• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
URBACT Summer University 2013 - Masterclass - Ivan Tosics "Designing Urban Policies in an Integrated Way"

URBACT Summer University 2013 - Masterclass - Ivan Tosics "Designing Urban Policies in an Integrated Way"



Presentation given by Ivan Tosics during the URBACT Summer University 2013 at the Trinity College, Dublin.

Presentation given by Ivan Tosics during the URBACT Summer University 2013 at the Trinity College, Dublin.



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



2 Embeds 242

http://university2013.urbact.eu 241
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 1


Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    URBACT Summer University 2013 - Masterclass - Ivan Tosics "Designing Urban Policies in an Integrated Way" URBACT Summer University 2013 - Masterclass - Ivan Tosics "Designing Urban Policies in an Integrated Way" Presentation Transcript

    • WHO ARE YOU? • RED: local politician • BLUE: city officer-practitioner • GREEN: advisor-researcher • YELLOW: private sector • WHITE: other Urban policies in integrated way 2
    • STRUCTURE OF THE MASTER CLASS 1. WHY is integrated development needed? 2. WHAT has to be done to achieve more integration? 3. HOW can better integration be achieved? 4. Discuss the problems of integration! 5. Closing up 3Urban policies in integrated way
    • LINKS BETWEEN PROBLEMS • The main challenges of the upcoming decades: – demographic (ageing) – economic (growing global competition), – environmental (less renewable energy sources, more carbon produced) – socio-spatial (migration with growing inclusion problems, growing inequalities within society) • All these challenges have to be handled AT ONCE 4Urban policies in integrated way
    • http://www.google.hu/imgres?imgurl=http:// www.ruhrnachrichten.de/storage/scl/mdhl/fotostrecken/lokales/rn/dortmund/lokales/mitte/2011/02-2011/plovdiv1/2297054_m0w756h504q75v3295_zzdo-Plovdiv_und_Stolipinovo
    • MONO-SECTORAL ANSWERS ARE PROBLEMATIC • For each challenge „best” solution(s) can be found – Apply most modern technologies – Eliminate energy inefficient housing – Create new housing areas for the poorest – Develop urban areas in compact way – Concentrate support on the most excellent regions – Regulate migration • However, these „best” solutions create huge externalities (negative outcomes) regarding the other challenges 9Urban policies in integrated way
    • Urban policies in integrated way
    • INTEGRATED ANSWERS ARE NEEDED • Instead of mono-sectoral („best” for the given sector) interventions integrated answers are needed • The smart, sustainable and inclusive aspects of growth have to be linked to each other • However, there are strong interests against integrated planning: – „opportunity planning” in east-central European countries (subordinate urban development to investors) – „revanchist regeneration” (making inner cities attractive in order to maximize tax incomes) in western Europe – free market led development without planning and public control (Spanish and Irish examples) 14Urban policies in integrated way
    • CRISIS MAKES INTEGRATION NOT EASIER Novelties of the present situation: •for a number of years there will be no economic growth – and even later the present form of economic growth will be questioned as sacrifying the scarce environmental resources and increasing socio-spatial inequalities •the capacities of the public sector will be – for long time – much more limited than so far •the tolerance level of the people (regarding inequalities and democracy deficits) is sharply decreasing 20Urban policies in integrated way
    • Large drop in public resources makes difficult to continue earlier welfare and development policies
    • STRUCTURE OF THE MASTER CLASS 1. WHY is integrated development needed? 2. WHAT has to be done to achieve more integration? 3. HOW can better integration be achieved? 4. Discuss the problems of integration! 5. Closing up 24Urban policies in integrated way
