The European Grouping for Territorial Cooperation (EGTC)170 
is a European legal instrument designed to facilitate and 
promote cross-border, transnational and interregional 
cooperation by enabling the public authorities of different 
Member States to deliver joint services. 

166 Workshop 1 Cities of tomorrow – Urban challenges, Brussels, June 2010. 
167 METROBORDER ESPON Project – Interim Report. 
168 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/baltic/index_en.htm. 
169 http://urbact.eu. 
170 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funds/gect/index_en.htm. 


Cooperation can take place at different territorial levels 
depending on the subject. Many local authorities already 
cooperate to provide school buses, manage multimodal 
transport systems, collect and treat waste, provide water, 
etc. Functions shared over greater territories may include 
universities, major transport nodes, business parks, 
hospitals, etc. Such inter-municipal cooperation is the basis 
for the creation of the new, more flexible functional urban 
area governance entities discussed in section 4.3. 

These cooperation entities not only permit the provision of 
public services with limited resources, but can also ensure 
territorial development in accordance with the European 
model of polycentric sustainable development. Urban 
sprawl, undesirable depopulation and concentration, 
unsustainable land use, depletion of resources, etc. may be 
limited by efficient cooperation within a larger functional 
area. Competitiveness and the viability of economic sectors 
also depend on efficient coopetition that strengthens both 
the competitiveness and attractiveness of the larger area. 
This cooperation may be extended to larger geographic 
areas with some specific shared features, such as river 
basins, coastlines or mountain ranges, and concern tourist 
trails, flooding prevention, etc. 

Cooperation may also be oriented towards exploiting 
particular commonalities or complementarities and can 
take place over greater geographic distances – for instance 
between cities hosting clusters belonging to the same value 
chain or having strengths in complementary research and 
technology fields. A third form of cooperation occurs when 
city administrations share intelligence and policy learning 
to create human capacity-building focused on addressing 
common urban challenges. 

4.7. Conclusions – a strengthening 
of the European urban 
development model 
The contributions, shared experiences and discussions 
between academics and urban stakeholders that have taken 
place in the context of the Cities of tomorrow process have 
put forward a set of key governance principles of special 
relevance for the European urban development model. 

4.7.1. Governanceconsiderations 
for theCitiesoftomorrow 
To meet the challenges of tomorrow, cities have to 
overcome seemingly conflicting and contradictory 
objectives and move towards more holistic models of 
sustainable city development: economic growth has to be 
reconciled with the sustainable use of natural resources; 
global competitiveness must be inclusive and favour a local 
economy; green growth must not exclude marginalised 
groups; global attractiveness must not be built to the 
detriment of the socially disadvantaged groups. 

The Cities of tomorrow have to deal with 
challenges in an integrated, holistic way. 

Cities need to adopt an integrated and holistic approach 
in their planning and development, uniting the social, 
economic, environmental and territorial dimensions of 
urban development. An implicit approach to addressing 
challenges already lies in the way they are formulated. 
For instance, a one-sided focus on CO2 reduction through 
technological solutions may lead to a green divide, a 
situation in which those who are most in need of reducing 
their energy bill cannot afford the new technology. 

An integrated approach in terms of geographic and 
government scale is also needed. Challenges do not 
respect administrative boundaries in their manifestations 
or in the strategies employed to address them and the 
effects of these strategies. This will require dynamic and 
flexible governance systems that can adapt to the different 
territorial scales of the challenges. 

The Cities of tomorrow have to match place- 
and people-based approaches. 

An integrated approach cannot deal with places that 
neglect people or vice versa. Therefore, there has to be 
a matching of place-and people-based approaches. 
These approaches are complementary and their link has 
to be reinforced. A place-based approach is necessary 
with respect to context sensitivity, freedom of agency 
and institutional diversity; a people-based approach is 


