Two main competing visions shape contemporary 

economies and societies: 

1) The vision of a low-carbon economy in the context of 
wider debates about climate change and sustainable 
development; 

2) The vision of a post-Fordist knowledge-based society 
in which knowledge and skills are seen as the key 
factors in competitiveness and as generators of wealth. 

While the former is about the restraint and reduction 
of environmental impact, the latter is about growth 
and enhancement of economic competitiveness. There 
is, therefore, a potential conflict between economic 
growth aspirations in an era of climate change and 
resource constraints. How these visions of the future are 
conceived, discussed and enacted in practice has major 
implications for socio-technical transitions in urban and 
regional contexts. 

The ability of cities to build consensual visions, integrating 
and reconciling different competing city visions and models 
of development, becomes a key challenge in itself. 

3.6.3. Abetter understandingofrealities, 
capacities and objectives 
The challenge of moving toward shared visions of holistic, 
sustainable development models is to a certain extent the 
challenge of reaching a better and shared understanding 
of urban realities. Overall objectives need to be understood 
in wider terms of final objectives – e.g. sustainable quality 
of life and liveability – and not only in the more narrow 
terms of the means to get there (e.g. economic growth, 
employment rate, income levels). 

A better understanding of urban realities requires the 
development of more appropriate and multifaceted 
indicators capable of measuring more qualitative aspects 
of urban economic and social life – the environment, 
economic development potential, cultural assets, etc. 
Current indicators are not sufficiently developed to 
properly measure cities’ environmental progress or to link 
environmental issues to other issues. Data does not allow 
the assessment of risks faced by cities in terms of provision 
of natural resources, though they are a key contributor 
to a city’s environmental resilience. There is also a need 
to complement quantitative with qualitative analysis 
to include intangible and non-monetary resources. 

129 
Perry, B., Hodson, M., Marvin, S., and May, T., SURF, The Centre for Sustainable Urban and Regional Futures, 
University of Salford, UK, contribution to Cities of tomorrow. 

61 



Table 2 Alternative ways of understanding and describing reality 

Feature Dominant responses Alternative Responses 

Objectives Econo-centric Varied 

Measurements Tangible Intangible 

Global ‘excellent relevance’ 

Scales Global excellence 

& ‘relevant excellence’ 

Linear, products, supply/ Ecosystems, networks 

Processes 

demand, push/pull models and flows 

Narrow; disciplinary; sectoral; Broad; interdisciplinary; 

Knowledge 

codified cross-sectoral; tacit 

Technological, mechanistic Multiple interventions 

Mechanisms 

solutions and mechanisms 

Learning Transferable models Context-sensitive approaches 

Elites: corporate, Wide range of stakeholders, 
Social Interests governments, major potential beneficiaries and 
institutions participants 

Concepts of Economic 

Divisible Collective 

& Ecological Security 

Source: Simon Marvin & Beth Perry 130 


An agreement on the overall vision needs to be based on by all the actors that determine the future of a city, e.g. 
a shared process of visioning and understanding of both city administrations, inhabitants, businesses, other sociopresent 
and future potential realities. If the vision is to economic stakeholders, etc. This calls for collective strategic 
become reality, it must be well understood and owned planning processes. 

130 Marvin, Simon and Perry, Beth, Workshop 1 Cities of tomorrow – Urban challenges, Brussels, June 2010. 


Cities of tomorrow -Challenges, visions, ways forward 


4. Governance – 
how to respond 
to the challenges 

Cities of tomorrow -Challenges, visions, ways forward 

4.1. Introduction – from 
government to governance 
The great challenges that European cities face have 
no straightforward or simple solutions. Their often 
contradictory interlinkages demand holistic and integrated 
approaches that are able to balance different interests and 
objectives. What is more, the challenges do not respect 
administrative borders, and the strategies for dealing 
with them may have far-reaching territorial consequences 
beyond the intervention area. 

It is clear that different levels of fixed government 
structures alone are not well suited to addressing the future 
challenges in a sustainable way. Adapting government 
structures to better respond to challenges is a futile task: 
not only would the dynamic nature of challenges demand a 
constant re-adaptation, but their multi-dimensional nature 
requires responses at different scales. Instead, different 
government levels will have to play different roles in a 
multi-scalar governance system. 

