ENHANCING NEW FORMS of URBAN and METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE Nanterre, 1-2 October, 2010 ENHANCING NEW FORMS of URBAN Net·TOPIC and METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

New Tools and approaches for managing urban Transformation Processes in Intermediate Cities

ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE Nanterre, 1-2 October, 2010 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

INDEX

PREFACE: URBACT II PROGRAMME & NeT-TOPIC 00_INTRODUCTION PRESENTATION BY PATRICK JARRY, MAYOR OF NANTERRE

01_CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE THEME OF THE SEMINAR · The end of the diffuse metropolitan urban model and territorial strategies to “make a city” – The democratic metropolitan government and decentralisation. JORDI BORJA, Geographer and Urban Planner. Co-director of Postgraduate Programme in “City Management” at UOC (Universitat Oberta de Catalunya).

· The limitations and potential of citizen participation in metropolitan areas - HÉLOÏSE NEZ, Professor at University Paris 13 and researcher at Laboratoire Architecture Ville Urbanisme Environnement.

· The Metropolis - a Question of Legitimacy and Identity - Dr. CHRISTIAN LEFEVRE, Professor at the Institut Français d’Urbanisme, University Paris Est, researcher at LATTS Centre (Laboratoire, Techniques, Territoires et Sociétés).

02_URBAN AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE IN NeT-TOPIC CITIES · NANTERRE (France) - MR. GÉRARD PERREAU BEZOUILLE, 1st Deputy Mayor, Nanterre City Council.

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

· L’HOSPITALET (Spain) - MRS. ANA MARÍA PRADOS, Councillor of Urban Planning and Public Works, L’Hospitalet.

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

03_SHARING, COMPARING AND LEARNING WITHIN THE NETWORK. A WORKING SESSION AMONG THE NeT-TOPIC CITIES

04_MAIN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS FROM THE SEMINAR

2 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

PREFACE NeT-TOPIC & THE URBACT II PROGRAMME

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

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

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

NeT-TOPIC’s network aims to foster the exchange of knowledge, experiences and best practices among its partners. The project seeks to enhance the role of peripheral cities in territorial governance and urban planning processes to achieve their desired new city model.

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

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

3 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

The main topic that we wanted to tackle during this seminar was metropolitan governance from the point of view of the peripheral local authorities. This is a key matter. Urban governance within metropolitan areas is about linking actors and decisions at different levels, involving various public authorities (national, regional, metropolitan, local...) private individuals and social or community actors.

In general terms, metropolitan governance deals with governing and managing urban issues across boundaries (both geographical and administrative). In the context of globalisation and its effects on the local economy, the rising share of service-based activities (for business and residents alike), the development of new information and communication technologies, the increase in mobility, the fragmentation of urban space, social and spatial segregation, new models of governance for European Metropoli- 00_ INTRODUCTION tan areas need to be developed. In a huge number of cases, built up areas have grown over the years and appear to widely ignore municipal boundaries, which have either not evolved at all, or have done so, however not fast enough to reflect this new reality. For example, the economic system can extend over an even larger area. In European cities, labour markets have been expanding for years over increasingly wider areas, and their catchment areas sprawl far beyond city limits over large suburban zones. This phenomenon is well-known and data shows its growth over the years.

Different levels of public sector (local, regional, national) are compelled to share decisions beyond their own competences, because an increasing number of problems in urban planning and management depend on several institutions. The public sector, and specifically, local authorities in metropolitan areas or city regions, have to develop forms of governance appropriate to functional and morphological city regions at supra-municipality level. Public competences should be delegated across different levels of government. (What goes where?). We have to find appropriate spatial scales for specific functions of urban planning and public policy. In the case of NeT-TOPIC, the urban governance networks have particular relevance when it comes to holding onto the links between central and peripheral cities and between the peripheral cities within the city region.

The exchanges, discussions and learnings that arose from the Nanterre seminar have been forged around these issues. All member cities of NeT-TOPIC are concerned with new forms of metropolitan governance. The seminar was a very useful space in The Seminar was organized in AGORA (Nanterre) the house of which to learn and to share experiences and ideas on the topic. the citizen intiatives

4 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

PRESENTATION

PRESENTATION BY PATRICK JARRY, MAYOR OF NANTERRE

Nanterre is a specific city within the Paris metropolitan discussions with other towns in Europe. The silence of the area: a popular town integrated into the largest business peripheral cities will actually benefit the central cities: it area in Europe. will be detrimental to the periphery’s interests and hence consolidate the metropolitan areas. Today there is intense, and sometimes very difficult, debate and confrontation, regarding the future of the city and its Before finishing, I would like to throw out an idea that aro- relation with the metropolitan area. The town and its citi- se from the Getafe Forum: while there is no single model zens try to tackle the challenge of being a popular town in in governance, there is a very strong determination to build the heart of a business area. To this end, a few days ago, public participation and open it up to metropolitan choice. we had a meeting in this very place to discuss our efforts Within this framework, the citizens of peripheral cities have and the actions we are taking to stop the Défense business great experience of living in the metropolitan context and district from taking over a part of our territory. Up until are experts in sharing and solidarity. 2010, the State wanted to confiscate half of the municipal territory: it wanted to take 600 hectares and use that space to extend this business area.

It is therefore highly appropriate that this seminar on metropolitan governance be held here, given that these matters are at the heart of current issues in Nanterre and in metropolitan Paris itself.

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

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

5 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

THE END OF THE DIFFUSE METROPOLITAN URBAN MODEL AND TERRITORIAL STRATEGIES TO “MAKE A CITY” – THE DEMOCRATIC _ CONCEPTUAL METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT 01AND DECENTRALISATION FRAMEWORK

FOR THE THEME JORDI BORJA, Geographer and urban plan- OF THE SEMINAR ner. Director of the Department of City Ma- nagement and Urban Planning of Universitat Oberta de Catalunya.

01_ The dominant urbanisation model in crisis

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

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

Negative dynamics over the past decades:

We are witnessing processes of diffuse urbanisation, of closed neighbourhoods, social marginality, fragmenting and speculative infrastructures and artificial centralities; in other words, processes of loss of the notion of public space, the ideology of security,

6 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

social atomisation, and so on. This model has led to growth, land b) The issue of infrastructure and mobility: mobility is the citizen’s privatisation and a sense of insecurity becoming “the norm”. right. Infrastructure must help in “making” the city and ensuring Simultaneously, the compact city; viable, inclusive, productive, the mobility of citizens. creative, attractive and sustainable, becomes “specialised” and segmented. City centres become empty, shabby or are turned c) Public space, heritage and landscape. The city as a public spa- into some kind of museum, with increasing privatisation of space: planning and accessibility, social relations and public expres- ce, which throws out entire sections of the community. The public sion must be taken into account. The city must enhance a public identifies with the modernising sectors, it becomes exclusive... space with significance and symbolic references, with heritage and with the landscape, with the collective memory and a social Environmental, socio-political and economic costs history.

These new urban trends increase environmental, social, political The metropolitan government and economic costs. This causes new conflicts and asymmetries which are a waste of resources (land, energy, water, pollution, We need to think in terms of moving “from metropolitan etc.). It also leads to the area being ungovernable, to private pro- areas to metropolitan regions”: a new physical and political fit deriving from public expenditure, to a lack of solidarity and a scale that gives rise to associated governments within a culture of violence. network. This entails a variable geometry, with different scales within a single territory. The vicious circle: from anti-citizen urbanisation and financial speculation to the global crisis in the local area We must think in terms of non-exclusive competences at the local level, such as major infrastructure and large urban For a long time we have witnessed the vicious circle of the ur- projects. Strategic and territorial planning, redistribution of ban development set around global financial capitalism. This has public money and a rebalancing of territory, programmes of involved a lax credit policy for developers and customers, to the economic and social development, land and housing opera- detriment of productive capital. Land ownership and appropria- tions and stocks of medium and large-scale land. tion of private urban capital gains have been the engine fuelling the whole process. Speculation generates corruption. This would require the linking of centres and axes, organising metropolitan space into coherent and integrated co- Permissive public policies have increased social costs within the rridors. This requires multi-scale cross-management that field of housing and mobility infrastructure. ensures connectivity throughout the metropolitan area.

The speculative economy gave birth to new social classes: de- The metropolitan city is a multi-municipal city which re- velopers, builders, land owners, house buyers (as an investment quires a representative metropolitan government, with tool) and conspiratorial politicians (with low political costs). (relative) powers in all aforementioned areas: powers in town planning, housing and social policies, urban econo- The process has resulted in legitimisation of certain ideologies mic and cultural services, centres, public safety, facilities such as profit without “risk”, fear and differentiation/exclusion. and neighbourhood services. The metropolitan government The answer to the financial and housing crisis has been to refloat should be a recognised player in the metropolitan region financial capital, rather than questioning its speculative beha- and in the country as a whole, able to carry out decentra- viour or the game of the housing boom. lised administration of its territory. This requires a dialectic of centralisation and decentralisation, and recognition of Intellectual responsibility requires criticism and an alternative to existing towns and historic districts. this model. Among other issues, we should consider: We must think of a space on three levels: the community a) Land and housing policy: public projects should establish new (where proximity is assured): the agglomeration (where the forms of financing that will eliminate urban speculation by pro- planning and management of local affairs takes place); and moting integrated projects, a social and functional mix, prioriti- the region (where the major projects are carried out). sing the compact city and organising the metropolitan territory into a network of centres and mobility. The metropolitan government should reduce social inequalities and territorial imbalances through proximity gover-

7 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

nance, accepting the participation of and conflict between Conclusions the parties. The public must be listened to, whether organised or otherwise. Any change or solution causes resistance. We are at a historic turning point, a time of change, which requires new intellectual and political responsibility. Urban The metropolitan structure emerges so that public expen- planning is politics, it is about power relations. It is about diture is carried out in an equitable way throughout the building the strength of the periphery through a project of metropolitan area. However, those who have the ability to make a multi-municipal city. public spending should be representative and democratic. We are entering into a new era where the model of increa- The periphery should look at metropolitan policies without sing mobility is questioned and where new paradigms such fearing the big city. It must exercise its power as a coun- as austerity, social cohesion and new ways of governing terweight to the central city. It should therefore be orga- the territory are being created. The unsustainable growth nised into agglomerations that stretch beyond municipal proposed by the current urban planning model is now being boundaries, able to create new scales with multi-municipal called into question. structures and to establish real economic and urban “corridors” with their own territorial coherence. We should not be afraid to change. We should be afraid of the lack of boldness. We should not fear the loss of power, The expansion and growth of metropolitan cities is not, as welfare or status. If we miss this opportunity, we lose it has been in the past, an extension of the central city. The everything. At the end of the dilemma is either citizenship periphery is already installed, it is already a city. or barbarism.

