AR
2010/1
Arhitektura, Raziskave Architecture, Research
Kaja Pogačar, Metka Sitar
TIPOLOGIJA ČEZMEJNIH URBANIH OBMOČIJ
VPOGLED V TIPOLOŠKE ZNAČILNOSTI
TYPOLOGY OF CROSS-BORDER URBAN AREAS
AN INSIGHT INTO TYPOLOGY CHARACTERISTICS
ISSN 1580-5573
Ljubljana 2010
2010 / 1
AR 2010/1
AR
Arhitektura, raziskave / Architecture, Research
Fakulteta za arhitekturo Inštitut za arhitekturo in prostor
ISSN 1580-5573
ISSN 1581-6974 (internet)
http://www.fa.uni-lj.si/ar/
revija izhaja dvakrat letno /published twice a year
urednik / editor
Borut Juvanec
regionalna urednika / regional editors Grigor Doytchinov, Avstrija Lenko Pleština, Hrvaška
uredniški odbor / editorial board
prof dr Vladimir Brezar prof dr Peter Fister
prof dr Borut Juvanec, urednik / editor prof dr Igor Kalčič doc dr Ljubo Lah znanstveni svet / scientific council
prof dr Paul Oliver, Oxford prof Christian Lassure, Pariz prof Enzo d'Angelo, Firence recenzentski svet / supervising council
dr Kaliopa Dimitrovska Andrews akademik dr Igor Grabec dr Hasso Hohmann, Gradec mag Peter Gabrijelčič, dekan FA tehnični urednik / technical editor
dr Domen Zupančič prelom / setting
VisArt studio, Barbara Kovačič lektoriranje, .slovenščina / proofreading, Slovenian
Karmen Sluga prevodi, angleščina / translations, English
Milan Stepanovič, Studio PHI d.o.o. klasifikacija / classification
Doris Dekleva-Smrekar CTK UL
uredništvo AR / AR editing
Fakulteta za arhitekturo Zoisova 12 1000 Ljubljana Slovenija
urednistvo.ar@fa.uni-lj.si
naročanje / subscription
cena številke je 17,60 EUR / price per issue 17,60 EUR za študente 10,60 EUR / student price 10,60 EUR
revija je vpisana v razvid medijev pri MK pod številko 50 revija je indeksirana: Cobiss, ICONDA
za vsebino člankov odgovarjajo avtorji / authors are responsible for their articles
revijo sofinancirata / cofinanced
JAK, Javna agencija za knjigo RS Ministrstvo za šolstvo in šport RS
tisk / printing
Tiskarna Pleško

Kaja Pogačar, Metka Sitar
TIPOLOGIJA CEZMEJNIH URBANIH OBMOČIJ
VPOGLED V TIPOLOŠKE ZNAČILNOSTI
TYPOLOGY OF CROSS-BORDER URBAN AREAS
AN INSIGHT INTO TYPOLOGY CHARACTERISTICS
UDK 711.21 : 341.222 COBISS 1.02 prejeto 28. 2. 2010
izvleček
Odpiranje notranjih meja med državami članicami Evropske unije (EU) ni le spodbudilo razvoja različnih družbenoekonomskih procesov, temveč tudi vzpostavljanje novih urbanih potencialov v čezmejnih območjih. Kljub opaznim prizadevanjem in interesom za oblikovanje čezmejnih regij in čezmejnih procesov se le-ti odvijajo enostransko predvsem znotraj specializiranih področij ekonomije, geografije in družbenih ved. Na splošno vlada manj zanimanja za raziskave čezmejnih prostorov z vidika prostorskega in urbanega razvoja v okviru ozemlja EU.
