,6 mill, Second Zone 1,5 millBMA was created by a law of Catalan Parliament in 2010. BMA has 36 municiplaities, 3,2 million population.BMA gets its €1,5 bn budget from the municipalities and not from national or regional level.Functions: providing public services in the metropolitan area, promoting affordable housing, approving the Metropolitan Urban Mobility Plan, preparing Metropolitan Urban Master Plan.
Metropolitan Council: 90 metropolitan councillors, each of the 36 municipalities represented proportionally to their demographic weight. Governing Board: the AMB president (mayor of Barcelona) and the metropolitan councillors appointed by the president at the proposal of the Metropolitan Council. Meets at least twice a month.
Planning in flexible spacefor implementing in fixed space
Administrative cities
Central states
Provinces
European Union
Neighbourhoods
Metropolitan areas
Transborder & macro-regions
New: flexible action spaceOld: fixed action space
Adapted from Jacquier, 2010
Planning cooperation to implement cooperation ideas on elected government level: ZÜRICH
• Switzerland defined metro areas and prescribed mandatory cooperation within these
• Zürich (415 th) is center of the metro area (1,9 mill), including 8 cantoons and 122 settlements
• It took 7 years to build up cooperation, with regulation of growth and working out how to compensate those whose growth is limited.
• The agreement was achieved in theinformal level of planningconference, the resolution of whichis not binding but will be graduallytaken over by the 8 cantoonswhich make binding decisions.
Strategic spatial planning as meta-governance tool.
Planning cooperation to implement cooperation ideas on elected government level: HAMBURG
Planning cooperation to implement cooperation ideas on elected government level: HAMBURG
• Hamburg Metropolitan Region: 4 federal states (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Niedersachsen, Schleswig-Holstein and the city state of Hamburg), 17 districts ("Landkreise") and 3 citiesshare the belief in urban-urban and urban-rural cooperationwithin the metropolitan region.
• The 4 federal states run first cluster policies jointly. The nextbig challenge will be that each actor does not invest intodigital transition just for himself, but that governmentsunderstand that they can only be successful, if they cooperatewith their neighbours.
Source: Rolf-Barnim Foth
2004: post-socialist countries became ‚new member states’
EU accession opened up of a huge pot of money for development
Equally important: new system of planning with compulsory elements to assure integration between policy areas and participation of affected people
EU Cohesion Policy: 1/3 of EU budget, concentrated heavily on poorer countries
EU Cohesion Policy: a promising attempt towards more integrated urban development
Early 2010s: the raising of a locally lead integrated approach tosustainable urban development. Method: ringfencing financing forintegrated development with Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI) as compulsory tool for it. ITI was promising from many aspects: • to put strategic thinking ahead of project based actions, • to support functional area approaches both on neighbourhood and
on city-region level as opposed to the administrative territories, • to push for integration between policy fields and between funds, • to acknowledge the local/metropolitan level as direct client in
Structural Funds policy (delegation)No wonder that many cities became excited and raised highexpectations (getting block grant) towards the post-2014 StructuralFunds.
50
Sustainable urban development: A priority for 2014-2020
At least 5% of European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) should be invested in integrated sustainable urban development at national level
• Integrated urban development strategies developed by citiesto be implemented as Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI), a multi-thematic priority axis or a specific Operational programme.
• Projects are selected by the cities in line with the strategies.• Urban-rural linkages have to be taken into account.• Use of community-led local development approaches possible
(CLLD): consulting local citizens' organisations.
51
ITI: Combination of funds and programmes
Regional ERDF-OP National ERDF-OP ESF-OP
INTERMEDIATE BODY + complementary funding from EAFRD and/or EMFF
(urban) territory
I T I
ITI – Teritorial definition of the Warsaw Functional Area
surface: 2.932 sqkm. (8% of the surface of the region)
population:2.656.917 inhabitants(50,3% of the population of the region)
40 communes –including Warsaw(within 11 counties)
Unwilling Member States, cautious Commission, hesitating Parliament
The brave proposals of the Commission have been substantially “watereddown” during the 2010-2012 debates with the Member States• the broad application of multi-fund financing was irrealistic as not
even the Commission itself could achieve better cooperation betweenERDF and ESF
• the delegation to the city level was a wish of the EC and EP but thenational and regional level was completely against it
• the simplification was only a dream: the Commission was pushed bythe Court of Auditors into more control with ever more administrativeconditionalities: ERDF – ESF; thematic concentration, transition regions
• the new ideas for integrated approach would have needed clearexplanations but the Commission was in serious delay with documentshelping to operationalize ITI
As a conseqence the resulting regulation-compromise proved to be tooweak to achieve the originally aimed strong position of the European cities
National level frameworks
Good examples of national policies topromote metropolitan areas can be founde.g. in Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Switzerland• France: urban communities• Italy: 14 metropolitan cities (joining provinces)• Poland: metropolitan level planning (EU)• Germany: metropolitan regions
Metropolitan initiatives 1.Countr
yInitiative Top-
down Bottom-up?
