Governing Metropolitan Regions within a Localist agenda
Report of second seminar; Institut d’Urbanisme de Paris, Universite Paris –Est Creteuil 22nd February 2013
Institutional and policy issues : Articulating Scales
This seminar focused on Paris and the wider metropolitan region of the Ile de France.
We focused on two major challenges : the coordination between institutions in a context where new institutions were being created at a range of governmental scales, including Paris Metropole and the Great Paris law ; unbalanced development within the Paris region, with tensions between regional and local scales, in the field of urban renewal, housing policies and land management, but also impacting on spatial planning and visible in the new metropolitan plan for the Paris metropolitan region (SDRIF) and in the new transport programme (Grand Paris express). The seminar was attended by some 25 academics and practitioners from France and England.
Duncan Bowie (University of Westminster.UK and research network organiser) thanked Florine Baliff and UPEC colleagues for organising the seminar, which followed on from the London seminar held the previous September. Duncan summarised the discussions at the London seminar, focusing on the impact of the 2011 Localism Act on planning, housing and governance with the weakening of national planning guidance and the creation of a new tier of neighbourhood planning. He raised the issue that recent changes in Government policy and funding were leading to increased social polarisation with lower income households being forced out of central London. He suggested that as Paris was appearing to replicate London with grand projects and attempts to get more affordable homes in central Paris, London was at risk of becoming more like Paris with lower income households being concentrated in the suburbs, with central London being reserved for international business, investors and part-time residents. In his view London as becoming a less sustainable city and together with other UK based attendees he was interest in whether planners and urbanists in Paris were succeeding in making the city and the metropolitan region as a whole more sustainable for all its residents.
The first session on Regional governance and Strategies was chaired by Vincent Renard from Sciences Po.
The first presentation from Christian Lefevre of UPEC, was entitled Paris, Ile de France: Unregulated competitive decentralisation. Christian Lefevre explained that the recent programme of decentralisation had increased the powers of the Ile de France regional administration, with further powers to come following the third decentralisation act. The region had produced a new regional plan (SDRIF). However control of public transport including the railway system remained with the central government and France remained a highly centralised state. However in contrast with England , there was no hierarchy between levels of governance below the national level and collaboration between scales was largely a voluntary process. The Paris mayor, Bertrand Delanoe ( Mayor since 2001) had appointed a deputy mayor, Pierre Mansat, with responsibility for relations with the wider metropolitan region. Paris metropole had been established as a joint authority. In August 2012, Delanoe had put forward a proposal for a ‘metropolitan pole’ - the core urban area within Ile de France. While housing was clearly the central issue, it was unclear what the powers of any new authority would be. Lefevre also referred to the Zones of national interest and the Grand Paris transport projects.
The range of new institutions reflected conflicting visions:
Sarkozy’s Grand Paris focused on economic competitiveness
Hollande/Delanoe interest in social equality
Was a dialogue between the two approaches possible ? There was however no clear legitimacy for regional leadership. There was a lack of clear vision. No-one had the resources to mobilise stakeholders. The process would take a long time and there were no adequate ..? for a for dialogue, mediation and negotiation.
Vincent Renard commented that the region was weak and there were conflicts between the Ile de France and Paris, even though both were under Socialist control.. Paris was now entering the electoral process and there was no agreed way forward. Livingstone in London had been more effective in winning enhanced powers. Christian concluded that this competitive decentralisation fitted in with market decentralisation. Vincent commented that local councils could and did oppose house-building on the basis that this would keep down the population – a Malthusian approach.
The second presentation was from Perinne Michon of Lab’Urba and was on Governance in the Grand Toulouse: Issues and paradoxes. Perrine referred to the Solidarite et Renewale Urbaine (SRU) Act. Toulouse had a population of 2 million and was the fourth city in France after Paris, Marseilles and Lyon – Lille was fifth. Within SE Toulon there was a joint authority – SICOVAL. The focus of the initiative was to improve the quality of life and to ensure an appropriate balance between town and country. The INTERSCOT charter under the SRU provisions established an inter-regional framework for housing and planning which was binding on municipal plans. The nationally appointed prefect brought the local leadership together but had no executive authority. The INTERSCOT plan was 10-12 years, while project funding programmes were much shorter term.