Članek s predstavitvijo izbranih primerov čezmejnih regij podaja pregled specifičnih urbanih tvorb in v nadaljevanju skuša odpreti nekaj novih pogledov v kontekstu slovenskih obmejnih regij. Na osnovi njihovih morfoloških, ekonomskih in družbenih značilnosti prepoznava vrste urbanih tipologij, kot so čezmejne aglomeracije, urbane eksklave, bi-nacionalna obmejna mesta itd., ki jih analizira iz različnih vidikov prostorskega razvoja.
abstract
The opening of the internal borders among the member states of the European Union (EU) has not only caused the development of different socio-economic processes, but also of new urban potential in the areas lying across the national borders. Although there has recently been a remarkable upsurge of activities and interests in the regions and areas along the borders regarding the formation of border regions and cross-border processes, they mostly remain quite rigidly within specialised disciplinary fields, i.e. economy, geography, and sociology. There is, however, much less interest in cross-border areas seen in the light of spatial and urban development processes within EU integration. The article provides an overview of specific urban formations through the presentation of selected cases of cross-border regions and, in addition, aims to open some new issues with regard to the context of Slovenian border regions. On the basis of their morphological, economic, and social characteristics, a range of urban typologies, such as cross-border agglomerations, urban exclaves, bi-national border cities etc. will be identified and analysed from different aspects of spatial development.
ključne besede
obmejne regije, mejni prehodi, dvo-nacionalna obmejna mesta, čezmejne aglomeracije, linearni urbani predeli, urbane eksklave
key words
border regions, border-crossings, bi-national border cities, cross-border agglomerations, linear urban sites, urban exclaves.
The linking of individual states within the European Union (EU) has set in motion numerous changes in the operation and organisation of space. This article focuses on cross-border areas in which, as a result of the removal of borders, concerning the reorganisation of living conditions, great changes are taking place in many domains, and at the same time, new challenges are arising. In addition, it should be stressed in particular that, before incorporation into the EU, the cross-border areas had been relegated to the periphery. They were culturally undefined, marginalised and generally less developed. This phenomenon can be attributed, among other factors, to the specific organisation of EU territory, which throughout history had been characterised by its subdivision into numerous relatively small states, and, furthermore, by frequently changing national borders. Thus, within this system, which conceived of national states as closed, self-sufficient units, a functional duality of space was created. It found expression in the division into a central sphere and a periphery on state borders. These cross-border areas have seen many spatially extremely negative, even tragic stories. Stories of the consequently repressive measures happened because of the newly established borders, and the ensuing interlinked consequences, such as declining populations, restricted freedom of movement, etc. They were reflected in the urbanisation of space, which gradually became subjected or adjusted to these transformations.
The EU framework has established new starting points for the development of cross-border areas, as they have been becoming key elements in the process of integration, economic, and social cohesion [EC-European Commission, 2002a]. New theoretical understandings
are taking shape, which are the result of studying the phenomenon of creating border- and cross-border-regions as integral functional regions. Different approaches and definitions have been invented, and questions raised with regard to the potential of these new urban structures, which are appearing within the territories of different formations at national, provincial, regional, and local levels. As a starting point, the article represents an insight into the general and spatial characteristics of border areas. A selection of specific cases of urban typologies occurring in cross-border areas is then presented in detail. The methodology of seeking and defining cross-border typologies is, however, not only limited to summarising data from different sources. The aim of the analyses is also to provide an overview of special structures of urban development in cross-border areas in order to throw light upon new issues concerning the state of the art in the urban and regional context. Additionally, the analyses will result in raising new questions, which are interesting in the Slovenian context and require more detailed research.
National border and cross-border regions in the framework of the EU
National borders and cross-border regions have quite a special role within European territory, since its spatial-political geography is different from those of the other continents. The specific geopolitical structure has resulted from historical changes to borders that transformed the region from formerly vast imperial areas into many comparatively small nation-states. Such structuring has been
AR 2010/1
Map 1: Interreg III A regions 2004-2006. Source: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_
policy/interreg3/images/pdf/int3a_eur15_a4p.pdf <13.9.2006>. Karta 1: Območje INTERREG III A 2004-2006.
