Strategic Planning for City Networks: The Emergence of a Basque Global City?

Abstract

Throughout Europe, policy-makers recognize the development potentials of regions in which multiple cities are located close to each other. However, developing synergies among these cities requires networking to optimize the critical mass and exploit complementarities. Much is expected of spatial planning in terms of fostering networks. However, little is known about the actual contribution planning may have in developing city networks, in particular, since it involves planning on a new scale and based upon new starting points and objectives. Exemplary is the territorial development strategy (1990s) of the Basque country aimed at developing the networking among its three main cities (Bilbao, San Sebastian and Vitoria) to develop a Basque 'Global City'. We find that the leverage of this planning strategy has been poor, due to strong local identities and the lack of regional organizing capacity. This also appears to be common for other polycentric regions.

A Spatio‐Temporal Analysis of the Environmental Correlates of COVID‐19 Incidence in Spain

“…Álava is not the most populous province, with a population of only 331,549, but it has the highest GDP per capita of all provinces. Vitoria, its main city, is the capital of the Basque Country and has been the focus of efforts, along with San Sebastian and Bilbao, to develop a “Global Basque City” (Meijers, Hoekstra, and Aguado 2008). The other early focus of the pandemic in Spain was Madrid, which is the most populous province in the country and has the second highest GDP per capita after Álava.…”

Polycentricity and the Multiplexity of Urban Networks

“…The existence of multiple urban centres in close proximity to each other does not necessarily even imply that there are strong functional links between those centres, let alone that the ostensible PUR is functionally polycentric in that the orientation of the functional links (for example, commuting, shopping and trade) within that PUR are multidirectional. Taking these considerations into account, several scholars have argued that there is limited degree of urban network formation at the level of the PUR, even in regions that are considered archetypical PURs from a morphological point of view, such as the Basque country (Van Houtum & Lagendijk, 2001;Meijers et al, 2008), the Randstad in Holland (Lambooy, 1998;Lambregts et al, 2006;Van Oort et al, 2010), and the Flemish Diamond (Albrechts, 2001;Cabus & Vanhaverbeke, 2006;Hanssens et al, 2012). As a PUR cannot exist in practical terms without a minimum amount of interaction between the various parts (Champion, 2001;Parr, 2004;Governa & Salone, 2005), this purported lack of integration raises serious questions for the many policy attempts to initiate and sustain polycentric economic-development trajectories in Europe.…”

Türkiye’nin Yerel ve Bölgesel Otoriteleri İhracata Dayalı Şehir Rekabetçiliğini Önemsiyor mu?

“…Ayrıca bu planlar tek bir oyuncunun (örneğin bir belediye yönetiminin) performansını etkileyen stratejik karmaşıklığın, stratejik planlama sürecine oturtulmasında öncü rol üstlenmektedir (Bianchi ve Tomaselli, 2015). Stratejik planlama ve kent gelişimi üzerine yapılan çalışmalarda; kent ağlarının oluşturulması (Meijers, Hoekstra ve Aguado, 2008), etkin kent yönetimi (Partidário, Paddon, Eggenberger, Chau ve Van Duyen, 2008;Tsenkova, 2007), ekonomik gelişme (Partidário vd., 2008;Tsenkova, 2007;Xu, 2008), kentsel dönüşüm (Lee, Ostwald, Sher ve Lee, 2017), kentin insan sermayesinin gelişimine katkısı (Partidário vd., 2008), kentlerde yeşil altyapıların oluşturulması (Kim, 2014;Xu, 2008), kent rekabet gücü (Cavenago ve Trivellato, 2010;Metaxas, 2010), yaşam kalitesi (Cavenago ve Trivellato, 2010) ve kamusal alanların verimli kullanımı (Xu, 2008) gibi unsurlara odaklanılmıştır. Politik aktörlerin (belediye, sanayi ve ticaret odası ve kalkınma ajansları) kent rekabetçiliğine katkılarına yönelik çok sınırlı bir yazın olduğu gözlemlenmiştir (Wu ve Zhang, 2007).…”