Mapping the Urban Planning System in Tartu, Estonia
Teele Pehk
Who makes the city? Mapping the urban planning system in Tartu, Estonia
Master thesis University of Tampere Faculty of Economics and Administration Department of Regional Studies November 2008
Tampereen yliopisto Yhdyskuntatieteiden laitos
PEHK, TEELE: Who makes the city? Mapping the urban planning system in Tartu, Estonia
Aluetieteen pro gradu -tutkielma, 77 sivua + 5 liitesivua
Marraskuu 2008 ______
Tutkimus käsittelee kaupunkisuunnittelua, sille ominaisia piirteitä ja suunnitteluun osallistujia. Työn tarkoituksena on selvittää Viron kaupunkisuunnittelun institutionaalista rakennetta Tarton kaupungin esimerkin avulla. Erityiskiinnostuksen kohteena ovat kaupunkisuunnitteluun osallistujien roolit, intressit sekä voimankäyttö.
Tutkimuksen laadullisena menetelmänä on käytetty puolistrukturoitua nettikyselyä. Nettikyselyn avulla selvitettiin Tarton kaupungin suunnitteluun osallistuvien intressiryhmien mielipiteitä ja suhtautumista nykysuunnitteluun sekä ehdotuksia suunnittelun kehittämiseksi.
Tutkimusaineistona on käytetty kansainvälistä kirjallisuutta, kansallisia raportteja sekä tutkimuksia Viron kaupunkisuunnittelusta. Yksittäisten tapausten havainnollistamista varten on myös käytetty muutamia artikkeleita sanomalehdistä. Teoreettista kirjallisuutta käytettäessä ei ole eritelty esimerkiksi anglosaksisia tutkijoita pohjoismaisista kirjoittajista, vaan lähteitä on tarkoituksella käytetty vuorotellen. Tämä lähestymistapa tarjoaa runsaan ja vaihtelevan teoriapohjan yhdistämällä tai asettamalla vastakkain eri teoreetikkojen näkökohtia.
Tutkimus osoittaa, että kaupunkisuunnittelu on suhteellisen universaali diskurssi, vaikka eri konteksteissa ja olosuhteissa suunnittelu lähtee liikkeelle erilaisista periaatteista. Nykypäivän suunnittelun piirteitä ovat rationaalisuus, progressiivisuus, eri toimijoiden välinen voimankäyttö sekä suunnittelijoiden tai kaavoittajien muuttunut rooli. Käytännössä kaupunkisuunnittelu on muuttunut kommunikatiiviseksi, monien intressiryhmien väliseksi vuoro- vaikutteiseksi prosessiksi, jonka tavoitteena on elinympäristön parantaminen.
Kun virolainen kaupunkisuunnittelu asetetaan länsimaalaisten kokemusten ja teorioiden taustalle, tulee selvästi esille neuvostoajan "perintö". Virossa alettiin harjoitella nykyaikaista kaupunkisuunnittelua vasta 1990-luvun puolivälissä maan yksityistämisreformin lanseerauksen jälkeen. Viimeisen vuosikymmenen nopea talouskasvu on tuonut mukanaan myös kaupunkisuunnitteluun varhaiskapitalismille tyypillisiä kehityspiirteitä: yksityissektorin vetoisuus, puutteellinen kansalaisosallistuminen kaavoitusprosesseissa sekä kaavoittajien ulkopuolinen rooli.
Tutkimuksen tuloksena voidaan todeta, että Tarton kaupunkisuunnittelu koetaan markkina- ja politiikkavetoisena ja suhteellisen kaoottisena. Vaikka suunnittelussa kootaankin yhteen eri intressiryhmiä, on kaupunkisuunnittelu hierarkkista siinä mielessä, että joidenkin intressiryhmien – useimmiten poliittisten päättäjien sekä yksityisten toimijoiden – toivomuksia asetetaan etusijalle. Asukkaat eivät ole saavuttaneet merkittävää asemaa kaupunginhallituksen partnerin roolissa, vaikka asukkaiden ei katsota viivyttävän tai estävän suunnitteluprosesseja.
Isoimpina ongelmina kaupunkisuunnittelussa nähdään virkailijoiden ja poliitikkojen asema, joidenkin osallistujien vallitsevuus sekä ristiriitaiset intressit. Näiden lisäksi ongelmallisia asioita ovat kaavoittajien vajavainen ammattipätevyys, eri toimijoiden välisen luottamuksen puute ja suunnitteluverkoston johtajuuden puute.
Ensimmäisenä suunnittelun parantamismahdollisuutena nähdään suunnitteli- joiden roolia – heidän toivotaan panostavan kaavoituksessa enemmän analyyttiseen työhön. Sen yhteydessä avainrooli on suunnittelijoiden kompetenssin nostamisessa. Lisäksi ratkaisuina nähdään suunnitteluverkoston johtajuutta, lisäresurssien myöntämistä kaupunkisuunnitteluun sekä toimijoiden välisen yhdenvertaisuuden helpottamista.
______Avainsanat: kaupunkisuunnittelu, Viro, intressiryhmät, vuorovaikutus ja voimankäyttö suunnittelussa TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword...... 5 1. INSIGHTS INTO URBAN PLANNING...... 8 2. FROM MODERN TO POSTMODERN PLANNING AND BEYOND...... 10 2.1 Historical roots of Urban Planning...... 10 2.2 Postmodernism in planning...... 14 3. MAIN FEATURES OF URBAN PLANNING...... 17 3.1 Planning as a progressive practice...... 17 3.2 Rationality in planning...... 18 3.3 Issues of power in planning...... 20 3.4 Legitimacy of planners...... 22 4. URBAN PLANNING IN ESTONIA...... 25 4.1 A brief history of Estonian planning practices...... 25 4.2 National and local framework of urban planning...... 28 4.2.1 Planning regulation...... 28 4.2.2 Institutional setting of planning...... 34 4.3 Tendencies in Estonian planning practices...... 38 4.3.1 Market-oriented planning instead of master planning...... 38 4.3.2 Marginalised role of planners...... 42 4.3.3 Insufficient participation of residents...... 43 5. URBAN PLANNING IN THE CITY OF TARTU...... 48 5.1 Tartu at a glance...... 48 5.2 How the case study was conducted?...... 51 5.3 Perceptions on planning in Tartu...... 53 5.3.1 Roles in the planning system...... 53 5.3.2 Leader of the planning network...... 55 5.3.3 Eminence and power of stakeholders in the planning system...... 56 5.3.4 Biggest problems in city planning...... 60 5.3.5 Suggestions for improving planning...... 63 5.4 Conclusions from the case study...... 64 6. DISCUSSION...... 66 6.1 Finnish urban planning system as an example...... 66 6.2 Improving urban planning in Estonia...... 68 SUMMARY...... 70 REFERENCES...... 72 Annex 1: Survey questionnaire (in Estonian)...... 78
* * * I dedicate this piece of work to my armas ema with whom I have spent countless hours wandering around the streets of Tallinn and Tartu, being positively and negatively amazed by the rapid changes in the physical urban landscape. I hope that my thesis will enlighten her.
* * *
Foreword
Cities offer tremendous opportunities for research. At the same time, cities have many meanings to many different groups of people – they are the living and working environment for residents; areas of self-fulfilment for politicians; places to discover and enjoy for visitors; a framework for planners and architects; and canvases of expression or inspiration for artists. Cities are living systems, consisting of both the humanistic and cognitive aspects, and the physical urban environment. In planning a city, it is important not to overlook the physical aspect. The architectural critic Michael Sorkin, has expressed concern over the twenty-first-century city, with its landscape of consumption rather than production, its privatization of public space and its simulation of meaning through “ersatz architecture”. With respect to Estonian cities, the capitalistic era has also left its imprints on urban images and planning practices in the post-socialist country.
The present research focuses on the participants and decision making processes that directly influence spatial planning in cities. The research does not comprehend the topics of infrastructure, social and cultural affairs, industry, etc; nor is it a study about housing. The study takes a broader look at the system of urban planning, the nature of intervention and the participation of various stakeholders in the planning system.1
I have chosen to study the institutional aspects of urban planning, rather than social or humanistic topics (although they interest me as well). Given the content of the Regional Studies master level programme I attended at the University of Tampere, I have followed my department's direction to study the institutional setting and power relations between participants in urban planning.
1 In this thesis the concepts ’city planning’ and ’urban planning’ are used as synonyms. Likewise, no difference is delineated between the words ’city’ and ’town’. The term’stakeholders’ refers to the participants involved in the urban planning processes, and local authorities are referred to mainly as ’local government’ or ’municipality’.
5 The aim of my research is to analyse the institutional setting of urban planning in Estonia by mapping the roles, interests and use of power by various stakeholders in planning processes.
In pursuing the main aim, the research tries to answer the following questions:
What is urban planning and what is it based on?
How can contemporary urban planning be described?
In Estonia, what is the influence of stakeholders on planning decisions and processes?
In Estonia, who leads the planning network in a city?
Why and how does the eminence of stakeholders vary in Estonian urban planning?
What/who are the constraints in urban planning?
How can urban planning in Estonia be improved?
This study is divided into six chapters. In the first part a short introduction into urban planning is given. The second part examines the historical roots of urban planning and planning practices. The third part focuses on the main features of urban planning: progress, rationality and power, as well the role of planners. The fourth part gives an insight into Estonian urban planning specifically, thus providing an overall background for the following case study in chapter five. The last part introduces some learning points from the Finnish urban planning system and ends with a discussion.
I am aware that I have taken on an ambitious scope for this thesis. Urban planning can be a complex subject, especially when examining planning practices in fast developing post-socialist countries such as Estonia. I believe that this is the reason behind the small number of comprehensive studies about urban planning practices in Estonia – because urban planning is such a complex topic involving many contradicting aspects and various stakeholders.
Fortunately, some Finnish researchers have been active in studying urban planning practices in Estonia, which provides some useful background material. Among others, the following publications are available: Jussi Jauhiainen's Linnageograafia (2005; the first comprehensive urban geography book in Estonian) and Sampo Ruoppila's doctoral thesis “Residential differentiation, housing policy and urban planning in the transformation from state socalism to a market economy: the case of Tallinn” (2006), in addition there are Panu Lehtovuori's articles about architecture and planning in Estonia and Finland (mainly in the Estonian Architectural Review magazine Maja). Though, there have been several Master's theses about, for example, urban sprawl (Julegina 2007; Ideon 2006; Metspalu 2005) as the spreading tendency around bigger cities in Estonia. Can it be that for 'insiders' it is somehow more difficult to analyse the tendencies and circumstances of
6 planning than for those with an 'outsider's view'? Even if this premise does not hold firm, my objective is to contribute to the body of material on urban planning from an insider's as well as an outsider's viewpoint.
I express my gratitude towards the Estonian World Council that supported my thesis with a grant.
7
1. INSIGHTS INTO URBAN PLANNING
Whether we want it or not, spaces are part of our everyday life. Our spatial behaviour, which is defined by and defines the spaces around us, is an integral part of our social existence. (Madanipour 2001, 158)
Urban landscapes are socially constructed. According to the postmodern political geographer and urban planner Edward Soja (1980) the built environment of a city is seen as the product of a dialectic interaction between society and space. A city is a bounded space that is densely settled and has a relatively large, culturally heterogeneous population (Gottdiener & Budd 2005, 4).2
How does one study a subject such as urban planning – something that is bound up in our lives but still seems too difficult and complex to grasp? According to LeGates & Stout (2003, 9) the borders between the objects of study, methods and theory of different academic disciplines are fuzzy. For instance, urban economists tend to study the economics of cities using quantitative methods whereas urban sociologists tend to study social aspects of the city using qualitative methods. However, some urban economists prefer qualitative methods and their interests extend beyond economics, while some urban sociologists are interested in issues out of their sphere of normal interest, within quantitative economics.
To study city planning is to analyse something highly practical; something that everyone can witness visually as well as physically. The Oxford Dictionary of Geography (2004, 513) defines Urban Planning as "an attempt to manage the city, often in order to avoid, or alleviate, common urban problems such as inner city decay, overcrowding, traffic and other forms of congestion". Planning is a public practice which directly and indirectly affects people's well-being. The simplified aim of urban planning is to use, reuse and produce space.
For the Finnish urban researcher Sampo Ruoppila (2006), planning concurrently reflects the social institution – the set of regulations which constrain action, as well as the social product – the
2 City is a physical, economic, cultural and political phenomenon. In the beginning of the 21st century the city has gained three postmodern definitions: city as an everyday landscape (we create and develop the city with our experiences and by looking for experiences); city as the centre of institutions and regimes (city as a place for functional and political actions, where city development is being led by certain politico-economic interests and stakeholders) and city as discourse (textual description of the city, city in art and culture, etc). (Jauhiainen 2005, 60.) 8 concept that regulations are altered by changes in values, preferences and power structures within society. In the context of this study, the social institution approach is suitable – if supplemented by stakeholders affecting planning and the interconnections and interaction between those parties.
From a narrow perspective, Urban Planning can be seen as the practice of creating spatial logic for the regulation of land in cities. Local governments use planning as a tool to determine rights and obligations relating to urban functions and the uses of space (zoning), as well as to direct future developments (general plans). Hence, it is more than just the space-orientated practice of architecture. Taking a wider perspective includes city politics and urban governance, which also involve participation in planning practices. Public intervention into the often privately-led planning process is necessary in order to achieve certain broader aims, e.g. the pursuit of public interest3, sustainable development, etc.
Cities are transformed into materially and socially different uses of land. The continuous spatial displacement of capital 'creatively' destroys and restructures the built environment. State and public authorities are important, because legislation and urban planning are mechanisms which support a particular materialisation of cities. (Jauhiainen 2006, 186.) City planning has considerably changed over time. It has transformed from a uniform branch of architecture and urban design, to a complex (semi-)public process involving various stakeholders and having numerous impacts on society as a whole, as well as on stakeholders individually. In order to comprehend modern urban planning, one must take the wider perspective of viewing it as a system of governance. Illustrating this point is the purpose of this thesis.
According to Jauhiainen (2005, 28-9), in recent years urban geography has concentrated on the following areas of research: the linguistic turn in urban politico-economics (studying the immaterial); interpreting urban landscapes, the symbolic and physical in cities; postmodern representations of a city; and post-structural psychoanalysis of a city. In addition, the city is being researched as the nodal point of activities and adoption of a network of global flows and contacts (ibid, 24). Lees (2002) adds to this the study of practical political activities and results. One can admit that the city sure gives many interpretations to the activities and symbols it embodies.
3 Public interest refers to the common well-being or general welfare. Public interest is central to policy debates, politics, democracy and the nature of government itself. While nearly everyone claims that aiding the common well-being or general welfare is positive, there is little, if any, consensus on what exactly constitutes the public interest. (Wikipedia web encyclopedia.)
9
2 FROM MODERN TO POSTMODERN PLANNING AND BEYOND
2.1 Historical roots of Urban Planning
In this chapter a brief historical overview of Urban Planning as an organised profession will be given. Normative notions about the 'good life' and 'good community' have existed since the dawn of human culture, but their crystallization into planning theory is the result of the situations which prevailed in the industrial West around the mid-20th century. This was followed by the emergence of institutions which aimed to control, govern and shape the built environment. Thereafter the discipline has emerged in educational institutions. (Yiftachel, Little et al. 2001, 10.)
The definition of planning largely depends upon the circumstances, as well as the national and local settings where it is practised. For example, Italian scholars have often considered planning to be part of the aesthetic design of cities; whereas British scholars have frequently focused on the regulation of spatial development in cities and regions; and American scholars have often referred to planning as a loose concept primarily dealing with the policy efforts of disparate arms of the government, or the efforts of voluntary, community and semi-public bodies in the governance of local communities (Yiftachel, Little et al. 2001, 5). Although planning is a relatively universal field, different meanings are obtained in the contexts of diverse urban environments.
Over the course of the last century, theorists (e.g. Thorns 2002; LeGates & Stout 2003; Jenkins, Smith & Wang 2007) have divided the development of planning approaches into three phases. Although these phases emerged in chronological order, the paradigms co-existed in varying degrees, depending upon the context.
Modern urban planning originally arose from the rapid urbanisation process, associated with industrialisation, and evolved mainly in the post-war settlement of the welfare state systems of Europe and the more free-market oriented North America (Jenkins, Smith & Wang 2007, 200). Initially, planning reared its head as a necessary reaction to address the physical and social problems that had been created by the urbanisation of these environments. Planning primarily focused on the design of urban spaces, facilitated by the skills of architects and engineers who were believed to be the 'doctors of space' (Thorns 2002, 179). Urban planning was an elitist discipline, due to the planners' role, which was free from political interference and doubts about their technical
10 capacities (LeGates & Stout 2003, 340). Planning was reliant on a command-control framework of bureaucratic rules and statutes and used master plans as its main instrument.
