Advertisement

Invoking New Metropolitan Imaginaries: What Type of Metropolitan Region for What Kind of Metropolitan Planning and Governance?

  • Valeria FedeliEmail author
  • Patricia Feiertag
  • John Harrison
Chapter
  • 291 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter asks whether new metropolitan imaginaries are meaningful in any essential sense. It does this by considering the implications for metropolitan regions, planning and governance of new metropolitan (and other spatial) imaginaries. We reveal the inherent unevenness that maps of these spatial imaginaries often belie. This unevenness in institutional capacity, spatial coherence and planning competency is critical because it allows us to consider the extent to which metropolitan spatial imaginaries equate to examples of deep- or shallow-rooted regionalism. The importance we attach to this is the potential to identify those metropolitan-regional imaginaries which are likely to develop into harder institutional forms, which might remain weakly institutionalised, and which could just as easily disappear altogether. The contribution of this chapter is to examine a series of tensions—urban–rural, elites–citizens, urban–suburban, static–dynamic—and the challenges and opportunities for mobilising meaningful spatial imaginaries for planning and governing metropolitan regions.

Keywords

Spatial imaginaries Metropolitan imaginaries Spatial planning Metropolitan governance Metropolitan policy 

References

  1. Addie, J.-P. (2018). Urban(izing) university strategic planning: An analysis of London and New York City. Urban Affairs Review.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087417753080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allmendinger, P., Chilla, T., & Sielker, F. (2014). Europeanizing territoriality—Towards soft spaces? Environment and Planning A, 46(11), 2703–2717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balducci, A., Fedeli, V., & Pasqui, G. (2011). Strategic planning for contemporary urban regions—City of cities: A project for Milan. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  4. Bang, H. P., & Sørensen, E. (1999). The everyday maker: A new challenge to democratic governance. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 21(3), 325–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barthels, L. (2018). ZukunftsLand – Regionale 2016: Innovative Formate in der Stadt- und Regionalentwicklung [Future land—Regional 2016: Potentials and perspectives of the formative urban and regional development]. Münster: Aschendorff.Google Scholar
  6. Batty, M. (2013). The new science of cities. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berger, N. (2018). Bruxelles: Un Territoire Métropolitain à l’Etroit [Brussels: A metropolitan territory cramped]. Brussels: Permanent Center for Citizenship and Participation.Google Scholar
  8. Blotevogel, H., & Schulze, K. (2010). 1 oder 2 oder 3? Zur konstituierung möglicher metropolregionen an Rhein und Ruhr [1 or 2 or 3? For the constitution of possible metropolitan regions along the Rhine and Ruhr]. Raumforschung und Raumordnung, 68(4), 255–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boussauw, K., van Meeteren, M., Sansen, J., Meijers, E., Storme, T., Louw, E., et al. (2018). Planning for agglomeration economies in a polycentric region: Envisioning an efficient metropolitan core area in Flanders. European Journal of Spatial Development, 69(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
  10. Braudel, F. (1979). Civilisation Matérielle, Economie et Capitalisme, XVe-XVIIIe Siècle [Material Civilization, Economy and Capitalism, 15th–18th Century]. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  11. Brenner, N. (2009). Restructuring, rescaling, and the urban question. Critical Planning, 16(4), 61–79.Google Scholar
  12. Brenner, N. (Ed.). (2014). Implosions/explosions: Towards a study of planetary urbanization. Berlin: Jovis.Google Scholar
  13. Brenner, N., Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2010). Variegated neoliberalization: Geographies, modalities, pathways. Global Networks, 10(2), 182–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brotton, J. (2013). A history of the world in twelve maps. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  15. Córdoba Martínez, C., & González, J. (2018). Bogotá: cities system and territorial organization. In D. Gómez-Álvarez, R. M. Rajack, E. López-Moreno, & G. Lanfranchi (Eds.) (2017), Steering the metropolis: Metropolitan governance for sustainable urban development (pp. 269–279). Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.Google Scholar
