Planning the development of metropolitan areas makes use of various forms of cooperation between associated territorial units. Regardless of the cooperation form adopted, dialogue is a factor that significantly facilitates solving spatial problems and gaining social acceptance for the selection of project locations. Its characteristics, including content, course, and participants, additionally determine the specificity of governance in a particular metropolis. The article aims to suggest a study of the emergence and improvement of an institutional dialogue and soft planning by comparing the experiences of selected Polish and French metropolitan areas. They represent different approaches to the use of dialogue in emerging metropolitan spaces resulting from different legal conditions, the length of time it takes for units to integrate, and the scale and orientation of strategic or operational interconnections.
AlbrechtsL.2004. “Strategic (spatial) planning reexamined.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design31 (2004): 743–758.
2.
AlbrechtsL.HealeyP.KunzmannK.2003. “Strategic spatial planning and regional governance in Europe.” APA Journal69, no. 2 (2003): 113–129.
3.
AllmendingerP.HaughtonG.2009. “Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: The new spatial planning in the Thames Gateway.” Environment and Planning A41 (2009): 617–633.
4.
AllmendingerP.HaughtonG.KnielingJ.OthengrafenF. (eds.). 2015. SoftSpaces in Europe: Re-negotiatingGovernance, Boundaries and Borders. Oxon, UK: Routledge.
5.
AnsellC.GashA.2008. “Collaborative governance in theory and practice.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory18, no. 4 (2008): 543–571.
6.
BabbieE.2003. Badania społeczne w praktyce [Social research in practice].Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa.
Bariol-Mathais, B. (Dir.). 2017. Les pôles métropolitains, accélérateurs de coopérations territoriales [Metropolitan poles, accelerators of territorial cooperation].Gallimard (Point Fnau n°7), Paris.
9.
BarretP.2014. “Le dialogue territorial pour répondre aux enjeux écologiques des territoires ruraux [Territorial dialogue to address the ecological challenges of rural territories].” Pour3 (2014): 191–198. https://doi.org/10.4000/geocarrefour.10278.
10.
BehrV.PykaR.2019. “La métropole haute-silésienne, une gouvernance territoriale innovante. Ressources et défis de la première communauté métropolitaine de Pologne [The Upper Silesian metropolis, an innovative territorial governance. Resources and challenges of the first metropolitan community in Poland].” Revue d’études comparatives Est-Ouest (RECEO)4 (2019): 7–40.
11.
BrennerN.2003. “Metropolitan Institutional Reform and the Rescaling of State Space in Contemporary Western Europe.” European Urban and Regional Studies10, no. 4 (2003): 297–324.
12.
BuaA.DaviesJ. S.2022. “Understanding the crisis of New Municipalism in Spain: The struggle for urban regime power in A Coruña and Santiago de Compostela.” Urban Studies0, no. 0 (2022).
13.
ChabrotCh.2022. Métropole de Lyon, An I.Des élections directes, et après ?Harmattan.
14.
ChampagneÉ.BeaudryCh.-É.2018. “Les statuts particuliers des grandes villes au Canada: promesses et limites [The special status of large cities in Canada: promises and limits].” In: PykaR. (Red.), Metropolie jako przedmiot badań — zagraniczne doświadczenia, polskie oczekiwania [Metropolises as a research subject - foreign experiences, Polish expectations], „Górnośląskie Studia Socjologiczne. Seria Nowa”, t. 9, nr 2, s. 256–271.
15.
CohendetP.GrandadamD.SimonL.CapdevilaI.2014. “Epistemic communities, localization and the dynamics of knowledge creation.” Journal of Economic Geography14, no. 5 (2014): 929–954.
16.
DemazièreCh.2020. “The Multiple Agencies of Metropolitan Institutions: Is There Convergence?” In ZimmermannK.GallandD.HarrisonJ. (eds.), Metropolitan regions, planning and governance (pp. 41–58). Berlin: Springer.
17.
DeyleR.E.WiedenmanR.E.2014. “Collaborative Planning by Metropolitan Planning Organizations: A Test of Causal Theory.” Journal of Planning Education and Research34, no. 3 (2014): 257–275.
18.
DiGaetanoA.KlemanskiJ. S.1993. “Urban Regimes in Comparative Perspective: The Politics of Urban Development in Britain.” Urban Affairs Quarterly29, no. 1 (1993): 54–83.
19.
DuguaB.2017. “Des incantations aux réalisations : vers un « âge 2 » de l’inter-Scot lyonnais [From incantations to achievements: towards a “age 2” of the Lyon inter-Scot].” Géocarrefour91, no. 4 (2017). http://journals.openedition.org/geocarrefour/10278.
