Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis – Geographica, Vol. 48, No. 1-2, 2019, pp. 5–24 5

CITY CONGLOMERATES IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC

1 Robert Szmytkie 1 University of Wrocław, Institute of Geography and Regional Development, Department of Human Geography, Plac Uniwersytecki 1, 50-137 Wrocław, Poland [email protected]

Abstract The main purpose of this article is to identify city conglomerates which function in the settlement system of the Czech Republic and to present their typology with reference to the characteristics of their form of settle- ment and their functional and spatial structures. This paper is comprised of two principal parts. The fi rst part discusses the issue of city conglomerates in the context of the discourse regarding polycentric urban forms, and attempts to organize the terminology applied to city conglomerates and double towns in particular. The second part raises the issue of urban incorporation within the Czech Republic, with a particular focus on the causes underlying the loss of administrative independence. Against this background, seven towns with the characteristics of double towns, i.e. city conglomerates that contain within their borders two settlements with their own urban pasts and characteristics, have been identifi ed. Four of the identifi ed double towns (Brandýs nad Labem-Stará Boleslav, Frýdek-Místek, Sedlec-Prčice and Veselí nad Lužnicí-Mezimostí nad Nežárkou) have a twin layout, in which their parts have similar functions and represent competing centres (focal centres of similar rank). The other three double towns (Bohumín, Hranice-Drahotuše, Kutná Hora-Kaňk) have a satellite (monocentric) layout with the constituent parts of varying degrees of importance, regardless of their functional type (the larger town is usually several times larger than the smaller one).

Key words: city conglomerates, double towns, polycentric urban forms, administrative changes of cities, Czech Republic.

INTRODUCTION Uhříněves and Zbraslav in 1974). However, sim- ilar processes also occurred in smaller cities such In the 20th century, several dozen towns in the as Ostrava (which incorporated Mariánské Hory, Czech Republic lost their administrative autonomy Přívoz, Slezská Ostrava, Svinov and Vítkovice), and became part of another city, usually larger, in Brno (Husovice and Královo Pole), Olomouc their vicinity. In the majority of cases, the underly- (Hodolany and Nová Ulice) and Liberec (Horní ing administrative decision was a consequence of Růžodol, Rochlice and Vratislavice nad Nisou). the spatial development of the larger “neighbour”, and triggered or intensifi ed spatial and functional Towns were also subject to changes in administra- transformations, both of which resulted in the tive boundaries as they incorporated surrounding incorporated locality becoming an integral part villages, and this sometimes involved even small (district) of the urban settlement that expanded its towns or townlets (městys). In these cases, changes borders. The highest number (16) of urban locali- were often made somewhat prematurely or without ties was incorporated into Prague, which saw rapid regard for the direction of spatial development, growth in the 20th century (Libeň in 1901, Břevnov, hence the constituent settlements rarely integrated Bubeneč, Karlín, Košíře, Královské Vinohrady, into a single, coherent urban organism and thus Nusle, Smíchov, Vršovice, Vysočany and Žižkov in the larger space remained a de facto conglomerate 1922, Modřany in 1968, Horní Počernice, Radotín, of several separate settlements. Accordingly, they

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1-2, 2019, pp. 5–24 6 City conglomerates in the Czech Republic may be considered as city conglomerates (Szmytkie METHODS 2009). The combination of the terms “city” (a set- tlement having an urban status) and “conglomerate” The fi rst stage of the research involved the iden- (a form created from the combination of varying tifi cation of city conglomerates which function parts) is an accurate representation of the nature of in the urban network of the Czech Republic. The this group of urban forms. The term “conglomer- fi rst requirement was to determine the criteria that ate” is used in geology and physical geography to distinguish city conglomerates from other spatial denote sedimentary rocks made from rock clasts forms of cities. The specifi city of conglomerate cit- cemented together by a binding material. In the case ies is expressed in the separateness of their constit- of city conglomerates, their constituents are settle- uent parts, which can be considered from different ments and the binding material is the administrative aspects (e.g. spatial, functional or as local communi- decision which contributed to their merger. ties functioning within the city), or in the preserva- tion of the individual character of settlements (now Such forms are particularly prevalent in countries that parts of the city). The distinctiveness of the units have undergone frequent territorial division changes which form city conglomerates was determined on at the local level, particularly in Germany and Poland, the basis of three basic criteria: the function of the which both have around 24 city conglomerates, e.g. settlement in special divisions (as a basic settlement Albstadt, Bitterfeld-Wolfen, Ebersbach-Neugersdorf, unit, as part of the municipality and/or the cadas- Oranienbaum-Wörlitz, Zeulenroda-Triebes in Ger- tral area), their spatial separation and the character many and Boguszów-Gorce, Czerwionka-Leszczyny, of their population changes since incorporation – Jelenia Góra, Kędzierzyn-Koźle in Poland (Szmytkie signifi cant population growth usually leads to the 2009). City conglomerates also exist in other Euro- transformation of the original spatial structure, sig- pean countries, e.g. Knokke-Heist in Belgium, Koht- nifi cant depopulation and loss of urban character la-Järve in Estonia, Charleville-Mézières in France and (see Szmytkie 2009). Vysoké Tatry in Slovakia. In the Czech Republic, most of the 592 urban localities have incorporated some The second stage of the research covered the typo- basic settlement units (základní sídelní jednotka) with logy of identifi ed city conglomerates in relation to a rural character within their borders. However, only the character of the settlement form and functional a few incorporated settlements have an urban past. structure. The character of the settlement form was determined on the basis of the proportional size of The main purpose of this article is to identify city con- former towns included in particular city conglom- glomerates which function in the Czech Republic’s erates (expressed in terms of the population) and settlement system, and to present their typology with their hierarchy in the settlement system, in reference reference to the character of their settlement form, to the territorial division units which function in the as well as their functional and spatial structures. This Czech Republic. On this basis, units are divided paper is comprised of two principal parts. The fi rst into three hierarchical categories: municipality with part discusses the issue of city conglomerates in the extended powers (obec s rozšířenou působností – context of the discourse regarding polycentric urban obec III. stupně), municipality with an authorized forms and attempts to organize the terminology municipal authority (obec s pověřeným obecním applied in respect of city conglomerates, in particular úřadem – obec II. stupně) and municipality (obec – double towns, used in the literature. The second part obec I. stupně). To determine the functional types raises the issue of urban incorporation/integration of settlements, the method proposed by Jerczyński processes in the Czech Republic, with a particular (1977) was used. According to this method, which is focus on the causes underlying the loss of admin- based on the analysis of the Ossan triangle in order istrative autonomy. Against this background, seven to present the proportions of employment in three towns with the characteristics of double towns, i.e. main sectors of the economy (agriculture, industry city conglomerates containing two urban settlements and services), 10 functional types of settlement can within their borders, have been identifi ed. be distinguished.

