Is There Room for Families in the Inner City? Life-Stage Blenders

Housing Studies

ISSN: 0267-3037 (Print) 1466-1810 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/chos20

Is There Room for Families in the Inner City? Life- Stage Blenders Challenging Planning

Johanna Lilius

To cite this article: Johanna Lilius (2014) Is There Room for Families in the Inner City? Life-Stage Blenders Challenging Planning, Housing Studies, 29:6, 843-861, DOI: 10.1080/02673037.2014.905673 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2014.905673

Published online: 14 Apr 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 850

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 16 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=chos20 Housing Studies, 2014 Vol. 29, No. 6, 843–861, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2014.905673

Is There Room for Families in the Inner City? Life-Stage Blenders Challenging Planning

JOHANNA LILIUS YTK Land Use Planning and Urban Studies Group, Department of Real Estate, Planning and Geoinformatics, Aalto University, Finland

(Received January 2013; accepted March 2014)

ABSTRACT This paper addresses the phenomenon of families returning to inner cities. With evidence from the ﬁrst qualitative study done on families residing in inner-city Helsinki, it demonstrates that urban living reduces the sharp divide between life before having children and family life. Urban parents stay in the city much for the same reasons they ﬁrst moved there: because they are attracted to population density, good amenities and good public transport. Living in the city enables a lifestyle where different life stages blend into each other. The paper, however, reveals that there is a lack of understanding among city planners and politicians about family needs in the inner city. By adopting a framework of the reviewed literature, the paper draws on the argument that modernist ideals on proper family living still prevail. The paper suggests that planning must acknowledge that exclusionary life stages are eroding and creating a need to facilitate multiple forms of lifestyles.

KEY WORDS: Housing, housing policy, family, liveability, urban planning, inner cities

Introduction Inner cities have today reclaimed their position as residential environment after being dismissed by a movement towards suburbs for nearly a century. This return to the city has been linked with a growing ‘post-industrial society’, dominated by the service sector (Jarvis et al., 2009). The concept of gentriﬁcation, the upgrading of working-class neighbourhoods and the displacement of working-class residents by the middle classes has explained the transformation of inner cities mainly through two assertions: one that focuses on economical issues and the other that focuses on class, consumption and lifestyle choices (e.g. Lees et al., 2008; Smith, 1996). According to Beauregard (1986), the need to live in the city was motivated by the growing number of employment opportunities for

Correspondence Address: Johanna Lilius, YTK Land Use Planning and Urban Studies Group, Department of Real Estate, Planning and Geoinformatics, Aalto University, PO Box 12200, FI-00076, Finland. Tel.: þ 358 80 361 0694; Email: Johanna.lilius@aalto.fi q 2014 Taylor & Francis 844 J. Lilius both male and female professionals and managers within central cities. This gave rise to new needs, such as the need to consume outside the home and to meet new people. These were different from the needs of those who lived in suburban areas. Smith (1996) interprets this with a new generation having aspirations suitable for an urban rather than a suburban setting. At the turn of the twenty-first century, high incomes and individualism have resulted in a multitude of lifestyles in wealthy cities (Hall & Pfeiffer, 2000, p. 97). Consumption in coffee shops, wine bars, museums, restaurants and independent boutiques has become a trademark for an urban lifestyle (Jayne, 2005; Pacione, 2001, pp. 7–8). Providing attractive urban environments has moreover been seen as a means to revitalise cities (Heath, 2001). Along with interpretations of changing lifestyles and economic restructuring, wider population changes have also been used to explain the reurbanisation of inner cities. Buzar et al. (2005, 2007) observed the changing nature of household relations and families during the last 50 years in European cities, suggesting that the number of households has grown in inner cities, even while the overall population numbers have been declining. This development springs from the second demographic transition, i.e. new family relations, fewer marriages and later marriages, declining fertility rates, having children later in life and smaller households (Buzar et al., 2007; see also Hall & Pfeiffer, 2000; van Criekingen, 2010). The renaissance of urban living has commonly been understood as a phenomenon including, above all, single persons and childless couple households (Boterman et al., 2010; Hall & Pfeiffer, 2000; Karsten, 2003, 2007). In fact, the family life cycle and life stage have been seen as crucial when it comes to the choice of housing (Varady, 1990). The inner city is still seen as a location not appropriate for raising a family (Heath, 2001). The research addressing families in the inner city have often concluded that living in the inner city makes it easier to find a work–life balance (Berlin, 2005; Boterman et al., 2010; Butler & Robson, 2003; Karsten, 2003, 2007; Saracco & Strandlund, 2007). Still, not enough is known about the lifestyle of city-dwelling families. The first aim of this paper is to bridge this gap in knowledge from a Nordic perspective by presenting the first study done on families residing in inner-city Helsinki, Finland. Finland is one of the European countries that urbanised late, in the 1960s, and along with an anti-urban bias, suburban and peri-urban areas as well as the countryside have been seen as appropriate environments for family life (Juntto, 1990; Lapintie, 1995; Saarikangas, 1997, 2002). According to the Residents’ Barometer 2010 study carried out by the Finnish environmental administration, tranquillity and closeness to nature are valued highly when it comes to the quality of Finnish residential environments (Strandell, 2011). Thus, the first aim of the paper is to answer why families choose to live in inner-city Helsinki and how they conceive their living environment for family life. How are their urban day-to-day lives realised? As Finland is part of the Nordic welfare system, the reconciliation of work and family has a strong emphasis at the national level (Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, 2010). Thus, the paper also asks what impact a good work–life balance has on the housing choice of urban families. To gain a deep insight and to understand everyday life experiences in the social context of inner-city families (Valentine, 2005), an in-depth interview study (n ¼ 14) was conducted in Helsinki. The paper will argue that although work–life balance is important to city families, the reason to stay in the city has more to do with the services and goods of the city that the parents already became familiar with before becoming parents: above all, population density, good amenities and good public transport. The paper will argue that for city families, Is There Room for Families in the Inner City? 845 different life stages blend into each other more than they would if the families lived elsewhere. The other aim of the paper is inspired by the findings of Karsten (2003), showing that both the discourse and practices of urban planning in Amsterdam emphasise that suburbs offer the proper environment for families with children. Therefore, the paper addresses the question of how urban families have been taken into account in planning for the inner city in two Nordic cities, Stockholm and Helsinki. The study focuses on Stockholm both as an object of study and as a point of comparison. This stems from the fact that the incapacity of planners to meet the needs of urban families became a topic of debate in the Swedish media in the late 2000s (e.g. Berglund, 2008a, 2008b; Uusija¨rvi, 2007) when the phenomenon of more families settling down in the inner parts of Stockholm had already become a fact. The increase of families in inner-city Stockholm was evident from the beginning of the 2000s (Statistik om Stockholm, 2012), while Helsinki suffered from net emigration of families from the inner city until the mid-2000s. Helsinki has, however, lately also seen an increase in the number of children in the inner city, especially children under six years of age (Aluesarjat, 2012). The growth in the number of children under six years of age started in 2007, and one reason for this, according to the City of Helsinki Urban facts (Helsingin ja Helsingin seudun vaëstoënnuste, 2011), is that instead of moving out of the city, families lately have opted to stay in Helsinki. One of the objectives of the study was thus to get an overall picture of the situation in Stockholm in order to interpret the situation in Helsinki in a more versatile way. Therefore, structured interviews with key planners, researchers and politicians (n ¼ 9) in Stockholm were conducted before residents and key planners (n ¼ 5) in Helsinki had been interviewed. Finland was a part of Sweden until 1806, and therefore many of the administrative concerns remain the same providing good grounds for comparison. According to Hall & Pfeiffer (2000), urban development policy in Scandinavia has succeeded in providing supportive cities for families. However, the results of this paper imply that planners in Stockholm and Helsinki have failed to recognise the needs of urban family life in inner cities. This follows more the argument of Warner & Ruckus (2013, p. 640), which stresses that municipalities nurture the creative class in inner-city areas but forget to provide the amenities that are needed for family life. The third aim of the paper is to find broader explanations to why families have preferred the suburbs for so long and why planners seem more likely to attend the needs of families in suburbs than in inner cities. The paper addresses this topic by adopting a framework of reviewed literature on international and Nordic planning history, planning theory and urban change.

