=Opening Statement – CORP26 Panel on In-Situ Urbanization= [[toc]] PDF with slides (FOLIEN) Upload:FranzNahrada/CORP2026presentationInSituUrbanisation_en.pdf === Intro= FOLIE 1 The New City and the New Countryside Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues of the CORP family, Some of you remember my presentation last year in Graz, where I gave a very personal account of my belief that our future is in the countryside and why I have been working on a research and advocacy group for Global Villages for more than 3o years. It felt like swimming against a very powerful stream. When I published an article in Viennas Urban Planning Magazine Perspektiven in 1996 that „cities do not need to grow, but they could learn how to create networks“ nobody foresaw the immense growth that Vienna went through in the 3 decades since – a growth still celebrated by the city planning as you have heard yesterday. And it was not only Vienna that entered the race of becoming a Global City and keeping pace. Over the past decades, we have become accustomed to a very powerful narrative: that urbanization is a one-way process — a movement of people, opportunity, and intelligence from rural areas into cities. This narrative has shaped planning, investment, and policy across the globe. And for a long time, it seemed not only plausible, but inevitable. However, today we are beginning to understand that this model is reaching its structural limits. Cities are not absorbing the world’s population in the way that was once expected. At the same time, technological change — particularly digitalization and automation — is profoundly altering the relationship between place, work, and knowledge. This is what this panel should explore: FOLIE 2 By linking highly specialized urban knowledge systems with vibrant rural and small-town “front ends,” a win-win dynamic emerges: cities are relieved of demographic pressure, while rural areas gain vitality, services, and future-oriented relevance. Drawing on international perspectives and Austrian examples, the session discusses how this new synthesis can take shape in physical space—sustainably, scalably, and with a high quality of life for both city and countryside. Unfortunately we lost 2 speakers on the way. Navdeep from Saudi Arabia and Helmut from Austria could not make it, this why we can have this discussion much more open and participatory. ==In Situ Urbanisation as guiding idea = In this context of our subject, the concept of in-situ urbanization has emerged as a critical lens. At its core, in-situ urbanization suggests something quite simple, yet quite radical: Urban functions do not necessarily require urban migration. Or, to put it differently: The qualities we associate with cities can increasingly emerge in place — within rural and peri-urban regions. And yet, despite its wide recognition in academic and policy discourse, in-situ urbanization has remained, to a large extent, a descriptive concept. It helps us understand what is already happening. But it rarely guides how we should actively shape these transformations. Let me give you a short resume of the policy brief that introduced the concept in 2021 FOLIE 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 – 8 Folie 9 So the question I would like to raise at the beginning of this panel is: Can we move from describing in-situ urbanization to deliberately designing it? To contribute to this shift, I would like to propose a simple framework — a typology of in-situ urbanization — not as a classification for its own sake,but as a way to identify different levers of action. I will briefly outline five such types. FOLIE 10 FOLIE 11 ===First: Infrastructure-driven in-situ urbanization= Here, the key insight is that access creates function. When high-quality digital connectivity, mobility systems, and energy infrastructure become available, entirely new forms of living and working become possible — without relocation. Remote work, telemedicine, distributed services — these are not marginal phenomena anymore. From a planning perspective, this raises a crucial question: Where does infrastructure immediately expand the space of life options? ===Second: Knowledge- and institution-driven in-situ urbanization In this type, connection creates capability. Urban systems concentrate highly specialized knowledge — universities, hospitals, research institutions. But increasingly, these systems can extend beyond their physical location. What emerges are hybrid constellations: distributed learning environments, regional health hubs, locally embedded yet globally connected knowledge nodes. This leads to a new functional distinction: Cities as spaces of deep specialization („Knowledge Bases“ Richard Knight) (cf: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/114717/) rural areas as “front ends” of application, integration, and contextualization. ===Third: Production- and supply-driven in-situ urbanization= Here, the driver is local capacity. With advances in automation, digital fabrication, and regional value chains, production is no longer tied to large centralized facilities in the same way as before. We may see a re-distribution of productive capacity — not as a return to pre-industrial structures, but as a new form of high-tech localization. This has profound implications: Work is becoming less place-bound — and production can, at least partially, return to where people live. ===Fourth: Socio-ecological in-situ urbanization= This type is based on a different premise: Place itself creates intelligence. Many of the challenges we face today — from climate adaptation to resource management — are inherently local. They require contextual knowledge, long-term stewardship, and a close relationship between human activity and natural systems. In this sense, rural areas are not peripheral. They are central arenas of transformation. ===Fifth: Morphological in-situ urbanization= Finally, these functional changes begin to manifest spatially, especially around urban agglomerations!. We see the emergence of new settlement patterns: *revitalized village centers *multi-functional local hubs *polycentric regional structures This resonates, interestingly, with ideas already articulated by Otto Wagner — the notion of distributed “nodes” or “spots”in the "Infinite Metropolis", where essential urban functions are locally accessible"far out". What changes today is the scale and the connectivity of these nodes. ________________________________________________ === Conclusion = What follows from this? These five types are not alternatives. They are overlapping layers. And more importantly: In-situ urbanization does not happen in isolation. Its full potential unfolds only when we understand that cities and the countryside are becoming a coupled system. Cities will continue to play a crucial role as centers of concentration, specialization, and innovation. But at the same time, their effective reach is expanding far beyond their physical boundaries. Through digital connectivity and new institutional forms, we may be witnessing the emergence of what could be called a “virtual metropolis” — a distributed system of knowledge, production, and collaboration. Conversely, rural regions are not simply recipients. They become active partners: * spaces of implementation * spaces of integration * spaces where knowledge meets reality If we take this seriously, then in-situ urbanization is not about making rural areas more urban. It is about something more fundamental: the redistribution of urban functions across space. And this brings me to a final thought, which may also serve as a bridge to our discussion: The real challenge is not technological. It is institutional, cultural, and conceptual. We still tend to think in categories of separation: city versus countryside, center versus periphery. But what is emerging is a different spatial logic — one of interdependence, complementarity, and coupling. Austria, in many ways, offers particularly favorable conditions to explore this transformation: * a dense network of small towns * strong local governance * relatively well-developed rural regions The question is whether we can move beyond seeing these as separate assets — and begin to design them as a coherent system. With that, I would like to open the first round of discussion. Thank you.

