The (re)positioning of the Spanish metropolitan system within the European urban system (1986-2006)
Abstract
The thesis seeks to demonstrate that during the period between 1986 and 2006, some of the principal cities of the Spanish metropolitan system1, have undergone significant change in terms of their European competitiveness. It is suggested that in the case of Madrid and Barcelona in particular this change has been of such a magnitude to proportion them a much more important place within the European spatial configuration than that which they occupied in the mid-1980s. Empirical evidence is offered to support this conjecture. The thesis lies wholly within the framework of spatial planning at the European territorial scale.<br/><br/>It charts the comparative ascent of the Spanish cities from the moment of Spain's entry into the European Union (EU) in 1986 against the background of the development of European spatial policy, increased economic integration across Europe, the increased importance of the 'territorial' dimension of EU cohesion policy and an eventual waning of the applicability of the terminology of 'core' and 'periphery' to describe European geographical location.<br/><br/>Part One (Chapter 1) addresses the processes of urbanisation in general from a global perspective and then focuses on metropolitan growth in a number of different historical contexts from the start of the 19th Century. Parts Two (Chapters 2-5) and Three (Chapters 6-9) of the thesis carry out analyses at two contrasting but complementary spatial scales. Part Two examines the metropolitan growth processes in Spain, in the period since 1857, detecting the historical moments in which there were surges in the metropolitan populations of the seven cities of the metropolitan system. The dimensions of the spatial units of analysis corresponding to the seven Spanish metropolitan urban regions are described, based upon a methodology first developed by the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC) in the context of a transnational spatial planning project of the INTERREG community initiative2. These seven spatial units form the basis for a socio-economic analysis of the structure of the metropolitan system, drawing upon data principally from the 2001 Census. If by 1930 one of the key characteristics of Spain's urban system was having not just one but two cities (Madrid and Barcelona) belonging to the group of 27 cities across the world with populations in excess of 1 million inhabitants3, this same differentiation between the country's two largest cities and the remainder of the urban system is equally valid today. Spain's urban system remains clearly bicephalous in being dominated by these same two cities in terms of demographic and economic strength.<br/><br/>Part Three begins by examining the evolution of European spatial policy against the background of an ever-enlarging European Union and changes with regard to the notion of cohesion - from a concept understood in terms of economic and social factors, to one in which the territorial dimension has become increasingly important. The European urban system is then critically examined through a number of key and influential studies, with particular regard to the rankings and hierarchies of metropolitan urban regions deriving there from and the changes in the placing of the Spanish metropolitan urban regions therein.<br/><br/>Taking inspiration from the seminal contribution of Manuel Castells4 in the context of the structural changes resulting from the informational and technological revolution, the thesis seeks to replicate the concept of a 'space of flows'. This is carried out through a 'network analysis' approach drawing upon air passenger flows between some 28 European metropolitan urban regions of the EU15+2 group of countries, enabling the analysis of the interaction between these 28 cities. This methodology enables arriving at a number of descriptive indicators which in turn, through the application of a multi-dimensional scaling mathematical technique, permits comparing the functional and physical distances of each of the metropolitan urban regions from the centre of the 'conceptual space of air passenger flows' and the centre of gravity. The resulting map of the functional positioning of the cities offers a spatial vision of metropolitan Europe quite different to that based upon Cartesian coordinates. Such an approach enables demonstrating that cities such as Barcelona, Madrid, Helsinki, Lisbon and Athens, traditionally considered as physically peripheral to the European core area, appear to be more favourably positioned in functional terms. Furthermore in the case of Spain the results indicate that Barcelona lies closer to the centre of the conceptual 'space of air passenger flows' than Madrid.<br/><br/>In light of this empirical evidence, together with the signs of increased economic integration across some parts of Spain, the prospects of Spain forming part of a wider European territorial concentration of flows and activities, and the recognition of the territorial capital of Madrid and Barcelona within recent EU spatial policy declarations, the thesis concludes in Part Four that these two metropolitan regions have undergone a clear consolidation and (re)positioning within the European metropolitan hierarchy.
Full text
The (re)positioning of the Spanish metropolitan system within the European urban system (1986-2006) Malcolm C. Burns Tesi Doctoral dirigit per: Dr. Josep Roca Cladera Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya Programa de Doctorat d’Arquitectura en Gestió i Valoració Urbana Barcelona, juny de 2008
iii CONTENTS page Figures vii Tables xi Acknowledgements xiv Summary xvii INTRODUCTION Introduction 1 1. From the EU6 (1957) to the EU27 (2007) 3 2. Territorial models and territorial cohesion 5 3. The territorial and functional characterisation of the Spanish metropolitan urban regions (1998-2001) 7 4. Spatial positioning 10 5. Hypothesis or ‘ thesis ’ 13 6. Cartographic representations of spatial configurations 14 7. Objectives 19 8. Methodology 20 9. Structure 22 Part I BACKGROUND Chapter 1: Processes of urbanisation Introduction 27 1.1. Global trends of urbanisation 27 1.2. Metropolitan growth 37 1.2.1. Centralised metropolitan growth 39 1.2.2. Early indications of decentralised metropolitan growth 48 1.2.2.1. Metropolitan districts and conurbations 51 1.2.2.2. The first ‘metropolitan districts’ in the United States 51 1.2.2.3. ‘Conurbations’: part of the legacy of Patrick Geddes 54 1.2.3. Growing metropolisation and increasing suburbanisation 59 1.2.4. Disperse metropolitan growth 62
The (re)positioning of the Spanish metropolitan system within the European urban system (1986-2006) iv 1.2.5. Contemporary metropolisation 70 1.2.5.1. From Megalopolis to functional trans-metropolitan geographies 71 1.2.5.2. From de-industrialisation to globalisation 77 1.2.5.3. Re-metropolisation 79 Concluding remarks 83 Part II SPAIN: THE PROCESSES OF METROPOLISATION Chapter 2: Metropolisation in Spain Introduction 89 2.1. Early metropolitan governance 91 2.2. Comparative metropolitan dynamics 94 2.2.1. Madrid 97 2.2.2. Barcelona 101 2.2.3. Valencia 105 2.2.4. Sevilla 108 2.2.5. Bilbao 111 2.2.6. Zaragoza 114 2.2.7. Málaga 117 Concluding remarks 121 Chapter 3: The spatial dimensions of the Spanish metropolitan system Introduction 127 3.1. Approaches to the delimitation of urban agglomerations 128 3.1.1. Morphological approach 128 3.1.2. Demographic approach 130 3.1.3. Economic approach 132 3.1.4. Functional approach 134 3.2. Methodology of metropolitan delimitation 136 3.3. Methodology adopted for the delimitation of the Spanish metropolitan urban regions 138 3.4. Spain’s principal metropolitan urban regions 140 3.4.1. Metropolitan urban region of Madrid 142 3.4.2. Metropolitan urban region of Barcelona 145 3.4.3. Metropolitan urban region of Valencia 147 3.4.4. Metropolitan urban region of Sevilla 148
v 3.4.5. Metropolitan urban region of Bilbao 149 3.4.6. Metropolitan urban region of Zaragoza 150 3.4.7. Metropolitan urban region of Málaga 151 3.5. Alternative approaches to defining the Spanish metropolitan system 152 3.5.1. Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Urbanismo (1987) 152 3.5.2. Ministerio de Fomento (2000) 153 3.5.3. Minitserio de Administraciones Públicas (2001) 155 3.5.4. Large European Metropolitan Agglomerations (GAME) 155 3.5.5 Ministerio de Vivienda (2004) 156 Concluding remarks 158 Chapter 4: The social structure of the Spanish metropolitan system Introduction 161 4.1. Population of the metropolitan urban regions 162 4.2. Distribution of the metropolitan population 164 4.3. Population density 173 4.4. Change in the metropolitan population (1986-2006) 175 4.5. Age structure of the metropolitan population 180 4.6. Ageing of the metropolitan population 182 4.7. Educational level 184 4.8. Employment structure 186 4.9. Nationality of the metropolitan population 188 Concluding remarks 191 Chapter 5: The economic structure of the Spanish metropolitan system Introduction 193 5.1. Economically active resident population (POR) 195 5.2. Locally-based jobs (LTL) 199 5.3. Job ratio 211 5.4. Economic diversification 214 5.5. Economic specialisation 219 5.6. Gross domestic product (GDP) 232 5.7. Imports and exports 234 5.8. Economic activity 237 5.9. Unemployment 239 Concluding remarks 241
The (re)positioning of the Spanish metropolitan system within the European urban system (1986-2006) vi Part III EUROPE: TOWARDS INCREASED INTEGRATION Chapter 6: European spatial policy Introduction 247 6.1. European treaties 249 6.1.1. Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957) 249 6.1.2. Merger Treaty (1965) 250 6.1.3. Single European Act (1986) 250 6.1.4. Treaty on European Union (1992) 251 6.1.5. Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) 253 6.1.6. Treaty of Nice (2001) 253 6.1.7. Lisbon (2000) and Gothenburg (2001) Strategies 254 6.1.8. Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (2004) 255 6.1.9. Growth and jobs and the revitalisation of the Lisbon Agenda (2005) 257 6.2. European spatial policy guidance 259 6.2.1. European Regional / Spatial Planning Charter (1983) 259 6.2.2. Background to the European Spatial Development Perspective 260 6.2.3. European Spatial Development Perspective (1999) 262 6.2.3.1. Polycentric spatial development 265 6.2.3.2. Access to infrastructure 267 6.2.4. Guiding principles for sustainable development of the European Continent 269 6.2.5. Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities (2007) 270 6.2.6. Territorial Agenda of the European Union (2007) 271 6.3. Progress on cohesion 274 6.3.1. First report on economic and social cohesion (1996) 274 6.3.2. Second report on economic and social cohesion (1999) 275 6.3.3. Third report on economic and social cohesion (2004) 281 6.3.4. Cohesion Policy and cities: the urban contribution to growth and jobs in the regions 283 6.3.5. The Community Strategic Guidelines on Cohesion 2007-2013 284 6.3.6. Fourth report on economic and social cohesion (2007) 288 Concluding remarks 291 Chapter 7: European urban system Introduction 295 7.1. Les Villes Européenes 299
vii 7.2. The GaWC Inventory of World Cities 305 7.3. Les Villes Européenes revisited 311 7.4. Metropolitan European Growth Areas (MEGA) 315 7.5. A geographical-functional categorisation of European cities 320 Concluding remarks 323 Chapter 8: European space of air passenger flows Introduction 327 8.1. Network analysis 331 8.2. Air passenger data sources 333 8.3. Descriptive indicators deriving from the air passenger flows 348 8.4. Multidimensional scaling 355 Concluding remarks 365 Technical Annex 1: Real air passenger flows 370 Technical Annex 2: Real and estimated air passenger flows 372 Technical Annex 3: Interaction values between the 29 airports of the sample 374 Technical Annex 4: Functional distance between the 29 airports of the sample 376 Chapter 9: Madrid and Barcelona within the European metropolitan hierarchy Introduction 379 9.1. Economic integration and Spanish structural funding 380 9.2. The ‘territorial capital’ of Madrid and Barcelona 385 9.3. Territorial scenarios for Europe 391 9.4. Cartesian conditioning and spatial positioning 396 Concluding remarks 400 Part IV CONCLUSIONS Chapter 10: Competition, Complementarity and Cohesion 403 Further research 409
The (re)positioning of the Spanish metropolitan system within the European urban system (1986-2006) viii Appendices Appendix 1: Extract from the 1800 Account of Population of Great Britain 413 Appendix 2: Extract from the 1910 United States Census 421 Appendix 3: Administrative composition of the Spanish Metropolitan Urban System 427 Appendix 4: European Regional/Spatial Planning Charter 453 Appendix 5: Territorial Agenda of the European Union 463 Bibliography 473
ix Figures page A. The spatial extent of the European Union at 1 January 2007 4 B. Spatial expansion of Boston up to 1900 15 C. European base map, with a velocity of 69 km/hour 16 D. Spatial connectivity based upon 1993 rail travel times 17 E. Projected spatial connectivity based upon 2020 rail travel times 18 1.1. Urban and rural populations of the world: 1950-2030 29 1.2. Urbanisation trends, 1950-2030 33 1.4. Gustav Dore’s view of London congestion 43 1.5. Baker Street station on the metropolitan Railway, 1863 43 1.6. London, 1840, 1860, 1880, 1900, 1914 and 1929 45 1.7. Publicity for Metro-Land 50 1.8. Greater London 55 1.9. Clyde and Forth towns agglomerating as “Clyde-Forth” 56 1.10. Population growth of Greater London: 1890-2000 64 1.11. Population growth of principal English conurbations: 1890-2000 64 1.12. Population of US cities: 1950-1980 65 1.13. Population of the largest cities in the US :1890-2000 66 1.14. Diagram of Megalopolis according to Gottmann (1961) 72 1.15. The spatial distribution of the ten Magapolitans 74 1.16. The inter-state connectivity of the ten Megapolitans 74 2.1. Evolution of the population of Madrid (1857-2001) 97 2.2. Absolute increase in the population of Madrid (1857-2001) 98 2.3. Relative increase in the population of Madrid (1857-2001) 98 2.4. Evolution of the population of Barcelona (1857-2001) 101 2.5. Absolute increase in the population of Barcelona (1857-2001) 102 2.6. Relative increase in the population of Barcelona (1857-2001) 104 2.7. Evolution of the population of Valencia (1857-2001) 105 2.8. Absolute increase in the population of Valencia (1857-2001) 106 2.9. Relative increase in the population of Valencia (1857-2001) 106 2.10. Evolution of the population of Sevilla (1857-2001) 108 2.11. Absolute increase in the population of Sevilla (1857-2001) 109 2.12. Relative increase in the population of Sevilla (1857-2001) 109 2.13. Evolution of the population of Bilbao (1857-2001) 111 2.14. Absolute increase in the population of Bilbao (1857-2001) 112 2.15. Relative increase in the population of Bilbao (1857-2001) 112
The (re)positioning of the Spanish metropolitan system within the European urban system (1986-2006) xvi 5.7. Index of economic specialisation for the metropolitan urban region of Madrid (2004) 220 5.8. Index of economic specialisation for the metropolitan urban region of Barcelona (2004) 221 5.9. Index of economic specialisation for the metropolitan urban region of Valencia (2004) 223 5.10. Index of economic specialisation for the metropolitan urban region of Sevilla (2004) 224 5.11. Index of economic specialisation for the metropolitan urban region of Bilbao (2004) 225 5.12. Index of economic specialisation for the metropolitan urban region of Zaragoza (2004) 226 5.13. Index of economic specialisation for the metropolitan urban region of Málaga (2004) 227 5.14. Index of specialisation for the metropolitan urban regions for innovative sectors (2004) 228 5.15. Index of specialisation for the metropolitan capitals for innovative sectors (2004) 229 5.16. GDP per capita of the ‘metropolitan’ provinces (2000-2002) 232 5.17. Imports and exports of the ‘metropolitan’ provinces (2004) 236 5.18. Economic activity rates of the ‘metropolitan’ provinces (2002-2006) 237 5.19. Unemployment rates of the ‘metropolitan’ provinces (2002-2006) 239 6.1. Chronology of key events and publications in the development of European spatial policy (1957-2007) 294 7.1. Values obtained for the 165 agglomerations 300 7.2. Global accountancy service centres 306 7.3. Global advertising service centres 307 7.4. Global banking service centres 307 7.5. Global legal service centres 308 7.6. Categorisation of world cities corresponding to the GaWC methodology 309 7.7. Values obtained for the 180 urban agglomerations 313 7.8. Classification of the 76 MEGAs 318 7.9. Ordering of cities according to the geographical-functional categorisation 321 7.10. Summary of the positioning accorded to the Spanish metropolitan urban regions within the named studies 324 8.1. Outline of the origin-destination matrix for the 28 sample cities 333 8.2. International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Airport codes 334 8.3. Ranking of airports in terms of their attraction value 337 8.4. Attraction values of Madrid and Barcelona 342 8.5. Top 50 European Airports (2003) in passenger numbers 344
xvii 8.6. Ranking of a) airports in terms of their attraction value (2004), and b) MEGAs in terms of their population (2001) 346 8.7. Functional distances and corresponding ranking, between Barcelona and Madrid, and the other metropolitan urban regions of the sample 353 8.8. PROXSCAL results for the positioning and distances to the centre of the space of air flows for the cities of the sample 360 8.9. Differences in values between the functional and physical proximities 364 9.1. Ordering of European metropolitan urban regions 398
The (re)positioning of the Spanish metropolitan system within the European urban system (1986-2006) xviii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My memory of a meeting with Josep Roca in his office early in September 1997 is extremely vivid, when he outlined the nature of a comparative research exercise we had been commissioned to carry out for the Spanish Ministerio de Medio Ambiente (MMA), examining the spatial extent of the country’s seven principal metropolitan urban regions. Since that meeting ten years ago there has been no looking back – on the contrary it has been onwards and upwards, literally! Our research has embraced examining the metropolitan dynamics in Spain through two European Commission funded projects (INTERREG IICi and INTERREG IIIBii) and two Spanish Government funded projects (MCYT 2003-2006iii and MEC 2006-2009iv), as well as our participation in the jointly funded CNES and Spot Image SAVP (2003-2004) projectv, incorporating as they have, in more recent years, the aspects of remote sensing. Another equally vivid memory is of my being with Josep in the bar of the ETSAB, one morning in late 2004, telling him in a ‘chuffed’ manner that I had located a data source of two-way European air traffic flows. Little did I know then what would be the outcome of what we would actually do with that data, or indeed where it would take us. Chapter 8 is testimony to the many hours of head-banging prior to our settling for the final objective. I am indebted to Josep’s encouragement to draw upon the INTERREG IIC project as a starting off point for the doctoral research, and in particular the balance between his guidance and the degree of liberty he has afforded me to explore the issues developed in this thesis. Arising, as the thesis has, out of in-house ‘group work’, there are many colleagues within the CPSV who to a greater or lesser extent have collaborated in this line of metropolitan research over the years – these include BahaaEddine Al Haddad, Joaquim ii La caracterización territorial y funcional de las áreas metropolitanas españolas , in the context of the Estudio Prospectivo del Sistema Urbano del Sudoeste Europeo (1998-2001), with ERDF funding through the INTERREG IIC Programme. ii La expansión urbana de las metrópolis del Sudoeste Europeo (EURMET), with ERDF funding through the INTERREG IIIB Programme. iii Barcelona y Madrid: ¿dos modelos de urbanización convergentes? (BIA2003-07176) with research funding from the Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología, in the context of the Plan Nacional de Investigación (2000-2003). iv El proceso de urbanización en la costa mediterránea (SEJ2006-09630) with research funding from the Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, under the Plan Nacional de I+D+I (2004-2007). v Monitoring urban sprawl and other urban rural fringe planning and environmental considerations around Barcelona’s metropolitan area , in the context of the SPOT5 Application and Validation Programme (SAVP), with joint funding and support from the CNES (France) and SpotImage.
xix Clusa, Robert Colombo, Arkaitz Fullaondo, Anna García, Joaquim (Quim) García, Pilar García, Neus Lliteras, Carlos Marmolejo, Rodolfo Montaño, Paula Pardo, Jesús Rodríguez and José María Silvestre. Over the last bureaucratic furlong Esther Balboa has been extremely reliable and supportive. However the two colleagues to whom I am most grateful are Magda Ulied and Monste Moix - to Magda for her company on those information gathering visits to Madrid, Valencia, Sevilla and Zaragoza early in 1998, to obtain the basic data that would permit the initial delimitation of the metropolitan areas, and on our memorable visit to the Instituto Nacional de Estadística in Madrid in February 2004 to negotiate our access to the mobility data from the 2001 Census of Population, as well as for her relentless encouragement and assistance in gathering much of the quantitative data used in this thesis; and to Montse for her ever reliable data preparation, programming, calculation and mapping capabilities, which form a great proportion of the foundation over which it has been possible to build the thesis. It was through our own internal and alliterative (metropolitan, Magda, Montse and Malcolm) dynamics under Josep’s guidance, that enabled us to carry out the first phase of that comparative research during 1998vi which in turn led to its extension and incorporation within the wider study examining the urban system of South Western Europevii. Special thanks are due to Margarita Ortega of the MMA, who was our Ministerial contact on the INTERREG IIC project, for her unfailing support and encouragement, her continued professional commitment and above all her infectious enthusiasm for spatial planning matters of a European nature; and to João Ferrão and José António Tenedorio in Portugal, and Jean-Paul Laborie and Pierre Albert in France, our SUDOESTE colleagues, with whom we worked jointly through the two aforementioned trans-national research projects. With Margarita, João, José António, Jean-Paul and Pierre, I have a host of happy memories of the times shared together on different occasions in Madrid, Lisboa, Toulouse and Barcelona. Other individuals to whom I would like to express my thanks and who directly or indirectly have had an influence on the content of the thesis include: - Frank Witlox and Ben Derudder of the University of Ghent (Belgium), and their colleagues within the Globalisation and World City group (GaWC), for their initiative in the organisation of the special session on Mobility, Business Travel and the Airline vi CPSV (1998) La delimitación de las principales áreas metropolitanas españolas , CPSV, UPC, Barcelona. vii Estudio Prospectivo del Sistema Urbano del Sudoeste Europeo (1998-2001), with ERDF funding through the INTERREG IIC Programme.
The (re)positioning of the Spanish metropolitan system within the European urban system (1986-2006) xx Industry at the AAG 2007, held in San Francisco in April 2007. This session proved to create the incentive to complete a substantial component of the quantitative analysis of the thesis and provided the setting for the first presentation of the results contained in Chapter 8. The evening spent over dinner with Frank and Ben, Michael Timberlake and David Smith is another happy and vivid memory; - Catherine Miller of the Geography Division, and Kristina Bobe of the Library, of the United States Census Bureau for their assistance in obtaining historical documentation relating to the development of metropolitan area definitions in the United States; - the Airports Council International - European Region (www.aci-europe.org), for the assistance in providing access to the data referred to in Table 8.5 (p. 344); - Carsten Schürmann of the Büro f. Raumforschung, Raumplanung u. Geoinformation (RRG), Spatial Planning and Geoinformation (RRG), for his assistance is facilitating the basic data relating to the Functional Urban Areas used with the ESPON (2004) study; - Tomas Aluja of the UPC for his critical advice relating to multidimensional scaling ; and - Waldo Tobler from the University of California (Santa Barbara) for his interest in the contents of Chapter 8 and his support in accessing the Flow Mapper programme, enabling the elaboration of Figures 8.3-8.9 and 8.12-8.15. - It should be noted that the texts and maps stemming from research projects under the ESPON programme presented in this thesis do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the ESPON Monitoring Committee. The UPC work setting is as much about education as it is about applied research. For this reason I am grateful to the students of our Master Programmes in Planificació Territorial i Urbana , Medi Ambient Urbà i Sostenibilitat and Gestió i Valoració Urbana for their questions and feedback in general, and the debates and discussions we have had in the courses over the years which have touched upon aspects contained within the thesis. I have been particularly fortunate to have had the opportunity to work with Javier Monclús and Manel Guardia, colleagues in the UPC, firstly through the organisation of the IPHS Barcelona 2004 Conference, and later on the coordination and editing of their book for Ashgate , published early in 2007viii. It was through working together during the intensive eight month lead-up to the Conference in July 2004 which prompted me to decide to try to maintain the momentum (i.e. sacrificing weekends) and seriously embark upon the ‘completion’ of the thesis. The editorial tasks and contact with the various chapter authors, spread across the world, carried out in parallel to the thesis, viii Monclús, J. and Guàrdia, M. (2006) Culture, urbanism and planning , Ashgate, Aldershot.
xxi but in particular over the summer periods of 2005 and 2006, provided a welcome and highly rewarding change from the on-going activities related to the thesis. When politicians and people in public positions are forced to resign under in flagrante circumstances, the excuse invariably offered to the media is that it so that they can ‘spend more time with their families’. The mental effort and enforced seclusion over the last three years has by necessity been shared very unfairly with Marga, Borja and Oriol. Hopefully the completion of this tome will indeed enable us all to spend more time together and simply do the myriad of things which have had to be sacrificed. The thesis is dedicated to the memory of the late Richard (Dick) H. Williams, Senior Lecturer in Town and Country Planning and Associate Director of the Centre for Research in European Urban Environments at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne (UK), up until his untimely death. It was Dick’s passion for the European spatial and cultural geography, the mechanisms and workings of Brussels, and spatial planning matters of a European nature in general, as well as his constant references to the European spatial metaphors which made such a lasting impression on me during my time spent in Newcastle upon Tyne (1995-1996) prior to coming to Barcelona. Barcelona, July 2007
The (re)positioning of the Spanish metropolitan system within the European urban system (1986-2006) xxii SUMMARY The thesis seeks to demonstrate that during the period between 1986 and 2006, some of the principal cities of the Spanish metropolitan systemix, have undergone significant change in terms of their European competitiveness. It is suggested that in the case of Madrid and Barcelona in particular this change has been of such a magnitude to proportion them a much more important place within the European spatial configuration than that which they occupied in the mid-1980s. Empirical evidence is offered to support this conjecture. The thesis lies wholly within the framework of spatial planning at the European territorial scale. It charts the comparative ascent of the Spanish cities from the moment of Spain’s entry into the European Union (EU) in 1986 against the background of the development of European spatial policy, increased economic integration across Europe, the increased importance of the ‘territorial’ dimension of EU cohesion policy and an eventual waning of the applicability of the terminology of ‘core’ and ‘periphery’ to describe European geographical location. Part One (Chapter 1) addresses the processes of urbanisation in general from a global perspective and then focuses on metropolitan growth in a number of different historical contexts from the start of the 19th Century. Parts Two (Chapters 2-5) and Three (Chapters 6-9) of the thesis carry out analyses at two contrasting but complementary spatial scales. Part Two examines the metropolitan growth processes in Spain, in the period since 1857, detecting the historical moments in which there were surges in the metropolitan populations of the seven cities of the metropolitan system. The dimensions of the spatial units of analysis corresponding to the seven Spanish metropolitan urban regions are described, based upon a methodology first developed by the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC) in the context of a transnational spatial planning project of the INTERREG community initiativex. These seven spatial units form the basis for a socio-economic analysis of the structure of the metropolitan system, drawing upon data principally from the 2001 Census. If by 1930 one of the key characteristics of Spain’s urban system was having not just one but two cities (Madrid and Barcelona) belonging to the group of 27 cities across the world with populations in excess of 1 million inhabitantsxi, this same differentiation between the country’s two largest cities and the remainder of the urban system is equally valid today. Spain’s urban system remains clearly bicephalous in being dominated by these same two cities in terms of demographic and economic strength. ix Understood as comprising Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Sevilla, Bilbao, Zaragoza and Málaga. x CPSV (2001) La caracterización territorial y functional de las áreas metropolitanas españolas , CPSV, UPC, Barcelona. xi Mumford, L. (1961) The City in History , Penguin, London.
xxiii Part Three begins by examining the evolution of European spatial policy against the background of an ever-enlarging European Union and changes with regard to the notion of cohesion – from a concept understood in terms of economic and social factors, to one in which the territorial dimension has become increasingly important. The European urban system is then critically examined through a number of key and influential studies, with particular regard to the rankings and hierarchies of metropolitan urban regions deriving there from and the changes in the placing of the Spanish metropolitan urban regions therein. Taking inspiration from the seminal contribution of Manuel Castellsxii in the context of the structural changes resulting from the informational and technological revolution, the thesis seeks to replicate the concept of a ‘space of flows’. This is carried out through a ‘network analysis’ approach drawing upon air passenger flows between some 28 European metropolitan urban regions of the EU15+2 group of countries, enabling the analysis of the interaction between these 28 cities. This methodology enables arriving at a number of descriptive indicators which in turn, through the application of a multi-dimensional scaling mathematical technique, permits comparing the functional and physical distances of each of the metropolitan urban regions from the centre of the ‘conceptual space of air passenger flows’ and the centre of gravity. The resulting map of the functional positioning of the cities offers a spatial vision of metropolitan Europe quite different to that based upon Cartesian coordinates. Such an approach enables demonstrating that cities such as Barcelona, Madrid, Helsinki, Lisbon and Athens, traditionally considered as physically peripheral to the European core area, appear to be more favourably positioned in functional terms. Furthermore in the case of Spain the results indicate that Barcelona lies closer to the centre of the conceptual ‘space of air passenger flows’ than Madrid. In light of this empirical evidence, together with the signs of increased economic integration across some parts of Spain, the prospects of Spain forming part of a wider European territorial concentration of flows and activities, and the recognition of the territorial capital of Madrid and Barcelona within recent EU spatial policy declarations, the thesis concludes in Part Four that these two metropolitan regions have undergone a clear consolidation and (re)positioning within the European metropolitan hierarchy. xii Castells, M. (1989) The Informational City: Information Technology, Economic Restructuring, and the Urban-Regional Process , Blackwell, Oxford; and Castells, M. (1996) The Information Age: Economy Society and Culture. Volume I: The Rise of the Network Society , Blackwell, Oxford.
The (re)positioning of the Spanish metropolitan system within the European urban system (1986-2006) xxiv RESUMEN La tesis trata de demostrar que durante el período entre 1986 y 2006, unas de las principales ciudades del sistema metropolitano españolxiii, han experimentado un cambio significativo en términos de su competitividad europea. Es sugerido que en el caso de Madrid y Barcelona en particular este cambio ha sido de tal magnitud para proporcionarlas un lugar mucho más importante dentro de la configuración territorial espacial europea que dichas ciudades ocuparon en el mediado de los años 80. Se ofrece evidencia empírica para sostener esta conjetura. La tesis se sitúa dentro del marco de la ordenación territorial a la escala europea. Traza la subida relativa de las ciudades españolas desde el momento de la entrada de España en la Unión Europea (UE) en 1986, contra el fondo del desarrollo de la política territorial europea, la integración económica aumentada a través de Europa, la importancia aumentada de la dimensión "territorial" de la política de la cohesión de UE y una eventual disminución de la aplicabilidad de la terminología del "centro" y la "periferia" para describir la ubicación geográfica europea. La Primera Parte (Capítulo 1) esta dirigida a evaluar los procesos de la urbanización en general, desde una perspectiva global, y después se centra en examinar el crecimiento metropolitano en varios contextos históricos, a partir del comienzo del siglo XIX. La Segunda (Capítulos 2-5) y Tercera Partes (Capítulos 6-9) de la tesis llevan a cabo unas análisis en dos escalas territoriales contrastantes pero complementarias. La Segunda Parte examina los procesos del crecimiento metropolitano en España, a partir de 1857, discerniendo los momentos históricos en los que había oleadas en las poblaciones ‘metropolitanas’ de las siete ciudades del sistema metropolitano. Se describe las dimensiones de las unidades espaciales de análisis que corresponden a las siete regiones urbanas metropolitanas españolas, basadas en una metodología desarrollado por el Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña (UPC) en el contexto de un proyecto trasnacional de ordenación territorial de la iniciativa comunitaria INTERREGxiv. Estas siete unidades espaciales forman la base para un análisis socioeconómico de la estructura del sistema metropolitano, utilizando datos principalmente del 2001 Censo. Si en el año 1930 una de las características claves del sistema urbano de España era de tener no sólo una, pero dos ciudades (Madrid y Barcelona) perteneciendo al grupo de 27 ciudades a través del mundo con poblaciones por encima de 1 millón de xiii Entendido como Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Sevilla, Bilbao, Zaragoza y Málaga. xiv CPSV (2001) La caracterización territorial y functional de las áreas metropolitanas españolas , CPSV, UPC, Barcelona.
xxv habitantesxv, esta misma diferenciación entre las dos ciudades más grandes del país y el resto del sistema urbano es hoy igualmente válida. El sistema urbano de España se queda claramente bicéfalo en ser dominado por estas mismas dos ciudades en términos de fuerza demográfica y económica. La Tercera Parte comienza examinando la evolución de la política territorial europea contra el fondo de una Unión Europea cada vez más grande y los cambios con respecto a la noción de la cohesión – de un concepto entendido en términos de factores económicos y sociales, a uno en que la dimensión territorial ha llegado a ser cada vez más importante. A continuación se examina de manera crítica el sistema urbano europeo mediante algunos estudios influyentes, con la consideración particular a las clasificaciones y las jerarquías de las regiones urbanas metropolitanas que derivan de estos estudios, y a los cambios en la colocación de las regiones urbanas metropolitanas españolas en dichos estudios. Tomando inspiración de la contribución seminal de Manuel Castellsxvi en el contexto de los cambios estructurales que resultan de la revolución de información y tecnológica, la tesis trata de replicar el concepto de un 'espacio de flujos'. Esto es llevado a cabo por un enfoque de "network analysis" que utiliza los flujos de pasajeros aéreos entre unas 28 regiones urbanas metropolitanas europeas del grupo de EU15+2 países, permitiendo el análisis de la interacción entre estas 28 ciudades. Esta metodología permite desarrollar varios indicadores descriptivos que permiten, a su vez, por la aplicación de una técnica matemática de escalamiento multi-dimensional, comparar las distancias funcionales y físicas de cada una de las regiones urbanas metropolitanas del centro del 'espacio conceptual de flujos de pasajeros aéreos’ y el centro de la gravedad. El mapa resultante del posicionamiento funcional de las ciudades ofrece una visión espacial de Europa metropolitana bastante diferente a la que se base en los coordinados cartesianos. Tal enfoque permite demostrar que ciudades como Barcelona, Madrid, Helsinki, Lisboa y Atenas, consideradas tradicionalmente como físicamente periféricas al área central de Europea, parecen ser posicionadas más favorablemente en términos funcionales. Además en el caso de España, los resultados indican que Barcelona queda más cerca al centro del conceptual 'espacio de flujos de pasajero aéreos’ que Madrid. A la luz de esta evidencia empírica, junto con los signos de la integración económica aumentada a través de algunas partes de España, las perspectivas de que España formará parte una más amplia concentración territorial europea de flujos y actividades, xv Mumford, L. (1961) The City in History , Penguin, London.
