Suburbanizarea in Germania

8/3/2019 Suburbanizarea in Germania

1/15

URBAN-RURAL RELATIONSHIPS: AN INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF HISTORY

265BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 28 NO 4

2002 Alexandrine Press.Written permission of thepublishers is required for the

reproduction of editorial matter.

ISSN 0263-7960

Published by Alexandrine Press

Alexandrine Press, P.O. Box 15,51 Cornmarket Street,Oxford OX1 3EBTelephone: 01865-724627Fax: 01865-792309E-mail: [email protected]

Built Environment is publishedfour times a year.Annual subscription 85.00(U.K.) and 90.00 ($150.00)(overseas). Single issues 23.00($37.50); double issues 46.00($75.00)

Contents and abstracts fromVol. 23, no. 4 onwards areavailable on RUDI (Resourcesfor Urban Design Information)at www.rudi.net/bookshelf/ej/be/be.html

Art Production by PNR Design

Printed by Hunts Printing,Oxford

Cover illustration:

Volume 28, Number 4, 2002 URBAN-RURAL RELATIONSHIPSGuest Editors: SIMIN DAVOUDI and DOMINIC STEAD

Urban-Rural Relationships: An Introduction and Brief HistorySIMIN DAVOUDI and DOMINIC STEAD 269

The European Discourse on Urban-Rural Relationships:A New Policy and Research Agenda

CHRISTER BENGS and WIL ZONNEVELD 000

Beyond Town and Countryside? A Dutch Perspective onUrban and Rural Policies WENDY ASBEEK BRUSSE and BART WISSINK 000

Urban-Rural Relationships in the West of EnglandDOMINIC STEAD 000

The Pseudo-Countryside as a Compromise betweenSpatial Planning Goals and Consumers Preferencesfor Rural Living

SASKIA HEINS, FRANK VAN DAM andROLAND GOETGELUK 000

Suburbanization Processes in Germany: Implications forUrban and Rural Areas

BRIGITTE ADAM 000

Urban-Rural Relationships, Spatial Strategies andTerritorial Development

PATSY HEALEY 000

Publication Reviews 000

BEVOL28NO4.indd 265 25/11/2002, 21:21:18


2/15

URBAN-RURAL RELATIONSHIPS

266 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 28 NO 4

Editors:Peter Hall, University College LondonDavid Banister, University College London

Editorial Board:David Bayliss, Transport ConsultantTerence Bendixson, Urban Affairs Consultant,

LondonMichael Breheny, University of ReadingClaude Chaline, Universit de Paris, Val de MarneAndreas Faludi, Universiteit van Nijmegen

Pedro Pinchas Geiger, Instituto Brasiliero deGeografia e Statistica (IBE)

Stephen Hamnett, University of South Australia,Adelaide

Louis Hellman,Architect, LondonKlaus R. Kunzmann, Universitt DortmundR. Yin-Wang Kwok, University of HawaiiDavid Lock, David Lock Associates, Milton KeynesCaroline Moser, The World Bank, Washington DCMelvin Webber, University of California, Berkeley

Built EnvironmentPublished by Alexandrine Press, Built Environment is relevant to all those involved with urbanand regional planning and related disciplines. Not only does the journal enable practitioners tokeep abreast of developments in the planning world, but it provides excellent source materialfor academics and their students.

The ContributorsBrigitte Adam is a Project Coordinator at the Federal Office for

Building and Regional Planning (BBR) in Germany. She hasqualifications in spatial planning and political science. Since2001, she has been coordinator of the BBRs spatial planningdemonstration projects programme. Her main areas of workinclude the topics of spatial interdependencies and sustainableurban and regional development.

Wendy Asbeek Brusse is a Scientific Officer at the NetherlandsScientific Council for Government Policy (WRR), a govern-mental think-tank in The Hague. Her current research focuseson rural-urban relations, urban development, EU spatial policyand international relations. She is co-author of the recent WRRreport on the new geography of town and country ( Stad en landin een nieuwe geografie), which was published in July 2002.

Christer Bengs is Professor of Spatial Planning at HelsinkiUniversity of Technology and Senior Research Fellow atNordregio in Stockholm. He was coordinator of the StudyProgramme on European Spatial Planning (SPESP) between1998 and 2000 and is currently involved in research concerning

urban-rural relationships as part of the European SpatialPlanning Observation Network (ESPON) 2006 programme.

Frank van Dam is Senior Researcher at the recently establishedNetherlands Institute for Spatial Research (RPB) in The Hague.His current research focuses on urban-rural migration andcounter-urbanisation. His wider research interests are ruraldevelopment, new economic activities in rural areas, ruralliveability and rural services.