Opening Statement – CORP26 Panel on In-Situ Urbanization

                              
Inhaltsverzeichnis dieser Seite
Opening Statement – CORP26 Panel on In-Situ Urbanization   
Intro   
In Situ Urbanisation as guiding idea   
First: Infrastructure-driven in-situ urbanization   
Second: Knowledge- and institution-driven in-situ urbanization   
Third: Production- and supply-driven in-situ urbanization   
Fourth: Socio-ecological in-situ urbanization   
Fifth: Morphological in-situ urbanization   
Conclusion   
 ˧

Upload:FranzNahrada/CORP2026presentationInSituUrbanisation_en.pdf

Intro

FOLIE 1 The New City and the New Countryside ˧

Ladies and gentlemen, ˧

dear colleagues of the CORP family, ˧

Some of you remember my presentation last year in Graz, where I gave a very personal account of my belief that our future is in the countryside and why I have been working on a research and advocacy group for Global Villages for more than 3o years. It felt like swimming against a very powerful stream. When I published an article in Viennas Urban Planning Magazine Perspektiven in 1996 that „cities do not need to grow, but they could learn how to create networks“ nobody foresaw the immense growth that Vienna went through in the 3 decades since – a growth still celebrated by the city planning as you have heard yesterday. And it was not only Vienna that entered the race of becoming a Global City and keeping pace. ˧

Over the past decades, we have become accustomed to a very powerful narrative: ˧

that urbanization is a one-way process — a movement of people, opportunity, and intelligence from rural areas into cities. ˧

This narrative has shaped planning, investment, and policy across the globe. ˧

And for a long time, it seemed not only plausible, but inevitable. ˧

However, today we are beginning to understand that this model is reaching its structural limits. ˧

Cities are not absorbing the world’s population in the way that was once expected. ˧

At the same time, technological change — particularly digitalization and automation — is profoundly altering the relationship between place, work, and knowledge. This is what this panel should explore: ˧

FOLIE 2 ˧

By linking highly specialized urban knowledge systems with vibrant rural and small-town “front ends,” a win-win dynamic emerges: cities are relieved of demographic pressure, while rural areas gain vitality, services, and future-oriented relevance. ˧

Drawing on international perspectives and Austrian examples, the session discusses how this new synthesis can take shape in physical space—sustainably, scalably, and with a high quality of life for both city and countryside. ˧

Unfortunately we lost 2 speakers on the way. Navdeep from Saudi Arabia and Helmut from Austria could not make it, this why we can have this discussion much more open and participatory. ˧

In Situ Urbanisation as guiding idea

In this context of our subject, the concept of in-situ urbanization has emerged as a critical lens. ˧

