Search

It has been argued that the concept of “borrowed size” is essential to understanding urban patterns and dynamics in North-West Europe. This paper conceptualizes this idea and provides an empirical exploration of it. A place borrows size when it hosts more urban functions than its own size could normally support. A borrowed size for one place means that other places face an “agglomeration shadow” because they host fewer urban functions than they would normally support. This paper explores the extent to which size and function are related for places in North-West Europe and tries to explain why one place borrows size while the other faces an agglomeration shadow by examining the position of places within the regional urban system. The presence of urban functions was approximated using high-end cultural amenities. We conclude that the largest places in their functional urban area (FUA) are better able to exploit their own mass. The largest place in a FUA is also better able to borrow size from nearby places and from (inter)national urban networks than the lower-ranked places. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In this paper we aim to enhance the prevailing structural perspective on metropolization by pointing to the mutual relationship between the processes of metropolization and polycentric development. We claim that a processual view is needed to emphasize the temporal dependencies between different layers of polycentricity, and to reveal that European city–regions are situated in different stages of polycentric metropolitan development (PMD). To illustrate this empirically, we first analyse Bratislava and Vienna as two European city–regions that recently decided to jointly approach metropolitan development, while their contextual conditions and development trajectories differ significantly. It is shown upon an indicator-based analysis that the two are in different phases of the metropolization process. Confronting this evidence with stakeholder assessments of the need for strategic intervention in metropolitan development further uncovers the importance of the strategic dimension in metropolitan research. Building upon that, we conduct cluster analysis for a sample of 50 European city–regions by the same indicator set. It is shown that even this large sample of agglomerations can be grouped by different types of metropolizes, reflecting distinct effects of the metropolization process on urban-regional transformation. Hence, we conclude that a processual understanding in strategic approaches to PMD is necessary. Only if the different phases, paces, and effects of the metropolization process are taken into account, we can formulate serious recommendations for the polycentric development of distinct European urban territories. The move from structural to processual understanding is an essential foundation to learning processes for the governance of future PMD. Furthermore, the emphasis on different types of metropolizes should be taken into account in the formulation of future European policies on metropolitan development. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]