Simin Davoudi is Professor of Planning and Environmentand Director of the Centre for Urban Development andEnvironmental Management at Leeds Metropolitan University.Her research activities focus on spatial planning, environmentalsustainability and waste management in the UK and Europe.She is currently involved in two research projects concerningpolycentric development and urban-rural relationships aspart of the European Spatial Planning Observation Network(ESPON) 2006 programme.

Roland Goetgeluk is Assistant Professor at Delft University ofTechnology. His research focuses on residential choice and land-

use. He previously worked at the University of Utrecht, the

Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI), the NationalInstitute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) and theUniversidade Pedaggica in Beira, Mozambique.

Patsy Healey is Professor Emeritus of Planning at the School ofArchitecture Planning and Landscape, University of Newcastle.She is a specialist in spatial planning theory and policy. Shewas Director of UK-ESPRIN, which provided the UK input tothe Study Programme on European Spatial Planning (SPESP)between 1998 and 2000.

Saskia Heins is Lecturer in Urban and Rural Geography atthe Urban Research Centre in the University of Utrecht. Sherecently completed her PhD research on rural images and thesupply and demand of rural residential environments. Herresearch interests are in housing and migration, with particularinterest in rural housing and urban-rural migration.

Dominic Stead holds an EU Marie Curie Postdoctoral ResearchFellowship at Delft University of Technology. Much of his

research focuses on the integration of transport, land-use andenvironmental planning policy. He is currently involved inresearch concerning urban-rural relationships as part of theEuropean Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON) 2006programme.

Bart Wissink is a Researcher and Lecturer in Urban and RegionalPlanning at the University of Utrecht. Until recently, he workedat the Dutch Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR)in The Hague. He is co-author of the recent WRR report on thenew geography of town and country (Stad en land in een nieuwegeografie), which was published in July 2002.

Wil Zonneveld is a Senior Lecturer in Urban and RegionalPlanning at Delft University of Technology. He was a memberof the coordination Team of the Study Programme onEuropean Spatial Planning (SPESP) between 1998 and 2000and is currently involved in research concerning urban-ruralrelationships and polycentricity as part of the European SpatialPlanning Observation Network (ESPON) 2006 programme.

BEVOL28NO4.indd 266 25/11/2002, 21:21:19


3/15

URBAN-RURAL RELATIONSHIPS: AN INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF HISTORY


Vol. 14, no. 1: Planning for Retail Change:International Comparisons

Vol. 14, no. 2: Rating Places

Vol. 14, nos. 3/4: Beyond Social Housing

Vol. 15, no. 1: Keeping the Netherlands inShape

Vol. 15, no. 2: Tourist Accommodation

Vol. 15, nos. 3/4: The Final Gridlock

Vol. 16, no. 1: 1992 and Regional Developmentin Europe

Vol. 16, no. 2: Landscape Planning: SomeEuropean Perspectives

Vol. 16, no. 3: The Culture of Conservation:A UK Perspective

Vol. 16, no. 4: Women and the DesignedEnvironment

Vol. 17, no. 1: Fifty Years of Dutch PhysicalNational Planning

Vol. 17, no. 2: Transport in World Cities

Vol. 17, nos. 3/4: Post-Suburban America

Vol. 18, no. 1: Coastal Resort Development

Vol. 18, no. 2: Culture and Urban Regeneration:Some European Example

Vol. 18, no. 3: Metropolitan Australia in the1990s

Vol. 18, no. 4: The Compact City

Vol. 19, no. 1: Multinational Regionalism inEurope and North America

Vol. 19, no. 2: Industrial Heritage and Tourism

Vol. 19, nos. 3/4: The Age of the Train

Vol. 20, no. 1: The Rusting of the Sunbelt

Vol. 20, no. 2: Design Control in EuropeVol. 20, no. 3: A Rising European Underclass?

