New urban forms: the distinctive character of the European

Metropolis
Francesco Indovina
IUAV Universtity

1. Introduction. Urban morphology vs. the urban condition

The notion that the traditional city is in many ways dissolving has become commonplace
today. In many respects, the judgement is indisputable. The contemporary process of
urbanisation has created spaces that differ radically from the cities of any other historical
period. However, the phrase "dissolution of traditional cities" cannot allude to the
demise of the urban condition and culture: although cities are experiencing a number of
profound mutations, the urban condition is not only surviving, but also renewing and
amplifying itself. Change is the strength of a city.
The fundamentals of a city are: urban morphology, i.e. its physical appearance and form,
including individual and collective facilities and services; and the urban condition, i.e. the
kind of social, economic and cultural relations that living in a city makes possible.
Granted that the urban morphology has been disrupted, the urban condition is
persisting, thriving and developing, albeit in extremely different settings, and is
increasingly becoming the heritage and experience of an ever-growing number of women
and men.
It has been said that today urban morphology is in practice disrupted by two main
coexisting but divergent phenomena: the expectation of seemingly unstoppable urban
growth and fears generated by the emergence of new forms of urbanisation that defy all
preconceptions about the character of a city.1
On one hand, urban gigantism tends to prevail all over the world, from traditionally
developed countries to more recently developed and still undeveloped ones. It is in the
latter countries that metropolises - often masses of people with few services - are mostly
dominant. The case of Europe will be discussed later. Large processes of urbanisation
have ended up expanding the urban dimension beyond any previous economic, social or
cultural measure (the urban population now exceeds the non-urban one and, every year,
hundreds of thousands of immigrants flock to metropolises). A metropolis of 30 or even
10 million inhabitants has lost its morphology and its residents are not fully aware of the
space where they live in statistical (often also administrative) terms: they actually lead
their lives within narrow spatial boundaries (even if these fragments of urban space,
including slums, form a social space).
On the other hand, urban explosion phenomena are also present and acting: movement of
individuals, households, economic activities and services out of the traditional urban
dimension to beyond the city walls, into a more or less urbanised countryside or into

1 (Secchi, 2005)
smaller towns. This movement can be seen as a trend towards deurbanisation, and
therefore contradictory to the dynamics of urban gigantism I just alluded to. However,
the settlers of these "diffuse" areas do not reject the large dimension, but try to reach a
condition allowing them to enjoy its advantages without suffering its disadvantages.
More than urbanisation, the so-called urban explosion is a symptom of the spread of
urbanisation over entire regions.

2. The European metropolis

It is not practical here to review and classify the various forms of metropolis existing
in the world. Thus, the following paragraphs will only deal with the apparently dominant
form of metropolis in Europe. Apart from traditional and historical metropolises (e.g.
Paris and London), the predominant form is the metropolitan region, which may also be
called European metropolis: the adjective European does not identify a place, but rather
tends to define a specific form of metropolis resulting from what has been called urban
explosion.2
Given its positive elements, the quantitative dimension is also used in Europe; the large
dimension, i.e. the metropolis, is regarded as the urban organisation that maximises the
concentration of opportunities, experiences, culture, contacts, quality services, etc. (without
denying the negative elements that this large concentration of people and functions
entails). However, in the old continent, the dimension that appears to coalesce the above
opportunities is not the large concentration (which gives rise to many large
metropolises), but rather the diffuse and interconnected one. This dimension does not
epitomise the decline of cities and large cities in the European landscape, but rather a more
diversified set of roles that the different parts of the territory take in order to improve the
lives of their residents. It is a kind of metropolitan civilisation securing the advantages of
the large dimension while minimising its disadvantages. An urban paradise? Certainly not.
New contradictions and inconveniences are emerging, but within a territory that is
different from and certainly better than the other large concentrations of the globe and
that is capable of mitigating the contradictions and inconveniences that the urbanisation
process entails. Diffusion frequently brings about a feeling of strong nostalgia for the
traditional city, but the image of the city that has been lost is a fantasy: in fact, that city
was not free of contradictions, misery and conflicts caused by poverty and oppression; its
extension into huge and often shapeless suburbs destroyed its form; and its often
uncontrolled growth jeopardised its cohesion. The golden age of the city does not lie in the
past but in the future. Nice and good cities (belle e buone as we say in Italian),
aesthetically pleasing but also equitable, expressing beauty, respect for the dignity of
individuals, equality, mutual coexistence, hospitality and acceptance are still to come.
The movement of people, economic activities and services beyond the city walls, into rural
areas, and at the same time, the acquisition of urban lifestyles by people already settled in the
countryside represent the onset of the recent mutation. It is not a refusal of the city, but an
adaptation of territorial organisation to accommodate changes in social organisation. The
everyday experience of residents and business in this new setting demonstrates that people
living there can reap the benefits of agglomeration without agglomerating.

