Two main competing visions shape contemporary economies and societies: 1) The vision of a low-carbon economy in the context of wider debates about climate change and sustainable development; 2) The vision of a post-Fordist knowledge-based society in which knowledge and skills are seen as the key factors in competitiveness and as generators of wealth. While the former is about the restraint and reduction of environmental impact, the latter is about growth and enhancement of economic competitiveness. There is, therefore, a potential conflict between economic growth aspirations in an era of climate change and resource constraints. How these visions of the future are conceived, discussed and enacted in practice has major implications for socio-technical transitions in urban and regional contexts. The ability of cities to build consensual visions, integrating and reconciling different competing city visions and models of development, becomes a key challenge in itself. 3.6.3. Abetter understandingofrealities, capacities and objectives The challenge of moving toward shared visions of holistic, sustainable development models is to a certain extent the challenge of reaching a better and shared understanding of urban realities. Overall objectives need to be understood in wider terms of final objectives – e.g. sustainable quality of life and liveability – and not only in the more narrow terms of the means to get there (e.g. economic growth, employment rate, income levels). A better understanding of urban realities requires the development of more appropriate and multifaceted indicators capable of measuring more qualitative aspects of urban economic and social life – the environment, economic development potential, cultural assets, etc. Current indicators are not sufficiently developed to properly measure cities’ environmental progress or to link environmental issues to other issues. Data does not allow the assessment of risks faced by cities in terms of provision of natural resources, though they are a key contributor to a city’s environmental resilience. There is also a need to complement quantitative with qualitative analysis to include intangible and non-monetary resources. 129 Perry, B., Hodson, M., Marvin, S., and May, T., SURF, The Centre for Sustainable Urban and Regional Futures, University of Salford, UK, contribution to Cities of tomorrow. 61 Table 2 Alternative ways of understanding and describing reality Feature Dominant responses Alternative Responses Objectives Econo-centric Varied Measurements Tangible Intangible Global ‘excellent relevance’ Scales Global excellence & ‘relevant excellence’ Linear, products, supply/ Ecosystems, networks Processes demand, push/pull models and flows Narrow; disciplinary; sectoral; Broad; interdisciplinary; Knowledge codified cross-sectoral; tacit Technological, mechanistic Multiple interventions Mechanisms solutions and mechanisms Learning Transferable models Context-sensitive approaches Elites: corporate, Wide range of stakeholders, Social Interests governments, major potential beneficiaries and institutions participants Concepts of Economic Divisible Collective & Ecological Security Source: Simon Marvin & Beth Perry 130 An agreement on the overall vision needs to be based on by all the actors that determine the future of a city, e.g. a shared process of visioning and understanding of both city administrations, inhabitants, businesses, other sociopresent and future potential realities. If the vision is to economic stakeholders, etc. This calls for collective strategic become reality, it must be well understood and owned planning processes. 130 Marvin, Simon and Perry, Beth, Workshop 1 Cities of tomorrow – Urban challenges, Brussels, June 2010. Cities of tomorrow -Challenges, visions, ways forward 4. Governance – how to respond to the challenges Cities of tomorrow -Challenges, visions, ways forward 4.1. Introduction – from government to governance The great challenges that European cities face have no straightforward or simple solutions. Their often contradictory interlinkages demand holistic and integrated approaches that are able to balance different interests and objectives. What is more, the challenges do not respect administrative borders, and the strategies for dealing with them may have far-reaching territorial consequences beyond the intervention area. It is clear that different levels of fixed government structures alone are not well suited to addressing the future challenges in a sustainable way. Adapting government structures to better respond to challenges is a futile task: not only would the dynamic nature of challenges demand a constant re-adaptation, but their multi-dimensional nature requires responses at different scales. Instead, different government levels will have to play different roles in a multi-scalar governance system. In this chapter we discuss the key elements of a multi-scalar governance system: a holistic and integrated approach to challenges; long-term strategic planning, foresight and vision-building; community involvement and collective mobilisation around long-term objectives; inter-city partnerships and cooperation. We also point to the importance of the city–regional level of governance. 