Introduction 6 highest regional disparities, though in strictly physical geographic terms its position is still peripheral to the central core. The EU’s Communication on Cohesion Policy and cities: the urban contribution to growth and jobs in the regions (CEC, 2006a) recognises that over the past two centuries, towns, cities and metropolitan urban regions have been the principal drivers of economic development in Europe, contributing to growth, innovation and employment. Today cities are essential to regions being able to achieve growth and employment, in line with the Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives. Furthermore cities “are the home of most jobs, businesses and higher education institutions and are key actors in achieving social cohesion” and “are the centres of change, based upon innovation, entrepreneurship and business growth” (CEC, 2006a, p.5). The same Communication makes reference to the increased interest of applied research of particular relevance to cities in recent years. At the European level the 5th Research Framework Programme City of Tomorrow and Cultural Heritage is cited, as is the 7th Research Framework Programme (7FP) (2007-2013). Under the theme of Socio-Economic Sciences and the Humanities, within the Cooperation component of the 7FP the “role of cities and metropolitan regions” is specifically addressed in the context of the prioritised research relating to the “continuing evolution of European socio-economic models, and economic, social and regional cohesion in an enlarged EU” (CEC (2006d, p. 24). In 1997 the Economic and Social Research Council of the United Kingdom, with support from the Department of the Environment, launched a major research programme – Cities: Competitiveness and Cohesion – with a view to funding research to provide a solid understanding of the changing mosaic of growth and decline being experimented in British cities at that time. This was in the recognition of different researchers and writers having identified cities as the locus and source of increasing difficulties relating to economic competitiveness, declining environmental quality and social exclusion, together with associated problems of crime, disorder and drug abuse. There was a similar recognition of the contribution to environmental sustainability deriving from compact cities, and the fact of cities being the key location for creative change, and culture and leisure activities, in line with individual preferences at that time. The research programme funded some 23 projects, in the areas of
Introduction 7 competitiveness (9) and cohesion (10), as well as four integrated case studies examining Bristol, London, Liverpool and Manchester, and Central Scotland10. Around the same time the Oporto Declaration of the METREX Network11 suggested that European metropolitan urban regions were all facing similar problems of economic change, social cohesion, urban sprawl, traffic congestion, city centre vitality and viability, and environmental damage and pollution. These challenges were accompanied by a host of opportunities within these same areas and regions for renewal and regeneration, high quality urban life, and economic competitiveness (METREX, 1999). Furthermore, the same Declaration highlighted the need for integrated spatial planning and development at the European metropolitan level. Examples of integrated spatial planning and development initiatives were present in a number of specific areas of Europe, such as the North Sea Region (NORVISION)12, North-Western Metropolitan Area (NWMA)13 and the Baltic Sea Region (VASAB)14. 3. The territorial and functional characterisation of the Spanish metropolitan urban regions (1998-2001) Research in this same direction was carried out by the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC) in the period 1998-200115 forming part of a transnational exercise aimed at providing an understanding of the urban system of the South Western European spatial territory16 through the INTERREG IIC Community Initiative. Here the urban system of the area in the three countries was examined at the level of the metropolitan urban regions; the medium-sized cities; and the complementary network of small towns and villages, and rural areas. The UPC coordinated the study of the metropolitan urban regions and shared a methodology it had developed to define the spatial extent of metropolitan urban regions of functional influence, based upon travel to work patterns. In Spain this methodology was applied to the seven largest cities with populations at that time of in excess of 500,0000 persons – i.e. Madrid, Barcelona, 10 For a detailed evaluation of a number of the projects funded under the Cities: Competitiveness and Cohesion Programme see Begg (2002) and Boddy and Parkinson (2004). 11 The Network was founded April 1996 by representatives from many of the 120 or so metropolitan regions and areas of Europe, bringing together practitioners with a common interest in spatial planning and development at the metropolitan level. The twin purposes of the Network are to promote the exchange of knowledge between practitioners on strategic issues of common interest and to contribute the metropolitan dimension to planning at the European level. (See http://www.eurometrex.org/ ) 12 See http://www.planco.de/norvision.htm 13 See http://www.nwmainterregiic.org/ 14 See http://www.vasab.org.pl/ 15 CPSV (2001) La caracterización territorial y funcional de las áreas metropolitanas españolas, CPSV, UPC, Barcelona. 16 This spatial territory included the whole of Spain and Portugal, and three south western French NUTS2 regions – Aquitaine, Midi-Pyrénées and Languedoc-Roussillon.
Introduction 8 Valencia, Sevilla, Bilbao, Málaga and Zaragoza. In turn the methodology was applied by the Portuguese and French partners of the study to define the equivalent areas of influence of the respective metropolitan case studies, namely Lisbon and Porto (Portugal), and Bordeaux, Montpellier and Toulouse (France). Part One of that study17 carried out a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the internal structure of the seven metropolitan urban regions, covering aspects related to population, economic activity, social composition, communications and transport, as well as offering an interpretation of the different ways of studying the metropolitan structure. Furthermore it presented an interpretation of the characterisation and role of the different metropolitan urban regions, from the local perspective, through a review of the spatial and territorial policies of each of the corresponding Regional Authorities (Autonomous Communities). Part Two of the study18 included an innovative aspect in the application of a series of indicators, with the object of measuring the (international) positioning of the metropolitan urban regions of the study. These indicators, agreed through a process of consensus between the Spanish and Portuguese groups, examined the notion of ‘positioning’ from a number of points of view: the demographic profile, the demographic evolution, a functional profile, human capital, firms, events, accessibility and infrastructure, the economic opening, the attraction of the areas, relations of diplomacy and cooperation, and finally aspects of culture and multiculturalism. Finally Part Three contained the most analytical part of the study19, offering a more qualitative interpretation of the overall Spanish metropolitan system. This interpretation was offered from three perspectives: from the perspective of the Spanish metropolitan urban regions, through the regional spatial planning policy guidelines; from the Brussels’ perspective, through the content of documentation published by the European Commission itself; and finally from the transnational perspective. The applicability of the polycentrism concept in the Spanish context was examined, prior to entering into an analysis of the opportunities and weaknesses of the Spanish metropolitan system lying within the Southern European spatial context. This Third Volume closed with a number of global conclusions, looking towards the future and questioning themes still considered pending at that moment as indicated by the following excerpt20: 17 Volumen I: La caracterización de la Áreas Metropolitanas Españolas 18 Volumen II: El posicionamiento de las áreas metropolitanas españolas en el ámbito del Sudoeste Europeo 19 Volumen III: El sistema metropolitano español en el contexto europeo e internacional 20 Aunque España ocupe una posición indudablemente periférica y es uno de los cuatro países de la ‘cohesión’, existen razones para justificar que algunas de las áreas metropolitanas tengan una función muy importante a la escala europea
Introduction 9 “(…) Although Spain occupies an undoubtedly peripheral position and is one of the four 'cohesion' countries, various reasons exist to justify that some of the metropolitan urban regions have a very important function at the European and international levels. Barcelona and Madrid fulfil the conditions to be considered " European cities ", in recognition of the positioning established by each of them within the European environment. For a number of years the two areas have appeared within the listings of the highest ranking European cities, with regard to cities attracting economic activity. At same time is important to consider that at present the Spanish metropolitan system is going through a process of gathering strength, taking its own position within the European configuration, seeking to overcome certain limitations and weaknesses, and to maximize its opportunities. It is a good moment to consider another paradigm within the metropolisation processes, as this is contributing to reconfigure the identity of this area. While the physical distance between the Iberian Peninsula and the traditionally central zones of the Union Europe was disturbing, what can be perceived now is a growing acceptance of this reality, accompanied effectively by the real perspective in the middle term of the reinforcement of the axes of communication, highlighting the projects pertaining to the TEN, towards the acquisition of a proper territorial identity. Madrid as the national capital is a case aside, but is not merely coincidental that five of the seven metropolitan urban regions are located in coastal zones and that they belong to the areas of the Atlantic (Bilbao, Seville) and Mediterranean Arcs (Seville, Malaga, Valencia and Barcelona), with the very real potential to act as "gateway cities", in view of their geographical position, as well as their attributes in the form of large logistical endowments (ports, airports) and cultural facilities. Once the form of communications through the Pyrenees has been improved, Zaragoza will have the possibility to realise its aspirations of acting as a strategic point of a transnational region straddling the Pyrenees, encouraging relations with the French part of the European Southwest space and therefore overcome the current stagnant position within the Spanish metropolitan system” (CPSV, 2001, Vol. III, pp. 51-52). e internacional. Barcelona y Madrid cumplen los criterios para ser designadas como “ciudades europeas ”, en reconocimiento del posicionamiento establecido por cada una de ellas dentro del ámbito europeo. Desde hace varios años las dos áreas se han figurado dentro de las ciudades europeas de primer orden, para localizar la actividad económica. Al mismo tiempo es importante considerar que actualmente el sistema metropolitano español está pasando por un proceso de refuerzo, tomando una posición propia dentro de la configuración europea, intentando superar ciertas debilidades y maximizar sus oportunidades, un buen momento para considerar otro paradigma dentro de los procesos de metropolitanización, también así esto está contribuyendo a reconfigurar la identidad de esta área, mientras la distancia física entre la Península Ibérica y las zonas tradicionalmente centrales de la Unión Europa era inquietante, ahora se puede percibir un creciente sentido de beneplácito sobre esta realidad, acompañado efectivamente por la verdadera perspectiva en medio plazo del reforzamiento de los ejes de comunicación, destacando los proyectos correspondientes a la TEN, hacia la adquisición de una identidad territorial propia. Madrid como capital del estado es un caso aparte, pero no es casualidad que cinco de las siete áreas metropolitanas están ubicadas en zonas litorales y que pertenecen a las áreas del Arco Atlántico (Bilbao, Sevilla) y del Arco Mediterráneo (Sevilla, Málaga, Valencia y Barcelona), con la potencia muy real de actuar como “ciudades-puerta”, en vista de su posición geográfica, así como sus atributos en la forma de grandes dotaciones de equipamientos (puertos, aeropuertos) y prestaciones culturales. Una vez que haya mejorado la forma de comunicaciones a través de los Pirineos, Zaragoza tendrá la posibilidad de realizar sus aspiraciones en actuar como punto estratégico de una región interpirenaica transnacional, fomentando relaciones con la parte francesa del espacio del Sudoeste Europeo y por lo tanto superar su posición de estancamiento que actualmente ocupa dentro del sistema metropolitano español.
Introduction 10 4. Spatial positioning While the ‘positioning’ of the Spanish metropolitan system was addressed in the INTERREG IIC study within the context of the spatial territory of the Iberian Peninsula, comparing the positioning of the ‘ranking’ of the seven metropolitan urban regions with those of Lisbon and Porto on an albeit restricted empirical basis21 (see Tables A and B), no such quantitative measuring of the positioning in the wider European context was carried out. Human resources Economic activit y Internationalisation Resident population 1998 Econ. active population 1999 Exports 2000 Companies 1998 Small firms <200 employees 1998 Inter. trade fairs 2001 International air movements 1998 (E)/1999 (P) Hotel places 4* and 5* 2000 (P) 2001 (E) Pass. Freight Madrid (100) Madrid (100) Barcelona (100) Barcelona (100) Barcelona (100) Madrid (100) Madrid (100) Madrid (100) Madrid (100) Barcelona (86) Barcelona (91) Madrid (76) Madrid (92) Madrid (93) Barcelona (90) Barcelona (57) Lisbon (42) Barcelona (87) Lisbon (58) Lisbon (75) Lisbon (44) Lisbon (64) Lisbon (64) Lisbon (57) Lisbon (53) Barcelona (26) Málaga (86) Oporto (45) Oporto (57) Valencia (24) Valencia (40) Valencia (40) Bilbao (48) Málaga (46) Oporto (16) Lisbon (67) Valencia (30) Valencia (40) Oporto (23) Oporto (35) Oporto (35) Oporto (36) Oporto (16) Saragossa (4) Seville (40) Seville (27) Seville (30) Bilbao (22) Seville (22) Seville (22) Valencia (27) Bilbao (5) Valencia (4) Valencia (23) Bilbao (20) Málaga (22) Saragossa (13) Vizcaya (22) Vizcaya (21) Seville (26) Valencia (4) Málaga (22) Oporto (18) Málaga (14) Vizcaya (21) Seville (4) Málaga (21) Málaga (21) Saragossa (7) Seville (2) Bilbao (1) Saragossa (11) Saragossa (13) Saragossa (15) Málaga (3) Saragossa (15) Saragossa (15) Málaga (0) Saragossa (0) Seville (0) Bilbao (8) Table A: Comparison of the Spanish and Portuguese metropolitan urban regions, on the basis of the dimensional indicators22 This doctoral thesis in many ways takes off from where the INTERREG IIC study terminated in so far as it seeks to examine aspects which remained pending at the conclusion of the transnational study. For instance, while it was clear from the UPC study that Spain’s metropolitan system was headed by the two principal cities of Madrid and Barcelona, and that from an international standpoint both cities were of a ‘European dimension’, the measurement of the degree of interchange and exchange between the two Spanish metropolises and other European metropolitan urban regions was not addressed. The nearest approximation to an aspect of this nature was the (unidirectional) mapping of the air accessibility to other parts of Europe from Madrid and 21 Later published by the Portuguese colleagues in Ferrão et. al. (2002). 22 CPSV (2001) and Instituto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de Lisboa (2002)
Introduction 11 Barcelona, for thresholds of 1 hour, 2 hours and 2.5 hours23, but not the (bi-directional) accessibility of Madrid and Barcelona from other parts of Europe. Change in population 1991-1998 (%) A geing index 1998 >64/<15 Unemployment rate 1999 P 2000 E GDP per head 1995 (1,000 Euros) Change in GDP per head 19911995P/1996E (%) University students 1999-2000/ pop. 15-24 (1998) (%) Oporto 8,77% Bilbao 1,39 Seville 13,26 Madrid 15,584 Madrid 48,85% Lisbon 36,07 Seville 6,12% Saragossa 1,27 Málaga 12,5 Barcelona 13,679 Oporto 40,49 Málaga 33,99 Málaga 5,72 Barcelona 1,18 Vizcaya 9,42 Vizcaya 12,531 Barcelona 37,03% Seville 32,37 Lisbon 5,07% Valencia 1,03 Valencia 7,73 Saragossa 12,267 Lisbon 32,38 Saragossa 27,46 Madrid 2,89% Madrid 0,98 Madrid 7,42 Valencia 10,854 Vizcaya 30,97% Madrid 28,79 Valencia 2,48% Lisbon 0,97 Saragossa 7,29 Lisbon 10,286 Saragossa 26,85% Bilbao 24,87 Saragossa 2,11% Málaga 0,75 Barcelona 6,3 Seville 8,192 Valencia 25,77% Valencia 23,69 Barcelona 0,56% Seville 0,72 Lisbon 5,55 Málaga 7,819 Seville 23,13% Barcelona 22,5 Bilbao -1,60% Oporto 0,60 Oporto 4,69 Oporto 7,623 Málaga 19,90% Oporto 21,00 Table B. Comparison of the Spanish and Portuguese metropolitan urban regions, on the basis of the structural and evolutionary indicators24 From reading the different policy documents and reports published by the European Commission since the mid-1990s, and some of the different studies aimed at a classification or ordering of the cities within Europe’s urban system, intuitively it would appear that some of Spain’s principal metropolitan urban regions have strengthened their positioning within this European metropolitan urban system over the last twenty years, thereby corroborating the positioning aspect identified in the excerpt quoted at the close of Section 3 above. For example, the DATAR/RECLUS study of 165 European agglomerations (Brunet, 1989) placed Madrid and Barcelona in the 3rd of the eight classes (positions 4 and 6= respectively), and Sevilla and Valencia in the 5th class (positions 30= and 41=). The revision of this study, examining 180 agglomerations and published in 2003, placed Madrid in the 2nd of seven classes (position 3); Barcelona in the 3rd class (position 6=); Valencia, Bilbao, Sevilla and Málaga all in the 5th class (positions 34=, 38= for both Bilbao and Sevilla, and 60= for Málaga); and Zaragoza in the 6th class (position 70=) (Rozenblat and Cicille, 2003). 23 Based upon an exploitation of air transportation data from AENA (http://www14.aena.es/csee/ContentServer?pagename=Estadisticas/Home) 24 CPSV (2001) and Instituto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de Lisboa (2002)
Introduction 12 The draft version of the ESDP, published by the European Commission in 1997, contained a broad reassessment of the European urban hierarchy in light of the changing urban economic opportunities. This identified three categories: i) urban areas of an international level, comprising global cities , metropolitan regions and capital cities ; ii) cities and towns at a national level, of which the most problematic were the peripheral cities with a weaker urban function , and the older industrial cities ; and iii) cities and towns at a regional level, differentiating between regional level cities in the core area, regional level cities outside the core area and medium-sized cities in predominantly rural regions, each with there respective challenges and opportunities(CEC, 1997a). The draft ESDP recognised the capital city status of Madrid, and included Valencia and Sevilla in the category of ‘ peripheral cities with a weaker urban function’ , albeit recognising that they had shown signs of developing innovative development strategies and thereby indicating the limitations of the effects of inherent structural constraints, such as (in general terms) long distances, dependency on traditional activities, declining population, severe climatic conditions, etc.. Furthermore the draft ESDP made specific reference to the change experienced by Barcelona. “The rapidity of technological, political, social and economic change is bringing about a change of orientation in the hierarchical functional relationships of this urban system. Whereas these relationships have been the result of the development of national territories, they are now adapting to the new more competitive demands and challenges of the European Territory, the opening up of middle and Eastern Europe and to globalisation. Barcelona was a major regional centre in Spain; it is now an emerging metropolis in Southern Europe. (...) Cities and towns are having to adapt to their new relative locations and to their new positions in the European urban hierarchy. For some, the change is more radical than others; some are adapting faster than others; some are facing new disadvantages, some new opportunities. Altogether, this is a major spatial issue, which manifests itself in a number of potential opportunities and threats” (CEC, 1997, p. 18). The hierarchy of the principal metropolitan urban regions of the EU27+2 resulting from the research studies carried out in the context of the European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON) identifies Paris and London as two global nodes , and proposes four levels of Metropolitan European Growth Areas (ESPON, 2004). Madrid and Barcelona form part of the grouping of metropolitan urban regions classified as European engines , directly following on from the two global nodes. Madrid occupies the 4th= position of this hierarchy, with Barcelona sharing the 16th position. Bilbao, Valencia
Introduction 13 and Palma de Mallorca are each classified as Potential MEGAs , sharing the 38th position. The only other Spanish metropolitan urban region within the MEGA classification is Sevilla, lying within the final grouping of Weak MEGAs sharing the 60th position. 5. Thesis and hypothesis Against this background it is reasonable to make the conjecture of a gradual (re)positioning of the principal Spanish metropolitan urban regions within the European spatial configuration over the last twenty years. The hypothesis is that some of the Spanish metropolitan urban regions have increased their positioning within the hierarchy of the European urban system and as a consequence since the mid-1980s have evolved to play key roles within the changing European spatial configuration. Indeed these new roles are more in keeping with the characteristics of metropolitan urban regions lying within the central ‘core’ area of Europe, as opposed to metropolitan urban regions spatially detached from the central geographical area and lying within the periphery of the European spatial configuration, accepting tacitly the validity of this ‘core-periphery’ territorial model. This line of enquiry led to the formulation of the following hyothesis : From a European spatial planning perspective there has been a significant (re)positioning of the Spanish metropolitan urban regions within the European urban system since Spain’s entry into the European Union in 1986. The extent of this (re)positioning has permitted a spatial integration of some of these metropolitan urban regions, to such a degree as to render the physical separation between the said metropolitan urban regions and the more traditionally higher performing central parts of the European Union inconsequential. The spatial planning caveat is important as it identifies with clarity the terrain over which the hypothesis will be tested – in relation to European spatial planning policy and documentation, and to the wider European territory. Furthermore it implies a scale of inquiry or research over which the degree of detail of the components of the system plays a less significant role, in the same way as viewing a territory from a 1:50,000 scale is very different from viewing the same territory at a 1:2,500 scale. The central
Introduction 14 issues of interest are related to questions of spatial positioning - how spatial positioning can be effected by connectivity and/or accessibility; how spatial positioning can be effected by distance in physical and functional terms; how spatial positioning based upon functional connectivity can overturn notions of core and periphery; and how spatial positioning resulting from a functional perspective might result in an enhanced competitive advantage than that from a physical perspective. However while the above hypothesis derives from a qualitative interpretation of the different spatial planning documentation and literature, the challenge lies in being able to summon quantitative empirical evidence to support the hypothesis, or conversely in the worst case scenario, accept its rejection. In this respect the thesis takes inspiration from two sources associated with a changing spatial geography resulting from transportation and communications. The two sources are separated by more than 150 years but it is considered that the links between the two - on the one hand (functional) connectivity and on the other hand (physical) spatial separation – are clearly evident. 6. Cartographic representations of spatial configurations The first source of inspiration derives from historical research carried out by Sam Bass Warner in the context of the outward spatial expansion of Boston in the mid-1850s, deriving from the development of the street railway system – i.e. tramways or streetcars as they are referred to in the United States (Warner, 1978). Warner documents how the development of the streetcar system of transport was associated with Boston’s pattern of urban development and the resulting spatial segregation of neighbourhoods and suburbs for different socio-economic groups. The higher the social class, the further from the central part of the city such classes were able to choose to reside, benefiting from the ever-increasing improvements in suburban transportation, with a greater availability of land and lower building densities, as indicated by Figure B.
Introduction 15 Figure B. “Approximate class building bands of the three towns in 1900. A = 357.4 acres. It is the area of a 64-degree segment of a circle whose radius is one mile, roughly the distance from City Hall to Dover Street. The other radii are marked in miles from Boston’s City Hall, and their area is given in terms of A.”25 By 1900, the upper class, representing just 5% of the population, was able to live in an area some 32 times the size of the former historical centre, up to a distance of 16 km from the centre of Boston. The upper-middle class (15% of the population) was able to accede to an area of land some 20 times the size of the historical centre, up to a distance of 9.6 km from the centre of Boston. The lower middle class, just 20% of the population, could reside in an area representing 6 times that of the historical centre separated by a distance of some 5.6 km. Finally, the lower class, representing 60% of the population of Boston, was restricted to remaining within the historical core which extended to a distance of just 3.2 km from the centre. The consequences of such spatial segregation in terms of the built form, building density and open space are obvious. The geometrical representation of these divisions is clearly illustrated in Figure B. 25 Warner (1978)
Introduction 22 9. Structure The thesis is structured in four principal parts. Part I of the thesis comprises an examination of processes of urbanisation from a global and historical perspective, setting out basically from the beginning of the 19th Century. This is considered useful in helping to establish a general background against which the processes of urbanisation and metropolisation in Spain can be measured, and for ascertaining the moments in which some of the Spanish metropolitan urban regions began to form part of the international metropolitan hierarchy. Parts II and III differentiate between Spain (Chapters 2-5) and Europe (Chapters 6-9) respectively. Part II focuses upon the processes of metropolisation in Spain. Chapter 2 ( Metropolisation in Spain ) charts the evolution of urban growth in the seven principal Spanish metropolitan urban regions from the mid-1800s up until the present day. It focuses upon the historical moments which best characterise what could be termed metropolitan expansion in Spain. Chapter 3 ( Defining the Spanish metropolitan system ) discusses the ways of defining or delimiting the spatial extent of metropolitan urban regions, and presents a brief overview of the methodology utilised to define the Spanish metropolitan urban regions in the context of the INTERREG IIC and IIIB studies, carried out by the UPC between 1998-200532. Drawing upon the spatial limits of the seven metropolitan urban regions, Chapters 4 and 5 respectively explore the demographic and economic structures of the Spanish metropolitan system, with a view to corroborating the bicephalous nature of the Spanish metropolitan system and indicating how the two leading metropolitan urban regions of Madrid and Barcelona are indeed of a fundamentally different scale to those of Valencia, Sevilla, Bilbao, Zaragoza and Málaga. Part III focuses directly upon the wider European spatial territory. Here the focus is upon the gradual movement towards increased integration over the twenty year period under review. The evolution of European spatial policy is treated in Chapter 6 ( European spatial policy ), highlighting the increasing importance placed on the aspects of territorial cohesion and setting this against the changing nature of the European territory, deriving from the progressive enlargements. An analysis of the cities that can 32 What needs to be stressed at this stage is the fact that the delimitations of the metropolitan territories used under the INTERREG IIC project (1998-2001) were dependent upon a variety of data sources. By contrast the metropolitan urban regions defined under the INTERREG IIIB project (2003-2005) benefited from the travel to work information available for the whole of Spain through the 2001 Census of Population. In this way for the first time it was possible to define the spatial extent of urban systems based upon functional criteria of travel to work mobility patterns.
Introduction 23 realistically be considered to constitute the metropolitan hierarchy of the European urban system is carried out in Chapter 7 ( European urban system ). This addresses a number of different proposals put forward for understanding the urban classification and territorial dynamics, closing with an explanation of the hierarchy of Functional Urban Areas (FUA) and Metropolitan European Growth Areas (MEGA) deriving from the applied research carried out through the ESPON Programme. The upper echelons of this hierarchy form the basis of a sample of some 28 metropolitan urban regions over which a network analysis is carried out in Chapter 8 ( European space of air passenger flows ). This network analysis seeks to examine the nature of the air passenger flows between the 28 metropolitan urban regions to determine their positioning with one another and in particular ascertain an empirical positioning of Madrid and Barcelona. An assessment of the relative positioning of Madrid and Barcelona within the European urban system is offered in Chapter 9 ( Madrid and Barcelona in the European metropolitan hierarchy ) drawing upon the evidence produced in Chapter 8, as well as in the light of European economic integration in general and recently published future scenarios of the spatial configuration of Europe. Finally Part IV closes with the Conclusions.
Introduction 24
25 PART I: BACKGROUND “Child of the First War, Forgotten by the Second, We called you metro-land. We laid our schemes Lured by the lush brochure, down byways beckoned, To build at last the cottage of our dreams, A city clerk turned countryman again, And linked to the Metropolis by train.” From John Betjeman’s Metro-land
The (re)positioning of the Spanish metropolitan system within the European urban system (1986-2006) 26
27 CHAPTER 1. - PROCESSES OF URBANISATION Introduction It goes beyond the scope of this chapter to offer an all-embracing overview of urban growth and the processes of urbanisation at a global scale32. On the one hand, as set out in the Introduction, the thesis seeks to proportion empirical evidence to support the hypothesis of the Spanish metropolitan urban regions having undergone a process of (re)positioning within the wider European urban system over the specific twenty-year period 1986-2006. On the other hand, the thesis is framed entirely within the field of spatial planning and in particular spatial planning at the European level. Having said that, in order to fully understand the changes experienced in the Spanish metropolitan context, it is necessary to look beyond Spain and examine the nature of metropolitan growth as experienced in other spatial and historical contexts, all within the overall framework of urbanisation. As a consequence it is important to state categorically that the selection of events and places is deliberately limited, in order to focus upon the most relevant aspects which it is considered impinge upon the Spanish situation. The chapter is divided in two principal sections. The first section addresses broad issues of urban growth and urbanisation33 at a global scale. The second section examines specific aspects of urbanisation in the context of metropolitan growth, experienced principally from the latter part of the 19th Century coinciding with the urban growth of London and Paris, resulting from the industrial revolution. The chapter is intended to set the wider context for examining the specific processes of metropolitan growth as experienced in Spain, which will follow in Chapter 2. 1.1. Global trends of urbanisation From the European perspective, the territorial reality in which the vast majority of the population lives is that of a purely urban environment. According to Rogers (1999), in 32 For detailed analysis of these issues see for example Carter, H. (1985) The Study of Urban Geography , Arnold, London; Clark, D. (1996) Urban World/Global City , Routledge, London and New York; Davis, K.(1955) The urbanization of the human population, Scientific American , 213 (3), pp. 41-53; Paddison, R. (ed.) (2001) Handbook of Urban Studies , Sage, London; Romero, J. (coord.) (2004) Geografía Humana , Ariel, Barcelona; and Timberlake, M. (1985) Urbanisation in the World-Economy , Academic Press, London. 33 Urban growth simply refers to the absolute increase in the size of the urban population, occurring through natural increase (excess of births over deaths) and net-in-migration. Urbanisation measures the switch from a spread-out
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 28 England at the close of the 20th Century, those living in cities accounted for 90% of the population, with some 80% living in towns of more than 1,100 inhabitants. In a similar vein, the European Commission suggested slightly earlier that some 80% of the European population, of the then EU15 block of countries34, resided in towns or cities, contributing to make Europe the most urbanised continent in the world. Of this 80%, close to 20% of the population lived in large conurbations, in excess of 250,000 inhabitants, 20% in medium sized cities and 40% in towns in the range of 10,00050,000 inhabitants (CEC, 1997a). Figures deriving from Spain’s Padrón Municipal for 1st January 200535 indicate that 77.85% of the population lives in urban settlements of more than 10,000 inhabitants. This overall figure can be broken down into the following components: 25.5% in settlements of 10,000-50,000 inhabitants; 11.5% in medium sized towns of between 50,000-100,000 inhabitants; 23.5% in larger cities of the 100,000-500,000 inhabitants range; and the remaining 17% in the largest cities with populations in excess of 500,000 inhabitants. According the United Nations, the world’s population was projected to have reached 6.5 billion by July 2005, representing a gain of 380 million since 2000 or an annual increase of 76 million. Medium variant projections see the world population reaching 9.1 billion by 2050, at which time the annual increases will be in the order of 34 million (United Nations, 2005). In terms of the urban rural divisions, it was estimated that the ‘urban’ population36 had reached 1 billion in 1960, 2 billion in 1985 and 3 billion by 2002 to represent 48% of the total population. This ‘urban’ component is expected to exceed the ‘rural’ component in 2007, meaning that for the first time the world will have more urban than rural dwellers. (See Figure 1.1) Projections suggest that the world’s ‘urban’ population will reach the 5 billion mark by 2030, thereby representing almost 61% of the world’s population; and that between 2003 and 2050 the rural population will decline marginally from 3.3 billion to 3.2 billion. As a consequence nearly all the projected population growth will be focused in the urban areas (United Nations, 2004). pattern of human settlement to one in which the population is concentrated in urban centres. It very basic terms it can be seen as the relative shift in the distribution of population from the countryside into the towns and cities. (Clark, 1996) 34 Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 35 Total population estimated to be 44,108,530 persons. Inebase of the National Statistics Institute (www.ine.es/inebase) 36 A concept which is methodologically fraught with difficulties at a global scale, owing to the dependence upon local interpretation. The UN Population Division homepage defines the concept as the “de facto population living in areas classified as urban according to the criteria used by each area or country. Data refer to 1 July of the year indicated …”.
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 29 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Year Population (millions) Urban Rural Figure 1.1. Urban and rural populations of the world: 1950-203037 Clearly a strong differentiation can be made for these projections between the more and less developed regions of the world. On the one hand, it is expected that virtually all the world’s population between 2000 and 2030 will be absorbed by the urban areas of the less developed regions and indeed here the 50% split between urban and rural dwellers will be attained in 2007. On the other hand, the projections indicate that the urban population of the more developed regions will increase gradually, from 0.9 billion in 2003 to 1 billion in 2030. Over this period, the annual growth rate will be around 0.5%, compared with an annual increase of 1.5% over the period 1950-2000 (United Nations, 2004). These differences are further appreciated by looking at the spatial distribution of these broad trends among the major geographical areas of the world. (See Table 1.1) In Europe and North America, the proportion of the population residing in urban areas is expected to increase from the current levels of around 73% and 80% respectively, to almost 80% and 87% by 2030. The countries of Oceania are expected to experience a marginal increase in the population living in urban areas, from current levels of 73% to almost 75% by 2030. Of the less developed regions, Latin America and the Caribbean are by far the most urbanised, with some 77% of the population currently living in urban settlements. This compares with proportions of 39% for both Africa and Asia. These two major geographical areas are expected to witness rapid rates of urbanisation during the period 2000-2030, such that some 54% of the inhabitants of Africa are likely to be living in urban areas by 2030, compared with a figure of 55% for Asia. 37 Reproduced from United Nations (2004)
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 30 Development group Percenta g e urban Rate of urbanisation ( % ) 1950 1975 2000 2003 2030 19501975 19752000 20002030 A frica 14.9 25.3 37.1 38.7 53.5 2.12 1.54 1.22 A sia 16.6 24.0 37.1 38.8 54.5 1.47 1.75 1.28 Europe 51.2 66.0 72.7 73.0 79.6 1.02 0.38 0.30 Latin America and the Caribbean 41.9 61.2 75.5 76.8 84.6 1.52 0.84 0.38 Northern America 63.9 73.8 79.1 80.2 86.9 0.58 0.28 0.31 Oceania 60.6 71.7 72.7 73.1 74.9 0.67 0.06 0.10 Table 1.1. Percentage urban and rate of urbanisation by major geographical area: 1950-203038 This accelerated urban growth of recent years has been accompanied by the rapid increase in the number and size of the world’s largest cities, as well as the proliferation of metropolitan centres experiencing the highest rates of growth (Clark, 1996). This emerging pattern of concentration of population in large cities has led to the development of mega-cities39, which as Clark rightly suggests are found to be increasing most rapidly in the countries of the developing or less developed world (Clark, 1996). In 1950 just two cities of the more developed regions of the world merited being classified as mega-cities (New York and Tokyo) and twenty five years later, the number had doubled with the addition of Shanghai and Mexico City, both in the less developed regions. By 2003 there were some twenty mega-cities, five in the more developed regions, with the incorporation of Los Angeles, Osaka-Kobe and Moscow to the 1975 list, and fifteen in the less developed regions, with the incorporation of São Paolo, Mumbai (Bombay), Delhi, Calcutta, Buenos Aires, Jakarta, Dhaka, Rio de Janeiro, Karachi, Beijing, Cairo, Metro Manila and Lagos. United Nations projections for 2015 estimate that there will be some 22 mega-cities, with the addition of Istanbul and Paris to the previous listings (United Nations, 2004). What these latest trends and projections hide is the fact that the high proportional representation of the ‘urban’ component is a relatively recent phenomenon. However against this background, Nel·lo and Muñoz (2004) rightly indicate the need to recognise that on a global scale, in historical terms the processes of urbanisation and the ever increasing speed with which urbanisation is taking place are relatively recent. 38 United Nations (2004) 39 The United Nations’ World Urbanization Prospects: The 2003 Revision (Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2004) makes the distinction between “very large cities” and “mega-cities”, based upon population limits of 5-10 million inhabitants and those excess of 10 million persons.
