Docstoc

GREENSCOM

Document Sample
GREENSCOM Powered By Docstoc
					   GREENSCOM
      WP 6




Case Studies of
   Finland




   April 26, 2002
This is a GREENSCOM publication. GREENSCOM is a research project of Key Action 4
“City of Tomorrow and Cultural Heritage” from the programme “Energy, Environment and
Sustainable Development” within the Fifth Framework Programme of the EU. It is co-
financed by the Ministery of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries and the Ministery
of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment in the Netherlands and by the Plan Urbanisme
Construction Architecture of the Ministry of Equipment, Housing and Transport in France

Proposal                      : EVK4-1999-00033
Contract                      : EVK4-CT-1999-00006



Parties involved
 Alterra Green World Research (project co-ordinator)
   Address : PO Box 47, 6700 AA WAGENINGEN - The Netherlands
    Contact : Mrs. Carmen Aalbers, phone: ++ 31 317 478713,
              email: c.b.e.m.aalbers@alterra.wag-ur.nl

    The Helsinki University of Technology, Institute of Urban Planning and Design Helsinki
    Address : PO Box 1300, Fin 020215 HUT - Finland
    Contact : Mr. Kimmo Lapintie, phone ++ 358 9 4514432,
              email: kimmo.lapintie@hut.fi

 Danish Building and Urban Research
  Address : Dr. Neergaards Vej 15, 2970 HOERSHOLM - Denmark
  Contact : Mrs. Karen Attwell, phone ++ 45 45865533 ext. 350,
            email: kaa@by-og-byg.dk

 School of Architecture, Chalmers University of Technology
  Address : SE-41296 GOTHENBURG – Sweden
  Contact : Mr. Björn Malbert, phone: ++ 46 31 7722438,
            email: malbert@arch.chalmers.se

 FORS Recherche Sociale
  Address : 48, rue des Petites Ecuries, 75010 PARIS – France
  Contact : Mrs. Elizabeth Auclair, phone: ++ 33 1 30389487,
            email: elizabethauclair@wanadoo.fr
          : Mr. Didier Vanoni, phone: ++ 33 1 48247900,
            email: didier.vanoni@fors-rs.com

Duration of programme         : Start: 01-04-2000, End: 31-06-2003


Info: www.greenscom.com

Please contact the co-ordinator for orders of this publication.

ISBN no.
Work Package 6




                 Case Studies Finland


                         National Context of Finland
                         Local Contexts of Helsinki and Tampere
                         Case Studies of Haaga, Broända and Iidesjärvi




By:     Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki, Finland
        Kimmo Lapintie
        Olli Maijala
        Taina Rajanti

Date : April 26th, 2002
CONTENTS

A    NATIONAL CONTEXT - FINLAND ............................................................................. 1

A1   Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1
A2   Spatial development ................................................................................................. 2
A3   Discussion about urban growth and green spaces ................................................ 5
A4   Government and governance ................................................................................... 8
A5   Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 11

B    LOCAL CONTEXT OF HELSINKI ............................................................................ 13

B1   Introduction ............................................................................................................. 13
B2   Spatial development ............................................................................................... 15
B3   Discussion about urban growth and green spaces ............................................. 19
B4   Government and governance ................................................................................. 22
B5   Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 26

B    LOCAL CONTEXT OF TAMPERE ........................................................................... 27

B1   Introduction ............................................................................................................. 27
B2   Spatial development ............................................................................................... 29
B3   Discussion about urban growth and green spaces ............................................. 32
B4   Government and governance ................................................................................. 33
B5   Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 37

C    CASE STUDIES ....................................................................................................... 39

C    The Haaga case ....................................................................................................... 39
             Summary.......................................................................................................... 39
     C1      The case.......................................................................................................... 40
     C2      Practical planning problem............................................................................... 44
     C3      Methodology of the case study ........................................................................ 45
     C4      Analysis ........................................................................................................... 46
     C5      Assesment of tools .......................................................................................... 59
     C6      Conclusions and recommendations ................................................................. 60
C    The Broända case ................................................................................................... 62
            Summary.......................................................................................................... 62
     C1     The case........................................................................................................... 62
     C2     Practical planning problem................................................................................ 66
     C3     Methodology of the case study ......................................................................... 66
     C4     Analysis ............................................................................................................ 68
     C5     Assessment of tools ......................................................................................... 72
     C6     Conclusions and recommendations .................................................................. 73
C    The Iidesjärvi case .................................................................................................. 74
                 Summary.......................................................................................................... 74
          C1     The case........................................................................................................... 74
          C2     Practical planning problem................................................................................ 77
          C3     Methodology of the case study ......................................................................... 78
          C4     Analysis ............................................................................................................ 78
          C5     Assessment of tools ......................................................................................... 93
          C6     Conclusions and recommendations .................................................................. 94

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 94




                                                                  5
A.     NATIONAL CONTEXT: FINLAND
A1     Introduction

A 1.1 Introduction to Finland

The total area of Finland is 338 000 km², and it is the seventh largest country in Europe. Of
the total area 69% is forest, 10% water, only 8% cultivated land and 13% other. Finland is
known as the 'land of the thousand lakes', in fact there are a total of 187,888 lakes. The
population is nearly 5.2 million. Finland is a sparsely populated country, the average
population density is 17 people/km². Of the population 65% live in towns or urban areas, 35%
in rural areas. Helsinki is the capital of Finland, situated on the south coast of Finland. The
population of the Helsinki metropolitan area is about 1 million. Tampere is the next major city
in Finland with some 270 000 inhabitants, situated inland in southern Finland between two
major lakes. Administratively Finland is subdivided into 6 administrative provinces (lääni), 20
regions and about 450 municipalities.




            TAMPERE




               HELSINKI            Figure. Map of Finland indicating the location of Helsinki and Tampere.



A 1.2 Summary of the main conclusions

Finland is a country that is sparsely populated and has been urbanised very late. Although
65% of the population live in urban areas, Finnish cultural identity is still very much tied to the
countryside, and especially to nature, forests and lakes. Finns prefer to live close to nature in
a peaceful environment and in an own detached house. This deep-rooted mental attitude
affects the urban green in two ways: firstly there has traditionally been a lot of green in
Finnish urban settlements, and the inhabitants set a high value on green areas, both as


                                                  1
visual and usable resources in urban environment; secondly, in the urban fringe areas this
longing for nature surroundings easily leads to wide-spread and dispersed settlement
structure that fragments the larger natural areas into pieces, and results in long commuting
distances.

Finns are also used to go to the forests for many reasons. Finland has an "everyman´s right"
that has safeguarded the possibility for everyone to go to forests, regardless of their
ownership, for recreation and to pick berries and mushrooms. In Finland, if the urban growth
is located on previously unbuilt areas, this is most likely to be forest, not agricultural areas -
and this means, too, that the area has most likely to been used by the local inhabitants for
various kinds of recreation, and they have already attached meanings to it - a situation very
different to a location of agricultural fields that already privatised and not possible to be used
by local inhabitants.

During the last ten years urban growth in Finland has concentrated in only a few large urban
regions, Helsinki and Tampere among them. Because of rapid migration and falling
household size there is urgent need for new housing in these regions. Seen intra-regionally
there is a tendency of dispersing urban structures. In Finland the legislation does not strictly
regulate the development in the urban fringe or rural areas. Finland got a new Land Use and
Building Act in the beginning of the year 2000, emphasising the independency of
municipalities to decide on the control and guidance of their own spatial planning, and public
participation in planning. These past two years have much been characterised by the local
authorities, and other stakeholders too, trying to find ways to answer to the new challenges.
Thus it is really an interesting moment to study the processes and communication related to
urban growth and green in Finnish urban settlements. In Finland the most important tool to
govern urban growth and green is the Municipal Plan (yleiskaava). Green structure plans do
not appear in the Finnish legislation, nor on an average in the practise of Finnish
municipalities.


A2      Spatial development

A 2.1 Urban growth, demography and space

The population of Finland is about 5,188,100 (30.6.2001). Finland is one of the most sparsely
populated countries of Europe: the average population density is 17 inhabitants / km² of land
area. Till the beginning of 1960´s Finland was clearly an agrarian country, then rapidly
urbanised, and nowadays about 81 % live in urban areas, statistically called localities1.
These localities cover 2,5 % of the land area. As the whole country, also the urban areas are,
on an average, quite spaciously built - the population density is 626 persons / km² (2000).

The biggest urban areas ("localities") are: Helsinki, population 1 027 000; Tampere 270 000;
Turku 239 000 and Oulu 157 000. About 40 % of the people living in urban areas live in
these four biggest ones. (Statistical Yearbook of Finland 2001)

Because of the late urbanisation, the building stock especially in urban settlements is new: in
the whole Finland 85 % of the buildings were constructed after 1950. As a consequence,
also the technical standard of housing is high on average. There are no significant regional
differences in housing standards, although the density is slightly higher in urban areas. On
the other hand, there are noticeable differences between social groups: the larger the family
and the lower the income, the less space per person there is likely to be.

1
 The Finnish statistical definition of a "locality" (taajama) is that at least 200 persons must live within
an area with maximum of 200 meters between buildings. This definition is also used in other Nordic
countries.


                                                      2
Despite the spaciously-built settlements, compared to many other European countries,
Finnish people live overcrowdedly in their dwellings. The living space per occupant (person)
is 35 m² (2000) (summer cottages etc. not included). The average size of dwelling is 76,0 m².
The average size of households has continued to decrease, and is now 2.3 people. Two out
of every three households have only one or two members.

The most common residential buildings are detached houses and blocks of flats, which are
almost equally represented (41 % and 44 %, respectively, of all dwellings in 1997). However,
terraced (attached) houses, or "row houses" as they are called in Finnish, have become
more popular, particularly in urban areas.

                                    1980 1990                  2000
                                   1 000
Residential buildings                840 1 005                1 111
– Detached and semi-detached houses 773 908                     993
– Attached houses                     23    53                   66
– Blocks of flats                     44    45                   52
Other buildings                       92 158                    189
Summer cottages                      252 368                    451


Figure. Residential buildings and summer cottages 1980-2000. Source: Statistics Finland.

Finland is a country of high percentage of owner-occupied homes: about two-thirds of the
housing stock consists of owner-occupied homes and about 30 % of the housing stock is
rented. Home ownership has been promoted through fiscal incentives, mainly in the form of
relief on the interest on housing loans. The limited stock of rental housing and its dominance
of small dwellings has also increased demand for owner-occupied housing. In addition to
single-family houses, owner-occupied housing is also common in apartment blocks and in
terraced houses in urban areas, in the form of housing companies. (The Built Environment in
Finland, 1999).

The summer cottage is an integral part of the Finnish way of life. Nowadays there are over
430 000 summer cottages, and the number continues to grow. Almost one out of four
households owns a summer cottage (1985), and 46 % of the Finns over 15 years have a
summer cottage in their use for free (e.g. owned by their parents). Over 90 % of the summer
cottages actually built for this purpose have a part of shoreline of their own. The south and
south-western coasts of Finland and the shorelines in the archipelago and the lake district of
southern Finland are already almost completely full. About one third of the summer cottages
are fit for winter habitation, but this figure is rapidly increasing. Also small farms in sparsely-
populated areas are increasingly being taken over for leisure use. Both of these vacational
homes are increasingly used as "secondary homes", i.e. used for shorter periods also other
times of the year than summer, and not only for vacation but also for distance working.

A 2.2 Land use, economics, green spaces

The dominance of natural environment is very characteristic for Finland. Most of the land
area, almost three-quarters, is covered with forest. Farmland dominates the landscape only
in some few smaller regions of western Finland.
       Land use 1999: Agricultural land 8,0 %; Forest and other wooded land 67,8 %; Built-
       up and related land 3,5 %; water 10,1 %, open wetlands and other open land 10,6 %
       (Statistical Yearbook of Finland)
Finland is one of the most extensively forested countries in the world, and forests are very
important outdoor recreation and leisure areas. Finland has an "everyman´s right" ("right to


                                                       3
roam") so that everybody can walk and pick berries and mushrooms in the forests regardless
of ownership. Finland also has more lakes and islands than almost any other country in the
world.
Particularly characteristic of the Finnish natural landscape are its small scale, its diversity
and its variety. Hills, hillocks and ridges are interspersed with valleys and lakes. In many
places the fields and forests form a landscape of open and closed spaces like a mosaic.

On the whole, Finland´s housing stock is sufficient, there is no overall housing shortage.
However, regional differences in the adequacy of supply are considerable. There is urgent
need for new housing in large urban areas because of rapid migration and falling household
size. This is very much the situation in both of our case cities Helsinki and Tampere. At the
same time, much of the country has oversupply of housing. The number of dwellings
completed in 1999 was about 29 000 (floor area 2 470 000 m²). The need for new housing is
expected to continue at a level of 30 000 to 40 000 dwellings per year for many years. Main
reason for this, in addition to what was mentioned above, is the changing age structure of the
population.

On average, Finns spend around 20 % of their disposable income on housing. Young people
and low-income families with children are obliged to spend most of their income on housing,
while high-income, older households have the lowest (relative) housing expenses. There are
significant regional differences in housing prices and rents. They are higher in the growing
urban regions of the biggest cities, but especially notable is the difference between the
Helsinki Metropolitan region and the rest of Finland. For the whole greater Helsinki area the
average price for two-room units is about 2000 € / m², as it is only half of it in the rest of
Finland, and only slightly over this latter figure in Tampere (1260 €), Turku and Oulu being
just on the average.

A 2.3 Mobility

Car density in Finland has decoupled in 30 years - the increase has followed the same pace
as in other industrialised countries till 1980´s. After that the increase has been more rapid
than in many other western European countries. Now there are about 400 cars per 1000
inhabitants. The average number of kilometres driven is also high in Finland. The reasons for
this include the sparse and dispersed population meaning overall long distances and often
inability to arrange a properly-serving public transport, but also the relative spaciousness of
Finnish urban settlements, and the high amount of trips to summer cottages.

The Ministry of Transport has made every six years a national survey on daily travelling by
telephone interviews. The latest one is made 1998-99, and the sample includes 18 250
persons, ages over 6 years, that have been interviewed on their travelling during one random
sample day. From this we can see the following figures (Henkilöliikennetutkimus, 1999):

    - Average daily travelling is 45 km, 3 trips, lasting 1 hour and 23 minutes.
    - Daily person-km travelled for going for different purposes: work, school and studying 19
      %, work purpose 12 %, shopping 14 %, going to summer cottage 5 % and leisure
      activities 50 %
    - Average number of kilometres driven when main travel mode is driving a car, is daily
      19,3 km; and counted from this, yearly about 7000 km (so, for one person on an
      average and related to all ages above 6 years; related to ages 18 and above, the result
      is 10 600 km)
    - Average number of kilometres driven per car yearly is 20 200 km.
    - Other modes daily: on foot 1,1 km; by bike 0,9 km; by car as a passenger 10,2; by bus
      3,5 km; by rail 2,2 km; by taxi 0,5 km; other public transport 6,5 km; other private
      transport 1,7 km



                                               4
Figure. Trends in the use of public transport and private cars 1980-2000. Source: Statistics Finland.

There is a continuous tendency in goods transport towards using more and more road
transport. Volume of domestic freight traffic 1999 was total 36,0 billion ton-km, of which
railway traffic comprises 18%, road traffic 74%, and shipborne transport 8%.


