European urban polycentrism Céline Rozenblat
175
Céline Rozenblat, Lausanne
1 Introduction
It is commonly argued that while towns and cities,
and capital cities in particular, do constitute the prin-
cipal source of diffusion and growth – as was seen
with development poles initiated during the 1960s
(Perroux 1955), they also cause abrupt spatial rup-
tures with their surroundings. An important reason
for the discontinuities observed in per capita GDP
(gross domestic product) may be found in the fracture
between capital cities and their hinterlands (Euro-
pean Spatial Planning Observation Network 2006;
Faludi 2004; Faludi & Waterhout 2002; Rozenblat
2004). These discontinuities can reach proportions
similar to those produced by ruptures at international
frontiers. In fact, of course, cities constitute contact
portals into the international sphere in exactly the
same way as national boundaries do. Cities develop a
long-distance reticular proximity which allows them
to uphold intensive relationships supporting growth
of economies of networking. Although they may inte-
grate their own urban economies in this manner, it can
also lead to isolation from their own national regions
(Castells 1998; Pumain 1997; Sassen 1991). Thus,
rather than constituting a factor of homogenisation, it
is possible that cities actually contribute towards other
developmental aspects of European territorial cohe-
sion by means of the various types of interdependence
that are woven in the threads of urban networks.
2 The European urban framework
Taken all together, European countries (except those
issued from the defunct USSR) constituted an urban
fabric that, in 1990, consisted of 5,200 urban centres
with a population of more than 10,000 inhabitants
(Cattan et al. 1999; Moriconi-Ebrard 1994). The spa-
tial organisation of that fabric offered very unequal
opportunities for interaction at different levels of geo-
graphical influence.
2.1 Local urban frameworks
Zones with high city density in which cities are sepa-
rated from each other by less than 25 km are plentiful
along the European dorsal axis (Fig. 1A). It stretches
from the north of England (the region of Newcastle-
upon-Tyne) to Sicily, interrupted only by the English
Channel and the Alps (Rozenblat 1995). The margins
situated to either side of this zone of high urban den-
sity, however, present a very different aspect. To the
east, and particularly in Eastern Europe, stretches a
continuous network of regularly spaced towns. While
to the west, in France and Spain groups of proximate
urban centres are sparse, although some networks do
distinguish themselves along river valleys like those
of the Seine or the Rhone, as well as relatively com-
pact networks in Andalusia, the Basque Country
and around Vigo or Porto. At a larger network scale
(between 25 and 50 km) the distribution of these ine-
qualities of density is confirmed.
The most heavily populated cities (those with more
than 100,000 inhabitants) present us with the apex of
the urban hierarchy in a more selective schematic (Fig.
1B). Similar continuities of high urban density may
also be found along the European dorsal axis and in
its margins. Other networks, however, which are less
dense because they are dominated by large cities, are
discovered at this scale, located notably along a diago-
nal axis running from Poland to Bulgaria. Two east-west
continuities link this diagonal to the dorsal axis: in the
north through Germany, and in the south via Slovenia.
Another diagonal axis, but in this case constituted by
an absence of density, runs northwest to southeast
from Germany to the Balkans. Its orientation in rela-
tion to the European dorsal axis is quasi-symmetrical
with another, better known, «axis of emptiness» that
crosses France and Spain southwest to northeast.
A comparison of these three different grid levels
reveals the permanence of urban densities at the dif-
ferent levels of the urban hierarchy. The scale-free
character of urban networks can be understood as
the result of the historical constitution of local and
regional urban networks (Christaller 1933) which
served as the basis for the subsequent development
of national and international urban networks (Offner
& Pumain 1996; Pumain 1997; Rozenblat & Pumain
2007). Building on this, it is possible to inquire into
interregional differences of settlement systems and
their capacity for adaptation and development within
the new networks of exchange and communication.
2.2 Regional forms of settlement
The division of Europe into regions – the product of
political and/or administrative compromises – does
not necessarily coincide with the geographical logic
of urban networks. Nevertheless, it would seem useful
to maintain this division in order to generate within
its framework those indicators which characterize
the structure of urban networks so as to be able to
compare them to the indicators of economic devel-
European urban polycentrism: a multiscale typology
176
Geographica Helvetica Jg. 64 2009/Heft 3
opment. As long ago as 1976, Etienne Juillard and
Henri Nonn postulated a typology of European urban
regions based on their study of medium-range relation-
ships between urban centres and their zones of influ-
ence in terms of urban centrality functions (services to
and the framing of territories). This investigation can
be carried out at a lower cost by examining, as done
here, morphological aspects of the urban network.
These aspects are understood here to be the long-term
consequences of the effect of territorial and functional
competition between urban centres (Kühn & Hayat
1999; Pumain, Rozenblat & Moriconi-Ebrard 1996).
