1 / 15

GEMACA II The Functional Urban Regions What and why?

GEMACA II The Functional Urban Regions What and why?. What are they? Why define them Method What we can learn. Who likes NUTS?. The economy organises itself on economic regions International companies want access to communications; labour; infrastructure

tevin
Télécharger la présentation

GEMACA II The Functional Urban Regions What and why?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. GEMACA IIThe Functional Urban RegionsWhat and why? What are they? Why define them Method What we can learn

  2. Who likes NUTS? • The economy organises itself on economic regions • International companies want access to communications; labour; infrastructure • Property developers  property markets • Economic development  economic regions • Policy makers need valid comparative measures

  3. Multinationals in S E England? most important factor – access to Heathrow Dot.com clusters in Paris & London? most important factors – 1) access to public transport 2) high capacity internet connections Returns from property? Future expected rents: determined by economic conditions within economic region Regional prosperity? GDP per cap. But GDP measured at workplace People counted where the live  Self-containment …………………………………..

  4. Greater London Greater London 157.4 157.4 Inner London Inner London 250.6 250.6 Inner London -West Inner London -West 461.9 461.9 Inner London - East Inner London - East 129.1 129.1 Outer London Outer London 99.4 99.4 Outer London – East & North East Outer London – East & N. East 77.8 77.8 Outer London – South Outer London – South 95.3 95.3 Outer London – West & North West Outer London – W. & N. West 120.9 120.9 South East South East 116 116 GDP p.c. for different Londons 1998: EU15 = 100 source: REGIO source: REGIO

  5. Some NUTS are Cities……. • NUTS are an uneasy amalgam of national traditions: so are our national traditions…. • NUTS 1 = Länder, ZEAT, Groups of Comunidades Autónomas, Standard Regions…… • We have national conceptions of ‘City’: Stadt, Municipality, Agglomération….. But apply ‘agglomération’ to Belgium & just one city • No consistency: no comparability • In the USA (Standard) Metropolitan Statistical Areas • Data since 1940

  6. So what are Functional Urban Regions? • Concentrations of employment + spheres of economic influence defined by commuting • No uniquely right ‘rules’: GEMACA tried several: looked for consistency & comparability • Sets of contiguous units with 7+ jobs per ha & 20 000+ jobs = Core • Sets of units with 10% commuting to core = hinterland • ‘Enclaves’ & ‘Bridging’ • Total population 1 million+ • Monocentric & Polycentric FURs

  7. The Functional Urban Regions in N-W Europe

  8. The London FUR & NUTS

  9. The Paris FUR & NUTS

  10. 1991 Population GDP pc @ PPS %Change 1981-91 FUR NUTS FUR NUTS FUR-NUTS Bremen 1272 682 58.2 80.7 -22.5 Hamburg 2806 1645 64.2 84.7 -20.5 Ile de France /Paris 10624 10740 102.1 87.1 15.0 Brussel /Bruxelles 3399 960 73.4 92.9 -19.5 Greater London 8757 6871 114.0 95.2 18.8 The difference boundaries make: Some FURS which are also NUTS

  11. 1951* 1961* 1971* 1981* 1991* 1997* London Core % growth 6417.0 6134.7 -4.4 5593.9 -8.8 4902.6 -12.4 4639.2 -5.4 … Hinterland % growth 3384.1 3840.1 13.5 4186.1 9.0 4146.9 -0.9 4117.3 -0.7 … FUR % growth 9801.1 9974.8 1.8 9780.0 -2.0 9049.5 -7.5 8756.5 -3.2 9038.3 3.2 Paris Core % growth 6076.7 7358.2 21.1 8380.5 13.9 8332.3 -0.6 8574.5 2.9 … Hinterland % growth 728.7 843.8 15.8 1122.9 33.1 1740.7 55.0 2049.3 17.7 … FUR % growth 6805.5 8202.0 20.5 9503.3 15.9 10073.1 6.0 10623.8 5.5 10907.8 2.7 London & Paris: constant 1971 boundaries

  12. Population in 1991 '000s FUR71 GEMACA FUR91 Built-up Area London 7843.2 core 4639.2 6125.5 hinterland 4117.3 6393.8 FUR growth 1981-91% 8756.5 -3.2 12519.3 1.9 Paris 9516.3 core 8574.5 7898.0 hinterland 2049.3 3520.0 FUR growth 1982-90% 10623.8 5.5 11418.0 6.3 1971 to 1991 Paris grows & London expands

  13. FUR Year of observation Population (million) % of country London 1997 13.2 22 RheinRhur 1997 11.7 14 Paris 1999 11.8 21 Randstad 1998 6.8 44 RheinMain 1997 4.0 5 Brussel/Bruxelles 1999 3.7 36 Birmingham 1997 3.1 5 Manchester 1997 2.7 5 Dublin 1996 1.3 37 Lille 1999 1.9 N/A Glasgow 1997 1.8 3 Antwerpen 1999 1.5 15 Liverpool 1997 1.4 2 Edinburgh 1997 0.8 1 The GEMACA FURS of NW Europe

  14. Why we need functionally defined cities – II: urban development • In France –contiguous but compact  so functional approximates agglomération • Netherlands – protecting the ‘Green Heart’ • Britain – ‘urban containment’ leapfrogging to exurbia • Belgium – low density

  15. Conclusion • Economies & societies built out of FURs • NUTS are hugely varied: • Inner London, Bruxelles, Hamburg (but not Frankfurt!), Ile de France….. • But politicians represent them: & like them • Need FURs - even to compare size or prosperity • Certainly need FURs if we are to compare competitiveness: economic regions

More Related