New Tools and Approaches for Managing Urban Transformation

8/9/2019 New Tools and Approaches for Managing Urban Transformation

1/38

New Tools and

approaches for

managing urban

Transformation

Processes inIntermediate

Cities

ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN

AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

Nanterre, 1-2 October, 2010


2/38

2

PREFACE: URBACT II PROGRAMME & NeT-TOPIC

00_INTRODUCTION

PRESENTATION BY PATRICK JARRY, MAYOR OF NANTERRE

01_CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE THEME OF THE SEMINAR

The end of the diffuse metropolitan urban model and territorial strategies to make a city

The democratic metropolitan government and decentralisation.

JORDI BORJA, Geographer and Urban Planner. Co-director of Postgraduate Programme in CityManagement at UOC (Universitat Oberta de Catalunya).

The limitations and potential of citizen participation in metropolitan areas -

HLOSE NEZ, Professor at University Paris 13 and researcher at Laboratoire Architecture VilleUrbanisme Environnement.

The Metropolis - a Question of Legitimacy and Identity -

Dr. CHRISTIAN LEFEVRE, Professor at the Institut Franais dUrbanisme, University Paris Est,researcher at LATTS Centre (Laboratoire, Techniques, Territoires et Socits).

02_URBAN AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE IN NeT-TOPIC CITIES

NANTERRE (France) - MR. GRARD PERREAU BEZOUILLE,1st Deputy Mayor, Nanterre CityCouncil.

SACELE (Romania) - MRS. DANA RISNOVEANU, Head of European the Integration Department. SceleCity Council.

LHOSPITALET (Spain) - MRS. ANA MARA PRADOS, Councillor of Urban Planning and Public Works,LHospitalet.

SALFORD (United Kingdom) - Councillor MR. DEREK ANTROBUS, Lead Member for Planning, SalfordCity Council.

03_SHARING, COMPARING AND LEARNING WITHIN THE NETWORK. A WORKING

SESSION AMONG THE NeT-TOPIC CITIES

04_MAIN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS FROM THE SEMINAR

INDEX


3/38

3

PREFACE

NeT-TOPIC is a Thematic Network within URBACT II, an European exchange and learning programme that enables cities to worktogether to build solutions to major urban challenges.

NeT-TOPIC is composed of European peripheral cities in transformation, with shared problems including industrial decline, terri-torial fragmentation and social polarisation. Located near to major cities, they are transforming to more attractive urban areas:focusing on developing their own urban identity, offering a greater quality of life, improving citizen integration and social cohesionto fulfil a new role within their metropolitan areas.

One of the biggest challenges faced by these cities is the use and promotion of new tools and approaches relating to territorialgovernance and urban planning processes at local, regional and national level to improve urban transformation processes. Thenetwork provides these cities with a platform to reflect on changes in the city model to increase the strategic value of its territory.

NeT-TOPICs network aims to foster the exchange of knowledge, experiences and best practices among its partners. The projectseeks to enhance the role of peripheral cities in territorial governance and urban planning processes to achieve their desired newcity model.

The URBACT II Programme enables cities to work together to develop solutions to major urban challenges, reaffirming the keyrole they play in facing increasingly complex societal changes. URBACT helps cities to develop pragmatic solutions that are newand sustainable, and that integrate economic, social and environmental dimensions. It enables cities to share good practices andlessons learned with all professionals involved in urban policy throughout Europe. URBACT is 300 cities, 29 countries, and 5.000active participants. URBACT is jointly financed by ERDF and the Member States.

This publication intends to gather the interventions and conclusions of the third Thematic Seminar organised by NeT-TOPICThematic Network under the title: ENHANCING NEW FORMS OR URBAN AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE, held in Nanterrelast 1st October 2010.

NeT-TOPIC &THE URBACT IIPROGRAMME


4/38

4

The main topic that we wanted to tackle during this seminarwas metropolitan governance from the point of view of the pe-ripheral local authorities. This is a key matter.Urban governancewithin metropolitan areas is about linking actors and decisionsat different levels, involving various public authorities (national,regional, metropolitan, local...) private individuals and social orcommunity actors.

In general terms, metropolitan governance deals with governing

and managing urban issues across boundaries (both geographi-cal and administrative). In the context of globalisation and itseffects on the local economy, the rising share of service-basedactivities (for business and residents alike), the development ofnew information and communication technologies, the increasein mobility, the fragmentation of urban space, social and spatialsegregation, new models of governance for European Metropoli-tan areas need to be developed.

In a huge number of cases, built up areas have grown over theyears and appear to widely ignore municipal boundaries, whichhave either not evolved at all, or have done so, however not fast

enough to reflect this new reality. For example, the economicsystem can extend over an even larger area. In European cities,labour markets have been expanding for years over increasinglywider areas, and their catchment areas sprawl far beyond citylimits over large suburban zones. This phenomenon is well-knownand data shows its growth over the years.

Different levels of public sector (local, regional, national) arecompelled to share decisions beyond their own competences, be-cause an increasing number of problems in urban planning andmanagement depend on several institutions. The public sector,and specifically, local authorities in metropolitan areas or cityregions, have to develop forms of governance appropriate to

functional and morphological city regions at supra-municipalitylevel. Public competences should be delegated across differentlevels of government. (What goes where?). We have to find ap-propriate spatial scales for specific functions of urban planningand public policy. In the case of NeT-TOPIC, the urban governan-ce networks have particular relevance when it comes to holdingonto the links between central and peripheral cities and betweenthe peripheral cities within the city region.

The exchanges, discussions and learnings that arose from theNanterre seminar have been forged around these issues. Allmember cities of NeT-TOPIC are concerned with new forms of

metropolitan governance. The seminar was a very useful space inwhich to learn and to share experiences and ideas on the topic.

00_ INTRODUCTION

The Seminar was organized in AGORA (Nanterre) the house of

the citizen intiatives


5/38

5

PRESENTATION

PRESENTATIONBY PATRICK JARRY,MAYOR OF NANTERRE

Nanterre is a specific city within the Paris metropolitanarea: a popular town integrated into the largest businessarea in Europe.

Today there is intense, and sometimes very difficult, debateand confrontation, regarding the future of the city and itsrelation with the metropolitan area. The town and its citi-zens try to tackle the challenge of being a popular town inthe heart of a business area. To this end, a few days ago,we had a meeting in this very place to discuss our effortsand the actions we are taking to stop the Dfense businessdistrict from taking over a part of our territory. Up until2010, the State wanted to confiscate half of the municipal

territory: it wanted to take 600 hectares and use that spa-ce to extend this business area.

It is therefore highly appropriate that this seminar on me-tropolitan governance be held here, given that these mat-ters are at the heart of current issues in Nanterre and inmetropolitan Paris itself.

This issue was also at the heart of discussions and debatesat the second Forum of Local Authorities Peripheral (FALP)organised last June in Getafe, Spain. Just as with our NeT-TOPIC partners, it is very important to have exchanges and

The Mayor of Nanterre, Mr. Patrick Jarry, during his interventionat the Seminar

discussions with other towns in Europe. The silence of theperipheral cities will actually benefit the central cities: itwill be detrimental to the peripherys interests and henceconsolidate the metropolitan areas.

Before finishing, I would like to throw out an idea that aro-se from the Getafe Forum: while there is no single modelin governance, there is a very strong determination to buildpublic participation and open it up to metropolitan choice.Within this framework, the citizens of peripheral cities havegreat experience of living in the metropolitan context andare experts in sharing and solidarity.


6/38

6

THE END OFTHE DIFFUSEMETROPOLITANURBAN MODELAND TERRITORIAL

STRATEGIES TO MAKEA CITY THE DEMOCRATICMETROPOLITAN GOVERNMENTAND DECENTRALISATION

JORDI BORJA, Geographer and urban plan-ner. Director of the Department of City Ma-

nagement and Urban Planning of UniversitatOberta de Catalunya.

01_The dominant urbanisation model in crisis

The city of the future is the city of today. It is the city that istoday being made, unmade and re-made in city centres, in thecompact city, and especially in peripheries. In those areas whe-re urbanisation has submerged the existing nuclei of residents,where the city struggles to exist against the scattered speculati-ve processes, fragmentation caused by infrastructure, the dear-th of public spaces, social segregation, distance/time and cost,

within urban regions... The future of the city is played out in theperipheries.

We are losing our sense of public space. The dominant urban mo-del is dependent on global financial capitalism, which is found inlocal real estate interventions which take a speculative approach.The city must be considered a place of citizenship, rights and du-ties, coexistence and solidarity, government and representation,cultural identity and diversity.