Peripheries should be considered as territorial networks that act in an integrated manner, as a whole. However, the emergence of some degree of local resistance is likely.

Supra-municipal and metropolitan structures should not necessarily be headquartered in the central city.

The metropolitan municipalities must not disappear: they are places of democratic legitimacy and dialogue with citizens. Citizen participation should be a dialogue between citizens and public officials who can make significant decisions. However, public participation is justified by the exis- tence of conflicts.

8 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

THE LIMITATIONS AND POTENTIAL OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN METROPOLITAN AREAS _ CONCEPTUAL HELOISE NEZ, Sociologist and policy 01specialist, lecturer at Paris 13 University FRAMEWORK and researcher at Laboratoire architecture FOR THE THEME ville urbanisme environnement (LAVUE). OF THE SEMINAR My contribution deals with the limitations and the potential of public participation in metropolitan policy-making and metropolitan issues. If there is one subject that is so often absent from deliberations on the governance of metropolitan areas, it is the place for and the form of public participation. One sees this, for example, in the debates in France on Greater Paris, which, to date, has remained essentially an issue for parliamentarians and experts, with citizens and associations declining to take the subject on board. Likewise, in studies on and experiences in participative democracy, the metropolitan level still seems to have no relevance. Yet we are seeing an increase in the power of the metropolis (for example, the intercommunalités, or inter-municipal structures, in France), which are becoming fundamental political territories.

This is the paradox that I shall be analysing: although par ticipation is weak at metropolitan level, it is at this level that a big part of the future of European cities will be played out, and this future must be put up for public discussion so that citizens can have some influence beyond their immediate neighbourhoods.

I shall be analysing the issue from the Parisian perspective, because it is in Paris that I have spent the last four years researching participative democracy at different levels as part of my thesis and within a group research programme conducted by two institutes in Paris and by Adels, the association for democracy and local and social education.

9 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

Paris presents a specific set of circumstances. It is one of the - Although this democracy of proximity is typical of the French few metropolises in Europe that does not have a permanent participatory structures, it also represents a broader trend cooperation structure that encompasses all of it. We have two across Europe: in my thesis I have compared the cases of Paris main levels of government: and Cordoba, Spain. In Cordoba, a budget for public participation was set aside by the city council to give citizens direct access - Paris, which is both a city and a “department” (divided into to decision-making, but only with regard to neighbourhood 20 arrondissements, or districts, with limited powers), with more facilities. than 2 million inhabitants in a 100 km2 area, - The Île-de-France region, with its regional council, which is The big urban projects are not up for debate, but in Paris much larger, with nearly 12 million inhabitants in a 12,000 km2 citizens may be asked for their views on issues that go beyond area. the neighbourhood, within a set consultation process. Thus, one swings between a strong notion of participative democracy, but This is why I talk of metropolitan issues and policies: in the Paris limited to the small-scale, and a democracy of proximity that can region, there are issues at stake that go beyond geographical and include the large-scale. administrative borders, but that are still not part of metropolitan policies. · Weak participative democracy at inter-municipal and regional levels My presentation is structured into 4 main points: _ Despite the fact that in France, more and more powers (such - I shall begin with a brief appraisal of the participative structures as urban planning) are being devolved to the inter-municipal within the Paris region, to show that public participation is very structures, participative democracy remains a municipal remit. weak at metropolitan level. Local development councils can link citizens up to inter- - I will then show that there are metropolitan issues that must municipal policies, but the mechanisms for doing so are rarely be put up for discussion, before analysing the limitations and the innovative. They still take the form of consultation processes. potential of participative democracy at this level. _ The Île-de-France region’s participation policy is equally modest, even if some consultations have focused on the region’s Our group research has led us to the following conclusion: urban development plan. Other regions in France, such as Poitou- participative democracy is essentially local democracy: Charentes, go further than providing a democracy of proximity, with their participative budgets for secondary schools, which are - Local democracy is provided by the municipalities or councils decisive. of the towns of the Parisian periphery, and particularly by the arrondissements in Paris itself, although some consultation 2. There are therefore metropolitan issues to be debated, processes are launched by Paris City Council. potentially involving a mobilisation of associations that could - We have seen how participatory structures in Paris and in support the participation mechanisms: the peripheral towns have multiplied since the mid-1990s, and especially at the start of the new millennium. This is due to the · This is the case for the project to build towers at the Gateways neighbourhood councils that became obligatory following a to the capital, which affects not only Paris but also the towns on 2002 law, for all towns of more than 80,000 inhabitants. its outskirts.

· The experience of Paris and the Île-de-France comes into the - The city council has not presented this project to the concept of a democracy of proximity: a proximity that is both participative mechanisms, such as the permanent committee for spatial and political. consultation in Paris Rive Gauche, which is one of the locations affected by the construction of high-rise buildings. - Far from delegating power to citizens when it comes to - However, it is a subject that associations have taken up without major urban issues, participation is generally consigned to a being asked; groups such as Tam-Tam in Paris Rive Gauche, which consultation process, held exclusively at micro-local level. has organised several public meetings to produce a second Participation forums are created at neighbourhood level and are assessment of the issue. not linked to actual decision-making. Participation is therefore reduced to a showdown between elected councillors and residents on issues relating to neighbourhood facilities.

10 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

· After the towers project, the issue of density is the most Therefore, we need to think about the audiences: how can we widely discussed. Other metropolitan issues could be put up for build a metropolitan audience? debate, such as transport and housing, and also social issues and local inequalities, i.e., the issue of wealth distribution within 4. I shall finish by proposing some perspectives: how can the metropolis. Finally, there is the question of metropolitan we overcome these limitations and conceive a participative governance: in Paris, once could bring together citizens to discuss democracy at metropolitan level? what shape the metropolis of the future should take. · One way is to start from the existing participative mechanisms, Thus, there are some burning issues to be discussed at by broadening their audiences when metropolitan issues are at metropolitan level. stake. To pick up the example of the Paris gateway towers once again, one could open up the Paris Rive Gauche consultation 3. Nevertheless, when we speak of participation at a level that committee not just to Parisian neighbourhood associations and goes beyond the neighbourhood, several limitations and hurdles councils, but also to the residents of Ivry, on the other side of the are often put forward: ring road.

· There would be a problem of level and of political authority: · However, we must not limit ourselves to the existing forums for local democracy. We need to design specific participatory - Citizens would be unable to deal with issues that surpass their mechanisms with a format that has been adapted to immediate interest. This is a criticism frequently heard from the metropolitan issues. The citizen’s conference appears to be an elitist theories of democracy (for example Schumpeter) and from appropriate tool for looking at large-scale subjects that are the many local agents. However, citizens can mobilise a broad range subject of political controversy: a group of 15 to 20 residents of knowledge within participatory mechanisms (their knowledge who are supposedly “laypeople” on the subject give their opinion as users, but also as professionals and as citizens). after having received comprehensive information on the subject and questioned experts and representatives from the various - Citizens would no longer see the point of getting involved at a stakeholders on the subject. level of decision-making that is so far removed from them. The abstract and institutional nature of the issues discussed is then · The danger of these randomly-selected structures is that they put forward. Nonetheless, decisions taken at a distant level can may weaken the demands of organised citizens. Appealing to have very concrete consequences for the daily life of residents. laypeople often tends to bypass their capacity to counter-assess and to act as an opposition force. It is therefore important that · Linked to the issue of levels, there is a problem of time there is a mobilisation of associations at metropolitan level. perspectives: one association, Ada 13, which has been working The future of participative democracy in the large metropolises on urban planning issues in Paris’s 13th arrondissement for 30 depends on the networking of associations at this level: a years, recognises the difficulty that residents have in looking 20 Metropolitan Paris Social Forum has therefore been launched to or 30 years ahead. bear some weight on the debates concerning Greater Paris.

· Other problems are linked to the overlapping of structures · One can also imagine a participatory budget at metropolitan and levels, and the metropolitan level would just be added level with the goal of redistributing wealth to rebalance the to all the others. Here, I refer to the lack of clarity across metropolis, taking its inspiration from cases in Brazil. However, different areas of activity and confusion of authority across the you undoubtedly have other examples and ideas from the realities different administrative layers, the willingness of residents, the of your own countries and local areas that will help to enrich our multiplication of participation levels that means that different thinking above and beyond the Parisian perspective. types of involvement ultimately compete against each other.

· Finally, there is the problem of the audience: who does one call on regarding metropolitan policies? Even when the issues go beyond the neighbourhood, participation is often organised at local level: during the consultation on the Les Halles project in Paris, the neighbourhood councils joined up with local associations, even though this project affects a much wider public (it is the principal gateway from the suburbs into Paris).

11 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

THE METROPOLIS - A QUESTION OF LEGITIMACY AND IDENTITY

CHRISTIAN LEFÈVRE, Professor at the Ins- titut Français d’Urbanisme, University Paris _ CONCEPTUAL Est. Christian Lefèvre, Professor at the Ins- 01titut Français d’Urbanisme, University Paris FRAMEWORK Est. Researcher at LATTS Centre (Laboratoi- FOR THE THEME re, Techniques, Territoires et Sociétés). Today, the matter of metropolises must be considered from a po- OF THE SEMINAR litical perspective. In other words, it is a question of metropolises becoming territories in their own right as well as full political players. This means, however, that they must become politically legitimate.

Legitimate means something that is undisputed. For metropolises, this involves public policies targeting the metropolitan area, at metropolitan level, without being contested by national- or local level players. For local level players, this entails the metropolis being deemed an appropriate level - not only in terms of function but also policy. There is a clear link here between political legitimacy and metropolitan identity in as much as stakeholders who feel that they have a “metropolitan identity” will not be inclined to challenge metropolitan-level actions. For example, if a stakeholder feels that he or she is “metropolitan”, this means that they feel part of a given territory; a common destiny. Hence, they will be more inclined to accept policies - such as territorial solidarity for example - because this will relate to the redistribution of re - sources across a territory with which they identify.