At its core, in-situ urbanization suggests something quite simple, yet quite radical: ˧

Urban functions do not necessarily require urban migration. ˧

Or, to put it differently: ˧

The qualities we associate with cities can increasingly emerge in place — within rural and peri-urban regions. ˧

And yet, despite its wide recognition in academic and policy discourse, in-situ urbanization has remained, to a large extent, a descriptive concept. ˧

It helps us understand what is already happening. But it rarely guides how we should actively shape these transformations. Let me give you a short resume of the policy brief that introduced the concept in 2021 ˧

FOLIE 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 – 8 ˧

Folie 9 ˧

So the question I would like to raise at the beginning of this panel is: Can we move from describing in-situ urbanization ˧

to deliberately designing it? ˧

To contribute to this shift, I would like to propose a simple framework — a typology of in-situ urbanization — not as a classification for its own sake,but as a way to identify different levers of action. ˧

I will briefly outline five such types. ˧

FOLIE 10 ˧

FOLIE 11 ˧

First: Infrastructure-driven in-situ urbanization

Here, the key insight is that access creates function. ˧

When high-quality digital connectivity, mobility systems, and energy infrastructure become available, entirely new forms of living and working become possible — without relocation. ˧

Remote work, telemedicine, distributed services — these are not marginal phenomena anymore. ˧

From a planning perspective, this raises a crucial question: Where does infrastructure immediately expand the space of life options? ˧

Second: Knowledge- and institution-driven in-situ urbanization

In this type, connection creates capability. ˧

Urban systems concentrate highly specialized knowledge — universities, hospitals, research institutions. ˧

But increasingly, these systems can extend beyond their physical location. ˧

What emerges are hybrid constellations: ˧

distributed learning environments, regional health hubs, locally embedded yet globally connected knowledge nodes. ˧

This leads to a new functional distinction: ˧

Cities as spaces of deep specialization („Knowledge Bases“ Richard Knight) (cf: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/114717/) ˧

rural areas as “front ends” of application, integration, and contextualization. ˧

Third: Production- and supply-driven in-situ urbanization

Here, the driver is local capacity. ˧

With advances in automation, digital fabrication, and regional value chains, production is no longer tied to large centralized facilities in the same way as before. ˧

We may see a re-distribution of productive capacity — not as a return to pre-industrial structures, but as a new form of high-tech localization. ˧

This has profound implications: Work is becoming less place-bound — and production can, at least partially, return to where people live. ˧

Fourth: Socio-ecological in-situ urbanization

This type is based on a different premise: ˧

Place itself creates intelligence. ˧

Many of the challenges we face today — from climate adaptation to resource management — are inherently local. ˧

They require contextual knowledge, long-term stewardship, and a close relationship between human activity and natural systems. ˧

In this sense, rural areas are not peripheral. They are central arenas of transformation. ˧

Fifth: Morphological in-situ urbanization

We see the emergence of new settlement patterns: ˧

• revitalized village centers ˧
• multi-functional local hubs ˧
• polycentric regional structures ˧

What changes today is the scale and the connectivity of these nodes. ________________________________________________ ˧

Conclusion

What follows from this? ˧

These five types are not alternatives. ˧

They are overlapping layers. ˧

And more importantly: ˧

In-situ urbanization does not happen in isolation. ˧

Its full potential unfolds only when we understand that cities and the countryside are becoming a coupled system. ˧

Cities will continue to play a crucial role as centers of concentration, specialization, and innovation. ˧

But at the same time, their effective reach is expanding far beyond their physical boundaries. ˧

Through digital connectivity and new institutional forms, we may be witnessing the emergence of what could be called a “virtual metropolis” — a distributed system of knowledge, production, and collaboration. ˧

Conversely, rural regions are not simply recipients. They become active partners: ˧

• spaces of implementation ˧
• spaces of integration ˧
• spaces where knowledge meets reality ˧

It is about something more fundamental: the redistribution of urban functions across space. ˧

And this brings me to a final thought, which may also serve as a bridge to our discussion: ˧

The real challenge is not technological. It is institutional, cultural, and conceptual. ˧

We still tend to think in categories of separation: ˧

city versus countryside, ˧

center versus periphery. ˧

But what is emerging is a different spatial logic — one of interdependence, complementarity, and coupling. ˧

Austria, in many ways, offers particularly favorable conditions to explore this transformation: ˧

• a dense network of small towns ˧
• strong local governance ˧
• relatively well-developed rural regions ˧

With that, I would like to open the first round of discussion. ˧

Thank you. ˧