In this chapter we discuss the key elements of a multi-scalar 
governance system: a holistic and integrated approach to 
challenges; long-term strategic planning, foresight and 
vision-building; community involvement and collective 
mobilisation around long-term objectives; inter-city 
partnerships and cooperation. We also point to the 
importance of the city–regional level of governance. 

4.2. An integrated approach to urban 
development and governance 
In Chapter 3 we have seen that the main challenges for the 
Cities of tomorrow are very much interlinked and often of 
a seemingly contradictory nature. Strategies to strengthen 
economic growth may build upon a less sustainable 
use of natural resources; global competitiveness and 
attractiveness strategies may lead to a two-tier society 
with few job opportunities for low-skilled or disadvantaged 

groups and a decoupling of the local and global economy; 
green growth and CO2 reduction strategies centred on new 
technologies may not only exclude the low-skilled from the 
labour market but also increase social exclusion through 
energy poverty due to a lack of knowledge and resources 
for those who most need to take advantage of the new 
green technologies, i.e. a green divide. Therefore, cities 
need to integrate the social, economic, environmental and 
territorial dimensions of urban development in planning 
and development. 

‘Due to the complexity of challenges there is a need for 
integration of the different social, economic and spatial 
dimensions […] Concrete (sectoral) interventions […] will 
never result in sustainable answers and can have negative 
and even dangerous social, environmental and spatial 
consequences.’131 

An integrated approach to urban development has several 
dimensions. Urban challenges can be looked at in terms 
of where they manifest themselves or for whom they are 
most relevant. They can also be considered in terms of 
the most suitable level of governance or territorial scale 
required to address them effectively. Many predominantly 
urban challenges, even those that are most visible at 
a neighbourhood level, such as the integration and 
empowerment of marginalised groups, depend on national, 
and sometimes European, policies. Even if a problem is 
local and has a local solution, its solution may just shift 
the problem to another nearby locality, so an overly 
narrow territorial approach may be counterproductive. 
Understanding the territorial dimension of urban 
challenges is, therefore, fundamental. 

The debate around the sustainability of biofuels has shown 
that challenges and objectives need to be understood and 
formulated by taking into account a wider context and 
secondary effects. Objectives might be met at the very 
local level but not on a wider territorial scale. For instance, 
the development of eco-neighbourhoods helps to reduce 
energy consumption and waste in housing and living, but 
may generate more private car use if it is not well integrated 

131 van den Broeck, 2010, quoted by Tosics, Iván, op. cit. 

65 



spatially in terms of proximity to services and easily 
accessible public transport. Objectives and targets have 
to be relevant and effective at different territorial scales. 

The interrelation of challenges also needs to be understood. 
Isolated sectoral investments – especially large-scale 
infrastructure investment with a strong lock-in effect 

– may be counterproductive to long-term sustainable 
development objectives. Transport policies cannot be 
evaluated only in terms of their outputs, e.g. number of 
kilometres of road or public transport built, but must also 
be assessed in terms of their outcomes and contribution to 
a range of socio-economic and environmental objectives. 
Transport infrastructures impact on the accessibility of 
work, education, leisure or services. In the context of 
territorial planning, they are a leverage that reinforces 
density in given areas, on the basis of local transport 
networks well connected to the core city. There are 
too many examples of road infrastructure that have 
caused spatial segregation and contributed to inner 
city congestion, increased CO2 emissions and pollution, 
urban sprawl and a decrease in the quality of life. Even if 
the widespread use of zero-emission cars became reality, 
congestion, spatial segregation and urban sprawl would 
remain a problem. 
The mitigation of energy vulnerability and the reduction 
of CO2 emissions through programmes targeted at the 
roll-out of new technologies can have significant effects 
in terms of the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions but 
may fail to address one of the biggest problems with the 
present dependence on oil – energy poverty. Most schemes 
to introduce new energy-saving technologies are based on 
tax incentives or advantageous loans that either have no 
effects on the most disadvantaged groups or are out of 
their reach because of their low financial capacities. The 
fact that these groups live in housing with poor insulation 
and inefficient heating systems makes them even more 
vulnerable to high energy costs. A strategy to address the 
challenge of climate change and energy vulnerability based 
mainly on technical market-led solutions could, therefore, 
have detrimental effects on social cohesion and create 
a green divide. 