A3       Discussion about urban growth and green spaces

A 3.1 Driving forces behind spatial development

Finnish urban settlements have historically been small and not very densely built wooden
towns. The country has been rather poor and sparsely populated, peripheral part of a larger
empire till its independence in 1917. It was only after 1880´s that the industrialization and
growth of the industrial towns really went forward. The amount of urban population raised
from 6 % in 1860´s to 16 % of the total population in 1920.
Still, Finland remained very agrarian country till the beginning of 1960´s: in 1940 people living
in rural areas accounted for 73 % of the population, in 1950 for 68% (Tykkyläinen 1996). In
the mid-1960´s began its dramatic depopulation. Within about ten-fifteen years the economic
structure of Finland changed on a scale unmatched, in relative terms, in the history of the
Western industrial countries. The "Great Move", as it was called, was at first directed mainly
towards the regional towns, and later to the biggest cities and to Sweden. The background
for this migration from the countryside was the result of changes in technology in agriculture
and forestry. Cities and towns grew very rapidly, and most of the high- and low-rise suburbs
are built in a very short period during this in-migration wave. The situation steadied in the
latter part of 1970´s, as both building and urbanization slowed down for a short while.

To the end of 80´s the growth in population, and especially in jobs, concentrated more to the
regions of the largest cities (Helsinki, Tampere, Turku, Oulu). Suburbanisation and
"regionalisation" was evident: in these growing regions, the growth of the main city was slow,
and the focus was on the surrounding municipalities. In national scale prevailed
concentration, but in the scale of urban region deconcentration. This was also the time of
many new developmental trends: liberation of money markets in Finland, internationalisation,
strengthening of market forces, the advance of the new technology, the decline of public
planning, uncertain labour markets, the rise of private sector as a force with great power over
development (Siirilä 1999). Despite the booming economy of that time, a clear restructuring
was under way, and traditional industry declined causing population and job loss in many
urban areas.

As a reaction to the poor quality environments of the multi-storey satellite suburbs of the
1960´s and 70´s, the focus in new housing production turned more towards small houses
and small house areas. This increased the housing production especially in the municipalities
surrounding the old towns that had more land to offer for space-demanding detached


                                                         5
housing. Many of these new areas were deeply car-dependant with very little public or
commercial services and poor public transportation. In the late 1980´s on the apex of the
economic boom, the fastest growing areas were on the outer zone of the growing urban
regions. There was also a minor but very visible tendency for central city living of "young
urban professionals". This was partly connected to the restructuring processes of the
traditional centrally-located industrial areas. Companies started to move out from the city
centres, leaving many of their premises empty. Huge amounts of new building rights were
claimed by the new real estate development enterprises (owned by the old industrial
companies). Some of the new building was also realised later on. Many old factory buildings
have been restored and changed to new uses. Gentrification processes have followed, as
the city living has become more popular, and new and different kinds of opportunities for city
dwellings have emerged.

The situation changed quite rapidly in the early 1990´s as Finland fell into a severe economic
recession. The unemployment rate rose to a new record of over 20%. Both inter- and intra-
regional migration slowed down remarkably, as well as new housing production. Finnish
municipalities, cities included, had to cut down their expenses heavily, as their tax base
collapsed. For example, in urban planning more attention was paid to intensifying the use of
already existing infrastructure and services, instead of starting with new areas in the urban
fringe (cf. the official starting of the densification-focused master planning of Tampere in
1994).

Slowly the Finnish economy started to recover in 1994-95. The new growth, also in jobs, was
primarily export-industry lead, especially by high-tech industries like Nokia. The boom period
accelerated in the last years of the1990´s. This concentration of job growth has lead to a new
great migration and urbanization period in Finland. Differing from the earlier ones, the in-
migration and growth is limited only to a few major regions in Finland: Oulu, Helsinki,
Tampere, Turku, Jyväskylä and Salo (the last one an exception - a small town of some 20
000 inhabitants 60 km east of Turku - with Nokia as the biggest employer), following the rules
of "the new economy".

Also new is that the newcomers, mostly young and fairly well educated people, do not mainly
come from rural areas but from small and middle-sized towns. Rural areas continue to lose
inhabitants, but there are not many young people to move any more. There is now an
extremely high overall demand and shortage of dwellings in the growing regions that has
lead to another rapid rise in housing prices in these areas. As a consequence of this, the
growth of the surrounding outer areas of these growth centres has increased, and the
deconcentration and "regionalisation" processes are strengthening.
As the booming economy is in one way or another connected to information technology, the
newcomers to growth centres are often highly-educated young adults and families who
mainly prefer suburban small house areas, preferably in appreciated locations, often close to
the sea or a lake, or in a park-like surroundings. This kind of new housing has been built all
around the growing urban regions in attractive locations. At the same time there has
emerged a fast increasing lack of skilled workers for low-paid service jobs like bus-drivers,
carpenters, cleaners etc. who cannot afford the rapidly rising housing prices and rents in the
growing regions.

A 3.2 How do the trends affect the green areas

As Finland is a country urbanised very late, the Finnish cultural identity is very much tied to
the countryside, and especially to the nature, the forests and lakes. In almost every survey
made about the living preferences of the Finns, the highest priority is given to living close to
nature, in a peaceful environment, in an own detached house. This deep-rooted mental
attitude affects the green areas in two ways: firstly there has traditionally been a lot of green
in Finnish urban settlements, and the inhabitants set a high value on green areas, both as


                                                6
visual and usable resources in urban environment; secondly, in the urban fringe areas this
longing for nature surroundings easily leads to wide-spread and dispersed settlement
structure that fragments the larger nature areas into pieces, and results in long commuting
distances.

Finns are also used to go to the forests for many reasons. Historically the forests, not the
urban settlements, have been the refuge to retire to when the (whatever) enemy is
threatening. The everyman´s right has safeguarded the possibility for everyone to visit
forests, regardless of their ownership, for recreation. According to a recent study (Luonnon
virkistyskäyttö 2000) 97% of Finnish people participate in outdoor activities and visit nature
during the course of one year, and the figure is equal among rural and urban inhabitants.

When we combine the forest character of the green also in and around the urban settlements
together with the extensive use of forests for recreation, we notice a significant feature
related to balancing urban growth and green in Finland: if the urban growth is located on
previously unbuilt areas, this is most likely to be forest, not agricultural areas - and this
means, too, that the area is most likely to have been used by the local inhabitants for various
kinds of recreation, and they have already attached meanings to it - a situation very different
from a location of agricultural fields that already are privatised and cannot be used by local
inhabitants.

The most popular housing type in Finland, even among the urban inhabitants, is a detached
house: 73% of the Finns name that as the desired housing type, and about 50% of all Finns
also live in detached houses. (Suomen maakuntien liitto 1992). The demand for detached
housing remains extensive in urban regions. There is a tendency that during boom periods
the demand for detached housing in the outer parts of the urban regions grows, both in the
areas planned for housing, and in areas not planned for development (because of the so-
called "basic right to build" traditionally included in the Finnish land use legislation), and
diminishes during the recession periods. The desire for an own detached house puts
pressure on planning these kind of areas in urban structure, which is more land consuming
than other types of housing, many times turning forested green to a more garden- or
"savanna"-type of green (lawn + trees). Now there is an interest to develop more high density
and low-rise type of housing structures that mostly are missing in Finland, although they
clearly have historical roots in the wooden towns from 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.

An important feature affecting urban growth patterns in larger urban regions in Finland is the
administrative fragmentation: for example, the Helsinki Metropolitan area consists of four
independent municipalities. In growing urban regions, these neighbouring municipalities
compete with each other for the affluent tax-payers. In the Helsinki region, the city of Helsinki
still is quite attractive but it has limited possibilities to satisfy the demand for detached
houses expressed especially by the families with children. Along with high housing prices this
has lead to a situation where the major part of the families with children take up residence in
the neighbouring cities or even further away. As much of the recent economic and job growth
has been related to the IT-sector, and according to a recent study (Ilmonen et al. 2000) the
IT-professionals prefer suburbs to the inner city and can be described as "nature urbanites",
the core cities, like Helsinki, are afraid of loosing these people and therefore of diminishing
tax-base. This situation is causing development pressure to urban green both inside the
urban structure and on the fringes of larger green areas as well as sea-shores.




                                               7
A4      Government and governance

A 4.1 Institutional setting of planning

In the beginning of the year 2000, finally - one could say - Finland managed to reform its
building and planning legislation, dating back to 1958, and reflecting the needs of that time of
beginning of the era of massive new development in former unbuilt areas around the cities
and towns in Finland. The new Land Use and Building Act retained the hierarchical three
levels of planning: the regional land use plan (maakuntakaava; here called the Regional
Plan), the local master plan (yleiskaava; here called the Municipal Plan2), and the local
detailed plan (asemakaava; here called the Local Plan). Besides, the Government decides
on the National Land Use Guidelines (valtakunnalliset alueidenkäyttötavoitteet).



                                    National
                                   Land Use             – Approved by
                                                          the Government
                                   Guidelines




                                                          – Prepared and approved
                    Regional Land                           by the regional council
                Use Plan                                  – Ratified by the Ministry
                                                            of the Environment




                 Municipal Plan
                 Municipal Plan                     – Prepared and approved
                                                      by the municipal council




                                          – Prepared and approved
                                            by the municipal council


Figure. The planning system in Finland.



The detailed Local Plan is used, as before, for regulating the location of functions, size and
type of buildings, as well as the formation of the townscape. Municipalities prepare their
plans, to be approved by the council, either in their own offices or using private consultants.
The principle of detailed planning is summarised in the new act: no significant deterioration in
the quality of anybody´s living environment may be caused by a local plan without due
reason.

The Municipal Plan can be fine-tuned according to municipal needs. The local council can
decide to make it either a more strategic or visionary Municipal Plan to co-ordinate the spatial
needs of different sectors, or it can be made a more specific one to guide building quite
2
 In the Greenscom project it was decided to use the terms Regional Plan, Municipal Plan and Local
Plan in order to make it easier to compare the case studies in different countries together.


                                                    8
directly, in which case certain legal implications concerning compensation for decreases in
land value are created. The new act includes a possibility of preparing joint Municipal Plans
to promote inter-municipal spatial policies. Municipalities can also establish common
development areas, which are eligible for public financing for housing and other measures to
boost development.

The 19 regions, established in the early 1990´s to replace the former regional planning
associations, have the right to prepare their own land use plans and create regional
development strategies. The Regional Plan is prepared and approved by the regional council
and ratified by the Ministry of the Environment. Particular attention is given to ensuring an
appropriate regional and community structure, to preserving landscape values and ecological
sustainability and to providing conditions for business and industry. The Regional Plan
transfers national and regional land use goals to the local level.

The Government decides upon the National Land Use Guidelines which concern significant
national interests regarding the quality of the environment, transport and other major
infrastructures, ecological sustainability, natural resources and the cultural heritage.
According to the new act, these guidelines should be implemented through Regional Plans.
There is no other kind of national comprehensive spatial planning in Finland.

Along with the new Act, the already traditionally extensive rights of independent Finnish
municipalities to decide on the control and guidance of their own spatial planning and
development are further extended - although increased rights are meant to be balanced by
increased responsibilities. The key actor in a municipality is the elected local council. With
Municipal Plans and Local Plans the council can decide on the location, size and quality of
public spaces, housing, industries, services, green spaces, recreation and environmental
protection areas and traffic arrangements. The council holds full responsibility: local land use
plans are not subjected for ratification by other tiers of administration (as was the case during
the former act). However, when plans are being prepared, consultations with regard to
National Land Use Guidelines or otherwise broader issues have to be held with the Regional
Environment Centre.

The new Act does not abolish the traditional right of land-owners to build isolated buildings
without a land use plan, which is a Finnish specialty reflecting the traditional strong position
of land-owning in the Finnish mentality and legislation.
The new planning system is claimed to be open to public participation. The new interactive
approach, as it has been called, will be extended to include participation with all individuals
whose living and working conditions will be affected by the plan, as well as NGOs and other
organisations whose field of activity is relevant to the plan. A participation and environmental
impact assessment plan (PPIA) has to be made in the beginning of the local and regional
planning process. It is claimed that the systematic PPIA has already improved the planning
process by raising awareness and bringing the knowledge of citizens to an equal position
with experts and authorities. Appeals against local planning decisions will go to the
Administrative Courts, and then on to the Supreme Administrative Court. To function
properly, the new planning approach requires that grass-root organisations contribute to the
discussion and have the proper means to operate effectively.

A 4.2 Environmental awareness

The environmental awareness raised in Finland as in other Western countries at the end of
the 1960´s and in the beginning of the 1970´s. The politicisation of the environment lead
gradually into environmental politics becoming as a field of action of the government officials,
e.g. the Ministry of the Environment was established in 1983. The environmental values have
been positioned high in peoples´ attitudes during the last twenty years, even during the times
of the severe economic recession in Finland during the first half of the 1990´s.


                                                9
Still, according to many international surveys, the Finns are not so concerned about
environmental problems as people from other Nordic or European countries, or even
development countries. Sairinen (1998) has studied reasons for this. Preliminary answers
could be found in Finland´s objective circumstances, such as the better condition of the
environment. The decisive distinction compared to other Nordic countries could be explained,
according to Sairinen, by the images of "Finnishness", the characters of the Finnish national
identity. The traditional national-romantic view of a Finn was someone who was hard-
working, taciturn, humble, poor and satisfied with little in a close relationship to nature. This
traditional vision is nowadays contested with a more modern orientation, where Finland is
seen as a modern, democratic, high-tech welfare state. But, the boundary between these two
is fluid and contradictory. On the one hand, the Finns are very eager to adapt to modern
lifestyles and technologies, and to material welfare, which all together are often very nature
consuming. On the other hand, the Finns think that in this sparsely inhabited country they are
in many ways in a closer relationship with nature and more harmless than other Europeans
who live in densely inhabited "polluted" areas.

Helsinki is a good example of the environmental attitudes and concerns of the urban areas
and urban inhabitants. 75% of the citizens of Helsinki found environmental care very
important (Lankinen & Sairinen 2000). Interesting findings in this study include e.g. that
people clearly tend to find their own neighbourhood better than Helsinki as a whole in terms
of public transport, bicycle and pedestrian paths and, in particular, the accessibility of green
areas. Besides, the older and the less educated a person is, the more important nature is in
the sense of experiencing peace and quiet, recreation, picking berries and mushrooms, etc.

A 4.3 Development of spatial planning

Finland got the new building and land use legislation in the year 2000. The previous
legislation dated back to 1958, to an era in the dawn of the great urbanisation period in
Finland. This previous legislation was especially prepared to guide the needs of new
construction, new development in the growing urban areas. As a legacy from earlier acts, the
land-owning interests had a strong position in the legislation, and the government was given
little chance of intervening actively in land use policy. The position of a private landowner is
still stronger than in other Nordic and most of other European countries. However,
municipalities did acquire a monopoly in planning already in the 1958 legislation. No one
other than the municipality was allowed to put forward plans within its area, although they
had to be sent for ratification to County Administrative Boards (later Regional Environment
Centres) or to the Ministry. In practise, however, active policies for land use and planning
also required ownership of land. During the great urbanisation period in the 1960´s, the land
surrounding the old towns and cities was an object of speculation, and the rural
municipalities there had no land in their ownership (Sundman 1991). They also could not
afford to pay for the infrastructure needed for large urban settlements, which was by law their
responsibility. Thus they were driven into contracts with big developers and construction
companies who had acquired large amounts of land. This was the primary reason for the
very fragmented urban structure of dispersed blocks-of-flats suburbs resulting of that period
in many Finnish larger urban areas.

The Municipal Plan (yleiskaava) became obligatory in 1968 as the form of planning in Finnish
towns. On the other hand, it was no longer obligatory to send it to the Ministry for ratification.
In the beginning of the 1970´s the planning legislation was completed to provide a better
basis for physical planning at the Regional and Municipal Plan level. These plans had weak
positions as controlling instruments. Since the mid-1980´s, new development has been
planned mainly within the existing - but often dispersed - urban structure. With the growing
environmental concerns, the protection of nature and the built environment has become an



                                               10
important topic of spatial planning. Likewise, spatial planning has become an important topic
in public discussion and in the media.