Vol. 20, no. 4: Environmental Impact Assessment: The Next Steps

Vol. 21, no. 1: Planning with Landscape

Vol. 21, nos. 2/3: Hazards in the Built Environment

Vol. 21, no. 4: Social and Spatial Effects of Telematics

Vol. 22, no. 1: Women and the Environment

Vol. 22, no. 2: Islamic Architecture andUrbanism

Vol. 22, no. 3: Air Transport in the 1990s

Vol. 22, no. 4: Theory and Practice in UrbanDesign

Vol. 23, no. 1: Vanishing Borders: The SecondBenelux Structural Outline

Vol. 23, no. 2: Conservation in WesternPlanning Systems

Vol. 23, no. 3: New Directions in EuropeanRural Policy

Vol. 23, no. 4: Shaping Europe: The EuropeanSpatial DevelopmentPerspective

Vol. 24, no. 1: Trading Places: The Future of theTown Centre

Vol. 24, nos. 2/3: Building Cyberspace: Information,Place and Policy

Vol. 24, no. 4: Eastern Urban Form and Culture

Vol. 25, no. 1: Playgrounds in the BuiltEnvironment

Vol. 25, no. 2: Travel Reduction: Policy intoPractice

Vol. 25, no. 3: Conservation: Experience outsidethe Industrialized West

Vol. 25, no. 4: Urban Design Strategies inPractice

Vol. 26, no. 1: Nordic Planning meets Europe

Vol. 26, no. 2: Urban Tourism

Vol. 26, no. 3: Sustainable Mobility in the EU

Vol. 26, no. 4: Cinema and the City

Vol. 27, no. 1: Environmental Assessment Japanese Style

Vol. 27, no. 2: Pacific-Asian Cities: Challenges

and ProspectsVol. 27, no. 3: The Hague A Dual City? Causes

and Policy Responses

Vol. 27, no. 4: Regulatory Competition andCo-operation in EuropeanSpatial Planning

Vol. 28, no. 1: Sustainable Buildings: Meanings,Processes and Users

Vol. 28, no. 2: Water Management in UrbanAreas

Vol. 28, no. 3: Islam and Built Form: Studies inRegional Diversity

The first issue of Volume 29 will be: ???

Below is a selected list of back issues of Built Environment (single issues 23.00 ($37.50); double issues46.00 ($75.00) including postage; discount to students 10%):

BEVOL28NO4.indd 267 25/11/2002, 21:21:19


4/15

SUBURBANIZATION PROCESSES IN GERMANY: IMPLICATIONS FOR URBAN AND RURAL AREAS


Suburbanization Processesin Germany: Implicationsfor Urban and Rural Areas

BRIGITTE ADAM

Increasing suburbanization in Germany, particularly since reunification, is creating challenges forspatial planning. Here different approaches to defining urban regions are discussed and the

problems of suburbanization are examined. Then planning strategies, prominent sincethe early 1990s, are analysed. Finally, spatial planning strategies to address

the issues and problems of suburbanization are put forward.

Introduction

Suburbanization processes in German urban

regions have been taking place for severaldecades. Both individuals and businesseshave moved out from the centre of cities tothe hinterland. In some cases these regionalmigration processes have been accompaniedby supra-regional migration from structurallyweaker regions to the hinterland of pros-perous urban centres. This development hasled to urban regions which are growing insize and which are characterized by complexinterdependencies between central cities andtheir hinterland. Up to the beginning of the

1990s, the phenomenon of suburbanizationwas mainly confined to the west of thecountry. However, after the reunification ofGermany (and the adoption of the marketeconomic system in the east), suburbanizationhas spread to the so-called new Lnder(federal states).

Problems caused by suburbanization suchas urban sprawl, pressure on open space,and environmental problems from trafficare examples of the challenges for spatialplanning. Modern planning strategies haveto be judged by their ability to cope withthese persistent problems. The comparison of

todays spatial problems (suburbanization) onthe one hand and current planning strategieson the other allows examination of the

effectiveness of current spatial planningstrategies.

The paper is divided into four main parts.In the first part, different approaches todefine urban regions are discussed. In thesecond part, recent issues and problems ofsuburbanization in Germany are examined.Recent planning strategies, prominent inGermany since the early 1990s, are presentedand analysed in the third part. Lastly, futurespatial planning strategies to address theissues and problems of suburbanization are

presented in the fourth section.

Defining Urban Regions

In order to define urban region we need toconsider various approaches are considered.Three approaches are discussed below eachof these are currently used in German spatialplanning and research.

City Regions

City regions (Stadtregionen) go back to adefinition created by Boustedt in the 1950s

BEVOL28NO4.indd 319 25/11/2002, 21:21:42


5/15



(Boustedt, 1953). His definition was derivedfrom analysis aimed at recording the socio-economic unity of a city and the surroundingarea. His model followed two basic assump-tions. First, that cities have grown beyondtheir administrative borders and that thesurrounding municipalities are characterized by features which are similar to those of

the cities. Second, that the surroundingmunicipalities belong to a city region ifthey are characterized by urban rather thanby rural lifestyles, indicated by the incomestructure of their inhabitants.

During recent decades this original modelhas been modified several times to takeaccount of changing settlement conditions.

Figure 1. City regions.