There are many more examples of the interlinkages of 
challenges. Developing science and technology parks which 
concentrate research and innovation businesses outside 
city centres may release the housing pressure in city centres 
and create a critical mass of activities, but may also be 
damaging to the objective of a social and functional mix 
of activities. Such investment in research must be aligned 
with investment aimed at fostering cities’ attractiveness and 
connectivity. ‘We have welcomed the fact that important 
funds be allocated to us for innovation and research. 
However, a better balance should have been found with 
related investment in transport infrastructure. International 
connectivity is very low, which contradicts our ability to 
access places of interest for cooperation and the possibility 
to attract knowledge workers from abroad’132 

Most areas of most cities are economically and socially 
complex and fragmented, and city administrations have 
to deal with this reality. New institutional models are 
needed that are able to combine, for instance, climate 
initiatives with parallel activities in urban regeneration, 
building rehabilitation, economic and employment, and 
socio-cultural development. A dialogue must be fostered 
between actors in charge of different sectoral policies, such 
as environment, housing, transport, energy, and those who 
are in charge of social, cultural and economic development. 

An implicit approach to addressing challenges is often 
present in the formulation of the challenge itself – 
sometimes unintentionally. It is not uncommon for strong 
interest groups to formulate challenges in a way that serves 
their particular interests, too. There is a danger that only the 
strongest voices are heard and that shorter-term market 
interests override long-term public interests. The European 
urban development model relies on cities’ capacity to 
formulate challenges and strategies that correspond to 
longer-term visions and objectives that are sustainable and 
inclusive. This implies giving weaker stakeholders a say in 
the formulation of future visions and in the development of 
the cities, whether at neighbourhood or a wider territorial 
level, and transparency in strategic planning processes. Real 
partnerships need to be set up between all relevant actors 
from the private and public sectors as well as civil society. 

132 Zezùlková, Marie, City of Brno. 


Cities of tomorrow -Challenges, visions, ways forward 

Integration and conditionality: 
local anti-segregation interventions in Hungary133 

To better balance technical-infrastructure investments 
with social development at local level, anti-segregation 
planning has been made conditional for local 
governments who seek to access EU funding in the 
2007–13 programming period. 

In 2007, the preparation of an Integrated Urban 
Development Strategy (IUDS) was made compulsory 
for cities applying for Structural Funds money for urban 
renewal actions (ROP 2007–13). The IUDS is a medium-
term (7–8 years) strategic implementation-oriented 
document with sectoral and territorial aims. It has to be 
discussed and approved by a resolution of the municipal 
assembly to ensure legitimacy. 

The real novelty of the IUDS was that cities had to prepare 
anti-segregation plans. Such plans had to contain the 
delimitation of segregated areas and areas threatened 
by deterioration and segregation. They also included 
an assessment of the delimited areas and of social 
impacts of envisaged developments and policies, on the 
basis of precise indicators. Moreover, anti-segregation 

programmes also had to be prepared, including a vision 
for a regeneration or elimination of the degraded areas 
and for the main directions of interventions. A complex 
set of tools had to be used with a focus on local housing, 
education, social and health-care conditions. 

Independent experts assessed the anti-segregation plans and 
programmes. Without their approval the city’s application for 
Structural Funds financing for urban renewal actions would 
not be accepted, i.e. the social (anti-segregation) dimension 
was a condition to access EU funding. 

This strict conditionality raised strong opposition from 
local politicians, given inter alia the lack of professional 
urban development background and planners for the 
preparation of integrated plans, the lack of relevant data 
and a negative perception of an obligation imposed 
‘from above’. However, despite the problems, the 
Hungarian IUDS can be considered a success. Almost 
200 cities prepared integrated development strategies, 
including anti-segregation plans. The latter became a 
key element of the general ‘equal opportunities policy’, 
with a recognition that cities could only be forced to 
think about how to decrease segregation if this was 
posed as a general condition for accessing EU funding. 


133 Tosics, Iván, op.cit. 

67 



4.3. New models of territorial 
governance 
4.3.1. Newurbanrealities 
The new urban reality is characterised by peri-urban 
development. New relationships between the core city and 
its surroundings are developing, together with increasing 
individual mobility: people living in rural areas live urban 
lives and exploit urban services; urban residents use rural 
services, not least public goods like nature; schools and 
other services are not chosen because of proximity but 
because of quality; commuting and other daily mobility 
patterns are stretched over increasingly large areas. 

