m mtrapeD D e D e p e p a p a r a r t r t t em em n em n t n t o t o f o f B f B u B u i u l i t l i t l E t E n E n v n v i r v i r o i r o o emn emn n emn n t n t t

aA l t o - aA l aA l t o t - o - DD DD DD

M gnigana gniganaM gniganaM nabru nabru nabru 951 951 951 / / / W ukkriS i r k k u aW l l i n W ukkriS S i i r r k k k u k u aW aW l l l l i i n n 9102 9102 9102 c ytixelpmo ytixelpmoc ytixelpmoc

P yrotapicitra yrotapicitraP yrotapicitraP ,gninnalp ,gninnalp ,gninnalp noitazinagro-fles noitazinagro-fles noitazinagro-fles dna dna dna noitcudorp-oc noitcudorp-oc noitcudorp-oc fo fo fo nabru nabru nabru s ecap ecaps ecaps

S ukkri ukkriS ukkriS nillaW nillaW nillaW elpo ar niganaM i gn nabru pmoc l xe i t y elpo ar niganaM i ganaM gn i gn nabru pmoc l nabru pmoc l xe i xe i t y t y

B I I I NBS NBS NBS 6-1078-06-259-879 6-1078-06-259-879 ( 6-1078-06-259-879 p ( p r ( i p r n i r n t i n t de t de ) de ) ) SSENISUB SSENISUB + SSENISUB + + B I I I NBS NBS NBS 3-2078-06-259-879 3-2078-06-259-879 ( 3-2078-06-259-879 ( dp ( dp f ) dp f ) f ) E E E MONOC MONOC Y MONOC Y Y S I I I NSS NSS NSS 9971 9971 - 9971 - - 4394 4394 ( 4394 p ( p r ( i p r n i r n t i n t de t de ) de ) ) S I I I NSS NSS NSS 9971 9971 - 9971 - - 2494 2494 ( 2494 ( dp ( dp f ) dp f ) f ) TRA TRA + TRA + + NGISED NGISED NGISED + + + ytisrevinU otlaA otlaA otlaA ytisrevinU ytisrevinU ytisrevinU HCRA HCRA I HCRA T I T I T TCE TCE TCE ERU ERU ERU nirenigE fo loohcS oohcS l oohcS l o l o f o f f gnE gnE i gnE i i een een r i een r i r gn i gn gn m mtrapeD D e D e p e p a p a r t a r t r t em em n em n t n t o t o f o f B f B u B u i l u i t l i t E l t E n E n v n i v r i v o r i o r o emn emn n emn n t n t t ECNEICS ECNEICS + ECNEICS + + www www . a www . a . a l t a l o t l o . t f o . i f . i f i T T E T E E ONHC ONHC L ONHC L L GO GO Y GO Y Y

EVOSSORC VOSSORC VOSSORC RE RE RE COD COD T COD T T RO RO A RO A L A L L +gbahia*GMFTSH9 +gbahia*GMFTSH9 +gbahia*GMFTSH9 COD COD T COD T T RO RO A RO A L A L L SNOITATRESSID SNOITATRESSID SNOITATRESSID ytisrevinU otlaA SNOITATRESSID SNOITATRESSID SNOITATRESSID ytisrevinU ytisrevinU otlaA otlaA

9102 9102 9102 seires noitacilbup ytisrevinU otlaA ytisrevinU noitacilbup seires SNOITATRESSID LAROTCOD SNOITATRESSID 951/9102

ytixelpmoc nabru gniganaM nabru ytixelpmoc

-oc dna noitazinagro-fles ,gninnalp yrotapicitraP ,gninnalp noitazinagro-fles dna -oc ecaps nabru fo noitcudorp fo nabru ecaps

nillaW ukkriS nillaW

:noitanimaxe cilbuP :noitanimaxe 21 ta 9102.9.02 .4 iraakatO ,612K llah erutcel eht erutcel llah ,612K iraakatO .4 9102.9.02 ta 21

ytisrevinU otlaA ytisrevinU gnireenignE fo loohcS fo gnireenignE tnemnorivnE tliuB fo tnemtrapeD fo tliuB tnemnorivnE rosseforp gnisivrepuS rosseforp ytisrevinU otlaA ,tnemnorivnE tliuB fo tnemtrapeD ,ättyK attekraM rosseforP attekraM ,ättyK tnemtrapeD fo tliuB ,tnemnorivnE otlaA ytisrevinU

rosivda sisehT rosivda ytisrevinU otlaA ,tnemnorivnE tliuB fo tnemtrapeD ,illeroH asiiL rosseforP tcnujdA rosseforP asiiL ,illeroH tnemtrapeD fo tliuB ,tnemnorivnE otlaA ytisrevinU

srenimaxe yranimilerP srenimaxe muigleB ,ytisrevinU tnehG ,gnireenignE liviC fo tnemtrapeD ,sneleoB kuuL rosseforP kuuL ,sneleoB tnemtrapeD fo liviC ,gnireenignE tnehG ,ytisrevinU muigleB dnalniF ,erepmaT fo ytisrevinU ,tnemeganaM fo loohcS ,okiorittnA okkieV-irA rosseforP tcnujdA rosseforP okkieV-irA ,okiorittnA loohcS fo ,tnemeganaM ytisrevinU fo ,erepmaT dnalniF

tnenoppO )EKYS( etutitsnI tnemnorivnE hsinniF ,elnheaF ajiaM rehcraeseR roineS rehcraeseR ajiaM ,elnheaF hsinniF tnemnorivnE etutitsnI )EKYS(

seires noitacilbup ytisrevinU otlaA ytisrevinU noitacilbup seires SNOITATRESSID LAROTCOD SNOITATRESSID 951/9102

© 9102 ukkriS nillaW

NBSI 6-1078-06-259-879 )detnirp( NBSI 3-2078-06-259-879 )fdp( NSSI 4394-9971 )detnirp( NSSI 2494-9971 )fdp( :NBSI:NRU/if.nru//:ptth 3-2078-06-259-879

yO aifarginU yO iknisleH 9102 WAN E S CO IC L D A B R E O L dnalniF N

PrintedPrinted matter 1234 5678 4041-0619 tcartsbA otlaA 67000-IF ,00011 xoB .O.P ,ytisrevinU otlaA ,ytisrevinU .O.P xoB ,00011 67000-IF otlaA if.otlaa.www

rohtuA nillaW ukkriS nillaW noitatressid larotcod eht fo emaN fo eht larotcod noitatressid ytixelpmoc nabru gniganaM nabru ytixelpmoc rehsilbuP loohcS fo gnireenignE tinU tnemtrapeD fo tliuB tnemnorivnE seireS otlaA ytisrevinU noitacilbup seires LAROTCOD SNOITATRESSID 951 /9102 hcraeser fo dleiF fo hcraeser nabrU dna laitaps gninnalp dettimbus tpircsunaM dettimbus 72 yaM 9102 etaD fo eht ecnefed 02 rebmetpeS 9102 )etad( detnarg ecnefed cilbup rof noissimreP rof cilbup ecnefed detnarg )etad( 91 tsuguA 9102 egaugnaL hsilgnE hpargonoM elcitrA noitatressid yassE noitatressid tcartsbA serudecorp raenil eht htiw gnilaed llits era secitcarp dna seiroeht gninnalp nabru yraropmetnoC nabru gninnalp seiroeht dna secitcarp era llits gnilaed htiw eht raenil serudecorp desab-rotca ehT.gnigreme si mgidarap gninnalp wen a ,revewoH .gnikam-esnes lanoitutitsni dna lanoitutitsni .gnikam-esnes ,revewoH a wen gninnalp mgidarap si ehT.gnigreme desab-rotca morf trapa etarepo ot elba si hcihw ,tnempoleved nabru gnizinagro-fles segdelwonkca evitcepsrep segdelwonkca gnizinagro-fles nabru ,tnempoleved hcihw si elba ot etarepo trapa morf .gnikam-noisiced dna tnemnrevog yrotutats tnemnrevog dna .gnikam-noisiced

,imeinottreH ni tnempoleved nabru lacol no sisylana yduts esac lanidutignol a si noitatressid sihT noitatressid si a lanidutignol esac yduts sisylana no lacol nabru tnempoleved ni ,imeinottreH eht htiw detarepo hcihw ,hcraeser noitca na fo sisylana-atem no desab si noitatressid ehT .iknisleH ehT noitatressid si desab no sisylana-atem fo na noitca ,hcraeser hcihw detarepo htiw eht .4002 ecnis edaced a tsomla rof sredlohekats lacol sredlohekats rof tsomla a edaced ecnis .4002

eht ecnahne taht snoitulos lacitcarp dna laciteroeht edivorp ot si noitatressid siht fo mia ehT mia fo siht noitatressid si ot edivorp laciteroeht dna lacitcarp snoitulos taht ecnahne eht fo elor eht erolpxe ot dna ,txetnoc hsinniF eht ni snrettap tnempoleved nabru fo noisneherpmoc fo nabru tnempoleved snrettap ni eht hsinniF ,txetnoc dna ot erolpxe eht elor fo nabru si tahW :snoitseuq eht srewsna noitatressid ehT .gninnalp nabru ni tnemegagne nezitic tnemegagne ni nabru .gninnalp ehT noitatressid srewsna eht :snoitseuq tahW si nabru -e nac woH ?tnempoleved dna gninnalp nabru ni tnemegagne livic fo elor eht si tahW ?ytixelpmoc tahW si eht elor fo livic tnemegagne ni nabru gninnalp dna ?tnempoleved woH nac -e ?noitamrofsnart nabru dna tnemegagne livic elbane gninnalp elbane livic tnemegagne dna nabru ?noitamrofsnart

gninnalp ni egatnavda na si tnemegagne civic eht taht setacidni seitixelpmoc nabru fo sisylana ehT sisylana fo nabru seitixelpmoc setacidni taht eht civic tnemegagne si na egatnavda ni gninnalp netfo hcihw ,esruocsid gninnalp eht ni noitapicitrap cilbup eht ekilnU .sevitaitini tnempoleved dna tnempoleved .sevitaitini ekilnU eht cilbup noitapicitrap ni eht gninnalp ,esruocsid hcihw netfo roF .sessecorp yrotutats eht fo ytiunitnocsid eht ni sllfi noitazinagro-fles eht ,stciflnoc sezisahpme ,stciflnoc eht noitazinagro-fles sllfi ni eht ytiunitnocsid fo eht yrotutats .sessecorp roF niatniam dna secivres lacol detroppus ,ecaps cilbup wen detaerc stsivitca doohruobhgien ,elpmaxe doohruobhgien stsivitca detaerc wen cilbup ,ecaps detroppus lacol secivres dna niatniam lacol eht devorpmi efil yadyreve enadnum ,seitivitca gnizinagro-fles eht ot noitidda nI .stneve nabru .stneve nI noitidda ot eht gnizinagro-fles ,seitivitca enadnum yadyreve efil devorpmi eht lacol ssel neeb evah sevitaitini gninnalp lamrof eht elihw ,ytitnedi lacol eht derutrun dna sgnidnuorrus dna derutrun eht lacol ,ytitnedi elihw eht lamrof gninnalp sevitaitini evah neeb ssel .imeinottreH poleved ot evitceffe ot poleved .imeinottreH

nihtiw eno eht :pag cimetsys a ot eud segreme ytixelpmoc nabru taht stseggus noitatressid ehT noitatressid stseggus taht nabru ytixelpmoc segreme eud ot a cimetsys :pag eht eno nihtiw .seitilaer esrevid lacol eht dna srennalp eht neewteb rehto eht dna ,noitatnemelpmi dna gninnalp dna ,noitatnemelpmi dna eht rehto neewteb eht srennalp dna eht lacol esrevid .seitilaer serudecorp gninnalp eht fo ytiraenil eht ,ylemaN .pag cimetsys siht rof snosaer lareves era erehT era lareves snosaer rof siht cimetsys .pag ,ylemaN eht ytiraenil fo eht gninnalp serudecorp dna reets ot sehcaorppa etauqeda tibihorp hcihw ygolodohtem gninnalp elitasrev fo kcal eht dna eht kcal fo elitasrev gninnalp ygolodohtem hcihw tibihorp etauqeda sehcaorppa ot reets dna .noitamrofsnart nabru deef nabru .noitamrofsnart

ssarg eht segdelwonkca hcihw ,gninnalp nabru dednapxe rof deen a si ereht taht eugra I ,eroferehT I eugra taht ereht si a deen rof dednapxe nabru ,gninnalp hcihw segdelwonkca eht ssarg ,sehcaorppa gninnalp tnereffid setargetni dna ,egnahc nabru cimetsys dna scimanyd level toor level scimanyd dna cimetsys nabru ,egnahc dna setargetni tnereffid gninnalp ,sehcaorppa noitatressid ehT .gninnalp-e ni scitamrofni ytinummoc dna nabru fo esimorp eht gnidulcni eht esimorp fo nabru dna ytinummoc scitamrofni ni .gninnalp-e ehT noitatressid .meht htiw epoc ot snaem eht dna ,ytixelpmoc nabru fo sepyt tnereffid stneserp tnereffid sepyt fo nabru ,ytixelpmoc dna eht snaem ot epoc htiw .meht

sdrowyeK nabru gninnalp dna ,tnempoleved ,ytixelpmoc ,noitazinagro-fles livic ,tnemegagne noitamrofsnart dna egnahc nabru egnahc dna noitamrofsnart )detnirp( NBSI )detnirp( 6-1078-06-259-879 NBSI )fdp( 3-2078-06-259-879 )detnirp( NSSI )detnirp( 4394-9971 NSSI )fdp( 2494-9971 rehsilbup fo noitacoL fo rehsilbup iknisleH noitacoL fo gnitnirp iknisleH raeY 9102 segaP 602 nru :NBSI:NRU/fi.nru//:ptth 3-2078-06-259-879

ämletsiviiT otlaA 67000 ,00011 LP ,otsipoily-otlaA LP ,00011 67000 otlaA if.otlaa.www

äjikeT nillaW ukkriS nillaW imin najriksötiäV imin nannimiot navutiosinagroesti aj nulettinnuus navutsillaso - atnillah aj sotuum nignupuaK sotuum aj atnillah - navutsillaso nulettinnuus aj navutiosinagroesti nannimiot assotsaamiläv ajisiakluJ nedieteitiröönisnI uluokaekrok ökkiskY nutennekaR nötsiräpmy sotial ajraS otlaA ytisrevinU noitacilbup seires LAROTCOD SNOITATRESSID 951 /9102 alasumiktuT -ennekiiL aj ulettinnuusnötyäknaam mvp neskutiojrikisäK mvp 9102.50.72 äviäpsötiäV 9102.90.02 äviäpsimätnöym navulylettiäV äviäpsimätnöym 9102.80.91 ileiK itnalgnE aifargonoM ajriksötiävilekkitrA ajriksötiäveessE ämletsiviiT itsesiytire aj nulettinnuusiknupuak tussuon no atnimiot nejösiethysimhi aj nenimhI aj nejösiethysimhi atnimiot no tussuon nulettinnuusiknupuak aj itsesiytire aj tavatsimytsehäl nulettinnuusiknupuaK .anisouv emiiv nööiksek nesimättihekiknupuak nööiksek emiiv .anisouv nulettinnuusiknupuaK tavatsimytsehäl aj nediettiovat netsilaanoitutitsni aj anisiraaenil ,änisietnirep teenysyp niknetiuk tavo tämletenem tavo niknetiuk teenysyp ,änisietnirep anisiraaenil aj netsilaanoitutitsni nediettiovat nediekknahsunnekar netsiättisky niesu yyttiksek oimouhääP .anisiakum nulettesa .anisiakum oimouhääP yyttiksek niesu netsiättisky nediekknahsunnekar nejuttedot itsesillakiap ie ,niisiettiovat niisigetarts nilävakia näktip aj niiräämöilensorrek aj näktip nilävakia niisigetarts ,niisiettiovat ie itsesillakiap nejuttedot niknetiuk no amgidarap nulettinnuusiknupuak isuU .neesimattuetot nediepratsimättihek .neesimattuetot isuU nulettinnuusiknupuak amgidarap no niknetiuk neivutiosinagroesti niise aatson ulettinnuusiknupuak nenitsilarutkurts-tsoP .assamuttomhah nenitsilarutkurts-tsoP ulettinnuusiknupuak aatson niise neivutiosinagroesti ässesietnirep niuk nisioT .neskytikrem neiskuunappmuk netsillakiap aj nediojimiotiknupuak aj netsillakiap neiskuunappmuk .neskytikrem nisioT niuk ässesietnirep nulettinnuus nyytteit ääne uduajar ie suujimiot nenillakiap ,assulettinnuus assavutsillaso ,assulettinnuus nenillakiap suujimiot ie uduajar ääne nyytteit nulettinnuus nötsiräpmy aj nootipälly nejötsiräpmy nejra äkes neesimatnekar uuktaj naav ,neeseehiav naav uuktaj neesimatnekar äkes nejra nejötsiräpmy nootipälly aj nötsiräpmy .naatnarues

netsialire aamiokilavoniek nulettinnuusiknupuak äätside no aneettiovat najriksötiäv nämäT najriksötiäv aneettiovat no äätside nulettinnuusiknupuak aamiokilavoniek netsialire sehäl uutsurep ajriksötiäV .assannillah aj assesimatsinnut neimlegnoulettinnuus netsillakiap neimlegnoulettinnuus assesimatsinnut aj .assannillah ajriksötiäV uutsurep sehäl neskumiktutatnimiot niittetihek assoj ,neeskumiktutsiättiktip neeseenuktaj nenemmykisouv neeseenuktaj ,neeskumiktutsiättiktip assoj niittetihek neskumiktutatnimiot no ätiM :niiskymysyksumiktut aatsav ajriksötiäV .aasonignupuak nemeinottreH nignisleH nioniek nignisleH nemeinottreH .aasonignupuak ajriksötiäV aatsav :niiskymysyksumiktut ätiM no ?atillah nioniek nulettinnuusiknupuak naadiov ätis netim aj ,suusiskelpmok nejotnimiotiknupuak ,suusiskelpmok aj netim ätis naadiov nulettinnuusiknupuak nioniek ?atillah aj ,ässesimättihekiknupuak iloor nediojimiot netsillakiap tullo no äkim ,iiktut ajriksötiäv iskäsiL ajriksötiäv ,iiktut äkim no tullo netsillakiap nediojimiot iloor ,ässesimättihekiknupuak aj - aj ellulettinnuusiknupuak aaojrat )gninnalp-e( ulettinnuus neniökhäs aiskuusillodham aisiallim aiskuusillodham neniökhäs ulettinnuus )gninnalp-e( aaojrat ellulettinnuusiknupuak aj - .ellesimättihek

ätte ,nätiäv atlajhop nediiN .niilekkitra nuutioivrasiatrev neetiiv uutsurep öytsötiäV uutsurep neetiiv nuutioivrasiatrev .niilekkitra nediiN atlajhop ,nätiäv ätte aj atnimiot nosatiruujnohour naamatsinnut äyttihek eelut nejötnätyäk nulettinnuusiknupuak nejötnätyäk eelut äyttihek naamatsinnut nosatiruujnohour atnimiot aj nejotnimiot- aj nalitiknupuak attoj ,akkiimanyd avattukiav neeskytihekiknupuak neduusillakiap neeskytihekiknupuak avattukiav ,akkiimanyd attoj nalitiknupuak aj nejotnimiot- .atsillodham no atnillah apoj aj atnarues ,nenimäträmmy netsotuum ,nenimäträmmy atnarues aj apoj atnillah no .atsillodham

tonnimiot nannuksiethy aj ulettinnuusiknupuak ätte ,uutsorok assannillah neduusiskelpmoK assannillah ,uutsorok ätte ulettinnuusiknupuak aj nannuksiethy tonnimiot suusilledot ässim ,itsesillakiap aimottamattivosneethy tavo aktoj ,äiskymysykulettinnuus tavoul ,äiskymysykulettinnuus aktoj tavo aimottamattivosneethy ,itsesillakiap ässim suusilledot anusiaktar äättise öytsötiäV .attuak nesimäle nejra äkes nediojimiot neivutiosinagroesti uutnekar neivutiosinagroesti nediojimiot äkes nejra nesimäle .attuak öytsötiäV äättise anusiaktar naadaas allioj ,)gninnalp nabru dednapxe( äimletenem- äkes atiettoulettinnuus aisialire atiettoulettinnuus äkes äimletenem- dednapxe( nabru ,)gninnalp allioj naadaas tajimiotsialasnak naatetsiatlav söym ,neeskotuum neesiskelpmok nignupuak istiap aatnipamuttrat istiap nignupuak neesiskelpmok ,neeskotuum söym naatetsiatlav tajimiotsialasnak nötsiräpmynile aj nasonignupuak namo atsulettinnuusiknupuak atsesigetarts ania naakum ania atsesigetarts atsulettinnuusiknupuak namo nasonignupuak aj nötsiräpmynile .neesimätside nedyysiythiiv .neesimätside tanasniavA ,ulettinnuusiknupuak ,nenimättihekiknupuak ,nenimutiosinagroesti suusiskelpmok )utteniap( NBSI )utteniap( 6-1078-06-259-879 NBSI )fdp( 3-2078-06-259-879 )utteniap( NSSI )utteniap( 4394-9971 NSSI )fdp( 2494-9971 akkiapusiakluJ iknisleH akkiaponiaP iknisleH isouV 9102 äräämuviS 602 nru :NBSI:NRU/fi.nru//:ptth 3-2078-06-259-879

Acknowledgements

This research has been a journey, crossing over the invisible boundaries between research and practice, between disciplines and organizations, and time. The thesis is an offspring of the research work done for years with numerous people. The discoveries of the thesis have evolved in action with a network. Thus, there are so many who I wish to thank for their devotion, patience and inspiring company.