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

The political legitimacy of metropolises is not a given. On the contrary, it has to be built up. And this is not easy. Indeed, it gives rise to numerous conflicts because it raises fundamental political issues, of which there are at least three:

12 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

1.1 Giving the metropolis a political legitimacy disrupts the power Therefore, in recent years, institutional and organisational inno- relations between public authorities. Turning a metropolis into a vations have emerged. What conclusions can we draw? political player means transforming its relationship with the state and other political actors. First and foremost, this means the Our analysis of experience - covering fifteen years so far - is city at the centre of the metropolis, but it also relates to other rather negative. To support this position, we will briefly present local authorities, city councils, as well as “senior governments”, three areas of activity, each of which in their own way aims to depending on the institutional system (unitary or federal state). establish a metropolis as a political player.

1.2 Giving the metropolis a political legitimacy means creating a 2.1 The creation of metropolitan authorities. There has been a player capable of speaking on behalf of the metropolis. If a me- long European - and more generally international - experimen- tropolis becomes a full political player, it needs a spokesperson, tation in this field of political action. Indeed, throughout the de- or even a leader. Contenders for this role can be numerous, pro- mocratic world, states have sought for several decades to govern ving the issue of metropolitan leadership to be confrontational. metropolises by setting up political authorities to cover their As of today, and depending on the metropolis and country, those territories, and giving them “metropolitan” competences. The who can and wish to speak on behalf of the metropolis are: the picture is not encouraging. In Europe, metropolitan authorities state, the region (where one exists), and the city around which are rare and generally have limited competence and resources. the metropolis is based. Whether talking about Greater London, the region around Stutt- gart or the region around Copenhagen, these institutions are 1.3 Giving the metropolis a political legitimacy also raises the politically weak and are dominated by states and/or other local question of the values and the vision that its representative must authorities. Elsewhere in Italy, Germany and Spain, large cities do embody. The spokesperson or leader of the metropolis needs to not have metropolitan authorities. France is an exception, with represent a vision and values that may not be immediately sha- its urban and conurbation authorities. Such a picture is explained red by the metropolitan society. On the contrary, those values by institutional policies that have sought to impose metropolitan and this vision are the subject of fundamental political and social authorities on local, pre-existing authorities, but which have en- conflicts, because they determine the direction in which the me- countered resistance from local players - more often than not, tropolis develops. For example, it is not easy to determine con- successfully. Such imposition has impeded the emergence of le- crete priorities between competition policies and development gitimate metropolitan authorities because they were regarded as policies that put more emphasis on issues of distribution - in par- bodies foreign to the metropolitan political-institutional system, ticular, in relation to land and resources - because such priorities or even to metropolitan society as a whole. are often contradictory. In this context, globalisation is fuelling potential conflicts. 2.2 The launch of metropolitan conferences. Having learned from the failures of imposing the creation of metropolitan authorities, Because legitimacy is constructed, and because this construction several conurbations have, over the last fifteen years, sought to is an adversarial process, innovations are needed. This means po- use consensus to create metropolitan authorities. The most com- litical innovations in terms of the method and the instruments mon instrument to do this has been the metropolitan conference. used to achieve political legitimacy for the metropolis. On the In its most common version, the metropolitan conference is a one hand, the stakeholder systems need to open up to allow new non-decision-making political body that brings together most players to enter, and add new issues to the mix. On the other local authorities within the metropolitan area. Its initial goal is to hand, mediation is needed when a stakeholder system is opened establish a dialogue between political players in order to engage up, because doing so normally generates conflict. New instru- them in the construction of a form of metropolitan government ments also need to be invented, new structures linking stake- that is not imposed, but rather agreed and negotiated among the holders, the structures of debate (forum, etc), new procedures local authorities. Bologna pioneered this approach in the 1990s. to govern the legitimising process and thus ensure that it is suc- More recently, conurbations such as Turin, Paris and Zurich have cessfully achieved. engaged in similar experiments. The results are mixed, at best. While the dialogue between local politicians may generally have 2. The experience thus far. worked well, the metropolitan conferences struggled to move beyond this stage and were generally either dissolved (as is the case The thinking and actions behind giving political authority to a with Bologna and Turin), or became fossilised into institutions metropolis were hitherto more traditional and rarely mentioned lacking real power (as is the case with Paris). the production of a political legitimacy for the metropolitan area.

13 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

2.3 Strategic planning. In the mid-1990s, a number of European Conclusion cities (Barcelona and Turin, for example) embarked on processes of discussing the direction of their futures, by seeking to mo- The question of the political legitimacy of metropolises is a key bilise civil and political society. These processes were structu- issue that, in practice, has not generally been addressed since red around procedures and instruments that aimed to define the metropolitan areas became the context for setting public policy, strategic public policy priorities to be put in place, in order to but without political legitimacy, metropolises can not expect to meet the challenges of globalisation. They gave rise to what were see the realisation of policies that are able to meet their challen- referred to as strategic plans, with governance generally being ges, old and new. This limited interest in the matter of the poli- undertaken by the city centre, and a fairly successful mobilisa- tical legitimacy of metropolises is explained by several factors. tion of civil society in some cases. The concerted development of strategic plans was then presented as an alternative form of The first is the excessive institutional domination in addressing “governance by institutions”. In some metropolises - notably, Bar- and resolving the question of metropolises. In most countries celona and Turin - strategic planning was regarded as a form of where this issue is on the political agenda, states and local stake- city governance. holders both feel that without creating institutions, metropolitan policies are not possible. This has resulted in a stalemate, given What conclusions can be drawn today for strategic planning with that, as we have seen, the creation of metropolitan authorities regard to the political legitimacy of the metropolitan area? Here has failed somewhat. again, it is mixed because while strategic planning has, in some cases, produced legitimate political governance, this legitimacy The second element is the virtual monopolising of the question has often been confined to the city at the centre of the metropo- of the metropolis by the political-institutional machinery. Indeed, lis. In fact, strategic planning at metropolitan level is extremely civil society in its broadest sense has almost never mobilised at rare and those success stories that are publicised relate mainly metropolitan level and has never supported the metropolis as a to central cities. It cannot, therefore, be said that strategic plan- level appropriate for addressing some of today’s key issues. Yet ning has contributed to metropolises becoming players or politi- the political-institutional machinery more often than not re- cally legitimate territories, because the conflicts between local mains a prisoner of local or national political systems that do not stakeholders regarding metropolitan issues remain as prominent encourage them to tackle head-on this issue of political legiti- among those metropolises that report such planning as those macy in as much as their own legitimacy is rooted in other levels where it does not exist. (neighbourhood, town, regional, national).

References Lefèvre, C. (2009), Gouverner les métropoles, L’Extenso Editions, Paris

14 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

NANTERRE (France)

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

Nanterre

Nanterre, a traditionally working town, is nowadays a mixed city with a varied population. Marked by the imprints of migration, _ URBAN AND Nanterre has experienced many successive migrations. We are 02 a town that receives many newcomers from many different pla- METROPOLITAN ces, which I believe is an aspect that must be taken into account when it comes to suburban areas. We have also dealt with the GOVERNANCE IN issue of metropolitan areas in Nanterre and I think this is also a common feature of many peripheral cities. As far as housing is concerned, one of the challenges faced was to overcome the NeT-TOPIC CITIES problem of ghettos created after the war or poor quality housing built in the 1960s.

We are a popular city. We have a communist mayor who is well- rooted in our heritage because it has been left wing since the 1930s, and so this tradition has been perpetuated for quite some time now. Just to give you an idea, half of the housing here is low-cost housing.

Institutional framework

Our administrative framework goes back quite a long way. One of our oldest legacies is the heritage of the French Revolution, which left a huge imprint. Nowadays there are 4 administrative levels; the State, the region, the province (or departments) and the city itself. There are competences allocated to each, for example, teaching: universities fall under the state authority; the region covers secondary schools; departments have the primary schools; and nurseries come under the municipalities. Although this area is all well divided, there are others where competences are not as clearly defined and each institution works in its own way. As far as urban planning competences are concerned, they are the city’s responsibility. However, although this is very well defined, the state is still the tool for intervention and sometimes it is very difficult to implement some of the programmes. So this is, broadly speaking, the administrative framework.

15 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

I would like to address the issue of the self-defined organisation purchase of Nanterre land by extending public land within the of peripheral areas, such as the “syndicates of communes” (as- city was very controversial (it began in the 1990s and was com- sociation of municipalities with no fiscal power), i.e. the associa- pleted only in 2000). At this point, there was participative action. tion of municipalities working within a network system. I believe Citizens wanted to defend their rights and be respected. The city it is very important to measure the space they occupy in terms wanted to be a stakeholder in the decision making. People had to of self-organisation - as these syndicates are actually places that wait until the end of the 90s, after a truly concerted effort by the work on a volunteer basis - as well as how they organise themsel- citizens of Nanterre, for an agreement to be reached between the ves and what impacts they have on the territorial network. One Town and the State regarding the future of this area of national important aspect is that, although Paris has always carried out interest. In 2000, a second public body was created: EPASA (Eta- its activities without taking into account the cities surrounding blissement public d’aménagement Seine-Arche). it, what is new is that it is beginning to show interest in towns in suburban areas, because it now needs to expand its borders. So EPASA, which was created in 2000, was made up of State and local authorities affected by the Seine-Arche project. EPASA Whilst Paris has always managed its own issues separately, muni- carried out the preliminary studies for urban development and cipalities in the peripheral area have been working together for a the technical feasibility studies of the various projects. This was while. The suburban towns in the Parisian region have organised done in the spirit of equal representation. It was an open process themselves and set up a syndicate to deal with several issues and decisions were made following a unanimous vote by the jury. such as electricity supply and other public services whose com- I think we did some very constructive work and it wasn’t always petence fall to the municipalities. These associations are therefo- easy. There was a great deal of tension between the various in- re very important when it comes to building the suburbs closest terests, but it did enable us to have better infrastructure planning to Paris. A higher level of association is found in the communauté than the Défense business district, because many of those infras- des communes (community of municipalities), which has fiscal tructures had been built on something resembling a potato field powers. These models of association are not new; with syndicates that was divided up by the city. This time around, local interests dating back to 1900-1910. wanted to make sure that the infrastructure was in place to link the districts. Nanterre’s residents needed to be fully involved and There are other tools such as the mixed economy associations convinced that they played a key part in defining this infrastructure. (Société d’Economie Mixte) which are widely used in Nanterre; for example, the Nanterre Société d’Economie Mixte. Other tools EPASA manages the Seine-Arche project, consisting of several are the state-run EPAs (Etablissement public d’aménagement), green spaces, the transformation of the A14 motorway into 3 km such as EPAD (Établissement public d’aménagement de la Défense) of public spaces connecting the Seine with the Arch de La Défen- for the Défense business area infrastructure. se, and the establishment of new links between districts, thereby trying to overcome the fragmentation of the town caused by the I would like to point out that this form of organisation is not a transport infrastructure. new feature: municipalities never really worked in isolation and it is simply an illusion to think that today we are discovering that In July 2010 EPAD and EPASA merged into EPADESA, which is re- it is necessary to collaborate on projects on a more global level. launching an urban planning project emcompassing large areas of our city. In terms of participative democracy, there has been The relationship between Nanterre and La Défense is a long initial resistance, but we have to find solutions rather than remai- story that goes back to 1958. What they wanted was to create ning in a stalemate. a multinational business district in a French headquarters. There was an “A zone” which would serve as the business section, and I am now going to talk about the various forms of participation the high-rises which were built, and a “B zone” which was the that exist within the town. We have heard before today that par- Nanterre area. From the beginning, Nanterre was considered to ticipative democracy in the city is associated with local level, but be the back garden of the business area. The rapid relocation to I do not particularly agree with that: we actually have a bit of new housing raised some conflict,and I really like the concept power, even with respect to the state, and as I said, we are always of “positive conflict”; this type of conflict is necessary to get pulling strings here because we need to look at all the issues that things moving (to avoid blockages). At the end of the 80s, into lie behind the local issue. the beginning of the 90s, a new period of conflict between the State and Nanterre began. The decision to build one million square meters of office space in Nanterre was announced. This public