Negative dynamics over the past decades:

We are witnessing processes of diffuse urbanisation, of closedneighbourhoods, social marginality, fragmenting and speculativeinfrastructures and artificial centralities; in other words, proces-ses of loss of the notion of public space, the ideology of security,

01_ CONCEPTUAL

FRAMEWORKFOR THE THEMEOF THE SEMINAR


7/38

7

social atomisation, and so on. This model has led to growth, landprivatisation and a sense of insecurity becoming the norm.Simultaneously, the compact city; viable, inclusive, productive,creative, attractive and sustainable, becomes specialised andsegmented. City centres become empty, shabby or are turnedinto some kind of museum, with increasing privatisation of spa-ce, which throws out entire sections of the community. The publicidentifies with the modernising sectors, it becomes exclusive...

Environmental, socio-political and economic costs

These new urban trends increase environmental, social, politicaland economic costs. This causes new conflicts and asymmetrieswhich are a waste of resources (land, energy, water, pollution,etc.). It also leads to the area being ungovernable, to private pro-fit deriving from public expenditure, to a lack of solidarity and aculture of violence.

The vicious circle: from anti-citizen urbanisation and finan-cial speculation to the global crisis in the local area

For a long time we have witnessed the vicious circle of the ur-ban development set around global financial capitalism. This hasinvolved a lax credit policy for developers and customers, to thedetriment of productive capital. Land ownership and appropria-tion of private urban capital gains have been the engine fuellingthe whole process. Speculation generates corruption.

Permissive public policies have increased social costs within thefield of housing and mobility infrastructure.

The speculative economy gave birth to new social classes: de-velopers, builders, land owners, house buyers (as an investmenttool) and conspiratorial politicians (with low political costs).

The process has resulted in legitimisation of certain ideologiessuch as profit without risk, fear and differentiation/exclusion.The answer to the financial and housing crisis has been to refloatfinancial capital, rather than questioning its speculative beha-viour or the game of the housing boom.

Intellectual responsibility requires criticism and an alternative tothis model. Among other issues, we should consider:

a)Land and housing policy: public projects should establish newforms of financing that will eliminate urban speculation by pro-

moting integrated projects, a social and functional mix, prioriti-sing the compact city and organising the metropolitan territoryinto a network of centres and mobility.

b)The issue of infrastructure and mobility: mobility is the citizensright. Infrastructure must help in making the city and ensuringthe mobility of citizens.

c)Public space, heritage and landscape. The city as a public spa-ce: planning and accessibility, social relations and public expres-sion must be taken into account. The city must enhance a publicspace with significance and symbolic references, with heritageand with the landscape, with the collective memory and a social

history.

The metropolitan government

We need to think in terms of moving from metropolitanareas to metropolitan regions: a new physical and politicalscale that gives rise to associated governments within anetwork. This entails a variable geometry, with differentscales within a single territory.

We must think in terms of non-exclusive competences atthe local level, such as major infrastructure and large urban

projects . Strategic and territorial planning, redistribution ofpublic money and a rebalancing of territory, programmes ofeconomic and social development, land and housing opera-tions and stocks of medium and large-scale land.

This would require the linking of centres and axes, organi-sing metropolitan space into coherent and integrated co-rridors. This requires multi-scale cross-management thatensures connectivity throughout the metropolitan area.

The metropolitan city is a multi-municipal city which re-quires a representative metropolitan government, with(relative) powers in all aforementioned areas: powers in

town planning, housing and social policies, urban econo-mic and cultural services, centres, public safety, facilitiesand neighbourhood services. The metropolitan governmentshould be a recognised player in the metropolitan regionand in the country as a whole, able to carry out decentra-lised administration of its territory. This requires a dialecticof centralisation and decentralisation, and recognition ofexisting towns and historic districts.

We must think of a space on three levels: the community(where proximity is assured): the agglomeration (where theplanning and management of local affairs takes place); and

the region (where the major projects are carried out).

The metropolitan government should reduce social inequa-lities and territorial imbalances through proximity gover-


8/38

8

nance, accepting the participation of and conflict betweenthe parties. The public must be listened to, whether organi-sed or otherwise. Any change or solution causes resistance.

The metropolitan structure emerges so that public expen-diture is carried out in an equitable way throughout themetropolitan area. However, those who have the ability to makepublic spending should be representative and democratic.

The periphery should look at metropolitan policies withoutfearing the big city. It must exercise its power as a coun-terweight to the central city. It should therefore be orga-nised into agglomerations that stretch beyond municipalboundaries, able to create new scales with multi-municipalstructures and to establish real economic and urban corri-dors with their own territorial coherence.

The expansion and growth of metropolitan cities is not, asit has been in the past, an extension of the central city. Theperiphery is already installed, it is already a city.

Peripheries should be considered as territorial networksthat act in an integrated manner, as a whole. However, theemergence of some degree of local resistance is likely.

Supra-municipal and metropolitan structures should notnecessarily be headquartered in the central city.

The metropolitan municipalities must not disappear: theyare places of democratic legitimacy and dialogue with ci-tizens. Citizen participation should be a dialogue betweencitizens and public officials who can make significant deci-sions. However, public participation is justified by the exis-tence of conflicts.

Conclusions

We are at a historic turning point, a time of change, whichrequires new intellectual and political responsibility. Urbanplanning is politics, it is about power relations. It is aboutbuilding the strength of the periphery through a project ofa multi-municipal city.

We are entering into a new era where the model of increa-

sing mobility is questioned and where new paradigms suchas austerity, social cohesion and new ways of governingthe territory are being created. The unsustainable growthproposed by the current urban planning model is now beingcalled into question.

We should not be afraid to change. We should be afraid ofthe lack of boldness. We should not fear the loss of power,welfare or status. If we miss this opportunity, we loseeverything. At the end of the dilemma is either citizenshipor barbarism.


9/38

9

THE LIMITATIONSAND POTENTIALOF CITIZENPARTICIPATIONIN METROPOLITANAREAS

HELOISE NEZ, Sociologist and policyspecialist, lecturer at Paris 13 Universityand researcher at Laboratoire architectureville urbanisme environnement (LAVUE).

My contribution deals with the limitations and the potential

of public participation in metropolitan policy-making andmetropolitan issues. If there is one subject that is so often absentfrom deliberations on the governance of metropolitan areas, it isthe place for and the form of public participation. One seesthis, for example, in the debates in France on Greater Paris, which,to date, has remained essentially an issue for parliamentariansand experts, with citizens and associations declining to takethe subject on board. Likewise, in studies on and experiencesin participative democracy, the metropolitan level still seemsto have no relevance. Yet we are seeing an increase in thepower of the metropolis (for example, the intercommunalits,or inter-municipal structures, in France), which are becoming

fundamental political territories.

This is the paradoxthat I shall be analysing: although participationis weak at metropolitan level, it is at this level that a big part ofthe future of European cities will be played out, and this futuremust be put up for public discussion so that citizens can havesome influence beyond their immediate neighbourhoods.

I shall be analysing the issue from the Parisian perspective,because it is in Paris that I have spent the last four yearsresearching participative democracy at different levels as part ofmy thesis and within a group researchprogramme conductedby two institutes in Paris and by Adels, the association for

democracy and local and social education.

01_ CONCEPTUALFRAMEWORKFOR THE THEMEOF THE SEMINAR


10/38

10

- Although this democracy of proximity is typical of the Frenchparticipatory structures, it also represents a broader trendacross Europe: in my thesis I have compared the cases of Parisand Cordoba, Spain. In Cordoba, a budget for public participationwas set aside by the city council to give citizens direct accessto decision-making, but only with regard to neighbourhoodfacilities.

The big urban projects are not up for debate, but in Paris

citizens may be asked for their views on issues that go beyondthe neighbourhood, within a set consultation process. Thus, oneswings between a strong notion of participative democracy, butlimited to the small-scale, and a democracy of proximity that caninclude the large-scale.

Weak participative democracy at inter-municipal and regionallevels

_ Despite the fact that in France, more and more powers (suchas urban planning) are being devolved to the inter-municipalstructures, participative democracy remains a municipal remit.Local development councils can link citizens up to inter-municipal policies, but the mechanisms for doing so are rarelyinnovative. They still take the form of consultation processes.