2For an assessment of the historical evolution of the city in Europe, see among others Benevolo (1993) and
Hohenberg & Lees (1995). For a general discussion of the contemporary features of the European metropolis, see le
Gals (2001) and Indovina (2014).
Those who investigated the diffusion phenomenon at its inception called it diffuse city, taking
its unique features and outcomes into account. 3 Nonetheless, this is a contradictory
concept: by nature, a city is concentrated and not diffuse. Resolving this contradiction
requires discriminating between urban morphology and the urban condition.4 What is new is that
the urban condition arises even in places that lack the physical-morphological attributes of
a city (density, intensity and compactness). The social, economic, productive, cultural,
friendship and other relations of an urban type that are forged in a morphologically non-
urban space testify that it is not the walls (or a given shape) that make a city, but the
relations between people and their initiative to attain their targets. As the drive to
agglomerate has weakened, new forms of city are coming to the fore; the concentrated
city is not disappearing, but it is no longer the canonical form that ensures the urban
condition.
In this process of diffusion, the traditional concentrated city of large or medium scale has
tended to retain most of its governmental institutions (political, administrative, financial,
cultural, educational, etc.) and centres of excellence (research, higher education, etc.). The
concentrated city has attempted to defend its role of driving force, thinking that its
history was a guarantee, but the dynamics was external to it and its lines of resistance did
not succeed in countering ongoing processes.
The consolidation of the diffuse city, including processes of densification (occurring
spontaneously or as a result of timid public action), the need for escaping the grip of the
ever-growing urban costs of the concentrated city, as well as a different geographic
distribution of users and customers (in the diffuse city), have made private activities and
centres of government and excellence more distributed and more easily accessible. In
practice, some of these activities or centres have followed the diffusion trend and have
been relocated into the extended or wide area (the diffuse city), opening up new
opportunities, and above all, giving rise to new territorial organisation. It is the increasing
number of dwellers in the wide area (continuing to grow until it reaches the scale of a
metropolis) that has generated newer and newer opportunities for private services and
promoted the dissemination of public ones, in a process that may rightly be called
cumulative.
This has given shape to a landscape that hosts large, medium and small towns, sparse
settlements, small neighbourhoods, industrial and small-business districts, but also isolated
productive activities, shopping centres or precincts, specialised commercial outlets,
entertainment or recreational facilities, sports facilities, centres of government, health care,
higher education, research, quality services, social or public housing, farmland, barren
wasteland, brown fields, etc.: all this has become dispersed over wide areas, in a
bewildering mixture of people and activities surpassing that of a concentrated metropolis,
where the mutual relations between its various parts and functions are underpinned by a
wide and very dense array of infrastructures. This cityscape is inhabited by a continuously
moving population that enjoys an extended metropolitan space without being oppressed
by major concentration. The metropolitan condition is no longer the prerogative of certain
(albeit numerous) segments of the population, but an opportunity for growing portions
thereof. In a nutshell, it can be said that the European metropolis identifies a shared space,
shattering the differences between those inside and those outside the small or large
fragments of the metropolitan space.

3 Indovina (1990).
4 For more about this distinction, see Indovina (2009).
Indeed, metropolisation is a trend common to wide areas, whether diffuse or belonging to
traditional metropolitan areas. This settlement phenomenon leverages new ICTs, peoples
higher propensity for mobility, broader opportunities of choice among different ways of
inhabiting space, as well as a new awareness of environmental sustainability.