The urban planners in Finland have traditionally been mostly architects, and their
professional status in urban planning is still quite strong, especially in the bigger cities, like
Helsinki and Tampere. The professional self-understanding of architects as planners is
interesting in Finland, and affects the attitudes and opinions of the profession related to
communication and participation in the planning processes. Especially during the decades
following the end of World War II - the rebuilding time of Finland as a "national project"
architects as planners had a significant position and high status as "national heros" realising
the project and interpreting the so-called "general interest" (e.g. Alvar Aalto). This kind of
self-understanding of servants of "general interest" is strong among Finnish architect-
planners. This tends to have an effect that citizen participation is easily interpreted as
narrower interests, like NIMBY-phenomena etc.

A 4.4 Planning answers and approaches to the current situation

Finland has just a two-year experience of the new planning legislation which further extended
the rights of the local authorities to decide on the control and guidance of their own spatial
planning and development, at the same time emphasising interaction and participation in the
planning processes. Just a few of the planning processes that have started during the new
law have finished yet and it is too early for a deeper evaluation of the impacts and
experiences. Yet there are clearly different opinions about the first observations e.g. related
to citizen participation: some consider that no progress related to this has happened - the
authorities just go on with the previous ways of working, offering no real new agencies to
citizens, and some consider the increased participation has slowered down planning
remarkably, and that there is a fear that if anything really can be built, it is only after ten years
of negotiations and endless complaints and appeals. This debate about possible changes in
the legislation is supposed to be heated in the near future.

The other important issue in this context is that besides the new Land Use and Building Act,
Finland has renewed its environmental legislation very widely during a relatively short time, in
the recent 5-8 years. The changes include new legislation concerning the Environmental
Impact Assessment (1994), Nature Protection (1997), Forests and Forestry (1997),
Environmental Protection (2000), and the new EU legislation and Directives, like Natura 2000
area regulations. All these legislative changes have emphasised the need to have adequate
data and knowledge about nature and the environment. For planning it has meant that it is
now compulsory to make sufficient surveys concerning nature and the environment, as this
has been one of the main points in the consideration of the legality of the planning decisions
in the courts of justice.

A5     Conclusions

Forests are culturally very important to the Finns, and also in the everyday life. Finland has
an age-old legal concept of everyman´s right that gives everybody the basic right to roam
freely in the countryside without needing to obtain permission, no matter who owns or
occupies the land. There is a lot of green and forests also in the Finnish cities and towns,
and also the urban Finns highly appreciate and use green and forests close to their home.
This means that the potential areas for urban growth are most likely to be widely used and
attached with many meanings.

The new Land Use and Building Act of Finland (2000) did not abolish the traditional right of
land owners to build isolated buildings without a land use plan, which is a Finnish specialty
reflecting the traditional strong position of land-owning in the Finnish mentality and
legislation. When this mentality and legislation is coupled with the Finnish longing for one-


                                                 11
family housing in peace and close to nature, there is a strong pressure to dispersed
structures especially in the urban fringe. This also partly explains the wide support of
densification policies among the Finnish planners and planning administration.

The recently renewed land use and environmental legislation stresses the need of adequate
data and knowledge about nature and the environment. For planning this has meant that it is
now compulsory to make sufficient surveys concerning nature and the environment, as this
has been one of the main points in the consideration of the legality of the planning decisions
in the courts of justice. This increased need of knowledge and surveys stresses the role on
environmental professionals in urban planning in overall, too. These changes were reflected
in all our case study areas, too: in Iidesjärvi, the Municipal Plan was left unratified concerning
the Iidesjärvi area due to insufficient environmental surveys; in Haaga one of the main points
of complaints about the plan was that valuable bat species were claimed to live in the area
and that had not been studied in the planning process; and finally in Broända valley, the
process of making the larger development principles for the whole green finger was started
because of the closeness of the Natura 2000 area.

Besides environmental aspects, the new Land Use and Building Act (2000) stresses the
need of communicative methods. The new interactive approach, as it has been called, will be
extended to include participation with all individuals whose living and working conditions will
be affected by the plan, as well as NGOs and other organisations whose field of activity is
relevant to the plan. A participation and environmental impact assessment plan (PPIA) has to
be made in the beginning of the local and regional planning process. To function properly,
the new planning approach requires that grass-root organisations contribute to the
discussion and have the proper means to operate effectively. The new approach is very
much on the experimental phase in the municipalities, and considerable differences in the
implementation and in the level of ambitions exist.

Green structure plans do not exist in the Finnish planning legislation. Some kinds of
structural plans for urban green are made especially related to the Municipal Plans, but they
do not have any kind of legal status. The most important tool in balancing urban growth and
green in Finland is the Municipal Plan (yleiskaava).




                                                12
B LOCAL CONTEXT: Helsinki

B1       Introduction

B 1.1 Presentation of the city

Helsinki is the capital and the largest city in Finland. The urbanised area of the city covers
not only the municipality of Helsinki (with about 550 000 inhabitants), but also three other
municipalities (Espoo and Vantaa, both former rural municipalities, with about 200.000
inhabitants, and the tiny Kauniainen, with some 8500 inhabitants). Total population of the
whole continuous urban area (according to the Nordic statistical concept of "locality") is about
1 027 000 (Statistical Yearbook of Finland 2001).



          Urbanised area




                                        Vantaa
                           Espoo



                                                       0
                                                       0    6   6 km




Figure. The urbanised area and the different municipalities of Helsinki region.

Helsinki is a northern and maritime city located at the southern Baltic Sea coast of Finland.
Its municipal territory covers 185 km2 land area and 500 km2 of sea area.

Helsinki became the capital of Finland in 1812. From this on started the development of
Helsinki to the most notable city of the country in administration, business, industries,
education and culture. As Helsinki is the main public cultural reference point nationally, the
investments both of material and policy in public structures are more accentuated and visible
in Helsinki than in any other city of Finland.

B 1.2 Summary of the main conclusions

Helsinki is the capital of Finland, and as such it holds a unique position as an economic,
administrative and cultural centre in Finland. It is a very maritime city - the centre is located
on a rocky peninsula near the open sea. This has had a significant influence on the urban
structure as for a long time the city had to grow only along the railway lines and main roads
to the north. After bridging of the bays in the 1940´s, the city can now be seen as a "half-
wheel" with the city centre as the hub. These circumstances have also lead to a finger-like
urban structure, with urban areas along the radial traffic lines, and green wedges between
them.


                                                           13
There is a lot of green in Helsinki. One third of the entire Helsinki municipality area is green
space, which means approx. 100 m² per inhabitant. Urban forests cover 64% of this green
space. The existing green area system is based on the green wedges, continuous nature
and landscape areas that are called "Green Fingers" of Helsinki. These areas are connected
to each other by narrower green and recreational area corridors and routes.

Helsinki is, due to strong in-migration, at present one of the fastest growing urban regions in
Europe. The need for new housing is a dominant issue and it is given top priority in urban
planning in Helsinki, and in the whole metropolitan area. The city of Helsinki has a building
target of 4500 dwellings each year. Helsinki owns much of its land, and this enables the city
to plan and steer housing production effectively. The city of Helsinki is the largest producer of
public housing in Finland, and mixed areas of public and privately owned housing are
deliberately used to avoid social segregation.

The municipal borders are one major planning problem in the Helsinki metropolitan area. The
municipalities of the metropolitan area, and also the ones neighbouring it, are competing with
each other in getting the best tax-paying migrants and companies. The vacant land suitable
for new housing inside the city of Helsinki is getting finished, and Helsinki wants to implement
a densification strategy based on dense urban settlements along main public transportation
lines. The production of new houses in the metropolitan area has not been able to respond to
the growing demand, and this has lead to a situation where the housing prices and rents
have evaded away from the ordinary migrants in many areas. Especially for young families
with children it is hard to find a dwelling with enough space and for a reasonable price or rent
in the city of Helsinki. This has accelerated the suburbanisation processes in the
neighbouring metropolitan area municipalities of Espoo and Vantaa, and even further away,
especially when detached housing is concerned. One of the most crucial questions for the
land-use planners in the city of Helsinki today is: Where is the preferred balance between
built-up areas, traffic areas and green areas? Where are the limits to built structures within
the municipal borders?

There is no specific green structure plan in Helsinki. The structural green planning is
integrated as a part of the Municipal Plan work, that is the main instrument in governing both
urban growth and green structure. According to the new Helsinki Municipal Plan 2002, which
is under preparation now, new areas designated for building are, almost without exception,
located within the urban structure in connection to the existing infrastructure networks.
However, conflicting interests between new developments and the preservation of existing
green areas have been identified.

B 1.3 Maps and GIS

This description of the state-of-the-art concerns especially the comprehensive urban
planning, the Municipal Plan work viewpoint. In it the need of maps and GIS is threefold:
planning, research and monitoring. The city of Helsinki has produced its own digital "base-
map" (kantakartta) that covers the whole city. The digitalisation is ready in 2D, and quite far
in 3D-applications. All the more detailed Local Plans are carried out on this base map, and
much of the Municipal Plan material, including the official plan, too. On this base map there is
available information (as separate layers) e.g. about all the infrastructure network (pipelines
etc.), built environment and nature protection areas and sites.
The data on existing land-use in Helsinki is based on the categories used in official plans.
There are no largely agreed (e.g. comparable with other cities) categories to classify the
existing land use not even roughly, or more elaborated categories of the actual use and
characteristics (like non-sealed) of the ground surface. This makes it difficult to get data e.g.
on the actual state of the green and monitor it in a particular city, and compare the situation
in other cities.


                                               14
There is a very large "basic register database" at a pilot stage now in Helsinki, covering all
the basic data from different branches of administration in the city. On this database it has
also been created a map-based user interface with a possibility e.g. to make sampling and
illustrate data on maps.

The information needs of both the decision-making bodies and citizens are becoming
increasingly important and a focal point in development work. The Helsinki Municipal Plan
1992 was already available in the internet as a raster-based map with legend. The new
Municipal Plan 2002 as a draft is now available for public comments. In the internet it is
available in pdf-format now containing also the full reports of the Plan. It was already tried to
create a possibility to comment the plan directly on the maps in the internet, but so far this
was not possible in this timetable. To be able to improve the interaction and participation in
internet it is needed that information can be published in dense vector format so that it can
be easily accessible (transformable, readable and e.g. zoomable) and the comments and
discussions can easily be organised in a form suitable for all possible actors and
stakeholders. So far there are bottlenecks in many parts of this system and process.


B2       Spatial development

B 2.1 Regional and local landscape

Originally the city of Helsinki was founded some six kilometres to the north of the present city
centre, at the mouth of the river Vantaa in 1550 by the King of Sweden, Gustavus Vasa.
However, already in 1640, there was a need to find a better site for the harbour and the town
was moved to a new, present-day location nearer to the open sea on a rocky peninsula.

Figure. The typical features of landscape in Helsinki.

The landscape of Helsinki is dominated by exposed bedrock and rocky hills alternating with
flat clay areas which once constituted the seabed. The shoreline is winding with a length of
96 km, and in the sea areas there are altogether 315 islands, most of which are small rocky
outcrops from the sea. The sea to the south, because of its diverse coastline, has always
been an integral part of the character of the city. Unlike in the south-western areas of
Finland, the belt of islands is narrow in front of Helsinki - the open sea is just behind the
Suomenlinna sea fortress and a couple of rock-islands. Despite that the centre peninsula is
very suitable for harbours, the larger bays of both sides of the peninsula are shallow, and
some of the small inlets have already been filled with land. Inland the landscape scenery is
dominated by granite hills (30-60 meters above the sea level). Most of the present "green
fingers" of Helsinki are former agricultural valleys between hilly and ridge areas (e.g. along
the rivers Vantaa and Mätäjoki, the Viikki fields, Broända valley). The "central park" of
Helsinki is a major exception, consisting mainly of forested hilly areas.

B 2.2 Environmental issues

The fresh water supply for Helsinki comes from Lake Päijänne about 120 km to the north,
through a tunnel built inside the bedrock. The water treatment plant in Vanhakaupunki has a
55 000 m³ underground reservoir for purified water. In 1994 all wastewater treatment was
centralised in the plant at Viikinmäki, excavated out of rock. Total capacity is now 900 000
m³. After treatment, the sewage is discharged into the sea some 8 km off the coast. The
sludge resulting from this treatment is totally reused in agriculture. (Urban Guide 2000)

The power supply system in Helsinki is based on the combined production of electricity and
district heat from local power plants. This produces about 95% of the energy needed in the


                                                         15
city, and has almost entirely eliminated the need for chimneys in the metropolitan area. The
two main power plants at Hanasaari and Salmisaari are situated on opposite sides of the
centre peninsula. The percentage of different fuels used are natural gas 52%, coal 46% and
heavy fuel oil 1%. (Urban Guide 2000)

Refuse collection, composting of organic waste and recycling are organised by the Helsinki
Metropolitan Area Council (YTV). Circa 1.1 million tons of solid waste is annually produced in
the Greater Helsinki area; nearly 600 000 tons is collected to the Ämmässuo, the only landfill
site in the area. There are no incinerators. About 55 percent of all waste in the Helsinki area
is already recycled. There is a separate collection for glass, paper, organic waste, metal and
hazardous waste. YTV arranges waste transport for most households: 80 % of real estates
are YTV's clients. The rest, i.e. central urban areas and major institutions, make their own
arrangements. (Helsinki Metropolitan Area Council www-pages)


B 2.3 Urban growth, demography and space

The Helsinki metropolitan area together with its functional region is, due to the strong in-
migration to this area, at present one of the fastest growing urban areas in Europe. In the
year 1999 the Helsinki metropolitan area had the net migration gain of 7500 persons. In
Helsinki, the percentage value of net migration in the total population was 0.7, in Espoo 1.2,
and in Vantaa 0.6.

In the whole Helsinki metropolitan area, there is altogether about 450 000 dwellings. The
number of floorspace per person is about 32 m2, and there is 2,1 persons per dwelling. The
average size of dwelling is 66 m2. In Helsinki blocks of flats predominate, covering 85% of
the dwellings. Finland is a country of privately owned dwellings, but in Helsinki the amount of
rented dwellings is 47%.

Inside Helsinki municipality almost 20% of the population live in pre-war high density (taking
only 6% of the city´s land area) inner city housing blocks, consisting mainly of 5-6 storey
brick housing. About 60% live in integrated suburban neighbourhoods, varying in size from
5000 to 30 000 inhabitants, consisting mainly of widely spaced apartment blocks and all local
amenities provided. Small-scale housing occupies 57% of the city´s land area. These are
mainly one and two storey dwellings with their own gardens, and include areas of traditional
timber housing. Slightly more than 20% of the population of Helsinki municipality live in such
dwellings (Urban Guide 2000). Neighbouring cities of Espoo and Vantaa consist almost
totally of suburban housing areas of blocks of flats and small-scale housing built from 1950´s
onwards.

The dominant population group in Helsinki is still adults in working age. The amount of
elderly people above 65 years of age is at present 14%, and is expected to rapidly increase
in the near future. Close to one half of the residents in Helsinki live in one-person
households. The number is clearly higher than in the neighbouring municipalities and in the
country as a whole. In 1998 the share of households with children under 18 years of age was
only 16% (Korpinen & Silfverberg 1999). Most families with children live in south-eastern,
eastern, north-eastern and northern parts of the city.

In the Finnish scale, Helsinki is a very multicultural city, but compared to e.g. Western
Europe, the amount of residents with foreign background is still very low, and it started to
grow only in the beginning of 1990´s. The amount of residents representing other than
Finnish nationality is only 4.7% (25 500). The largest groups of foreign residents are people
from Russia (4300), Estonia (3900) and Somalia (2500). The unemployment rate of the
foreign residents is very high (34%) compared to all residents of Helsinki (9%). Eastern



                                              16
Helsinki is the area with the largest amount of foreign residents (30% of the Russians and
African residents, and 40% of the Estonians live in this part of the city).