16 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

The community councils were created in 1977. Nanterre was one The future of Nanterre of the first towns in France to create neighbourhood councils. The role of the citizens and their active participation in making As far as the future of the city is concerned, there are three as- and monitoring decisions that concern them have always been at pects to look at. Firstly, the state has actually backed down from the heart of local dynamics. In 1977 we ran various community extending the perimeters and limits of the public area. Secondly, programmes in a bid to get all of these neighbourhoods involved we remain in control of this area through our mixed economy or- in all the various policies. We now have 10 community councils, ganisation and the new public body, EPADESA. However, whether and anybody is welcome at any of these meetings. These neigh- we like it or not we have to find a solution without blocking the bourhood council meetings are quite a direct type of participati- infrastructure. Thirdly, we believe that we can go beyond all of ve democracy, so we considered that, at district level we should this and work across and amongst all municipalities, and we are be able to work on several issues, and of course the future of the therefore building inter-municipal links with nearby municipa- entire west of Paris was also brought up and worked on within lities. Sometimes we work in a confrontation type of situation this context. (seeing as interests might differ), but we know that Nanterre will succeed by itself. In 1995 we had a symposium for the city (Assisses de la ville). This involved 3 months of intense debate and discussion processes. A research/consultancy type of syndicate has also been deve- Many citizens were involved on this major town project. Over 2 to loped to prepare negotiations with the state. There is another 3 months a huge forum was held and we were able to work with syndicate (created some years ago) which is willing to be an ac - people who did not necessarily have voting rights. For example, tive stakeholder in the control of all of these areas. Nanterre not we undertook research and conducted surveys in communities only takes part in the project appointed by the public body, but because one of the issues of participative democracy is that we also takes part in projects negotiated between municipalities, the have to involve the people who need public activity and public syndicates and associations that have been created. action the most. Every other night we held discussions on various topics and tried to weave them together. In Nanterre, we hope that our citizens can live and work in the city. La Défense provides a rich source of employment that our We also have an ‘extra-municipal committee on urban planning’, citizens must exploit. We therefore want to work with the resi- based on citizens and associations defending their own interests: dents of Nanterre in the future, to build a city in which we can this is very resident-based organisation. We have empowered all live together. them to work on projects and they now have a clear urban planning expertise: these are the people with whom we deal. They are contact people, with whom the mayor or deputy mayor can discuss major issues.

It is, therefore, my belief that, had we not had this level of citizen participation for over 30 years, we could never have arrived at where we are today. We need citizens to be committed and active.

17 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

L’HOSPITALET AND THE METROPOLITAN CHALLENGE (Spain)

MRS. ANA Mª PRADOS, 4th Deputy Ma- 02_ URBAN AND yor of Urban Planning and Public Works, METROPOLITAN L’Hospitalet de Llobregat. GOVERNANCE IN The municipal area of l’Hospitalet de Llobregat covers a surface area of 12.50 square kilometres and is located southwest of the conurbation of Barcelona. The city is linked to the larger city of NeT-TOPIC CITIES Barcelona which, with its metropolitan area, constitutes one of the largest urban agglomerations in Europe.

Development of the Barcelona metropolitan area

As has occurred in other European urban areas, during the 19th Century, an intense process of urbanisation took place, and with a general metropolitisation of the municipalities adjacent to Barcelo- na. As a consequence, the population of L’Hospitalet increased from 5,000 inhabitants in 1900 to 265,891 in 2010. L’Hospitalet became the second most populated municipality in Catalonia, just behind Barcelona.

In this context, the “Metropolitan Corporation of Barcelona” was set up in 1974. This was a government body within the state administration. It was made up of twenty-seven municipalities and covered an area of 476 square me- tres. Its original function related mainly to urban planning issues, but it progres- sively assumed other competences such as transport, waste and cleaning of me- L’Hospitalet grew very quickly. 1900-2010 tropolitan facilities.

18 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

The main function of the metropolitan corporation of Barcelo- versity of Barcelona, the Barcelona Exhibition Centre, the port na was to monitor the General Metropolitan Plan, approved in and airport, etc. Its main aim is to identify and promote strategies 1976. This municipal urban plan covered 27 municipalities. It was to support the economic and social development of the metropo- quite an innovative programme and brought significant benefits litan area of Barcelona. The first Barcelona metropolitan strategy at metropolitan level. It allowed the provision of green areas and plan was approved in 2003 and the new model for the year 2020 facilities as well as a stable legal and technical framework of is currently being drawn up. action, for the municipalities within this metropolitan corporation. The General Metropolitan Plan is still in force and has been Barcelona Metropolitan Plan adapted through a number of very specific modifications. As far as territorial planning is concerned, after many years of In 1987 the Catalan Parliament approved a new territorial or- work, last 20 April 2010, the “Barcelona Metropolitan Plan” was ganisation. Law 7/1987 set out and regulated the actions within approved. This plan was drawn up by the regional government, the conurbation of Barcelona and abolished the old metropolitan the Generalitat de Catalunya. corporation of Barcelona. This new law created two new entities which took on the metropolitan competences in transport and Its territorial scope is the metropolitan region and it covers 164 the environment: municipalities: this represents ten percent of the territory of Ca- talonia and seventy per cent of its population. The main concerns - The metropolitan transport organisation: made up of 18 mu- of the metropolitan territorial plan are open spaces (natural and nicipalities. agricultural spaces), transport infrastructure and the structure of - The metropolitan water services and waste treatment orga- the urban system. nisation (made up of 33 municipalities). In the case of L’Hospitalet, the metropolitan territorial plan esta- A group of municipalities also came together on a voluntary basis blishes different areas where transformation, facilities or urban and created the Association of Municipalities of the Metropo- centre strategies must be followed. These are general guidelines litan Area of Barcelona (made up of 27 municipalities). subject to later specification when urban planning is being defined. Authority for urban planning and territorial planning was now transferred to the regional government. Thus the region is now established as the level at which land is planned. At this point, the metropolitan plan for Barcelona was drawn up.

1987 saw a period of some confusion and fragmentation as far as the metropolitan scope and authority are concerned, resulting in a variable structure when it came to land-related action. Du- ring this phase, there was technical, public and political debate on the suitability and functionality of a metropolitan structure. Several studies carried out at the time highlight the need for a metropolitan entity. Situation of L’Hospitalet within the metropolitan context

Barcelona metropolitan strategy plan 2010 – Recuperation of the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona The lack of a single metropolitan institution gave rise to the emergence of parallel initiatives such as the “Barcelona metro- Finally, on 3 August 2010, Law 31/2010 was approved. This esta- politan strategy plan” which was intended to fill the gap resulting blishes the creation of the “Metropolitan Area of Barcelona” and from the lack of unified criteria. regulates its organisation, competences and financing. According to this law, the metropolitan area of Barcelona is made up of 36 This is a private non-profit association backed by Barcelona city municipalities, and covers an area of 628 square kilometres with council, and which is made up of 36 municipalities together with 3,218,071 inhabitants. other economic and social stakeholders, such as the chamber of commerce, economic forums, employers’ organisations, the Uni-

19 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

The general principles governing the activities of the Metropoli- The Metropolitan urban master plan has the following objectives: tan Area of Barcelona are: local autonomy; participation of municipalities in the governing and management of the metropolitan a) To set up the structural elements of urban development; area of Barcelona; equal access to public services for all citizens; territorial solidarity and balance; social cohesion and balance; b) To draw up the guidelines for sustainable urban development sustainable development; financial autonomy; citizen proximi- and mobility; ty and participation in the management and provision of public services; institutional cooperation and loyalty; and equity and c) To define measures to protect the land that must not be built redistribution in public actions and in the provision of services. on and its organic structure;

The composition of the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona is to be d) To specify and define the reservation of land for infrastructu- as follows: re and general systems such as roads, railways, water facilities, ports, airports, cleaning and water supply, telecommunications, 1. -One metropolitan council facility networks and suchlike;

2. -One president e) To define policies relating to land, housing and economic activity.

3. -One governing board The initial and provisional approbation of the Metropolitan Ur- ban Master Plan corresponds to the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona, 4. - One special accounts committee while the final approbation corresponds to the regional government.