Housing Families in the Twentieth Century According to Fincher (1998, p. 50), ‘normative views on what should be going on at certain stages of people’s lives and in the places in which these life stages should be lived often guide policies and public statements about cities’. In city planning, norms and values of the modernist paradigm are embedded in the legislative framework of planning as well as in the attitudes, behaviour and practices of the planners. Although planners often regard the framework of planning as being neutral, it is in fact underpinned by assumptions of the ‘normal family’ and the ‘appropriate urban form’ for these households, in other words, by the need to provide nuclear families with single-family housing (Sandercock, 2010). These 846 J. Lilius assumptions and the bias can be traced back to the late nineteenth century when the nuclear family, in which the wife looks after the home and raises the children while the husband is the breadwinner outside the home, became an ideal. Planners throughout the western world accepted the nuclear family model, and, hence, urban planning and architecture reinforced this ideal (e.g. England, 1991; Fainstein, 2005; Flanagan, 2006– 2007; Hayden, 1980; Spain, 2002). The driving force behind these ideals was industrialisation that had changed the established conditions and the traditional order. Doctors, social scientists, demographers and engineers were important professionals who, along with architects, shaped housing policies and urban planning and the definitions, norms and ideals of how space should be used (Juntto, 1990; Kolbe, 2005; Saarikangas, 2006). Scott (1999, p. 89) defines what he calls ‘High Modernism’ as ‘strong (one might even say muscle-bound) version of beliefs in the scientific and technological process that were associated with the industrialization in Western Europe and in North America from roughly 1930 until World War I’. Modernist planners were committed to a more egalitarian society and to provide welfare to everyone (Healey, 1992). But instead of building upon the reality of people’s everyday lives, planning was based on notions of normative grounds and homogeneous citizens (Scott, 1999). Planning efforts after World War II were often linked to the introduction of the welfare state and founded on the image of the nuclear family living in suburban housing (e.g. Wilson, 1991). Family living was a requirement for the suburban lifestyle and for the creation of neighbourhoods, but at the same time placing families in the suburb helped assure that people would live in nuclear families and thus become part of the mainstream society. Moving people away from the inner city was a means to create new human beings and productive members of society. (Beauregard, 2006; Domosh & Seagert, 2001; Franzeń & Sandstedt, 1981; Kolbe, 2005; Saarikangas, 2002; Sandstedt, 1984) Finland and Sweden were no exceptions: in the shaping of population policy in the 1930s, the city was viewed as dangerous and threatening to the nuclear family. Movements supporting single, detached dwellings and garden cities promoted aims connected to population policy. Swedish housing and family policy were also strongly connected to each other (Franzeń & Sandstedt, 1981; Juntto, 1990; Lapintie, 1995;So¨derlind, 1998). Family-friendly communities place importance on children’s access to safe places to play, comfortable walking and biking distances and close amenities (Rudner, 2012). These were matters that mattered in the planning of suburbs. Unlike the dark and polluted city, the suburban environment provided opportunities for healthy outdoor activities (Hertzen, 1946). When planning suburbs, a great deal of effort was put into making everyday life easy for the housewife. Women and children were very much taken into consideration in the planning of new neighbourhoods (e.g. Nystro¨m, 2003; Saarikangas, 2002; Tallhage- Lo¨nn, 2000). As logistical solutions for commuting became more advanced, the spatial distance between family dwellings and the workplace increased. Since the workplace was never in the residential neighbourhood, people could easily change their workplace without the family needing to move (Forsberg, 2005; Franzeń & Sandstedt, 1981). From the 1950s onwards, women increasingly joined the workforce (Jallinoja, 1980; Saarikangas, 1997). The 1970s Swedish family norm was a full-time working husband who commuted to work and a part-time working wife whose workplace was closer to home and who had the main responsibility for managing the home and the children (Forsberg, 2005). To facilitate the possibility for mothers to combine work with family life, the public sectors of both Sweden and Finland have since the 1970s supported Is There Room for Families in the Inner City? 847 municipality-driven childcare and the development of paid parental leave. As a consequence of mothers joining the workforce, the economic situation of the family usually improved. This meant that detached housing was available for more families (Almquist, 2000).

Gender Explaining the New Ways of Residing? One of the most important critics of modern town planning was Jane Jacobs (1961). Scott (1999) characterises her critique as an attempt to bring about the ‘women’s eye’ (p. 138), because Jacobs turned her attention to the multiform life of the streets. The other important realisation that Scott (1999, p. 139) emphasises when it comes to Jacobs is how she prioritises ‘soft’ experiences, such as chatting with friends while pushing baby carriages. The postmodern perspective gave way to a focus on difference, uniqueness and individuality and to the needs of all members of society (Pacione, 2001, p. 30). During the 1970s, the feminist movement began to question the separation of the different spheres of life in the city. The feminist critique claimed that the modernist city reinforced women’s roles as household workers (e.g. Wilson, 1991). In fact, Markusen (1981), Warde (1991), Fagnani (1993), Ley (1996) and Sassen (2005) suggest that the gentriﬁcation of central city areas can be understood as a consequence of the changing roles of women, namely, women joining the workforce. In this debate, the emphasis has often been on single professional women, dual-income couples without children and single mothers (e.g. Bondi, 1990). As Rose (1984, pp. 208–209) puts it:

Becoming a gentriﬁer makes it easier to have a waged job in addition to doing most of the household work and childcare—in a social context where working hours are ﬁxed, hours of service limited, transportation systems planned for traditional nuclear families, and traditional gender roles still prevail over the allocation of domestic responsibilities.

Domosh & Seager (2001, p. 101) join the gentrification debate by stressing that ‘the generations having children today have different expectations about family life and the roles of man and woman. These are roles that cannot be lived in the suburbs’. Research conducted in Stockholm, the other city of interest in this paper, concludes that the work– life balance is an important determinant for families to stay in the city, although parents also find closeness to amenities such as restaurants and museums important in their day-today lives (Berlin, 2005; Nordstro¨m, 2005; Saracco & Strandlund, 2007). According to Campbell & Fainstein (1996, p. 4), ‘planning adapts to changes in the city, which in turn is transformed by planning and politics’. The importance of attracting high- income families to move also to the core of cities has been recognised (Florida, 2006; Hall & Pfeiffer, 2000; Heath, 2001), and recently several studies have identified families as an important focus group in the regeneration of neighbourhoods. Goodsell (2013,p.861) proposes the term familification to explain ‘a process of neighbourhood change whereby traditional families move into disadvantaged neighbourhoods, with cultural, social and economic consequences for those neighbourhoods’. Van den Berg (2013), on the other hand, recognises families as gentrification pioneers in Rotterdam, in the Netherlands, and introduced the term genderfication to explain the production of space for specific gender ideals. This study will soon argue that familification and genderfication are not yet part of 848 J. Lilius the urban policy of Helsinki and Stockholm. Rather, families in these cities are expected to lead their lives in environments defined in modernist terms and suitable for families.