The second phase of Urban Planning started in the 1970s with a growing critique of planning as inherently conservative. A movement took place, with the aim to maintain the position and power of planners, rather than meeting the needs of urban communities for improved quality in the urban environment. A new paradigm was adopted, viewing the city as a site for spatial relationships, rather than a collection of artefacts (Thorns 2002, 179). Planning became more focused on rational decision-making, with urban areas viewed as sets of interlinked systems (transport, economic, etc), which could be shaped through devices such as structure plans (Jenkins, Smith & Wang 2007, 129). A more conceptual and visionary approach emerged, recognising urban general plans as long-term, visionary documents, charting the desired physical form of the city (LeGates & Stout 2003, 340).
The third phase of Urban Planning, starting in the 1990s, commenced with the recognition that planning is "a political decision-making process in which values are relative, knowledge socially constructed and contested, and which requires arenas for negotiation and dialogue – this being instrumentalised mainly through participatory approaches" (Jenkins, Smith & Wang 2007, 129) as well as public-private partnerships (Ibid, 178). Through community reactions, struggles took place to protect places valued for their use, rather than their exchange value. Also, a new agenda of sustainability and environmental concerns moved to the centre of planning. (Thorns 2002, 179.)
In the 1990s, structural economic change towards flexible production brought along with it a focus on the marketable qualities of the built environment. Nowadays such factors as the global competition of cities, space consumption, fragmentation of cities and environmental problems all add to the careful treatment of the built urban environment. (Madanipour, Hull & Healey 2001, 4- 5.) Since cities are now seen as the primary driving force behind national economies, more and more attention is being paid to the production and consumption of the built environment, albeit affected by increasing concerns about cities as social and cultural living environments. (Thorns 2002, 179) As a result, planning has become more complex and time-consuming, mainly owing to the conscious rise of the democratic participation of citizens as well the corresponding facilitation measures taken by local governments.
New forms in planning are wider and more integrated in scope; less regulatory; and more proactive and dynamic when compared to planning in the last century. The scope of planning has widened in terms of sectors (e.g. including wider forms of knowledge and new techniques), as well as in scale
11 (from macro-regional to site level). On one hand, this entails a certain degree of entrepreneurism within governments. On the other hand however, along with public sector's diminished capacity to regulate, it also illustrates an increasing rate of regulation within the private sector. With the focus on what is in the ‘public interest’, planning is now less about fixed plan-making and more about flexible action-planning. (Jenkins, Smith & Wang 2007, 200-201.) It can be stated emphatically that in the era of participative and collaborative democracy, planning has become a form of governance.
According to the British planning theorists Brindley, Rydin and Stoker (1996), the situation in Urban Planning at the end of the 20th century was divided into two directions. The first direction was led by the market, trying to correct inefficiencies by supporting market processes. The other direction was critical towards markets, trying to change the imbalance and inequality created by them. These two directions in turn are divided into three different styles of planning, dependant upon the economic situation of the city and the character of its urban problems (see table 1). These styles can be adapted very well to contemporary urban practices.
Table 1. Planning styles in Western Europe at the end of the 20th century (Brindley, Rydin & Stoker 1996, 9).
Estimated character Attitude towards market processes: of urban problems lead by market critical towards market
affluent area Trend Planning Regulative Planning (small problems and unwillingness to change market attempt of local government to affluent market) directions, minimal planning by control and direct market forces local government in order to lead changes according to public interest
marginal area Leverage Planning Popular Planning (some problems and private sector as the main public sector being dominant, potential market interest) initiator for change, wanting to activities through local level recapture active market instances (e.g. NGOs)
area lagging behind Private Management Planning Public-investment Planning (extensive urban problems development of the area is area being revitalised by public and backward market) controlled by private sector through land purchase and stakeholders development
12 In the market-lead direction, if the economic situation is sufficiently robust, the best profit is made by speeding up the economy through deregulation of planning legislation and practices – this is called Trend Planning. Leverage Planning is more effectively used when, during a poor economic situation the public sector wishes to raise the potential of a certain area. It is an attempt to improve public-private partnerships, in order to lure more private investments into the public sector. Private Management Planning is used in very bad economic situations, whereby the public sector cedes the organisation of urban land use almost entirely into the hands of the private sector. Therefore, under the private management planning approach, the organisation of land use mainly emanates from the private pursuit for profit. (Jauhiainen 2005, 223-224.)
In a market-critical direction, regulative planning represents traditional hierarchical planning, which aims to increase the welfare of society. Here, the local government decides the order of priorities in planning land use. Popular Planning is used in a poor economic situation: the local government subsidises a certain area or district, favouring its residents (e.g. building social housing). Public- investment Planning is exercised in very poor economic conditions: the public sector becomes solely responsible for developing the areas which are lagging behind; projects are then implemented with the full support of the state. (Jauhiainen 2005, 224.) The latter style was practised during the Soviet time in city and town planning – not only for addressing problematic areas, but on a much wider scale.
Figure 1. Planning approaches in the beginning of the 21st century.
In the beginning of the 21st century, planning practices have converged into two approaches – Responsible Planning and Partnership Planning (see figure 1). Responsible planning is much about sustainable development, whereas partnership planning strives to local development through involving as many stakeholders as possible (Jauhiainen 2005, 224).
The roots of urban planning lie in societal structural changes. In less than a century, urban planning 13 as an organised profession has changed from addressing problems caused by fast urbanisation, towards creating more liveable urban environments in dialogue with residents, private and public stakeholders and other interest groups.
2.2 Postmodernism in planning
As seen from the brief historical overview of urban planning, planning theory is constantly being enhanced as a reaction to the changes in societies. How could it be preserved as an unchanged entity, if the requirements and expectations bound with it vary along with the transformations within cities? As LeGates and Stout (2003, 341) put it: "What makes urban planning so fascinating is the tremendous variety of issues planning theory and practice must confront in the twenty-first century: aesthetics, design, economic feasibility, decision-making theory, conflict resolution, advocacy, race, class and gender equity, and sustainability being just some of them". There have been numerous new turns and paradigms emerging in planning theory during the twenty-first century. This chapter will touch upon some of the most influential changes, dealing with the institutional aspects of planning.
Is Urban Planning a modern or a postmodern concept? According to the British theorist Philip Allmendinger (2001, 92) planning remains a "complex alloy of different traditions and practices that could be labelled either or both as modern/postmodern". He defines the paradigms of modern planning theory: rationality and power, consensus and difference, inclusion and exclusion, totality and fragmentation. The answer lies in the split truth that land-use planning per se can be characterised as modern, and the period within which planning takes place defined as postmodern.
Postmodernism emerged in the late 1980s and in the 1990s. The most visible impact of postmodern thinking on the city is in its architecture, where the ‘concrete functionalism’ of the modern era is replaced by a diversity of styles. The postmodern perspective privileges the views of all individuals, thus there appears to be no limit to the range of possible interpretations in any situation. (Pacione 2005.) Postmodernism attempts to interpret the relationship between society and space where the built environment is produced (Soja 1980), and it tries to do so from the viewpoint of the different stakeholders involved in the production.
During the last decade, a 'communicative turn' has taken place in planning theories. New forms of communicative, collaborative and deliberative planning have emerged, focusing on practical 14 planning in pursuing new theories.
Communicative Planning largely agrees on the postmodern urban context, but rejects the whole idea of rational planning based upon calculation. Communicative theories introduce new planning concepts and understandings of planning as a construction process with political and reflexive planners. Communicative rationality is based on flexibility and a multiplicity of opinions, interaction and learning, and mutual communication. The main aim of the planner is to clarify agreement through critical listening, instead of filling the role of a 'maestro'. (Sehested 2001; Jauhiainen & Niemenmaa 2006, 62.)
In Collaborative Planning the main theme is the denial of a central coordinating role for the planner, who is perceived as an 'abuser' of power and 'distorter' of communication. In this context, planners need to engage with local stakeholders more, in an unbarred search for local consensus. (Allmendinger 2001, 134.)
In practice, the difference between communicative and collaborative planning is very small. After all, communication between various stakeholders and interested groups basically means collaborating with them in planning processes. The planning theorist Patsy Healey (1997) elaborates further: in collaborative planning the main attention is on participation of different stakeholders (including residents) in planning processes; listening to them and having negotiations between stakeholder groups. Collaborative planning has become a prevailing trend in planning practices throughout Europe, where different tools (e.g. e-participation solutions) and activities are being used more and more to involve interested parties in planning their physical environment. Therefore the earlier planning hierarchy is being replaced by a communicative and collaborative process that channels the opinions and results of negotiations from the bottom up.
Deliberative Planning, originally suggested by the planning and governance theorist Patsy Healey (in the year 1998), springs from the idea of collective rather than purely individual involvement in the planning process. In some ways it is an extension to the idea of public participation in planning debates. The model is based around citizens meeting to discuss their environment and to identify concerns, then work together for a solution. The advocates of this form of planning suggest that it is necessary to look at ways to shift the arguments about participation and consultation. The earlier arguments mostly reflected objections and a reactive approach, whereas in deliberative planning incorporation and seeking of jointly negotiated solutions becomes important. Likewise, the role of social learning in finding solutions is highly emphasised. (Thorns 2002, 190.)
15
It is predicted that in coming years, planning itself will become more conservative, whereas the demand for greater community involvement will only increase. This is an interactive process: in order to win community support for actions taken in the name of planning, local governments (with their planners) have to open up the planning processes to greater public involvement, which conflicts with the objective of bringing these processes to satisfactory conclusions in a reasonable time-frame (Kitchen 2001, 297). Consequently, plan-making is predicted to slow down in the future, at least in terms of procedural speed.
16
3. MAIN FEATURES OF URBAN PLANNING
3.1 Planning as a progressive practice
Based on the very simplistic assumption that planning is not about maintaining the status quo, it can be said that it is of a progressive character. Furthermore, since planning is closely connected to economic and demographic growth, and even considered to have a quasi-causal relationship with urban growth (Rieniets 2005), its aim is to achieve progress in solving problems in cities. Why else are there endless attempts to create good cities, fair cities, green cities, etc – all attempts to improve the living environment in cities.
Planning is actually supposed to be about looking into the future (Kitchen 2001, 287). Spatial planning governs future development – urban plans shape the cities of tomorrow. City planning goes from the general to the particular – state spatial development plans, county plans, urban master plans, all based on what detailed plans for certain districts or areas are being drawn up.
In Sandercock's pillars of modern planning (figure 2) it can be seen that planning is about developing visions for the future and about state-directed futures. Hence, planning can be seen as pursuing progress by attempting to respond to future developments.
17
1. Planning is about making public/political decisions more rational: it is focusing on advanced decision making – developing visions for the future – and on instrumental rationality - evaluating alternatives.
2. Planning is most effective when it is comprehensive: multifunctional/-sectoral spatial plans with the intersection of economic, social and environmental and physical planning. Planning function is therefore integrative, coordinative and hierarchical.
3. Planning is both science and art, though more emphasis is usually placed on science. Planning knowledge and expertise are largely grounded in the theory and methods of social sciences.
4. Planning – as part of the modernization project – is about state-directed futures.
5. Planning operates in the public interest, which is identified by planners. Planners, supported by planning policies, present a public image of neutrality.
Figure 2. Five pillars of modernist planning wisdom (Sandercock, from Allmendinger 2001, 95).
On the contrary to planning as a progressive practice, Danish philosopher and geographer Bent Flyvbjerg highlights the pathology of planning: in planning processes, learning takes place without learning (Jauhiainen & Niemenmaa 2006, 64-65; Jauhiainen 2005, 229). At its core, planning in practice tends to be conservative, since old rules and regulations are likely to be heeded, instead of learning acquired from new situations. Although this often holds true for planning on a small scale and for single cases, urban planning, when looked at from a wider perspective, is still reacting to the changes taking place in the community and society. An issue on its own is the pace of reacting to these changes.
3.2 Rationality in planning
Urban planning involves various aspects such as land development, architecture, urban design and citizen participation. The spatial environment in cities is not constructed only by architects – as it sometimes might seem for outsiders – but also arises from the interaction of politicians, developers, officials, scientists, engineers, residents and citizen organisations. The challenge for local governments (as well as for planners) is to find rational solutions in the interaction, co-operation and negotiations with these stakeholders.
18 Rational planning, with its roots in functionalism, is described as a process of three stages: setting goals, formulating and assessing possible courses of action, and selecting the best alternative plan for implementation (e.g. Sehested 2001; Balducci & Calvaresi 2005). Although the goals and framework for urban development is defined by politicians and the public sector, planners play a crucial role in all of these stages. It is the planners and other parties in the private sector who realise the above-mentioned goals. Rational decision-making is central for the planning process in order to steer, control and regulate the process.
Italian scholars Balducci & Calvaresi (2005, 236-237) argue that the legitimacy of planning derives particularly from this above-mentioned scientific rationality as well as from the authority of the public sector. The latter is derived from the activity of the public sector (in this case the city government), in pursuing the public interest in the organisation of space.
According to Jauhiainen (2005, 221), in earlier times planning could be described as instrumental rationality where 'maestro planning' with the planners as 'maestros' (experts) was dominant and where the aims and tools in planning were separate. Nowadays this has been replaced by communicative rationality, where different knowledge and experiences are coalesced, and for future developments aims and tools are being commonly used. Jauhiainen (2005, 222) expresses that in contemporary planning practices, important discussions take place around the interconnections between power and planning, as well as the planning of multicultural cities.
Rational planning is strongly criticised by the public policy professor Charles E. Lindblom (1995, 35) who claims that planning is a science of 'muddling through'. He argues that the formalised planning approach to decision making – the rational-comprehensive method – cannot be practised on complex problems. Thus, most decision makers rely on a method of 'successive limited comparisons', or 'muddling through', rather than on the rational-comprehensive method. Simply put, for decision makers, it is impossible to consider the full set of possible variables and opinions connected to planning decisions, which makes it impossible to select the best alternative.
As seen from the discussion above, planning is a complex field of governance. Urban planning itself cannot be claimed to be rational, but the decisions made in planning processes have to have a certain degree of rationality. Of course, one can argue about the nature of rationality – what may seem to one person to be rational can be to another the complete opposite. Despite that, rationality is a key element in planning.
19 3.3 Issues of power in planning
At its core the planning process is a public activity, associated with state practices within which the key player is the local planning authority. Planning assists in the allocation of physical and social resources, generating debates about re-distribution and inequality (Thorns 2002, 192). On the contrary, Healey (2001, 266) claims that "spatial planning as a system and its practices have tended to become just another functional sector of government, with its ‘industry’ to regulate and its client groups to work with". Although it is a public activity, in truth, urban development in practice is often driven by private developers' proposals.
Planning is inevitably about power (see Flyvbjerg 1998; Dear 2000; Yiftachel, Little et al. 2001; Allmendiger 2001). Since in public sector power is exercised by elected politicians, planning is also considered to be political. Power use and protection of special interests are inherent in institutions, which is why planning cannot escape the dimensions of power and politics (Jauhiainen & Niemenmaa 2006, 64-65). According to Allmendinger (2001) planning is deeply embedded in the power game and used as a rational barrier behind which political decisions that favour certain powerful interests are made. Because the operation of planning is essentially a political activity, it involves the competing claims of powerful interest groups and the ethically doubtful world of political bargaining.
Likewise, young urbanists see planning as "being rife with contradictions and counter-currents, remaining largely an elite process embedded in institutions and curtailed by structural constraints of capitalist urbanization" (Cardoso et al 2007). Capitalism often gets the blame for the kind of unsustainable and non-analytical urban planning that is caused by rapid urbanisation.
Danish planning theorist Bent Flyvbjerg (1998) claims that politics, government and planning are related to power and in actuality are elitist. He adds that planning is far removed from the discourse of ethics and communicative rationality, although these both can be targets in project planning. Planning actually happens on behalf of power interests, either political or economic. The relationship between power and rationality is the challenging task here: power has rationality and rationality has power; the more power there is, the less rationality there is. Planning power has this kind of rationality, the kind that cannot be understood by only analysing rationality. The decisions made are not always rational, but later they are considered as reasonable and rational with the help of various ostensibly logical and right explanations.