A synthetic image of the different forms of urban set-
tlement in Europe has been accomplished through an
ascending hierarchical classification which categorizes
the regions according to the values of their density
indicators and hierarchical rank (Fig. 2).
The three principal typologies of urban settlement pro-
posed here are subdivided into two or three sub-types.
This subdivision is not random, but reflects vast, rela-
tively homogeneous regions within Europe. The char-
acterisation of these types contains elements originally
selected by Juillard and Nonn (1976), extending on
these from the point of view of detail and precision of
description. For example, Juillard and Nonn distin-
guish between «Parisian», «Rhineland» and «periph-
eral» models of urbanization. This classification into
three principal types of urban centres does not in
any way precondition relative development capacity.
With more than 10’000 inhabitants
25 to 50 km
Distances across urban agglomerations:
Less than 25 km
A
200 km
N
Fig. 1A: European urban framework according to cities with more than 10’000 inhabitants
Europäisches Städtesystem nach Städten mit mehr als 10’000 Einwohnern
Trame urbaine européenne selon les villes de plus de 10’000 habitants
Data source: Fr. Moriconi-Ebrard, 1994; georeferencement, modelization, cartography: C. Rozenblat
176
Geographica Helvetica Jg. 64 2009/Heft 3
European urban polycentrism Céline Rozenblat
177
Indeed, when these groups are compared to regional
GDP or regional per capita GDP, no significant correla-
tion is observed. Observations made by Vandermotten
(2003: 27, Fig. 7) with regards the lack of a systematic
relationship between national scales of pre-eminence
and the level of interregional disparity within Euro-
pean countries, support this conclusion. Conditions
between regions are highly variable, and the existence
of a dense and only slightly hierarchically differenti-
ated urban network should not be seen as a guarantee
for economic development or territorial equity.
2.3 Urban networks and regional development
Despite the above-mentioned observations, dense and
weakly hierarchically differentiated regions have been
propagated since the end of the 1980s as the bench-
mark for equity and performance (Benko & Lipietz
1992, 2000). Examples of high-performance networks
of smaller towns – such as in the Lombardy, Emilia-
Romagna or Prato Valley in the Tuscany (The Third
Italy) – have often been described in this connection
(Becattini 1987, 1992; Becattini & Rullani 1995).
However, it has also been pointed out that these exam-
ples are embedded in regional structures that are not
easily transferable as they correspond to types of func-
tional, institutional and cultural (even familial) links
which are rooted in specifically local modes of socializa-
tion (Vandermotten 2003). Furthermore, the duration
of «success» of these innovative Italian centres does not
appear to be destined to continue in the medium term
With more than 100’000 inhabitants
Distances across urban agglomerations:
Less than 100 km
100 to 150 km
B
200 km
N
Fig. 1B: European urban framework according to cities with more than 100’000 inhabitants
Europäisches Städtesystem nach Städten mit mehr als 100’000 Einwohnern
Trame urbaine européenne selon les villes de plus de 100’000 habitants
Data source: Fr. Moriconi-Ebrard, 1994; georeferencement, modelization, cartography: C. Rozenblat
178
Geographica Helvetica Jg. 64 2009/Heft 3
200 km
N
low density of cities
very high density of cities with primaty
high density of very hierarchized cities
very low density of cities with high hierarchy
low density of cities with high hierarchy
primatial system («Parisian model»)
high density of cities («Rhenian model»)
LESS URBANIZED REGIONS
LESS URBANIZED REGIONS
MORE URBANIZED REGIONS
MORE URBANIZED REGIONS
URBAN REGIONS WITH LOW DENSITIES
URBAN REGIONS WITH LOW DENSITIES
Types according to a hierarchical ascendant classification on following indicators:
urbanisation rate, average distance across cities and three inequality indexes of cities size
1
2
3
6
7
4
5
regions with very few cities
Fig. 2: Regional typology of urban structures
Regionale Typologie urbaner Strukturen
Typologie des systèmes urbains régionaux
Data source: Fr. Moriconi-Ebrard, 1994; georeferencement, statistics, cartography: C. Rozenblat
178
Geographica Helvetica Jg. 64 2009/Heft 3
European urban polycentrism Céline Rozenblat
179
as the metropolitanization of Milan today deploys cen-
tripetal forces of concentration of high-level functions
throughout the Lombardy. The industrial networks of
Lombardy as a whole, although achieving a degree of
development in the past, appear to be experiencing
difficulty in stabilising and enhancing development
in the light of the technological progress of, and the
performance achieved by, businesses concentrated in
the revitalized Milan metropolitan area. This reflects
a general tendency that may be observed throughout
Europe, and particularly in France (Commerçon 1999;
Gault 1989; Mirloup 2002). It is the result of an his-
torical process of progressive adaptation of a system
that was initially predicated on a certain rate of trans-
portation speed and which has been transformed by
an increasingly rapid distance effect (Pumain 1997,
2006). Moreover, barriers to exchange, which were
constituted by political and socio-economic structures,
are breaking down and interdependence is developing
over greater distances.