Methods The research design includes structured interviews with key politicians, planners and researchers in Stockholm and Helsinki and in-depth interviews with residents in Helsinki. The research began in the inner city of Stockholm where families have grown in number since the beginning of the twenty-first century. This phenomenon was illuminated by recent literature and four researcher interviews. Interviews with three key politicians and two planners (one architect and one geographer) shed light on the question why the proposed needs of families in the inner city presented by the media and researchers had been neglected. Since there was no information available on families residing in the inner city of Helsinki, an interview study was conducted in the neighbourhood of Kruununhaka. Kruununhaka is situated in the oldest part of Helsinki, and it has for long been known for its antique stores and for having a high proportion of academic dwellers. Although the area has experienced an obvious embourgeoisement during the last decade, it does not represent a ‘traditional’ gentrified area. It has before been rather mixed, with working classes living in small apartments in the inner yards of the area and the bourgeois living in bigger apartments facing the streets. The building stock dating from the early twentieth century includes a variety of dwelling sizes. In order to explore issues thoroughly and to understand complexities and contradictions of the families’ day-to-day lives, in-depth interviews was chosen as a method (Valentine, 2005). Knowledge gained in Sweden and earlier Finnish housing-choice research (Strandell, 2011) guided the choice of interview themes, which were housing history and housing preferences, everyday life, the neighbourhood and neighbourhood social ties, and the city as an environment for children. The 14 informants were contacted, through acquaintances, at the local play park, via an email-based network started by mothers in the area and by the snowball technique. Altogether, 11 mothers and three fathers in 12 families were interviewed. The aim in the selection of informants was to get a variety of families with regard to age of children, number of children, housing tenure and professional status. The families were not asked about their income, but the majority of the parents were highly educated and most families owned their homes, which gives some indication about the social class of the families. The respondents can be characterised as white-collar workers and included nurses, doctors, journalists, office workers, a childcare worker, a chief fire officer and a CEO. Most of the families had two children, three families had one child, two had three children and one family was expecting their third child. The children in the families were between 0 and 15 years of age. The concept of saturation point (Karisto, 2008) was used to define when enough interviews had been made: once the same issues start to repeat themselves during the interviews, the data-gathering process can be considered sufficient. The interviews were fully transcribed, whereafter coding was used to link concepts and categories (Weiss, 1994). Guided by the experiences in Stockholm and after acquiring knowledge through the interviews on key issues about the day-to-day lives of families in the inner city and of the difficulties such lifestyles entail, key planners were interviewed. These included four city planners (two architects, one engineer and one landscape architect) and one civil servant. Is There Room for Families in the Inner City? 849

The expert interviews in both Helsinki and Sweden were semi-structured, and all of the interviews, except for one telephone interview, were recorded. Notes were taken during the interviews. These provided an index for the recordings, enabling transcription to be done when needed (Weiss, 1994). Relevant planning documents and newspaper articles were also used to inform on some key issues.

Life-Stage Blending: Urban Families in Helsinki Urbanites at Heart: ‘Some of the Reasons Behind Parents’ Housing Choice’ Although the natural step after becoming a parent traditionally has been to move to a suburb (Karsten, 2003), the families in Kruununhaka show that becoming a parent is not automatically the point of departure for making a long-lasting housing choice. In fact, many of the families had made their housing choice before becoming parents and simply continued to live in the same neighbourhood after having children. The housing history of the respondents varied, but most of the interviewed families were living in Kruununhaka when they had their ﬁrst child. Population density, good amenities and good public transport had originally attracted the parents in the inner city. Some respondents had grown up in inner cities, others in suburbs and peri-urban areas. Some had lived their childhood in apartment buildings and others in detached and semi-detached houses. Their housing histories had an inﬂuence on their current housing choice. Often the city was either something better than what the informants had experienced in their childhood, or it was their ‘natural environment’:

When we moved from a two-bedroom apartment to a three-bedroom apartment, we thought about trying something else, how much more indoor space we could get and some forest around the house, not necessarily a yard of our own, but that there would be real nature surrounding us, forests and so on. But because neither of us have lived like that, we didn’t have the courage to do it. (Mother)

Some parents had dreams about raising their family in the countryside or in a suburban or peri-urban area. These dreams had however been broken by fear of loneliness, car dependency and a lack of possibilities. It is apparent, that, after becoming a parent, the parents’ relationship to their neighbourhood changed. As parents, their day-to-day lives became even more local, and their social networks in the neighbourhood developed. With poor access to outdoor environments from the residential buildings, the parents had no other choice than to go to the local play park with their toddlers, and there they became acquainted with other urban parents:

Elsewhere people think there are no children here, but at least I have gotten to know a lot of people here through the children. (Mother)

For example, living in a village was how many of the parents described their residential area. Many mentioned the grid street plan as a neighbourhood physical element that enables bumping into acquaintances when taking children to day care or coming home from work. Random encounters of this kind increased their feeling of belonging. Friendly 850 J. Lilius and tolerant atmosphere was also one of the things that made the parents feel at home in the area. As the parents of one family that moved to Kruununhaka after becoming parents explain:

When we moved here [when their ﬁrstborn was a few years old], we discussed about everything being so easy, and quite soon in autumn our son went to pre-school here; [it is] 500 meters to pre-school. (Father)

[children are making noise]

We felt very quickly that we belonged here ... I always thought that you need to reside at least two years or a year [in a place] to feel at home, but here it happened really fast somehow, maybe because of the sense of community here. (Mother)

We felt that it would be a quite good environment to raise a child in. (Father)

Many mothers brought up the issue of safety when describing their residential environment. People moving around on the streets 24/7, noises from neighbours and the small-town atmosphere were mentioned as crucial factors. The question of safety is interesting, because the Resident’s Barometer 2010 (Strandell, 2011) reports that 15% of the respondents were afraid to move around their residential area alone at night. This was not the case in Kruununhaka, even though it is located just 2 km from the Central Railway Station with its busy nightlife. One mother says:

It’s safe here, it’s like a small town; that probably increases the feeling of safety; and the fact that also during night-time a lot of people move around here, that makes me feel that I can do it too.

Understanding neighbours’ noise as something rather positive and feeling personally safe among strangers (Jacobs, 1961) can be interpreted as Kruununhaka having truly urban families among its residents. The atmosphere was also perceived as tolerant. A Polish mother describes her situation in Kruununhaka as follows:

Here in Kruununhaka I’ve never had any problems due to me speaking Polish which sounds like Russian. I haven’t noticed any sly looks or anything. I can really not remember ...

Another mother deﬁnes her neighbours as humane humanists:

[people around here] are kind of, kind of broad-minded urbanites, and kind of, well they are kind of humane [laughter] ... humane humanists.

Contrary to findings in a medium-sized city in the USA (Goodsell, 2013, p. 855), the diverse household structure in Kruununhaka was seen as enriching for the area. The parents did not find the high proportion of rental flats or young singles living in the area to be a problem. Is There Room for Families in the Inner City? 851

Regardless of tenure, by Finnish standards, many of the families lived quite tight in their apartments (20–25m2/person). It was obvious that they were prepared to trade off bigger homes for a location where they could realise an urban lifestyle (see also Brun & Fagnani, 1994). Though obviously urban in their lifestyle, a longing for nature was also noticeable especially among the mothers. But again the social side of housing seemed to matter more, as this mother explains:

Everything is close, except for nature; nature is what I miss here and a yard of our own, but for the mental health of the mother it’s good to live in the inner city.