B 2.4 Land use and economics

The city of Helsinki land area is 185 km². This was divided in land-use categories in 1998 as
follows (Korpinen & Silfverberg 1999):
      Housing 21% (blocks of flats 9%, detached housing 12%)
      Recreation and green areas 40% (sports and recreation 9%, parks 18%, forest and
         farmland 13%)
      Traffic space 17%
      Commercial and industrial space 7%
      Public buildings and storage 7%
      Other 8%

An important factor affecting the development of the urban structure in Helsinki municipality
is that the city had a large donated land area. Helsinki has since continued to implement a
policy not to sell the land of the housing plots, but rent it. Today the city owns 66% of the
total land area of the municipality, 13% is state owned, and 21% privately owned.

As an economic, administrative and cultural centre, Helsinki holds a unique position in
Finland. Helsinki is predominantly a service city - service sector jobs account for 84% of the
workforce. The state and the municipality both have a major role in employment, providing
about 94 000 jobs together. Today Helsinki has totally about 307 000 jobs. Of these
vacancies some 120 000 are occupied by people that commute to work in Helsinki from
surrounding and even more distant municipalities.




                                Figure. The urban area in Helsinki1940, 1962 and 1999.




                                                17
This service city nature became to dominate from the 1960´s onwards, as the traditional
industry´s role as the driving force behind the social structure was on the wane. At first - as
this was the time of building up the welfare state -, public services, administration and
education were the bases for development. In the recent years the vigorous growth has been
taking place in the information sector. Telecommunications has become the most important
growth cluster in Nokia´s slipstream. This can be seen in the most recent evolution of the
urban structure, too. A high concentration of information technology companies and research
institutes has sprung up in Ruoholahti and Otaniemi areas, but also in former traditional
industrial areas of Pitäjänmäki and Vallila.

B 2.5 Mobility

The geographical location of the centre of Helsinki on a rocky peninsula has had a significant
influence on the urban structure of the city. At one time the city was only accessible from the
north, the bays on either side were not bridged until fairly late in the 20th century, after which
construction of the suburbs to the east and west really began. Initially the city had to expand
along the railway line to the north, which created many of the first residential districts of the
city. Due to the location, in the city centre, traffic problems are difficult to handle and
expensive to resolve. Suburban areas are organised according to a network of district
centres and local neighbourhoods. These are located along the radial roads, railway lines
and metro. To connect the district centres, new ring roads have been built. Today, Helsinki
can be seen as a "half-wheel", with the city centre as the hub.

Traffic policy in Helsinki municipality has favoured public transport since the beginning of the
1970´s. This has been done by co-ordinating land use decisions with transport policies,
providing a well-functioning public transport system, and by restraining the use of the private
car in the city centre. During the rush hour approx. 70% of the population use public transport
to commute to the city centre. The network of buses, trams, metro and commuter trains is
quite dense. In almost all built-up areas in the Helsinki municipality there is a public transport
stop within 250 meters walking distance. The majority of passengers purchase monthly or
annual season tickets, and there is a flat-rate fare system in use throughout the municipality,
and another one concerning the whole metropolitan area (Espoo, Vantaa and Kauniainen
included). In the future the emphasis will be on improving the rail system, with a general
upgrading of local systems, extension of the underground line to the west, and the provision
of extra park & ride facilities.




Figure. Trips made by public transport and by private car in the Helsinki metropolitan area 1965-2000.
Source: YTV.




                                                       18
In the whole metropolitan area the total amount of passengers in public transport has
continuously increased during the last decades. However, as the trips made by private cars
have increased much more quickly, the share of the public transport has anyway dropped
from 66% in 1965 to 40% in 2000 of all the trips made. At present private car ownership is in
the Helsinki municipality about 330 for every 1000 residents, in Espoo about 400 (which is
about the same as in Finland on an average). In the whole metropolitan area over 2,6 million
trips are made every day. Nearly half of them are made by private car, about one third by
public transport, and the rest by foot or by bicycle. The public transport connections are very
good to the centre of the city, but more problematic transversally. Of all the trips made by
public transport, three out of four is made to the centre, from the centre or inside the centre.
In the periphery of the metropolitan area, and concerning the transversal trips, the public
transport accounts only for one fifth of all trips.
Harsh winters prevent much of the all-year round use of bicycles, but in summer it is quite
popular, and its use is growing in the suburbs. The city centre has been problematic for
cyclists, but the conditions are improved by designating separate lanes, and creating a
continuing network covering the whole central area. 28 000 cyclists come into the city centre
every day in summer.


B3      Discussion about urban growth and green spaces

B 3.1 Driving forces

As Finland is a late-urbanised country, much of the building stock is relatively new. This
holds true also in Helsinki. Two thirds of all housing stock has been built after the World War
II. In Helsinki, as elsewhere in the Finnish cities, there is an overall high technical standard in
the housing stock. However, compared to e.g. other Nordic countries, people live confined in
their dwellings: the average floor space in Helsinki is 32.4 m² / person. This is more than
10 m² less than e.g. in Copenhagen or Stockholm. High costs of living, insufficient supply of
rented housing and the dominance of small flats in the dwelling stock restrain the increase in
living space.




Figure. Annual housing production and population growth in the Helsinki region 1985-2000. Source: YTV,
Helsingin seudun asuntoraportti 2001.




                                                     19
The need for housing still remains a dominant issue and is given top priority in urban
planning in Helsinki, and in the whole metropolitan area. The city of Helsinki has a building
target of 4500 dwellings each year. Owning the land enables the city to plan and steer the
housing production effectively. By programming production, the city aims to control the
amount, the quality and costs of housing. Social aspects are also of paramount importance.
Half of the housing production is state sponsored, and the other half is privately financed.
The city leases land to developers for 50-100 years. As the largest producer of public
housing in Finland, the city of Helsinki now owns some 54 000 dwelling units (some 40% of
the total amount of rented dwellings in Helsinki municipality, and over 18% of the dwellings
totally). Areas of public and privately owned housing are deliberately tried to be mixed, to
avoid social segregation. So far Helsinki and its surroundings have formed socially a
relatively balanced whole.

There is, however, a strengthening trend towards increasing social segregation in the
Helsinki metropolitan area. The fundamental underlying dimensions of urban residential
differentiation were identified as follows: 1) stage in life that is connected to families with
children and at the same time to suburbanisation, 2) economic status, and 3) educational
status, especially with respect to the possession of a university degree, and 4) foreigners
occupying rented housing (Vaattovaara 1998). The recent period of economic growth
connected to information technologies has not reflected evenly on every area and on every
population group in the same way. New jobs created in the growing businesses and
industries need skills and knowledge that are missing in areas of ageing population with
working class background. The segregation processes in Helsinki are more fragmented and
dispersed than in many other European cities (as opposed to more regionally polarised
processes) (ibid.). Still, underprivileged residents (measured as low income, low educational
level and unemployment) are concentrating in certain areas more clearly than before. Many
of these areas are in the eastern and northern parts of Helsinki and eastern Vantaa.

The municipal borders are one major planning problem in the Helsinki metropolitan area. The
municipalities of the metropolitan area, and also the ones neighbouring it, are competing with
each other in getting the best tax-paying migrants and companies. The vacant land suitable
for new housing inside the city of Helsinki is running out, and Helsinki wants to implement a
densification strategy based on dense urban settlements along main public transportation
lines. The production of new houses in the metropolitan area has not been able to respond to
the growing demand, and this has lead to a situation where the housing prices and rents
have evaded away from the ordinary migrants in many areas. Especially for young families
with children it is hard to find a dwelling with enough space and for a reasonable price or rent
in the city of Helsinki. This has accelerated the suburbanisation processes in Espoo and
Vantaa, and even further away, especially when detached housing is concerned. One of the
most crucial questions for the land-use planners in the city of Helsinki today is: Where is the
preferred balance between built-up areas, traffic areas and green areas? Where are the
limits to built structures within the municipal borders?

B 3.2 Impact of these trends on quality and quantity of urban green and open space

There is a lot of green in Finnish cities and towns, and Helsinki is no exception. One third of
the entire Helsinki municipality area is green space, which means approx. 100 m² per
inhabitant. This consists of built parks (15%), manor house areas (2%), meadows &
landscape fields (12%), urban forests (64%), and nature conservation areas (7%). There are
also extensive areas for allotments (with a small hut) (totally 98 hectares, in 9 areas) and
growing plots for citizens (49 ha, in 41 different areas). Now there is about 1700 hectares
parkland in Helsinki. The sea is of great importance also when discussing green areas in
Helsinki. There are almost 100 kilometres of shoreline and over 300 islands, some large and



                                              20
many small, in the Helsinki archipelago, which constitutes a wonderful natural resource for
recreation.

Figure. The structure of the green areas in Helsinki.

The existing green area system is based on continuos nature and landscape areas. They
branch out like fingers, so they are called "green fingers". These green areas are connected
to each other by narrower green and recreational area corridors and routes. In the new
Municipal Plan under preparation, the goal is to combine everyday activities and recreation. It
is seen that from housing areas there has to be good accessibility to the nearest green area
so that it is possible to use recreational paths on the way to work or services. In the same
time the network of green areas is seen as ecologically reasonable and serving as ecological
corridors for fauna and flora. The green areas are assessed in the new master plan 2002
with four main criteria: 1) urban structure and recreational use, 2) ecology, city as
environment for flora and fauna, 3) cultural history, and 4) landscape. There is a goal to offer
for inhabitants of Helsinki 90 m² recreational areas / person (Note: this is the same or less
than is now existing, as it is connected to a Municipal Plan concentrated on new
development and densification). One goal is to develop for every urban district a larger park,
which specially characterises that part of the city, and includes cultural, recreational,
landscape and nature values.

Of the total amount of green areas, the proportion of built parks is biggest in the central area,
and areas neighbouring it (30-60%). In these areas, instead, large recreational areas are
few. In the north, east and south-east parts of the city the proportion of built parks is lowest
(less than 10% of all green areas). In the eastern part of Helsinki, where lots of new areas
are being built, wooded outdoor recreation areas are in plenty. A special strength of this area
is the natural sea-shores. In the north, open landscape fields and forests give distinctiveness
to the area. In the north-east, the corresponding factors are the river and brook valleys.
Housing areas are built on former agricultural areas that are becoming wooded.

In the strategies of the city there is mentioned that among the strengths of Helsinki are
greenness, the city close to nature, and the sea. As a strategic document to systematically
maintain and develop the existing, detail-planned green areas in the city, a green area
programme 1999-2008 has been prepared. There has also been going on a very extensive
biodiversity mapping work in Helsinki for a longer time. As a result there is a ready-made,
GIS-based Atlas of the vascular plants (1998), and one of the breeding birds in Helsinki
(1998). Parts of the Atlas of the animals in Helsinki are already finished.

In most respects, the rapid growth in the IT-sector in Helsinki area does not have a
significant effect on the green structure of the city, as it is a structural change inside industrial
areas. However, parts of the new development tend to favour more nature-like surroundings
in the spirit of "technology parks", and this has lead to taking more unbuilt nature areas into
development use. Fine natural environment locations, and especially seashores, have
become very desired in creating competitive business images.

The most significant land use changes in Helsinki will take place in old industrial and harbour
areas, which are undergoing transformations to residential, commercial, office or service
uses. Currently one of the main planning challenges, besides the overall lack of housing, is
the attempt to remove the cargo port of Helsinki from the central peninsula to Vuosaari, both
in order to meet the anticipated increase in shipments and to decrease the environmental
impacts caused by the land traffic through the central areas of the city. However, the
planning of the new harbour in Vuosaari has been slowed down by environmental conflicts
both connected to the site of the planned harbour and the new traffic connections needed. If
and when the new harbour is in operation, the existing harbour areas will be developed as



                                                        21
residential areas, very suitable for the realising of sustainable densification policies the city
wants to implement.

According to the new Municipal Plan, new areas designated for building are, almost without
exception, located within the urban structure in connection to the existing infrastructure
networks. However, conflicting interests between new developments and the preservation of
existing green areas have been identified.

Compared to the previous, the 1992 Municipal Plan of Helsinki, the new, 2002 Municipal
Plan in the making is tailored for bigger increase in population, as the migration to Helsinki
has accelerated at the end of the 1990´s, and this is forecast to continue in the future. What
differs, too, is that the more easily buildable "rawland", i.e. traditional natural forest areas, are
running out. As significant parts of the Helsinki Metropolitan area do not belong to the
municipality of Helsinki, the remaining resources to build new housing (etc.) inside Helsinki
municipality are all in some sense intractable: either some kind of brownfields, i.e. areas
used for other purposes, mainly former (or existing) industrial or harbour areas, or green
areas close to existing urban areas - green that is already used and attached with many
meanings by local inhabitants.

Growth pressures are regional and responding to them is in any case a regional question.
According to the current Municipal Plan programme, it is justified to discuss the desirability
and extent of growth. The joint strategies approved by the City Board, however, start from
the assumption that the challenges of growth will be answered [inside the borders of Helsinki
municipality]. As part of the preparation of the new Municipal Plan, a document called
Strategic Planning Advice (Kehityskuva) has been prepared. This "presents goals for
development in Helsinki as well as operational approaches for the implementation of these
goals". The draft of it contained two alternative images of Helsinki: one more idyllic, stable
one, and one more dynamic, efficient one. The latter was proposed and also accepted by the
city council as a basis for the preparation of the Municipal Plan.


B4     Government and governance

B 4.1 Institutional and administrative setting

The urbanised area of the city (the Helsinki metropolitan area) covers not only the
municipality of Helsinki (with about 550 000 inhabitants), but also three other municipalities
(Espoo, to the west, and Vantaa, to the north, both former rural municipalities, with about
200.000 inhabitants, and the tiny Kauniainen inside Espoo, with some 8500 inhabitants).

Traditionally these municipalities have been more in a competitive relationship between each
other, and the others have suspected that Helsinki will swallow them bit by bit, or at least that
Helsinki will dictate the others what to do - and therefore they have emphasised their
independence. However, they have been working in cooperation with regard to specific
issues for a long time: e.g. they have formed the Helsinki Metropolitan Area Council, a joint
inter-municipal organisation, to take care about regional waste management, regional public
transport and air pollution control. Besides it has a development planning unit to advance co-
operation in the development of the metropolitan area and in general land use planning.
Recently the cooperation has got new informal but high-level forms, as the city managers of
all four cities and the manager of neighbouring (to the east) rural municipality of Sipoo
agreed in 1999 to prepare a development strategy for their municipalities' joint land use.

The City Council is the highest decision-making organ in the city. It has 85 members elected
by municipal elections every fourth year. The council is also the organ that approves the
Municipal Plan and detailed Local Plans of Helsinki. There are three large major parties in


                                                 22
Helsinki: the conservatives with 25 seats, the greens (21) and the socialdemocrats (18
seats), and four other minor parties represented in the council. The members of the
management authority, the City Board, are elected by the City Council for a term of two
years.

There is no politically representative district administration either in Helsinki or in other cities
in Finland. The City Council have, however, vested its power to various politically composed
committees that deal with specific matters. They direct and develop the activities of the city
departments and offices. The members of the committees are elected by the City Council.
The ones that are most related to urban growth and green matters are the City Planning
Committee (CPC) that is the first organ to approve e.g. the Municipal and Local Plans
prepared by the City Planning Department, the Public Works Committee (PWC) that
approves e.g. the park plans and statements of the green management about the Municipal
and Local Plans prepared by the Public Works Department, and the Environment Committee
(EC) that e.g. approves the statements about the Municipal and Local Plan from the nature
protection and environmental health issues point of view, prepared by the Helsinki
Environment Centre. Interestingly, all these three committees are situated in different
"spheres of assignment" that are all lead by the Mayor or one of the Deputy Mayors of
Helsinki (they act as presenting officials of the City Board).