_ The le-de-France regions participation policy is equallymodest, even if some consultations have focused on the regionsurban development plan. Other regions in France, such as Poitou-Charentes, go further than providing a democracy of proximity,with their participative budgets for secondary schools, which aredecisive.

2. There are therefore metropolitan issues to be debated,potentially involving a mobilisation of associations that couldsupport the participation mechanisms:

This is the case for the project to build towersat the Gatewaysto the capital, which affects not only Paris but also the towns onits outskirts.

- The city council has not presented this project to theparticipative mechanisms, such as the permanent committee forconsultation in Paris Rive Gauche, which is one of the locationsaffected by the construction of high-rise buildings.

- However, it is a subject that associations have taken up withoutbeing asked; groups such as Tam-Tam in Paris Rive Gauche, which

has organised several public meetings to produce a secondassessment of the issue.

Paris presents a specific set of circumstances. It is one of thefew metropolises in Europe that does not have a permanentcooperation structure that encompasses all of it. We have twomain levels of government:

- Paris, which is both a city and a department (divided into20 arrondissements, or districts, with limited powers), with morethan 2 million inhabitants in a 100 km2 area,

- The le-de-France region, with its regional council, which is

much larger, with nearly 12 million inhabitants in a 12,000 km2area.

This is why I talk of metropolitan issuesand policies: in the Parisregion, there are issues at stake that go beyond geographical andadministrative borders, but that are still not part of metropolitanpolicies.

My presentation is structured into 4 main points:

- I shall begin with a brief appraisal of the participative structureswithin the Paris region, to show that public participation is veryweak at metropolitan level.

- I will then show that there are metropolitan issues that mustbe put up for discussion, before analysing the limitations and thepotential of participative democracy at this level.

Our group research has led us to the following conclusion:participative democracy is essentially local democracy:

- Local democracy is provided by the municipalitiesor councilsof the towns of the Parisian periphery, and particularly by thearrondissements in Paris itself, although some consultationprocesses are launched by Paris City Council.

- We have seen how participatory structures in Paris and inthe peripheral towns have multiplied since the mid-1990s, andespecially at the start of the new millennium. This is due to theneighbourhood councils that became obligatory following a2002 law, for all towns of more than 80,000 inhabitants.

The experience of Paris and the le-de-France comes into theconcept of a democracy of proximity: a proximity that is bothspatial and political.

- Far from delegating power to citizens when it comes tomajor urban issues, participation is generally consigned to aconsultation process, held exclusively at micro-local level.

Participation forums are created at neighbourhood level and arenot linked to actual decision-making. Participation is thereforereduced to a showdown between elected councillors andresidents on issues relating to neighbourhood facilities.


11/38

11

Therefore, we need to think about the audiences: how can webuild a metropolitan audience?

4. I shall finish by proposing some perspectives: how canwe overcome these limitations and conceive a participativedemocracy at metropolitan level?

One way is to start from the existing participative mechanisms,by broadening their audiences when metropolitan issues are at

stake. To pick up the example of the Paris gateway towers onceagain, one could open up the Paris Rive Gauche consultationcommittee not just to Parisian neighbourhood associations andcouncils, but also to the residents of Ivry, on the other side of thering road.

However, we must not limit ourselves to the existing forumsfor local democracy. We need to design specific participatorymechanisms with a format that has been adapted tometropolitan issues. The citizens conferenceappears to be anappropriate tool for looking at large-scale subjects that are thesubject of political controversy: a group of 15 to 20 residentswho are supposedly laypeople on the subject give their opinionafter having received comprehensive information on the subjectand questioned experts and representatives from the variousstakeholders on the subject.

The danger of these randomly-selected structures is that theymay weaken the demands of organised citizens. Appealing tolaypeople often tends to bypass their capacity to counter-assessand to act as an opposition force. It is therefore important thatthere is amobilisation of associations at metropolitan level .The future of participative democracy in the large metropolisesdepends on the networking of associations at this level: aMetropolitan Paris Social Forum has therefore been launched to

bear some weight on the debates concerning Greater Paris.

One can also imagine a participatory budget at metropolitanlevel with the goal of redistributing wealth to rebalance themetropolis, taking its inspiration from cases in Brazil. However,you undoubtedly have other examples and ideas from the realitiesof your own countries and local areas that will help to enrich ourthinking above and beyond the Parisian perspective.

After the towers project, the issue of density is the mostwidely discussed. Other metropolitan issues could be put up fordebate, such as transport and housing, and also social issuesand local inequalities, i.e., the issue of wealth distribution withinthe metropolis. Finally, there is the question of metropolitangovernance: in Paris, once could bring together citizens to discusswhat shape the metropolis of the future should take.

Thus, there are some burning issues to be discussed at

metropolitan level.

3.Nevertheless, when we speak of participation at a level thatgoes beyond the neighbourhood, several limitations and hurdlesare often put forward:

There would be a problem of level and of political authority:

- Citizens would be unable to deal with issues that surpass theirimmediate interest. This is a criticism frequently heard from theelitist theoriesof democracy (for example Schumpeter) and frommany local agents. However, citizens can mobilise a broad rangeof knowledge within participatory mechanisms (their knowledgeas users, but also as professionals and as citizens).

- Citizens would no longer see the point of getting involved at alevel of decision-making that is so far removed from them. Theabstract and institutional natureof the issues discussed is thenput forward. Nonetheless, decisions taken at a distant level canhave very concrete consequences for the daily life of residents.

Linked to the issue of levels, there is a problem of timeperspectives: one association, Ada 13, which has been workingon urban planning issues in Pariss 13th arrondissement for 30years, recognises the difficulty that residents have in looking 20

or 30 years ahead.

Other problems are linked to the overlapping of structuresand levels, and the metropolitan level would just be addedto all the others. Here, I refer to the lack of clarity acrossdifferent areas of activity and confusion of authority across thedifferent administrative layers, the willingness of residents, themultiplication of participation levels that means that differenttypes of involvement ultimately compete against each other.

Finally, there is the problem of the audience: who does onecall on regarding metropolitan policies? Even when the issuesgo beyond the neighbourhood, participation is often organised

at local level: during the consultation on the Les Hallesproject in Paris, the neighbourhood councils joined up withlocal associations, even though this project affects a much widerpublic (it is the principal gateway from the suburbs into Paris).


12/38

12

THE METROPOLIS- A QUESTIONOF LEGITIMACYAND IDENTITY

CHRISTIAN LEFVRE, Professor at the Ins-titut Franais dUrbanisme, University ParisEst. Christian Lefvre, Professor at the Ins-titut Franais dUrbanisme, University ParisEst. Researcher at LATTS Centre (Laboratoi-re, Techniques, Territoires et Socits).

Today, the matter of metropolises must be considered from a po-

litical perspective. In other words, it is a question of metropolisesbecoming territories in their own right as well as full politicalplayers. This means, however, that they must become politicallylegitimate.

Legitimate means something that is undisputed. For metropoli-ses, this involves public policies targeting the metropolitan area,at metropolitan level, without being contested by national- or lo-cal level players. For local level players, this entails the metropolisbeing deemed an appropriate level - not only in terms of functionbut also policy. There is a clear link here between political legiti-macy and metropolitan identity in as much as stakeholders whofeel that they have a metropolitan identity will not be inclined

to challenge metropolitan-level actions. For example, if a stake-holder feels that he or she is metropolitan, this means that theyfeel part of a given territory; a common destiny. Hence, they willbe more inclined to accept policies - such as territorial solidarityfor example - because this will relate to the redistribution of re-sources across a territory with which they identify.

1. The political legitimacy of metropolises is not a given; ithas to be built up.

The political legitimacy of metropolises is not a given. On thecontrary, it has to be built up. And this is not easy. Indeed, it gives

rise to numerous conflicts because it raises fundamental politicalissues, of which there are at least three:

01_ CONCEPTUALFRAMEWORKFOR THE THEMEOF THE SEMINAR


13/38

13

1.1 Giving the metropolis a political legitimacy disrupts the powerrelations between public authorities. Turning a metropolis into apolitical player means transforming its relationship with the sta-te and other political actors. First and foremost, this means thecity at the centre of the metropolis, but it also relates to otherlocal authorities, city councils, as well as senior governments,depending on the institutional system (unitary or federal state).

1.2 Giving the metropolis a political legitimacy means creating a

player capable of speaking on behalf of the metropolis. If a me-tropolis becomes a full political player, it needs a spokesperson,or even a leader. Contenders for this role can be numerous, pro-ving the issue of metropolitan leadership to be confrontational.As of today, and depending on the metropolis and country, thosewho can and wish to speak on behalf of the metropolis are: thestate, the region (where one exists), and the city around whichthe metropolis is based.

