Rodrigo Cardoso OTB – Research for the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Secondary yet metropolitan? The advantages and challenges of metropolitan integration for second-tier cities

Image: NASA

Renovated interest in second-tier cities As tourism and business destinations in media, investment and development priority in policy-making, specific urban typology in research.

Disparities among second-tier cities in Europe: more volatile than capitals

“[…] the recession has had a major impact on many of them—in particular those which flourished during the boom decade. More than 75% of the cities experienced GDP falls 2008–2010. Capitals performed far better than second-tier cities during the crisis.”

Parkinson et al. 2015

ESPON, 2013

ESPON, 2016

What are their persistent setbacks?

Economic - Functional

• Larger cities strive on agglomeration economies based on size and mass; feedback loop reinforces ‘fusion at the top’; unsure how networks of cities can substitute for that.

• Lack of critical mass reduces level of amenities and maybe attractiveness for population and firms; many second-tiers have fewer metropolitan functions than their size suggests.

Political - Historical

• Public investment directed to handful of successful ‘national champion’ cities aimed at global competition, greater territorial imbalance of resources emerges.

• Decision-making centralized in capitals provides incentive to prioritize its growth over others, perpetuating historical trend to ‘awe and impress’.

How can these embedded disadvantages be mitigated?

Cities reconfigured at the regional scale: the process of metropolisation

Image: NASA

Achieving agglomeration benefits beyond concentration in single centres

Deepened and widened integration with larger territorial scales.

• Strengthening networks of cities (nodal concept, centres and their strong interactions)

• Agglomeration externality fields (zonal concept, varying intensity, places borrow size)

IPPR North, 2016

West of England LEP, 2014

TYA Design LLC, 2010

‘A sum of small cities doesn’t make a large city’

• Polycentric urban areas do not achieve agglomeration benefits commensurate with their aggregated size.

• Integration said to harness the advantages that emerge at the metropolitan region scale.

Size & Functions Greater population & labour market, better matching, more interaction, urbanisation economies. Larger array of amenities, higher level urban functions, greater attractiveness for people and firms.

Efficiency & Capacity Regional organising capacity, more efficient pooling of shared resources, complementarity.

Political Influence Greater influence in higher-level policymaking, more legitimacy for metropolitan governance.

Evidence about the potential benefits of integration

• Increases in productivity and functional performance according to city size.

• Metro areas with more fragmented governance have lower levels of productivity.

• Integrated urban regions have greater control over spatial planning, public transport

• Functional linkages can trigger urban development along connections and in nodes, and reduce spatial disparities, although at an environmental cost.

• Cultural contrasts and institutional conflicts between places reduce likelihood to build economic relations.

Ahrend et al. (OECD), 2015

Instit. fragmentation vs. productivity Urban size vs. productivity

Evidence about the potential benefits of integration

Relevance of functional, institutional and cultural dimensions for metropolitan performance

Effect of different forms of metropolitan integration in the increase of performance index (measured by the presence of top-level metro functions) in 117 European Polycentric Urban Regions. Meijers, Hoogerbrugge and Cardoso, 2017

Potentials of integration affect cities differently

Madrid Randstad

Manchester

Which ones have the greatest incentive to pursue metropolitan integration?

Liege

All images: NASA

Do second-tier cities have greater advantages in pursuing metropolitan

region integration than large primate cities?

Can the degree of their disadvantages be mitigated by harnessing the

strengths of the surrounding metropolitan region into a cohesive entity?

Likely setbacks in: Greater relative gains in: Agglomeration benefits from size & functions Size and Functions

Availability of resources, public investment Regional organising capacity

Political influence at higher levels Political influence

1. Size & Functions Greater relative population increase through urban region integration in second-tiers than in largest cities

ESPON, 2005 ESPON, 2005

1. Size & Functions Greater relative population increase through urban region integration in second-tiers than in largest cities

0,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

7,00

First-tier FUA/MUASecond-tier FUA/MUA

Athens Budapest Dublin Kobenhavn Madrid Paris Talinn Zurich

Ratio of population increase between FUA and MUA scale

(ESPON 2007 defs.) (bubble size = population)

Median 1st tier = x 1.38

Median 2nd tier = x 1.53

1. Size & Functions Second-tier cites have fewer urban functions than their size would suggest, and so are likely to rely on functions lying elsewhere to enjoy a larger functional array…

…and their surrounding urban regions are better served by urban functions than in the case of first-tier cities:

BBSR, 2011 Cardoso and Meijers, 2016

1. Size & Functions Greater relative functional performance increase through urban region integration in second-tiers than in largest cities