Cities of tomorrow -Challenges, visions, ways forward 

Combining people-and place-based approaches 
to achieve spatial integration171 

Spatial integration can be achieved through three 
interrelated processes combining place-and peoplebased 
approaches: (i) an up-scaling of successful 
local experiments, such as social innovation, learning 
methods, intercultural dialogue, etc.; (ii) a re-scaling of 
different types of urban intervention, e.g. identifying 

appropriate scale and right timing; (iii) inter-scaling 
by promoting stable and coherent links of cooperation 
through negotiation between agents and organisations 
with different spatial levels of intervention, e.g. 
neighbourhood, city, city–regional level. This would 
help to overcome sector perspectives of urban space 
by the adoption of a more holistic view, promoting 
collective intelligence and learning focused on daily 
life problems. 

necessary due to civic, political and social citizenship and 
the paramount importance of offering equal rights for all 
inhabitants. If places alone are targeted, this often results 
in a gentrification process, while targeting only people can 
lead to a worsening of local problems due to unexpected 
pauperisation processes. 

The Cities of tomorrow have to combine formal 
government structures with flexible informal governance 
structures as a function of the scale of challenges. 

There are many variations of city and city–regional 
government across Europe. Some are very close to their 
citizens and favour a more direct democracy. Others 
operate at a higher territorial scale, are more remote from 
the citizens but have better capabilities of dealing with 
complex territorial issues. No local government system or 
level can be said to be more appropriate than another, as 
the optimal level depends on the issue at stake. What seems 
to be increasingly important is the capacity to shift from a 
government to a governance mode suitable to the scale of 
the challenges. Such a governance mode must be capable 
of integrating formal government structures as well as being 
flexible enough to deal with challenges on different scales. 

From xed to exible boundaries; 
from government to governance 

Old xed action space 
(hardware policies: 
government) 

New exible action space 
(software policies: governance) 
European Union 
Transborder 
& macro-regions 
Metropolitan 
areas 
Neighbourhoods 
Administrative 
cities 
Provinces 
Central states 
Adapted from Jacquier, 2010 


To reconcile different long-term objectives, a shared 
understanding of the present and of possible desirable 
futures is required – an agreement of a shared vision to 
strive for and the strategy to get there. 

171 André, Isabel, contribution to Workshop 3 Cities of tomorrow – How to make it happen ? Brussels, December 2010. 

87 




The Cities of tomorrow have to develop governance 
systems capable of building shared visions reconciling 
competing objectives and conflicting development models. 

Integrated approaches can only be implemented if there are 
clear visions, clear objectives and political commitment. The 
contradictory nature of the challenges and the sometimes 
conflicting objectives of development require a nurtured 
dialogue between public authorities and the many urban 
stakeholders, such as households, enterprises, NGOs, 
associations and other representatives of different social, 
economic, ethnic or cultural groups. Such dialogue must 
be able to take into account the different territorial scales 
of challenges and be able to marry lower governance level 
strategies with higher ones. In this context, cities can be 
seen as social platforms for dialogue between different 
communities and interest groups. Conflicts can then be 
turned into something positive, becoming levers for social 
innovation, linking opportunities and needs. 

Cities’ capacity for long-term strategic planning, strategic 
information gathering and organisational learning 
becomes very important, as does their ability to mobilise 
stakeholders in collective strategy and vision-building 
processes. The ability of city administrations to manage 
horizontal cooperation is crucial for vision building, 
strategic planning and the implementation of integrated 
approaches. In addition, input indicators have to be 
complemented with outcome indicators better related to 
the overall objectives so that real progress and effectiveness 
of strategies can be measured. 

Cities are not isolated islands in a rural territory, but form 
more or less dense networks. The sustainable development 
of these networks is essential both for the cities themselves 
and for the territorial cohesion of the EU. 

City cooperation is necessary 
for coherent spatial development 

The development of cities has been followed by a parallel 
process of expansion around the core cities and increased 
connectivity with a much larger territory, including other 

cities. This has increased possibilities not only for economic 
exchange, but also for more competition between 
cities, competition for human resources, for tourists, for 
business investments, etc. This competition can at times 
be destructive for economic development and territorial 
cohesion, as well as leading to a suboptimal use of natural 
resources. Cooperation around strategic issues such as 
public services, large development projects, knowledge 
infrastructure and transport hubs becomes essential for a 
sustainable urban and territorial development. 

