Polycentric Metropolitan Development: From Structural Assessment to Processual Dimensions

Abstract

In this paper we aim to enhance the prevailing structural perspective on metropolization by pointing to the mutual relationship between the processes of metropolization and polycentric development. We claim that a processual view is needed to emphasize the temporal dependencies between different layers of polycentricity, and to reveal that European city–regions are situated in different stages of polycentric metropolitan development (PMD). To illustrate this empirically, we first analyse Bratislava and Vienna as two European city–regions that recently decided to jointly approach metropolitan development, while their contextual conditions and development trajectories differ significantly. It is shown upon an indicator-based analysis that the two are in different phases of the metropolization process. Confronting this evidence with stakeholder assessments of the need for strategic intervention in metropolitan development further uncovers the importance of the strategic dimension in metropolitan research. Building upon that, we conduct cluster analysis for a sample of 50 European city–regions by the same indicator set. It is shown that even this large sample of agglomerations can be grouped by different types of metropolizes, reflecting distinct effects of the metropolization process on urban-regional transformation. Hence, we conclude that a processual understanding in strategic approaches to PMD is necessary. Only if the different phases, paces, and effects of the metropolization process are taken into account, we can formulate serious recommendations for the polycentric development of distinct European urban territories. The move from structural to processual understanding is an essential foundation to learning processes for the governance of future PMD. Furthermore, the emphasis on different types of metropolizes should be taken into account in the formulation of future European policies on metropolitan development.

Notes

1 Assessments of PMD in Bratislava and Vienna were ascertained in stakeholder workshops in the course of the ESPON project POLYCE (cf. ESPON, 2012).

2 The basic delineation builds upon the following sources: ESPON (2005, 2006, 2012), Geppert (2009), Maier (2009), and Kramar and Kadi (2014).

3 76 European MEGAs were selected that are covered by Urban Audit for both the Core City and the Larger Urban Zone or approximations of these by NUTS regional level as defined by the ESPON project FOCI (ESPON, 2009). 69 MEGAs remained for data collection after removing huge MEGAs and those agglomerations not included in FOCI from the sample. According to the Urban Audit definitions and database coverage for 1999–2008, Large Urban Zones were used as the primary proxy for the metropolitan regions. In other cases, data were collected from Eurostat or other European research projects, approximating the metropolis by NUTS regional data. The 160 indicators retrieved allowed for a further reduction of the city sample to 50 European MEGAs that were sufficiently covered by data in 123 indicators.

4 The description is based on F-values defined through the relation of variance between group specific and total value. As all indicators are showing standardized values, the value of information of an indicator is expressed through the indicator's value of variance within a cluster: the lower the value of group specific variance in comparison to total variance of 1.00 is, the stronger an indicator's mean value characterizes the homogeneity of a group of metropolizes in a certain cluster/type.