In most work on urban systems in Europe, typological projects dominate widely. From indicators said to be “structuring”, work of this sort has always led to characterising towns or cities one against the other, independently from their geographical position on the one hand and, especially, from their interdependence one on the other. This has certainly enabled the development of a certain number of functional urban and territorial models, which have their use. However approaches of this type, because they partition and define limits, mask the very concept of the urban network.

The aim of this session is to question the relevance of typological approaches. Among the central issues is that of examining how far different systems of classification of towns and cities actually contribute to better understanding of territorial dynamics, and to greater efficiency in the elaboration of development strategies.

The conceptualisation of spatial integration in Europe by way of networks of cities has often been restricted to two models derived from classic representations, i.e. the centre-periphery model and the hierarchical network model for urban systems at national level. In these representations, the European area is seen in a dichotomous manner: in the first case a dominant centre to which dependant and isolated fringe areas are more or less well attached; in the second, major poles with secondary satellite centres that suffer from a lack of visibility.

Today, reference to polycentric territorial systems has to some extent, at least in debate, changed the picture. Reflection undertaken in collaboration with SDEC on the subject of polycentric territorial development has encouraged politicians and planners to include the principle of “territorial cohesion” in the priorities of European public policies, in the same way as economic and social cohesion are included. Rather than being viewed in a polarised, pyramidal manner, spatial dynamics are now being read in terms of interconnection and reticulation.

The aim of this session is to understand in what manner polycentrism could sow the seeds for new readings, at various scales, of the organisation of European territory in accordance with the principles of equity, cohesion and sustainable development.

Guy Baudelle, France
Polycentrisme, équité et cohésion territoriale en Europe
Francesca Governa and Carlo Salone, Italy
Italy and European spatial policies: polycentrism, urban networks and local innovation practicies.
Bas Waterhout et Will Zoneveld, Netherlands
Polycentricity and equity: the Dutch case.
Mathieu Van Criekingen, Pierre Cornut and Sarah Luyten, Belgium
Promotion du polycentrisme inter-urbain, spécialisation économique et leurs significations à l'échelle locale : le cas de Bruxelles.
Louis Marrou, France
Archipel insulaire et organisation des territoires.
Jacky Deneuil, France
Le Polycentrisme : une chance pour la créativité des territoires ?
Stefanie Dühr, Vincent Nadin, United-Kingdom
Polycentricity: a relevant concept for transnational co-operation? Evidence from North-west Europe.