I express my deepest gratitude for my supervisor Liisa Horelli, whose wisdom and endless support has gently guided my work and thinking. Being a member of your research team has been an adventure to the academic sense-making. All these years, I have felt myself privileged to enjoy your enlightening com- pany. Every sentence that makes sense in this work owes to you.

I´m grateful to Marketta Kyttä for steering the thesis over the goal line. Due to your encouragement, kindness and resourceful guidance the work is finally done. Your door was always open for my questions.

I´m deeply honoured to have Maija Faehnle as my opponent. Or a counterpart, I would like to say, as the research you have done with Pasi Mäenpää on self- organizing urban movements has resonated with this study, inspiring me and this thesis. Also, I am grateful to the pre-examinors; Luuk Boelens and Ari- Veikko Anttiroiko for their comments that shaped up my argumentation.

Throughout the journey, there was a place of home at YTK , the Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, which is now known as the Department of Built Environ- ment in the School of Engineering. I wish to thank especially The PALCO re- search group; Karoliina Jarenko, Joanna Saad-Sulonen and Jenni Kuoppa for your relevant comments and questions for developing the research work and daily tasks. The PhD support group “Kymppi”, Maarit Kahila, Anna Broberg, Kaisa Schmidt-Thomé ja Jonna Kangasoja, has helped me to see clearer where I am heading. Also, I had several lively discussions about planning with Aija Staffans, Mervi Ilmonen and Hanna Mattila. For example, urban systems and network theories, post-structuralism, Jean Hillier and the field of urban plan- ning as a discipline became more comprehensible just by having a cup of cof- fee with you. In the daily research work, which often had little to do with PhD itself, but plenty in actual urban planning and development in the Helsinki Metropolitan Region, I had Sanna Ahonen and Janne Roininen on my side. And Maria Söderholm, who provided me the literature and information on planning, life and and beyond.

On the journey itself, the strange land became familiar thanks to HELKA, the Helsinki Neighbourhood Association. I wish to thank Pirjo Tulikukka, Anna Kanervo and Päivi Savolainen for their creativity and networking that pro- vided the empirical basis for the thesis. I truly appreciate the willingness of the activists in Herttoniemi and Roihuvuori neighbourhoods to let me lean on your knowledge and interest in learning new. That has been an essential part of the process. The mundane gatherings and meetings with the locals have taught me that the most feared parts of the urban planner´s occupation is actu- ally the best part. The participation, devotion to the neighbourhood and will- ingness to improve impressed me in each occasion, and encouraged me as a researcher and a practitioner.

I wish to thank the current ending of the journey, the City of Espoo for giving me a new territory of practice as well as the place and time to conclude the the- sis. I thank also the funders of this journey, especially the Finnish Academy and the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation.

And last but before all, I´m grateful to my family and friends for having me back after years of adventures somewhere else. From now on, I will stay around.

Kirkkonummi, 20th August 2019 Sirkku Wallin

Contents

Acknowledgements List of publications Author’s contribution 1. Introduction ...... 9 1.1 Complexity challenging urban planning ...... 9 1.2 The aim, research questions and article findings ...... 12 2. Research framework ...... 15 2.1 The context in urban planning and development ...... 15 2.2 Key concepts ...... 18 2.2.1 Local realms ...... 18 2.2.2 Civic engagement in urban actions ...... 21 2.2.3 Types of urban complexity ...... 25 2.3 In search of an expanded urban planning ...... 28 3. Methodology ...... 32 3.1 Urban planning in situ ...... 32 3.2 Action research - a strategy for research and development ... 35 3.3 The data, analysis and interpretation of the action research . 39 3.4 Reflection ...... 43 4. Key findings ...... 45 4.1 Participation beyond urban planning ...... 45 4.2 Urban complexity on the neighbourhood level ...... 48 4.3 Management of diverse realities ...... 51 4.4 Minding the gaps ...... 55 5. Conclusions and discussion ...... 58 References...... 63 Publications I - V ...... 71 Appendix I

List of publications

This doctoral dissertation comprises an introduction and the following publications:

I Wallin, S. (2015). Kaupunkisuunnittelua ja itseorganisoituvaa toimin- taa – Kertomus Helsingin Herttoniemen muutoksesta. Alue- ja ympäristö, 2015/1(44),19-32.

(the English translation: Urban transformation in action - Analyzing ur- ban planning and development in Helsinki)

II Horelli, L., Saad-Sulonen, J., Wallin, S. & Botero, A. (2015) When Self-Organization intersects with Urban Planning, Two Cases from Hel- sinki. Journal of Planning Practice and Research, 30(3), 286- 302.

III Wallin S. & Horelli L. (2010) The methodology of user-sensitive ser- vice design within urban planning. Environment and Planning B: Plan- ning and Design 37(5), 775 – 791.

IV Wallin S. & Horelli L. (2012) Playing With The Glocal Through Part- ticipatory e-Planning. Journal of Community Informatics, 8(3). http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/883

V Horelli, L. & Wallin, S. (2010) The Future-making assessment ap- proach as a tool for e-planning and community development – the case of Ubiquitous Helsinki. In C.N.Silva.(Ed.). Handbook of Research on E- Planning - ICTs for urban development and monitoring (58-79). Her- shey, PA: IGI Global.

Author’s contribution

Publication 1: Refereed scientific journal.

The only author. The PhD Thesis Advisor provided advise and comments for structuring and editing the paper.

Publication 2: Refereed scientific journal

The third co-author. Responsible for urban planning, complexity and self-or- ganizing issues in the article. Shared responsibility for collecting and analysing the data. The main contribution is in the chapter “Expanded Urban Planning as a Theoretical Framework”, and respectively also in conclusion. The main writer is the PhD Thesis Advisor.

Publication 3: Refereed scientific journal

Main author. Shared responsibility for collecting and analysing the data with the second author. The second author is the PhD Thesis Advisor.

Publication 4: Refereed scientific journal

Main author. Shared responsibility for collecting and analysing the data with the second author. The second author is the PhD Thesis Advisor.

Publication 5: Refereed scientific hand-book article

Co-author. Responsible for e-planning, e-democracy and ubiquitous technol- ogy issues in the article, and respectively also in conclusions. Shared responsi- bility for collecting and analysing the data with the main author. The main writer is the PhD Thesis Advisor.

1. Introduction

This dissertation explores the connection between contemporary urban plan- ning and urban development. It focuses on urban complexity and self-organiza- tion based on a longitudinal action research. The research problem deals with, how urban planning can cope with urban complexity, more precisely, how it is able to comprehend urban transformation produced by the self-organized civic engagement on the neighbourhood level.

1.1 Complexity challenging urban planning

Planners, researchers and urban dwellers largely agree with that urban planning has not been able to reach the local realm1. The task of urban planning has been to plan and design well-functioning urban environments, and to steer urban de- velopment. Yet, planners have had difficulties to cope with urban development. The dynamics of urban change and the cause of urban transformation are not only difficult to forsee, but also to analyse. Hence, it is challenging to make deci- sions, how to deal with urban complexity.

Urban complexity is an acknowledged part of urban life and morphology (Allen & Saglier, 1981; Trift, 2000; Portugali, 2012). It is a phenomenon that becomes tangible in everyday life, but which remains vague and ambivalent in statistical analyses and policy making (Mazza, 2002).

Also, the planning itself has become more complex. In addition to the congest- ed urban tissue, complicated regulations, transcalar structures of administra- tion and economics, accelerated social interaction and the growing number of stake-holders have impacts on urban planning. Steering urban tranformation through the staged processes of forcasting, planning and evalution is compro- mised, as well as the actual implementation (Innes & Booher, 2010; Allmendinger & Haughton, 2009; Healey, 2006).

Urban complexity is not dependent on scale or size of the planning interven- tion. It is particularly apparent in the so called megaprojects, large scale infra- structure initiatives (Flyvbjerg & al 2003; Salet & al. 2012). For example, in the

1 The local realm refers to the diverse realities of local stakeholders (see Chapter 2.2.1.).

9 Introduction

Finnish contex, in spite of thorough planning and evaluation processes, the budgeting of the new metroline from Helsinki to Espoo, has rocketed and its project management stalled. Thus, one might consider that the scale is more prevailing than the context when conceptualizing complexity in planning. How- ever, the procedure might not be less complicated in smaller urban development initiatives. For instance, in the City Region of Porvoo (50 000 inhabitants in 2017), it took four decades to finish one traffic planning initiative called Alexan- der Bridge.

These examples might lead the reader think that urban transformation is some- thing that only takes place after years of construction and large investments. Quite on the contrary, the change of urban space and functions is on-going and it takes place outside the official planning system, sometimes inspite of the sys- tem (Boe-lens, 2006; Boonstra & Boelens, 2011; Uitermark & Nicholls, 2014).

Urban transformation takes place through the use of urban space and its facili- ties, the lived everyday life and experiences of urban patterns. Thus, urban trans-formation is based on action and on the reaction to that action. It takes place both in fractions and entities, with varying scales and time spans (Batty, 2005; De Roo, 2012). Sometimes the dynamics of urban transformation seems explicable, such as action for a reason, with effects and impacts. More often, the patterns of change are less visible, even disruptive (Aaltonen, 2010). Unex- pected events alter the aims, means as well as the outcome, until there is no beginning or end, just continuous change.

Urban planning seeks to steer urban transformation by land-use planning and targeted urban development initiatives. Also, other administrative sectors apply urban policies as a way to enhance social and economic development. Yet, their implementation in situ calls for action on the local level, in the local realm, where the change expresses itself in the form of polymorphism, contradictions and in-congruent events. (Davoudi, 2012; McLaughlin, 2012; Huxley, 2000; Di- Gaetano & Klemanski, 1999).

There have been several approaches to dealwith the local realm in urban plan- ning. In crude, one of them has focused on the substance of planning and if nec- essary, muddling through the-state-of-the-art planning (e.g. Lindblom, 1959). Another has laid emphasis on the processes, actors and stages of planning with aspiration that the careful orchestration of the planning procedure will steer and legitimize the implementation (e.g. Forester, 1999 and Healey, 1997). Yet, there are also planning researchers who have acknowledeged that the substance and procedure are entwined, and that the local actions, despite of their status in the official planning procedure, will have impetus to the neighbourhood level (e.g. Jacobs, 1961 and Gans, 1969).

This dissertation deals with a longitudinal action research that chose to follow the third way. Therefore, it has taken time to reach beyond the formal urban

10 Introduction planning processes and practice to explore the local urban initiatives and devel- opment processes in the Herttoniemi neighbourhood (40.000 residents) of Hel- sinki (650.000 residents), the capital of Finland (6.5 million population). The field study continued for six years, the observation and reporting of the out- comes three more years during which the stakeholders participated in numer- ous initiatives ranging from formal urban planning, including public participa- tion, co-design and co-production of space, to diverse self-organized endeav- ours. The analysis of outcomes took five years in five refereed journal articles, after which the outcomes of the statutory planning were monitored and finally reported as the synthesis for this dissertation.

One might think that after a decade, most of the research outcomes would be outdated. However, on the contrary, urban planning is not merely the planning process, but also the consequences taking place after the planning as a proce- dure has concluded. When the focus is turned on urban development, the plan- ning procedures have to be analysed side by side with local urban transfor- mation, the actual change, which does not emerge in a year or two.

In the longitudinal action research, the field work on the local level, in the actu- al neighbourhood, was a test bed for observing the urban planning processes, which sought to find a path from the strategic level to actual implementation. At the same time, the field work with local actors and stakeholders gave a dif- ferent perspective. The action research provided an opportunity to observe peo- ple in their local realm. The locals´ sincere unawareness of urban policies and planning processes, as well as their explicit aims, means and resources for im- proving their everyday lives and the immediate surroundings, were surprising2.

In addition to the observation, there was the possibility to apply and test measures of participatory urban planning. These included measures, which en- gaged both the local capacity and planning initiatives with a progressive impact on urban development. The outcomes of the action research have been pub- lished in articles which constitute this dissertation.

The research work begun with the methodological ambition to enhance par- tici-patory planning. However, during the action research, the interest turned to the larger civic engagement. It aligned from staged participation and media- tion to active citizenship and self-organizing movements, which at the time, had a weak connection to the formal administration and planning, but plenty of cov- erage in the neighbourhood. Even with the elaborated participatory methodol- ogy, the formal and informal actors and their processes of development met only occasionally.

2 Following the ethos of participatory planning (cf. e.g. Healey, 1997; Forrester, 1999), the City planning department of Helsinki informs inhabitants with yearly pamphlets, makes announcements in the local newspapers and provides both planning documents and back- ground information on their Internet pages. The planners also visit neighbourhood and organ- ize evening events with neighbourhood associations, as a part of local planning prodecures. Introduction

When elaborating the empirical findings, it became obvious that the local ur- ban processes of development were dispersed by nature. There was a gap be- tween not only in scale, means and measures, but also in the overall logic. Even the place and time were conversable terms, depending on who was defining them. In order to make sense of the different perspectives to planning and de- velopment patterns, it was necessary to apply planning theories which could ex- plain urban transformation and complexity also in situations where the future is unknown, even disruptive.

Therefore, the dissertation builds on the notion that contemporary planning theories and practices are still dealing with linear causality and sense-making (Rantanen & Joutsiniemi, 2016; deRoo, 2016; Hillier, 2011), while the urban development is complex by nature, and explicitly driven by self-organized action and actornetworks (Boonstra & Boelens, 2011; Innes & Booher, 2010). In this dissertation, the ontological and epistemological comprehension of urban de- velopment and planning reflects the recent ideas post-structural geography and actor-relational planning (Murdoch, 2006; Hillier, 2011; Boonstra, 2015). It is not a question, whether the communicative rationale (Healey, 1997 & 2006) will replace the technorational one (Faludi, 1973). The question concerns the new comprehension of civic engagement, which actively produces urban surround- ings through self-organization, and which impacts on urban development and also planning (de Roo, 2015 & 2016; Boonstra & Boelens, 2011; Alfasi & Portu- gali, 2007).

1.2 The aim, research questions and article findings

The aim of my dissertation is to provide theoretical and practical solutions that enhance the comprehension of complex development patterns in the Finnish context and elaborate the role of civic engagement in urban planning.

The purpose of the dissertation is not to claim that urban complexity can be man-aged per se, but to explore the means to deal with it.

The dissertation is based on the analyses of a longitudinal, neighbourhood3 level action research from the perspective of urban planning and development. The research questions are the following:

3 According to Harper (2016), the word neighbourhood is a “modern community of people who live close together". The neighborhood meaning "near, somewhere about" was first rec- orded in 1857, in American English. In this dissertation, the neighbourhood refers to a unit of local communities that recognizes itself as an entity. It is defined and experienced by the dwellers themselves (Mumford, 1954), but it also functions as an area for urban planning and admin-istration (Perry, 1929), as well as a place for community engagement and local re- sistance (Massey, 2005; Jacobs, 1961).

12 Introduction

• What is urban complexity? How can it be dealt with? • What is the role of civic engagement in urban planning and development? • How can e-planning enable civic engagement and ur- ban transformation?

These research questions have been dealt with in five articles that constitute the thesis (Table 1.). The meta-analysis of the Herttoniemi case study supports the argument of the dissertation, that there is a need for expanded urban planning that reaches beyond participatory planning procedures and supports civic en- gagement (Wallin & Horelli, 2010; Staffans & Horelli, 2014; Horelli et al., 2015; Figure 2).

The meta-analysis of the findings and the current situation of spatial develop- ment in Herttoniemi also support the notion that the grass root level dynamics and systemic urban change feed one another (Allen, 2012; Portugali, 2012; Batty & Marshall, 2012). Civic engagement4 is a dynamo of local resistance but also that of resilience5. Urban development on the neighbourhood level comprises simultaneosly the straight forward planning proledures and the sporadic, self- organizing urban transformation, sometimes with a perception that is unattain- able for planners. It is important to explore the existence of these two, and es- pecially their discontinuities.

This introduction of the dissertation is the summary of the articles in which the theoretical concepts have been elaborated and applied. The first two articles con-tributed to the dissertation an empirical and conceptual introduction to ur- ban transformation. They also describe the self-organized actor-networks and urban complexity in the wider Helsinki Region (Table 1). The third article pre- sents the applied methodology used in the action research which has formed the basis for both the data gathering and the participatory planning processes that enhanced development on the local level. The fourth article discloses the imme- diate outcomes of the action research process and discusses the role of e-plan- ning, especially that of community informatics. The fifth article detaches itself from the empirics and probes the measures to wield the unknown future. It in- troduces the chronotopes for diverse sense-making (Aaltonen, 2007), which are elaborated further in Chapter 5.

4 The civic engagement is described in Chapter 2.2.2. 5 Resilience is a concept widely adopted in urban planning, but also in environmental science, psychology, engineering, sustainability studies and governance research. For example, Meerow, Newell and Stults define resilience (2016, 45), “ as the ability of an urban system and all its constituent socio-ecological and socio-technical networks across temporal and spa- tial scales to maintain or rapidly return to desired functions in the face of a disturbance, to adapt to change and to quickly transform systems that limit current or future adaptive capac- ity.” However, resilience is not part of the conceptual analysis in this thesis. The focus is in the processes of local participation. The empirical data did not align with large scale statistical analyses often conducted in urban sustainability research or social resilience studies (Cf. UN HABITAT, 2008). Introduction

De Roo (2016) refers to Berting (1996, 24), who has pointed out: “Social reali- ty is always complex… (t)hat complexity in itself is not the problem, but acting on the basis of simplification of social reality is”.

Also, this dissertation certainly oversimplifies the planning and development in Herttoniemi, but it is one effort to explain, how urban planning can cope with diverse realities. The dissertation comprises actor-relational planning in the Finnish context, and encourages planners to apply a variety of methods and tools that enhance systemic change and diverse sense-making (Mazza, 2002; Weaver, 1948; Christensen, 1985).

Table 1. The content and contribution of the articles.

Articles Research Contribution to the dissertation questions in the articles Urban transfor- How do urban Introduction to urban complexity on the mation in action: An- functions and neighbourhood level: alysing urban plan- structures become -The process of urban transformation ver- ning and develop- transformed at the sus the steering power of urban planning ment in Helsinki neighbourhood -Empirical evidence on self-organization level? on the local level

When Self-Organiza- What is the role of The conceptualization of self-organizing tion intersects with local stakeholders urban development, and its connection Urban Planning, Two in urban transfor- to urban planning through formal, infor- Cases from Helsinki. mation? mal and semiformal spheres and pro- cesses

The Methodology of What kind of The methodology of action research: user-sensitive service methods and -LENA, the main method of data gather- design within urban practices exist ing and civic engagement, and also a planning within means to transform urban space through participatory ur- co-production ban development? -The first conceptualization of expanded urban planning

Playing with the Glo- What is the role of The outcome and impact of civic engage- cal Through Partici- participatory e- ment: patory e-Planning planning in local -The conceptualization of the supportive urban develop- infrastructure of everyday life ment? -The impacts of participatory e-planning on urban planning and community devel- opment.

The Future-making What is the role of -Pertinent measures to manage wicked assessment ap- evaluation in the urban problems, proach as a tool for complex system of - Definitions of diverse realities e-planning and com- urban develop- - A basis for the typology of urban com- munity development ment? plexity presented in this PhD – the case of Ubiqui- tous Helsinki

14 Research framework

2. Research framework

This chapter presents the key concepts and their inter-relations in urban plan- ning and development. The chapter begins with the context of the concepts, the interaction between urban development and local realms both of which are chal- leng-ing to urban planning.