               City Council

                City Board                                    Environment Centre
                                                              – Environmental
                                                                Protection Unit
                    Mayor                                     – Environmental
                                                                Supervision unit
                                           Environment        – Environmental
                                            Committee           Health Unit



 Deputy Mayor for        Deputy Mayor for
 City Planning and      Technical Services
    Real Estate



           City                  Public
         Planning                Works
        Committee              Committee




Figure. Organisational scheme indicating how planning and management of green areas is administratively
spread-out and co-ordinated in Helsinki.

Today the City Planning Department is the largest urban planning unit in Finland with
altogether 280 employees, of which 100 architects and 80 engineers. Most of the actual
urban planners are architects.




                                                         23
B 4.2 Development of spatial planning (1950-2001)

A kind of Municipal Plans concerning the land areas owned by the city were made in the city
administration already during the first decades of the 20th century. In the beginning of the
1960´s Finland started to follow its Scandinavian neighbours, and began to build a welfare
state. This called for a state-run, centralised planning system, and thus e.g. a quick
expansion of planning in the municipalities on many new sectors and dimensions of life. In
this societal awakening, urban planning also became popular in a new way. The amount of
urban planners multiplied in the years 1960-74, and their educational basis diversified. Along
with architects, land surveyors and building engineers, sociologists, geographers, lawyers
and foresters were hired in the expanding planning organisations. Planning also became
more politically conscious. At the same time the "great move" from the countryside to the
cities was about to speed up, and the urban development became more clearly industrial
mass production.

In 1964 the City Planning Committee and the City Planning Department were founded.
During the first years the staff contained some 60-70 persons. The Traffic Division of the new
department started a large traffic survey and plan in 1966. The releasing of the survey raised
a lot of fuss. It became a horror picture that helped to make the decision to build the metro,
and to take also other measures to govern the increasing car traffic in the city. The end of the
1960´s and the beginning of the 1970´s were the top years in the City Planning Department.
The city was worried because of the stagnation of population increase in the city, so both
master planning (Municipal Plans) and detail planning (Local Plans) had to be intensified.
The amount of staff in master planning almost doubled in a few years. The Municipal Plan
1972 was the first comprehensive Municipal Plan, including thousands of pages in reports. It
aimed to 600 000 inhabitants in the year 1980. The city had started to build large new social
housing areas in the 1960´s, but soon noticed - as the riots among youth in these areas
appeared - that it would be better to mix the tenure, and to avoid large social housing areas.
This became a practise that has been followed for 30 years in Helsinki.
When the building of new housing areas went on, opinions for preserving recreational areas
strengthened in the beginning of the 1970´s. The first statutory Regional Plan for the Helsinki
region consisted of land for agriculture, forestry and for recreation and nature conservation.
This plan was ratified in 1975, and the local master plan for the Central Park of Helsinki was
approved in 1978.

The appreciation and significance of comprehensive and long-span planning started to
decline from the end of the 1970´s. Many good intentions in practise became simplified
paternalistic rituals. However, planning thought settled in the administration. It was obvious in
the 1980´s that the role and possibilities of municipal (master) planning in the city of Helsinki
were decreasing, as the free play margins had shrunken, and most of the new development
was planned in the neighbouring cities of Espoo and Vantaa, and even further away. The
main problem for structural planning of the city was - and is also today - that the
municipalities of the metropolitan area have not found common political will to guide the
proposed new development areas in a regional perspective, i.e. from the point of view of the
whole conurbation. Helsinki has been easily accused for misusing its evident leading role,
and especially Espoo has been accused for planning only for better-off people. Lately, the
municipalities have been averring about their well-functioning co-operation, but in any case
the legal position of co-operative, integrated "metropolitan" land-use planning is still weak.

In the 1990´s the planning of the urban structure became to be seen more and more as a
way to promote the growth and vitality of the city. Planning broadened towards real estate
markets and city marketing. The public authorities lost part of their power to the private
sector. Different interest groups, business enterprises, land-owners, builders and financiers
reacted increasingly quickly to opening new development possibilities, and also expressed
their will perhaps more strongly than before. This has lead to a situation where the


                                               24
competition of different interests has delayed and hampered planning on the one hand, but
on the other hand it has also forced planning to become more open (Schulman 2001).

In Helsinki, many of the major clashes connected to urban planning have been linked to
traffic planning, especially new roads (e.g. Eliel Saarinen´s Road in Haaga for many
decades, and Pasilanväylä main transversal connection near the centre), and lately to
different uses of seashores, and central areas of the city (Töölönlahti area). Building of new
main roads and building and filling-in of seashores (in the new Municipal Plan 2002 drafts)
have aroused conflicts especially between the planners and the local inhabitants. The role of
the politicians in these conflicts has been a minor one, as opposed to the clashes in
Tampere.

B 4.3 Policy instruments applied locally

Municipal Plan. There is no actual kind of green structure plan in Helsinki, and the whole
concept is very much unknown in Finland. The structural, strategical green planning is
integrated in the Municipal Plan work of Helsinki, which is the main instrument in governing
both urban growth and the green structure. The Environment Office at the City Planning
Department prepares the structural green and landscape guidelines as part of the Municipal
Plan work. The integration with other issues in the Municipal Plan is made already in an early
professional planning stage: no separate sectoral green plan is dealt with or approved in any
political decision-making organ.

Green Fingers. The "green fingers" is the basic concept used for defining the main structure
of green in Helsinki. It is a kind of substantial tool, too, but it does not contain any specific
supporting instruments in itself to strengthen the status of this basic structure. The support in
practice is threefold: firstly the green fingers is a mental structure, it has some established
status as a long-lasting idea of the green structure in Helsinki (but it has not been discovered
how strong the status is neither in the level of discourses (rhetoric) nor in practice). Secondly,
the green fingers will get the legal status when integrated in the Municipal Plan. Thirdly, the
status of individual fingers can be strengthened by other specific policy tools; e.g. the most
well-known of the fingers, the Central Park of Helsinki was protected from development by a
Municipal Plan drawn specifically for this sub-area in 1977. This policy has, however, not
been continued in other green fingers. Another kind of new tool, included in the new
legislation, is a possibility to create a National Urban Park. Helsinki has used its own version
of this concept in one of the green fingers, the Vantaa River Valley, and named it as "Helsinki
Park". This is, however, so far only a kind of "status tool" that increases the ethical
commitment to the area nominated as "National Urban Park".

Figure. The green fingers of Helsinki.

District Park. In the new Helsinki Municipal Plan 2002 under preparation, the Environment
Office has promoted the new policy concept of "district parks". These are larger park areas
situated inside or between districts, which includes, in various combinations, natural, cultural
and activity-related environments especially serving the inhabitants living close to it in the
neighbouring areas. The idea is to strengthen the local identity, to offer more options for
activities and to bring a high quality park within reach of every citizen. These would also be
focal points for resource allocation.

Green Area Programme. To systematically maintain and develop green areas in the city, a
green area programme 1999-2008 has been prepared. This covers the green areas inside
the municipality borders that are owned by the city. The green areas here include the actual
park and forest areas according to Municipal and Local Plans, nature conservation areas,
shelter areas along traffic lines, green on the streets, and the archipelago. The initiative
came from the Green Area Division / Public Works Department. The actual work was done


                                               25
by a working group of 16 members, coming from different sector departments of the city and
from two civic organisations. The contribution of other organisations and associations was
got by organising two "green forums", in the beginning and at the end of the work. The final
programme was approved by the City Board. One part of the Green Area Programme was to
define the focal and important green areas in Helsinki, so-called "Pearls of Helsinki", and to
define aims and measures for them. These "pearls" include the following: the Central Park,
Töölö Bay area, Viikki-Kivikko green finger, nature conservation areas, rivers & brooks, and
the archipelago.


B 5 Conclusions
Helsinki is an interesting city to study the balancing of urban growth and green, as the
Helsinki urban region is rapidly growing at the moment. The strong development pressures
accentuate the significance, and also visibility, of these issues both in the public discourses
and in the planning practice. The urban area extends far beyond the municipal border of the
city of Helsinki, and the vacant land suitable for new housing inside the city of Helsinki is
running out. As Helsinki still wants to grow and have new inhabitants inside the municipality,
the city wants to implement a densification-focused planning policy. Therefore, in Helsinki,
the most relevant planning issue to study related to urban growth and green is to study the
densification in the existing urban structure. The worries recently brought out about the
weakening tax-base of the city due to wealthy families moving to neighbouring municipalities
puts more pressure on green areas as the city presumably wants to offer these groups
attractive sites to settle down, which in Finland often means proximity to nature and the
green.

The main tool for governing both urban growth and green in Helsinki is the Municipal Plan. It
is also the main tool to define the basic structural elements of green in the city. As a basic
green structure Helsinki has emphasised the concept of "Green Fingers". In the new
Municipal Plan 2002, now under preparation, the starting point has been that the important
green areas like the green fingers will be preserved. Inside the urban structure, in the
districts, also the most important local green areas are preserved, and areas of secondary
importance can be built on, to implement the densification policy.

As the densification means dealing with existing districts with existing inhabitants, the green
there is not just unbuilt "raw-land resource", but presumably already used and "signified" by
the inhabitants in various ways: meanings and values have been attached to it that cannot be
reduced and revealed by natural scientific valuations or planning related surveys only. This
emphasises the importance of interactive ways of implementing the difficult task of balancing
urban growth and green.

To conclude, what interests us is to study the main policy concepts and tools used in Helsinki
in two different cases, illuminating the two typical and spatially different situations related to
balancing urban growth and green: 1) how Helsinki deals with these issues between the
green fingers, i.e. inside the urban structure, and 2) how Helsinki deals with these issues in,
and at the edges of, green fingers themselves. Therefore we have selected the cases,
presented in the part of this report, for this twofold purpose: Haaga-case to represent a case
inside the urban structure, and Broända-case to represent a case in, and at the edges of,
one of the green fingers of Helsinki.




                                               26
B LOCAL CONTEXT: Tampere
B1      Introduction

B 1.1 Presentation of the city

Tampere is the second largest urban conurbation in Finland. Besides the municipality of
Tampere (193 000 inhabitants), the urbanised area of the city covers areas in the
municipalities of Ylöjärvi, Nokia, Pirkkala, Lempäälä and Kangasala. Population of the whole
continuous urbanised area is about 230 000. In Tampere municipality there is included large
rural areas in the north-east due to an annexation of two neighbouring rural municipalities
Aitolahti (1966) and Teisko (1972) - these rural areas cover about 3/4 of the total land area of
the municipality of Tampere. Total land area of the municipality is 523 km². Population
density in the municipality is 356 inhabitants / km².




Figure. City centre of Tampere. Source: The City of Tampere.

Tampere is also the largest inland city of the Nordic countries. It was founded in 1779 on the
banks of the Tammerkoski Rapids, between two great lakes of Pyhäjärvi to the south, and
Näsijärvi, to the north. It evolved into the most highly industrialized locality in Finland during
the 19th century, and the growth of Tampere has been fuelled by its industry till the last
decades. The city has also two universities, founded in the 960´s: Tampere University of
Technology and the University of Tampere, in which social sciences have had a major role.

B 1.2 Summary of the main conclusions

Tampere is the second largest urban conurbation in Finland, and it has been the most
industrialised locality in the country. The centre of the city is situated on a narrow neck of
land in east-west direction between two great lakes. This has had a significant influence on
how the city has grown, and on the difficulties to arrange traffic in the urban region. These
natural conditions have at least partly had an effect on the structure of the urban green, too,



                                                      27
which is more dispersed than e.g. in Helsinki, and more based on individual separated green
areas.

Still, there is a lot of green in Tampere, too. The city has about 113 m² maintained green
area per inhabitant, some 60% of it is urban forest. Large separated green areas (like
Kauppi-Niihama, Pyynikki and Hervanta forests) are tried to be connected with each other in
a "green area network" concept that categorises all the green areas and aims at an
integrated comprehensive green area system.

The Tampere region belongs to one of the few fast growing regions in Finland in the recent
years. The average annual net migration gain during the last decade has been some 2300
inhabitants, and the reasonable continuous growth has also been set as a strategic goal in
the future. The need for new housing is a dominant issue also in Tampere. The city has
implemented a high-density city structure policy since the beginning of 1990´s, as also
indicated in the city strategy. This has meant densification of the existing areas (our case
study area Iidesjärvi among them), and lately also development of new dense areas (like
Vuores in the south).

There is no official green structure plan in Tampere, but the "green area network" resulting
from the green area survey included in the preparation of the Municipal Plan of Tampere, can
be seen as an informal plan for green structure in the city. The legally binding status it gets,
however, only when it is integrated in the Municipal Plan, which is the main instrument in
governing both urban growth and green structure.

B 1.3 Maps and GIS

As in Helsinki, the city of Tampere also produces its own digital "base map" that covers all of
the urban parts of the city. All the detailed Local Plans and much of the Municipal Plan
material are drawn on this base map. On this base map, there has been digitised as
separate layers e.g. the infrastructure network.

Tampere uses GIS quite extensively in the Finnish context. All the Municipal Plans and
District Master Plans are drawn with GIS software. All the landscape and green network
survey material is available in GIS-format, and the GIS databases are complemented e.g.
every time there is more detailed nature survey available, related to a specific current
planning task. All the Local Plans are drawn with CAD software, but they are available in
GIS-raster format, too.

Tampere has been a forerunner in developing interactive tools in the internet, also related to
urban planning. Each time a new Local Planning task is started, there will be maps of the
planning area and other material available in the internet, and the during the process, all the
draft plans, proposals etc. can be looked at in the internet, too. Often, especially related to
larger plans, there has been offered a possibility to send in comments, and take part in a
discussion concerning the planning project. Tampere has also developed a special type of
interactive instrument, namely the planning game that can be played in the internet. This was
first launched concerning the Viinikka-Nekala densification area (with the southern side of
Lake Iidesjärvi being part of it), and later applied to the densification planning of the Tohloppi
area in the western parts of Tampere.




                                                28
B2      Spatial development

B 2.1 Regional and local landscape

The basic features of the landscape in Tampere are shaped by two great lakes, the neck of
land between them, and by the esker (range of hills) in northwest-southeast direction. On
both sides of the esker(s) are situated the fine sand and clay areas, that have mainly been
taken as land for development. North of the city spreads out Lake Näsijärvi (over 40 km
long), that is nearly without islands near the city. In the south there is an extensive lake,
Pyhäjärvi. The esker between these lakes is 1,5 - 2 km wide. Through it discharges the
rapids of Tammerkoski (950 m long and 18 m height of fall), the reason why the first factories
were built on this place. It is still the heart of the city with most of the industrial heritage
situated on both sides of the rapids. In the valleys down on both sides of the esker, between
it and the moraine ridges in the northeast and southeast of the city lie a series of lakes,
Iidesjärvi being one of them. There is over 160 km of coast-line in the "original" city of
Tampere (without Aitolahti and Teisko rural areas).




Figure. The city between the lakes.



B 2.2 Environmental issues

The fresh water supply for Tampere comes 70% from surface water pumping plants in Lake
Roine and Lake Näsijärvi, and 30% from ground water intakes in Pinsiö (some 20 km to the
west). There are two wastewater treatment plants for the city. They are both of biological-
chemical type.

The power supply system in Tampere is based on the combined production of electricity and
district heat from local power plants, as in Helsinki. Two thirds of the electricity needed in the
city is produced locally, almost totally by combined production. 72% of the inhabitants in
Tampere are within the area of district heating. There are two main power plants, one uses
peat as the main fuel, the other one natural gas.