4.2. An integrated approach to urban development and governance In Chapter 3 we have seen that the main challenges for the Cities of tomorrow are very much interlinked and often of a seemingly contradictory nature. Strategies to strengthen economic growth may build upon a less sustainable use of natural resources; global competitiveness and attractiveness strategies may lead to a two-tier society with few job opportunities for low-skilled or disadvantaged groups and a decoupling of the local and global economy; green growth and CO2 reduction strategies centred on new technologies may not only exclude the low-skilled from the labour market but also increase social exclusion through energy poverty due to a lack of knowledge and resources for those who most need to take advantage of the new green technologies, i.e. a green divide. Therefore, cities need to integrate the social, economic, environmental and territorial dimensions of urban development in planning and development. ‘Due to the complexity of challenges there is a need for integration of the different social, economic and spatial dimensions […] Concrete (sectoral) interventions […] will never result in sustainable answers and can have negative and even dangerous social, environmental and spatial consequences.’131 An integrated approach to urban development has several dimensions. Urban challenges can be looked at in terms of where they manifest themselves or for whom they are most relevant. They can also be considered in terms of the most suitable level of governance or territorial scale required to address them effectively. Many predominantly urban challenges, even those that are most visible at a neighbourhood level, such as the integration and empowerment of marginalised groups, depend on national, and sometimes European, policies. Even if a problem is local and has a local solution, its solution may just shift the problem to another nearby locality, so an overly narrow territorial approach may be counterproductive. Understanding the territorial dimension of urban challenges is, therefore, fundamental. The debate around the sustainability of biofuels has shown that challenges and objectives need to be understood and formulated by taking into account a wider context and secondary effects. Objectives might be met at the very local level but not on a wider territorial scale. For instance, the development of eco-neighbourhoods helps to reduce energy consumption and waste in housing and living, but may generate more private car use if it is not well integrated 131 van den Broeck, 2010, quoted by Tosics, Iván, op. cit. 65 spatially in terms of proximity to services and easily accessible public transport. Objectives and targets have to be relevant and effective at different territorial scales. The interrelation of challenges also needs to be understood. Isolated sectoral investments – especially large-scale infrastructure investment with a strong lock-in effect – may be counterproductive to long-term sustainable development objectives. Transport policies cannot be evaluated only in terms of their outputs, e.g. number of kilometres of road or public transport built, but must also be assessed in terms of their outcomes and contribution to a range of socio-economic and environmental objectives. Transport infrastructures impact on the accessibility of work, education, leisure or services. In the context of territorial planning, they are a leverage that reinforces density in given areas, on the basis of local transport networks well connected to the core city. There are too many examples of road infrastructure that have caused spatial segregation and contributed to inner city congestion, increased CO2 emissions and pollution, urban sprawl and a decrease in the quality of life. Even if the widespread use of zero-emission cars became reality, congestion, spatial segregation and urban sprawl would remain a problem. The mitigation of energy vulnerability and the reduction of CO2 emissions through programmes targeted at the roll-out of new technologies can have significant effects in terms of the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions but may fail to address one of the biggest problems with the present dependence on oil – energy poverty. Most schemes to introduce new energy-saving technologies are based on tax incentives or advantageous loans that either have no effects on the most disadvantaged groups or are out of their reach because of their low financial capacities. The fact that these groups live in housing with poor insulation and inefficient heating systems makes them even more vulnerable to high energy costs. A strategy to address the challenge of climate change and energy vulnerability based mainly on technical market-led solutions could, therefore, have detrimental effects on social cohesion and create a green divide. There are many more examples of the interlinkages of challenges. Developing science and technology parks which concentrate research and innovation businesses outside city centres may release the housing pressure in city centres and create a critical mass of activities, but may also be damaging to the objective of a social and functional mix of activities. Such investment in research must be aligned with investment aimed at fostering cities’ attractiveness and connectivity. ‘We have welcomed the fact that important funds be allocated to us for innovation and research. However, a better balance should have been found with related investment in transport infrastructure. International connectivity is very low, which contradicts our ability to access places of interest for cooperation and the possibility to attract knowledge workers from abroad’132 Most areas of most cities are economically and socially complex and fragmented, and city administrations have to deal with this reality. New institutional models are needed that are able to combine, for instance, climate initiatives with parallel activities in urban regeneration, building rehabilitation, economic and employment, and socio-cultural development. A