  16. Danielzyk, R., & Wood, G. (2004). Innovative strategies of political regionalization: The case of North Rhine-Westphalia. European Planning Studies, 12(2), 191–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davoudi, S. (2018). Spatial imaginaries: Tyrannies or transformations? Town Planning Review, 89(2), 97–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Diener, R., Herzog, J., Meili, M., de Meuron, P., & Schmid, C. (2013). Switzerland—An urban portrait. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. Enright, T. (2016). The making of grand Paris: Metropolitan urbanism in the twenty-first century. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fedeli, V. (2013). Idea competitions: Contemporary urban planning in urban regions and the concept of trading zones. In A. Balducci, & R. Mäntysalo (Eds.), Urban planning as a trading zone (pp. 37–55). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Feiertag, P., Harrison, J., & Fedeli, V. (2020). Constructing metropolitan imaginaries: Who does this and why? In K. Zimmermann, D. Galland, & J. Harrison (Eds.), Metropolitan regions, planning and governance (pp. 153–171). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Galison, P. (1997). Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Galland, D., Harrison, J., & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2020). What is metropolitan planning and governance for? In K. Zimmermann, D. Galland, & J. Harrison (Eds.), Metropolitan regions, planning and governance (pp. 241–261). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Gebhardt, L., Klemme, M., & Wiegandt, C.-C. (2014). Bürgerbeteiligung und bürgerengagement in zeiten der digital moderne – drei thesen (Citizen participation and citizen engagement in times of the digital modern—Three theses). disP—The Planning Review, 50(3), 111–120.Google Scholar
  25. Gómez-Álvarez, D., Rajack, R. M., López-Moreno, E., & Lanfranchi, G. (Eds.) (2017). Steering the metropolis: Metropolitan governance for sustainable urban development. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.Google Scholar
  26. Gravari-Barbas, M. (2009). La «ville festive» ou construire la ville contemporaine par l’événement (The ‘festival city’: Urban events and contemporary city building). Bulletin de l’Association de Géographes Français, 86(3), 279–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harrison, J. (2013). Configuring the new ‘regional world’: On being caught between territory and networks. Regional Studies, 47(1), 55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harrison, J., & Growe, A. (2014). When regions collide: In what sense a new ‘regional problem’?. Environment and Planning A, 46(10), 2332–2352.Google Scholar
  29. Harrison, J., & Heley, J. (2015). Governing beyond the metropolis: Placing the rural in city-region development. Urban Studies, 52(6), 1113–1133.Google Scholar
  30. Harrison, J., Fedeli, V., & Feiertag, P. (2020). Imagining the evolving spatiality of metropolitan regions. In K. Zimmermann, D. Galland, & J. Harrison (Eds.), Metropolitan regions, planning and governance (pp. 133–151). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Harrison, J., Smith, D. P., & Kinton, C. (2017). Relational regions ‘in the making’: Institutionalising new regional geographies of higher education. Regional Studies, 51(7), 1020–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Healey, P. (2006). Relational complexity and the imaginative power of strategic spatial planning. European Planning Studies, 14(4), 525–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Healey, P. (2009). City regions and place development. Regional Studies, 43(6), 831–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Healey, P. (2013). City regions and place development. In M. Neuman, & A. Hull (Eds.), The futures of the city region (pp. 71–84). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Iammarino, S., Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Storper, M. (2019). Regional inequality in Europe: Evidence, theory and policy implications. Journal of Economic Geography, 19(2), 273–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jessop, B., Brenner, N., & Jones, M. (2008). Theorizing sociospatial relations. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 26(3), 389–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. KCAP. (2012). Brussel2040: Herover de stad! [Over the city!]. Rotterdam: KCAP.Google Scholar
  38. Keil, R. (2017). Suburban planet: Making the world urban from the outside in. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  39. Korzybski, A. (1941). Science and sanity: An introduction to Non-Aristotelian systems and general semantics. Lancaster: Science Press.Google Scholar