Cooperation between municipalities has to be facilitated 
as far as possible through formal and informal settings and 
not be hindered by legislative constraints that make joint 
management of services either difficult or impossible. More 
intellectual forms of cooperation have to be stimulated 
at a European level. 

4.7.2. Towards socially innovative,inclusive 
and integrated multi-scalar governance 
Cities play a crucial role in the daily life of all EU citizens. 
The future success of the European urban development 
model is of extreme importance for the economic, social 
and territorial cohesion of the European Union. It is, 
therefore, of the utmost importance that cities are allowed 
to develop in a balanced and socially inclusive way, 
strengthening their competitiveness and attractiveness 
without negatively impacting on the wider development 
of the territory. 

Cities’ role in the implementation of the Europe 2020 
strategy has been emphasised both at the European level as 
well by the cities themselves. This role cannot be overstated. 
Not only are cities the best-placed actors to implement 
sustainable solutions to reduce CO2 emissions or to ensure 
that growth is inclusive, they are also the actors that have 
to reconcile the contradictions and tensions in between 
the objectives. 

Cities have to adopt socially innovative, inclusive and 
integrated multi-scalar governance that is able to transform 
tensions into opportunities: tensions between competing 


Cities of tomorrow -Challenges, visions, ways forward 

or contradictory objectives; between sectoral interests; 
between different interest groups or communities; between 
different governance levels; between different competing 
territories; and between short, medium and long-term 
visions. As such, cities become platforms not only for 
economic, technological or environmental innovation, but, 
most of all, also for social innovation. 

But cities cannot do this in isolation. National regulation 
and policies must acknowledge and facilitate the economic, 
social, environmental and not least territorial role of cities. 
Without multi-level governance frameworks and strong 
higher-level urban policies conducive to an integrated 
territorial approach, cities will be hard-pressed to effectively 
tackle the challenges ahead. The European level can act as 
a facilitator and make sure that the territorial dimension is 
fully taken into account by its policies, but the successful 
implementation of the Leipzig Charter, the Toledo 
Declaration and the Territorial Agenda 2020 relies heavily 
on national and regional governments. 


Conclusions 




Cities of tomorrow -Challenges, visions, ways forward 

This report has gone through three steps: demonstrating 
that there is a European model of urban development 
(Chapter 1); discussing the major strengths, weaknesses, 
opportunities and threats to this model (chapters 2 and 3); 
and focusing on the governance challenges of our Cities of 
tomorrow (Chapter 4). 

The conclusions support the main urban and territorial 
development principles, priorities and objectives that have 
been expressed through the Leipzig Charter, the Toledo 
Declaration and the Territorial Agenda 2020, underlining 
the importance of a stronger territorial dimension 
in future cohesion policy. The report supports the key 
objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, but points to the 
need for integrated, coherent and holistic approaches 
across sectors, governance levels and territories. 

Social, economic and environmental 

challenges have to be addressed 
both at neighbourhood level and 
in broader territorial contexts. 
Cities can no longer be defined 
solely by their administrative 
boundaries, nor can urban policies 
target only city-level administrative 
units. Attention has to be paid to 
the necessary complementarities 
between functional approaches – at 
the level of larger agglomerations 
and metropolises – and social and 
cultural approaches involving 
citizens’ engagement and 
empowerment – at the level of 
neighbourhoods. Both the broader 
territorial reality and the internal 
urban form have to be taken into 

governmental levels, as well as between sectors concerned 
by urban development. Tensions between different interests 
will have to be overcome. Compromises will have to be 
negotiated between competing objectives and conflicting 
development models. A shared vision is important to sustain 
such dialogue. 