‘In older industrial countries the peri-urban is a zone of 
social and economic restructuring: in the EU growth zones, 
and most of the developing world, the peri-urban is often a 
zone of rapid and chaotic urban sprawl. In both situations, it 
is clear that the peri-urban is not just an in-between fringe; 
rather it is a new and distinct kind of multi-functional 
territory. It is often the location for airports, business parks 
and high-value housing, which are seen as essential to 
urban/regional development (as per the Lisbon Agenda). 
It is also the location for problems: urban sprawl; wasted 
public funds; transport congestion; loss of agricultural 
land; damage to landscapes and biodiversity; fragmented 
communities; and lack of spatial planning.’134 

Though an urban challenge is best addressed at a specific 
governance level, this does not imply that other levels, 
higher or lower, are inadequate. In terms of representative 
democracy, each level plays a particular role and has its 
own benefits. There are many compelling arguments for the 
government levels that are closest to the citizens. Problems 
are experienced at the city or neighbourhood level, and 
inhabitants may be more easily mobilised around issues 
that are of direct concern in their daily life. ‘The more we 
widen the subject matter, the more we move to the larger 

territory, the more we also may move away from people’s 
concerns and risk losing pragmatic issues.’135 

What is problematic is the potential discrepancy between the 
urban realities, especially in terms of functional urban areas, 
and the administrative city and its representative democracy. 
A tax base that does not correspond to the areas or 
populations it is serving in terms of public services and goods, 
or a fragmented system of local government – each with their 
own tax base – makes integrated policies difficult to achieve. 
The present institutional forms and spatial settings of local 
governments in many European countries are inappropriate 
for dealing effectively with the big and complex future 
urban challenges in an integrated way. The risk is that both 
the competitiveness of many urban areas and the European 
balanced model of urban development are at stake.136 

4.3.2. The increasing importanceof the city 
atregionalor metropolitanlevel 
Given the scope of many challenges, there is a relative 
consensus on the need for a level of government that 
reflects the de facto city rather than the de jure city. Strategic 
planning and the delivery of public policies on economic 
development, the labour market, mobility and transport, 
housing, education, water, energy, waste, immigration, etc. 
cannot be addressed at too local a level. Good government 
and governance structures at a metropolitan level are also 
a key condition for cities’ competitiveness. ‘The better 
they are managed, the stronger they become, and the 
more competitive position they can achieve in the global 
metropolitan network, which would benefit individual 
Member States and the entire European Union.’137 

Several examples may be given of existing supra-local 
governance systems organised around a core city (monocentric 
city regions such Berlin and Madrid) or in more polycentric 
networks (overlapping monocentric areas such as the Ruhr, 
Randstad and polycentric areas with no dominating large city).138 

134 Ravetz, Joe, Cities of tomorrow – Contributions from experts, Brussels, April 2010. 
135 Zaimov, Martin, elected representative of Sofia. 
136 Tosics, Iván, op.cit. 
137 Gorzelak, Grzegorz, Cities of tomorrow – Contributions from experts, Brussels, April 2010. 
138 Reference to Vandermotten, Christian in Tosics, Iván, issue paper on Governance challenges and models for the Cities of tomorrow, Brussels, January 2011. 



Cities of tomorrow -Challenges, visions, ways forward 

German metropolitan regions: 
alliances for growth and joint responsibility139 


The idea of Metropolregionen was first developed in 
1995, and after their official adoption as part of the 
German spatial development strategy in 2005, their 
number increased to 11 regions.140 The three most 
important functions are decision-making functions 
linked to: spatial concentration of economic centres; 
presence of research centres and of a creative 
and competitive milieu; accessibility to and from 
international locations and good traffic infrastructures. 
They fulfil an important role in marketing, solving traffic 
problems and increasing scientific–economic links. 