However, the main objective of the chapter is to conceptualize civic engagement, especially self-organizing and everyday practices outside the statutory urban planning processes and even official decision-making. Therefore, the chapter conceptualizes three types of urban complexity and their relations to the plan- ning practice and sense-making in varying temporal contexts. It also probes the evolu-tion of participatory urban planning as a discipline. (Figure 2).

2.1 The context in urban planning and development

The conncetion between urban planning and development is contested. There is the struggle with the implementation of planning, especially with the out- comes and steering effects of the plan. Also, the agility and justification of the planning and decision-making processes in terms of different stakeholders and local dwellers, have been challenged (Innes & Booher, 2000; Hillier, 2003; Boonstra & Boelens, 2011).

There is also the ontological challenge with the concept of urban development. Spatial change, reflecting the social, economic and political urban transfor- mation, takes place through urban development and manifests itself in urban space.

The relation between urban morphology and the patterns of change and their dynamics have been discussed since the early urban models (Skaburskis, 2008; Rohe, 2009; Allen, 2012). The metafore of the city as a system, has been useful in urban planning research. Urban systems have been divided into three catego- ries: closed systems, open systems and complex systems (Checkland,1981).

Research framework

City as a closed system has been apparent in the techno-rational urban models that have been built since the end of 1800s untill today (Christaller, 1933; McLoughlin, 1969; Faludi, 1973). In crude, it consists of economic and social networks with spatial distribution. Urban development is an endemic process of the system and its parts. The planning apparatus has been the vehicle to steer the system. The planning denotes that urban transformation takes place through statutory planning and urban policies6. Quite often, this “fixed order” (Davoudi, 2012) is supported by planning research and evaluation on the macro-scale level with quantitative methods (e.g. Batty, 2005; Portugali, 2008).

During the past two decades, approaches to urban systems have evolved. The evolution of spatial statistical analysis has provided the basis for research on ur- ban dynamics and its interrelationships (Portugali, 2012; Partanen, 2018). With theoretic concepts, such as path-dependency, transcalarity and emergency, ur- ban systems have been acknowledged as open and evolving, even complex by nature (Partanen, 2018; Rantanen & Joutsiniemi, 2016). The planning research has been supported by governance studies in which the city is a co-evolving, in- teractive system comprising different actors, networks and organisations (So- tarauta, 1996; Anttiroiko, 2015; Allmendinger & Haughton, 2009; Andres, 2013).

Also, in this dissertation, the conceptualization of urban development and plan- ning has changed. In the beginning, the interest of the study focused on the pro- cedures of planning and on the traditional participatory planning, but not on urban development per se. Urban development was defined in a simplistic way, based on the objectives of the formal planning procedure. Thus, urban develop- ment was considered as an improvement of an urban area by building or by other investments in the physical surroundings. This definition is often shared in the field of architecture, planning and civic engineering, in which develop- ment is considered as a change in the physical structure. It can be orderly planned, budgeted and finally implemented through construction and building. As a tangible and accountable performance, it is assumed that urban develop- ment can be steered and evaluated as an ongoing process, measured for example as an input-output equation.

As the actual outcomes of the urban interventions in Herttoniemi gained sali- ence, it turned out to be impossible to discuss urban development without de- scribing the development taking place outside the formal planning process. This urban development comprised a variety of individual actors and their actions, organizations and networks, which contribute to the complex nature of urban

6 In Finland, municipalities have the planning mandate. They introduce spatial development strategies, and provide prospects for land-owners, developers and construction companies through land-use contracts and subsidies. Building regulations and building permit processes guide the implemention of the planning. (Cf. The Land Use and Building Act, 1999/132). How- ever, in the large infrastructure initiatives, municipalities and governmental organizations are also often in charge of the implementation of the plans.

16 Research framework transformation. Simultaneously, urban development was the outcome of pro- cesses, the actual progress in the social, cultural, economic and spatial trans- formation of cities, but also the underlying cause of the progress. Therefore, the relation between development and progress is contested, often laden with normative impetus. The urban development can both accelerate or inhibite urban change, the progress can be positive or negative by nature, or simultaneously both, depending on the context and the perspective. Also pro- gress can be tangible or intangible, and a cause for further spatial change. These different, overlapping and sometimes even contradictory, dimensions of urban development make the analysis difficult – and have effect on the methodology of the thesis. Yet, there are also wider epistemic consequences as the compre- hension of urban planning and development evolves from a closed system into an open and complex one.

As this dissertation is based on more than a decade-long qualitative case study in which the focus has been on the observation of local events and actions, plan- ning interventions and on the spatial change in situ, the definition of urban trans-formation and development is based on participatory planning and gov- ernance studies (cf. Chapter 3).

Therefore, unlike urban systems analysis, urban development has been tapped by applying qualitative analyses of actors and their actions as well as their spa- tio-temporal dimensions. In practice, urban transformation has become visible through community development initiatives, real-estate development and largescale investments in urban infrastructure. The over-arching strategic aims of urban development and the actual implementation of new urban fabrics (compris-ing not only of the buildings, but also the appropriate social and eco- nomic activity) to be succesful, require engaged local dwellers and stakeholders.

There is plenty of planning literature claiming that not all urban initiatives are produced and fostered by formal governance and operated by the planning sys- tem (Mäenpää & Fahnle, 2017; Rantanen & Joutsiniemi, 2016; Boonstra, 2015; Boonstra & Boelens, 2011; Lehtovuori, 2010;). Urban development needs to be conceptualized as including the self-organized co-design and co-production7 of urban space, as well as the implicit everyday life practices (Sandercock, 1998 & 2003; Shove &al., 2012; Ingold, 2000).

Consequently, if accepting that urban development takes place through initia- tives that are not initiated and steered only by the statutory plan, it blurs the barri-ers not only between formal and informal, but the actual the process of planning. The defined stages of planning and implementation convert into an

7 The concepts of co-design and co-production are used in the literature of urban activism, in the field of urban design and urban studies (e.g. Saad-Sulonen & Horelli, 2015; Faehnle & al. 2017; Munthe-Kaas, 2015; Finn, 2014). The concepts have roots in participatory design deriv- ing from system development research, namely the Scandinavian School of Design since 1960´s. (Bodker & al., 2000; Björgvinsson & al., 2012 Bansler, 1989) Research framework on-going ur-ban process. The linear planning logic turns into sporadic interac- tion and inertia. It is not only the urban systems that can be considered as open and complex. The planning as a system has becoming that, too. (de Roo, 2012; 2015 & 2016) Therefore, it is time to take a look beyond the planning, to the everyday life that the planning seeks to address.

2.2 Key concepts

The key concepts of the thesis are local realms, self-organization, and urban complexity.

2.2.1 Local realms

People´s everyday lives are detached from the polical and administrative pro- cedures. The planning system seeks an order in which the objectives and steer- ing mechanisms of the planning system are indisputable inside administration (Davoudi, 2012). However, in the actual implementation and on the local level of everyday life, the planning objectives and initiatives become difficult to com- pre-hend.

In research on the systems level of planning discussion leans on resilience, i.e. on the capabilities for adaption and mutual learning in which the planning proce-dures as well as the planning information are co-produced with the stake- holders. This kind of relational and context-aware planning system (Rantanen & Joutsiniemi, 2016; Davoudi, 2012) is supported by those planning researches, who focus on the reasoning and sense-making of stakeholders. For example, Mäntysalo (2012) and Mäntysalo & Kanninen (2018) suggest that strategic land use plan-ning would benefit from a shared goal which resonates with the stake- holders` interests and verbalizes the planning task in an explicit way.

However, research on the systems level planning is still looking for effective strategies and instruments to deal with lock-ins and discontinuities between the government and the stakeholders. Even for the professional planning practi- tioner the task is complicated.

For example, Hillier (2003; 46) claims: “There is thus always an unbridgeable gap separating reality from the Real. This gap is known in Lacanian terms as the lack. There is always a gap or lack between the subject and its representa- tion.”

In the Herttoniemi case study, this gap is not merely the inherent nature of dif- ferent stakeholders, but the changing context defined by transclar spatial pro- cesses and temporals. According to Hillier (2008, 24-25), “(r)ealities of urban

18 Research framework and non-urban space are ever-changing, but the folding together, unfolding and re-folding of entities and lives cannot be predicted. Nor can they be en- tirely man-aged by rules or regulations. I suggest that spatial planning prac- tice requires both redefinition and a new theoretical foundation in order to be relevant to the dynamic complexities and contingencies of today’s world.”8

This resonates with the findings of the dissertation. The meshwork of different intiatives and actions, and the variety of stakeholders and otherwise involved parties were overwhealming in a neighbourhood of 40 000 people. During the observation, but also in the individual and group interviews it became obvious that each and every stakeholder had their own perspective to the neighbour- hood, to the development intitiatives and the planning goals as well as the measures. In crude, for some people the neighbourhood was a place where they had lived since their childhood. The local environment is not just a part of their everyday life, but their identity. For others, Herttoniemi was a place they had recently moved in. The most familiar part of the neighbourhood was the route to the met-ro station. While they both agreed with that the neighbourhood should be devel-oped, they had very different objectives or they perceived the outcomes of the development through different lenses.

However, the gap is not merely in the minds of the stakeholders, but also in the actual planning process. First of all, the stakeholders themselves and their repre-sentatives changed during the planning, which lasted several years to complete. The same planning intitiative was perceived in another way by the same stake-holder as the time past (see Article 1). Also, the planning initiative itself changed during the implementation (see Chapter 4).

The planners had few means to transcend this gap. They had set up the plan- ning process, with an appropriate participation procedure, but they were mostly interested in what the statekeholders thought about their planning proposal. In some cases, there were even optional proposals with an alternative spatial dis- tri-bution, but with the same building volume, and especially with the same pur- pose of use. If the participants wished to change something in the urban design, they could make suggestions, but the urban development, constituted in the plan, was already fixed. The planners did not want to hear, what people were up to other-wise; what kind of services they hoped for or what kind of improve- ments they needed for the immediate surroundings. The local development, es- pecially as the locals would perceive it, was not on the planning agenda.

8 Hillier (2008,24) even suggests to develop a new theory of spatial planning. She writes: “This is a multiple, relational approach of dynamic complexity to understanding and working with contingencies of place, time and actant behaviours. Inspired by the planar philosophy of Gilles Deleuze, I offer the potential for multiple planes: several – or perhaps one collectively pre- ferred – broad trajectories or ‘visions’ of the longer-term future – (Deleuzean planes of con- sistency or immanence) – and shorter-term, location-specific detailed plans and projects with collaboratively determined tangible goals – (planes of organization or transcendence).” Research framework

In fact, the planning did not ever even notice the local realm. For the planner, questions raised by the locals were not relevant to the plan. Mundane people wishing, for example, a swimming hall, were merely “white noise” in the gov- ernment-driven participatory trajectory in which the plan issued a hotel, shops and new accomondation. For the planner, interests of the locals, should be an- swered in other planning case, somewhere else.

From the perspective of planning research, this kind of gap is surprising, even if understandable, when the rigid planning system, the time pressure and lim- ited resources that practitioners face in their work are considered. However, planning should be able to recognize the challenges of mundane everyday life and to sup-port the locals` interests in the development of their neighbourhood.

The capabilities to reach the local realm have improved with the technological revolution of ICTs. The Herttoniemi case study witnessed the rapid change that the social media provided for both the locals and the planners. In 2005, the main interest in the neighbourhood was to launch local web sites for shared communi-cation, but also to support the local identity and place-making (cf. de- livery of the Herttoniemi Neighbourhood websites, in Articles 3 and 4). After the social media application, such as local Facebook groups were launched, the representation of different local realms increased. There were Facebook groups for the local families with children, for the ones interested in a sustainable life style or comsumption, but also for those who were interested in organizing and developing the neighbourhood.

Community informatics (e.g. Gurstein, 2007) provided a backbone for local ac- tivism and all forms of civic engagement (see Article 2). The social media was a place to gather, launch happenings and discuss relevant issues, always defined by the discussants themselves. If the realms did not find a footstep in a certain social media group, another site of interest could be found.

The possibilities of ICTs were noticed also in urban planning. Outside the plan- ning practice, there was a growing interest in reaching the local realm, by gather-ing urban informatics about people´s living preferences, everyday mo- bility or opinions about urban development. The urban informatics (e.g. Foth, 2009) data rapidly grew in a decade, and the possibilities to use it in the actual planning evolved. The practice of e-planning introduced fast and convenient methods to analyse GIS-based data and to visualize them for decision-makers and the media (Kahila, 2015; Nummi, 2017). The Helsinki city administration also launched new e-surveys with mapping tools (e.g. the application Kerro Kartalla http://kerrokartalla.hel.fi/ ), and the action research itself developed a local service desk with a web and mobile application which did not succeed in its original form, but preceeded the metropolitan level application,which is in use even today (e.g. Palvelukartta https://palvelukartta.hel.fi/ ). The admin- istration had a sincere wish to produce better e-services and e-democracy for the people.

20 Research framework

However, there was no continuum between community informatics and urban informatics in the practice of e-planning. The administration did not use the so- cial media data and arenas produced by the civic engagement. Instead, admin- istration made its own surveys and analysis with the focus they had. The gap between the local realm and the official planning system remained uncontested.

2.2.2 Civic engagement in urban actions

As the dissertation disclosed the gap between the dispersed local realm and the linear planning system, the analysis of the Herttoniemi case study made visible different forms of civic engagement9 - all related to urban development in their own way.

The detected forms of civic engagement comprise: x Public participation (Innes & Booher, 2009; Healey, 1997) that takes place in the formal urban planning and decision-making processes. x Everyday life practices which make changes in the physical and social construction of urban space (de Certeau, 1984; Kuoppa, 2016) x Self-organization in which people take action outside formal or-ganizations, including non-governmental organizations NGOs (Faehnle & al., 2017; Boonstra & Boelens, 2011; Boonstra, 2015)

Public participation

The research on communicative actions in urban planning has been focused on public participation. In public participation, civic engagement is organized in- side the planning system, and it follows the process of planning (Healey, 1997; Innes & Booher, 1999). Therefore, the consitution of participation (the context, means and methods) are adjusted by planners. Thus, it is not surprising that a significant part of communicative planning theory is contributing to the organ- ization and mediation of the participation process (Davidoff, 1965; Forester, 1999; Innes & Booher, 1999). This dissertation will comtemplate the evolution and shortcom-ings of participatory planning more closely in Chapter 2.2.

In this section, the interest lies in the difference between the forms of civic en- gagement as they are often taking place simultaneously, and with the same stake-holders without a specific distinction in practice.

9 The word civic originates from Latin and refers to urban dweller, belonging to a city, a citi- zen, or citizenship; municipal or civic (Merriam-Webster, 2019). Research framework

The main difference is in status, more specifically in the legitimity and distribu- tion of power. Unlike the two other forms of civic engagement, traditional public participation has a legal and legitimate status in the planning and decision-mak- ing process. The public participation process is a part of the democratic deci- sion-making process in which there is a constant quest for who´s ideas and in- terests are represented. The question of conflict is a built-in feature of public participa-tion as much as in any other political process (Forrester, 1998; Eranti, 2017). In this conflict, the best argument is the most supported one. The number of repre-sentatives can become important, when a public opinion is formulated. The local knowledge and minor stakeholders have less power in the process, and less pow-er to change the plan. Due to the contested nature of participation, the planner is the gatekeeper for public good. The planner has a position to define processes, for example emphasize the role of minorities (Massey, 2005; Sander- cock, 1998; Fainstein, 2001). The planner is also in the position to choose, how to use the results of the public participation. In crude, the planner and her/his framework for participation supercede the participatory process and dynamics instead of that of the participants.

Everyday life practices

Everyday life practices are completely opposite kind of civic actions to public participation. They deal with mundane human interaction in urban space, such as commuting, living and shopping, which are all individual tasks, but shared by masses and meaningful for urban development in the larger units. People´s hab-its, preferences and attitudes have an impact on their behavioural patterns and eventually on their living environment, often to the same degree as de- mographics and geographic distribution. Everyday life in the local surroundings is the basis for social networking, even hierarchies that reflect and reconstruct society. (Ho-relli, 2017; Manzo & Perkins, 2006; Shove & al., 2012; Harper, 2016; Bourdieu, 1984)

In urban systems discourse, the everyday life actions of individuals, communi- ties, organizations and institutions are vechicles for urban transformation that shape urban morphology (Batty & Marshall, 2012; Portugali, 2008). In urban analysis, everyday life can be monitored and analysed - defined and separated into particles and fractals. For example, when receiving data on the use of public transportation and local mobility, it is possible to analyse the spatial distribu- tion of pendling, the income of the household, the length of journey and travel- ling preferences. This information can be used in the further planning of public transportation and urban development initiatives.

Even if the civic engagement of everyday life is completely detached from the administration, urban planning is able to produce information on everyday life patterns by using tools of e-planning, especially spatial analysis of statistics and

22 Research framework e-surveys. For example, PPGIS-tools10 and other sophisticated e-planning in- stru-ments can introduce new data on everyday life (Kahila, 2015; Saad-Sulo- nen, 2013; Nummi, 2017). Nevertheless, as was described in the previous sector, the connection is single-handedly defined by administration. The way people act is not always the way they prefer, and not how they will act in the future.

Self-organization

In the third form of civic engagement, self-organized urban development, the setting is different. Boonstra and Boelens (2011, 100) define self-organization in urban development “as initiatives for spatial interventions that originate in civil society itself, via autonomous community-based networks of citizens, out- side government control.”

The dissertation follows their definition and approach to self-organization as community-based actor-networks and their urban initiatives. The difference to the public participation perspective is that self-organization escapes the formal procedures of planning and administration. Yet, it is also different from mun- dane everyday life practices, as people self-organize around intentional action for change.

Self-organization has several implications for urban planning and society. Some consider self-organization as a counter force that breaks the procedure of public participation (Rantanen & Faehnle, 2017; Innes & Booher, 2010). Others regard it as complementing the planning system through the production of local knowledge and innovations that the civil servants and policy-makers can use.

For example, in Finland, self-organized urban planning emerged in 2009, when a group of urban activist formed a Facebook group called “More City to Helsinki” (Lisää kaupunkia Helsinkiin). Currently, the group has 17 000 follow- ers and the number is counting. Via this Facebook group, a collective called Ur- ban Helsinki introduced an alternative general plan called Pro Helsinki 2.0. This plan, or at least its´ main objectives on urban morphology, building volume and density, were adopted in the formal general plan of Helsinki in 2015. In addition to the general planning, the group has been envolved in the detail planning of the Koskela hospital area. However, there are some less fortunate co-designed plans, which have ended up more as a counterforce to the statutory planning, not as adoptable material (Cf. Birdlife associated urban activists in Helsinki). (Faehnle & al., 2017; Niitamo & Sjöblom, 2018)

10 PPGIS (public participation geoinformation systems) has been mostly used as a tool in for- mal urban planning processes. One of its solutions, VGIS (volunteer geoinformation systems) has been used for more deliberative occasions, but mostly in the rural develop-ment initia- tives in the developing countries (Brown & Fagerholm, 2015; Smith-Thomé & al., 2014). Research framework

Self-organized urban planning has also manifested itself as ad hoc movements with explicit outcomes on urban strategic planning on a policy level. A mun- dane community engagement can turn into a strategic endeavour that changes urban policies. For example, in the large urban agglomerations of USA and Eu- rope, where local dwellers have claimed streets and motorways for pedestrian use, manifestations have turned into experimentations of urban regeneration. This kind of tactical urbanism has improved immediate urban surroundings, but they have also had an impact on the innercity development (Lydon & Garcia, 2015). The Finnish examples can be found in the bicyclig movement, which has changed both the traffic planning and the urban design of streets and pedestrian sidewalks in the Metropolitan Region.

Secondly, the formal city administration has sometimes favoured urban activ- ists as they produce vivid and intresting urbanism, such as alternative urban sub-cultures, which have enhanced gentrification in less developed neighbour- hoods. They have also provided temporary use for the old industrial sites and harbour areas in which urban regeneration would not happen in decades through official urban development. (Lehtovuori, 2010; Hernberg, 2012; Ber- glund, 2015). Also, co-housing initiatives that challenge the centralised con- struction industry, can be understood as a form self-organized co-production of urban space. Already in the early 1970’ s and 1980´s, there were a few co- housing initiatives in the Finn-ish metropolitan area, where the dwellers them- selves planned, designed and con-structed their own houses and plots (Kukko- nen, 1985; Vähätalo, 2017). Currently, there are several examples of self-orga- nized co-housing (e.g. Loppukiri and Malta in Helsinki; Aurinkolinna in Espoo)

Thirdly, self-organization can also be seen as a self-containing provider of so- cietal change without any connection to the planning system. According to Mäenpää and Faehnle (2017), self-organization is not just a phenomenon, but a practice and a means to co-finanze and co-produce goods, services – even new forms of economy, consumption patterns and sustainable society.