1.3 Giving the metropolis a political legitimacy also raises thequestion of the values and the vision that its representative mustembody. The spokesperson or leader of the metropolis needs to

represent a vision and values that may not be immediately sha-red by the metropolitan society. On the contrary, those valuesand this vision are the subject of fundamental political and socialconflicts, because they determine the direction in which the me-tropolis develops. For example, it is not easy to determine con-crete priorities between competition policies and developmentpolicies that put more emphasis on issues of distribution - in par-ticular, in relation to land and resources - because such prioritiesare often contradictory. In this context, globalisation is fuellingpotential conflicts.

Because legitimacy is constructed, and because this constructionis an adversarial process, innovations are needed. This means po-

litical innovations in terms of the method and the instrumentsused to achieve political legitimacy for the metropolis. On theone hand, the stakeholder systems need to open up to allow newplayers to enter, and add new issues to the mix. On the otherhand, mediation is needed when a stakeholder system is openedup, because doing so normally generates conflict. New instru-ments also need to be invented, new structures linking stake-holders, the structures of debate (forum, etc), new proceduresto govern the legitimising process and thus ensure that it is suc-cessfully achieved.

2. The experience thus far.

The thinking and actions behind giving political authority to ametropolis were hitherto more traditional and rarely mentionedthe production of a political legitimacy for the metropolitan area.

Therefore, in recent years, institutional and organisational inno-vations have emerged. What conclusions can we draw?

Our analysis of experience - covering fifteen years so far - israther negative. To support this position, we will briefly presentthree areas of activity, each of which in their own way aims toestablish a metropolis as a political player.

2.1 The creation of metropolitan authorities. There has been a

long European - and more generally international - experimen-tation in this field of political action. Indeed, throughout the de-mocratic world, states have sought for several decades to governmetropolises by setting up political authorities to cover theirterritories, and giving them metropolitan competences. Thepicture is not encouraging. In Europe, metropolitan authoritiesare rare and generally have limited competence and resources.Whether talking about Greater London, the region around Stutt-gart or the region around Copenhagen, these institutions arepolitically weak and are dominated by states and/or other localauthorities. Elsewhere in Italy, Germany and Spain, large cities donot have metropolitan authorities. France is an exception, with

its urban and conurbation authorities. Such a picture is explainedby institutional policies that have sought to impose metropolitanauthorities on local, pre-existing authorities, but which have en-countered resistance from local players - more often than not,successfully. Such imposition has impeded the emergence of le-gitimate metropolitan authorities because they were regarded asbodies foreign to the metropolitan political-institutional system,or even to metropolitan society as a whole.

2.2 The launch of metropolitan conferences . Having learned fromthe failures of imposing the creation of metropolitan authorities,several conurbations have, over the last fifteen years, sought touse consensus to create metropolitan authorities. The most com-

mon instrument to do this has been the metropolitan conference.In its most common version, the metropolitan conference is anon-decision-making political body that brings together mostlocal authorities within the metropolitan area. Its initial goal is toestablish a dialogue between political players in order to engagethem in the construction of a form of metropolitan governmentthat is not imposed, but rather agreed and negotiated among thelocal authorities. Bologna pioneered this approach in the 1990s.More recently, conurbations such as Turin, Paris and Zurich haveengaged in similar experiments. The results are mixed, at best.While the dialogue between local politicians may generally haveworked well, the metropolitan conferences struggled to move be-

yond this stage and were generally either dissolved (as is the casewith Bologna and Turin), or became fossilised into institutionslacking real power (as is the case with Paris).


14/38

14

2.3Strategic planning. In the mid-1990s, a number of Europeancities (Barcelona and Turin, for example) embarked on processesof discussing the direction of their futures, by seeking to mo-bilise civil and political society. These processes were structu-red around procedures and instruments that aimed to define thestrategic public policy priorities to be put in place, in order tomeet the challenges of globalisation. They gave rise to what werereferred to as strategic plans, with governance generally beingundertaken by the city centre, and a fairly successful mobilisa-

tion of civil society in some cases. The concerted developmentof strategic plans was then presented as an alternative form ofgovernance by institutions. In some metropolises - notably, Bar-celona and Turin - strategic planning was regarded as a form ofcity governance.

What conclusions can be drawn today for strategic planning withregard to the political legitimacy of the metropolitan area? Hereagain, it is mixed because while strategic planning has, in somecases, produced legitimate political governance, this legitimacyhas often been confined to the city at the centre of the metropo-lis. In fact, strategic planning at metropolitan level is extremely

rare and those success stories that are publicised relate mainlyto central cities. It cannot, therefore, be said that strategic plan-ning has contributed to metropolises becoming players or politi-cally legitimate territories, because the conflicts between localstakeholders regarding metropolitan issues remain as prominentamong those metropolises that report such planning as thosewhere it does not exist.

Conclusion

The question of the political legitimacy of metropolises is a keyissue that, in practice, has not generally been addressed sincemetropolitan areas became the context for setting public policy,but without political legitimacy, metropolises can not expect tosee the realisation of policies that are able to meet their challen-ges, old and new. This limited interest in the matter of the poli-tical legitimacy of metropolises is explained by several factors.

The first is the excessive institutional domination in addressingand resolving the question of metropolises. In most countrieswhere this issue is on the political agenda, states and local stake-holders both feel that without creating institutions, metropolitanpolicies are not possible. This has resulted in a stalemate, giventhat, as we have seen, the creation of metropolitan authoritieshas failed somewhat.

The second element is the virtual monopolising of the questionof the metropolis by the political-institutional machinery. Indeed,civil society in its broadest sense has almost never mobilised at

metropolitan level and has never supported the metropolis as alevel appropriate for addressing some of todays key issues. Yetthe political-institutional machinery more often than not re-mains a prisoner of local or national political systems that do notencourage them to tackle head-on this issue of political legiti-macy in as much as their own legitimacy is rooted in other levels(neighbourhood, town, regional, national).

References

Lefvre, C. (2009), Gouverner les mtropoles, LExtenso Editions, Paris


15/38

15

NANTERRE (France)

MR. GRARDPERREAU-BEZOUILLE,1St Deputy Mayor Nanterre City Council

Nanterre

Nanterre, a traditionally working town, is nowadays a mixed citywith a varied population. Marked by the imprints of migration,Nanterre has experienced many successive migrations. We area town that receives many newcomers from many different pla-ces, which I believe is an aspect that must be taken into accountwhen it comes to suburban areas. We have also dealt with theissue of metropolitan areas in Nanterre and I think this is alsoa common feature of many peripheral cities. As far as housingis concerned, one of the challenges faced was to overcome theproblem of ghettos created after the war or poor quality housingbuilt in the 1960s.

We are a popular city. We have a communist mayor who is well-rooted in our heritage because it has been left wing since the1930s, and so this tradition has been perpetuated for quite sometime now. Just to give you an idea, half of the housing here islow-cost housing.

Institutional framework

Our administrative framework goes back quite a long way. Oneof our oldest legacies is the heritage of the French Revolution,which left a huge imprint. Nowadays there are 4 administrati-ve levels; the State, the region, the province (or departments)

and the city itself. There are competences allocated to each, forexample, teaching: universities fall under the state authority; theregion covers secondary schools; departments have the primaryschools; and nurseries come under the municipalities. Althoughthis area is all well divided, there are others where competencesare not as clearly defined and each institution works in its ownway. As far as urban planning competences are concerned, theyare the citys responsibility. However, although this is very welldefined, the state is still the tool for intervention and sometimesit is very difficult to implement some of the programmes. So thisis, broadly speaking, the administrative framework.

02_ URBAN ANDMETROPOLITANGOVERNANCE INNeT-TOPIC CITIES


16/38

16

I would like to address the issue of theself-defined organisationof peripheral areas, such as the syndicates of communes (as-sociation of municipalities with no fiscal power), i.e. the associa-tion of municipalities working within a network system. I believeit is very important to measure the space they occupy in termsof self-organisation - as these syndicates are actually places thatwork on a volunteer basis - as well as how they organise themsel-ves and what impacts they have on the territorial network. Oneimportant aspect is that, although Paris has always carried out

its activities without taking into account the cities surroundingit, what is new is that it is beginning to show interest in townsin suburban areas, because it now needs to expand its borders.