In discussion, Benoit Phillippi referred to the example of the Rennes metropole as having a more integrated governance system. He also referred to the development of the Bordeaux metropole. He regarded the Ile de France arrangements as relatively dysfunctional.
The third presentation was from Caroline Galles of UPEC and was entitled Territorial Development Contracts and the Greater Paris Project: Regulatory tools or bargaining processes ? Caroline focused on the Societe de grand Paris established under the June 2012 Greater Paris Development Act. The act established the principle of Territorial Development Contracts. The Societe had the power to develop near new stations – the act however was imprecise in defining the perimeters of the TDC.
The IdF had a target of 70,000 homes a year fixed in the act. This was 10,000 more than the target in the 2008 Regional Plan. The development focus was on the area serviced by the Greater Paris express with TDC driving clusters of development, and players motivated to join in or lose access to finance, development powers and control. The objectives were to improve the jobs/housing balance and to strengthen eastern Paris relative to western Paris. However the mechanisms for capturing land value generated by the new Express system were not defined. There were a number of points of disagreement – the financing of public facilities; the rate of social housing provision; the sale price of land owned by the state.
In discussion, Stephane Baudement pointed out that the state and the municipality often disagreed on the proportion of social housing. Tim Marshall raised questions as the mechanisms for implementing strategy in the absence of a system for taxing land values. Value was to be used to support railway investment rather than housing provision. There was a discussion on the stages of the TDC process: bribery then negotiation, then what ? Was it better to focus on action led projects defined by infrastructure investment, rather than strategies?
The fourth presentation was by Jean-Pierre Orfeuil of UPEC and was entitled The Grand Paris transport projects: beliefs, dead ends and governance problems.
Hollande had argued that the regional land use project should pay more attention to those areas which had economic development capacity such as La Defence and the airport areas. Hollande considered the regional project too localist and not adequately recognising Paris’s world city role. There had been no rational analysis of alternative project options and no consultation. The Grand Paris project was architect designer led and relied on futuristic images. The open competition ignored the role of existing transport providers. The assumption was that the project would be funded from land value increases but the project costs had been underestimated and the benefits overstated in order to get political approval. Overall the project was a great fantasy without independent evaluation, evidence and reality deficits were replaced by political drive and make do taxation. The vision had been a million jobs located near 40 new stations. However private financing would not succeed and taxes would need to be raised. Meanwhile the investment of new providers was limited by the fact that the RATP (Regie Autonome des Transports Parisiens) monopoly had recently been extended to 2030.
It was important to get the existing transport system to function more effectively first. There was now a financial crisis with the new project costing 20 billion euros. In order to avoid losing face, politicians had promised that the existing system would also be upgraded, taking the total cost to 34 billion euros. On current financial assumptions, it would take investors 120 years to get a return.
A recent project evaluation required by Hollande– the Auzannet report - had demonstrated that costs will be 50% higher than assumed and that the timescale was unachievable. Moreover the current system had an annual operational cost of 6 billion euros. The current fare system supported long distance commuting which was environmentally unsustainable. 2/3 of the IdF population lived less than 30 minutes from work For over 30 minutes commuting, the cost was only 1/3 higher. The speed of the metro supported social polarisation as well as increasing house prices in the suburbs. The pricing system needed urgent review. Speed and cheap price led policy does not support functional economic relationships. Transport improvements were funded by regional taxation.
The fifth presentation was by Paul Lecroart of the Institut d’Amenagement et D’Urbanisme of the Ile de France, who spoke on Planning at the Metropolitan Scale..
