Report | Roundtable Paris - Metro in Progress (May 25, 2016)

REPORT ROUNDTABLE PARIS | MAY 25, 2016

TOWARDS A METROPOLITAN PROJECT

2

METRO IN PROGRESS

Deltametropolis Association is a broad public organisation that focuses on shaping sustainable development in Randstad Holland.Apply for membership: deltametropool.nl/nl/membership

INTA is a global membership association where public and private policy-makers and urban practitioners come together to share knowledge, experience and performing tools for integrated urban development. www.inta-aivn.org

L’Atelier International du Grand Paris (AIGP) implements research, development, enhancement and animation related to the challenges of Greater Paris, particularly through its Scientifi c Council. It is a place both for experimentation, creation and dissemination.www.ateliergrandparis.fr

For more roundtable information and downloads visit:www.metroinprogress.org

COLOPHON Projectteam

INTA

Lola [email protected]

Benoît [email protected]

00 33 1 58 30 34 52

Deltametropolis Association

David [email protected] 6 18 47 35 70

PICTURES

Front and backcover:

Brussels: Luc Mercells Stockholm: Marko CvejicBordeaux: Jon MokoroaParis: Vincent BrassineWarsaw: Guiseppe MiloThe Hague: Christopher A. DominicEindhoven: Maciek Lulko

Source: Flickr

3


Introduction

Metro in ProgressIn 2013, INTA and Deltametropolis Association interviewed a range of

stakeholders from around the globe on metropolitan challenges and dilemmas (Metro in Progress). Following these interviews both organisations decided to organise a series of Roundtables, focused on the socio-economic development and governance of metropolitan regions in Europe.

These Roundtables bring together regional authorities, municipalities, provinces and economic actors, that are dealing with the construction and/or implementation of metropolitan strategies. A Roundtable is an opportunity to learn and share experiences through vivid examples of governance mechanisms and policies of European metropolises. Next to speakers, also urban stakeholders are invited to join and contribute to a stimulating debate.

Paris RoundtableFollowing the success of the Metro in Progress - Brussels Roundtable (MIP

Brussels), the Deltametropolis Association, INTA and Atelier International du Grand Paris organised a second Metro in Progress Roundtable (MIP Paris) on May 25, 2016.

Right after the Paris conference (organised by INTA and the City of Paris on May 23-24, 2016) with its focus on the European Metropolises, the MIP Paris Roundtable zoomed in on the overall theme of stakeholder involvement (citizens, entrepreneurs, universities) and had three sessions:

- metropolitan governance - investment instruments - quality of life These topics gave participants the freedom to present strategies and projects

on infrastructure, housing, amenities and economic growth. An increasing metropolitan process demands global and transversal strategies and projects.

MIP Paris, main findingsFrom the MIP Paris three main lines of thought emerged: First, the ‘metropolis’ might be a fact, but it mainly seems to be so in words.

The convincing atmosphere at the previous roundtable in Brussels, in which the metropolis was seen as the way forward, seems to be gone at MIP Paris.

Second, metropolises are in a situation of transition and there are many factors that can secure or threaten their future. How to deal with this? At MIP Paris possibilities such as an adaptive agenda (Brainport City) on the one hand and sticking to the plan (Stockholm) on the other hand were presented.

Third, the point of departure for metropolitan projects is something to consider. In the presentations several poinst of departure were highlighted, such as: the outcomes of a strategy, influenced by the type of governance of a metropolis, and the results of potential investment instruments.

4

METRO IN PROGRESS

Index

# 0 Programme p 8

# 1 Session: Metropolitan Governance - Brussels Capital Region p 12 Alfredo Corbalan, Head of European projects, Agence de Développement Territorial - Brussels Capital Region (Belgium)

- Bordeaux Métropole p 14 Jean-Baptiste Rigaudy, Director of the territorial strategy mission - Bordeaux Métropole (France)

- The Netherlands p 16 Jeroen Saris, Director De Stad BV (the Netherlands)

# 2 Session: Investments Instruments - Paris p 20 Hélène Chartier, Mayor’s office in charge of the relationships with the Metropolis and local authorities - Ville de Paris (France)

- Stockholm p 22 Michael Erman, Project manager - Regional Growth and Planning Administration Stockholm County Council (Sweden)

- The Netherlands p 24 Pieter Brouwer, Cigarbox Advisory Services (the Netherlands)

- Warsaw p 26 Paweł Sajnog, Chief Specialist in the Department of European Funds & Economic Development, Integrated Territorial Investment Division - City of Warsaw (Poland)

- Eindhoven p 28 Robbert de Mug, Strategic Advisor - Municipality of Eindhoven (the Netherlands)

5


#3 Session: Quality of Life - The Hague p 32 Erik Pasveer, Head of urban development and planning - City of The Hague (The Netherlands)

- Paris p 34 Julien Neiertz, Director of Metropop’ - Paris (France)

# 4 Open Discussion- Open Discussion p36

# 5 MIP Brussels: Concluding Remarks - The European Metropolitan Agenda and the risk for the Netherlands. p 42 Jeroen Saris, Director - De Stad BV (the Netherlands)

- The European Metropolis p 44 Michel Sudarskis, Secretary General - INTA (France)

# 6 Speakers p 48

Get Involved! p 56 Contact us if you are interested in a roundtable focused on your specific cases, to learn from other metropolitan areas or to work on (universal) metropolitan challenges.

#0 PROGRAMME

8

METRO IN PROGRESS

10:00 - 10:20

Welcome and registrations

10:20 - 10:40

Opening- Mireille FERRI Director - Atelier International du Grand Paris (France)- Paul GERRETSEN Director - Deltametropool Association (the Netherlands)

Reflections Paris’ conference: “Greater Paris and Metropolitan projects in Europe”

- Michel SUDARSKIS Secretary General - INTA (Paris)- Jaap MODDER (moderator of the day) Urban and regional planner - Brainville (the Netherlands)

10:40 - 12:10

Session 1: Metropolitan Governance- Alfredo CORBALAN Head of European projects, Agence de Développement Territorial - Brussels Capital Region (Belgium) - Jean-Baptiste RIGAUDY Director of the territorial strategy mission - Bordeaux Métropole (France) - Jeroen SARIS Director De Stad BV (the Netherlands)

13:00 - 15:00

Session 2: Investment Instruments - Hélène CHARTIER Mayor’s office in charge of the relationships with the Metropolis and local authorities - Ville de Paris (France) - Michael ERMAN Project manager - Regional Growth and Planning Administration Stockholm County Councill (Sweden)- Pieter BROUWER Cigarbox Advisory Services (the Netherlands)- Paweł SAJNOG Chief Specialist in the Department of European Funds & Economic Development, Integrated Territorial Investment Division - City of Warsaw (Poland)- Robbert DE MUG Strategic Advisor - Municipality of Eindhoven (the Netherlands)

9


15:00 - 16:00

Session 3: Quality of Life

- Erik PASVEER Head of urban development and planning - City of The Hague (The Netherlands)- Julien NEIERTZ Director of Métropop’ - Paris (France)

16:20 - 17:50

Open Discussion Conducted by:

- Paul GERRETSEN Director - Deltametropool Association (the Netherlands)- Michel SUDARSKIS Secretary General - INTA (Paris)

17:50 - 18:00

Conclusions - Paul GERRETSEN Director - Deltametropool Association (the Netherlands)- Michel SUDARSKIS Secretary General - INTA (Paris)

18:00 - 18:30

Drinks

TWITTER: #METROINPROGRESSLIVEBLOG: WWW.METROINPROGRESS.ORG

#1 METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

12

METRO IN PROGRESS

Brussels Capital Region: Metropolitan governance

issues in Europe.European European cities are facing a common

situation: a growing gap between the “administrative” city and the “real” city. The administrative boundaries of European cities rarely cover the whole morphological urban area around the city. Without mentioning the different functional urbans areas that are even larger. To manage this situation European cities have gradually started co-operating with their surrounding areas, mostly on an ad-hoc basis. The result is a plurality of metropolitan governance arrangements across Europe.