    • TYPES OF INTEGRATION POLICIES • between policy areas (horizontal, in terms of policy management), coordinating the policy fields • between neighbouring municipalities (territorial, in terms of geography), allowing for cooperation in functional urban areas • between different levels of government (vertical, in terms of government), allowing for multi-level governance 25Urban policies in integrated way
    • INTEGRATION BETWEEN POLICY AREAS • Avoiding silos • All sectoral decisions should be controlled regarding their effects on other sectors • Needs strong initiatives: – policy schemes (national, regional or local) for integrated planning; – appropriate tools (for investments, for management); – special organizations managing the integrated process; – citizen participation Integrated development might require sub-optimal solutions along each dimension in order to reach good balance between all dimensions 26Urban policies in integrated way
    • EXAMPLES ON POLICY INTEGRATION • Neighbourhood regeneration: improving the physical environment with measures helping local people into jobs and promote social and cultural cohesion – Duisburg area with 13 th people (RegGov; URBACT Results:54) • Neighbourhood management: to bring local services together to address long-standing problems in the area. Participation of local communities is crucial. – Nijmegen Integrated Community Centre, with joined-up plan ‚Behind the front door’ to address anti-social behaviour (CoNet; URBACT Results:55) Urban policies in integrated way 27
    • COORDINATION BETWEEN MUNICIPALITIES Cooperation between neighbouring municipalities in functional urban areas is crucial to •avoid the negative effects of competition (investments, services, taxes) between local authorities •help to integrate policies – economic, environmental and social challenges can best be addressed at once on broader urban level •reach the economy of scale – size matters in economic terms and in services However, functional urban areas are undefined and usually weak in administrative-political sense 28Urban policies in integrated way
    • CITIES (million) Admin city MUA/city FUA/city London 7,43 1,1 1,8 Berlin 3,44 1,1 1,2 Madrid 3,26 1,5 1,6 Paris 2,18 4,4 5,1 Budapest 1,70 1,2 1,5 Vienna 1,60 1,0 1,6 Lisbon 0,53 4,4 4,9 Manchester 0,44 5,0 5,8 Liverpool 0,44 2,7 5,1 Katowice 0,32 7,1 9,5 Lille 0,23 4,1 11,3 … AVERAGE (40 cities) 42.63 mill 1,7 2,3 Sources: ESPON, 2007: Study on Urban Functions. ESPON Study 1.4.3 IGEAT, Brussels. Final Report March 2007 www.espon.eu City population: http://www.citypopulation.de
    • Territorial levels around Budapest Popula- tion (million) Administrative status Functional importance Budapest municipality 1.7 local government Agglomeration of Budapest 2.5 none (statistical unit) job market, housing market, infrastructure Region of Budapest 2.9 NUTS II planning level none Economic area of Budapest 4.0 none economic area (investors)
    • OECD delimitation of functional urban areas • OECD identification of FUAs – population grid from the global dataset Landscan (2000). Polycentric cores and the hinterlands of FUAs identified on the basis of commuting data, including all settlements from where at least 15% of the workers commute to any of the core settlement(s). • OECD defined four categories (total functional urban area): – small urban areas with a population of 50 – 200 thousand; – medium-sized urban areas (200 – 500 thousand), – metropolitan areas (500 thousand – 1,5 million); – large metropolitan areas (above 1,5 million population). • 29 OECD countries: 1175 functional urban areas. Public database: www.oecd.org/gov/regional/measuringurban • European OECD countries: 659 functional urban areas (29 large metropolitan areas and 88 metropolitan areas).