The establishment of metropolitan regions was the 
result of a political process set in motion by the 

Standing Conference of Ministers Responsible for 
Spatial Planning. With the exception of some financial 
support for emerging initiatives and selected pilot 
projects, the federal government did not fund or 
subsidise the metropolitan regions. Regional initiatives 
have been voluntary, and the goals and strategies were 
determined jointly by all the partners. The six biggest 
urban agglomerations (Rhine–Ruhr, Berlin, Hamburg, 
Frankfurt, Munich and Stuttgart) were the first to be 
designated ‘European Metropolitan Regions’. In addition, 
five smaller urban agglomerations (Leipzig–Halle, 
Hannover, Nuremberg, Bremen and Rhine–Neckar) 
lobbied to be included in the policy as well. A quasiofficial 
competition ensued as the regions prepared 
reports on their potential and competitiveness, as 
well as concepts for regional governance and spatial 
planning. 

In the past, the territorial implications of urban growth 
have often been taken for granted. The growth of cities was 
supposed to generate growth for surrounding areas. However, 
the absence of territorial policies has, in some cases, led to the 
opposite result. For example, 15 years ago, the slowest growth 
areas in Italy were not in the south of the country, but in the 
remote peripheral areas of Milan and Turin. 

Compared to the German example of a metropolitan region 

– with its strong economic and innovation rationale – the 
Italian example of Citta di Citta (‘City of cities’) is more 
focused on ‘habitability’ and the multiple facets of quality of 
life. There is an implicit model in which a series of hubs can 
flourish around the core city of Milan, on the basis of social 
and cultural dynamics between the cities. Even if innovation 
is also underlined, the rationale for this metropolitan level 
of cooperation/governance is the building of an attractive 
and service-oriented network of cities. 
Governance at the metropolitan or city-region level is 
not confined to national frameworks but can also cross 

national borders, as illustrated by the Lille metropolitan 
area. The area has developed a series of projects involving: 
cooperation in the field of economic development and 
coordination of land-use planning; common planning of 
a green and blue web; management of water, freight, and 
public transport; urban renewal, etc. Cooperation also 
involves branding for the whole area. The complexity of 
the territory has led to the development of innovative 
cooperation and governance processes. 

These three examples of metropolitan governance depend 
on different government and administrative structures; 
they operate in different national planning contexts and 
they have been organised for different purposes. However, 
they are all based on the underlying premise that the 
supra-local governance level is vital for the development 
of these city-regions in terms of both competitiveness and 
cohesion. They also indicate that there is an added value 
in the combination of density and diversity, as well as in 
the reinforced identity of the areas concerned – a sort of 
branding for people and businesses. 

139 Sinz, Manfred, Cities of tomorrow – Contributions from experts, Brussels, April 2010. 
140 Tosics, Iván, op.cit. 

69 



70 
Citta di Citta – a polycentric network 
at the metropolitan level141 
The macro city-region around Milan has evolved from 
a central hub-pattern, in which Milan held a dominant 
position in a central city vs. periphery pattern, towards 
a more polycentric urbanisation built on a network of 
cities and municipalities around Milan. 
Citta di citta is a strategic planning process promoted 
by the Province of Milan to cope with the problems of 
guiding development in this dynamic urban region. The 
development of this kind of strategic planning process was 
required in order to cope with the growing externalities of 
the Milan region and reinforce the assets of smaller cities 
around Milan according to a common vision. There is now a 
series of cities and towns, which exist both as independent 
entities with local jobs and markets, and as parts of a wider 
functional urban region142. Thanks to cooperation, there 
are strong conurbations between municipalities which, in 
the past, were just satellites of Milan. 
Citta di citta addresses a range of issues such as : 
availability of stable or temporary residences ; 
accessibility to public spaces ; promotion of new local 
welfare ; mobility by different means, in different 
directions ; promotion of culture in various places ; 
reduction of congestion and pollution ; connection of 
people in new public spaces of different types ; ability 
to find silence to slow down the frantic pace of life ; 
creation of a lively atmosphere in other places ; space for 
unplanned activities ; a reintroduction of nature where 
it has disappeared, etc. 
This process has created a thick web of cities beyond 
the Province of Milan. The cities and municipalities now 
recognise themselves as belonging to something more 
than just the periphery of Milan. They work together 
to develop common public transport, open spaces and 
services as part of a greater territorial development 
process that was inconceivable when they were just 
individual satellites. 
Milano 
Rho 
Monza 
Gaggiano 
Mediglia 
Settala 
Segrate 
Vimercate 
Bollate 
Inzago 
Arluno 
Truccazzano 
Lainate 
Melzo 
Rodano 
Pioltello 
Cusago 
Uboldo 
Nerviano 
Limbiate 
Arcore 
Liscate 
Saronno 
Bareggio 
Rozzano 
Vignate 
Senago 
Peschiera Borromeo 
Arese 
Pero 
Origgio 
Assago 
Brugherio 
Solaro 
San Giuliano Milanese 
Opera 
Gessate 
Gorgonzola 
Gerenzano 
Cesate Ornago 
Lesmo 
Agrate Brianza 
Bellusco Busnago 
Carugate
Bussero 
Cassano d'Adda 
Cornaredo 
Buccinasco 
Cornate d'Adda 
Sedriano 
Paderno Dugnano 
Vittuone 
Vanzago 
Concorezzo 
Cambiago 
Cinisello Balsamo 
Usmate Velate 
Corsico 
Sulbiate 
Settimo Milanese 
Masate 
San Donato Milanese 
Pozzuolo Martesana 
Cernusco sul Naviglio 
Sesto San Giovanni 
Noviglio 
Basiano 
Pantigliate 
Villasanta 
Trezzano sul Naviglio 
Cormano 
Caponago 
Bernareggio 
Zibido San Giacomo 
Bresso Cologno Monzese 
Carnate 
Mezzago 
Caronno Pertusella 
Vimodrone 
Garbagnate Milanese 
Cassina de' Pecchi 
Roncello 
Novate Milanese 
Gudo Visconti 
Pessano con Bornago 
Aicurzio 
Baranzate 
Pregnana Milanese 
Pogliano Milanese 
Trezzano Rosa 
Cesano Boscone 
Bellinzago Lombardo 
Cavenago di Brianza 
Burago di Molgora 
Cusano Milanino 
Camparada 
Rosate Locate di Triulzi © EuroGeographics Association for the administrative boundaries 
REGIOgis