A solid knowledge base is needed to underpin a shared 
understanding of development potentials – a must, before 
any vision of the future can be elaborated. Such knowledge 
cannot be derived solely from experts but needs to be 
understood and sometimes even co-produced by all those 
concerned. In addition to improving the availability and 
comparability of territorial data and knowledge based 
on sources such as ESPON, the Urban Audit and Urban 
Atlas, there are needs for less tangible data. Stakeholders’ 
and citizens’ involvement is essential for asking the right 

‘[…] I believe that in the current economic turmoil, where 
the financial crisis has already had serious consequences on 
employment and public budgets, we have to mobilise all our 
strengths to alleviate the negative impacts on the most vulnerable 
populations. Social innovation is not a panacea but if encouraged 
and valued it can bring immediate solutions to the pressing social 
issues with which citizens are confronted. In the long term, I see 
social innovation as part of the new culture of empowerment that 
we are trying to promote with a number of our initiatives, starting 
with the Renewed Social Agenda. […]’ 

José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, 
31 March 2009 

account. Urban policies will have to ensure coherence questions, measuring the right things, creating ownership 
between sectoral initiatives with spatial impacts and place-of strategies and mobilising endogenous potential. 
based initiatives. 

Strategies will have to take into account the diversity 
To fulfil such objectives, fixed coordination mecha-of cities: their development paths, their size, their 
nisms have to be complemented by flexible ones to demographic and social contexts, and their cultural and 
ensure dialogue and cooperation between territorial and economic assets. For example, it will be important to 


examine the relevance of smart specialisation strategies in 
those cities or regions which face specific difficulties due 
to the convergence of demographic, economic and social 
difficulties. 

Innovation will have to be fostered to support a transition 
towards Cities of tomorrow. Cities of tomorrow should 
be diverse, cohesive and attractive cities, they should 
be green and healthy, and they should be places for a 
resilient and inclusive economy. The potential of socioeconomic, 
cultural, generational and ethnic diversity 
should be fully exploited as a source of innovation. 
Innovation strategies have to be manifold, addressing 
services and technology as well as institutional and social 
innovation. 

Innovation will also have to address organisational and 
institutional issues as new forms of governance will be 
required to tackle the complexity of the challenges ahead. 
Linking to social innovation, the question of values and 
ethics has been underlined by several experts during the 
reflection process. 

Inclusive growth strategies will have to overcome the 
negative consequences of the decoupling of economic 
growth from social development and address vicious circles 
of demographic and economic decline that an increasing 
number of European cities will face in the coming years. 
A coherent approach to smart, inclusive and green 
growth strategies must be adopted so that conflicts and 
contradictions between these different objectives can be 
overcome and accomplishment of one objective is not 
detrimental to meeting others. 

Lack of financial resources, low fiscal or regulatory power, 
or insufficient endogenous development potential 
make it difficult for many European cities to develop in 
a harmonious and sustainable way, following the ideal 
model of attractiveness and growth. Shrinking cities 
may have to redefine their economic basis and manage 
transitions towards new forms of economic, social and 
spatial organisation. 

In addition, if current trends continue, social exclusion 
and increasing spatial segregation will affect a growing 
number of regions and cities, including the richer ones. 
Pockets of poverty and deprivation already exist in the 
wealthiest of European cities and “energy poverty” hits the 
most vulnerable groups, especially in cities with poor or 
obsolescent housing stock. 

There is a strong political rationale for paying special 
attention to deprived neighbourhoods within the context 
of the city and larger territory as a whole, as underlined 
by the Leipzig Charter and by the Toledo Declaration. 
Education and training play a crucial role in permitting 
social and spatial mobility and stimulating employment 
and entrepreneurship – this report also underlines the 
importance of social capital, which goes beyond education 
and training and includes relational skills. But social 
inclusion should not be an aim only for ‘people-based’ 
policies; people-based approaches need to be combined 
with place-based ones. Addressing only ‘people’ can 
help people to move away from problems and further 
impoverish disadvantaged neighbourhoods; addressing 
only ‘place’ may either displace the problem or have lock-in 
effects on local communities. 

As already underlined by the Toledo Declaration, this 
report points to the strategic role of integrated urban 
regeneration, framed in the broader concept of integrated 
urban development, as one important perspective for 
achieving a series of objectives, such as: ensuring citizens’ 
participation and stakeholders’ involvement in working 
towards a ‘more sustainable and socially inclusive model 
in the whole built environment and in all the social 
fabrics of the existing city’172 ; addressing climate change, 
demographic change and mobility as major urban 
challenges; ensuring greater coherence between territorial 
and urban issues; and promoting a common understanding 
of the integrated approach. 

