Intra-metropolitan polycentricity ÆIMP) sectoral clustering of firms form a polycentric pattern -...

METREX Expert Group on ’Intra-Metropolitan Polycentricity’4th Workshop Sofia 25th-26th of Feb, 2010

Intra-metropolitan polycentricity ( IMP)as a meaningful concept …

to promote functional labour divisions between centres andto promote economic

competitiveness/restructuring processes andto identify a robust and resilient future

development path?

Dr. Peter Schmitt, Nordregio

Questionnaire received from: (1) City of Sofia (2) Metropolitan Region Central Germany(3) City of Helsinki*(4) Region Frankfurt/Rhein-Main(5) Warsaw Metropolitan Area(6) Emilia-Romagna region(7) Naples region*(8) Ile-de-France (Paris Region)(9) Tri-City (Gdansk-Sopot-Gdynia)*(10) City of Rotterdam(11) Stockholm region(12) Madrid (member of the other expert group on employment location)*

(13) Veneto region – on the way (?)*

* no attendance at the Sofia workshop

Some annotations:

- mainly focus on IMP as a planning concept ( ‘normative’)

- partly IMP is understood as a ‘certain territorial quality’

- MA = metropolitan area (the area of reference for applying that concept) – can vary between ‘city-regional’ and ‘mega-regional scale’

- we need keep in mind different dynamics in our MAs

- we need to keep in mind different points of departure in our MAs (institutions, political-economy, and of course territorial layout)

I To what extent is Intra-Metropolitan Polycentricity (IMP) a useful concept to promote functional labour divisions between centers ?

Three issues have been addressed:

(1) expectations and rationales, pros and cons

(2) examples of current strategies, projects, programmes

(3) experiences, ‘lessons learnt’, recommendations to the group

(1) expectations and rationales

some PROs…

- IMP offers broad choice of locations for economic activities (responding better to investors’ needs)

- IMP stimulates competition/specialisation/clustering of economic activities that makes the MA more competitive

- IMP can help to strengthen distinct centres (i.e. to widen their functional profile and to make them more attractive for investments/households)in order to become more competitive in comparison to the uncontested regional centre (the central city)


… and some sceptical voices:

- functional division of labour ( complementarities) is nothing we explicitly strive for – it is reality and we do not try to enforce it even more –rather we want to emphasise the differences within our MA (diverse business/residential environments)

- to assume to develop voluntarily ‘binding agreements’ on special profiles/functions for each centre and that public stakeholders are able ‘to influence market forces’ is unlikely …

- … instead: it is much easier just to advertise existing economic profiles/clusters of different centres as ‘the city-region’s competitive assets’


Different realities, contexts and stages of application :

- IMP not an explicit objective in the current regional plan –although sectoral clustering of firms form a polycentric pattern

- strategic spatial plans (at the municipal and city-regional level) to promote IMP have just been launched

- regional plan does not point out ‘special profiles’ for the eight growth centres outside the central city, it rather seeks to stimulate a ‘wider functional mix’


Market driven versus results of planning (?):

- to be distinguished: cluster activities/new business parks/industrial zones that are initiated through public incentives and those that are almost market driven

- in our daily work we are keen on supporting clustering activities that appear to be market driven

two (other) examples to shape the polycentric assets of a CR:- airport cooperation (e.g. to bring the city-regional airports within one holding)

- to strive for more distinguishable profiles between HEIs


Again the power/scope of planning and its tools:

- ‘markets’ are the main determining factor, but spatial planning has four key tools: land-use regulations, levels of taxation and other inducements, land-markets, public transport

- but: no tools to avoid the current re-location of headquarters of multi-national firms from the centre to the outskirts of the CR (cheaper

economic crisis)

- public investments in the transport sector to balance regional development have only a minor effect on the locations strategies of firms “they rather tend to exploit potential synergies with other firms in more prestigious/advanced locations”


At the limits of the IMP concept:

- transportation corridors can impede a bundling of functions (i.e. creation of centres) in case they are not linked by those

- market-driven clustering often occur in location with poor PT accessibility

- applying IMP has not avoided a general re-hierarchisation within the MA (prestigious KIBS in the centre, rather back-office-functions in the ‘new towns’/’second/third-tier centres’)

- former attempts to dev. more complementarities within the MA have failed, but now the cities/centres try to avoid duplicatingeach other “might lead to more functional division of labour anyhow”


Again the tricky relation of market forces and planning for IMP:

- polycentricity & labour divisions result of urbanisation/industrialisation (and thus different kinds of markets), not of planning

- difficulty to balance the planners’ interests and the market forces (in particular when transforming from ‘plan’ to ‘market’ economy)

- market forces can change the centres profiles and thus the labour division among them we need to try to play/plan with market forces and not against them!