20.
EnjalbalB.2022. “Élections à la Métropole de Lyon 2020: une large victoire des écologistes et de profonds bouleversements dans le paysage politique local.” In Christophe Chabrot, Métropole de Lyon, An I. Des élections directes, et après ? Grale.
GallandD.HarrisonJ.2020. “Conceptualising Metropolitan Regions: How Institutions, Policies, Spatial Imaginaries and Planning Are Influencing Metropolitan Development.” In ZimmermannK.GallandD.HarrisonJ. (eds.), Metropolitan Regions, Planning and Governance (pp. 1–21). Berlin: Springer.
23.
GazierB.BruggemanF.2016. “Dialogue social et dialogue social territorial au début du XXIe siècle. Un essai de théorisation [Social dialogue and territorial social dialogue at the beginning of the 21st century. A theorization essay].” Négociations2, no. 26 (2016): 57. https://doi.org/10.4000/revue-negociations.2016-2-page-55.htm.
24.
GoetzK.2008. “Governance as a Path to Government.” West European Politics31, no. 1 (2008): 258–279.
25.
GranqvistK.HumerA.MäntysaloR.2021. “Tensions in city regional spatial planning: the challenge of interpreting layered institutional rules.” Regional Studies55, no. 5 (2021): 844–856.
26.
HarrisonJ.2010. “Networks of connectivity, territorial fragmentation, uneven development: The new politics of city-regionalism.” Political Geography29, no. 1 (2010): 17–27.
27.
HaughtonG.AllmendingerP.CounsellD.VigarG.2010. The New Spatial Planning.Territorial Management with Soft Spaces and Fuzzy Boundaries.Oxon, UK: Routledge. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
28.
HausnerJ.2011. “W kierunku rządzenia interaktywnego. [W:] A. Bosiacki. H. Izdebski, A. Nelicki, I. Zachariasz (red.), Nowe zarządzanie publiczne i public governance w Polsce i w Europie.”Liber, Warszawa, s. 93–103.
29.
HealeyP.2007. Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies: Towards a Relational Planning for Our Times.Routledge, London.
30.
HeineltH.KüblerD. (eds.). 2005. Metropolitan Governance. Capacity, Democracy and the Dynamics of Place. Routledge, London.
31.
InnesJ. E.BooherD. E.2010. Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy.New York: Routledge.
32.
JonasA.WardK.2007. “Introduction to a Debate on City-Regions: New Geographies of Governance, Democracy and Social Reproduction.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research31, no. 1 (2007): 169–178.
33.
KilburnH. W.2004. “Explaining U.S. Urban Regimes: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis.” Urban Affairs Review39, no. 5 (2004): 633–651.
34.
KochP.2013. “Overestimating the Shift from Government to Governance: Evidence from Swiss Metropolitan Areas Governance.” International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions26, no. 3 (2013): 397–423.
35.
KvaleS.2010. Prowadzenie wywiadów [Conducting interviews].Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa.
36.
LisowskiA.2003. Koncepcje przestrzeni w geografii człowieka.WGSR UW, Warszawa.
37.
LefebvreH.1991. The Production of Space.OUP, Oxford.
38.
LOI n° 2014-58 du 27 janvier 2014de Modernisation de l’action publique territoriale et d’affirmation des métropoles (Maptam) [Law No. 2014-58 of January 27, 2014on the Modernization of Territorial Public Action and Affirmation of Metropolises].
39.
LuukkonenJ.SirviöH.2019. “The Politics of Depoliticization and the Constitution of City-regionalism as a Dominant Spatial-political Imaginary in Finland.” Political Geography73 (2019): 17–27. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2019.05.004.
40.
MetzgerJ.SchmittP.2012. “When soft spaces harden: the EU strategy for the Baltic Sea Region.” Environment and Planning A44, no. 2 (2012): 263–280.
MillerD.NellesJ.2018. Discovering American Regionalism.An Introduction to Regional Intergovernmental Organizations.Routledge.
43.
Moore-CherryN.KayananC.M.TomaneyJ.PikeA.2022. “Governing the Metropolis: An International Review of Metropolitanisation, Metropolitan Governance and the Relationship with Sustainable Land Management.” Land11 (2022): 761. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11050761
44.
NadinV.2007. “The emergence of the spatial planning approach in England.” Planning Practice and Research22 (2007): 43–62.
45.
NellesJ.2013. “Cooperation and Capacity? Exploring the Sources and Limits of City-region Governance Partnerships.” Int. J. Urban Reg.37 (2013): 1349–1367.