The last years, several organisations (EUROCITIES, metrex, Purple) and the EU programs (Urbact, Horizon2020, Espon) have had a growing interest for the topic of metropolitan areas and governance. The EU has only recently recognized the metropolis as a fact. It started with the publication “Cities of Tomorrow” in 2013. The European Commission recognizes in its publication that: (1) administrative borders of cities no longer reflect urban development, (2) strong metropolitan areas are key for a balanced EU territorial development, and (3) new models of governance at the metropolitan level are needed. The latest step in this EU recognition is the Urban Agenda for the EU, Pact of Amsterdam. There is, however, still a long way to go despite the new tools of the Regional EU policy for 2014-2020: 5% of ERDF funds for urban areas and the set-up of Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI) as an instrument to promote metropolitan co-operation.

To have a better view on these various metropolitan arrangements, the EUROCITIES Working group on Metropolitan areas in 2013 did a pan-European study. 38 European cities in 16 countries participated in the ‘Metropolitan areas in action’ (MAIA) study, which looked at 88 metropolitan collaborations. From these collaborations different aspects were researched, an overview: (1) main features: year of establishment, number of inhabitants etc., (2) scale: number of municipalities, geographical size etc., (3) partner types: public, private, non-profit etc., (4) nature of the collaboration: topics, tasks etc., (5) collaboration type: top-down, bottom-up, mixed etc., (6) decision-making rules, (7) financial aspects: budget, type of resources etc.

Findings of the study that could be of interest for this roundtable were:

1. It is an expanding and complex universe. As Michel Surdaskis stated earlier, the metropolis is a fact and a growing fact at that. There is an increase in collaborations, with great differences in focus, scale, collaboration structure, nature of partnerships, driving tiers of financial capacity, etc.

2. The collaborations had three main topics of cooperation: spatial planning, transport and economic development.

3. Almost all cities had more than one level of cooperation, Vienna for example has five. And the geographical scale of co-operation is also different from 100km around the main city to more than 400km.

4. There is no ‘one fits all’ governance model. Cities have developed different types of arrangement: lean secretariat, joint office, joint service provider or an own administration, to mention some of them. In order to make decisions, consensus or qualified majorities usually rules over the use of strict majority.

5. Mostly public actors are involved, with in some cases partners from the private or non-profit sector joining the collaborations. In the case of Brussels, the business sector has been a strong force to advocate for the development of a metropolitan co-operation between Brussels-Capital Region and the surrounding Flemish and Walloon Regions.

6. The cores or main cities often take the lead in setting up the collaboration.

To conclude, it is obvious that metropolitan collaborations exist all over Europe and the number and themes of collaborations are only increasing further. However, there is no ‘one fits all’ approach and most solutions are ‘ad hoc’ and depending on different parameters (spatial configuration, national/regional/local frameworks …).

Research still need to be done in order to investigate further which metropolitan approaches can work better according to the specific context of each metropolitan area.

More information on the MAIA study can be found here: http://www.eurocities.eu/eurocities/documents/Metropolitan-areas-in-action-Concluding-report-WSPO-9DZJFR

13


Questions and remarks

Q: Metropolitan growth, is it chaos or a process?

A. It is a process in which each city tries to fi nd a solution. There should not be ‘one’ model, as fl exibility is the important factor to cope with a changing world and the metropolitan challenges, which come with that. Furthermore, looking at metropolitan governance as a process is important as, in order to set up a co-operation, participation is higher if co-operation is based on voluntary basis and not imposed from above.

ALFREDO CORBALANHEAD OF EUROPEAN PROJECTS, AGENCE DE DEVELOPPEMENT TERRITORIAL, ASBL - BRUSSELS-CAPITAL REGION (BELGIUM)

Amsterdam

Stuttgart Vienna

Terrassa

Rennes

Madrid Metropolitan cooperation at more than one levelVienna - Stuttgart - RennesAmsterdam - Terrassa - Madrid

14

METRO IN PROGRESS

Bordeaux: New local governance

experiments.The city of Bordeaux has always been innovative

in terms of community policy management, this is the result of a long tradition of independence from the central government. This might be due to the fact that Bordeaux remained English until 1450, and after that became a Hanseatic city, like Bremen and Hamburg, which are both cities as well as federal states. Although Louis XIV tried to control the ambition of independence, there was a revival during the French Revolution when the “Girondins’’ marked their independence against the central power. Such historical feedback and storytelling is always useful in addressing issues of metropolitan governance, both in the process of defi ning a shared and collective project as in the way of implementing it.

Bordeaux created one of the fi rst French “Communautés Urbaines” in the sixties, when faced with the question of building a common destiny for the 28 cities making up the metropolitan area. The topics of the Communauté Urbaine were politics and economic development. Since 50 years, policy management is made through a council of 28 mayors, which takes decisions on policies to be implemented in a co-management principle. In the same way, all mayors manage their local council and organize citizen participation at the neighborhood level.

Recently, the Communauté Urbaine has been evolving, in response to new challenges:

The fi rst challenge is the creation in France of the metropolitan status for big cities (15 metropolis: Paris, Bordeaux, Marseille, Toulouse, Lyon, etc), to adapt to the growth of metropolitan areas, to give new skills to metropolitan administration and to prepare for, in medium term, the election of agglomeration presidents by direct voting.

Bordeaux expects a growth of the population from 750,000 to 950,000 in 2030-40. This expected growth changes the narrative and the territory of Bordeaux Métropole.

Bordeaux Métropole, the organisation succeeding the Communauté Urbaine de Bordeaux, is a cooperation of 28 municipalities. However the functional area of

Bordeaux is much larger and works at different scales. Outside of Bordeaux Métropole the urbanised area in the region is very diffuse and people have to commute to work or to reach services in Bordeaux, Arcachon or Libourne. Several metropolitan challenges, such as mobility, demographic evolution, ageing population and economic development have to be looked at on a larger scale than Bordeaux Métropole.

To deal with these challenges a new model of governance for a larger area is needed. The question however is how to do so? How do we create good management for a metropolitan dialogue with our surrounding municipalities? Bordeaux is furthermore very well linked to several surrounding larger cities, such as Bilbao and Toulouse, with whom it forms a network. In the coming years Bordeaux will gain a high speed connection to Paris.

The second challenge is to engage real citizen participation at the scale of the larger city area, and to create space for discussion on important choices, where citizens can express their opinions on city growth, quality of life, and also ask concrete questions about everyday life, like urban forms, nimby, soft mobility, etc.

As illustrated before, Bordeaux has many metropolitan developments to face. In response they looked into: What kind of metropolis will Bordeaux be and how will it be governed? To answer these questions a big consultation round was organised with more than 10,000 contributions by various stakeholders. The questions were: what is the sense of the metropolis? And how do we face these new challenges? This resulted in the book with the 5 senses of the metropolis. In the end this consultation round was not very successful, not for inhabitants or politicians. The inhabitants wanted clear answers on questions such as: how can I fi nd a job, a dwelling or a piece of land, and the new political team found the results to be too abstract.

A plan with concrete projects was set up along four axis: housing, economic development, transportation and quality of life. The idea was to not give the projects any kind of hierarchy, but soon it became obvious that choices had to be made. Not all could be done and an integrated approach was needed. Having a masterplan furthermore helped to arrange projects on both the local and global scale.

15



Q: Does the new Bordeaux metropolitan region no longer have a narrative?

A. Having a narrative is no longer the rule for our politicians. The metropolitan narrative should come from the citizens as they have different narratives.

Q: Which functions of the different municipalities will be merged on a metropolitan level and how will this be accomplished?

A: The municipalities within Bordeaux Métropole are already working together for a long time. However the metropolitan area is becoming too small for the problems that arise with bordering municipalities just outside Bordeaux Métropole. Local trades are currently organised by the regions, this needs to be organised at the metropolitan level. In Bordeaux Métropole, the rule is that if a municipality wants to delegate a function to the metropolitan level it can, if not delegated then it remains a responsibility of the local level. However, once a function is delegated to the metropolitan level, the municipality cannot take it back.

Q: In the Netherlands we have used the 5 senses example for several projects. Now we learn it has not been as successful as presented during the Brussels Roundtable in 2013. What are your thoughts on the project?

A: The project has been a good exercise, but it was not the good moment to do so.

JEAN-BAPTISTE RIGAUDYDIRECTOR OF THE TERRITORIAL STRATEGY MISSION – BORDEAUX MÉTROPOLE (FRANCE)

16

METRO IN PROGRESS

The Netherlands:Serious game decision

makingMetropoly is a serious game. Its goal is to support

decision makers to act and decide quicker and better concerning regional investments. These decision makers do not always have to work in the public sector.