20 Planning as a power relationship operates within the political space and social structure. Power can be stored in various structures like laws, plans, institutions and budgets; still, only the exercise of power enables the definition of the extent and character of that power (Yiftachel, Little et al. 2001, 25). Social structure defines the public interest as a justification for state or municipal intervention. As long as restrictions on the use of property may be shown to have a wider public purpose, planning is a legitimate practice. (Grant 2005.) Then again, according to Dear (2000) the result of the deconstruction of urban planning is about achieving outcomes that serve the purpose of powerful agents within the society or city.
Another feature closely connected to power is the control of planning. This is expressed in land use through planning processes relying upon the decisions of those in power. Land use is implemented through zoning principles, e.g. protecting land zones in the name of the public interest. (Yiftachel, Little et al 2001, 27.) Therefore planning is about control and power. It would be difficult to imagine planning without the control of the local government, who are the mediator between public interests (residents) and private interests (companies). Since planning is a public action – it directly affects the quality of life of everyone in the planned space – a certain degree of control is essential. Whilst single development projects are often focussed on limited land area, public control or steering should assure that general planning requirements are being followed and wider planning goals achieved at the scale of a city. This control is not only exercised by the local government in its interaction with private stakeholders, it also applies to the local government itself. In the latter case it is expressed through public opinions, elections, and the number of new investments and residents gained in the authority, etc.
In analysing the relationship between planning and power, the French philosopher and sociologist Michel Foucault (2002) reveals an elucidative thought by inverting the question of power. He claims that space is fundamental in any form of communal life and in any exercise of power. Foucault sees power as the economic functionality of production and of class domination – as the exercise of repression.
As discussed above, planning is about power and control, both of which correlate tightly with rationality. Those who exercise power in planning processes are not only the representatives of local governments, but are from various interest groups such as the owners of capital or residents. There is a substantial difference between these parties in the scope, nature and embodiment of the power exercised.
21 3.4 Legitimacy of planners
The legitimacy of planning has been sought through the technical and scientific expertise of planners. In earlier times, planning was based around the idea that it is possible to produce logical, coherent and systematic arrangements for urban development. This would then enable planning to operate outside of politics, in order to provide for effective urban design (Thorns 2002, 181). Nowadays this understanding has changed and planners are seen more as mediators between public and private interests, creating socially, economically and culturally favourable urban environments.
Thorns (2002, 181-2) refers to planners as agents of progressive social change. The nature of planners’ work is dualistic: planning to segregate and planning to integrate. Therefore the question about who planners represent is an obvious one to ask. Do planners represent the politically and economically powerful groups, or the marginalised groups? Does the practice of their profession allow them to be separated from the political process? Planners have emphatically claimed that their technical and administrative expertise is the basis for the legitimacy of their actions. This can be seen in their aspirations for professional status, and in their attempts to control the nature of planning education and accreditation (Ibid., 182).
According to the ideas of postmodernism, professionals are not seen so much as the creators of taste and style, but rather as reflectors of it; they help in the identification and expression of trends (Thorns 2002, 184). Likewise, power and control play a significant role. In postmodern urban conditions, planners can either be public agents or outsourced by local governments to private business. According to Dear (2000, 125), planners who act as public agents can shelter under the mantle of legitimacy afforded to them by the elected officials they represent, by claiming to act in the public interest. In contrast, planners who are agents of private capital are only accountable to the bottom line of business profitability and to private business agendas.
Balducci & Calvaresi (2005, 247-9) discuss that after having finally admitted the political nature of planning, planning theory proposes a strong, comfortable and reassuring view of planners as leaders. Nevertheless, the dilemma of the relationship between planning and politics remains unsolved. The accountability of planners as leaders is very low, because there is no accepted theory on how to assess the effectiveness of urban planning. Therefore, the legitimacy of planners continues to rely upon their technical expertise, whereas their accountability should be assessed based upon their capacity to give consultative advice to political decision-makers.
22 According to the criticisms of Charles Lindblom (1995), planners – as one of many groups of decision makers – are forced to deal with various legitimate (and often conflicting) preferences and goals in the context of a pluralistic world. In situations such as these, planners should employ a 'partisan mutual adjustment' model instead of evoking some kind of superior authority (Ibid.).
While taking the above discussions into consideration, it can be said that the authority of planners is mainly based on control of information and arranging the attention of the public. Jauhiainen & Niemenmaa argue (2006, 62-64) that planners have the chance to widen or narrow the openness and democracy of planning. Furthermore, planners are obligated to solve unfair situations caused by power relations, in which communication, listening and argumentation are central. The eminence of a planner is constituted from the planner’s status, and from the communications exercised by the planner in arguing for desirable and possible alternatives. As LeGates & Stout put it (2003, 342): few planners today (or indeed ever) actually get to plan new towns from scratch, which is why they first and foremost have to decide how to integrate new housing, street, retail districts, industrial areas, parks, and infrastructure into existing cities. At the same time, city planners are developing and protecting the built urban environment that is not a finalised result per se.
To indulge in a quick detour onto a more abstract level, the often quoted French sociologist and philosopher Henri Lefebvre can be examined. Lefebvre’s spatial codes (living in space, imagining space and producing space4; Lefebvre 2002, 38) are helpful in explaining the role of planners. From an urban planning perspective, imagining space is the dominant space in a society which forms a conceptualised space of scientists, planners, urbanists and social engineers – all of whom identify what is lived and what is perceived. Producing space (which Lefebvre calls 'abstract space' as a result of capitalist forces) means that, through concepts and discourses, the so-called experts of space are compressing our everyday environment and spatial experiences into plans of expertise space. Every person is under the influence of that abstract space, but only a few – the experts! – have the real opportunity to shape the production of that space. (Jauhiainen 2005, 75-6.) Therefore planners have the power, but also the responsibility, to represent important aspects of certain space on behalf of the non-experts. This is done by way of different plans.
Still, there is no reason to idealise the role of planners (e.g. Yiftachel et al 2001; Jauhiainen 2005, 229). Problems can arise when assuming that planners are neutral or that they are in the best position to know is good for residents (or other stakeholders). Communication is never perfect; so
4 Lefebvre (2002, 47-48) named these spatial codes representations of space (conceived or imagined space, e.g. strategies and plans that lead the development of a space), spaces of representation (lived or experienced space) and spatial practice (perceived space – everyday practical space that is been reproduced and renewed). 23 there is the risk of only taking into consideration those groups that are being well represented. As a consequence, issues of power easily arise, that could allow planning to be turned into a means of social control and regulation.
24
4. URBAN PLANNING IN ESTONIA
4.1 A brief history of Estonian planning practices
In order to grasp the Estonian planning system and practices today, a glimpse into the past should be taken. The Soviet regime has left remarkable imprints on planning practices, sometimes sharply visible even after 17 years of independence.
In the centrally planned Soviet economy, spatial development was totally controlled by the state who also owned the land. Planning was an extremely rigid hierarchical set of rules and norms, and no planning act existed. Spatial planning was organised by orders from the state level, where a number of engineering offices prepared general plans that were not open to the public. The municipalities acted as mere agencies for the implementation of state policies. The Soviet territorial planning relied on research conducted by state research institutes and state engineering enterprises, in order to systematically develop housing according to economic needs (Metspalu 2005, 24). Residents could not often choose where they would live, since they were transferred according work assigned to them by the state. Additionally, the state was aiming to ensure relatively egalitarian living conditions for everyone, which had the net effect of ensuring consistently inferior living conditions for everyone.
Beside the above-discussed, 71% of all current housing stock in Estonia was built during the Soviet occupation period of 1945-1991 (Statistics Estonia). That is why the Soviet legacy still remains so significant in the morphology of Estonian cities, as well as in the rural municipalities (Ruoppila 2006, 7). The urban space in Estonian cities and towns has been formed as a result of "past sound developments and fortuitous concurrence of classical, Stalinist and free-planning structures and zonings" (Laigu 2003). The consequences of a system that mainly concentrated on the system instead of the people are very often visible in the illogical solutions and spatial conflicts (ibid.).
The creation of a contemporary planning system in Estonia only started after it regained independence in 1991. This started with the privatisation of land and the restitution of former pre- 1940 ownerships of immovable property, as well as with the establishment of a real estate market. On a small scale, the process of returning ownership of estates is still in progress. This is due to the tactics of privatisation that takes place plot by plot (not by areas) and due to issues related to emigration and slow procurement. Still, around 96 % of all housing stock in Estonia is in private
25 ownership (data from 2007; Statistics Estonia). The implemented land reform has created a situation "where in matters of land use the present post-industrial society has to follow the principles of an agrarian society" (Metspalu 2005, 26). This in turn obstructs the use of contemporary planning methods.
As a result of the post-Soviet land reform, distribution of land ownership does not give local governments major influence on the pattern of spatial development (Julegina 2007, 71), as it has a very small share of land. In the whole of Estonia, only 0.5 % of the land is owned by municipalities, whereas around 85 % is under private ownership (see figure 3), with the rest belonging to the state. Some municipalities, in disregard for the under-representation of local governments in land ownership, are still selling their land to private interests.
Figure 3. Private land in Estonian counties by mid-2007. (Estonian Land Board)
Rapid changes in society were followed after a vacuum of a few years, by the relevant legislation – with the Planning and Building Act enacted in 1995. Since there was no previous experience with contemporary planning practices, the planning laws of various western countries were studied. Eventually Estonian planning law was inspired by and modelled on Nordic planning legislation, especially by the example of Finland. In stark contrast to this, the Property Act (1993) was copied from Germany, which in practice has created conflicts between planning law and property law. On the one hand, local governments are obliged to ensure balanced sustainable development within their territory, but on the other hand, property law very often overprotects the interests of private owners. This limits the possibilities of local governments in protecting the public interest5 through
5 Public interest = according to the former Chancellor of Justice of Estonia, protecting public interest in planning and building processes is foremost about guaranteeing valuable living environment for citizens of the society. That means providing public amenities (roads and communications, sufficiency of parks and squares, access to publicly used water bodies, existence of necessary infrastructure and transport, preserving environment and cultural heritage, 26 particular planning solutions (Julegina 2007).
Ruoppila (2006, 40) calls the planning system established in the early 1990s ad hoc planning. Market euphoria and a drastic fall in the public administration's reputation created a situation where there were few written rules and judgements took place case by case, allowing a lot of improvisation in architectural terms.
Later in the 1990s, planning was logical and hierarchical – at a local level the master plan served as a rigid rule for land use in the coming years. This was elaborated on by detail plans and construction permissions. However, plans on paper and construction activities in real life often differed immensely. Exceptions based on agreements favouring land and estate owners quickly became rife in many Estonian towns (Jauhiainen 2005, 223). Here the roots of the Estonian developer-oriented planning system can be found. An exacerbating factor was that, in the 1990s, local governments were lacking experience in planning and frequently demonstrated a weak capacity for planning.
In 2003, the act was made into two separate acts: the Planning Act and the Building Act. These divided the subordination between the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of the Environment; with further law amendments made in 2004 and 2005. The new Planning Act emphasises factors such as the social role of planning, the position of public leadership, transparency in planning, and better possibilities for participating in planning processes. According to the law, each plan is seen as a public agreement on how a particular area should be developed in the future, which implies the active involvement of society in the planning process.
The Estonian Planning Act follows the contemporary western understanding of planning, by stating that "spatial planning is democratic and functional long-term planning for spatial development which co-ordinates and integrates the development plans of various fields and which, in a balanced manner, takes into account the long-term directions in and needs for the development of the economic, social, cultural and natural environment" (§ 1).
In his research about the city planning system of Tallinn, Sampo Ruoppila (2006) summarises the planning since 2000 as liberal, but passive. "Planning continues to be limited to spatial land use planning and urban design, while only little attention is given to its impact on economic or social
aesthetical urban space, safety, etc) as well as creating conditions for economic and social development. (The explanatory letter to the Draft Act of the Amendment of the Planning Law.) 27 development" (Ruoppila 2006, 41). The same seems to hold true of the whole planning system in Estonia, since urban development is to the large part in the hands of private stakeholders, and there is lack of synergy between the interests of the public and private sectors. Therefore, various social dimensions affecting urban planning as a whole (e.g. residential differentiation, segregation, multiculturalism, urban sprawl, etc) have essentially been left to the market to decide.
In Estonia, studying cities has institutionally existed as long as the Estonian-language university has (Jauhiainen 2005, 4), for approximately 90 years. In a way, the present practice of studying the Estonian urban planning system is remarkable – for it is a rare opportunity to study transition phase from a socialist planned economy into an early capitalistic economy, and where the construction boom has outstripped the regulative side of planning. At present, the legislative base as well the comprehension of how to operate a sustainable urban planning system as a whole is catching up. What is happening now is in many ways dealing with the consequences of the previous legislative gap. The rapid changes in urban landscapes have taken advantage of the socialist planning principles or more precisely – the absence of a comprehensive and systematic planning system. In contrast to other western countries, there is no tradition of planning in Estonia. This is what has offered various architects and planners tremendous opportunities in creating foolhardy, redoubtable and sometimes reckless objects into the existing and widening urban space. Estonia has been a spatial laboratory for young creators in urban space, and in the opinion of the architect Panu Lehtovuori Estonia could even become an internationally important laboratory of architectural experiments (Ojari 2007).
4.2 National and local framework of urban planning
4.2.1 Planning regulation
Legislative documents affecting the planning system in Estonia are influenced by other development plans and strategies of different scopes: from the European Union to locally. In the European Regional/Spatial Planning Charter (adopted 1983 by CEMAT) it is stated that spatial planning is “at the same time a scientific discipline, an administrative technique and a policy developed as an inter-disciplinary and comprehensive approach directed towards a balanced regional development and the physical organisation of space according to an overall strategy”. The EU formulated spatial planning and sustainable development policy is taken into account in the national level plans of Estonia. The nature of the spatial plans defined in the Planning Act is
28 illustrated in figure 4.
Figure 4. Nature of different spatial plans in Estonia (Metspalu 2005, 32).
State spatial plan
The state development plan “Estonia 2010” (Eesti 2010) sets the principles for developing territorial planning at the state level. The aim of the plan is to direct housing according to existing settlements and taking into account the growing capital area and county centres in need of strengthening. Still, the state spatial plan is not a land use development plan in its traditional sense, but a general strategy for spatial development.
The administration of the built environment on a national basis is fragmented between different ministries and departments. Planning and environmental protection is in the hands of the Ministry of the Environment; regional development and local government is partly handled by the Ministry of the Interior, and partly by the Minister for Regional Development; construction and housing administration is the responsibility of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications; while heritage conservation is the domain of the Ministry of Culture. The development of the built environment requires the coordination of several disciplines, such as regional development, landscaping, the architectural and structural design of buildings, as well as the renovation and restoration, supervision, sustainable use, and conservation of the architectural heritage. (Policy of
29 Architecture6)
County plan
County plans can be drawn up for the whole territory of the county or for a part of the county, as a common plan for several counties or for several parts of several counties. Since the regulations concerning the procurement and publishing of county plans is in most ways similar to those of the comprehensive plan, the latter will be analysed more profoundly.
Comprehensive plan
Whilst in traditional planning the master plan served as a rule in top-down planning, in present times a more strategic approach is being used. The rigid hierarchy has been replaced by pro- and interactive governance, where political principles are inserted into development strategies and plans which serve as a basis for master plans (Jauhiainen 2005, 221). In development plans the local context plays a crucial role.
The ultimate authority and responsibility for planning, design and construction has been delegated by the state government to the local governments. Local government can institute and implement the rules (building regulations, etc), long-term programmes, and strategies for planning and architectural design. It can coordinate planning activities by procuring planning services or executing the planning itself. (Policy of Architecture.) The main regulatory principles of urban development are laid down in the comprehensive plan (otherwise known as the ’master plan’) of a local government.
A comprehensive plan is prepared for the whole territory of the city or for parts thereof. The main objectives of a comprehensive plan according to §8 of the Planning Act are to form the principles for spatial development in the city; to determine general use and building provisions for land and water areas, designate the areas and cases outside the city where preparation of a detailed plan is mandatory, and to designate built-up areas of cultural and environmental value in order to protect them. Additionally, the comprehensive plan touches upon the issues of the green network of the city, traffic management and infrastructure, recreation and leisure areas, building exclusion zones, etc.