3. The specificities of the European metropolis

Hence, the expression European metropolis does not refer to a few cases, but rather to a
generalised phenomenon. In Europe, metropolisation is a general phenomenon, with
specific features in the different settings. But what are the distinctive features of this form
of organisation of space and social life?
The fundamental element shedding light on this phenomenon, as previously pointed out,
is that diffusion does not mean rejection of the city, but rather the search for a new
urban form and for a better city, more capable of meeting the expectations of
individuals, households and productive activities.
The diffuse solution may not be appealing to some segments of the population, based
on aesthetic considerations, or simply because they dislike the countryside and prefer the
vivifying chaos of the city. There is nothing bad or contradictory in this. What appears as
an outstanding positive element of the European metropolis is its diversification (large,
medium and small towns, settlements concentrated in the countryside, remote settlements,
etc.) that enables individuals to make choices based on their preferences and resources and,
whatever their choices, to seize the opportunities of the metropolitan dimension and
obviously of the countryside.
The growth of this type of metropolis is supported by a collective mobility network or by
a road, railway or metro network based on individual mobility, or, much more often, by
combinations thereof. The construction of new multidirectional infrastructures to serve
the European metropolis is the most significant threat to the integrity of its territory. Little
attention to environmental sustainability and aesthetics in design and planning, ill-advised
routes and so forth may cause major damage to the landscape. A well-organized and
widely networked territory calls for a large diversified integrated system of
infrastructures. The planning and siting of these infrastructures should not merely
respond to a demand or be based on sector-specific logics, disregarding the ways in
which the urban space is organised. The complex system of infrastructure (transport,
mobility, networks, etc.) should become strategic and instrumental in developing a well-
organised and efficient metropolitan area.
European metropolises do have territorial hierarchies, but these hierarchies tend to weaken
and depend on spatial organisation policies. These cities encompass centres of different
size and scale, differently organised hubs, diversified urbanisation of the countryside, etc.
In practice, this is a non-homogeneous space depending on different situations, but also on
the policies in place. Major centres tend to lose (by transfer, splitting, duplication, etc.)
higher-level services and nodes of government and excellence (the mainstays of a large city
and its hierarchical organisation). This has two repercussions: on one hand, reduction of
spatial hierarchisation and on the other, creation of a networked metropolitan area. Indeed,
it should be clear that the European metropolis is not founded on the concentration of poles
of excellence and centres of government in a single place, but on their spatial diffusion and
on the fact that each centre tends to serve the whole population of the area (not only
people living nearby). Moreover, because the diffused city is not an expression of rejection
of the city, it should be provided with urban facilities, services and icons (institutional
buildings, public spaces, significant buildings in terms of aesthetics and innovation, places
of worship, etc.).
All discourses about labour flexibility and self-management hide a shortcut to marginality
and precariousness. Nonetheless, it should be recognised that work today is much
more diversified than in the past. Perhaps the spatial organization of a metropolitan
region is more suitable for this new condition (apart from the fact that in the current
crisis, working conditions mark an epochal transition of our society). Even the growing
presence of populations of different cultures might benefit from a higher capacity for
mutual coexistence and from settlement patterns that are less compellingly inclusive in
the metropolitan region than in a concentrated city.
The European metropolis has open and green spaces of different sizes. The blend of
green spaces, open spaces and built environment is presumably conducive to enjoyment of
both greenery and the city, where green spaces may be classified by their uses: i) urban
(sports, contemplation, playgrounds for children, rest, reading, physical regeneration,
etc.); ii) conservation of fauna and flora and their diversity (ecological corridors); and iii)
production (people returning to farming may not only enjoy the metropolitan condition,
but also benefit from local market outlets). Natural heritage deserves particular care:
farm areas, especially those with moderate yields, tend to be regarded as areas awaiting
construction and this may be countered by creating extensive green spaces and
agricultural parks, and where necessary reforestation/revegetation schemes, etc. Wide
areas should not be entirely built up and wide-area planning may lay the foundations for
balanced integration of built and non-built areas, green spaces for environmental
restoration and processes of revitalisation of farming and improvement of related
practices. It is in the European metropolis, given its large territorial dimension, that these
diversifications may be fully and successfully accommodated and strongly integrated.