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1-2, 2019, pp. 5–24 City conglomerates in the Czech Republic 7

This paper uses the available cartographic materials (relative to a baseline region) interaction between Geoportál ČÚZK (ČÚZK 2010) and statistical data them and each having a specialized economic published by the Czech Statistical Offi ce (CZSO structure. 2014; Růžková and Škrabal et al. 2006). Champion (2001:664) suggests that there are three THEORETICAL BACKGROUND basic defi nitions for a polycentric urban region, varying in how restrictive they are: Because of the nature of city conglomerates (which are urban settlements containing two or more locali- • a collection of settlements in a region (least ties with their own urban past), they should be treated restrictive); as polycentric urban forms. Polycentricity may be con- • as above, but with some interaction between sidered on different scales of reference. Hall (2009) settlements; distinguishes four levels on the polycentricity scale: • as above, but each centre has a specialist func- intra-urban or local scale, regional scale, national scale tion within the region (most restrictive). and continental scale. In turn, Davoudi (2003) divides polycentric forms into: intra-urban scale, regional According to Green (2007:2081), the most precise scale, inter-urban scale and inter-regional scale. Cham- defi nition of polycentricity within a polycentric pion (2001), in respect of polycentric metropolitan urban system is that offered by Spiekermann and areas, proposed the following scale: micro (individual Wegener (2004), who developed a formal defi nition metropolitan area), meso (polynucleated metropol- of polycentricity based on the rank-size distribu- itan region) and macro (polynucleated urban fi eld). tion of settlements in an urban system. They sug- With reference to the above typologies, city con- gest that polycentricity can be measured and that glomerates should be classifi ed as polycentric forms four basic requirements be met: (1) in a polycentric in the intra-urban scale (Davoudi 2003; Hall 2009). urban system, there is a distribution of large and However, in most papers, the notion of polycentricity small cities; (2) in a polycentric urban system, the is considered in the context of polycentric agglom- rank-size distribution is log-linear; (3) the fl at rank- erations (conurbations) or polycentric metropolitan size distribution is more polycentric than a steep areas (e.g. Annas et al. 1998; Champion 2001; Kloost- one; and (4) the polycentric urban system is not erman and Musterd 2001; Parr 2004; Meijers 2005; dominated by one large city. Hall and Pain 2006; Green 2007). The polycentricity of city conglomerates is chiefl y Kloosterman and Musterd (2001:623) note that manifested in their spatial structure. This is because “polycentricity can, in principle, refer to any clus- the specifi city of city conglomerates is expressed by tering of human activity”. They offer a list of several aspects. These settlements: (1) were created characteristics, summarized here, that a polycen- as a result of the administrative merger of around a tric urban confi guration can be assumed to possess dozen hitherto separate localities, including at least (Kloosterman and Musterd 2001:628): a number of two with an urban character; (2) are characterized historically distinct cities, no obvious leading city, a by incoherent spatial structures in terms of conti- small number of larger cities of similar size to one nuity of development (incoherent spatial character), another (together with a greater number of smaller as well as diverse development and planning; (3) towns), constituent cities located relatively close to comprise loosely connected and distinctly separate one another (within maximum commuting distance settlements (localities) and not integrated districts suggested), and constituent cities that are spatially (integral parts of the city); (4) usually do not have a and politically distinct from one another. distinct centre, or the individual parts have their own central locations and, accordingly, are polycentric Parr (2004) defi nes the polycentric urban region as settlements; (5) are characterized by signifi cant func- a cluster of discrete similarly sized settlements, sep- tional variations in settlements. This is attributable to arated by open tracts of land, with above-average the combination of settlements of various functions

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1-2, 2019, pp. 5–24 8 City conglomerates in the Czech Republic

Figure 1 Typology of double towns with reference to settlement form character. Author’s processing. and origin. However, the individual constituent parts quasi-urban units) within their administrative should not be treated as functional districts, rather as boundaries and other (rural) settlements; units with separate functions; and (6) have an exten- • multiple towns comprising at least three towns sive surface area (relative to their rather small pop- and other (rural) settlements. ulation), which is largely occupied by undeveloped space, separating the individual parts of the city. In terms of an urban spatial structure, the prevailing view is that structural complexity depends on size In the case of city conglomerates, the settlement (Koter 1994). Towns are usually treated as simple or, at form is affected by the number of constituent best, complex forms, whereas large cities are consid- elements (settlements), their morphogenesis and ered to be compound-complex forms. The complexity intra-urban hierarchical structure. This structure is of large cities is a consequence of their natural spatial attributable to the level of localities in the settle- development, which occurs as a result of the amalga- ment system (prior to their merger), size propor- mation of consecutive neighbouring localities. It ref- tions and relations between constituent elements erences the 19th century urban development model of the city (Szmytkie 2009). With reference to the proposed by Lawton (Daniel and Hopkinson 1996) type of settlement form, city conglomerates may be and Conzen’s fringe-belt concept (Whitehand 1988). divided into several primary groups (Figure 1): Champion (2001)1 considers the origin of polycentric forms from a much broader perspective as he distin- • double towns in a literal meaning (sensu stricto), guishes three paths for their development (Figure 2). created as a result of the administrative merger 1 of two urban settlements or quasi-urban units; Though Champion’s paper relates to the origin of polycentric metropolitan areas, the typology he proposed corresponds well • double towns in a broader context (sensu with the origin of polycentric urban forms in general and thus largo), containing two urban settlements (or also city conglomerates.

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1-2, 2019, pp. 5–24 City conglomerates in the Czech Republic 9

Figure 2 Development paths of polycentric urban regions according to Champion (2001).

The centrifugal mode (urban development based This approach to urban spatial complexity does not on centrifugal forces, by creating new sub-centres fully account for the nature of city conglomerates. in historical surroundings) applies to large cities, Such localities are created or developed as a result which have assimilated sub-urban areas (a manifes- of changes to administrative boundaries. With the tation of natural urban development). The incorpo- incorporation of surrounding localities, the result- ration mode (growth through gradual incorporation ing city or town becomes a conglomerate of set- of neighbouring areas into the main urban core) tlements which were hitherto separate. In the case applies to the incorporation of small towns into the of large urban centres, this is a transitional state as boundaries of larger cities (which creates mono- the incorporated localities gradually become inte- centric conglomerates). The fusion mode (growth gral parts (districts) of the city. In the case of small through gradual fusion of the spatial structure of or mid-sized urban settlements, a change in admin- the individual constituent parts, without a distinct istrative boundaries is usually attributable to their core or through axial spatial development, resulting spatial development, resulting in urban localities in the gradual spatial fusion of neighbouring local- with incoherent spatial structures (city conglom- ities) applies to the integration processes of urban erates). In reality, these settlements comprise sev- settlements of similar size or rank (which leads to eral de facto separate localities, linked only by their the creation of polycentric conglomerates). administrative boundaries.

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1-2, 2019, pp. 5–24 10 City conglomerates in the Czech Republic

TERMINOLOGY RELATED TO CITY the literature, the term “Doppelzentrum” (or “Dop- CONGLOMERATES pelstadt”) is also used. This term is generally used to denote a bicentral system, in which the constitu- There is a certain degree of terminological chaos in ent urban centres retain their administrative auton- the literature dealing with the issue of city conglom- omy (i.e. are de facto bicentric agglomerations). One erates and this needs organizing in the course of fur- example is Berlin-Cölln which existed in the Middle ther deliberations. First, terms describing this group Ages (Ribbe and Schmädeke 1994; Vahldiek 2005). of urban settlements are extremely rare in literature Moreover, the term “doppelzentrum” (or “doppel- and their understanding varies. Second, city con- stadt”) is also used with respect to de facto double glomerates are referred to using various terms which towns (Knittler 1971; König 1992; Nolde 2010) and are also used to defi ne other settlement forms. The border towns (Gude et al. 2002; Gessler and Koniec- term city conglomerate to some extent lends order to zny 2004; Kube et al. 2006; Weiske et al. 2008), while the terminological chaos associated with the naming urban settlements divided by a state border are also convention of this group of urban settlements, as it referred to as “Zwillingsstädte” (Schultz 2004). fairly accurately characterizes the nature and origin of city conglomerates. Although in the English lan- The term “Doppelstadt” references the English guage the term “united city” is in use, and in terms term “twin city”. In English-language literature it of meaning this corresponds to the nature of city is, however, also used to refer to other urban spatial conglomerates, nevertheless, it is used irrespective forms or relation between urban localities, e.g. in of the degree of spatial cohesion of the city. Typ- relation to: ically, the term “united city” (or “reunited city”) is used in the context of consolidated cities, which over • de facto double towns, e.g. in the Encyclope- a certain period functioned as two separate urban dia Britannica Charleville-Mézières, France, centres divided by a state border (a so-called divided founded in 1966 from the unifi cation of Char- city). This issue is described using the examples of leville and Mézières, is referred to as “twin Berlin (e.g. Becker-Cantarino 1996; Desyllas 1997; towns” (in the same publication, the same Cochrane and Jonas 1999; Verheyen 2010), Jerusa- term is also used in reference to urban centres lem (e.g. Romann 1989; Nakhleh 1993; Safdie 2002; situated close to one another, i.e. agglomer- Newman 2006) and Nicosia (Papapolyviou and Ken- ated forms such as Corowa and Wahgunyah, tas 2015). In this context, the work of Cho (2011) Australia, lying on the opposite banks of the on the spatial structure of United Changwon City Murray River, and the Minneapolis-St. Paul is particularly interesting. The city was established conurbation in the United States of America, in 2010 through the merger of three different cities: forming the “twin cities” metropolitan area); Changwon, Mesan and Jinhae, and is therefore a typ- • two urban centres making up one urban sys- ical example of a city conglomerate. tem, particularly the agglomeration referred to as the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area in Minne- In Germany, following a reduction in the number of sota; a metropolitan area with the cities of Min- territorial units at the local level, the term “Städtefu- neapolis and St. Paul as its centre (e.g. Borchert sion”, meaning fusion of towns (or municipalities), 1961; Galaskiewicz 1997; Brezonik and Stadel- became very popular (in a broader sense the term mann 2002; Yuan et al. 2005); “Gemeindefusion” is also used). The term “Städte- • border towns (e.g. Kearney and Knopp 1995; fusion” in a literal sense also relates to the process Matthiesen and Bürkner 2001; Jańczak 2011), of merging urban localities, as well as urban settle- which are also referred to as double towns ments merged administratively (e.g. Reuber 1999; (Joenniemi and Sergunin 2013) or divided Reiher 2008; Nolde 2010; Hesse 2013). This term towns (Lundén 2007; Jańczak 2009; Dołzbłasz has been used, among others, in relation to double and Raczyk 2012)2; towns: Leinefelde-Worbis (Schröder and Sinning 2 A discussion on the terminology used in reference to border 2007) and Böblingen-Sindelfi ngen (Nolde 2010). In towns is presented by, among others, Buursink (2001).

