GRENOBLE METROPOLIS Territorial System Factsheet

GRENOBLE METROPOLIS
Territorial System Factsheet
Territorial System Identification data
Name: Grenoble metropolis, city and mountains collaborating
Main urban center: Grenoble
Country: France
Region: Rhône-Alpes
Map 1: Satellite map
1
Territorial System Reference data
Population: 669 595 inhabitants (2010)
Area (km2): 2 621,2 km²
Density: 255,5
Number of Municipalities: 197
Spoken languages: French
Land use (% in the TS, as for the CORINE Land Cover level 2 data)
Urban fabric (1.1): 31.7%
Industrial, commercial and transport units (1.2): 2.4%
Mine, dump and construction sites (1.3): 0.9%
Artificial, non-agricultural vegetated areas (1.4): 9.3%
Arable land (2.1): 0.1%
Permanent crops (2.2): 1.5%
Pastures (2.3): 5.3%
Heterogeneous agricultural areas (2.4): 10.8%
Forests (3.1): 33.4 %
Scrub and/or herbaceous vegetation (3.2):
Spaces with little or no vegetation (3.3): 3.2%
Inland wetlands (4.1): 1%
Maritime wetlands (4.2):
Inland waters (5.1): 0.4%
Map 2: Land use
2
CRITERIA OF DELIMITATION OF THE TERRITORIAL SYSTEM
Our territorial system is composed by the Grenoble Urban Region and the two Regional Natural
Parks of Chartreuse and Vercors. It corresponds to the larger perimeter (périmètre élargi) of the
Schéma de cohérence territoriale. This territorial system is wider than the Functional Urban Area of
Grenoble and includes a set of mountain or plain territories. The Urban area is the territory joining
the morphological urban agglomeration and the periurban municipalities under the influence of
the agglomeration. It is a functional one, considering as main criteria the commuting dimension
(residence <=> jobs), in a territory structured around the main city (Grenoble, with more than 150
000 inhabitants), the medium city of Voiron, and a set of small towns settled in the plain of
Grésivaudan (Isère valley up and downstream from Grenoble).
A topography that strongly guides the location of urban functions
Meantime, it is a specific territory considering geographical criteria because of the mountains
context of Grenoble urban area. The Grenoble Urban Region (central part of the Sillon Alpin) is a
valley located at the interface of three massives: Belledonne (3000 m. for the highest mountains),
Chartreuse and Vercors (between 1000 and 2000 m). Three main types of spaces can be delimited.
• The valleys of the Isère and Drac and slopes marked by a very high intensity of human
occupation: home most of the urbanization (75% of the inhabitants) and economic activity
(84% of jobs), major transport infrastructure but also agricultural activities. A high level of
concurrency exists for the land consume between all these activities.
• Hills and plateaus, historically rural except urban center of Voiron, are increasingly marked
by the development of individual suburban habitat while preserving important agricultural
and natural land: an extension around the pole Voiron, on the set of Champagnier, south of
Grenoble, between Vizille Echirolles and Uriage, in the plain of Bièvre, in the area of
Monestier and Matheysine.
• The mountains (Vercors, Chartreuse, Belledonne, Oisans) are great natural spaces linked with
the "city region" through tourism and recreation nearby.
3
Topographical structure of Grenoble Urban Region
Source: SCoT, Rapport de présentation, Vol. 1, 2012, p. 71
908 km2
15%
Population
(2008)
596 900
75%
207 km2
4%
82 200
10%
82 200
10%
2 500
6%
1459 km2
3 323 km2
25%
56%
74 600
38 400
9%
5%
17 025
12 427
5%
4%
5 100
32 320
11%
72%
5 897 km2
100%
792 100
100%
340 900
100%
45 000
100%
Surface
Plains and large valleys
Hills and plateaus
under urban influence
Rural hills and plateaus
Mountains
Total
SCoT élargi
4
Jobs
(2008)
286 700
84%
Holiday Houses
(2008)
5 000
11%
Grenoble-Alpes Métropole, the heart of a mountain environment
Located in the center of an urban area of over half a million inhabitants, Grenoble-Alpes
Métropole agglomeration is the third one after the Grand Lyon and the transborder metropolis of
the Grand Genève (Switzerland - France). Grenoble urban area is the 12th of France in term of
population.
With 406 000 inhabitants and 210 000 jobs, Grenoble-Alpes Métropole, which correspond to the
center-town and its first suburbs belt is the main activity pole of the urban region: 65% of the jobs
and 62% of commercial surfaces. Its economy is based upon technological and scientific activities
with a high specialization in research, software and nanotechnologies. The jobs in the metropolitan
functions (research and conception, culture and leisure, inter-enterprises trade, management)
represent 29,4% of the total of the jobs. From the beginning of the XXth century, synergies between
research and industry is the real engine of local economic development.