This report points to recommendations of Territorial Agenda 
2020 with respect to framing urban development in a 
territorial context linked to the Europe 2020 strategy and 

172 Toledo Informal Ministerial Meeting on the Urban Development Declaration, Toledo, 22 June 2010. 


Cities of tomorrow -Challenges, visions, ways forward 

promoting a balanced polycentric territorial development 
and the use of integrated development approaches in cities, 
rural and specific regions. 

One of the challenges in a harmonious territorial 
development of Europe, as identified by TA2020, is the 
quick pace of land takeover due to the spread of lowdensity 
settlements, i.e., urban sprawl. Strategies for 
recycling land (urban regeneration, redevelopment 
or reuse of abandoned, derelict or unused areas) have 
already been developed in the context of cohesion policy 
and may play a key role in the future, as may other green 
strategies, such as the development of green belts and/or 
corridors, the greening of the city and fostering of family- 
and elderly-friendly cities via public spaces and services 
for all, while improving the management of energy and 
material resources and flows in the city (urban metabolism, 
recycling, local energy solutions). 

In line with TA2020, this report also emphasises the need 
for territorial integration in cross-border and transnational 
functional regions and highlights the importance of 
improving territorial connectivity and cooperation between 
European cities. 

Cities cannot be defined solely by their administrative 
boundaries, nor can urban policies target only citylevel 
administrative units. The importance of multilevel 

governance has been strongly underlined by the European 
Parliament and the Committee of the Regions. This is 
completely in line with the conclusions of this report: 
European, national, regional and local policies need to be 
articulated with each other. 

This report takes the concept of multilevel governance 
further. Policies addressing neighbourhoods need to 
be articulated with policies addressing not only larger 
agglomerations or territories in which cities are embedded, 
but also neighbouring areas. The subsidiarity principle that 
has been strengthened by the Lisbon Treaty implies not 
only that a higher governance level is being replaced by a 
lower one, but also that new relations are being forged 
between different levels, e.g. between the European 
and the local levels. The range of actors involved in policymaking 
and policy-shaping needs to be widened to include 
diverse stakeholders, including citizens. In essence, policies 
have to operate in a multiscalar governance framework. 

It is the responsibility of all governance levels to ensure that 
the full potential of cities and urban agglomerations can be 
exploited to the benefit of all European citizens. Europe’s 
future depends on our Cities of tomorrow. 


Annexes 


Chapter 1 - Annex 1 

Administrative, morphological and functional urban areas of large European cities 

Pop adm city Pop MUA Ratio MUA/city Pop FUA Ratio FUA/city 
London 7.43 8.27 1.1 13.71 1.8 
Paris 2.18 9.59 4.4 11.18 5.1 
Madrid 3.26 4.96 1.5 5.26 1.6 
Barcelona 1.58 3.66 2.3 4.25 2.7 
Milan 1.30 3.70 2.8 4.09 3.1 
Berlin 3.44 3.78 1.1 4.02 1.2 
Birmingham 0.99 2.36 2.4 3.68 3.7 
Rome 2.55 2.53 1.0 3.19 1.3 
Katowice 0.32 2.28 7.1 3.03 9.5 
Warsaw 1.69 2.00 1.2 2.79 1.7 
Frankfurt 0.65 1.46 2.2 2.76 4.2 
Lisbon 0.53 2.32 4.4 2.59 4.9 
Lille 0.23 0.95 4.1 2.59 11.3 
Vienna 1.60 1.67 1.0 2.58 1.6 
Manchester 0.44 2.21 5.0 2.56 5.8 
Budapest 1.70 2.12 1.2 2.52 1.5 
Liverpool 0.44 1.17 2.7 2.24 5.1 
Stockholm 0.76 1.48 1.9 2.17 2.9 
Bucharest 1.93 2.06 1.1 2.06 1.1 
Copenhagen 0.50 1.36 2.7 1.88 3.8 
Prague 1.17 1.18 1.0 1.67 1.4 
Dublin 0.47 1.07 2.3 1.48 3.1 
Amsterdam 0.78 1.05 1.3 1.47 1.9 
Rotterdam 0.60 1.03 1.7 1.43 2.4 
Helsinki 0.56 1.07 1.9 1.29 2.3 
Oslo 0.60 0.71 1.2 1.04 1.7 
Bratislava 0.43 0.44 1.0 0.71 1.7 
TOTAL 38.13 66.48 1.7 88.24 2.3 