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 31 1975 2003 2015 Urban a gg lomeration Pop. (mill.) Urban a gg lomeration Pop. (mill.) Urban a gg lomeration Pop. (mill.) Tok y o ( Japan ) 26.6 Tok y o ( Japan ) 35.0 Tok y o ( Japan ) 36.2 New York ( USA ) 15.9 Mexico Cit y ( Mexico ) 18.7 Mumbai ( Bomba y) India 22.6 Shan g hai ( China ) 11.4 New York ( USA ) 18.3 Delhi ( India ) 20.9 Mexico Cit y ( Mexico ) 10.7 São Paulo ( Brazil ) 17.9 Mexico Cit y ( Mexico ) 20.6 Mumbai ( Bomba y ) (India) 17.4 São Paulo ( Brazil ) 20.0 Delhi ( India ) 14.1 New York ( USA ) 19.7 Calcutta ( India ) 13.8 Dhaka ( Ban g ladesh ) 17.9 Buenos Aires (Argentina) 13.0 Jakarta ( Indonesia ) 17.5 Shan g hai ( China ) 12.8 La g os ( Ni g eria ) 17.0 Jakarta ( Indonesia ) 12.3 Calcutta ( India ) 16.8 Los An g eles ( USA ) 12.0 Karachi ( Pakistan ) 16.2 Dhaka ( Ban g ladesh ) 11.6 Buenos Aires (Argentina) 14.6 Osaka-Kobe ( Japan ) 11.2 Cairo ( E gy pt ) 13.1 Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) 11.2 Los An g eles ( USA ) 12.9 Karachi ( Pakistan ) 11.1 Shan g hai ( China ) 12.7 Beijin g ( China ) 10.8 Metro Manila (Philippines ) 12.6 Cairo ( E gy pt ) 10.8 Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) 12.4 Moscow ( Russian Federation) 10.5 Osaka-Kobe ( Japan ) 11.4 Metro Manila (Philippines) 10.4 Istanbul ( Turke y) 11.3 La g os ( Ni g eria ) 10.1 Beijin g ( China ) 11.1 Moscow ( Russian Federation) 10.9 Paris ( France ) 10.0 Table 1.2. Urban agglomerations with 10 million or more inhabitants 1975-201540 According to Kingsley Davis, at the start of the 19th Century, just 2.4% of the world’s population resided in cities of 20,000 or more inhabitants, and 1.7% in cities of 100,000 or more persons. By 1850, these proportions had increased to 4.3% and 2.3% respectively, reaching proportions of 9.2% and 5.5% by 1900, and 20.9% and 13.1% by 1950 (Davis, 1955). United Nations’ figures used to generate Figure 1.1 indicate the urban population accounted for 29% of the world’s population in 1950, rising to 37% by 1975, and 47% by 2000. Davis (1965) points out the curious nature of the fact that a considerable period of several thousand years elapsed between the initial appearance of small cities and the emergence of urbanised societies of the 19th Century. In addition he notes it strange that North-Western Europe, the spatial region where urbanized societies first appeared, was not region where major cities had developed historically. Rather North-Western
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 38 as the first period of metropolitan growth of ‘modern’ times, coinciding with the adoption of the term ‘metropolitan’ in aspects of public administration in Great Britain and in other aspects of a cultural dimension in other parts of the world. In order to follow the course of metropolitan growth from this period up until the present day, the discussion is divided into five sub-sections, corresponding to broad historical periods. The first of these sub-sections (1.2.1) covers the period from the early 1800s up until the early 1900s, in the context of the expansion of 19th Century industrialisation and improvements in transportation, characterised to a certain extent by centralised metropolitan growth. The second sub-section (1.2.2) relates to the period showing early signs of decentralisation, in the context of the incipient metropolisation associated with further improvements in transportation, which took place during the early part of the 20th Century. This period coincided with the denomination of the term ‘metropolitan districts’ by the US Census Bureau in 1910, and the coinage of the term ‘conurbation’ by Patrick Geddes in 1915. The third sub-section (1.2.3) spans the mid-1900s with growing metropolisation and increasing suburbanisation, coinciding with the adoption of the ‘metropolitan area’ nomenclature by the US Census Bureau. The fourth sub-section (1.2.4) covers the period characterised by disperse metropolitan growth, with contained metropolisation during the 1970s and the emergence of the phenomenon giving rise to the notions of counterurbanization, etc. The fifth and final sub-section (1.2.5) addresses contemporary metropolitan growth in the post-1970s period, in the context of the increasing number of mega-cities and the consolidation of the notions of World cities, global cities and globalisation. It is considered that the broad divisions of this historical approach will permit the most relevant aspects of metropolitan growth over the last two hundred years to be traced, and will allow for the identification of the principal characteristics of each of these five periods.
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 39 1.2.1. Centralised metropolitan growth: in the context of 19th Century industrialisation and increased transportation Lewis Mumford, in his seminal work The City in History , suggested that the “basis for metropolitan agglomeration lay in the tremendous increase in population that took place during the nineteenth century” probably surpassing in both relative and absolute terms, the population increases witnessed in Neolithic times, enabling the original conquests of urbanism (Mumford, 1961, p. 602). According to Mumford “the peoples of European stock multiplied from about two hundred million during the Napoleonic Wars to about six hundred million at the outbreak of the First World War” (Mumford, 1961, p. 602). In 1800 not one city of the Western World had a population exceeding one million inhabitants. The largest city at that time, London, had only 959,310 inhabitants, whereas Paris had just over 500,000 inhabitants. Fifty years later, the population of London exceeded two million inhabitants and Paris had over one million inhabitants. However by 1900 there were some eleven metropolises with more than a million inhabitants, namely Berlin, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Vienna, Tokyo and Calcutta (Mumford, 1961). As has been seen, it was the Industrial Revolution and the enlargement of world trading markets that led to the quantum leap in population growth (in Europe in particular) and above all a centralisation of the said population growth. Furthermore, as Nel·lo and Muñoz (2004) indicate, it was the consolidation of the industrialisation that led to the occupation of the first places in the world ranking political and increasingly industrial centres, often capitals in fast and growing paths of industrialisation, such as Berlin, Saint Petersburg, and Tokyo. Nevertheless, the most spectacular growth occurred in the manufacturing and industrial cities, the foci of the progressive concentration of capital and finance, characterised by the monopolistic capitalism of North America, in the cities of Chicago, New York and Philadelphia, as well as in Manchester, the world capital of textile production. The relation between the urbanization process and industrialization is paramount, and were connected not only with technological advances, but with the creation of increasingly specialised industrial areas. According to Shaw (1989, cited in Nel·lo and Muñoz, 2004) in the British case there were three periods of urbanisation associated to the new industrial economic model.
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 40 The first of these three phases (1780-1820) related to the use of steam powered energy for machinery, favouring the growth of cities with prime basic resources and material such as water and coal at their disposal. This led to the dense network of the canal system between cities and productive areas in the centre and south of England, and in turn the manufacturing development was followed large increases in the respective urban populations. The second such phase in the urbanization process (1820-1870) relates to the growth of the urban areas with specialised functions, undergoing enormous growth in parallel with industrial production, as was the case hand with the textile industry. The commercialisation of industrial weaving looms from 1820 consolidated a system of factories which up until 1850 dominated the urban landscapes of the regions of the north of England, such as Lancashire. At the same time, other areas developed related to steel production and railway construction. During this period, the role of the large industrial centres was instrumental in the distribution of population. The third of the urbanization phases (post-1870) was related to technical innovation, the organization of industrial production and its spatial location. The emergence of a service sector, particularly in the form of commercial activity, combined with changes in industrial work, led to the creation of a new economic map. The slump in the traditional manufacturing sectors of textile, linen and wool, was matched by the expansion of new productive sectors such as tobacco, paper, chemical and metallurgy which were much less dependent upon the coalmines. Indeed the labour force engaged in these new industrial activities increased from 22% in 1870 to over 36% in 1911. Also in 1911, some 40% of the labour force was engaged in the service sector, which was strongly concentrated London and the cities of the south of England (Shaw, 1989, cited in Nel·lo and Muñoz, 2004). Nel·lo and Muñoz (2004) suggest that the British example exemplifies how the industrialisation process laid the foundations for the creation of wide productive regions of a purely urban character, where the productive specialisation, the concentration of capital and the exponential growth of population led to the configuration of a new type of territorial occupation. The configuration of these urban spaces which would play a leading role in the principal metropolitan urbanization processes to be experienced during the 20th Century.
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 41 London provides the ideal example to examine the changes that took place during this period. Despite the population growth experienced by London throughout the 1800s, during the first half of the 19th Century its position heading the British urban hierarchy began to be questioned. This was due on the one hand from the unprecedented growth of the provincial manufacturing centres, as well as their increasing importance in both economic and political terms; and on the other hand from the difficulties associated with understanding the form of London. Although in relative terms the growth of London had been slower than other towns and cities, its growth was still notable. Garside (1984) suggests that this difficulty was one of perception rather than remedy, requiring practical solutions to the consequences and problems of such growth. One such solution came forward in the 1820s, with the application for the first time of the term ‘metropolis’ to London, to denote a new type of urban form, i.e. a ‘London as a whole, in contradistinction to the City’. Nevertheless this ‘London as a whole’ was a nebulous term which until 1851 had escaped the definition by cartographers and the Census. The 1851 Census had for the first time defined London as a complete census division, covering an area approximating that of Inner London44 today. Prior to that there was no common definition for ‘London’, although the Robert Peel’s Metropolitan Police Act 1829 led to the establishment of the Metropolitan Police District, extending over an area within a 24km radius of Charing Cross, and the creation of the Metropolitan Police Force45. Local administration up until 1855 had been carried out by some 300 different bodies, under powers from some 250 different local Acts. However it was under the Metropolis Local Management Act 1855 that the first genuine metropolitan local authority was created in London, under the guise of the Metropolitan Board of Works (MBW). The main objective of the MBW was to improve London’s sewerage system. It remained in force as the principal instrument of London-wide government up until the establishment of the London County Council in 1889, by which time it had acquired a wide range of public works’ powers46 (Wood, 1998). However with the new world economic order resulting from the development of the railways and steamships, London once more was able to assert its position as the key focus of national and international communications. Despite problems encountered by 44 Inner London, with an area of 319 km2, comprises the City of London and 13 borough councils: Camden, Hackney, Hammersmith & Fulham, Haringey, Islington, Kingston & Chelsea, Lambeth, Lewisham, Newham, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Wandsworth and City of Westminster 45 The forerunner of the organisation responsible for the policing of London which still exists today, under the name of the Metropolitan Police (http://www.met.police.uk/). 46 These included the construction of main drains and sewers; construction and improvement of main thoroughfares; construction of flood protections works; enforcement of building codes; naming and numbering of streets; fire protection; creation and maintenance of parks and open spaces; construction of tramways; slum clearance.; and supervisory and inspection duties with regard to water and gas supply, disease control, and noxious trades. (Wood, 1998)
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 42 differing degrees of local opposition and rivalry between different operating companies, by the end of the 19th Century, every part of the River Thames between Woolwich and the Tower of London had been developed with dock activity. Such was the intensity of this activity that by 1890 London was able to claim to be the world’s number one port, providing it with an enormous hold over the entire British economy. Similarly the railways placed London at the centre of Britain’s communication system. London’s first passenger railway, the London and Greenwich, had in fact opened on 8 February 1836, running from Deptford to Spa Road in Bermondsey. It formed part of a longer 6 km line built between London Bridge and Greenwich which was opened in on 29 December 1836. By 1844, this line was carrying a total of 2 million passengers a year. The London and Greenwich Railway was just one of numerous lines which contributed to transform London and the country at large between the 1840s and 1860s. The first railway terminal to be built in London was opened at Euston Station in 1837, connecting the capital with Birmingham for the London and Birmingham Railway Company. Waterloo Station for the Southampton Line followed in 1846, as did Kings Cross in 1851-52 and Paddington in 1854. The opening of these and other railway terminals on the periphery of the central district increased the commercial facilities and pressures at the centre of London, while at the same time, by the end of the 19th Century, enabling for the separation of work and home by means of the suburbanization of the middle and upper classes (Garside, 1984). The decision to build the principal mainline stations on the periphery of the central area left passengers with no easy means of crossing the capital, giving rise to enormous congestion. A Select Committee set up in 1855 to examine the matter recommended the construction of an underground railway to link the stations, leading to the establishment of the Metropolitan Railway Company and the opening of the Metropolitan Railway, the world’s first underground railway47, on 19 January 186348. 47 The first ‘metropolitan railway’ was that of London, constructed in 1863. Initially with vapour traction, it was converted to the first electrified metropolitan railway in 1890. That of Paris was inaugurated in 1900. Budapest, 1896, was the first of Continental Europe. In Spain, the first was that of Madrid, 1919. New York 1870. The first line of the Gran Metropolità de Barcelona, SA, (Lesseps-Catalunya) was inaugurated in 1924. 48 The following day the Manchester Guardian reported that: “Yesterday the Metropolitan (underground) Railway was opened to the public, and many thousands were enabled to indulge their curiosity in reference to this mode of travelling under the streets of the metropolis.”
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 43 Figure 1.4. Gusav Dore’s view of London congestion, 187249 The underground line ran from Paddington to Farringdon Street, a distance of almost 5 km, via the mainline stations of Euston and Kings Cross. Reduced fares on early morning services enabled working-class people to use the underground and indeed led to the introduction of reduced fares on other railway services through the Cheap Trains Act in 1883. As a consequence, working-class people were able to move further away from the crowded centre of London. Figure 1.5. Baker Street station on the Metropolitan Railway, 186350 The success of the Metropolitan Railway led to interest to construct other lines. In 1864 Parliamentary approval was granted to create an Inner Circle (today’s Circle Line) connecting all the mainline terminals. The first section of this was constructed in 1868, but rivalry between the railway companies and the high construction costs of building through London prevented the Inner Circle from being completed until 1884. 49 London Transport Museum, http://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/ 50 London Transport Museum, http://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 44 London continued to grow in all directions with the construction of the Victorian suburbs. The introduction of working men’s fares and the advent of the horse tram made transport much more accessible. Middle class migration continued in an outward direction and with the greater affordability of public transport, this was followed by working class outward migration as well. At first many of the mainline railway companies were only interested in longer distance travel. They were prepared to make concessions to serve the suburban developments, but only for the wealthier travellers. Some offered free season passes to new residents to encourage the building of more expensive new homes, near new stations. However other companies, such as the Great Eastern Railway, were keen to attract working class passengers. In 1883 the Cheap Trains Act was passed, which encouraged railway companies to provide cheap early morning and evening workmen’s fares, which in turn contributed to the development of new suburbs (London Transport Museum, 2005).
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 45 Figures 1.6 a, b, c, d, e and f London, 1840, 1860, 1880, 1900, 1914 and 1929, after Abercrombie (1945)
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 46 The continued physical expansion of the built-up area of London was matched by an increase in population decline at the centre. However this suburban growth was not a direct result of the commercial expansion in the centre. Rather the construction of suburban development and the servicing they required created employment and generated income, with the emergence of a lower-middle class in suburban commerce, in the form of shopkeepers, clerks and teachers (Garside, 1984). The paramount social problem of London, and other cities such as Paris, Berlin and New York, at the end of the 19th Century was that deriving from the atrocious unsanitary conditions and poverty of overcrowded housing of the working classes. Indeed the growing public awareness of these conditions came as a considerable shock for the middle and upper classes of Victorian society of the time51. As Hall (2002) succinctly points out, “the root of the problem was simple economics. The people were overcrowded because they were poor, and because they were poor they could not afford the obvious remedy: to move out where house room was cheaper.” (p. 18) These issues were addressed by the ‘Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes’, which sat between 1884-85. The Commission concluded that there was a need for public investment to ensure the provision of adequate working-class accommodation. This was followed by the Housing Act 1885, the creation of the directly elected London County Council (LCC) in 1889 and a further Housing Act in 1890. This latter Act allowed for the clearance and rebuilding of slum areas (Part I), and the compulsory purchase of land to construct working class accommodation (Part III). In practice however, the lack of political agreement prevented the scale of the problem from being fully dealt with in a satisfactory way. The British solution to the problem of overcrowded housing was diametrically opposed to that of the United States, arising from the recommendations of the Tenement House Commissions (1894 and 1900) addressing the state of New York’s tenements. While in Britain the solution lay with the public sector, in the United States the “physical regulation of the private developer was to provide the answer” (Hall, 2002, p. 39), leading to the situation that “in comparison with Europe, it was to set the cause of public housing back for decades” (Lubove, 1962, cited in Hall, 2002, p. 41). By contrast a lower tier of 28 metropolitan boroughs52 was created as part of the London County Council in 1899. These metropolitan boroughs were provided with the powers of 51 These conditions are graphically described in ‘The City of the Dreadful Night’, Chapter 2 of Peter Hall’s Cities of Tomorrow (2002). 52 City of London, Holborn, Finsbury, Shoreditch, Bethnal Green, Stepney, Bermondsey, Southwark, City of Westminster, St. Marylebone, St. Pancras, Islington, Hackney, Poplar, Deptford, Camberwell, Lambeth, Battersea,
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 47 compulsory purchase and the construction of working class accommodation under Part III of the 1890 Housing Act. In 1900 the LCC was granted powers to purchase and develop land for housing lying outside its boundaries. Although these remedies were different, the reality on both sides of the Atlantic was similar, in the case of both London and New York being the seats for enormous concentrations of extremely poor people, in close proximity to the middle and upper socio-economic groupings of the day. In this sense industrialization and urbanization led to the creation of new social relationships and a new set of social perceptions (Hall 2002). Moreover it is within this overall socioeconomic context that social reformers such as Charles Booth, William Morris and Ebenezer Howard all came forward with different proposals to alleviate the worsening social and economic conditions of cities53 (Hall, 2002; and Garside, 1984). Chelsea, Kensington, Paddington, Hampstead, Stoke Newington, Woolwich, Greenwich, Lewisham, Wandsworth, Fulham and Hammersmith. 53 For example Howard’s proposal lay in the development of the garden city model, which he saw as a vehicle enabling the social transformation of industrial society, enabling the union between the natural surroundings and the population. While the ‘town’ represented the worst possible aspects of the then Victorian city, despite the economic and social opportunities, and the ‘country’ was characterised by the depression of the agricultural sector, unable to offer sufficient employment, reasonable wages and social life, the salvation was offered by the ‘town-country’, embodied within the social and physical organisation of the garden city, which would provide its residents with liberty and cooperation Howard (1898, 1902).
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 54 decennial censuses of 1920, 1930 and 1940. The definition used for the 1910 Census was applied again in the 1920 Census, however the 1930 and 1940 Censuses, allowed for the identification of metropolitan districts for cities with a minimum population of 50,000 inhabitants. As a consequence, the 1930 and 1940 Census identified 97 and 140 metropolitan districts respectively (Thompson, 1947). Throughout this period the Census Bureau defined the metropolitan districts in terms of minor civil divisions, defining their boundaries based upon density of population59. A change would come about in 1949 with a marked shift from the until then morphological/density approach to the definition of the metropolitan areas, to one based more upon functional criteria of economic and social integration around a central place, through the introduction of a definition for the “standard metropolitan area” (SMA). This change will be addressed in Section 1.2.3. 1.2.2.3. Conurbations : part of the legacy of Patrick Geddes In parallel to the events in the United States leading to the identification of “metropolitan districts” related to the largest cities, it seems appropriate to draw attention to the work of Patrick Geddes, irrefutably one of the founding fathers and pioneers of the “modern” Anglo-Saxon town planning movement. Geddes, a biologist by training and a botanist by profession, wrote his urban and regional theories very much from a life sciences perspective, with emotively charged descriptions of the phenomena he was studying. In Cities in Evolution , which was published in 1915, Geddes analysed the population change at a nation-wide scale, based upon the then recent appearance of the Royal Geographical Society’s Atlas of England and Wales. In this work Geddes makes an implicit reference to metropolitan growth, making use of other more explicit terminology. For example in his discourse on Greater London, Geddes speaks of “its vast population streaming out in all directions” (Geddes, 1915, p.25), going on to suggest that: “This octopus of London, polypus rather, is something curious exceedingly, a vast irregular growth without previous parallel in the world of life – perhaps likest to the spreadings of a great coral reef. Like this, it has a stony skeleton, and living polypes – call it, then, a “man-reef if you will. Onward it grows, thinly at first, the pale tints spreading further and faster than the others, but the deeper tints of thicker population at every point steadily following on. Within lies a dark and crowded area; of which, however, the daily pulsating centre calls on us to seek some fresh comparison to higher than coralline life. Here, at any rate, all will agree, is an approximation to the 59 The 1950 Census would mark a change as being the first effort to define metropolitan areas based upon functional criteria of economic and social integration around a central place. See Section 1.2.3.
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 55 real aspect of Greater London as distinguished from Historic London” (Geddes, 1915, p.26). Figure 1.8. Greater London60 Geddes goes on to question the purpose of county boundary divisions, on the basis that the reality (of recent population growth) shows a great part of the South-East of England being converted into a “house-province” (Geddes, 1915, p. 27). He introduces a metaphor of connectability, deriding the usefulness of the old lines of (administrative) division and their replacement with the “new lines of union” in the form of the railways, i.e. the “throbbing arteries, the roaring pulses of the intensely living whole”, as well as the telegraph wires transmitting “the impulses of idea and action either way” (Geddes, 1915, p. 26-27). In looking at other parts of England and Wales, which had been subject to similar urban population growth to the extent of forming city-regions, Geddes refers to the need for new descriptive vocabulary. Rejecting both “constellations” and “conglomerations”, he proposes “conurbations” which “ may serve as the necessary word, as an expression of this new form of population-grouping, which is already, as it were subconsciously, developing new forms of social grouping and of definite government and administration (…)” (Geddes, 1915, p.34). This analysis leads Geddes to announce the New Heptarchy of England and Wales, comprising the conurbations of Greater London (adopting the accepted terminology of the day); “Lancaston” (for the vast conurbation and world-metropolis of cotton of the Lancashire millions); “West Riding” (to denote Huddersfield, Bradford and their neighbours, the world-metropolis of wool); “South Riding” (for the conurbation centring around the steel and coal of Sheffield); “Midlandton” (referring to the Greater and
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 56 growing Birmingham); “(South) Waleston” encompassing Greater Cardiff); and “TyneWear-Tees” (for the regional community of the Tyne towns, as well as those of Wear and Tees); being complemented by Clyde-Forth in Scotland (referring to the bi-polar city-regions comprising Glasgow and Edinburgh). Figure 1.9. Clyde and Forth towns agglomerating as “Clyde-Forth”61 It is legitimate to ask at what stage these ‘conurbations’ first began to appear in Great Britain. Lloyd (1992) makes the point that the increase in population of England and Wales during the 19th Century was extremely uneven. While London expanded vastly, areas where different industries had developed in the early years of industrial change continued to expand throughout the Victorian period (1830-1900). The large towns grew into great cities, the smaller towns into larger ones and for different reasons a few new towns were established. Many adjoining towns consolidated into what became to be known as the ‘conurbations’, of which Lloyd makes special reference to the conurbations of Birmingham and the Black Country; Manchester and much of Lancashire; Leeds and the West Riding; Sheffield and South Yorkshire; Liverpool and Merseyside; Newcastle and Tyneside; Cardiff and South Wales. While the principal advances of the Industrial Revolution in cotton manufacturing had taken place by about 1840, it was not until the 1860s that wool manufacturing had become mechanized making use of steam power. By then however the settlement pattern of the cotton region around Manchester, and the wool region around Bradford and Leeds had become fully established. Further development led to the larger and monumental mills where the textile industry was clearly a success. It is reasonable to trace these events as the precursors for the development of the two conurbations Geddes identified as “Lancaston” and “West Riding”. 60 Geddes (1915) 61 Geddes (1915)
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 57 Some of the most important advances in technology during the Victorian period were those seen in steel-making. Sheffield was already renowned for steel manufacture, but following several technological advances in the mid-1800s, the steel industry in the proper sense of the word started to develop. Soon steel replaced iron in the fields of engineering, shipbuilding, railways and building construction and a number of until then iron-manufacturing companies, for example in the Black Country, around Birmingham, made the successful change to steel manufacture. Clearly these events contributed to the development of the conurbations of South Riding and Midlanfton. The evolution of events leading to the formation of the “Tyne-Wear-Tees” conurbation rested upon the shipbuilding industry. Newcastle and Tyneside had enjoyed centuries of tradition in wooden shipbuilding as well as in iron manufacture, when the first iron ship built on the River Tyne was launched in 1842. Subsequently shipyards were developed along the river, producing ships of all types. In Newcastle from the 1850s onwards, there was a strong tradition of armament manufacture and warship manufacturing, and in Sunderland, on the mouth of the River Wear, coal export, wooden and then iron shipbuilding and glass-making all became successful industries. By the Victorian period, Liverpool had achieved the position as Britain’s chief transatlantic port, for cargo, for embarkation of the countless emigrants and as the terminus for the world’s busiest oceanic passenger service with New York. From this brief review, one can conclude that it was basically from the mid-1800s that the British conurbations began to grow significantly, resulting from advances in different aspects of specialised industrialisation as a wave over the entire country. Responding to the wave of growing opportunities and employment and economic development deriving from industrialisation. 18911901 19011911 1911192119211931 19311951 Greater London 16.8 10.2 3.1 9.9 0.8 South-East Lancashire 11.8 10.0 1.4 2.8 -0.1 West Midlands 16.9 10.2 8.3 9.0 7.6 West Yorkshire 8.1 4.3 1.5 2.6 1.1 Merse y side 13.4 12.3 9.0 6.7 1.3 T y neside 23.1 12.3 7.0 1.4 0.5 Table 1.4. Population growth of the conurbations of England and Wales 1891-195162 62 Hall (1973), p. 64
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 58 The nature of the term conurbation would change over time, as discussed by Hall (1973, pp. 62-68), but nevertheless hold an important place in the metropolisation process, coinciding with the similar experience of the United States, as discussed in the preceding section of this broad discussion, of growing signs of metropolitan growth.
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 59 1.2.3. Growing metropolisation and increasing suburbanisation In 1950, just 30% of the world population lived in urban areas, making it principally rural in character. Certainly as indicated by Table 1.1 there were strong regional differences, in that North America and parts of Europe, South America and Australasia were more urban than rural, but this was countered by most of Africa and Asia, and the rest of South America, which were all rural, with less than 20% of their population living in towns and cities. Nevertheless, according to Mumford, by 1950, a host of new metropolitan areas had appeared, “with bulging and sprawling suburban rings that brought many more within the general metropolitan picture” (Mumford, 1961, p. 602). 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 World 29.1 32.9 36.0 39.2 43.2 47.1 51.3 55.9 60.8 A frica 14.9 18.6 23.2 27.5 31.9 37.1 42.4 47.8 53.5 A sia 16.6 19.8 22.7 26.3 31.9 37.1 42.7 48.5 54.5 Europe 51.2 56.7 62.9 68.6 71.5 72.7 74.2 76.6 79.6 Latin America and the Carribean 41.9 49.3 57.4 64.9 71.1 75.5 79.4 82.3 84.6 Northern America 63.9 69.9 73.8 73.9 75.4 79.1 82.3 84.8 86.9 Oceania 60.6 65.9 70.6 71.1 70.1 72.7 73.7 74.2 74.9 Table 1.5. Percentage urban population of the world, by major area: 1950-203063 The third of these five broad phases dealing with urbanisation processes associated with metropolitan growth starts around the middle of the 20th Century and is marked by the growing refinement of the definitions given to reflect urban development of an increasingly metropolitan character in the United States. The 1950 Census of the United States was the first to include a specific definition of a Statistical Metropolitan Area (SMA). It will be recalled that between 1910 and 1940 the US Census Bureau consistently applied the metropolitan district concept in the Census, leading to the identification of some 140 such metropolitan districts and outlying areas in the 1940 Census, accounting for a combined population of 62,965,773 persons, representing 47.8 % of the total population of the United States64. In order to meet certain criticisms and widen the applicability of the information collected through the Census and provide it in a form able to be used by other interested agencies, changes were made in the collection of the data representing the metropolitan phenomena. At the same time there were concerns over the Census Bureau’s classification of urban and rural areas. Therefore in 1949 two new statistical measures were introduced. Firstly the “standard metropolitan area” (SMA) concept was 63 Reproduced from United Nations (2004) 64 1940 Census population of 62,965,773 persons. (Hobbs and Stoops, 2002)
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 60 established “to define the metropolitan extent around large cities” and secondly the Census Bureau developed the urbanized area (UA) definition to define the densely settled agglomerations around large cities. The standard metropolitan area provided a means of delimiting a functional zone of economic and social integration around a central place or places, whereas the urbanized area represented a measure of the extent of an urban agglomeration, including the built-up portion of a core place and the densely settled surrounding area. Both these concepts were applied for the 1950 Census and led to the identification of some 174 SMA in the United States. These metropolitan areas contained 84.5 million inhabitants, representing 56.1% of the total population of the United States and for the first time accounting for a greater proportion of the total population than the non-metropolitan areas (Hobbs and Stoop, 2002). The notion of integration was determined principally by commuting or journey to work trips. The metropolitan areas were defined as counties or county equivalents, including a densely settled urban core with a population of at least 50,000 inhabitants, the remainder of the county in which the greater part of this core was located, and any contiguous counties meeting the criteria of metropolitan character and integration with the core. In real terms this meant that for the adjacent counties 50% of the population was living in minor civil divisions with a density of at least 150 persons per square mile and less than one third of labour working in agriculture, 15% working in the central city county of 25% commuting from the central county. Clearly the concept of the metropolitan area, as contained in the 1949 definition, matched the settlement patterns that existed prior to 1950, in the sense that the functional areas could be attributed with physical attributes, areas contained a dense central city with spreading areas declining in density. Criticisms of this definition have rested on the premise that the US settlement pattern has since evolved in ways not matched by the original concept. Some argue that a metropolitan area should be an autonomous economic area and that most of the official metropolitan areas are underbounded by including all the population dependent upon the area for certain services, such as public services, retailing activity, health and education and other personal services. Others argue that metropolitan character should be associated with size, density and the performance of a number of key functions (Frey and Zimmer, 2001). What needs to be stressed is that over time the definition of metropolitan areas and the name given to them by the U.S. Census Bureau have evolved. These changes will be addressed specifically in Chapter 3 dealing with metropolitan delimitations, but the essential point that needs to be made at this point is that the 1949 definition was a
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 61 landmark, in the sense of offering a clear public response to capture the nature of the urban and metropolitan at the time65. 65 Responding to the clear insufficiency of the definitions to capture the evolving urban reality in the ensuing period, the Census Bureau initiated the first of a number of important changes in the definitions of the areas under metropolitan influence as well as the names used to refer to these areas, starting in 1959 with the change to “standard metropolitan statistical area” (SMSA), followed in 1983 by “metropolitan statistical area” (MSA). In 1990 the “metropolitan area” (MA) term was introduced to refer collectively to “metropolitan statistical areas” (MSAs) “consolidated metropolitan statistical area” (CMSAs) and “primary metropolitan statistical areas” (PMSAs). In 2000 the term was changed yet again to “core based statistical area” (CBSA) to refer to both metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas. These last two changes had important ramifications for understanding what was happening within urban systems in general, but both will be discussed in detail respectively in the following two sections.