The scope of the game is the ABC (Amsterdam, Brussels, Cologne) megaregion. This region combines the larger urbanized areas of the Randstad Holland, the Flemish Diamond and the Rhine-Ruhr Area and is a very wealthy and growing region. In this ABC region there is the new kid on the block: Eindhoven. Located in the middle of ABC, Eindhoven has the potential to better connect the larger urbanized areas. In Eindhoven knowledge and industry come together and it has several international competitive industrial sectors. The weakness of Eindhoven is its lack of agglomeration power.

Eindhoven is, next to Amsterdam and Rotterdam-The Hague, one of the three Dutch metropolitan regions. These metropolitan regions have different economies and therefore different economic centres and identities. The game sketches five different scenarios for these three Dutch metropolitan regions within the ABC, which are: (1) Three metropolitan regions, (2) Polycentric Deltametropolis, (3) Capital City Region Amsterdam, (4) European Delta Network, and (5) European Delta Corridor.

Within the game top down societal and political ambitions (vital population, sustainability, innovation, etc.) are connected to projects or initiatives on accessibility or economic development. By combining ambitions and expected results of the various projects or initiatives, an optimisation of regional investments is possible. The chosen ambitions and projects are then compared for the five scenarios.

Via a clear overview of the effects of regional investments, the costs as well as the effects on societal and political ambitions, the game supports an in-depth discussion on what kind of metropolis the region wants to be.


Q: How can you govern or even just manage a region such as ABC?

A: It is impossible to organise a region at this level, the way to go should be: what can be improved if we work together and start from there.

Q: Even if you would focus on projects, the ABC region has still a huge scale and is spread out across three countries. Where and how do you start?

A: The best place to start would be with the stakeholders that already work at this scale, such as railway companies or international companies in general.

R: Starting from a specific topic would indeed be the best way to go. Institutionalising the ABC region would make the region lack behind on its metropolitan reality.

R: There is a global trend to think on larger urban region, this by recomposing urban areas. But how do you recompose the ABC region if national governances do not look beyond their own borders? Projects in the ABC region should be discussed directly with the EU.

JEROEN SARIS DIRECTOR DE STAD BV (THE NETHERLANDS)

17

TOWARDS A METROPOLITAN PROJECTBrainport linking pin to the German and Flemish regions

Eindhoven, located in the middle of Randstad Holland, Rhine-Ruhr area and the Flemish Diamond

a clear overview of the impacts of regional investments

Investment Projects Output Impact (effect)

starting entrepreneursaim starting entrepreneurs

unemployed unskilled laboraim increase skills of unemployed

2017: jobseeker without a job

2011: jobseeker without a job

#2 INVESTMENT

INSTRUMENTS

20

METRO IN PROGRESS

Greater Paris:Private InvestmentsThe goal of Greater Paris is to balance the

population growth in the region. Therefore the metropolis is working on planning and projects. Greater Paris has been in office for only six months currently has 60 million euro to support town projects. The budget and services of Greater Paris will grow over the coming years. Greater Paris does not invest in projects as such, but positions the importance of specific projects (mobility, public services (in poor towns), social housing, etc.) for the metropolis.

Greater Paris activates the private sector to invest in the metropolis by selling sites for experimental urban projects (http://www.reinventer.paris). A multidisciplinary team of architects and developers can propose projects for these sites. Proposals need to have a high level of architectural quality and resolve challenges the metropolis faces. More than great plans, Greater Paris looks for proposals which increase cohesion in the metropolis. The programme for these projects is free to be proposed by participating teams. There is no public money for developing the sites so the budget of the proposals has to be adequate. In the first phase there were 23 sites and for the second phase the number will grow to 50.

Greater Paris finances the communication of this project and, where needed, supports the municipal administration in how to develop sites. Greater Paris does not make money from these sites, as the municipalities are the owners.

Greater Paris is also looking into making packages of various sites, for example a site within Paris combined with one in the periphery. This to make sure that not only the sites in Paris are being developed but also sites in more difficult areas in the periphery. To do so, both mayors have to agree on a package. Here politics come into play and problems might arise if the political orientation of the mayors are opposite.


Q: The role of the Greater Paris is growing, how do you connect this level of governance to the inhabitants of the region. Are direct elections the solution?

A: It is not sure that in 2020 there will be direct elections for Greater Paris, as the metropolitan level cannot be disconnected from the mayors of the different municipalities.

HÉLÈNE CHARTIERMAYOR’S OFFICE - VILLE DE PARIS, (FRANCE)

21


22

METRO IN PROGRESS

Stockholm:Regional development

and investments based on polycentricity.

RUFS 2010, the Regional Development Plan for the Stockholm region, has the vision to make the Stockholm are the most attractive metropolitan region in Europe.

The driver of this plan is the expected growth of both population (from 2.1 million in 2015 to 2.6 million by 2030 and 250,000 additional housing) and jobs (from 1.1 to 1.4 million in 2030) in the Stockholm region (26 municipalities). These jobs will be mainly in services as the industry is long gone.

The most vital and guiding spatial structural aim of RUFS 2010 is to evolve a polycentric region that consists of a regional center (i.e the metropolitan center comprising the cities of Stockholm, Solna and Sundbyberg) and eight so-called regional cores at a distance of 10-30 km from the regional center. Other related goals of the spatial vision of RUFS 2010 are: to increase density, to create a cohesive green structure and to deliver good accessibility.

New dwellings and workplaces, cultural and public services as well as new transport infrastructure investments shall support this concept of polycentricity, which strives for sustainable growth and to avoid sprawl. The regional cores have space to be further developed. Here also more jobs should be created, in order to not only organise the expected growth of the economy in the centre, but all over the region. Among other things, the regional transport plan has been linked to the concept.

RUFS 2010 expresses the shared desire for the region’s development until 2030, and with a longer perspective to 2050. The concept of polycentricity was introduced in 2001 and confi rmed in 2010. It was drawn up by a large number of stakeholders in the region (26 municipalities, authorities, business life, NGOs, etc.). Contrary to other regions presenting at this Roundtable, the Stockholm region has a very strong position as it has its own tax ground. Of the income taxes, 20% goes to the municipality level and 12% goes to the county level. Due to this, the inhabitants want to see outputs and expect transparency.

Already at the millennium shift, the concept of polycentricity was invented and stated in the regional plan (2001). Since then 15 years have gone by and the regional center (Stockholm, Solna and Sunbyberg) has continued to grow and receive major investments. But, from 2001 to 2010, the regional cores were left without extensive physical implementations and comprehensive investments in infrastructure: there were fewer housing projects, less new jobs than hoped for and the interlinking infrastructure was not realized. The reason is that the concept was not anchored in minds and/or decision-making systems. The market conditions were not favourable either and transport planning institutions were not really ready for strategic regional thinking. The development of regional cores is strongly linked to expected new infrastructure. As long this infrastructure is not there, the spatial developments and connected jobs will not kick off. Expectations of new infrastructure do though create higher land values for the regional cores, which makes them attractive for developers to invest.

During the last years, this has been profoundly changing as the discussions and also decisions of the last 10 years ensured a clear priority for developing the regional cores. New investments in trunk roads and railways are established and will ensure good or even better accessibility of the regional cores in the future. As a result the polycentric model and transport infrastructure investments are better connected and since 2010 there is a real implementation of the regional plan’s core spatial principle. Several investments instruments were also allocated to support the regional plan.

The Stockholm Agreement of 2007 (extended in 2010) between State and regional actors resulted in 12 billion euro for 90 infrastructure projects until 2025. These investments are partly paid by the regional road congestion tax. New deals were made between state and municipalities for co-fi nancing if new infrastructure and a big number new dwellings can be combined. Furthermore, the current “Sweden negotiation” sees the interlinking of the regional cores as one major infrastructure planning and investment basis for the Stockholm region. This has as a result that the regional cores, and the principal idea of polycentricity, become a clear development option for market stakeholders (builders and investors) but also for the involved municipalities. Currently, there are major investments

23


Major current investments for interlinking outer regional cores

Growth and Regional Planning Administration

New/upgraded roads New railways/metros (with significance for poly-centricity) Conclusions: Vital with a long-term plan and

stable agreements/contracts Dialog, collaboration and co-

financing are keys for success A lot of synergies and new

investments in urban functions

… THANK YOU!