Many planners, researchers, urban developers and construction companies have been enthusiastic about urban activism and its possibilities to create inter- est-ing urban culture and space. However, some consider that self-organization has also its shortcomings. It has been criticised for being a form of neo-liberal- ism that runs down the legitimate public participation procedures and NGOs, who depend on government funding. Self-organization is also regarded as the movement of the well-off, so called latte-generation who lacks interest in issues, such as social inequality (Uitermark & Nicholls, 2014; Berglund, 2015).

The input of this dissertation is also to provide empirical evidence of self-organ- ization in Herttoniemi. The Helsinki Metropolitan Region has witnessed a new kind of urban activism and community development with the strategic en-deav- our to change urban policies and space. They have succeeded, to a certain extent,

24 Research framework in transforming some of the formal decision-making procedures of urban plan- ning (Wallin, 2013 & 2015).

This constitute the justification to the argument that urban planning as a disci- pline is expanding. I will discuss this in Chapter 2.3, but before that it is im- portant to reflect on the connection between self-organization and urban com- plexity.

2.2.3 Types of urban complexity

Self-organization is an evident part of systems thinking and urban complexity research. Complexity thinking around cities provides conceptual means to un- der-stand and explain the role of unpredictablility, seemingly autonomous, dy- namic urban processes (urban development), and the methods for their flexible steering (urban planning) (Portugali,2012; de Roo, 2012; Rantanen & Jout- siniemi, 2016).

This dissertation focuses on community-based self-organization. The simulta- neous actions of different actors make the networks dynamic, but also unpre- dict-able and uncontrollable. Therefore, complexity is an inherent part of self- organization. However, this does not undermine the capabilities of actors to in- iti-ate and react, and also learn from the actions. Boonstra and Boelens (2011) ad-vise to avoid the so called black box of systems thinking in which self-organ- ization is used as an explanation to the unexplainable, to the complexity that has escaped the analysis and the predefined system. As a solution, they sug-gest to open up the black box of urban systems by recognizing actors, factors and the objectives of their urban actions. They refer to Murdoch (2006) and claim that empirical, actor-based approach to urban system(s) and self-organization does not force complexity to a predefined setting. Thus, the approach also trails in line with the post-structuralist perspective to social and cultural systems as be- ing open and dynamic.

The dissertation has followed this advice. But instead of a Latourian actor-net- work-analysis (ANT), the analysis is based on a systems evaluation method, which suits better the thick and messy data that has been produced during the decade long action research. The methodology is discussed in Chapters 3. The relation between civic engagement (including self-organization) and urban com-plexity is elaborated further in Chapters 4 and 5.

This section addresses urban complexity and its connection to urban planning, especially to steering, management and forecasting in the planning practice. There are different opinions about, how planners should deal with complexity, whether with complex planning situations or complex urban issues.

Research framework

According to several scholars, complexity per se cannot be managed. For ex- ample, Boelens and de Roo (2014) claim that there is a difference between com- plicated systems and complex systems. The first one can be arranged, but not the latter, because; “ (e)ach of its parts influences the others reciprocally, ex- chang-ing (dissipating) information mutually and in accordance with the spe- cific cir-cumstances or contexts. Disassembled and reassembled – even if this were a re-alistic option for complex systems and their fluid behaviour – the system would not be the same, as the circumstances which sustained it would have changed meanwhile, and the system’s parts and context are subject to discontinuous, in-teractive change not allowing a return to the system’s initial settings.”

From the empirical analysis of the Herttoniemi case study, it was possible to recognize that urban complexity was an evident part of the daily life and plan- ning processes. And that there were different possibilities to deal with complexi- ty.

In order to analyze urban complexity in the Herttoniemi case study, and the coping mechnisms that were used in practice, I have applied the typology of complexity in urban development and management by Timothy Baynes (2009). His typology is based on literature analyses of systems thinking and historical urban development models. In addition to the deterministic, large-scale spatial urban models, his overview covers complexity research on social systems and community development traditions from Jane Jacobs onwards. Therefore, the typology resonates well with the outcomes of Herttoniemi case study.

The typology maked difference between simple complexity, disorganized com- plexity and organized complexity.

According to Baynes (2009), simple complexity comprises problems that can be solved, or at least described and detangeled. Traffic is a good example of an urban system, which consists of known parts, such as public transportation, lo- gistical corporations and a number of personal vehichle users. The physical net- works, such as routes, are known and stable in traffic. Yet there are polution, noise, gridlocks, unexpected cut downs and accidents. The mundane traffic planning regards them as complications in the complex system. However, even the most complicated system or situation in the traffic can be split into smaller units, detangled and therefore solved, if there are enough resources. This kind of solving will not mend any other part of the system, and it will not prevent new complications in the future, but it will deliver better functioning traffic.

When the planning task itself is considered, simple complexity is not necessari- ly about simplicity. On the contrary, it can also be intellectually a highly de- manding problem. Fore example, traditional civil engineering questions can be answered through methods, such as life-cycle thinking and efficiency consump-

26 Research framework tion calculations. Sophisticated engineering and planning for sure, but quite of- ten a task of streight forward calculation and design. (e.g. Cottineau & al., 2015; Mazza, 2002)

Beoynd wicked, but comprehensible planning tasks, there is urban complexity which is difficult to perceive and comprehend, as it takes place in changing situations, contexts and logics. In this kind of situation, it is difficult even to define the actual problem, or the origin of the complication. Sometimes it is not even obvious to which urban sytem it belongs. According to Baynes, this second type emerges from disorganised complexity. For example, climate change is a transdisciplinary challenge to tackle. It requires research from several fields and profesions in order to understand the status quo, even in one scale or in a part of an ecosystem. In addition to research, advanced statistical analyses and mod- elling should be used for forecasting, anticipation and insight. However, the knowledge creation (or even the political decisionmaking) is not likely to be able to stop climate change. As a phenomenon, disorganised complexity cannot be solved as such, but it can be examined and anticipated. After careful planning and management, it is possible to provide solutions to adopt more sustainable development tools.

One might think that after something as tremendous as climate change, all com- plexities in the urban system would have been covered. Nevertheless, the typol- ogy does not sustain comparative or otherwise normative order. Also, in a plan- ning situation, complexity can prevail in many forms. The typology names only the origins and the possibilities to deal with the complexity.

Therefore, Baynes suggests that the planner has to prepare that the urban com- plexity is not just about complicated situations and demanding sense-making in unknown context but also fuzzy logics of apparently organized stakeholders. According to Baynes, the third type called organized complexity is built-in to institutions and organizations. It appears in formal, acknowledged actions, ra- tionally-led and well-steered structures, in which each stakeholder brings forth its own contribution to the chaos. The ensemble of institutions comprises a com- petitive and overlapping system, which does not blend in. Organised complexity lives in the meshwork of official policies and strategies, outspoken objectives and annual reports.

Organized complexity takes place especially in the administration, and there- fore in the planning system as well. Different theories from organizational stud- ies to economic and behavioural research that has tried to open up the gridlock of organized complexity. Baynes (2009, 215) claims that ”The problems of or- ganised complexity are characterized by heterogeneity, coherent local inter- actions, irreducibility, and persistent disequilibrium. Deterministic ap- proaches and statistics cannot adequately represent the diversity or im- portance of interactions and dynamics that lead to aggregate observations in organised complex systems”. Research framework

Thus, unlike other types of urban complexity, the organized one is unsolvable by nature. For example, the discontinuity of administration from local level to the central government is already acknowledged by all stakeholders. There are no methods to produce information that would change the actual constitution of organized complexity. Very little can be done, since shutting down or splitting instututions into smaller units does not solve the consequences of organized complexity, which might even worsen it. Sometimes incremental development is considered as a solution, but it can relieve only the first type of complexity. In organized complexity a new technological advancement or political decision might be ”the juggernaut of destruction”11 , paving a new layer on the prior mess, which makes the situation even more problematic (Urry, 2003).

The definition of organizaed complexity resonates quite well with institutional ambiquity, which is discussed and elaborated in strategic urban planning re- search (e.g. Mäntysalo, 2002). Therefore, it is not surprising that Baynes sug- gests that the way to deal with organized complexity is in deliberation and social reconciliation, as well as in the new models of governance and practical innova- tions that take over the current systems and practices (Baynes, 2009). Again, the idea of organized complexity follows the post-structuralist perspective.

2.3 In search of an expanded urban planning

The conceptual framework of the dissertation underlines that self-organization is not only challenging the practice of institutional planning, but also the theory of participatory planning. During the past twenty years, participatory planning has been an integral part of the planning system, both in the Finnish ethos and in its implementation. Unfortunately, public participation has quite often turned out to be a disappointment both to the stakeholders and planners (Rantanen & Joutsiniemi, 2016).

In participatory planning, the planners seek to involve citizens and to advocate the co-operation between entrepreneurs, civil organizations and government organizations for several reasons. For example, Boonstra and Boelens (2011, 100-101) describe that the benefits of participatory planning can be the follow- ing:

11 The juggernaut of destruction is a metaphora for a vehicle of progress, designed to amelio- rate wicked problems. This can be a new practice or a technological gadget that seems like a solution to problems, but turns out to be a more destructive practice than the previous ones. The automobile is an example of the juggernaut of destruction which John Urry (2003) uses in his work. An intensive farming technique is another example that has defeated hunger, but has cut down biodiversity and the overall ecology.

28 Research framework

• Improvement of social cohesion through local empow- erment and networking • Better environment through increased spatial account- ability • Acceleration of planning process and local economic robustness • Increased legitimity of the political and administrative system

Research on participatory planning has developed a variety of approaches and methods to gain these benefits in practice. Research has focused on the partici- patory processes and created methods for mediation and co-operation, even ad- vocacy, in order to make the process transparent, open, representative and con- flict-free (e.g. Davidoff, 1965; Forester, 1999). It has also tried to empower the stakeholders by providing them a position on the different levels of the planning sys-tem; from the strategic metropolitan level to the local actions, also in the different stages of the plan, as well as in large scale surveys and hands-on work- shops (e.g. Balducci, 2003). With the assistance of ICTs, the rise of e-planning, participation has expanded, for example through digital arenas and e-mapping tools (Anttiroiko, 2012; Kahila, 2015; Saad-Sulonen; 2013).

A great deal has been done. Public participation has grown up in many ways, and it has evolved as part of political decision-making. Nevertheless, even as a legi-imate procedure, public participation still is a problematic part of planning. According to planners, public participation is always biased; people who partic- ipate are driven by their own interests, they do not represent their cause in ad- equate numbers, and there are many reasons why their knowledge cannot be translated and transmitted to the planning documents (Healey, 1997; Staffans, 2004; Bäcklund 2007). Some, e.g. Innes & Booher (1999) conclude that tradi- tional participatory processes have failed to meet the local needs, but also failed to pro-vide solutions for planners and the larger society. Public participation does not provide meaningful information to the civil servants in the sense that it would make a difference to the process, and therefore, it will not improve the situation of the participants and their opportunity to be heard. The gap between the plan-ning system and the diverse realities emerges in spite of public partic- ipation (cf. Hillier, 2003).

As described earlier, the enhancement of public participation was the objective of the Herttoniemi case study in the beginning (cf. Article 4). As the research evolved, the perspective enlarged from statutory urban planning to community development, and later on to self- organized local development (cf. Articles 3, 2, and 1).

The research in Herttoniemi underlines that citizen engagement is more exten- sive than one planning process and even the planning system as a whole. It raised the question, what is the role of civic engagement in the complex urban Research framework development. How can urban planning cope with the local realms which are not repre-sented in the formal planning procedures, but instead in the self-orga- nized initiatives and everyday life practices? What are the methods and ap- proaches to deal with them?

Participatory planning has been challenged as a discipline, because it has not been able to make the planning system as open and adaptive as it should be. The perfomarnce of the planning system in urban development, in this case on the local neighbourhood level, is failing.

Therefore, the dissertation suggests that there is a new emerging paradigm to participatory planning, as the collaborative practice of dealing with complex urban development should cover more than just statutory urban planning. In order to address the local realm, the urban planning should expand, and reach from strategic planning to the actual implementation and co-production of ur- ban space on the local level (Wallin, 2013; Staffans & Horelli; 2014; Horelli, 2017).

Figure 1. Expanded urban planning promotes urban development by recognizing dif- ferent types of civic engagement and planning approaches.

Figure 1. visualizes the expanded urban planning (EP). EP builds on the current planning discipline, but seeks to enlarge the scope. The traditional planning sys- tem endorses linear procedures and the monolithic reality that provides a “fixed order” (Davoudi, 2012; Rantanen & Joutsiniemi, 2016). Public participation is a part of linear procedure, which main objective is to produce a plan, a statutory blueprint for execution. From the administrative perspective this is necessary, but crippled by nature as the reality is not monolithic, but diverse and craving for versatile methods that can deal with urban complexity. However, the ethos

30 Research framework and logic of the current planning system put pressure to public participation to become a reduced practice.

EP strives for an integrative epistemology which includes, besides traditional public participation, versatile planning procedures and methods depending on the context and the purpose of the issue12. Above all, EP supports the diverse realities of citizen engagement and their manifestation in urban surroundings. This takes place by orchestrating a suitable methodology for multi-actor sense- making assisted by a variety of methods. Some of them will empower self-or- ganizised urban actions in practice, some provide methods for observing and anticipation. The dissertation will present examples of practice in Chapter 4.2, and suggests a compilation of planning methods which addresses diverse reali- ties in different spatio-temporal scales (cf. chronotopes in the Chapter 4.3).

From this point onwards, the dissertation describes EP in practice. In the case of Herttoniemi, traditional urban planning has had a modest impact on the local urban development. Yet, local stakeholders, both their self-organized actions and everyday life preferences, have had an impact on the neighbourhood´s spa- tial development, as well as on urban functions and the local identity. Self-or- ganization in urban development has contributed both to the horizontal expan- sion (from traditional spatial planning to community development and co- governance) and to the vertical one (from strategic planning to implementation and evaluation). The case study also includes an example of hybrid co-govern- ance that might function as a deliberative system on varying scales (Jarenko, 2013; Cambell, 2012). Therefore, the lenses of EP provide a possibility to deal with the different types of complexities, at least with the ones of simple, disor- ganized and organized.

12 Diverse realities` has a double meaning: an ontological and a phenomenal one. First, irre- spective of the lacking consensus over the ontology of complexity sciences, this dissertation subscribes to a pluralist ontology (Popper, 1972; Escobar, 2017), including an emergent criti- cal realism which assumes that certain interactive particles exist in reality with unexpected consequences, such as self-organization, emergence etc. (Niiniluoto, 1999). Thus, the ontol- ogy is closely tied with epistemology and can in fact only be understood through the latter. Secondly, ´diverse realities` refers here to the concrete fact that people are different, and not just representatives of their demographic cohort. For example, women and men of varying backgrounds experience and interpret their daily life from different perspectives. Methodology

3. Methodology

This chapter sheds light on action research as a method to produce information on the local patterns of urban development and civic engagement, and as an enabler to implement urban planning initiatives. The action research comprised development inititives in situ, in a neighbourhood of Helsinki, called Hert- toniemi. The chapter will outline the basis of the empirical contribution.

3.1 Urban planning in situ

According to Bengt Flyvbjerg (2006, 219): “(T)he Kuhnian insight that a sci- entific discipline without a large number of thoroughly executed case studies is a discipline without a systematic production of exemplars, and a discipline without exemplars is an ineffective one.”

Flyvbjerg (2001) emphasises the use of case studies, by making in-depth anal- yses of certain planning cases and the local context. He disclaims five misunder- standings concerning the case-study research (2006, 221). Also, in his famous case study on Aalborg traffic planning (Flyvbjerg, 1998), his main tools for ex- plaining urban planning, its implementation and outcomes were story-telling and the analysis of actors and stakeholders. Therefore, it is time to present the case, especially the planning in situ.

Herttoniemi, which is one of the oldest suburbs of Helsinki, provided a rich con- text for studying urban development and transformation as well as civic en- gagement in all its forms. The neighbourhood has followed the general transfor- mation of the metropolitan area. Therefore, it can be regarded as the mirror of urban development in the Helsinki region in which the internal and external push and pull factors take turns, enabling and constraining one another.

Historically, Herttoniemi has functionally been part of Helsinki since the 1950s. Industrial activities found their place there and offered harbour and ware-house services to the whole city. Right after the Second World War Herttoniemi turned into one of Finland´s first suburbs, which attracted people who wanted better housing conditions. Thus, Herttoniemi became a classical neighbourhood unit that provided its inhabitants all public and commercial services in addition to

32 Methodology work places. Gradually its identity got stronger. It was divided into two residen- tial areas: West-Herttoniemi and Roihuvuori, which were separated from one another by an industrial and harbour area, and later by the eastern motorway and the metrorail towards East-Helsinki and the South-East Region (Packalén, 2008).

Currently, the urban structure of Herttoniemi is decisively different from that after the war. The neighbourhood has been rebuilt in terms of its functions, pop- ulation, townscape and position in the central hierarchy of the metropolitan area. Gentrifaction has been strong in like many other neighbourhoods close to city centre. The social housing stock of apartment houses has been transformed into owner occupied dwellings by older people but also increasingly by young families. The once labour-class neighbourhood has now a conspicuous concen- tration of new urbanism and green urban activists.

Urban structure has changed drasticly. The old suburban structure is dissolving. The former harbour area has been replaced by a new sub-area with high density urban building, called Herttoniemenranta. The commercial services have moved into the centre of Herttoniemi around the metro station and the former industrial area has evolved into an office and retail district. The old shopping centres in the West-Herttoniemi and Roihuvuori have been emptied of commer- cial services, except for small supermarkets. Also, public services, such as the library, youth house and the local parish have been searching new places, some hoping to move to the commercial centre around the metro.

All the above described factors have transformed the urban landscape, and the change is continuing - but mostly outside the neigbourhood. A bit futher north from the Herttonimi Centre, in Myllypuro, the point-access block houses and slab blocks are being complemented by new buildings of latest architecture. Also, a completely new neighbourhood, called Kruunuvuorenranta, is being built to south-east from Herttoniemi. And just few kilometres south, there is Kalasatama, a new, even bigger agglomeration with a metrostation. Herttoniemi has always been the transport node of South-East Helsinki, but now it is scaling down to a new level, while it is simultaneously being changed internally.

The major planning interest of the case study was the statutory planning of Herttoniemi Centre. The Plan was initiated in 2005. After almost 15 years, a shopping mall and housing project are under contruction but there is still a striking difference between the visualizations of the local detailed plan (rede- signed version accepted in 2011 in Figures 2a) and the current situation in Hert- toniemi (Figure 2b). However, the centre block of the Herttoniemi Centre con- sisting of the large high/rise tower for a hotel and housing has not evolved, and the plot of the metro station is still waiting for its´ turn 13

13 The first detailed plan of Herttoniemi Metro Centre was accepted in 2007. In 2011, the plan was extended to cover also the eastern side of the motorway, as the land/use contract had Methodology

Figure 2a. The visualization of the local detailed plan, Herttoniemi Centre and Mega- hertsi, based on Helin & co Arkkitehdit/ Arkkitehtuuritoimisto B&M Oy. (City of Hel- sinki, 2011)

Figure 2b. The Herttoniemi Center, in 2018. 3D, Google Maps, 2.2. 2019.

been signed with a contruction company called Hartela in 2012. (City of Helsinki, 2017a) How- ever, in 2017, the contract was resigned together with both Hartela and another contruction company, YIT (City of Helsinki 2012 and 2017). Due to this contract, the new traffic plan (City of Helsinki, 2017b) is partly executed and rental agreement with local K/Market entrepreneur has been re-signed (City of Helsinki, 2017). However, the centre block of the Herttoniemi is still waiting for its turn. According to the latest information, the plan of Herttoniemi Centre is going to be opened for the third time, and redesigned from 2018 onwards.

34 Methodology

From the perspective of urban development, it has taken over 15 years for a plan to be implemented. Even after redesigning for potential real estate investors, the plan is still “left on the drawer”.