Cities of tomorrow - Challenges, visions, ways forward 

A functional territory: the Lille metropolitan area 

With around 3.8 million inhabitants over 7200 km2, the 
Lille metropolitan area is one of the largest cross-border 
agglomerations in Europe. It covers two language areas 
and three regions with Nord-Pas-de-Calais on the 
French side with Lille as its capital, and Dutch-speaking 
Flanders and French-speaking Wallonia on the Belgian 
side. 

Effective territorial cooperation in defining a common 
development strategy began in 1991 between the Lille 
Métropole Communauté Urbaine (a formal metropolitan 
government comprising 85 French municipalities) 
and 4 Belgian intercommunales (around Mouscron, 
Ypres, Kortrijk and Tournai). After years of informal 
cooperation, ‘Eurometropole Lille–Kortrijk–Tournai’ was 
eventually set up in 2008. This first European Grouping 
for Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) brings together 
14 public partners. 

Three years earlier, a French government call for 
metropolitan cooperation provided the opportunity 
to bring together another, wider but more flexible, 
partnership with areas located south of Lille, in the 
former coal mining basin and around Arras, Cambrai 
and Maubeuge. In May 2005, ‘a memorandum of 
understanding for cooperation’ in what was called the 
‘Aire métropolitaine de Lille’, was signed by 23 local 
and regional public authorities from France and 
Belgium. The aim is ‘to constitute a network metropolis, 
combining the level of services of a European 
metropolitan city with a high quality of life’ through 
six strategic objectives: sustainable development; the 
promotion of creativity; the development of innovation 
and research; the improvement of internal and external 
accessibility; tourism; and communication and 
promotion. The non-profit organisation was created in 
December 2007 in order to represent and develop the 
cooperation process and to monitor the implementation 
of the work programme. 

4.3.3. Theneedforflexible multi-scalar 
governance 
Different territorial and governance levels have more or 
less relevance depending on the specific challenges and 
objectives they have to address. Issues such as water 
management may be best dealt with at sub-regional or 
regional level, public transport and research infrastructures 
may be best addressed at metropolitan or city–regional 
level, while equality and integration may need a more local 
approach at neighbourhood level. A formal governance 
system tailored to reduce discrepancies between the 
de facto city and the de jure city may not necessarily be 
relevant once operational, given the time required to put 
new administrative systems into practice.143 

Coordinated approaches in a multilevel governance 
framework are needed to effectively tackle the challenges 
of tomorrow. Problems solved at the level closest to the 
citizens who are able to deal effectively with them have 
to be complemented with better coordination at a higher 
level, to avoid transferring problems from one local level to 
another, or from the city centre to its periphery. In essence, 
what is needed is a functional and flexible approach that 
both respects the principles of subsidiarity and can be 
adapted to a functional geography and the specificities 
of different territorial scales. 