Source: Tosics, Iván 


Cities of tomorrow -Challenges, visions, ways forward 

Chapter 1 - Annex 2 

A definition of a city 

The lack of a harmonised definition of a city and its functional area has hindered the analysis of cities in Europe. 
In cooperation with the OECD, the European Commission has developed a relatively simple and harmonised definition: 

. 
A city consists of one or more municipalities (local administrative unit level 2 – LAU2). 
. 
At least half of the city residents live in an urban centre (image 1.3). 
. 
An urban centre has at least 50 000 inhabitants. It consists of a high-density cluster of contiguous 173 grid cells 
of 1 km2 with a density of at least 1500 inhabitants per km2 (image 1.1.), as well as filled gaps174 (image 1.2). 
Images 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3: How to define a city 

High-density cluster, urban centre and city (Toulouse) 


Before lling After lling 
Communes dening urban center 

High Density Cluster (>1500 inh. per sq.km.) 
Urban Centre (HD cluster > 50.000 inh.) 
Commune > 50% of its population in an urban centre 
Commune 



Once all cities have been defined, a functional area can be identified based on commuting patterns using the following steps: 

. 
If 15% of employed people living in one city work in another city, these cities are combined into a single destination. 
. 
All municipalities with at least 15% of their employed residents working in a city are identified (image 2.2) 
. 
Municipalities surrounded175 by a single functional area are included and non-contiguous municipalities are dropped (image 2.3). 
173 
Contiguity for high-density clusters does not include the diagonal (i.e. cells with only the corners touching). 

174 
Gaps in the high-density cluster are filled using the majority rule iteratively. The majority rule means that if at least five out of the eight cells 
surrounding a cell belong to the same high-density cluster, it will be added. This is repeated until no more cells are added. 

175 
Surrounded is defined as sharing at least 50% of its border with the functional area. This is applied iteratively until no more LAU2s are added. 


96 
176 Based on calculation by DG REGIO ( European Commission ), March 2011. 
Chapter 2 - Annex 1 
City and its commuting zone (Toulouse) 
City 
Commune with > 15% of its population commuting to urban center 
Added enclave + enclave with 50% of its borders shared with commuting area 
Dropped enclave 
Commune 
City Commuting area Commuting area after including enclaves and dropping exclaves 
Images 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 : How to define a commuting zone 
Source : EU-SILC ( Survey on Income and Living Conditions )176 
-1 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
BE AT IE PT FR UK DE SE NL IT ES LU DK FI EL 
Dierence in share of population severely 
materially deprived between urban areas 
and other areas in pp, 2009 
Severe material deprivation higher 
in urban areas in the EU-15 
Figure 5 Difference in share of severely materially deprived individuals in the urban population compared 
to this share in the rest of the population in EU-15 Member States 
( in percentage points ), 2009

Cities of tomorrow - Challenges, visions, ways forward 

Chapter 4 - Annex 1 


What the experts say – can we agree on core 
European values, visions and objectives? 

Yes! 

• 
a precondition for everything else; a necessity; 
without agreeing on a minimum set of common 
values, there is no possibility of any European policy; 
values already present in the definition of challenges. 
Well… 

• 
core values maybe, but visions and objectives…? 
No! 

• 
doubt over the possibility of defining core European 
values and visions when ideological orientations are 
so eroded; 
• 
maybe among experts, impossible at general level; 
educated ‘policy-makers’ and ‘experts’ might agree on 
‘core’ values but disagree on the political/economic 
interpretation of these…; outside this circle there 
will be much less agreement, for political, ethical, 
theological, cultural, etc. reasons; values maybe, but 
visions and objectives…? 
What shared values? 

