Aglomeracyjna gra o przestrzeń: suma gminnych ambicji czy wspólna wizja metropolitalna?

• Autorzy: Mikuła Ł.

Warianty tytułu

EN

Game of Space in City-region: Sum of Municipal Ambitions or Joint Metropolitan Vision

• Języki publikacji: PL

Abstrakty

EN

The spatial planning system in Poland, based on the principle of municipal autonomy and left without effective co-ordination tools at the level of city-region (metropolitan area, functional urban area), created a situation where there is no decision-making center on metropolitan spatial development and the control over the process of urbanization is very weak. Management of spatial development is therefore based on a broad set of local policies, rarely taking into account the wider territorial context. Local governments take part in some kind of ‘game of space’ within city-regions, attempting in many cases to achieve a better competitive position by an expansive spatial policy and over-ambitious plans. The optimal model of spatial development for city-regions should, however, be based on the mechanisms of creating a common vision in the metropolitan scale with the necessary political and organizational instruments for its effective implementation. The paper starts with a brief overview of the basic theoretical concepts relating to the management of spatial development in metropolitan areas. The base for further empirical analysis are data relating to local and metropolitan spatial policies, collected during the preparation of the Spatial Development Concept for Poznań Metropolis (2016). Against this background, the political mechanisms of planning co-ordination proposed in the Act of 9 October 2015 on Metropolitan Associations are presented, especially in the context of the possibilities for improving local co-operation aimed at the integration of metropolitan spatial planning.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

city-regions; local government; metropolitan area; metropolitan associations; Poznań Metropolis; spatial planning; voluntary co-operation

• Wydawca: Komitet Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Kraju PAN ; Towarzystwo Urbanistów Polskich
• Czasopismo: Biuletyn Komitetu Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Kraju PAN
• Rocznik: 2017
• Tom: No 265
• Strony: 82--101
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 22 poz., ryc., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Mikuła Ł.

• Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza

Bibliografia

• 1. Allmendinger P., Haughton G., 2009, Soft Spaces, Fuzzy Boundaries, and Metagovernance: the New Spatial Planning in the Thames Gateway. Environment and Planning A, 41: 617–633.
• 2. Bailey S., 1993, Public Choice Theory and the Reform of Local Government in Britain: from Government to Governance. Public Policy and Administration, 8, 2: 7–24.
• 3. Barlow I., 1997, Administrative Systems and Metropolitan Regions. Government and Policy, 15, 4: 399–412.
• 4. Bish R. L., Ostrom V., 1974, Understanding Urban Government: Metropolitan Reform Reconsidered. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington.
• 5. Brenner N., 2003, Metropolitan Institutional Reform and the Rescaling of State Space in Contemporary Western Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies, 10 (4): 297–324.
• 6. Fundacja Rozwoju Demokracji Lokalnej, 2013, Raport o ekonomicznych stratach i społecznych kosztach niekontrolowanej urbanizacji w Polsce.
• 7. Heinelt H., Kübler D. (red.), 2005, Metropolitan Governance. Capacity, Democracy and the Dynamics of Place. Routledge, London.
• 8. Herrschel T., Newman P., 2002, Governance of Europe’s City Regions. Planning, Policy and Politics. Routledge, London.
• 9. Jouve B., Lefèvre C. (red.), 2002, Local Power, Territory and Institutions in European Metropolitan Regions. Frank Cass, London.
• 10. Kaczmarek T., Mikuła Ł. (red.), 2016, Koncepcja Kierunków Rozwoju Przestrzennego Metropolii Poznań. Centrum Badań Metropolitalnych UAM, Poznań
• 11. Lefèvre C., 1998, Metropolitan Government and Governance in Western Countries: a Critical Review. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 22 (1): 9–25.
• 12. Olbrysz A., Koziński J., 2011, Raport o finansowych efektach polskiego systemu gospodarowania przestrzenią. Materiały z konferencji „Finansowe skutki polskiego systemu planowania przestrzennego” [http://www.finansewurbanizacji.pl].
• 13. Ostrom E., 1972, Metropolitan Reform: Propositions Derived from Two Traditions.Social Science Quaterly, 53: 474–493.
• 14. Ostrom V., Tiebout C. M., Warren R., 1961, The Organisation of Government in Metropolitan Areas: A Theoretical Inquiry. American Political Science Review, 55: 831–842
• 15. Salet W., Thornley A., Kreukels A. (red.), 2003, Metropolitan Governance and Spatial Planning. Comparative Case Studies of European City-Regions, Spon Press, London.
• 16. Silva C. N., 2007, Reinventing Local and Metropolitan Government. Public Administration Review, Sept-Oct: 954–957.
• 17. Śleszyński P., Górczyńska M., Zielińska B., 2013, Szacunek prognozowanych i realizowanych wpływów i wydatków w Polsce wynikający z uchwalenia miejscowych planów zagospodarowania przestrzennego. IGiPZ PAN, Warszawa.
• 18. Tiebout C., 1956, A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64: 416–424.
• 19. Ustawa z 27 marca 2003 r. o planowaniu i zagospodarowaniu przestrzennym (Dz.U. z 2015 r. poz. 199 ze zm.).
• 20. Ustawa z 9 października 2015 r. o rewitalizacji (Dz.U. z 2015 r., poz. 1777).
• 21. Ustawa z 9 października 2015 r. o związkach metropolitalnych (Dz.U. z 2015 r., poz. 1890).
• 22. Waterhout B., 2010, Soft Spaces and Governance: The Transformation of Planning.24th AESOP Annual Conference, 7–10th July, 2010, Helsinki