6 It is the official document completed by the Union of Architects which has waited for the acceptance by the Parliament. 30 Thematic plans serve the objective to specify or amend the comprehensive plan in force. Thematic plans are being drawn up more and more – they plan a certain topic or feature on the scale of the whole city. For instance the city of Tallinn has a thematic plan for the location of high-rise buildings (over 45 meters) and a thematic plan for valuable built areas (milieu areas), with both plans having been accepted in 2008. In the latter thematic plan, measures are also being set to protect the eight defined areas of distinctive architecture in the milieu – whole street pattern, green areas, construction style and some other features. In addition, a thematic plan of green areas and a thematic plan of the street network and light traffic roads are in preparation for the city of Tallinn.
The city of Tartu has a bicycle route development scheme and a thematic plan of open-air playgrounds and sports fields. The latter thematic plan (see map in figure 5) was put into force in 2002 and suggests locations for new playgrounds and recreational sites all around the city, based upon available land plots, site observations and residents' suggestions. Such thematic plans are a positive sign of strategic and analytical thinking about the spatial development in a city, although their role has been more suggestive than mandatory.
31
Figure 5. Suggestive locations of playgrounds and sports fields in Tartu (darker dots represent the existing public playgrounds provided by the city; numbered dots show the possible future locations for playgrounds). (Thematic plan of open-air playgrounds and sports fields, 2002)
In part, thematic plans are replacing the building ordinances that set general regulations and principles for building activities on the whole territory of a city in the 1990s. The building ordinances served as a guideline in planning and building before local governments had adopted their comprehensive plans. Its role now is somewhat upstaged. In addition to thematic plans the comprehensive plans, which are often too general, are increasingly being complemented by district master plans and structural plans (the latter not being in the Planning Act). This practice was also not common in the 1990s. The aim of district master plans is to elaborate districts and their centers, define development areas, and assure the formed qualitative urban space (Mänd 2008). The aim of structural plans, usually drawn up for compact areas, is to define the location of integral development areas significant for the city and to specify the provisions of spatial planning in these
32 areas (Ibid.).
An adopted comprehensive plan serves as the basis for preparing detailed plans. For areas where detailed plans are not mandatory, a comprehensive plan establishes land readjustment and design provisions. A comprehensive plan determines the need for and sequence of detailed planning. (Planning Act §8)
Detailed plan
Actual construction usually takes place on the basis of detailed plans, which are primarily composed by private planning offices upon the orders of private landowners and developers. A detailed plan serves as the basis for building activities and land use in a certain area in the short term.
According to the Planning Act (§9) the objectives of a detailed plan are to: 1) divide the areas being planned into plots; 2) determine the building rights of a plot; 3) delimit the area that can be occupied by buildings, meaning that share of a plot on which buildings permitted by the building rights of the plot may be erected; 4) determine the areas and traffic management of streets; 5) determine the principles for planting vegetation and providing public services and amenities; 6) determine clearances; 7) determine the location of utility networks and technical infrastructure; 8) establish environmental provisions for implementation of the plan and, where necessary, to designate buildings in the case of which the preparation of the building design documentation requires environmental impact assessment to be carried out; 9) make proposals, where necessary, for specification, amendment or termination of the protection regime for areas or individual objects placed under protection; 10) make proposals, where necessary, for placing areas and objects under protection; 11) designate, where necessary, built-up areas of cultural and environmental value and to establish the conditions for their protection and use; 12) establish the essential architectural requirements for buildings; 13) determine the need for easements; 14) determine, where necessary, land areas for national defense purposes; 15) establish requirements and conditions to prevent the risk of criminal activity;
33 16) determine the scope of other restrictions on immovable property ownership arising from Acts and other legislation in planning areas.
Despite the construction boom during recent years, the difference between planned housing and actually realised housing is threefold (Metspalu 2005). In addition to detailed plans actual construction can take place based on construction permissions.
The planning system, from one viewpoint, is hierarchical: a precise plan of a smaller area should fit into the principles of a more general plan of a larger area that includes the smaller area. From another viewpoint, it is flexible and interactive: a more precise plan may, if accepted by relevant authorities, change a more general plan, ensuring responsiveness of planning to changing external conditions. (Handbook of spatial planning 2006.) The last feature of the system is sometimes criticized "as it enables local governments to easily change comprehensive plans by detailed plans, thus promoting fleeting interests of small groups at the cost of public interest" (Julegina 2007, 58). Moreover, it seems that along with this legitimate right offered for detailed plans, exceptions have already become a rule. To paraphrase Macgregor and Ross (1995) detailed plan should be seen as the master, not the servant.
Ruoppila (2006), in his research about planning in Tallinn, states that the regulation of urban development is strengthening in Estonia. A sign of this is the current amendment of the Planning Act – the draft act was passed to parliament in August 2008 and the new law is planned to come into force in the beginning of 2009. The most important aim in changing the law currently in force, is to guarantee better involvement in the planning process, including a clause about informing residents personally about the plans in progress in their neighbourhood (Draft Act of the Amendment of the Planning Law). In addition, the existing terms and principles will be deepened, in order to facilitate clear understanding of the act and to avoid ambivalent or dubious interpretations of the law.
4.2.2 Institutional framework of planning
In analysing the institutional capacity of local governments for spatial planning, attention should be paid to two parallel processes: elaboration of spatial development policy (expressed in master plans, development strategies, building regulation) and dealing with everyday issues in planning (coordination of detailed planning processes, issuance of initial planning tasks, and building and usage permits, etc) (Julegina 2007, 107). Quite logically, the second type of processes takes most of 34 the energy and time of local government officials.
According to the Planning Act (§4) administration of planning activities within the administrative territory of a city is within the competence of the local government. The local government shall:
ensure that there are plans which serve as the basis for land use and building;
ensure, as a prerequisite for adoption of a plan, that the interests of interested persons are taken into consideration in a balanced manner;
ensure that adopted plans are adhered to.
In preparing plans, the technical preparation is often delegated to private stakeholders who are interested in plans, i.e. developers. The role of the local government here is to coordinate the process, to control plans' correspondence to higher level plans and relevant laws, to organize public reviews and discussions, and to organise all necessary procurement along the planning process. Here, according to Julegina (2007, 116), the local council has a rather crucial influence on shaping spatial development. Although the policy of spatial development is usually formulated amongst various parties, ultimately decisions on the key aspects of the policy are made exclusively by council members.
35
Initiating the preparation of a plan Initiator (customer) proposes to the city council
Guidelines for the plan City government appoints
Notification of the initiated plan City government publishes
Co-ordination of the plan, assessing environmental impacts City government on behalf of the customer
Preparing the plan Altering Qualified planners or architects on behalf of the customer the plan
Proposal of the plan City government approves
Public display and discussion of the plan City government organises
Adopting the plan City council approves
Contesting the adoption of plan Anyone can contest; city government accepts or rejects
Plan comes into force
Figure 6. Institutional framework of planning in Estonia.
Since out of the four types of plans, the detailed plans comprise the majority of spatial plans, hereafter the institutional hierarchy of preparing a detailed plan will be observed (see figure 6). The right to initiate and administer the preparation of detailed plans is in the hands of local governments. However, a local government may order the preparation of a detailed plan from a person interested in it. In that case a contract between the local government and the interested party will determine respective obligations and financing of the plan preparation. (Planning Act §10) In the event of justified need, the local council may initiate the preparation of a detailed plan for areas,
36 and in the cases, where the preparation of a detailed plan is not mandatory (§9).
To acquire permission for preparing a plan, the city planning department evaluates a proposal's compatibility with the city’s comprehensive plan and other regulations (e.g. city development plan, building ordinance) as well as the architectural and functional suitability of the project draft. If the planning department grants the planning permission, it also sets guidelines and requirements for preparing the detailed plan. At the same time the local government is obliged to inform the public about the preparation of a plan-in-progress as well as take care of the co-ordination of the plan with other public bodies (e.g. the Heritage Board). If a strategic environmental assessment is required for the plan, cooperation with relevant experts is necessary.
Once the detailed plan has been submitted for approval by the initiator of planning, the city planning office again examines whether the set requirements have been followed in the plan. Approving the detailed plan also needs approval from the neighbours of the area being planned, which is why cooperation between the owners of immovables located in the planning area is important. Neighbours can intervene through the two-week public display and, if held, through public discussion sessions of a detailed plan. Everyone has the right to present proposals and objections concerning a certain plan during its period of display to the public. An objection is the presentation of a disagreeing opinion concerning a planning solution or a claim that the requirements of the law have not been met in the processing of the plan. The city government has the right to decide whether to hold public discussion after the public display of a plan, as well to inform the public about the discussion event. On the basis of the outcome of the public display and public discussion, the local government shall make the necessary amendments to the plan and, if necessary, submit the plan to the supervisory authority together with proposals and objections which were not taken into consideration. If the amendments resulting from public events change the basic content of a plan, re-co-ordination of the plan and a new public display should be arranged. The final approval for adoption of the plan comes from the city council. (Planning Act §10-29)
This is where the city government's eminence over planning and construction activities usually ends. Naturally, there is construction supervision by the respective authority (e.g. the building department of the city government). In practice the supervision over construction activity is limited due to a lack of resources in local governments, which allows many deviations from initial plans. In a situation where deviation has been identified after the building is already in place, the city government is helpless. Since there are very few cases where a city government takes action against
37 these deviations (recently there was a case from the city of Pärnu7), the implementers of detailed plans are often quite boldly violating the trust put in them by the negotiated and approved detailed plan.
4.3 Tendencies in Estonian planning practices
4.3.1 Market-oriented planning instead of master planning
In her thesis about urban sprawl in Harju County, the capital area, Metspalu (2005, 56-57) found out that nearly half of the municipalities in the county lacked a comprehensive plan and more importantly, the municipalities did not possess a comprehensive overview of ongoing developments (e.g. in the form of an electronic database). As stated in the Policy of Architecture (2002) only a few out of Estonia’s 227 local governments – mainly the largest cities and towns – have the resources to implement the planning and construction responsibilities assigned to them by law. Local governments have often outsourced the technical preparation of plans to private consultancy companies, losing therefore big part of their say in designing the content of the plans (Soovitused ... 2004, 6), although at the same time maintaining the role as coordinators. Although the responsibility to draw up a general plan was enacted to municipalities by the first planning law, many municipalities have completed it only in the recent years or are still in the process which illustrates the contradictions to logical planning system in whole of Estonia. Therefore, for local governments it is intricate to implement their statutory task to organise planning in their territory if the municipalities do not possess overview of the territory-wide developments. Land use development tends to happen rather piece by piece, without much effort to analyse territorial development on the basis of the principles elaborated.
Julegina (2007, 124) who studied sustainable development in spatial planning in few suburbs in Tallinn conurbation found out that the "commonplace practice in local planning is that due to lack of human resources local governments are not able to prepare neither policy documents nor detailed plans on their own." The reality often is that consultancy companies have a template of a master plan, a development strategy etc, which is applied with some amendments for all local
7 The illegally built extension of a hotel in Pärnu (that was already in use) was demolished in April 2008 upon the order from the city government, given already in year 2006. The owner of the hotel at that time sued the order of the city government but lost the court case. ("Pärnus alustati hotell Delfine lammutamist", Eesti Päevaleht 21.4.2008) This case illustrates the rare occasions when local governments take action against illegal construction and violations of plans. This case can be seen as a necessary reminder of the local government as the ultimate decision maker in urban planning. 38 governments. Thus local peculiarities are frequently being overlooked in the strategic planning documents.
Local governments do not take an active supervisory role in the phase of initiated detailed plans or the plans in progress. Since there is little information about the plans that are being prepared, local government has limited chances to intervene and direct the development of detailed plans towards the commonly agreed spatial planning goals in the territory. Using the planning styles by Brindley, Rydin & Stoker, this adverts to the trend planning style in Estonian local governments – planning is more left to the hands of private parties rather than to the supervisory power of local governments. Moreover, as Metspalu (2005) elucidates, detailed plans seem to have a superior role – the practice is that with an enforced detailed plan the right to develop a piece of land according to intended purpose is 'booked' until an appropriate economic situation arises. For land owners and developers detailed plans have taken similar form to comprehensive plans – they are regarded as long-term strategies, not as documents regulating construction activities in the proximate years. From this perspective spatial planning in municipalities can be referred to as short-sighted, lacking strategic and future-oriented focus.
According to Julegina's study (2007, 125) most of the municipal representatives recognised the outsourcing of plan preparation as a limiting factor for local government's capacity to steer the development. "Especially devolution of detailed planning to developers was claimed to contribute to the disregard of the public interests in a municipality" (Ibid.). For instance, in Tallinn during the period of 1993-2007 construction permits in the volume of 18 million planned m2 were granted, whereas only 3,3 million m2 of it has been used so far (Mänd 2008). Albeit Julegina sees positive sides in outsourcing – transfer of professional knowledge and innovative ideas to local authorities, including introduction of new principles like sustainable development to local governments. I would be more sceptical towards the statement above – since the private parties are mostly interested in the profit, they often do not consider the existing surroundings and conditions in planning an area/object. While local government's power in truth is limited (often due to personal relations with or involvement in private actor, etc) the intervention in detailed or master plans is insufficient. Although local governments and private sector stakeholders share the same interest in developing new housing and estates – namely to attract new tax payers and investors to the area –, local governments still seem to be the less authoritative actors in this partnership. Maybe the humbleness of local governments towards private sector stems from the power of money of developers? That can very likely hold true since municipalities only own few percentage of the land from the municipal area, plus they do not possess financial resources to develop and build new
39 housing or non-residential housing. Mark and Ahas (2006, 98) elaborate this tendency by claiming that the specialisation of real estate developers has contributed to increasing monofunctionalism of the traditional urban space. If these assumptions are correct, the naked truth lies in the practice where the private sector as the origin of financial capital is dictating how planning should happen.
Here also the planning process is two-faced: while the role of local government is to fulfil public purpose and represent its residents as well as to take into consideration the neighbouring municipalities and the county, the main developers of land and existing estates are private parties. At the same time private developers are mostly interested in making the most profitable use of the privatised land. Here the local government should act as a supervisor in assuring sustainable, economically and socially feasible spatial development in the whole municipality. The Soviet inheritance plays a role here as well – local governments have not succeeded in achieving their statutory status in interaction with private sector. Mark and Ahas (2006, 99) expose the relationship between local governments and private developers:
“The developer pins official in legal questions with the help of his well-motivated lawyers and specialists. Developers achieve their objectives without fail, if not right away, then at least through wearing out tactics and the financing of political parties. The question “Do you want the city to be left without investments?” is always suitable as the last threat of the developer. This can be measured directly, unlike arguments based on good environment or long-term improvement in quality. Even if they recognise the need for changes, officials do not have sufficient arguments and methodologies that can be taken seriously in order to give direction to developments in urban space.”
With regard to the weak role of local governments in the eyes of private parties, the same also holds true for the interaction with citizens. According to Lõhmus (2007) the public discussion in media, its topics and participating subjects are far from representation; approaches can rather be characterised by strong orientation to ideology and weak analysis.
The above-discussed is complemented by the liberal legislation regulating planning and construction. In the unstable and inconsistent national legal system the laws and regulations are rather protecting private property rights and owners of immovables than public interests. According to Julegina (2007, 136) the result of planning becomes dependent on a ‘game of positions’ or 'game of power' between different interests. This can lead to situations where projects that in principle violate public interest or some other principles get initiated and adopted. Hence, the more
40 comprehensive plans elaborate rules for development, the more legitimate grounds the local government has to confront private pressure (Julegina 2007, 146). In fact, in the contemporary urban planning in Estonia the responsibility and decision making power are dispersed and dissipated (Mark & Ahas 2006, 101). As a matter of fact, in a situation like this it gets extremely difficult to realise who or what actually influences urban development processes.
As a striking thought, Metspalu claims (2005, 60) that the lack of land use visions (i.e. no existence of a comprehensive plan) in municipalities can also be explained as the result of political pressure. In that way detailed plans become the main tool in the planning system, hence it is easier to implement land deals of dubious value. The disposition to policy in contemporary Estonian planning system is a well-known fact.
These tendencies are confirmed by David Thorns, professor of sociology at the University of Canterbury. He claims (2002, 187) that in planning practices there has been a move away from the idea of planning as intervention and control of entrepreneurial activities towards private-sector-led regeneration and change. What he means is that planning has become a service function for private companies. Developers' activities and decisions are shaped by the market niche within which they operate, and are measured against their financial objectives. Furthermore, the shift to market-based solutions leads to a greater emphasis of marketing and customer solutions. Planning is now seen as one ‘commodity’, whereby plans are increasingly provided by private-sector-based rather than public planners.