Liberté, égalité, fraternité… 

• 
Enlightenment and French Revolution: Freedom, 
Equality and Solidarity; 
• 
liberty in economic initiative, in culture creation, 
in ordinary life, in sexual orientation, in opinion, in 
religion, combined with a struggle towards equality 
in respect of differences, avoiding discrimination; 
• 
a balance between individual freedom and social 
(societal) responsibility; 
• 
the principles and rights enshrined in the European 
Convention on Human Rights and now the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights. 
… and diversity 

• 
equality-related coordinated policies should enable 
Europeans to be free to live their diversities; 
• 
European diversity must be seen as an asset in this 
regard which has to be a central part of a European 
strategy. 
What shared objectives? 

Europe 2020 

• 
the common pillars on which we can agree are: 
economic, social and environmental dimensions 
(sustainability). The framework for common 
objectives represents the EU 2020 strategy; smart, 
sustainable and inclusive growth. 
Quality of life and inclusion 

• 
a decent quality of life for ALL EU citizens and the 
fight against exclusion and poverty in our society; 
ensure social integration (solidarity); seek decent 
employment for all (quality of life). 
Environment 

• 
avoid irretrievable spatial and environmental dam-
age (sustainability); reduce the maximum amount of 
environmental pollution (public health). 
Urban innovation and creativity 

• 
fostering innovation in all spheres of urban life (creativity). 
Governance 

• 
implement the Europe-wide shared understanding 
of the balance between individual freedom and 
collective responsibility; mutual recognition and 
division of labour and governance tasks between 
local ( urban ), regional, national and EU levels, 
i.e. multilevel governance. 

Chapter 4 - Annex 2 


What the experts say – what are the main obstacles 
to reaching (shared European) objectives? 

Lack of (coherent) visions and political will; hegemony 

• 
absence of political will and of a long-term 
perspective in EU policy-making; no ownership of 
objectives at sub-European level; with respect to 
political organisation, we need to foster innovative 
forms of participation and democracy; 
• 
values sometimes in opposition (e.g. urban diversity 
and equal social rights); 
• 
trend of imposing hegemonic interest, presenting 
it as public interest; some interests will always 
prevail strongly over others, and some ideas, visions 
and objectives will be distorted in favour of some 
interests. 
Erosion of the welfare state and solidarity 

• 
combination of inequality-related policies and postdemocracy; 
liberalisation leading to destruction of 
social tissue; dominance of economic considerations 
(in the narrow sense of just-for-profit); the (resulting) 
disappearance of the welfare state and shift of 
burden to the local level (‘devolution’) without the 
required resources; 
• 
general demographic, economic, social trends – the 
disequilibrium between age groups, the polarisation 
of the labour market (disappearance of the middleskilled 
group), the weakening of organic forms of 
solidarity and their replacement by new mechanic 
forms (top-down control); 
• 
attitudes: xenophobia, racism, de-secularisation 
(religion and ideologies gaining in importance over 
the ‘republican’ ideal). 
Lack of innovation in administrations and regulation 

• 
imbalance in regulations – incentives and sanctions 
designed for specific situations while the situation in 
the field is more complex, which creates blockages; 
procedures are not serving the principles and 
objectives – actors involved end up discussing 
regulations that make their life impossible and not 
visions and European objectives; 
• 
fear of (social) innovation in administrations: (better 
to fly on ‘automatic pilot’ and to rely on bureaucratic 
routines); thinking in stereotypes (lack of time, 
expertise and willingness to get a grip on what urban 
governance really could mean); inertia and‘business 
as usual’ treatment of European funds by national and 
regional authorities. 
Material and immaterial means 

• 
differences in financial means and experience 
between Member States; unequal distribution of 
opportunities and wealth across and within regions; 
• 
legal powers and resources are not sufficient to 
secure public wealth/services vis-a-vis global 
economic powers, which do not take an adequate 
part of the responsibility. 
Communication 

• 
the European project depends not only on a common 
market, but also on a society where individual groups 
understand each other – a long-term process; 
• 
lack of understanding – communication is slow and 
confined to the upper levels, professional language 
tends to be too coded, local levels cannot follow the 
discussions; 
• 
lack of a clear, urban-oriented message from the EU. 

Cities of tomorrow -Challenges, visions, ways forward 

Chapter 4 - Annex 3 


What the experts say – what are the opportunities 
provided for and offered by cities in relation 
to the challenges, visions and European objectives? 