An Urban Everyday Life The parents enjoyed the possibility to walk from one place to another: in particular, they felt that it is important to be able to walk to work, childcare and schools, albeit this was not actually always realised in their everyday lives. Good public transportation connections to and from the area were also greatly appreciated by the parents. Most families bought their daily groceries in small shops in the neighbourhood. Many emphasised that although pricier than bigger supermarkets, the small grocery shops were really important in their day-to-day lives, like their private refrigerators. Some families also drove to bigger markets by car. Shopping, including buying clothes and other necessities of this kind, was done in the central area of the city. However, there was an obvious distinction in this activity: many of the parents underlined that they go shopping ‘for’, not ‘shopping around’ (Falk & Campbell, 1997, p. 2). Shopping malls at the edges of the city were not much appreciated:

I could never imagine myself going to those Cello’s and Jumbo’s [large shopping malls in the Helsinki Metropolitan Region] to shop ... I think it’s somehow ... I can’t understand that it has become a way of being together for families, that during weekends you go to some shopping mall to shop. (Mother)

All of the fathers in the study worked full-time. Three of the mothers were on parental leave, while seven were working: four of them part-time (in Finland this usually means 80% of the weekly working hours) and three full-time. One mother was studying. Contrary to many of the studies done on families residing in the inner city, the parents did not particularly stress a better work–life balance as a reason to live there. It stands to reason though that the parents value workplaces close to home. On the other hand, several of the informants worked from home. This was valued as a great asset because it shortens the time the child or children spend in day care. Having lunch with friends and colleagues in the centre is also easy. Those having to travel further to work may feel they miss out on something:

My husband spends his days at work in Espoo [a neighbouring city with many ofﬁces, particularly those of ICT companies,], and he is bothered by the fact that he can’t take advantage of what this city [Helsinki] offers as much as he would like to. He leaves in the morning and comes home in the evening and can’t really stroll around the city or go shopping or anything else. But now he sometimes purposely uses the car less, so then he has to go to the bus terminal and then he can do the 852 J. Lilius

shopping he likes, and he likes that he can utilise this city ... and enjoy all the stimulus and other things that happen while strolling. (Mother)

In this sense, many of the parents have really tried to build their lives so that they can spend as much time as possible in the environment they prefer, the inner city.

Bridging the Gap Between Life Before Having Children and Life After Having Them Most of the parents in the study had experienced a ‘long youth’. The mothers had on average been 30 years of age (median age: 31) when becoming parents and fathers 32 years of age (median age: 33). An interesting idea brought up by the parents was that the city as a residential environment seems to bridge the gap between life before having children and life after having them. This was important to the parents:

Somehow the feeling, especially [when] on parental leave, that you’re there in the middle of it; that even if you wouldn’t go anywhere, you know that in 10 minutes you’re at Stockmann [the ﬁrst and largest department store in Helsinki]; that somehow like, it gives you the feeling that you are in no way unsociable or isolated from the world—instead, you’re like ... there, at the hub of things. (Mother)

The parents felt it easy to go out together, for example to dine, even if they could not get a babysitter for more than a couple of hours. This was something important. They also appreciated the fact that they could easily meet friends in the evening or go to cinema by themselves. In a sense, the city enabled the parents to imagine themselves as ‘dinks’ (Dual Income, No Kids), since they could so easily switch between parenting and individual leisure:

It would be horrendous living somewhere further away: how would we ever have the energy to go out ever. Once a month when the kids go to my mum and we have a free weekend, then we really go out: we go out eating and to movies or to a bar or something else in the city centre. We are really keen to go somewhere always when it’s possible. (Mother)

A Proper Environment for Family Life Urban families need to defend their housing choice to relatives, colleagues and friends who live elsewhere. This phenomenon has also surfaced in Rotterdam (Karsten, 2007). What makes the situation in Helsinki peculiar is that, unlike Rotterdam, Helsinki ranks high internationally in terms of safety (Helsinki Region Trends, 2006) and liveability (Monocle, 2011). The interviewed parents felt unhappy about the negative attitude they felt was directed towards their housing choice. Their experience was that public opinion does not accept the city as a suitable place for families. Some families also mentioned that the shared experience of being targeted as parents raising their children in an unsuitable environment was something that had brought the parents in the area together. There was even some tolerance against the bourgeois in the inner city as one mother pointed out: ‘ ...since they too live here in the inner city that you always have to defend’. Moreover, the parents suggested that the negative attitude about how they lead Is There Room for Families in the Inner City? 853 their lives has more to do with the romanticised picture of living in the countryside with children:

If you were to say out loud that you are total rednecks for living in a place like Nurmija¨rvi [a peri-urban area with its single family houses known to attract middle- class families], that only rednecks live there, they would be like, ‘how dare you’. Somehow it’s still very apparent that we have some sort of ... that it’s still so close to [notions of] rural romanticism and the like ... (Mother)

‘When you have children, you don’t want to live in the city’ is how a mother of two children sums up the attitude. Her words suggest the type of reaction she had gotten, regarding her choice to live in the inner city, from older relatives and friends living on the fringes of the Helsinki Metropolitan Area. These words influenced her, and after she had her second child, her family bought an apartment in a semi-detached house in a small town approximately 50 km from Helsinki. But the family felt isolated there, so a few years later when they were able to find a rental flat in the inner city, they sold their apartment and car and moved back. Many of the interviewees had come across the same prejudice: living with children in the city is not really accepted by mainstream Finns. On the other hand, the advantages of living in the inner city with small children at first were not self-evident to the parents either, as one mother explains:

As for me, all the time I was thinking that if we had children, then at least we should be leaving this place; no way will I be walking these streets of concrete with that child.

Parents also felt that their children were looked askance for not having ‘normal’ Finnish abilities, such as knowing how to ski, an ability much more appreciated by the older generation than, for example, the ability of being able to use public transport. Three of the families did not own a car, while the rest of the families had one car. This fact is also of signiﬁcance, since Finland is among the countries in Europe with the largest passenger cars stock (EUROSTAT, 2013). One of the reasons for the large vehicle stock is of course the long distances, but the symbolic value of a family owning a car is also important. Still, the parents admitted that if they were to choose a place of residency based on the needs of their children, perhaps the inner city would not be that place. Despite the appreciation that the families showed for their local environment, the lack of nature and possibilities for the children to play outside without supervision were seen as obstacles to inner-city living. Children’s independent mobility is considered a high priority in Finland, and one of the aims is to provide education for children so that the way to school is as short and safe as possible (Finnish National Board of Education, 2013). Fear of trafﬁc made many of the parents walk their children to school, something they would not have done if they lived elsewhere. The notion of the parents feeling good about living in the inner city was however repeated in many interviews. The parents believed that if they feel good, then their children will too, despite the shortfalls of their everyday environment. 854 J. Lilius