In 1994 the municipalities of the Tampere region founded a private company Tampere
Regional Solid Waste Management Ltd to take care of the solid waste in the region. This
includes collection, processing and disposal of waste. Municipalities supervise and set local
regulations. In urban areas inhabitants have their own separate refuse bins for dry residential


                                                29
waste. Houses that have at least five apartments must have bins also for paper and
biowaste. Households separate at source also hazardous waste, cardboard, glass and metal.
The company operates two solid waste management sites including pre-treatment of
hazardous waste, windrow composting of biowaste and sludge, recovery of recyclables and
landfilling. There is also one plant that produces recovered fuel, suitable for co-combustion at
power plants.

B 2.3 Urban growth, demography and space

Tampere region belongs to one of the few fast growing regions in Finland in the recent years.
In the middle of 1990´s the net migration gain in the city of Tampere was about 3000, in 1999
it was some 1900.

There are about 100 000 dwellings in Tampere (1998), of which in blocks of flats 75%, in
terraced houses 10%, and in detached houses 15%. Blocks of flats dominate, but not as
clearly as in Helsinki (85%). In Tampere 54% of the dwellings are owner-occupied, and 36%
are rented. The relative amount of rented dwellings is higher in Tampere as the average in
Finland (30%), but lower than in Helsinki (46%). The city of Tampere owns about 15 000
dwelling units (some 40% of the total amount of rented dwellings in the Tampere
municipality, and 15% of the dwellings totally). The housing prices in Tampere are about two
thirds of those in Helsinki, but slightly more than in other Finnish larger cities outside the
Helsinki metropolitan area.

The amount of elderly people above 65 years of age is now 15%, and, as in Helsinki, it is
expected to rise to 20% already in 2020.

B 2.4 Land use and economics

There is a difficulty in getting the figures of the actual existing land use inside the urban
areas in Finland, as there is no established categorisation or system to collect the data in a
comparable manner. This is clearly evident in Tampere, too, and should be kept in mind
when looking at the figures. The total land area of the "original" municipality of Tampere
(where Aitolahti and Teisko rural areas are not included) is about 130 km². According to the
Municipal Plan of the "original" Tampere, in the planned situation - so not exactly, but roughly
the same as the actual situation in reality - was divided in land use categories as follows:
     Housing areas 34%
     Service and working areas 19%
     Recreational areas 23%
     Traffic areas 10%
     Other areas 14%
    




Figure. The built-up and green areas in Tampere.



                                                   30
As in Helsinki, the vast majority of green areas are areas of public access, and most of the
green areas are also publicly owned. The city owns 25% of the total land inside its
municipality. Especially in Teisko, former independent rural municipality, there are vast
uninhabited forest areas, which give shelter even to large animals like bears.

Tampere has been predominantly an industrial city, but the business structure in Tampere
has to this date undergone marked changes. As a source of livelihood, the importance of
industry has declined. This is clearly seen in the shares of workforce: in 1970 52% worked in
secondary production, and in 1999 only 28%. At the same time the amount of workforce in
services rose from 46% in 1970 to 70% in 1999. Today Tampere has totally about 100 000
jobs.

Tampere underwent radical changes in industrial structures from the beginning of the 1970´s,
and accelerated in the 1980´s. The impacts of these changes were easily seen in Tampere,
as the old industrial complexes were largely located in the very heart of the city. Structural
changes rendered most of these old buildings obsolete. The re-use of these areas, and the
preservation of industrial heritage has been a major challenge in Tampere for the recent
decades. According to one estimate, an industrial floor area equivalent to 33 football fields
was vacated in the city in the course of 10-15 years. The recent growth has been connected
to the IT-sector in Tampere, too. Nokia is the third largest employer in the city (after the city
itself and the university hospital) with 3800 employees (spring 2001).

B 2.5 Mobility

The geographical location of the centre of Tampere on a narrow neck of land between two
great lakes has had a significant influence on the possibilities to arrange transport
connections and systems in the whole urban area. Till the eighties in the west and nineties in
the east, before constructing the ring roads, even the through-traffic on the main highways
had to go through the city centre using normal streets. Tampere is an important and busy
railway junction, and the railways, too, go through the neck of land and central areas making
significant barriers, especially for the east-west direction of inner city mobility. The railways
used to have a role in intra-regional traffic till the 1970´s when small commuter trains still
operated from many directions to the main railway station in the city centre. Recently a new
survey has been started in order to study the possibilities to start a regional light rail system
based largely on existing rail tracks. Reflecting this, the urban functional region approach has
even more generally come to the focus transport policies in Tampere.

During the past decades traffic in the urban area of Tampere has turned to be dominated by
the private car, and the private car traffic has tripled from the 1970´s. At the same time the
amount of passengers in public transport has decreased 10-15%. During the last two years
the amount of trips made by public transport has slightly increased after a long decreasing
period. Still, the relative share of trips made by public transport continues to drop. At present
private car ownership is in the Tampere municipality about 374 for every 1000 residents.

The public transport system in Tampere is based on buses. Currently, one out of two intra-
city trips in Tampere and two out of three intra-zone trips in the surrounding municipalities
are made by private cars. Buses are used in almost one in every five trips in Tampere and
only in one in twenty in the surrounding municipalities. Almost a third of all trips are made by
walking or cycling. The average travel time is about twenty minutes in walking, cycling and
private car transport, and over thirty minutes in public transport. A regional smart card ticket
system based on stored value tickets has recently been implemented for bus transport in the
Tampere region.




                                               31
Traffic policy in Tampere has favoured public transport, walking and cycling in the central
areas from the 1980´s. Harsh winters prevent much of the all-year round use of bicycles, but
in summer it is quite popular, and its use is growing. The city centre is still the most
problematic for cyclists; especially the east-west connections are difficult to solve because of
the rapids and the railway areas.


B3     Discussion about urban growth and green spaces

B 3.1 Driving forces

Being a strong industrial city, "the Manchester of Finland", it is no wonder that the most
notable challenge for the last decades in Tampere has been the restructuring process from
traditional industries to a post-fordist era. In the urban structure the influences of these
changes have been twofold. Firstly, the old industrial complexes were largely located in the
very heart of the city. Structural changes rendered most of these old buildings obsolete. The
re-use of these areas, and the preservation of the industrial heritage has been the matter of
discussion, debate and clashes in Tampere for the recent decades. The biggest conflicts
arouse around the demolishing of the Verkatehdas textile factory area on the eastern side of
the rapids (planned in the 1970´s, and newly built mainly as a post-industrial consumption
centre in the 1980´s), and around the new plans for the Tampella area on the north-eastern
side of the rapids in 1989-92. Secondly, the restructuring has meant that lots of areas
indicated to traditional industry and warehouses in the more peripheral locations, too, have
been changed to allow business functions and offices. In some of these areas, an edge city
like development trend has come to being, including large out-of-town superstores.

In the years 1995-96 the net migration between the city of Tampere and its neighbouring
municipalities was some 300 in favour of the city, but since then it has showing a loss, and in
1999 only as much as 100 people. So, the region is growing fast, but seen intra-regionally, in
1999, some 40% of the net migration gain to the region went to the neighbouring
municipalities. Tampere is expected to grow at about 700-800 people per year till the year
2020 (according to e.g. the Municipal Plan). That would mean 210 000 inhabitants in 2020.
The net migration gain along with the decreasing average size of households brings about
the need for new building also in the future. In the new Municipal Plan Tampere left the
south-eastern Vuores area as a "study area" (for housing possibilities), not included in the
calculations. As the growth has accelerated in the recent years, Tampere has hurried up the
planning of the Vuores area, now the plans are to be prepared for 13 500 new inhabitants in
this area on the border of the municipalities of Tampere and Lempäälä. So it is now seen that
the densification strategy according to the Municipal Plan is not enough, and the city also has
to be prepared for a bigger growth by opening up totally new areas for city development.

B 3.2 Impact of these trends on quality and quantity of urban green and open space

As most of the other Finnish cities and towns, Tampere too has a lot of green even nearby
and inside the urban structure. The city of Tampere maintains the total amount of 2190 ha
detail-planned green areas, which means 113 m² per inhabitant. This consists of parks
(21%), landscape fields and meadows (6%), urban forests (59%), green in traffic areas (9%),
and green on around public buildings (5%). There are also 4 allotment garden areas with
about 800 plots.

It is also important to note that besides the "formal green", i.e. the public green areas
mentioned above, most of the housing areas have a green character with lots of private
green in the courtyards and gardens. This holds true even in the suburbs contained mainly of
blocks of flats, as they are commonly built in the urban forest areas. Many times the terrain is



                                               32
badly worn-out, however. It is prohibited to cut down trees even in your own yard without
permission from the local authorities.

Outside traditional urban parks, the historically important main green areas in Tampere are
the Pyynikki area (where cutting of trees was forbidden already in 1830), Kauppi-Niihama
ridge area in the north-east (from 1948), and the large central green area around Lake
Tohloppi in the western parts of the city (in the 1960´s). In the green network plan (1994)
these areas are meant to be connected together to form what is called the "core areas of
central park axis", a series of green areas going through the city from Tohloppi in the west
via Pyynikki and Lake Iidesjärvi area to Kauppi-Niihama in the north-east, and Hervanta-
Särkijärvi area in the south-east.

Figure. The green network plan of Tampere.

The restructuring process that has left much of the old industrial space unused in central
areas, has contributed to releasing the pressures to build on natural areas. However, as the
pressures are high, this has helped only partly. The densification policy has meant that much
of the pressure has been directed to areas inside the existing urban structure, also to existing
urban green areas. According to the Municipal Plan (1998) the most central and valuable
areas of nature conditions and landscape have generally been left outside new development.
It is argued that the new infill areas in the Municipal Plan are situated on areas of rather
minor ecological and landscape importance, except a few areas, Iidesjärvi among them.
As the in-migration pressures are higher now than when launching the densification policy, it
is now seen that densification is not enough and new areas have to be planned, too. The
planning of the most important of these new areas, Vuores with planned 10 000 - 15 000 new
inhabitants in the southern parts of Tampere, is now under preparation. This area is nearly
totally former unbuilt forest. The planning of this area has raised quite a lot of debate
especially between the "nature conservation" and "city growth" aspects.


B4      Government and governance

B 4.1 Institutional and administrative setting

The urbanised area of Tampere (the conurbation) covers not only the municipality of
Tampere (about 198 000 inhabitants totally; although not the large rural areas of it to the
north with only about 3000 inhabitants), but also parts of other surrounding municipalities
(Pirkkala, Nokia, Ylöjärvi, Kangasala). Still, compared to the situation in Helsinki, the
overwhelming majority of the urban area is situated inside Tampere municipality borders.
Tampere has also strongly promoted a new approach of the whole urban region in planning
of public activities.

The City Council is the highest decision-making organ in the city. It has 67 members elected
by municipal elections every fourth year. The council is also the organ that approves the
Municipal Plan and detailed Local Plans of Tampere. There are two large parties, the
conservatives with 19 seats and the social-democrats (16), three middle-sized parties, the
left wing (10), the greens (8) and the independents (6), and four other minor parties
represented in the council. The members of the management authority, the City Board, are
elected by the City Council for a term of two years.

There is no politically representative district administration in Tampere nor in other cities in
Finland. The City Council have, however, vested its power to various politically composed
committees that deal with specific matters. They direct and develop the activities of the city
departments and offices. The members of the committees are elected by the City Council.
The ones that are most related to urban growth and green matters are the Environmental


                                                33
Committee (EC) that is the first organ to approve e.g. the Local Plans prepared by the
Environmental Department / City Planning Division, and the Committee for Technical
Services (TSC) that approves e.g. the park and traffic plans. In contrast to Helsinki, both
these two committees are situated in the same "sphere of assignment" that is lead by one of
the Deputy Mayors of Tampere (they act as presenting officials of the City Board). Another
difference is that in Tampere the first organ to approve the Municipal Plan is the City Board
(and not the Environmental Committee).

               City Council

                City Board


   Environmental             Committee for
    Committee              Technical Supports


                 Deputy Mayor


    Environmental              Technical
     Department               Department

      City Planning             Parks and
                            Recreational Areas
      Environmental
        Protection               Streets

                                Municipal
        Building
                             Technology and
       Supervision
                             Traffic Planning




Figure. Organisational scheme indicating how planning and management of green areas is administratively
spread-out and co-ordinated in Tampere.

The urban planning and green issues are mostly located in the Environmental Department,
that has three units: City Planning, Building Supervision, and Environmental Protection.
Traffic planning and the building and maintenance of e.g. streets, and parks and other green
areas is situated at the Technical Department. The urban planning is made in the City
Planning Unit. The head of the City Planning Unit and of both of the two sub-units are all
architects, as also most of the other planners.

Green planning is integrated in the overall urban planning. There is one landscape architect
in the City Planning Unit to especially take care about the landscape and green areas in
master and detail planning. To be legally binding, all the plans concerning green have to be
included and integrated in the official Municipal or Local Plans. There are no sectoral, legally
binding plans.

The detailed planning, construction and maintenance of public green areas is taken care of
by the Parks Unit. It has begun to experiment with participatory planning processes during
the past years, but not very widely. The processes were quite small, and the unit is lacking
resources to widen these practises. The planners have felt the results partly encouraging,
partly discouraging. In some cases, increasing participation had lead to quarrels between
different groups of local inhabitants (e.g. between those who wanted a children´s playground
to be built in a park, and those who wanted to keep it as a "silent visual green").


                                                     34
B 4.2 Development of spatial planning

Studies of Municipal Plan type have been made in Tampere since the beginning of 1940´s,
but the first actual municipal (master) planning work according to the Building Act of 1958
started only in 1965. Then an Urban Planning Section (consisting of elected officials) was
founded, along with three new posts of urban planning secretary, master plan architect, and
traffic engineer. The first "Municipal Plan 1972" was finished and approved by the City
Council in 1974. In this plan Tampere was estimated to have 250 000 inhabitants in the year
2000. Besides the new development, the focus was on the problems of decreasing
population in the central parts, big amount of subtenants, and a lack of tenements.
As the regional court rejected the Council decision, there was a need to start again. This time
the work was more limited, and the "Municipal Plan 1977" was finished that year. The
position of Kauppi-Niihama large recreation area was established in this plan (reservations in
Kauppi for a nuclear power plant and a main road were taken away from the plan). There
was a gradual shift in emphasis from building of new suburbs to infilling the existing
structure. The plan was checked quite soon, resulting in a new "Municipal Plan of 1982".
This was planned for 174 000 people in the year 2000, as this was the time of stagnation in
the growth of cities overall in Finland. The new emphasised matters included e.g. energy-
economic viewpoints, infill development, the improvement of the city environment by "soft
measures", promotion of detached housing production. This plan was checked again soon in
1988. This work had special emphasis on environmental protection and townscape points of
view.

The present Municipal Plan (1998) of Tampere started to be prepared in 1989, and it was
approved by the City Council in 1998. In November 2000 the Ministry of the Environment
ratified the Municipal Plan except some contested areas, Iidesjärvi being one of them.
The starting point and problem for the preparation of the plan was that all the land suitable
for construction within the city proper, would be used up in the 1990’s. The important issue
was when to initiate construction on the northern edge of the city. This area was annexed to
the city only recently, and to some extent lacks a municipal infrastructure. After economic
surveys it was decided not to expand the urban structure to that direction but to emphasise
an integrated and compact city structure, and to adopt a densification policy as a means to
achieve this target. This meant that all unbuilt areas within the city were closely studied to
determine which of them would be potential construction sites and which of them ought to
remain as park-like green areas.