    • European OECD Countries Large metro- politan area (1,5 mill - ) Metropolitan area (0,5 mill-1,5 m) Medium sized urban area (200 th–500) Small urban area (50 th– 200 th) SUMM Share of population in FUAs (%) Austria 1 2 3 - 6 56,5 Belgium 1 3 4 3 11 58,9 Czech Rep 1 2 2 11 16 45,6 Denmark 1 3 - - 4 53,8 Estonia - 1 - 2 3 55,3 Finland - 1 2 4 7 49,7 France 3 12 29 39 83 62,8 Germany 6 18 49 36 109 64,3 Greece 1 1 1 6 9 49,8 Hungary 1 - 7 2 10 49,7 Ireland - 1 1 3 5 50,3 Italy 4 7 21 42 74 50,8 Luxembourg - - 1 - 1 80,2 Netherlands 1 4 11 19 35 72,1 Norway - 1 3 2 6 44,5 Poland 2 6 16 34 58 55,2 Portugal 1 1 3 8 13 53,9 Slovak Rep - 1 1 6 8 36,9 Slovenia - 1 1 - 2 39,1 Spain 2 6 22 46 76 62,7 Sweden 1 2 1 8 12 52,7 Switzerland - 3 3 4 10 55,6 UK 3 12 44 42 101 73,0 SUMM 29 88 225 317 659
    • COORDINATION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT LEVELS • Multilevel governance means sharing responsibilities between different levels of government • Rationale: higher levels of government are concerned with outcomes at the lower level, agreeing in co- assignment of responsibilities • Cities can strive for more integration, BUT cities can not achieve the most important goals without regional and national frameworks • Examples: – Law on Communaute Urbain (France) – New Deal for Communities (UK, …) 35Urban policies in integrated way
    • THE FRENCH ‘URBAN COMMUNITIES’ • Created by the French Parliament in 1966 as compulsory settlement associations in metropolitan areas of Bordeaux, Lille, Lyon and Strasbourg. • 1999 Chevenement law: strengthening the roles of settlement associations while keep them voluntary to create – 2009: 16 urban communities in France with a combined population of 7,5 million inhabitants. All urban areas in France over half million inhabitants are urban communities, except for Paris. • Purpose: to achieve cooperation and joint administration between large cities and their independent suburbs. • Urban communities are voluntary in their creation. However, if created, broad range of compulsory functions and single business tax regime are compulsory. Urban policies in integrated way 36
    • PROGRAMME FOR THE POOREST COMMUNITIES England: New Deal for Communities, 1998-2008 •A budget of £2 billion, distributed over 10 years, was allocated to 39 areas, each containing around 4,000 households. Each of the areas received around £50 million •The following key issues were set on the agenda: reduce worklessness and crime and improve health, education, and community safety as well as housing and the environment. •Implementations included collaboration between agencies or initiatives. Local partnerships were formed between residents, community organisations, local authorities and local businesses 38Urban policies in integrated way
    • Economy/jobs Sustainability/energy Social/inclusion PLL UK/FR CZ HU EST IT LV/LI How to measure integration?
    • City, size Areas around the city Functions of the different areas Legal background Birming -ham (1,04 mill) 1. Greater Birmingham and Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership (1,9 million) Birmingham, Solihull + 7 settlements 2. Birmingham agglomeration (2,3 mill): physically built area + 10 km green belt 3. West Midland Metropolitan County (2,55 mil): two main parts, Birmingham – Black Country 4. Birmingham Metropolitan Area (3,6 million): County + towns with 30-60 th. inhabitants including rural areas 5. West Midlands Region (5,3 mil) 1. Not clearly decided yet: may contain strategic planning, economic development, transport, culture and the creative industries, tourism and inward investment, business support, skills, the green economy and housing. Finance comes from business oriented public measures. 2. No functions 3. County: Integrated Transport authority (crosses several LEPs, containing only some part of the Birmingham LEP) under geographical reorganisation. 4. Non 5. Non 1. LEP system introduced in 2010 (local governments had the right which LEP to choose). Voluntary partnership. It has boards and working groups, members are mixture of political leaders and business leaders. 2. No organisation 3. The County was established by national law in 1974, and originally had a council. The council was abolished in 1986 and replaced by the current governance by the political leaders of the 7 districts. 4. There has never been any governance arrangements at the Birmingham Metropolitan Area level 5. The Region was just abolished in 2010.
