Future Developments of Residential Differentiation in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area: Are We Following the European Model?

One of the main findings in the study on social inequality and spatial segregationin seven European cities is that, in spite of the scale of social differences in thedifferent cities, a similar pattern of urban spatial development is evident. Thephysical pattern of area differentiation shows a strong spatial pattern of continuityin the location of advantaged and less advantaged neighbourhoods. In addition, aclustering of both advantaged and deprived neighbourhoods was observed. Thesame pattern of change appears both in London and Helsinki - cities that stand atopposite ends of the spectrum of social and spatial difference (BETWIXT i; McIntoshand Vaattovaara 2001).The spatial clustering of advantaged and more deprived neighbourhoods appearsboth in Helsinki and London, but the grounds for change are different. Are we stillfacing a similar future? The aim in this paper is to compare patterns of residentialdifferentiation in Helsinki and London. Thus, the differences and connectionsbetween social and spatial differentiation and segregation are elaborated. GIS andcensus data will be utilized to examine social and spatial developments. A twophasemodel for the background of the developments in the Helsinki area isintroduced, resulting in a formulation for a model for future developments inresidential differentiation in the Helsinki metropolitan area

Tapaus lähiöiden kehittämisestä – esimerkki tutkimuksen vaikuttavuudesta

Helsingin yliopisto, Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia ja Suomen Akatemia järjestivät Tieteen vaikuttavuus -seminaarin 11.3.2010 Helsingin yliopiston pienessä juhlasalissa. Tässä lehdessä julkaistaan Allan Tiitan, Markku Löytösen, Mari Vaattovaaran ja Markku Mattilan tilaisuudessa pitämät puheenvuorot

Empowered by planning law: unintended outcomes in the Helsinki region

What are the unintended outcomes produced by Finland’s planning system? This analysis of present-day planning in Finland addresses how positive aims and promised designs and plans are diluted by the planning process. It shows how changes in the legislation governing planning are empowering the role of institutional needs rather than fostering the desired outcomes. Three levels are analysed: the development and crucial boundary conditions of planning-related legislation; the structure of urban development within the region; and a case study of the 30-year development of an orbital light-rail project. In contrast to claims in the planning literature, the communicative turn has not led to clear positive changes in the process and implementation. This research shows how institutional stakeholders are empowered in current planning practice. The attempt to make planning more inclusive and participatory has paradoxically led into the empowerment of institutional players. The actual outcomes of the planning process are side-tracked, and the evaluation is outsourced in the process, which calls into question the legitimacy of planning actions. There is a need for planning-related studies to address the legislative boundaries and the concrete outputs of the planning process.Peer reviewe

Avoiding Macro Mistakes : Analysis of Micro-Homes in Finland Today

Peer reviewe

Kohti monimuotoistuvan kaupungin ymmärrystä ja kehityksen ohjaamista

Akateeminen viisaus kaupungistumiseen liittyvien ongelmien ratkaisemiseksi on jäänyt yksittäisten oppiaineiden sisään. Samalla näkökulmat kaupunkikehityksen ymmärtämiseksi ovat tieteen ja tutkimuksen siivittämänä syventyessään pikemminkin kaventuneet. Yksittäiset tutkimusprojektit ovat pyrkineet ymmärtämään monimuotoistuvan kaupungin dynamiikkaa mutta jääneet kuitenkin ajallisesti varsin lyhyiksi ja siten kasvavaan kysyntään nähden sekä saavutuksiltaan vaatimattomiksi että merkitykseltään riittämättömiksi.Non peer reviewe

A new turn in the development of the region? : Future perspectives on the settlement and planning in the Helsinki region

Non peer reviewe

Miten Helsingin käykään?

Kommentoi Yhteiskuntapolitiikka-lehdessä 4/2006 ilmestynyttä Markku Lankisen kirjoitusta