BEVOL28NO4.indd 320 25/11/2002, 21:21:43


6/15



A recent approach developed by the FederalOffice for Building and Regional Planning(BBR) defines city regions consisting of corecities, core areas, inner and outer commutercatchment areas (figure 1) as follows:

G Core cities cover all municipalities with80,000 and more inhabitants;

G Core areas are municipalities with a

relatively high population density and asurplus of in-commuting;

G Inner commuter catchment areas andouter commuter catchment areas are de-fined by out-commuting. The first type ischaracterized by a proportion of 50 per centand more commuters into the core area,while the proportion is less than 50 per centin the second type (BBR, 2000a; Gddecke-Stellmann and Kuhlman, 2000)

Urban Agglomerations

Urban agglomerations (Verdichtungsraeume)were defined in a resolution of the CentralCommittee of the German Standing Con-ference of Ministers Responsible for SpatialPlanning. The definition of urban agglomera-tions is based on indicators describing theproportion of the area used by settlement andtraffic infrastructure as well as the settlementdensity. If one refers to the old Lnder, urbanagglomerations are defined as counties and

self-governing towns in which the proportionof the settlement and transport area is 11.65per cent and more and the net settlementdensity is 3620 inhabitants per square kilo-metre or more. For the new Lnder the data- base was not comparable, but definitionswere carried out similarly. Additionally, thereare some inaccuracies from the analyticalpoint of view because the Lnder carried outindividual fine demarcations (BBR, 2000b).Therefore urban agglomerations depend to acertain extent on political decisions. Core orcentral cities are not an official category ofurban agglomerations (figure 2).

Agglomeration Areas and Urbanized Areas

The BBR has defined a special system ofregional types for research purposes, calledspatial planning regions (Raumordnungs-regionen). It is used especially as a spatialbasis for the Continuous Spatial MonitoringSystem of the BBR to compare spatial de-velopment and spatial conditions acrossthe country. This analytically based systemdivides German areas into three basic typesaccording to population density and centrality:(i) agglomeration areas; (ii) urbanized areas;and (iii) rural areas. In addition, the de-marcated and classified areas approxi-matelycorrespond with functional regions based oncommuter relations.

Although agglomeration areas and urbani-zed areas mirror the general view of urbanregions it is also possible to find city-hinterland-regions in rural areas, whichare generally smaller and lower density. In

addition, agglomeration and urbanized areasare further differentiated into higher andlower orders as follows:

G In agglomeration areas, a higher order centrehas 300,000 inhabitants or more. Alternatively,a higher order centre has a density of 300inhabitants per square kilometre across thewhole area.

G In urbanized areas, a higher order centrehas 100,000 inhabitants or more. Alternatively,a higher order centre has a density of 100

inhabitants per square kilometre again acrossthe whole area.

G The exact demarcation shows a fewexceptions to the analytically based approach because the definition of spatial planningregions was orientated to the regional plan-ning areas to a certain extent (BBR, 2000b and2001).

The three approaches used to define urbanregions (outlined above) are based on twocrucial indicators: commuting patterns andsettlement structure (density and centrality).These indicators are weighted differently

BEVOL28NO4.indd 321 25/11/2002, 21:21:44


7/15



from one approach to another. While

city regions are more strongly based oncommuter relations than on aspects ofsettlement structure, agglomeration andurban areas are concentrated on centrality andpopulation density. In the definition of urbanagglomerations commuter relations are notconsidered. The focus here is on density. It isnot possible to say which definition is better:there are particular reasons for differentapproaches and the choice of approachdepends on the underlying question.

The following discussion about the currentcharacter of suburbanization processesin German urban regions concentrate on

agglomeration areas as a feature of urban

regions, which is a category frequently usedin research within the German government.Problems of suburbanization are especiallystriking in agglomeration areas.

Suburbanization Dimensions andDifferentiation

The most recent (2000) Spatial PlanningReport of the Federal Office for Buildingand Regional Planning (BBR) points outthat increasing suburbanization is one ofthe central problems of spatial development(BBR, 2000c). It reports that the trend towards

Figure 2. Urban agglomerations.

BEVOL28NO4.indd 322 25/11/2002, 21:21:44


8/15



suburbanization was unbroken in the 1990sas well. Approximately 25 per cent of thepopulation growth occurred in agglomerationareas in the nearer surrounding areas ofcentral cities.1 The radius of migration hasextended into the rural parts of agglomerationareas. During the 1990s, the rural areasfar from the central cities experienced thelargest rates of population growth (figure

4) and, consequently, the largest rates ofgrowth in settlement size and transport(Federal Ministry of Transport, Building andHousing and Federal Ministry for EconomicCooperation and Development, 2001). In theserural, less urbanized areas, new developmentis often in conflict with the protection of large,environmentally valuable open spaces.

At the same time, the trend towards

Figure 3. Agglomeration andurbanized areas.

BEVOL28NO4.indd 323 25/11/2002, 21:21:46


9/15



settlement dispersion has increased. Themunicipalities in the urban hinterland haveexperienced large increases in internalmigration (migration within the agglomera-tion). More people now live in small townsthan in medium-sized ones. New studiessuggest that, in contrast to the traditionalview that young families are moving to thehinterland for affordable housing, other

trends are apparent. The household structuresof migrants are now more diverse and homeownership is no longer the dominant motive.For example, 70 per cent of the moves fromFrankfurt to the surrounding areas weremade by single-person households and mostmigrants live in rented accommodation in

these areas. Although Frankfurts share ofsingle-person households is extraordinarilyhigh, the average number of out-migrationsto the surrounding areas reflects the generaltrend towards smaller household size. Movesinto rented accommodation are not restrictedto the Rhine-Main area, but are a widespreadphenomenon in Germany (Ismaier, 2001).