‘We have an amazing opportunity to show a leading 
example to the world of what I feel will be an 
extraordinary, wide-ranging and deep social and political 
transformation during the next 10–20 years’ 

Where things happen 

• 
geography (this is where challenges and opportunities 
exist), human capital, leadership, integrity 
(accountability), innovation, local knowledge, integrated 
approaches; cities are not only territories, but 
also hubs and nodes in a global or regional system 
or network; 
• 
engines of growth, places of creativity and innovation, 
key nodes of command and control in private and 
public spheres, concentrations of human capital, 
the core place of social networks; can show the way 
forward, can reach critical mass, can provide flexible, 
local, comprehensive approaches to economic 
development; 
• 
encourage knowledge alliances combining several 
kinds of ‘savoirs’; tackle together the energy and 
urban renewal challenges. 
Quality of life 

• 
effective management of public money, more local 
jobs, mobilised private investments, high quality 
environment and life for citizens, active participation 
of local stakeholders and citizens in policy-making 
and implementation, boost for other sectors (e.g. 
education, culture, etc.); 
• 
can influence the quality of life for their citizens, 
enabling democratic involvement of as many 
citizens as possible in defining ‘good life’, designing 
appropriate holistic concepts and implementing the 
relevant policies. 
Platforms for participation and citizenship 

• 
at city level, participative democracy and representative 
democracy can be combined in efficient 
schemes; a platform (in the sense of place/community) 
where public interest can be defined in a 
concrete way based on daily life problems and 
relations between people at neighbourhood level; 
• 
to articulate the short-term objectives of social 
cohesion actions (political agendas) vs. the long-term 
of community/place dynamics; to understand the 
different degrees of priority and the sense of urgency; 
to function as a guarantee for social commitments on 
the basis of mutual confidence. 
Platform for negotiation 

• 
a ‘negotiated city’ which permits negotiation between 
apparently opposing values and visions; cities can be 
arenas for social conflict and contradiction; mobilise 
citizens and negotiate with the private sector, 
merge top-down with bottom-up and create true 
participation; 
• 
cities as shared spaces are the stage for the desirable 
renewal of shared responsibility embedded in 
concept governance, so as to have a substantive 
base for dialogue and negotiation between different 
city social and cultural groups, organisations and 
institutions whose visions and actions are developed 
in a shared urban space. 
Laboratories 

• 
process of comparisons of various models of 
European cities, transfers of not only technical 
solutions but also social solutions, diversity being 
an asset e.g. a big laboratory; cities can be testing 
grounds for new policy directions from higher levels; 
cities can be laboratories for social and cultural 
innovation; capacity to develop new political 
models, including, but not only, participation 
mechanisms. 

List of figures, 
maps and tables 

Map1 Population density in Europe, 2001 . 
3 


Table 1 Defining cities according to density of the population . 
3 
Figure1 Job losses in cities due to the economic crisis . 
21 
Figure2 Trends in the use of material resources 

in the EU-15 and in the recently acceded EU-12 countries 

compared with GDP and population (EEA, 2010a) . 
28 
Figure3 Proportion of city income derived from local taxation . 
30 
Figure4 Understanding a city’s development potential . 
49 
Table 2 Alternative ways of understanding and describing reality . 
62 


Table 3 Examples of city foresights . 
79 


Figure5 Difference in share of severely materially deprived individuals 

in the urban population compared to this share in the rest of the 

population in EU-15 Member States ( in percentage points ), 2009 . 
96 



European Commission — Directorate General for Regional Policy 

Cities of tomorrow - Challenges, visions, ways forward 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union 
2011 — 112 pp. — 21 x 29.7 cm 
ISBN: 978-92-79-21307-6 
doi:10.2776/41803 


HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 
• at the European Union’s representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact details 
on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758. 
Priced publications: 

• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). 
Priced subscriptions(e.g. annual seriesoftheOfficial JournaloftheEuropean Unionandreports 
of casesbeforetheCourtof JusticeoftheEuropean Union): 

• via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 
(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm). 

KN-31-11-289-EN-C 