reflected in the relatively high share of cross-border regions, as, according to the ESPON survey, they constitute roughly a quarter of all NUTS 3 level regions [ESPON 1.1.3, 2006]. The development of these areas with regard to overcoming different disadvantages was frequently associated with their peripheral, disjunctive status. For the most part, they lagged behind, and relatively speaking, were peripherally located within the respective countries, far from their nation's capitals and central agglomerations. The share of border regions classified as lagging behind amounts to nearly 40 per cent, the largest along the former EU East-West border [ESPON 1.1.3, 2006]. These disparities constitute one of the main problems facing EU integration [EC, 2002a]. In order to encourage more a balanced development of EU territory, the EC initiated the Structural Funds with several policy instruments. For the period 20002006, the border regions were the focus of financial assistance to the assessing states of the PHARE programme. Furthermore, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) was set up to stimulate the cooperation of regions on economic and demographic development, mobility (accessibilityand transport), environment and land use. The initiatives INTERREG III, LEADER, URBAN, and EQUAL are among the most relevant to the development of border regions. The ERDF has been especially dedicated to promoting cross-border cooperation,
TIPOLOGIJA ČEZMEJNIH URBANIH OBMOČIJ
focusing on diminishing the 'border effect' phenomenon, which is characterised by ambivalence and the asymmetries in living standards that influence the daily life of the inhabitants. In terms of integration, these asymmetries obviously create obstacles, but sometimes opportunities - especially in the field of entrepreneurship. As a response, in 2005, the cohesion policy for the period 2007-2013 was introduced in order to strengthen cross-border, transnational, and interregional cooperation among the regions. The Cohesion Funds point out competition and employment as basic preconditions for reducing economic and social disparities.
Cross-border urban typologies
From the aspect of the development of the built urban space, the question arises as to what extent specific physical characteristics distinguish cross-border areas from other areas. There are two fundamental aspects of morphological characteristics, which we show to be substantial, regardless of their specific diversity in topography, geography, and the cultural context. The first one taken into consideration is the influence that national borders have on the spatial development of territorially 'closed' systems, i.e. systems within traditional nation-states. According to van Houtum, borders as physical barriers have caused centripetally oriented spatial development as the development oriented inward to the bounded territory of the state [1998]. The urbanisation system has formed its centre and the periphery, allocated at the national borders. Consequently, areas along borders were considered to be the edges of the community, i.e. they were regarded as peripheral, which resulted in underdevelopment. The consequences were reflected in economic disadvantages, i.e. low living standards, unemployment etc., and demographic, i.e. low population density, low birth rates, negative migration etc., as well as in structural underdevelopment, i.e. low accessibility, poor communal supply etc. [Pogačar, Sitar, 2009]. This is in contrast to the assumption that, in view of the EU, the opening of borders should cause the opposite effect, i.e. centrifugal development as an intensified cross-border development [EC, 2002a]. This new development is quite the opposite of the territorial one, and a result of new, contemporary forms of globalisation that have begun to unsettle and reconfigure the state-centric system [Anderson, O'Dowd, 1999]. In the case of centrifugal orientation, the free movement of persons, goods, and information is prevalent. The border is seen as a contact line, a meeting place between two nations and different economic subsystems. In individual cases, certain relationships concerning intermediate connections often start to develop on the basis of selectivity [Pogačar, 2008]. Within the above-described processes, different urban typologies appear as physical structures in the transformation of border areas. In the scientific literature (i.e.: van Houtum, Anderson, Buursink,..), the most well-known cross-border urban phenomena described are border-crossings, bi-national border cities (twin-cities), cross-border agglomerations, urban exclaves, and linear urban sites. In regard to their administrative, technical, legal, financial, and cultural dysfunctions, these formations are considered as atypical and often more complex than those found within national territories.
TIPOLOGIJA CEZMEJNIH URBANIH OBMOČIJ


Map 2:
Karta 2:
Urban cross-border typologies: border-crossing, bi-national border towns, cross-border agglomerations, linear cross-border sites, urban exclaves.
Čezmejne urbane tipologije: mejni prehodi, dvo-nacionalna obmejna mesta, čezmejne aglomeracije, linearni urbani predeli, čezmejne eksklave.
Map 3 : Aerial view of the former border-crossing Šentilj (SI) - Spielfeld (A). The area consists of 28ha which remained unused. Source: Karner, 2000.