Gate-keeper level
FR Municipal associations: series of laws since 1999 to initiate
collaboration
TD –BU
(Region)
FR Regional reform (2015) and thinking about the future of
departements
TD
IT Metropolitan cities initiative: 1990, 2000, 2012, 2014; thinking
about the future of provinces
TD Region
DE Metropolitan regions initiative: from the 1990s
BU Lander
Metropolitan initiatives 2.Country Initiative Top-
down Bottom-up?
Gate-keeper level
PL Regional reform in 1990s. Metropolization of regional
seats since 2007, based on EU resources (ITI)
TD –BU
Region
RO Municipal associations since 2004, Growth Poles to allocate
EU resources since 2007
TD
CZ Metropolitan law since 2015 TD
All large cities of the Central East Europeancountries can deliver shiny brochures about dynamic metropolitan development
In reality progress is limited to economic development, due to the activities of private economic actors
most of the conditions of metropolization(leadership, incentives from higher tears of government, evolving governance structures, strong and cooperative personalities, institutions, research and expertise) are weak or missing
58
Budapest: suburbanization tendencies
BudapestrQl Pest megyébe költözQk száma (szuburbanizáció) illetve Pest megyébQl Budapestre való költözQk számának alakulása 1995-
2011 között
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1995-2011
fQ
Pest megyébQl Budapestreköltözés
BudapestrQl Pest megyébeköltözés
Forrás: KSH adatok alapján szerkesztés: Schuchmann Júlia (PhD dolgozat)
Planning in the Budapest metropolitan area
Large differences in level of development between the city (1,7 mill), the agglomeration (800 th) and the periphery of the county (400 th) Development is largely determined by private market actors. The public sector is fragmented, local municipalities around Budapest have large independence.Positive initiatives for cooperation in the 2000s: • Creation of Budapest Agglomerational Council (BAFT),
supporting joint planning• Establishment of Budapest Transport Association• Creation of multi-functional territorial associations
between neighbouring municipalities• Budapest and Pest County together as NUTS 2 region
60
Együttmqködés kialakítása a metropolisz térségben
61
Stratégiai kapcsolatok szerkezete
Since 2010: dissolution of all cooperation mechanisms
• The 7 NUTS 2 regions have lost importance (development councils dissolved), the 19 counties became actors of territorial development (without capacities)
• Multi-functional territorial associations have been dissolved and replaced by administative units
• All agglomerational institutions (BAFT, Budapest Transport Association) have been dissolved, replaced by ad-hoc agreements
• Early 2016: Budapest and Pest County separated, Central Hungarian Region to be dissolved in 2020
Centralization: against regional and metropolitan cooperation
• Regional planning and development has been downplayed in Hungary, sectorial planning became dominant by strong ministries
• The elimination of all agglomerational and regional cooperation mechanisms in the Budapest area shows that politics lost its interest in long-term steering of difficult territorial mechanisms with the involvement of all stakeholders
• In the largest cities of Hungary most of the major development questions are directly influenced by the central government , and there is little attention paid to functional area linkages and planning – in this regard Hungary is different from PL and CR
Conclusions I.
Metropolitan coordination is a very urgent challenge ingrowing, dynamic urban areas• housing in growing cities can not be solved without
metropolitan planning cooperation• transport issues and coordination of investments
are crucial topics on metropolitan levelMetropolitan coordination is also important to manageshrinking in a sustainable wayMetropolitan governance/planning could become a key factor in the development of secondary citiesin the CEE region, if politics would support it
Conclusions II.• The cities of the Central and East European countries
have shown quick economic restructuring in the last 28 years
• The secondary (medium) cities are not the winners of the restructuring
• Their development depends mainly on national policies, through which EU money is allocated
• Relatively good examples can be found in PL and CR where ITI was used for development and the national level supports metropolitan areas
• Integrated metropolitan development would help secondary cities but this would require stronger EU framework and more determined national policies
