Search

It has been argued that the concept of “borrowed size” is essential to understanding urban patterns and dynamics in North-West Europe. This paper conceptualizes this idea and provides an empirical exploration of it. A place borrows size when it hosts more urban functions than its own size could normally support. A borrowed size for one place means that other places face an “agglomeration shadow” because they host fewer urban functions than they would normally support. This paper explores the extent to which size and function are related for places in North-West Europe and tries to explain why one place borrows size while the other faces an agglomeration shadow by examining the position of places within the regional urban system. The presence of urban functions was approximated using high-end cultural amenities. We conclude that the largest places in their functional urban area (FUA) are better able to exploit their own mass. The largest place in a FUA is also better able to borrow size from nearby places and from (inter)national urban networks than the lower-ranked places. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Recent concepts such as 'megaregions' and 'polycentric urban regions' emphasize that external economies are not confined to a single urban core, but are shared among a collection of nearby and linked cities. However, empirical analyses of agglomeration and agglomeration externalities have so far neglected the multicentric spatial organization of agglomeration and the possibility of the 'sharing' or 'borrowing' of size between cities. The authors take up this empirical challenge by analyzing how different spatial structures, in particular the monocentricity-polycentricity dimension, affect the economic performance of US metropolitan areas. Ordinary least squares and two-stage least-squares models explaining labor productivity show that spatial structure matters: polycentricity is associated with higher labor productivity. This appears to justify suggestions that, compared with more monocentric metropolitan areas, agglomeration diseconomies remain relatively limited in the more polycentric metropolitan areas, whereas agglomeration externalities are to some extent shared among the cities in such an area. However, it was also found that a network of geographically proximate smaller cities cannot substitute for the urbanization externalities of a single large city. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]