Paul pointed out that IdF was attractive for young professionals and the leading region for research. Social inequality had grown between 2000 and 2009 in most areas – this was liked to environmental inequality. While the 1994 regional plan had focused on urban extensions redevelopment had focused on the de-industrialised urban ring , with La Defence becoming the centre of finance and Issy for media and SE Paris for biotechnology. The Plaine St Denis was now a focus for development a sit was close to the airport. The new towns such as Marne La Valle had centres which were car dependent rather than supported by public transport. There had also been unplanned development along arterial routes.
Development plans tended to focus on public spaces and were less commercially driven than in the UK. Gentrification was an incremental process – and as yet had had little impact in St Denis. The Pleine St Denis had development potential equivalent to the Thames Gateway.
The Region’s 2008 plan had been rejected by Sarkozy and the new 2013 regional plan had to incorporate the grand Paris project despite concerns as to whether the projects would ever be realised. It was also important to recognise the local dynamics of development as well as top down projects. Urban change was incremental and soft changes through behaviour, creative competition and innovative cooperation could also contribute to growth.
In the discussion it was noted that the region did not control land use. The region used to provide financial support for development but no longer did so. The region had to make allies of national government, the department and the municipality if its projects were to be implemented. Plans founded on transport assumptions were not tested against deliverability, viability and realism.
The second session on Delivering policies at the metropolitan scale: providing affordable housing was chaired by Duncan Bowie.
The first presentation on House-price resilience in Paris was given by Christian Tutin of UPEC.
Since 2010, there had been a 20% increase in house-prices in central Paris. There had also been significant increases in the de-industrialised ‘red belt’. There had been a credit led boom at the bottom of the market and an asset led boom at the top of the market. The lower middle cases had been pushed out of the inner city. There was a correlation between low stork market values and high house-prices as investment was moved into property. An analysis of executive/professional: manual worker ratios by area was shown. There was a parallel between impact of the recession on house-prices between UK and France. There was also evidence of house price inflation and gentrification in Berlin since 2010, though Berlin house-prices remained only 50% of Paris and London equivalents.
In the discussion it was pointed out that significant public investment had helped make the red belt acceptable to professionals.
The second presentation was given by Stephane Baudement of the housing department of the Ile de France regional government. It was entitled Delivering new houses in the Paris area. What is the matter ?
The 1994 target had been 53,000 homes a year. In 2013 the target was raised to 70,000 a year. There had however been underperformance against plan, though an increase in the last two years. In the 1980’s development had been focused on Paris and the new towns. In the 1990’s new town development had declined and by the 2000’s Marne Le Vallee was the only significant continuing new town development, with the focus shifting to gentrification of the red belt.
The key variables for determining the location of new house-building were the size of the pre-existing stock; distance from central Paris, the proportion of open space, local land use constraints and planning restrictions. There was no correlation between houseprices and development output. 20% of new housing was built on existing housing land (including gardens). Stephane presented maps of housing affordability by local area since 2000, and slides analysing the delivery and distribution of new housing with respect to brownfield land, geographical position, class and social economic characteristics. The original target that 25% of new homes should be social housing had been increased to 25%. But targets for social housing are defined by the method of financing it. Municipalities could buy their way out of the obligation, though the financial penalty had recently been increased by a factor of 5. Housing was a big issue for the Green Party who argued that 35,000 of 70,000 new homes should be social housing, and is becoming dominant on the political agenda.
The third presentation was by Alan Cochrane of the Open University and was on Housing growth and policies on the edges of Southeast England.
Alan referred to the New Labour Government’s Sustainable Communities Plan of 2003 which identified a series of growth areas in south east England. The aim was to balance employment and housing growth. New Labour’s market utopianism was however hit by the 2008 recession. There was no strategy for regional realignment.
The area of his case study was Milton Keynes and Northampton – the core of the South Midlands growth area.
When housing output did not increase, the government blamed the planners; developers blamed the government and then everybody said it was the fault of the market. The public sector could not dictate market output and the issue of value and viability increasingly dominated the planning debate.