Karta 3: Pogled na območje nekdanjega mejnega prehoda Šentilj (SI) — Spielfeld (A). Območje obsega 28ha in ostaja neizkoriščeno.
Border-crossings
Border-crossings are the most characteristic formations of cross-border typology from the recent past, which have, however, lost their primary function within the EU Schengen area. As urban entities, border-crossings are areas functioning as direct physical built contact between two neighbouring countries. In most cases, with the exception of bi-national border towns and some cross-border agglomerations of Western Europe, border-crossings are located along important traffic routes, but usually away from dense urban areas. In the past, border-crossings gave the opportunity for developing certain crossing-related built structures. Along with structures, which in most cases enabled the border-crossing to function (customs, transportation, etc.), several supplementary services such as commercial and business were allocated. Border-related regulations often encouraged semi-criminal activities, such as the provision of pornography, alcohol, narcotics, including prostitution and other business. The Schengen Treaty enabled the gradual abolition of systematic border controls and the elimination of border-crossing built structures, which created the opportunity for the redefinition and reuse of these areas from places of division into places of integration.
In general, the territory of the EU, the loss of the primal function of border-crossings, and the new adjoining economic activities have changed the functions of cross-border areas in different ways. According to Krätke [1999], the immediate border areas could suffer from being 'leapfrogged' by new activities of cross-border cooperation. In the short run, there may be some negative effects on development of areas lying directly along the border, possible making them even more inferior. However, according to Hudnik [2004], in the long term, these areas could make use of their favourable strategic position to introduce new strategies for future spatial and functional development within the EU integration.
Bi-national border cities (Twin-Cities)
In a period of changes on the borders, pairs of towns lying on each side of national borders have increasingly drawn attention to their development. As products of development in different
AR 2010/1
TIPOLOGIJA CEZMEJNIH URBANIH OBMOČIJ
Map 4: Aerial view of the twin-city Gornja Radgona (SI)-Bad Radkersburg (AT). Source: http://competition.freiland.at/en/menu136<10.12.2009>.
Karta 4: Pogled na dvo-nacionalno obmejno mesto Gornja Radgona (SI) - Bad Radkersburg (AT).
institutional frameworks, parts of the cities are situated in different countries. With regard to this concept, different terms are in use for describing comparable phenomena, of which the general term is twin-cities. In fact, these bi-national border towns function as micro- scale models of cooperation andjoint development. As such, they offer lessons to cross-border regions based on exchanging experience within a more compact cross-border scale.
According to the literature, there are around 50 examples of twin-cities along the EU borders [Schultz, 2005]. One might distinguish several types, which can be classified according to their location and structure. The first comprises those situated next to each other, but which are in most cases divided by a river, which functions as a natural and national border [Schultz, 2005]. Their proximity makes them appear as a single urban entity, almost as a 'double city'. In reality, the partner towns have almost always had separate identities. In order to establish any kind of cooperation, a feeling of closeness is urgently needed [Schultz, 2005]. There has to be an awareness on the part of local authorities, and in particular the local population of common interests, and sometimes even conflicting ones [Buursink, 2002]. The particular constellation of each bi-national town, which has to be respected is the individuality that makes it unique within its spatial position, and historical, and cultural-political context. Some examples of successful double-cities are Guben (Germany) - Gubin (Poland), Gorizia (Italy) - Nova Gorica (Slovenia), Bad Radkersburg (Austria) - Gornja Radgona (Slovenia), Frankfurt an der Oder (Germany) - Slubice (Poland) [EC, 2002b]. The second group comprises twin-cities divided by outstanding natural obstacles and usually characterised by a greater physical distance between them. In the case of the Oresund region, the cities of Malmö (Sweden) and Copenhagen (Denmark) are connected by a bridge over the North Sea. The other case is the twin-city of Dover (Great Britain) and Calais (France) being connected by the tunnel below the Atlantic. The third is the case of Helsinki (Finland) and Tallinn (Estonia) located across the Nordic Sea, and established as the 'twin-region' Euregio Helsinki-Tallinn. The main activities within the twin-cities' border region are generally cross-border shopping and cross-border labour markets.