Spatial vision 2030

Dense, cohesive green structure, good accessibility, from mono-centric to poly-centricity with interlinked regional cores

Growth and Regional Planning Administration

2015 - - - 2030 Population 2.2 2.6 million Jobs 1.1 1.4 million

(new/upgraded roads and new railways/metro’s) taking place to interlink the outer regional cores.

To conclude: it is vital to have a long-term plan and stable agreements and contracts. A regional authority, more than a municipality, can give stability to agreements and contracts. Dialogue, collaboration and co-fi nancing are key factors for success and the region always goes into dialogue and sets up collaborations with the municipalities.


Q; How are the investments divided between road and rail?

A: There is a 50-50 distribution of road/rail investments.

Q: Could you elaborate on the land values and the effect on investments?

A: The land value in the centre of Stockholm is high, but also the revenue. In Stockholm not only land is being sold, but also building rights. In the regional cores, the land values are lower, but also the revenue of new developments. New infrastructure can make the location more attractive to live or work and so the potential revenue will rise to a point that development becomes interesting.

MICHAEL ERMANPROJECT MANAGER - REGIONAL GROWTH AND PLANNING ADMINISTRATION STOCKHOLM (SWEDEN)

New / upgraded roadsNew railways / metros(with signifi cance for polycentricity)

24

METRO IN PROGRESS

The Netherlands:Faster, better decision-

making to create a vibrant Dutch metropolis.

We aspire to a strong, sustainable economy, with a high quality of life and a vital population. At the same time we have competitive regions, conflicts of interest, a limited budget and hundreds of projects from which to choose to influence any given goal. What will pay off the most: a high-speed train from Rotterdam to Germany? An investment in our airports? A strong central district? More highways?

Jeroen Saris already shortly introduced serious game Metropoly. This presentation will go more in-depth on the principles of the game.

In the Netherlands there are three metropolitan regions with an international scope (Amsterdam-Utrecht, Rotterdam-The Hague, and Eindhoven); each region needs space for independent decision-making on investment programs that increase the adaptability and improve the international position of the regions or the Netherlands as a whole.

The game gives insight into how to make sure that investment programs can take place. Increasingly decision making becomes challenging, as there is decreasing government financing and involvement, an increasing number of parties involved and an expanding involvement of stakeholders. Projects are less top-down, more bottom-up and have a growing need for collaboration in order to make them feasible. This requires increased cross-sector decision making and raises the question how to create value when organisations each have their own goals.

In the game, ambitions are set for the region. Project owners can bring their projects to the table, and experts will assess the expected contribution of these project plans to the ambitions of the region. The projects will be checked by a monitoring and a control group to see how they contribute to the smart goals of the programme ambitions. Out of this a programme manager can analyse, prioritize, legitimize and justify the projects in order to develop an investment programme.

Questions and remarks Q: The game allows everybody to bring their own

projects to the table. Putting it on the table and letting others participate can slow down the process of the project itself. So what is the bonus to do so?

A. The game is specifically made for projects that are too big to be done alone, you need partners to succeed.

Q: By allowing others to decide on projects, how do you avoid the ‘Not In My BackYard’ (NIMBY) effect?

A: The negative effects of projects are calculated in from the start, but so is the bigger picture of projects. This allows for an open debate between the different participants.

R: We have already used this game in Eindhoven and it mainly leads to better conversations between participants, as you can immediately see the effects of the choices made.

PIETER BROUWERCIGARBOX ADVISORY SERVICES (THE NETHERLANDS)

25


Hoe werkt een dashboard?

11

5

26

METRO IN PROGRESS

Warsaw:Integrated Territorial

Investments as a new approach to metropolitan development in the EU on the example of the City of Warsaw.

Integrated Territorial Investments (ITIs) are a new instrument of urban policy, introduced by the EU in the financial perspective of 2014-2020. Its use creates the possibility to deliver comprehensive solutions for the development of European metropolises, without prejudice to the tasks of cohesion policy at the regional and national level. The actions implemented through this platform are intended - among other things - to overcome the current difficulties in the approach to cooperation at the agglomeration level.

Poland has territorial administration at various

levels. To receive funds, ITIs require governance both at the regional and supra-local level. As a result, ITIs have been of great importance in the development of governance at the agglomeration level in Poland. The country has 16 regions and the EU funds are divided over these regions. Warsaw was not a region, only a county, and therefore in the past EU programming periods Warsaw was just a beneficiary and could not decide on the distribution of any of the EU money.

The city of Warsaw, as the capital of the country

and at the same time a local government unit of the first and secondary local level, started in 2013 with the creation of agglomeration/metropolitan partnerships in many fields and went beyond the existing (sometimes perceived as conservative) approach to cooperation with neighboring local governments, based on the ITIs concept. A programmatic result of this collaboration is the development of the Strategy of Integrated Territorial Investments for the Warsaw Functional Area 2014-2020+. For this strategy a diagnosis of the problems and needs of the 40 associated municipalities belonging to the Warsaw agglomeration/metropolis was conducted, together with an indication of the planned

development projects, along with crucial factors for a successful compliance of EU funds.

By doing so Warsaw metropolis could receive 166

million Euro from different EU-funds such as ERDF and the European Social Fund, both streamed through the ITI formula. The resulting strategy has several topics such as infrastructure, IT growth and social projects. The main topic is infrastructure and most of the investments will go to improving and constructing new bike routes as well as interchange hubs based on the Park&Ride parking lots. But how do you deal with the resulting investments? A Consulting Forum and a Steering Committee have been set up. This consulting forum debates on the projects and various approaches.

27



Q. Due to the EU involvement, it sound like a very top-down project. How were the inhabitants involved?

A. The contribution of inhabitants was not as high

as expected, nevertheless the round of eight meetings in the involved municipalities was conducted, as well as the web consultations (with the possibility to submit comments via aform).

PAWEŁ SAJNOGCHIEF SPECIALIST IN THE DEPARTMENT OF EUROPEAN FUNDS & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, INTEGRATED TERRITORIAL INVESTMENT DIVISION - CITY OF WARSAW (POLAND)

40 associated municipalities belonging to the Warsaw agglomeration/metropolis

28

METRO IN PROGRESS

Eindhoven: Brainport City

Philips has been the driving force behind the economic and thereby urban development of company town Eindhoven (located in the south of Holland). With the closure of DAF and parts of Philips in the early nineties, unemployment rates rose quickly and Eindhoven entered a difficult economic period. This resulted in a high sense of urgency for local companies, the public and educational institutions to overcome this economic downturn. A triple helix collaboration was the result.

Now, more than 20 years later, Eindhoven experiences a renaissance due to this strong triple helix collaboration. The city celebrates being the smartest region in the world and is successful in attracting investments and people. Eindhoven is very well located in between other European regions. Within a 150km radius, there are 26 million inhabitants, three airport hubs and capital cities, and eight regional airports.

But the success of Eindhoven is, due to it spatio-economic structure, still vulnerable in a global competitive market in which companies compete for talent on a global scale. In this competition the quality of cities and their urban life plays a central role in people’s choice to settle. Currently, Eindhoven notices that people are leaving to go and work in attractive European areas such as Munich, Helsinki or others. The Dutch Central Government, the province of Noord-Brabant, the city of Eindhoven and the Economic Board of Eindhoven decided to collaborate together in order to strengthen the spatio-economic structure of Eindhoven in the programme “Brainport City”.

Brainport City is one of the three economic pillars of the Dutch economy and it needs to strengthen its economic base by adding urbanity. Brainport aims to develop a city with exciting residential living in perfect conditions. Therefore Eindhoven needs to grow, develop better amenities and better connections with both cities in the Netherlands as well as Belgium and Germany. To realise this Brainport City, with its multi helix partners, has set up an adaptive agenda with a horizon of 2040. The agenda has several projects it focuses on, such as infrastructure, airports, landscape and the daily urban system. The projects in the agenda

are not all financed. The challenges for Brainport are thus: In what way can we speed up realising our programme as long as we depend on funds from third parties? How to maintain a level of flexibility for realising the programme?

29



Q: Who is going to pay for the investments?

A: Brainport City is a long term investment and there are different partners according to the projects. For example, currently Brainport is using the MIRT (national multi year investment programme in space and transport) and is trying to broaden the programme by adding more spatial economic development to it. That asks for patience and continuous lobby as well as putting together an inspiring programme and objective. It is challenge to work with a lot of parties, as all parties have to agree by means of their objectives and the common objective.