No Room for Life-Stage Blending? How Does the City Enable Contemporary Family Life? According to Florida (2006), parents who are members of the creative class want to bring up their children in diverse environments, whereas the suburbs are in the spotlight when politicians and planners seek to develop good environments. Although the families in Kruununhaka really enjoy the urban way of living, they feel, at the same time, that as residents they have been ignored by the city of Helsinki, as evidenced by the lack of municipal services provided to them. They were disappointed with social services, saying that day care, health care and the play parks do not meet the standards seen in most suburban neighbourhoods in Helsinki. The semi-structured interviews with planners in different sectors seemed to support the parents’ argument. The planners acknowledged that services for families were not up to date. However, their arguments underlined notions of what kinds of functions were suitable for the inner city and in what respect the suburbs served better. For example, the head of day care at the social services admitted that there is a lack of day care places in the inner city but highlighted the difficulty of providing more of them in the city due to shortage of suitable facilities. In Finland, providing high-quality outdoor environment for children is valued highly, and in the suburbs day care is facilitated by immediate connection to outdoor facilities. In a dense city structure, this is harder. One solution for the problem in the inner city has been to promote opportunities for private actors to offer childcare at a slightly higher rate than offered by traditional municipal childcare services. In a welfare-regime context, where for example private schools do not exist, discussions in the media have been generated about whether or not this will highlight differences in income (e.g. Gestrin-Hagner, 2012). This is a pertinent discussion, since the private actors do not have the possibility to provide any more ‘outdoor friendly’ facilities than the public sector. Beside day care, the social services also organise various activities for small children, school children and adults in play parks and family houses during daytime. However, the majority of these are in the suburbs. Plans to situate a new park in the inner city recently failed based on assumptions that there are not enough small children in the city. The argument that ‘new parks should be built in areas where there are many small and school-aged children’ (Paä¨to¨sluettelonote, 2007) has already been proven wrong by statistics (Helsingin ja Helsingin seudun vaëstoënnuste, 2011). The need to upgrade play parks in the inner city was emphasised by the parents, while the leading landscape architect responsible for the maintenance of the parks in the inner city pointed out that parks in the inner cities should have just one function. Therefore, although there is a mismatch between users and planning ideals also in his view, his vision was to change the function of a popular Kruununhaka play park used by parents on parental leave, as well as by several public and private day-care providers, to provide citizens with a sublime setting in a relaxed environment. In his view, in a historical environment this was a function more appropriate than playing. The same problem of replacement of play parks with parks for strolling and sitting is also evident elsewhere in the inner city, raising a debate in the major newspapers (Havukainen, 2008; Salmikannas, 2008). Having to fear traffic was what the interviewed parents felt was the most negative thing about living in the city with children. According to statistics provided by the city planning office in Helsinki (Jalankulkijaonnettomuudet Helsingissa¨ 2002–2006, 2008), the risk of a Is There Room for Families in the Inner City? 855 child being involved in a traffic accident in the inner city is more than double compared to the suburbs. According to the traffic planner of the area, the city’s policy determines that speed bumps should mainly be built in the suburbs. One reason for this policy, he explained, is that the grid-like street plans in the inner city force cars to cut their speed at crossroads. Traffic statistics, however, show that many accidents happen at these crossroads.

Planning for Twenty-First Century Urban Housing Just as in other parts of the world, former ports and industrial districts in Helsinki and Stockholm have recently been converted into housing units. Waterfront developments have also been at the core of the gentrification debate. However, in both Finland and Sweden, land-development issues are handled by municipalities, and both cities own a remarkable amount of the land they develop. This gives the cities much power in choosing what to build. In the inner city of Helsinki, two major work and residential areas are currently being built. Ja¨tka¨saari will provide housing for 17 000 new inhabitants and Kalasatama for 20 000. In Stockholm, the construction of Hammarby Sjo¨stad, which is being planned for 26 000 residents, has almost been completed. These areas have in many respects placed an emphasis on liveability in the inner cities and as new areas have, the potential to provide good facilities also for families. Hammarby Sjo¨stad received a great deal of media attention in the mid- and late 2000s (e.g. Cherif, 2005; Delaryd, 2008; Hallemar, 2003; Levin, 2010; Lilliehoö¨k, 2010; Stro¨m, 2009) when it became clear that the targeted group of people, couples with adult children who wanted to move from the suburbs into the city, were not the new residents of the area. Instead, many young families with small children moved in. As elsewhere in the inner city, not only there was a lack of day care, but also the physical structure of the area was strongly criticised. One of the project leaders resigned the responsibility of the city planning department for planning for the wrong group of residents and blamed developers for building impractical apartment blocks for families, featuring, for example, multi-floor apartments. In his view, the later apartments were planned to better suit families with young children, but he found the unwillingness of developers to build three- or four-bedroom apartments problematic. On the other hand, going back to the planning stage of Hammarby Sjo¨stad, in an interview, the head of the development committee in charge during the planning of Hammarby Sjo¨stad revealed that in her view it was unbelievable that families would choose to reside in the inner city. However, she was convinced that the trend would change once parents realise how bad the air is in the centre of the city. The lack of day care in the inner city and in Hammarby Sjo¨stad was obvious to both planners and politicians. At the neighbourhood level, the chairman of the So¨dermalm District Administration, which also includes Hammarby Sjo¨stad, admitted that the district administration was not prepared for a baby boom in the area. However, they learnt their lesson and the politicians have subsequently tried to influence planning, for example by requiring enough space for schools. Her own experience was that the city was a good place to raise children, as she had been living in the city with her family since the 1980s. The situation in Ja¨tka¨saari and Kalasatama in Helsinki both resembles and differs from the situation in Hammarby Sjo¨stad. Ja¨tka¨saari is distinguishable from the other inner-city areas because one of the aims for Ja¨tka¨saari has been to create a family-oriented 856 J. Lilius neighbourhood (Ja¨tka¨saaren luonnos, 2008). According to the head of the project at the City Planning Department, there was an obvious need to offer families attractive living environments in Helsinki and to resist the trend of people moving to the neighbouring municipalities. The planner himself stressed that he did not believe that families move from Helsinki only because of the ideal of owning a detached house, which has been the conclusion of several earlier studies on housing preferences in Finland (e.g. Kahila, 2005; Strandell, 2004). According to him, many families move there because they cannot afford to live in Helsinki. During the interview, it came out that the planner was himself living in the inner city with his children. Families have in many ways been taken into account in the planning of the area: traffic safety has been an issue, allowing children to move around the area without parents has been high in the agenda, and a continuous public space, in addition to block yards, has been planned to provide children space to play. Kalasatama differs from Ja¨tka¨saari because the former has been planned for all kinds of people in different financial and life situations. According to the head of planning, a diverse city available for everyone is a better solution than a city with areas for certain groups of people. That is why families have not been particularly taken into account in the planning of the area. The planner believes that children will play in the yards in front of the apartment blocks, since not many city children are allowed to move around independently before they turn 8–9 years old. As no parks are planned inside the area, his idea is that families will take walks at the edges of the area and in the parks situated further from the residential area. Special arrangements will be made close to the apartment blocks to provide space for day care at the beginning when the need for day care is greater. Later, these facilities can be used for something else. However, based on his earlier experiences of working together with the social authorities in charge of day care, the head of planning was doubtful about whether day care will actually be provided. Statistics on the first inhabitants in Ja¨tka¨saari and Kalasatama demonstrate the popularity of these places among families, Kalasatama though having a slightly higher percentage of families with children under six moving in than Ja¨tka¨saari (Helsingin kaupungin Tietokeskus, 2014). This suggests that families are going to stay in the city and that a re-evaluation of families’ day- to-day life can be expected.