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1-2, 2019, pp. 5–24 City conglomerates in the Czech Republic 11

• twin towns, i.e. two towns (located in two dif- The terms double towns (“miasta podwójne”) and ferent countries) which signed a partnership multiple towns (“miasta wielokrotne”) were also agreement (e.g. Lundén 2004; Zelinsky 2010; used by Słoń (2011) in his monograph describing Anishenko and Sergunin 2012)3. the phenomenon of the location of new towns near those that existed in medieval Europe. Such urban The last two terms mentioned above are most often localities are typically referred to as new (second or used in Polish-language literature to explain the term subsequent) towns. “twin towns” (“miasta bliźniacze”) (Brzozowska 1998; Kostrubiec and Łoboda 2002; Hałas and In the Czech language, double towns are also Porawski 2003; Nowak 2008; Drobek and Dawide- referred to as “dvojměstí”. This term refers to two jt-Jastrzębska 2011; Szalbot 2011; Jańczak 2013), towns of comparable size situated close to each which is mainly attributable to the somewhat inac- other which usually have varying complementary curate literal translation of the term from English. functions. Sometimes they may also form one city, In Poland, double towns (“miasta podwójne”) were i.e. a double town. Interestingly, in the literature this also referred to as: term is used exclusively to denote double towns with a twin layout, such as Brandýs nad Labem- a) twin towns (“miasta bliźniacze”) or twinned Stará Boleslav (Jacura et al. 2007; Kolářová 2013), towns (“miasta zbliźnione”) (Dziewoński 1962). Sedlec-Prčice (Sedláček 2011) and Frýdek-Místek Their formation is associated with the existence (Beskidová 2006). The term “dvojměstí” is also of a border which is diffi cult to cross (natural used with respect to bicentral agglomerated layouts, or artifi cial). A twinned system can also arise as for example: Liberec and Jablonec nad Nisou, Česká a result of the construction of a large indus- Třebová and Ústí nad Orlicí, Choceň and Vysoké trial plant within easy reach of an existing urban Mýto (Osman et al. 2016), Pardubice and Hradec settlement and the subsequent emergence of a Králové (Musil and Müller 2008), and towns sepa- new town associated with the plant. rated by a state border, such as: Cieszyn and Český b) twin towns (“miasta bliźniacze”) or double Těšín (Kotra 2012; Matoušek 2013), and Gubin and towns (“miasta podwójne”) (Szmytkie 2009) Guben (Kašpar 2014). that are the result of an administrative merger between two settlements with urban pasts which ADMINISTRATIVELY MERGED TOWNS are similar in size and rank. The towns are sepa- IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC rated by a border which is diffi cult to cross and which prevents their full integration. Twin towns The formation of city conglomerates occurs in two can also be composed of a specialized district main stages. The fi rst involves the formation of a (housing a large industrial plant) with a commer- cluster of towns (i.e. an urban agglomeration) and cial and residential district in the vicinity. the second sees the formal merger of the towns c) local-scale bipolar systems (“układy bipolarne into one urban organism. The fi rst urban clusters o skali lokalnej”) (Jakubowicz and Ciok 2003) emerged in the Middle Ages (Słoń 2011; Krzysztofi k are usually formed by two small towns located 2014) but did not become commonplace until the along rivers, traffi c routes or strips of technical 19th and 20th centuries, along with the progression infrastructure. Their low potential is compen- of urbanization. A close coexistence between towns sated for by the towns’ proximity to each other. was conducive to the urban unifi cation processes Sometimes urban settlements are so close that which accelerated at the end of the 19th century, and they are merged into one organism (one urban became widespread in the 20th century. Evidence settlement). of the relationships between merged towns may be found, for example, in the manner of their merger. Integration (equal merger) demonstrates equality 3 The terms “sister cities” is also used to refer to this form of cooperation (cf., among others, Ramasamy and Cremer 1998; between the merged settlements, while incorpora- Cremer et al. 2001; Zelinsky 2010). tion indicates the dominance of one town over the

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1-2, 2019, pp. 5–24 12 City conglomerates in the Czech Republic

Table 1 Czech towns which lost their administrative autonomy after 1950 and became integral districts of urban centres which incorporated them. Source: Růžková and Škrabal et al. (2006). Author’s processing.

Year of Population of the town Population Incorporated Incorporated town gain of an incorporation before increase/ into the city 2011 urban status into other city incorporation decrease

Boletice nad Labem 1964 1981 Děčín 2,744 4,683 +70.7% Březové Hory 1896 1953 Příbram 2,322 12,561 +441.0% Horní Počernice 1969 1974 Praha 9,043 15,262 +68.8% Modřany 1963 1968 Praha 10,004 30,703 +206.9% Neštěmice 1970 1986 Ústí nad Labem 4,905 9,979 +103.4% Radotín 1967 1974 Praha 6,813 8,486 +24.6% Stará Role 1926 1976 Karlovy Vary 7,018 8,096 +15.4% Svinov 1936 1957 Ostrava 4,722 4,301 −8.9% Švermov 1968 1980 Kladno 4,936 4,854 −1.7% Uhříněves 1913 1974 Praha 4,544 7,805 +71.8% Vratislavice nad Nisou 1960 1980 Liberec 5,683 8,109 +42.7% Zbraslav 1967 1974 Praha 5,687 9,523 +67.5% other (the incorporation of one town within the Pole (parts of Brno); Podmokly (part of Děčín); boundaries of the other). The integration and incor- Kukleny and Pražské Předměstí (parts of Hradec poration processes are found not only in towns, but Králové); Josefov (part of Jaroměř); Rybáře (part of also in degraded towns (that is localities stripped Karlovy Vary); Fryštát (part of Karviná); Kročehlavy of their urban status) or quasi-urban settlements, (part of Kladno); Horní Růžodol and Rochlice (parts such as townlets in the Czech Republic (“městys”), of Liberec); Kateřinky (part of Opava); Mariánské Germany (“Städchen”) and Lithuania (“miestelis”), Hory, Přívoz, Slezská Ostrava and Vítkovice (parts of market towns (“Marktgemeinde”) in Austria and Ostrava); Nové Strakonice (part of Strakonice); Šum- Switzerland and urban-type settlements (“osiedla burk (part of Tanvald); Šanov and Trnovany (parts miejskie”) in Poland (Szmytkie 2003). Changes (e.g. of Teplice) and Střekov (part of Ústí nad Labem). formal and legal degradation) could also occur in respect of the status of the urban organism follow- It is worth noting the degree of dependency of ing a merger (Kantor-Pietraga et al. 2015). incorporated settlements on the incorporating urban centres. Most gained their urban status In the Czech Republic 70 identifi able towns are now shortly before incorporation and their urbaniza- part of another urban settlement. Over time, most tion was initiated by and followed on from the of them have become an integral part (district) of growth of their larger neighbour. Incorporation the town or city which incorporated them. This is was therefore a frequent confi rmation of the particularly true for towns which lost their admin- actual functional and spatial relationships between istrative autonomy before 1950, i.e.: Vyšehrad, a city and other urban localities in its vicinity. In Libeň, Karlín, Vysočany, Břevnov, Bubeneč, Košíře, many cases, due to long-standing coexistence, as Smíchov, Nusle, Vršovice, Královské Vinohraddy well as far-reaching functional and spatial transfor- and Žižkov (parts of Prague); Husovice and Královo mations, integration is currently so advanced that