Q: How is the hierarchy between the projects organised?

A: The projects have different indicators to show their importance for different ambitions within Brainport City and are part of an adaptive programme (fl exible planning) schedule. The projects are set up along a timetable (short –middle - long term) that is also part of the hierarchy. Furthermore, they are interconnected

if needed, such as for example the development of the train station and the expected growth of the airport. The projects within the adaptive programme are clear, currently our focus is more on governance and fi nancing the projects.

Q: What can Warsaw and Eindhoven learn from each other?

A: In Warsaw, it started with EU funds and from there a cooperation was formed and projects were defi ned. Eindhoven started from an agenda and is currently looking for the best stakeholders to make it happen (if possible, we also look at EU funding).

ROBBERT DE MUGSTRATEGIC ADVISOR - MUNICIPALITY EINDHOVEN (THE NETHERLANDS)

Adaptive AgendaBrainport City 2016

#3 QUALITY OF LIFE

32

METRO IN PROGRESS

The Hague: Quality of Life - City in

TransitionThe Hague is a city in transition. As a result current securities might change or even disappear in the coming years. These changes cause a lot of uncertainty for the ruling regime and in every transition you have winners and losers. Therefore transition requires leadership.

How to deal with these changes on a metropolitan level? Integrated strategies and wide perspectives are necessary. The approach of The Hague combines top-down, bottom-up, focus and acceleration. First the megatrends are analysed and their impact on The Hague researched. On the other hand, we look at what the transitional energy in the city is and what the successful achievements are? Who are the stakeholders in these initiatives? From all this information, a focus can be decided upon and a transitional agenda can be set up.

One of these megatrends is job polarisation. Whereas employment for the high and low educated has risen, the amount of jobs for the middle educated has fallen by 20% the last ten years in Europe. Another trend is the housing environment preference. The youth and low education choose cities, whereas families and high educated choose suburbs. They however stay in the Randstad Region.

What is impact for The Hague? Looking at the vulnerability of the population in The Hague, 30% of the population is vulnerable and these groups are concentrated in certain areas of The Hague. Many of these people don´t have the money to even participate in society. The Hague has several propositions to counteract these issues: (1) improving connectivity within the city and to the region, (2) innovation centres to increase new jobs, (3) hospitality and leisure to organise jobs for middle and lower educated people, and (4) resilience, inclusiveness and quality of life.

Projects for the quality of life are a walkable city, access to cultural facilities, a safe, attractive and well used public space, entrepreneurship, activating people, promoting a healthy lifestyle, and an accessible

metropolitan landscape. This list shows that quality of life is related to all of the propositions and it covers a variety of issues, such as entrepreneurship, public space, security, health, sports and culture. Furthermore, quality of life is conditional for innovation, resilience and inclusiveness (quality of life means everybody, not just the higher educated) and for a metropolitan strategy that allows for a social trade-off between economic growth and well-being.

Learning from practice, specifically concerning quality of life, four conclusions can be made this far: quality of life (1) is part of a broad transitional agenda, (2) is both hardware (buildings and public space), activities and attitude, (3) is connected to both the top and the bottom of the metropolitan challenge and (4) can constitute a vision to accelerate and legitimate transition, i.e. a trade-off between economic growth and quality of life.

33



Q: There are many defi nitions of quality of life. In Latin-America quality of life translates to accessibility to universal services and to have housing.

A: Housing is of course important. The Dutch municipalities have to organise social housing. The focus of the presentation is that quality of life is also for lower educated people in the cities. If we do not include them in the plans now, the bill will be bigger in the future. It is important to keep people away from vulnerable situations.

R. In other metropolises, such as Los Angeles, the millennium community wants to enjoy the quality of life of the metropolis, without having the problem of pollution.

ERIK PASVEERHEAD OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING - CITY OF THE HAGUE (THE NETHERLANDS)

Proposition 4: Resilience – inclusiveness – quality of life

ConnectivityInnovationHospitality and Leisure Resillience - Inclusiveness - Quality of Life

34

METRO IN PROGRESS

Paris;Local Quality of Life

Metropop’! is an association that focuses on suburbs in France, with the goal to change the relation between the centre and the suburbs and to improve the mainly negative image of the neighbourhood in the suburbs to what it is: a living environment. The Paris suburbs are very isolated areas. Their quality of life is strongly connected to the representation of the neighbourhood.

The work of metropop’! takes on different forms and one form is to use the stories of the people to form metro portraits. These metro portraits are taken as well from old as new residents. They can also be young idols, politicians or artists. How do they view their surroundings?

A second method to build citizenship at the metropolitan level is ‘metrokawa’. This is a democratic space to talk about metropolitan topics, such as identity, culture, how to live together.

Metrobox is the third method. Here questions on metropolisation can be asked by citizens and the Metropop’! organisation, in cooperation with Greater Paris, tries to answer them as well as possible.

Metropop’! also organises participatory workshops with the goal to build a charter of living in the metropolis. Four charters were produced and quality of life in the metropolis is an important topic in all of them. The charters describe the relations between people and how to live together better, how mobility relates to an atmosphere of freedom, how nature connects to wellness and cleanness. They go into multifunctionality and how to combine various functions of urban life and a bigger social mixture of the population.


Q: How do you get inhabitants involved and not just the usual suspects?

A: We’ve already been working in these areas for a long time and have always had a long term approach. Furthermore, we are able to connect lower and higher levels, this helps to get specific questions of the inhabitants answered. The inhabitants are heard and therefore more willing to cooperate.

JULIEN NEIERTZDIRECTOR OF METROPOP’! - PARIS (FRANCE)

35


1

ET

Vous ont présenté :

Un Métrokawa pour une nouvelle loi « La Métropole du grand Paris : décryptage, débat et propositions pour une

participation citoyenne dans la métropole »

Le 11 mars 2014 à 18 h 30 à la Parole Errante à Montreuil

Compte-rendu de soirée

Metrokawa, a democratic space to talk about metropolitan topics,

#4 OPEN

DISCUSSION

38

METRO IN PROGRESS

Open Discussion

Paul Gerretsen, Deltametropolis Association

Taken from the different presentations, I have three points to start the discussion:

Number one: the ‘metropolis’ might be a fact, but it mainly seems to be in words. The convincing atmosphere of the previous roundtable in Brussels, in which the metropolis was seen as the way forward, seems a bit lost in this roundtable. There are different ways of governance, scale, citizenship, etc. This makes me wonder: what in the end is the metropolis and what does it solve?

The second point is that metropolises are in a situation of transition and there are many factors that can secure or threaten the future of the metropolis. How to deal with this? We’ve talked about the adaptive agenda on the one hand and about sticking to the plan on the other hand. Which one is the more successful?

My third and last point concerns metropolitan projects. Are they the outcomes of a strategy, influenced by the type of governance of a metropolis or the results of potential investment instruments?

Michel Sudarskis, INTA

The confusion about the definition of the metropolis is understandable. As the debate on the metropolis continues and broadens, the question who the metropolis belongs to gains in importance. This leaves a lot of space.

Is it just about expanding the urban system? Is that enough? Metropolitan development is more than urban expansion. The metropolis is no longer about the size, but more about the perimeter, who is in, who is out and even more who feels responsible? There needs to be a stable definition of the area, in order to make policy. The metropolis of Paris is bigger than Grand Paris.

Concerning citizenship, the metropolis should not

lead to increasing segregation, but many metropolises do have segregated areas. Currently there is no single

figure or reference of the ‘metropolitan area’. We have to work with what we have. Spreading the growth of the metropolis over several poles in the area could be a way to diminish the segregation between centre and periphery.

When is the moment of the quantum leap for a metropolis to change its perspective from city to regional scope? What is the governance model? Will it be easy and fast? Will it have the capacity to quantify the resources to create a sufficient quality of life for everybody?

Jeroen Saris, Metropoly

Metropolises used to be industrial places where labour and capital came together and both were bound to the location, both needed one another. This is no longer true. Currently capital and increasingly labour is fluid and there are no longer decision makers at the location to make the deal.

Michel Sudarskis, INTA

Even in the modern metropolis of space and flows, the flows need a space. Retailers, such as Amazon, are building huge warehouses outside the city and create their own system of distribution. Even digital flows need a place for servers, which require a lot of energy. The places these flows use, however, are competing with the idea of a sustainable development of the metropolis.

