Advertisement

Economic, Social and Legal Arguments for the Foundation of the Bucharest Metropolitan Area

  • Claudia Elena TucleaEmail author
  • Gabriela Tigu
  • Delia Popescu
Article

Abstract

In the present globalized world, the existence of a metropolis implies the presence of international activities within that area. Bucharest has significantly evolved from the small village founded by a shepherd many years ago to the metropolitan area it is today. Is Bucharest ready to assume its role as a metropolis? Are there any differences between Bucharest, the Romanian metropolis, and famous metropolitan areas around the world? What are the economic and social developmental aspects of this area? Will Bucharest be able to develop as a metropolis in a sustainable way? Does Romania have a coherent policy for sustainable development of metropolitan areas? These are the questions addressed in our study based on our own research–library and field work–and inspired by the novelty and importance of this matter in Romania.

Bucharest experienced a true urban expansion in the 20th century, especially during the communist regime when, concomitant with accelerated industrialization, it recorded a spectacular increase in population: from 65,000 inhabitants in 1831, 770,000 in 1930, 1,120,000 in 1948, and reaching 2,000,000 in 1989 (and currently). This represents the first step of the urbanization process, when the rural population tends to migrate toward the urban center, creating a process of growth and urban concentration.

After 1990, Bucharest’s urbanization process entered its second phase–that of suburbanization, a process which essentially reflects the “ex-urbanization” trend or the inhabitants’ residential mobility from the center toward the periphery or outside vicinity.

We are currently witnessing a spontaneous development of metropolitan areas. This type of growth needs a very well designed intervention to correct the potential negative effects and to optimize the process, aiming at a better quality of life for inhabitants.

Key words

metropolitan area periurban territory arrangement urban policy urbanism Bucharest sustainable development 

JEL Classification

Conference field: 9—Regional Urban and transportation policy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abraham D. 1991. Introducere in sociologia urbana. (Introduction to Urban Sociology). Editura Stiintifica, Bucuresti.Google Scholar
  2. ALMA-RO Association 2006a. Zona Metropolitană Bucureşti — Ghid de informare pentru autorităţile publice locale. Bucharest.Google Scholar
  3. ALMA-RO Association 2006b. Zona Metropolitanã Bucureşti - o provocare pentru administraţia publicã (The Metropolitan Area of Bucharest - a challenge for the public administration). Final report, Blueprint International.Google Scholar
  4. Arias A., Borja J. 2007. “Metropolitan cities: Territory and Governability, the Spanish Case.” Built Environment, 33(2): 170–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnes, W., and Ledebur, L. C. 1993. All in it Together: Cities, Suburbs and Local Economic Regionsai. Washington, DC: National League of Cities.Google Scholar
  6. Bautista J., Pereira J. 2006. “Modeling the problem of locating collection areas for urban waste management. An application to the metropolitan area of Barcelona”. Omega, 34(6): 617–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brueckner J.K. 2000. “Urban sprawl: Diagnosis and remedies.”. International Regional Science Review, 23(2): 160–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. CURS. 2003. “Studiu de fundamentare ştiinţifică a zonei metropolitane Bucureşti. Research.” Report for Local Administration of District 1, BucharestGoogle Scholar
  9. ESPON Project. 2002–2004. “The role, specific situation and potentials of urban areas as nodes in a polycentric development.” https://doi.org/www.espon.euGoogle Scholar
  10. Gao X. and Asami Y. 2007. “Effect of urban landscapes on land prices in two Japanese cities”, Landscape and Urban Planning, 81(1–2): 155–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gherasim V. 2005. Bucureşti, provocările istoriei şi expansiunea metropolitană, Bucharest.Google Scholar
  12. Hall P. and Hay D. 1980. Growth centres in the European urban system. Geog. Dept., Reading University, U.K.Google Scholar
  13. Heyns W., and Schoeman C.B. 2006. “Urban congestion charging: Road pricing as a traffic reduction measure.”, WIT Transactions on the Built Environment, 89: 923–932.Google Scholar
  14. Institutul Naţional de Statistică 1998–2008. Statistici lunare (National Institute for Statistics - Monthly Statistics), available at https://doi.org/www.insse.roGoogle Scholar
  15. Legea 195/2006. A descentralizării (The Law No. 195/2006 of Decentralization).Google Scholar
  16. Legea. 215/2001. Privind Administraţia Publică Locală. (The Law of Local Public Administration).Google Scholar
  17. Legea 350/2001. Privind Amenajarea Teritoriului şi Urbanismului. (The Territory Arrangement and Urbanism Law no.350/2001).Google Scholar
  18. Legea 351/2001. Privind aprobarea Planului de Amenajare a Teritoriului Naţional, secţiunea a IV-a, reţeaua de localităţi. (The Law 351/2001, regarding the approval of the National Territory Arrangement Plan, the 4th section The Localities Network).Google Scholar
  19. METREX. 2004–2005. “Interim Report on the PolyMETREX plus project. Towards a Polycentric Metropolitan Europe.” https://doi.org/www.eurometrex.orgGoogle Scholar
  20. METREX. 2005. “Integrated Metropolitan Strategies. Exploratory Discussion Note.” June 2005.Google Scholar
  21. Parés-Franzi, M., and Saurí-Pujol, D., and Domene, E. 2006. “Evaluating the environmental performance of urban parks in Mediterranean cities: An example from the Barcelona Metropolitan Region.” Environmental Management, 38(5): 750–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Prato, T. 2001. “Multiple attribute evaluation of landscape management.” Journal of Environmental Management, 60(4): 325–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rojas-Caldelas, R., and Venegas-Cardoso, R., and Ranfla-Gonzalez, A., and Pena-Salmon, C. 2007. “Planning a sustainable metropolitan area: An integrated management proposal for Tijuana-Rosarito-Tecate, Mexico.” WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 102: 33–42.Google Scholar
  24. Romanian Statistical Yearbook. 2006Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Economic Policy Association (JEPA) 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudia Elena Tuclea
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gabriela Tigu
    • 1
  • Delia Popescu
    • 1
  1. 1.Academy of Economic StudiesBucharest, EuropeRomania

Personalised recommendations