The mutual influence of network dynamics raises the
issue of the geographical scale at which interrelations
between networks develop. This process gives rise to
a largely constituent cohesion of the «boundaries» of
the city and its influence. Three factors appear to dom-
inate the development of such cohesion:
- geographical (topographical) proximity, which ena-
bles economies of agglomeration in each network;
- proximity within the network (topological), which
encompasses previous processes, but which can also
transcend geographical distance;
- the diversity of networks, which, at both local and
global levels, enables the strengthening and renewal
of networks.
At the local level, network economies shaped by topo-
logical proximity are part and parcel of the economies
of agglomeration insofar as they are coupled with spa-
tial proximity (topographical).
However, they can also transcend this process: intercity
exchange networks have long existed (rare products,
cottage industries, technical and social innovation, ter-
ritorial organisation, empires) (Bairoch 1985; Mum-
ford 1961). Today, technological advances, especially
in terms of travel and communication, have bolstered
the mutual interdependence of cities. Consequently
the power and the social and economic features of
one city are directly confronted with those of other
cities because of specialised interurban interaction
which transposes codes, technological demands, and
«cultures». These networks have accelerated the rate
at which innovation, development and crises spread
through city systems. Long-range networks also help
strengthen each type of movement or activity through
incorporation of new members who contribute, even at
a distance, to the visibility and development of urban
groups and local activities.
The position of each city in a system of cities depends
largely on its ability to remain stable and to renew
itself. These abilities depend on the propensity of its
populations, groups and networks to drive or to adopt
major innovations, and are heavily influenced by the
dynamics of the city both past and present and by its
historical, social and economic organisation (Pumain
1997). What differentiates one space from another is
the specific arrangement of individual networks, which
in turn organise the arrangement of different enti-
ties and functions at both local and distant scales. The
dynamics of these two scales are intrinsically linked,
even if no direct causal effects on their respective
dynamics are produced by their interaction.
3 Evaluation of polycentrism
Very often, territorial policies are implemented at a
single given level (e.g. intra- or inter-urban) without
any real effort to take its repercussions at other geo-
graphical levels into account. A broad range of policies
are applied by every national and regional government
(Allain, Baudelle & Guy 2003a; Faludi 2006; Hague
& Kirk 2002; Jönsson, Tägil & Törnquist 2000). In
order to evaluate these, a typology of each of the dif-
ferent policies listed in the ESPON (European Spatial
Planning Observation Network) 1.1.1 final report
was specified (2005, Annex B). This typology, based on
scales of application and kinds of product process, led
to the definition of four categories (Fig. 3).
At the local scale, city-based policies (Fig. 3A), such
as those implemented in Berlin and in major cities in
Switzerland, Austria, France, Spain and the Nether-
lands, aim to dilute functions and decongest the centre
in order to form multifunctional urban hubs rather
than single-function satellites. The hope is to thereby
uphold the economies of agglomeration generated
by urban areas while avoiding the diseconomies of
agglomeration by which they tend to be saturated. This
involves not only the optimisation of transport net-
works, but also of activity location in order to ensure
that every centre of the multi-polar agglomeration
benefits from both a dynamic social fabric as well as
a diversity necessary for its continuity (Rutherford
2005; Schindegger & Tatzberger 2002; Scott 2001).
Without a doubt, this is what constitutes the type of
polycentrism most commonly implemented in Europe
at the present under the auspices of Agenda 21 initia-
tives. While these latter result from awareness of the
negative effects of urbanization, both personal and
social, they are also the product of power interac-
tions, both between the different levels of territorial
180
Geographica Helvetica Jg. 64 2009/Heft 3
scale and, within a given level, between local admin-
istrations (Jouve & Lefèvre 2004). Facilitated by the
decentralization of responsibility from the national to
the local levels, the frequent result is a more effective
concentration of power, capable of enabling better
co-ordination of local policy making. This type of
organization, however, often gives rise to problems of
competition between different organs of government.
Within strongly centripetal regions, the authority of
the largest city is less problematical than is the case in
dense and evenly diffused urban zones, where demo-
graphical equality hinders the emergence of a clearly
identifiable leadership. The decentralization of power
away from the national level and towards regional or
urban levels very often exacerbates the lack of clarity
about power hierarchies. More particularly, it some-
times tends to restrain collaboration between cities
and their hinterlands – even though this is clearly ben-
eficial.