Large waves of suburbanization present

problems for surrounding municipalities ina number of respects. First, the increasingsize of living space per capita is adding to theincreasing demand for land and resources.Second, in many suburban municipalities, thepopulation is ageing. In these areas there is ahigh demand for services for the elderly. In

Figure 4. Population development in agglomeration areas.

BEVOL28NO4.indd 324 25/11/2002, 21:21:49


10/15



addition, options for housing the elderly arelimited for various reasons, such as the highcosts of subdividing larger family housesinto smaller flats, or the limited types ofhousing available in the area many suburbsoften mainly consist of family houses (BBR,1998a).

Land uses of the hinterland and inter-dependencies have become more differentia-

ted. In addition to the suburbanization ofhousing there is a significant trend towardsthe suburbanization of companies. Only afew agglomerations experienced increasesin jobs during the 1990s. These economicsuburbanization trends are often found inthe secondary sector and in retail trades.Extreme forms of large retail firms on green-field sites were established after reunificationin suburban areas of the new Lnder. Apartfrom the retail trade, the service sector,including high technology and the communi-cations sector, has increasing importance in

the areas surrounding cities. Commercialuse in the area around Munich, for instance,is increasingly accounted for by mediaand computer firms. Specific locations for biotechnology are also now developing.However, central cities are still importantcentres offering jobs or cultural facilities. Theyare influenced by the increased attraction ofthe surrounding municipalities, even inmonocentric regions such as Hamburg andMunich, where the attraction of the centresis particularly high (Adam and Blach, 1996).

The expansion and functional differentia-tion of the areas surrounding cities has re-sulted in an increasing amount of tangentialtraffic traffic between suburban munici-palities that is not directed radially to-wards the central cities or to the centralplaces of the surrounding area. Tangentialtraffic is increasing inter alia because thefunctional differentiation does not lead tomultifunctional municipalities, such as theenrichment of housing-rich municipalitieswith employment. Tangential traffic isproblematic since the share of public transportis much lower than in radial traffic (ibid.).

Beyond these transport aspects arequestions about whether this development the increased functional diversity in thehinterland might indicate a functionalseparation of the hinterland from thecentral cities. Do central cities lose theirfunctional dominance and what would thisloss mean for their leading role as urbancentres? If facilities in central cities have

regional importance, who should financethese, particularly those that require moreexpenditure than the income they generate?

Recently, increasing attention has beenpaid to such questions, which are, of course,decisive for concepts for future urban regions.At present, problems of suburbanization arestill mainly discussed from two points ofview. The first with regard to sustainablesettlement development and the secondwith an emphasis on population declineand unoccupied housing, particularly in thecentral cities of the new Lnder.

The perspective of sustainable developmentpoints out that problems of suburbanizationsuch as tendencies towards urban sprawlare accompanied by pressure on open spaceand higher traffic volumes especially privatemotorized traffic. Such results, combined withcounter-strategies, can be found for instancein the German National Report for the WorldSettlement Conference Habitat II as well asin the National Plan of Action for SustainableSettlement Development and in the recentlypublished German National Report for the

Special General Assembly Istanbul +5(Federal Research Institute for RegionalGeography and Regional Planning, 1996;German National Committee, 1996). Counter-strategies are officially represented by theprinciple of decentralized concentration apolycentric development of urban regions thatconcentrates on the central place hierarchywith compact building structures and mixedland use in urban neighbourhoods.

Before reunification, suburbanization didnot take place to any great extent in theagglomerations of the new Lnder. Sincereunification, however, suburbanization has

BEVOL28NO4.indd 325 25/11/2002, 21:21:52


11/15



taken place in these areas. Although thesuburbanization of housing is declining insome regions, the development opportunitiesof central cities are additionally limitedby out-migration to the surrounding areas(Fischer, 2001). Population losses due to east-west migration are overlapped by the overalldecline in population and the movementof jobs and workers to the hinterland.

The outward sign of population declinein the central cities is the large number ofunoccupied dwellings. Leipzig, for example,currently has 60,000 empty flats, and thisnumber is increasing.

Current Spatial Planning Strategies:Cooperation, Demonstration Projects andLarge Events

New dynamics and problems require thattraditional planning approaches are re-examined. The question is to what extent

they have been reconsidered and to whatextent this reconsideration is reflected incurrent strategies. Since the beginning of the1990s, planning instruments and strategies aswell as the understanding of planning havechanged in Germany. The planning activitieshave shifted from plans to processes andfrom holistic plans to project-oriented action a change of paradigms. Even traditionalurban and regional principles have beenaffected (Sieverts, 1997; BBR, 1998b). Variousinstruments and strategies have increased

in importance, including inter-authoritycooperation, demonstration projects andlarge events. This section examines the extentto which they can eliminate weaknesses thatare inherent in the traditional instrumentsunder existing spatial, social and economicconditions.