    • STRUCTURE OF THE MASTER CLASS 1. WHY is integrated development needed? 2. WHAT has to be done to achieve more integration? 3. HOW can better integration be achieved? 4. Discuss the problems of integration! 5. Closing up 41Urban policies in integrated way
    • HOW CAN BETTER INTEGRATION BE ACHIEVED? 1. tools to achieve integration of policies 2. institutional aspects (top-down view) 3. participation-inclusion of citizens (bottom-up view) 4. involvement of the private sector 5. who should do what 42Urban policies in integrated way
    • TOOLS TO ACHIEVE INTEGRATION OF POLICIES Special tools are needed to achieve coordination between policy areas, territories, government levels. Possible coordination tools: •area based programmes – illustration: Budapest, Magdolna quarter urban regeneration •strategic planning – illustration: strategic plan of Budapest •large project – illustration: London Olympics 43Urban policies in integrated way
    • COORDINATION THROUGH AREA BASED PROGRAMME • To overcome the difficulties of coordination small spatial units can be selected to focus on. • URBAN programme (up till 2006): concentration on deprived areas. • National examples imitating URBAN: national policy framework for deprived areas, selected on the basis of indicators. – Example: the socially sensitive urban regeneration programme of Hungary, 2005 - onwards Urban policies in integrated way 44
    • A projekt terület Nagyfuvaros utca - Népszínház utca – Fiumei út – Baross utca – Koszorú utca által határolt terület Budapest belvárosának határán, Józsefváros középső részén L: 12.068 fő T: 263.800 m2 The project area It’s bounded by Nagyfuvaros – Népszínház – Fiumei – Baross – Koszorú streets Location: in the periphery of the downtown of Budapest, in the middle of the district 8. of Budapest Inhabitant: 12.068 Area: 263.800 m2 Elhelyezkedés Location
    • Budapest, Magdolna quarter • Strategic plan of district VIII for fifteen years (2005- 2020) • Socially sensitive urban regeneration programme: – Phase I (2005-2008): funded jointly by the Budapest and the District 8th Municipalities – pilot project for Budapest Rehabilitation Fund socially sensitive subprogramme, 2.7 million eur total investment – Phase II (2008-2011): ERDF funding (ROP) – key project and a model program, 7.2 million eur total investment – Phase III – (2013-onwards) ERDF, 13 m eur total investment • Integrated programmes: both physical and soft projects with extended partnership
    • Main pillars of the Magdolna I. programme The aim of the programme is not to turn Magdolna into a rich area,but to bring back the colourfullness of Józsefváros and terminate deep poverty. • Urban renewal: special programme for the tenants – To involve them into the renewal • Programme for creating communities – Create a community house, give rooms for civil organizations • Public space program – Improve the central square (Greenkeys, Interreg IIIB) • Educational program, safety program – De-segregate the school (from 98% to ‘normal’ share of Roma kids)
    • Hungarian national framework of urban regeneration Follows the idea of EC Community Initiative ”Urban” Political commitment – IUDS incorporated in the Building Act Strategic approach Area-based approach Integrated Urban Development Strategy •Strategic problem analysis •Mid-term development strategy •ANTI-SEGREGATION Programme Intervention area 1 Intervention area 2 Intervention area N Intervention Plan for Area 1 ”Hard” components: Housing, Community facilities, ”Soft” components: Training, Employment, Community actions (Global grants) Urban Development Manual Integrated approach
    • Main interventions of Phase II • Hard investments – To improve housing conditions (60% of the project): 7 condominiums, 16 social housing buildings (2 fully, 10 partially, 2 facades) – To improve living environment: public spaces • To strengthen local social services • To improve the educational service • To improve the employability of people • To improve public safety conditions
    • COORDINATION THROUGH STRATEGIC PLANNING • Strategic planning (since the 1980s): long-term concept and spatial view with frameworks, principles and conceptual spatial ideas. • Only for strategically important parts of the city, to inject a spatial dimension into sectoral strategies, integrating economic, infrastructure and social policies in space. • Strategic plans are usually not integrated with the regulatory aspects of the planning system and do not affect land rights, therefore they can be easily put aside if political leadership changes. – Example: Budapest. Eastern gate Urban policies in integrated way 54
    • BUDAPEST brownfield regeneration residential development centre development green area recultivation 8 DEVELOPMENT AREAS Danube Heart of Budapest Buda’s centre North Budapest South Budapest East Gate project area Urban subcentres Line of No. 4 underground
    • Észak-BudapestÉszak-Budapest