Whilst Paris has always managed its own issues separately, muni-cipalities in the peripheral area have been working together for awhile. The suburban towns in the Parisian region have organisedthemselves and set up a syndicate to deal with several issuessuch as electricity supply and other public services whose com-petence fall to the municipalities. These associations are therefo-re very important when it comes to building the suburbs closestto Paris. A higher level of association is found in the communaut

des communes (community of municipalities), which has fiscalpowers. These models of association are not new; with syndicatesdating back to 1900-1910.

There are other tools such as the mixed economy associations(Socit dEconomie Mixte) which are widely used in Nanterre;for example, the Nanterre Socit dEconomie Mixte. Other toolsare the state-run EPAs (Etablissement public damnagement),such as EPAD (tablissement public damnagement de la Dfense)for the Dfense business area infrastructure.

I would like to point out that this form of organisation is not anew feature: municipalities never really worked in isolation and

it is simply an illusion to think that today we are discovering thatit is necessary to collaborate on projects on a more global level.

The relationship between Nanterre and La Dfense is a longstory that goes back to 1958. What they wanted was to createa multinational business district in a French headquarters. Therewas an A zone which would serve as the business section, andthe high-rises which were built, and a B zone which was theNanterre area. From the beginning, Nanterre was considered tobe the back garden of the business area. The rapid relocation tonew housing raised some conflict,and I really like the conceptof positive conflict; this type of conflict is necessary to get

things moving (to avoid blockages). At the end of the 80s, intothe beginning of the 90s, a new period of conflict between theState and Nanterre began. The decision to build one million squa-re meters of office space in Nanterre was announced. This public

purchase of Nanterre land by extending public land within thecity was very controversial (it began in the 1990s and was com-pleted only in 2000). At this point, there was participative action.Citizens wanted to defend their rights and be respected. The citywanted to be a stakeholder in the decision making. People had towait until the end of the 90s, after a truly concerted effort by thecitizens of Nanterre, for an agreement to be reached between theTown and the State regarding the future of this area of nationalinterest. In 2000, a second public body was created: EPASA (Eta-

blissement public damnagement Seine-Arche).

So EPASA, which was created in 2000, was made up of Stateand local authorities affected by the Seine-Arche project. EPASAcarried out the preliminary studies for urban development andthe technical feasibility studies of the various projects. This wasdone in the spirit of equal representation. It was an open processand decisions were made following a unanimous vote by the jury.I think we did some very constructive work and it wasnt alwayseasy. There was a great deal of tension between the various in-terests , but it did enable us to have better infrastructure planningthan the Dfense business district, because many of those infras-

tructures had been built on something resembling a potato fieldthat was divided up by the city. This time around, local interestswanted to make sure that the infrastructure was in place to linkthe districts. Nanterres residents needed to be fully involved andconvinced that they played a key part in defining this infrastructure.

EPASA manages the Seine-Arche project, consisting of severalgreen spaces, the transformation of the A14 motorway into 3 kmof public spaces connecting the Seine with the Arch de La Dfen-se, and the establishment of new links between districts, therebytrying to overcome the fragmentation of the town caused by thetransport infrastructure.

In July 2010 EPAD and EPASA merged into EPADESA , which is re-launching an urban planning project emcompassing large areasof our city. In terms of participative democracy, there has beeninitial resistance, but we have to find solutions rather than remai-ning in a stalemate.

I am now going to talk about the various forms of participationthat exist within the town. We have heard before today that par-ticipative democracy in the city is associated with local level, butI do not particularly agree with that: we actually have a bit ofpower, even with respect to the state, and as I said, we are alwayspulling strings here because we need to look at all the issues that

lie behind the local issue.


17/38

17

The community councils were created in 1977. Nanterre was oneof the first towns in France to create neighbourhood councils.The role of the citizens and their active participation in makingand monitoring decisions that concern them have always been atthe heart of local dynamics. In 1977 we ran various communityprogrammes in a bid to get all of these neighbourhoods involvedin all the various policies. We now have 10 community councils,and anybody is welcome at any of these meetings. These neigh-bourhood council meetings are quite a direct type of participati-

ve democracy, so we considered that, at district level we shouldbe able to work on several issues, and of course the future of theentire west of Paris was also brought up and worked on withinthis context.

In 1995 we had a symposium for the city (Assisses de la ville). Thisinvolved 3 months of intense debate and discussion processes.Many citizens were involved on this major town project. Over 2 to3 months a huge forum was held and we were able to work withpeople who did not necessarily have voting rights. For example,we undertook research and conducted surveys in communitiesbecause one of the issues of participative democracy is that we

have to involve the people who need public activity and publicaction the most. Ever y other night we held discussions on varioustopics and tried to weave them together.

We also have an extra-municipal committee on urban planning,based on citizens and associations defending their own interests:this is very resident-based organisation. We have empoweredthem to work on projects and they now have a clear urban plan-ning expertise: these are the people with whom we deal. Theyare contact people, with whom the mayor or deputy mayor candiscuss major issues.

It is, therefore, my belief that, had we not had this level of citi-

zen participation for over 30 years, we could never have arrivedat where we are today. We need citizens to be committed andactive.

The future of Nanterre

As far as the future of the city is concerned, there are three as-pects to look at. Firstly, the state has actually backed down fromextending the perimeters and limits of the public area. Secondly,we remain in control of this area through our mixed economy or-ganisation and the new public body, EPADESA. However, whetherwe like it or not we have to find a solution without blocking theinfrastructure. Thirdly, we believe that we can go beyond all of

this and work across and amongst all municipalities, and we aretherefore building inter-municipal links with nearby municipa-lities. Sometimes we work in a confrontation type of situation(seeing as interests might differ), but we know that Nanterre willsucceed by itself.

A research/consultancy type of syndicate has also been deve-loped to prepare negotiations with the state. There is anothersyndicate (created some years ago) which is willing to be an ac-tive stakeholder in the control of all of these areas. Nanterre notonly takes part in the project appointed by the public body, butalso takes part in projects negotiated between municipalities, the

syndicates and associations that have been created.

In Nanterre, we hope that our citizens can live and work in thecity. La Dfense provides a rich source of employment that ourcitizens must exploit. We therefore want to work with the resi-dents of Nanterre in the future, to build a city in which we canall live together.


18/38

18

LHOSPITALETAND THEMETROPOLITANCHALLENGE(Spain)

MRS. ANA M PRADOS, 4th Deputy Ma-yor of Urban Planning and Public Works,LHospitalet de Llobregat.

The municipal area of lHospitalet de Llobregat covers a surfacearea of 12.50 square kilometres and is located southwest of theconurbation of Barcelona. The city is linked to the larger city ofBarcelona which, with its metropolitan area, constitutes one ofthe largest urban agglomerations in Europe.

Development of the Barcelona metropolitan area

As has occurred in other European urbanareas, during the 19th Century, an inten-se process of urbanisation took place,and with a general metropolitisation ofthe municipalities adjacent to Barcelo-na. As a consequence, the populationof LHospitalet increased from 5,000inhabitants in 1900 to 265,891 in 2010.LHospitalet became the second mostpopulated municipality in Catalonia, just

behind Barcelona.

In this context, the MetropolitanCorporation of Barcelona was set upin 1974. This was a government bodywithin the state administration. It wasmade up of twenty-seven municipalitiesand covered an area of 476 square me-tres. Its original function related mainlyto urban planning issues, but it progres-sively assumed other competences suchas transport, waste and cleaning of me-

tropolitan facilities.


LHospitalet grew very quickly. 1900-2010


19/38

19

The main function of the metropolitan corporation of Barcelo-na was to monitor the General Metropolitan Plan, approved in1976. This municipal urban plan covered 27 municipalities. It wasquite an innovative programme and brought significant benefitsat metropolitan level. It allowed the provision of green areas andfacilities as well as a stable legal and technical framework ofaction, for the municipalities within this metropolitan corpora-tion. The General Metropolitan Plan is still in force and has beenadapted through a number of very specific modifications.

In 1987 the Catalan Parliament approved a new territorial or-ganisation. Law 7/1987 set out and regulated the actions withinthe conurbation of Barcelona and abolished the old metropolitancorporation of Barcelona. This new law created two new entitieswhich took on the metropolitan competences in transport andthe environment:

- The metropolitan transport organisation: made up of 18 mu-nicipalities.- The metropolitan water services and waste treatment orga-nisation (made up of 33 municipalities).

A group of municipalities also came together on a voluntary basisand created the Association of Municipalities of the Metropo-litan Area of Barcelona (made up of 27 municipalities).