Map 5: The Öresund area in 2003. Source: Wichmann Matthiessen, 2004, p.33.
Karta 5: Območje Öresund 2003.
According to Wichmann Matthiessen [2004], the main problem for each twin-city is to find a balance between competition and cooperation.
Cross-border agglomerations
In the literature, cross-border agglomerations are defined as "...dense and continuous urban sites with - in most cases - a hierarchical system of several centres..." [MOT, 2000, p. 11]. MOT, the abbreviation for "Mission Operationelle Transfrontailere", is an association facilitating the implementation of local cross-border projects. Most are allocated in Western Europe, characterised by a higher population density and rapid economic development after World War II. Recently, many of them have been institutionalised as EU-regios dispersed throughout EU territory. Typical urban agglomerations functionally connect a large city as the primary centre and a smaller town or several smaller towns as secondary centres within a radius of 10 to 20km. This type of agglomeration includes Strasbourg (France) with Kehl (Germany), Basel (Switzerland) with Saint-Louis (France) and Weil-am-Rhein (Germany), Genève (Switzerland) with Annemasse (France), have to be mentioned. Meanwhile, in France alone there are around ten agglomerations along the national borders comprising from 100,000 to over one million inhabitants. The development of cross-border agglomerations was for a long time the fruit of necessity and opportunity, with no national political supervision. Until the 1970's, co-operation within cross-border agglomerations was developed out of their respective national legal frameworks. Thus, consciously carried out and well organised cross-border urban cooperation in Western Europe is also a very recent phenomenon [MOT, 2000]. In fact, according to MOT [2000], consciously organised cross-border urban cooperation is a very recent phenomenon and faces two kinds of problems. First, cross-border agglomerations have several structural problems resulting from their specific geographical position, such as an uncontrollable rise in real estate and land prices, deterioration of cross-border suburban landscape, growing congestion of transport infrastructure, etc. Second, establishing active urban cross-border cooperation, because of the inadequacy of administrative instruments, is extremely difficult. The comparing of cross-border agglomerations to non-agglomerations appear as unnecessary costs in the doubling of infrastructure, equipment, services, etc. Additionally, there are problems regarding the distribution of
AR 2010/1
TIPOLOGIJA ČEZMEJNIH URBANIH OBMOČIJ
development benefits, administrative compatibility, differences in legislation, insufficient legal assistance, the ambiguous role of the state, lack of financing, and co-ordination between the levels of co-operation [MOT, 2008]. In order to overcome the institutional problems noted above, a few cases of urban development activities and projects will be presented which illustrate endeavours on different levels (summarised from MOT, 2000). Longwy agglomeration (Belgium, Luxembourg, and France -number of inhabitants app. 330,000) was established in Longwy (Belgium) in 1985 by the European Pole of Development (EPD), in 1985. Affected by a harsh economic and social crisis after the closing of the iron and steel works, the Longwy agglomeration was institutionalised out of the need for industrial regeneration. First, the creation of a cross-order urban planning board in 1994 and a cross-border association in 1996 involved a series of projects, such as GIS cartography for harmonising urban planning documents, communal statistics and definitions, etc. Later, the board was converted into a cross-border urbanism agency, which published a joint development plan called 'Contrat de Plan Etat-Région 2000-2006', incorporating the 'Point Triple', the cross-border International Activity Park. In general, the EPD is said to be the most accomplished cross-border urban planning and cross-border project with regard to operational implementation on the French border.
For the development of the cross-border urban site of Villerupt-Audun-le-Tiche (France) and Esch-sur-Alzette (Luxembourg), the local actors set up a cross-border urban planning board with the objective of collecting statistical and geographical data, harmonising urban planning documents, and GIS cartography, and in order to create a global strategic vision of the cross-border agglomeration. Several projects were developed as the most urgent urban challenges, including a transportation infrastructure project adapted to the numbers of cross-border commuters as a response to the poor public transport network in relation to the number of commuters in the city of Villerupt. Another project was the 'European Television and Radio Park', which upgraded the industrial area abandoned by mining and steel industries by creating cross-border industrial and cultural services, cycle lanes, etc.