At regional, or even national or international scales
(Fig. 3B), neighbouring cities are encouraged to share
facilities and cooperate in economic, administrative
and cultural functions, as is the case in Switzerland,
A
Urban
deconcentration
to multifunctional
hubs
B
Regional
proximity
C
Rapid
transport
infrastructures
D
High-performance
R&D and business
centres
Fig. 3: Typology of urban development policies in Europe
Typologie der Stadtentwicklungspolitik in Europa
Typologie des politiques urbaines en Europe
C. Rozenblat
180
Geographica Helvetica Jg. 64 2009/Heft 3
European urban polycentrism Céline Rozenblat
181
Portugal, Holland and France (through metropoli-
tan cooperation contracts), for all facilities cannot be
present in every location (especially airports and rare
economic and cultural functions). This type of coop-
eration between neighbours is a particularly favour-
able factor in the development of regions possessing
regular spatial networks. And it was in regions of
exactly this type that the first initiatives were under-
taken, notably in western France (Allain, Baudelle
& Guy 2003a, 2003b; Reitel 2007). While it is wholly
possible that the same could be implemented in Cen-
tral Europe, where just such regular networks struc-
ture space (as in Silesia, Fig. 1), their implementation
would appear to be more problematical elsewhere. By
the same token, the experience of sharing – of airports
for example – has been very variably appreciated. The
establishment of «horizontal» links between cities of
similar size should serve not only to improve the infra-
structures of all partners, but also to connect medium-
size urban areas with those larger ones that constitute
the interface with the international level. The prolif-
eration of links at every scale of geographical scope
(as is suggested by Fig. 1) can enable a reinforcement
of the diversity of each regional territory, and thus
encourage the diversity of a «multi-dependency»
which would promote the robustness of regional sys-
tems with regard to their infrastructural, economic and
social vulnerability. Thus, egalitarian networks of this
type should not be established in opposition to large
towns, but rather, in collaboration with them, devel-
oping strong infrastructural and socio-economic links
between larger and smaller urban centres. This would
allow regions to leverage their specific characteristics
so as to spread their influence more widely.
At regional and national scales, national hubs are
strengthened through transport infrastructure devel-
opments (Fig. 3C), primarily in emerging European
countries like Slovenia and Estonia. Such national
policies are frequently financed through structural aid
funding with the purpose of breaking the vicious circle
of depopulation, decrease in accessibility and decline
in local economic activity. It is for this reason that pri-
ority is often accorded to the improvement of transport
infrastructures in order to increase the attractiveness of
peripheral regions (Meijers, Romein & Hoppenbrou-
wer 2003; Rietveld & Bruinsma 1998). By integrating
certain regions more effectively into trans-European
networks, the increase in transportation supply can, at
the same time, facilitate the flight of certain activities
towards major urban poles thanks to the economies of
agglomeration they thus acquire. For those countries
still backward in their development, the improvement
of their integration is very often accomplished through
the action of those of their regions which are located
in an intermediary position with regard to European
space (such as regional capitals). The overall result
of such developments at the European scale is the
increasing concentration of vectors of change along
a number of principal axes: the European dorsal axis
that stretches from the London basin to Lombardy
being the most important of them. Centred, as it were,
along the north-south trajectory of the River Rhine,
forming a powerful ensemble grouping productive
capacity and wealth, the European dorsal has inher-
ited the ancient merchant networks that connected the
Orient to the North Sea via Venice and Lombardy. The
Seine-Saône-Rhône axis and that drawn along the line
Moselle-Saône-Rhône vector important traffic flows
of every kind. Other axes of European significance,
though supporting less traffic stretch, for example,
from the Benelux countries to the Basque Country
via Paris, or from Cologne to Warsaw via Berlin. The
extension of the European Union appears to have led
to a reinforcement of the importance not only of the
latter axis, but also of the central axes which interact
with each other. European transport policies would
thus seem to lead to a greater differentiation of Euro-
pean territory rather than to its homogenisation. On
the other hand, they do, at the same time, increase its
cohesion capability over long geographical distances.
At national, or even international, scales, high-per-
formance business and R&D (research and devel-
opment) hubs have been established (Fig. 3D), for
example in France, Holland and Switzerland – where
«competitive poles» are defined in the spirit of the
Lisbon perspective on the knowledge society. Imag-
ined as a mixing of research, industry and education
and training, the diversity of networks creates an
«entropic» system in which interaction plays a multi-
plying role and serves as a source of renewal (through
competition/cooperation) both at a local and a global
scale (Van den Berg, Braun & Van Winden 2001).
This is the distinguishing feature of simple, highly spe-
cialised urban «clusters» (such as «industrial zones»),
which are essentially multidimensional, multiform and
multi-scale. In the city, routine access to resources that
are both specialised and diversified generates «secu-
rity» («risk insurance»: Veltz 2000) professed neces-
sary for the development of the human population and
their activities. Between cities, access to diversified and
complementary resources contributes to their comple-
mentarity with distant resources, for example through
the effect of spatial division of labour (Aydalot 1986).