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1-2, 2019, pp. 5–24 City conglomerates in the Czech Republic 13

Figure 3 Changes in the population of the Czech towns which lost administrative autonomy as a result of depopulation. Source: Růžková and Škrabal et al. (2006). Author’s processing. it is diffi cult to discern explicit boundaries of the (Figure 3). This group includes settlements (Table 2): former settlements, and their inhabitants consider Buškovice (part of Podbořany), Hory Matky Boží themselves part of the community of “the big (part of the Velhartice municipality), Hůrky (part of city” (cf. Szmytkie 2009). A similar situation has Nové Bystřice), Michalovy Hory (part of Chodová also occurred in other urban settlements which Planá), Rabštejn nad Střelou (part of Manětín) and were located near a larger neighbour (Table 1) Stříbrné Hory (part of Nalžovské Hory). Due to the and lost their administrative autonomy after 1950. signifi cant depopulation and loss of basic functions, Incorporation into the boundaries of a larger city these localities largely lost their urban character contributed to a sharp rise in the number of inhab- and became de facto degraded towns in terms of itants (with the exception of Švermov and Svinov) socio-economic development. and to substantial functional and spatial changes, all of which rapidly transformed them into urban Urban settlements that no longer exist (demolished districts and caused them to lose their individual or abandoned after World War II) are a separate character. As a result of the blurring of the initial group of incorporated towns. At the time of their intra-urban structures, the urban spatial structure disappearance or abandonment they became part of became unifi ed. Accordingly, it is diffi cult to defi ne other administrative units (towns or cities) and func- them as city conglomerates, but rather as adminis- tioned as cadastral areas. This group is comprised of trative conglomerates. seven towns (Table 3), four of which (Dolní Jiřetín, Ervěnice, Kopisty and Kralupy u Chomutova) have The second group of incorporated urban settle- been demolished due to mining work (brown coal ments is comprised of historical, largely depopu- strip mines were established in their place), two of lated towns which lost their administrative autonomy which (Doupov and Čistá) became military training following gradual post-war depopulation processes grounds, while Přísečnice was replaced by a reservoir

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1-2, 2019, pp. 5–24 14 City conglomerates in the Czech Republic

Table 2 Towns in the Czech Republic which lost administrative autonomy as a result of depopulation. Source: Růžková and Škrabal et al. (2006). Author’s processing.

Year of Area Population Physiognomy Town gain of an incorporation into [km²] (2011) ratio urban status other municipality

Buškovice 1535 1981 8.80 389 1.2

Hory Matky Boží 1522 1980 1.06 101 1.1

Hůrky 1637 1985 2.29 163 2.0

Michalovy Hory 1660 1980 1.82 79 1.1

Rabštejn nad Střelou 1337 1980 8.91 25 1.3

Stříbrné Hory 1853 1952 8.78 195 1.1

Note: the physiognomy ratio is calculated as the ratio of the number of apartments to the number of residential buildings (Szmytkie 2015).

Table 3 Extinct towns being a part of other administrative units. Source: Růžková and Škrabal et al. (2006). Author’s processing. Year of Currently Former town gain of an Cause of the extinction extinction administrative part of urban status

demolished as a protective zone Horní Jiřetín Dolní Jiřetín 1862 1980–1983 for chemical plants and as a result (town) of progressing mining work

demolished, became a part of Hradiště Doupov 1421 1953 military training area (military training area)

Most (city); until 1988 Ervěnice 1515 1959–1960 extraction of lignite Komořany (municipality)

Kopisty 1911 1974–1979 extraction of lignite Most (city)

Málkov Kralupy u Chomutova 1548 1976 extraction of lignite (municipality)

became a part of military proving Rovná Čistá 1550 1949 ground (municipality)

demolished due to construction Kryštofovy Hamry Přísečnice 1546 1973–1974 of Přísečnice water reservoir (municipality)

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1-2, 2019, pp. 5–24 City conglomerates in the Czech Republic 15

Table 4 Settlements comprising of double towns in the Czech Republic. Source: CZSO (2014). Author’s processing.

Population No. of basic No. of Area Population No. of Double town density settlement cadastral [km²] (2011) parts [inh./km²] units areas

Bohumín 28.9 21,649 749 25 7 7

Brandýs nad Labem-Stará Boleslav 22.7 17,537 774 22 3 3

Frýdek-Místek 51.6 56,356 1,092 37 7 7

Hranice 49.8 18,397 369 31 9 8

Kutná Hora 33.1 20,497 620 47 12 7

Sedlec-Prčice 64.1 2,904 45 29 36 15

Veselí nad Lužnicí 29.6 6,386 216 8 3 2

on the Přísečnický potok (river). Between 1947 and DOUBLE TOWNS IN THE CZECH 1991, the town of Kuřivody was part of the Ral- REPUBLIC sko military area. While Soviet troops were stationed in the area the town was unoccupied. After 1991, Double towns are urban centres which have resulted Kuřivody become part of a municipality and since from the administrative merger of two urban locali- 2006 it has been part of the town of Ralsko. ties. The specifi city of double towns is expressed in their spatial structure, comprising the administrative Against this background, seven towns stand out. boundaries of two formerly separate settlements They have the features of double towns, i.e. city with urban origins, formally merged into one urban conglomerates comprising two units with an urban organism (Szmytkie 2016). In the literal sense, dou- past. These towns are: ble towns are towns comprised of two constituent elements with urban origins (sensu stricto double • Bohumín, established in 1973 with the merger towns). More generally, double towns may consist of Starý Bohumín and Nový Bohumín; of a greater number of constituent parts, two of • Brandýs nad Labem-Stará Boleslav, established which are settlements with an urban origin (sensu in 1960 with the merger of Brandýs nad Labem largo double towns). The factor which determines and Stará Boleslav; the nature of the spatial structure of double towns • Frýdek-Místek, established in 1947 with the is the coexistence of two urban localities merged merger of Frýdek and Místek; administratively into one urban organism. Each • Hranice, which incorporated Drahotuše in of the analyzed urban settlements in the Czech 1976; Republic contains within its boundaries more than • Kutná Hora, which incorporated Kaňk in 1950; two settlements (Table 4), consequently they can be • Sedlec-Prčice, established in 1958 with the classifi ed as sensu largo double towns. Of particular merger of the town of Sedlec and Prčice interest in this context is the case of Sedlec-Prčice, municipality; which has within its boundaries the town of Sedlec • Veselí nad Lužnicí, which incorporated Mezi- and the townlet of Prčice, as well as 34 villages and mostí nad Nežárkou in 1946. hamlets.