    • BUDAPEST Cultural axisCultural axis 65-85 000 sqm65-85 000 sqm Culture, entertainment, restaurant,Culture, entertainment, restaurant, services, education, creative industries,services, education, creative industries, public park (tender)public park (tender) Mixed commercial useMixed commercial use 100-120 000 sqm100-120 000 sqm office, hotel, conference,office, hotel, conference, residentialresidential Graphisoft ParkGraphisoft Park R&D (completed)R&D (completed) Mixed commercial useMixed commercial use 35-50 000 sqm35-50 000 sqm office, retailoffice, retail (tender)(tender) Residential areaResidential area (completed)(completed)
    • COORDINATION THROUGH LARGE PROJECT • Large projects (World Expo, Olympics, Capital of Culture, …) may be used to coordinate efforts in planning of the city or one of its areas • The more investments arrive suddenly to a deprived area the more difficult it is to make the development integrated (involving the residents) – Example: London, Olympics. The Olympic Park area was one of the most deprived ones in London. 65% of residents were supportive for Olympics in London. Majority also agreed that the games contributed to the regeneration of their local area. Mainly long term benefits are awaited not immediate things… Investments came to the area but not jobs which would be directly accessible by the present generation of the residents. Urban policies in integrated way 60
    • INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS Cooperation forms have different institutional set-ups: •with some sort of institution/office: European Grouping of Territorial Coopeartion (EGTC), Multi-Party Contracts (e.g. LEPs) •without insitutional character: Policy Platforms (EU initiated), Territorial Pacts, Local action plans, Local strategic partnerships (see Tasan-Kok – Vranken, 2011) Strategic planning process may create new types of institutions which are important to stabilize in time strategic planning ideas. For territorial (metropolitan) cooperation it might be important to create some type of institution. 61Urban policies in integrated way
    • City, size Areas around the city Functions of the different areas Legal background Stuttgart (0,6 mill) 1. Stuttgart Region (2,7 mill) 178 municipalities 2. Stuttgart Metropolitan Region (5,3 mill) 1. Land use planning, the organisation of public transport and the promotion of the economy 2. Voluntarily tasks in the field of transport, economic development, climate change 1. Stuttgart Region (Parliament with 91 delegates) and the Stuttgart Region Association and agencies 2. Committee with 36 nominated delegates.
    • PARTICIPATION-INCLUSION OF CITIZENS • Participation is crucial for integrated development. • Much depends how the participatiory aspects are implied – it can range from participatory budgeting type deep involvement till manipulation (masquerading the dominance of economic interests). • Recent scandals, as Stuttgart21, Berlin MediaSpree, Hamburg Gangeviertel might underpin the view that no integrated project is possible without participation. 63Urban policies in integrated way
    • EXAMPLES ON PARTICIPATION • Participation techniques need to be adapted to local circumstances (CoNet handbook, URBACT Results:57) – Participatory budgeting (Berlin) – Neighbourhood Mothers (Berlin) – Organize popular family events (Zabrze) – Mixed methods and use of LSG (Alba Iulia) – Encourage social innovation through NGOs, CBOs • URBACT projects (through LAPs and LSGs) and Strategic Planning might contribute to build social capital in governance structures. Urban policies in integrated way 64
    • INVOLVEMENT OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR • Barcelona Strategic Plan, Rotterdam Climate Initiative: broad involvement of major economic actors. – Might be seen as corporate planning for economic development goals with certain social and environmental aims attached. • New (2010) ideas to involve private capital to finance investments of public interest: ‚impact development’, re-paying private investment from the savings on public expenditures. – Social Impact Bonds: investors/funders provide the initial capital support and the government agrees to make payments to the program only when outcomes are achieved. So in principle government pays only for success. 65Urban policies in integrated way
    • EXAMPLES ON PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT • URBACT projects have relatively little experience and mixed results in private sector involvement (URBACT Results:58). – RegGov: private actors (e.g. Housing Companies) need to be involved as LSG members into neighbourhood regeneration – Duisburg, Södertälje – Jessica4Cities: engaging the private sector might be expensive option for certain types of PPPs • Could visionary planners change cities with the help of investors on the basis of public sector guarantees…? Not without real citizen participation … Urban policies in integrated way 66