Whether within or between cities, it is to be expected
that different types of networks interlink, compete
and support each other thereby improving themselves
and each other (Rozenblat & Cicille 2003). How-
ever, the assumption that industrial, education, train-
ing and research networks uphold and feed back into
each other in a soley positive way is questionable. One
can expect that – through the interaction between
networks and through the domination of networks
182
Geographica Helvetica Jg. 64 2009/Heft 3
in socio-economic or communication structures – a
number of networks impose their characteristics on
others. More generally, through the reciprocal adap-
tation of different networks, levels of scale produce
«attractive» infrastructures for newly emerging net-
works. Power networks provide mutual reinforce-
ment at the decision-making level and in terms of
their specific organisation. The importance of achiev-
ing a correct balance between the degree of diversity
of network levels and the degree of convergence of
those levels within unified common networks depends
– when functioning inside given urban centres – on
the maintenance of a strong capacity for reactivity
and renewal, and – when functioning between urban
centres – on the local visibility of those networks. The
same is also true of national and regional territories
whose institutional networks both «attract» and at the
same time are strengthened by economic and social
networks through language and identity, with the sup-
port and provision of the transport and communica-
tion networks which feed the «territory».
4 Articulation of polycentric policy scales
The urban system constitutes an attractive structure
for new activities and supports diffusion of innova-
tions, which in turn can lead to unequal urban develop-
ment. In order to guide urban development, the appro-
priate authorities would need to pay attention to the
different scales of effect of decisions made at differ-
ent levels of power. Thus, at local and regional scales,
the deconcentration of big cities (Fig. 3A) is primarily
coordinated by municipalities which are organized and
driven by regional authorities. Cooperation between
closed cities (Fig. 3B) could be led by regional authori-
ties, but not in a closed way. Inter-regional cooperation
and share of infrastructures is essential from an infra-
national and cross-border point of view. For transpor-
tation planning (Fig. 3C), relays in terms of spatial and
temporal connection imply a multi-modal coordina-
tion with vertical character incorporating national
and regional companies. Examples of international,
national and regional incentives exist which indicate
the possibility of stimulating this creation of relay. In
order to irrigate all the territory in a public service
point of view, the regional level must impose some
rules to the national and international one. At the
opposite, in order to define some specialized clusters
(Fig. 3D), the local and regional level is often not able
to introduce hierarchies of priority due to the possible
influence of local pressures. This restriction can lead
to recentralisation of decision-making with redistribu-
tion of functions and locations between cities. In Swit-
zerland, research centres (including those supported
at Cantonal level) were redefined at Federal level over
a period of a few years in view of creating Centres of
Excellence. This led to a top-down redistribution of
research teams and a concentration of investments.
In Spain, statistical data collection of regional agen-
cies is now redefined at least for nomenclatures at the
national level in order to compare regional develop-
ments (comparisons which had become impossible).
Vertical subsidiary between geographical scale
become more and more relevant in planning actions
and this reflection must be updated for each action
and for each kind of concerned actors. For example,
from the view point of sustainable issues, if environ-
mental or social segregation is to be applied at city
and local level, social, economical and research sub-
jects at national and continental scale would be more
relevant than at lower scales due to the far-reaching
network character of the former (Keiner & Kim 2007).
A European policy could be more active to invest
and define research centre in coordination with local
actors than the local centre itself. Of course, European
policies should be context-sensitive and normative
rules should be avoided. Dialogue platforms are nec-
essary between horizontal actors (e.g. for interregional
coordination) as well as between vertical levels (e.g.
for a polycentrism multi-scale approach). In fact, for
an efficient effect, an international centre supported
by national or international funds can be located in
an appropriate quarter to balance local segregation or
mobility. At the opposite, a local initiative to create,
for example, an economic centre could be linked with
regional, national or international strategy in the spe-
cialized field. Although these forms of collaboration
seem so obvious in theory, in reality their implementa-
tion appears problematic, as may be seen in the lack of
policy coordination between regions and cities (like in
France), between autonomous ports and cities (like in
Genes or in Naples) and between national authorities
and local ones (like in Marseille in connection with the
Euromediterranée project) (Rozenblat et al. 2004).
Competition between territories (closed or distant)
is often unnecessary because of the possibilities pro-
vided by spatial interactions. Although every activity
cannot be present everywhere, services, infrastruc-
tures and developed zones generate positive effects
in all accessible territories. In fact, the four different
kinds of polycentric organization can reinforce each
other. For example, the choice of a good location for
a new specialized economic activity park can pro-
mote the creation of cultural, leisure or shopping
infrastructures elsewhere. Such a choice necessarily
implies international coordination to simultaneously
develop the activity centre itself along with transpor-
tation infrastructures at local, regional and interna-
tional scales, local control of real-estate and housing
and a long-term policy of social integration based on
the diversification of employment that is supported at
182
Geographica Helvetica Jg. 64 2009/Heft 3
European urban polycentrism Céline Rozenblat
183
national and regional levels. All of this serves to incite
businesses to invest here and not elsewhere (Jouve &
Lefèvre 2002, 2004; Legales 2002). Such coordination
can only work if local actors are prepared to take the
preferences and ambitions of their neighbouring pop-
ulations positively into account and if they have a clear
understanding both of the city system in which they
are embedded and of the system of cities as a whole
(Pumain 1997).