4. The need for spatial planning

The European metropolis is strongly driven by self-organisation processes, i.e. choices made
by individuals, households or businesses. To tap its large potential and mitigate the
damage resulting from broad occupation of space (previously basically agricultural), the
European metropolis therefore requires a planning approach that tackles the issues at
that spatial level.5 This approach may be concisely defined as wide-area planning. This
planning should: i) identify the most appropriate scale for action, which depends on the
relations existing between the different parts of the area and on the need to achieve a
sufficient mass to put the area on the international globalised scenario; ii) yield efficient
levels of integration, fostering relations inside the area and between it and the external
world; iii) promote greater reliance on local resources; and iv) achieve efficient and
effective spatial organisation (virtuous land uses, environmental protection, reduction of
pollution and congestion, liveability, provision and siting of services, etc.): in other
words, the prerequisites for economic development and improved quality of life.
The ways in which the European metropolis is being built point to the need for policies
aimed at densification.6 However, these policies should not seek to bring density to the
same levels as those of concentrated metropolises, but rather redress the distortions that
may arise from lack of governance of this aspect. In practice, the territory should
undergo morphological recomposition, geared to enhancing its organisational efficiency

5 For an overview of the status of spatial planning in Europe, see Dhr, Colomb & Nadin (2010).
6Here it is not possible to analyse the role of urban policies in the configuration of the European metropolis. For a
critical approach to the policies developed by the European institutions, see among others Halern and le Gals (2012).
and opportunities for economic growth, while respecting individual settlement choices
that express real needs as far as possible.
Policies for an appropriate use of resources are not only important, but in the case of the
European metropolis they may be more easily implemented and more effective, e.g. the
harnessing of solar and biomass energy or water reuse, etc. Obviously, a metropolitan
region can more easily accommodate climate-appropriate building construction using
suitable materials. A metropolitan region is also much more resilient than a concentrated
metropolis, due to lower anthropogenic pressure on its individual points.
In European metropolises, planning (generally pursuing the goal of improving the situation
of communities) is imperative, because the process is still in the making and careful
governance of this process may multiply opportunities and benefits. Planning is a tool for
implementing an articulated strategy using different methods (from constraints to
premiums, communication to organisation, direct action to partial support of individual
choices, bans, etc.) to achieve the targets set for a possible future. Planning may facilitate
the materialisation of this process, which is triggered by individual choices that reflect the
needs of our era. By giving shape and collective dimensions to individual choices, planning
may strengthen the creation of new territorial forms. Flexibility, which is often demanded
in view of the fast dynamics of our era, should not be applied to targets, but rather to
instruments and actions to achieve them. This implies continuous monitoring of the
situation and outcomes, in order to refocus, strengthen or change the types of actions
envisaged. The metropolitan region does not need less planning, but more and better
planning. It is worth reiterating that the new territorial structure makes novel use of the
urban network of the old continent. The trend towards the European metropolis may be
the specific way in which European countries, relying on their urban mesh, are creating
metropolitan structures that avoid the drawbacks of their size, a process that must be
sustained by adequate planning and policies.
Lifestyles in European metropolises are metropolitan, but in an advanced sense: there
are no longer suburbs where people lock themselves in at the end of the working day. In
general, we see a lack of isolation and a refusal to shut oneself behind closed doors as in
many other urban areas of the world. Relationships of friendship and love weave a web
across the whole territory and young peoples groups are not geographically bounded. The
European metropolis can be an antidote to the degradation of cities and the degeneration of
concentrated metropolises.

References
Benevolo, L. (1993), La citt nella storia d'Europa. Bari. Laterza.
Dhr, S., Colomb, C., Nadin, V. (2010), European Spatial Planning and Territorial
Cooperation. Abingdon, Routledge Chapman & Hall.
Halpern, C., Le Gals, P. (2012), Ascesa e declino della politica urbana dell'unione
europea. Analisi longitudinale degli strumenti di azione pubblica (1972-2006), in Grazi, L.
La citt e lUnione Europea. La dimensione urbana tra percorsi storici e dinamiche di europeizzazione.
Bologna. Il Mulino.
Hohenberg, P.M., Lynn H.L. (1995), The making of urban Europe: 1000-1994, Cambridge.
Harvard University Press.
Indovina, F. (1990), La citt diffusa, Quaderno Daest, 1, IUAV, Venezia.
Indovina, F. (2009), Dalla citt diffusa allarchipelago metropolitano. Milano. Franco Angeli.
Indovina, F. (2014), La metropoli europea. Una prospettiva. Milano. Franco Angeli.
Secchi, B. (2005), La citt del ventesimo secolo. Roma. Laterza