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1-2, 2019, pp. 5–24 16 City conglomerates in the Czech Republic

Figure 4 Changes in the population of double towns in the Czech Republic. Source: Růžková and Škrabal et al. (2006). Author’s processing.

In the case of double towns, the form of the set- In this regard, Brandýs nad Labem-Stará Bole- tlement is also affected by the hierarchical arrange- slav, Frýdek-Místek, Sedlec-Prčice and Veselí nad ments between the constituent parts of the merged Lužnicí-Mezimostí nad Nežárkou have the layout town, especially the relationship between their size of twin towns (the size ratio in their cases ranges and rank (Szmytkie 2009). This allows us to dis- between 1.3 and 2.3), while Bohumín, Hranice-Dra- tinguish between double towns with a twin layout hotuše, Kutná Hora-Kaňk have the satellite (mono- where there are two towns of similar size and rank, centric) layout (the size ratio in their case ranges and double towns with a satellite layout where one between 8.9 and 22.0). This is refl ected in the cur- of the towns is signifi cantly larger than the other. rent names of the towns. The names of double

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1-2, 2019, pp. 5–24 City conglomerates in the Czech Republic 17

Figure 5 Pattern of the formation of double towns with a twin layout. Author’s processing. towns with a twin layout incorporate the names 1. The fi rst stage saw the creation of a cluster made of both constituent towns (with the exception up of two towns separated by a natural obsta- of Veselí nad Lužnicí), and the names of double cle, a river. Accordingly, the towns may be con- towns with a satellite layout have the name of the sidered as twin “gateway cities” (cf. Burghardt larger urban centre. Moreover, in the case of dou- 1971; Bird 2013; Krzysztofi k 2004, 2014). Such ble towns with a satellite layout, the disproportion a system begins at the infrastructural intersec- between the incorporating town and the incorpo- tion of the obstacle by a transport corridor rated town has only become more pronounced (Krzysztofi k 2014), such as a convenient river since incorporation. crossing. The borders between the following towns were formed by rivers: the Elbe sepa- Another issue is the variability of the hierarchi- rating Brandýs nad Labem and Stará Boleslav, cal system within the town. Usually this system is the Ostravice separating Frýdek and Místek. permanent, with only the size ratio between towns There is also the confl uence of the Lužnice and changing (Figure 4). The cases of Frýdek-Místek and Nežárka rivers in the case of Veselí nad Lužnicí Veselí nad Lužnicí-Mezimostí nad Nežárkou indi- and Mezimostí nad Nežárkou and the Sedlecký cate the existence of competition between towns, potok valley separating Sedlec and Prčice. in which any advantage gained is only temporary. 2. In the second stage, neighbouring towns were For Veselí Lužnicí and Mezimostí nad Nežárkou, administratively merged and according to the advantage of the former over the latter was Krzysztofi k (2014), this may be attributed to a only achieved after the towns were merged (which shift in the balance of urbogenic forces. Veselí indicates the impact of administrative functions). nad Lužnicí and Mezimostí nad Nežárkou were In Starý Bohumín and Nový Bohumín, the change merged in 1946, Frýdek and Místek in 1947, occurred before the merger. In this case, competi- Sedlec and Prčice in 1958, whereas Brandýs tive advantage was achieved thanks to the construc- nad Labem and Stará Boleslav were merged in tion of a railway hub (in 1848) located 3 km south 1960. of Starý Bohumín. The hub contributed to the cre- 3. In the third stage, the bi-town incorporated sur- ation of a new town near the railway station (urban rounding rural settlements. Popovice, a village, status from 1924), which quickly outgrew its neigh- was incorporated into Brandýs nad Labem- bour and in 1949 took over its functions. Stará Boleslav in 1964. The following villages were incorporated into Frýdek-Místek: Panské The formation of double towns in the Czech Nové Dvory in 1960, Chlebovice, Lískovec, Republic was based on two principal patterns. Dou- Lysůvky and Zelinkovice in 1979 and Skalice ble towns with a twin layout (Brandýs nad Labem- in 1980. 31 villages were incorporated into Stará Boleslav, Frýdek-Místek, Sedlec-Prčice and Sedlec-Prčice in 1980 and three more in 1993. Veselí nad Lužnicí-Mezimostí nad Nežárkou) were The village of Horusice was incorporated into formed in three principal stages (Figure 5): Veselí nad Lužnicí in 1980.

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1-2, 2019, pp. 5–24 18 City conglomerates in the Czech Republic

Figure 6 Patterns of the formation of double towns with a satellite layout. Author’s processing.

Double towns with a satellite layout (Bohumín, 2. In the second stage, the boundaries of the Hranice-Drahotuše, Kutná Hora-Kaňk) were larger town were expanded as it incorporated formed in two principal stages (Figure 6): surrounding localities, including neighbouring towns. Bohumín was expanded in the years 1. In the fi rst stage, a town was established in close 1973–1974, Hranice in the years 1975–1976, proximity to another urban centre. The origins and Kutná Hora in 1950 and 1960. of such a layout can, however, be diverse. It was common for a smaller town to be established The functions of localities comprised of double in the vicinity of a medieval town (Kutná Hora towns can be considered from three main aspects: has been a town since 1318 and Hranice since in the context of their functional types, in the con- 1276; Kaňk gained urban status in 1621, and text of their rank in the urban system and in the Drahotuše was referenced as a townlet in 1353 context of the relationships between the towns. On and from 1408 onwards as a town), performing this basis we can distinguish fi ve types of functional supplementary functions, which may be consid- systems of double towns that are formed when they ered an effect of centrifugal forces (Krzysztofi k administratively merge: 2014). The process was slightly different with the Bohumín urban complex. The town of Bohumín A) double towns whose constituents have simi- (Starý Bohumín) was founded in the 12th century lar functions and represent competing centres at the crossroads of important trade routes: the (typically, these are focal centres of similar salt road from Moravia to Cracow and the amber rank); route from Hungary to the Baltic Sea. The town B) double towns whose constituent parts are spe- provided a convenient crossing point across the cialized centres, which is attributable to them Oder. The formation of Nový Bohumín was belonging to a specifi c functional area (an spurred on by the construction of a railway hub industrial region); 3 km from the town. This can be interpreted as C) double towns with constituent settlements the effect of centrifugal forces during conditions having varied functions, which are independ- of loss of specialized functions and translocation ent from one another from a functional point of the town (Krzysztofi k 2014). The qualitative of view; dimension of this transformation, in relation to D) double towns with a varying rank of both con- the nature of the economic base, is explained by stituent elements, regardless of their functional the change in the dominant means of transport type (the larger town is usually several times in the 19th century. larger than the smaller one);

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1-2, 2019, pp. 5–24 City conglomerates in the Czech Republic 19

Table 5 Functional typology of double towns in the Czech Republic. Author’s processing.

Layout Functional Settlement Town Part of town Population type type hierarchy

Nový Bohumín 13,544 S-I Bohumín D III Starý Bohumín 1,528 I-S

Brandýs nad Labem- Brandýs nad Labem 12,134 S-I A III -Stará Boleslav Stará Boleslav 5,304 S-I

Frýdek 29,713 S-I Frýdek-Místek A III Místek 22,525 S-I

Hranice 15,810 S-I Hranice D III Drahotuše 1,501 I-S

Kutná Hora 16,999 S-I Kutná Hora D III Kaňk 774 I-S

Sedlec 1,050 S Sedlec-Prčice A I Prčice 532 S-I

Veselí nad Lužnicí 3,887 S-I Veselí nad Lužnicí A II Mezimostí nad Nežárkou 2,337 I-S

Notes: Functional types: S – services; S-I – services and industry; I-S – industry and services; Settlement hierarchy: III – municipality with extended powers; II – municipality with an authorized municipal authority; I – municipality.