dialogue must be fostered between actors in charge of different sectoral policies, such as environment, housing, transport, energy, and those who are in charge of social, cultural and economic development. An implicit approach to addressing challenges is often present in the formulation of the challenge itself – sometimes unintentionally. It is not uncommon for strong interest groups to formulate challenges in a way that serves their particular interests, too. There is a danger that only the strongest voices are heard and that shorter-term market interests override long-term public interests. The European urban development model relies on cities’ capacity to formulate challenges and strategies that correspond to longer-term visions and objectives that are sustainable and inclusive. This implies giving weaker stakeholders a say in the formulation of future visions and in the development of the cities, whether at neighbourhood or a wider territorial level, and transparency in strategic planning processes. Real partnerships need to be set up between all relevant actors from the private and public sectors as well as civil society. 132 Zezùlková, Marie, City of Brno. Cities of tomorrow -Challenges, visions, ways forward Integration and conditionality: local anti-segregation interventions in Hungary133 To better balance technical-infrastructure investments with social development at local level, anti-segregation planning has been made conditional for local governments who seek to access EU funding in the 2007–13 programming period. In 2007, the preparation of an Integrated Urban Development Strategy (IUDS) was made compulsory for cities applying for Structural Funds money for urban renewal actions (ROP 2007–13). The IUDS is a medium- term (7–8 years) strategic implementation-oriented document with sectoral and territorial aims. It has to be discussed and approved by a resolution of the municipal assembly to ensure legitimacy. The real novelty of the IUDS was that cities had to prepare anti-segregation plans. Such plans had to contain the delimitation of segregated areas and areas threatened by deterioration and segregation. They also included an assessment of the delimited areas and of social impacts of envisaged developments and policies, on the basis of precise indicators. Moreover, anti-segregation programmes also had to be prepared, including a vision for a regeneration or elimination of the degraded areas and for the main directions of interventions. A complex set of tools had to be used with a focus on local housing, education, social and health-care conditions. Independent experts assessed the anti-segregation plans and programmes. Without their approval the city’s application for Structural Funds financing for urban renewal actions would not be accepted, i.e. the social (anti-segregation) dimension was a condition to access EU funding. This strict conditionality raised strong opposition from local politicians, given inter alia the lack of professional urban development background and planners for the preparation of integrated plans, the lack of relevant data and a negative perception of an obligation imposed ‘from above’. However, despite the problems, the Hungarian IUDS can be considered a success. Almost 200 cities prepared integrated development strategies, including anti-segregation plans. The latter became a key element of the general ‘equal opportunities policy’, with a recognition that cities could only be forced to think about how to decrease segregation if this was posed as a general condition for accessing EU funding. 133 Tosics, Iván, op.cit. 67 4.3. New models of territorial governance 4.3.1. Newurbanrealities The new urban reality is characterised by peri-urban development. New relationships between the core city and its surroundings are developing, together with increasing individual mobility: people living in rural areas live urban lives and exploit urban services; urban residents use rural services, not least public goods like nature; schools and other services are not chosen because of proximity but because of quality; commuting and other daily mobility patterns are stretched over increasingly large areas. ‘In older industrial countries the peri-urban is a zone of social and economic restructuring: in the EU growth zones, and most of the developing world, the peri-urban is often a zone of rapid and chaotic urban sprawl. In both situations, it is clear that the peri-urban is not just an in-between fringe; rather it is a new and distinct kind of multi-functional territory. It is often the location for airports, business parks and high-value housing, which are seen as essential to urban/regional development (as per the Lisbon Agenda). It is also the location for problems: urban sprawl; wasted public funds; transport congestion; loss of agricultural land; damage to landscapes and biodiversity; fragmented communities; and lack of spatial planning.’134 Though an urban challenge is best addressed at a specific governance level, this does not imply that other levels, higher or lower, are inadequate. In terms of representative democracy, each level plays a particular role and has its own benefits. There are many compelling arguments for the government levels that are closest to the citizens. Problems are experienced at the city or neighbourhood level, and inhabitants may be more easily mobilised around issues that are of direct concern in their daily life. ‘The more we widen the subject matter, the more we move to the larger territory, the more we also may move away from people’s concerns and risk losing pragmatic issues.’135 What is problematic is the