****
The territorial system chosen does not correspond exactly to the bioregion, because, after urban
sprawl it is quite difficult to define the limits between plain and mountains. Slopes are progressively
“colonized” by detached houses. The river and its tributaries have framed the urbanization process,
because of the location of the railway and the main motorways in the plain. Parts of the Natural
Regional Parks of Chartreuse and Vercors depend of other watersheds that the one formed by
Isère and its tributaries. From a cultural and historical point of view, the differences are important
between the territories of the urban region. The main part of the economic activities is polarized
around the center agglomeration of Grenoble, even if peripheral sectors, as Pays du Voironnais or
Pays de Saint-Marcelin, are characterized by a certain level of autonomy. On the edges of the
territorial system, part of the municipalities depends as of Grenoble as of other urban centers
(Chambéry in the north-west, Valence in the south-west) for economical activities, retail and public
services. From the point of view of territorial cohesion approach, the territorial system, called by
local actors (politicians and planners) “péimètre élargi du SCoT”, appears as a territory of project
for a rural and urban integrated approach, because of the attempts of coordination between
different spatial strategies : the Schéma de cohérence territoriale from one part, the charters of the
Natural Regional Parks from the other part. Our delimitation of our territorial system appears as the
fruits of a compromise between different approaches (bioregion, functional area and territorial
cohesion).
5
CHARACTERIZATION OF THE TERRITORIAL SYSTEM
Vulnerability
The geographical context
Grenoble Urban Region is a narrow valley located inside the central part of French Alps. The space
available for human activities is very few and the concurrency for land use is high between
dwelling, economical activities, transports infrastructures and agriculture. Location inside the
mountain makes few available land for urban development and induces ecological and
landscape vulnerability. Although they represents only 15% of the surface of the territorial system,
the plain and valleys territories concentrate 75% of the population and 84% of the jobs
Urban sprawl
From the end of the seventies, is started a movement of urbanization of territories always farer from
the center of the urban region. Between 1999 and 2006, the demographic growth rate is higher in
periurban and rural areas as Grésivaudan (+10,5%), Sud Grésivaudan (+11,1%), Bièvres-Valloire
(+13,9%) and Trièves (+17,2%) than in Grenoble agglomeration (+1%). Urban sprawl is produced by
the wish of families (with children) to reach single houses at low price.
Evolution of population in Grenoble Urban Region
Population
(2006)
Evolution
1999-2006
Evolution (%)
Naturel
Balance
Migratory
Balance
Urban
Region
Agglomeration
Grésivaudan
Voironnais
BièvreValloire
Sud
Grésivaudan
Sud
Grenoblois
Trièves
730 932
398 352
94 718
89 405
66 570
41 771
30 852
9 323
36 667
7 076
9 004
5 688
8 147
4 185
1 197
1 369
5,3
1,8
10,5
6,8
13,9
11,1
4
17,2
4,2
4,8
4,8
3,6
2,7
1,6
3,8
1
1
-3
5,7
3,2
11,2
9,6
0,2
13,6
Source: TALANDIER M., Économie résidentielle versus économie productive. Inverser le regard, Controverses du SCoT, 2010, p.9.
The first consequence of sprawl is land consume special agricultural land: between 1999 and 2009,
1 200 hectares of natural land and 2 800 hectares of agricultural land have been used for building
or transports infrastructures. The second one is mobility development. Because activities are still
concentrated in the Grenoble agglomeration (specially in the suburb belt), urban sprawl induces
movement growth between peripheral sectors of urban region and Grenoble agglomeration.
Use of cars represents the main part of these movements and this use is higher in peripheral sectors
than in the center of the agglomeration. The mobility local public policy, based on public transport
development (creation from 1983 of three lines of tramway, development of cycles lines, synergy
between transport policy and territorial planning), appears more efficient in high density territories
6
than in the lower density ones. Today mobility is the first factor of air pollution before heating and
industry.
Different types of mobility in Grenoble Urban Region
Cars
Public Transports
Walking
Bikes
Others
Urban Region
59%
11%
25%
3%
2%
Grenoble
32%
21%
42%
5%
1%
Rest of the Agglomeration
58%
14%
24%
3%
1%
Rest of the Urban Region
71%
7%
19%
1%
2%
Source: Enquête Ménages Déplacements, 2010.
Source: SCoT, 2012.