Saar-conurbation (France and Germany - number of inhabitants over one million) has created a cross-border database of the entire territory, as well as of the variety of tourist products typical of the region. The city of Forbach and its region, together with its Saar neighbour, is committed to several joint projects, including a water supply project from the German side connected to France, the cooperative development of higher education infrastructure, the creation of cross-border public transport services, and - as the greatest achievement - a cross-border activities park called 'Eurozone'.
The Strasbourg-Kehl agglomeration (France, Germany - number of inhabitants approx. 500,000, 90 per cent living on the French side of the border) was initiated by an urban planning project. The project, called 'Jardin des Deux Rives' was begun in order to promote the development of the area along the banks of the Rhine which separates the two cities with a no man's land in the heart of the cross-border agglomeration. The urban project, that additionally benefited from the Kehl International Flower Show
AR 2010/1
in 2004, was intended to result in a larger urban development project of the area along the Rhine and the 'Place de l'Etoile' axis. In this context, several smaller projects were carried out, such as the extension of the tramway line on the German side in the Offenburg direction.
Map 6: EU-regions and cross-border agglomerations between France and Germany (Grand-Est). Source: http://rge.revues.org/index698.html <20.12.2009>.
Karta 6: Evroregije in čezmejne aglomeracije med Francijo in Nemčijo (GrandEst).
Linear cross-border urban structures
The typology of the linear type of cross-border urban structure defines cross-border urban areas that are not continuous, but cut by numerous rural buffer zones in-between. The urban network is littoral and 'string' shaped, e.g. the area at the French border Menton-Vintimille and their periphery, the Basque conurbation, and fluvial, e.g. Sarrebrück-Sarreguemines. The Basque Conurbation (France, Spain - number of inhabitants approx. 600,000) is a case of a cross-border territory where urban structures are not continuous, but predominantly linear. The region straddles the French-Spanish border on the Atlantic side of the Pyrenees, and extends along the 50km urban corridor that separates the cities of Bayonne (France) and San Sebastian (Spain). A common cross-border cooperation project called 'Eurocity' was started in the region in 1993. 'Eurocity' was a result of the consensus of the city administration, and its participation at local, regional and state levels. It was legally registered as the European Group of Economic Interest (G.E.I.E.). The problems and opportunities of the 'Eurocity' identified by the G.E.I.E. study exposed a strategic position at one of the most important crossing points between France and the Iberian Peninsula, with regard to the increase in motorway traffic, and the technical possibilities of developing public transport infrastructure with dedicated lanes. Additionally, the two airports and the numerous harbours have made transportation the focus of cross-border cooperation. In 2000, in order to determine cross-border agglomeration development perspectives, a White Book was published which proposed three great strategic objectives:
AR 2010/1
Map 7: 'Eurocity' White book objectives: to adjust the Atlantic platform of inter-modality, communication and information, transforming the existing transit corridor into a development of a Euro-corridor.Source Fig. 1 and Fig. 2: Cooperation project presentation, http://www.eurociudad.org/ page.asp?IDPAGE=244 <15.3.2007>.
Karta 7: 'Eurocity'— cilji Bele knjige: prilagoditiAtlantsko bazo za intermodalnost, komunikacijo in informacije, s preoblikovanjem obstoječega koridorja v t.i. Evro-koridor.
Map 8: 'Eurocity' White Book: to structure a linear polycentric metropolitan network by putting into practice the management of space, various infrastructures and an offer of services and facilities whose quality and articulation will respond to the demands of cities of European rank.
Karta 8: 'Eurocity' — cilji Bele knjige: strukturiranje linearnega policentričnega metropolitanskega omrežja z vključevanjem prostorskega menedžmenta, storitev, infrastruktur in naprav, ki bodo odražala zahteve Evropskih mest.
(i) shaping the Atlantic inter-modality, communications and information platform; (ii) structuring a polycentric metropolis in a network; and (iii) protecting and cherishing its natural heritage [Eurocitè Basque].