The market-based urban planning during the last decade in Estonia can be eye-witnessed, for example, in the low quality of public space – being the most evident reflection of public interest – in cities. There are growing concerns among researchers and thinkers (e.g. Komissarov 2004; Hallas-Murula 2007; Mark 2007; Mark & Ahas 2006; Rünkla 2007) about the lack of public space in the creation of urban living environments. Actually the trend has been to transfer public space into the semi-public space of private business – to trade and shopping centres – which can be stated as the result of the space extortionate behaviour of the private sector. As the architecture researcher, Triin Ojari (2003) says in her article "Private City. Chances for Public Space in Tallinn": "Neither the built environment nor urban plans are meant to put emphasis on sustainability or integration that are necessary to connect residents to the broader past or future of their surrounding place".
41 4.3.2 Marginalised role of planners
The role of planners is highly marginalised in today's planning system in Estonia. In a situation where great deal of professional interaction and collaboration still takes place on personal level – which is mainly inherited from the Soviet time business and public practices – the planners (either from private sector or local governments) are having difficulties to manifest themselves. And speaking the truth – do they actually have to do it? After all, planners are the experts!
Following the earlier discussed criticism of Lindblom – planners as one of the parties involved in decision making of planning – the case in Estonia is different. Planners are not seen to have any kind of superior authority, even less, they are frequently seen as the ones filling the planning orders without contributing much analytically. For instance, architects cannot undertake anything that has not been commissioned from them (Mark & Ahas 2006, 101). Like analysed in earlier chapters, in planning theory and international practice planners seem to possess a reputation as omniscient experts. Therefore they have been, especially since 1990s, regarded as the abusers of power in planning processes. In Estonia the planners' authority is not that immense at all – rather the local politicians and private companies are seen as the ones abusing power who are trying to get their will through with various means.
Although in the post-positivistic approach the planner is the mediator and negotiator between different stakeholder groups, in reality things are different. According to Metspalu (2005, 28) planners often behave as maestro planners, making decisions solely without involving other stakeholders. Metspalu compares the understandings of a planners' role and legitimacy to the post- war period in Great Britain when it was also believed that the 'real planners' were only architects. In western practices, planners are more and more educated in special university programmes designed for spatial and urban planning, which are often combined with the study of architecture.
In Estonia, who are the city planners in reality? Is it the planning department of a city government who draws the general directions and rules for city development, or is it the private architecture bureaus and planning offices that implement a big part of the real work? What is the legitimacy and power of official planners (city government officials) in today's Estonia? A good example here is the case from Tallinn regarding the thematic plan of high-rise buildings, where city planning officials were against one area to be put into the plan, but the political elite of the city still decided
42 to include it in the plan8. The same goes for the Union of Architects which has expressed its concern about recent planning developments in Tallinn, but is not being heard as the voice of experts in urban planning. That is a good reflection of the attitude of public decision-makers today towards representatives of know-how and expertise in the field.
Although in Estonia it is difficult to speak of a uniform planning culture (Maandi 2007), in practice the planning has with no doubt moved towards communicative planning, supported by the European Union directives and national legislation (Jauhiainen & Niemenmaa 2006, 64). Still, it will take some more time until planners, used to the modern system, can listen and speak and interact with different participants involved in planning.
4.3.3 Insufficient participation of residents
"But Mr. Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months." "Oh yes, well, as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything." "But the plans were on display..." "On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them." "That's the display department." "With a flashlight." "Ah, well, the lights had probably gone." "So had the stairs."
Douglas Adams: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Advocacy planning as a method of promoting participation aimed at opening up the decision- making process of spatial planning to traditionally excluded parties (Balducci & Calvaresi 2005, 236). It proposes that planners work closely with local citizens to effect change. "By encouraging participation and by disseminating correct information about growth and its effects, planners can acquire a constituency of concerned citizens that can then translate their values into political influence" (Gottdiener & Budd 2005, 120). The basic idea behind it is that informed and aware residents will opt for better planning while pressuring the local government to improve their living environment.
8 After the city planning department had defined the 10 areas in the city space where high-rise buildings can be built, the political elite pushed through an additional area to be included in the thematic plan. That area was rejected by planners, since they did not find it suitable for high-rise buildings. Still, as a result of political pressure, which was driven by connections with a big private company residing in that area, the additional area was later-on added to the thematic plan. (Ralf-Martin Soe "Keskerakond surus läbi poliitilise kõrghoone", Äripäev 2.5.2008) 43 There is a typology of citizen participation: the lowest level is where people are simply manipulated (‘non-participation’), the second level where citizens are consulted and allowed to attend information meetings is called ‘tokenism’, and the third level of growing involvement and forms of partnership is called ‘citizen power’ (Gottdiener & Budd 2005, 178). According to Staffans (2004, 292), in real the urban planning today does not sufficiently support the interaction between citizens’ local, place-based urban knowledge and that of the planning expertise. The tension lies between the normative assumption of institutional participation that assumes the residents to hold layman's role in planning, whereas influencing planning means a strategic ability to compete in the production of knowledge according to context, either proactively or reactively in relation to the institutional preparatory process (Ibid.).
Nonetheless, planning is increasingly considered to be about bottom-up approach where planning takes place with and alongside the community concerned. That is happening in all developed countries, since, quoting Jauhiainen (2005, 232) "the long-prevailed belief that participatory planning can only be achieved after sufficient economic growth, has proved to be off the mark".
In times when contemporary spatial planning practices are still new for Estonian local governments, the concept of public participation and involvement of residents in planning are even newer. City governments are in a situation where they have to involve a variety of local participants and local knowledge into the debate on how the city should develop.
The Estonian Planning Act stresses the importance of planning as a public activity. Public disclosure is mandatory in order to ensure the involvement of all interested persons and the timely provision of information to such persons and to enable such persons to defend their interests in the process of planning (Planning Act § 3). Even so, according to Metspalu (2005, 28) planning is still very pragmatic in Estonia. Instead of becoming more collaborative, planning is believed to solve practical problems. The wider whole and, for instance, social injustices are being ignored. Soolep (2006) even claims that the incremental spatial discords in Estonian cities are the consequence of the crisis of participatory democracy. In his opinion the urban space acts like an indicator where the results of distorted economic and political actions emerge. Mark and Ahas (2006, 102) believe that through the process of publicising urban plans the decision makers have abdicated their responsibility.
Balducci and Calvaresi (2005, 236) believe that the reasons behind difficulties in reintroducing participatory approaches in planning processes during recent years can be explained by a general
44 distrust of community involvement in planning, which is widely seen as a mere expression of conflict or as manipulation of consent. In the case of Estonia imprints of the totalitarian era can be detected in discussions over major issues, when the public should be involved by (local) government. Lõhmus (2007) elaborates: "Big problems usually derive from small decisions that can be easily overlooked. Sometimes the appropriate discussion leader is missing, sometimes the involvement of some participants is blocked, and sometimes some issues are not been reacted to." Mark and Ahas (2006, 101) discuss that only in rare cases when the critical limit is crossed does the public organise for struggle in order to protect or fight against some plans.
Although the citizens are considered as passive in participating and raising their voice, in my opinion the truth lies somewhere in between. In Estonia in general the public trust (people believing in the state and local government) is very low, which can be partly blamed on the Soviet heritage and partly on the extortionate behaviour of early capitalism. Therefore, residents do not perceive that they can actually influence things. Recently there have been too many negative cases of influential projects where the public is opposing a plan or protesting against changing the plan (e.g. tearing down the functioning Sakala centre in the middle of Tallinn in order to build a considerably larger conference-culture-shopping centre9), or where public space is violated by private interests (e.g. the case of Tartu bus station where a private company built the new compact bus station on former municipal land10; see the picture below).
9 It was an attempt of private-public partnership with the aim to extend an old cultural centre of acknowledged architecture. There was a detail plan for the area. The state gave the private developer ground lease with the requirement to conserve the existing building and announcing an architectural competition for the extension part. The agreement was signed between developer and the state, competition held and best solution found. If the city of Tallinn and the state would have protected the winning solution then it would already be visible in its location. Eventually what happened was that private interest boldly ran over public interest, widely accepted values and logical decision-making. The existing functioning building was completely demolished based on expert appraisal by a law office that was automatically accepted by city representatives by issuing the permission of demolishing! (That logic is becoming more and more apparent in Estonian planning: architect is composing the plan and construction project, but their connection is interpreted by lawyers). The concept of a cultural centre turned into a business centre concept. Exactly in these kind of cases the will of public sector is the prescriptive force. At that moment the public started to react and protests around the site as well as in press took place. Eventually around 10 000 signatures were collected against the decision of demolishing, referring among other things to the heritage of flagstone architecture. The mayor of Tallinn, minister of culture and county head failed miserably in the attempt to solidarily represent the public interest. What happened is that the representatives of public sector verged towards private interests, rather than standing for public interest and public urban space. (T. Paaver. Mida õpetab Sakala saaga?) 10 The municipal land with the former bus station on it in the centre of Tartu was sold to a private company on the condition that a modern bus station would be built by that company. After a delay a compact bus station with only 50 seats in the waiting lounge was built within only few months. (M.Jürgen "Tartu Bussijaam, mille rahvas Sigalaks ristis", Eesti Ekspress 25.9.2003) The company kept its word but did not invest in the non-profitable object, thereto violating the public space and disgracing the image of the city. Presently the company has built a shopping and leisure centre next to the bus station, while engulfing the station in its structure. 45 The bus station of Tartu (picture from the homepage of Kane Metall)
Spatial planning is indeed two-faced: while residents are given the opportunity to express their opinion before the plan is being implemented, the real impacts only occur while the new object (e.g. a super market) is being built or after it. And after all, residents believe that once the process of detailed planning is initiated the local government will hardly reject the plan (see for example Ojari 2003). Residents and other interested groups can usually influence cosmetic changes to the buildings or surroundings, but they are not heard as a voice in protecting a sustainable and balanced living environment.
On the contrary, in the conurbation of Tallinn, as Julegina (2007, 126) found out, if a detailed plan is reasonably objected to by a considerable group, then the plan is not allowed by the local government. It would be of interest to review the statistics of plans that were rejected or amended as a result of public intervention. Unfortunately, at present this kind of information is not available to the larger public.
The crucial point is that planners and officials involved in planning are expecting residents to participate with awareness and well-grounded arguments. In fact residents often do not have experience in expressing their opinion with the right terminology. Residents are not used to the bottom-up approach of public policy. On top of this, if the aim is to change processes and the way of thinking, then “uprisings by the public must be followed by carefully considered actions in accordance with the objectives” (Mark & Ahas 2006, 101).
At the same time, there are good examples of citizen activism in spatial planning. Supilinna Selts (in Tartu) and Uue Maailma Selts (Tallinn) are well-known neighbourhood unions, connecting residents of a certain district so as to affect their living environment. According to these unions’ statutes, in addition to protecting the neighbourhood, the unions also actively organise events, conduct surveys among residents and initiate collective action in order to promote community 46 spirit. These non-profit unions are well aware of ongoing planning in their district, through close cooperation with and even involvement in the city government. As such, their deliberate opinions are also respected by city officials in public discussions over plans.
47
5. URBAN PLANNING IN THE CITY OF TARTU
5.1 Tartu at a glance
The centre of Tartu with its classicistic old town (aerophoto by Andres Tarto, www.taevapiltnik.ee)
Why study urban planning in the second largest city in Estonia? First, like with many other developed countries, there has been much research on the capital region already (as mentioned earlier: among others Julegina 2007 and Metspalu 2005), including studies of urban networks in the Baltic Sea region (among others the upcoming publication Urban Sustainability and Governance: New Challenges in Nordic-Baltic Housing Policies).
48 A very personal reason for choosing Tartu as the site for empirical research is that it has been my hometown for about 20 years. Even before studying human geography, I used to practice flaneuring – what Walter Benjamin referred to in his book One Way Street and Other Writings (1985). A Flaneur is someone observing and dreaming by walking around in city streets. Although Benjamin referred to wandering around big cities and observing different human types in the urban environment (see Kurg 2004), I have been trying to perceive the urban space by walking in the streets of Tartu. I have always kept a critical eye – which is getting sharper with every year – on changes happening in the physical space of my hometown. In that way, this thesis expresses my attempt to improve the conceptualisation of urban planning in Tartu and Estonia in general, at least to shift the understanding of planning practices towards a more analytical and collaborative approach.
There are around 100 000 people living in Tartu, out of which 16 000 are students. Tartu is a traditional university city – the University of Tartu was found in 1632. From a regional development perspective, Tartu is the centre of Southern Estonia. The city consists of 17 districts (city parts) and in 2007 the residential density was 2544 residents per km2 (Tartu in figures 2007). Tartu claims to be the city of good thoughts (see the logo). Whether it is a city of good planning thoughts as well will be studied in the following paragraphs.
The official logo of Tartu (homepage of the City of Tartu).
Compared to other cities in Estonia, in Tartu the share of municipal land is relatively high – 22,7 %. Slightly over half of the land (51,4 %) is in private ownership, and the rest (3,5 %) belongs to the state (Tartu in figures 2007). The division of land use is shown in table 2. The reserve land consists of unbuilt lots that are not in use yet, or that are not under ownership.
49 Table 2. Land usage in Tartu according to January 2007 (Tartu in figures 2007). land under residential buildings 1,078.3 ha 27.8 %
land under industrial enterprises 288.5 ha 7.4 %
other landed property (firms, social land) 494.8 ha 12.8 %
land under churches and graveyards 49.2 ha 1.3 %
railway 70.4 ha 1.8 %
streets, roads 420.1 ha 10.8 %
water bodies 131.9 ha 3.4 %
public parks, green areas 383.6 ha 9.9 %
marshland and shrubs 535.0 ha 13.8 %
agricultural land 39.1 ha 1.0 %
city's reserve land 389.1 ha 10.0 %
TOTAL 3,880.0 ha 100.0 %
The comprehensive plan of Tartu, adopted in 2005, sets general requirements for use of land and water areas in the city. With the development of the present plan, the earlier comprehensive plan from 1999 was announced void, mainly because the situation in the city had greatly changed. According to the explanatory document for the comprehensive plan (Tartu linna üldplaneering 2005), spatial planning in Tartu relies on sectoral development of land areas with different functions, where the tendencies and requirements of the economic, social and cultural environment, as well as the natural environment are, in a balanced way, taken into account.
In taking a closer look at the comprehensive plan, one can notice that it is made in a teetering manner, since it does not set tight rules and requirements for planning housing and it is even suggested that with detailed plans the comprehensive plan is rather easy to amend. For the latter, architectural contest (in most cases) and a detailed plan requiring the amendment is required. Besides, the comprehensive plan is more of a mapping of the present situation where objects and districts to be protected are defined, and not a visionary strategy of how the city should develop and look like in the long run.
There are presently 6 district master plans, 2 thematic plans (as mentioned in section 3.2.1), and a
50 regeneration plan of the centre as well as the county plan and a related county thematic plan. As the statistics of detailed plans (table 3) show, the difference between initiated and adopted plans is almost twofold. The amount of building permits has slightly decreased over the last few years. For the purpose of comparison: in Tallinn during the same period, the number of initiated detailed plans was in average 110 and the number of adopted detailed plans 107, whereas in average 2798 building permits were issued per year. Therefore it can be remarked that in a city five times smaller than the capital, the average number of initiated detailed plans in Tartu is half of those in Tallinn. This can be either a sign of more active land use or of tighter regulation of land use and development in Tartu.
Table 3. Building activities in Tartu (Tartu in figures 2007). 2005 2006 2007
initiated detailed plans 51 58 56 incl. plans ordered by city government 2 7 3 adopted detailed plans 47 26 32 incl. plans ordered by city government 6 2 2 issued building permits 613 586 597
5.2 How the case study was conducted?
I chose to use qualitative methods for studying the situation of urban planning in Tartu. The qualitative approach enables one to grasp a number of aspects, reflections and perceptions of behaviours by different respondents. Qualitative research enables one to investigate the why and how of decision making processes, as well as participants. In qualitative research, two aspects are vital: the background theory and the interpretive theory (Eskola & Suoranta 1998, 81). In this thesis, the empirical data will be tested against the background theory of postmodern urban planning, following the formulation of the questions to search for, from data based on the interpretive theory of planning.