  40. MacLeod, G., & Jones, M. (2007). Territorial, scalar, networked, connected: In what sense a ‘regional world’? Regional Studies, 41(9), 1177–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Massey, D. (2005). For space. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Massey, D. (2007). World city. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  43. Ostrom, V., Tiebout, C., & Warren, R. (1961). The organization of government in metropolitan areas: A theoretical inquiry. The American Political Science Review, 55(4), 831–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Paasi, A., Harrison, J., & Jones, M. (2018). New consolidated regional geographies. In A. Paasi, J. Harrison, & M. Jones (Eds.), Handbook on the geographies of regions and territories (pp. 1–20). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Parnell, S., & Robinson, J. (2013). (Re)theorizing cities from the global South: looking beyond neoliberalism. Urban Geography, 33(4), 593–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Petrin, J. (2012). Next Hamburg: Bürgervisionen für eine neue Stadt [Next Hamburg. Citizen visions for a new city]. Hamburg: Körber-Stiftung.Google Scholar
  47. Pike, A., O’Brien, P., Strickland, T., Thrower, G., & Tomaney, J. (2019). Financialising city statecraft and infrastructure. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Provincia di Milano. (2007). Per la Città Abitabile: Scenari, Visioni, Idee, Progetto Strategico Città [For the habitable city: Scenarios, visions, ideas, strategic city project]. Milan: POLIMI.Google Scholar
  49. Purcell, M. (2006). Urban democracy and the local trap. Urban Studies, 43(11), 1921–1941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reddy, P. S. (2017). Metropolitan governance in South Africa: eThekwini City Council. In D. Gómez-Álvarez, R. M. Rajack, E. López-Moreno, & G. Lanfranchi (Eds.), (2017), Steering the metropolis: Metropolitan governance for sustainable urban development (pp. 251–259). Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.Google Scholar
  51. Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2018). The revenge of the places that don’t matter (and what to do about it). Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(1), 189–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rojas, F. M. (2018). Advancing metropolitan governance in Buenos Aires. In D. Gómez-Álvarez, R. M. Rajack, E. López-Moreno, & G. Lanfranchi (Eds.), (2017), Steering the metropolis: metropolitan governance for sustainable urban development (pp. 280–289). Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.Google Scholar
  53. Roy, A. (2009). The 21st century metropolis: New geographies of theory. Regional Studies, 43(6), 819–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Salet, W., Vermeulen, R., Savini, F., & Dembski, S. (2015). Planning for the new European metropolis: Functions, politics, and symbols. Planning Theory & Practice, 16(2), 251–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Soja, E. (1989). Postmodern geographies: The reassertion of space in critical social theory. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  56. Soja, E. (2000). Postmetropolis. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  57. Tarrius, A. (1993). Territoires circulatoires et espaces urbains [Circulatory territories and urban spaces: Differentiation of migrant groups]. Les Annales de la Recherche Urbaine, 59(1), 50–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Thierstein, A. (2015). Metropolitan Regions: Functional relations between the core and the periphery. Planning Theory & Practice, 16(2), 254–258.Google Scholar
  59. Tobler, W. R. (1970). A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic Geography, 46(1), 234–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. UN General Assembly. (2016). Policy Paper 4: Urban governance, capacity and international development. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  61. Watson, V. (2009). Seeing from the South: Refocusing urban planning on the globe’s central urban issues. Urban Studies, 46(11), 2259–2275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Watson, V. (2014). African urban fantasies: Dreams or nightmares? Environment and Urbanization, 26(1), 215–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Watson, V. (2018). The return of the city-region in the New Urban Agenda: Another global imposition on southern cities? Regional Studies Association, November 2018. https://www.regionalstudies.org/presentations/2018-winter-conference-plenary-presentations/. Accessed April 15, 2019.
  64. Xu, J., & Yeh, A. (2018). Mega-city region governance and urban planning. In D. Gómez-Álvarez, R. M. Rajack, E. López-Moreno, & G. Lanfranchi (Eds.), (2017), Steering the metropolis: Metropolitan governance for sustainable urban development (pp. 140–154). Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valeria Fedeli
    • 1
    Email author
  • Patricia Feiertag
    • 2
  • John Harrison
    • 3
  1. 1.Politecnico di MilanoMilanoItaly
  2. 2.Dortmund Technical UniversityDortmundGermany
  3. 3.Loughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK

Personalised recommendations