potential discrepancy between the urban realities, especially in terms of functional urban areas, and the administrative city and its representative democracy. A tax base that does not correspond to the areas or populations it is serving in terms of public services and goods, or a fragmented system of local government – each with their own tax base – makes integrated policies difficult to achieve. The present institutional forms and spatial settings of local governments in many European countries are inappropriate for dealing effectively with the big and complex future urban challenges in an integrated way. The risk is that both the competitiveness of many urban areas and the European balanced model of urban development are at stake.136 4.3.2. The increasing importanceof the city atregionalor metropolitanlevel Given the scope of many challenges, there is a relative consensus on the need for a level of government that reflects the de facto city rather than the de jure city. Strategic planning and the delivery of public policies on economic development, the labour market, mobility and transport, housing, education, water, energy, waste, immigration, etc. cannot be addressed at too local a level. Good government and governance structures at a metropolitan level are also a key condition for cities’ competitiveness. ‘The better they are managed, the stronger they become, and the more competitive position they can achieve in the global metropolitan network, which would benefit individual Member States and the entire European Union.’137 Several examples may be given of existing supra-local governance systems organised around a core city (monocentric city regions such Berlin and Madrid) or in more polycentric networks (overlapping monocentric areas such as the Ruhr, Randstad and polycentric areas with no dominating large city).138 134 Ravetz, Joe, Cities of tomorrow – Contributions from experts, Brussels, April 2010. 135 Zaimov, Martin, elected representative of Sofia. 136 Tosics, Iván, op.cit. 137 Gorzelak, Grzegorz, Cities of tomorrow – Contributions from experts, Brussels, April 2010. 138 Reference to Vandermotten, Christian in Tosics, Iván, issue paper on Governance challenges and models for the Cities of tomorrow, Brussels, January 2011. Cities of tomorrow -Challenges, visions, ways forward German metropolitan regions: alliances for growth and joint responsibility139 The idea of Metropolregionen was first developed in 1995, and after their official adoption as part of the German spatial development strategy in 2005, their number increased to 11 regions.140 The three most important functions are decision-making functions linked to: spatial concentration of economic centres; presence of research centres and of a creative and competitive milieu; accessibility to and from international locations and good traffic infrastructures. They fulfil an important role in marketing, solving traffic problems and increasing scientific–economic links. The establishment of metropolitan regions was the result of a political process set in motion by the Standing Conference of Ministers Responsible for Spatial Planning. With the exception of some financial support for emerging initiatives and selected pilot projects, the federal government did not fund or subsidise the metropolitan regions. Regional initiatives have been voluntary, and the goals and strategies were determined jointly by all the partners. The six biggest urban agglomerations (Rhine–Ruhr, Berlin, Hamburg, Frankfurt, Munich and Stuttgart) were the first to be designated ‘European Metropolitan Regions’. In addition, five smaller urban agglomerations (Leipzig–Halle, Hannover, Nuremberg, Bremen and Rhine–Neckar) lobbied to be included in the policy as well. A quasiofficial competition ensued as the regions prepared reports on their potential and competitiveness, as well as concepts for regional governance and spatial planning. In the past, the territorial implications of urban growth have often been taken for granted. The growth of cities was supposed to generate growth for surrounding areas. However, the absence of territorial policies has, in some cases, led to the opposite result. For example, 15 years ago, the slowest growth areas in Italy were not in the south of the country, but in the remote peripheral areas of Milan and Turin. Compared to the German example of a metropolitan region – with its strong economic and innovation rationale – the Italian example of Citta di Citta (‘City of cities’) is more focused on ‘habitability’ and the multiple facets of quality of life. There is an implicit model in which a series of hubs can flourish around the core city of Milan, on the basis of social and cultural dynamics between the cities. Even if innovation is also underlined, the rationale for this metropolitan level of cooperation/governance is the building of an attractive and service-oriented network of cities. Governance at the metropolitan or city-region level is not confined to national frameworks but can also cross national borders, as illustrated by the Lille metropolitan area. The area has developed a series of projects involving: cooperation in the field of economic development and coordination of land-use planning; common planning of a green and blue web; management of water, freight, and public transport; urban renewal, etc. Cooperation also involves branding for the whole area. The complexity of the territory has led to the development of innovative cooperation and governance processes. These three examples of metropolitan governance depend on different government and administrative structures; they operate in different national planning contexts and they have been organised for different purposes. However, they are all based on the underlying premise that the supra-local governance level is vital for the development of these city-regions in terms of both competitiveness and cohesion. They also indicate that there is an added value in the combination of density and diversity, as well as in the reinforced identity of the areas concerned – a sort of branding for people and businesses. 