The empirical study was conducted with a survey method by means of an internet questionnaire. The survey consisted of 15 questions which mainly tried to get respondent's appraisal to a certain topic or gain their suggestions and comments. The survey questions were compiled based on a study of other relevant researches of urban planning and with a round of commentary amongst experts from academia and planning. The questions in the survey were conducted with semi-open 51 answers, meaning that respondents could choose from alternatives but could also add their comment to each answer. In the structured questionnaire there was plenty of space left for additional comments and specifications, allowing the respondents to clarify their answers. This offered a valuable source of explanations and further comments to various topics. The survey did not touch upon precise cases of planning but aimed to capture a more overall picture of how the planning processes are seen by stakeholders. As Edward Soja (1980) has stressed, the postmodern approach studies the city from the viewpoint of the different parties that are involved in producing spatial planning. Therefore the findings of my empirical study highly depend on how respondents perceive the situation of urban planning in Tartu.
The internet survey (in Estonian language; see annex 1) was carried out during November 2007. The request to answer to the survey questions was sent to around 230 people (some of the e-mail addresses were general office addresses). The request was sent twice to increase the amount of responses. The choice of respondent groups was based on the review of earlier studies, but it also reflects the most important participants in planning on a city scale.
There were altogether 50 respondents who answered the questionnaire (the response rate being approximately 22 %). By Estonian standards, this can be considered to be a rather satisfactory response rate, since the private sector is usually not eager to respond to surveys of this kind. However, the following table shows the respondent groups (based on the survey) and accordingly the number of responses.
Table 4. Responses to the survey.
respondent group percentage frequency city government official 16 % 8 city government politician 8 % 4 Planner 18 % 9 real estate developer 6 % 3 construction company 8 % 4 citizen union/NGO 12 % 6 resident 28 % 14 land/estate owner 4 % 2 TOTAL 100 % 50
As often happens, the residents were the most active respondent group. The questionnaire was sent to the Supilinna Selts – a union of residents living in a district of old wooden houses close to the 52 city centre. These people also represent other respondent groups through their professional work, as do other respondent groups who act as residents at the same time. Because of that and due to the low rate and unequal amount of responses within respondent groups, most of the topics studied in the survey are analysed jointly.
In this thesis, planners represent those specialists who are preparing and drawing up plans upon orders. They are usually private architecture bureaus or planning offices. Real estate developers represent private parties who initiate a planning process with the aim to construct housing or any other type of real estate. Recent developments in Estonia show that developers are often real estate companies who have widened their scope of activities from mediating real estate deals to also bringing more real estate to the market. Albeit, a developer can also be a private person.
Although construction companies do not directly belong to the urban planning process (since they are the ones actually realising the plans) I included them into the survey due to their growing influence in initiating planning. As it often occurs, firms are turning into corporative companies that control the development, starting from purchasing a lot and ending with the end user (Mark & Ahas 2006, 99).
5.3 Perceptions on planning in Tartu
5.3.1 Roles in the planning system
Perception of involvement in the planning system
It is essential to know whether those who are considered as stakeholders in planning actually feel themselves as part of the planning system. As it turned out, over half of respondents (58 %) feel that they do belong to the planning system, whereas 34 % feels the contrary. In the case of residents 10 out of 14 feel that they are not involved in the system, but in the case of NGOs 67 % perceive to be involved. This indicates the possibility for a better representation and involvement once residents have taken any kind of institutional form – in this case non-governmental/non-profit organisation or citizen union. What is interesting is that only 75 % of responded city government officials feel like being part of the planning process, even though the questionnaire was only sent to the officials directly involved in the planning issues. All the responded city politicians (again, only those directly involved in planning) feel to be involved in planning, which is a good sign. One planner out of the 9 responded planners feels to be outside the planning system, which could be an interesting 53 point for future analysis, although on a much wider scope. Although the land and estate owners are in overall considered among more influential participants in planning, the responded land/estate owners do not feel like being part of the planning system.
Problem raiser, decision-maker or affecter, adviser, critical voice or observer
What kind of role do different stakeholders carry in the planning system? Here the respondents could give multiple answers about their role in the planning system; there were altogether 66 answers to that question. The respondents see their roles fairly equally – all the five roles got 11-15 hits. Most respondents see themselves in the role of adviser. City government officials and city politicians see their roles similarly in the following order: decision maker, problem raiser, adviser, critical voice and observer. Half of the planners' responses indicated that they have an advising role in city planning and 25 % responded to the decisive or affecting decisions role. Real estate developers seem to not have a common shared role, whereas construction companies seem to equally carry the advising and observing role. Half of the responses from NGOs indicate that the citizen unions are seen as the problem raisers, followed by decision makers or the ones affecting decisions (30 % of responses). Residents uniformly represent the critical voice (38 %), followed by advising and observing role (both 22 %), and lastly problem raising and decisive role. Land or estate owners seem to be observers in the planning process.
Roles of stakeholders in improving planning
By improvement of planning here is meant the process of making planning more effective (e.g. smooth communication and cooperation between stakeholders), analytical (considering local conditions and milieus, opinion of professionals and residents) and systematic (decisions deriving from a wide understanding of urban planning as a whole, based on compact set of rules and legislation). Every respondent could here evaluate the role of each stakeholder group.
Professional planners seem to have the biggest role in making the planning more effective and efficient (80 % responded 'more important' and 'very important'), followed by city officials (76 %) and city politicians (60 %). Half of the respondents (54 %) valued the role of land or estate owners as highly important. Concerning real estate developers, the opinions favour their role as improvers (40 % of responses) more than disfavour (20 % of responses). As it is typical to a democratic state, civil organisations' and city residents role in improving urban planning has been rather similarly evaluated: highly important by 43 % of responses, important by 37 % and less important by 20 %.
54 Logical enough, construction companies are not seen to have a role in making the planning more efficient (57 % assessed their role as less important or not important at all), since they do not participate directly in the planning process.
In the case of planners it was stressed that they as professionals should do more analytical work, especially "conduct urban space analyses in finding the golden mean in planning processes"11. Concerning the city government officials, the need for analyses in serving information for decision- making in the city government was commented, since "officials know about the bottlenecks in planning due to complaints and suggestions". An interesting comment concerning developers occurred - namely stating that developers should take the public more into account. According to my belief the local government should have that role and represent the public interest. Of course, in the light of corporate social responsibility and good reputation, private companies should consider the public opinion, but these cases are more rare than common in practice.
Throughout the whole survey better participation of non-governmental and non-profit organisations was highlighted. NGOs and various other forms of citizen activism "represent the residents in a democratic way and as a reliable partner for the local government". For residents to be heard among decision-makers they need to get organised and the most common way is to found a citizen union. As Sootla and Grau (2004) have studied, the Estonian local policymaking follows the cabinet model, where authority is distributed between the majority coalition and a strong political executive and where little room is left for initiatives in contact with citizens. A conclusion can be made that once citizens take an official form they are regarded as more equal partners for local governments in terms of negotiations and representative power.
5.3.2 Leader of the planning network
Leadership is not a usual concept in planning theory, because spatial planning is traditionally been linked to a strong idea of formal authority (rules, ordinances and laws). Only recently, along the emergence of strategic planning, consensus building and 'argumentative turn' has leadership become more popular. (Balducci & Calvaresi 2005, 234) The interactive nature of spatial planning calls for increased attention to leadership.
Survey answers illustrate the present situation in Estonian planning: 1/3 of all multiple answer
11 Hereafter the comments of respondents are highlighted from the rest of the text. 55 responses indicated that business interests (including the interests of developers) are leading the urban planning network. Although it reflects the harsh reality and strong tendency of private interests, it is still a surprising result. Business interests were followed by the head of planning department (26 % of responses). 21 % of responses indicated that the vice mayor is the leader of the planning network – which is the case in the official planning hierarchy of the city government. 7 % of all responses showed the mayor as the leader of the planning network. Planning bureaus and residents both got around 4 % of responses, and legislation 9 %.
To be honest, these answers did not clarify the picture of leadership in urban planning. On the contrary, the perceptions of respondents ruffled that picture even more. On the other hand, maybe it indicates that actually there is no need for an 'official leader' in planning since it is already highly regulated by the legislation and other requirements (e.g. comprehensive plan). All the same, the legislation alone cannot regulate the broad field of planning. Therefore, while planning is claimed to have become more interactive and network-like (e.g. Staffans 2004; Mark & Ahas 2006), the role of coordinator or leader should be given a thought.
5.3.3 Eminence and power of stakeholders in the planning system
Source of own eminence for stakeholders
Broadly, the eminence of participants in planning is mainly based on their know-how and professionalism – 52 % of all respondents saw it as more important or very important. Know-how can be understood as educational qualifications and expertise in a certain field or certain, usually overlapping, fields. Surprisingly, influence is not seen to be based on resources (including financial ones) – 80 % of all respondents think that resources are less important or not important at all. Only 13 % of all respondents find the resources as a more important or very important source of eminence in planning. Although planning is seen as highly oriented towards private developers (i.e owners of financial capital), resources as the source of influence are not regarded vital in planning. Status and personal contacts act similarly as the source for influence: they play an important role for 36 % of respondents, whereas for almost half (47 %) they are less important or not important at all and for 17 % more important or very important. While analysing the responses of different groups, officials and politicians liked to mention their position, hence clearly stressing their status and the fact that “officials are being listened to”.
56 Source for eminence by stakeholders
In analysing the importance of various sources of influence among stakeholder groups it shows that know-how is a most important factor for developers, planners, officials and construction companies. This is logical since they influence the planning system according to their professional skills, e.g. developers use business talent, planners offer professional and analytical contribution, officials are experts in the deeps of bureaucracy, etc. For residents and NGOs personal contacts and status is the source of their influence – in order to be heard, residents need networking and are often using personal contacts to approach an official or some other involved party. It is also logical that residents and citizen unions in general do not possess know-how in urban planning, hence they influence the system through other means – personal contacts in this context mean the social capital and status means "consistency in pursuing own interest". It is not surprising that the eminence of developers, planners and even politicians is largely based on contacts since in Estonia personal networks very often determine or influence the political and non-political processes. For officials personal contacts are important since in the interaction with the private sector they "help to know the peculiarities of developers".
Distribution of power among stakeholders
In the opinion of 89 % of respondents, stakeholders have unequal roles in city planning (see figure 6). That conflates with the 92 % who believe that some stakeholders are more influential than others in the planning system. Still, 8 % of respondents disagree with that claim.
The ranking of participants in the planning process according to their influence is following (based on the aggregate of each respondent's ranking of all stakeholders):
politicians
officials
developers
planners
land owners
construction companies
NGOs
residents57 This ranking gives the real picture of the hierarchy – whether it is discernible or not – of the planning system. The most influential group is politicians and the least influential ones are residents. The ranking of politicians is worth a thought, since from the perspective of all participants outside the city government they are the decision-makers behind the scenes. What does then the first position of politicians reflect here? Can it hint at the 'personal touch' of developers, planners, land owners and construction companies with city politicians? Or does it merely reflect their role as the superior parties in the planning system? It can be either one or other, or a mixture of both of these assumptions.
In trying to explain the differences in influence of stakeholders mainly the power of money and political power were mentioned. "The overall private interests prevail the public interest in the continuously early stage capitalism of Estonia; representatives of public interest are actually not representing the public interest which is inherited from soviet time." Also, financial interests seem to largely affect political decisions. Repeatedly the principle called "who pays, orders the plan" was mentioned. These results are supported by responses to varied claims (see figure 7) – three-fourths of respondents agreed that city planning is dependant on politicians' values and slightly more agreed that city planning is largely dependent on wishes and orders of private companies.
58
completely disagree agree completely agree cannot say
In CP the interest groups have unequal roles. 4 35 54 7
CP is a process dependent on politicians’ values. 15 33 46 6
CP is largely dependent on the orders and w ishes of private companies. 10 45 43 2
The main responsibility for and competence of CP lies on the city government. 12 55 31 2
There is tendency f or ad hoc planning in CP. 25 50 25
CP is based on know ledge-based planning (studies-> plans-> implementing plans). 35 37 22 6
CP is mainly about draw ing up and confirming master and detail plans. 33 45 20 2
CP is regulated by market w here private companies compete for rights to draw up plans. 33 41 16 10
CP can be considered as a democratic process. 29 49 12 10
CP is based on inter-dependencies and communication betw een all interest groups. 29 55 8 8
CP can be considered as socially sustainable. 29 53 4 14
0 20406080100
percentage Figure 7. Responses to different claims (CP = city planning).
One comment illustrates the role of legislation in unequal power distribution: "the laws that are regulating planning are favoring some stakeholders over others, creating inequality among participants involved in planning". Another respondent sees a more positive turn in planning: "At present the situation has professionalised, so that planners and city officials abide by laws and regulations and this dominates over the intertwined interest of politicians and constructors".
59 5.3.4 Biggest problems in city planning
Stakeholders hindering planning
By hindering planning, the activities and consequences making the planning processes more complicated (e.g. not arriving at an agreement between stakeholders, intentionally postponing plans) are meant. It should be kept in mind that hindering planning for one stakeholder can mean improving planning for another group of stakeholders – as an example see the case of residents below.
The biggest obstacles prefigure officials and politicians – 68 % of respondents believe that officials have an important role in hindering and slowing down the planning process, while 70 % believe that politicians have the same role. It is understandable why officials and politicians represent this kind of image to the rest of stakeholders in planning. It is mainly due to bureaucratic procurement and, not denying, political and personal games of some sort – e.g. "postponing the plans of the so-called competitors". Contradictory to the results of improving planning is the role of planners – 47 % of respondents saw their role as less or not important, whereas 38 % saw them as highly important in slowing down the process. This reflects different experience that other stakeholders in planning have had with professional planners. Referring to one respondent, "low quality work slows down the procurement process". Developers seem to have less or no role (74 % of responses) in hindering planning, which is probably reflecting the very developer-oriented planning system in Tartu and Estonia in general. What was commented about developers was their "tendency of changing wishes which lead to new solutions and can cause the planning process to be started all over again". Land or estate owners seem to possess significance in hindering planning – 40 % of responses evaluate their role as highly important and 34 % as important. Construction companies seem not to have a high importance (74 % see it as less or not important) in hindering planning.
As a positive surprise civil organisations and residents are, correspondingly by 53 % and 50 %, not seen as obstacles in planning, which can be partly explained by high number of answers from these respondent groups. This also complements the claim (by 47% of respondents) that residents and citizen unions are very important factors in improving planning. Intervention into planning processes by residents and citizen unions, on the contrary, reflects positive action: "If residents are hindering planning it derives from the fact that the plan does not correspond to citizens' interests, and then slowing down the planning process cannot be seen as negative".
60 Factors hindering planning
Mostly the dominance of certain participants (77 %) and conflicting interests (75 %) are seen as the most important factors hindering and slowing down planning. Half of the responses also indicated that insufficient competence (54 %), lack of trust (50 %) and non-leadership can be the hindering factors. At the same time 35 % of responses saw that lack of resources and rigidity of legislation are not important in hindering planning. Even so, legislation is seen as an obstacle: "In some issues legislation demands setting very precise limits, in other issues laws demand too much generality".
It was stressed many times that there is a lack of common vision about how the city should be planned and what it should be like in the future. As appears from the reactions to various claims (figure 7), 3/4 of respondents agree or completely agree that in city planning there is tendency to ad hoc activity. Basically this means that the city is not systematically planned as a continuous process, it is rather developed object by object (or lot by lot). A conflating argument by 65 % respondents is that city planning is mainly about drawing up and confirming master and detailed plans (although 33 % disagreed to that, indicating a wider understanding of city planning). The responses to the contradicting claim about city planning as a knowledge-based process were less enthusiastic (35 % completely disagree whereas altogether 59 % agree). Ad hoc planning should mostly eliminate knowledge-based planning, but the survey findings indicate that people involved in planning in Tartu are not aware of that.
In naming the biggest problems in city planning at present, respondents could give up to three open answers. Representatives of NGOs see a big problem in the fact that local government is not often on the side of residents – not considering all interest groups, including residents. "In public discussion not all the interest groups are taken into account. The weaker ones are steamrolled; decisions are made while ignoring local residents' interests and while serving officials' decisions as 'social agreement'." Adding to that is the lack of continuance and conservativeness of the planning, which could as well be interpreted as a precondition for local government in pursuing the public purpose. Systematic ill-considerateness in planning was not only mentioned by citizen unions but also by residents.
