Does the concept of “Greater Geneva” resonate with residents? That’s a real challenge!
Admittedly—and the authorities acknowledge this—considerable time may elapse between the patient and scientific gathering of evidence, the subsequent decision-making process, and the implementation of measures, before any effects begin to be seen—in a context that will likely have changed significantly in the meantime. The race is on.
Our modern, media-driven, and connected societies are becoming increasingly impatient. Living in the moment, they no longer share the same sense of time as previous generations. This psychological constraint adds to those fully acknowledged by the authorities of “Greater Geneva,” who admit the difficulty of moving faster. Thus, we read in the Roadmap for Metropolization (p. 6): “Years pass between the development of our plans and the realization of their effects on the territory.”
Nevertheless, time is not the only factor working against “Greater Geneva” when it comes to reaching out to residents…
Are we focusing too much on spatial planning?
To properly interpret what follows, let us recall from the outset that while criticism is easy, art is difficult. Thus, to borrow a famous saying from Spinoza (Political Treatise, Introduction, 4), our intention is not to criticize, much less to denigrate, the work accomplished with skill and tenacity on both sides, but to seek a deep understanding in order to foster independent reflection.
FEDRE is a member of the “Greater Geneva” Urban Area Forum, a platform for civil society. However, a fundamental debate is gradually emerging within the forum between two approaches that, far from being opposed, can complement one another. This debate centers on the purpose of the urban area project. Does it aim to optimally develop an urban area by improving mobility—trains, trams, buses, park-and-ride facilities, bike paths, and more—by organizing and rationalizing the space, striving to reduce disparities between Switzerland and France, and between urban centers and rural areas (which the documents tell us are “fragmented”), by developing a welcome concern for the environment and diversity, gradually highlighting the issue of water, which will become crucial. And also by tackling (still cautiously) the immense challenges of healthcare and housing?…
All of this is important, and quantitative studies are becoming more numerous and sophisticated… But what, ultimately, about that elusive concept we call quality of life?
If we place this at the heart of the project, we realize that the goal of rational and well-considered development—which currently drives the metropolitan project—leaves a number of essential issues somewhat overlooked. These issues are addressed only through supporting policies, whereas they should form the foundation of the approach.
Why not take a different approach to the “Greater Geneva” urban development project by focusing on people and quality of life, rather than prioritizing land-use planning? This observation can, in fact, be applied to a broader region (the Alps, the Jura, and Lake Geneva).
A few uncomfortable questions
Embarking on this process is not without risk, because beyond certain well-established approaches that are seen as “fundamental,” it raises questions that people are reluctant to ask directly, as they are uncomfortable. Among these is the “inevitability” of the metropolitan area’s population growth, which is bound to lead to an increase in roads, railways, housing, and infrastructure… not to mention the steady rise in the number of cross-border commuters, for whom we dare not set a limit.
Admittedly, we risk being accused of Malthusianism, but the fact remains that the question deserves to be raised today with renewed vigor. Confusion often reigns on this subject, at least since the Club of Rome’s first report, *The Limits to Growth* (1972), was unfortunately translated into French as *Halte à la croissance?*Growth in the Franco-Geneva region has so far been essentially quantitative and largely uncontrolled, creating “winners” and “losers,” widening disparities (particularly social ones), and increasing pressure on the environment of an urban area that continues to grow.
The future is in our hands
All of this points to a central question that calls for a political decision: what kind of region do we want?
It is not enough to simply extrapolate past trends into the future, as if they were inevitable. No, the 1.2 to 1.4 million residents in “Greater Geneva” alone (1 million today) and the 180,000 to 200,000 cross-border commuters (120,000 today) predicted for 2050 are not inevitable! Because our quality of life and our environment are at stake.
In short, we must strive to find the right balance between the quality of life in our region—which we urgently need to preserve (or even restore)—and the economic vitality that is essential to that very quality of life.
Let’s acknowledge that stakeholders on both sides largely share these concerns. But concerns alone are no longer enough.
The challenge lies in striking a balance between imperatives that are sometimes contradictory (let’s not downplay this). That is precisely why all stakeholders should rally around this goal. Together, we should have the courage to push the boundaries. May this call to action help set such a change in motion!
⸻
Founded in Geneva in 1996 in association with the Council of Europe, FEDRE has always focused on cross-border regions. In 2023, it formed a partnership with Crédit Agricole next bank to study the border effect along Switzerland’s periphery. Following Issue 1, which addressed food aid; Issue 2, the challenges facing the healthcare sector; Issue 3, water; Issue 4, focused on culture; Issue 5, on unemployment benefits for cross-border workers; Issue 6 focused on the idea of a cross-border resident card, the next on sustainable mobility in cross-border urban areas, Issue 8 dedicated to the European aspects of cross-border cooperation, Issue 9 to the diversity of tax systems for cross-border workers, Issue 10 to Switzerland’s specific approach to counting the unemployed, Issue 11 on sustainable transport planning in border regions, Issue 12 on the contribution of culture to a shared identity, Issue 13 on the growing importance of cross-border phenomena, Issue 14 on the role of sports in cross-border relations, Issue 15 on democracy in cross-border regions, on the 16th: cross-border forest resources; on the 17th: associations of cross-border workers; on the 18th: the future of mobility in cross-border areas; on the 19th: “Greater Geneva”; on the 20th: agriculture in the Franco-Geneva region; on the 21st: the challenges of the Fourth Industrial Revolution; the 22nd comparing the experiences of Basel and Geneva, the 23rd devoted to cross-border tourism developments around Lake Geneva, the 24th addressing the democratic pact at the cross-border level, and issue 25 proposes putting people at the heart of “Greater Geneva.”