Discussion and Conclusions This paper adds to literature on families in the inner city. It demonstrates that although living in the city is one solution for the difﬁcult time-trajectories of families (e.g. Berlin, 2005; Boterman et al., 2010; Sassen, 2005; Warde, 1991), the reason to settle down in the inner city is more related to other aspects of day-to-day living. The paper has shown that, in the lives of urban parents, different life stages blend into each other. Urban parents stay in the city after having children much for the same reasons they ﬁrst came to city, because they are attracted to population density, good amenities and good public transport. Staying in the city is a way to reduce the sharp divide between life before having children and family life. Amenities such as restaurants and cafe´s, department stores and, above all, public life amenities are still available just around the corner. A tolerant atmosphere, random encounters, feeling safe and small shops all add to the parents’ feeling of belonging in an inner-city neighbourhood. The paper indicates that the inner city is home to diverse day-to-day family lives. As such, the paper also contributes to planning knowledge and practice in Helsinki. Is There Room for Families in the Inner City? 857

Second, the paper has shown that although growing in number, families in the inner city is a concept many planners and policymakers lack understanding of, unless they have a personal relationship to it. Although there is a strong emphasis on supporting work–life balance in Sweden and Finland, the paper has indicated that planners are unable to meet the needs of families in the inner city. This way the paper agrees with Ley (1996) and Swisher et al. (2004) that there is a need to gain more knowledge on how families encourage neighbourhoods to change to family-friendly ways. To understand the underpinning values of planners and the negative public opinion on families residing in the inner city, the paper used a framework of reviewed literature to explain that modernist planning, along with certain ideas about the family, places families in the suburb. The study thus takes support from Sandercock’s (2010) argument that many planners still are influenced by assumptions of ‘normal family’ and the ‘appropriate urban form’ for these households. Historically, the city has always been inhabited by a multiform variety of people. In this respect, the movement of families to the suburbs could even be seen as a deviance in the long run. The paper claims that structuring the city on the bases of certain life stages and the family life cycle (Beauregard, 2006; Scott, 1999; Varady, 1990) is out of date and thus suggests that the renaissance of the inner cities calls for a broader planning discussion that goes beyond standardisation and strict ideas on how and where people should live their lives. There is a demand for more places where people in different life situations can mix and meet (Florida, 2006). Although the results of the paper do not point to gentrification as a new form of urban policy (Goodsell, 2013; Smith, 2002; Van den Berg, 2013), the incipient privatisation of day-care services in the inner city of Helsinki might be the point of departure for publicly led gentrification and thus worth exploring more. Another question coming up is related to the fact that despite the intervening public initiatives for affordable housing, real-estate prices and rents in the inner city in Helsinki and Stockholm have almost outpaced the middle-class families’ capability to enter the housing markets in 2014. Wider debates are needed on how the city can be structured so that life-stage blending is not a privilege only for the upper classes.

Acknowledgements The author would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers and Lic.Soc.Sc. Mervi Ilmonen for valuable comments and suggestions on how to improve the previous drafts.

Interviews

Berlin, Marie (2007) Researcher at Statistics Sweden, Interview in Stockholm, May 23. Bjo¨rk, Margareta (2007) Chairman of the So¨dermalm district administration’s political committee, Stockholm, Interview in Stockholm, May 23. Bo¨rjesson, Py (2007) Head of the Development Committee 2002–2006, Stockholm, Interview in Stockholm, June 4. Cederquist, Bjo¨rn (2007) Head of Planning, Hammarby Sjo¨stad, Stockholm, Interview in Stockholm, May 24. Kaijansinkko, Matti (2008) Head of Planning, La¨nsisatama, City Planning Department of Helsinki, Interview in Helsinki, January 22. Larsson, Joakim (2007) Head of the Development Committee 2007, Stockholm, Interview in Stockholm, June 4. Lehtonen, Ulla (2008) Head of day care Vironniemi-Ullanlinna-Taka-To¨o¨lo¨-area, Social Services Department, Helsinki. Telephone interview, January 25. Luomanen, Jussi (2008) Leading Landscape architect (Helsinki: Interview in Helsinki, January 22 The Public Works Department). 858 J. Lilius

Nikulainen, Pekka (2008) Trafﬁc planner of the city Centre, City Planning Department of Helsinki. Interview in Helsinki, January 22. Norrby, Christina (2007) Researcher, Statistics Stockholm (Utrednings-och statistikkontoret i Stockholm), Interview in Stockholm, May 23. Saracco, Sabine (2007) Student at the University of Stockholm, Interview in Stockholm, May 22. Strandlund, Lovisa (2007) Student at the University of Stockholm, Interview in Stockholm, May 22. Sundman, Mikael (2008) Head of Planning, Kalasatama, City Planning Department of Helsinki, Interview in Helsinki, January 31. Widergren, Ewa (2007) Planner, Real Estate, the City of Stockholm, Interview in Stockholm, June 5.

References Almquist, A. (2000) Dro¨mmen om det egna huset, 8–10, Framtider, 2, pp. 4–7. Aluesarjat. Available at http://www.aluesarjat.fi/ (accessed 10 October 2012) (2012). Beauregard, R. A. (1986) The chaos and complexity of gentrification, in: N. Smith & P. William (Eds) Gentrification of the City, pp. 35–55 (London/Sydney: Allen & Unwin). Beauregard, R. A. (2006) When America Became Suburban (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press). Berglund, T. (2008a) Fortsatt strid om Kungsholmens barnva¨nlighet, Svenska dagbladet, April 21. Available at http://www.svd.se/nyheter/stockholm/fortsatt-strid-om-nordvastra-kungsholmens-barnvanlighet_ 1157985.svd (accessed 8 September 2012). Berglund, T. (2008b) Inget geho¨rfo¨r bra lekmiljo¨, Svenska dagbladet, May 4. Available at http://www.svd.se/ nyheter/stockholm/inget-gehor-for-bra-lekmiljo_1210629.svd (accessed 8 September 2012). Berlin, M. (2005) Bostaden, storstaden och barnfamiljen, Demografiska raporter 2005:2 (Stockholm: Statistiska centralbyra˚n). Bondi, L. (1990) Gender division and gentrification: A critique, Transactions of the British Geographers, 16, pp. 190–198. Boterman, W., Karsten, L. & Musterd, S. (2010) Gentrifiers settling down? Patterns and trends of residential location of middle-class families in Amsterdam, Housing Studies, 25(5), pp. 693–714. Brun, J. & Fagnani, J. (1994) Lifestyles and locational choices-trade-offs and compromises: A case-study of middle-class couples living in the Ile-De-France region, Urban Studies, 31(6), pp. 921–934. Butler, T. & Robson, G. (2003) London Calling: The Middle Classes and the Re-making of Inner London (Oxford/ New York: Berg). Buzar, S., Ogden, P. E. & Hall, R. (2005) Household matter: The quiet demography of urban transformation, Progress in Human Geography, 29(4), pp. 413–436. Buzar, S., Philip, O., Hall, R., Haase, A., Kabish, S. & Steinfuhrer, A. (2007) Splintering urban populations: Emergent landscapes of reurbanisation in four European cities, Urban Studies, 44(4), pp. 651–677. Campbell, S. & Fainstein, S. S. (Eds) (1996) Introduction: The structure and debates of planning theory, in: Readings in planning theory, pp. 1–16 (Cambridge: Blackwell). Cherif, S. (2005) Ont om fo¨rskoleplatser efter babyboom, Dagens Nyheter, December 10. Available at http:// www.dn.se/sthlm/ont-om-forskoleplatser-efter-babyboom%5C (accessed 8 September 2012). Delaryd, C. (2008) Tra˚ngt pa˚ fo¨rskolor i Hammarby sjo¨stad, Dagens Nyheter, August 22. Available at http:// www.dn.se/sthlm/trangt-pa-forskolor-i-hammarby-sjostad (accessed 8 September 2012). Domosh, M. & Seager, J. (2001) Putting Woman in Place: Feminist Geographers Make Sense of the World (New York: Guilford Press). England, K. V. L. (1991) Gender relations and the spatial structure of the city, Geoforum, 22(2), pp. 135–147. EUROSTAT (2013) Eurostat transport data base. Available at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/ transport/data/database (accessed 3 January 2014). Fagnani, J. (1993) Life course and space, in: C. Katz & J. Monk (Eds) Full Circles, pp. 171–187 (London: Routledge). Fainstein, S. S. (2005) Feminism and planning: Theoretical issues, in: S. S. Fainstein & L. J. Sevon (Eds) Gender and Planning: A Reader, pp. 120–140 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press). Falk, P. & Campbell, C. (Eds) (1997) Introduction The Shopping Experience, pp. 1–14 (London/Thousand Oaks, CA/New Delhi: Sage). Fincher, R. (1998) In the right place at the right time? Life stages and urban stages, in: R. Fincher & J. M. Jacobs (Eds) Cities of Difference (New York/London: Guilford Press). Is There Room for Families in the Inner City? 859