The representation of each municipality will depend on its po- The Metropolitan Urban Development Plan (MUDP) develops the pulation. Initially there will be 90 councillors in total, whereas it guidelines of the Metropolitan Urban Master Plan, including all used to be 150 with the old three entity structure. The duration the necessary specifications for a municipal urban development of the mandate of the metropolitan council and its members is plan. The MUDP is carried out via an adaptation of the General the same as the duration of the city council mandates. Metropolitan Plan and other instruments of general urban planning by the municipalities within the metropolitan area. The general competences of the Metropolitan Area of Barcelo- na will be: urban planning; transport and mobility; water; waste; The initial and provisional approbation of the Metropolitan Ur- other competences relating to the environment; infrastructure ban Development Plan corresponds to the Metropolitan Area of of metropolitan interest; economic and social development; and Barcelona, while the final approbation corresponds to the urban territorial and social cohesion. planning committee of the metropolitan area of Barcelona. This committee is an urban body reporting to the Generalitat de- In contrast to the competences of the previous structure made partment that deals with these matters. up of the two metropolitan entities and the Association of Muni- cipalities of the metropolitan area of Barcelona, what must now The metropolitan agenda or urban operations programme is up- be stressed is the introduction of urban planning issues. The dated every 6 years by means of an agreement of the metropoli- urban planning competences of the Metropolitan Area of Barce- tan area of Barcelona. lona are those that local governments can execute in accordance with the legislation in force. The main aim is to achieve integra- The Urban Planning Committee of the Metropolitan Area of Bar- ted urban development within the metropolitan territory. celona is made up of:

The Metropolitan Area of Barcelona is provided with two main - the Presidency: occupied by an elected member of the regional planning tools: government (the Generalitat) with competencies in urban planning.

1.- The metropolitan urban master plan - the Vice-presidency: occupied by the president of the metropolitan area of Barcelona. 2.- The metropolitan urban development plan made up of urban programmes of municipal or multi-municipal scope.

20 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

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

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

The Urban Planning Committee of the Metropolitan Area of Bar- celona will be constituted when the Metropolitan Urban Master Plan comes into force.

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

In short, we could say that the new metropolitan context represents a new phase in the future of L’Hospitalet and its challenges. These are some of the challenges identified by L’Hospitalet LSG in relation to the issue of metropolitan governance:

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

- To ensure the centrality of the city, to avoid taking on the cha- racteristics of a suburb and to promote L’Hospitalet as Catalonia’s second city.

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

- Cooperation must not only be ensured with the municipalities in the metropolitan area of Barcelona, but also with the regional government (the Generalitat).

21 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

SACELE (Romania) Braşov Metropolitan Association for Sustainable Development (AMB)

MRS. DANA RISNOVEANU, Head of Eu- _ URBAN AND ropean integration department. Sâcele City 02 Council. METROPOLITAN

GOVERNANCE IN In Romania there are 7 growth-poles: Cluj, Iaşi, Timisoara, Bra- sov, Craiova, Ploiesti & Constanta. Sacele municipality belongs NeT-TOPIC CITIES to the Braşov Metropolitan Area, and is a member of the Bra şov Metropolitan Association for Sustainable Development. This membership provides the city with development opportunities that tie in with regional policies.

Braşov Metropolitan Association for Sus- tainable Development (AMB) was founded in January 2006. The association is a non- governmental and non-profit organisation operating at intercommunity and regional levels.

Services: The AMB provides consulting and technical assistance to its members for community development according to European requi- rements. The association provides access to both national and international donors for local and regional projects and support for project management and/or supervision. The population that benefits from AMB services numbers 400,204 inhabitants.

Situation of Sacele within Brasov metropolitan area Main activities: AMB develops and runs projects and activities in support of the communities’ sustainable development, intercommunity cooperation, citizen participation in the decision-making process and dissemination of sustainable development processes nationwide. The association thus:

22 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

- Develops Local Development Strategic Plans for its member - Represents Braşov, Codlea and Săcele in the Association of Mu- communities according to the national plan for spatial and re- nicipalities of Romania. gional sustainable development for Cristian, Hărman, Prejmer and Sânpetru and provides consulting and assistance for imple- - Represents the Association of Municipalities of Romania to the mentation of the strategy plan for local development of Codlea CEMR-Council of European Municipalities and Regions in the and Râşnov. working groups on environment, energy and employment policy.

AMB ensures the harmonisation of local development plans with Organisational Structure the strategic development plan of the Braşov Metropolitan Area. The organisation has a staff of 19 employees and works on a con- - Creates the Development Strategy Plan for the Braşov Metro- tractual basis with 12 community representatives (one person politan Area according to the national plan for spatial and regio- appointed by the mayor from each member community). nal sustainable development. The association has a Steering Board of the mayors of the 12 - Completes project applications and submits them to different member communities, that meets once per year and at any other funding sources: the European Commission, Structural Funds, the time it is necessary. The executive body is organised into a ma- Romanian Government, banking institutions for loans and grants. nagement team and 4 departments.

- Develops action plans, supports their implementation as well as the initiatives and activities aimed at the economic recovery/re- conversion and urban/community regeneration through development of industrial areas/parks and centres for innovative industry in harmony with healthy community principles.

- Provides technical assistance and consulting to the local communities in support of local/regional development, to implement capital investment projects and to diversify and reorient the business environment and the community’s economic profiles towards meeting the community’s concrete needs and expectations in accordance with the national/European strategies on Logo of Brasov metropolitan area sustainable development.

- Provides training in public management, sustainable develo- Integrated Urban Development Plan (IUDP) pment policies and their implementation, citizen participation, The AMB has drawn up the Integrated Urban Development Plan organisational development. (IUDP) which, in addition to an analysis of the economic, social, and educational environments, includes a list of develop- - Works in collaboration with local governments and with the ment projects, specific to each locality. The IUPD is implemented business environment to help communities appropriately imple- through a series of individual projects, in order to achieve sustai- ment legislation concerning sustainable development, environ- nable and integrated urban development. mental protection and preservation and professional public administration. The IUDP is a document for development planning, a subsidiary to the development strategy of the metropolitan area of Brasov, - Cooperates with European institutions and organisations in or- which correlates sector policies (economic, social, environmental, der to promote and implement European laws, procedures and transportation) with territorial policy. policies in the communities of Romania. The strategic objectives of the IUPD are: Sustainable tourism - Develops public policies on communication, transparency and development; Sustainable and competitive development of the accountability of local governments. economy of Braşov; Sustainable development of transport and communications; and Sustainable Development of Energy. We need IUPD:

23 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

- As a planning tool for future integrated development of metro- All projects submitted by local authorities to the AMB are analy- politan areas. sed in order to ensure that all of the projects in the metropolitan area of Brasov are designed to lead to well-balanced develop- - To ensure balanced and coordinated development across the ment in the area. centre of Brasov City, its outskirts and the surrounding areas. As in the rest of the country, the metropolitan area of Brasov also - For a correlation of actions to attract funding from various faces the challenge of poor road infrastructure. As a consequen- sources in order to carry out projects. (EU funds, government ce, projects relating to this issue are a priority in the IUDP. For funds, private, etc.) Săcele, they represent 50% of all proposed projects, the rest of them being projects relating to social, economical, and tourism Of course, as a member of the AMB, Săcele initiated a series of issues. By centralising all of the problems, the AMB provides a projects that have received the approval of the vast majority of selection of what each locality of the metropolitan area of Brasov Local Councils. The municipality, backed by AMB support, initia - needs. The AMB’s role as a coordinator is essential. ted steps to promote these projects that are integrated within the whole metropolitan area development: i.e., the construction Organisational issues at regional and national level of two roads linking the towns of Săcele and Brasov, which will create shorter distances for transportation and free up traffic at As far as public-private partnerships are concerned, there is no some intersections in Săcele. legislation as yet. For the moment, the public-private experiences have produced results far below expectations. They were ba- In order to achieve a uniform infrastructure for water and sewage sed on a procedure accepted by both parties, but with reduced networks that meets European standards, and to be able to ac- functionality. cess European funds, the AMB has created an operator that manages water and sewage systems in the metropolitan areas. As far as metropolitan areas are concerned, the existing law is quite vague. There is no comprehensive and consistent approach Between Săcele and the AMB there is a relationship of collabo- at national level, but there are examples of good practice fo- ration; however, the final decision regarding development at mu- llowing initiatives at the local / regional level such as the Federa- nicipal level falls entirely to the city of Săcele. The AMB supports tion of Metropolitan Areas and Urban Agglomeration of Romania projects through expert advice and creates the links between the (FMAUAR). There is currently a white paper on organization and city and other forums which we must address in order to imple- operation of metropolitan areas due to be debated in the Cham- ment our projects. ber of Deputies.

24 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

SALFORD (UK) The Governance of Planning: spatiality and transformation

_ URBAN AND MR. DEREK ANTROBUS, Lead Member for 02 Planning, Salford City Council. METROPOLITAN As far as urban planning is concerned, I have noted two major GOVERNANCE IN changes in urban planning over the past two decades, particularly in terms of “spatiality” and “transformation”. We should no longer think about cities as containers in which we develop new NeT-TOPIC CITIES uses and simply wait for real estate developers to fill in these areas: this is not the issue here.

Let’s talk about spatiality. Cities are today an area of flows, with blurred limits or boundaries. What is important in terms of cities is not what they contain, but rather how their contents create connections towards other places: the fluxes of ideas, of people, as well as of resources that enter and exit the city. In order to manage all these different flows and these various connection points, it is necessary to develop various forms of governance at different levels from the global to the local, i.e., governance at different scales. Modern urban planning should enable people to orchestrate these flows, whether they are investments from multinationals or whether they are something more down to earth.

Urban planning is also about transformation. Today it is not just about controlling developments, but about the need to become an entrepreneur. The transition from social democracy (Keynes) towards a new liberal paradigm (that emerged in the 1990s) con- tinues to dominate today’s landscape. Urban planning today demands that we take action out in the field for the benefit of our citizens. So I’m going demonstrate this by giving you a case study of Greater Manchester. Before that, let’s take a look at some of the background elements.