139 Sinz, Manfred, Cities of tomorrow – Contributions from experts, Brussels, April 2010. 140 Tosics, Iván, op.cit. 69 70 Citta di Citta – a polycentric network at the metropolitan level141 The macro city-region around Milan has evolved from a central hub-pattern, in which Milan held a dominant position in a central city vs. periphery pattern, towards a more polycentric urbanisation built on a network of cities and municipalities around Milan. Citta di citta is a strategic planning process promoted by the Province of Milan to cope with the problems of guiding development in this dynamic urban region. The development of this kind of strategic planning process was required in order to cope with the growing externalities of the Milan region and reinforce the assets of smaller cities around Milan according to a common vision. There is now a series of cities and towns, which exist both as independent entities with local jobs and markets, and as parts of a wider functional urban region142. Thanks to cooperation, there are strong conurbations between municipalities which, in the past, were just satellites of Milan. Citta di citta addresses a range of issues such as : availability of stable or temporary residences ; accessibility to public spaces ; promotion of new local welfare ; mobility by different means, in different directions ; promotion of culture in various places ; reduction of congestion and pollution ; connection of people in new public spaces of different types ; ability to find silence to slow down the frantic pace of life ; creation of a lively atmosphere in other places ; space for unplanned activities ; a reintroduction of nature where it has disappeared, etc. This process has created a thick web of cities beyond the Province of Milan. The cities and municipalities now recognise themselves as belonging to something more than just the periphery of Milan. They work together to develop common public transport, open spaces and services as part of a greater territorial development process that was inconceivable when they were just individual satellites. Milano Rho Monza Gaggiano Mediglia Settala Segrate Vimercate Bollate Inzago Arluno Truccazzano Lainate Melzo Rodano Pioltello Cusago Uboldo Nerviano Limbiate Arcore Liscate Saronno Bareggio Rozzano Vignate Senago Peschiera Borromeo Arese Pero Origgio Assago Brugherio Solaro San Giuliano Milanese Opera Gessate Gorgonzola Gerenzano Cesate Ornago Lesmo Agrate Brianza Bellusco Busnago Carugate Bussero Cassano d'Adda Cornaredo Buccinasco Cornate d'Adda Sedriano Paderno Dugnano Vittuone Vanzago Concorezzo Cambiago Cinisello Balsamo Usmate Velate Corsico Sulbiate Settimo Milanese Masate San Donato Milanese Pozzuolo Martesana Cernusco sul Naviglio Sesto San Giovanni Noviglio Basiano Pantigliate Villasanta Trezzano sul Naviglio Cormano Caponago Bernareggio Zibido San Giacomo Bresso Cologno Monzese Carnate Mezzago Caronno Pertusella Vimodrone Garbagnate Milanese Cassina de' Pecchi Roncello Novate Milanese Gudo Visconti Pessano con Bornago Aicurzio Baranzate Pregnana Milanese Pogliano Milanese Trezzano Rosa Cesano Boscone Bellinzago Lombardo Cavenago di Brianza Burago di Molgora Cusano Milanino Camparada Rosate Locate di Triulzi © EuroGeographics Association for the administrative boundaries REGIOgis Cities of tomorrow - Challenges, visions, ways forward A functional territory: the Lille metropolitan area With around 3.8 million inhabitants over 7200 km2, the Lille metropolitan area is one of the largest cross-border agglomerations in Europe. It covers two language areas and three regions with Nord-Pas-de-Calais on the French side with Lille as its capital, and Dutch-speaking Flanders and French-speaking Wallonia on the Belgian side. Effective territorial cooperation in defining a common development strategy began in 1991 between the Lille Métropole Communauté Urbaine (a formal metropolitan government comprising 85 French municipalities) and 4 Belgian intercommunales (around Mouscron, Ypres, Kortrijk and Tournai). After years of informal cooperation, ‘Eurometropole Lille–Kortrijk–Tournai’ was eventually set up in 2008. This first European Grouping for Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) brings together 14 public partners. Three years earlier, a French government call for metropolitan cooperation provided the opportunity to bring together another, wider but more flexible, partnership with areas located south of Lille, in the former coal mining basin and around Arras, Cambrai and Maubeuge. In May 2005, ‘a memorandum of understanding for cooperation’ in what was called the ‘Aire métropolitaine de Lille’, was signed by 23 local and regional public authorities from France and Belgium. The aim is ‘to constitute a network metropolis, combining the level of services of a European metropolitan city with a high quality of life’ through six strategic objectives: sustainable development; the promotion of creativity; the development of innovation and research; the improvement of internal and external accessibility; tourism; and communication and promotion. The non-profit organisation was created in December 2007 in order to represent and develop the cooperation process and to monitor the implementation of the work programme. 