Inter-Authority Cooperation

Since the beginning of the 1990s, the muni-cipalities that traditionally have a strongposition in Germany have been faced withrestrictions in their scope of activities, due

mainly to the growing shortage of publicfinance. Furthermore, cities or municipalitiescannot solve structural problems or bringabout change on their own. Attractive citiesalso fear that a lack of development areaswould impede further prosperity. As a resultof these conditions, more and more cities andmunicipalities have started to cooperate in aregional context in order to maintain their

position in the competition among Europeanregions, to make joint plans and to implementthese plans together. They have also tried toinvolve the private sector in producing thesejoint plans and in their implementation.

The Federal Government and the Lnderhave promoted these activities. With theirsupport several forms of municipal andregional cooperation were developed andestablished in recent years in the form ofregional conferences, urban networks, contri- butions to the Regionale in North Rhine-Westphalia (regional landscape exhibitions)

or to the Federal competition Regions of theFuture (Adam, 2001). All these approachesare orientated towards processes, projects andimplementation. Differences are in the fieldsof action, in the selection of common topicsand above all in the formulation of commonobjectives.

The Regions of the Future competition,for instance, was the first cooperative projectof the Federal Government explicitly aimedat the extension of regional competence forsustainable development. Twenty-six regions

participated over a period of 3 years. Acentral task was to work towards a settlementstructure which was more economical interms of land use and provided better pro-tection for open space. In this respectagglomerated regions were required toidentify how to counteract urban sprawl.Because of inter-authority competition fordevelopment, one municipality alone cannotmanage urban sprawl. Therefore better pro-tection of open areas that prevents or atleast limits urban sprawl requires regionaland cooperative approaches. However, co-operation remains optional and authorities

BEVOL28NO4.indd 326 25/11/2002, 21:21:53


12/15



are not bound by formal regulations. There-fore, one reason why problems of suburbani-zation are still insufficiently considered inthe planning process lies in the avoidanceof contentious aspects in inter-authoritycooperation. It is of course much easier toconcentrate on questions that lead relativelyeasily to consensual results. This strategyis important in order to create confidence

among the various actors. However, afterthis it is necessary to examine whether thisconfidence is stable enough to deal withconflicts, such as the protection of open areassurrounding large cities.

A further related issue concerns the roleof formal regional planning in informalinter-authority cooperation. Ideally, regionalplanning identifies spatial conflicts, evalu-ates settlement development from a supra-local and cross-sectoral point of view andelaborates alternatives to solve problems.In practice, this does not always take place

through voluntary inter-authority cooperation.

Demonstration Projects

Particularly when public institutions areshort of money, the financial support fordemonstration projects becomes increasinglyimportant. If such projects are not financed by the municipalities themselves, they aresupported by the Federal Government andthe Lnder. In this way, new impetus canoften be generated at lower cost. Examples

of demonstration projects that attach greatimportance to inter-authority or regionalcooperation have been mentioned aboveand include the Regionale in North Rhine-Westphalia, the Urban Networks researchproject, and the Regions of the Futurecompetition. Other examples include thecurrent City 2030 competition which con-cerns visions for towns and densely popu-lated areas urban regions.

Being involved in a nationwide exchangeof experience or network of demonstrationprojects seems to generate a significantamount of political and economic support

within municipalities. This response can beused by the Federal Government and theLnder to transfer supra-local objectives, forinstance to avoid negative impacts of sub-urbanization, to the municipal level throughdemonstration projects. However, the fulfil-ment of these demanding objectives oftenfails because of the demonstrative or modelcharacter that is required and the need for

short-term results. Therefore the effectivenessof demonstration projects dealing withproblems of suburbanization are restricted toinitiating inter-authority implementation ofsome areas of urban development.

Demonstration projects, whether they arefunded by local or state programmes, serveto achieve visible results in the short term, toprovide impetus and to show how they canwork. However, the question is whether suchshort-term processes can be turned into long-term strategies and whether similar processesare adopted elsewhere. The management of

suburbanization processes requires this trans-fer, as suburbanization is a permanent chal-lenge, according to the mechanisms influ-encing this spatial phenomenon.

Large Events

In recent years, there have been a number ofimportant official events with high-rankingparticipants, such as the Global Conferenceon the Urban Future, URBAN 21 that tookplace in Berlin in 2000, and preliminary

conferences leading up to the event, suchas the Third Biennial of Towns and TownPlanners in Europe (in September 1999) andthe German National Urban DevelopmentCongress (in November 1999).