Today, there are two key issues: globalisation and new technologies. These two factors have strongly influenced the need to create new forms of governance in cities. We can no longer simply think in terms of urban cores surrounded by a hinterland of peripheral cities. Saskia Sassen talked about “decentralised centres”. These are centres beyond the core centre. In fact, the dein-

25 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

dustrialisation phenomenon in the western world left industrial Let’s take a look at some examples of governance in different wastelands that needed to be regenerated. In parallel with this, fi elds: new technologies mean that information services no longer need to be located within the core or the centre, so there is a disper- Mineral and waste management: the law requires that we sion to new “decentred centres” such as dockland redevelopment. design these plans in order to manage mineral and waste and control excavations. The ten authorities designed a single, sha- However, apart from the economic factors, we also have to take red plan. The logic underpinning collaboration in this issue is the into account the environmental fl ows. Although environmen- following: it is just bureaucratic effectiveness. Having a single tal fl ows (e.g. water fl ows) have always been managed across plan represents a 50% reduction in costs compared to developing boundaries, today this is more and more complex given the cu- individual plans. So here we fi nd another reason for collaborating: rrent context of climate change. All this means that cities can in these days of austerity, this fi nancial effectiveness is a very no longer be managed within their political boundaries. We need important factor. regional governance. Water management: local authorities need to generate a fl ood In 1972 the UK government passed a law to create a Council for management plan within their own region. It is obvious that Greater Manchester, the County Council of Greater Manchester. each separate local authority cannot prepare a separate fl ood Although this was a very visionary law, another law in 1986 abo- plan since each municipality receives water from the municipa- lished the municipal council, since it was considered that it might lity upstream and then passes the water on to the municipali- challenge the national government. Thus from 1986 on, the ten ty downstream. Therefore, it is the region that must lead fl ood towns that made up the County developed the Association of contingency plans. However, there is another important point: Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA). This new structure con- even though we decided to organise ourselves within the Greater tributed to the governance of Greater Manchester, although it did Manchester region for pragmatic reasons, it is a fact that local not have any legal status. However, in December 2009, an offi cial authorities outside the Greater Manchester region also give us agreement was reached between the government and the AGMA water and we also give them water. Thus, we also need to work that Greater Manchester would become a testing ground for a with other local authorities when designing contingency plans. new form of city-region governance. A proposal was put forward by the ten towns to establish the structure outlined below. An Energy fl ows: The local authorities in Greater Manchester need executive council was created which includes the ten leaders of to establish electricity plans. We want energy security and we the Greater Manchester towns (Mayors). We also created a group want to limit the fl ows and the networks entering the Greater of commissions to provide advice to those leaders on urban plan- Manchester area in order to be as little energy-dependent as pos- ning, environment, public protection, health, etc. In this way, we sible. However, the energy must be transported from the produc- created a new form of governance. tion areas to the consumption areas, so it is important to design plans based on cities and regions in order to ensure a plan for sustainable energy fl ows.

26 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

Today much of the talk revolves around the economy and urban regeneration. However, in the coming years, the greater challenges for our cities will be how they can withstand certain impacts. That is why I talked about minerals, water and electricity: our cities will need to have more than just a sound economy. We will not have a good economy unless we have energy security, or we are resistant to flooding. Environmental flows are just as important as the other economic flows that people tend to focus on.

During a recent meeting of the AGMA Planning and Housing Commission, we listened to two very interesting reports. The first report demonstrated that employment in the core area had significantly increased over the past few years while it had decreased in peripheral areas. This implies that the core is taking away em- Spatiality - core v periphery or connectivity ployment form the peripheral areas. The second report showed that although investors and employers would like to establish I would also like to talk about flexibility. There is a GBP 50 mi- themselves at the urban core of Greater Manchester, they would llion programme aimed at creating a park in the area of the River also be interested in establishing themselves in other cities such Irwell that flows between Salford, Trafford and Manchester, in as Stockport in the south and Bolton in the north. The reason was order to improve the environment and the connections between quite simple: both of those cities, as well as the urban core, are these cities and other areas. What is interesting here is that it is located on the main railway line between Scotland and London. a joint effort between three local authorities; it is not something Businesses wanted quick and easy access to a variety of loca- that has been established by just one local authority or by the tions. This is a complex issue and it certainly calls into question city or the region. Thus, it is important to keep in mind that we the whole issue of core vs. periphery: whether there is a rela- can have governance at different levels. We can create our own tionship between core and periphery or between the metropoli- levels, so that we are adaptable and can deal with different types tan area and London. It is a question of how we connect among of issues. ourselves and how we connect ourselves with areas beyond the metropolitan area.

27 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

Here is my last example. Salford quays, the former docks, were re- it successfully. Thus, we have built new institutions to increase cently successfully revitalised and regenerated and are to house our capacity. We have created the Salford Urban Regeneration the MediaCityUK (some BBC offices will be located here). When Company, a private-public partnership, which does things that we evaluated different solutions for this site, we did notlook for the city or the region cannot do since they have a private sector solutions at local level; rather we looked at media cities world- vision. We also created the Urban Vision partnership, which gives wide. There are ten media cities across the globe and we decided us a technical perspective in terms of engineering. that we wanted to join that network. We therefore took a very good look at ourselves and at them, to see what we needed to ge- Secondly, we also tried to stabilise the flows, so rather than tur- nerate that kind of growth. Our inspiration came from the global ning to real estate developers to see what schemes they develop, level and we we tried to determi- adapted it to ne whether those the local le- schemes were sus- vel, the level tainable for a five to of Salford. ten year period. We have therefore signed Certain re- about ten long-term sources will development agree- be needed to ments with partners develop the throughout the city. media city. Thus, even in the- We will have se days of crisis and to attract recession, and even funding from though many pro- worldwide perty developers are institutions, leaving certain re- as well as gions because of the- capital from se agreements, the the regional The future of MediaCityUK in Salford Quays property developers development agency. For example, the investment required in should remain in Salford. Once the economy improves, they will terms of transport comes from the transport authority, an insti- continue in the region because of those contracts. tution that reports to the city and the region. In other words, you need to find resources from different levels and different skills to The third aspect is transformation: we need to reinforce and create a media city. strengthen connections. Here I would like to mention three important connection factors in Salford: The media city is expected to create about 50,000 jobs. It is therefore a very important project for our region. We, as urban deve- - Salford University: the University needs to develop expertise, lopers, have to ensure the development of the necessary physical but its reputation also needs to extend beyond Salford. network for telecoms (very good optical fibre capacity), flood - Transportation: good local and external transportation links management (very important, since this is a riverside site), global must be ensured. and local connectivity, etc. Global connectivity is as important - Image: people’s perception is an important connection. We as local connectivity: we have to ensure that local people can need to promote the region’s creativity in order to consolidate benefit from the employment it generates and have easy access the new image of Salford. The Lowry art centre is an exceptional to this environment. Therefore, a bus network, bicycle lanes, etc. promoter of this new image. have to be provided and all of this needs to be put into place by urban planners. Finally, I would like to mention two important concepts. First of all is the need for flexibility. Governance means that you have to Finally, a few word by way of conclusion: act at different levels: between the city and the region, between different local authorities, between the city and local stakehol- Firstly, and coming back to the concept of “flows”: if you want to ders, and so on. Secondly, you need to have a pragmatic ap- manage all these flows, you need to increase your capacity to do proach and recognise that certain governance institutions are not always suitable. One has to be practical and look for suitable partners who will ensure the best results. 28 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

During the working session on the second day of the seminar, the NeT-TOPIC members contributed presentations on their different experiences, points of view and findings about urban and metropolitan governance practices.

This session was intended as a continuation of the discussions held by the NeT-TOPIC partners during the open seminar and the drafting of the so-called Position Paper.1

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

1. The need to reconsider the economic and mobility growth pattern. Change of patterns. Are we really growing?

2. Peripheries have to organise themselves as agglomerations be- _ SHARING, yond their limits. They have to become a counter power to the 03 central city. They must achieve complementarity with the core COMPARING AND city. LEARNING WITHIN THE 3. Agglomerations must achieve some sort of democratic repre - sentation. Quite often they have no elected power; no democratic NETWORK. A WORKING representation. 4. The multiplicity of governments hinders the governing of the SESSION AMONG THE entire agglomeration. NeT-TOPIC CITIES 5. From the “centre-periphery approach” we should move towards a “corridors” or “access” approach, as suggested by Jordi Borja.

6. As far as participation is concerned: the different levels of government are a hindrance to citizens: they do not know who to address.

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

8. Political legitimacy is necessary when structuring the metropolitan/local levels. Strategic plans can be a good tool.

9. Local resistance: sometimes there is an atomisation of society and “local peripheries” fear that municipal structures are actually led by the core city.

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

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

29 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

Councillor Antrobus from Salford considers that the Greater vince. Milano Metropoli helps municipalities to procure funding Manchester Area has achieved a successful model. The 10 autho- (European, national and regional) for specific projects and also rities that constitute AGMA each have one vote: Salford has works on territorial marketing. This agency is made up of the one vote, as does Manchester. All AGMA members are partners municipalities. looking at the conurbation as a whole. It is essential to see the metropolitan area as having a shared future instead of different In Italy, the reform of local authorities (law 267/2000) and the towns in competition with each other. reform of Constitution (law 3/2001), introduced a new form of local government to replace the Provinces of the largest Italian In the case of the Manchester Metro- metropolitan areas, known as a Metro- politan Area, there is an agreement politan City. The Metropolitan Cities and awareness that the core city needs are intended to coordinate local autho- to work together with nearby towns. rities and even take some metropolitan In addition to this, three of the core functions from the local authorities, such Councillors of the supra-municipal as (a) town planning, (b) infrastructure association come from the periphery, and public services, (c) traffic planning, thereby ensuring a global perspective. (d) air quality protection, (e) soil quality protection, (f) water quality protection, However, this cannot always be the (g) waste treatment and cleaning, (h) case. In the case of Sesto, for example, commercial centres, (i) cultural activities. the one city/one vote system would not be possible. These laws are still not being applied and there is a lack of governance in all Sesto San Giovanni experience the main Italian metropolitan areas with major problems in tackling issues that Sesto San Giovanni is located in the Provinces are unable to handle effecti- Milan metropolitan area, one of the vely (e.g., traffic, public transport, envi- most densely populated and highly ronmental protection, etc.). In this fra- urbanised in Europe. The Milan metro- mework, the central municipality (the city politan area touches nine Italian pro- of Milan, in the case of Sesto San Giovan- vinces (one of them in another region ni) has a dominant role in all urban and and partly in Switzerland) and 138 strategic policy-making. This is one of the municipalities. reasons why this law has not as yet been enforced. In the case of the Milan Metropolitan area the system of one municipality/one vote (as in the Greater A typical example is the EXPO 2015 project in Milan, a project Manchester area) could not be applied. Milan is much bigger and that will hopefully have a positive effect on the whole metropo- much more powerful than the municipalities surrounding it. In litan area, but is entirely managed by the municipality of Milan this regard, geographical and demographic factors are identi- and its Agency (EXPO 2015 S.p.A formed by the Ministry of the fied as key issues: Salford is as big as Manchester. Economy, the Lombardy region, the Province of Milan, the Mu- nicipality of Milan and the Chamber of Commerce), without any On a metropolitan level, there is a provincial government with possible contribution from any other metropolitan town. limited functions. As far as urban planning is concerned, the Province of Milan approved a Provincial Plan, called the Piano Another example is Milan’s traffic calming policy, which is called Territoriale di Coordinamento Provinciale (P.T.C.P.), which gives Ecopass and is a sort of Milanese version of Ken Livingstone’s general guidelines to local authorities concerning infrastructure, congestion charge in London. This charge affects all metropolitan transport and green areas. All local urban strategy plans (P.G.T.) traffic and the entire parking system, but the Municipality of Mi- must follow these guidelines from the province. lan decided on this charge without consulting other metropolitan municipalities. The Milan Province also set up a Development Agency, called Milano Metropoli, to promote economic development in the pro-

