Search results

The aim of the chapter is to identify the pattern of city–region relations in Polish spatial and economic development. Based on the regression analysis of GDP per capita growth in chosen cities and their regions, conclusions are drawn on: differences in urban development (measured by GDP per capita growth) between cities and their surrounding regions and the direction of the core-periphery mechanism (backwash vs. spread). Findings of the research enabled us to answer the questions of whether urban Poland follows the core-periphery model of development, and to identify the stage of this theoretical approach at which Polish cities might be. For the majority of studies, cities and regions follow the backwash mechanism in their relations with the surrounding regions; however, the trend of this impact differs. Warsaw is a city where the dependence on its region’s resources is decreasing; nevertheless, other findings presented in the chapter allow the statement that Polish cities reach for their region’s resources and the core-periphery mechanism is characterised by the backwash effect. The following chapter fills in the gap in urban competitiveness studies, as they usually concentrate on specific case studies and rarely use larger panels for analysis. Such approach enables us to draw conclusions for the overall urban development patterns in Poland. Also, the issue of growth spread and city–region relations is rarely found in the Polish urban research.

This chapter focuses on the competitive outcomes of present-day smart cities. It explores how cities can leverage economic and internal advancements to gain a competitive edge over other cities, and attract and retain both internal and external users. In the 21st century, cities engage in a global competition to attract citizens and businesses alike. The attractiveness and competitiveness of cities are directly linked to their ability to offer essential services that support growth opportunities, build economic value, and establish a competitive differentiation. Cities with advanced and innovative environments are more likely to maintain leading positions in an increasingly globalized world. Building upon the previous discussions on urban and economic outcomes, this chapter sheds light on the competitive outcomes of smart cities and the implications of global competition and city attractiveness for internal and external users. This chapter begins by examining the role of marketing innovation and internationalization in driving smart city development and how urban ecosystems and digital technologies can enhance city attractiveness. It emphasizes the importance of being a smart destination for both internal and external users and how it can empower and shape interactions with citizens, talent, companies, and tourists. Additionally, this chapter analyzes the geographical differences in smart city strategies and explores the competitive landscape of smart cities within and across nations. Finally, it discusses the limitations of competitive urbanism, along with the challenges and future prospects of smart city development. This analysis is supported by data and published works from international journals. Overall, this chapter aims to comprehensively understand how cities can leverage smart technology and strategies to enhance their national and global positioning.

Since the 1950s, and the steadily growing mobility of people and production (economic activity) as a result of the shift to road traffic, especially in North America, suburban areas have grown rapidly as residential areas and places of (post-industrial) economic activity (Hoffmann-Axthelm, 1998). People moved from ‘the country’ and, especially, the established central cities to the more spacious and cheap to develop peripheral locations. In Europe, differences have emerged on the basis of established planning law and thus availability of land for development, and of historic legacies in the relationship between ‘city’ and ‘country’. Thus, for instance, while in Germany cities were distinctly separate from their surrounding areas in legal terms and land ownership, in Italy, cities have been viewed as ‘owning’ or controlling the surrounding areas to the extent that these are subservient to the cities’ developmental needs (Heitkamp, 1998).

This chapter concentrates on metropolitan governance, the use of projects (or ‘projectification’) in public administration and the development of metropolitan forms of citizen participation. The analysis is based on a case study from the Helsinki Metropolitan Area – a multi-actor policy programme called the Urban Programme, which included a specific participatory project named Citizen Channel. According to the analysis, the Urban Programme was a way to create consensus and collaboration between the municipalities of the area, whereas the Citizen Channel project created a ‘toolbox’ for metropolitan citizen participation. However, the relation between programme- and project-based development and municipal administration, especially the implementation of the results of short-term projects in permanent administration proved difficult. From the perspective of metropolitan ruralities, four kinds of conclusions are emphasised: the complexity and conflictuality of the issue of metropolitan governance; the use of relatively similar programmes and projects as policy tools both in urban and rural contexts; the ‘metropolitan dimension of everyday life’ of the inhabitants and its relation to municipal administrative cultures as well as the birth and strengthening of new actors such as local NGOs in projects. The originality of this chapter is to combine the frameworks of metropolitan governance, projectification and the development of citizen participation in an empirical study and to reflect them to the ‘metropolitan ruralities’ research.

The purpose of the chapter is twofold. First, it discusses the causes and characteristics of the current proliferation of rail station area redevelopment megaprojects around the globe, revealing them to be an important subset of the new generation of megaprojects discussed in this volume. Second, it offers a detailed and timely account of recent struggles surrounding “Stuttgart 21,” a massive, hugely controversial rail station redevelopment megaproject in Southern Germany, drawing lessons from the controversy over Stuttgart 21 for urban megaprojects more generally. This study is a qualitative case study analysis that involved interviews and document analysis. The experience of “Stuttgart 21” validates previous criticisms of megaprojects regarding transparency and public accountability in decision-making, environmental challenges, and cost-overruns. The political conflicts over “Stuttgart 21” are intimately tied to fundamental disagreements over future urban development and transportation policy, the costs and benefits of multibillion Euro megaprojects, and related democratic decision-making procedures. Rail stations emerge as an important, as-of-yet underexplored subset of urban megaprojects. Rail stations, especially those serving new high-speed rail corridors, are crucial development nodes within complex postindustrial urban–regional restructuring processes. But they also have a distinct character and historical identity. As the mass protests in Stuttgart show, they also clearly serve important identification functions in citizens’ lives.