5 Conclusion
Polycentrism is put forward – virtually as an ideol-
ogy – almost exclusively at local or narrow regional
levels, concerning mid-sized urban centres as opposed
to metropolises. In this regard, the national scale is
considered to be inexistent, whereas we have demon-
strated the extent to which it still plays a significant
role in regional dynamics. It is emphasised, that it
is the large cities which bear the lion’s share of this
national development through the continuous exten-
sion of their trans-national networks. Issues of the
appropriate territorial levels in decision-making are
pertinent at this juncture, given that the local authori-
ties which decide upon the location of poles of com-
petitiveness usually only pay attention to a particular
aspect that needs to be accommodated and generally
ignore the networks that are indispensable to its pros-
perity and value. Indeed, the economies of agglomera-
tion afforded by large urban centres have, since the
end of the 1990s, again become growth factors, par-
ticularly with regard to the multinational companies
which represent two-thirds of all international trade
and an ever-increasing part of global investment. It
does appear that globalization (along with the «conti-
nentalization» that it induces, particularly in Europe)
favours the upper part of the urban hierarchy, but it
is shown herein that – and specifically with regard to
multinational businesses – mid-scale cities and regions
play a major role in this process – even if that role is
only an indirect one – by acting as spatial mediators
or staging posts (Rozenblat & Pumain 2007). Without
bringing together all possible functions – as the great
political and economic capitals do – specializations
develop throughout the fabric of European cities and
regions, thus underlining the multi-level complexity of
the continental system. Without a doubt, it is through
this complexity of levels that decision-makers will be
able to intervene in a way that is pertinent to each spe-
cific regional, urban and national context in Europe.
Bibliography
Allain, R., Baudelle, G. & C. Guy (dir.) (2003a):
Le polycentrisme, un projet pour l’Europe. – Rennes:
Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
Allain, R., Baudelle, G. & C. Guy (dir.) (2003b): Le
polycentrisme. Une ambition nouvelle pour l’aména-
gement du territoire. – Rennes: Presses Universitaires
de Rennes.
Aydalot, P. (éd.) (1986): Milieux innovateurs en
Europe. – Paris: Groupement de Recherche Européen
sur les Milieux Innovateurs (GREMI).
Bairoch, P. (1985): De Jéricho à Mexico: Villes et éco-
nomies dans l’Histoire. – Paris: Editions Gallimard.
Becattini, G. (éd.) (1987): Mercato e forze locali: il
distretto industriale. – Bologna: Il Mulino.
Becattini, G. (1992): Le district marshallien: une
notion socio-économique. – In: Benko, G. & A. Lipietz
(éds): Les régions qui gagnent. Districts et réseaux: les
nouveaux paradigmes de la géographie économique.
– Paris: Presses Universitaires de France: 35-55.
Becattini, G. & E. Rullani (1995): Système local et
marché global. Le district industriel. – In: Rallet, A.
& A. Torre (éds): Economie industrielle et économie
spatiale. – Paris: Economica: 171-192.
Benko, G. & A. Lipietz (éds) (1992): Les régions qui
gagnent. Districts et réseaux: les nouveaux paradigmes
de la géographie économique. – Paris: Presses Univer-
sitaires de France.
Benko, G. & A. Lipietz (éds) (2000): La richesse des
régions: la nouvelle géographie socioéconomique.
– Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Castells, M. (1998): La société en réseau. – Paris:
Fayard.
Cattan, N., Pumain, D., Rozenblat, C. & T. Saint-
Julien (1999): Le système des villes européennes.
– Paris: Anthropos.
Christaller, W. (1933): Central places in Southern
Germany. – Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Commerçon, N. (dir.) (1999): Villes de transition.
– Paris: Anthropos.
European Spatial Planning Observation Network
- ESPON (2005): Potentials for polycentric develop-
ment in Europe. – Final Report 1.1.1, Annex B: The
application of polycentricity in European countries;
http://www.espon.eu/mmp/online/website/content/
projects/259/648/index_EN.html.
European Spatial Planning Observation Network
- ESPON (2006): Spatial scenarios and orientations
in relation to the ESDP and cohesion policy. – Third
Interim Report 3.2; http://www.espon.eu/mmp/online/
website/content/projects/260/716/index_EN.html.
Faludi, A. (2004): A polycentric process for a polycen-
tric Europe. – GAP-Working Paper Series, Nijmegen
School of Management.
Faludi, A. (2006): From European spatial development
to territorial cohesion policy. – Regional Studies 40, 6.
Faludi, A. & B. Waterhout (2002): The making of the
European spatial development perspective. – London:
Routledge.