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 62 1.2.4. Disperse metropolitan growth To a certain extent the two last phases of processes of urbanisation to be examined here overlap, in the sense that they cannot be positioned in time blocks as easily as the three preceding phases. This is due to the fact that what was happening in the cities and in the large cities in particular resulted from events and circumstances at different scales of analysis. Indeed what could be observed were different events which were affecting the cities and large urban agglomerations at an intra-urban scale as well as an inter-urban scale. In contrast to the marked periods of centralisation in the 19th Century and decentralisation towards the end of the 19th Century and the beginnings of the 20th Century, deriving from the improvements in public transport, and suburbanisation through the first part of the 20th Century, what became clear from the mid part of the 20th Century was a commencement in the decrease of the population of the principal urban agglomerations on both sides of the Atlantic, firstly in the United Kingdom and then later in the United States. The majority of the English conurbations and urban agglomerations (Birmingham, Greater London, Newcastle and Sheffield) began to lose population following the 1951 Census, with Leeds beginning to lose population after the 1961 Census. Liverpool and Manchester had both begun to lose population prior to this period. In the case of the United States, with the notable exceptions of Los Angeles, Houston, San Diego, Dallas, Phoenix, San Antonio San Jose, Columbus and Memphis which showed continued upward growth, losses of population in the principal US cities were detected following the 1960 Census – as in the case of New York66, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Baltimore, San Francisco, Jacksonville, Washington D.C. and Boston. Similar losses were detected in Milwaukee following the 1970 Census and in Indianapolis in the 1980 Census. These shifts in population from states of greater to lesser were deemed by Berry (1976) to comprise counterurbanisation , in that the more traditional processes favouring population growth of towns and cities were in fact seen to be reversing. In the period between 1960 and 1970 the metropolitan areas of the United States increased five times as quickly as the rural areas. However during the 1970s this pattern was reversed, with rural areas indicating gains of population one and a half times that of the cities. Berry’s research drew attention to the fact that almost half of the new nonmetropolitan growth was adjoining cities leading to suburban sprawl over excessively
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 63 tightly drawn boundaries. Approximately half of the non-metropolitan growth was taking place in locations some distance from and not adjacent to the existing cities, thereby representing a non-metropolitan revival. More specific research focused on the changing metropolitan structure of Northern Ohio in the period 1960-70 indicated population growth in inter-metropolitan areas, showing that the growth derived from counterurbanisation, in that it had taken place in areas some distance from the more traditional urban core, with which no effective regular ties could be determined (Berry and Gillard, 1977, cited in Clark, 1996). 66 The 1970 Census indicated a 1% increase in New York’s population over the previous decade, but then the 1980 Census indicated a 10% decrease over the ten year period 1970-1980.
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 70 1.2.5. Contemporary metropolisation, in the context of mega-cities, World Cities and globalisation This final section of this chapter addresses issues of metropolitan growth in the context of contemporary urban phenomena. According to Beaverstock et. al. (1999) the richness in the variety of the terminology used to describe large and significant cities is indicative of both the diversity in the nature of the cities themselves, and the differences in the approaches used to study such cities. The demographic tradition is largely focused on the size of the cities, while in the functional tradition the focus is upon the cities forming part of a larger system. The current mega-cities project75, is aimed towards the human and ecological implications of current and future massive concentrations of population, and clearly falls within the former demographic tradition; whereas studies of world and global cities, interpreted as forming part of the contemporary globalization processes, belong to the latter functional tradition. The issues relating to mega-cities have already been discussed in Section 1.1, highlighting the exponential growth in the number cities of mega-proportions over the last twenty-five years and their preponderance in the less developed regions of the world. On that basis, it seems appropriate to close this broad review of urban processes with a detailed review of a number of trends which have taken place in parallel over the closing stages of the 20th Century, which continue to dominate today and which will undoubtedly carry on being key issues of debate in the near future at least. These trends are related to the development of the notions of world and global cities, under the more functional tradition. 75 See http://www.megacitiesproject.org/ (consulted 16 October 2005)
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 71 1.2.5.1. From Megapololis to functional trans-metropolitan geographies While the Megalopolis is frequently cited as being a concept given definition by the French geographer Jean Gottmann (1961), Patrick Geddes had in fact made an oblique reference to it much earlier in his 1915 treatise The City in Evolution (Geddes, 1915). Here Geddes suggested that “the expectation is not absurd that the not very distant future will see practically one vast city-line along the Atlantic Coast for five hundred miles, and stretching back at many points; with a total of (…) many millions of population.” (Geddes, 1915, pp. 48-49). Baigent (2004) notes that while Geddes indeed used the term ‘conurbation’ rather than ‘megalopolis’ to describe this organic form, he had in fact previously made use of the term ‘megalopolis’ in 1904 in an essay addressing new approaches to education. As a disciple of Patrick Geddes, Lewis Mumford adopted the term ‘magalopolis’ and developed it through his writings. Chapter 4 of The Culture of Cities , Mumford (1938), is entitled “The rise and fall of Magalopolis” in which the section “A brief outline of Hell” modifies and extends Geddes’s ideas concerning the evolution of cities. Here Mumford identified six stages of evolution: i) ‘eopolis’ (village); ii) ‘polis’ (association of villages); iii) ‘metropolis’ (emergence of a capital city); iv) ‘megalopolis’ (beginning of the decline); v) ‘tyrannopolis’ (the overexpansion of the urban system based upon economic exploitation); and finally vi) ‘nekropolis’ (war and famine, city abandoned). Mumford further develops this same somewhat fatalistic interpretation of the “oft-repeated urban cycle of growth, expansion and disintegration” (Mumford, 1961, p.599) in The City in hi45 story in Chapters 8 (‘Megalopolis into Necropolis’) and 17 (‘The Myth of Megalopolis’). Here Mumford suggests that “every overgrown megalopolitan centre today, and every province outside that its life touches, exhibits the same symptoms of disorganisation, accompanied by no less pathological symptoms of violence and demoralisation. Those who close their eyes to these facts are repeating, with exquisite mimicry, the very words and acts, equally blind, of their Roman predecessors” (Mumford, 1961, pp. 277278). In 1961 Jean Gottmann took inspiration from the term Megalopolis used for the proposed new city-state of Ancient Greece and the hope vested therein that it would become the largest of the Greek cities, suggesting that it could be applied to “the unique cluster of metropolitan areas of the Northeastern seaboard of the United States”
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 72 where “if anywhere in our times, the dream of those ancient Greeks has come true” (Gottmann, 1961, p. 4). For Gottmann “The Northeastern seaboard of the United States is today the site of a remarkable development – an almost continuous stretch of urban and suburban areas from southern New Hampshire to northern Virginia and from the Atlantic shore to the Appalachian foothills. The process of urbanization, rooted deep in the American past, have worked steadily here, endowing the region with unique ways of life and of land use. No other section of the United States has such a large concentration of population, with such a wide average density, spread over such a large area. And no other section has a comparable role within the nation or a comparable importance in the world. Here has been developed a kind of supremacy, in politics, in economics, and possibly even in cultural activities, seldom attained by an area of this size” (Gottmann, 1961, p.3). Figure 1.14. Diagram of Megalopolis according to Gottmann (1961)76 Gottmann suggested that the “almost continuous system of deeply interwoven urban and suburban areas, with a total population of about 37 million people in 1960” provided “the whole of America with so many essential services, of the sort a community used to obtain in its ‘downtown’ section, that it may well deserve the nickname of ‘Main Street of the nation’” (Gottmann, 1961, pp. 7-8). It is clear from the apocalyptic tone of Mumford’s writings that the arrival of the Megalopolis was far from being something to be applauded. By contrast Gottmann viewed it in very different terms. Indeed he welcomed it as being “the cradle of a new order in the organization of inhabited space” (Gottmann, 1961, p. 9). While Mumford
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 73 refers to the Megalopolis as the stage of urban development signifying a point of no return, Gottmann openly acknowledges “the long list of brilliant civilizations that have sunk under pressure of internal decay and external jealousy” (Gottmann, 1961, pp. 1213). Furthermore he admits that “the type of urban growth experienced here (in the Megalopolis urban region) generates many contrasts, paradoxes, and apparently contradictory trends” but that the challenge was to overcome these: “Megalopolis stands indeed at the threshold of a new way of life, and upon solution of its problems will rest civilizations ability to survive” (Gottmann, 1961, p. 16). Hall et. al. (1973) rightly indicate that the notion of urban continuity has to be seen in functional terms, as not all the territory lying within the megalopolis had to be urbanised in the physical sense. Rather it was a question of contiguous commuting areas interacting in complex ways, with many areas falling under the influence of more than one city. Furthermore the interactions took place at higher levels, resulting in a weave of multitudinous visible and invisible functional linkages, exchanging people, goods and information. In this sense the Northeastern seaboard megalopolis was, at the time of writing, a unique functional and spatial entity both in the United States and at an international level representing “the most complex urban form to appear in world history” (Hall et. al ., 1973, p. 47). Research later carried out and led by Hall during the 1960s and early 1970s led to the identification of just five megalopolitan areas around the world, based upon the criterion of contiguous functional urban areas with a minimum population of 20 million inhabitants. All five of these areas shared one essential attribute of a Megalopolis: the notion of their being areas where the functional urban regions which impinge closely upon one another and which might even interpenetrate (Hall et. al. , 1973). These examples included a revision of Gottmann’s Megalopolis on the East Coast of North America77; the Great Lakes Megalopolis in the mid-west of the United States78; a Japanese Megalopolis79; a north-western European Megalopolis80; and finally an English Megalopolis81 (Hall et. al. , 1973). 76 Source: http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/geography/map3.htm (consulted14.03.06) 77 34.2 million inhabitants. 78 Encompassing Chicago, Detroit and Cleveland, with 19.7 million inhabitants in 1960. 79 along the main urbanised axis of Honshu, embracing Tokyo, Yokohama, Nagoya and Osaka-Kobe, with approximately 40.5 million inhabitants 80 This started out from the mouth of the Rhine, extending up the river into the Netherlands and into the industrial Ruhr and beyond, up the Neckar to Stuttgart and beyond, embracing the cities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Essen, Dortmund, Duisberg, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, Mainz, Mannheim and Stuttgart, with a population of some 29.1 million persons in 1960-61. 81 Termed as the area stretching from the south coast and extending northwards through London and the Midlands, up to Lancashire and Yorkshire, including the cities of London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Bradford, Sheffield, Nottingham and Leicester. This area had a population of around 32.1 million in 1961.
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 74 Gottmann’s 1987 revision of his work on the Megalopolis recognised the possibility of other regions of the United States qualifying as Megalopolitan : the Midwest and the West Coast, as well as a nascent megalopolis in the South around Atlanta (Gottmann, 1987; and Gottmann and Harper, 1990; both cited in Lang and Dhavale, 2005). However much more contemporary research has suggested the existence of ten “Megalopolitan Areas” stretching across different parts of the United States: Northeast, Midwest, Southland, Piedmont, I-35 Corridor, Peninsula, NorCal, Gulf Coast, Cascadia and Valley of the Sun (Lang and Dhavale, 2005)82. Figure 1.15. The spatial distribution of the ten Megapolitans83 Figure 1.16. The inter-state connectivity of the ten Megapolitans84 82 Interestingly these same authors cite European publications relating to the cluster of networked metropolitan areas in the form of the EU’s global integration zone or “Pentagon”, formed by the cities of London, Hamburg, Munich, Milan and Paris – see Chapters 6 and 7 for further details relating to the EU core area. 83 Lang and Dhavale (2005) 84 Lang and Dhavale (2005)
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 75 These ten areas all fulfil the following criteria: i) the combination of at least two existing metropolitan areas; ii) a projected 2040 population of at least 10 million inhabitants; iii) deriving from contiguous metropolitan and micropolitan areas; iv) constituting an “organic” cultural region with a distinct history and identity; v) occupying a roughly similar physical environment; vi) the linkage of large centres through major transportation infrastructure; vii) forming a functional urban network via goods and service flows; viii) creating a usable geography that is suitable for large-scale regional planning; ix) lying within the United States; and finally x) consisting of counties as the most basic territorial administrative unit. Me g apolitan Areas 2000 Pop. 2003 Pop. Rank 2003 Pop. 20002003 Growth 20002003 Growth rank % of 2000 US pop. % of 2003 US pop. Northeast 49,182,941 1 50,427,921 2.5 9 17.5 17.3 Midwest 39,489,865 2 40,082,288 1.5 10 14.0 13.8 Southland 20,962,590 3 22,173,291 5.8 4 7.4 7.6 Piedmont 18,391,495 4 19,318,992 5.0 5 6.5 6.6 I-35 Corridor 14,465,638 5 15,315,317 5.9 3 5.1 5.3 Peninsula 12,837,903 6 13,708,165 6.8 2 4.6 4.7 NorCal 11,568,172 7 12,024,173 3.9 8 4.1 4.1 Gulf Coast 11,533,241 8 12,064,600 4.6 6 3.7 3.7 Cascadia 7,115,710 9 7,412,248 4.2 7 2.5 2.6 Valle y of the Sun 4,095,622 10 4,486,206 9.5 1 1.5 1.5 Me g apolitan Total 189,643,177 197,013,201 3.9 67.4 67.8 United States* 281,421,906 290,788,976 3.3 Table 1.10. Megapolitan population and growth in the United States85 As can be seen from Table 1.10, these ten Megapolitan areas together comprise over two-thirds of the population of the United States, amounting to some 200 million persons. However this population lies concentrated within a spatial extension representing just under 20% of the total land area. Figure 1.16 emphasises the importance of the interstate highway networks of the Megapolitan areas, facilitating the inter-connectivity between the large centres. The authors of this research argue of the current need for a formal institutional recognition of the Megapolitan concept, at least as it stands within the United States. They suggest that Gottmann’s 1961 treatise had little policy impact on spatial definition, owing principally to the fact that his work was focused on just one area. However “the combination of fast growth and massive decentralization (has) transformed once distant cities into galaxies and corridors of linked urban space” (Lang and Dhavale, 2005, p. 85 Lang and Dhavale (2005)
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 76 24). The clear existence of these ten Megapolitan geographies adds weight to the need for an institutional response from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 77 1.2.5.2. From de-industrialisation to globalisation In general terms it is reasonable to say that as from the 1970s, the cities of the western world began to lose their traditional productive functions, which in the 1980s gave way to urban economic restructuring and new forms of global competition. In the context of a major shift in the economic order, the notion of the World-city (Friedmann and Wolff, 1982) gained acceptance as did that of the global cities (Sassen, 2001a dn 2001b), all giving rise to the notions of globalisation, and the emergence of the post-Fordist (Lever, 2001) or post-industrial (Shaw, 2001) cities. While as early as 1915 Patrick Geddes had given indications of the existence of ‘world cities’ (Geddes, 1915), Peter Hall’s analysis of London, Paris, Randstad, Rhine-Ruhr, Moscow, New York and Tokyo (Hall, 1966) is often citied as the first study of the global urban hierarchy. These cities were at the top of the global hierarchy owing to their importance of their functional capabilities, relating to power and influence in politics, trade, communications, finance, education, culture and technology. However more than 30 years later in providing his overview of the rise of the globalinformational city, Hall himself pays homage to Manuel Castells and Saskia Sassen for their respective contributions to understanding the changes in the international economic order in the closing stages of the 20th Century. To Castells, Hall acknowledges his contribution in examining the nuances of the informational mode of development, by way of the convergence between the interaction of information technologies and information-processing activities into an articulated technoorganizational system. Indeed for Castells “informational technology advances have powerfully boosted the system, contributing to increasing rates of profit, accelerating internationalisation, and engendering a new policy agenda on the part of governments, to foster capital accumulation at the expense of social redistribution” (Hall, 2004, p. 405). The emerging regional and urban geography became characterised by clear divisions of labour, with the decentralisation of productive functions and with informational industries staying in highly concentrated innovative urban locations. As a consequence high-level decision making became ever more centralised, with other activities being decentralised locally, within major metropolitan urban regions, or more widely further a field (Hall, 2004). Sassen’s analysis was similar, in the sense of identifying the dispersal of productive manufacturing out of the former industrial centres (de-industrialisation), matched by the
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 78 local decentralisation of office based activities, but with the enormous increase throughout the 1980s in international financial activity and service transactions, concentrated in a few countries and cities. However for Sassen the geographical dispersal of factories and offices, and service outlets and the reorganization of the financial services industry led to the creation of a need for centralised management and regulation in a few key locations, characterised by the existence of banks and corporate headquarters, corporate service firms and non-bank financial institutions. Moreover what was seen throughout the 1980s was the change in the nature of the financial services industry to become a commodity, with the exchange of instruments becoming an end in itself. The leading centres of this new spatial configuration were the three global cities of New York, London and Tokyo, functioning “as a single transnational marketplace” (Sassen, 1991, cited in Hall, 2004, p. 407). Hall interprets this change as the emergence of a new division of labour on a global scale – a change from the division based upon the manufactured product characteristic of the British industrial conurbations seen previously under Section 1.2.2.2 for example cotton from Lancashire and steel from Sheffield) to one based upon process (such as the global finance (London and New York), back office activities characteristic of many secondary cities (Berkshire and Westchester) and direct telephone sales (Leeds and Omaha). The decentralisation to a lower-cost location or the wholesale relocation of economic activity, whether it be in the form of manufacturing or services activities, has resulted in the clustering of extremely specialised activities based upon access to information, such as speculative financial services, specialized business services, media services to name a few, all characteristic of contemporary era of globalisation (Hall, 2002).
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 79 1.2.5.3. Re-metropolisation A number of authors have suggested that the world’s largest metropolitan are now entering into a new phase of urbanisation which can be termed re-metropolisation, in the light of population increases of some of the world’s largest metropolitan urban regions. For example, the population of Greater London increased by some 8.1% over the twenty year period between 1981 and 2001. In a similar vein, the population of New York rose from a low point of 7.071 million persons in 1981 to an estimated 8.104 million persons in 2004, representing a 14.6% increase. Champion and Fischer (2004) do not deny the upturn in the demographic dynamism of the English metropolitan cities since the 1970s. In that period, Greater London and the six metropolitan counties witnessed the loss of 1.25 million people, while up until 2001 the projections were for an estimated increase in population of some 25,000 persons. Greater London has gained a population of 500,000 persons in the period 1981-2001, compared with the loss of 750,000 during the 1970s. However the six metropolitan counties lost some 480,000 persons over the 1981-2001 period, with combined losses of some 214,000 persons in their principal cities. Population (thousands) Change (% for period) Area 1981 2001 1981-2001 Greater Londo n 6,805. 6 7,307. 9 7. 4 Metropolitan countie s 11,353. 5 10,87 6 -4. 2 Greater Manchester 2,609.1 2,512.3 -4.1 Merse y side 1,522.2 1,365.6 -10.3 South Yorkshire 1,317.1 1,266.5 -3.8 T y ne and Wear 1,155.2 1,077.9 -6.7 West Midlands 2,673.1 2,570.1 -3.9 West Yorkshire 2,066.8 2,083.6 0.8 Principal citie s 3,550. 1 3,336. 6 -6.0 Birmin g ham 1,020.6 985.9 -3.4 Leeds 717.9 715.6 -0.3 Liverpool 517.0 442.3 -14.4 Manchester 462.7 418.6 -9.5 Newcastle upon T y ne 284.1 261.1 -8.1 Sheffield 547.8 513.1 -6.3 Table 1.11. Population change since 1981 for England’s main conurbations and principal cities, based on revised estimates for 200186 By way of comparison, looking at the populations of the ten most populous metropolitan areas of the United States over the same 1980-2000 period, it can be seen that all of 86 Champion and Fisher (2004)
Chapter 1. Processes of urbanisation 86
87 PART II: SPAIN: THE PROCESSES OF METROPOLISATION “(…) cal destacar la bicefàlia del sistema urbà espanyol, amb una marcada semblança poblacional entre les dues regions metropolitans més importants del país, i que en l’àmbit europeu se situen a nivell poblacional per darrera de Londres, París, el Randstad holandès i el Ruhr, i per davant d’altres capitals importants com Berlín, Roma, Lisboa, Atenes (…)” Antonio Font (2004) The explosion of the city: morphologies, observations and motions (pp. 240-241).
The (re)positioning of the Spanish metropolitan system within the European urban system (1986-2006) 88
89 CHAPTER 2. – METROPOLISATION IN SPAIN Introduction The key distinguishing feature of the urbanisation processes experienced in Spain throughout the 20th Century was that delay with which it occurred compared with other Western and Northern European countries. Planners and urban geographers alike agree that this delay was caused by a number of interconnected and overlapping reasons, principally revolving around a slower modernisation of agriculture and a slower pace of industrialisation (Arias and Borja, 2007; Font, 2004; Nel·lo, 2004; Nel·lo and Muñoz, 2004; and Reher, 1994). Indeed the modernisation of industry did not begin to take place in Spain until the mid-1950s and as a consequence even by the end of the 1950s, close to half the Spanish population still resided in towns with populations of less than 20,000 inhabitants (Reher, 1994). Font (2004) asserts that the ensuing urbanisation from this period changed Spain’s historical urban system, i.e. from an urban system comprising a number of old historic cities as well as much more recent cities, to one in which the formation of the metropolitan urban regions of Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Sevilla, Bilbao, Málaga and Zaragoza all stand out. The polarisation of industrial growth witnessed in the mid to late-1950s and 1960s in a number of urban areas led to the formation of Madrid and Barcelona as “metropolises on a European level” with the other five representing “main urban regions on a national level” (Font, 2004, p. 240). Indeed the similarities between Spain’s two most significant urban regions prompts Font to describe the urban system as bicephalous (Font, 2004). There would appear to be certainty in this description, in light of an initial interpretation of the scale of the population of the metropolitan urban regions93, from a functional perspective, according to the 2001 Census. These figures indicate populations of 5.8 million and 4.5 million inhabitants for Madrid and Barcelona, with considerably lower populations for the remaining five urban regions94. 93 The definition of the spatial extent of these metropolitan urban regions will be provided in Chapter 2 (The spatial dimensions of the Spanish metropolitan system) with analyses of their respective social and economic structures in Chapters 4 and 5. 94 Valencia = 1.75 mill. inhab.; Sevilla = 1.4 mill. inhab.; Bilbao = 1.1 mill. inhab; Zaragoza = 772,000 inhab. and Málaga = 727,000 inhab.
Chapter 2. Metropolisation in Spain 90 Against this general background, this chapter takes an historical approach to examine the institutional recognition of the growing metropolitan dynamics in Spain, through the establishment of public bodies and organisations with planning and development responsibilities at a metropolitan scale, i.e. stretching beyond the administrative limits of the largest and most important cities. This approach looks back to the 1940s when the first public responses were made to the evolving needs for public management at a wider than strictly municipal scale. The chapter also examines the historical growth of the larger parts of what would become Spain’s principal metropolitan urban regions, in order to determine the precise historical moment of this metropolitan expansion. This is carried out by examining population data from the mid-19th Century and over the successive Census periods up until 2001, and comparing the growth of the central cities of each of the metropolitan urban regions, with that of the immediately wider urban regions and the Provinces.
Chapter 2. Metropolisation in Spain 91 2.1. Early metropolitan ‘governance’ It is appropriate to indicate that by 1930 the city populations of both Madrid and Barcelona had surpassed the levels 1 million inhabitants, thereby falling within the category of 27 such cities at a global level identified by Mumford (Mumford, 1961). By 1930, Madrid had a population of 1,137,943 inhabitants, compared with Barcelona’s population 1,005,565 inhabitants, having increased by 97% and 84% respectively since 1900. Over the same 30 year period the populations of the other principal Spanish cities all noted significant increases in population, albeit to lesser degrees - Bilbao (74%); Zaragoza (72%); Sevilla (54%); Valencia (49%); and Málaga (38%). By the 1940s, the concern over planning and development issues in Spain’s large cities led to specific legislation being passed relating to wider territorial areas beyond the strict administrative limits of the central municipalities. The Ley de 25 de noviembre de 1944 , later articulated by the Decreto de 1 de marzo de 1946 led to the creation of Gran Madrid . This Decreto in turn led to the elaboration of planning law for the Gran Madrid area. Bilbao was the next large city to benefit from being subjected to similar special legislative treatment, with the creation of Gran Bilbao through the Ley de Gran Bilbao dated 1 March 1946. The Ley de la Corporación Administrativa del Gran Valencia of 14 October 1949 created Gran Valencia . Then in 1953, the Ley de Ordenación de Barcelona y su Comarca (3 December1953) approved a Plan affecting Barcelona and the 26 other municipalities contained within its Comarca (County) (MAP, 2001). Some 10 years later the Ley 121/1963, de 2 de diciembre made use of the term Área Metropolitana de Madrid , through the creation of the Comisión de Planteamiento y Coordinación del Área Metropolitana (COPLACO) (MAP, 2001). Around the same time the revision of the 1953 Pla Comarcal for Barcelona led to the creation of an Esquema de Pla Director de l’Àrea metropolitana de Barcelona , widening the area of coverage to include all the 162 municipalities lying within the Regió I (Barcelonès, Baix Llobregat, Vallès Occidental, Vallès Oriental and Maresme) as well as Garraf and l’Alt Penedès (Roca et.al., 1997). In 1974 the Corporació Metropolitana de Barcelona (CMB) was created, albeit for a reduced spatial area, comprising that of the 27 municipalities coming under the jurisdiction of the 1953 Pla Comarcal , but nevertheless in recognition of the need for a form of metropolitan governance. The CMB was the driving force behind the 1976 Pla General Metropolità (Roca et.al., 1997).
Chapter 2. Metropolisation in Spain 92 However following the return to democracy after the 1978 Spanish Constitution, what was witnessed was a gradual suppression of the multifunctional metropolitan institutions by the recently established Autonomous Communities, as occurred in Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia and Bilbao. In the case of Madrid the Real Decreto 1992/1983, del 20 de julio de 1983 , transferred the responsibilities of spatial planning, urbanism and the environment from the COPLACO directly to the Autonomous Community (MAP, 2001). In the case of Valencia, the new era of Autonomous Government also witnessed the transferral of the responsibilities of planning from the Corporación Administrativa Gran Valencia to the Comunidad Valenciana , by way of the Real Decreto 299/1979, de 26 de enero . Later in 1986 the Corporación Administrativa Gran Valencia was extinguished by the Ley de las Cortes Valencianas 5/1986, de 19 de noviembre, substituting it with the Consell Metropolità de L’Horta (MAP, 2001). In the case of Bilbao, the Ley 3/1980, del 18 de diciembre of the Basque Parliament extinguished the Corporación Administrativa Gran Bilbao (CAGB) metropolitan entity (MAP, 2001). With regard to Barcelona and the fate which the CMB was forced to face, parallels with London easily come to mind to mind in the context of the abolition of the Greater London Council , in 1986, and the Corporació Metropolitana de Barcelona , in 1987, by the respective conservative political forces of the times (Burns, 2003). With the election of the British Labour Government in 1997 the reconstitution of the GLC in the form of the Greater London Authority (GLA)95 was one of the first priorities. One of the electoral pledges of the Catalonian Socialist Party (PSC) in the Regional Government Campaign of 2003 was the restoration in some form of a body, similar in its constitution to the former Metropolitan Corporation, with a range of responsibilities for Barcelona and its adjoining municipalities. Regrettably this was not achieved during the period of the 2003-2006 legislatures and ironically it was one of the lamentations of the outgoing President of the PSC contained in a letter published in the press in June 200796 (Maragall, 2007). 95 http://www.london.gov.uk 96 “(…) Y todavía falta la recuperación total del Área Metropolitana de Barcelona, en mala hora suprimida el año 1987 por las leyes territoriales del gobierno convergente - poco después de la supresión del Greater London Council por la señora Thatcher-. (...) Inmediatamente después de la victoria subsiguiente de Tony Blair, el Greater London Council de
Chapter 2. Metropolisation in Spain 93 Suffice to say that to this day Spain is devoid of any sort of publicly elected body with responsibilities for metropolitan governance. In all parts of the country the public administration is divided principally between the regions, the provinces and the municipalities, and local planning and development issues are the responsibilities of the municipalities. It seems ironic that the early signs of visionary outlooks in the era of the expansion of the largest cities, as reflected in the legislation of the times, were so short lived and in the long-term resulted in their complete suppression. Ken Livingstone fue reinstaurado. Pero el Área Metropolitana de Barcelona aún no ha sido recuperada. El PSC no quiso hacer un gesto similar en su momento. (...)” Maragall (2007).
Chapter 2. Metropolisation in Spain 94 2.2. Comparative metropolitan dynamics At this stage it is appropriate to take an historical approach and systematically examine the evolution in the demographic growth of the seven principal metropolitan urban regions on a decade by decade basis, starting from the mid-1880s up until the most recent Census of 2001, to determine exactly when the surges in population took place. Did all the metropolitan urban regions experience a rupture in population growth around the same time? Was there a clear differentiation between the cases of Madrid and Barcelona, with the other metropolitan regions lagging behind? Was there a northsouth divide? For this purpose the demographic dynamics of the central cities of each of the seven metropolitan urban regions are traced against the population dynamics within each of the corresponding Provinces, as well as against wider urban agglomerations representing early approximations of metropolitan governance. Starting with Madrid, the metropolitan agglomeration used is that of the Área Metropolitana de Madrid 97 dating from 1963. This territorial unit was established under the Ley 121/1963, de 2 de diciembre which also created the Comisión de Planeamiento y Coordinación del Área Metropolitana (COPLACO). In the case of Barcelona, two wider territorial agglomerations are referred to – the agglomeration known as Barcelona de les Rondes and that which fell under the jurisdiction of the Corporació Metropolitana de Barcelona (1953). The former of these includes Barcelona and some 12 adjoining municipalities98, with a total land area of 222.65 km2, lying within the wider-Barcelona’s outer ring-roads. This designation is still in usage today, referring in broad terms to the most-immediate built-up area or urban continuity of Barcelona. The latter designation comprises 27 municipalities in total, the 13 of the Barcelona de les Rondes grouping as well as 14 other adjoining municipalities99. The RMB comprises a total of 164 municipalities, covering Barcelona, the entire CMB and some 137 municipalities lying beyond the fringe of the CMB. 97 Alcobendas, Alcorcón, Boadilla del Monte, Brunete, Colmenar Viejo, Coslada, Getafe, Leganés, Madrid, Majadahonda, Mejorada del Campo, Paracuellos de Jarama, Pinto, Pozuelo de Alarcón, Rivas-Vaciamadrid, Rozas de Madrid (Las), San Fernando de Henares, San Sebastián de Los Reyes, Torrejón de Ardoz, Velilla de San Antonio, Villanueva de la Cañada, Villanueva del Pardillo and Villaviciosa de Odón. 98 Badalona, Barcelona, Cornellà de Llobregat, Esplugues de Llobregat, l’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Montgat, El Prat de Llobregat, Sant Adrià de Besòs, Sant Feliu de Llobregat, Sant Joan Despí, Sant Just Desvern, Santa Coloma de Gramenet and Tiana. 99 Badalona, Barcelona, Castelldefels, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Cornellà de Llobregat, Esplugues de Llobregat, Gavà, Hospitalet De Llobregat (L'), Molins de Rei, Montcada i Reixac, Montgat, Pallejà, Papiol (El), Prat de Llobregat (El), Ripollet, Sant Adrià de Besos, Sant Boi de Llobregat, Sant Climent de Llobregat, Sant Cugat del Vallès, Sant Feliu de Llobregat, Sant Joan Despí, Sant Just Desvern, Sant Vicenç dels Horts, Santa Coloma de Cervelló, Santa Coloma de Gramenet, Tiana and Viladecans.
Chapter 2. Metropolisation in Spain 95 With regard to Valencia, the Horta designation is used, comprising 45 municipalities100, which was created in 1986. In the case of Sevilla, the unit of territorial analysis is the Aglomeración Urbana de Sevilla (Junta de Andalusia, 1996a) which covers some 22 municipalities101. For Bilbao the 26 municipalities102 of the Bajo Nervión designation are drawn upon, corresponding in general terms to the spatial extent of the Bilbao Metropolitano designation in usage today. Given the enormous weight of the municipality of Zaragoza within the wider spatial configuration, both in demographic and spatial extension terms, no wider territorial agglomeration is used against which to gauge the growth of the municipality throughout the period under review. Finally the Aglomeración Urbana de Málaga (Junta de Andalusia, 1996b), incorporating 10 municipalities103, is the wider territorial unit used for comparison between the central municipality and the outer limits of the Province. The corresponding populations of these wider territorial agglomerations, summarised in Table 2.1, are all examined in turn in Sections 2.1.-2.2., together with the populations of the central municipalities and the Provinces within which they lie. What needs to be emphasised is that the populations of the central municipalities are taken as those populations lying within the territories corresponding to the administrative limits as they stood in 2001 – i.e. they take account of all the modifications which have taken place since 1857 with regard to step-by-step incorporation of previously free-standing municipalities. Details of the exact composition of the central municipalities are provided in each case. 100 Alaquàs, Albal, Albalat dels Sorells, Alboraya, Albuixech, Alcácer, Aldaia, Alfafar, Alfara del Patriarca, Almàssera, Benagéber, Benetússer, Beniparrell, Bonrepòs i Mirambell, Burjassot, Catarroja, Emperador, Foios, Godella, Lugar Nuevo de La Corona, Manises, Massalfassar, Massamagrell, Massanassa, Meliana, Mislata, Moncada, Museros, Paiporta, Paterna, Picanya, Picassent, Pobla de Farnals (La), Puçol, Puig, Quart de Poblet, Rafelbuñol/Rafelbunyol, Rocafort, Sedaví, Silla, Tavernes Blanques, Torrent, València, Vinalesa and Xirivella. 101 Alcalá de Guadaira, Algaba (La), Almensilla, Bormujos, Camas, Castilleja de Guzmán, Castilleja de la Cuesta, Coria del Río, Dos Hermanas, Espartinas, Gelves, Gines, Mairena del Aljarafe, Palomares del Río, Puebla del Río (La), Rinconada (La), Salteras, San Juan de Aznalfarache, Santiponce, Sevilla, Tomares and Valencina de la Concepción. 102 Abanto y Ciervana/Abanto Zierbena, Alonsotegi, Arrigorriaga, Barakaldo, Basauri, Berango, Bilbao, Derio, Erandio, Etxebarria, Galdakao, Getxo, Larrabetzu, Leioa, Lezama, Loiu (Lujua), Muskiz, Ortuella (Santurzi), Portugalete, Santurtzi, Sestao, Sondika, Valle De Trapaga-Trapagaran (San Salvador), Zamudio, Zaratamo and Zierbena. 103 Alhaurin de la Torre, Alhaurin el Grande, Almogia, Benalmadena, Cártama, Casabermeja, Málaga, Rincon de la Victoria, Totalan and Torremolinos.