These events have provided a variety ofopportunities for discussion and decision-making on spatial planning in general andon suburbanization in particular. Globalconferences also provide the opportunityto direct the attention of political bodiesand of the public to spatial planning tasks.However, such events often produce com-mon declarations or decisions which are too

BEVOL28NO4.indd 327 25/11/2002, 21:21:54


13/15



abstract to provide specific direction for futureplanning. This is also true for the officialprinciple of decentralized concentra-tion. Thequestion here is what this means in detail. Forexample, does decentralized concentrationimply a strengthening of medium-sizedcentres or a polycentric combination ofhousing and work that is relatively indepen-dent of the central place hierarchy?

Spatial Planning according to the GuidingPrinciple of the Enabling State

Inter-authority cooperation, demonstrationprojects and large events are carried outagainst the background of the enabling State.Against the background of this principle,the State, for instance, detaches itself fromthe role of a universal welfare institution.It provides impetus, supports individualinitiatives and motivates citizens and privateactors to participate. Activation should not

result in a one-sided shift of governmenttasks, it also requires a change of the citizensopportunities to participate (Franke et al.,2000). Changed economic and social condi-tions require this emphasis, particularlybecause of tight public finances. Furthermore,economic flexibility and globalization aswell as the diversification of lifestyles haveweakened rigid government regulations andits distributive or balancing functions.

Spatial planning according to the activatingState philosophy distances itself from earlier

development planning requirements in the1960s and 1970s. Expressing this simply, theideal of development planning was that theState should be able to plan for the long termbased on analyses and predictions with theexpectation of steady economic growth ona high level (Albers, 1993). The weakness ofsuch an approach lies in the restricted abilityto predict and guide spatial development inthe long term. This was clearly visible afterthe reunification of Germany when newmigration patterns made all former forecastsof population development and spatialdistribution obsolete.

Modified strategies have to start fromsuch problems and have to respond directlyto the driving forces of suburbanization asfar as possible. These driving forces arecharacterized by a combination of differentissues acting together. These include inter-authority competition for development,environmental problems in cities, technol-ogical change, and changing lifestyles (such

as housing preferences, mobility behaviourand leisure activities).The task for spatial planning is to orient

recent and informal strategies towards theremoval of the weaknesses of older, formalprocedures without replacing one procedureby the other. In this context, the effects ofcity-hinterland associations as contemporaryforms of cooperation in urban regions and aspecial form of regional planning should beconsidered. The discussion and examinationof reformed city-hinterland associationsand their effects on suburbanization must

become a topic for further spatial research.These city-hinterland associations have along tradition in Germany. The first two werefounded at the beginning of the last centuryin the area of Berlin and in the Ruhr District.These associations (under the responsibilityof the municipalities of these regions) werethe answer to the uncontrolled settlementdevelopment beyond the borders of centralcities caused by the rapid industrialization atthat time. Thus, city-hinterland associationshave been directly linked to suburbanization

problems for a long time. However, theseinstitutions had insufficient competence toact effectively and lost importance over time.But, new forms of city-hinterland institutionshave recently been established in regions suchas Stuttgart and Hanover (Federal Ministry ofTransport, Building and Housing and FederalMinistry for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment, 2001). In Stuttgart there is anew regional parliament. Hanover has a newregional administrative body. The objectivesof these new organizations are not restrictedto handling suburbanization problems butalso strengthening the economic position of

BEVOL28NO4.indd 328 25/11/2002, 21:21:54


14/15



the regions in the face of global competition.It goes without saying that a simple

transfer of these models to other regions isnot recommended. Local conditions need tobe considered. However, it is possible to givesome general directions for the improvementof spatial planning. These are outlined in thefinal section of the paper.

Directions for Spatial Planning in theFuture

Some important directions for spatial plan-ning to address the issues of suburbanizationare addressed under six main headingsbelow.

1. Putting Spatial Planning on an EmpiricalFoundation

This requires observation, analysis and estima-tion of spatial development over time. Second,

it involves monitoring the effectiveness ofspatial planning instruments. Third, it involvesassessing innovation through demonstrationprojects.

2. Mobilizing Computer-based Reporting

Computer-based reporting can contribute tothe wide distribution of spatial information. Itcan help to identify land use conflicts and canassist in the development of scenarios.

3. Strengthening regional planning

Regional planning involves civil interestgroups whose opportunities to participatehave been considerably improved by offeringcompensation for the expense of time andmoney. Furthermore regional planning de-vises drafts and visions for city regions.These integrate individual municipal urbandevelopment structures into the regionalcontext. Apart from assigning spatial func-tions, such drafts and visions give an imageto the urban regions with which their citizenscan identify.