Residents were eagerly answering to that question. The main problematic areas are prevailing business interests that are intertwined with politics ("agreements between politicians and business people"; "in decision-making first the business interests of the ruling party are considered"; "influence of developers/construction companies via party politics"), ignoring public interest
61 ("authorities are avoiding to define the 'public interest'"; "representatives of public interest are actually not representing the public interest which can be blamed to habits from the soviet time"), woolliness of visions and plans ("long-term plans being blurry"). Disregarding the public opinion is considered as "incompetence and lack of responsibility of officials". The latter opinion is affirmed by Mark and Ahas (2006, 99): “It is an open secret that for various reasons, like a high rate of turnover in manpower, relatively weak specialists are on the payroll in most cities”. In general, planning is considered as a forethoughtless process: "The opinions of all stakeholders are not being considered and pre-planning is done within a narrow circle of stakeholders which causes problems later on".
What are officials replying? They see the biggest problems lying in lack of specialists (planners, engineers, architects). Another thing is that often "planners just fulfill what other involved stakeholders have agreed upon, without giving much of analytical thought or other kind of support to it". An interesting feature connected to political reputation was brought up by one official: "Negative appraisal from written press drive politicians into extremes in their decision-making processes - in plans not the environment or appropriateness is assessed, but the size of the problem that could arise in the press". Concentrating on wrong issues can be described as "shortfall in the sense of reality". City politicians from their side see the biggest problem in the conflict between the public interest versus private interests: "People participating in decision-making have their own direct interests, e.g. council's commission of development and planning is mainly composed of businessmen who have their personal interests in deals".
For planners the biggest problems lie in incomplete legislation as well as indefinite interpretations of laws even within the city government. Planners also see the forceful role of “Big Developers” and mention the "egoism and enviousness of land owners as well as money" as the reasons behind different power distribution. Meanwhile, developers mention the "incompetence of officials and their little communication with involved parties". Developers see a problem also in "privileging certain stakeholders by city government".
62 5.3.5 Suggestions for improving planning
What do stakeholders of planning perceive as solutions for improving urban planning? Out of the multiple-choice answers sufficient competence is unanimously seen as highly important (91 %) and important (9 %). Competence indeed can increase the effectiveness and efficiency of planning, but only when it corresponds to the changing conditions and trends in planning practices. In urban planning new tendencies and principles arise constantly, sometimes though under a new name but with quite a familiar content (e.g. New Urbanism, sustainable planning). Second important improving factor is leadership of urban planning – 81 % of responses evaluate it as highly important and the rest as important. It is not surprising that leadership is considered to make planning processes more efficient and fluent for all stakeholders – a coordinated planning system is essential to every local government. The role of sufficient financial resources is rather important (62 % evaluate as highly important) than less important (16 %). Equality of participants and flexibility of legislation is highly important in opinion of slightly over half of the respondents. The argument against flexible legislation is that "flexible legislation is the reason for cases when in legal terms everything is correct". Among other things as important factors improving planning following were mentioned: responsibility for the future, readiness to listen to and take into consideration opinions of different parties, raising awareness over public interest.
The opinions about whether to involve more stakeholders into planning are rather fairly distributed: 35 % of all respondents think that there should be more stakeholders involved, 37 % think that there should not be more groups involved and 28 % cannot say. Most suggestions for involving more participants included city residents, district unions as well as citizen unions, which also include flat unions. Separately were mentioned representatives of heritage protection, environment protection and local small businesses, in addition more architects are wished to participate in planning.
Citizen unions give some following suggestions for improving urban planning: "more detailed plans to eliminate possibility of various interpretations, better communication of problems to residents, involving more interest groups, increase the capability and responsibility of city officials". Residents also stress paying more regard to the word of residents and citizen unions: "A competent organisation of involving everyone interested should be created, where everyone's participation in contributing to and maintaining the public purpose of the city is considered (not the economic influence in collaborating with different parties) and the environment and milieu are taken into account when planning new housing". Another suggestion is to involve more professionals and experts (either local or foreign) into decision-making, in order "to import
63 dimensions from states with developed democracy".
From officials came a suggestion for a more efficient analytical work: "More effort should be put into thinking. Sometimes it feels that planners numbly draw boxes and some lines and send the plans for reconciliation". A better communication system and involving more professionals and training the already involved parties in urban planning were among other suggestions. In their suggestions politicians are referring to "changing the party majority of the city government" (the right-wing leading party in Tartu) as well to the "need to regard every stakeholder group equally".
Planners are much referring to changing the planning law and creating some kind of "a ruleset for protecting the decisions of city officials". In connection to that a suggestion to "investigate and eliminate informal actions" arose as well as "to raise constructiveness of the management of planning process". For developers solutions to improve planning seem to lie in "speeding up the procurement and raising awareness of the parties involved about their responsibilities". Although the latter suggestion can sound ludicrous, it can hold true especially in cases where private and public interests muddle up.
Construction companies are longing for "a uniform vision of what kind of Tartu is wished for, therefore also setting limits and directions of how the planning should happen". Land and estate owners are suggesting "stronger behaviour by unions and societies" as well as "the decision makers to withdraw from business interests and to listen to professionals and the public opinion".
5.4 Conclusions from the case study
Studying the perceptions on urban planning in the city of Tartu proved to be worth the effort. Although the sample for the study was rather small, the comments by respondents offered a valuable insight into the perceived form of urban planning in Tartu.
Planning in Tartu is seen as highly policy- and market-driven, also as rather chaotic. Planning indeed involves different stakeholder groups, but remains hierarchic in terms of privileging some stakeholders, usually the decision makers and private developers. Residents have not yet obtained a remarkable position as partners in the eye of the city government. Despite the latter residents are, on a large scale, not seen as impeding or procrastinating planning processes.
64 Most of the stakeholders perceive themselves as advisers in planning. The roles differ between city government officials and politicians as decision makers, and citizen unions as problem raisers. Residents uniformly represent the critical voice. Planners mainly act as advisors. Real estate developers seem not to have a common shared role.
As for biggest problems in planning, officials and politicians are seen as the procrastinating stakeholders who represent to other stakeholders bureaucratic procurement as well as political and personal games. As for factors hindering planning, mostly the dominance of certain participants and conflicting interests between participants are seen as the most important. Obstacles are also seen in insufficient competence, lack of trust between different stakeholders and non-leadership of the planning network. Contrary to the forevision, civil organisations and residents are not seen as hampering or slowing down the planning.
In improving planning, professional planners are seen as the key stakeholders. Hence, their role is broadly wished to change towards more analytical. Contradictory to that, planners do not see themselves as bearing the main improving role. Various solutions were offered for improving urban planning – raising the competence, creating leadership for the urban planning network, involving more financial resources into planning, and facilitating equality between the stakeholders.
Promotion logo of the City of Tartu (2008)
65 6. DISCUSSION
6.1 Finnish urban planning system as an example
This paragraph gives a brief overview of the underlying principles of the Finnish urban planning system. The planning process in Finland is very similar to the one in Estonia. One should not forget that the first planning act was in big part copied from Finland. What differ between these two countries, are the principles underlying spatial planning and planning traditions, and the status of local government. Finland is a welfare country where urban planning has developed over decades into a rather conservative field of governance.
The present Finnish Act of Land Use and Building (came into force in 2000) stipulates the independent decision-making of municipalities in land use solutions and the increasing demand to facilitate participation, while decreasing the state control. There are two major differences in the planning laws between Finland and Estonia. First, in Finland the local government solely has the right to draw up plans (see figure 8). In Estonia anyone can initiate a planning process, but the local government solely is in charge of organising and coordinating the planning process. Second, in Finland a participation and evaluation plan (in Finnish osallistumis- ja arviointisuunnitelma) must be drawn up in the initial phase of the plan preparation.
Figure 8. Land use planning system in Finland (webpage of the Ministry of the Environment).
66 The participation and evaluation plan includes description of participation opportunities in every stage of the planning process. Municipalities complete an annual planning review where the ongoing and prospective plans are reported. In Finnish planning practices, along with the increasing authority of municipalities, the active participants have become the guarantees of the qualitative planning process. Also, the idea behind the participation and evaluation plan has been to increase the possibilities to participate in the beginning of the planning process. This lowers the need for complaints in later phases of planning.
Another noteworthy institutional arrangement in the Finnish planning system is the areal construction contract (aluerakentamissopimus) between a construction company and a fast growing city. In Espoo and Vantaa most of the residential buildings have been constructed based on these contracts. These contracts are favoured due to the fact that many growing municipalities lack the resources for creating new residential areas on the outskirts of towns. The downside of the application of areal construction contracts has been the emergence of construction monopolies and the growing tendency where contracts are the basis for planning. (Jauhiainen & Niemenmaa 2007, 241.) Here a similar trend in these two countries can be traced: the plans are forfeiting their role as the basis for construction contracts, and instead the contracts obtain the primary status in the planning process.
Similarly to Estonia, local governments in Finland are responsible for drawing up comprehensive plans. Neighbouring municipalities can construe a common comprehensive plan in which case the plan has a legal effect. A comprehensive plan without a legal effect can be used as a voluntary land use strategy, or serve as the council’s expression of will with respect to prospective planning goals (Jauhiainen & Niemenmaa 2007, 241). Here the legality of a comprehensive plan is one factual difference between planning practices in Finland and Estonia. As seen from previous chapters, the comprehensive plan in Estonia has often missed out on its supremacy.
In addition to various plans, the planning regulations also entail supervision of construction activities. In the Finnish building code (rakentamismääräyskokoelma) technical regulations and guidelines that complement the land use and construction act with regard to new buildings, are being published (e.g. width of buildings, energy management, fire safety in dwellings).
The initiative to commence a plan can derives from a land owner or municipality, and the planning process will be launched, following municipality’s assessment of the plan (Jauhiainen & Niemenmaa 2007, 253). The first task in the process is to draw up the participation and evaluation
67 plan. In the detailed plan the prospective use of a certain area is being specified: what to preserve, what and how and where to build. The detailed plan can either touch upon a whole residential area with surrounding recreational zone or in some cases a single plot. A municipality draws up the detailed plan (and at the same time is also issuing construction permits). According to the law the detailed plan should create premises for a healthy, safe and pleasant living environment, and for the access to services and traffic regulation. In planning, the existing built surrounding as well the natural environment has to be considered, without annihilating its special values. (Ibid., 247.)
The increasing importance of participation and interaction in land use and construction law is part of the transformation from expert planning towards multifaceted planning. Nowadays the planning organisations have hired experts in interactive planning, there are different information and communication technologies designed for that and various projects facilitating participation. (Jauhiainen & Niemenmaa 2007, 256.) The residents are seen as “transforming their local views into explicit planning knowledge, while turning into professional ‘advocates of everyday life’ whose influence is based on solid expertise” (Staffans 2004, 292).
As for planners in Finland, according to Herkkola (2003, 105), they can be described by following features: realistic attitude towards participation; negotiating and supervising the public interest while representing aware professionalism; implementing communicative and strategic planning as part of the routine job. These are the features that Estonian planners should strive towards.
6.2 Improving urban planning in Estonia
As a result of major changes in the institutional and political order, the present situation of planning in Estonia may be called ‘a system failure’ (Julegina 2007, 160). The role of local governments is to “rectify the system failure by imposing particular types of partnership on the private sector” (Ibid.). The local level of public administration is deemed to rectify the shortcomings arising from the national level. As seen from the Finnish case above, the eminent role of local governments has a significant impact on planning. Along with the authority of the local government over the private sector, a more stable and balanced planning system can be achieved.
According to Mark and Ahas (2006) the reasons for ineffective and inequitable urban planning lie in the urban planning model. While in earlier times planning took place in an authoritarian manner from top to bottom, the contemporary planning model should function according to the bottom-up
68 principle. Instead, planning nowadays is prevailed by networks, identities, values, participation and media. It is clear that the planning logic applied today originates from a century-old social order (Ibid.).
Planning, as expressed by the architect and researcher Kalle Komissarov (2007, 27), is not about changing and altering the urban environment, it is about directing that change. He continues: “Processes are being planned, not quarters and districts. A city should not be developed house by house, but first a process should be initiated.” The presumption for creating contemporary and high- quality urban space is practicing good planning and raising the general cultural level of urban planning (Mänd 2008). A key element here is the control, exercised by the public over the planning processes. As long as the institution of urban planning does not accept a broader and more dynamic view of expertise – local knowledge communicated through residents (Staffans 2004, 292) – urban planning is doomed to remain one-sided, instead of interactive. A practical tool for improving the situation comes from the above discussed Finnish example: the participation and evaluation plan that defines residents’ possibilities to get involved in planning at every stage of the process.
Another area for improvement is the role of professional planners and the level of their qualification in Estonia. As Metspalu (2005) suggests, the situation of qualified planners should be improved by creating a comprehensive planning curriculum in at least one of the universities in Estonia. Some attempts have been made at the state universities to introduce urban planning as a profession, but until the present moment there is no comprehensive degree programme of planning. Notwithstanding the latter, the interest towards urbanism and urban planning is growing. A good sign of this is the initiative of a high school in Pärnu, where a curriculum of urban studies was drawn up. Hopefully this initiative will not be the last of this kind.
69
SUMMARY
The present thesis tried to detangle the topic of urban planning from a viewpoint of stakeholders and their influence on planning practices. Special focus was placed on the roles, interests and the use of power by stakeholders involved in planning processes.
Urban Planning is a relatively universal discourse, although in different contexts it often dwells from distinct principles. Urban planning as a form of governance comprises many aspects – e.g. institutional, legislative, social, economic, and ecological – that all have a considerable role in the comprehensive and consistent planning. The contemporary planning can be exemplified by rationality, progressiveness, and use of power among stakeholders as well as the changed role of planners. In practice, urban planning has become communicative, by reflecting an interactive process between various stakeholders. The purpose is to improve living environments.
When placing Estonian planning practices against the background of Western experiences and theories, the “heritage of socialism” in planning shows up. In Estonia, contemporary urban planning was created only in the mid-90s, following the launch of land privatisation. The rapid economic growth during the last decade has also entailed typical features of early capitalism in planning. These features are inclination towards the private sector, insufficient participation of citizens and the external role of planners.
Estonian planning practices can be described by high rationality and instrumentality. Since the field of urban planning lacks long roots in Estonia, the education of planners, planning officials and the public in general has been poor and insufficient. In the Estonian planning system, detailed plans often have the superior role over other kind of plans, particularly over comprehensive plans. Planning in Estonia in big part is regarded as only physical planning, where a visual change should be achieved; other factors affecting the society and life are often disregarded. Similar planning orientation was dominant in Great Britain in the 1980s.
In brief, urban planning is a problematic field of governance in Estonia. There is no uniform planning culture and planning practices are highly fragmented. Additionally, planning practices often differ among local governments. Urban planning can be described as struggling in the arbitrary winds of early capitalism.
70 As a result of the study, planning in the city of Tartu is perceived as market- and politics-oriented, as well as rather chaotic. Planning in Tartu is seen as hierarchic in the sense that the interests and wishes of some stakeholders (often political decision makers and private stakeholders) are brought to the forefront. Residents seem not to have gained significant status as a partner for the city government, although they are not considered to procrastinate or hamper planning processes. On the contrary, officials and politicians are seen as the procrastinating stakeholders. They also represent to other stakeholders bureaucratic procurement as well as political and personal games of some sort. Obstacles also lie in insufficient competence, lack of trust between different stakeholders and non- leadership of the planning network.
In improving urban planning in Estonia, a wider look at the city should be taken. Cities are constantly in change. Urban planning should react to these changes by means of systematic, comprehensive and inclusive planning and development. Other solutions to improve urban planning include following: increase the authority of professional planners, raise their competence, create leadership for the urban planning network, involve more financial resources into planning, and facilitate equality between the stakeholders in planning.
All in all, in a market economy, urban planning is about public sector intervention into urban development processes. In practice this intervention is mainly lead by the private sector. Thus, in order to ensure the balance between the interests of the public and private stakeholders as well as citizens, city governments need to adequately respond to the challenge of coordinating the urban planning process. Moreover, coordination is essential for achieving the aims, which extend further from single development projects. In the case of Estonia, the room for improvement is immense.
71
REFERENCES
Allmendinger, P. 2001. Planning in Postmodern Times. London: Routledge.
Balducci, A. & Calvaresi, C. 2005. Participation and leadership in planning theory and practice. In: Urban Governance and Democracy: Leadership and community involvement. Edited by M. Haus, H. Heinelt & M. Stewart, London: Routledge, pp. 234–252.
Brindley, T., Rydin, Y. & Stoker, G. 1996. Remaking Planning. London: Routledge.
Cardoso, R. et al. 2007. "Who Are We, The Planners?". Conference paper, First International Conference of Young Urban Researchers, Lisbon, June 11–12, 2007.
