ECE/HBP/SEM.54/3Page 11NATIONS UNIES UNITED NATIONS_COMMISSION ECONOMIQUE ECONOMIC COMMISSIONPOUR LEUROPEFOR EUROPESEMINAIRESEMINARCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN SETTLEMENTSDistr.GENERALTenth Conference on UrbanECE/HBP/SEM.54/3 and Regional Research2 March 2006Bratislava (Slovakia), 2223 May 2006Original: ENGLISHECE/HBP/SEM.54/3Page 11Discussion Paper for Topic 2HOW CAN POLYCENTRICITY OF TERRITORIAL DEVELOPMENT IMPROVE FUNCTIONAL INTEGRATION?Discussion paper prepared by Mr. Karel Maier (Czech Republic), Mr. Joao Mourato (Portugal) and Ms. Judith Ryser (United Kingdom)“Space is the expression of society. Since our societies are undergoing structural transformation, it is a reasonable hypothesis to suggest that new spatial forms and processes are currently emerging.” Manuel Castells (1996)Executive summaryThis paper explores the concept of polycentricity and its expected contribution to more balanced territorial development and social inclusion at different spatial scales. The paper focuses on the influence of cities in facilitating competitiveness, innovation and growth by harnessing the synergy of polycentric networks of cooperation, coordination and complementarity. It discusses governance and partnerships and how they can best assist the implementation of polycentric development. ECE/HBP/SEM.54/3Page 15I. THE CONCEPT OF POLYCENTRICITY: LESSONS LEARNED1. The definition and understanding of the concept of polycentricity are far from clear or consensual. This provides ample scope for imprecise application and occasional misuse of the term. Polycentricity tends to be opposed to hierarchic systems of cities. It has to be acknowledged that the meaning of polycentricity is wholly context-dependent that is, it depends on countries territorial and demographic characteristics, their urban development patterns, their institutional organization and so forth. In its wider scope, polycentricity can refer to the multiple spatial clustering of almost any human activity at any scale. 2. A working definition might be that polycentrism as the opposite of monocentrism is a spatial development model based on networks of cities that seeks the enhancement of territorial cohesion and addresses territorial disparities by rethinking the allocation of development and productive resources. It aims to reduce the negative effects of spatial over-concentration at any scale while tackling core-periphery disparities. It envisages integrated economic development inclusive of territories which current urban organization prevents from having a stake in wider growth and competitiveness.3. In the real world, unbalanced urban systems and uneven urban and rural development are common. Land flight and urbanization have persisted, albeit at different times and paces and as diverse spatial manifestations. In many countries people have concentrated in capital cities, sometimes despite restrictive measures, thus creating national territorial disparities. Suburbanization and dispersal have become widespread, often increasing the economic and social polarization of urban agglomerations, debilitating city cores and generating self-selected gated communities deep in the countryside. Migrants from less developed regions seeking work in cities may have difficulty adapting to urban lifestyles. Their precarious and sometimes illegal settlements have often compounded urban poverty and added to the sprawl accommodating city dwellers who have moved out and are commuting back to work. More recent rebalancing strategies have tried to create viable conditions in the countryside to retain its inhabitants or, conversely, to alleviate urban congestion and the plight of urban migrants. Polycentric development policies are a further step in this direction.4. The concept of polycentric urban development is not new. Arguably, on the urban scale, any multi-functional, spatially differentiated agglomeration is polycentric. A recent version of intra-urban polycentrism is Ebenezer Howards concept of city clusters consisting of cores and satellites, or the modernist doctrine of spatially separated but interdependent functions laid down in the Athens Charter (see CIAM 1933). Contemporary urban renaissance advocating mixed development in compact cities is the latest version of intra-urban polycentricity. 5. On the regional scale, the self-contained, poly-functional “new towns” conceived to ease congestion in British and later French cities, or de Gaulles “mtropoles dquilibre” in France, could be seen as a deliberate effort of postSecond World War regional polycentrism. Conversely, monofunctional housing areas stemming from private speculative suburban railway and road development in parts of Europe and North America could be construed as dysfunctional