Concerning quality of life, the example of metropop’ illustrates that accessibility is fundamental. People want to be able to access the centre easily from suburbs. In the metropolis everybody should have the right to access the services of the metropolis. To make this possible we need the metropolitan level.

Andrei Feraru, Grand Paris

Many of the metropolises that were presenting today have a population of one or two million people. These metropolises are still understandable and they do not have huge segregation problems. Paris is different, nobody knows the model of Paris. Is it a

39


polycentric or a compact model? If you don’t know what the model is, how can you make a strategy or policy that works?

Pepijn van Wijmen, APPM

The scale of the metropolis in indeed an important factor. In the Netherlands, the scale is understandable. Therefore the Stockholm strategy (make a plan and stick to it) might be a good example for the Netherlands to create a better quality of life.

Erik Pasveer, The Hague

The confusion about the definition of the metropolis can also be seen as a step in the transitional process. Institutionalizing the metropolis actually shows that in the long run nation states are no longer necessary. With this potential future in mind, we need to accelerate and get to work, as much still needs to be done. A clear definition of the metropolis is not needed to do work on it. However, having an open debate on the definition is important as well as learning from each other along the way as we do today.

#5 MIP BRUSSELS: CONCLUDING

REMARKS

42

METRO IN PROGRESS

The European Metropolitan Agenda and the risk for the Netherlands. JEROEN SARISDIRECTOR - DE STAD BV

Over the past century, Dutch urban planning has deliberately steered away from contributing to ‘the rise of the metropolis’. The ultimate aim of planning and policy was to expand outwards: to ‘spread’ its people, housing, prosperity, functions, churches, universities etc. over the land. The motivation was that living in small towns would prevent the Dutch citizen from the slavery of the “great moloch”, as depicted in Fritz Lang’s ‘Metropolis’. The result of this approach, which is still the dominant policy approach in the Netherlands, is the weakening of its competitive potential when compared to other metropolitan areas in the world. A ‘metropolisation’ process is nevertheless still taking place in the Netherlands however. Informal metropolitan regions have been shaped around the municipalities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague, without any formal instruments or competencies to respond to the social challenges (such as segregation, engagement, citizenship and quality of life) at a metropolitan scale. So, what did we learn in Brussels about proper functioning metropolis elsewhere in Europe?

European metropolisesThe roundtable revealed that, unlike the

metropolisation process in many Asian, African and South American cities, metropolisation in Europe is not driven by masses of the rural poor leaving their villages, vast population growth or rapid economic growth. European metropolises tend to spread over larger territories, or can sometimes grow slowly while the smaller cities are shrinking. European metropolises also tend to be older: the majority of inhabitants aren’t young people below the age of 25, but tend to be people above 50 years old. London and Paris are the most dense and expensive cities to live in, where the poorer and younger populations tend to be forced out into the outskirts of the metropolitan area. The narrative of unlimited growth and the attractiveness of the big city therefore no longer applies to the European context of metropolisation.

Quality of lifeThe session in Brussels focussed on the meaning

and signifi cance of ‘quality of life’ at the metropolitan level. In Manchester for example, ‘progress’ has shifted from ‘more of the same’ to ‘difference’, where de-industrialised regions are being transformed by their new economies. To date, this process seems to be working more successfully there than in the Rotterdam – The Hague Metropolis. In Stuttgart, ‘progress’ equates to innovation, where the central focus is fi nding ways to attract young people to the automobile and electronic industries. This is a similar challenge to that of the Brainport metropolis around the city of Eindhoven. Unlike Brainport however, Stuttgart’s metropolitan strategy is facing some resistance from its citizens, with weakening acceptance of the plans to modernise the urban infrastructure. In this sense, progress is no longer measured by economic growth in the well-developed economies of Europe. Copenhagen-Malmö summed up the new milestones of progress as being: social equality, cultural inclusiveness and sustainability in landscape and energy. In other words: ‘progress’ in the European metropolis is now measured in terms of ‘added human value’.

SizeNonetheless, the ‘usual suspects’, such as size and

legitimacy still matter. In some metropolitan areas, such as Stuttgart and Paris, hundreds of municipalities cooperate on a territorial scale that includes the most important economic players, university campuses and housing locations. The size of the new Greater Paris and its Gross Regional Product is equal to the size and GNP of all of the smaller states of the European Union.

The metropolitan area of Copenhagen-Malmö is a typical example of ‘borrowed size’, where the bridge between the two cities created the catchment area that was needed to build an international airport. Year after year, the two cities have added new components to their common programme, e.g. optimising the infrastructure, improving international connectivity, strengthening economic complementarities and improving sustainable

“THE NETHERLANDS IS CURRENTLY LAGGING FAR BEHIND IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN AGENDA. THIS IS WEAKENING THE INNOVATIVE CAPACITY OF ITS ECONOMY. ”

43


energy production and social equality. The cooperation did not originated on the metropolitan level, but at the level of the two separated city councils, which incorporated it in their future visions.

Progress and the shortage of young talentEconomic progress is not a question of scale. In the

case of Stuttgart, the innovation capacity is restrained by the skills and age of the labour force. The need for technological innovation in this centre of the German automobile industry is accelerating in order to keep the industry competitive with the Asian and low wage industries. At the same time, the workforce is getting older and losing its capacity to innovate, and young skilled technicians from other European countries are not coming to Stuttgart because the city is not attractive enough to compete with the ‘hipper’ Berlin Metropolis.

The metropolis is also restrained in its modernisation. The population of Stuttgart is no longer convinced by the ‘blessings of progress’. Weakening citizen acceptance of new housing and infrastructure projects and redevelopments of underused central locations such as Stuttgart Station have made politicians hesitant to enforce top-down decisions.

The talk of progress is no longer appealing. With rapid growth in Asia and the global competitiveness of the region, local citizens are unconvinced that European metropolises grow intrinsically or autonomously. These feelings of resistance are not so much fuelled by ideological motives, but by feelings about the quality of life, environment and sustainability. The definition of progress, for citizens themselves, is thus much more about quality than quantity.

Unique identity or the generic city? The question of having a metropolitan identity

was raised. Does such a thing, as ‘urban identity’ exist at this level? The term ‘generic city’, coined by Rem Koolhaas, suggests the convergence of functions, forms and spaces in the global city, where the way in which metropolitan cities are designed and organised will no longer be rooted in the local culture where they originate. The Brussels conference showed the opposite however. Bucharest is deeply rooted in its history: the Ottoman heritage is easily recognisable, as is the glory of the European 19th Century metropolis, the past communist arrogance and today’s cowboy capitalism. The citizens that live in this heritage have the tendency to reformulate the programme of Bucharest however.

The struggle against inequality, ignorance about the hidden richness of the past and neglect of the public space is only just starting. Other European metropolises like Paris, London, but also the smaller sized like Copenhagen-Malmö, Stuttgart or Amsterdam also stress their distinctiveness. All European cities promote their history and heritage as being ‘unique’. Some do so by stressing their culture (e.g. the re-opening of the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam as a narrative about the glory of a small country); and others do so by highlighting their industrial achievements (e.g. Stuttgart with its Mercedes and Porsche museum; Oresund has bridged two harbour cities to stress its openness to the sea and the world).

ImaginationBordeaux exemplifies, in the purest form, how

identity is essential to making a metropolis. The metropolisation of region did not start with a plan to expand the area to meet the needs of the expected population growth (25 per cent increase in the next 12 years). Instead, the Mayor of Bordeaux first started with a consultation process, in which he asked institutional partners, businessmen, school children and inhabitants a simple question, namely: “What metropolis do you want to live in?” The responses formed the raw material for which a new vision for the Bordeaux metropolis was built on. This was a unique bottom-up approach, which connected directly to Bordeaux. This search for new ways to involve and connect to citizens is on the agenda for most European metropolises. How can we strengthen the bonds between the poor outskirts of the metropolis and its centre? How can we make the people living in the different municipalities feel connected to the future of their living and working spaces? Questions on what the metropolis can contribute to the quality of life demand a specific answer that in turn contributes to the identity of the metropolis.

The ongoing transformation process in European metropolises requires a strong cultural component. Arts and culture are necessary tools to investigate the future as they can open windows to new perspectives on societal change. In mastering new competencies, people need to experiment and create new forms and structures that will respond to new, upcoming possibilities.

