Growth of Metropolitan Limits and Its Influence on the Urban Structure

RSAI – 58th Annual North American Meetings of the Regional Science Association International & Second Conference of the Regional Science Association of the Americas. Miami (9th – 12th November 2011) “Growth of metropolitan limits and its influence on the urban structure. A retrospective analysis (1991-2001) for the Barcelona Metropolitan Region” †∗ Masip Tresserra, JAUME ABSTRACT: In recent decades due to the overflowing of the administrative boundaries by urbanization, the literature has studied various approaches to delimit the urban and metropolitan areas. Simultaneously, these urban dynamics have also led t he m etropolitan systems to polycentric structures characterized by dispersion and co ncentrated decentralization of employment and population, breaking with the paradigm of the monocentric city. However, few studies have f ocused on s tudying dyn amically (over t ime) and j ointly the del imitation of t he m etropolitan boundaries and its influence on the urban structure of the metropolitan areas. In t his paper, the retrospective ur ban dynamics (1991-2001) and i ts influence on t he ur ban structure of t he Barcelona Metropolitan Region is analyzed. Firstly, by analyzing travel-to-work data, the functional metropolitan borders are del imited by the ye ars: 1991 , 1996 a nd 2001 . T hen, t his paper s tudies how t he gr owth o f t he metropolitan limits influence on the urban structure by using a functional approach to characterize the changes in terms of metropolitan structure for the analyzed period of time. In doing so, the urban structure is characterized by three key points: identification of ur ban subcentres by using a m obility approach ( residence-to-work flows), the complexity grade of the metropolitan system and the measurement of the polycentrism level. By having a d ynamic perspective (1991-2001), r esults suggest a process of ur ban e xtension of the metropolitan borders what it could entail: an increment of sub-centres due mainly to the changes of the residential and labour markets, a more polynucleated structure of the urban system and a bigger grade of its complexity. Keywords: Metropolitan Areas, urban structure, new urban economy & polycentrism. 0. INTRODUCTION One of the fundamental characteristics that define and differentiate our society from other in the past is the new nature and scale of the urban processes and phenomena. Faced with the vision of a physically self- contained reality with well-defined limits, which represent the traditional city, the spatial and functional processes that have taken place in our advanced societies, have modified fundamentally the shape and the function of cities, leading t o r adically different territorial realities, blurring boundaries and overflowing w idely t hese administrative entities associated with them. Thus, t he m assive extension of the urbanization process, the physical separation between the place to residence and other basic activities such as working or shopping and the increased mobility of goods and people have entailed to a new regional realities that should define, identify and delimit properly. In 1932, the Census Bureau United States stated: “The city’s population defined administratively often offers a very inadequate i dea of t he popul ation cl ustered i n and a round t he ci ty. I f w e w ant t o have a vi sion o f t he clustering or the concentration of population in large urban areas it is necessary to establish metropolitan districts that show the extent of each population centers. (Bureau of the Census, 1932); (Berry et al,1970). This paragraph is a clear expression of both theoretical and policy concerns about how to properly define the urban reality beyond their administrative boundaries at the time that represent a starting point for a task that from since initially in the United States, and then in most advanced countries have taken into account by public and academic authorities. In this sense, the specialized literature has proposed various approaches in order to delimit the urban systems and the metropolitan areas from a clear consolidation of a long tradition of studies about this new shape of city and how t o de fine, i dentify and de limit it. Administrative aspects (municipalities), morphological methods (the † PhD C andidate, M aster S cience i n U rban M anagement and V aluation, A rchitect. C entre of Land P olicy and Valuations, CA1, Polytechnic University of Catalonia, Av.Diagonal 649, 4th Floor, 08028. Barcelona, Spain. Email: [email protected]. ∗ The author would like to acknowledge his PhD Supervisor, Josep Roca Cladera (Director of the Center of Land Policy and Valuations, Polytechnic University of Catalonia) for his suggestions and critics to this work and Montserrat M oix (researcher af filiated t o t he C enter of La nd P olicy and V aluations, P olytechnic University of Catalonia) for her help in order to delimit protosystems, sub-systems and functional metropolitan areas. 