    • JACQUIER: Multilevel : yesterday, today and may be tomorrow A building process : the role of urban and regional policies Until now Former Organisation Polarized Spaces "Hardware" Policies Central State Province Commune Now Transition Then New organisation Homogeneous spaces "Software" Policies European Union Transborder Regions National Regions Metropolitan Areas Neighbourhoods Vectors Sustainable Urban Development Integrated Policies as operators for transition Social Cohesion Policy SDEC, INTERREG CIP URBAN, URBACT Regional Politicies DOCUP OP Interreg National IPSUD (Big Cities programme Politique de la ville, Soziale Stadt, ...) CIP Urban Area-based approaches
    • STRUCTURE OF THE MASTER CLASS 1. WHY is integrated development needed? 2. WHAT has to be done to achieve more integration? 3. HOW can better integration be achieved? 4. Discuss the problems of integration! 5. Closing up 68Urban policies in integrated way
    • TABLE DISCUSSIONS FOR 15 MINUTES Discuss one of the following questions in your group: •What kind of experiences, successes or failures, do you have with the different types of integration policies (horizontal, territorial, vertical)? •What kind of experiences do you have with the different types of coordination mechanisms (area-based, strategic planning, large project)? Do you have additional ideas for coordination? In each group a note-taker should be selected who will send me the notes today via email. Urban policies in integrated way 69
    • STRUCTURE OF THE MASTER CLASS 1. WHY is integrated development needed? 2. WHAT has to be done to achieve more integration? 3. HOW can better integration be achieved? 4. Discuss the problems of integration! 5. Closing up 70Urban policies in integrated way
    • LINK TO EU POLICIES • Integrated urban development is the key to achieve the EU2020 targets. Thus national and EU level support is needed to initiate cross-sectoral and cross-territorial planning towards green and social economy strategies. • The new EU tools (ITI, CLLD, Horizon2020) in the upcoming 2014-2020 period can help integrated planning and development. 71Urban policies in integrated way
    • Regional ERDF OP National/sectoral ERDF OP ESF OP CF OP Integrated sustainable urban development City 3  Example: Member State A Total allocation for ITI at least 5% of Member State’s ERDF, delegated to cities I T I + additional ESF and CF, if appropriate City 1 City 2 City 3   City 25 City …
    • INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT AND EUROPEAN POLICIES • ITIs, led by cities, in conjunction to CLLDs, led by public- private-thirdsector partnerships in neighbourhoods might help integration in narrow functional areas – there is a need for defined boundaries and (at least delegated) fixed institutional structure • regional innovation strategies, led by administrative regions and Horizon2020 innovation partnerships might help integration in broader metropolitan areas – can and should be kept on flexible spatial level Urban policies in integrated way 73
    • NATIONAL POLICIES NEEDED • The national level is of crucial importance in initiating integrated urban development across policy sectors, in functional areas and across levels of policy making – Good examples can be discovered e.g. in France, Germany, Switzerland, Finnland; promising discussions seem to go on in Sweden, Poland, Norway, Belgium, UK • Cities have to lobby (referring to the EU and to URBACT) their national and regional governments with arguments and ideas towards integrated urban development Urban policies in integrated way 74
    • TOWARDS MORE DEMOCRATIC DEVELOPMENT Give important role to bottom-up initiatives. However, avoid the dangers of technical optimism – do not devolve too much power to non- political, non-elected actors local democracy optimism – the situation would not improve a lot “If Mayors Ruled the World” Bottom-up initiatives should be embedded into well- defined top-down frameworks French Urban Communities, Berlin neighbourhood fund, Hungarian Integrated Urban Development policy… Urban policies in integrated way 75
    • DO MORE WITH LESS PUBLIC MONEY Develop more efficient public policies with integrating the economic, environmental and social policies: fight against urban sprawl with densification of inner residential and brownfield areas connect green economies to inclusive job creation (e.g. energy efficient renewal of deprived areas): GREEN SOCIAL ECONOMY use social innovation to handle the problems of youngsters, unemployed, migrants… Integrated strategic planning on the level of functional urban metropolitan areas could be the starting point for al this. Urban policies in integrated way 76
    • SHORT DEBRIEFING Please answer shortly the following questions on the coloured papers (and leave them on your seat): •WHITE What are your main conclusions from this session (3 most relevant messages)? •RED What are the main challenges in your context that prevent integrated urban development? •GREEN Is there anything you have learned during this session that you think you can use in your work? Urban policies in integrated way 77
    • Thank you for your attention! tosics@mri.hu