E) double towns with an interurbation char- CONCLUSIONS acter (Beaujeu-Garnier and Chabot 1967; Krzysztofi k 2009) – a settlement complex The post-war period in the Czech Republic (Zagożdżon 1966) whose elements have differ- was marked by dynamic changes in administra- ent and mutually supplemental functions (with tive boundaries at the local level (Hampl 1996; one town being a focal centre while the other is Hampl and Müller 1998; Hledíková et al. 2005). a specialized centre). The merging of neighbouring localities was an extremely common occurrence. Usually incorpo- With double towns in the Czech Republic, two ration processes occurred in respect of rural set- groups of functional systems dominate (Table 5): tlements. However, in that period several dozen type A – double towns whose constituents have towns (and townlets) also lost their administrative similar functions and are competing centres autonomy. In most cases their incorporation was a (Brandýs nad Labem-Stará Boleslav, Frýdek-Místek, consequence of the dynamic growth of the larger Sedlec-Prčice, Veselí nad Lužnicí-Mezimostí nad neighbour, which contributed to the rapid integra- Nežárkou) and type D – double towns with both tion of incorporated localities within the border constituent parts differing in rank, regardless of of the expanded urban centre. In some cases the their functional types (Bohumín, Hranice-Dra- loss of administrative autonomy was the result of hotuše, Kutná Hora-Kaňk). the actual degradation or even disappearance of a

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1-2, 2019, pp. 5–24 20 City conglomerates in the Czech Republic town. In many cases, administrative changes at the References local level did not relate to the natural directions of spatial development or were even somewhat Annas, A., Arnott, R., Small, K. A., 1998: Urban exaggerated, resulting in the formation of towns spatial structure. Journal of Economic Literature with inconsistent spatial structures, which in reality 36, 1426–1464. were a conglomeration of multiple localities. Some Anishenko, A. G., Sergunin, A. A. 2012: Twin cit- of them have the features of city conglomerates as ies, a new form of cross-border cooperation in their boundaries incorporate at least two units with the Baltic Sea Region. Baltic Region 1 (11), 19–27. an urban character. All forms of this type identifi ed Beaujeu-Garnier, J., Chabot, G. 1967: Urban geog- in the Czech Republic are examples of sensu largo raphy. Halsted Press, Bristol. double towns. Four of the identifi ed double towns Becker-Cantarino, B. ed. 1996: Berlin in focus: (Brandýs nad Labem-Stará Boleslav, Frýdek-Místek, cultural transformations in Germany. Greenwood Sedlec-Prčice and Veselí nad Lužnicí-Mezimostí Publishing Group, Santa Barbara. nad Nežárkou) have the twin layout, whose parts Beskidová, L. 2006: Trh práce a zaměstnanost v okrese have similar functions and represent competing Frýdek-Místek. Univerzita Pardubice, Pardubice. centres (focal centres of similar rank). The other Bird, J. 2013: Centrality and cities. Routledge, Lon- three double towns (Bohumín, Hranice-Drahotuše, don. Kutná Hora-Kaňk) have the satellite (monocentric) Borchert, J. R. 1961: The Twin Cities Urbanized layout and both constituent settlements have differ- Area: Past, Present, Future. Geographical Review ent rankings, regardless of their functional type (the 51 (1), 47–70. larger town is usually several times larger than the Brezonik, P. L., Stadelmann, T. H. 2002: Analy- smaller one). The characteristic features of double sis and predictive models of stormwater runoff towns are their complexity, shaped by the spatial volumes, loads, and pollutant concentrations and functional structure of the town, and the origin from watersheds in the Twin Cities metropoli- of its settlements. tan area, Minnesota, USA. Water Research 36 (7), 1743–1757. The question of polycentricity is usually considered Brzozowska, A. ed. 1998: Związki bliźniacze. in the context of large cities, urban agglomerations Współpraca międzynarodowa samorządów lokalnych. and in particular metropolitan areas, while city Wydawnictwo Związku Miast Bliźniaczych, conglomerates are mainly small or medium-sized Poznań. towns. So the study of city conglomerates extends Burghardt, A. 1971: Hypothesis about Gateway the discourse on polycentricity, which consid- Cities. Annals of the Association of American Geog- ers them on the intra-urban scale. Moreover, city raphers 61 (3), 269–285. conglomerates, due to their genesis, indicate the Buursink, J. 2001: The binational reality of bor- importance of changes in administrative bounda- der-crossing cities. GeoJournal 54 (1), 7–19. ries (commonly occurring in the post-war period in Champion, A. G. 2001: A Changing Demographic Central and Eastern European countries) in shaping Regime and Evolving Polycentric Urban Re- spatial forms of cities. This process should be iden- gions: Consequences for the Size, Composition tifi ed as a factor of polycentric urban development and Distribution of City Populations. Urban (Beaujeu-Garnier and Chabot 1967), which is quite Studies 38 (4), 657–677. rarely considered in urban geographical research Cho, H. 2011: Future Korean Urban Transformation (Han 2005; Yue et al. 2010; Liu et al. 2016). as the result of Integration of Urban Adminis- trative Districts. In The Asian Conference on Asian Studies 2011. Offi cial Conference Proceedings. Interna- tional Academic Forum, Osaka, 117–131. Cochrane, A., Jonas, A. 1999: Reimagining Berlin: world city, national capital or ordinary place? Eu- ropean Urban and Regional Studies 6 (2), 145–164.

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1-2, 2019, pp. 5–24 City conglomerates in the Czech Republic 21