Chapter 2. Metropolisation in Spain 102 corresponding to the CMB (45%) had taken place in the decade 1920-1930, the absolute increase in the 1960-1970 period was the highest experienced throughout the entire period under review. It was also during the decade between 1960 and 1970 that saw the peak increase in the population of the RMB both in relative terms (39%) and in absolute numbers, rising by more than 1 million persons. By 1970 the RMB accounted for over 90% of the population of the Province and this is the proportion at which its share of the Provincial population has hovered since then. By contrast the central city’s share of the Provincial population has decreased from 44% in 1970 to just 31% in 2001, as have the corresponding shares of the population of both Barcelona de les Rondes and the CMB, whereas the remainder of the RMB, beyond the limits of the CMB, has increased in its proportional share. The demographic dynamics over the remainder of the Province, i.e. the area lying beyond the RMB, were less significant over the period, though as with the central city, the most significant change in population in the latter part of the 20th Century occurred in the period 1950-1960, with a relative increase of 17% and an absolute increase of 45,405 persons. For the entire Province of Barcelona however, Table 2.3 illustrates a 37% increase in population of more than 1.05 million persons between 1960-1970. Absolute population increase -400000 -200000 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010 Years Population Barcelona Barcelona of the 'Rondes' Rest of the CMB CMB Rest of the RMB RMB Rest of the Provincia Province Figure 2.5. Absolute increase in the population of Barcelona (1857-2001)113 113 INE (own elaboration)
103 BARCELONA 1857 1877 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1981 1991 2001 Barcelona 234477 353656 543930 595484 721869 1005565 1081175 1280179 1557863 1745142 1754900 1681132 1503884 % of Province 32,85 42,26 51,58 52,16 53,50 55,84 55,97 57,35 54,13 44,41 38,00 35,84 31,29 Evolution (relative) 1,51 1,54 1,09 1,21 1,39 1,08 1,18 1,22 1,12 1,01 0,96 0,89 Evolution (absolute) 119179 190274 51554 126385 283696 75610 199004 277684 187279 9758 -73768 -177248 Barcelona de les 'Rondes' 259989 384713 584028 641945 786673 1138393 1242637 1482152 1899861 2478982 2734531 2618979 2377695 % of Province 36,43 45,97 55,38 56,23 58,30 63,22 64,32 66,40 66,01 63,09 59,21 55,83 49,47 Evolution (relative) 1,48 1,52 1,10 1,23 1,45 1,09 1,19 1,28 1,30 1,10 0,96 0,91 Evolution (absolute) 124724 199315 57917 144728 351720 104244 239515 417709 579121 255549 -115552 -241284 Rest of the CMB 19378 20229 22727 24339 29310 49320 56056 63156 107087 234815 361464 397366 567138 % of Province 2,72 2,42 2,16 2,13 2,17 2,74 2,90 2,83 3,72 5,98 7,83 8,47 11,80 Evolution (relative) 1,04 1,12 1,07 1,20 1,68 1,14 1,13 1,70 2,19 1,54 1,10 1,43 Evolution (absolute) 851 2498 1612 4971 20010 6736 7100 43931 127728 126649 35902 169772 CMB 279367 404942 606755 666284 815983 1187713 1298693 1545308 2006948 2713797 3095995 3016345 2944833 % of Province 39,14 48,39 57,54 58,36 60,48 65,96 67,22 69,23 69,73 69,07 67,03 64,30 61,28 Evolution (relative) 1,45 1,50 1,10 1,22 1,46 1,09 1,19 1,30 1,35 1,14 0,97 0,98 Evolution (absolute) 125575 201813 59529 149699 371730 110980 246615 461640 706849 382198 -79650 -71512 Rest of the RMB 236392 245392 259418 278518 315164 369095 383133 420983 559785 865275 1138730 1283445 1445557 % of Province 33,12 29,32 24,60 24,39 23,36 20,50 19,83 18,86 19,45 22,02 24,65 27,36 30,08 Evolution (relative) 1,04 1,06 1,07 1,13 1,17 1,04 1,10 1,33 1,55 1,32 1,13 1,13 Evolution (absolute) 9000 14026 19100 36646 53931 14038 37850 138802 305490 273455 144715 162112 RMB 515759 650334 866173 944802 1131147 1556808 1681826 1966291 2566733 3579072 4234725 4299790 4390390 % of Province 72,26 77,71 82,14 82,75 83,83 86,46 87,06 88,09 89,19 91,09 91,69 91,66 91,35 Evolution (relative) 1,26 1,33 1,09 1,20 1,38 1,08 1,17 1,31 1,39 1,18 1,02 1,02 Evolution (absolute) 134575 215839 78629 186345 425661 125018 284465 600442 1012339 655653 65065 90600 Rest of the Province 197975 186553 188368 196931 218135 243830 250049 265828 311233 350122 384009 391206 415537 % of Province 27,74 22,29 17,86 17,25 16,17 13,54 12,94 11,91 10,81 8,91 8,31 8,34 8,65 Evolution (relative) 0,94 1,01 1,05 1,11 1,12 1,03 1,06 1,17 1,12 1,10 1,02 1,06 Evolution (absolute) -11422 1815 8563 21204 25695 6219 15779 45405 38889 33887 7197 24331 Province 713734 836887 1054541 1141733 1349282 1800638 1931875 2232119 2877966 3929194 4618734 4690996 4805927 % of Province 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Evolution (relative) 1,17 1,26 1,08 1,18 1,33 1,07 1,16 1,29 1,37 1,18 1,02 1,02 Evolution (absolute) 123153 217654 87192 207549 451356 131237 300244 645847 1051228 689540 72262 114931 Table 2.3. Demographic dynamics of the Province of Barcelona (1857-2001)114 114 INE (own elaboration)
104 Relative population increase 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010 Years Proportion Barcelona Barcelona of the 'Rondes' Rest of the CMB CMB Rest of the RMB RMB Rest of the Provincia Province Figure 2.6. Relative increase in the population of Barcelona (1857-2001)115 What is also interesting to note is the weight of Barcelona and the different metropolitan agglomerations or groupings of municipalities, relative to the overall population of the Province. The population of the city accounted for almost 33% of the population in 1857, rising to over 57% in 1950, and then steadily reducing over the following 50 years to just over 31% in 2001. It is significant that the largest change took place in the period 1960-1970, which was matched by the largest increase in the population of the immediate environs of the City within the Barcelona de les Rondes . Having said that, clearly the Barcelona de les Rondes area contained a much larger share of the provincial population, rising from more than 36% in 1857 to a high point of 66.40% in 1950, and then decreasing to just over 49% in 2001. The share of the CMB followed a similar pattern, rising from over 39% in 1857 to 69.73% in 1960, reducing to 61,28% in 2001. The wider RMB has accounted for a much higher share of the total population of the Province over the period studied, rising from 72.26% in 1857 to a maximum of 91.66% in 1991. 115 INE (own elaboration)
Chapter 2. Metropolisation in Spain 105 2.2.3. Valencia116 Turning to the case of Valencia, as in the case of Barcelona it was during the final 50 years of the 19th Century that the central city experienced the highest relative increases in population, of 35% and 46% during the periods 1857-1877 and 1877-1900 respectively. However it was during the twenty year period between 1960 and 1980 that the largest surge in population in both absolute and relative terms took place, for the central municipality as well as the wider territorial agglomeration. Throughout the first half of the 20th Century, Valencia’s population rose steadily to reach over half a million persons by 1950, with a marginal decline in the decade between 1950-1960. This decline was compensated for by the highest absolute increase in population over the period under review of almost 149,000 persons in the decade leading up to 1970, representing a 29% relative increase. Throughout the 1960-1970 period the central city came to contain 37% of the population of the Province. Evolution of the population: Valencia 0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000 2500000 1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010 Years Population Valencia Rest of Horta Horta Rest of Province Province Figure 2.7. Evolution of the population of Valencia (1857-2001)117 Over the same decade the population of the wider surrounding territory (Horta) increased by 38% to reach over 1 million persons, representing almost 60% of the population of the entire Province. However it was in the rest of Horta, beyond the administrative limits of the central city, that witnessed a higher relative increase of 55%, or over 140,000 persons in absolute terms during this period. These increases contributed to an overall surge in the population of the province of almost 340,000 persons representing a 24% increase over the previous decade. It was throughout the 116 The central municipality of Valencia; the rest of Horta; Horta; the rest of the Province; and the Province of Valencia. 117 INE (own elaboration)
Chapter 2. Metropolisation in Spain 106 decade 1970-1981 that the remaining area of the Province, i.e. that part lying beyond the immediately surrounding metropolitan agglomeration of Horta, which witnessed the highest increase of population in absolute numbers of almost 71,000 persons, with a relative increase of 10% matching a level which had previously been achieved in the period 1930-1940. This outer area’s share of the population of the Province was in the order of 38% and was of a level which was maintained up until 2001. Absolute population increase -100000 -50000 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010 Years Population Valencia Rest of Horta Horta Rest of Province Province Figure 2.8. Absolute increase in the population of Valencia (1857-2001)118 Relative population increase 0,80 0,90 1,00 1,10 1,20 1,30 1,40 1,50 1,60 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010 Years Proportion Valencia Rest of Horta Horta Rest of Province Province Figure 2.9.Relative increase in the population of Valencia (1857-2001)119 118 INE (own elaboration) 119 INE (own elaboration)
107 VALENCIA 1857 1877 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1981 1991 2001 Valencia 108105 145782 213550 233348 251258 320195 450756 509075 505066 653690 751734 777427 738441 % of Province 17,82 21,47 26,48 26,39 27,12 30,72 35,87 37,77 35,33 36,99 36,38 36,31 33,32 Evolution (relative) 1,35 1,46 1,09 1,08 1,27 1,41 1,13 0,99 1,29 1,15 1,03 0,95 Evolution (absolute) 37677 67768 19798 17910 68937 130561 58319 -4009 148624 98044 25693 -38986 Rest of Horta 71973 83442 99754 113372 126298 148726 177496 196921 257966 398652 529086 565032 618441 % of Province 11,86 12,29 12,37 12,82 13,63 14,27 14,12 14,61 18,04 22,56 25,60 26,39 27,90 Evolution (relative) 1,16 1,20 1,14 1,11 1,18 1,19 1,11 1,31 1,55 1,33 1,07 1,09 Evolution (absolute) 11469 16312 13618 12926 22428 28770 19425 61045 140686 130434 35946 53409 Horta 180078 229224 313304 346720 377556 468921 628252 705996 763032 1052342 1280820 1342459 1356882 % of Province 29,69 33,76 38,84 39,21 40,75 45,00 49,99 52,38 53,37 59,54 61,98 62,70 61,22 Evolution (relative) 1,27 1,37 1,11 1,09 1,24 1,34 1,12 1,08 1,38 1,22 1,05 1,01 Evolution (absolute) 49146 84080 33416 30836 91365 159331 77744 57036 289310 228478 61639 14423 Rest of the Province 426530 449822 493252 537578 548886 573233 628381 641916 666676 714985 785593 798655 859403 % of Province 70,31 66,24 61,16 60,79 59,25 55,00 50,01 47,62 46,63 40,46 38,02 37,30 38,78 Evolution (relative) 1,05 1,10 1,09 1,02 1,04 1,10 1,02 1,04 1,07 1,10 1,02 1,08 Evolution (absolute) 23292 43430 44326 11308 24347 55148 13535 24760 48309 70608 13062 60748 Province 606608 679046 806556 884298 926442 1042154 1256633 1347912 1429708 1767327 2066413 2141114 2216285 % of Province 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Evolution (relative) 1,12 1,19 1,10 1,05 1,12 1,21 1,07 1,06 1,24 1,17 1,04 1,04 Evolution (absolute) 72438 127510 77742 42144 115712 214479 91279 81796 337619 299086 74701 75171 Table 2.4. Demographic dynamics of the Province of Valencia (1857-2001)120 120 INE (own elaboration)
108 2.2.4. Sevilla121 In contrast to the cases of Madrid, Barcelona and Valencia examined previously, Sevilla indicates somewhat different characteristics of metropolitan expansion over the period under review. The central municipality had a population in 1857 of over 100,000 persons, peaking to over 700,000 persons in 1991 and decreasing to over 680,000 persons in 2001. The highest absolute increase in population, of over 105,000 persons, took place in the ten year period leading up to 1981, representing a 19% increase over that period, at which point the central city contained over 44% of the population of the Province. However it was during the decade between 1930-1940 when the city experienced the highest relative increase (36%) in population. The population of the wider urban agglomeration surpassed the 1 million level after 1981, but it was in the ten year period leading up to 1981 which saw the surge in this wider metropolitan urban region in absolute terms of almost 170,000 persons, representing a 22% relative increase. The highest noted relative increase (33%) had taken place previously in the decade 1930-1940. Evolution of the population: Sevilla 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1400000 1600000 1800000 2000000 1857 1877 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1981 1991 2001 Years Population Sevilla Rest of the Urban Aglom. Urban Aglom. Rest of the Province Province Figure 2.10. Evolution of the population of Sevilla (1857-2001)122 The peak of population within the remainder of the Province, in the area beyond the limits of what would later become the urban agglomeration, occurred in the decade leading up to 1940, seeing an increase of over 54,000 persons, although the highest relative increase (14%) had taken place earlier in 1920-1930 decade. As far as the 121 The central municipality of Sevilla; the rest of the Urban Agglomeration; the Urban Agglomeration; the rest of the Province; and the Province of Sevilla. 122 INE (own elaboration)
Chapter 2. Metropolisation in Spain 109 whole Province is concerned, the highest relative increase (20%) coincided with the corresponding increases in the central city and the urban agglomeration during the period 1930-1940. However the surge in the Provincial population in absolute terms did not occur until much later, in the decade prior to 1991, when the population rose by over 160,000 persons. Absolute population increase -100000 -50000 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010 Years Population Sevilla Rest of the Urban Aglom. Urban Aglom. Rest of the Province Province Figure 2.11. Absolute increase in the population of Sevilla (1857-2001)123 Relative population increase 0,80 0,90 1,00 1,10 1,20 1,30 1,40 1,50 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 Years Proportion Sevilla Rest of the Urban Aglom. Urban Aglom. Rest of the Province Province Figure 2.12. Relative increase in the population of Sevilla (1857-2001)124 123 INE (own elaboration) 124 INE (own elaboration)
110 SEVILLA 1857 1877 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1981 1991 2001 Sevilla 112329 134318 148315 158287 205529 228729 312123 376627 442300 548072 653833 704857 684633 % of Province 24,24 26,50 26,71 26,51 29,20 28,40 32,41 34,26 35,83 41,30 44,25 43,03 39,63 Evolution (relative) 1,20 1,10 1,07 1,30 1,11 1,36 1,21 1,17 1,24 1,19 1,08 0,97 Evolution (absolute) 21989 13997 9972 47242 23200 83394 64504 65673 105772 105761 51024 -20224 Rest of the Urban Aglom. 34822 39587 47275 54356 60776 84824 104610 129893 165008 208603 272127 339210 412753 % of Province 7,51 7,81 8,51 9,10 8,64 10,53 10,86 11,82 13,37 15,72 18,42 20,71 23,89 Evolution (relative) 1,14 1,19 1,15 1,12 1,40 1,23 1,24 1,27 1,26 1,30 1,25 1,22 Evolution (absolute) 4765 7688 7081 6420 24048 19786 25283 35115 43595 63524 67083 73543 Urban Aglom. 147151 173905 195590 212643 266305 313553 416733 506520 607308 756675 925960 1044067 1097386 % of Province 31,75 34,31 35,23 35,62 37,84 38,94 43,27 46,07 49,20 57,01 62,67 63,73 63,52 Evolution (relative) 1,18 1,12 1,09 1,25 1,18 1,33 1,22 1,20 1,25 1,22 1,13 1,05 Evolution (absolute) 26754 21685 17053 53662 47248 103180 89787 100788 149367 169285 118107 53319 Rest of the Province 316335 332907 359666 384388 437442 491699 546311 592854 627127 570515 551468 594151 630217 % of Province 68,25 65,69 64,77 64,38 62,16 61,06 56,73 53,93 50,80 42,99 37,33 36,27 36,48 Evolution (relative) 1,05 1,08 1,07 1,14 1,12 1,11 1,09 1,06 0,91 0,97 1,08 1,06 Evolution (absolute) 16572 26759 24722 53054 54257 54612 46543 34273 -56612 -19047 42683 36066 Province 463486 506812 555256 597031 703747 805252 963044 1099374 1234435 1327190 1477428 1638218 1727603 % of Province 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Evolution (relative) 1,09 1,10 1,08 1,18 1,14 1,20 1,14 1,12 1,08 1,11 1,11 1,05 Evolution (absolute) 43326 48444 41775 106716 101505 157792 136330 135061 92755 150238 160790 89385 Table 2.5. Demographic dynamics of the Province of Sevilla (1857-2001)125 125 INE (own elaboration)
111 2.2.5. Bilbao126 Of the seven metropolitan urban regions under review, as can be seen from Table 2.6, Bilbao stands out as being the only case in which the surges in population throughout the 20th Century, in absolute and relative terms, for the central city, the wider surrounding ‘metropolitan’ area, the Province of Vizkaya and the intermediate areas were all concentrated in the ten year period between 1960 and 1970. Furthermore the pattern of growth of the central city and the wider surrounding area of Bajo Nervión was closely related over the entire 150 year period. Evolution of the population: Bilbao 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1400000 1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010 Years Populations Bilbao Rest of Bajo Nervión Bajo Nervión Rest of the Province Province Figure 2.13. Evolution of the population of Bilbao (1857-2001)127 In 1857, Bilbao was the smallest of the seven metropolitan cities, with a population of over 27,000 persons, increasing by 50% in the twenty year period leading up to 1877, and increasing by 149% between 1877 and 1900 by which time its population had surpassed 100,000 persons. It grew steadily throughout the greater part of the 20th Century to reach a maximum of over 433,000 persons in 1981, having surged over the decade leading up to 1970, with an additional 100,000 persons representing a 34% increase over the previous period in relative terms. The wider metropolitan urban region, comprising the 26 municipalities of the Bajo Nervion, also experienced significant growth in this same period, with a 42% relative increase in population and over 242,000 additional persons. In 1857, the Province of Vizkaya itself had a population of over 150,000 inhabitants and grew to surpass the 1 million level in the decade leading up to 1970. As with Bilbao and the Bajo Nervion, the Province 126 The central municipality of Bilbao; the rest of Bajo Nervión; Bajo Nervión; the rest of the Province; and the Province of Vizkaya.
Chapter 2. Metropolisation in Spain 118 This growth was all in phase with that experienced in the Province, increasing by 19% over the same 1970-1981 period and accounting for an additional 168,000 persons. However it was in the following Census period, 1981-1991 that the highest increases in population took place in the periphery of the wider metropolitan urban region, away from the central city, as indeed occurred in the part of the Province beyond the limits of the wider metropolitan urban region. In the remainder of the wider metropolitan urban region, the population grew by over 87% to account for an additional 57,500 persons while within the rest of the province the rate of growth was more modest, but accounted for an increase in absolute numbers of more than 72,000 persons. 136 INE (own elaboration)
119 MÁLAGA 1857 1877 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1981 1991 2001 Malaga 99586 121987 137020 140075 154377 188901 238782 276222 301048 374452 503251 534683 524414 % of Province 22,06 24,38 26,76 26,76 27,85 30,81 35,25 36,82 38,84 43,17 48,56 44,66 40,75 Evolution (relative) 1,22 1,12 1,02 1,10 1,22 1,26 1,16 1,09 1,24 1,34 1,06 0,98 Evolution (absolute) 22401 15033 3055 14302 34524 49881 37440 24826 73404 128799 31432 -10269 Rest of urban aglom. 32486 35050 36325 36937 40002 41614 44708 48014 49135 54518 65875 123386 167669 % of Province 7,20 7,01 7,09 7,06 7,22 6,79 6,60 6,40 6,34 6,29 6,36 10,31 13,03 Evolution (relative) 1,08 1,04 1,02 1,08 1,04 1,07 1,07 1,02 1,11 1,21 1,87 1,36 Evolution (absolute) 2564 1275 612 3065 1612 3094 3306 1121 5383 11357 57511 44283 Urban aglom. 132072 157037 173345 177012 194379 230515 283490 324236 350183 428970 569126 658069 692083 % of Province 29,26 31,39 33,86 33,82 35,07 37,59 41,85 43,22 45,18 49,46 54,92 54,96 53,77 Evolution (relative) 1,19 1,10 1,02 1,10 1,19 1,23 1,14 1,08 1,22 1,33 1,16 1,05 Evolution (absolute) 24965 16308 3667 17367 36136 52975 40746 25947 78787 140156 88943 34014 Rest of the Province 319334 343285 338644 346400 359922 382645 393984 425879 424984 438360 467135 539239 594934 % of Province 70,74 68,61 66,14 66,18 64,93 62,41 58,15 56,78 54,82 50,54 45,08 45,04 46,23 Evolution (relative) 1,08 0,99 1,02 1,04 1,06 1,03 1,08 1,00 1,03 1,07 1,15 1,10 Evolution (absolute) 23951 -4641 7756 13522 22723 11339 31895 -895 13376 28775 72104 55695 Province 451406 500322 511989 523412 554301 613160 677474 750115 775167 867330 1036261 1197308 1287017 % of Province 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Evolution (relative) 1,11 1,02 1,02 1,06 1,11 1,10 1,11 1,03 1,12 1,19 1,16 1,07 Evolution (absolute) 48916 11667 11423 30889 58859 64314 72641 25052 92163 168931 161047 89709 Table 2.8. Demographic dynamics of the Province of Málaga (1857-2001)137 137 INE (own elaboration)
120 Absolute population increase -20000 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 180000 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010 Years Population Malaga Rest of urban aglom. Urban aglom. Rest of the Province Province Figure 2.20. Absolute increase in the population of Málaga (1857-2001)138 Relative population increase 0,80 1,00 1,20 1,40 1,60 1,80 2,00 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010 Years Proportion Malaga Rest of urban aglom. Urban aglom. Rest of the Province Province Figure 2.21. Relative increase in the population of Málaga (1857-2001)139 The period 1991-2001 marked a relative decline in population of Málaga of 2%, representing an absolute loss of over 10,000 persons. At the time of the 2001 Census the city had a population of almost 525,000 persons, accounting for almost 41% of the population of the province. The wider metropolitan urban region had a population nearing on 700,000 persons, representing almost 54% of that of the province. 138 INE (own elaboration) 139 INE (own elaboration)
Chapter 2. Metropolisation in Spain 121 Concluding remarks What this analysis of the growth of the seven principal metropolitan urban regions indicates is in the first place a clear differentiation between the Madrid and Barcelona, and the remaining cases of Valencia, Sevilla, Bilbao, Zaragoza and Málaga. The two largest metropolises have expanded in phase with one another and at magnitudes far above those of the other five metropolitan agglomerations (Figure 2.22). Madrid stands out for the highest levels of population but also for the dramatic surge in the increase in population experienced in the period leading up to 1970, as evidenced by Figure 2.23. Both Madrid and Barcelona experienced increases in their population toward the end of the 19th Century and in the first part of the 20th Century, with definitive surges in the period leading up to 1930. These surges, resulting from this detailed analysis of the demographic changes of the seven metropolitan urban regions, coincide with Mumford’s observations of the two cities having surpassed the 1 million level by 1930 (see Table 2.25). To a certain extent this phasing has been reflected in the case of Bilbao, albeit, as a much lower level, whereas the peaks in the relative population increases have occurred later in the case of the remaining metropolitan urban regions. Evolution of the population of the principal metropolitan groupings 0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000 2500000 3000000 3500000 4000000 4500000 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 Years Population Madrid Barcelona Valencia Sevilla Bilbao Zaragoza Málaga Figure.2.22. Evolution of the population of the metropolitan agglomerations (1857-2001)140 The detailed analysis also highlights the more advanced processes of urbanisation and metropolisation experienced in Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Bilbao and Zaragoza, with respect to the other cities of the sample. It is clearly evident of a north-south divide in 140 INE (own elaboration)
Chapter 2. Metropolisation in Spain 122 terms of these processes, with marked delays in appearance of these phenomena in the cases of Sevilla and Málaga. Absolute population growth of the metropolitan groupings: 1877-2001 -200000 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1857 1877 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1981 1991 2001 Year Population Madrid Barcelona Valencia Sevilla Bilbao Zaragoza Málaga Figure 2.23. Absolute increase in the population of the metropolitan agglomerations (18572001)141 Drawing upon Blumenfield’s definition of a metropolis ‘as a concentration of at least 500,000 people living within an area in which travelling time from the outskirts to the centre is no more than about 40 minutes’ (Blumenfield, 1965, p.64) it can be observed that by 1980, each of the metropolitan agglomerations under review here had well surpassed this level. As previously mentioned Madrid and Barcelona had both exceeded the 1 million level of population by 1930. Valencia grew to exceed the 500,000 population limit by 1940, followed by Sevilla, by 1950, and Bilbao by 1960, with both Zaragoza and Málaga delaying by a further 20 years until 1981. Tables 2.25-2.27 highlight the surge in the increase of population in the central municipalities of the metropolitan agglomeration experienced in the post 1950 period, but also the difference in the timing of the more recent population losses of Madrid, Barcelona and Bilbao, and the remaining metropolitan urban regions. 141 INE (own elaboration)
Chapter 2. Metropolisation in Spain 123 Relative population growth of the metropolitan groupings: 1877-2001 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 1857 1877 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1981 1991 2001 Years Proportion Madrid Barcelona Valencia Sevilla Bilbao Zaragoza Málaga Figure 2.24. Relative increase in the population of the metropolitan agglomerations (18572001)142 Evolution of the population of the metropolitan capitals: 1857-2001 0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000 2500000 3000000 3500000 1857 1877 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1981 1991 2001 Years Population Madrid Barcelona Valencia Sevilla Bilbao Zaragoza Málaga Figure 2.25. Evolution of the population of the metropolitan capitals (1857-2001)143 142 INE (own elaboration) 143 INE (own elaboration)
Chapter 2. Metropolisation in Spain 124 Absolute population growth of the metropolitan capitals: 1877-2001 -400000 -200000 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1857 1877 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1981 1991 2001 Years Population Madrid Barcelona Valencia Sevilla Bilbao Zaragoza Málaga Figure 2.26. Absolute increase in the population of the metropolitan capitals (1857-2001)144 Relative population growth of the metropolitan capitals: 1877-2001 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 1857 1877 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1981 1991 2001 Years Proportion Madrid Barcelona Valencia Sevilla Bilbao Zaragoza Málaga Figure 2.27. Relative increase in the population of the metropolitan capitals (1857-2001)145 Having detected the apparently historical bicephalic nature of the Spanish urban system, attention can be turned to explore the internal demographic and functional structures of the seven metropolitan urban regions in Chapters 4 and 5. However prior to that, it is necessary to focus upon the different approaches to determining the spatial units of analysis for comparative urban and regional research. Chapter 3 will therefore 144 INE (own elaboration)
Chapter 2. Metropolisation in Spain 125 lead to the choosing of the methodology for determining the spatial extent and demographic characteristics of each of the seven Spanish metropolitan urban regions. 145 INE (own elaboration)
Chapter 2. Metropolisation in Spain 126
Chapter 3. The spatial dimensions of the Spanish metropolitan system 127 CHAPTER 3. – THE SPATIAL DIMENSIONS OF THE SPANISH METROPOLITAN SYSTEM Introduction This chapter sets out to establish the spatial units of analysis of the seven metropolitan urban regions which together comprise the Spanish metropolitan system. An overview is presented of a number of different standard approaches to the delimitation of urban agglomerations, applying each of these to the case of Madrid as an example. This is, followed by an explanation of the functional methodology adopted by the UPC in the context of the two research projects of the INTERREG Programmes146, in order to define the spatial extent of each of the seven metropolitan urban regions of the Spanish metropolitan system – Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Sevilla, Bilbao, Zaragoza and Málaga. These are briefly described in broad demographic and spatial terms, prior to contrasting them with a series of other complementary spatial descriptions utilised by different public bodies over recent years in Spain. 146 The Estudio Prospectivo del Sistema Urbano del Sudoeste Europeo (INTERREG IIC) (1998-2001); and the Expansión Urbana de las Metrópolis del Sudoeste Europeo (EURMET) (INTERREG IIIB) (2003-2005).
Chapter 5. The economic structure of the Spanish metropolitan system 230 From Table 5.14 it can be seen that the metropolitan urban regions of Barcelona and Madrid stood out for the presence of jobs within the printing and publishing sectors, with indices of economic specialisation of 1.8355 and 1.83482 respectively. Looking at the high precision manufacturing sectors, the metropolitan urban region of Zaragoza was important for the manufacture of machinery and equipment (3.2353), followed by Bilbao (1.58285) and Barcelona (1.47372). The metropolitan urban region of Valencia stood out for the importance of office machinery and computer manufacturing (4.73722), followed by Madrid (2.18598) and Barcelona (1.48123). The manufacturing of electrical machinery was important in the metropolitan urban region of Bilbao (2.66324), followed by Zaragoza (2.65208), Barcelona (1.77142) and Valencia (1.211194). With regard to the transportation sectors, the metropolitan urban region of Madrid stood out for the importance of jobs within air transportation (3.67699), followed by Málaga (2.31405). More curiously the metropolitan urban region of Madrid also stood out for the importance of employment in the water transportation sector (2.2481), owing to the physical presence of headquarters related to maritime activities. The metropolitan urban region of Bilbao was also important for this sector (1.65392). The post and telecommunications sector had a high profile in the two metropolitan urban regions of Madrid (2.3574) and Málaga (1.36102). Financial related activities had an important presence in the metropolitan urban regions of Madrid (on all counts - 65, 66 and 67), Málaga and Zaragoza (65); and Barcelona and Bilbao (66). The metropolitan urban region of Madrid indicated an important presence of jobs in the computer sector (2.75054) followed by Bilbao (1.91777) and Barcelona (1.51814). Finally with regard to the metropolitan urban regions, that of Valencia stood out for the high profile of jobs within the research and development sector (2.11337), followed by those of Madrid (1.60907), Barcelona (1.51633) and Bilbao (1.47807). In terms of the presence of these innovative sectors within the metropolitan capitals (Table 5.15), Barcelona, Madrid and Bilbao all stood out for the high representation of jobs within the publishing and printing sectors. Madrid and Sevilla stood out for the jobs
Chapter 5. The economic structure of the Spanish metropolitan system 231 within the office machinery and computer manufacturing sector, as did Zaragoza for jobs in the electrical machinery manufacturing sector. The importance of the transportation sectors in the metropolitan urban regions of Madrid, Málaga and Bilbao can be seen to be reflected at the scale of the respective metropolitan capitals. There appeared to be an important presence of jobs in the different financial sector divisions in all of the metropolitan capitals, as was the case with jobs in the post and telecommunications sector. Computer related activities had an important presence in the metropolitan capitals of Madrid, followed by Bilbao, Barcelona, Málaga and Sevilla. Finally research and development was well represented in all of the metropolitan capitals, with the exception of Málaga, led by Valencia and followed by Madrid, Barcelona, Bilbao, Zaragoza and Sevilla.
Chapter 5. The economic structure of the Spanish metropolitan system 232 5.6. Gross domestic product (GDP) This section addressing the area of gross domestic product (GDP) as well as the following three sections, relating to imports and exports, the activity rate and unemployment, all draw upon data by necessity at the provincial level, owing to the absence of corresponding data for the municipalities of the seven metropolitan urban regions. As indicated by Table 5.16 and Figure 5.15, in 2001 the highest rates of GDP per capita were found in the provinces of Madrid (25,490 PPS), followed by Vizcaya (22,719 PPS), Barcelona (22,448 PPS) and Zaragoza (20,401 PPS) all with levels above that recorded for Spain as a whole (18,894). By contrast the GDP per capita for the provinces of Valencia (18,745 PPS) lay marginally below that for Spain, with those for Sevilla (14,816 PPS) and Málaga (14,343 PPS) lying well below the national figure. While the index for Spain (92.4) lay below that relative to the EU25 block of countries (100), Madrid (124.6), Vizcaya (111.1) and Barcelona (109.7) were all positioned above the European index. Zaragoza lay marginally below (99.7) the EU25 index, with Valencia lying further below (91.6), and Sevilla and Málaga well below (72.4 and 70.1 respectively). 2000 2001 2002 Metropolitan provinces Value (PPS) Index (EU 25 = 100) Value (PPS) Index (EU 25 = 100) Value (PPS) Index (EU 25 = 100) Average EU 25 = 100 2000-2002 Madrid 24,270 122.9 25,490 124.6 26,833 126.7 124.7 Barcelona 21,785 110.3 22,448 109.7 23,552 111.2 110.4 Valencia 18,032 91.3 18,745 91.6 20,012 94.5 92.5 Sevilla 13,996 70.9 14,816 72.4 16,000 75.6 73.0 Vizcaya 21,907 110.9 22,719 111.1 24,153 114.0 112.0 Zaragoza 19,558 99.0 20,401 99.7 21,950 103.6 100.8 Málaga 13,588 68.8 14,343 70.1 14,801 69.9 69.6 SPAIN 18,114 91.7 18,894 92.4 20,034 94.6 92.9 Table 5.16. GDP per capita of the ‘metropolitan’ provinces (2000-2002)306 This same position was reflected over the period 2000-2002, as indicated by the average values of GDP per capita relative to the EU index in Table 5.16. Consequently there appears a clear division between the poorer performing southern metropolitan provinces of Málaga and Sevilla, and to a much lesser extent Valencia, and the remaining metropolitan provinces of Madrid, Vizcaya, Barcelona and Zaragoza, well positioned with regard to the rest of Europe. 306 INE (own elaboration)
Chapter 5. The economic structure of the Spanish metropolitan system 233 GDP per capita (2001) of the 'metropolitan' provinces 60 80 10 0 12 0 14 0 Madrid Barcelona Valencia Sevilla Vizcaya Zaragoza Málaga Spain Figure 5.16. GDP per capita of the Spanish provinces (2001)307 307 INE (own elaboration)
Chapter 5. The economic structure of the Spanish metropolitan system 234 5.7. Imports and exports While data relating to exports and imports is not available at the municipal level, thereby permitting the full comparison between the seven principal metropolitan urban regions, this section examines the theme as it relates to the seven ‘metropolitan’ provinces. Table 5.17 indicates the magnitude of the exports and imports of the seven ‘metropolitan’ provinces and Spain as a whole during 2004. In the first place it can be seen that these provinces accounted for the consumption of almost 62% of Spain’s total imports and generated almost 49% of the country’s exports. Clearly Spain is a net ‘consumer’ of goods, importing more goods than it generates (E/I = 0.71) as is the sum of the seven metropolitan provinces (E/I = 0.56). This pattern is repeated in the provinces of Barcelona (E/I = 0.61), Madrid (E/I = 0.32), Málaga (E/I = 0.73), Valencia (E/I = 0.86) and Vizcaya (E/I = 0.71). However both Sevilla and Zaragoza both stand out as being net ‘producers’ in the sense of exporting more goods than they import (E/I = 1.05 and 1.07 respectively). While there was little difference in the magnitude of the national share of the goods imported by Barcelona and Madrid in 2004 (24.57% and 23.43% respectively), turning specifically to exports, the difference between the two provinces is significant. Barcelona generated 21.22% of Spain’s exports in 2004, more than twice the magnitude of that generated by Madrid (10.44%). These were followed by Valencia (6.95%), Zaragoza (4.45%), Vizcaya (3.44%), Sevilla (1.45%) and Málaga (0.71%). This descending order is repeated taking into account the sum of the values of the imports and exports, highlighting the division between the ‘southern’ provinces of Sevilla and Málaga, and the remainder of the ‘metropolitan’ provinces.