Dear, M. 2000. The Postmodern Urban Condition. London: Routledge.
Eskola, J. & Suoranta, J. 1998. Johdatus laadulliseen tutkimukseen. Tampere: Vastapaino.
Flyvbjerg, B. 1998. Rationality and Power. Democracy in Practice. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Foucault, M. 2002. Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Routledge.
Gottdiener, M. & Budd, L. 2005. Key Concepts in Urban Studies. London, SAGE Publications Ltd.
Grant, J. 2005. Planning the Good Community: New Urbanism in Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
Handbook of spatial planning. 2006. Ministry of Interior. [http://www.siseministeerium.ee/public/kasiraamat52.pdf]
Healey, P. 1997. Collaborative Planning. Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. Houndsmill: MacMillan.
Healey, P. 2001. Towards a more place-focused planning system in Britain. In: Madanipour, A.,
72 Hull, A., Healey, P. (eds) 2001. The Governance of Place: Space and planning processes. University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Ashgate Publishing Ltd, pp. 265–286.
Herkkola, H. 2003. Suunnittelijan sielunelämää. Kaavoittajien suhtautuminen muuttuviin suunnittelukäytäntöihin. Tampereen yliopisto, aluetieteen ja ympäristöpolitiikan laitos, pro gradu - tutkielma.
Jauhiainen, J. S. 2006. Urbanisation, Capital and Land-Use in Cities. Place and Location V – Studies in Environmental Aesthetics and Semiotics, pp. 179–193.
Jauhiainen, J. S. 2005. Linnageograafia. Linnad ja linnauurimus modernismist postmodernismini. Eesti Kunstiakadeemia Arhitektuuriteaduskonna toimetised 4/2005.
Jauhiainen, J. S. & Niemenmaa, V. 2006. Alueellinen suunnittelu. Tampere, Vastapaino.
Jenkins, P., Smith, H. & Wang, Y. P. 2007. Planning and Housing in the Rapidly Urbanising World. New York, Routledge.
Julegina, A. 2007. Institutional and political constraints to planning sustainable settlements in suburban municipalities: Case of Tallinn, Estonia. Master Thesis, Department of Administration and Organization Theory, University of Bergen. [https://bora.uib.no/bitstream/1956/2410/1/Masterthesis_Julegina.pdf]
Kitchen, T. 2001. Shaping Urban Areas into the Twenty-first Century: The Roles of the Planning Process. In: Madanipour, A., Hull, A., Healey, P. (eds) 2001. The Governance of Place: Space and planning processes. University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Ashgate Publishing Ltd, UK, pp. 287–308.
Komissarov, K. 2007. "Sämplima ja skrätsima. Koha praktikad ehk Tartu Hiinalinna kujunemisest" – Maja 2/2007, pp. 24–27.
Komissarov, K. 2004. "Destiny to Live at the Same Time" – Maja, December 2004. [http://www.solness.ee/maja/?mid=129&id=220]
Kurg, A. 2004. "Flanööri mitu elu". Vikerkaar 4–5/2004, pp. 105–114.
73 Laigu, T. 2003. "Good City. Search for the Vision of Urban Centres in Estonia" – Maja, November 2003. [http://www.solness.ee/maja/?mid=129&id=224]
Lefebvre, H. 2002. The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell
LeGates, R. T. & Stout, F. (eds) 2003. The City Reader. Third edition. Urban Reader Series. London: Routledge.
Lindblom, C. E. 1995. The Science of "Muddling Through". In: Stein, J. M. (ed.) Classic Readings in Urban Planning: An Introduction. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 35–47.
Lõhmus, M. 2007. "Arhitektuur avaliku arutluse teemana." – Maja, April 2007. [http://www.solness.ee/maja/?mid=111&id=1&p=2]
Maandi, J. 2007. Muutused Eesti planeerimiskultuuris. – Presentation at the Estonian-Finnish planning seminar, 30.1.2007 in Tallinn. [http://www.siseministeerium.ee/public/Muutused_Eesti_planeerimiskultuuris.rtf]
Macgregor, B. & Ross, A. 1995. Master or Servant? The Changing Role of the Development Plan in the British Planning System”. – Town Planning Review, Volume 66 (1), pp. 41–59.
Madanipour, A. 2001. Multiple Meanings of Space and the Need for a Dynamic Perspective. In: Madanipour, A., Hull, A., Healey, P. (eds). The Governance of Place: Space and planning processes. University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Ashgate Publishing Ltd, UK, pp. 154–168.
Madanipour, A., Hull, A., Healey, P. (eds) 2001. The Governance of Place: Space and planning processes. University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Ashgate Publishing Ltd, UK.
Mark, Ü. & Ahas, R. 2006. Creation and Planning of Space. Who Creates The City? In: Pae, Ahas & Mark (eds) Joint Space: Open Sources on Mobile Positioning and Urban Studies, pp. 96–102.
Metspalu, P. 2005. Uuselamuehitus ja planeerimispraktika areng Harjumaa näitel. – Magistritöö inimgeograafias [The building of new residential areas and the development of spatial planning practice. The case of Harju County. – Master thesis in human geography] Tartu Ülikool, Geograafia instituut.
74 Mänd, E. 2008. Uus-urbanism ja vastuliikumised linnas. – Presentation at the British Council’s seminar “Urban sprawl and its consequences”, 5.3.2008 in Tallinn, Estonia.
Ojari, T. 2003. "Private City. Chances for Public Space in Tallinn" – Maja, July 2003. [http://www.solness.ee/maja/?mid=111&id=47]
The Oxford Dictionary of Geography. Third edition, 2004, New York: Oxford University Press.
Paaver, T. "Mida õpetab Sakala saaga?" Ehituskunst – Estonian Architectural Review, nr 49/50 2008, pp. 66–71. [http://www.ehituskunst.ee/et/12/4950/toomas_paaver_mida_]
Pacione, M. 2005. Urban Geography. A Global Perspective. Second edition, Oxon, Routledge.
Rieniets, T. 2005. Shrinking Cities – Growing Domain for Urban Planning? – Presentation at the EURA conference “International policies and strategies of cities”, 10.12.2005 in Lyon, France. [http://aarch.dk/fileadmin/grupper/institut_ii/PDF/paper_presentation_EURA2005.pdf]
Ruoppila, S. 2006. Residential differentiation, housing policy and urban planning in the transformation from state socialism to a market economy: the case of Tallinn. Helsinki University of Technology, Centre for Urban and Regional Studies. Espoo: Frenckell Oy.
Sandercock, L. 1998. Towards Cosmopolis. Chichester: John Wiley.
Sehested, K. 2001. Investigating urban governance - from the perspectives of policy networks, democracy and planning. Research Paper no. 1/01/01, Roskilde University, Denmark. [http://rudar.ruc.dk/bitstream/1800/1136/1/Investigating_urban_governance.pdf]
Soja, E. 1980. The socio-spatial dialectic. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 70, pp. 207–225. In: Pacione, M. 2005. Urban Geography. A Global Perspective. Second edition, Oxon, Routledge.
Sootla, G. & Grau, K. 2004. Institutional Balance in Local Government: Council, Mayor, and City Manager in Local Policymaking. Conference paper, 8th IRSPM Symposium, Budapest, 30.3– 2.4.2004.
75 Soovitused planeerimisprotsessi ülesehitamiseks. Siseministeerium 2004. Tartu, Hendrikson & Ko OÜ.
Staffans, A. 2004. Vaikuttavat asukkaat. Vuorovaikutus ja paikallinen tieto kaupunkisuunnittelun haasteina [Influencial Residents. Interaction and Local Knowledge Challenging Urban Planning and Design]. Doctoral dissertation, Yhdyskuntasuunnittelun tutkimus- ja koulutuskeskuksen julkaisuja A 29, Espoo.
Thorns, D. C. 2002. The Transformation of Cities. Urban Theory and Urban Life. London, Palgrave/Macmillan Press .
Yiftachel, O., Little, J. et al. (eds) 2001. The Power of Planning. Spaces of Control and Transformation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Legislative acts
Draft Act of the Amendment of the Planning Law. e-justice website [http://eoigus.just.ee/?act=10&subact=1&ESILEHT_W=226290].
Estonian Planning Act. [http://www.legaltext.ee/text/en/X70006K1.htm]
Maankäyttö- ja rakennuslaki [Finnish Land Use and Building Act]. 1999. [http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1999/19990132]
Policy of Architecture. Passed at the Parliamentary sitting 22.10.2002, protocol no. 43, item no. 5
Internet sites
[Tartu in figures] Statistiline ülevaade Tartu 2007. Tartu Linnavalitsus. [http://www.tartu.ee/data/Stat_lyhiylevaade2007_4.pdf]
Tartu linna üldplaneering, 2005 [Comprehensive plan of the City of Tartu]. [http://info.raad.tartu.ee/webaktid.nsf/web/viited/%C3%9CP-0065]
76
Statistics Estonia website [www.stat.ee].
Newspaper articles
Hallas-Murula, K. "Kes loob avaliku ruumi?", Postimees 16.11.2007.
Mark, Ü. "Riik ja arhitektuur", Sirp, 16.11.2007.
Rünkla, I. "Avaliku ruumi asjus", Sirp, 14.12.2007.
Soolep, J. “Kuningas on alasti”, Eesti Päevaleht, 7.1.2006 [http://www.epl.ee/?artikkel=3089949].
Ojari, T. "Lehtovuori: Eestist võib saada rahvusvahelise tähtsusega arhitektuurilabor", Postimees, 29.09.2007 [http://www.postimees.ee/300907/esileht/ak/286149.php].
77
ANNEX 1: THE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
KÜSIMUSTIK TARTU LINNAPLANEERIMISES OSALEJATELE Küsimused puudutavad Tartu linna. Küsimustele vastamine kestab umbes 15 minutit.
Osa I
1. Millist osalejarühma esindate? a) linnavalitsuse ametnik b) linnavalitsuse poliitik c) professionaalne planeerija d) kinnisvara arendusfirma e) ehitusfirma f) kodanikeühendus/mittetulundusühing g) linnaelanik h) maa-/kinnistumanik
Osa II 2. Kas kogete end olevat osa Tartu linnaplaneerimisprotsessist? a) jah b) ei c) ei oska öelda
3. Millist rolli näete endal olevat? a) probleeme tõstatav b) otsustav või otsuseid mõjutav c) nõuandev d) kriitiline hääl e) kõrvaltvaataja f) muu...... (palun nimetage)
Osa III
78 4. Millele põhineb Teie mõjuvõim planeerimisprotsessis? Palun hinnake järgmisi tegureid (1 - ebaoluline, 2 - väheoluline, 3 - oluline, 4 - üsna tähtis, 5 - väga tähtis) ja täpsustage iga vastust. a) ressursid (sh. rahalised ressursid) b) oskusteave ehk professionaalsus c) staatus d) isiklikud kontaktid e) muu.... (palun täpsustage)
Osa IV 5. Kas planeerimisprotsessis on teistest mõjuvõimsamaid osalejaid? a) jah b) ei c) ei oska öelda
6. Millistel osalejatel on rohkem mõjuvõimu? Palun järjestage osalejad tähtsuse järjekorras, kus 1=kõige mõjuvõimsam. linnavalitsuse ametnikud ...... linnavalitsuse poliitikud ...... professionaalsed planeerijad ...... kinnisvara arendusfirmad ...... ehitusfirmad ...... kodanikeühendused/MTÜ-d ...... linnaelanikud ...... maa-/kinnistuomanikud ......
Millega võib seletada erinevusi osalejate mõjuvõimus? ......
Osa V 7. Kas linnaplaneerimisse peaks kaasama rohkem huvigruppe? a) jah Nimetage kuni kolm huvigruppi: 1) ......
79 2) ...... 3)...... b) ei c) ei oska öelda
8. Kas planeerimisvõrgustikus ei peaks mõned huvigrupid osalema? a) jah Nimetage kuni kolm huvigruppi: 1) ...... 2) ...... 3)...... b) ei c) ei oska öelda
Osa VI 9. Hinnake osalejarühmade rolli linnaplaneerimisprotsessi ladusamaks ja tõhusamaks muutmisel (1 - ebaoluline, 2 - väheoluline, 3 - oluline, 4 - üsna tähtis, 5 - väga tähtis) ja täpsustage iga vastust. linnavalitsuse ametnikud ...... linnavalitsuse poliitikud ...... professionaalsed planeerijad ...... kinnisvara arendusfirmad ...... ehitusfirmad ...... kodanikeühendused/MTÜd ...... linnaelanikud ...... maa-/kinnistuomanikud ......
10. Hinnake järgmiste tegurite tähtsust linnaplaneerimisprotsessi ladusamaks ja tõhusamaks muutmisel (1 - ebaoluline, 2 - väheoluline, 3 - oluline, 4 - üsna tähtis, 5 - väga tähtis) ja täpsustage iga vastust. osalejate piisav kompetents ..... osalejate võrdsus .....
80 planeerimisprotsessi juhtimine ..... seadusandluse paindlikkus ..... rahaliste vahendite piisavus ..... muu......
Osa VII 11. Hinnake osalejarühmade rolli linnaplaneerimisprotsessi aeglustamisel ja takistamisel (1 - ebaoluline, 2 - väheoluline, 3 - oluline, 4 - üsna tähtis, 5 - väga tähtis) ja täpsustage iga vastust. linnavalitsuse ametnikud ...... linnavalitsuse poliitikud ...... professionaalsed planeerijad ..... kinnisvara arendusfirmad ..... ehitusfirmad ..... kodanikeühendused/MTÜd ..... linnaelanikud ..... maa-/kinnistuomanikud ......
12. Hinnake järgmiste tegurite rolli linnaplaneerimisprotsessi aeglustamisel ja takistamisel (1 - ebaoluline, 2 - väheoluline, 3 - oluline, 4 - üsna tähtis, 5 - väga tähtis) ja täpsustage iga vastust. osalejate vähene kompetents ..... teatud osalejate domineerimine ..... planeerimisvõrgustiku juhtimatus .... seadusandluse jäikus ..... rahaliste vahendite puudulikkus ..... vähene usaldus osalejate seas ..... konfliktsed huvid osalejate seas ..... muu......
Osa VIII 13. Kes/mis juhib linnaplaneerimise võrgustikku? a) planeerimise eest vastutav abilinnapea
81 b) planeeringuteenistuse juhataja c) linnapea d) planeerimisbürood e) ärihuvid (k.a. kinnisvara-arendajad) f) linnaelanikud g) seadusandlus h) muu.... (palun nimetage) palun nimetage
Osa IX 14. Mis on Teie arvates suurimad probleemid linnaplaneerimises? (maks. kolm probleemi) ......
15. Kuidas saaks Teie arvates linnaplaneerimist parandada? ......
Osa X Palun hinnake järgnevaid väiteid (1 - ei nõustu üldse, 2 - nõustun, 3 - nõustun täielikult, 4 - ei oska öelda).
Linnaplaneerimises lähtutakse teadmistepõhisest planeerimisest, st. esmalt tehakse uuringuid, misjärel planeeritakse ja seejärel viiakse planeering ellu. (.....) Linnaplaneerimist võib pidada kvaliteetse linna- ja elukeskkonna kujundamiseks. (.....) Linnaplaneerimine on poliitikute väärtushinnangutest sõltuv protsess. (.....) Linnaplaneerimises on osalejarühmadel ebavõrdsed rollid. (.....) Linnaplaneerimises toimub peamiselt ad hoc planeerimine, st. et linna ei planeerita süstemaatiliselt jätkuva protsessina. (.....) Linnaplaneerimise põhivastutus ja pädevus lasub linnavalitsusel. (.....) Linnaplaneerimine hõlmab kõiki huvigruppe, põhinedes osalejarühmade vastastikusele sõltuvusele ja omavahelisele suhtlusele. (.....) Linnaplaneerimist võib pidada demokraatikuks protsessiks. (.....)
82 Linnaplaneerimist võib pidada ökoloogiliselt jätkusuutlikuks. (.....) Linnaplaneerimine sõltub paljuski erafirmade (planeerimisbürood, kinnisvara-arendajad, investorid) tellimustest ja soovidest. (.....) Linnaplaneerimist võib pidada ühiskondlikult jätkusuutlikuks. (.....) Linnaplaneerimine tähendab üksikute plaanide (üld- ja detailplaneering) koostamist ja kinnitamist. (.....) Linnaplaneerimist reguleerib turg, kus erafirmad konkureerivad üld- ja detailplaanide koostamise üle. (.....)
83