Cremer, R. D., de Bruin, A., Dupuis, A. 2001: Hall, P. 2009: Polycentricity. In Kitchin, R., International Sister-Cities: Bridging the Glob- Thrift, N. eds.: International Encyclopedia of Hu- al-Local Divide. American Journal of Economics man Geography. 8. Elsevier, Amsterdam-Oxford, and Sociology 60 (1), 377–401. 260–264. Daniel, P., Hopkinson, M. 1996: The geography of Hall, P., Pain, K., 2006: The Polycentric Metropolis: settlement. Conceptual Frameworks in Geography. Ol- Learning from Mega-city Regions in Europe. Earth- iver & Boyd, Harlow. scan, London. Davoudi, S. 2003: Polycentricity in European Spa- Hampl, M. 1996: Hierarchie systému osídlení a ad- tial Planning From an Analytical Tool to a Nor- ministrativní členění České republiky. Geografi e– mative Agenda. European Planning Studies 11 (8), Sborník ČGS 101 (2), 201–210. 979–999. Hampl, M., Müller, J. 1998: Jsou obce v České Desyllas, J. 1997: Berlin in Transition. Using Space republice příliš malé. Geografi e–Sborník ČGS 103 Syntax to analyse the relationship between land (1), 1–12. use, land value and urban morphology. In First Han, S. S. 2005: Polycentric urban development International Space Syntax Symposium. University and spatial clustering of condominium prop- College, London, 1–16. erty values: Singapore in the 1990s. Environment Dołzbłasz, S., Raczyk, A. 2012: Transborder and Planning A 37 (3), 463–481. openness of companies in a divided city: Hesse, J. J. 2013: Kommunale Reformpolitik in Zgorzelec/Görlitz case study. Tijdschrift voor den Ländern der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. economische en sociale geografi e 103 (3), 347–361. Eine systematisch-vergleichende Analyse. In Drobek, W., Dawidejt-Jastrzębska, E. 2011: Kommunalreformen in Deutschland. Nomos, Ba- Cieszyn i Český Těšín. Partnerstwo transgran- dae-Baden, 35–92. iczne miast bliźniaczych. Studia Śląskie 70, 73– Hledíková, Z., Janák, J., Dobeš, J. 2005: 91. Dějiny správy v českých zemích. Od počátků státu Dziewoński, K. 1962: Zagadnienia typologii mor- po současnost. Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, fologicznej miast w Polsce. Czasopismo Geogra- Praha. fi czne 33, 444–457. Jacura, M., Kubát, B., Vachtl, M. 2007: Moderní Galaskiewicz, J. 1997: An Urban Grants Econ- trendy v obsluze území kolejovou dopravou. In omy Revisited: Corporate Charitable Contri- Kubát, B. ed. From Horse-drawn Railway to High- butions in the Twin Cities, 1979-81, 1987-89. speed Transportation Systems. Czech Technical Administrative Science Quarterly 42 (3), 445–471. University, Praha, 139–142. Gessler, T., Konieczny, B. 2004: Grenzüberschrei- Jakubowicz, E., Ciok, S. 2003: Wybrane proble- tende Zusammenarbeit im Spannungsfeld zwis- my układów bipolarnych w sieci osadniczej. In chen alltagskultureller und offi zieller Ebene: Zioło, Z. ed. Bipolarny rozwój aglomeracji – kierun- Eine Bestandsaufnahme in der Doppelstadt Gu- ki rozwoju układów bipolarnych. Biuletyn KPZK ben – Gubin. In Bölitz, D., Flacke, J., Köck- PAN 209, 59–73. ler, H. eds. Grenzüberschreitende Raumplanung – Jańczak, J. ed. 2009: Confl ict and cooperation in divided Beobachtungen in der deutsch-polnischen Grenzregion. cities. Logos Verlag, Berlin. Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, 35–46. Jańczak, J. 2011: Cross-border Governance in Green, N. 2007: Functional Polycentricity: A For- Central European Border Twin Towns. Be- mal Defi nition in Terms of Social Network tween De-bordering and Re-bordering. In Analysis. Urban Studies 44 (11), 2077–2103. Jańczak, J. ed. De-bordering, Re-bordering and Gude, S., Hagen, D., Stokłosa, K. 2002: Sozial- Symbols on the European Boundaries. Logos Verlag, struktur und städtische Identität in der Doppelstadt Gu- Berlin, 37–52. ben/Gubin. Interner Bericht von TOPOS, Berlin. Jańczak, J. 2013: Integracja i dezintegracja w Eu- Hałas, K., Porawski, A. 2003: Twinning – współpraca ropie Środkowej. Graniczne miasta bliźniacze miast bliźniaczych. Urząd Komitetu Integracji jako laboratoria współpracy transgranicznej. Europejskiej, Warszawa. Rocznik Integracji Europejskiej 7, 265–279.

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1-2, 2019, pp. 5–24 22 City conglomerates in the Czech Republic

Jerczyński, M. 1977: Funkcje i typy funkcjonalne Kotra, B. T. 2012: Komparace euroregionálních struktur polskich miast. In Statystyczna charakterystyka na západních a východních hranicích ČR. Masaryko- miast. Funkcje dominujące, Główny Urząd Staty- va univerzita, Brno. styczny, Warszawa, 20–53. Krzysztofi k, R. 2004: Miasta-wrota. Zarys teorii i Joenniemi, P., Sergunin, A. 2013: Kirkenes-Ni- przegląd badań. Czasopismo Geografi czne 75 (3), kel: Catching a Second Wind of Twinning. In 213–231. Heininen, L. ed. Arctic Yearbook 2013. NRF, Krzysztofi k, R. 2009: Interurbacje na terenie Pol- Akureyri, 143–163. ski w ujęciu geografi czno-historycznym. Geo- Kantor-Pietraga, I., Krzysztofi k, R., Spórna, T. grafi a. Studia et Dissertationes 31, 105–125. 2015: Degraded feudal urban agglomerations Krzysztofi k, R. 2014: Geneza aglomeracji miast na in Poland/Zdegradowane feudalne aglomer- obszarze Polski. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu acje miejskie w Polsce. In Krzysztofi k, R., Śląskiego, Katowice. Dymitrow, M. eds.: Degraded and restituted towns Kube, O., Nagler, H., Schwartze, F. 2006: in Poland: Origins, development, problems/Miasta Stadt-Raum-Identität. Städtische Neuorienti- zdegradowane i restytuowane w Polsce. Geneza, rozwój, erung in der deutschpolnischen Doppelstadt problemy. University of Gothenburg, Gothen- Guben-Gubin. Zukunft von Stadt und Region 3, burg, 163–183. 129–170. Kašpar, B. P. 2014: Analýza potenciálu přeshraničních Liu, X., Derudder, B., Wu, K. 2016: Measuring integrovaných zón. Masarykova univerzita, Brno. polycentric urban development in China: An Kearney, M., Knopp, A. K. 1995: Border cuates: intercity transportation network perspective. A history of the US-Mexican Twin Cities. Eakin Regional Studies 50 (8), 1302–1315. Press, Ann Arbor. Lundén, T. 2004: European Twin Cities: models, Kloosterman, R. C., Musterd, S. 2001: The examples and problems of formal and infor- Polycentric Urban Region: Towards a Research mal co-operation. ISIG Quarterly of International Agenda. Urban Studies 38(4), 623–633. Sociology 3 (4), 1–17. Knittler, H. 1971: Abriß einer Wirtschafts und So- Lundén, T. 2007: Border agglomerations in the zialgeschichte der Doppelstadt Krems-Stein. Baltic area: obstacles and possibilities for local Jahrbuch für Landeskunde von Niederösterreich 39, interaction. Geographica Helvetica 62 (1), 22–32. 43–73. Matoušek, T. 2013: Československo-polský spor o Kolářová, H. 2013: Atributivní urbonyma v České Těšínsko jako jeden z prvků dezintegrace střední Ev- republice. Západočeská univerzita v Plzni, ropy po 1. světové válce. Západočeská univerzita Plzeň. v Plzni, Plzeň. König, E. 1992: Von der Stadt zur Doppelstadt: lokale Matthiesen, U., Bürkner, H. J. 2001: Antago- Identität und kulturelles Profi l in Villingen-Schwen- nistic structures in border areas: Local mi- ningen zwanzig Jahre nach der Fusion. Universität lieux and local politics in the Polish-German Tü bingen, Tü bingen. twin city Gubin/Guben. GeoJournal 54 (1), Kostrubiec, B., Łoboda, J. 2002: Le fonction- 43–50. nement des villes doublons de la frontière Meijers, E. 2005: Polycentric urban regions and germano-polonaise. In Reitel, B., Zander, the quest for synergy: is a network of cities P., Piermay, J.-L., Renard, J.-P. eds. Villes et more than the sum of the parts? Urban Studies Frontières. Anthropos, Paris, 37–50. 42 (4), 765–781. Koter, M. 1994: Od fi zjonomii do morfogenezy i Musil, J., Müller, J. 2008: Vnitřní periferie v České morfologii porównawczej. Podstawowe zagad- republice jako mechanismus sociální exkluze. nienia teoretyczne morfologii miast. In Koter, Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review 44 (2), M., Tkocz, J. eds. Zagadnienia geografi i history- 321–348. cznej osadnictwa w Polsce. Uniwersytet Lódzki and Nakhleh, E. A. 1993: Palestinians and Israelis: Op- Uniwersytet Mikolaja Kopernika w Toruniu, tions for Coexistence. Journal of Palestine Studies Toruń-Łódź, 26–31. 22 (2), 5–16.