Authority for urban planning and territorial planning was nowtransferred to the regional government. Thus the region is nowestablished as the level at which land is planned. At this point, themetropolitan plan for Barcelona was drawn up.

1987 saw a period of some confusion and fragmentation as faras the metropolitan scope and authority are concerned, resultingin a variable structure when it came to land-related action. Du-

ring this phase, there was technical, public and political debateon the suitability and functionality of a metropolitan structure.Several studies carried out at the time highlight the need for ametropolitan entity.

Barcelona metropolitan strategy plan

The lack of a single metropolitan institution gave rise to theemergence of parallel initiatives such as the Barcelona metro-politan strategy plan which was intended to fill the gap resultingfrom the lack of unified criteria.

This is a private non-profit association backed by Barcelona citycouncil, and which is made up of 36 municipalities together withother economic and social stakeholders, such as the chamber ofcommerce, economic forums, employers organisations, the Uni-

versity of Barcelona, the Barcelona Exhibition Centre, the portand airport, etc. Its main aim is to identify and promote strategiesto support the economic and social development of the metropo-litan area of Barcelona. The first Barcelona metropolitan strategyplan was approved in 2003 and the new model for the year 2020is currently being drawn up.

Barcelona Metropolitan Plan

As far as territorial planning is concerned, after many years ofwork, last 20 April 2010, the Barcelona Metropolitan Plan wasapproved. This plan was drawn up by the regional government,the Generalitat de Catalunya.

Its territorial scope is the metropolitan region and it covers 164municipalities: this represents ten percent of the territory of Ca-talonia and seventy per cent of its population. The main concernsof the metropolitan territorial plan are open spaces (natural andagricultural spaces), transport infrastructure and the structure ofthe urban system.

In the case of LHospitalet, the metropolitan territorial plan esta-blishes different areas where transformation, facilities or urbancentre strategies must be followed. These are general guidelinessubject to later specification when urban planning is being de-fined.

Situation of LHospitalet within the metropolitan context

2010 Recuperation of the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona

Finally, on 3 August 2010, Law 31/2010 was approved. This esta-blishes the creation of the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona andregulates its organisation, competences and financing. Accordingto this law, the metropolitan area of Barcelona is made up of 36

municipalities, and covers an area of 628 square kilometres with3,218,071 inhabitants.


20/38

20

The general principles governing the activities of the Metropoli-tan Area of Barcelona are: local autonomy; participation of muni-cipalities in the governing and management of the metropolitanarea of Barcelona; equal access to public services for all citizens;territorial solidarity and balance; social cohesion and balance;sustainable development; financial autonomy; citizen proximi-ty and participation in the management and provision of publicservices; institutional cooperation and loyalty; and equity andredistribution in public actions and in the provision of services.

The composition of the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona is to beas follows:

1. -One metropolitan council

2. -One president

3. -One governing board

4. - One special accounts committee

The representation of each municipality will depend on its po-pulation. Initially there will be 90 councillors in total, whereas itused to be 150 with the old three entity structure. The durationof the mandate of the metropolitan council and its members isthe same as the duration of the city council mandates.The general competences of the Metropolitan Area of Barcelo-na will be: urban planning; transport and mobility; water; waste;other competences relating to the environment; infrastructureof metropolitan interest; economic and social development; andterritorial and social cohesion.

In contrast to the competences of the previous structure made

up of the two metropolitan entities and the Association of Muni-cipalities of the metropolitan area of Barcelona, what must nowbe stressed is the introduction of urban planning issues. Theurban planning competences of the Metropolitan Area of Barce-lona are those that local governments can execute in accordancewith the legislation in force. The main aim is to achieve integra-ted urban development within the metropolitan territory.

The Metropolitan Area of Barcelona is provided with two mainplanning tools:

1.-The metropolitan urban master plan

2.- The metropolitan urban development planmade up of urbanprogrammes of municipal or multi-municipal scope.

The Metropolitan urban master plan has the following objectives:

a)To set up the structural elements of urban development;

b)To draw up the guidelines for sustainable urban developmentand mobility;

c)To define measures to protect the land that must not be builton and its organic structure;

d)To specify and define the reservation of land for infrastructu-re and general systems such as roads, railways, water facilities,ports, airports, cleaning and water supply, telecommunications,facility networks and suchlike;

e) To define policies relating to land, housing and economic activity.

The initial and provisional approbation of the Metropolitan Ur-ban Master Plan corresponds to the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona,while the final approbation corresponds to the regional government.

The Metropolitan Urban Development Plan (MUDP) develops theguidelines of the Metropolitan Urban Master Plan, including allthe necessary specifications for a municipal urban developmentplan. The MUDP is carried out via an adaptation of the GeneralMetropolitan Plan and other instruments of general urban plan-ning by the municipalities within the metropolitan area.

The initial and provisional approbation of the Metropolitan Ur-ban Development Plan corresponds to the Metropolitan Area ofBarcelona, while the final approbation corresponds to the urbanplanning committee of the metropolitan area of Barcelona. Thiscommittee is an urban body reporting to the Generalitat de-partment that deals with these matters.

The metropolitan agenda or urban operations programme is up-dated every 6 years by means of an agreement of the metropoli-tan area of Barcelona.

The Urban Planning Committee of the Metropolitan Area of Bar-celona is made up of:

- the Presidency: occupied by an elected member of the regionalgovernment (the Generalitat) with competencies in urban planning.

- the Vice-presidency: occupied by the president of the metropo-

litan area of Barcelona.


21/38

21

- 10 members appointed by the Members of the Generalitat (5from the department with authority on these matters and 5 fromother departments).

- 10 members appointed by the president of the MetropolitanArea of Barcelona (5 of whom to be proposed by the mayor ofBarcelona).

The Urban Planning Committee of the Metropolitan Area of Bar-

celona will be constituted when the Metropolitan Urban MasterPlan comes into force.

The Metropolitan Area of Barcelona has competences in the for-mulation, initial and final approval of the partial urban plans andthe urban improvement plans relating to projects of metropolitaninterest, as defined by the metropolitan urban master plan or themetropolitan urban development plan, whenever the Metropoli-tan Area of Barcelona is the acting administration. The Metropo-litan Area of Barcelona has the status of acting administrationif the urban planning specifies so or in the case of an expressagreement of the city council.

In short, we could say that the new metropolitan context repre-sents a new phase in the future of LHospitalet and its challenges.These are some of the challenges identified by LHospitalet LSG inrelation to the issue of metropolitan governance:

- The new metropolitan institution must ensure simplification ofthe levels of operation in the territory, in order to avoid a dupli-cation of competences and services and to optimise returns onpublic money invested.

- To ensure the centrality of the city, to avoid taking on the cha-racteristics of a suburb and to promote LHospitalet as Catalonias

second city.

- To define a cooperation strategy with nearby cities based onaffinity as opposed to competition.

- Cooperation must not only be ensured with the municipalitiesin the metropolitan area of Barcelona, but also with the regionalgovernment (the Generalitat).


22/38

22

SACELE (Romania)Braov MetropolitanAssociationfor SustainableDevelopment (AMB)

MRS. DANA RISNOVEANU, Head of Eu-ropean integration department. Scele CityCouncil.

In Romania there are 7 growth-poles: Cluj, Iai, Timisoara, Bra-sov, Craiova, Ploiesti & Constanta. Sacele municipality belongsto the Braov Metropolitan Area, and is a member of the BraovMetropolitan Association for Sustainable Development. Thismembership provides the city with development opportunities

that tie in with regional policies.

Braov Metropolitan Association for Sus-tainable Development (AMB)was foundedin January 2006. The association is a non-governmental and non-profit organisationoperating at intercommunity and regionallevels.

Services:The AMB provides consulting and technicalassistance to its members for communitydevelopment according to European requi-

rements. The association provides access toboth national and international donors forlocal and regional projects and support forproject management and/or supervision. Thepopulation that benefits from AMB servicesnumbers 400,204 inhabitants.

Main activities:AMB develops and runs projects and activities in support of thecommunities sustainable development, intercommunity coope-ration, citizen participation in the decision-making process anddissemination of sustainable development processes nationwide.

The association thus:


Situation of Sacele within Brasov metropolitan area


23/38

23

- Develops Local Development Strategic Plans for its membercommunities according to the national plan for spatial and re-gional sustainable development for Cristian, Hrman, Prejmerand Snpetru and provides consulting and assistance for imple-mentation of the strategy plan for local development of Codleaand Rnov.

