Browsing by Author "Niemelä, Juha"

Theories and interpretations related to urban networks and polycentricity have risen to the core of the international debate concerning structural and functional development of urban regions. At the same time regional development zones have gained attention since they are seen as a way to endorse polycentricity. This applies e.g. to the spatial strategies of the European Union and the Finnish government. The aim of this study was to examine the status of development zone strategy at a regional (municipality) level by studying two zones from Helsinki and Stockholm metropolitan regions: the Helsinki–Hämeenlinna–Tampere (HHT) and Stockholm-Uppsala (ABC). In addition, the main similarities and differences between the zonal developing of these two regions were considered. The main materials used for this study were the development visions and strategies and zoning plans of the municipalities located along the studied zones. In addition, interviews of urban planning experts both in Helsinki and Stockholm and an online interview concerning the HHT zone were conducted. The HHT zone was also studied using GIS methods. The zonal developing strategy has been applied in the regional level spatial developing both in the Helsinki and Stockholm metropolitan regions. In the Stockholm region zonal cooperation aims especially at creating corridors with high-performance traffic connections, whereas in the Helsinki region the zonal cooperation is more characterised with visioning and lobbying which aims at creating a competitive areal entity. Small municipalities located between the large cities in both zones emphasize zonal developing in their spatial strategies. For these municipalities the zonal strategy opens up new growth possibilities. However, for the large cities and their surrounding municipalities the significance of zonal strategy seems to be diminutive. In the European Union, as well as in the Finnish government and regional levels the concepts of polycentricity and development zones have been combined in a straightforward manner and almost without criticism. However, critical approach should be recalled when offering development zones as a tool for endorsing polycentricity. In academic debate a fair amount of criticism has been aimed at the concept of development zones, and their capability to realise polycentricity has been questioned. Moreover, due to the scalar nature of polycentricity and development zones, zonal developing differs strikingly depending on the spatial scale. Different planning actors at all spatial levels should keep this in mind. Zonal strategy has a potential to endorse functional polycentricity in both Helsinki and Stockholm regions by improving regional traffic connections, which could lead to multidirectional commuting flows. Affecting structural polycentricity through zonal developing is likely to be more difficult. However, if zonal developing focuses on enhancing railway connections and the attractiveness of areas surrounding stations, also structural polycentricity could be reinforced. If zonal developing is to be continued in Finland, it is crucial to extend the actor group involved in building development zones. Currently this actor group is too small and unilateral which makes it difficult to carry out successful zonal development projects. Making the development zone concept more widely known among the public could attract companies and other actors to take part in zonal development projects. It is also important to find common interests for developing the zones and this way ground a basis for continuous cooperation.