Finnish National Board of Education (2013) Koulumatkat ja oikeus kuljetukseen. Available at http://www.oph.fi/ koulutus_ja_tutkinnot/perusopetus/hyvinvointi_ja_turvallisuus/koulumatkat (accessed 6 January 2014). Flanagan, M. A. (2006–2007) The workshop or the home? Gender visions in the history of the urban built environments: Canada and the United States, London Journal of Canadian Studies, 22, pp. 59–83. Florida, R. (2006) Den kreativa klassens framva¨xt (Go¨teborg: Daidalos AB). Forsberg, G. (2005) Den genderiserade staden, in: T. Friberg, C. Listerborn, B. Andersson & C. Scholten (Eds) Speglingar av rum: om ko¨nskodade platser och sammanhand, pp. 19–35 (Stockholm/Stenhag: Brutus O¨ stlings Bokfo¨rlag Symposion). Franzeń, M. & Sandstedt, E. (1981) Grannskap och stadsplanering: Om stat och byggande I efterkrigets Sverige, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Sociologica Upsaliensia 17, Doctoral dissertation, Uppsala University. Gestrin-Hagner, M. (2012) Fo¨retagare tror pa˚ marknadsnisch i daghem, Hufvudstadsbladet, July 2. Available at http://hbl.fi/nyheter/2012-07-02/foretagare-tror-pa-marknadsnisch-i-daghem (accessed 1 August 2012). Goodsell, T. L. (2013) Familification: Family, neighborhood change, and housing policy, Housing Studies, 28(6), pp. 845–868. Hall, P. & Pfeiffer, U. (2000) Urban Future 21: A Global Agenda for Twenty-First Century Cities, Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing of the Republic of Germany (London/New York: E & FN Spon). Hallemar, D. (2003) Barn och unga ska veta sin plats, Arkitekten, February, pp. 36–38. Havukainen, H. (2008) Etela¨-Helsingissa¨ tarvitaan leikkitiltaa, Helsingin Sanomat, June 24. Available at www. hs.fi (accessed 6 February 2014). Hayden, D. (1980) What would a non-sexist city be like? Speculations on housing, urban design, and human work, Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 5(3), pp. 170–187. Healey, P. (1992) Planning through debate: The communicative turn in planning theory, Town Planning Review, 63(2), pp. 143–162. Heath, T. (2001) Revitalizing cities: Attitudes toward city-center living in the United Kingdom, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20, pp. 464–475. Helsingin ja Helsingin seudun vaëstoënnuste 2012–2050. Ennuste alueittain 2012–2021 (2011) Tilastoja Statistik Statistics 2011:32, City of Helsinki Urban Facts. Available at http://www.hel.fi/static/public/hela/ Kaupunginvaltuusto/Suomi/Esitys/2012/Halke_2012-02-15_Kvsto_3_El/390D0438-1197-4F51-9BDE- FF3844A58E3A/Liite.pdf (accessed 3 March 2013). Helsingin kaupungin tietokeskus (2014) Julkaisematon tilastoaineisto Helsingin aluesarjoista. Helsinki Region Trends (2006). Available at http://www.hel.fi/hel2/tietokeskus/julkaisut/pdf/06_05_12_trends. pdf (accessed 3 December 2013). Hertzen, H. V. (1946) Koti vaiko kasarmi lapsillemme Vaësto¨liiton julkaisuja n.o 15 (Porvoo: WSOY). Jacobs, J. (1961) The Life and Death of Great American Cities, 6th printing (New York: Random House). Jalankulkijaonnettomuudet Helsingissa¨ 2002–2006 (2008) Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluvirasto, liikennetutkimus. Available at http://www.hel.fi/static/ksv/www/Liikenne/Liikennetutkimus/Liikenneonnettomuudet/ KARTTA_JK_KANTAK0206.pdf (accessed 8 February 2008). Jallinoja, R. (1980) Miehet ja naiset, in: T. Valkonen, R. Alapuro, M. Alestalo, J. Jallinoja & T. Sandlund (Eds) Suomalaiset: Yhteiskunnan rakenne teollistumisen aikana, pp. 222–250 (Porvoo: WSOY). Jarvis, H., Kantor, P. & Cloke, J. (2009) Cities and Gender (London/New York: Routledge). Ja¨tka¨saaren luonnos (2008) Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluvirasto, projektialueet, Available at http://www.hel.fi/ static/ksv/www/Projektialueet/Lansisatama/JS_akluonnos_NET.pdf (accessed 8 September 2012). Jayne, M. (2005) Cities and Consumption Gender (London/New York: Routledge). Juntto, A. (1990) Asuntokysymys Suomessa: Topeliuksesta tulopolitiikkaan (Helsinki: Valtion painatuskeskus). Kahila, M. (2005) Punaista tupaa etsima¨ssa¨? Lapsiperheiden asumispreferenssit ja muuttotoiveet paä¨kaupunki- seudulla, Maantieteen pro gradu_tutkielma, Master’s thesis, University of Helsinki. Karisto, A. (2008) Satumaa: Suomalaisela¨kelaïset Espanjan Aurinkorannalla (Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura). Karsten, L. (2003) Family gentrifiers: Challenging the city as a place to build a career and to raise children, Urban Studies, 40, pp. 2573–2584. Karsten, L. (2007) Housing as a way of life: Towards an understanding of middle-class families’ preference for an urban residential location, Housing Studies, 22(1), pp. 83–98. Kolbe, L. (2005) Kaupunki, metsa¨kaupunki, puu ja puutarha: Esikaupunki innovaationa ja identiteettina¨, in: T. Joutsivuo & M. Keka¨laïnen (Eds) Kaupunkikuva ajassa, pp. 337–350 (Helsinki: Suomen Kirjallisuuden Seura). 860 J. Lilius