Gault, M. (1989): Villes intermédiaires pour l’Europe?
– Paris: Syros-Alternatives.
184
Geographica Helvetica Jg. 64 2009/Heft 3
Hague, C. & K. Kirk (2002): Polycentricity scoping
study. – Edinburgh: School of the Built Environment.
Jönsson, C., Tägil, S. & G. Törnquist (2000): Organ-
izing European space. – London: SAGE.
Jouve, B. & C. Lefèvre (eds) (2002): Local power,
territory and institutions in European metropolitan
regions. – The Cass series in regional and federal stud-
ies 6, London: Frank Cass.
Jouve, B. & C. Lefèvre (éds) (2004): Horizons métro-
politains. – Lausanne: Presses polytechniques et uni-
versitaires romandes.
Juillard, E. & H. Nonn (1976): Espaces et régions
en Europe occidentale. – Paris: Centre national de la
recherche scientifique - CNRS.
Keiner, M. & A. Kim (2007): Transnational city net-
works for sustainability. – In: European Planning Stud-
ies 15, 10: 1369-1395.
Kühn, F. & S. Hayat (1999): Indicateurs de qualité
de service et faits marquants sur 22 réseaux de trans-
port urbain en Europe. – Arcueil: Institut National
de Recherche sur les Transports et leur Sécurité -
INRETS.
Legales, P. (2002): European cities, social conflicts and
governance. – Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Meijers, E.J., Romein, A. & E. Hoppenbrouwer
(2003): Planning polycentric urban regions in North
West Europe. – Delft: Delft University Press.
Mirloup, J. (dir.) (2002): Régions périmétropolitaines
et métropolisation. – Oréans: Presses universitaires
d’Orléans.
Moriconi-Ebrard, F. (1994): Geopolis: pour comparer
les villes du monde. – Paris: Anthropos.
Mumford, L. (1961): The city in history: its origins, its
transformations and its prospects. – New York: Har-
court, Brace & World.
Offner, J.-M. & D. Pumain (dir.) (1996): Réseaux et
territoires: significations croisées. – La Tour d’Aigues:
Editions de L’Aube.
Perroux, F. (1955): La notion de pôle de croissance.
L’économie au XX
e
siècle. – Paris: Presses Universi-
taires de France.
Pumain, D. (1997): Pour une théorie évolutive des
villes. – In: L’Espace Géographique 2: 119-134.
Pumain, D. (ed.) (2006): Hierarchy in natural and social
sciences. – Methodos Series 3, Dordrecht: Springer.
Pumain, D. & C. Rozenblat (1999): The regional
patterns of the European urban system. – In: Van
der Leeuw, S.E. & L. Garenne-Marot (eds): Policy
relevant models of the natural and anthropogenic
dynamics of degradation and desertification and their
spatio-temporal manifestations; volume 5, tome 1: A
multiscalar investigation into the dynamics of land
abandonned in southern France. – Draft final report
of the ARCHEOMEDES II research project, submit-
ted to the DG XII of the European commission: 11-
27.
Pumain, D., Rozenblat, C. & F. Moriconi-Ebrard
(1996): La trame des villes en France et en Europe.
– In: Pumain, D. & A. Chenu (dir.): Données urbaines
1. – Paris: Anthropos.
Reitel, B. (2007): Les agglomérations transfrontaliè-
res: des systèmes urbains en voie d’intégration? Les
espaces urbains de la «frontière» du territoire français.
– In: Geographica Helvetica 62, 1: 5-15.
Rietveld, P. & F. Bruinsma (1998): Is transport infra-
structure effective? Transport infrastructure and
accessibility: impacts on the space economy. – Berlin:
Springer.
Rozenblat, C. (1995): Tissu d’un semi de villes euro-
péennes. – In: Mappemonde 4: 22-27; http://www.mgm.
fr/PUB/Mappemonde/Mappe495.html.
Rozenblat, C. (2004): Tissus de villes. Réseaux et
systèmes urbains en Europe. – Habilitation à diriger
des recherches, HDR; http://www.mgm.fr/ARECLUS/
page_auteurs/rozenblat.html.
Rozenblat, C. & P. Cicille (2003): Les villes
européennes: analyse comparative. – Paris: La Docu-
mentation française. (2004: German translation: Die
Städte Europas: Eine vergleichende Analyse. – Bonn:
Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung).
Rozenblat, C., Cattedra, R., Chapelon, L., Joly, O.,
Lemarchand, A., Lavaud-Letilleul, V., Martell, H.,
Rodrigues-Malta, R. & P. Cicille (2004): Comparer
les villes portuaires en Europe. – Rapport pour l’Ins-
titut de recherche stratégique industriel et technologi-
que (IRSIT), Le Havre.
Rozenblat, C. & D. Pumain (2007): Firm linkages,
innovation and the evolution of urban systems. – In:
Taylor, P.J., Derudder, B., Saey, P. & F. Witlox (eds):
Cities in globalization. Practices, policies and theories.