There are many models for handling the growing 
discrepancies between the administrative and functional 
setup of urban areas. Some models aim at a better adjustment 

141 
Balducci, Alessandro, Workshop 2 Cities of tomorrow – Visions and models, Brussels, October 2010. 

142 
The concept of ‘Macro City-Region’ as developed by Hall, P. and Pain, K. in The polycentric metropolis : learning from mega-city regions in Europe, 
Earthscan Publications Ltd, London, 2006: ‘a series of anything between 10 and 50 cities and towns, physically separate but functionally 
networked, clustered around one or more larger central cities, and drawing enormous economic strength from a new functional 
division of labour.’ 

143 
Baert, Thierry, Workshop 3 Cities of tomorrow – How to make it happen ? Brussels, December 2010. 


of the administrative setup to the functional reality, e.g. 
merging neighbouring settlements with the city and 
creating strong metropolitan bodies that take over a series of 
functions from the local municipalities. Other, less ambitious 
models build on different forms of cooperation between 
municipalities belonging to the same Functional Urban Area, 

e.g. by mono-functional agencies or metropolitan bodies with 
limited delegated power. Due to the political difficulties in 
changing administrative borders or creating strong supra-local 
bodies, the latter model may be favoured. But the democratic 
legitimacy of this lighter model of FUA governance may 
be questioned because it has less transparency and less 
accountability to directly elected bodies.144 
The examples of German metropolitan regions, Citta 
di Citta and the Lille metropolitan area illustrate that 
although these larger governance areas have been set 
up to respond to specific challenges, the lower levels of 
governance continue to play an important role both in 
their implementation and in other more local matters. 
The articulation of supra-local governance structures on 
local and neighbourhood levels is essential, especially with 
respect to accessibility and vulnerability issues, but also 
in relation to attractiveness and the quality of the urban 
environment.145 

Though local projects and intervention must be framed 
and understood in a larger territorial context, it is equally 
important that there is an understanding among actors at 

higher governance levels of what is happening at the local 
or micro-local level. National, regional or citywide policies 
have in some cases replaced local policies that were focused 
on deprived neighbourhoods and embedded both social 
development and urban regeneration. This mainstreaming 
of local projects into regional or national policies may result 
in a fragmentation and a lack of common understanding 
of objectives and issues at stake, even among the various 
associations on the ground. There is a need to use common 
visions to link up the various bodies involved, and 
consequent requirements for training and mediation work. 
In this context, it is essential to ensure good communication 
between various levels.146 

4.4. Building capacity for long-term 
visioning and strategic planning 
In the previous two sections we have discussed the need for 
an integrated and holistic approach to urban development 
that manages to reconcile seemingly contradictory 
challenges while taking into account the territorial 
dimension of the challenges. Several elements need to be 
put into place for such an approach to be effective. Most 
important, a long-term city vision may be needed to guide 
actions. The European urban development model contains 
the basis for such a vision, but each city has to refine its 
own vision according to its potential and its inhabitants’ 
and organisations’ desires. 

144 Tosics, Iván. op.cit. 
145 Balducci, Alessandro, Workshop 2 Cities of tomorrow – Visions and models, Brussels, October 2010. 
146 Fayman, Sonia, Workshop 3 Cities of tomorrow – How to make it happen ? Brussels, December 2010. 



Cities of tomorrow -Challenges, visions, ways forward 

NEWCASTLE-GATESHEAD – A long-term strategy as a joint response 


to the financial crisis 


The city of Newcastle is the administrative capital 
of England’s North East region and its population of 

2.5 million. Newcastle itself has 278 000 inhabitants, 
while across the river, Gateshead has 200 000. 
Over the past 30 years, the economy in Newcastle 
and its surrounding area has undergone a rapid 
transformation, shifting from a heavy industrial 
base, including shipbuilding, coal mining and heavy 
engineering, to a more diversified industrial base, 
with the public sector accounting for some 38% 
of all jobs. The recent financial crisis and ensuing 
recession have only added to the challenges faced 
by the region. 