Lapintie, K. (1995) Tekninen normi ja ekologinen imperatiivi: Nature morti. Ekologinen kaupunki ja suunnittelun periaate, in: K. Lapintie, B. Koskiaho, T. Ikonen & U. Tiilikainen (Eds) Ekopolis: Ekologisen kaupungin juuria etsima¨ssa¨, pp. 13–37 (Gaudeamus: Helsinki). Lees, L., Slater, T. & Wyly, E. (2008) Gentrification (New York: Routledge). Levin, D. (2010) 200 barn pa˚ So¨dermalm saknar plats, Svenska dagbladet, June 25. Available at http://www.svd. se/nyheter/stockholm/200-barn-pa-sodermalm-saknar-plats_4912801.svd (accessed 8 September 2012). Ley, D. (1996) The New Middle Class and the Remaking of the Central City (New York: Oxford University Press). Lilliehoö¨k, A. (2010) Linnea o¨nskar sig en fo¨rskoleplats av Jultomten, Dagens Nyheter, November 2. Available at http://www.dn.se/debatt/stockholmsdebatt/linnea-onskar-sig-en-forskoleplats-av-jultomten (accessed 8 September 2012). Markusen, A. R. (1981) Spatial structure, household work, urban policy, in: C. Stimpson, R. E. Dixler, M. J. Nelson & K. B. Yatrakis (Eds) Women and the American City, pp. 20–41 (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press). Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (2010) Socially sustainable Finland 2020: Strategy for social and health policy. Available at http://www.stm.fi/c/document_library/get_file?folderId¼2765155&name¼DLFE- 15321.pdf (accessed 8 January 2014). Monocle (2011) Most livable city. Available at http://monocle.com/film/affairs/most-liveable-city-helsinki/ (accessed 3 December 2013). Nordstro¨m, M. (2005) A¨ r regionfo¨rstoring ha˚llbar? (Karlskrona: Boverket). Nystro¨m, L. (2003) Som man bygger fa˚r man barn? om stadsbygden som arena fo¨r barn, in: G. Blu¨cher & G. Graninger (Eds) Finns det rum fo¨r barn: En antologi, pp. 9–22 (Linko¨ping: Stiftelsen Vadstena forum fo¨r samha¨llsbyggande). Omra˚desvis statistik (2008) Inre och yttre staden: Statistik- och utredningskontorets webbplats. Available at http:// www.usk.stockholm.se/internet/omrfakta/tabellappl.asp?omrade¼1&appl¼Omradesjmf&resultat¼Andel (accessed 23 February 2008). Paä¨to¨sluettelonote (2007) Helsingin kaupungin sosiaalivirasto, Lapsiperheiden palveluiden vastuualue, Perhepalvelujohtaja, October 5. Pacione, M. (2001) Urban Geography: A Global Perspective (London/New York: Routledge). Planning Documents, Newspaper Articles and Statistics. Rose, D. (1984) Rethinking gentrification: beyond the uneven development of Marxist urban theory. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 2(1), pp. 47–74. Rudner, J. (2012) Public knowing of risk and children’s independent mobility, Progress in Planning, 78, pp. 1–53. Saarikangas, K. (1997) Yhdenmukaistuva asunto, in: K. Taipale & H. Schulman (Eds) Koti Helsingissa¨: Urbaanin asumisen tulevaisuus, pp. 61–92 (Helsinki: Helsingin kaupungin tietokeskus). Saarikangas, K. (2002) Asunnon muodonmuutoksia: Puhtauden estetiikka ja sukupuoli modernissa arkkitehtuurissa (Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura). Saarikangas, K. (2006) Eletyt tilat ja sukupuoli (Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura). Salmikannas, J. (2008) Puistikon uudistus ja¨ttaä¨ lapset la¨hes vaille leikkitilaa, Helsingin Sanomat, June 18. Available at http://www.hs.fi/ (accessed 6 February 2014). Sandercock, L. (2010) When strangers become neighbours: Managing cities of difference, Planning Theory and Practice, 1(1), pp. 13–30. Sandstedt, E. (1984) Kvinnoliv och stadsmo¨nster, in: Forskargruppen fo¨r Det nya vardagslivet (Eds) Det nya vardagslivet, pp. 83–102 (Ko¨penhamn: Nordiskt ministerra˚d). Saracco, S. & Strandlund, L. (2007) Barnfamiljer i innerstan: Planeringideal och verklighet. C-uppsats 10 poa¨ng, Bachleor’s thesis, University of Stockholm. Sassen, S. (2005) Strategiska representationer av ko¨n: Globala sta¨der och o¨verlevnadskretsar, Fronesis, 18, pp. 153–165. Scott, J. C. (1999) Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (New Haven, CT/London: Yale University Press). Smith, N. (1996) The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City (London: Routledge). Smith, N. (2002) New globalism, new urbanism: Gentrification as global urban strategy, Antipode, 34(3), pp. 427–450. So¨derlind, J. (1998) Stadens rena¨ssans: Fra˚nsa¨rsamha¨lle till samha¨lle. Om na¨rhetsprincipen i stadsplaneringen (Stockholm: SNS-fo¨rlag). Is There Room for Families in the Inner City? 861

Spain, D. (2002) What happened to gender relations? City and Community, 2(2), pp. 155–167. Statistik om Stockholm (2012) Omra˚desvis statistik. Available at http://www.statistik.sweco.se/internet/ omrfakta/tabellappl.asp?omrade¼1&appl¼Tidsserier&resultat¼Antal (accessed 8 September 2012). Strandell, A. (2004) Asukasbarometri 2004: Asukaskysely suomalaisesta asuinympa¨risto¨sta¨ Suomen ympa¨risto¨ 746 (Helsinki: Ympa¨risto¨ministerio¨). Strandell, A. (2011) Asukasbarometri 2010: Asukaskysely suomalaisista asuinympa¨ristoïsta¨. Suomen ympa¨risto¨ 31/2011 (Helsinki: Ympa¨risto¨ministerio¨). Stro¨m, I. (2009) Sto¨rre variation beho¨vs, Tidningen Stockholms regionen 3/2009. Available at http://www. stockholmsregionen.nu/archives/424 (accessed 8 September 2012). Swisher, R., Sweet, S. & Moen, P. (2004) The family-friendly community and its life course fit for dual-earner couples, Journal of Marriage and Family, May, pp. 281–292. Tallhage-Lo¨nn, I. (2000) Unga a¨r ocksa˚ medborgare: Om barns och ungdomars inflytande i planeringen (Karlskrona: Boverket). Uusija¨rvi, M. (2007) Ingen plats fo¨r stadsbarn i Stockholm, Dagens nyheter, August 14. Available at http://www. dn.se/sthlm/ingen-plats-for-stadsbarn-i-stockholm (accessed 8 September 2012). Valentine, G. (2005) Tell me about..: using interviews as a research methodology, in: R. Flowerdew & D. Martin (Eds) Methods in Human Geography: A Guide for Students Doing a Research Project, pp. 110–127. 2nd ed. (Harlow: Person Education). Van Criekingen, M. (2010) Gentrifying the reurbanisation debate, not vice versa: The uneven sociospatial implications of changing transitions to adulthood in Brussels, Population, Space and Place, 16, pp. 381–394. Van den Berg, M. (2013) City children and gentrified neighbourhoods: The new generation as urban regeneration strategy, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(2), pp. 523–536. Varady, D. P. (1990) Influences on the city-suburban choice: A study of Cincinnati homebuyers, Journal of the American Planning Association, 56(1), pp. 22–40. Warde, A. (1991) Gentrification as consumption: Issues of class and gender, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 9(2), pp. 223–232. Warner, M. E. & Ruckus, J. (2013) Planners’ role in creating family-friendly communities: Action, participation and resistance, Journal of Urban Affairs, 35(5), pp. 627–644. Weiss, R. S. (1994) Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies (New York: The Free Press). Wilson, E. (1991) The Sphinx in the City (Berkeley: University of California Press).