Urban exclaves
According to van Houtum and Gielis [2005], urban exclaves are interesting socio-spatial urban phenomena that appear along the national borders. Such exclaves are to found above all along the Dutch-Belgian and Dutch-German borders. They are considered products of 'short-distance trans-migration', which means commuting over only a few kilometres distance across the border. It is a curiosity that Dutch 'short-distance transmigrants' have their houses in Belgium or in Germany, but their social and working life is in their country of origin. The phenomenon is a relatively new category of permanent residence in a neighbouring country, while working, going to school, and shopping etc. in the country of origin. Although the phenomenon has existed for years, it involved only a minority of Dutch people who settled in the borderlands of Belgium and Germany. The opening of national borders within the EU and the
TIPOLOGIJA ČEZMEJNIH URBANIH OBMOČIJ
Map 9: Dutch urban exclaves across the Dutch-German and Dutch-Belgian border, marked by black dots. Source: van Houtum, Gielis, 2005.
Karta 9: Nizozemske urbane eksklave ob nizozemsko-nemški in nizozemsko-belgijski meji.
Schengen treaty has, however, substantially increased the flow across the border. This kind of migration has been stimulated by the more attractive financial climate in the neighbouring country, the most important reason for the increase in Dutch transmigration. Furthermore, the housing shortage in the Netherlands in the 1990's and the extreme rise in Dutch real estate and land prices have contributed to the volume of migration, while prices in former buffer zones in cross-border areas on German and Belgian side are much more affordable [van Houtum, Gielis, 2005]. With regard to urban planning, this type of migration has created difficulties on both sides of the border, although the problem was for a long time underestimated by regional and local planners. This resulted in strange constellations, such as the surplus of housing on the Dutch side and the shortage on the German side.
According to the spatial and functional organisation of the urban system, there are different types of exclaves along the Dutch-Belgian and Dutch-German borders. The exclaves along the Dutch-Belgian border are located close to larger Dutch border towns, and could be treated as satellites of towns in their native country. Cases of this type are Essen near Roosendaal, Meerle near Breda, Poppel and Turnhout near Tilburg, and Lommel near Eindhoven. Along the Dutch-German border, migrants are mainly concentrated in border areas such as Bunde near Winschoten, Bad Bentheim and Gronau near Enschede, Kranenburg, and Kleve near Nijmegen. In general, the closer to the state border a village or town is located, the more Dutch people live there. For example, in the German border village of Kranenburg 18.2 per cent of the population is Dutch, while in Kleve, 10km further to the east, only 4.3 per cent of the population is Dutch [van Houtum, Gielis, 2005 from Huijgen, Reijmer 2005].
TIPOLOGIJA ČEZMEJNIH URBANIH OBMOČIJ	AR 2010/1
Conclusion
A selection of urban types as specific urban formations that have developed in the areas across the national borders within the framework of EU was presented. The aim was to point out the new development dynamics, which has attracted the attention of numerous scholars and practitioners. It has been shown that the examined cross-border types are considered atypical in terms of their administrative, technical, legal, financial, and cultural dysfunctions, and are often more complex compared to types found elsewhere within countries. In the case of cross-border areas, EU policies primarily represent the tendency to find a balance between competition and cooperation. Thus, with respect to existing cross-border initiatives, i.e. various urban programmes, plans, and actions, additional analysis of the possibilities of active incorporation into functional urban systems must be recommended.
Taking into account the perspectives of urban development in Slovenian border regions, it is the fact that the most lively cross-border types are in most cases located on borders in Western Europe. Their prosperity is mostly supported by the specific conditions of intensive daily migration, despite the organisational difficulties caused by the complexity of the changed circumstances of daily life. On the other hand, certain types, such as border crossings, are situated in marginal border areas. During recent decades, they have been transformed into completely non-distinctive urban sites in terms of economic, social, and cultural life. In future perspectives, these areas, also in the Slovenian context, might experience non-linear leaps of development, especially under the influence of foreign capital, knowledge and culture.