- industrial clustering market driven // clustering of services has to be facilitated/financed by public authorities to assure sustainability

- at times of economic crises existing strong labour division & specialisation of centres is advantageous, but disadvantageous to react on econ. changes


A question of the appropriate Governance-style:

- the division of labour is currently rather perceived as a win-lost situation (not likely to be part of voluntary cooperation in the future)

recent research (interviews with lord mayors) reveals that functional labour divisions are desirable but hardly to achieve

- Experiences show that striving for complementarities need top-down incentives (‘carrots and sticks’) to put this issue on the ‘MA’s agenda’

- holistic strategy for the entire MA is required plus coordination between cities and adjustments of ‘their own policies’

Further remarks

again: very different starting points maintaining or creating polycentricity

the power of planning ? driver or just reactive (on market forces)

relations between centres difficult to grasp ?

complementarities/synergies – impossible to make happen?

working on changing structures or ‘just’ perceptions

II To what extent is Intra-Metropolitan Polycentricity (IMP) a useful concept to promote economic competitiveness/restructuring processes ?






Some general ones…

- whether an IMP approach means better pre-conditions for regional competitiveness or economic restructuring capacity compared to amonocentric one can be doubted

- but: A polycentric MA might be advantageous in economic crises if they have managed to develop a diverse economic structure (that monocentric MAs can develop too, of course)

- to develop attractive growth centres can strengthen the overallregional competitiveness/supporting the ever ongoing restructuring processes

- firms can (more easily) tap into the MA’s agglomeration advantages (e.g. larger potential labour force and hence a better match between supply and demand of labour, a more diversified economy, more cultural attractions, more diverse residential and business environments to choose from, better amenities and transportation facilities; a larger demand market)


What IMP may help to achieve …

- IMP offers the opport. for a diversified and innovative economic structure it strengthens the MA’s capacity to compete against others

- IMP can trigger positively the competition between regional institutions and therefore leads to an efficient use of infrastructure capacities -especially at times of downturn in the economy - inter-municipal cooperation (e.g. for providing/maintaining infrastructures) is a vital tool to save money

- IMP can help to generate a higher critical mass to become attractive e.g. for huge transport infrastructures (HSP, airports)

- “it makes the existing ‘economic DNA’ of the different centres more visible and robust”


But…

- the share of benefits and costs have to be clarified within theMA – in particular if the medium size level is missing (small centres are afraid to be just subordinated by decisions taken in the ‘central city ‘)

- if political and organisational coordination is lacking, IMP can lead to increasing (transaction) costs and duplicating of institutions with the same purpose (e.g. for economic development, cultural affairs)

- empowering the existing multi-functional centers, developing new ones and to connect them can be a driver

this demands, however, a complex multi-sectoral policy approach

(2) some examples of current strategies, projects, programmes

- the new action programme being developed in cooperation with the municipalities (hosting the growth centres) aims at increasing the general attractiveness of the growth centres - this includes also to develop those functions that for instance only exist in the ‘central city’ today

- the new strategic spatial plan encourages the facilitating of anew ‘IMP structure’ e.g. by promoting a more spatially cohesive development corridor east-west to act as a balance to the strong northern territory investment corridor at present

(2) some examples of current strategies, projects, programmes

- for each ‘specific zone’ policies are focused on the empowerment of ‘their main component’ as well as on the integration of lacking ‘components’(such as urban, environmental and cultural heritage, industry, services).

- due to the spatial re-location of more and more back office activities (and partly also HQs) to the outskirts local actors and land lords make efforts to improve public services, PT and a better mix of housing and economic activities


The more general ones…

- there is no clear track record as the polycentric concept is rather new

- planners should try to understand market mechanisms better “This can be a delicate balance as planners also have to go

against certain market interests sometimes”

- the most successful experiences in creating new centers in our MA are those of the ‘new towns’ with a ‘comprehensive long-term strategy’


…more general ones…

- strong need to coordinate land-use polices – otherwise a run to the bottom by offering ‘dumping prices’ (low taxes/land prices) no regional benefit

- cooperation and coordination needed to make sure that the entire MA develops consistently according to ‘one concept for IMP’

- the more polycentric a region is, the more interests exist “cooperation can not be imposed, but need incentives and

support (carrots)”


… and the more specific ones

- at the moment a more ‘mature’ model of IMP is being promoted (i.e. cities invite companies to locate their businesses in specific zones)“unfortunately so far the experiences are rather negative due to competing on the same clusters/firms”

- the development of local growth centres (that are not only retail centres) is in particular important in terms of ‘economic transformation’ “this requires a consequent spatial strategy of business development covering the entire MA with a corresponding governance regime”

- re-location of firms to non-integrated, but well accessible locations by private car can only be avoided if policies focus on promoting ‘existing core areas with a good level of PT’ – “only then a polycentric MA becomes reality”

- defining a centre’s profile too narrow is risky, since restructuring in the economy can happen very fast and then such policies become redundant

Further remarks

many pros and cons …

polycentric MAs are dynamic systems require (apparently) complex modes of

governance/coordination

again: planning in line with market forces or against them a tightrope walk ?