-2,00

3,00

8,00

13,00

18,00

23,00

First-tier MR/MUASecond-tier MR/MUA

Athens Budapest Dublin Kobenhavn Madrid Paris Talinn Zurich

Ratio of urban functions index increase between MUA and Metro Region

(ESPON + BBSR defs.) (bubble size = functional index)

Median 1st tier = x 1.12

Median 2nd tier = x 1.77

1. Size & Functions But much greater unexplored potential around second-tier cities…

Part of the metropolitan region (BBSR-defined) population and functional mass which is not yet integrated in a designated Functional Urban Area (in pink). Meijers, Hoogerbrugge and Cardoso, 2017

2. Organizing capacity

• In periods of austerity and under-investment, the strategy for most second-tier cities is more about efficiently pooling scarce metropolitan resources than adding new ones.

• Capitals and first-tier cities tend to be more protected from decreases in investment and resources and may have lesser urgency to efficiently pool them with other areas.

www.leplacide.com

2. Organizing capacity

• Second-tiers need to develop larger marginal efficiency in use of investment & resources.

• Important to capture investment & resources which are spread across region, as no single centre commands a sufficient array (see structure of metropolitan functions).

• EU funds for productive sectors higher in second-tiers, favour metropolitan management.

“inter-municipal agreements are becoming a popular tool for sharing resources between municipalities and other governmental units. […] municipal leaders can use these agreements to improve services and reduce costs while also promoting collaboration and regionalization.”

MAPC, Greater Boston http://www.torinostrategica.it/

3. Political influence

• Second-tiers are weak interlocutors when dealing with higher levels of government.

• Integration builds a larger demographic and economic actor, with louder political voice.

• Greater recognition by central government and capital city of an ‘equal’ partner.

• High profile mayors, close to higher level power, influence policy in the region’s interest.

• Opportunity for international affirmation bypassing national strategies/pathways.

http://theday.co.uk/politics/greater-manchester-to-be-northern-powerhouse http://www.mouvement-metropole.fr/ www.respublica.org.uk

3. Political influence Sites of power and decision-making, primate cities can often achieve these purposes without the critical mass coming from large-scale integration.

Primate city sub-centres often less powerful & diverse, less important for metro economy.

‘Edge cities network’, built to help small centres at the edge of large capitals deal with the ‘pressures’ of that proximity. (Phelps et al., 2006)

Socially ‘monochromatic’ centres around London (Cardoso, 2016, based on datshine.org maps)

Hegemonic dangers of core city in ‘Metropole du Grand Paris’

“…the hyper-centre has created a hyper-periphery.” (Domingues, 2009)

The second-tier urban region is not a homogeneous thing…

Image: Datashine.org

Emerging research and policy concerns

• Urban region integration strategies are not equally relevant for all second-tiers; likely to be more important in countries with strong capital city dominance and in second-tier cities embedded in a densely urbanised surrounding territory.

• Urban region integration strategies are not equally successful for all second-tiers; other factors come into play, such as location in national/international corridors, structure of national urban system, legacy of urban & municipal history, type of leadership, etc.

• Second-tier cities may have greater interest, but also greater difficulty in shaping integration strategies to capture territorial potential (lack of power, demography, etc.).

• Policy must consider disparities within urban regions (economic performance, quality of

life) and the tools to minimize them; likely barriers are orientation of city-regional leaders, lack of metropolitan identity; both actual and perceived disparities count.

• Consider widely different powers, structures, funds and autonomy of cities and city-

regions across Europe; how can a dialogue be ensured to stabilise that scale?

Thank you! r.o.v.cardoso@tudelft.nl

Cardoso R. and Meijers E. (…) The advantages and challenges of metropolitan integration for second-tier cities. Planning Theory and Practice (?) (revisions requested)

Cardoso R. (2016) Overcoming barriers to institutional integration in European second-tier urban regions. European Planning Studies, 24(12), pp. 2197-2216.

Cardoso R. and Meijers E. (2016) Contrasts between first-tier and second-tier cities: a functional perspective. European Planning Studies, 24(5), pp. 996-1015.

Cardoso R. (2015). Cidades principais e secundárias na Europa: uma caracterização dos contrastes à escala da região urbana [Primate and second-tier cities in Europe: a characterization of contrasts at the urban region scale]. Revista GOT, 8, pp. 85-109.

Cardoso R. (…). Localising urbanisation trajectories: comparing the emergence of second-tier urban regions in Europe 1890-2011. (revisions submitted; under peer-review).

Secondary yet metropolitan? The advantages and challenges of metropolitan integration for second-tier cities