– London: Routledge: 130-156.
Rutherford, J. (2005): Networks in cities, cities in
networks: Territory and globalisation intertwined in
telecommunications infrastructure development in
Europe. – Urban Studies 42, 13: 2389-2406.
Sassen, S. (1991): The global city: New York,
London, Tokyo. – Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Schindegger, F. & G. Tatzberger (2002): Le poly-
centrisme – une vision européenne pour le dévelop-
pement du territoire. – Wien: Österreichisches Institut
für Raumplanung.
Scott, A. (ed.) (2001): Global city-regions: Trends,
theory, policy. – Oxford: Oxford University Press
Van den Berg, L., Braun, E. & W. van Winden (2001):
Growth clusters in European cities: An integral
approach. – In: Urban Studies 38, 1: 185-205.
Vandermotten, C. (2003): Le polycentrisme dans une
perspective historique. – In: Allain, R., Baudelle,
G. & C. Guy (dir.): Le polycentrisme, un projet pour
l’Europe. – Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes:
17-28.
Veltz, P. (2000): Le nouveau monde industriel. – Paris:
Editions Gallimard.
184
Geographica Helvetica Jg. 64 2009/Heft 3
European urban polycentrism Céline Rozenblat
185
Abstract: European urban polycentrism: a multiscale
typology
Several publications of the European Spatial Plan-
ning Observation Network (ESPON) suggest that one
should be aiming at a polycentric urban system, albeit
one which does not unambiguously display proper-
ties of territorial development (Vandermotten 2003).
Focusing on concentration processes and implications
of urban policies, the article draws attention to those
regional processes (topographic) and urban networks
(topologic) destined to play the double role of catalyst
and diffuser of innovations in a diversified European
territory. It is argued that various spatial scales and
a range of different perceptions of polycentrism be
taken into consideration. It is felt that only through
the articulation of these differences will the relevant
processes and networks be able to function optimally
within a context where the interrelations of urban gov-
ernance are adapted to each territory.
Keywords: urban systems, Europe, urban framework,
regions, polycentrism
Résumé: Polycentrisme urbain en Europe:
une typologie multi-échelle
Plusieurs travaux de l’Observatoire en Réseau de
l’Aménagement du Territoire Européen (ORATE)
suggèrent de s’orienter vers un système urbain poly-
centrique, mais qui ne montre pas en soi de propriétés
évidentes de développement territorial (Vandermot-
ten 2003). Partant des processus de concentration
et des suggestions de politiques urbaines, cet article
propose une réflexion sur les processus à l’échelle
régionale (topographiques) et à l’échelle des réseaux
urbains (topologiques) susceptibles de jouer le double
rôle de catalyseur et de diffuseur des innovations dans
un territoire européen diversifié. L’article suggère de
distinguer différentes échelles spatiales et différentes
visions du polycentrisme. Ce n’est que dans leur arti-
culation qu’elles pourront être pleinement efficaces
dans une contextualisation des subsidiarités de gou-
vernance urbaine adaptées à chaque territoire.
Mots-clés: systèmes urbains, Europe, trame urbaine,
régions, polycentrisme
Zusammenfassung: Städtischer Polyzentrismus
Europas: eine mehrskalige Typologie
Mehrere Publikationen des European Spatial Planning
Observation Network (ESPON) empfehlen, sich nach
einem polyzentrischen Stadtsystem zu orientieren, was
jedoch in sich keine offensichtlichen Eigenschaften der
Raumentwicklung zeigt (Vandermotten 2003). Ausge-
hend von Konzentrationsprozessen und Empfehlun-
gen der Stadtpolitik wird eine Reflexion der Prozesse
im regionalen (topographischen) Massstab sowie im
topologischen Massstab der Städtenetze vorgeschla-
gen. Diese sollen eine doppelte Rolle als Katalysator
und Verbreiter der Innovation in einem diversifizier-
ten europäischen Raum spielen. Es wird empfohlen,
verschiedene räumliche Massstäbe und Visionen des
Polyzentrismus zu unterscheiden. Nur dadurch können
die relevanten Prozesse und Netzwerke optimal funk-
tionieren in einem Kontext, in dem die Beziehungen
der städtischen Steuerung (urban governance) für
jedes Territorium neu entwickelt werden müssen.
Schlüsselwörter: urbane Systeme, Europa, urbanes
Raster, Regionen, Polyzentrismus
Prof. Dr.
Céline Rozenblat, Institut de géographie,
Université de Lausanne, Quartier Dorigny, Bâtiment
Anthropole, CH-1015 Lausanne, Suisse.
e-mail: celine.rozenblat@unil.ch
Manuskripteingang/received/manuscrit entré le
17.12.2008
Annahme zum Druck/accepted for publication/accepté
pour l’impression: 5.9.2009
Dostları ilə paylaş: |