1 RSAI – 58th Annual North American Meetings of the Regional Science Association International & Second Conference of the Regional Science Association of the Americas. Miami (9th – 12th November 2011) urban continuous), aspects related to the existence of economies of agglomeration (population and employment densities, urban economic activities…), or functional interactions (commuting residence-to-work) have been used in order to definition the metropolitan fact. Consequently, these reflections have led to overcoming the old concept of city and i ts replacement by other that have tried to understand the new territorial phenomena. Metropolitan districts and statistic metropolitan areas (Bureau of the Budget, 1964); (Berry et al.,1970), urban clusters and agglomerations (Serra et al., 2002), daily urban systems (Coombes et al., 1978) (Coombes et al., 1979), local labor markets (Smart, 1974); (Carmichael, 1978); (Sforzi, 1987); (Casado & Taltavull, 2003); (Coombes & Casado, 2005); (Boix & Galleto,2006); (Moretti, 2010), ar eas of c ohesion (Castañer, 199 4), c ontinued s ystems of s ettlements (Governa & Dematteis, 19 99), functional urban regions (FUR) (GEMACA, 1996), functional urban areas (FUA) (ESPON, 2006), the new concept of city-region (Hall, 2001); (Scott, 2001); (Davoudi, 2008) have been, among other concepts, that have tried to replacing the “outdated” notion of city. At the same time, it has developed in recent years, a l arge literature that has come to reveal the increasing tendency of ur ban s tructures t o pol ycentrism. This concept, pol ycentric dev elopment, has ga ined w idespread currency in planning and territorial development, though it remains a r ather fuzzy concept as it seems to mean different things to different actors and different scales. The scale on which the concept is applied ranges from individual cities to city regions, to nation-states and finally to the European scale (CEC, 1999). At global scale, (Snyder & Kick, 1979); (Taylor, 1997); (Beaverstock & Taylor, 1999); (Taylor & Walker, 2001); (Derudder e t al ., 2 003a); (Derudder et a l., 20 03b); (Alderson & B eckfield, 200 4); (Taylor, 2005) . A t E uropean scale and national scale, (Bruinsma & Rietveld, 1993); (Hohenberg & Lees, 1995); (NORDREGIO, 2005); (Hall, 2002); (van der Laan, 1998); (Nystuen & Dacey, 1961). The European Spatial Development Perspective (EDSP) presents as a major objective the development of a balanced and polycentric urban system mainly located in the ‘pentagon’ (CEC, 1999); (CEC,2001). The objective of polycentric development is currently being taken further in the current debate about European cohesion policy where it is argued that the economic potential of all regions of the EU can only be utilized through the further development of a more polycentric European settlement structure at the time that a more polycentric development could reduce the regional disparities. In the third cohesion report the main emphasis is territorial cohesion, which is placed on an equal footing as economic and social cohesion in the (ungratified) Constitutional Treaty. So, also many European countries pursue a polycentric development, often addressing the dominance of their prime city to diminish regional disparities. Within ESPON (European Spatial Planning Observation Network) framework there have also been attempts recently to measure polycentricity on the scale of countries and the European Union. However, one of the major reasons w hy t he c oncept of pol ycentricity i s s till r ather v ague i s t hat i t is sometimes as sociated w ith both morphological aspects and functional relationships between cities. As this paper will be try to explain further on, it is possible to measure polycentricity within the intra-metropolitan scale with using an “integrated approach” that could take into account at the same time these two dimensions of the polycentric concept. At the metropolitan scale, the notion of polycentricity is associated with the concentrated-decentralization from CBD to sub-centres. (Berry, 1960); (Alperovich, 1983); (McDonald, 1997); (Guiliano & Small, 1991); (McDonald & Prather, 1 994); (Clark & Ku ijpers-Linde, 199 4); (Gordon & R ichardson, 199 6); (McMillen & McDonald, 1998); (Cervero & Wu, 1998); (Bogart & Ferry, 1999); (Shearmur & Coffey, 2002); (Small & Song, 1994); (Song, 1994); (Nielsen & Hougesen, 2005); (Readfearn, 2007); (García-López, 2007); (Roca et al., 2009). Summarizing, few studies have focused on studying dynamically (over time) and jointly the delimitation of the metropolitan boundaries and its influence on

Load more