The relationships especially between the leaders of the city and the local citizens have a
couple of times went to a clash situation in matters connected to urban planning. Many of the
conflicts were related to demolishing plans of old wooden labour housing areas (e.g. in
Amuri, Tammela (realised), Pispala (preserved)) or the industrial heritage (e.g. the
Verkatehdas factory). One long-lasting example was the new main road alignment through
the old wooden workers housing areas of Kauppi and Petsamo in the north-western edge of
the inner city. This conflict rose in the end of 1970´s, and lasted until the middle of 1980´s, as
the building of the missing part of this new main road was finally started, the alignment
slightly checked. The planners actually played a minor role in the conflict, which was
essentially between the leading city politicians and the local citizens. The local citizens
proposed alternative solutions to the alignment, including roof covering of the road, counting
also the costs, but the decision was fixed already at the start. This has maybe lead to a
certain tendency that conflicts easily turn into "trench arrangements", as later somewhat
happened in the Tampella-case.

The role of traditional urban planning in Tampere run into a new situation in the end of the
1980´s, the time of an economic boom in Finland. Restructuring and globalisation of
traditional industries lead to a new situation where passive land owning was something the


                                               35
"renewed" industrial enterprises wanted to get rid of, and for a price as high as possible. The
Tampella metal industries, located in the north-east of the rapids and holding a possession of
24 hectares of land just in the middle of the city, threatened to leave the city, if it did not get a
high amount of building right for this land. The leading decision-makers of the city prepared,
within a small group, a contract between the city and the enterprise containing 430 000
square meters of floor-space of new development. The City Council was pressured to accept
the contract without any visualisations or studies what this amount of building would mean in
reality - as the planning department was not given any time to do this. This created a large
spontaneous citizen movement against this way of handling the planning of the central areas
of the city. After this an architectural competition was organised in 1990-91. The programme
was based on the contract. The contract was later on rejected by the Supreme Administrative
Court because of challengeability of the city representatives due to the likelihood of bias, and
Finland went into a severe recession in the end of 1991. The situation calmed down. The
building of the new development started and has gone on slowly in the area according to the
plan based partly on the winning entry in the competition. This process, however, scarred the
role of planning, and the relationship between the citizens and the ones in the lead of the city
for a longer time. (Hankonen 1995)

In the middle of the 1990´s there were some conflicts in planning due to different
understandings of sustainable development, raising tensions among different professions in
planning, and raising pressures to citizen involvement in the traditionally paternalistic style of
planning. In 1993-94, the Environmental Protection Unit of the city criticised the green
planning of not paying enough attention to citizen participation, and gave a task for a local
environmental protection association to survey the opinions of citizens, schools etc. about
green areas, to complement the official plan. This was seen both by the planning department
and by the leaders of the city as a parallel "cover plan", and challenged the process. The
work done by the local environmental association was totally ignored in the green planning.
The densification policy that the city has adopted since the beginning of 1990´s has created
some local conflicts between residents. In the late 1990´s the city has put much emphasis on
creating its citizens possibilities to interactively take part in the different planning and
preparing processes in the city, especially using internet as a means in this (e.g. budget and
strategies of the whole city, planning game in the internet, discussion forums in the internet
etc.).

B 4.3 Policy instruments applied locally

Stakeholder Procedure. To apply the New Land Use and Building Act, Tampere has been
developing an interactive tool called “the stakeholder procedure”. Through newspaper ads
the city asks for people interested in participating in a “stakeholder group” to apply. From
those who have applied the planners choose a group of approximately 10 persons who
represent larger groups of stakeholders who have an interest in the area that is being
planned. For the district master plan for Kauppi-Niihama, the recreation park and forest
adjoining the centre and reaching 11km to the suburbs, there was chosen a group of people
representing landowners, the hospital situated in the area, resident-clubs, sports-clubs etc.
For the joint plan with the municipality of Lempäälä on the fringe area of Vuores, where a
new suburb of 15000 people is being planned, there were representatives of farmers and
other landowners, people from the adjoining suburb of Tampere, and environmentalists.

The group is called to a meeting by the planners “when there is something to discuss”.
Different planners see the role of this group differently. Some think the task of the
stakeholders is to “listen and understand”, to be informed about the planning procedure and
to inform other people about it, and to inform the planners about the opinions of others.
Some see the role of stakeholders to be more active and they appreciate this activeness:
“one (the planner) must be active, then one gets the activity back”.



                                                 36
This tool is a quite new one, and has been in use only twice. It is not established, and has
not developed any set of rules, not even unofficially. It is laborious, so it will not be applied in
every detailed plan. There is a possibility that the communication and participation
demanded by the new Act will be handed over to professionals of communication, to
separate the “technical know-how” and communication. Then the planners could return to
their desks and the communication with the public would be taken care of by proper
professionals. The problematic thing here is that then communication would no longer enter
into the focus of planning. Active stakeholders mean a new agency that affects the position
of all other actors. Active stakeholders mean a process of transition: they change the very
frames of planning. Stakeholders who participate through a professional “communicator”
instead would mean just adding another agency for another professional.

Green Area Network. There is no official green structure plan in Tampere, but the "green
area network" resulting from the green area survey included in the preparation of the
Municipal Plan of Tampere, can be seen as an informal plan for the green structure in the
city. The legally binding status it gets, however, only when it is integrated in the Municipal
Plan, which is the main instrument in governing both urban growth and the green structure.
The preparing of the green area survey, and the resulting "green area network" plan, began
in the late 1980´s, and the survey report was finished in 1994. The City Board dealt with the
report but did not make any formal decision about it. According to this work, green areas
have six basic purposes:
      urban ecological purpose (preserving biodiversity),
      functional purpose (areas indicated for recreation and sports),
      purpose for cityscape (aesthetically),
      cultural purpose (historical heritage),
      landscape structural purpose (emphasising the basic structures), and
      social purpose (paying attention to all demographic groups in green planning).
The work is largely based on the existing green areas. From these a continuing green
network has been tried to create. Green areas have been divided into two groups according
to the pressure that concerns them. The first group consists of areas that can be changed
only due to specific reason (like a detailed result of a research study, or an adjustment in the
boundaries of a neighbouring detailed plan). The other group consists of areas that can be
changed only due to cogent reasons (this can be understood as e.g. on conditions that the
keeping of the area unchanged would require excessive costs).
The green area network was then afterwards matched together with the densification targets
in the Municipal Plan, which led to many reductions of green areas, even in areas earlier
defined as areas that can be changed only due to cogent reasons, like e.g. Iidesjärvi.
Anyhow, there was a will to emphasise the role of the green network in the final Municipal
Plan (1998), and this spesific map, showing two hierarchical categories green areas to be
preserved, was raised alongside with the general land-use map, as the two official Municipal
Plan maps (now coincident with each other).


B 5 Conclusions
Tampere is an interesting city to study the balancing of urban growth and green, as it is one
of the fastest growing urban regions in Finland, and the city itself has for a long time tried to
implemented a deliberate densification strategy. It is also interesting from the
communicational point of view: firstly, the city has been a forerunner in developing interactive
ways between the local authorities and the citizens, especially in the internet. A planning
related example of this is the planning game in the internet first applied in Iidesjärvi area.
Secondly, the densification-focused Municipal Plan of Tampere has raised a lot of debate
both in public locally and between the city and the Ministry of Environment that did not ratify
some parts of the Plan. This relates partly to the old planning culture in Tampere, mentioned



                                                 37
and criticised in the case interviews, that reflects the heritage of planning conflicts over the
motorway, Verkatehdas, and Tampella; an atmosphere of mutual distrust. There has been a
tendency of conflicts to become fixed, to arrive at deadlocks.

The industrial heritage of Tampere appears in the priority of quantity: large numbers mean
progress and economical boost. The restructuring process has therefore been difficult: there
was no trust in small production units. Reflecting this, there has been difficulty also to think in
small scale infill building. This does not concern only planning, decision making and
developers; also many users share this belief in quantities.

The main tool for governing urban growth and green, also for defining the basic structure of
green, in Tampere is the Municipal Plan. The role of the green in this plan is more
accentuated in Tampere than e.g. in Helsinki, as the Tampere Municipal Plan officially
consists, besides the description, of two maps: the "general" land-use map, and, as the role
of the green network has been wanted to emphasise, alongside with it, another map of
"green network and conservation" has been raised. These maps are coincident with each
other. Legally this decision does not give the "green network map" any more power than a
normal appendix. However, the earlier work of Green Area Survey presented a more
extensive green network; Iidesjärvi is one of the changed areas.

The present period is a period of transition in planning and governance of the urban
environment. There are new rules and laws, also a sincere will to change modes of
operating, towards open and communicative governance, to base planning on sustainable
values. But the old values are operative also, including the heritage of distrust. The case of
Iidesjärvi is situated chronologically interestingly into this transitional period, and on both
sides of one of the important turning points, the new Land Use and Building Act coming into
force 1.1.2000. So, with the help of Iidesjärvi case it is very interesting to study the direction
the planning processes are developing during this critical period. The case is also very well
comparable with our cases in Helsinki.




                                                38
C      THE HAAGA CASE
Summary
The case is about the implementation of densification (new housing) policy inside existing
urban structure, in a district of Haaga, some 6 km distance to the north-west from the centre
of Helsinki. The case study area of southern Haaga is typically built by three-storey-high
blocks of flats on small plots mainly in the 1950´s, and it has today some 12 400 inhabitants.

The planning process has two stages: 1) the "Planning Principles" work for Southern Haaga
as a whole, in 1996-1998, including green area survey and valuation; and 2) the Local Plan
for the Central Haaga, in 1999-2002.
The latter consists of the centrally located larger green, and its surrounding edges including
the planned new district park of Haaga. The plan includes new housing for about 930
residents. City Council has approved the Local Plan in April, 2002.

Haaga has been a kind of pilot work of a larger basic principle that has been taken into the
new Helsinki Municipal Plan 2002 under preparation. We have called this principle the
"Haaga-model". The primary reason to select Haaga as the case study area was to study
how this model came about and worked in Haaga planning processes. This principle deals
with the problem of how to implement the densification strategy inside the existing urban
structure. Basically this principle can be formulated roughly like this: With the whole district in
focus the unbuilt areas are surveyed and valuated (prioritised), the most valuable green
areas are preserved and the less valuable ones can be built, and this loss of green areas is
compensated by increasing quality in the preserved green areas, partly by creating centrally
located, identity-increasing high quality district parks in every district.

We conclude that the Haaga-model has many positive elements in it, but it still needs to be
developed in some crucial points, especially thinking of its possible wider application in other
areas and in the Municipal Plan. The advantages of the model are as follows. Working with a
larger area at a time gives more space and time for different options and open interaction
between all stakeholders. It is also very relevant to try to find out all the values of the area in
an early stage of the process (here especially the values attached to green), and to try to
couple the densification together with increased inputs in remaining green areas, i.e. to
create a compensation policy.

The main shortcoming of the model so far is the missing inhabitants´ viewpoint in many
phases of the process. Participation should be as extensive as possible in all the critical
phases: in searching of the pros and cons of densification, in searching of the different
meanings attached to green, and in prioritising the different values. Neighbourhood forums
are one good tool, but other new type of agencies should be created as well, especially for
the so-called "silent groups". Accordingly, as far as the quantitative goals for densification is
concerned, the starting points for planning new development in certain area should be more
open, and all presented targets should be well and openly justified. The idea of
compensation of densification is still weak, as well as the commitment to it. There is a need
for an explicit open discussion about compensation principles on different levels and spheres
(citizens, administration, political level): what are the values, and how can they be
compensated?




                                                39
C 1 The case
C 1.1 Description of the area

Haaga district is situated about 6-7 kilometres to the north-west of the centre of Helsinki. It
grow up originally in the 1880´s as one of the villa areas outside Helsinki. The railway line
from Helsinki to Turku goes through the area and there is a station in the middle of the
former villa settlement. Haaga was an independent borough or market town from 1923 to
1945, when it was incorporated to Helsinki. Haaga got a confirmed detail plan in 1952, based
on the road network and private villa plots from the borough times. Nowadays the area is
mostly built by small, on an average three-storey high blocks of flats, dating from 1950-1980,
placed on the former villa plots or unbuilt forest areas. The northern part of Haaga was
planned and built in a natural forest mostly in the 1950´s, and it has a more common
suburban housing area character.




Figure. The location of Haaga in Helsinki.

The case study area covers the southern, older part of Haaga. It has at present about 12 400
inhabitants, and about 3 200 jobs. Typical to southern Haaga is a mixed urban structure: lots
of small shops and service rooms located in the basements of apartment houses, especially
along the main streets. Some kind of garden city idea has been in the background of the
planning of both southern and northern parts of Haaga: streets and roads have been located
freely according to the landscape forms, and forest trees have been preserved as much as
possible.




                                              40
Figure. A typical view in Haaga.



C 1.2 Planning situation

The case is an example of densification, and presents an innovative way of working in
implementing the densification policy. We have called this innovation as the "Haaga-model".
The master planners of the city have seen it as a pilot model that could be applied in other
areas, too. It is basically about working with a larger area at a time, surveying and valuating
the green areas, indicating new development on the less valuable areas, and compensating
the loss of green by increasing quality in the remaining green areas.

Original detail plan of Haaga was made in 1952, and not renewed after that. This plan was
very flexible and free, housing and business purposes were not indicated separately, and the
total building right was also a bit unclear. The City Planning Committee wanted already in the
1980´s that the old detail plan of Haaga has to be updated. As the demand of new housing
increased again very strongly after the recession period in the beginning of 1990´s, the
question of locating new housing in Haaga was also raised on the agenda of the updating
task.

Side-story of the "Eliel Saarinen´s Road"

This "side story" is connected to the updating and densification tasks, and is also important
for to understand the "mental background" of the situation, especially the attitudes of the
local inhabitants. This is the case of a main road "Eliel Saarinen´s Road" planned to go
through the southern part of Haaga, also through the centrally-located forested swamp-areas
between northern and southern Haaga. This road has been in the plans for decades, but the
building of it has been postponed ever further because of the heavy resistance of the local
inhabitants. In the late 1980´s there came up the idea of a circular main fast-tram line around
Helsinki. This line would go through Haaga, too, and using the route of the planned Eliel
Saarinen´s Road. Due to financial problems, the line will be at first operated by buses. This
meant that the road finally ought to be constructed, but now for public transport only. This
decision along with some added small tunnels had the effect that the acceptance among the
local residents gradually rose enough (however, there were no polls about it) for the road to
be constructed - and the construction work was finished in December 2001. So, although the
road belongs to a wider context of the main circular traffic system of Helsinki, it also played
important role in the growth-green issues in Haaga: many residents were suspicious about


                                               41
planning and had a long experience about activism due to the long period of resistance
towards the planned road. When the ideas of densification came out, many local residents
coupled these with the building of the road - if one comes, then also comes the other. This
coupling, however, was strongly denied by the City Planning Department.

Figure. Eliel Saarinen´s Road aligned through Haaga.

The idea of densification in Haaga

The idea of densification idea in Haaga existed somewhat more vaguely already in the
previous, 1992 Municipal Plan of Helsinki. The planner of the area (the planner in charge of
the Local Plans in Haaga area) readily says that she has raised the densification explicitly
and more strongly on the agenda in updating the Haaga local plans. The grounds for
densification are listed in ”Planning principles of Southern Haaga” -report:
  Haaga is centrally situated, only 5-6 km to the city centre
  Excellent public transportation connections (every 5 minutes train to the city + the
     forthcoming main circular bus line of Helsinki)
  Very good existing services
  Existing infrastructure; however, some streets have building lots only on one side
  Near the railway station, especially to the west, lies lots of unbuilt land
  Despite its urban character, some parts of Haaga are built in vaguely spacious way, and
     are weakly shape-taken
  Population of Haaga is ageing, and slowly but continuously dropping
  There is a lack of bigger family apartments, and houses with elevators


C 1.3 Planning process of the "Planning principles of Southern Haaga"

The planner started the updating task by an "unofficial" work of setting up common principles
concerning the whole area. The updating and densification task began by two inventory
studies:
 survey of the green areas in Haaga, including valuation and recommendations for
    possible new housing locations, and
 survey of the built environment in Haaga, including also the valuation and
    recommendations for objects of protection.
These studies, among others, led in 1997 to preparing of ”Planning Principles of Southern
Haaga”. According to this report the planning is based on the present situation and the
historical values of Haaga. Valuable buildings and nature sites are proposed to be preserved.
On less valuable sites (from the natural and recreational point of view) infill development is
planned.