AMB ensures the harmonisation of local development plans withthe strategic development plan of the Braov Metropolitan Area.

- Creates the Development Strategy Plan for the Braov Metro-politan Area according to the national plan for spatial and regio-nal sustainable development.

- Completes project applications and submits them to differentfunding sources: the European Commission, Structural Funds, theRomanian Government, banking institutions for loans and grants.

- Develops action plans, supports their implementation as well asthe initiatives and activities aimed at the economic recovery/re-conversion and urban/community regeneration through develop-

ment of industrial areas/parks and centres for innovative industryin harmony with healthy community principles.

- Provides technical assistance and consulting to the local com-munities in support of local/regional development, to implementcapital investment projects and to diversify and reorient thebusiness environment and the communitys economic profilestowards meeting the communitys concrete needs and expec-tations in accordance with the national/European strategies onsustainable development.

- Provides training in public management, sustainable develo-pment policies and their implementation, citizen participation,

organisational development.

- Works in collaboration with local governments and with thebusiness environment to help communities appropriately imple-ment legislation concerning sustainable development, environ-mental protection and preservation and professional public ad-ministration.

- Cooperates with European institutions and organisations in or-der to promote and implement European laws, procedures andpolicies in the communities of Romania.

- Develops public policies on communication, transparency andaccountability of local governments.

- Represents Braov, Codlea and Scele in the Association of Mu-nicipalities of Romania.

- Represents the Association of Municipalities of Romania to theCEMR-Council of European Municipalities and Regions in theworking groups on environment, energy and employment policy.

Organisational Structure

The organisation has a staff of 19 employees and works on a con-tractual basis with 12 community representatives (one personappointed by the mayor from each member community).

The association has a Steering Board of the mayors of the 12member communities, that meets once per year and at any othertime it is necessary. The executive body is organised into a ma-nagement team and 4 departments.

Logo of Brasov metropolitan area

Integrated Urban Development Plan (IUDP)The AMB has drawn up the Integrated Urban Development Plan

(IUDP) which, in addition to an analysis of the economic, so-cial, and educational environments, includes a list of develop-ment projects, specific to each locality. The IUPD is implementedthrough a series of individual projects, in order to achieve sustai-nable and integrated urban development.

The IUDP is a document for development planning, a subsidiaryto the development strategy of the metropolitan area of Brasov,which correlates sector policies (economic, social, environmental,transportation) with territorial policy.

The strategic objectives of the IUPD are: Sustainable tourism

development; Sustainable and competitive development of theeconomy of Braov; Sustainable development of transport andcommunications; and Sustainable Development of Energy.We need IUPD:


24/38

24

- As a planning tool for future integrated development of metro-politan areas.

- To ensure balanced and coordinated development across thecentre of Brasov City, its outskirts and the surrounding areas.

- For a correlation of actions to attract funding from varioussources in order to carry out projects. (EU funds, governmentfunds, private, etc.)

Of course, as a member of the AMB, Scele initiated a series ofprojects that have received the approval of the vast majority ofLocal Councils. The municipality, backed by AMB support, initia-ted steps to promote these projects that are integrated withinthe whole metropolitan area development: i.e., the constructionof two roads linking the towns of Scele and Brasov, which willcreate shorter distances for transportation and free up traffic atsome intersections in Scele.

In order to achieve a uniform infrastructure for water and sewagenetworks that meets European standards, and to be able to ac-

cess European funds, the AMB has created an operator that ma-nages water and sewage systems in the metropolitan areas.

Between Scele and the AMB there is a relationship of collabo-ration; however, the final decision regarding development at mu-nicipal level falls entirely to the city of Scele. The AMB supportsprojects through expert advice and creates the links between thecity and other forums which we must address in order to imple-ment our projects.

All projects submitted by local authorities to the AMB are analy-sed in order to ensure that all of the projects in the metropolitanarea of Brasov are designed to lead to well-balanced develop-ment in the area.

As in the rest of the countr y, the metropolitan area of Brasov alsofaces the challenge of poor road infrastructure. As a consequen-ce, projects relating to this issue are a priority in the IUDP. ForScele, they represent 50% of all proposed projects, the rest of

them being projects relating to social, economical, and tourismissues. By centralising all of the problems, the AMB provides aselection of what each locality of the metropolitan area of Brasovneeds. The AMBs role as a coordinator is essential.

Organisational issues at regional and national level

As far as public-private partnerships are concerned, there is nolegislation as yet. For the moment, the public-private experien-ces have produced results far below expectations. They were ba-sed on a procedure accepted by both parties, but with reducedfunctionality.

As far as metropolitan areas are concerned, the existing law isquite vague. There is no comprehensive and consistent approachat national level, but there are examples of good practice fo-llowing initiatives at the local / regional level such as the Federa-tion of Metropolitan Areas and Urban Agglomeration of Romania(FMAUAR). There is currently a white paper on organization andoperation of metropolitan areas due to be debated in the Cham-ber of Deputies.


25/38

25

SALFORD (UK)The Governance ofPlanning: spatialityand transformation

MR. DEREK ANTROBUS, Lead Member forPlanning, Salford City Council.

As far as urban planning is concerned, I have noted two majorchanges in urban planning over the past two decades, particu-larly in terms of spatiality and transformation. We should nolonger think about cities as containers in which we develop newuses and simply wait for real estate developers to fill in theseareas: this is not the issue here.

Lets talk about spatiality. Cities are today an area of flows, withblurred limits or boundaries. What is important in terms of citiesis not what they contain, but rather how their contents createconnections towards other places: the fluxes of ideas, of people,as well as of resources that enter and exit the city. In order tomanage all these different flows and these various connectionpoints, it is necessary to develop various forms of governance atdifferent levels from the global to the local, i.e., governance atdifferent scales. Modern urban planning should enable people toorchestrate these flows, whether they are investments from mul-tinationals or whether they are something more down to earth.

Urban planning is also about transformation. Today it is not justabout controlling developments, but about the need to becomean entrepreneur. The transition from social democracy (Keynes)towards a new liberal paradigm (that emerged in the 1990s) con-tinues to dominate todays landscape. Urban planning today de-mands that we take action out in the field for the benefit of ourcitizens. So Im going demonstrate this by giving you a case studyof Greater Manchester. Before that, lets take a look at some ofthe background elements.

Today, there are two key issues: globalisation and new techno-logies. These two factors have strongly influenced the need to

create new forms of governance in cities. We can no longer sim-ply think in terms of urban cores surrounded by a hinterland ofperipheral cities. Saskia Sassen talked about decentralised cen-tres. These are centres beyond the core centre. In fact, the dein-



26/38

26

dustrialisation phenomenon in the western world left industrialwastelands that needed to be regenerated. In parallel with this,new technologies mean that information services no longer needto be located within the core or the centre, so there is a disper-sion to new decentred centres such as dockland redevelopment.

However, apart from the economic factors, we also have to takeinto account the environmental flows. Although environmen-tal flows (e.g. water flows) have always been managed across

boundaries, today this is more and more complex given the cu-rrent context of climate change. All this means that cities canno longer be managed within their political boundaries. We needregional governance.

In 1972 the UK government passed a law to create a Council forGreater Manchester, the County Council of Greater Manchester.Although this was a very visionary law, another law in 1986 abo-lished the municipal council, since it was considered that it mightchallenge the national government. Thus from 1986 on, the tentowns that made up the County developed the Association ofGreater Manchester Authorities (AGMA). This new structure con-tributed to the governance of Greater Manchester, although it didnot have any legal status. However, in December 2009, an officialagreement was reached between the government and the AGMAthat Greater Manchester would become a testing ground for anew form of city-region governance. A proposal was put forwardby the ten towns to establish the structure outlined below. Anexecutive council was created which includes the ten leaders ofthe Greater Manchester towns (Mayors). We also created a groupof commissions to provide advice to those leaders on urban plan-ning, environment, public protection, health, etc. In this way, wecreated a new form of governance.

Lets take a look at some examples of governance in differentfields:

Mineral and waste management: the law requires that wedesign these plans in order to manage mineral and waste andcontrol excavations. The ten authorities designed a single, sha-red plan. The logic underpinning collaboration in this issue is thefollowing: it is just bureaucratic effectiveness. Having a singleplan represents a 50% reduction in costs compared to developing

individual plans. So here we find another reason for collaborating:in these days of austerity, this financial effectiveness is a veryimportant factor.