Rebirth of Greater ManchesterIn shifting from an industrial society to one based

on the new economy, Manchester has had to do more

44

METRO IN PROGRESS

than rely on learning some new skills in the schools for professional education. Competition between the different regions in Greater Manchester only really ended when they realised the industrial era was truly over. The regions had to redefi ne themselves: and they still do. There was no roadmap for the rebirth of the metropolis: the path to discovering the media market, applied arts and information technology was found by trial and error, and cultural research helped redefi ne the identity of the city. The move of the BBC-studios from London was not an incident, but the cherry on top. Manchester has now become one of the sexiest metropolises in Europe and has much fewer problems in attracting young innovative people than Stuttgart has for example.

The Dutch way to innovation and competitiveness

Looking back at the Netherlands, where ‘metropolis’ is still a forbidden word, the city regions of Amsterdam, Rotterdam- The Hague and Brainport have started to form an informal metropolitan region. This is informal, although the national government is currently trying to transform its twelve provinces into fi ve offi cial new ones. This project is deemed to crash because nobody can really explain why the new provinces are necessary, i.e. what exact problem will forming these new provinces solve? After all: no real problem can be solved effectively at such a scale. The real questions play at the level and scale of the agglomerations around the big cities (i.e. the metropolitan scale) or in terms of their position at the national level.

Dutch metropolises face the same challenges as other European metropolises: i.e. segregation, environmental concerns, connectivity, unemployment and social/cultural in/exclusion. They do so without owning the instruments and legal competencies to address these challenges at the right scale however.

ConclusionThe European metropolitan agenda is fundamentally

different from that in other continents. In essence, this agenda is about international connectivity, innovation and human values. The meaning of progress has undergone a fundamental shift from improving growth to improving the quality of life. Culture will play a signifi cant role in developing this quality of life. Arts and culture are the means to investigate and improve the main themes of concern for the European Metropolis: identity, social inclusion and segregation. The Netherlands is currently lagging far behind in the development of the metropolitan agenda. This is weakening the innovative capacity of its economy. The lack of legitimate infl uence at the metropolitan level creates new risks in the struggle against segregation, exclusion and poverty. The challenge for the Dutch metropolitan agenda lies in fi nding the connection between complementary qualities: between cultural and technology poles, the research, commercial and production facilities between them and the creation of intensive interaction between these diverse qualities. In the absence of a national government that has a clear vision on innovation and metropolitan quality, this interregional interaction needs to be organised through the adoption of a bottom-up approach by the two metropolitan cities.

“THE NARRATIVE OF UNLIMITED GROWTH AND THE ATTRACTIVENESS OF THE BIG CITY THEREFORE NO LONGER APPLIES TO THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT OF METROPOLISATION.”

45


The European Metropolis.MICHEL SUDARSKIS SECRETARY GENERAL - INTA

‘What is a metropolis?’ remains an open question, and is probably best answered by the citizens of the metropolitan area itself.

All the contributions have demonstrated how complex and demanding the process of metropolitan construction is, and how much engagement and willpower is necessary for it. They have also clearly shown that metropolitan awareness and consciousness should not be underestimated. People, citizens, economic actors, and mostly, local politicians and policy-makers often fail to accept or understand this process. As a result the metropolitan dimension gets hardly any support. “How to bridge the gap between collective and individual interest?”

Jeroen Saris, Director of De Stad BV (NL), closed the roundtable with an anecdote that, since the 1990s, people in Amsterdam have asked themselves what a metropolis was all about. They even proposed to give up their municipal status to help facilitate other municipalities to create an integrated metropolitan area. They held a referendum, which resulted in a negative response by 99 per cent of the population. That urges one to consider the question: how important is identity and territorial awareness in the defi nition of metropolitan governance?

For Michel Sudarskis, the key message of the roundtable was that the metropolitan level is forming a new middle power (at least in Europe, and perhaps also in the rest of the world). This rising new middle power has come about from sub-national and sub-regional authorities that are searching for more fl exible, adaptable and better performing systems. In most of the case studies discussed at the roundtable, the metropolitan process has come about from community

pressure on the State to accelerate the construction of an informal, performing and multi-scale governance system that is still embedded in the national system.

Another point worth considering is the fact that the private sector is increasingly becoming a sub-national non-state actor with the legitimacy to shape public policy. Private interests are taking the lead in moving from profi t to purpose and increasingly acting in response to public interest, as is the case in Stuttgart and Manchester.

Ensuring territorial equity between metropolitan areas and the smaller municipalities surrounding them still remains an open challenge, as exemplifi ed in the cases of Copenhagen-Malmö and Stuttgart. An integrated mobility system is often part of the solution in these cases.

Two issues that remain open and unclear are the risk of polarisation and fragmentation within the metropolitan areas, and issues of inequalities at the metropolitan level. These remain issues that need to be addressed thoroughly.

“THE PRIVATE SECTOR IS INCREASINGLY BECOMING A SUB-NATIONAL NON-STATE ACTOR WITH THE LEGITIMACY TO SHAPE PUBLIC POLICY.”

#6SPEAKERS

48

METRO IN PROGRESS

Pieter has a background in economics and finance, with more than 10 years of experience in management consulting and financial advisory. With Cigarbox, Pieter develops and implements decision support systems for public investors, focusing on what you need to know at a minimum to make a good investment decision. Clients include the municipalities of the Hague and Rotterdam, VSBfonds, Paul Hamlyn Foundation, Leeuwarden Cultural Capital of Europe, and ABN AMRO. Pieter holds a master degree in finance and investments from the Erasmus University Rotterdam.

Hélène Chartier is in charge of monitoring relation between the Metropole of Paris and local authorities, in the Cabinet of the Mayor of Paris.

Before that, she worked in the Cabinet of the Deputy Mayor in charge of the Metropolis of Paris.

Also, she previously was Project Manager in Atelier Parisien d’Urbanisme (2011-2013), Head of Division of the Paris Heritage and Architecture Services (2007-2010) and Project Manager in Ove-ARUP in London (2003-2006).

She is graduate of Ecole Centrale of Lyon.

PIETER BROUWER HÉLÈNE CHARTIER

49


Alfredo Corbalan is Head of European projects for the Urban Development Agency of the Brussels-Capital Region.

He graduated in political sciences and European politics with specialization in urban and regional policies. Along his career he has worked on several European projects linking the physical, economic, social and environmental aspects of urban development.

Alfredo Corbalan joined the Urban Development Agency in 2008 to coordinate a project fostering the development of the Canal area in Brussels. Between 2008 and 2010, he was involved in an European project on metropolitan governance (URBACT – joining Forces). Since 2011, he is participating to the Eurocities working group “metropolitan areas” on behalf of the Brussels-Capital Region

ALFREDO CORBALAN

Robbert de Mug has a background in both urban planning and urban geography. After his graduation in 2010 he respectively worked for the province of Noord-Brabant, a Waterboard and, since 2012, for the city of Eindhoven. In this ‘Brainport Town’ (and 2011 smartest region of the world) he played different roles both on organisational matters and spatial/economic development. He is currently involved in a longterm spatio-economic program named Brainport City, that aims to take the urban development of Eindhoven to the next level.

ROBBERT DE MUG

50

METRO IN PROGRESS

Michael’s professional background is both in chemistry, geography and civil engineering. He has several educations as e.g. a Master of Science in Spatial Planning. He is educated in Germany and France, but works since 1998 in Sweden.

The focus of Michael’s work has since 20 years been urban and regional planning at core institutions as the Nordic Council of Ministers, Stockholm County Council and the City of Stockholm. Major themes are land use planning, energy and climate as well transport issues. In the four past years Michael has been the chairman of EUROCITIES working group “Integrated Urban Development”.

As a strategic planner, Michael currently is responsible for the Climate Roadmap 2050 for the Stockholm Region. This is a long-term, multilevel task which is strongly related to implementation of the Regional Development Plan for Stockholm. Michael is also involved in many international and R&I-projects.

MICHAEL ERMAN

Mireille Ferri is a politician and member of the Green Party. Mireille Ferri is regional councilor of Ile-de- France, Vice President of l’Institut d’aménagement et d’urbanisme de la région d’Île-de-France (IAU Île-de-France), Vice President of Fédération nationale des agences d’urbanisme and Executive Director of the Atelier international du Grand Paris.