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1-2, 2019, pp. 5–24 City conglomerates in the Czech Republic 23

Newman, D. 2006: The political geography of an Schröder, C., Sinning, H. 2007: Stadt-region- eternal city: Ethno-territorial fragmentation in ale Kooperation und demographischer Wan- a “united” Jerusalem. In Schneider-Sliwa, R. del – am Beispiel Thüringen. In Sedlacek, P. ed. Cities in Transition. Springer, Amsterdam, ed. Räumliche Konsequenzen des demographischen 43–66. Wandels. Akademie für Raumforschung und Nolde, K. 2010: Böblingen-Sindelfi ngen zwischen in- Landesplanung, Hannover, 137–155. terkommunaler Zusammenarbeit und Städtefusion. Schultz, H. 2004: Geteilte Städte oder Zwill- Hochschule für öffentliche Verwaltung und Fi- ingsstädte? Konjunkturen von Trennung und nanzen, Ludwigsburg. Kooperation. In Becker, J., Komlosys, A. Nowak, T. 2008: Znaczenie ruchu miast i gmin eds. Grenzen Weltweit. Zonen, Linien, Mauern im bliźniaczych dla rozwoju i promocji społec- historischen Vergleich. Promedia/Südwind, Wien, zności lokalnych. Ekonomia i Zarządzanie 11, 161–184. 163–175. Słoń, M. 2011: Miasta podwójne i wielokrotne w średnio- Osman, R., Šerý, O., Černák, T. 2016: wiecznej Europie. Fundacja na rzecz Nauki Polsk- Významy „Hranice” promeziobecní spo- iej, Wrocław. lupráci v polycentrickém sídelním systému. Spiekermann, K., Wegener, M. 2004: How to In Klímová, V. ed. XIX. mezinárodní kolokvi- measure polycentricity? ESPON 1.1.3 Project, um o regionálních vědách. Masarykova univerzita, Warsaw. Brno, 595–604. Szalbot, M. 2011: Społeczno-kulturowa specy- Papapolyviou, P., Kentas., G. 2015: Nicosia: fi ka przygranicznych miast podwójnych Eu- a divided capital in Europe. Eurolimes 19, ropy jako problem badawczy. In Bukows- 19–36. ka-Floreńska, I., Odoj, G. eds. Etnologia na Parr, J. 2004: The polycentric urban region: a closer granicy. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego, inspection. Regional Studies 38 (3), 231–240. Katowice, 141–152. Ramasamy, B., Cremer, R. D. 1998: Cities, com- Szmytkie, R. 2003: Znaczenie osiedli miejskich w merce and culture: The economic role of inter- kształtowaniu systemu osadniczego Polski w national sister city relationships between New okresie powojennym. Czasopismo Geografi czne 74 Zealand and Asia. Journal of the Asia Pacifi c Econ- (1-2), 59–77. omy 3 (3), 446–461. Szmytkie, R. 2009: Miasta-zlepieńce na Śląsku Reiher, C. 2008: Kommunale Gebietsreformen der Dolnym i Opolskim. Uniwersytet Wrocławski, Heisei-Zeit und Lokale Identität: Das Beispiel Wrocław. der Kommune Arita-Chō. Japanstudien 20 (1), Szmytkie, R. 2016: Miasto podwójne jako forma 163–192. osadnicza. Przegląd Geografi czny 88 (4), 425–445. Reuber, P. 1999: Raumbezogene politische Konfl ikte: Ge- Vahldiek, H. 2005: Cölln an der Spree: Ursprung und ographische Konfl iktforschung am Beispiel von Gemein- Wandel der Berliner Spreeinsel. Aufl age, Berlin. degebietsreformen (No. 131). Franz Steiner Verlag, Verheyen, D. 2010: United city, divided memories?: Berlin. Cold War legacies in contemporary Berlin. Lexington Ribbe, W., Schmädeke, J. 1994: Kleine Ber- Books, Lanham. lin-Geschichte. Stapp Verlag, Berlin. Weiske, C., Schucknecht, K., Ptaszek, M. Romann, M. 1989: Divided perception in a united city: 2008: Über die Grenze: die integrative Kraft the case of Jerusalem. The Behavioural Environment. des Lebensalltags in der Doppelstadt Gör- Routledge, London. litz-Zgorzelec. In Jurczek, P., Niedobitek, M. Sedláček, Z. 2011: Rozvojová strategie Města Sedlec- eds. Europä ische Forschungsperspektiven: Elemente Prčice 2011. Ateliér Prčice, Sedlec-Prčice. einer Europawissenschaft. Duncker & Humblot, Safdie, M. 2002: Jerusalem: united city, two sover- Berlin, 409–433. eignties. In Sorkin, M. ed. The Next Jerusalem. Whitehand, J. W. R. 1988: Urban fringe belts: de- Sharing the Divided City. The Monacelli Press, velopment of an idea. Planning Perspectives 3 (1), New York, 268–291. 47–58.

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1-2, 2019, pp. 5–24 24 City conglomerates in the Czech Republic

Yuan, F., Sawaya, K. E., Loeffelholz, B. C., Bau- Druhá část se zabývá problematikou začleňování er, M. E. 2005: Land cover classifi cation and sídel do měst v České republice, přičemž se zvláště change analysis of the Twin Cities (Minnesota) zaměřuje na příčiny ztráty administrativní nezávis- Metropolitan Area by multitemporal Landsat losti. V tomto kontextu bylo identifi kováno celkově remote sensing. Remote Sensing of Environment 98 sedm měst, která lze charakterizovat jako dvojměstí, (2-3), 317–328. přesněji řečeno jako městský konglomerát. Těchto Yue, W., Liu, Y., Fan, P. 2010: Polycentric urban sedm městských konglomerátů obsahuje ve svých development: the case of Hangzhou. Environ- administrativních hranicích dvě sídla, která disponu- ment and Planning A 42 (3), 563–577. jí vlastními historiemi a také vlastními, specifi ckými Zagożdżon, A. 1966: Zespoły osadnicze o funkc- charakteristikami. Čtyři ze sedmi identifi kovaných jach nierolniczych jako forma urbanizacji wsi. dvojměstí, konkrétně Brandýs nad Labem-Stará In Goldzamt, E. ed. Problemy ewolucji układów Boleslav, Frýdek-Místek, Sedlec-Prčice a Veselí nad osadniczych na tle procesów urbanizacyjnych w Polsce. Lužnicí-Mezimostí nad Nežárkou, má tzv. dvojité PWN, Warszawa, 103–128. uspořádání. Tzn., že sídelní části těchto dvojměs- Zelinsky, W. 2010: The Twinning of the World: tí jsou prostorově oddělené, plní obdobné funkce Sister Cities in Geographic and Historical Per- a reprezentují konkurenční centra (fokální centra spective. Annals of the Association of American podobného významu). Ostatní tři městské kong- Geographers 81 (1), 1–31. lomeráty, konkrétně Bohumín, Hranice-Drahotuše a Kutná Hora-Kaňk, disponují satelitním (mono- Data sources: centrickým) uspořádáním, jehož sídelní součásti ČÚZK 2010: Geoportal ČÚZK. Access to map mají různý stupeň významu, bez ohledu na jejich products and services. funkční typ (větší sídlo je obvykle několikanásobně CZSO 2014: Statistický lexikon obcí České republiky větší než sídlo menší). 2013. Czech statistical offi ce, Prague. Růžková, J., Škrabal, J. et al. 2006: Historický lex- ikon obcí České republiky – 1869–2005. Czech sta- Article received 4 December, 2017 tistical offi ce, Prague. Accepted for publication 8 October, 2018

Please cite this article as Szmytkie, R. 2019: City conglomerates in the Czech Republic. Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis, Résumé Facultas Rerum Naturalium, Geographica 48 (1-2), 5–24.

Městské konglomeráty v České republice Article available on-line at https://geography.upol.cz/geographica-48-1a Hlavním účelem tohoto příspěvku je identifi kovat městské konglomeráty, které fungují v sídelním systému České republiky. Sekundárním cílem to- hoto příspěvku je provedení a prezentace typologie těchto konglomerátů s ohledem na charakteristiky jejich formy osídlení a jejich funkční a prostorové struktury. Článek se skládá ze dvou hlavních čás- tí. První část v teoretické rovině jednak pojednává o problematice městských konglomerátů v kontextu diskursu polycentrických městských forem, jednak se pokouší o organizaci terminologie sídelní geogra- fi e související s fenoménem městských konglomerá- tů a především s fenoménem dvojměstí.

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1-2, 2019, pp. 5–24