Loss of attractiveness
During the ‘60s and ‘70s, Grenoble was one of the most attractive urban region in France:
university, private and public research, electronic, computers and software were the main sectors
of attractivity for population coming from different regions of France and foreigner countries.
During the last ten years, if the demographic growth rate of the Grenoble Urban Region (5,3%) is a
little bit higher than the national one (4,9%), the rate of Grenoble agglomeration (2,8%) is lower.
Lack of demographic dynamism can be explained because of the migratory balance, which is
lower at urban regional level than at national one (1% versus 2,1%) and which is negative (-3%) at
agglomeration level. This loss of attractiveness has several (and combined) explanations.
7
It can be explain by the (to much) higher level of specialization of the local economy of the
Grenoble Urban Region, which is lead by scientific and technological activities. Entrepreneurs
sustained the creation of laboratories specialized in electricity, magnetism and paper mill. A high
level of relationship between research and industry was the main factor of the capacity of the
economical local system to move into new activities in a crisis context. Electricity, physics, nuclear,
computers, software represents the main stages of research development during the last century.
Today, the technological cluster, the dynamism of which is recognized by both economical actors
and researchers, represents only of third of the jobs and a quarter of the incomes in Grenoble
Urban Region.
Meantime, Grenoble lacks of metropolis functions comparing to the “Top 15” French
agglomerations. Most of them are “Regional capital” which drive specific functions and a more
diverse economy. This is not the case with Grenoble, located at 100 kms from Lyon, the Regional
Capital and 2nd French City.
Comparison With Nantes Metropolis on economical basis
SCoT Grenoble Region
Incomes
SCoT Nantes Region
%
€/inhabitant
%
€/inhabitant
Total Productive Basis
25,7
3 256
24,1
2 887
Wages of comuters
4,7
597
6,7
806
Pensions
23,9
3 039
24,5
2 944
Tourist Expenses
8,8
1 118
7,9
948
Total Residential Basis
37,5
4 753
39,2
4 699
Total Public Basis
13,5
1 708
11,7
1 409
Total Social Basis
23,4
2 971
25
3 001
Total Basis
100
12 689
100
11 996
Source: TALANDIER M., Economie résidentielle versus économie productive. Inverser le regard, Controverses du SCoT, 2010, p. 9
Nantes Urban Region, with a lower level of technological and scientific activities than Grenoble, is
a one of the more attractive towns in France. Despite the difference of economical structure, the
weight of pensions in the structure of incomes is the same in the two metropolitan areas. The culture
and entertainment led local policies are more developed in Nantes than in Grenoble. May be, this
is one of the reason of the lack of attractiveness of Grenoble Urban Region for retired people or
young students.
8
Fragmentation of the institutional organization
In 2010, 273 municipalities and 11 intercommunal cooperation bodies cover the urban region. The
powers in matter of territorial and urban planning are divided between the Etablissement public du
SCoT, the intercommunal bodies and the municipalities. In matter of transports and mobility, they
are divided between the Rhône-Alpes Region (railways), the Isère Department (interurban
transports) and the intercommunal bodies (Grenoble Alpes Métropole, Pays Voironnais). In matter
of environment and landscape, they are divided between the State, the Region (Schéma de
cohérence écologique), the Etablissement public du SCoT (Schéma de cohérence territoriale) and
the municipalities (Plan local d’urbanisme). The institutional fragmentation is one major obstacle to
the emerging of territorial cohesion.
Intermediary spaces not enough valorized
The difficult relationship between agglomeration and edge territories induces a state of neglect of
intermediary spaces as slopes and hills. This phenomena can be explained:
− from the point of view of the city, by an utilitarian relationship with the mountain considered
as a space for leisure;
− from the point of view of the mountain, by a strategy of preservation against an
agglomeration considered as expansionist.
Paradoxically, this difficulty is reinforced by the existence of two Natural Regional Parks in the
neighbourghood of the agglomeration. The French law establishes that the Parks have to
elaborate their own spatial strategic plan (called Charter) and are not included inside the
perimeter of the Schéma de coherence territorial. This division of powers has created new
boundaries between the city and the massives. The Parks have built policies addressed to the heart
of the massives, not taking into account the fringes. In fact, intermediary spaces are not considered
as structuring spaces.
Resilience
A strong identity
A strong historical relationship between city and mountain makes a common local identity, weaker
today but able to be redeveloped. Highlighted the different stories of the past and present can
show that the story of the 1968 Olympic Games is a story fallow, it is no longer a unifying narrative,
however, the proliferation of common reference does not prevent activation of a common
narrative. Indeed, the story of the Olympic Games was a strong story but a story mainly produced
by and for the city. The Olympic Games have benefited Grenoble, beautified and boosted its
image but they have very little benefited despite the presence of massive events in the Vercors
and Chartreuse. Today, there is no common narrative but a multiplicity of "micro-narratives" that
hinder the formation of a unifying narrative. However, the definition of common standards is
possible through the identification of common values.