Chapter 5. The economic structure of the Spanish metropolitan system 235 Imports and exports of the 'metropolitan' provinces (2004) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Madrid Barcelona Valencia Sevilla Vizcaya Zaragoza Málaga % Imports Exports Figure 5.17. Contribution of the metropolitan provinces to Spain’s imports and exports (2004)308 308 Agencia Tributaria, Ministerio de Hacienda, Información estadística sobre el Comercio Exterior (diciembre 2004) (own elaboration)
Chapter 5. The economic structure of the Spanish metropolitan system 236 Imports (I) Exports (E) E/I Total Province Euros (000) % of Spain Euros (000) % of Spain Euros (000) % of Spain Madrid 48,527,706 23,43 15,293,678 10,44 0,32 63,821,384 18,05 Barcelona 50,894,260 24,57 31,077,406 21,22 0,61 81,971,666 23,18 Valencia 11,896,915 5,74 10,182,291 6,95 0,86 22,079,206 6,24 Sevilla 2,018,831 0,97 2,120,996 1,45 1,05 4,139,827 1,17 Vizcaya 7,071,491 3,41 5,044,788 3,44 0,71 12,116,279 3,43 Zaragoza 6,071,903 2,93 6,524,552 4,45 1,07 12,596,455 3,56 Málaga 1,420,739 0,69 1,038,151 0,71 0,73 2,458,890 0,70 TOTAL 127,901,845 61,75 71,281,862 48,67 0,56 199,183,707 56,33 SPAIN 207,129,961 100,00 146,460,358 100,00 0,71 353,590,319 100,00 Table 5.17. Imports and exports of the ‘metropolitan’ provinces (2004)309 309 Agencia Tributaria, Ministerio de Hacienda, Información estadística sobre el Comercio Exterior (diciembre 2004) (own elaboration)
Chapter 5. The economic structure of the Spanish metropolitan system 237 5.8. Economic activity The rate of economic activity seeks to provide an overview of the proportion of the population in the 15-64 years of age range who are in actual fact classified as economically active. The general tendency of the increase in the activity rate over the period 2002-2006 can be observed from Table 5.18, across all of the ‘metropolitan’ provinces and at the national level, as well as for males and females alike. In 2002 the highest rate for both sexes was found in Barcelona, followed by Valencia, Madrid and Sevilla, with activity rates lying above that for Spain. At that time, the activity rates for Vizcaya, Málaga and Zaragoza lay below the national rate. In 2006 Madrid led the ranking of the metropolitan provinces, followed by Barcelona and Valencia, with rates over that for Spain. The activity rate for Zaragoza lay marginally below the national figure, with those for Sevilla, Vizcaya and Málaga lying even further below. Activity rate (%) Both sexes Activity rate (%) Males Activity rate (%) Females 2002 (first 3 month period) Madrid 56.26 69.20 44.50 Barcelona 56.87 68.83 45.68 Valencia 56.45 69.63 44.08 Sevilla 54.86 69.59 41.01 Vizcaya 52.25 63.55 41.92 Zaragoza 50.77 65.06 37.27 Málaga 51.03 67.58 35.59 SPAIN 53.55 66.59 41.23 2006 (first 3 month period) Madrid 63.09 72.24 54.64 Barcelona 62.19 71.96 52.87 Valencia 59.57 71.00 48.42 Sevilla 57.21 69.84 44.85 Vizcaya 56.57 67.70 46.25 Zaragoza 57.20 68.66 46.00 Málaga 54.43 65.83 43.83 SPAIN 57.98 68.93 47.47 Table 5.18. Economic activity rates of the ‘metropolitan’ provinces (2002-2006)310 What is also clear from Table 5.18 is the gap between the activity rates for men and women in all of the metropolitan provinces, reflecting the same gap at the national level. However there would appear to be an indication of the reducing of that gap over the four year period at least, with a relatively higher proportion of economically active women in the workforce. For example in the case of Zaragoza, in 2002 the gap 310 INE, Encuesta de Población Activa, Primer Trimestre 2002 and 2006
Chapter 5. The economic structure of the Spanish metropolitan system 238 between the activity rates for men and women stood at almost 28 points, reducing to less than 23 points in 2006. Similarly in the case of Barcelona the gap between men and women reduced from 23 points in 2002 to some 19 points in 2006. Rate of economic activity (First 3 months 2006) 50 55 60 65 Madrid Barcelona Valencia Sevilla Vizcaya Zaragoza Málaga Spain Figure 5.18. Rate of economic activity of the ‘metropolitan’ provinces (2006)311 311 INE, Encuesta de Población Activa, Primer Trimestre 2006
Chapter 5. The economic structure of the Spanish metropolitan system 239 5.9. Unemployment An examination of the unemployment rates for the metropolitan provinces provides further evidence of the division in the economic structure between the ‘southern’ metropolitan urban regions and the remainder of the metropolitan system. In 2002, the highest unemployment rates of the seven provinces were recorded in Sevilla (20.56%), followed by Málaga (14.39%) and Vizcaya (11.68%), all lying above the rate of 11.47% for Spain as a whole. At that time unemployment was lowest in Zaragoza (5.20%), followed by Madrid (7.34%), Valencia (10.46%) and Barcelona (10.98%). The general tendency in the period 2002-2006 was for a reduction in unemployment. By 2006 the unemployment of Vizcaya had reduced (8.52%) in relative terms, placing it below the rate of 9.07% for Spain, along with Valencia (8.09%), Barcelona (7.01%), Zaragoza (6.59%) and Madrid (5.92%). However the unemployment rates recorded for Sevilla (13.35%) and Málaga (12.48%) still remained higher than the national rate. Unemployment rate (Both sexes) Unemployment rate Males Unemployment rate Females 2002 (first 3 month period) Madrid 7.34 5.13 10.45 Barcelona 10.89 8.29 14.56 Valencia 10.46 7.68 14.58 Sevilla 20.56 15.92 27.96 Vizcaya 11.68 7.94 16.85 Zaragoza 5.20 3.36 8.25 Málaga 14.39 11.52 19.47 SPAIN 11.47 8.18 16.50 2006 (first 3 month period) Madrid 5.92 4.61 7.53 Barcelona 7.01 5.70 8.71 Valencia 8.09 6.15 10.87 Sevilla 13.35 10.39 17.85 Vizcaya 8.52 6.40 11.39 Zaragoza 6.59 4.73 9.31 Málaga 12.48 9.02 17.32 SPAIN 9.07 6.81 12.22 Table 5.19. Unemployment rates of the ‘metropolitan’ provinces (2002-2006)312 As was seen previously with the activity rate (Section 5.8), what can be detected over the 2002-2006 period is a lessening in the division between the unemployment rates for men and women in all of the metropolitan provinces. In 2002 there was an 8 point division between unemployment for men and women, reducing to a 5.5 point division in 2006. In Sevilla, clearly the worst case of the metropolitan provinces for its high 312 INE, Encuesta de Población Activa, Primer Trimestre 2002 and 2006
The (re)positioning of the Spanish metropolitan system within the European urban system (1986-2006) 246
247 CHAPTER 6. – EUROPEAN SPATIAL POLICY314 Introduction At the Informal Ministerial meeting on Urban Development and Territorial Cohesion took place in Leipzig (Germany) on 24-25 May 2007, the European Ministers responsible for Territorial Development adopted the Territorial Agenda of the European Union ( Towards a More Competitive Europe of Diverse Regions ) (CEC, 2007b). The tabling of this document was highly significant in that it marked the stage to which evolving spatial policy had reached, up until that date, within the changing and expanding European territory. Indeed it is only within recent years that the territorial dimension of spatial policy has been explicitly addressed. Previously, policy seeking to correct the spatial disparities within the changing Europe, changing in the sense of reflecting the territorial expansion from a Europe comprising six member States in 1957 to one comprising twenty seven countries at 1st January 2007, was framed in social and economic terms. However today spatial policy is explicitly referred to in the ‘trinity’ between the social , economic and territorial dimensions . The objective of this chapter is to provide an historical overview of the evolution of European spatial policy over the last twenty years, with particular reference to the policies directed towards overcoming the regional disparities of the European Union (EU), in its various forms. Up until the 6th enlargement of the EU in 2004 (EU25)315, Spain was considered one of the ‘four cohesion countries’, together with Greece, Ireland and Portugal, owing to its inferior economic positioning relative to other countries of the EU. However in view of the enlargements of the EU which took place in May 2004 (with the incorporation of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia) and in January 2007316, when Bulgaria and Rumania entered the EU, Spain’s positioning in terms of its overall regional disparities has changed in relative terms. The most significant EU spatial policy has in the main been directed towards overturning the dominant spatial territorial model of Europe, characterised by the core and periphery, which will be discussed in depth in the following Chapter ( Chapter 7. 314 An earlier version of some of the issues addressed in this chapter was contained in Roca and Burns (2003), as part of a series of studies commissioned by the ODECAT of the Generalitat de Catalunya. http://www.odecat.net/html/welcome.htm 315 Treaty of accession signed 16 April 2003, entering into force on 1 May 2004, OJ l 236 dated 23 September 2003
Chapter 6. European spatial policy 248 European Urban System ). At this stage it is suffice to recall that this core comprises the territory lying between London, Hamburg, Munich, Milan and Paris; and that it is within this core, or pentagon , where some 46.5% of the EU27 GDP is concentrated. Around one third of the European population lives within this area, which covers just 14% of the EU territory. The concerted drive towards a more polycentric and balanced model of urban and regional development throughout the EU territory seeks to correct this territorial imbalance. The chapter is structured in three principal parts. The first part examines the content of the EU Treaties, from the Treaty of Rome (1957) up until the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (2004), with particular regard to the changing legislative emphasis on aspects of cohesion, making reference as well to the evolving Lisbon process. The second part evaluates the changes within formal European policy guidance through an examination of key documents such as the European Regional and Spatial Planning Charter (1983), the European Spatial Development Perspective (1999) in both its draft and final forms and the Territorial Agenda of the European Union (2007b). The progress on achieving cohesion, in its varying forms, is dealt with in the third part. 316 Treaty of accession signed 25 April 2005, entering into force on 1 January 2007, OJ L 157 dated 21 June 2005
Chapter 6. European spatial policy 249 6.1. European Treaties 6.1.1. Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (Treaty of Rome) (1957)317 The first attempts towards the formation of a Europe-wide body at a higher territorial scale than that of national states in the aftermath of the Second World War were carried out through the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1952. The objective of this body, through the pooling of Franco-German coal and steel production, was to strengthen Franco-German solidarity, put paid to the war period and enable the move towards European integration. The six participating Member States, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands agreed to relinquish part of their sovereignty in favour of the Community. In the mid-1950s, a committee was set up under the Presidency of Paul-Henri Spaak, the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs, to consider the creation of a European common market. The two proposals of the said committee lay in the creation of a general common market and an atomic energy community. The signing of the “Treaties of Rome” in March 1957318 demonstrated the joint commitment of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg and The Netherlands for the establishment of a European Economic Community (EEC) as well as the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM). The purpose of the EEC, as set out in Article 2 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community , lay in the establishment of a “common market and progressively approximating the economic policies of Member States, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the standard of living and closer relations between the states belonging to it.” In order to achieve these objectives, Article 3 of the Treaty made reference to the elimination of customs duties; the establishment of a common customs tariff and a common commercial policy towards third countries; the abolition of obstacles to the freedom of movement for people, services and capital between the Member States; the adoption of common policies in agriculture and transport; the institution of a system to avoid the distortion of competition; procedures for coordinating the economic policies of Member States and remedying disequilibria in their balance of payments; the approximation of the laws of the Member States to ensure the 317 Treaty signed 25 March 1957, entering into force on 1 January 1958, not published in the Official Journal. (See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/index.htm#founding) 318 50 years celebrated with the Berlin Declaration of March 2007
Chapter 6. European spatial policy 250 proper functioning of the common market; the creation of a European Social Fund ; the creation of a European Investment Bank ; and finally the association of the overseas countries and territories to enable increased trade and the joint promotion of economic and social benefit. 6.1.2. Merger Treaty (1965)319 This Treaty, signed in Brussels, replaced the hitherto three existing Councils of Ministers (EEC, ECSC and EURATOM) and the two existing Commissions (EEC and EURATOM) with just one single Council and a single Commission. The creation of the Council and the Commission coincided with the institution of a single operative budget. 6.1.3. Single European Act (1986)320 The Single European Act, in the wake of the Treaties of Accession of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark in 1972321; Greece in 1979322; and Spain and Portugal in 1985323, represented the first overall reform of the former Treaties. It was important for setting the objectives of achieving the Single European Market (SEM) by 1992 (Articles 13-19) and from the point of view of the addressing the issue of economic and social cohesion (Sub-section IV – Economic and social cohesion). Article 23 of the Act stipulated the addition of a Title V to Part Three of the EEC Treaty, on Economic and Social Cohesion. Article 130A of the Treaty would read: In order to promote its overall development, the Community shall develop and pursue its actions leading to the strengthening of its economic and social cohesion. In particular the Community shall aim at reducing disparities between the various regions and the backwardness of the least-favoured regions. 319 Treaty signed 8 April 1965, entering into force on 1 July 1967, OJ 152 dated 13 July 1967 320 Treaty signed 28 February 1986, entering into force on 1 July 1987, OJ L 169 dated 29 June 1987 321 Treaty of accession signed 22 January 1972, entering into force on 1 January 1973, OJ L 73 dated 27 March 1972 322 Treaty of accession signed 28 May 1979, entering into force on 1 January 1981, OJ L 291 dated 19 November 1979 323 Treaty of accession signed 12 June 1985, entering into force 1 January 1986, OJ L 302 dated 15 November 1985
Chapter 6. European spatial policy 251 Article 130b went on to state: Members shall conduct their economic policies, and shall coordinate them, in such a way as, in addition, to attain the objectives set out in Article 130a. The implementation of the common policies and of the internal market shall take into account the objectives set out in Article 130a and in Article 130c and shall contribute to their achievement. The Community shall support the achievement of these objectives by the action it takes through the structural Funds (European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guidance Section, European Social Fund, European Regional Development Fund), the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments. Clearly it was the incorporation of Ireland, Greece, Spain and Portugal into the Community and the recognition of the then divide between their levels of socioeconomic development and those of the other Member States, which contributed to the need for the elaboration of cohesion policy. 6.1.4. Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty) (1992)324 The Maastricht Treaty went beyond the stages of merely furthering economic integration, to the extent of paving the way for political integration. This was crucial in the wake of the demise of the political divide between Western and Eastern Europe which had been present since the end of the Second World War. The political dimensions of the Community were expressed in the Maastricht Treaty through the objectives of strengthening the democratic legitimacy of the institutions; improving the effectiveness of the institutions, establishing economic and monetary union; developing the Community social dimension; and lastly establishing a common foreign and security policy. The Treaty itself created the European Union, comprising the three pillars of the European Communities (the European Community (EC as distinct from the European Economic Community (EEC)), the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and EURATOM); common foreign and security policy (CFSP); and cooperation in the field of justice and home affairs (JHA). The importance of the regional dimension was recognised through the creation of the Committee of the Regions and enabling the Committee to have an advisory role. 324 Treaty signed 7 February 1992, entering into force on 1 November 1993, OJ C 191 dated 29 July 1992
Chapter 6. European spatial policy 252 In policy terms the Treaty established six new areas encompassing trans-European networks; industrial policy; consumer protection; education and vocational training; youth and culture. Articles 129b, 129c and 129d of Title XII (Trans-European Networks) sought to promote interconnection and interoperability of national networks as well as access to such networks, in the areas of transport, telecommunications and energy infrastructures, as a means of helping to maximise the benefits deriving from an area without internal frontiers. The special needs of linking island, landlocked and peripheral regions with the central regions of the Community were identified. The provisions of Title XIV of the Treaty, addressing the issue of economic and social cohesion, provided the legal basis for consolidating and further developing the Community’s action in this field, as well as the creation of the Cohesion Fund itself. From a spatial planning perspective, the Treaty contained revisions to the concepts of economic and social cohesion within Articles 130a-130e, first addressed in the 1986 Single European Act. Article 130a of the Treaty on European Union stated: In order to promote its overall harmonious development, the Community shall develop and pursue its actions leading to the strengthening of its economic and social cohesion. In particular, the Community shall aim at reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions, including rural areas. The Treaty placed emphasis on the aspect of harmonious development, as well as the levels of development between the regions, identifying rural areas as requiring special attention. Article 130B introduced the requirement for the preparation of progress reports towards the achievement of economic and social cohesion on a three yearly basis. (…) The Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions every three years on the progress made towards achieving economic and social cohesion and on the manner in which the various means provided for in this Article have contributed to it. This report shall, if necessary, be accompanied by appropriate proposals. (…) However it was Article 130d of the Treaty which specifically addressed the establishment of the Cohesion Fund:
Chapter 6. European spatial policy 253 (…) The Council, acting in accordance with the same procedure, shall before 31 December 1993 set up a Cohesion Fund to provide a financial contribution to projects in the fields of environment and trans-European networks in the area of transport infrastructure. 6.1.5 Treaty of Amsterdam (1997)325 The signing of the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997 represented the culmination of negotiations and agreement between the Member States, as formally required in the former Article N of the Treaty on European Union, addressing issues such as the rapid evolution of the international situation, the globalisation of the economy and its impact upon employment, the fight against terrorism, international crime, ecological problems and threats to public health. Articles 158-162 reiterated the concept of economic and social cohesion. Article 158 stated: In order to promote its overall harmonious development, the Community shall develop and pursue its actions leading to the strengthening of its economic and social cohesion. In particular, the Community shall aim at reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions or islands, including rural areas. thereby including the islands as being areas requiring special attention. 6.1.6 Treaty of Nice (2001)326 The Treaty of Nice represented the culmination of some 11 months of negotiations that took place within the context of an Intergovernmental Conference which opened in February 2000 and came into force in 2003. The Treaty largely addressed administrative issues which had not been resolved within the Treaty of Amsterdam, with regard to enlargement by revising the Treaties in terms of the size and composition of the Commission; the weighting of votes in the Council; the extension of qualifiedmajority voting; and finally enhanced cooperation. 325 Treaty signed 2 October 1997, entering into force on 1 May 1999, OJ C 340 dated 10 November 1997 326 Treaty signed 26 February 2001, entering into force on 1 February 2003, OJ C 80 dated 10 March 2001
Chapter 6. European spatial policy 254 6.1.7. Lisbon (2000) and Gothenburg (2001) Strategies It is of vital importance to make reference to the EU’s current policy objective of ‘competitiveness’ at the local and regional levels, and to place it in the context with which it arose, albeit that this was not through a Treaty. The need for competitiveness is argued as fundamental to permit the EU to meet crucial challenges, such as the augmented socio-economic disparities resulting from the last two enlargements, the economic restructuring provoked through globalisation, the technological revolution, the expansion of the knowledge-based economy and society, the ageing of the population and the increased immigration. A broad strategy was adopted at the European Council meetings in Lisbon (2000) and Gothenburg (2001) aimed at increasing the competitiveness of the EU and achieving sustainable growth. The Presidency Conclusions from the special meeting of the European Council held in Lisbon on 23-24 March 2000 stated the following: “5. The Union has today set itself a new strategic goal for the next decade: to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion . Achieving this goal requires an overall strategy aimed at: - preparing the transition to a knowledge-based economy and society by better policies for the information society and R&D, as well as by stepping up the process of structural reform for competitiveness and innovation and by completing the internal market; - modernising the European social model, investing in people and combating social exclusion; - sustaining the healthy economic outlook and favourable growth prospects by applying an appropriate macro-economic policy mix” (CEC, 2000). However the clear absence of any mention of the term ‘environmental’, together with the publication of the Communication from the Commission concerning a strategy for sustainable development (CEC, 2001a) led to an amendment of the Lisbon Strategy within the context of the special meeting of the European Council held in Gothenburg on 15-16 June 2001. The Presidency Conclusions from this meeting stated ( inter alia ):
Chapter 6. European spatial policy 255 “1. The European Council met in Göteborg on 15 and 16 June to issue political guidance for the Union. It: (…) − agreed on a strategy for sustainable development and added an environmental dimension to the Lisbon process for employment, economic reform and social cohesion; (…)” (CEC, 2001b). As a consequence, in addition to the economic and social reforms contained within the Lisbon Strategy, the Gothenburg amendment accorded it the environmental dimension. 6.1.8. Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (2004)327 The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (2004), encompassing the final stage in the process of institutional reform of the European Union as initiated by the Treaty of Nice, was proposed on the misconception that it would be ratified by all the Member States. The Treaty was signed in Rome on 29th October 2004, after the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia328 thereby forming the EU25, with the expectation of ratification over the two following years thereby enabling its adoption before the end of 2006. The negative referendum results for France and The Netherlands have resulted in a kind of stalemate situation. To enter into force, the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe must be ratified by all the Member States, in accordance with each one's constitutional rules. Despite the current “in-limbo” situation of the Treaty, it is nevertheless of interest to examine on the basis of it representing the Commission’s most up-to-date statement regarding the theme of cohesion and in particular for the fact that for the first time the territorial aspect of cohesion appears alongside those of the economic and social aspects. Article I-3 of Part I Title I (Definition and objectives of the Union) sets out the Union's objectives: 1. The Union's aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples. 327 Treaty signed 29 October 2004, pending entry into force, OJ C 310 dated 16 December 2004 328 OJ l 236 dated 23 September 2003
Chapter 6. European spatial policy 262 6.2.3. European Spatial Development Perspective (ESPD) (1999) Prior to examining the policy content of the ESPD, it is considered relevant to refer to the draft version of the said ESPD (CEC, 1997a), in order to highlight some specific characteristics of the Spanish metropolitan system, as it was viewed at that time. Clearly these observation need to be interpreted in the context of the 1990s. For example, the draft document identifies Barcelona as a regional centre in a process of change, emerging as a metropolis of Southern Europe (p. 18). Madrid is represented as an urban area of international standing (p. 19). The draft document highlights two important axis of development – namely that of Lisbon-Madrid-Barcelona-la Valle del Ródano, as well as Madrid-Bordeaux-Toulouse (p. 72). Valencia and Sevilla, together with Porto in Portugal, were represented as peripheral cities, with a weaker urban function, but where strategies of innovative development could be perceived (p.19). Consequently each of these metropolitan urban regions could be seen in processes of change, some of which were suffering due to the question of their peripheral location, but with opportunities capable of contributing to their integration with the rest of the EU. In its final version, the ESPD seeks to proportion a shared vision for the future development of the EU. It represents a general framework of reference, for effective spatial measures and proportions a vision for public decision making, in order to contribute to the formulation of policies and actions. The ESPD presents an analysis of the tendencies in European spatial planning, contains an agreement concerning the intentions and objectives for the EU territory, and refers to the possibilities for the application of these. The ESPD seeks to proportion a shared vision for the future fabric of development in the European Union. It represents a general framework for effective spatial measures and proportions a vision for public and private decision making to assist in the formulation of their policies and actions. The ESPD will help to find the correct manner for the integration of different structures and their European territorial requirements in policy and – according to the existing responsibilities – to interrelate the tasks of different administrations. The ESPD (CEC, 1999) is structured in two parts. The first part – Achieving the balanced and sustainable development of the territory of the UE: the contribution of the spatial development policy – sets out the criteria for spatial planning; while the second
Chapter 6. European spatial policy 263 part - The territory of the UE: trends, opportunities and challenge s - offers an analysis of a number of different aspects of territorial development of importance at the European scale. In this way the ESPD analyses trends in European spatial planning, contains an agreement for the policy objectives of the EU territory, and makes reference to its application. The ESPD offers a detailed description of the European territory, of the European situation at the time (mid to late 1990s), as well as of the trends, perspectives and challenges to be faced to the following years. However, this description was not restricted to the spatial territory of the EU15, as an entire chapter was devoted to the then ‘candidate countries’ of the subsequent enlargement, which was presented as "an additional challenge for European spatial development policy" (CEC, 1999, Part A. Section 5). The ESPD highlights the economic imbalances that hinder the realisation of a balanced, as well as sustainable, regional and territorial development. For example the economic power of the central zone of the EU is emphasised, especially the zone of the so-called 'pentagon', consisting of the land lying between the metropolises of London, Paris, Milan, Munich and Hamburg, where at that time 50% of the European GDP was produced but where only 40% of the community population was found, in an area that occupied 20% of the spatial territory of the EU15. This zone was seen as the only zone of global economic integration in Europe. The absence of other zones of outstanding growth in Europe at the time was seen as representing a disadvantage compared with other strong economic commercial blocs, such as the United States. Therefore, the ESPD considered the creation of new zones of economic importance as a necessity for the future competitiveness of the EU. The ESPD raises similar concerns in relation to the subject of social cohesion. Along the southern limits of the EU, from Portugal stretching across the south of Spain, the south of Italy and up until Greece, as well as the new German Länder, the GDP per capita stood at approximately 50% and 65% of the European average. Although this difference was in a process of gradual decrease, the regional disparities nevertheless were high and moreover, the forecast at the time was that they would grow after the enlargement of the UE towards the east of Europe, programmed for 2004. These disparities contributed to a representation of the European territory based upon the dichotomy of the core-periphery territorial model, where one found a prosperous
Chapter 6. European spatial policy 264 and dynamic core, contrasting with an underdeveloped and geographically remote periphery. Figure 6.1. GDP of the EU15 in 1995333 Considering these regional disparities, according to the ESDP all those actively involved in spatial development needed to be conscious of spatial development policy guidelines. Furthermore: “The European Spatial Development Perspective is based on the EU aim of achieving a balanced and sustainable development, in particular by strengthening economic and social cohesion. In accordance with the definition laid down in the United Nations Brundtland Report, sustainable development covers not only environmentally sound economic development which preserves present resources for use by future generations but also includes a balanced spatial development. This means, in particular, reconciling the social and economic claims for spatial development with the area’s ecological and cultural functions and, hence, contributing to a sustainable, and at larger scale, balanced territorial development. The EU will therefore gradually develop, in line with safeguarding regional diversity, from an Economic Union into an Environmental Union and into a Social Union” (CEC, 1999, par. 17). This was reflected in the triangle of objectives, connecting the three basic goals of European policy: 1. economic and social cohesion 333 CEC (1999), p. 8
Chapter 6. European spatial policy 265 2. conservation of natural resources and cultural heritage 3. more balanced competitiveness of the European territory Figure 6.2. Triangle of objectives: a balanced and sustainable spatial development334 Part Three of the ESDP addresses the Policy Aims and Options for the European Territory. In broad terms these involve the establishment of a polycentric and balanced urban system (Section 3.2)335, the promotion of integrated transport and communications contributing to the parity of access to infrastructure and knowledge throughout the whole EU (Section 3.3)336, and the development and conservation of the natural and cultural heritage (Section 3.4)337. Of these three broad development issues it is the first two which are of prime importance for the purposes of the thesis. 6.2.3.1. Polycentric spatial development At that time the core area was the only dynamic European area of economic integration within the world economy. With the exception of certain isolated islands of significant growth, including Barcelona and the Øresund Region, in and around Copenhagen (Denmark) and Malmö (Sweden), there was a continuing concentration of the highly performing global functions within the core area, lying between London, Paris, Milan, Munich and Hamburg. 334 CEC (1999) p. 8 335 3.2 Polycentric Spatial Development and a New Urban-Rural Relationship; 3.2.1 Polycentric and Balanced Spatial Development in the EU; 3.2.2 Dynamic, Attractive and Competitive Cities and Urbanised Regions; 3.2.3 Indigenous Development, Diverse and Productive Rural Areas; and 3.2.4 Urban-Rural Partnership. 336 3.3 Parity of Access to Infrastructure and Knowledge; 3.3.1 An Integrated Approach for Improved Transport Links and Access to Knowledge; 3.3.2 Polycentric Development Model: A Basis for Better Accessibility; 3.3.3 Efficient and Sustainable Use of the Infrastructure; and 3.3.4 Diffusion of Innovation and Knowledge. 337 3.4 Wise Management of the Natural and Cultural Heritage; 3.4.1 Natural and Cultural Heritage as a Development Asset; 3.4.2 Preservation and Development of the Natural Heritage; 3.4.3 Water Resource Management – a Special Challenge for Spatial Development; 3.4.4 Creative Management of Cultural Landscapes; and 3.4.5 Creative Management of the Cultural Heritage.
Chapter 6. European spatial policy 266 Taking into consideration the then pending enlargement of the EU and the increasing integration of the national economies into the SEM and the world economy, it was recommended that the polycentric model would allow for the high concentration of population and economic, political and financial power within one single dynamic area to be avoided. The emergence of a relatively decentralised urban structure would contribute towards the potential of all the regions of Europe to be developed and in turn lead to the reduction in the regional disparities. While in the past the investment had been encouraged in infrastructure links between the peripheries and the core, the spatial and polycentric development process proposed the following aspects: • Strengthening several larger areas of global economic integration; • Strengthening a more balanced polycentric system of metropolitan regions, city clusters and city networks; • Promoting integrated spatial development strategies for city clusters in individual Member States including corresponding rural areas and their small cities and towns; • Strengthening co-operation in the field of spatial development through cross border and transnational networks; and • Promoting co-operation at regional, cross-border and transnational level with towns and cities in the countries of Northern, Central and Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean region; strengthening North-South links in Central and Eastern Europe and West-East links in Northern Europe. According to the ESPD the challenges for the achievement of integrated development strategies for town and urban regions, permitting sustainable development included the following: • Expanding the strategic role of the metropolitan regions and the gateway cities providing access to the territory of the EU (large ports, intercontinental airports, trade fair and exhibition centres, world-scale cultural centres) paying special attention to the peripheral regions; • Checking urban expansion by building upon the notion of the ‘compact city’, particularly along coastal areas; • Improving the economic base by building upon the territory’s potential and establishing innovative, diversified and job-creating economic activities; • Promoting a mixture of functions and social groups, particularly in the largest urban areas, in order to combat social exclusion and restructure abd reuse areas in crisis and derelict industrial land; • Prudent management of waste and resources (water, soil and energy) in order to safeguard the natural and cultural heritage and expanding natural areas; • Increasing the accessibility of areas through the use of efficient and nonpolluting transport.