4.3.3. Theneedforflexible multi-scalar governance Different territorial and governance levels have more or less relevance depending on the specific challenges and objectives they have to address. Issues such as water management may be best dealt with at sub-regional or regional level, public transport and research infrastructures may be best addressed at metropolitan or city–regional level, while equality and integration may need a more local approach at neighbourhood level. A formal governance system tailored to reduce discrepancies between the de facto city and the de jure city may not necessarily be relevant once operational, given the time required to put new administrative systems into practice.143 Coordinated approaches in a multilevel governance framework are needed to effectively tackle the challenges of tomorrow. Problems solved at the level closest to the citizens who are able to deal effectively with them have to be complemented with better coordination at a higher level, to avoid transferring problems from one local level to another, or from the city centre to its periphery. In essence, what is needed is a functional and flexible approach that both respects the principles of subsidiarity and can be adapted to a functional geography and the specificities of different territorial scales. There are many models for handling the growing discrepancies between the administrative and functional setup of urban areas. Some models aim at a better adjustment 141 Balducci, Alessandro, Workshop 2 Cities of tomorrow – Visions and models, Brussels, October 2010. 142 The concept of ‘Macro City-Region’ as developed by Hall, P. and Pain, K. in The polycentric metropolis : learning from mega-city regions in Europe, Earthscan Publications Ltd, London, 2006: ‘a series of anything between 10 and 50 cities and towns, physically separate but functionally networked, clustered around one or more larger central cities, and drawing enormous economic strength from a new functional division of labour.’ 143 Baert, Thierry, Workshop 3 Cities of tomorrow – How to make it happen ? Brussels, December 2010. of the administrative setup to the functional reality, e.g. merging neighbouring settlements with the city and creating strong metropolitan bodies that take over a series of functions from the local municipalities. Other, less ambitious models build on different forms of cooperation between municipalities belonging to the same Functional Urban Area, e.g. by mono-functional agencies or metropolitan bodies with limited delegated power. Due to the political difficulties in changing administrative borders or creating strong supra-local bodies, the latter model may be favoured. But the democratic legitimacy of this lighter model of FUA governance may be questioned because it has less transparency and less accountability to directly elected bodies.144 The examples of German metropolitan regions, Citta di Citta and the Lille metropolitan area illustrate that although these larger governance areas have been set up to respond to specific challenges, the lower levels of governance continue to play an important role both in their implementation and in other more local matters. The articulation of supra-local governance structures on local and neighbourhood levels is essential, especially with respect to accessibility and vulnerability issues, but also in relation to attractiveness and the quality of the urban environment.145 Though local projects and intervention must be framed and understood in a larger territorial context, it is equally important that there is an understanding among actors at higher governance levels of what is happening at the local or micro-local level. National, regional or citywide policies have in some cases replaced local policies that were focused on deprived neighbourhoods and embedded both social development and urban regeneration. This mainstreaming of local projects into regional or national policies may result in a fragmentation and a lack of common understanding of objectives and issues at stake, even among the various associations on the ground. There is a need to use common visions to link up the various bodies involved, and consequent requirements for training and mediation work. In this context, it is essential to ensure good communication between various levels.146 4.4. Building capacity for long-term visioning and strategic planning In the previous two sections we have discussed the need for an integrated and holistic approach to urban development that manages to reconcile seemingly contradictory challenges while taking into account the territorial dimension of the challenges. Several elements need to be put into place for such an approach to be effective. Most important, a long-term city vision may be needed to guide actions. The European urban development model contains the basis for such a vision, but each city has to refine its own vision according to its potential and its inhabitants’ and organisations’ desires. 144 Tosics, Iván. op.cit. 145 Balducci, Alessandro, Workshop 2 Cities of tomorrow – Visions and models, Brussels, October 2010. 