Not wanting to let short-term shocks prevent long-term 
vision, action was taken. In June 2009, the city council 
drafted a 10-point action plan in support of both individuals 
and businesses. The city, together with Gateshead, 
also set up ‘1NG’ (1 Newcastle Gateshead), a strategic 
body responsible for pushing forward the 2010 ‘1PLAN’, 
a 20-year economic and spatial strategy for the two cities. 
The underlying aims include strengthening the cities’ability 
to cope with inevitable future external shocks, addressing 
the needs of individuals and businesses, cooperating 
with like-minded communities, focusing on sustainable 
growth and paying special attention to living and working 
environments. The cities believe their strategy and approach 
could be transferred and adapted to other similar cities. 



4.4.1. The needforasolidknowledge base 
Cities need a solid knowledge base to properly assess 
their current situation and future development potential. 
This involves a better understanding by the cities of their 
strengths and weaknesses, an awareness of their diversity, 
creativity, entrepreneurial base, human resources and social 
capital, etc. Indicators are needed to measure progress 
towards objectives on a range of issues and to evaluate 
the effectiveness of strategies. Ideally cities should be able 
not only to assess their own situation, but also to compare 
themselves with other cities. 

Several things are needed to achieve this. City 
administrations must have the capacity to share and 
analyse information, to establish causal links between 
indicators and action, and, not least, to formulate and 
measure long-term objectives. Crude indicators, such 
as GDP measurements and different types of input 
and output indicators, have to be complemented with 
outcome indicators as well as qualitative indicators, such as 
perception surveys. GDP data in particular should be used 
with great caution when applied at the urban level, as many 
people living in cities work outside them and vice versa. 
Pockets of deprivation may also not be visible in GDP data. 

There is a need for a ‘shift of focus from actions and 
financial means to their outcome in terms of people’s 
well-being and progress through appropriate indicators 
[…]: the time needed to travel from W to Y at an average 
speed (as an aspect of mobility); the results of tests in a 
given topic (as an aspect of competence); the share of 
firms denied credit at any interest rate (as an aspect of 
banks’ rationing); the share of all children living in “jobless 
households”appropriately defined (as an aspect of jobless 
households).’147 

Cities also have to be capable of distinguishing between the 
effect of internal and external factors on their development. 
A very sophisticated employment policy may yield negative 
employment figures due to external circumstances such as 
the recent financial and economic crisis. 

City-specific data that is consistent and comparable 
across Europe is difficult to obtain. There is a high level of 
discrepancy between European cities concerning the scope 
and quality of available information. These differences 
relate both to the different types of government and 
the governance systems put in place – there is not even 
a shared definition of a city in Europe – as well as to 
different traditions and capacities for data collection. 
Statistical offices in some Member States have very 
complete databases with demographic, educational, 
income, employment, social security, etc. data sets that 
can be combined to provide quite detailed socio-economic 
pictures of municipalities’ inhabitants, while in other 
countries data are less systematic and more fragmented. 

But even with very comprehensive socio-economic 
data sets, it is difficult to understand and analyse issues 
such as social polarisation and cohesion. People’s social 
relationships and their daily and weekly mobility patterns 
and use and consumption of public services, are equally 
important as more hard data on income, employment and 
education. Cities thus have to develop new tools that can 
deal with such more qualitative issues. 

‘While the quantitative changes in terms of population 
numbers are not big except for the relative growth in 
suburban satellites of big cities, the qualitative change of 
population in different parts of urban regions and nationally 
seems to be significant. As there is lack of less empirical 
(quantitative) evidence, these are rather hypotheses based 
on some evidence from case studies. The less measurable 
issues may prove to be essential but the contemporary 
science and science-driven policies tend to underestimate 
the ‘dubious’ observations and opinions without scientific 
proof. Research should therefore focus on the less palpable, 
soft evidence. All these hitherto changes in the physical 
urban space are extremely controversial vis-a-vis the 
upcoming change of external constraints in the respect of 
urban spatial pattern.’148 

For long-term visions to be formulated and for progress 
to be monitored, it is imperative to reinforce information 

147 Barca, Fabrizio and McCann, Philip, ‘Outcome indicators and targets – Towards a performance-oriented EU Cohesion Policy’, February 2011. 
148 Maier, Karel, contribution to Workshop 1 Cities of tomorrow – Urban challenges, Brussels, June 2010. 