46.
NellesJ.WolfeD. A.2022. “Urban governance and civic capital: analysis of an evolving concept.” Territory, Politics, Governance, DOI: 10.1080/21622671.2022.2123031.
47.
PaasiA.2010. “Regions are social constructs, but who or what ‘constructs’ them? Agency in question.” Environment and Planning A42, no. 10 (2010): 2296–2301.
48.
PetterssonF.FriskH.2016. “Soft Space Regional Planning as an Approach for Integrated Transport and Land Use Planning in Sweden – Challenges and Ways Forward.” Urban Planning and Transport Research4 (2016): 64–82. doi:10.1080/21650020.2016.1156020.
49.
PurkarthoferE.GranqvistK.2021. “Soft Spaces as a Traveling Planning Idea: Uncovering the Origin and Development of an Academic Concept on the Rise.” Journal of Planning Literature36, no. 3 (2021): 312–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412221992287.
50.
PykaR.2014. Metropolizacja a lokalne governance. Globalne wyzwania państwa narodowego na przykładzie V Republiki Francuskiej [Metropolization and local governance. Global challenges of the nation-state on the example of the Fifth French Republic]. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
51.
PykaR.2016. “Ewolucja władzy miejskiej we Francji na początku XXI wieku. Nowe wymiary, nowe poziomy na przykładzie Metropolii Lyonu” [Evolution of urban power in France at the beginning of the 21st century. New dimensions, new levels on the example of the Lyon Metropolis]. Studia Regionalne i Lokalne3(65): 31–49. DOI: 10.7366/1509499536502.
52.
PykaR.2019. “Ewolucja statusu metropolii w ramach systemu federalnego kanady na przykładzie Toronto i Montrealu” [Evolution of the metropolitan status within the Canadian federal system on the example of Toronto and Montreal]. Studia Regionalne i Lokalne nr 3(77)/2019. ISSN: 1509–4995 DOI: 10.7366/1509499537703.
53.
SanctonA.2008. The Limits of Boundaries: Why City-Regions Cannot Be Self-Governing. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.
54.
SavitchH.V.VogelR.K.2009. “Regionalism and Urban Politics.” In Theories of Urban Politics, edited by DaviesJ.S.ImbroscioD.L., 106–124. 2nd ed. Sage, London.
55.
SavitchH.V.AdhikariS.2017. “Fragmented Regionalism: Why Metropolitan America Continues to Splinter.” Urban Affairs Review53(2): 381–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087416630626.
56.
SilvaC.N.2007. “Reinventing Local and Metropolitan Government.” Public Administration Review, Sept–Oct, 954–957.
57.
SteadD.2014. “European Integration and Spatial Rescaling in the Baltic Sea Region: Soft Spaces, Soft Planning and Soft Security.” European Planning Studies22(4): 680–693.
58.
StorperM.2013. Keys to the City: How Economics, Institutions, Social Interaction, and Politics Shape Development. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
59.
TaylorZ.2019. “Pathways to Legitimacy.” Planning Theory18(2): 214–236.
60.
Thimonier-RouzetE.2014. “La recette lyonnaise de l'aire métropolitaine.” L'Atlas de la France et des Français [The Lyon metropolitan recipe. The Atlas of France and the French], La Vie Le Monde, (Hors-série), 46–49.
61.
Thimonier-RouzetE.2022. “Inter-territorial cooperation within the metropolitan area Lyon–Saint-Etienne: forms, actors and challenges.” Metropolitan conference. Metropolitan prospects for a better urban future: ideas, inhabitants, institutions. University of Silesia, Katowice.
62.
TomàsM.2012. “Exploring the Metropolitan Trap: The Case of Montreal.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research36.3: 558.
63.
TomàsM.2020. “Metropolitan Revolution or Metropolitan Evolution? The (Dis)continuities in Metropolitan Institutional Reforms.” In Metropolitan Regions, Planning and Governance, edited by ZimmermannK.GallandD.HarrisonJ., 25–39. Berlin: Springer.
64.
VanierM.2010. Le Pouvoir des Territoires: Essai sur l’interterritorialité [The power of territories: An essay on interterritoriality]. Paris: Economica: Anthropos.
65.
ZimmermannK.2020. “What is at Stake for Metropolitan Regions and Their Governance Institutions?” In Metropolitan Regions, Planning and Governance, edited by ZimmermannK.GallandD.HarrisonJ., 59–74. Berlin: Springer.
66.
ZimmermannK.FeiertagP.2022. Governance and City Regions: Policy and Planning in Europe. Abingdon: Routledge.