The contrast of what might have been becomes highlighted when exploring the urban development that has taken place, not only in Herttoniemi but in the larger Helsinki metropolitan region. The past decade has been a time of fast ur- ban development in the metropolitan region. The blooming economics and pop- ulation growth have made the housing market thrivet. The interest of real estate developers has been concentrated on the urban centres, especially around metro stations. During the time of action research and this dissertation, more than ten new urban centres has been developed around metropolitan region (including urban development around new stations of Länsimetro in the City of Espoo and Ring Rail in the City of Vantaa). Many of them are situated much futher away from Helsinki Central Railway station than Herttoniemi metro station.

Also, several completely new neighbourhoods have been launched in Helsinki. In addition to the mentioned Kalasatama and Kruunuvuori, there are Pasila, Jätkäsaari and the forthcoming Hernesaari. During all this time, apart from small in-fill housing initiatives, the formal urban development in the neighbour- hood of Herttoniemi has remained stagnated. The public service intrastructure has deteriorated as the social services and health care has been moved to an- other neighbourhood, and the metro station and bus station are in need of ren- ovation.

That was the storyline of urban planning and development in short. However, there is much more to know, when carrying out an analysis of the on-going change and the local solutions for a better future (Cf. Chapter Key Findings).

3.2 Action research - a strategy for research and development

In 2004, the research group from Aalto University begun to seek a new ap- proach that could assist the urban planning endeavours and produce in-depth research knowledge on the actual urban context in which the planning took place. The group, together with the Helsinki administration and outside funding started an action research which continued until 2009, after which the group has ana-lysed the data and evaluated the outcomes.

Action research is is simultaneously an explanatory and transformatory factor in terms of the research object (Alasuutari, 1993; Shotter, 2007; Brydon-Miller & al,. 2002). The action research in Herttoniemi is urban planning research that followed principles of advocacy planning (Davidoff, 1965), but exceeded fur- ther into scientific analysis and interpretation.

Methodology

Action research often comprises the following iterative phases: 1. Production of information as part of planning and development 2. On-going analysis of information 3. Interpretation of the information and the drawing of conclusions 4. Reflection and evaluation of the results and processes

In the action research on Herttoniemi, urban planning and community devel- opment interventions were intertwined with the study of different actors and their activities in the neighbourhood.

Herttoniemi action research provided a way to study on urban change in a sys- temic way14. Systemic refers here to a trans-disciplinary approach in which, be- sides the structural and temporal transformation of the context, also the differ- ent agents and their rationalities are recognised as part of the urban planning interventions (Cf.2.2.1). The systemic approach by Kurt Lewin (1947) seemed to support the understanding of urban transformation, because it combines spe- cific development methods with the community action.

This systemic action research methodology was called LENA (the Learning- based network approach to urban planning and action research), and it con- tained the described iterative phases above. The LENA comprised a method- olog-ical package contained both enabling tools and traditional research methods of urban planning and design15 (see Figure 3; Horelli, 2002 and Arti- cles 3 and 4).

14 Action research is a strategy in which the researcher, together with the subjects in the study, implement various interventions. The study comprises simultaneous observation, monitoring and analyses (Lewin, 1947). The ideal process of data gathering is transparent and co-evolves with the context (Cambell, 2012). The action research also pursuits for changing the status quo. In the action research intervention, researcher becomes involved, even part of this change. This dual role of the researcher, the so called ´sitting on two chairs`, is a dilemma in science in which the research should remain objective. However, in a practical discipline, such as urban planning, the changing role of the planner and researcher is obvious. Both the planners and researchers are stakeholders among the others, and yet the ones providing the framework, methodology as well as the actual staging for action. 15 Lena has been earlier applied in Malminkartano, another neighbourhood of Helsinki, and in the region of North Carelia (Horelli 2002; Horelli & Vepsä, 1994).

36 Methodology

Figure 3. The LENA, the learning-based network approach to urban planning and ac- tion research (Horelli, 2002)

The LENA integrated shared practices of community development to urban planning process. Community development is known in the Anglo-Saxon coun- tries as a counterpart of the process-based town planning. This meant in prac- tice, that the community development methods (e.g. ABCD asset-based-map- ping by McKnight (2003) and empowering event-making (Sarkissian & Hur- ford, 2010)) were combined to participatory planning methods (e.g. the roundtable negotia-tions of Forester (1999). It also promoted the possibilities the combining of of community informatics (Gurstein, 2007) to the local stake- holders and enhanced the interest in urban informatics (Foth, 2009) and e- planning mapping tools with civil servants. (Cf. Article 3.)

With these hand-on methods and the LENA-procedural logic, the urban devel- opment endeavour was cut down from complex interventions into small events in which participants from a variety of population groups had their own role in order to reach a shared goal.

According to the research and development process, explained in the disserta- tion articles, LENA expanded the formal urban planning that traditionally Methodology deals with specific zoning and building projects, into a multi-stakeholder de- velopment process (see Article 3).

It transcended administrative and areal borders and explored new ways to gath- er inhabitants. Instead of being passive followers of the planning and develop- ment process, the local inhabitants and NGOs were involved in the actual co- desing and co-production processes which they defined themselves. The action took place in the everyday surroundings, such as kindergarten centres, a library or in the neighbourhood house, called Ankkuri.

Researchers did not define meetings but sought to keep up the processes to- gether and steer them from one stage to another. Researchers also had the role to articulate the outcomes, inform the actors about other similar initiatives and the overall objectives of the city administration. They were also prepared to mit- igate arising conflicts. This, however, turned out to be irrelevant, as the partici- pants were free to choose and decide their own actions, even to establish new devel-opment intiatives, which did not end up in conflict.

Researchers also encouraged and assisted the locals to use new web-based tech- nologies. Some of them were applied in the actual co-desing of urban space. For example, participatory e-planning was applied in the design of the Roihu-vuori Yard. Social media, in the form of the new neighbourhood web-pages and later on Facebook groups were tools to inform and support the development pro- cesses and to build up the local identity in the long run. This kind of community informatics was used in the LENA-approach, as well as also in other develop- ment initiatives in the neighbourhood. (Cf. Article 4.)

Secondly, contrary to the traditional participatory urban planning process, the planner was not this time an organiser of the process but merely one actor. There was no primary object or target, but several intertwining projects that were simultaneously taken forward. These were, for example, the renovation of the metro station, bus routes, the planning and building of a Roihuvuori yard, but also the activation of different resident and hobby groups, by developing a spe-cific local participation structure. This meant, among others, the founding of lo-cal web sites and voluntary local governance institutions in the form of a Local Committee and a Local Assembly that started to meet regularly (See Arti- cles 3 and 4).

Thridly, with the LENA, the neighbourhood is no longer seen as an object of the town fathers or professional town planners. Herttoniemi unfolded as a self- organising, co-evolving system in which all actors had some meaning, even if the roles were not similar or comparable. This conceptual approach meant that the residents and communities of the self-organizing city, who traditionally had been regarded as users of activities and spaces, stood up side by side the author- ities of urban planning. The prior stakeholders in planning had been other civil

38 Methodology servants, land owners and construction companies, who had wanted to engage local actors in planning, but only in the role of the end user.

This reflects the need for a change in the urban planning paradigm in which the plan and the planner performing the planning process are not an evident centre of the research focus. It also manifestates the EP.

In the expanded focus of urban planning, residents, civic society organisations and the workers of local associations, even passive actors who do not come to events, carry weight in terms of shaping the environment. The transformation can take place by conscious participation in development interventions or just by having an impact on the setting through everyday practices, such as walking (Kuoppa, 2013). Not only active involvement in a workshop or writing a state- ment, but even the chosen route or service, and a lived moment and even per- sonal recollection can be part of the evolving urban texture (cf. Wallin, 2018) (See Chapter, 2.2.2).

This kind of urban planning and development might seem chaotic, when di- verse interventions and research are simultaneously taken forward. However, in practice it is clear that the redesigning of the location of children´s afternoon care, the building of a community yard and the changing of local bus routes are different planning processes, but together they make the neighbourhood a bet- ter place to live. The co-planning, timing and taking forward of these locally identified activities through action research enabled the description and even certain steering of the transformation in the neighbourhood that was never present in the official planning and policy making.

LENA provived a structure for the research design. It staged the methods and research incidents, and set the gathered data in a chronological order. There- fore, LENA was not only an enabling method of local action and development, but also a research method that enabled the use of several research technics (Horelli, 2002). Together it was an example of, how to conduct expanded urban planning.

3.3 The data, analysis and interpretation of the action research

The action research produced a large variety of data, due to the fact that the ac- tion research (2004–2009) continued in three different planning, research and development projects and comprised several distinctive development initiatives with different foci. In addition to them, there were other local development en- deavours in the neighbourhood, which did not relate to the action research. Some of them were primarily part of the action research initiatives, some of them spin offs, but most of them were separate development initiatives which Methodology were not involved with this study16. In addition to them, the observation of the statutory planning processes has continued, as decribed in Chapter 3.1.

Therefore, it was necessary to study the action research, but also the context in which it took place. In each phase, the data was gathered from the actual inter- ventions, but also from the area, concerning the place-based data of the attrac- tiveness and functioning of the neighbourhood. There were two surveys cover- ing the residents of the neighbourhood. Also focus group and individual inter- views were conducted, in addition to the observation of the meetings of admin- istrators and associations in Herttoniemi.

The data was gathered in the events decribed in Table 2 and Appendix 1. The action research provided data on the: - Interventios and experiences of the participants - Stages and outcomes of the action research - Official planning documents both on the neighbourhood level and further on the Helsinki Metropolitan region.

The original aim of the action research was to examine the urban transfor- mation of a neighbourhood and to find out, how to support people´s everyday life and opportunities to participate in urban planning.

Therefore, the objective of the data gathering was twofold: first of all, to collect views of different actors concerning the ways to develop the neighbourhood and to disseminate information for deliberation. Secondly, the data enabled the monitoring of the evolving context.

16 At the same time with the action research of Aalto University, there were other on-going development projects in Herttoniemi and in its surroungding neighbourhoods. The largest ones were also initiated by the City of Helsinki. The first Neihgbourhood Project Plan (Lähiöprojekti) was inititiated already in 1996. It was targeted at the improvement of housing conditions and public spaces in the Eastern part of Helsinki. The other large scale develop- ment initiative was the Healthty Neighbourhood-project (Terveellinen kaupunginosa) con- ducted by Forum Virium. It had several initiatives that were targeted at better public services and at the e-infrastructure.

40 Methodology

Table 2. The data of Herttoniemi action research (2004-2009).

Data sources Types and items

Primary data Memos of Local Assemblys (23 items),

Data from local gatherings, pro- Memos from the formal urban planning participa- duced by the actors and stakehold- tion events in Herttoniemi (4 items) ers themselves (memos, drawings, photographs) Memos from semi-formal planning workshops and the gatherings of local stakeholders (5 items)

Secondary data Survey I (Häkkinen & Wallin 2004)

Data gathered by the researchers Survey II (Jarenko 2007) (surveys, inteviews and data from observation) Group interviews with local stakeholders (3 items)

Group and personal interviews with administrators (5 items) (2009 – 2010)

Observation memos and graphics from the local events and happenings. (over 200 items during 2003–2012)

Supporting planning data Planning documents produced by the Helsinki plan- ning department at Herttoniemi, Roihuvuori and Planning documents and formal an- Kalasatama (2004 -2017). nouncements related to the plan- ning process (Plans, strategies, sta- Statistical data of Helsinki (2001–2017) tistics etc.) Strategies and decision documents of the Depart- ments of town planning and social affairs (2003– 2017).

The actual interventions and experiences of the participants formed the pri- mary data which describes the events and issues related to the action research initia-tives that the local actors considered relevant (Table 2). The data was pro- duced by the locals themselves. The researcher was present in these occasions. The secondary data was produced by the research team of Aalto University. The surveys and interviews were used to gather data on the local inhabitants, their experiences and hopes for the future development. Both sets of data contributed to the first research objective. After that, the data was also used to find out, what outcomes the development initiatives had produced. The evaluation of the out- comes, in-cluding the performance of the statutory planning, has been con- ducted in a sim-ple way by analysing, whether the intended initiative or the plan has been imple-mented in practice. The interviews provided a method to verify and assemble the primary data, and so did the observation data produced by the researchers.

The supporting planning data and official planning documents were used at the beginning of the action research in order to formulate a better understand- ing of the neighbourhood. During the action research, the documents were used to in-form local actors. After the action research had ended, meaning the actual Methodology interventions with the stakeholders, the supporting data was used in the analy- sis of the context of the local development on the neighbourhood level.

The decriptions of the data gathering and the outcomes of the action reserach were published in referee journal articles. The first article17 from this data was published in 2010 and the last one in 2015. Each article of this dissertation used the same data (Table 2.) but from different perspectives (Table 3.). Therefore, the articles present different sides of the urban transformation in Herttoniemi (Table 1). Each article provides research questions and analyses of their own, but their theoretical and conceptual basis of participatory urban planning, com- munity development and e-planning remain the same.

Table 3. The methods of analysis and data used in the articles. Each method is de- scribed in the articles.

Article Analysis and methods Data/ Perspective

I Urban Trasformation in CATWOE systems evalu- Planning data of Herttoniemi action tion method (Hummel- Centre and Roihuvuori Yard brunner & Reynolds, 2009) Interviews of the stakeholders and participants

II When Self-Organiza- A comparative case study Event data tion intersects with Ur- analysis of urban activism ban Planning and its organization Data of the social organizations of the participants

III User-sensitive service A descriptive analysis of Procedural data of five local initi- design in urban planning LENA and its implementa- atives and community develop- tion ment Surveys I ja II

IV Playing with the glocal A descriptive analysis of Procedural data of five local initi- through participatory e- the outcomes of LENA atives and planning Surveys I ja II

V Future-making assess- Evaluation of the action An e-planning initiative in Roihu- ment as a tool research method vuori

An organization of the Hert- toniemi local group

17 In addition to this PhD, there are several articles published by the Aalto University re-search group called PALCO. The publications of PALCO are enlisted at: https://wiki.aalto.fi/dis- play/Palco/Publications . There are also two other dissertations, which have used the data gathered during the action research at Herttoniemi, namely by Joanna Saad-Sulonen (2014) https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/handle/123456789/13352 and Jenni Kuoppa (2016) http://tam- pub.uta.fi/handle/10024/98653 .

42 Methodology

The meta-analysis presented in this summary was based on a systems evalua- tion method, called CATWOE (Hummelbrunner & Reynolds, 2010)18. The meth-od and its application has been described in Article 1.

CATWOE is a method of content analysis that helps to study complex situa-tions by first breaking them down to categories, such as clients, actors, transfor- mation, worldview, owners, environment, and secondly by examining their rela- tionships as part of the system. The difference with the ANT-method, based on Latour´s actor network theory (2006), is that CATWOE is an evaluation method suitable for heterogenic data in different time-spans.

The application of CATWOE also provided the possibility to conduct a metae- valuation, which:

x Defined development patterns that took place in the neighbourhood (ur- ban transformation processes and the performance of the plans) x Evaluated complications and progress that occured (types of complex- ity) x Interpreted modes of civic engagement versus administration

The outcomes of this analysis is presented in Chapter 4.

3.4 Reflection

The long time span of the dissertation, which began in 2005 with the action re- search, requires to reclect the trustworthiness of the study. According to Lincoln and Guba (1985) trustworthiness comprises credibility (trad. internal validity), transferability (trad. external validity), dependability (trad. reliability) and con- firmability (trad. objectivity).

Urban planning is a time-consuming practice. The statutory planning process that could be validated from the formal strategy papers and political decision- making took more than five years conclude. After that, the outcomes of the plan- ning procedures have been emerging – or are still in process of becoming. The longi-tudinal research design comprising observation, interviews, surveys and analyses of documents, but also the data collection provided by the stakeholders them-selves improved the verification of this becoming. It is unlikely that it could have been disclosed in any other way.

The pitfalls of a longitudinal action research are many. In action research, the researcher defines the research design, chooses the research questions and

18 CATWOE is based on Peter Chckland´s (1981) soft system methodology. As a system evalu- ation it seeks to provide an approach for complex policy-level analysis, which acknowledges multi-actor networks and set them in context (Reynolds, 2014; Reynolds & Holwell, 2009). Methodology methods, and simultaneously influences the actions that she/he is studying. In the Herttoniemi case, the action research comprised altering layers of action and observation. However, they tended to blur to the extent that it was difficult to de-fine the input of the research from the ones made by lay people on the case study site.

Therefore, the following techniques, recommended by Guba and Lincoln (Ibid) to increase trustworthiness, were applied. Credibility was augmented by tri- angu-lating concepts, methods and perspectives, which were constantly com- municated with the local stakeholders, especially in the Local Forum. Transfer- ability was supported by the thick description of the case studies, which accord- ing to Brom-ley (2002) may permit findings to be generalized to a class of sim- ilar cases, alt-hough the context draws the boundaries. Dependability and con- firmability were consolidated by keeping audit trails and by reflecting on the design, process and outcomes of the study with the research group. Due to the chosen LENA-approach and the audit trail, it was possible to notice, who had participated in the initiatives. It was also possible to check, if the initiative was part of the action research or that of the administration or even part of self- organized local actions.

However, both internal and external validity need a closer examination. In a dec-ade long action research on urban planning and development each research phase and action have taken place in a unique span of time and space. In all research, both quantitative and qualitative, fallacious assumptions or bias in the researcher´s work corrupts the perspective and data.

In crude, the long time span of the study is not the only problematic issue. The paradox is that in action research, the action itself corrupts the scene. As action research is a meshwork of a variety of operations and agencies, both implicit and explicit, intended and unintended, trustworthiness is demanding. After the long research process with several incidents and piling up of data with conflict- ing per-spectives, it was challenging to draw straight forward conclusions. Transferability is also context-related. Therefore, the outcomes cannot be taken for granted in a different neighbourhood, nor even in the same neighbourhood but at a different time.

However, Corbin & Strauss (1990) point out that substantive theory produced through content analysis might enhance transferability. Also, Flyvbjerg (2011) claims that the strength of the case study is not in its power to explain comphre- hensively the world, but to give an example that makes the world more compre- hensible. This is the task that the dissertation also pursuits to provide.

44 Key findings

4. Key findings

This chapter presents the key findings of the research concerning urban com- plexity, the multifaceted nature of civic engagement and the challenge which they pose on the linear urban planning procedures. The key findings also pro- pose the measures to deal with urban complexity and the gap between the plan- ning system and local realms, as well as the plan and its implementation.

4.1 Participation beyond urban planning

The first key finding is related to the role that civic engagement had in the local urban development. The analysis recognized the limited role of public participa- tion in the traditional processes of urban planning and development. It was also found out that other forms of civic engagement fed and steered urban develop- ment and played a distinctive role in the management of the different types of urban complexity.

Public participation is often regarded as having a legitimate but biased nature in terms of planning outcomes (cf, Chapter 2.3.). As described in Articles 1 and 2, the local development, based on the formal planning process in the Hert- toniemi Centre, did not proceed accordingly, either.

The plan of Herttoniemie Centre and the planning procedure raised plenty of criticism among local dwellers and action groups already in 2005, when the pro- cess begun. People who participated in the statutory planning provided an alter- native to the plan, but it was not supported by the planner. In addition to the local dwellers, there were also other stakeholders, such as the local library and the youth services. The alternative option promoted by the locals was based on the renovation of the metro station. However, it did not propose additional square meters outside the metro plot, which the city needed in order to pay their share of development. The number of participants in the planning evenings and local debates varied from 30 to 60 people, while the majority of local dwellers was not aware of the intentions that the city administration had for their neigh- bourhood.

The analysis of Herttoniemi demonstrates that participants, especially in the formal public hearing procedures, had no actual impact on the process, nor on Key findings the outcomes of the plan. Public gatherings provided information, engaged in- hab-itants and provided an arena for the interplay between the local actors and civil servants, which benefited more the self-organized urban initiatives than the plan-ning of the Herttoniemi Centre. The ladder of Arnstein (1969)19 got stuck in its primal stage. The public could not implement their opinions.

The plan of Herttoniemi Centre emphasised that the planner is in charge of both the procedure and the substance of planning. Also, the planner has both the le- gal status to interpret the Building Act and to represent the city, which owns the land in Helsinki. Therefore, if the City of Helsinki City would have wanted to develop the Herttoniemi metro station, the decision could have been taken in- stantly. Instead, the situation in the metro station, which is the major transpor- tation hub for the whole Eastern part of the metropolitan region, has remained the same since 1982 when the metro started to operate. The development pro- cess is still open after 15 years of planning. It is evident that in this kind of con- text, public partici-pation cannot challenge administration and the planners´ position.