30 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

In 2007, Sesto San Giovanni and six other towns in the north res were collected to fight the merger with the neighbouring mu- of Milan (Bresso, Cinisello Balsamo, Cologno Monzese, Corma- nicipality of Santa Barbara. In the end, Haidari will not be forced no, Cusano Milanino and Paderno Dugnano) under the patronage to merge with any other municipality. of Milan Province, founded what is known as the North Milan Municipalities’ Conference, an association of municipalities We will have to wait for the implementation of the new adminis- intended to coordinate local policies concerning transport, in- trative system to see the effects. dustrial production, education and schools, town planning, environmental protection, social security and local policy, tourism, The experience of Barakaldo social housing and culture. The Conference produced the North Milan Strategy Plan, which identified common strategies, objec- In Barakaldo there are also problems resulting from the existen- tives and actions in these areas. The North Milan Strategy Plan ce of different supra-municipal levels of government: the state was used as a territorial framework in which to draw up the Ur- level, the regional level (Basque Country) and the provincial le- ban Strategy Plan of Sesto, Piano di Governo del Territorio (P.G.T.). vel. However, one key advantage is that these different levels of government only have competences in planning (supervision and Furthermore, the Municipality of Sesto San Giovanni usually guidelines) whilst actual administration 2 is carried out at muni - forms partnerships with other local municipalities on specific cipal level or by administrative bodies to which the City Council projects, such as the design and execution of a new provincial is associated. park, the creation of a commercial district, the production of a topographical database, with funding from the Milan Province In any case, the key success factor for managing the trans- and the Lombardy Region. Thus, there is clearly a shared vision formation of Barakaldo is its “consensus” process: both at and the will to cooperate among metropolitan municipalities, but institutional level and among public/private sectors. Different Milan only cooperates when it is in its own interest. “management tools” have been created to tackle the difference in interests (public/private sector, etc.). As far as civil society is concerned it must, by law, be involved in the evaluation process of provincial plans (P.T.C.P.) and urban At metropolitan level, Barakaldo forms part of the strategic plan- plans (P.G.T.). Actually, public participation simply takes the form ning and administrative bodies that are made up of the local of accessing information on public plans during the planning municipalities and other relevant stakeholders: “Bilbao Metro- process itself. The real negotiations are often between the pu- poli 30” basically carries out strategic research and “Bilbao Ría blic administration and private property developers during the 2000” exemplifies a tool developed to reach consensus in urban planning process of the largest urban regeneration projects, to operations, in order to ensure good results. They are made up of decide firstly upon uses and scale, and later on public facilities representatives from four levels of government, all the municipa- and areas. lities of Metropolitan Bilbao, the private sector and the rail and port interests. The experience of Haidari The significant transformation that Barakaldo has undergone in The situation in Greece will significantly change with the imminent recent years was made possible by good urban planning and ma- application of the so-called Kallikratis plan (Law 3852/2010). This nagement capacity, as well as the consensus achieved between plan represents a change to the administrative structure hitherto the different stakeholders involved. Agreement was possible be- based on municipalities, prefectures (depending on the munici- cause each of the stakeholders contributed something (manage- palities) and peripheral offices. With the new law, the number ment, funding, land, etc.) in order to reach a general consensus. of municipalities will be drastically reduced (some will merge). In 2 The local government of Barakaldo holds executive powers to plan and approve addition to this, funding for municipalities will also be reduced. development (e.g.: General Urban planning _PGOU). The Regional Council of Biscay has authority for the general framework of territorial town and country planning (Partial Territory Plan_PTP), for overseeing plans In the Attica region, for example, there will be one peripheral and for developing industrial policy. elected representative together with some councillors. This will The Autonomous Government of the Basque Country (Euskadi) also has the power to oversee plans within the general framework of the sector policy (Local Territo- imply a new model of municipality and a new model of the cen- rial plans: of rivers and riversides, railway network, etc.) and to reinforce industry tre/periphery relationship. and housing policies. The Spanish Government has transferred most competences on urban matters to the regions. In Barakaldo, due to the National Law on Coastlines, it has authority Almost all municipalities have rejected this merging process. In for all aspects relating to river beds affected by tides (estuaries) and for other issues around which there are discrepancies in devolved powers, such as the rai- the case of Haidari, for example, approximately 16,000 signatu- lway network.

31 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

When there is no consensus tool, the entire process can reach a ganisation of Paris. In this context, there had not been a real stalemate, making it impossible to take the project any further. mayor of Paris for years (only in the past 20 years has there been There is no imposition from a higher level that forces the par- a mayor with any real authority). In addition to this, central go- ties to take concrete action. This makes it necessary to reach a vernment has always been very suspicious of creating a single common interest among all stakeholders involved in managing Parisian authority, because it fears that this big metropolitan the urban transformation. The consensus model can be a good area could become a significant opposition force. These are some one within a good policy framework. It ensures that decisions are of the reasons why the Greater Paris has not yet been created. taken as close as possible to the stakeholders involved. Some “subgroups” (representing a small part of the metropolitan The case of L’Hospitalet is also complicated as there are 5 diffe- area) have been created to respond to this lack of metropolitan rent levels of government: municipality, county (“comarca”), pro- authority. The region wishes to control the metropolitan area but vince, region and state. At county and province level, the political neither the state nor the local level will accept this. The govern- representatives are a reflection of the municipal government. At ment has launched some important ideas on Grand“ Paris” (a highly these levels, citizens do not directly choose their representatives; competitive area) but there have been no concrete consequences they are simply a reflection of the municipal government (as far because there is no organisation able to implement them. as political parties and geographical representation are concerned), and in this framework, since Barcelona has many more citi- The municipality of Paris has even tried to create a link with the zens, Barcelona has much more power in these supra-municipal first Paris ring road (there has been some informal work). This governments. process has been very slow to date; the influence of the state is very dominant. For instance, in the case of “La Défense”, the ad- The experience of Nanterre ministrative authority is completely controlled by the State (and also by the municipality). The current situation is thus somewhat The state has a significant presence in the Paris Metropolitan complicated and there is some conflict between the state and Area. Although the regional government today holds responsibi- the regional level. For example, today there are two different lity for drawing up the metropolitan master plan (Schéma Direc- transport projects: one developed by the state and another de- teur Régional d’Ile-de-France, SDRIF), this Schéma is the referen- veloped by the region. This situation is an example of the tension ce document for area planning and for land development in the that exists in metropolitan areas between the state and the local region until 2030. When it comes to planning, the département authorities. level has very limited responsibility. At the scale of municipalities, the planning document, the Plan Local d’Urbanisme, must The experience of Kladno be “compatible” with the SDRIF. In other words, the PLU does not prevent SDRIF projects. The situation of Kladno is different to other NeT-TOPIC cities. Unlike other cities of the network, Prague and Kladno are not Today, Nanterre is in the process of building a new relationship exactly neighbouring cities (although they are very close). Never- with two other municipalities: a “Community of Communities” theless, both of them have great influence on each other. project to build an inter-municipal level with responsibilities for managing these cities. Czech law does not use the concept of “Metropolitan governance“. Legislation only provides for the creation of groups of com- Moreover, Nanterre, with five other towns around the Central Bu- munities or cooperation agreements. However, for Prague, being siness District of La Défense, is setting up a research instrument, the capital city, these possibilities are of little interest. the Syndicat d’Etudes et de Projets des Deux Seine, with the remit to look at the potential for development around La Défense and Prague and Kladno are two separate administrative units. Aside to coordinate thinking on how to plan these five towns. from its status as capital city and municipality, Prague also has the status of region. Even though Kladno is the largest city of the A final point: Nanterre also participates in Paris Metropole, Central Bohemian Region, it is only part of this region. In terms another think tank on urban planning at the heart of the metro- of regional organisation, the Czech Republic has one inconsisten- politan area. cy: the Central Bohemian Region is the only one which does not have its seat in the area of its region, but in the area of Prague. Due to the French tradition of centralism, there has always been considerable wariness when it comes to the administrative or-

32 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

Thus, Prague has more powerful instruments for fulfilling its own interests. However, coordination between Prague and Kladno is necessary for tackling certain issues.

The relationship between Prague and Kladno, therefore, is essential. They maintain long-standing, strong links. Some examples of successful projects are the Prague – Ruzyně Airport – Kladno High Speed Railway; the extension of Prague – Ruzyně Airport with new runways; the building of the Northern Prague ring road; the construction of new cycle paths; and cooperation on the creation of the regional ground plans.

However there are also examples of conflict or misunderstanding between the cities, such as the potential high speed railway. Whi- le Prague is not overly excited about the project, Kladno’s citizens support it because it would bring better traffic accessibility to Prague city centre.

The new runway at Prague-Ruzyně Airport is another controversial example. While some villages in the corridor disagree, imple- menting the project would help Kladno create new jobs at this international airport.

Apart from that, Kladno and Prague being closely linked people from each city benefit from the employment, cultural, sport and education opportunities on offer in the other city.

Citizen cooperation is strong within the city and its neighbourhood. It is, however, weaker in relation to Prague.

33 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

The discussion and exchanges focused on how different levels of the public sector (local, regional, national) share decisions beyond their own competences, because an increasing number of issues relating to urban planning and administration depend on several bodies.

The public sector and, specifically, local authorities within metropolitan areas or city regions have to develop forms of governance that are appropriate to functional and morphological city regions at a supra-municipality level. Likewise, powers should be delegated across different levels of government. (What goes where?) All of the cities in NeT-TOPIC are aware that they have to find appropriate spatial scales for specific functions relating to urban planning and public policy. 04_ MAIN FINDINGS In the case of NeT-TOPIC, the institutional networks of urban governance are particularly relevant in terms of holding the links AND CONCLUSIONS between central and peripheral cities, as well as among the various peripheral cities within a city region.

FROM THE SEMINAR As was pointed out during the working session, there is a clear need to reconsider the current economic and mobility growth pattern, because these patterns are growing beyond traditional borders. In this context, peripheries have to organise themselves as agglomerations beyond their borders. They have to become a counterforce to the core city but, at the same time, they must achieve complementarities with the core city.