AR 2010/1
Biblography
Anderson, J., O'Dowd, L. (1999): Borders, border regions and
territoriality: contradictory meanings, changing significance. In: Regional Studies, Vol. 33.7, pp. 593-604.
Buursink, J., Boekema, F., Ehlers, N. (2002). Introduction: Binational cities and their regions. From diverging cases to a common research agenda. In: GeoJournal, Volume 54, pp.15, Springer, Netherlands.
European Commission (2002a). Structural policies and European
territory, Cooperation without frontiers, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/interreg3/doc/docu_ en.htm, < 2.5.2007>.
European Commission (2002b). Neighbouring cities and towns divided by an international border, http://www.espaces-transfrontaliers.org <17.6.2008>.
Eurocitè Basque, http://www.eurociudad.org/page. asp?IDPAGE=244, <15.3.2009>
ESPON 1.1.3, 2002-2006 (2006). Enlargement of the EU and its polycentric spatial structure 2002-2006. http://www.espon. eu, <15.6.2008>.
Houtum, H. (1998): The Development of Cross-Border Economic Relations, A theoretical and empirical study of the influence of the state border on the development of cross-border economic relations between firms in border regions of the Netherlands and Belgium, (dissertation). Thela Thesis Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Houtum, H., Gielis, R. (2006): Elastic migration: the case of
Dutch short-distance transmigrants in Belgian and German borderlands. In: Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie - 2006, Vol. 97, No. 2, pp. 191-198, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.
Hudnik, Š. (2005): Invisible border between Slovenia and Italy.
In: Sitar, M. (ed.). Odprte meje - Open borders, pp. 87-93, Univerza v Mariboru, Fakulteta za gradbeništvo.
Karner, S. (2000): Die Steiermark im 20. Jahrhundert: Politik -Wirtschaft - Gesellschaft - Kultur. Styria Verlag, Graz.
Krätke S. (1999): Regional integration or fragmentation? The
German-Polish border region in a new Europe. In: Regional Studies, Vol. 33, pp. 631-641.
MOT (2000): For a better integration of cross-border agglomerations in the urban policies of the EU. Mission operationnelle transfrontaliere DIV - Type 4: The case of cross-border agglomerations 2000/1, http://www.espaces-transfrontaliers. org, <17.6.2006>.
MOT (2008): Brochure 2008 - Working for the regions - EU regional policy 2007-2013, The case of cross-border agglomerations 2000/1, http://www.espaces-transfrontaliers. org <17.12.2009>.
Perkmann, M. (2003): Cross-border regions in Europe: significance and drivers of regional cross-border co-operation. In: European Urban and Regional Studies, 10(2), pp.153-171.
Pogačar, K. (2008): Characteristics of cross-border spatial
development in the framework of the European integration process: a case study of the cross-border region along the Graz-Maribor axis: dissertation. Institute of Urbanism (Institut für Städtebau), Faculty of Architecture, University of Technology, Graz.
Pogačar, K., Sitar, M. (2009): Dynamics of cross-border spatial development: a case study of the Maribor (SI) -Graz (A) development axis. In: Geodetski vestnik. Letn. 53, št. 3, pp. 469-508.
TIPOLOGIJA ČEZMEJNIH URBANIH OBMOČIJ
Schultz, H. (2005): Doppelstädte als Laboratorien der Integration. In: Schultz, H. (eds.), Stadt-Grenze-Fluss, Europäische Doppelstädte, Frankfurter Studien zur Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte Ostmitteleuropas, Band 12, pp. 13-26. Wichmann M., C. (2004): The Öresund Area: Pre- and post-bridge cross-border functional integration. In: GeoJournal, Volume 61, pp. 31-39, Springer Netherlands.
dr. Kaja Pogačar kaja.pogacar@uni-mb.si izr. prof. dr. Metka Sitar metka.sitar@uni-mb.si UM Fakulteta za gradbeništvo Katedra za arhitekturo
11 ml i T i|n li
h mh 1 in in

Fakulteta za arhitekturo Inštitut za arhitekturo in prostor Ljubljana 2010
9771580557000