Chapter 6. European spatial policy 267 6.2.3.2. Access to infrastructure The ESDP recognises the importance of transport and telecommunication infrastructure in contributing to meeting the objectives of economic and social cohesion by creating links between areas, and in particular between central and peripheral areas, and between urban centres and the surrounding countryside. The extension of the TEN needs to be based upon the notion of a polycentric territorial model, prioritising globally important economic areas once identified and paying attention to regions with severe geographical barriers to access and secondary links within regions. Moreover all regions should be able to benefit from access to intercontinental ports and airports. Increases in passenger and freight transport pose an increasing burden upon the environment and the efficiency of transport systems. An appropriate spatial development policy, based upon public transport in urban areas, intermodal systems and shared infrastructure, would permit an integrated approach to environmental pressures arising from increased mobility, traffic congestion and land use. Similarly access to knowledge and infrastructure is fundamental in the development of a knowledge-based society. Job markets and firms need dynamic innovation systems, effective technology transfer and the provision of education and training. Access to knowledge and the capacity for innovation are not spread evenly throughout the EU – rather they area concentrated where the economic dynamics are the strongest. Improving the level of education and training among the population of the regions in difficulty, by means of the dissemination of Information and Communication Technologies would contribute to combating these structural imbalances. *********************************************** To conclude this overview of the ESDP it is important to reiterate that the document was elaborated in order to for fulfil three principal functions at the European level. That is to tackle the spatial differences of well-being and prosperity (even though the Structural Funds have an important role with this objective of a more balanced development); optimising the entrepreneurial environments through dealing with unemployment, traffic congestion, and threats to the cultural and natural heritage; and
Chapter 6. European spatial policy 268 proportioning a spatial framework for the evaluation of the spatial impacts of sectoral policies. It is also important to remember although the ESDP is a document offering guidance, without any legally binding obligations, it nevertheless proportions a framework of measures to facilitate cooperation in areas of spatial planning across state, regional and local borders. Therefore to a certain extent its success in offering policy guidance rests upon the political will of the member states and regions of the EU to apply the principles contained therein. Furthermore different forms of community funding exist, for example through programmes such as INTERREG, which encourages and facilitates transnational and interregional cooperation. Polycentricity continues to be one of the key territorial objectives of the European Union. The support given to this policy objective is strong and widespread – for example at the Lisbon Conference of Ministers responsible for Spatial/Regional Planning338 (CEMAT) held in 2006, the Minister adopted the text of a resolution on ‘ Polycentric development: promoting competitiveness, enhancing cohesion ’. The endorsement to polycentricity from the CEMAT will be further evidenced in Section 6.2.4. However the policy discourse is not without its detractors. For example Paul Cheshire remarks that while the pursuit of a polycentric development system is aimed at spatial equity and increasing the competitiveness of Europe’s system of cities, there is a paucity of evidence ‘to support the view either that it is possible for policy to promote polycentricity or that – were it possible – doing so would make Europe’s cities more competitive’ (Cheshire, 2006, p. 1,237). 338 ‘Networks for sustainable spatial development of the European continent: Bridges over Europe’
Chapter 6. European spatial policy 269 6.2.4. Guiding principles for Sustainable Development of the European Continent (2000) (CEMAT) The 12th Session of the European Conference of Ministers responsible for Regional Planning (CEMAT)339, which took place on 7-8 September, 2000, in Hanover agreed a set of guiding principles for sustainable spatial development of the European Continent (CEMAT, 2000). These guiding principles ‘stress the territorial dimension of human rights and democracy’ and seek to ‘define measures of spatial development policy by which people in all the member states of the Council of Europe can achieve an acceptable standard of living’. The said guiding principles effectively provide support for the development guidance and policy options contained within the ESDP, but within a broad framework of encouraging Europe’s economic competitiveness. The tacit acceptance of this policy objective is clear – “in a world subject to growing globalisation, the European continent must maintain its economic position” (CEMAT, 2000, p. 3). The ten principles of a regionally more balanced development aimed at ensuring sustainable development in Europe comprise the following: 1. Promoting territorial cohesion through a more balanced social and economic development of regions and improved competitiveness 2. Encouraging development generated by urban functions and improving the relationship between town and countryside 3. Promoting more balanced accessibility 4. Developing access to information and knowledge 5. Reducing environmental damage 6. Enhancing and protecting natural resources and the natural heritage 7. Enhancing the cultural heritage as a factor for development 8. Developing energy resources while maintaining safety 9. Encouraging high quality, sustainable tourism 10 Limitation of the impacts of natural disasters 339 The Council of Europe Member States and signatories to the accord concerning the Guiding principles included Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, Germany, Iceland, Austria, Cyprus, Switzerland, Malta, Portugal, Spain, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Finland, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Andorra, Albania, Latvia, Macedonia, Moldova, Ukraine, Croatia, Russian Federation Georgia.
Chapter 6. European spatial policy 270 6.2.5. Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities (2007) The first ever joint Informal Ministerial meeting on Urban Development and Territorial Cohesion took place in Leipzig (Germany) on 24-25 May 2007, in the context of the German Presidency of the European Union. This resulted in the adoption of two key policy documents: the Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities (CEC, 2007a) and the Territorial Agenda of the European Union (CEC, 2007b) the latter of which will be addressed in Section 6.2.6. Both documents were essentially political statements from the Ministers in support of the spatial planning and territorial cohesion, and integrated urban development, within the overall context of European competitiveness, but are nevertheless important as they explicitly express the Ministers’ current joint positions regarding sustainable cities within Europe and integrated spatial development. The Leipzig Charter contains two broad recommendations: 1. Making greater use of integrated urban development policy approaches, recognising the importance of strategies for action by means of: i) creating and ensuring high-quality public spaces; ii) monitoring infrastructure and improving energy efficiency; and iii) proactive innovation and educational policies 2. That special attention is paid to deprived neighbourhoods within the context of the city as a whole, again proposing the following strategies with regard to such deprived neighbourhoods: i) pursuing strategies for upgrading the physical environment; ii) strengthening the local economy and local labour market policy; iii) proactive education and training policies for children and young people; and iv) promotion of efficient and affordable urban transport.
Chapter 6. European spatial policy 271 6.2.6. Territorial Agenda of the European Union (2007) The same Informal Ministerial meeting on Urban Development and Territorial Cohesion which took place in Leipzig (Germany) on 24-25 May 2007, adopted the Territorial Agenda of the European Union, Towards a more competitive and sustainable Europe of diverse regions (CEC, 2007b). This short eight paged policy paper (see Appendix 4) contains recommendations for integrated spatial development policy aims, through mobilising the potentials of European regions and cities for sustainable economic growth and more jobs (cf. revitalised Lisbon Agenda (2005) discussed in Section 6.1.9). The Agenda clearly recognises that Europe’s competitiveness in the world will additionally be strengthened by drawing upon its territorial diversity in better and more innovative ways. The Territorial Agenda is structured around four principal sections: 1. The future task of strengthening territorial cohesion; 2. The new challenges of strengthening regional identities and making better use of territorial diversity; 3. Setting out territorial priorities for the development of the EU; and 4. The implementation of the Territorial Agenda itself. The six territorial priorities addressed within the third section are as follows: i. the objective of strengthening polycentric development and innovation through networking of city regions and cities; ii. the need for new forms of partnership and territorial governance between rural and urban areas; iii. the desire to promote clusters of competition and innovation in Europe; iv. the commitment to the strengthening and extension of Trans-European Networks v. the commitment to Trans-European Risk Management including the aspects of climate change; and vi. the requirement for strengthening ecological structures and cultural resources as the added value for development.
Chapter 6. European spatial policy 278 Figure 6.4. Central and peripheral regions344 The concentration of economic activity and population in a restricted central area, at that time representing 14% of the European territory with 33% of the European population and proportioning some 47% of the European GDP, has/had an adverse
Chapter 6. European spatial policy 279 impact not only in the peripheral regions, but also in the same central regions, through the negative environmental externalities, as well as excessive transit. For example, the bottlenecks in the railway networks, identified as priorities through the programme of Trans-European Networks (TENs) were concentrated in the central regions345. As ‘compensation’ for the overloading of the transport networks and the concentration of economic activity in the central regions, the peripheral regions were identified as being in a much better position from an environmental perspective. For example, in general the toxic emissions in the central regions were some 2.3 times higher than the corresponding measurements in the more peripheral regions346. Clear exceptions to this duality were the toxic emissions experienced in the heavily industrialised and congested areas of some the Central and Easter European regions. See Figure 6.5 for the measure of GDP per capita in 1998. Here a stronger differentiation between the Spanish regions can be detected than was the case in the early 1990s (cf. Figure 6.3). By this time just Madrid and Navarra were in a stronger position, on par with the EU average, followed by Catalunya, Valencia, Aragon, the Basque Country, La Rioja, Cantabria and the Balearic Islands; then the remainder of Spain, with the exception of Extremadura in the least favourable position. 344 CEC (2001c) 345 See Map A5 of the Second cohesion report (CEC, 2001c) 346 See Map A7 of the Second cohesion report (CEC, 2001c)
Chapter 6. European spatial policy 280 Figure 6.5. GDP per capita for the regions of the EU27 (1998)347 347 CEC (2001c)
Chapter 6. European spatial policy 281 6.3.3. Third report on economic and social cohesion (2004) The Third cohesion report (2004) (CEC, 2004b) contained the secondary title A new partnership for cohesion: convergence competitiveness cooperation . The Third report was structure in four parts, addressing 1) cohesion, competitiveness, employment and growth – situation and trends; 2) the impact of Member State policies on cohesion, 3) the impact of Community policies: competitiveness, employment and cohesion, and finally 4) the impact and added value of structural policies. The first part contained three sections addressing economic and social cohesion; territorial cohesion; and the factors determining growth, employment and competitiveness. The section dealing with territorial cohesion recognised the territorial imbalances threatening the harmonious development of the EU’s economy in future years, such as the concentration of economic activity and population in the central core area; the disparities at national levels between the metropolitan urban regions and the remaining parts of the countries, especially in the case of the accession countries; the regional level territorial disparities not captured by measures of GDP and employment, such as sprawl ad disperse urban development; and within regions and cities where social disparities were accentuating social exclusion. These territorial imbalances could be corrected, according to the Third report, through a coordinated approach to combat territorial disparities through a more spatially balanced pattern of economic development, as proposed by the ESDP (CEC, 1999). The promotion of balanced development was aimed at correcting the territorial imbalances in the distribution of towns and cities, as well as the intra-regional imbalances. In general terms the Third report recognised that disparities in income and employment across the EU had narrowed over the previous decade, in particular since the mid1990s. Figure 6.6 indicates the GDP per capita as at 2001. The image of Spain at that time is one of continued improvement, with Madrid, Catalunya, Navarra, La Rioja, the Basque Country and the Balearic Islands all displaying levels of GDP equal to or greater than the average EU25 level. What can be seen is a gradual improvement in the least well-off regions, with the lowest levels of GDP being experienced in just four regions – Andalucía, Galicia, Extremadura and Castilla-La Mancha. However there were still important deficits to make up between the least well-off and the remainder of the population, which at that time required long-term efforts and commitment.
Chapter 6. European spatial policy 282 Figure 6.6. GDP per capita for the regions of the EU27 (2001)348 348 CEC (2004b)
Chapter 6. European spatial policy 283 6.3.4. ‘Cohesion Policy and cities: the urban contribution to growth and jobs in the regions’ (2006) While the Community Strategic Guidelines on Cohesion 2007-2013 (CEC, 2006c) (see Section 6.3.6) address the areas of intervention where the Commission consider it would be appropriate to give priority to the preparation of operational programmes for cohesion policy for the period 2007-2013, the Commission’s Communication on Cohesion policy and cities (CEC, 2006a) places emphasis on certain aspects of the urban dimension which it consider might be of relevance in this context. The Communication is complemented by an in-house staff working paper which develops the analyses and provides background to the suggestions for action contained within the Communication itself (CEC, 2006b). What is of principal interest in the Communication and the working paper is the description provided of the importance of cities and urban areas. The Communication suggests cities can be viewed as motors for growth and jobs , but cannot be seen in isolation from the surrounding territories. Rather cities are ‘key players in regional development, including the development of neighbouring rural areas. Cities and regions, and their social and economic trajectories, are mutually dependent. The Communication goes on to state that 60% of the EU’s population live in urban areas with populations exceeding 50,000 persons. London and Paris are referred to as the ‘two mega-poles’, while the remainder of the urban system is described as being ‘a unique polycentric structure of large, midsize and small cities’. The section concerning the achievement of a better territorial balance across the EU (Section 3.3) again refers to the urban system: “Europe is characterised by a polycentric structure of large, medium-sized and small cities. Many of these cities cluster together to form metropolitan areas, but many exist as the single urban centre of a region” (CEC, 2006a, p.6). What is clearly conspicuous by virtue of its very absence is the lack of reference to the ‘core and periphery’ of the European territory. Rather the Communication sees the spatial territory of Europe simply as a polycentric structure, without any further qualification.
Chapter 6. European spatial policy 284 6.3.5. The Community Strategic Guidelines on Cohesion 2007-2013 (2006) The Community Strategic Guidelines on Cohesion were adopted by the Commission on 6 October 2006 (CEC, 2006c). These contain the principles and priorities of cohesion policy and suggest ways the European regions can take account of the financial resources made available for national and regional aid programmes over the funding period 2007-2013. The Introduction to the Guidelines states that: “In accordance with the integrated guidelines for growth and jobs in the renewed Lisbon agenda, the programmes supported by cohesion policy should seek to target resources on the following three priorities: - improving the attractiveness of Member States, regions and cities by improving accessibility, ensuring adequate quality and level of services, and preserving the environment; - encouraging innovation, entrepreneurship and the growth of the knowledge economy by research and innovation capacities, including new information and communication technologies; and - creating more and better jobs by attracting more people into employment or entrepreneurial activity, improving adaptability of workers and enterprises and increasing investment in human capital” (CEC, 2006c, p. L 291/14). What is evident from the outset is that the term ‘cohesion’ appears to serve as an acronym or abbreviation of sorts for the trinity of ‘economic, social and territorial cohesion’. The Guidelines themselves are directed towards the following aspects in detail: 1.1. Making Europe and its regions more attractive places in which to work and invest; which addresses the expansion and improvement of infrastructures; the strengthening of the synergies between environmental protection and growth; and Europe’s intensive use of traditional energy sources. 1.2. Improving knowledge and innovation for growth; paying attention to an increase and better targeting of investment in RTD; facilitating innovation and promoting entrepreneurship; promoting the information society for all; and improving access to finance.
Chapter 6. European spatial policy 285 1.3. More and better jobs; addressing the attraction and retention of more people in employment and modernising social protection systems; improving adaptability of workers and enterprises and the flexibility of the labour market; increasing investment in human capital through better education and skills; administrative capacity; and helping to maintain a healthy labour force. The second part of the Guidelines addresses the territorial dimension of cohesion policy in detail. Here it is stated that one of the characteristics of cohesion policy is its capacity to adapt to the needs and characteristics of specific geographical challenges. The key phrase is that “under cohesion policy, geography matters” (CEC, 2006c, p. L 291/28). It is suggested that taking into consideration the territorial dimension will contribute to the development of sustainable communities and the prevention of uneven regional development from reducing overall growth potential. An approach of this nature requires the addressing of the specific problems and opportunities of urban and rural areas in general, as web as those of cross-border and broader transnational territories, or regions limited through their insularity, remoteness, sparse population or mountainous character. Coastal areas in general may be subject to environmental and demographic constraints that require addressing. The Guidelines state that the successful implementation of actions to promote territorial cohesion requires implementing mechanisms that can contribute to guarantee fair treatment for all territories based on their individual capacities as a factor of competitiveness. As a consequence good governance is a pre-requisite to successfully addressing the ‘territorial dimension’. What then follows is an examination of the territorial dimension in the context of the contribution of cities to growth and jobs (2.1); the economic diversification of rural areas, fisheries areas and areas with natural handicaps (2.2); cooperation (2.3); crossborder cooperation (2.4); transnational cooperation (2.5); and interregional cooperation (2.6). The most relevant of these to the development of the thesis is the contribution of cities to growth and jobs. The Guidelines refer to the Commission’s Communication on cohesion policy and cities (CEC, 2006a) and the fact that more than 60% of the EU population lives in urban areas of over 50,000 persons. Emphasis is given to cities and urban areas being the home of most jobs, businesses and higher education institutions and have a fundamental role in the road towards social cohesion. Furthermore European cities and metropolitan urban regions have the capacity to attract highly
Chapter 6. European spatial policy 286 skilled workers, contributing to a synergy through the stimulation of innovation and business adding to their attractiveness to new talent. However cities and urban areas concentrate both opportunities and challenges, particularly in the specific problems facing urban areas, such as unemployment and social exclusion, high and rising crime rates, increased congestion and the existence of areas of deprivation within city limits. Programmes focusing on urban areas need to take several different forms. Firstly, actions to promote cities as motors of regional development, in the form of targeting improvements in competitiveness, for example, through clustering and supporting measures to promote entrepreneurship, innovation and the development of services, including producer services. Secondly, actions to promote internal cohesion within the urban areas that seek to improve the situation of crisis districts. This not only benefits the districts themselves, but can contribute to reduce pressure towards excessive suburban sprawl in pursuit of a better quality of life. Measures that seek the rehabilitation of the physical environment, the redevelopment of brownfield sites especially in old industrial cities, and the preservation and development of the historical and cultural heritage with potential spin-offs for tourism development, leading to the creation of more attractive cities in which people want to live are particularly important. Furthermore such regeneration can play an important role in avoiding suburbanisation and urban sprawl, helping to create the conditions necessary for sustainable economic development. In urban areas, the environmental, economic and social dimensions are strongly interlinked and a high quality urban environment contributes to the priority of the renewed Lisbon Strategy to make Europe a more attractive place to work, live and invest. Thirdly, actions to promote a more balanced, polycentric development by developing the urban network at national and Community level including links between the economically strongest cities and other urban areas including small and medium-sized cities. This requires making strategic choices in identifying and strengthening growth poles and putting in place the networks that link them in both physical (infrastructure, information technologies, etc.) and human (actions to promote cooperation, etc.) terms. Since these poles serve wider territories, they contribute to a sustainable and balanced
Chapter 6. European spatial policy 287 development of the Member State and the Community as a whole. Similarly, rural areas provide services to the wider society, and focus should be placed on the urban rural interface. Based on previous experience, the Guidelines suggest that there are a number of key principles in urban actions. First, the key partners in the cities and local authorities have an important role to play in achieving these objectives. Second, the preparation of a mediumto long-term development plan for sustainable urban development is generally a precondition for success as it ensures the coherence of investments and of their environmental quality. In general, integrated support services and programmes should have a focus on those groups which are most in need, such as immigrants, young people and women. All citizens should be encouraged to participate in both the planning and delivery of services. It is considered that this section of the Guidelines (2.1 The contribution of cities to growth and jobs ) is particularly useful and important, in that here one finds the Commission’s current position on cities and urban development stated explicitly. The key elements include the emphasis of the re-launched Lisbon Agenda (the importance of growth and jobs in the context of Europe becoming one of the most competitive economic regions in global terms prior to 2010) as well as the spatial planning guidance contained within the ESDP (in terms of the encouragement given to a more balanced and polycentric pattern of urban development and the encouragement afforded to brownfield, rather than greenfield, development).
Chapter 6. European spatial policy 294 2001 Treaty of Nice (2001)361 European Commission publishes Second cohesion report on economic and social cohesion (Unity solidarity, diversity for Europe, its people and its territory) (CEC, 2001c) Gothenburg Agreement Strategy (CEC, 2001b) 2004 Sixth enlargement of the European Union, incorporating the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia362 European Commission publishes Interim Territorial Cohesion Report (CEC, 2004a) Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe363 Introduction of aspects of territorial cohesion European Commission publishes Third cohesion report on economic and social cohesion (A new partnership for cohesion: convergence, competitiveness, cooperation) (CEC, 2004b) 2005 Re-vitalisation of the Lisbon Agenda (CEC, 2005) 2006 Publication of the Communication form the Commission on Cohesion Policy and cities: the urban contribution to growth and jobs in the regions (CEC, 2006a) Publication of the Council Decision on Community strategic guidelines on cohesion 2007-2013 (CEC, 2006c) 2007 Seventh enlargement of the European Union, incorporating Bulgaria and Rumania364 Adoption of the Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities (CEC, 2007a) containing common principles and strategies for European urban development policy Adoption of the Territorial Agenda of the European Union (CEC, 2007b) as an expression of a new European policy on spatial cohesion Publication of the background document to the Territorial Agenda ( The territorial state and perspectives of the European Union, Towards a stronger European territorial cohesion in light of the Lisbon and Gothenburg Ambitions (CEC, 2007c) Adoption of the Fourth Report on Economic and Social Cohesion Growing Regions, growing Europe (CEC, 2007d) Table 6.1. Chronology of key legislation and policy documents published in the development of European spatial policy (1957-2007) 361 OJ C 80 dated 10 March 2001 362 OJ L 236 dated 23 September 2003. 363 OJ C 310 dated 16 December 2004 364 OJ L 157 dated 21 June 2005
295 CHAPTER 7. – EUROPEAN URBAN SYSTEM Introduction As will be recalled from Chapter 1 and as is clearly evident from Figures 7.1 and 7.2 the European continent is one of the most urbanised areas of the world. More than 80% of Europe’s citizens reside in the metropolitan urban regions, cities and other urban areas which together comprise the European urban system. Furthermore, more than 60% of the population of the EU27 lives in urban areas of more than 50,000 inhabitants (CEC, 2006a). Figure 7.1. The world at night indicating areas of highest urbanisation365 However this urban population, in the order of some 390 million inhabitants, is far from spread homogenously throughout the European territory. Indeed as discussed in the previous chapter, approximately one third of the European Union’s entire population, some 164 million inhabitants, reside within the central (pentagon) area lying in the territory between London, Hamburg, Munich, Milan and Paris. This core area comprises just 14% of the EU territory but is responsible for around 46.5% of the EU27 GDP. The concentration of development in this core area of Europe is clearly identifiable from Figure 7.2. 365 http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002200/a002276/index.html (consulted accessed 03.01.2007)
Chapter 7. European urban system 296 Figure 7.2. Urbanisation of the European continent366 Source: This chapter seeks to present an overview of the European urban system, placing emphasis on the metropolitan component of that system, with a view to focusing upon an analytical framework or sample of European metropolitan urban regions against which the positioning of the Spanish metropolitan system can be quantitatively tested in Chapter 8. Taylor and Hoyler (2000) refer to the different approaches to map the evolving economic space of Europe in terms of cities since the late 1980s, in the context of the development of the Single European Market (SEM) and the ostensibly increased competition between European cities deriving there from. They indicate on the one hand, the concern for the definition of new urban hierarchies, through the combination of different functional indicators (Brunet, 1989; and Rozenblat and Cicille, 2003) and on the other hand highlighting specific topical variables. As the authors point out “the geographical representation of new economic spaces in Europe has perhaps shaped 366 http://www.europa.usenet.eu.org/btn/europe_night.jpg (consulted 03.01.2007)
Chapter 7. European urban system 297 the perception of policy-makers deeper than the various league-tables produced” (Taylor and Hoyler, 2000, p. 179). These earlier studies sought to characterise Europe in terms of the ranking of important urban regions on the basis of their urban performance and developed the concept of ‘functional urban regions’ (FUR) (Cheshire et. al., 1986; Cheshire and Hay, 1989; and Cheshire, 1990). This line of research allowed for comparison with work previously undertaken by Hall and Hay (1980) seeking to apply the notion of Berry’s (1973) ‘daily urban systems’ (DUS) to the European urban system. In the main, the applicability of these studies and the reliability of the ensuing results of some of the countries studied, including Spain, were severely limited by the lack of comparable data. In this sense, the increasing incorporation of the European countries within the expanding European Union (EU) and the concomitant efforts of the part of EUROSTAT to establish ‘user friendly’ data bases have contributed enormously to the possibilities of transnational comparative urban and regional research, despite the inherent basic methodological problems relating to the ‘units’ of territorial analysis (Pumain, D. et. al. 1992). Although not related to the ‘structure’ of the European urban system, the on-going development of the Urban Audit initiative367, which started in 1997, is testimony to the sorts of projects which are now possible through the gradual harmonisation of data across Europe, allowing for comparisons between the 258 large and medium sized cities on the basis of demography, social and economic aspects, civic involvement, training and education, environment, travel and transport, information society, and culture and recreation. In the same way as the analysis of the European spatial policy in Chapter 6 sought to highlight a series of significant advances, this chapter seeks to identify the evolving changes in the ranking and positioning of the Spanish metropolitan urban regions within the European urban system, as perceived through a umber of key and influential studies. It is the analysis of these changes which in part gave rise to the development of the hypothesis in terms of the (re)positioning of the Spanish metropolitan cities within the wider European urban system, as outlined in the Introduction. With this objective in mind, the chapter examines the content of these key research exercises of the European urban system, starting with the DATAR/RECLUS study carried out by Brunet (1989) in the mid-1980s. This is followed by analyses of the Globalisation and World City (GaWC) group’s inventory of world cities (Beaverstock et. al., 1999), the revision of the DATAR/RECLUS study in 2003 (Rozenblat and Cicille, 2003), a discussion of the 367 http://www.urbanaudit.org/
Chapter 7. European urban system 298 hierarchy of the European urban system in terms of Metropolitan European Growth Areas (MEGA) developed through European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON) (ESPON, 2004) and finally parallel research carried out by Peter Hall in the context of ESPON as well (Hall, 2005).
Chapter 7. European urban system 299 7.1. Les Villes Européennes The RECLUS/DATAR study (Brunet, 1989) was one of the first to take a transnational approach to the study of European cities. It drew upon a typology of some 165 European urban agglomerations (see Figure 7.3), based upon a number of different variables. Figure 7.3. Spatial distribution of the 165 urban agglomerations of the sample368 These variables included population; population growth; the presence of multinational firms; infrastructures and technological activities; engineers and technicians; research; university functions; financial services; airport traffic; ports; cultural projection; trade fairs; conferences; publishing and printing; telecommunications; and specialised functions. Other sectoral classifications were taken into consideration, covering aspects related to international relations, communications, economic potential, research and technology and cultural functions. The agglomerations were all ranked in terms of their performance on these variables with the identification of some 8 classes (see Table - these were led by London (83) and Paris (81) in the first class; Milan (70) in the second class; and Madrid (66), Munich (65), Frankfurt (65), Rome (64), Brussels (64) Barcelona (64) and Amsterdam (63) in the third class369. 368 Brunet (1989) 369 Curiously Schacar (1996) suggests that “apart from the inclusion of the Spanish cities (Madrid and Barcelona) and Rome, the rest of the list fits quite well with other studies undertaken in terms of the upper echelon of the European urban hierarchy”. (p. 157)
Chapter 7. European urban system 300 Classes and cities Score Class 1 London Paris 83 81 Class 2 Milan 70 Class 3 Madrid Munich, Frankfurt Rome, Brussels, Barcelona Amsterdam 66 65 64 63 Class 4 Manchester Berlin, Hamburg Stuttgart, Copenhagen, Athens Rotterdam and Zurich Turin Lyon Geneva 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 Class 5 Birmingham, Cologne, Lisbon Glasgow Vienna, Edinburgh Marseille Naples Seville, Strasburg Basel, Venice, Utrecht Düsseldorf, Florence, Bologna, The Hague, Ambers, Toulouse Valencia, Genoa 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 Class 6 Bonn Lyle, Nice Bristol, Bordeaux, Hanover, Grenoble Montpellier, Nantes, Dublin, Porto Nuremburg, Eindhoven, Bilbao Palermo, Bari, Mannheim Liege, Leeds, Rennes Trieste, Essen 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 Class 7 Saragossa, Maguncia-Wiesbaden Liverpool, Southampton, Newcastle, Thessalonica, Tarentom Berne, Nancy, Lausanne Karlseruhe, Bremen, Gant, Rouen Málaga, Padua, Cagliari, Arnhem Cardiff, Munster, Brunswick, Metz, Palma Augsberg Angers, Verona, Dortmund, Aix en Provence, Nijmegen, Orleans, Clermont Cadiz, Catania, Parma, Groninga, Reims Las Palmas, Valladolid, Granada, Bochum, Tours 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 Class 8 Sarrebruck, Belfast, Vigo, Tarragona, Saint-Etienne Cordoba, Murcia, Coventry, Alicante, Messina, Odense, Modena, Kiel, Aarhus, Kassel, Duisburg, Haarlem, Havre, Santa Cruz Plymouth, Nottingham, Linz, Graz, Freiburg-Br., Wupperthal, Tiburg Aberdeen, San Sebastian, Caen, Reggio, Brescia, Bielfield, Enschede, Dijon, Sheffield Brest, Santander, Teesdie, Hull, Pamplona, Livorno, Cannes, Amiens, Dordrecht La Coruña, Oviedo, Leicester, Lubeck, Valenciennes Le Mans, Lens, Gijon Stoke-on-Trent, Charleroi, Mönchen Gladbach 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 Table 7.1. Values obtained for the 165 agglomerations of the study370 370 Brunet (1989)
Chapter 7. European urban system 301 Figure 7.4. Overall scoring of the 165 agglomerations of the sample371 However apart from the interest in the ordering or hierarchy of the urban agglomerations, the RECLUS/DATAR study was influential in identifying transnational regional spaces of importance within the European urban system. The everlasting image from Brunet’s study was the identification of the dorsal extending from London and extending over the BENELUX countries, Germany and Northern Italy. The spatial metaphor of the dorsal or megalopolis was affectionately encapsulated as a blue banana (see Figure 7.5), characterising the highest concentration of urban and economic development within Europe. This interpretation of the European territory was subsequently countered by researchers from the University of Dortmund through the alternative spatial metaphor of Europe characterised as a “bunch of grapes” (see Figure 7.6) (Kunzman and Wegener, 1991) denoting the more evenly spread concentrations and potentials for development. 371 Brunet (1989)
Chapter 7. European urban system 302 Figure 7.5. Transnational territorial divisions deriving from the analysis of the 165 agglomerations372 Figure 7.6. The bunch of grapes spatial metaphor of European territory373 372 Brunet (1989) 373 Kunzman and Wegener (1991)
Chapter 7. European urban system 303 Another important transnational regional space identified within the RECLUS/DATAR study was the Mediterranean Arc. This contains large cities and intersects with the dorsal or Megalopolis in the triangle formed between Turin – Genoa – Milan. The large poles of existing and potential development were Valencia and Barcelona in Spain; the Rhone delta around Marseille in France; and the north-east of Italy in Emilio Romany and Venetia. Indeed the identification of this transnational geographical area can be seen as a precursor of the INTERREG IIIB regional space of ‘transnational cooperation’ (Western Mediterranean)374. Figure 7.7. Schematic representation of the Mediterranean Arc extending from Spain to Italy375 The interpretation of the spatial configuration of the Iberian Peninsula (Figure 7.8) placed Madrid at the centre, connected to the six large urban agglomerations spaced regularly around the periphery: Barcelona, Valencia, Lisbon, Porto and Bilbao. It also identified the connectability between the Iberian Peninsula with the European Megalopolis through Barcelona, and with Africa through Sevilla. It merits mentioning in passing that the connectability with Africa was one of the future challenges identified for Sevilla and Málaga, as “gateway cities”, within the UPC’s INTERREG IIC report (UPC, 2001), reflecting the importance attached to these within the Plan de Ordenación Territorial de Andalucía 376 (Junta de Andalucía, 1999). 374 Prior to this the European Commssion attributed special attention to the ‘Western Mediterranean’ section of this Mediterranean Arc in Europe 2000+ (CEC, 1994); as well as in the Estudios Prospectivos de la regions del Mediterráneo oeste (CEC, 1995). 375 Brunet (1989) 376 “(…) esta tiene como vocación incrementar relaciones de interdependencia entre el norte y el sur, por su carácter de puente, por las ventajas comparativas con que cuenta para participar directamente en estrategias de cooperación para el desarrollo común: existencia de rasgos territoriales, económicos y ambientales afines, disponibilidad de desarrollos tecnológicos adaptables a las economías en vías de desarrollo entre otras.” (Junta de Andalucía, 1999, p. 46).
Chapter 7. European urban system 310 Figure 7.9. The GaWC Inventory of World Cities385 385 Beaverstock, et. al. (1999)
Chapter 7. European urban system 311 7.3. Les villes européennes , ‘revisited’ A revision of the DATAR/RECLUS study was published in 2003, but this time covering some 180 agglomerations throughout an expanded Europe (Rozenblat and Cicille, 2003). (See Figure 7.10) The variables chosen for the ordering of the agglomerations this time included population (2000); population growth (1950-1990); maritime port traffic (1999); passenger airport traffic (2001); accessibility; headquarters of large European firms; financial services; tourism (overnight accommodation); trade fairs; conferences; museums; cultural facilities and heritage; students; scientific publications; and research. This led to the scoring and subsequent ordering of the cities as indicated by Figure 7.11 and Table 7.11. The classification of the cities resulted in the identification of some seven classes of cities: Class 1: Metropolises of world ranking Class 2: Major European metropolises Class 3: European metropolises Class 4: Large cities of European importance Class 5: Large potentially European cities Class 6: Cities of asserted national importance Class 7: Other cities of national importance According to this assessment, Madrid was classified as a major European metropolis, lying in 3rd position after Paris and London, and ahead of Amsterdam and Milan in the same category. Barcelona appeared as a European metropolis, lying in the same position as Berlin and Rome, and in the same category as Brussels and Vienna, Munich and Stockholm, and Lisbon. The ‘large cities of European importance’ category did not contain any one of the Spanish cities. Valencia Bilbao, Sevilla and Málaga all appeared in the category of ‘large potentially European cities’, while Zaragoza lay within the category of cities of a greater national importance. The overall study reaffirmed the dominance of the European urban system by Paris and London, in that order, as well as the concentration of development along the route of the dorsal, or blue banana, as demonstrated by the DATAR/RECLUS study in 1989 (Brunet, 1989).