III To what extent is Intra-Metropolitan Polycentricity (IMP) a useful concept to identify a robust and resilient future development path?





(1) expectations and rationales(1) of (3)

- we feel that being monocentric has many advantages, such as an easier exploitation of the available critical mass

- IMP helpful to decrease agglomeration disadvantages in the central city

- IMP will be the key and dominant ‘process’ to create a better spatial balance between the centre and the periphery -whilst recognising the economic and cultural special roles that the centre provides and to protect this role

- IMP can help to promote the regional competitiveness as well asterritorial cohesion within the MA

- IMP useful to respond to the concentric expansion of the MA


(2) of (3)

- IMP can create a certain ‘regional identity’, synergies and a strong promotion of endogenous values

- IMP can improve the use of PT and balance the flows of people -this requires a distinct selection of centres that are appropriate for this this will lead to future improvements in quality of life

- functions (such as jobs, health centres, social services, leisure and culture)can all be decentralised successfully without undermining the role of the centre


(3) of (3)

- a ‘polycentric economic system’ composed by different sectors/clusters can better resist in economic crisis/more flexible to changes

- attractive and accessible local growth centres that are affordable for start-ups can become a ‘resilient’ generator of new jobs

- difficult to say if a polycentric MA is more resilient than a monocentric one – there are some signs it can help to achieve a higher level of sustainable developments - but other factors are more decisive (e.g. quality of transportation system, model split etc.).


To be kept in mind: Two diametrical views

- “for us IMP is something we should cope with (and we do it by fostering functional and governmental linkages between the cities) rather than something that can or needs to be planned for”

- “we are working on a plan for promoting clusters to create centers for the regional specialization in various economic activities”


Planning for IMP – one example of a ‘new’ regional plan:

- the most important issue is to develop a structure with attractive growth centres that can attract new investments and can thus adapt to changing market needs

- a good urban environment, good public transport and regional/sub-regional accessibility are key ingredients

- basic qualities of IMP is to reduce land consumption and to promote better public transport solutions


Key question: what is the ‘critical ceiling’ how large/big a city should be in order to provide a convenient place to live and economies of scale?

A voice from the research community:

- recent research has shown polycentric MAs are less able to exploit their critical mass compared to monocentric ones

- but, on the other hand, the balance between agglomeration advantages and disadvantages appears to be better in polycentric metropolitan areas

- if we feel that IMP should be considered as something to be strived after, then more research is needed to show that it is advantageous

- we do not think polycentric MAs are better or worse than monocentricones

Hence: none of the two can be considered necessarily as a superior objective for planning


The capacity of the governance regime matters:

- IMP can be a resilient system if it is supported by an institutional framework that is able to adopt adequate and well-timed strategies in different fields of policies

“IMP useful if it is not only a spatial concept, but also an institutional concept and a governance approach”

- important: interaction and integration of stakeholders (private and public, civil society) at different spatial scales

- IMP claims cooperation and mutual understanding between local authorities (neighboring municipalities) and between local and regional authorities

- IMP needs strong support from powerful sectoral stakeholders (in terms of money and tools e.g. from the transport sector)


Some are quite certain about the following:

- IMP is the most effective approach to generate a resilient economic system within a MA “it allows productive integrations, close connections between companies and research centres, exchanges between entrepreneurs and good opportunities for labour mobility”

- IMP can help to improve the competitiveness of particular districts/centers and to (indirectly) reduce traffic

- a key objective of IMP should be still to reconcile competitiveness and territorial cohesion hence: it should address not only economic aspects, but also issues such as quality of life


Apparently the ‘strategic capacity’ is critical in applying IMP:

- IMP is a only successful if the stakeholders are not impatient – it is a long-term strategic strategy

- example: the municipalities hosting the growth centres have underestimated so far the challenge - there is lack of long term thinking, to develop the organisational capacity, activate required resources and marketing

“hence we think we could support the municipalities by working together on an Action plan for the polycentric structure (…) perhaps we should develop a follow-up system to be able to direct our support in a better way in the future”


What we need to know… and the future of the expert group:

- in order to estimate whether IMP is better than a more monocentric approach one needs to evaluate many decisions in planning and policy (e.g. are three small theatres better than one big one?)

- to fully explore the added-value of IMP one needs to go into details of ‘system research’ and ‘planning theory (and also practices?)’

- Proposal to follow-up the work of this expert group:

starting from the joint perception that IMP is a useful concept we should seek for evidence with regard to the ‘necessary components’, and how to identify the balance between ‘self regulation’ and ‘external steering’

Further remarks

many pros and cons …

no consensus – many different views, expectations and experiences

more questions than answers ?

more ‘evidence/knowledge’ needed – future of the expert group?

Intra-metropolitan polycentricity ÆIMP) sectoral clustering of firms form a polycentric pattern -...

Documents

Transcript of Intra-metropolitan polycentricity ÆIMP) sectoral clustering of firms form a polycentric pattern -...