146 Fayman, Sonia, Workshop 3 Cities of tomorrow – How to make it happen ? Brussels, December 2010. Cities of tomorrow -Challenges, visions, ways forward NEWCASTLE-GATESHEAD – A long-term strategy as a joint response to the financial crisis The city of Newcastle is the administrative capital of England’s North East region and its population of 2.5 million. Newcastle itself has 278 000 inhabitants, while across the river, Gateshead has 200 000. Over the past 30 years, the economy in Newcastle and its surrounding area has undergone a rapid transformation, shifting from a heavy industrial base, including shipbuilding, coal mining and heavy engineering, to a more diversified industrial base, with the public sector accounting for some 38% of all jobs. The recent financial crisis and ensuing recession have only added to the challenges faced by the region. Not wanting to let short-term shocks prevent long-term vision, action was taken. In June 2009, the city council drafted a 10-point action plan in support of both individuals and businesses. The city, together with Gateshead, also set up ‘1NG’ (1 Newcastle Gateshead), a strategic body responsible for pushing forward the 2010 ‘1PLAN’, a 20-year economic and spatial strategy for the two cities. The underlying aims include strengthening the cities’ability to cope with inevitable future external shocks, addressing the needs of individuals and businesses, cooperating with like-minded communities, focusing on sustainable growth and paying special attention to living and working environments. The cities believe their strategy and approach could be transferred and adapted to other similar cities. 4.4.1. The needforasolidknowledge base Cities need a solid knowledge base to properly assess their current situation and future development potential. This involves a better understanding by the cities of their strengths and weaknesses, an awareness of their diversity, creativity, entrepreneurial base, human resources and social capital, etc. Indicators are needed to measure progress towards objectives on a range of issues and to evaluate the effectiveness of strategies. Ideally cities should be able not only to assess their own situation, but also to compare themselves with other cities. Several things are needed to achieve this. City administrations must have the capacity to share and analyse information, to establish causal links between indicators and action, and, not least, to formulate and measure long-term objectives. Crude indicators, such as GDP measurements and different types of input and output indicators, have to be complemented with outcome indicators as well as qualitative indicators, such as perception surveys. GDP data in particular should be used with great caution when applied at the urban level, as many people living in cities work outside them and vice versa. Pockets of deprivation may also not be visible in GDP data. There is a need for a ‘shift of focus from actions and financial means to their outcome in terms of people’s well-being and progress through appropriate indicators […]: the time needed to travel from W to Y at an average speed (as an aspect of mobility); the results of tests in a given topic (as an aspect of competence); the share of firms denied credit at any interest rate (as an aspect of banks’ rationing); the share of all children living in “jobless households”appropriately defined (as an aspect of jobless households).’147 Cities also have to be capable of distinguishing between the effect of internal and external factors on their development. A very sophisticated employment policy may yield negative employment figures due to external circumstances such as the recent financial and economic crisis. City-specific data that is consistent and comparable across Europe is difficult to obtain. There is a high level of discrepancy between European cities concerning the scope and quality of available information. These differences relate both to the different types of government and the governance systems put in place – there is not even a shared definition of a city in Europe – as well as to different traditions and capacities for data collection. Statistical offices in some Member States have very complete databases with demographic, educational, income, employment, social security, etc. data sets that can be combined to provide quite detailed socio-economic pictures of municipalities’ inhabitants, while in other countries data are less systematic and more fragmented. But even with very comprehensive socio-economic data sets, it is difficult to understand and analyse issues such as social polarisation and cohesion. People’s social relationships and their daily and weekly mobility patterns and use and consumption of public services, are equally important as more hard data on income, employment and education. Cities thus have to develop new tools that can deal with such more qualitative issues. ‘While the quantitative changes in terms of population numbers are not big except for the relative growth in suburban satellites of big cities, the qualitative change of population in different parts of urban regions and nationally seems to be significant. As there is lack of less empirical (quantitative) evidence, these are rather hypotheses based on some evidence from case studies. The less measurable issues may prove to be essential but the contemporary science and science-driven policies tend to underestimate the ‘dubious’ observations and opinions without scientific proof. Research should therefore focus on the less palpable, soft evidence. All these hitherto changes in the physical urban space are extremely controversial vis-a-vis the upcoming change of external constraints in the respect of urban spatial pattern.’148 For long-term visions to be formulated and for progress to be monitored, it is imperative to reinforce information 147 Barca, Fabrizio and McCann, Philip, ‘Outcome indicators and targets – Towards a performance-oriented EU Cohesion Policy’, February 2011. 148 Maier, Karel, contribution to Workshop 1 Cities of tomorrow – Urban challenges, Brussels, June 2010.