Defining Functional Polycentricity From a Geographical Perspective

Abstract

Despite the prevalence of polycentricity as a normative strategy in planning documents, a lengthy and inconclusive debate regarding its definition in academic research persists. The aim of this article is to eliminate the conceptual confusion surrounding functional polycentricity from a geographical perspective. By classifying different approaches to polycentricity, we outline the properties that characterize all forms of functional polycentricity. Accordingly, we redefine functional polycentricity and propose a corresponding framework with which to measure it. The commuting and leisure functional polycentricity of Atlanta is used as an example to illustrate the application of this framework.

Breaking with the spatial-cycle model: the shift towards ‘syncurbanization’ in polycentric urban regions

“…It seems to go beyond the four stages of the SCM towards a condition of continuous urbanization, varying only in morphology and intensity, and dissolving contrasts between cores, rings and places within and outside conventional FURs. This evolution is closer to the functional 'Acentric II' final stage in the model by Shu et al (2019), limited only by faster growth in a handful of attractive centres, for which further research could be carried out to see which factors make them stand out (e.g., capital city effects). But the overall principle was already part of Friedmann's (1978) 'urban field' concept, whose key ideas have been recently revitalized for the European context by the claim about the 'end of urbanization' by Andersen et al (2011) and the work on metropolization processes by Cardoso and Meijers (2020).…”

“…Lately, and which was not seen as inevitable some time ago (Nyström, 1992), a stage IV of re-urbanization, featuring a regrowing core city, took shape, although this process is selective, dependent on active policy incentives, and sometimes reserved for the larger core cities. A deviating empirical experience in most European urban regions was that, unlike the model suggests, suburban areas actually grew during all stages, leading functional and demographic densification up to the point where the very notion of 'suburban' became contested (Andersen et al, 2011;Tzaninis & Boterman, 2018), in line with Shu et al, 2019. In addition, and again pointing to the role of policy rather than assuming a 'natural', structural principle governing the SCM, we can identify plenty of shrinking core cities in Europe (Wolff & Wiechmann, 2018).…”

“…A recent contribution by Shu et al (2019) updates the conceptualization of how PURs form, without operationalizing a time dimension and intra-/interregional growth and decline. Overall, they present four routes of 'polycentralization', each going through five phases.…”

“…In a similar vein, several authors in the economic geography tradition suggest that agglomeration benefits are no longer confined to cities as such, but spread as 'externality fields' over larger territories as a result of new technologies such as information and communication technology (ICT) (Burger & Meijers, 2016;Parr, 2002;Phelps et al, 2001). Shu et al (2019) suggest that the transformation over time from a monocentric to such a polycentric, field-like state is inevitable, merely being a matter of maturity of the urban system.…”

“…There are not many longitudinal studies of how PURs are formed. Conceptually, Champion (2001), and lately Shu et al (2019), provide alternative pathways to how (functional) urban regions emerge over time, although the application of their theoretical models to actual case studies has been limited. Additionally, unlike morphological and functional perspectives, questions of regional demographic development have not been a key part of polycentricity research.…”