All partners concluded that agglomerations must achieve some sort of democratic representation. Quite often they have no elected power; no democratic representation. Political legitimacy is necessary to structure the metropolitan / local levels.

There was consensus among the participants that the multiplicity of governments hinders the governing of the whole agglomeration. There is a clear need to govern the entire agglomeration. Likewise, it was pointed out that sometimes there is local resistance: there is an atomisation and “local peripheries” fear that municipal structures are actually led by the core city.

As Derek Antrobus of Salford pointed out during the seminar, “Ci- ties are, today, an area of flows, with blurred limits or boundaries. What it is important in terms of cities is not what they contain, but rather how their contents create connections towards other places: the fluxes of ideas, of people, as well as of resources that enter and exit the city. In order to manage all these different flows and these various connections points, it is necessary to develop various forms of governance at different levels from the global to the local, i.e., governance at different scales. Modern urban planning should enable people to orchestrate these flows, whether they are investments from multinationals or whether they are something more down to earth”.

34 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

Jordi Borja emphasised that the metropolitan city is a multi- tegy Plan, which identified common strategies, objectives and municipal city which gives rise to the need for a representati- actions in these areas. The North Milan Strategy Plan was used ve metropolitan government, with (relative) powers in all areas: as a territorial framework in which to draw up the Urban Strategy authority for town planning, housing and social policies, the Plan of Sesto, Piano di Governo del Territorio (P.G.T.). urban economy and cultural services, centralities, public safety, neighbourhood facilities and services. In Italy, the reform of local authorities (law 267/2000) and the reform of Constitution (law 3/2001), introduced a new form of The need for a metropolitan authority with legitimacy requires a local government to replace the Provinces of the largest Italian dialectic of centralisation and decentralisation, and recognition metropolitan areas, known as a Metropolitan City. The Metro- of the existing towns and historic districts. We must think of a politan Cities are intended to coordinate local authorities and space with three levels: the community (where proximity is as- even take some metropolitan functions from the local authori- sured): the agglomeration (where the planning and management ties, such as town planning, infrastructure and public services, of local affairs takes place); and the region (where major projects traffic planning, etc. are carried out). In Italy, the reform of local authorities (law n. 267/2000) and The expansion and growth of metropolitan cities is not, as it was the reform of the Constitution (law n. 3/2001), introduced a new in the past, an extension of the central city. The periphery is al- form of local government to substitute the Provinces of the bi- ready installed, it is already a city. Peripheries should therefore be ggest Italian metropolitan areas, the so-called Metropolitan City. considered territorial networks that act in an integrated manner, The Metropolitan Cities should coordinate local authorities or as a whole. Urban planning is political and is an expression of the even achieve from local authorities some metropolitan functions relationship between different forces. Metropolitan governance such as town planning, infrastructure and public services, traffic is about building the strength of the periphery: it is a project to plan, etc. These laws are still not being applied and there is a lack create a multi-municipal city. of governance in all of the main Italian metropolitan areas with major problems in tackling issues that Provinces are unable to It is not clear whether NeT-TOPIC can reach significant common handle effectively (e.g., traffic, public transport, environmental conclusions regarding new forms of metropolitan governance, protection, etc.). In this framework, the central municipality (the because local circumstances and experiences are very different, city of Milan in the case of Sesto San Giovanni) has a dominant but all of the partner cities are aware that they have a real need role in all urban and strategic policy-making. for new forms of metropolitan governance that is vital to their own local governance. In Salford, from 1986 onwards, the ten cities that formed part of the Municipal council developed the Association of Greater For example, at the metropolitan level, Barakaldo forms part of Manchester Authorities (AGMA). This new structure contributed the strategic planning and administrative bodies that are made to the governance of the Greater Manchester, although it did not up of the local municipalities and other relevant stakeholders: have any legal status. However, in December 2009, an official “Bilbao Metropoli-30” basically carries out strategic research and agreement was reached between the government and the AGMA “Bilbao Ría 2000” exemplifies a tool developed to reach consen- that Greater Manchester would become a testing ground for a sus in urban operations, in order to ensure good results. They are new form of city-region governance. Proposals were put forward made up of representatives from four levels of government, all by the ten cities to establish the new administrative structure. An the municipalities of Metropolitan Bilbao, the private sector and executive council was created, which includes the ten leaders of the rail and port interests. the Greater Manchester cities (Mayors). A group of commissions were also set up to give advice to those leaders on urban plan- In 2007, Sesto San Giovanni and six other towns in the north ning, environment, public protection, health, etc. A new form of of Milan (Bresso, Cinisello Balsamo, Cologno Monzese, Cormano, governance was thus created. Cusano Milanino and Paderno Dugnano) under the patronage of Milan Province, founded what is known as the North Milan Mu- In the case of Nanterre, the state has a significant presence in nicipalities’ Conference, an association of municipalities intended the Paris Metropolitan Area. Although the regional government to coordinate local policies concerning transport, industrial pro- today holds responsibility for drawing up the metropolitan mas- duction, education and schools, town planning, environmental ter plan (Schéma Directeur Régional d’Ile-de-France, SDRIF), this protection, social security and local policy, tourism, social hou- Schéma is the reference document for area planning and for land sing and culture. The Conference produced the North Milan Stra- development in the region until 2030. When it comes to planning,

35 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

the département level has very limited responsibility. Due to the When it comes to metropolitan governance, we need to combine French tradition of centralism, there has always been considera- local identity (that of each sub-metropolitan centre or commu- ble wariness when it comes to the administrative organisation nity) and metropolitan identity, because of the increase in fluxes of Paris. and in the mobility of the social and economic components of the metropolitan fabric. Today’s city is no longer limited by municipal Nanterre, with five other towns around the Central Business boundaries, or by the so-called metropolitan city. Today it is a District of La Defense, is setting up a research instrument, the city region, with a changeable shape, vague borders and blurred Syndicat d’Etudes et de Projets des Deux Seine, with the remit to centralities. look at the potential for development around La Défense and to coordinate thinking on how to plan these five towns. Nanterre Bearing in mind the metropolitan context of our NeT-TOPIC cities, also participates in Paris Metropole, another think tank on urban we need a “metropolitan perspective” as well as a “local perspec- planning at the heart of the metropolitan area. tive”, in the regeneration process. We have to find complementarities within the metropolitan context and we must take into These four examples show the big differences among the NeT- account the links between mobility, transport, centralities and TOPIC cities when it comes to metropolitan governance, but it urban functions. also shows a myriad of institutional initiatives for finding new ways and improving old forms of urban governance in metropo- Regarding the dilemma between autonomy and integration in litan areas. metropolitan areas, cities can each choose to be more or less integrated, but only up to a certain point, seeing as they are part The partners are aware that the lack of metropolitan public ins- of a metropolitan area. This can be an important issue common titutions in most of the NeT-TOPIC cities prevents or reduces the to all partner cities of NeT-TOPIC. potential for metropolitan governance that could take advantage of the agglomeration and tackle metropolitan conflicts among There is clear consensus among the partners that the metropo- local authorities. Perhaps metropolitan governance is one of the litan issue is a key factor when it comes to the urban identity major weaknesses when it comes to new integrated urban deve- of peripheral cities. Several NeT-TOPIC cities have made huge lopment in the metropolitan regions. efforts to reinforce the personality and the identity of their cities. However, the metropolitan functions; the so-called new ur- There is a common conclusion shared by the cities of NeT-TOPIC ban centralities, “erase” the established administrative borders. that metropolitan trajectories have changed as our societies have The mobility of people within a metropolitan area surpasses the transformed through deindustrialisation and the rise of the ser- administrative borders between municipalities. Therefore, the vice sector. These transformations have brought very important multiplication of centres within the context of the city region, changes at the territorial level. It appears necessary to seek new the new linkages between these centres, making them accessible formulae for building new metropolitan relations. for all residents and providing them with urban quality, are today a condition of citizenship and civic assets. The functional metropolitan area, the metropolitan area with a high degree of integration, and the uses and values of its metro- Peripheral cities should create and design new forms of metropo- politan spaces, is related to an interactive relationship between litan governance to develop solidarity between the peripheries of the centre and its periphery. Both decentralisation and diffusion the metropolitan area. are factors that prevent peripheral areas from becoming totally dependent on the central nucleus: there is a “transfer of centrali- It is clear that the future will consist of more cooperation at local ty” instead, which results in a more multi-polar model. The urban level but this has to be politically led. Many of the top-down ap- identity of the entire metropolitan area includes and integrates proaches led by national governments have not succeeded. Equa- several partial identities from all the localities in the area, all lly, there are problems in achieving cooperation between authori- committed to building their own uniqueness. ties when there are no incentives that can stimulate cooperation and avoid “free rider” issues, whereby a non-contributing authority benefits from the broader partnership.

36 ENHANCING NEW FORMS OF URBAN NeT·TOPIC AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE

Sometimes there is a potential contradiction between local and metropolitan strategies and some kind of tension between competition and collaboration, between the city and the region (or the metropolitan area). It is important to break the dynamics of opposition between central city and peripheral cities, trying to find new formats and new coalitions that take flows and place into account. Peripheral cities are an important part of the metropolitan city as a whole.

Where there is a lack of metropolitan democratic authority, there is no metropolitan vision. We have to be aware that territorial diversification, the building of complementarities and synergies, can only be conceived at the supra-local scale.

Metropolitan bodies have to ensure that the public budget is dis- tributed fairly across the metropolitan area, but in order to demonstrate financial capacity, the metropolitan government has to be a democratic one.

Finally, it was pointed out that the peripheral cities of metropolitan areas should be committed to having a clear strategy for becoming lead actors in their metropolitan area, with their own voice and the desire to help define the metropolitan city project.

37 URBACT PROGRAMME http://urbact.eu/

NeT·TOPIC PARTNERS:

L’HOSPITALET CITY COUNCIL http://www.l-h.cat/ NANTERRE CITY COUNCIL http://www.nanterre.fr/ SALFORD CITY COUNCIL http://www.salford.gov.uk/ HAIDARI CITY COUNCIL http://www.haidari.gr/ BARAKALDO CITY COUNCIL http://www.barakaldo.org/barakaldo/jsp/index.jsp SESTO SAN GIOVANNI CITY COUNCIL http://www.sestosg.net/ SACELE CITY COUNCIL http://www.municipiulsacele.ro/# KLADNO CITY COUNCIL http://www.mestokladno.cz/

Contact the Lead Partner: Contact the Lead Expert: [email protected] [email protected]