Therefore, the argument that public participation stagnates the planning pro- cess, is based on the false idea that the planner is not able to speed up the pro- cess or to choose the most suitable mode of participation for the situation. The stagnation of the Herttoniemi planning procedures was the outcome of the plan itself and the strategic land use decisions of the administration and politicians, which did not appeal to the investors. The development prospects in the sur- rounding neighbourhoods were more appealing. Consequently, the plan in that spatial and economic context dispelled the investors and developers from the Herttoniemi Center.

Secondly, the analysis made the self-organizing movements visible (see Article 1). The case study in Herttoniemi revealed that self-organization differs from public participation, not only in terms of occurance, the dynamics and motives of the movement, but also in terms of legitimity. However, they also had shared qualities.

The quality of public participation is quite often measured by democratic rep- resentativeness, because in public participation the participants have to be in favour or against the planning proposal. Self-organization is shaped by the ac- tion itself, with a progressive ethos of doing. The actors participated in the ac-

19 The ladder of participation by Arnstein (1969) has been widely used to illustrate the distri- bution of power in/at/to the planning processes. The ladders consist of stages from manipula- tion, (2) therapy, (3) informing, (4) consultation, (5) placation, (6) partnership, (7) delegated power and (8) citizen control. The highest steps are considered to ensure citizen empower- ment. However, the post-structuralists consider even the highest stages insufficient, because the ladders are staged from the perspective of government. The model amplifies government´s leading and deciding role, and provides participation by procedural inclusion. (e.g. Boonstra & Boelens, 2011:107).

46 Key findings tion, based on their own agendas, which were openly presented both in the im- plicit and explicit forms of action. The agendas were also acknowledged by out- siders.

The sovereign nature of self-organization is not based on the number of actors. Unlike public participation, nobody represents anyone else but him/herself. This does not exclude that many people are involved with the motivation for doing good, working for others20. Self-organization does not need large num- bers of social actors or movements. Even a small and enthusiastic action group can be effective. For example, the movement that initiated and produced the neighbour-hood house at Tuhkimo Kindergarten was formed by a handful of people. Later on, the house was widely used by locals for many occasions. Also, the Roihu-vuori Yard inititiave improved the local surroundings and is enjoyed daily by the local dwellers. Relatively small numbers of local dwellers and other stakeholders have managed to develop and maintain better public urban space in the housing areas of Herttoniemi.

Conseqently, there were also shared features with traditional participation. The same people, who represented the traditional neighbourhood association, were also active in the neighbourhood house initiatives and in other endeavours of urban activism. The semi-professional “super participants” (Staffans, 2004) were active in public participation, and gathered around themselves a “commu- nity of practice” (Saad-Sulonen, 2013). For example, the activists around the local web pages and social media tools were just a handful of people, but they were also active in many urban issues and in the local identity-making. All methods and tools of participation turned out to be important and successful, if they were also applied outside the traditional planning procedures. The transi- tion from participatory planning to participatory co-production speeded up and enabled a satisfactory outcome, for example, in the case of the Roihuvuori yard (See also Saad-Sulonen, 2013; Saad-Sulonen & Horelli, 2013; Saad-Sulonen & al., 2015).

Unilike one might think, the connection of self-organization with the formal planning and administration was not contested, it was evolving and even pro- ductive. In the beginning of the action research, traditional planning did not recongnize local activists. The actions of local event-makers and hobby-groups were not a focus in the planning procedures or mentioned in a spatial plan, even if they shared the same objectives, namely the development of their local envi- ronment. This situation has changed in the past couple of years, but it was not obvious during the action research.

The research showed that the strategic decision-making of the two city depart- ments (Social Affairs and Urban Planning) had very little impact on local move- ments. The hypothesis of the study was that traditional public participation

20 In Finnish, there is a form of voluntary work called talkoot. The idea of talkoot is to arrange a “work party” to assist a person, a family or a part of community. Key findings would be essential for dealing with ‘simple urban complexity’. However, it turned out that the precondition for solving urban complexity was the self-or- ganizing collaboration between the residents, associations, entrepreneurs and the administrators. Local development initiatives turned out to be successful, when the official responsible for the planning collaborated with the service pro- viders and the users (Articles 3 and 4).

Therefore, the new angle to participation should comprise both public partici- pation, self-organization and everyday life practice (see Figure 1.). Selforgan- iza-tion is not just about the multi-faceted nature of civic engagement, but also about the resilience it provides urban planning and development. Civic engage- ment is dispersed by nature , but at the same time, it brings forth ties to the local realm and constitutes the baseline for local development. Sometimes it checks the administrative game beforehand through NIMBYs21. Other times, it acceler- ates the situation through YIMBYs or even by producing and maintaining new public spaces and functions.

4.2 Urban complexity on the neighbourhood level

In the very beginning of the action research, it became evident that there were many local questions that needed to be solved. Some of the problems were linked to one another, but also to a wider context. Some were easy to perceive and discuss with the stakeholders. Some were incomprehensible, or not recog- nizable without research.

Issues, such as the lack of suitable bus routes or information and availability of local gathering spaces can be regarded as problems of simple complexity (cf. Chapter 2.2.3.). This does not mean that simple complexity is less severe or less important, but that complications are comprehensible by nature. These prob- lems of simple complexity turned out to be solvable, as in the typology of Baynes (2009) suggested. The solutions for traffic planning were found through sur- veys, workshops and the task force for traffic safety. Some of the solutions were strategic in terms of local development, such as the creation of participatory arenas and instruments for local co-governance and the founding of the local websites (cf. Table 4; Articles 1 and 2). Others were operative, for example, the hiring of a community worker. Many common issues of urban development were problems of simple complexity which can be defined, marked on the map and above all, they can be solved through traditional means of engineering – and planning.

In addition to the traditional planning (and its public participation process), ac- tion research arranged gatherings for the local stakeholders. There were also

21 NIMBY is an acronym for Not in my backyard, which is used as a label for planning criticism of the local people. YIMBY is the opposite action (Yes in my back yard) in which local stake- holders support of even suggest and co-create urban development (Eranti, 2017).

48 Key findings local activists, who arranged workshops and task forces all of which speeded up solutions for simple complexity. Simultaneously, the self-organized actions, outside the planning system, built up ground stones for the participatory struc- tures that enabled to find solutions to much more problematic issues.

Table 4. Urban complexity recognised by action research at the neighbourhood level. (The typology based on Baynes, 2009)

Typology of urban com- Findings in urban plan- The input of civic engagement plexity ning /development Problems of simple com- New timetables and -Workshops and task groups speeded up plexity routes for the bus (traf- the finding of problems and their solu- fic planning), Rouhu- tions vuori community yard, -Urban activists enabled the implemen- (co-design and co-pro- tation of solutions even through the duction), local websites means of co-production, which in- (community informat- creased the fit of the solution and its ics) sustainability

Problems of disor- Local family services - -The Local Assembly produced infor- ganized complexity Uncertainty brought mation about phenomena, events and about by a multitude of trends that cannot be found in statistics service providers and or via surveys to particular groups. the lack of planning -The Local Assembly enabled the com- data, such as prehension and deliberation of different childcare in the after- perspectives noon and the mobility for hobbies of young people

Problems of organized Urban development of -Improvement of local service structure complexity the Herttoniemi Cen- and public urban space in the housing tre. The stagnation areas. brought by administra- -Supported local identity and place mak- tive systems, varying ing with events and gatherings. objectives and -Brought forth new active user groups as ´temporal windows`. producers of planning knowledge for the The evolving context in future direction general, for example, -Enabled the use of digital data (e-plan- the raising of real es- ning) and time planning for anticipation tate rents. and foresight, provided opportunities to envision solutions in the changing urban context

However, as described there were problems that turned out to be difficult to solve through direct formal intervention of planning. The organized complexi- ty was especially present in the development of Herttoniemi Centre, when the Department of Urban Planning was interested in finding novel places for hous- ing in Herttoniemi, and in accelerating the zoning and transport projects due to the large-scale urban development initiative in Kruunuvuorenranta. Their in- terest to develop the Herttoniemi Centre was shared by the Department of So- cial Affairs, who consiredered that urban development around Herttoniemi Key findings metro and bus station could provide a new plot and location for social and health services, but also other shared public services. The Social Department of Hel- sinki had been worried about the lacking services for 20.000 residents in Hert- toniemenranta, which had not been built due to the financial recession in the early 1990´s. And, there were also the deteriorating estates of the exisiting hos- pital in the West-Herttoniemi and other facilities, which were in desperate need of renovation. Therefore, the two departments were looking for ways to steer their service de-livery and to achieve their strategic objectives on the local level.

Also, the Social Department lacked local data on services, as the planning of so- cial services were based on age groups in the whole city, instead of looking at the local needs. In crude, the services were provided to each family member by different unit or organization, which hid the fact that social problems were con- centrated in certain neighbourhoods, even in particular housing blocks.

This lack of knowledge was an example of disorganized complexity. After the hiring of the community worker and the organization of the Local Assemby, over 40 different organizations related to children services emerged. With the medi- ation and deliberation taking place in the Local Assembly, the self-organized stakeholders solved, for example, the provision of childcare in the afternoon based on different partnership models. Also, the task force arranged by local urban activists reconfigured the transportation system together with Helsinki Transportation Company (HSL). In addition, there were also another self-orga- nized urban initiative in which local stakeholders started the co-operation to plan, build and turn an unsafe area in Roihuvuori into a multi-generational com-munity yard (cf. Table 4. and Article 3) (cf. Wallin, 2013; Saad-Sulonen & Ho-relli, 2010). Thus, the dismantled problems of disorganized complexity be- came, at least partly, problems of simple complexity, and therefore they were possible to solve.

Consequently, the problem of organized complexity could not be solved as such. Like in any typical planning conflict, the local activists and residents pro-tested against the decision of The Social Service Department to centralize the services around the metro station, because it worsened the services of West-Hert- toniemi. But the city administration was unwavering. The city administration had it´s own rationale that disregarded the local realm. The overall aim of urban densification, the need to rationalize the provision of services in large units and the need of develop public estates incited the administration to take action ac- cording to their plan. Later on, as the development of the Herttoniemi Centre stagnated, and The Department of Social Affairs invested their resources to the joint health care centre in Kalasatama, two neighbourhoods away. In the end, Herttoniemenranta did not receive more services, and the West part of Hert- toniemi lost their local public services. Instead of progress, the city administra- tion provided stagnation.

50 Key findings

The other example of organised complexity, was the raise of real estate taxes. The city decided to triple the rent of the old housing areas, at the same time as these housing estates were in desperate need of renovation. The raise increased the dwelling costs to a level that was unbearable, especially as housing and living had become extremely costly in the metropolitan region in general. The raised rent endangered the possibilities of residents and real estate owners to maintain their houses and even to live there. On the other hand, not increasing the rent was inconceivable. The old rental agreements were ending and new ones had to be made. According to legislation and transparent governance, lower rents were not possible due to the principle of equality of citizens.

The case study in Herttoniemi emphasize that the administrative and decision- making machinery is not capable of controlling the urban organism, especially when the timescale extends to years or decades. The planning system and the city government cannot steer, not even together with the neighbourhood activ- ists or associations, the most important activities and events related to urban spaces.

The solving of specific planning problems, or the revealing of different per-spec- tives and the creation of shared understanding are not enough to resolve a situ- ation that emerges from an unknown future of wider contextual transfor- mations. The disruptive future cannot be completely dealt with, even if the an- tic-ipation of and preparation for changes are the purpose of different adminis- trative departments, especially that of the Department of Urban Planning.

In the next section, the dissertation sheds light on a variety of planning ap- proaches suitable for dealing with these situations.

4.3 Management of diverse realities

In Herttoniemi, the local realms, the different realities of the stakeholders and planners, became an obvious element in planning and development. That had a profound impact on urban complexity, and thus, the approaches to deal with different types of complexities.

The planner can reach the local realms by acknowledging the diverse realities of the different stakeholders. The realities themselves cannot be standardized, but they can be set into a shared local framework, and analysed through sufficient and relevant data including the self-organized urban actions and everyday life practice.

The planner is an advocate and assistant to the local stakeholders, who in prac- tice define the framework for local development and planning. In the ideal world, the planner introduce this framework into the planning practice and translates it into the official administrative process. Key findings

Therefore, the data should be gathered together with the stakeholders, not just about the stakeholders. Examples of this kind of shared data gathering can be collected in workshops with the methods of story-telling and shared observa- tion, or with delphie surveys.

The gathering of everyday life data should take place where the actions is. For example, kindergartens, sport facilities, such as footboll fields and tennis halls, which are full of people with hands on information in mobility and local services (e.g. Hamdi, 2010; Sarkissian & Hurford, 2010). The virtual and augmented space provided by ICTs and social media application make possible to reach people though means of e-planning (Nummi, 2017; Falco, 2016).

The technological advancement gives possibilities to use quantitative method- ologies to analyse qualitative issues, for instance place-based experiences of lo- cal inhabitants (e.g. soft GIS, Kahila & Kyttä, 2009), or simulate the impact of ad hoc urban events and happenings which transform the use of urban space, the way the space is perceived, and visualize the possibilities for futher use (e.g. real-time urban informatics; Foth, 2009; Johnsson & al., 2017).

When gathering data with self-organized stakeholders, planners should also take advantage of the expansion of data produced by the civic society. For ex- ample, citizen science provides the planning data gathered by semi-professional urban activism. In addition to the knowledge creation, citizen science increases the participation of residents and new interest groups, as well as the dissemina- tion and reuse of information (Saad-Sulonen, 2013).

These versatile methodological approaches, combined with quantitative and qualitative techniques and deliberative actions, open up a view to different re- alities, even to the urban transformation. Novel data, and the new ways to use it, enrich prior planning material and provide the possibility to understand and anticipate complexities (Baynes, 2009; Wallin, 2013).

Also, planning methods have to be chosen in the context, which comprises a kaleidoscope of time (past-present-future), space and the purpose of the plan- ning itself (Figure 4).

In planning, time provides a framework for all realities. For example, do we make decisions based on former documentation and statistics, but also on the lived life and events (past). Or are we pursuing to deliver a plan to solve up-to- date issues, such as the traffic congestion (present). Then there is the need to make spatial strategies for the next 20 or 30 years (future).

All the time spans demand different kind of methods to analyse and asses the current situation and the possible solutions for decision-making. Especially, in

52 Key findings the anticipation of the future, there is no statistical data, and the current esti- mations of people can change quite drasticly. Yet, we seek to produce scenarios for the future actions and engage the possible future stakeholders, who will not be present in this time (Aaltonen, 2010).

Thirdly, the choice of methods to produce planning data requires an under- standing of the purpose of the data in planning. For example, will the data be used for developing a blueprint plan (linear), or for deciding which strategy to choose (visionary), or for agreeing, how to share and implement that strategy for the unknown future (disruptive)?

Aaltonen (2007) suggests that a choronotope is a metaphor for different moti- vations situated in the temporal and spatial interaction. The metaphor can be used in the evaluation of interrelationships between different phenomena and actions in space and time.

In the original schema of Aaltonen, the linear, visionary and disrupted dimen- sions are integrated in the same illustration. However, each dimension deserves a choronotope of its own as some data gathering and analysis methods in urban planning are more suitable to a certain purpose and context of planning. In a simple type of urban complexity the linear approach can be more suitable than application of visionary, even disruptive planning methodology.

Figure 4. Examples of methods to gather data for different planning contexts. These chronotopes (originated in Aaltonen, 2010:32) are suitable to unfold the focus and implementation of urban planning, when analyzed from the spatio-temporal per- spective.

Figure 4. presents examples of different planning methods for data gathering, analysis and sense-making. The main task is to choose the methods that provide knowledge for the right purpose and time span of the plan. Each choronope can Key findings be a framework, formulated together with the stakeholders, spatially in the local context, as was describled above.

This might sound complicated, but in practice, there are several civil servants who have a profession to assist participation in planning in the local context. As they have access to different methods of data gathering, analysis and sense- making, they could make a framework that comprises the self-organizing nature of urban development. The planners could give the local stakeholders a possi- bility to define the scope and the substance of planning in a more open and agile way. When reaching to the statutory planning process, the planner should also be able to check that the plan for participation (described in the statutory OAS- document) are in line with the planning purpose. Without a civic engagement, the planning task will merely seek to provide the square meters for the real es- tate investor.

I do not claim that all planning problems and complex urban development could be solved by a chorotopic framework. With the chronotopes, I suggest that a variety of methods exists, and they can be integrated into a meaningful combi- nation. The power of the chronotope is that the participation is not a process or a stage in planning, but an organic part of setting the aim, purpose and the sense-making of the planning.

There are already inspiring examples of urban planning research, which have managed to tap the changing scales and scopes of urban development. For ex- ample, the reasons for the localisation of the service structure and the fragility of the steering power of master planning (Alppi & Ylä-Anttila, 2007), or the un- expected collective impact of land use planning and different strategic plans on tourism in North-Finland (Staffans & Merikoski, 2011). In the recent years, the assistance of e-planning simulation and visualization equipments, have made the possibilities explicit in a new way. For example, The Aalto Built Environ- ment Lab (ABE) has had the capacity to define and explain societal problems that are connected with urban structures and functions, by applying a multifac- eted methodology (Eräranta, 2019; Staffans & Horelli, 2014).

In sum, versatile methodological competence is part of a larger capacity to un- derstand urban complexity and to resolve wicked problems (Partanen & Jout- siniemi, 2015; Batty, 2009; de Roo, 2012; Weaver, 1948). The production of data does not begin from the current state of the art with a linear approach, but from the reflection over the diverse realities, which requires the application of methods for visionary and even disruptive sense-making (Figure 4.) This makes urban planning more transparent and more fit for purpose. The faculty to com- bine knowledge, produced through traditional quantitative methods with qual- itative knowledge and modelling, enriches urban planning and decision-mak- ing.

54 Key findings

4.4 Minding the gaps

According to the research findings, the formal urban planning processes in Herttoniemi lived their own life, detached from the local everyday life and the interests of the local dwellers. Neither the architectural competitions and public hearings, nor the local surveys tapped the local realm, because they were ar- ranged top-down. At the same time, the local stakeholders, sometimes together with local civil servants, executed their interests and everyday initiatives, which had an impact on the urban structure and functions. Information about these initiatives did not reach the political decision-makers, nor the high-ranking of- ficials. In resonance with the post-structuralist thinking in planning (Hillier, 2011; Murdoch, 2006), there was a gap between the planning and implemen- tation (the planning system), but also a gap between the realities of the plan- ners and the producers and end-users of urban space (the local realm).

One of the reasons to this detachment, was the design of the urban planning process. The aim of planning was to define the future for the future people, not to improve the current urban issues of the local dwellers. In addition, the formal planning had only one kind of vision for the future. It was based on the antici- pated demographic change and the large-scale infrastructure demands for pub- lic transportation, housing and services. There were no proposals for diverse or even disruptive scenarios. Sometimes there were visions and alternative plan- ning proposals at hand, but all of them were merely variations of the same sce- nario, produced by the administration or the consultants of the administration. For example, the architectural competition for the Centre of Herttoniemi disre- garded all the proposals made by the local stakeholders.

In the Herttoniemi case, the adopted ´outsider perspective` of the Urban Plan- ning Department ensured that the formal planning and development efforts were blind to the self-organizing nature of the local endeavours. In addition, it also ignored the everyday life practices that shaped people´s perceptions and capabilities to transform the urban space and functions. This blind professional discourse is largerly critisized in urban planning but exsisting in practice (Bäcklund, 2007; Staffans, 2004).

Therefore, it was almos ironical that the administration emphasized participa- tion, but sought to reach the local realm through quantitative measures. The municipality commissioned surveys, which enquired local experiences of safety and wellbeing, the use of services and aspirations for better living conditions. However, the surveys were not context- or stakeholder-related. The questions did not cover locally meaningful events, nor relevant dilemmas, such as the clos- ing down of the local school or the raising of the property rents. Nor did they acknowledge the different socio-economic situations of the residents. The sin- gle, low-income young male had a different experience of the local services than the highly educated, middle-class woman with two children. Thus, it was impos- sible to receive comparable information from both of them with the same ques- tionnaire. Key findings

Blindness to the local realm became obvious through the action research with the LENA-approach. A variety of co-planning methods, ranging from informal events to structured workshops and charrettes enabled to see the complex situa- tion from different perspectives, as well as the background of problems. It also made it possible to find common denominators, which made it easier to under- stand the varying patterns and relationships. Although complexity as such did not decrease, the LENA-approach enhanced the shared means and arenas for the neighbourhood actors, which in turn, enabled to make complex, even con- flicting issues visible (Article 5).

The analysis of the case study led to the question: how should urban planning relate to urban transformation that occurs both apart and within the established administrative and planning practice, especially if the challenges cannot be solved through planning interventions?

