The true size of London: London's Functional Urban Region
•Download as PPT, PDF•
4 likes•2,222 views
The Definition of London: maps and information about the London Functional Urban Region and its history
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to The true size of London: London's Functional Urban Region
Similar to The true size of London: London's Functional Urban Region (20)
More from Alan Freeman
More from Alan Freeman (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
The true size of London: London's Functional Urban Region
- 1. Measuring Metropolitan London: a rationale Alan Freeman GLA Economics
- 2. It is important to know London’s ‘true’ boundaries Need to compare London’s performance with other cities on a consistent basis Need to analyse the forces at work in London’s economy – this requires a definition based on an economic, not just an administrative, rationale. The ‘administrative’ boundary does not cease to be important – this is where ‘London’ policies operate. GLA boundary also happens to correspond well to its ‘economic core’, because of the Green Belt However it does not include a wider area which interacts with London on a daily basis, principally through commuting.
- 3. A case in point: London and Paris GLA London – Population (MYE 2004) 7,420,000 – Area 1,584 Km2 Little Paris (TBA) Isle de France Paris – Population 11,362,000 – Area 12,012 Km2 Hence our current activities: a London-Paris comparison, and a sensitivity testing – Method will be extended to other cities – We are working with BAK on sensitivity testing
- 4. Benchmarking – not just a London issue Governments need common standards – to compare the performance of cities – to allocate and implement policy resources. Urban regions are relevant spatial units for the application of significant policy functions. An Urban region is an ‘economic unit’ We have to be able to measure and compare cities on the basis of their economic function Comparability is paramount It is a distinct issue from ‘how should cities be governed’ although it can inform the governance agenda
- 5. Why a standard is needed Estimates of 10year productivity growth rates from 23 cities and 3 suppliers 3.5 3.0 Suppliers 2 and 3 2.5 2.0 1.5 Estimates from the different suppliers would be the same if they lay on this line 1.0 0.5 Supplier 2 Supplier 3 0.0 -0.5 -0.5 0.5 1.5 Supplier 1 2.5 3.5
- 6. What kind of standard? City definition cannot take political or administrative boundaries as a starting point. It should arise from socio-economic study of what a city is and does. We need comparisons across the world and at least with ‘world cities’ hence US, Europe and ideally Japan There are broad continental variations – US cities evolved historically differently from European cities leading to different patterns of settlement. This has to be recognised. For the GLA, the requirement for a standard dominates over the requirement of scope for local variation.
- 7. Four main existing approaches US metro system + long period of development + existing data for comparisons - different historical course of evolution GEMACA + Sound and robust methodology + Already tested and demonstrated – Not much extended outside Europe Urban Audit + official buy-in and support - uses administrative unit as core - permits a wide degree of local variation - not really a standard - TWA approach
- 8. What is in common and what differs? TWA is a distinctive approach. We will discuss separately Common feature of US, UA, and GEMACA is a ‘corehinterland’ or ‘Functional Urban Region’ (FUR) Core may be either as an area of high population density or of high job density (or otherwise eg building density) Commuting field: people that regularly communicate with, or travel to, the core, for economic purposes principally work. Both thresholds and criteria vary. – US system has ‘core’ defined by population, with a relatively low density (1000/500 per square mile = 4/ha), but relatively high commuting threshold (25 percent but includes outcommuting) – GEMACA has ‘core’ defined by employment with 7/ha =
- 9. Issues Core defined by population, work density, or other criterion such as morphology What are the economic purposes of travel and communication? What size units are appropriate to define the core What is the threshold density for the core What threshold densities for in- and outcommuting? What size units to define the hinterland City-Regions: what criteria lead to the exclusion or separation of distinct conglomerations which fall statistically within a metro area eg Reading, Harlow?
- 10. Some initial results FUR size highly sensitive to the size of core ‘building block’ FUR size relatively insensitive to the choice between population or work density Core size varies with core threshold densities, but FUR size varies by small magnitude over large spectrum of densities We have not yet investigated the sensitivity of FUR size to commuting densities or to the inclusion of outcommuting FUR size sensitive (for London) to whether the hinterland is composed of NUTS3 or NUTS4 building blocks. This is a significant problem since statutory Eurostat data is available only at NUTS3 level, which are relatively large
- 11. Maps
- 35. London FUR – Jobs Thousands of workforce jobs in 2004 487 2,294 477 Inner London 498 Commuter Belt 2,884 446 Outer London 533 217 85 85 56 1,659 Thurrock Buckinghamshire CC Hertfordshire Outer London Medway Towns Berkshire Essex Inner London Luton Surrey Kent CC
- 36. Paris FUR – Jobs Thousands of workforce jobs in 2004 850 428 526 1,656 Paris 530 4,313 498 434 152 201 274 422 Seine-et-Marne Yvelines Essonne Hauts-de-Seine Seine-Saint-Denis Val-de-Marne Val-d'Oise Oise Eure Eure-et-Loir Paris
- 37. Some summary indicators Workforce Population Employment 2003 (000s 2003 (000s of GVA 2003 of resident workforce (€billion population) jobs) current) Inner London GLA Surrounds FUR 2,892 7,371 6,617 13,988 2,485 4,431 3,358 7,789 160 260 171 431 Paris Surrounds FUR 2,166 9,872 12,038 1,656 3,961 5,616 141 277 418
- 38. Sensitivities and data summary Employment Density Threshold Level 1000 LAU2 units in total FUR 1,786 Resident population of total FUR 13,310,717 Workplace population of total FUR 6,653,364 Geographic area (sq mi) 5,230 LAU1 (NUTS4) units enclosing FUR 83 Resident population of LAU1 units enclosing FUR 12,645,988 Workplace population of LAU1 units enclosing FUR Geographic area (sq mi) 4,578 Number of NUTS3 units enclosing FUR 14 Resident population of NUTS3 units enclosing FUR 13,922,024 Workplace population of NUTS3 units enclosing FUR Geographic area (sq mi) 5,855 1500 1813 2000 1,736 1,676 1,685 13,017,914 12,766,609 12,729,043 6,495,638 6,388,281 6,349,001 4,913 4,757 4,716 85 83 82 12,868,188 12,660,293 12,454,272 Lowest/ Highest 2500 Density 1,613 90% 12,407,213 93% 6,197,473 93% 4,355 83% 80 96% 12,255,906 97% 4,263 4,103 4,019 3,732 14 14 13 12 13,922,024 13,922,024 13,737,653 12,407,935 5,855 5,855 5,838 4,470 82% 86% 89% 76%