9
Functional interdependence
This follows logic of interdependence concentric radiation, that is to say, the further away from
Grenoble, the less influence of the city and the greater the mass is independent. Today, we often
speak of mass as a separate entities, however we realize that there are many internal divisions with
multiple socio-spatial.
Resilience capacity of the local economic system
As the famous geographer Raoul Blanchard said (Grenoble. Etude de géographie urbaine,
Grenoble, Didier&Richard, 1935), we have to be astonished to the existence, in the middle of the
XIXth century, of a developed industrial town inside the Alps far from the main transports ways. The
economic development is linked to the local actors’ capacity to overcome the difficulties relative
to the enclosing geographical situation . All along the XXth the technological (composed by the
leaders of research laboratories and industrial bosses) was able to lead bifurcation process from
magnetism to nuclear physics, from nuclear to computer, from computer to software, from
software to chips and nanotechnologies. These capacity of adaptation to global change context,
explains, in large part, the dynamism of the scientific place of Grenoble at national and European
level (NOVARINA G., “Verso la città dell’innovazione?. L’area metropolitana di Grenoble”, Stato e
mercato, 2011, N°93, pp 395-420).
Cooperative planning tradition
In front of the situation of institutional fragmentation at metropolitan level, public actors has been
able from the end of the ‘80s to develop a set of collaborative planning experiences. Municipalities
and intercommunal bodies involve in a new public body (today named: Etablissement public du
SCoT) in order to elaborate and approve a metropolitan spatial strategy: the Schéma directeur has
been approved in 2000 and the Schéma de cohérence territoriale in 2012. These territorial
strategies establish wide orientations for sustainable development. It has to be implement through
sectorial plans as mobility plans (Plans de déplacements urbains 2000 and 2007), economical
development programs (Projets d’agglomération 2003 and 2007), local plans (Schémas de secteur,
Plans locaux d’urbanisme) and diverse types of contracts involving intercommunal bodies and
municipalities, as the Contrat d’axe used to build relationships between transport and planning. In
matter of agricultural development, the two main intercommunal bodies (Grenoble Alpes
Métropole and Pays Voironnais) are expected to cooperate to the elaboration of a local strategy
for the protection of agricultural land and the valorization of its products in the Cluses of Voreppe
(Périmètre de protection et de valorisation des espaces agricoles et naturels).
A territorial project intermediary spaces
Intermediary spaces between urbanized areas an mountain massives could become potential
places for new territorial and urban, which propone a new organization of Grenoble metropolis,
based upon the valorization of natural, ecological and agricultural resources. Around such
projects, new forms of institutional cooperation could be built.
10
The forthcoming Decentralization law
The French government is currently preparing a new decentralization law, which will create a new
status for the main agglomerations: the Metropolis. These changes will be able to support a better
governance at a wider geographical perimeter. The ability of local governments to take
advantage of the future administrative frame is a factor a potential resilience.
REASONS FOR THE SELECTION OF THE PILOT AREA AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
The Pilote areas chosen by Rhône-Alpes partners are selected mainly considering their strategical
position for the functional relationship between urban and rural areas and the political dynamics
and projects to implement during the next years :
-
-
-
-
Cluse of Voreppe joining the two agglomerations of Grenoble and Voiron (including
mountainsides of Vercors and Chartreuse): area facing a strong urban pressure but with a
vocation of agriculture and natural space (place of a project “Sector of protection and
valorization of agricultural and natural peri-urban areas - PAEN);
Vercors, the “4 montagnes” sector (part of Vercors Naturel Regional Park), strongly influenced
by the Grenoble agglomeration (urban pressure, increase of population) but with a territorial
and political strategy oriented on the mountain;
Balcons Sud de Chartreuse (part of Chartreuse Naturel Regional Park), a mountain and rural
territory directly linked with the more dense and urbanized part of Grenoble agglomeration,
threw the Bastille site, which have to face agricultural development based upon the
valorization of quality and local productions; leisure activities organization in compatibility with
natural spaces protection; natural spaces and ecological corridors regeneration;
“Espace Belledonne”: territorial project joining 48 municipalities of the Belledonne massif in
order to promote local development in relation with the Grésivaudan valley and Grenoble. It
covers the area of several municipalitie's cooperation bodies and was the structure of
development project like LEADER.
11