The action research in Herttoniemi concluded that urban planning is both as techno-rational problem solving, and as part of a larger understanding concern- ing the anticipation of the socio-political development of society. Action re- search-based interventions were able to engage capabilities of different stake- holders, and thus, to gather alternative kind of data and to produce diverse vi- sions for the disruptive future.

The action research applied in the case study is an example of disruptive sense- making in planning but also the exapanded urban planning (EP) (Figure 1.). EP enhanced the integration of different planning stages and methods within com- munity development and co-governance. This kind of expanded urban planning ranged from spatial planning to the co-production and maintenance of urban space and functions. In practice, it produced visions, scenarios and tools for planning and communication which supported local interests, as well as the strategic demand for progress.

Expanded urban planning approach with its multiple measures can be applied in the local development and participatory planning processes. Unlike in the linear statutory planning process, the self-organized local stakeholders sup- ported the local urban development, and managed to provide services and facil- ities that the formal endeavours could not provide. This supports local endeav- ours, which are sporadic initiatives by nature, by creating partnerships for both construction and service delivery. Instead of large-scale housing initiatives and urban development processes by construction companies, there is also the need for structures and networks which maintain local facilities and urban surround- ings appealing, safe and human-friendly.

I do not suggest in this dissertation that action research should be applied as a planning device. Instead, I claim that it is worth while to profit from the applied methods and from the conceptualization of the development approach in the

56 Key findings different planning cases and spatio-temporal contexts (see 4.3. and Figure 4). With the aid of multiple methods and a sufficiently long-term examination, it is possible to understand the neighbourhood and to alleviate its challenges. Ex- panded urban planning in which the different forms of participation are at the core, might enable the anticipation of the future and the understanding of plau- sible continuities or loose trends which organised complexity is made of.

In sum, urban complexity brings forth two gaps; one within planning and im- plementation and the other within the comprehension of diverse realities. The resolution of both of them can be found in the new approaches to urban plan- ning, and their application in the different stages of planning and local develop- ment.

Conclusions and discussion

5. Conclusions and discussion

The research problem of the dissertation has dealt with, how urban planning can cope with urban complexity, more precisely, how it is able to comprehend urban transformation produced by civic engagement on the neighbourhood level. It has provided some theoretical and practical solutions that can enhance the comprehension of urban development patterns in the Finnish context. This has taken place through the analysis of a longitudinal, neighbourhood-level ac- tion research. The data to the reserach questions were analysed and interpreted by using the typology of urban complexity, based on Baynes (2009), which pro- vided a fruitful means to deal with the research problem. The dissertation pro- vided empirical examples of self-organization inside and outside the formal ur- ban planning processes. It also defined the actual means and roles of self-organ- ization as part of civic engagement in local development.

The answers to the research questions are in the following:

What is urban complexity and how should it be dealt with?

Urban complexity is metaphora on complicated phenomenons taking place in urban structure and its functions, including human interaction. Urban transfor- mation through self-organization is the basic cause of urban complexity, as demonstrated not only in the quantitative studies of urban dynamics (Partanen, 2018), but also through the qualitative analyses of this study. In this thesis, the ontological and epistemological comprehension of urban complexity is based on actor-relational planning (Murdoch, 2006; Hillier, 2011; Boostra, 2015).

According to the case study, complexity as such is not a problem, but it can cause problems in planning, especially, if it is not sufficiently recognized and dealt with accordingly. This dissertation has used a typology of urban complexity (Baynes, 2009) to define the empirical planning issues of the Herttoniemi neighbourhood. Through the lens of the typology, it was possible to recognize the solvable planning problems from the unsolvable ones, and to improve the comprehension of their nature (e.g. scale, actors and their aims). This kind of systemic classification could assist planners in the choice of their planning strat- egies and methods for knowledge creation and sense-making, which enables to deal with complex urban issues in practice.

58 Conclusions and discussion

The management of urban complexity is a disputed concept that comprises the steering and anticipation of urban transformation through procedures of plan- ning and implementation (Boelens & Roo, 2014; Partanen, 2018). The steering of urban complexity seems superfluous, as even the steering of planning proce- dures is challenging.

In fact, some might think that the more suitable title for the dissertation would have been “Patching up the urban complexity” than managing it. However, this dissertation claims that urban complexity can be explored, recognized, and in some occasions even anticipated, meaning that it can be dealt with (Table 4.).

Also, the dissertation was able to explain with examples, why the steering effect of planning is questionable. The Herttoniemi case study disclosed that urban complexity brings forth two gaps; one within urban planning and implementa- tion and the other within the comprehension of diverse realities.

In the Herttoniemi case, the resolution for urban complexity management was found from expanded urban planning (EP) and its participatory methodology (LENA), which took place through different planning measures and procedures.

EP enlarges urban planning ranging from strategic vision-making to the actual empowerment of local actors, from the participatory planning and self-organi- zation into actual co-production of urban space. Expanded urban planning en- ables both actual implementation by managing disorganized and simple com- plexities, and also the production of planning information and arenas for the comprehension of diverse realities and deliberation. Therefore, EP assists in the battle against wicked problems, also in the context of organized complexity, which cannot be solved as such. This is, in fact, what urban planning has always been about.

What is the role of civic engagement in urban planning and development?

The analysis of urban complexities in Herttoniemi pointed out that civic engage- ment is an advantage in planning and development initiatives. Unlike the par- ticipatory planning discourse, which often emphasises conflicts, the different forms of civic engagement enhance the steering and adjustment of local devel- opment. Selforganized neighbourhood activists did not only create local ser- vices, but also supported the renovation of the local school as well as the design of a neigh-bourhood yard. In addition to the self-organizing activities, mundane everyday life improved the local surroundings and nurtured the local identity, unlike the formal planning initiative to develop Herttoniemi.

Civic engagement, especially self-organization and the everyday life practice of inhabitants, were able to maintain the local urban context. The local realm in which each of the stakeholders live, is simultaneously an incubator and an in- hibitor of upper level planning endeavours. The civic engagement was able to Conclusions and discussion patch the noncontinuous, detached planning and development initiatives, and to integrate them into the local realm.

Consequently, the local realm and civic engagement can be completely detached from the formal planning procedures. The latter do not sufficiently address the local realm as the diverse realities of the neighbourhood and the linear nature of formal procedures do not entwine (cf. Hillier, 2003). Formal urban planning is not able to face and steer urban complexity. Therefore, it is questionable whether formal procedures and public participation processes in their current form should be at the core of acknowledged urban planning.

Based on the analysis, the dissertation suggests that the policies and methodol- ogy of urban planning should acknowledge and endorse all forms of civic en- gagement. In addition to the public participation processes, it is important to nourish self-organizing movements and to use all methodological capabilities to reach the existing, ever transforming force of mundane human action (Figure 1.).

Urban planning should create environments for people to take action. A living link between formal, semi-formal and informal forms of governance is needed, which should be addressed and endorsed in planning. In addition to govern- ance, local resources and places for mundane gathering should be accessible, as they are vital for self-organization.

Urban activism is often a middle-class phenomenon in Finland. It is entertained by those, who are able to choose their living environment and housing type. However, local resourcing and empowering favour those who are less able to leave their neighbourhood. Providing people capabilities to improve their own life and to adjust their living environment has an impact on the personal and neighbourhood level, but also on urban development in general.

How can e-planning enable civic engagement and urban transformation?

Michal Batty (2017) has posed the question: “How can we use computers to bring science to a wide constituency?” The dissertation was involved with initi- atives, which tried to use different applications of e-planning in participatory pro-esses. It also followed initiatives of community informatics that were used in self-organized urban movements. At the time when the data for the disserta- tion was gathered, the promise of social media was at its early stage (Wallin et al., 2010). Also, the evolving GIS mapping tools and mobile survey methods were under scrutiny.

The Herttoniemi action research pointed out that it was possible to use new so- cial media and GIS-assisted methods not only for gathering data, but also for engaging people to take action themselves. Self-organized initiatives and even movements became conspicuous through local internet pages and later through

60 Conclusions and discussion

Facebook and other media applications. The development of the “digital layer” was reflected in the physical environment of events, organized happenings, local resistance, and also in the lively hobby groups which grounded various forms of civic engagement.

The revolution of social media in action, as well as the rapid development of the methodology of urban spatial analysis, gave a glimpse of their potential to the expanded urban planning. The possibilities for urban planners to steer, engage and analyse urban actions and the real-time transformation of urban space in- creased beyond anyone could dream of.

The co-design interventions during the action research (Wallin & Horelli, 2012; Saad-Sulonen, 2013) redeemed the anticipation that the local dwellers are able to take action through e-planning tools (mapping, survey & graphic tools), and that the outcomes can be used in the actual planning and construction initia- tives, as happened in the Herttoniemi neighbourhood yard. With the assistance of e-planning, urban planning took a leap from blue printing to actual imple- mentation and even maintenance. The e-planning tools translated the visions and actions of local dwellers into the same context in which the formal planning procedures took place. There were also signs that the locals are able to use com- munity informatics to address issues by using sophisticated urban data in a manner that can be called citizen science. For example, the residents used data to fight against the City of Helsinki which was raising the real estate taxes and abolishing the local school.

If e-planning was able to become a new source of information for planners and an arena for the citizens, it certainly had an impact on urban research. E-plan- ning, especially when assisted by community informatics, provided a novel form to carry out action research. It enabled to introduce issues, engage dwellers and gather data in a fresh way. The data produced by e-planning was always much more real time than any other statistical spatial data.

Unfortunately, the experience of e-planning in action research remained limited including only the Neighbouhood yard project, the local internet site initiative and the observation of local rallies all of which were separate issues themselves. The technology was also much less advanced compared with the current possi- bilities. However, the use of e-planning provided an understanding that it is possible to use several methods to tap the altering urban transformation and to make sense of complex processes. The understanding of scales, sizes and “in- completedness” of knowledge becomes tangible, when ethnographic methods are combined with spatial analyses.

The Changing Paradigm of Urban Planning

The discipline of urban planning has embraced several decades the concept of urban complexity and its connection to self-organization (Jacobs, 1961; Batty, Conclusions and discussion

2005; deRoo, 2016). However, self-organization as actual civic engagement with consequent mundane coping and semi-formal steering has only recently been acknowledged in the field of participatory urban planning (Rantanen & Faehnle, 2017; Boonstra, 2015; Boonstra & Boelens, 2011, Boelens, 2009). A good example is tactical urbanism, which has the potential to lead to long term and even strategic change (Lydon & Garcia, 2016; Finn, 2014). In addition to the urban activism and its impact on policies, the everyday life practices of con- sumption and mobility have raised interest among urban researchers in Finland (Berglund 2015; Mäenpää & Faenhle, 2017).

At the same time, there are important studies on urban complexity that have been able to address the problematic linearity of planning procedures and to disclose the urban dynamics and transformation through sophisticated spatial analyses (Partanen, 2018; Partanen & Joutsiniemi, 2015). The rapid methodo- logical de-elopment has brought forth new forms of spatial analysis and graphic tools, which enable the use of new sources of data (Nummi, 2017;). Some of them are collected through survey-based mapping tools, which produce ready- to-use planning data (e.g. Maptionaire, soft-GIS tool developed by the research team of professor Marketta Kyttä). The analysis and simulation of observation data transmitted by the social media, can be used in planning and urban studies, but also in the devolution of government silos and societal deliberation (Anttiroiko, 2015).

Michael Batty (2017) stated in his seminar presentation at the University of Hel- sinki that “Complexity theory replaces the old model of the city as a machine with one which considers the city as an organism.”

This dissertation is merely a local case study. But as more than a decade long study it has witnessed the evolution of participatory planning as a discipline, and the societal change enhanced by technology and governmental transpar- ency. Therefore, it is suggested that there is going on a change of paradigm within urban planning. The city as an organism is not regarded just fractals and nodes, produced by the layers of statistics of the past, but as bodies, actions and visions of human beings. Urban functions and their research, become more im- portant than the mere physical form (Batty, 2017). The basic assumption - in which professionally-led planning and development can tame the city-beast with concrete and asphalt - will be replaced by adjusting and recognizing the actors and stakeholders, who create the urban through their own actions.

The evolution in urban planning research raises expectations that expanded ur- ban planning will be possible. Urban planning as a discipline is able to gather and analyse both “hard” and “soft” phenomena in different spatial scales, tem- poral contexts, local realms and diverse realities. However, making them play in tune in practice is an on-going process in which urban planning will still have a vital role.

62 References

Aaltonen, M. (2010). Robustness – anticipatory and adaptive human systems. Explor- ing Organizatorial Complexity. Vol 4. Litchfield Park: Emergent Publications. Aaltonen, M. (2007). Chronotope space: Managing time and properties of strategic landscape. Foresight, 9(4):58-62. Alfasi, N. & Portugali, J. (2007). Planning rules for a self-planned city. Planning the- ory, 6:2, 164-182. Allmendinger, P., & Haughton, G. (2009). Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and meta- governance: The new spatial planning in the Thames gateway. Environment and Planning A, 41(3), 617-633. Alasuutari, P. (2003). Laadullinen tutkimus. Tampere:Vastapaino. Alessandro Balducci (2003) Policies, Plans and Projects, disP - The Planning Review, 39:152, 59-70. Allen, P. (2012). Cities and regions as self-organizing systems: models of complexity. Routledge. Allen, P. M., & Sanglier, M. (1981). Urban evolution, self-organization, and deci- sionmaking. Environment and Planning A,13(2), 167-183. Alppi, S. & Ylä-Anttila, K. (2007). Verkostourbanismi. Journal of Finnish Urban Stud- ies. 45(2),10–26. Andres, L. (2013). Differential spaces, power hierarchy and collaborative planning: A critique of the role of temporary uses in shaping and making places. Urban Studies, 50(4), 759-775. Anttiroiko, A-V. (2015). Smart Planning: The Potential of Web 2.0 for Enhancing Col- lective Intelligence in urban Planning. In Nunes de Silva, C. (Ed). Emerging Is- sues, Challenges, and Opportunities in Urban E-Planning, pp. 1-25. ACIEF Serie, Hershey, PS: IGI Global. Anttiroiko, A-V. (2012). Urban Planning 2.0. International Journal of E-Planning Re- search, 1(1), 16-30. Arnstein, S. (1969). A Ladder Of Citizen Participation, Journal of the American Insti- tute of Planners, 35:4, 216-224. Bansler, J. (1989). Systems Development Research in Scandinavia: Three theoretical schools. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 1: 3-20. Batty, M. & Marshall., S. (2012). The Origins of Complexity Theory in Cities and Plan- ning. At Portugali, J., Meyer, H., Stolk, E. & Tan, E. (Eds). Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come of Age, pp. 21-45. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Batty, M. (2005). Cities and complexity: understanding cities with cellular automata, agent-based models, and fractals. Cambridge: MIT Press. Baynes, T. (2009). Complexity in Urban Development and Management Historical Overview and Opportu-nities. Journal of Industrial Ecology,13(2), 214–227. Befani, B. (2014). Process Tracing and Contribution Analysis: A Combined Approach to Generative Caus-al Inference for Impact Evaluation. At Befani, B., Barnett, C. & Stern, E. (Eds). Rethinking Impact Evaluation for Development. IDS Bulletin, 45(6), Pages 17-36. Berglund, E. (2015). Activist Design in Helsinki. Creating Sustainable Future in at Margins, at Center and Everywhere in Between. At Cocco, G. & Szaniecki, B.

63 References

(Eds). Creative Capitalism, Multitudinous Creativity: Radicalities and Alterities, pp. 155-171. Lexington Books: London. Björgvinsson, E., Ehn, P. & P-A. Hillgren (2012). Agonistic participatory design: work- ing with marginal-ised social movements, International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 8 (2-3),127-144. Boelens, L. & de Roo, G. (2014). Planning of undefined becoming: First encounters of planners beyond the plan. Planning Theory, 15(1). Retrieved 15.5.2018 at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1473095214542631 Boelens, L. (2009). The Urban Connection: An actor-relational approach to urban planning. 010 Publish-ers. Boonstra, B. (2015). Planning Strategies in an Age of Active Citizenship. A Post-struc- turalist Agenda for Self-organization in Spatial Planning. PhD Series, InPlan- ning. Retrieved 28.12.2018, http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-7257558 Boonstra, B. & Boelens, L. (2011). Self-organization in urban development: towards a new perspective on spatial planning. Urban Research & Practice, 4(2), 99-122. Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social Space and Symbolic Power. Sociological Theory, 7(1), 14- 25. Bromley, P. & Powell, W. (2012). From Smoke and Mirrors to Walking the Talk: De- coupling in the Con-temporary World. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 483-530. Brown, B. & Fagerholm, N. (2015). Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem ser- vices: a review and evaluation. Ecosystem Services, vol 13, 119-133. Brydon-Miller, Mary, Greenwood, David & Patricia Maguire (2002). Why action re- search? Editorial. Acti-on Research, volume 1(1): 9–28 Bäcklund, P. (2007). Tietämisen politiikka – Kokemuksellinen tieto kunnan hallin- nassa. Helsingin kau-pungin tietokeskus, Helsinki, Yliopistopaino. Bødker, S., Ehn, P., Sjögren, S. & Sundblad, Y. (2000).Co-operative Design — perspec- tives on 20 years with ‘the Scandinavian IT Design Model’. Keynote presenta- tion, Proceedings of NordiCHI 2000, Stockholm, Kunglig Tekniska Högskolan. Retrieved 28.10.2018 at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pelle_Ehn/pub- lication/237225075_Cooperative_Design_-_perspec- tives_on_20_years_with_'the_Scandinavian_IT_De- sign_Model/links/00b4952825c2d2a42c000000.pdf Byrne, D. (1998). Complexity Theory and The Social Science. Milton Park, Abindon. Routledge. Campbell, H. (2012). Planning to change the world: Between knowledge and action lies synthesis. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32(2), 135-146. Certeau, M. de (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley,University of California Press. Checkland, P.B. (1981). Systems Thinking Systems Practice. Chichester: John Wiley. Christaller, W. (1933). Die zentralen Orte in Suddeutschland. Jena: Gustav Fischer. Translated, by Baskin, C.W. (1966). Central Places in Southern Germany. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Cottineau, C., Hatna E., Arcaute, E. & Batty, M. (2015). Paradoxical interpretations of urban scaling laws. Physics and Society. Retrieved 13.7.2017, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.07878.pdf Davoudi, S. (2012) The Legacy of Positivism and the Emergence of Interpretive Tradi- tion in Spatial Plan-ning, Regional Studies, 46(4), 429-441. Eranti, V. (2017). Re-visiting NIMBY: From conflicting interests to conflicting valua- tions. The Sociologi-cal Review, 65(2), 285–301.