Chapter 7. European urban system 312 Figure 7.10. Spatial distribution of the 180 urban agglomerations of the sample386 Figure 7.11. Overall scoring of the 180 agglomerations of the sample387 386 Rozenblat and Cicille (2003) 387 Rozenblat and Cicille (2003)
Chapter 7. European urban system 313 Class and cities Score Class 1: Metropolises of world ranking Paris London 81 76 Class 2: Major European metropolises Madrid Amsterdam Milan 62 59 57 Class 3: European metropolises Barcelona Berlin, Rome Brussels, Vienna Munich, Stockholm Lisbon 55 53 52 51 Class 4: Large cities of European importance Athens, Cologne Copenhagen Dublin, Lyon Frankfurt Düsseldorf, Helsinki, Zurich Florence, Hamburg, Marseille Geneva, Oslo Toulouse 50 49 47 46 45 44 43 42 Class 5: Large potentially European cities Naples, Rotterdam, Stuttgart Bologna Edinburgh, Turin Birmingham, Manchester, Strasburg, Valencia Ambers, Bilbao, Bordeaux, Essen, Lille, Nice, Seville Basel, Glasgow, Gothenburg, Montpellier, Nuremburg Hanover, Luxembourg, Venice Leeds, Nantes, Porto, Salonique Grenade, Palma de Mallorca, Utrecht Grenoble, Málaga 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 Class 6: Cities of asserted national importance Cannes, Rennes, Salzburg, Verona Alicante, Bari, Genes, Trieste Dresden, The Hague, Munster, Nancy, Saragossa Breme, Bristol, Dijon, Grand, Gijon, Leipzig, Padua, Pamplona, Rouen Aix-la-Chapelle, Angers, Cadiz, Clermont-Ferrand, Eindhoven, Lausanne, Mulhouse, Palermo, Southampton, Tarragona, Wiesbaden Bern, Brest, Cagliari, Fribourg, Graz, Liverpool 30 29 28 27 26 25 Class 7: Other cities of national importance Belfast, Cardiff, Catane, Cordue, Karlsruhe, Leiden, Luton, Malmo, Mannheim, Rostock, San Sebastian, Santander, Tampere, Tours, Valladolod, Vigo Brunswick, Coventrty, Darmstadt, Liege, Metz, Newcastle-upon Tyne, Nottingham, Reims, Touloun, Turku, Vitoria-Gasteiz Brescia, La Coruña, Murcia Augsburg, Bergame, Bielfield, Bournemouth, Brighton, Halle, La Havre, Leicester, Lübeck, Messine, Orleans, Portsmouth, Salerne, Tarente Aldershot, Arnhem, Carrare, Charleroi, Enschede, Kassel, Kiel, Linz, Nijmegen, Osnabruck Blackpool, Breda, Coblence, Haarlem, Heerlen, Saint-Etienne, Sarrebruck, Sheffield, Swansea Casert, Kingston, Middlesborough, Preston, Southend-on –Sea Chatham, Chemnitz, Derby, Erfurt, Magdebourg, Plymouth, Stock-on Trent, Valenciennes, Bethune, Lens, Mons 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 Table 7.7. Values obtained for the 180 urban agglomerations of the study388 388 Rozenblat and Cicille (2003)
Chapter 7. European urban system 314 However the study also recognised the growing importance of cities such as Berlin, Munich and Vienna, which seemed to have benefited from the new European geography and the relations with the former Central and Eastern European countries. In a similar way, there was clear evidence of the emergence of a more multi-polar European urban system, to the south (Rome, Milan, Barcelona, Madrid and Lisbon) and to the north in Scandinavia. What was also clearly evident was a better positioning of metropolitan cities lying within the peripheral regions, such as Dublin, Oslo and Athens (Rozenblat and Cicille, 2003).
Chapter 7. European urban system 315 7.4. Metropolitan European Growth Areas (MEGAs) It is suggested that the most up to date analysis proportioning a robust and comprehensive understanding of the European urban system at all spatial levels i.e. the level of the metropolitan urban regions, and the level of the medium-sized cities and smaller towns, is that which has been carried out within the context of the European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON) aimed at examining the ‘Potentials for polycentric development in Europe’ (EPSON, 2004). As will be recalled from Chapter 6 ( European spatial policy ) the existing spatial policy of the EU is aimed at countering the hitherto monocentrical concentration of economic development within the regions of the Pentagon, by stimulating the economic development of the regions lying outside the Pentagon in order to contribute to their becoming global integration zones. The argument from Brussels is that a more polycentric development structure, aligned to the ‘bunch of grapes’ (Kunzman and Wegener, 1991) spatial metaphor, reflecting a number of strong urban regions of European and global significance will contribute to the achievement of Europe’s economic competitiveness (c.f. Lisbon and Gothenburg Strategies) as well as territorial cohesion throughout Europe. In order to systematically explore the specific location of the regional potential for encouraging such polycentrism on a wide European scale, the ESPON study first developed the concept of the Functional Urban Area (FUA) (ESPON, 2004). A Functional Urban Area comprises a central urban core and a surrounding area of influence through commuting389. The central urban core requires a population of at least 15,000 persons. In the larger countries of the EU27+2 grouping390, the commuting catchment area required a population of 50,000 persons, while in smaller countries this threshold was lower, standing at 20,000 persons. (See Figure 7.12) A total of 1,595 FUAs were identified across the EU27+2 set of countries, which were examined on the basis of population (population exceeding 50,000 inhabitants), transport (an airport with more than 50,000 passengers in 2000 or a port with more than 20,000 TEU container traffic in 2001), knowledge (main location of universities and number of students), decision making (number of headquarters of top European firms), manufacturing (gross value added in industry in 2000), tourism (number of hotel beds or similar establishments in 2001) and administration (based upon the national administrative systems, cities that are the administrative seat of the different levels of public 389 This catchment area was taken to be the spatial extension which could be reached within a travelling time of 45 minutes by car. See Annex D (Morphological analysis of urban areas based on 45-minutes isochrones) of the Final Report (ESPON, 2004) for a full explanation of the methodology followed to reach the corresponding catchment areas.
Chapter 7. European urban system 316 administration – national capitals, provincial or regional centres, etc.). Those FUAs with the highest score on the first of these seven indicators were classified as Metropolitan European Growth Areas (MEGAs). The remaining FUAs were categorised as Transnational/national FUAs or Regional FUAs . (See Figure 7.13) In the case of Spain 6 MEGAs were identified (Barcelona, Bilbao, Madrid, Sevilla, Palma de Mallorca and Valencia). Figure 7.12. Population intervals of the Functional Urban Areas391 A further analysis of the MEGAs was then carried out with their being allocated a score on four factors: i) mass criterion (population and GDP); ii) competitiveness (GDP per capita and headquarters of 500 top European companies); iii) connectivity (air transport and accessibility); and iv) knowledge base (education level and proportion of total employ in R+D). 390 Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Finland, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Rumania (EU27) and Norway and Switzerland. 391 Interim Territorial Cohesion Report (CEC, 2004a)
Chapter 7. European urban system 317 Figure 7.13. Typology of the Functional Urban Areas392 The overall performance of the MEGAs on these four criteria resulted in their being ordered into five groupings: i) global nodes 393, which are the largest and most competitive urban systems with high connectivity; ii) European engines 394, so named for their being large and highly competitive, possessing strong human capital with good accessibility; iii) strong MEGAs 395, representing relatively large and competitive cities, often with strong human capital; iv) potential MEGAs 396 representing smaller cities, with lower competitiveness, being more peripheral and often with weaker human capital than the strong MEGAs; and finally v) the weak MEGAs 397, smaller, less competitive, more peripheral and having lower human capital figures than the potential MEGAs. The ordering of the MEGAs with their respective scores is indicated in Table 7.8 with their spatial distribution illustrated in Figure 7.14. 392 Interim Territorial Cohesion Report (CEC, 2004a) 393 Paris and London 394 Munich, Frankfurt, Madrid, Buuxelles, Milano, Roma, Hamburg, Kobenhavn, Zurich, Amsterdam, Berlin, Stockholm, Stuttgart, Barcelona, Düsseldorf, Wien and Köln. 395 Helsinki, Oslo, Athens, Greater Manchester, Dublín, Goteborg, Torino and Geneve, 396 Lyon, Antwerp, Lisboa, Rótterdam, Malmo, Marseille, Lille, Nice, Napoli, Bern, Praha, Glasgow, Bremen, Toulouse, Warsawa, Budapest, Aarhus, Edinburgh, Bergen, Birmingham, Bilbao, Valencia, Luxembourg, Bologna and Palma de Mallorca. 397 Bratislava, Turku, Cork, Bordeaux, Le Havre, Genova, Bucuresti, Tallinn, Sofia, Southampton, Sevilla, Porto, Krakow, Vilnius, Ljublijana, Riga, Katowice, Gdansk-Gdynia-Sopo, Poznan, Wroclaw, Lodz, Valletta, Szczecin and Timosoara.
Chapter 7. European urban system 318 Category Metropolitan urban regions and cities Global nodes (2) Paris (16) (*) and London (15)(*) European engines (17) Munich (15) (*), Frankfurt (13) (*), Madrid (13), Brussels (12) (*), Milan (12) (*), Rome (12), Hamburg (12) (*), Copenhagen (12), Zurich (12) (*), Amsterdam (11) (*), Berlin (11), Stockholm (11), Stuttgart (11) (*), Barcelona (10), Düsseldorf (10) (*), Vienna(10) and Cologne (10) (*) Strong MEGAs (8) Helsinki (9), Oslo (9), Athens(9), Manchester (8), Dublin (7), Gothenburg (7), Torino (7) and Geneva (7) Potential MEGAs (25) Lyon (6), Antwerp (6), Lisbon (6), Rotterdam (6), Malmö (6), Marseille (6), Lille (6), Nice (6), Naples (6), Bern (6), Prague (5), Glasgow (5), Bremen (5), Toulouse (5), Warsaw (5), Budapest (5), Aarhus (5), Edinburgh (5), Bergen (5), Birmingham (5), Bilbao (5), Valencia (5), Luxembourg (5), Bologna (5) and Palma de Mallorca (5) Weak MEGAs (24) Bratislava (5), Turku (4), Cork (4), Bordeaux (4), Le Havre (4), Genoa (4), Bucharest (4),Tallinn (3), Sofia (3), Southampton (3), Seville (3), Porto (3), Krakow (3), Vilnius (3), Ljubljana (3), Riga (3), Katowice (2), Gdansk-GdyniaSopo (2), Poznan (2), Wroklaw (2), Lodz (2), Valetta (2), Szczecin (1) and Timisoara (1) Table 7.8. Classification of the 76 MEGAs. Number in parenthesis indicates the composite score on the four factors of mass, competitiveness, connectivity and knowledge. Cities marked with (*) lie within the spatial limits of the central ‘pentagon’.398 The highest ranking MEGAs ( global nodes and European engines ) tend to be located within the pentagon area – Paris, London, Munchen, Frankfurt, Milano, Hamburg, Bruxelles, Stuttgart, Zurich, Amsterdam, Düsseldorf and Köln, with just Madrid, Roma, Kobenhavn, Berlin, Barcelona, Stockholm and Wien all lying outside this area. (See Figure 7.14) Notwithstanding this, one of the results of this study was the recommendation that the spatial extent of the European ‘pentagon’ is in fact larger than that traditionally referred to as lying between London, Paris, Milan, Munich and Hamburg. Rather the study suggests that the territorial area lying between Manchester, Paris, Genoa, Venice and Berlin provides a more accurate representation of this European central area. Taking into consideration the MEGAs with their corresponding adjoining FUAs, a number of possible polycentric counterweights to the urban systems of the pentagon area were identified. In Spain these included Madrid, Barcelona (with Tarragona), Valencia (with Castellon de la Plana), Alicante (with Murcia) and Sevilla (with Cadiz). 398 EPSON (2004)
Chapter 7. European urban system 319 Figure 7.14. Spatial distribution of the MEGAs indicating the potential main nodes outside the pentagon399 399 CEC (2004a) p.22
Chapter 7. European urban system 326
327 CHAPTER 8. - EUROPEAN SPACE OF AIR PASSENGER FLOWS402 Introduction Following the evolution of European spatial policy and the analysis of the cities constituting the European metropolitan hierarchy in the two previous chapters, this current chapter sets out to proportion quantitative evidence to support the hypothesis of a gradual (re)positioning of the Spanish metropolitan urban regions within this urban system. Therefore the focus of the chapter is on the dynamics between these metropolitan centres, rather than searching for the elaboration of some form of hierarchy of these centres based upon (a) single or multiple attribute(s), as was the approach adopted in the majority of the hierarchies referred to in Chapter 7. The quantitative analysis adopted for this purpose takes inspiration from the concept of ‘space of flows’ and ‘network society’, proposed by Manuel Castells, in the context of the changes resulting from the informational and technological revolution, and the new industrial space and the new service economy (Castells, 1989, 1996). According to Castells, contemporary society is ‘constructed around flows: flows of capital, flows of information, flows of technology, flows of organisational interaction, flows of images, sounds and symbols.’ Furthermore such flows are ‘the expression of processes dominating our economic, political and symbolic life’ (Castells, 1996, p.412). If such an approach is to be adopted to ascertain the nature of the relations between the European metropolitan urban regions, the considerations that need to be addressed relate to a) the choice of the flows that can realistically be examined, and b) the selection of the said metropolitan urban regions, in order to proportion results capable of reflecting these relations. In dealing with this first issue, there is an extensive literature relating to the use of air passenger flows in order to evaluate the concept of World (and European) City Networks (Cattan, 1995; Derudder and Witlox, 2005; Guimerà, et. al. 2005; Keeling, 1995; Smith and Timberlake, 1995a, 1995b, 2001 and 2002, and Timberlake and Ma, 402 A first version of the results outlined in this Chapter (Burns, Roca and Moix, 2007) were presented at the 2007 Meeting of the Association of American Geographers , which took place in San Francisco, 17-21 April 2007, while a second version (Burns, Roca and Moix, 2008) appears in a special issue of GeoJournal , on ‘Airline networks and urban systems’.
Chapter 8. European space of air passenger flows 328 2007). Other writers have used air passenger flows as a means of determining different aspects of urban economic development and labour markets (Alkaabi and Debbage, 2007; Breuckner, 2003, Debbage, 1999; Debbage and Dalk, 2001; and Liu et. al., 2007). Keeling (1995) suggests the connections between world cities and other principal cities of similar, superior or in inferior importance , as well as connections with different urban and rural centres at different territorial scales are facilitated principally through air transport, telecommunications circuits and non-voice data transfer systems. The most appropriate indication of the role of transport within the world city system derives from the following key considerations: (1) Global airline flows represent one of the few indices available of transactional flows or inter-urban connectivity; (2) Air networks together with their associated infrastructure are the most visible manifestation of world city interaction; (3) Considerable demand still exists for face-to-face relationships, despite the global telecommunications revolution; (4) Air transport is the preferred mode of intercity movement for the transnational capitalist class, migrants, tourists and high-value goods; and finally (5) Airline links form an important component of a city’s aspirations to world city status. It is considered that the interpretation of the air passenger flows, between the different European metropolitan urban regions fits appropriately within the notion of a ‘space of flows’. It is suggested that the evaluation of these flows to determine the degree of interaction between the metropolitan centres and the resulting relations can contribute to another understanding of the European spatial territory, which goes beyond that deriving from a straightforward analysis of the urban system in terms of the geographical position of the cities. Turning attention to the selection of the metropolitan urban regions for the sample, it will be recalled from Chapter 7 (European urban system) that the ESPON studies, carried out in the context of the INTERREG III Community Initiative, have produced the most up to date results through taking a transnational comparative approach to determining the nature and characteristics of the contemporary European urban system. For this reason it is considered wholly appropriate that the selection should derive in the main from the classification of the upper echelons of the Metropolitan European Growth Areas (MEGA). Therefore the sample comprises some 28 cities,
Chapter 8. European space of air passenger flows 329 belonging principally to the global nodes and European engine classes of the MEGAs of the EU15+2403 urban system404. All the countries of the EU15+2 countries are represented. The spatial extent and geographical positioning of the cities in the sample is illustrated in Figure 8.1. It is important to bear this geographical positioning in mind, in its most abstract sense, as this will be built upon progressively throughout the development of this chapter, in the absence of the more familiar and traditional cartographic base. Figure 8.1. Spatial (geographical) distribution of the 28 European metropolitan urban regions A ‘network analysis’ methodology is adopted in order to come to a clear and succinct understanding of the nature of the air passenger flows. Several indicators are used, deriving from gravitational modelling techniques, to analyse the complexity of the flows between these cities within the European metropolitan system. Finally a mathematical technique of multidimensional scaling is drawn upon, in order to interpret and visualise 403 EU15+2 = Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, United Kingdom, Denmark, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Finland, Sweden; and Norway and Switzerland. 404 Paris, London, Munich, Frankfurt, Madrid, Brussels, Milan, Rome, Hamburg, Copenhagen, Zurich, Amsterdam, Berlin, Stockholm, Stuttgart, Barcelona, Düsseldorf, Vienna, and Cologne/Bonn, Helsinki, Oslo, Athens, Greater Manchester, Dublin, Gothenburg and Geneva, as well as Lisbon and Luxembourg, given there capital city status within the EU15 grouping.
Chapter 8. European space of air passenger flows 330 the resulting spatial configuration and the positioning of the different cities within the conceptual European ‘space of air passenger flows’. Such a vision contrasts with the more traditional map-based geographical image of Europe, based upon Cartesian coordinates, permitting the comparison between the functional and physical proximity of the cities of the sample to the respective centres of gravity.
Chapter 8. European space of air passenger flows 331 8.1. Network analysis In proposing a spatial order of European cities in the context of globalisation, Taylor and Hoyler (2000) acknowledge that such cities form part of the wider World City Network, drawing upon Castells (1993) and the notion of their forming ‘nodal centres of the new global economy’ (Castells, 1993, p.250). For Smith and Timberlake (2002) as well, world cities represent nodes in ‘multiple networks of economic, social, demographic and informational flows’ (p. 118). An approach of this nature enables them to conceptualise these world cities in relational terms, which leads on to consider ‘mapping cities in terms of their structural relationships to one another’ (Smith and Timberlake, 2002, p. 118). For these authors: “Quantitative network analysis is particularly well suited to the networktheoretical imagery on which both world-system analysis and the literature on global cities rely. In principle, network methodology allows us to simultaneously analyse multiple patterns of flows, exchanges, or linkages between cities (or other nodes) for the purpose of illuminating the patterning of connections between them as well as the structure of the entire network. It is a powerful tool uncovering the structure of the global flows of people, commodities, capital, information, and more. It is a rigorous way to operationalise theoretical conceptions about the world economy and the global city system.” Cities area linked through economic, political, cultural and social reproductive exchanges, and these take many forms. Broadly, “the stuff” that flows among cities must be human, other material, or communication. Everything we can think of that moves from city to city can be classified in the matrix defined by these two typologies” (Smith and Timberlake, 2002, p.119). One of the limitations in carrying out a network analysis technique to understand an urban system rests in the complex data requirement. Since network analysis concerns relations, the data must itself be a measure of relations. The availability of appropriate data is therefore a crucial consideration. Another such limitation is that data must be available for every city or location in the system. Smith and Timberlake (2002) suggest that ‘the data requirements can best be understood as an in-flow/out-flow matrix’ with ‘a measure of the relationship between each city pair in the network’, and that ‘formal network analysis on the international city system must be based on a thorough compilation of relational data among all possible pairs of cities to be included in the analysis’ (p. 121).
Chapter 8. European space of air passenger flows 332 Derudder and Witlox (2005) are critical of analyses of airline data of area subsets in the context of World City Networks. They argue that while ‘the notion that there is a European or an Asian ‘system of cities’ or ‘urban hierarchy’ may initially seem an attractive idea because it appears to provide a coherent subset of cities to study within a regional context’ (p. 2,379) in the end ‘depicting the patterns of intercity relations within the Asia-pacific region and Europe is only the first step in understanding how these cities operate as world cities. Simply invoking the concept of the world city means that we must extend our vision beyond these area subsets’ (p. 2,380). While Cattan’s (1995) research drew upon gravity modelling techniques to examine the attractivity and international hierarchy of European airports, the content of this present chapter is more concerned with the relations between the principal airports of the previously described European subsystem comprising 28 metropolitan urban regions. As seen in Chapter 7, through the Lisbon (2000) and Gothenburg (2001) Strategies (CEC, 2000 and 2001b), as well as the revitalisation of the Lisbon Agenda (2005) (CEC, 2005), European policy is directed towards fulfilling the challenge of strong European competitiveness at the international level. As a consequence the analogy to the network-analytical framework used in World City Network Analysis, and applied to this European space comprising the EU15+2 grouping of countries, is considered justified.
Chapter 8. European space of air passenger flows 333 8.2. Air passenger data sources The first objective of the network analysis application comprised the construction of a ( 28 × 28 ) in-flow/out-flow or origin-destination matrix of passenger flows, providing data for the 784 city pairs of the European metropolitan urban region space. DESTINATION 1, 2, 3, . . . 28 ORIGIN 1, 2, 3, . . . 28 Table 8.1. Outline of the origin-destination matrix for the 28 sample cities These flows were taken from publicly available EUROSTAT transportation data405 for 2004, on the basis of being the most recent year for which such data was available for all of the 28 cities in the sample406. In the cases of Berlin, Paris, Milan, Rome and London, multiple airport combinations were used, given that these cities are served by more than one principal airport. The full list of the airports drawn upon for the 28 cities is contained in Table 8.2. The EUROSTAT database contains data for detailed air passenger flows between airport pairs407. The exploitation of this data source proportioned detailed passenger flows for some 572 of the possible 756 combinations408. The values of the flows were arrived at by taking the median value of a) the departure flow from one airport to another and b) the arrival flow at the destination airport from the airport of origin. In a number of cases only one such value - the departure flow from one airport to another or the arrival flow at the destination airport from the airport of origin - was available. The matrix of these real flows is contained in Technical Annex 1 at the end of this chapter. 405 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu 406 Other data sources such as the ICAO were considered but were rejected on the basis of not being complete for the sample of 28 cities and appearing to be restricted to returns from a limited number of airlines operating from the airports in question. 407 <<Transport <<Air transport <<Air transport measurement <<Detailed air passenger transport by reporting country and routes <<Air passenger transport between the main airports of reporting country and their main partner airports 408 While the matrix contains some (n × n) cells, the maximum number of possible combinations[(n × n) – n], on the basis of the values of the diagonal being zero. No passengers depart from and arrive at the same airport. Even in the case of London, with multiple airports, no data was found relating to passenger flows of this nature. Therefore after subtracting the 28 diagonal combinations registering zero, the 784 theoretical combinations was reduced in practical terms to 756 possible origin-destination combinations.
Chapter 8. European space of air passenger flows 334 Case City Corresponding airport(s) 1 Vienna at_loww WIEN/SCHWECHAT airport 2 Brussels be_ebbr BRUXELLES/NATIONAL airport 3 Geneva ch_lsgg GENEVE/COINTRIN airport 4 Zurich ch_lszh ZURICH airport 5 Frankfurt de_eddf FRANKFURT/MAIN airport 6 Hamburg de_eddh HAMBURG airport 7 Cologne/Bonn de_eddk KÖLN/BONN airport 8 Düsseldorf de_eddl DÜSSELDORF airport 9 Munich de_eddm MUNCHEN airport 10 Stuttgart de_edds STUTTGART airport 11 Berlin de_eddt BERLIN-TEGEL airport de_eddi BERLIN-TEMPELHOF airport de_eddb BERLIN-SCHONEFELD airport 12 Copenhagen dk_ekch KOBENHAVN/KASTRUP airport 13 Barcelona es_lebl BARCELONA airport 14 Madrid es_lemd MADRID/BARAJAS airport 15 Helsinki fi_efhk HELSINKI-VANTAA airport 16 Paris fr_lfpg PARIS/CHARLES-DE-GAULLE airport fr_lfpo PARIS/ORLY airport 17 Athens gr_lgav ATHENS airport 18 Dublin ie_eidw DUBLIN airport 19 Milan it_liml MILANO/LINATE airport it_limc MILANO/MALPENSA airport 20 Rome it_lirf ROMA/FIUMICINO airport it_lira ROMA/CAMPINO 21 Luxembourg lu_ellx LUXEMBOURG/LUXEMBOURG airport 22 Amsterdam nl_eham AMSTERDAM/SCHIPHOL airport 23 Oslo no_engm OSLO/GARDERMOEN airport 24 Lisbon pt_lppt LISBOA airport 25 Gothenburg se_esgg GOTEBORG/LANDVETTER airport 26 Stockholm se_essa STOCKHOLM/ARLANDA airport 27 Manchester uk_egcc MANCHESTER/INTL airport 28 London uk_eggw LONDON LUTON airport uk_egkk LONDON/GATWICK airport uk_eglc - LONDON CITY airport uk_egll LONDON/HEATHROW airport uk_egss LONDON/STANSTED airport Table 8.2. International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) airport codes for the 28 cities409 Smith and Timberlake (1995) recognise the requirement for all cells of a matrix to be filled in network analysis. The difference between the maximum number of airport combinations and the combinations for which detailed passenger flows were obtained from the EUROSTAT data source, i.e. the 184 pale shaded cells of Technical Annex 1410, was overcome by making an estimation of the passenger flows between the 409 http://www.airport-technology.com/icao-codes/M.html (consulted 05.03.2006) 410 The full list of these city-pair combinations is as follows: Oslo-Vienna; Lisbon-Vienna; Gothenburg-Vienna; Manchester–Vienna; Cologne/Bonn-Brussels; Düsseldorf-Brussels; Stuttgart-Brussels; Berlin-Brussels; LuxembourgBrussels; Hamburg-Geneva; Cologne/Bonn-Geneva; Düsseldorf-Geneva; Stuttgart-Geneva; Berlin-Geneva; StuttgartZurich; Oslo-Zurich; Gothenburg-Zurich; Geneva-Hamburg; Berlin-Hamburg; Madrid-Hamburg; Athens-Hamburg; Dublin-Hamburg; Milan-Hamburg; Rome-Hamburg; Luxembourg-Hamburg; Oslo-Hamburg; Lisbon-Hamburg; Gothenburg-Hamburg; Stockholm-Hamburg; Manchester-Hamburg; Brussels-Cologne/Bonn; Geneva-Cologne/Bonn; Düsseldorf-Cologne/Bonn; Stuttgart-Cologne/Bonn; Copenhagen-Cologne/Bonn; Helsinki-Cologne/Bonn; AthensCologne/Bonn; Dublin-Cologne/Bonn; Luxembourg-Cologne/Bonn; Amsterdam-Cologne/Bonn; Oslo--Cologne/Bonn; Lisbon-Cologne/Bonn; Gothenburg-Cologne/Bonn; Stockholm-Cologne/Bonn; Manchester-Cologne/Bonn; BrusselsDüsseldorf; Geneva-Düsseldorf; Cologne/Bonn-Düsseldorf; Luxembourg-Düsseldorf; Oslo-Düsseldorf; Lisbon-
Chapter 8. European space of air passenger flows 335 airport pairs, based upon complementary data contained within the same EUROSTAT database411. For example, while Lisbon is not a principal airport pair for Berlin, and Berlin is not a principal airport pair for Lisbon, clearly there are passenger flows between the two airports within the European air passenger system. EUROSTAT data provides detailed information of the total number of passengers departing from one EU country to another, broken down to the departures from the individual airports of the country of origin. In the same way it provides detailed information of the total number of passengers arriving in one EU country from another, broken down to the arrivals at the individual airports of the country of arrival. Therefore the absolute and proportional values of passengers leaving any one of the 28 cities of the sample with another country as their destination can be ascertained. Similarly the passengers arriving in one country from another is available and is broken down in terms of the arrival airport, again in absolute and proportional terms. In the case of Lisbon-Berlin, an estimation was able to be made of the passengers departing from Lisbon and arriving in Berlin was done by firstly ascertaining the passengers (absolute value) arriving in Berlin from Portugal and multiplying that value by the proportion of passengers departing for Germany from Lisbon (proportional value). This estimated value was contrasted with the number of passengers (absolute value) departing from Lisbon for Germany, multiplied by the proportion of passengers arriving in Berlin from Portugal (proportional value). The median value of these two calculations was taken as the value of the attraction of Berlin for Lisbon, in the absence Düsseldorf; Gothenburg-Düsseldorf; Stockholm-Düsseldorf; Luxembourg-Munich; Brussels-Stuttgart; Geneva-Stuttgart; Zurich-Stuttgart; Cologne/Bonn-Stuttgart; Helsinki-Stuttgart; Dublin-Stuttgart; Luxembourg-Stuttgart; Oslo-Stuttgart; Lisbon-Stuttgart; Gothenburg-Stuttgart; Stockholm-Stuttgart; Manchester-Stuttgart; Brussels-Berlin; Hamburg-Berlin; Athens Dublin-Berlin; Luxembourg-Berlin; Oslo-Berlin; Lisbon-Berlin; Gothenburg-Berlin; Stockholm-Berlin; ManchesterBerlin; Cologne/Bonn-Copenhagen; Athens-Barcelona; Luxembourg-Barcelona; Oslo-Barcelona; GothenburgBarcelona; Hamburg-Madrid; Helsinki-Madrid; Oslo-Madrid; Gothenburg-Madrid; Geneva-Helsinki; Cologne/BonnHelsinki; Stuttgart-Helsinki; Madrid-Helsinki; Athens-Helsinki; Dublin-Helsinki; Luxembourg-Helsinki; Lisbon-Helsinki; Hamburg-Athens; Cologne/Bonn-Athens; Barcelona-Athens; Helsinki-Athens; Dublin-Athens; Luxembourg-Athens; Oslo-Athens; Lisbon-Athens; Gothenburg-Athens; Stockholm-Athens; Manchester-Athens; Hamburg-Dublin; Cologne/Bonn-Dublin; Berlin-Dublin; Helsinki-Dublin; Athens-Dublin; Luxembourg-Dublin; Amsterdam-Dublin; OsloDublin; Lisbon-Dublin; Gothenburg-Dublin; Stockholm-Dublin; Geneva-Milan; Hamburg-Milan; Luxembourg-Milan; OsloMilan; Gothenburg-Milan; Stockholm-Milan; Hamburg-Rome; Oslo-Rome; Gothenburg-Rome; Brussels-Luxembourg; Cologne/Bonn-Luxembourg; Düsseldorf-Luxembourg; Munich-Luxembourg; Stuttgart-Luxembourg; Berlin-Luxembourg; Barcelona-Luxembourg; Helsinki-Luxembourg; Athens-Luxembourg; Dublin-Luxembourg; Milan-Luxembourg; OsloLuxembourg; Gothenburg-Luxembourg; Stockholm-Luxembourg; Vienna-Oslo; Geneva-Oslo; Zurich-Oslo; HamburgOslo; Cologne/Bonn-Oslo; Düsseldorf-Oslo; Stuttgart-Oslo; Berlin-Oslo; Barcelona-Oslo; Madrid-Oslo; Athens-Oslo; Dublin-Oslo; Milan-Oslo; Rome-Oslo; Luxembourg-Oslo; Lisbon-Oslo; Manchester-Oslo; Vienna-Lisbon; HamburgLisbon; Cologne/Bonn-Lisbon; Düsseldorf-Lisbon; Stuttgart-Lisbon; Berlin-Lisbon; Helsinki-Lisbon; Athens-Lisbon; Dublin-Lisbon; Oslo-Lisbon; Gothenburg-Lisbon; Stockholm-Lisbon; Manchester-Lisbon; Vienna-Gothenburg; GenevaGothenburg; Zurich-Gothenburg; Hamburg-Gothenburg; Cologne/Bonn-Gothenburg; Düsseldorf-Gothenburg; StuttgartGothenburg; Berlin-Gothenburg; Barcelona-Gothenburg; Madrid-Gothenburg; Athens-Gothenburg; Dublin-Gothenburg; Milan-Gothenburg; Rome-Gothenburg; Luxembourg-Gothenburg; Lisbon-Gothenburg; Geneva-Stockholm; HamburgStockholm; Cologne/Bonn-Stockholm; Düsseldorf-Stockholm; Stuttgart-Stockholm; Berlin-Stockholm; AthensStockholm; Dublin-Stockholm; Milan-Stockholm; Luxembourg-Stockholm; Lisbon-Stockholm; Manchester-Stockholm; Vienna-Manchester; Hamburg-Manchester; Stuttgart-Manchester; Berlin-Manchester; Athens-Manchester; OsloManchester; Lisbon-Manchester; Gothenburg-Manchester; and Stockholm-Manchester. 411 <<Transport <<Air transport <<Air transport measurement <<Overview of the air passenger transport by country and airports <<Air passenger transport between main airports in each reporting country and partner reporting countries
Chapter 8. European space of air passenger flows 342 ATTRACTION OF MADRID AS DESTINATION FOR AIR PASSENGERS ATTRACTION OF BARCELONA AS DESTINATION FOR AIR PASSENGERS AIRPORT OF ORIGIN PASSENGER FLOW RANKING PASSENGER FLOW AIRPORT OF ORIGIN Barcelona 1,996,411 1 2,073,196 Madrid Paris 830,007 2 866,474 London London 821,892 3 638,409 Paris Amsterdam 431,777 4 567,000 Amsterdam Rome 424,297 5 284,859 Frankfurt Milan 353,072 6 276,161 Milan Lisbon 339,468 7 263,039 Brussels Frankfurt 336,417 8 244,060 Rome Brussels 333,974 9 184,792 Geneva Munich 194,926 10 172,126 Munich Zurich 153,908 11 153,403 Lisbon Copenhagen 119,874 12 138,945 Düsseldorf Geneva 117,337 13 134,924 Zurich Düsseldorf 106,271 14 123,068 Copenhagen Athens 106,114 15 101,573 Manchester Dublin 96,897 16 93,723 Dublin Stockholm 79,608 17 92,174 Berlin Berlin 76,641 18 86,773 Stuttgart Vienna 72,242 19 67,354 Vienna Hamburg 56,230 20 49,740 Stockholm Manchester 47,218 21 45,127 Helsinki Cologne/Bonn 44,639 22 41,443 Cologne/Bonn Stuttgart 36,255 23 39,769 Hamburg Helsinki 36,222 24 32,184 Athens Luxembourg 24,636 25 16,849 Oslo Gothenburg 14,516 26 9,799 Gothenburg Oslo 10,001 27 9,665 Luxembourg Table 8.4. The attraction of Madrid and Barcelona as destinations for passengers arriving from the other 27 airports420 Figure 8.8. Gross passenger flows to MADRID (2004)421 420 EUROSTAT (own elaboration)
[Document text truncated for crawler view.]