4. Addressing Key Issues in Research

A number of issues need to be addressedin research. For example, what happens ifcentral cities lose their functional dominance,for instance as places of employment andshopping? Will central cities still be theurban or spiritual centres of city regions andwho will finance this role? Will central citiesdepart further from the ideal of the European

city? To what extent do we have to accepttendencies of dispersed suburbanizationagainst the background of the sovereignmunicipal planning competence?

5. Coordinating Funding at DifferentAdministrative Levels

Actors at the federal level as well as at theEU-level need to coordinate regional program-mes, incentives and subsides in order toconcentrate on difficult spatial problems like

suburbanization. Without the coordination ofsimilar programmes, their effects are likely tobe more limited.

6. Reaching out towards the Public, SocialGroups and Political Bodies

There needs to be a dialogue between dif-ferent actors in reaching consensus abouturban development, spatial planning objectives and issues of sustainable develop-ment. A participative approach can help to

create awareness of spatial problems andwin support for various spatial planningstrategies.

NOTE

1. These are recent results from a current researchproject submitted by the Institute of Ecological andRegional Development (IR Dresden) on behalfof the Federal Ministry of Transport, Buildingand Housing and the BBR. It should be noted thatthe radius of agglomeration areas in this project is

bigger than in the case of spatial planning regionsof the same name.

BEVOL28NO4.indd 329 25/11/2002, 21:21:54


15/15



REFERENCES

Adam, B. (2001) Towards sustainability reachingthe goal of a competition, in Zimmermann,Friedrich, M., Janschitz, Susanne (ed.) RegionalPolicies in Europe Key Opportunities for Regionsin the 21st Century. Graz: University of Graz,pp. 219229.

Adam, B. and Blach, A. (1996) Rumliche Ar- beitsteilung in Grostadtregionen inter-kommunale und raumordnerische Konfliktkate-gorien. Informationen zur Raumentwicklung, Nos.4/5, pp. 187208.

Albers, G. (1993). ber den Wandel im Plan-ungsverstndnis. In: RaumPlanung 61. S. 97-103.

Boustedt, O. (1953) Die Stadtregion. Ein Beitragzur Abgrenzung stdtischer Agglomerationen. Allgemeines Statistisches Archiv, 37(1), pp.1326.

Bundesamt fr Bauwesen und Raumordnung(1998a) Bausteine einer nachhaltigen Ent-wicklung. Forschungen, No. 88. Bonn.

Bundesamt fr Bauwesen und Raumordnung(1998b) Themenheft Stadt Landschaft. Informa-

tionen zur Raumentwicklung, Heft 7/8. Bonn:BBR.

Bundesamt fr Bauwesen und Raumordnung(2000a) Urban Development and Urban Policy inGermany. An Overview. Berichte, Band 6. Bonn,p. 15.

Bundesamt fr Bauwesen und Raumordnung(2000b) Spatial Development and Spatial Planningin Germany. Bonn, p. 8.

Bundesamt fr Bauwesen und Raumordnung(2000c) Raumordnungsbericht 2000. Berichte,Band 7. Bonn.

Bundesamt fr Bauwesen und Raumordnung(2001)Aktuelle Daten zur Entwicklung der Stdte,Kreise und Gemeinden. Berichte, Band 8. Bonn.

Federal Ministry of Transport, Building andHousing and Federal Ministry for EconomicCooperation and Development (2001) TowardsSustainable Human Settlements Development.National Report of the Federal Republic ofGermany for the Twenty-fifth Special Sessionof the United Nations (Istanbul+5). Berlin.

Federal Research Institute for Regional Geography

and Regional Planning (1996) Human SettlementsDevelopment and Policy. National Report Ger-many HABITAT II. Bonn.

Fischer, R.J. (2001) Chemnitz. Grnderzeit- undPlattenbaugebiet. Stadtbauwelt, 150, pp. 5257.

Franke, T., Lhr, R.P. and Sander, R. (2000)Soziale Stadt Stadterneuerungspolitik alsStadtpolitikerneuerung.AfK II. pp. 243268.

German National Committee (1996) National Planof Action for Sustainable Settlement Development.Bonn.

Gddecke-Stellmann, J. and Kuhlmann, P. (2000)Abgrenzung der Stadtregionen. Unverffentlichtes

Arbeitspapier. Bonn: BBR.Ismaier (2001) Strukturen und Motive derStadt-Umland-Wanderung in westdeutschenVerdichtungsrumen. Vortrag auf der IfR- Jahrestagung Stdte im Spagat zwischenWohnungsleerstand und Baulandmangelim Juni 2001 in Braunschweig. Zur Verf-fentlichung vorgesehenes Manuskript. Dort-mund.

Sieverts, T. (1997) Zwischenstadt. Bauwelt Funda-mente 118. Braunschweig/Wiesbaden: Vieweg.

Documents

Suburbanizarea in Germania