64 References

Eräranta. S. (2019). Memorize the Dance in the Shadows? - Unriddling the Networked Dynamics of Plan-ning Processes through Social Network Analysis. Aalto Uni- versity publication series Doctoral Disse-tations, 20/2019. Retrieved 1.5.2019 at https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/handle/123456789/36177 Escobar, A. (2017). Response: Design for/by [and from] the ‘global South.’ Design Phi- losophy Papers, 15:1, 39-49. Faehnle, M., Mäenpää, P., Blomberg, J. & H. Schulman (2017). Civic engagement 3.0 – Reconsidering the roles of citizens in city-making. Journal of Finnish Urban Studies. 55(3), 70-75. Faehnle, M., Immonen, H., Mäenpää, P., Nylund, M., & Träskman, T. (2016). Jakamis- talous ja verotus: Eväitä yhteiskunnalliseen keskusteluun. Arcada, Helsinki. Fainstein, S. (2001). City Builders: Property Development in New York and London, 1980–2000. Law-rence: University Press of Kansas. Falco, E. (2016). Digital Community Planning: The Open Source Way to the Top of Arnstein´s Ladder. International Journal of E-Planning Research, 5(2), 1-22. Faludi, A. (Ed.) (1973). A reader in planning theory. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Finn, D. (2014). Introduction to the special issue DIY Urbanism. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban sustainability, 7(4), 331-332. Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N., & Rothengatter, W. (2003). Megaprojects and risk: An anatomy of ambition. Cambridge: Univ Press. Flyvberg, B. (2006). Five Misunderstanding About Case-Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making Social Science Matter. Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. Chicago, Univer- sity of Chicago Press. Forester, J. (1999). The Deliberative Practitioner- Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. Boston: MIT Press. Forrester, J.W. (1969). Urban Dynamics. Boston: MIT. Foth, M. (Ed.) (2009). Handbook of Research on Urban Informatics: The Practice and Promise of the Real-Time City. Hershey, PA, IGI Global. Gans, H. J. (1969). Planning for People, Not Buildings. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 1(1), 33–46. Gurstein, M. (2007). What is Community Informatics (And Why Does it Matter?). Mi- lano, Polimetrica. Hamdi, N. (2010). The Placemakers Guide to Building Community. Earthscan Ltd., London. Harper, D. (2016). Good Company: A Tramp Life. Routledge: New York. Healey, P. (2006). Urban complexity and spatial strategies: towards a relational plan- ning for our times. New York: Taylor & Francis. Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. MacMillan Press: London. Hernberg, H. (2012). Helsinki Beyond Dreams. Urban Dream Management. Helsinki World Design Capi-tal, Helsinki. Hillier, J. (2011). Strategic navigation across multiple planes: Towards a deleuzean-in- spired methodology for strategic spatial planning. Town Planning Review, 82(5), 503-527. Hillier, J. (2008). Plan(e) Speaking: a Multiplanar Theory of Spatial Planning. Plan- ning Theory, 7(1), 24-50. Hillier, J. (2003). Agonizing over consensus: Why habermasian ideals cannot be Real’. Planning Theory, 2(1), 37-59. References

Hillier, J. (2000). Going round the Back? Complex Networks and Informal Action in Local Planning Pro-cesses. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 32(1), 33 – 54. Holcombe, R. G. (2013). Planning and the invisible hand: Allies or adversaries? Plan- ning Theory,12(2), 199-210. Horelli, L. (2017). Engendering urban planning in different contexts – successes, con- straints and conse-quences. European Planning Studies, 25(10), 1779-1796. Horelli, L. (2002). A Methodology of Participatory Planning. In Bechtel, R. & Church- man, A. (eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology. pp. 607–628. New York: John Wiley. Horelli, L. & Vepsä, K. (1994). In Search of Supportive Structures for Everyday Life. In Altman I. & Churchman, A. (eds). Women and the Environment. Human Behav- ior and Environment, (pp. 201–206). New York: Plenum. Hummelbrunner, R. & Reynolds, M. (2010). Systems thinking for enhancing evalua- tion practice. Work-book and Background Reading. Workshop, 5 October, Pra- gue. European Evaluation Society Pre-Conference Professional Development Session. 40 New Approaches to Urban Planning: Insights from Participatory Communities. Huxley, M. (2000). The limits to communicative planning. Journal of Planning Educa- tion and Research, 19(4), 369-377. Ingold, T. (2000). The Perception of Environment. Essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill. Routledge, London & New York. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. (1999). Consensus building and complex adaptive systems. Journal of American planning association, 65(4), 412-423. Innes, J. & Booher, D. (2000). Planning institutions in the network society: theory for collaborative plan-ning. In: W. Salet and A. Faludi, eds. The revival of strategic spatial planning. pp. 175–18. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. Innes, J., and Booher, E. (2010). Planning with complexity: Introduction to the collab- orative rationality of public policy. New York: Routledge. Jacobs. J. (1961). Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House. Jarenko, K. (2013). Local Co-Governance in Herttoniemi: A Deliberative System. At Horelli, Liisa (Ed.) New Approaches to Urban Planning. pp. 45-63. Publication Serie nro 10. Aalto University Publication, Otaniemi. Johnson D., Horton, E., Mulcahy, R. & M. Foth (2017). Gamification and serious games within the domain of domestic energy consumption: A systematic review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 73, pp. 49-264. Kahila M., Kyttä M. (2009) SoftGIS as a Bridge-Builder in Collaborative Urban Plan- ning. In Geertman S., Stillwell J. (eds) Planning Support Systems Best Practice and New Methods. pp. 389-411. The Geo-Journal Library, vol 95. Springer, Dor- drecht Kahila-Tani, M. (2015). Reshaping the planning process using local experiences: Uti- lising PPGIS in par-ticipatory urban planning. Department of Real Estate, Plan- ning and Geoinformatic, Aalto University. (Retrieved13.7.2017) https://aalto- doc.aalto.fi/bitstream/handle/123456789/19347/isbn9789526066042.pdf?se- quence=1&isAllowed=y Kukkonen, H. (1984). A Design Language for a Self-Planning System. A procedural de- velopment study based on practical experiments with small-group housing. Acta polytechnica scandinavica, ci 82. Hel-sinki: Helsinki University of Technology.

66 References

Kuoppa, J. (2013) Beyond vague promises of liveability: an exploration of walking in everyday life. In Henckel, D., Könecke, B, Stabilini, S., Thomaier, S. & Zedda, R. (eds). Space Time Design of the Pub-lic City. Hamburg: Springer Publishers. Lehtovuori, P. (2010). Experience and conflict: The production of urban space. Lon- don, Routledge. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in Group Dynamics: II. Channels of Group Life. Social Planning and Action Research. Human Relations 1, 143-153 Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of “muddling through”. Public Administration Re- view, 19(2), 79-88 Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage. Lydon, M. & Garcia, A. (2015). A Tactical Urbanism How-To. In Lydon & Garcia (eds). Tactical Urban-ism, pp. 171-208. Washington, Island Press/Center for Resource Economics. Niiniluoto, I. (1999). Critical scientific realism. Clarendon library of logic and philoso- phy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Niitamo, A. & Sjöblom, J. (2018). Verkkokeskustelut kommunikatiivista suunnittelua edistämässä: Lisää kaupunkia Helsinkiin-Facebook-ryhmä kaupunkisuunnitte- lun kumppanina? Journal of Finnish Urban Studies. 56(2). Retrieved 15.2.2019 at: https://journal.fi/yhdyskuntasuunnittelu/article/view/77666 Nummi, P. (2017). Social Media Data Analysis in Urban P-Planning. International Journal of E-Planning Research, 6(4), 18-31. Manzo, L.C. & Perkins, D.D. (2006). Finding Common Ground: The Importance of Place Attachment to Community Participation and Planning. Journal of Plan- ning Literature, 20(33), 336–350. Massey, D. (2005). For space. London, Sage. Mazza, L. (2002). Technical knowledge and planning actions. Planning Theory, 1(1), 11-26. McKnight, J.L. (2003). Regenerating Community: The Recovery of a Space for Citi- zens. In Distinguished Public Policy Lecture, Institute for Policy. Retrieved 4 January 2012 from http://www.abcdinstitute.org/publications/downloadable/ McLaughlin, R. B. (2012). Land use regulation: Where have we been, where are we go- ing? Cities, 29, S50–S55. Urban McLoughlin, B.J. (1969). Urban and Regional Planning – A Systems Approach. Lon- don, Faber & Faber-Meerow, Newell and Stults (2016). Defining urban resili- ence: A review. Landscape and Urban Plan-ning 147, 38–49. Merriam-Webster (2019). Dictionary. Retrieved 15.12.2018 at https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/civic Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A guided tour. New York, Oxford University Press. Munthe-Kaas, P. 2015, “Agonism and co-design of urban spaces”, Urban Research & Practice, 8(2), 218–237. Mumford, L. (1954). The Neighborhood and the Neighborhood Unit. Town Planning Review. 24(4), 256 – 270. Murdoch, J. (2006). Post-structuralist Geography: A Guide to Relational Space. Sage Ltd.: Chennay. Mäenpää, P. & Faehnle, M. (2017). Itseorganisoituva kaupunki: hallinta, talous ja de- mokratia. (Self-organizing city: Governance, economics and democracy) Fu- tura, 4/2017 Mäntysalo, R. (2002). Dilemmas in critical planning theory. Town Planning Review, 73(4), 417-436. Mäntysalo, R., & Kanninen, V. (2018). Kaupunkiseutujen strateginen kehittämis- loikka. Finnish Journal of Urban Studies, 56(3), 9-24. References

Packalén, E. (2008). Herttoniemi. Kylä, kartano, kaupunginosa. (Herttoniemi as a vil- lage and a neihgbour-hood). Helsingin kaupunginmuseon tutkimuksia ja raportteja, 2. Keuruu, Otava. Partanen, J. (2018). “Don´t Fix it if It Ain´t Broke” – Encounters with Planning fort Complex Self-Organizing Cities. Tampere University of Technology, Publication nro 1514. Tampere. Partanen, J: & Wallin, S. (2017). Bridging soft and hard – Towards a more coherent understanding of self-organisation within urban complexity research. Finnish Journal of Urban Studies, 55(3). Retrieved 15.5.2018 at http://www.yss.fi/jour- nal/bridging-soft-and-hard/ Partanen, J. & Joutsiniemi, A. (2015). Complex patterns of self-organized neighbour- hoods. In Boelens, Luke & de Roo, Gert (eds.): Spatial Planning in a Complex Unpredictable World of Change. InPlan-ning, Groningen. Perry, C.A. (1929). The Neighbourhood Unit. In Neighbourhood and Community Plan- ning, pp. 22-126. New York, Committee on Regional Planof New York and its environs. Popper, K. (1972). Objective Knowledge - A Realist View of Logic, Physics, and History (1966). retrieved 28.12.2018 at https://pdfs.seman- ticscholar.org/845d/20c52e47cfb379ba1e384de92ed78eaac3ad.pdf Portugali, J. (2012). Self-organization and the City. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Portugali, J. (2008). Learning From Paradoxes about Prediction and Planning in Self- Organizing Cities. Planning Theory, 7(3), 248-262. Rantanen, A. & Faehnle, M. (2017). Self-organisation challenging institutional plan- ning: towards a new urban research and planning paradigm – a Finnish review. Finnish Journal of Urban Studies, 55(3). Retrieved 15.5.2018 at http://www.yss.fi/journal/self-organisation-challenging-institutional-planning- towards-a-new-urban-research-and-planning-paradigm-a-finnish-review/ Rantanen, A. & Joutsiniemi, A. (2016). Muutoksen epistemologia ja resilientit tilalliset strategiat: Maankäy-tön ja suunnittelun mukautumis- ja muuntautumiskykyä tarkastelemassa. (Epistemology of change and resilient spatial strategies: A re- view on land use adaptation and transformation). Terra 128: 4, 203–213. Reynolds, M. & Holwell, S. (eds.)(2009). Systems Approaches to Managing Change - A Practical Guide. London: Springer. Reynolds, M. (2014). Equity-focused developmental evaluation using critical systems thinking. Evaluation, 20(1), 75–95. Rohe, W.M. (2009). From Local to Global: One Hundred Years of Neighbourhood Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(2), 209-230. Roo, G.(2016). Planning and Complexity: Introduction. In Roo, G. & Silva, E. (eds.) A Planner's Encoun-ter with Complexity. pp. 1-19. New York, Routledge. Roo, G. de. (2015). Going for Plan B - Conditioning Adaptive Planning: About urban planning and institu-tional design in a non-linear, complex world. In R. Geyer, & P. Cairney (Eds.), Handbook on Complex-ity and Public Policy. pp. 349-368. Cheltenham, UK., Handbooks of Research for Public Policy. Roo, G. de. (2012). Spatial Planning, Complexity and a World 'Out of Equilibrium' - Outline of a Non-linear Approach to Planning. In G. de Roo, J. Hillier, & J. van Wezemael (Eds.), Complexity and Spa-tial Planning: Systems, Assemblages and Simulations. pp. 129 - 165. Farnham - UK: Ashgate Publish-ing. DiGaetano, A., & Klemanski, J. S. (1999). Power and city governance: Comparative perspectives on ur-ban development. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.

68 References

Saad-Sulonen, Joanna (2013). Combining Participation: Expanding the Locus of Par- ticipatory E‐Planning by Combining Participatory Approaches in the Design of Digital Technology and in Urban Planning. Phd Dissertation. Media Lab, Aalto University, Otaniemi. Saad-Sulonen, Joanna & Horelli, Liisa (2010). The value of community informatics to participatory urban planning and design: A case-study in Helsinki. The Journal of Community Informatics 6(2). Retrieved 15.5.2018 at http://ci-journal.org/in- dex.php/ciej/article/view/579 Sager, T. 1994. Communicative Planning Theory. Avebury, Aldershot. Salet, W., Bertolini, L., & Giezen, M. (2012). Complexity and uncertainty: Problem or asset in decision making of mega infrastructure projects? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Early View Online. Sandercock, L. (2003). Out of the closet: The importance of stories and storytelling in planning practice. Planning Theory and Practice, 4(1), 11-28. Sandercock, L. (1998). The Death of Modernistic Planning: Radical Praxis for a Post- modern Age. In Douglas, M. &Friedmann, J. (eds.). Cities for Citizens: Planning and the Rise of Civil Society in a Global Age, pp. 163-184. Chichester, Wiley. Sarkissian, W., & Hurford, D. (2010). Creative Community Planning: Transformative Engagement Meth-ods for Working at the Edge. London: Earthscan Shotter, John (2007). With What Kind of Science Should Action Research Be Con- trasted?. International Journal of Action Research, vol 3 2007.1+2, 65-92. URN: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-412910 Shotter, J.(2007). What kind of Science Should Action Research be Contrasted?. Inter- national Journal of Action Research, 3(1+2), 65-92. Shove, E., Pantzar, M. & Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics of social practice. Everyday life and how it changes. London, Sage. Sieverts, T. (2003). Cities Without Cities: An Interpretation of the Zwischenstadt. Spoon Press: London. Skaburskis, A. (2008). The Origins of ”Wicked Problems”. Urban Theory & Practice, 9(2), 277–280. Schmidt-Thome, K., Wallin, S., Laatikainen, T., Kangasoja, J., Kyttä, M. (2014). Ex- ploring the use of PPGIS in self-organizing urban development: Case softGIS in Pacific Beach. Journal of Community Informatics, 10(3). Retrieved 15.5.2018 at http://ci-journal.org/index.php/ciej/article/view/1080/0 Sotarauta, M. (1996). Suunnittelun ansat ja pehmeä strategia. Lectio praecursoria 14.9.1996, University of Tampere. Retrieved 28.12.2018 from http://www.uta.fi/jkk/sente/netlibrary/lectio.pdf Tampereen yliopisto - Aluetieteen ja ympäristöpolitiikan laitos Staffans, A. & Horelli, L. (2014). Expanded Urban Planning as a Vehicle for Under- standing and Shaping Smart, Liveable Cities. Journal of Community Informat- ics, 10(3). Retrieved 15.5.2018 at http://ci-journal.org/index.php/ciej/arti- cle/view/1171/0 Staffans, A. (2004). Vaikuttavat asukkaat: vuorovaikutus ja paikallinen tieto kaupun- kisuunnittelun haastei-na. A Publication Serie of the Centre for Urban and Re- gional Studies, 29, Espoo: Helsinki University of Technology. Corbin, J. & Strauss, S. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21. Thrift, N. (2000). Not a straight line but a curve, or, cities are not mirrors of moder- nity. In D. Bell, & A. Haddour (Ed.), City Visions. London: Longman, 233-263. References

Uitermark, Justus & Nicholls, Walter (2014). From politicization to policing: The rise and decline of new social movements in Amsterdam and Paris. Antipode, 46:4, 970-991. UN Habitat (2008). State of the World’s Cities 2008/2009 – Harmonious Cities. United Nations Human Settlements Programme. Retrieved 28.12.2018 at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/11192562_alt- 1.pdf Urry, J. (2003) Global Complexity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Wallin, A. (2018). Katsantoja kaupungin muutokseen. Finnish Journal of Urban Stud- ies, 56(4), 11-27. Wallin, S.(2013). Urban Complexity Challenging Urban Planning. In Horelli, L. (Ed.) New Approaches to Urban Planning. Publication Serie nro 10. Aalto University Publication, Otaniemi. Wallin, S. & Horelli, L. (2012). Playing with the Glocal Through Participatory e-Plan- ning. Journal of Community Informatics, 8(3), http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/883 Wallin, S. & Horelli, L. (2010). Methodology of a user-sensitive service design within urban planning. Journal of Environment and Planning B, 37(5), 775–791. Weaver, W. (1948). Science and Complexity. American Scientist, 36:536-544. Repub- lished at, Classical papers (2004). Science and Complexity. 6(3), 65-74.

Referred planning documents

City of Helsinki/Helsingin kaupunki (2017a). Footbridge over Eastern Motorway/ Ja- lankulkusilta Itä-väylän yli. Diaarinumero HEL 2017-013453 yritystontit 64/14.12.2017. https://dev.hel.fi/paatokset/asia/hel-2017-013453/ City of Helsinki/Helsingin kaupunki (2017b). Resigned Rental Contract for the shop- ping mall plot/Vuokrasopimuksen täydennys Lähipalvelukeskus Hertsi, Linnan- rakentajan tie 2. YIT rakennus Oy:n ja Hartela Etelä-Suomi Oy:n Diaarinumero HEL 2015-009664. https://dev.hel.fi/paatokset/asia/hel-2015-009664/ City of Helsinki/Helsingin kaupunki (2017c). Rental contract with K-Supermarket Herta/ Piirustusten tutkiminen ja vuokrasopimuksen muuttaminen, Kesko Oyj (Herttoniemi, tontti 43172/1) https://dev.hel.fi/paatokset/asia/hel-2017- 002458/ City of Helsinki/Helsingin kaupunki (2011). The detail plan of Herttoeniemi Center / Herttoniemen keskuk-sen Megahertsin kortteli: Asemakaavan muutoksen selos- tus. Hankenumero: 1083_2, HEL 2011-004118. Helsingin kaupunkisuunnittelu- viraston asemakaavaosasto. https://kartta.hel.fi/kaavaselostus/ak12089_selos- tus.pdf Land Use and Building Act (1999). 5.2.1999/132 http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1999/19990132#L1P4

70 m mtrapeD D e D e p e p a p a r a r t r t t em em n em n t n t o t o f o f B f B u B u i u l i t l i t l E t E n E n v n v i r v i r o i r o o emn emn n emn n t n t t

aA l t o - aA l aA l t o t - o - DD DD DD

M gnigana gniganaM gniganaM nabru nabru nabru 951 951 951 / / / W ukkriS i r k k u aW l l i n W ukkriS S i i r r k k k u k u aW aW l l l l i i n n 9102 9102 9102 c ytixelpmo ytixelpmoc ytixelpmoc

P yrotapicitra yrotapicitraP yrotapicitraP ,gninnalp ,gninnalp ,gninnalp noitazinagro-fles noitazinagro-fles noitazinagro-fles dna dna dna noitcudorp-oc noitcudorp-oc noitcudorp-oc fo fo fo nabru nabru nabru s ecap ecaps ecaps

S ukkri ukkriS ukkriS nillaW nillaW nillaW elpo ar niganaM i gn nabru pmoc l xe i t y elpo ar niganaM i ganaM gn i gn nabru pmoc l nabru pmoc l xe i xe i t y t y

B I I I NBS NBS NBS 6-1078-06-259-879 6-1078-06-259-879 ( 6-1078-06-259-879 p ( p r ( i p r n i r n t i n t de t de ) de ) ) SSENISUB SSENISUB + SSENISUB + + B I I I NBS NBS NBS 3-2078-06-259-879 3-2078-06-259-879 ( 3-2078-06-259-879 ( dp ( dp f ) dp f ) f ) E E E MONOC MONOC Y MONOC Y Y S I I I NSS NSS NSS 9971 9971 - 9971 - - 4394 4394 ( 4394 p ( p r ( i p r n i r n t i n t de t de ) de ) ) S I I I NSS NSS NSS 9971 9971 - 9971 - - 2494 2494 ( 2494 ( dp ( dp f ) dp f ) f ) TRA TRA + TRA + + NGISED NGISED NGISED + + + ytisrevinU otlaA otlaA otlaA ytisrevinU ytisrevinU ytisrevinU HCRA HCRA I HCRA T I T I T TCE TCE TCE ERU ERU ERU nirenigE fo loohcS oohcS l oohcS l o l o f o f f gnE gnE i gnE i i een een r i een r i r gn i gn gn m mtrapeD D e D e p e p a p a r t a r t r t em em n em n t n t o t o f o f B f B u B u i l u i t l i t E l t E n E n v n i v r i v o r i o r o emn emn n emn n t n t t ECNEICS ECNEICS + ECNEICS + + www www . a www . a . a l t a l o t l o . t f o . i f . i f i T T E T E E ONHC ONHC L ONHC L L GO GO Y GO Y Y

EVOSSORC VOSSORC VOSSORC RE RE RE COD COD T COD T T RO RO A RO A L A L L +gbahia*GMFTSH9 +gbahia*GMFTSH9 +gbahia*GMFTSH9 COD COD T COD T T RO RO A RO A L A L L SNOITATRESSID SNOITATRESSID SNOITATRESSID ytisrevinU otlaA SNOITATRESSID SNOITATRESSID SNOITATRESSID ytisrevinU ytisrevinU otlaA otlaA

9102 9102 9102