Water management: local authorities need to generate a floodmanagement plan within their own region. It is obvious thateach separate local authority cannot prepare a separate floodplan since each municipality receives water from the municipa-lity upstream and then passes the water on to the municipali-ty downstream. Therefore, it is the region that must lead floodcontingency plans. However, there is another important point:even though we decided to organise ourselves within the GreaterManchester region for pragmatic reasons, it is a fact that localauthorities outside the Greater Manchester region also give uswater and we also give them water. Thus, we also need to workwith other local authorities when designing contingency plans.

Energy flows: The local authorities in Greater Manchester needto establish electricity plans. We want energy security and wewant to limit the flows and the networks entering the GreaterManchester area in order to be as little energy-dependent as pos-sible. However, the energy must be transported from the produc-tion areas to the consumption areas, so it is important to designplans based on cities and regions in order to ensure a plan forsustainable energy flows.


27/38

27

Today much of the talk revolves around the economy and urbanregeneration. However, in the coming years, the greater challen-ges for our cities will be how they can withstand certain impacts.That is why I talked about minerals, water and electricity: ourcities will need to have more than just a sound economy. We willnot have a good economy unless we have energy security, or weare resistant to flooding. Environmental flows are just as impor-tant as the other economic flows that people tend to focus on.

During a recent meeting of the AGMA Planning and HousingCommission, we listened to two very interesting reports. The firstreport demonstrated that employment in the core area had signi-ficantly increased over the past few years while it had decreasedin peripheral areas. This implies that the core is taking away em-ployment form the peripheral areas. The second report showedthat although investors and employers would like to establishthemselves at the urban core of Greater Manchester, they wouldalso be interested in establishing themselves in other cities suchas Stockport in the south and Bolton in the north. The reason wasquite simple: both of those cities, as well as the urban core, arelocated on the main railway line between Scotland and London.

Businesses wanted quick and easy access to a variety of loca-tions. This is a complex issue and it certainly calls into questionthe whole issue of core vs. periphery: whether there is a rela-tionship between core and periphery or between the metropoli-tan area and London. It is a question of how we connect amongourselves and how we connect ourselves with areas beyond themetropolitan area.

Spatiality - core v periphery or connectivity

I would also like to talk about flexibility. There is a GBP 50 mi-llion programme aimed at creating a park in the area of the RiverIrwell that flows between Salford, Trafford and Manchester, inorder to improve the environment and the connections betweenthese cities and other areas. What is interesting here is that it isa joint effort between three local authorities; it is not something

that has been established by just one local authority or by thecity or the region. Thus, it is important to keep in mind that wecan have governance at different levels. We can create our ownlevels, so that we are adaptable and can deal with different typesof issues.


28/38

28

Here is my last example. Salford quays, the former docks , were re-cently successfully revitalised and regenerated and are to housethe MediaCityUK (some BBC offices will be located here). Whenwe evaluated different solutions for this site, we did notlook forsolutions at local level; rather we looked at media cities world-wide. There are ten media cities across the globe and we decidedthat we wanted to join that network. We therefore took a verygood look at ourselves and at them, to see what we needed to ge-nerate that kind of growth. Our inspiration came from the globallevel and we

adapted it tothe local le-vel, the levelof Salford.

Certain re-sources willbe needed todevelop themedia city.We will haveto attract

funding fromwor l dwideinstitutions,as well ascapital fromthe regionaldevelopment agency. For example, the investment required interms of transport comes from the transport authority, an insti-tution that reports to the city and the region. In other words, youneed to find resources from different levels and different skills tocreate a media city.

The media city is expected to create about 50,000 jobs. It is the-

refore a very important project for our region. We, as urban deve-lopers, have to ensure the development of the necessary physicalnetwork for telecoms (very good optical fibre capacity), floodmanagement (very important, since this is a riverside site), globaland local connectivity, etc. Global connectivity is as importantas local connectivity: we have to ensure that local people canbenefit from the employment it generates and have easy accessto this environment. Therefore, a bus network, bicycle lanes, etc.have to be provided and all of this needs to be put into place byurban planners.

Finally, a few word by way of conclusion:

Firstly, and coming back to the concept of flows: if you want tomanage all these flows, you need to increase your capacity to do

it successfully. Thus, we have built new institutions toincreaseour capacity. We have created the Salford Urban RegenerationCompany, a private-public partnership, which does things thatthe city or the region cannot do since they have a private sectorvision. We also created the Urban Vision partnership, which givesus a technical perspective in terms of engineering.

Secondly, we also tried tostabilise the flows, so rather than tur-ning to real estate developers to see what schemes they develop,

we tried to determi-

ne whether thoseschemes were sus-tainable for a five toten year period. Wehave therefore signedabout ten long-termdevelopment agree-ments with partnersthroughout the city.Thus, even in the-se days of crisis andrecession, and even

though many pro-perty developers areleaving certain re-gions because of the-se agreements, theproperty developers

should remain in Salford. Once the economy improves, they willcontinue in the region because of those contracts.

The third aspect is transformation: we need to reinforce andstrengthen connections. Here I would like to mention three im-portant connection factors in Salford:

- Salford University: the University needs to develop expertise,but its reputation also needs to extend beyond Salford.- Transportation: good local and external transportation linksmust be ensured.- Image: peoples perception is an important connection. Weneed to promote the regions creativity in order to consolidatethe new image of Salford. The Lowry art centre is an exceptionalpromoter of this new image.

Finally, I would like to mention two important concepts. First ofall is the need for flexibility. Governance means that you have toact at different levels: between the city and the region, between

different local authorities, between the city and local stakehol-ders, and so on. Secondly, you need to have a pragmatic ap-proach and recognise that certain governance institutions arenot always suitable. One has to be practical and look for suitablepartners who will ensure the best results.

The future of MediaCityUK in Salford Quays


29/38

29

During the working session on the second day of the seminar, the

NeT-TOPIC members contributed presentations on their differentexperiences, points of view and findings about urban and metro-politan governance practices.

This session was intended as a continuation of the discussionsheld by the NeT-TOPIC partners during the open seminar and thedrafting of the so-called Position Paper.

These are some of the points highlighted from the open seminaron the previous day to encourage reflection:

1.The need to reconsider the economic and mobility growth pat-

tern. Change of patterns. Are we really growing?

2.Peripheries have to organise themselves as agglomerations be-yond their limits. They have to become a counter power to thecentral city. They must achieve complementarity with the corecity.

3.Agglomerations must achieve some sort of democratic repre-sentation. Quite often they have no elected power; no democraticrepresentation.

4. The multiplicity of governments hinders the governing of the

entire agglomeration.

5. From the centre-periphery approach we should move towardsa corridors or access approach, as suggested by Jordi Borja.

6.As far as participation is concerned: the different levels of go-vernment are a hindrance to citizens: they do not know who toaddress.

7.We can adapt and create different governance structures de-pending on specific needs, situations and challenges.

8. Political legitimacy is necessary when structuring the metro-

politan/local levels. Strategic plans can be a good tool.

9. Local resistance: sometimes there is an atomisation of societyand local peripheries fear that municipal structures are actuallyled by the core city.

Even though governance issues are clearly determined by the lo-cal context (legal framework, etc.), project partners are invited togo beyond these limits and to try come up with general ideas andrecommendations, so that our learnings can be capitalised on.

03_ SHARING,COMPARING ANDLEARNING WITHIN THENETWORK. A WORKING

SESSION AMONG THENeT-TOPIC CITIES

1

The document, coordinated by the Lead Expert, aimed to producea framework for the seminar content to ensure that the seminarwas properly focused and that it produced a coherent discussion.

1


30/38

30

Councillor Antrobus from Salford considers that the GreaterManchester Area has achieved a successful model. The 10 autho-rities that constitute AGMA each have one vote: Salford hasone vote, as does Manchester. All AGMA members are partnerslooking at the conurbation as a whole. It is essential to see themetropolitan area as having a shared future instead of differenttowns in competition with each other.

In the case of the Manchester Metro-

politan Area, there is an agreementand awareness that the core city needsto work together with nearby towns.In addition to this, three of the coreCouncillors of the supra-municipalassociation come from the periphery,thereby ensuring a global perspective.

However, this cannot always be thecase. In the case of Sesto, for example,the one city/one vote system wouldnot be possible.

Sesto San Giovanni experience

Sesto San Giovanni is located in theMilan metropolitan area, one of themost densely pop

Documents

New Tools and Approaches for Managing Urban Transformation