MIREILLE FERRI

51


Paul Gerretsen is chief designer in the fields of regional planning, urban planning and architecture. He has studied at the renowned Universities TU Delft and ETH Zurich. He graduated with honourable mention in 1999 at the TU Delft as Master of Architecture.

After his education he has been employed by the Dutch National Spatial Planning Agency where he has been involved in studies for the development of strategic regional planning.

From 2003 Paul Gerretsen has worked at Maxwan Architects and Urbanists on both urban and regional planning projects.

He has been the project leader of the prestigious Barking Riverside Master Plan, a new town for 25’000 people in East-London and the regional project “Deltametropool”, a study on the future of the Randstad Region in the Netherlands, housing 7 million inhabitants.

Between 2005 and 2007 Paul Gerretsen was appointed Director of the South Wing Studio for Research and Design of the Province South-Holland. In this function he was responsible for projects and publications considering topics such as the Network City, Accessibility and Mixed-Use Areas. Since 2001 he teaches and lectured at numerous schools and universities most prominently at Delft University of Technology and Technische Universität München.

From 2008 onwards he is appointed director of the Deltametropolis Association. The Deltametropolis Association is a members association that focuses on the development of the Randstad Holland, the metropolitan area around the four major cities of the Netherlands. Members are government institutions, non-governmental pressure groups, companies and private persons.

PAUL GERRETSEN

Jaap Modder is member of the Board of the Deltametropolis Association and also a personal member of INTA.

He is working as a national and international consultant for his own firm Brainville and as an associate partner for Buck Consultants International. Experienced in the field of urban and regional planning in the Netherlands and abroad (USA, Russia, Belgium and Eastern Europe).

Chief editor of the Dutch leading magazine on urbanism S+RO, chair at the foundation Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and also active in the governance of cultural institutions.

At this moment active in the fields of area development, smart cities, transit oriented development and metropolitan governance.

JAAP MODDER

52

METRO IN PROGRESS

Julien Neiertz is a consultant and trainer in engineering for organization changes to local authorities. He is the co-founder of the association Metropop’! and its leader from the beginning. Metropop’! intends to transform the images productions of the suburbs and inhabitants of neighborhoods, as well as relations between people from the center and the periphery. The association organizes meeting spaces, exchange and co-production between citizens interested in participating in the Metropolitan building and created an educational approach to make accessible to everyone the stakes of the Grand Paris.

Erik Pasveer is Head of Urban Development and Planning in The Hague. Previously, he worked as Head Spatial Planning for the City of Delft and worked as urban planning at the Office of Riek Bakker, DRO Amsterdam, City of Rotterdam, Delft University of Technology and the Academy of Architecture in Rotterdam and Amsterdam. Pasveer studied architecture in Delft.

JULIEN NEIETRZ ERIK PASVEER

53


Jean Baptiste Rigaudy had a double career as civil engineer and architect. He is now 62 and lives in Bordeaux (France).

He worked as a city planner for a long time in operational positions (Paris, Fes, Metz, Bordeaux) and in technical advice to local authorities in Europe and South America concerning city planning and urban design.

After being director of planning in Bordeaux metropolis, he now heads the mission « stratégie territoriale », exploring new topics and new trends (evolution of life styles, smart cities, new business models), preparing Bordeaux therefore to become an attractive european metropolis in the future .

Jean Baptiste Rigaudy has been specialised in

Transit Oriented System ( TOS) and by therefore has been in position to define and advise different policies to promote metamorphosis of cities around public transport, higher density, renewing public spaces and reducing car use.

Convinced of the need to apply these methods to the suburb, he is now particulary interested in the gouvernance and the implementation of these policies in large metropolitan areas.

JEAN-BAPTISTE RIGAUDY

Paweł Sajnog (Chief Specialist in the Integrated Territorial Investment Division, European Funds & Economic Development Department, City of Warsaw, Poland).

Graduate of High School Of Commerce And Law in Warsaw (MSc). Since 2004 in the City of Warsaw (Warsaw City Hall), practitioner in the field of European funds’ implementation. Initially involved in activities focused on building the cooperation between the business community and local authorities of Warsaw, then responsible for preparation and implementation of the City of Warsaw projects, co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund and Norwegian Financial Mechanism, in particular in the fields of public transport, urban regeneration, sports & recreational infrastructure, culture, tourism and ICT. In the EU programming period 2014-2020 involved in the Integrated TerritoriaI Investments’ (ITIs) preparation for the Warsaw Functional Area (as a member of the Intermediate Body), including the strategic assumptions of the ITIs and identification & analysis of potential projects.

PAWEL SAJNONG

54

METRO IN PROGRESS

Michel Sudarskis is the Secretary-General of INTA, the International Urban Development Association, since 1987. He holds PhD in Economics and Political Sciences. Before joining INTA he taught on international co-operation and foreign affairs as Associate Professor with several Universities (Strasbourg, Paris, Nice and Lille) and served with international organisations in Italy and Belgium.

Michel Sudarskis writes and speaks regularly on urban issues; he has lead more than 50 international urban development missions on behalf of INTA including spatial analysis and strategies, establishing spatial framework for infrastructure planning, new towns and major urban regeneration or development projects, and worked with the UNCRD in Latin America, the EIB in the Middle East, Spanish Cooperation Agency in Morocco.

MICHEL SURDARSKIS

Jeroen Saris started his own business de Stad BV in 1997. Previously he had been Alderman of Urban development, waterfront and the Inner city in Amsterdam (1990-1994), and party leader of Groen Links (the green party) in the municipal council.

De Stad BV is a concultancy in urban and regional development in a broad sense: physical planning, future research, economic performance, urban culture and governance.

Jeroen Saris is also one of the founding fathers of the Dutch Platform for regional cooperation and strategy.

Jeroen Saris is and has been involved as consultant in several Dutch regions: Arnhem Nijmegen, Brainport Eindhoven, Metropolitan Region of Amsterdam, BrabantStad (5 cooperating cities and the provincial board) and North Netherlands. He also made a study of Metropolitan development in the US, Germany and UK. De Stad bv specializes in informal planning: innovation of policies of decision making in the field of environmental development and infrastructure. This innovation, directed towards the interaction between stakeholders often widely different in interests, has become indispensable for policy makers to be able to manage the increasing complexities of a global urban system.

JEROEN SARIS

55


56

METRO IN PROGRESS

GET IN-VOLVED!

Willing to contribute to the Metro in Progress Programme, to share your experience or to learn from experiences elsewhere? Please get in touch with us:

INTA18, rue Daval75011 ParisFrancet. 0033 1 58 30 34 52e. [email protected]. inta-aivn.org

DELTAMETROPOLIS ASSOCIATIONPO Box 600 3000AP RotterdamThe Netherlandst. 0031 10 41 30 927e. [email protected]. deltametropool.nl/nl/association

57


What?Metro in Progress is an open-source project on

comparison of metropolitan areas that is currently still in the making. Interviews, programmes, comparisons and reports are available on both the INTA website (www.inta-aivn.org) and on the Deltametropolis Association website (www.deltametropool.nl). You can follow the latest updates of the project via INTA’s Newsletter, twitter (#metroinprogress) and via the Metro in Progress website (www.metroinprogress.org). Furthermore, you can also actively participate!

Who? Policy-makers and professionals, territorial

authorities:Modes of governance change over time, seeking

to give coherence to territories rich in creativity. The cultural and social context, political and administrative systems, economic levels, the legacy of history and so forth are all variables that explain why no single formula exists for the process of metropolitan construction. With this in mind, this programme offers you a wide overview of the metropolitan processes that are taking place worldwide.

We specifically look at more practical experiences to discover how dialogue and exchange between metropolitan stakeholders may be enriched.

How? Sharing knowledge, learning from each other’s

experiences: The interviews, roundtables, desk research etc.

cover a broad range of topics: scaling the metropolitan area, governance and municipal cooperation, new forms of urbanity, metropolitan innovative economy and metropolitan sustainability.

Why?Are you looking for specific answers? Contact us to

organise a joint expert roundtable session that focuses on your specific case.

58

METRO IN PROGRESS

Notes:

59


Report | Roundtable Paris - Metro in Progress (May 25, 2016)

Documents

Transcript of Report | Roundtable Paris - Metro in Progress (May 25, 2016)