                                                       42
Figure. Proposed potential new development sites in Haaga according to the "Green Area Survey" -report.

The green area survey was made as an expert study by a landscape planner at the City
Planning Department. Co-operated branches of administration have been the Public Works
Department / Green Area Division (a green area planner), the City Environment Centre
(dealing with e.g. contaminated lands and nature protection), and the Sports Department.
It is also worth mentioning that the Green Area Division had just finished (end of 1996) the
Management Plan of the forests in Haaga area for the years 1997-2006, which was made in
an interactive process with the inhabitants.

There was not much interaction between the planners and the inhabitants during the
Planning Principles -process. By the end of the work the planner organised a two-weeks
exhibition at the local library in January 1998. The planners got 73 letters as feedback from
the inhabitants. The planner sent also letters to local schools and kindergartens, but got no
replies. City Planning Committee accepted the planning principles to be used as a basis in
updating the Local Plans in Haaga (16.4.1998).

C 1.4 Planning process of the Central Haaga Local Plan

So far the most important and interesting Local Plan process, where this new densification +
green quality -policy is implemented in Haaga, is the planning of the Central Haaga Local
Plan. The area consists of the centrally located larger green area between the southern and
the northern parts of Haaga (including craggy and swampy forested areas, and former
agricultural fields, now partly allotments, partly closing up), and its surrounding edges. The
Local Planning process began in the beginning of the year 1999, soon after the finishing of
the Planning Principles work. The pressure for new housing was high, and this part of Haaga
was chosen to be the first Local Planned area after the Principles, as it contained the largest
amount of possible new housing.
Besides the new housing, also other matters came into the planning programme: the
changing of the Eliel Saarinen´s Road into a public transport road only, and creating of the
district park, as this idea had by accident just in the same time come up along the Municipal
Plan work at the Environment Office (mostly landscape architects) of the City Planning
Department. The planned district park would cover existing forests and the rhododendron



                                                     43
park, and a new sports park that was to compensate the loss of the existing, a bit worn-out
ball ground that was planned to be build up by new apartment blocks.

Figure. The illustration of the Central Haaga Local Plan.

As the new Land Use and Building Act was soon coming to force (1.1.2000), the planner
wanted to start the process in the spirit of the new law that emphasised interactive planning
process. The planner asked the two resident associations in the area, Pro Haaga (southern
Haaga) and Northern Haaga Association, to choose one representative each in the official
planning group. In practise both were represented by their chairman. Starting points of the
planning work were presented for local inhabitants in an organised gathering in May 1999.
This occasion was informed beforehand by sending a letter to every housing company
(housing company formed by the apartment owners; the most common Finnish housing
tenure system) in the planning area. Inhabitants´ requests, suggestions and wishes were
gathered. Two alternatives for the location of the sports park were presented.
The outline proposal for the plan was on display in October 1999, and a plan meeting was
organised in Haaga. The City Planning Committee, while considering the outline proposal in
November 1999, conceived that the feedback opinions and comments do not give a reason
to change the outline proposal.
The elaborated outline proposal was on display in November 2000. A new plan meeting was
organised in Haaga. This meeting was informed beforehand by letters to the neighbouring
housing companies, but not via Pro Haaga residents´ association or their local newspaper
Haagalainen. In the occasion new building was commonly objected. It was considered too
dense, and too high, blocking the views to the forest. It was also wondered why a new sports
park should be built. Some also questioned the role of the Pro Haaga association as a
representative of the local inhabitants and their opinions (a representative of this association
was a dweller-member in the planning group; the association was mainly satisfied with the
proposal, however suggesting to drop out one of the planned new blocks).

Despite these opinions, the City Planning Committee decided to send the planning proposal
unchanged to the City Board, that collected the official statements of different stakeholder
instances. An interesting feature is that the statement of the Public Works Department /
Green Area Division, although co-operating in the planning group, was strongly opposing the
plan, especially concerning the plan for the sports park (its location in existing woods and on
a weakly bearing deep peat and clay layers; and the lack of sufficient cost estimates). In
spite of this statement, the City Council approved the Local Plan in April, 2002.
One of the opposing local inhabitants made a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman of
Finland about the Central Haaga planning process, claiming especially about derelictions of
duty of the planners to answer the letters and initiatives of local inhabitants. The
Ombudsman has not yet made his decision in this matter.

What has been already built, is the long-quarrelled Eliel Saarinen´s Road, that has just been
opened for use in December 2001. This road could be constructed even according to older
Local Plans, and did not have to wait for the Central Haaga Local Plan to be accepted.

C 2 Practical planning problem
When we take together these two processes, we can identify from the planner´s point of view
the practical planning problems here as follows (these are roughly put in order of importance
according to planner´s view, interpreted by the researcher):
 responding to the general need of new housing in Helsinki (area)
 unifying (densifying) the urban structure of Helsinki (area), and thus responding to
    sustainable urban development: reducing traffic and favouring public transport
As strong resistance is often mobilised towards these kind of planning problems or goals, set
from outside the area, a third main problem could be outlined as


                                                        44
 handling the possible strong resistance among the local inhabitants, the NIMBY-tendency
To handle this resistance, three other planning problems or goals were lifted up by the
planner, referring to the possible additional values of densification to the existing inhabitants:
 responding to the lack of larger apartments, and blocks with elevators, in Haaga
 strengthening the basis for services in the area
 planning technically: updating the outdated plans; and thus safeguarding the values of
    built environment, and the equality of the estate owners.
During the processes also came up the following planning problems:
 increasing the quality of the remaining green areas
 increasing the sports services in the area

C3      Methodology of the case study
This case study was generally made according to the guiding instructions and questions set
out in the case study manual of Work Package 3. We started the Haaga case study by first
having some informal talks with the planner of the area, and with the landscape planner that
had been in charge for a while for the planning of the district park in Central Haaga. These
talks firstly helped to make us sure about the relevance of the case for our purposes, and
later contributed to get the first storyline, that from the planner´s point of view, of the case.
These talks also revealed us that there would be some contradicting opinions about the
success of the processes both among the city officials, and among the local inhabitants.
Being so, it was evident that we needed to interview quite a lot of different actors in the case
in order to get enough stories to cover the differing views, and to reach the relevant point of
saturation in the interview data.

In the second round we interviewed all the actors that we considered to be relevant key-
informants in the case. These we tried to identify with the help of planning documents and
actor-interviews already made earlier (that could be called a "snowball method"). All
interviews were semi-structured thematic interviews following roughly the themes set out in
the Manual. Altogether 7 interviews with city officials, and 3 interviews with local inhabitants
were made. Eight of these were taped and written out later. In two cases notes were taken,
and these were written down soon after the interviews. All the persons we asked also
accepted to be interviewed.
We interviewed the following persons:
 planner in charge of the Local Plans of Haaga, City Planning Department (4.10.2001)
 head of the Municipal Plan Office, City Planning Department (27.11.2001)
 landscape planner in charge of Haaga area, City Planning Department, Environment
    Office (5.12.2001)
 head of the Environment Office, City Planning Department (8.10.2001)
 green area planner (green area management) in charge of Haaga area, Public Works
    Department, Green Area Division (23.11.2001)
 head of the Green Area Division, Public Works Department (27.11.2001)
 environment officer in charge (environmental health and nature protection), Helsinki City
    Environment Centre (17.12.2001)
 chairman of the Pro Haaga district (residents´) association (5.12.2001)
 chairman of the Northern Haaga residents´ association (30.11.2001)
 opposing resident activist (3.12.2001)

We have not yet arranged any kind of group meeting or development seminar of all the
actors involved as planned for the third round, but we are now thinking about the possibilities
to have that kind of "arena" for interaction. One possibility could be to give the actors our
findings of the case, and ask them to a joint meeting to give their comments, to discuss, and
to think about how to develop the tools and processes further.



                                               45
In Haaga case study we face some difficulties partly due to its long period of time, the
processes started some five-six years ago, and partly because it is not at all finished yet: by
the time of the interviews, not even the plan were officially approved, not to mention that
practically nothing has been started to build. The early phases of the process might not be
remembered so well in details, and some of the actors have been changed since that time.
Concerning what will happen, we do not know anything about how the neighbouring
inhabitants will react when the implementation of the plan begins, especially when the trees
are cut down from large areas. We do not know either how they think about when the new
area is "ready-made" - and even less we know what the future inhabitants in these new
buildings think about their living environment.

C 4 Analysis
C 4.1 Case

We start the analysis by looking at the similarities and deviations of the storylines the
different actors told us in the interviews. It is obvious that the story is not the same for all the
actors: every actor sees the process, its "red line" and its context from his/her own point of
view, but also, and what is even more important, related to the field of action and meaning of
action he/she primarily identifies with. This was clear also in the Haaga case.

Figure. A view on the planned district park area of Haaga.

The planner´s storyline formed the starting point of defining what the case is about. So it is
no surprise that in the deeper interview of the planner did not reveal any big deviations from
the first storyline described in the section C 1.4. However, the story got more shades and
nuances, and especially the role and relations of different actors in the case became more
revealed. The starting point for locating the new development for the planner was that there
was a lot of uncared, mismanaged green areas nearby the railway station. The "green
people", referring to other official sectors of landscape planning, green management and
environmental officials, opposed the densification, at least in this extension. According to the
planner, the green management wants as many green areas as possible but cannot take
care of them. Neither can they valuate and prioritise the green, and describe the possible
changes the development can cause, and what kind of alternatives for planning exists.
Similarly, the environment officials do not have data of the local nature, but they oppose, to
be on the safe side, and claim that the planner has to prove that she is not doing the wrong
thing. She sees the inhabitants very easily opposing every development proposal in their
area, but is quite content with more personal ways of working with the local residents, like
inviting them to the official planning group, and organising plan exhibitions instead of large
inhabitant gatherings or occasions.

The head of the master plan unit, not surprisingly, has not so much to say specifically about
Haaga-case, but he lifts up two interesting common problems from his point of view, that can
be related to our specific case. Firstly, the problem of logical argumentation of "the public": it
is said that there is a lack of building plots - when the discussion is about dwellings, but when
the discussion is about the urban environment, then the building plots are not needed at all
(referring to the typical NIMBY-tendency). Secondly, he mentions the problem of the
environment becoming ever more attached with meanings - this holds true to even those
areas the planner has in his plans (explicitly or implicitly) reserved for future development
options. He had sometimes thought that this kind of future development reserve areas should
be fenced with a high, non-transparent fence, like traditional plank fences around the
bombed urban plots just after the war, so that nobody would knew what there was behind
them.



                                                       46
The landscape architect sees himself as a "Texas-ranger", that takes care about the border
between green and built-up areas, protecting the green. He sees the process from very
different, opposing viewpoint than the planner: when he started to co-operate in the project,
there were already large amount of new infill housing plots located in the plan sketches, and
he by no means did not have time to "kill all the emerging floor area goals". Yet he tried to
find alternative locations for some - what he considered the worst - of the proposed new
development. What he sees problematic in the process, and also more generally, is that both
the goals of how much new development is suitable, and share of responsibilities who
decides and in which phase, are indefinite. Moreover, nobody manages the whole, and
everybody is too busy with specific tasks.

The head of the landscape architects, and the Environment Office at the City Planning
Department, takes also up the potentially unclear or undefined goal-setting in this kind of
complex and difficult densification processes: he emphasises that the starting points, or at
least the alternatives that will be studied, should be agreed on early enough, and on a
(political) level high enough, to avoid confusion and futile disputes in the later phases.
Otherwise, in contrast to the landscape architect´s view, he stressed the importance of
building good co-operation, and "troubleshooting", conciliation of different opinions along the
process.

The green management sees Haaga also as a kind of pilot attempt in searching the way to
densify in a wise way, but they are not at all satisfied yet with the process. They see that a
more wider cross-sectoral, political and citizen discussion would be needed about the pros
and cons of densification, especially in this kind of older "ready-made" suburban housing
districts. In these an essential part of their quality consists of the forest and green areas
where the houses are carefully put into - and this was a cheap solution during those times of
scarce resources. They stress the need to discuss what will happen in the "forest suburbs"
when the forest is taken away. They also point out, that there has not been much discussion
not to mention decisions about the need to couple the allocation of more resources to green
construction and management together with densification, i.e. loss of forests have to be
compensated with more expensive park constructions in the remaining green areas.
However, they see the concept of district parks as a potentially good tool, especially for
getting more resources for green management. They also criticised the planner´s view of
defining much of the green areas in Haaga as "uncared or mismanaged". Moreover, they
suspect that the planner(s) have not been able to describe the local inhabitants the essential
changes in their landscape and environment, e.g. what it will mean in practise to realise the
new sports park into the existing forest, and are afraid that when they, as green managers,
start cutting the trees down, they will face the all the anger of the off-balanced local
residents.

The environment official that was in charge of writing the statement about the plan on behalf
of her sector, is herself an expert in environmental health aspects. She stressed that what
describes this case is that the basic surveys and reports were exceptionally good, and there
was extensive interaction towards the inhabitants. She also said that a good spirit reigned in
the official planning group in searching of the compromise, and the less valuable, uncared
and mismanaged areas. She considered the forest on the site of the planned new sports
park not an area to be preserved, as it was so little used, and generally saw that the most
usable green areas are not in danger in Helsinki.

The two inhabitant representatives in the Central Haaga planning group both were mostly
satisfied with the process, and so far with the results, too. He (chairman of the Northern
Haaga association) stressed the importance of a cosy and well-functioning living
environment - and this could also include new development, if it does not endanger the basic
character of the area. He also welcomes the future inhabitants by saying somewhat biblically



                                              47
that the planned new housing areas could be the promised land to the new Haaga-people, as
he had felt when moving into this area as it was just constructed in the 1950´s.

She (chairman of Pro Haaga association) felt that the planner was having a good capacity to
co-operate, and the process was about to searching the best solution together with the
planner. In her opinion, the densification and infill development is a good thing in itself in
strengthening the service basis and giving potentially new opportunities for elderly people
and families with children to stay in Haaga. She criticised, however, that she could not get
clear answers from the planner to the question of where the floor area goals come from, who
has set these goals and why, that are so often invoked by the planners, and why do they
seem so often to be unquestionable in the process. She considered the inhabitant
representation in the planning group a good and interesting tool. Ideally, according to her, the
process could start with a common kick-off meeting with all the actors involved, and then the
officials and inhabitants would work in parallel sketching the first drafts and collecting the
inhabitants´ viewpoints, and then have the next meeting around this material. A common
feature in the storylines of the chairmen was that the Central Haaga area was, despite of its
central location, for both of them a kind of edge zone from the point of the interest area of
their associations.

The interviewed inhabitant activist that was strongly opposing the densification plans
stressed a kind of home district view in her actions. Many of these opposing people had
since long struggled against the planned Eliel Saarinen´s Road, that finally, however, has
now been built. Some of them had expressed this realisation as a "depressing shock", that
will e.g. ruin one of the most valuable cultural heritage sites of Haaga, the rhododendron
park. They felt that the disappearing of peace and silence will be complemented by the
densification and cutting off the forest in the Central Haaga, and that this would also disturb
the social balance and traditional visual image of this district. She claimed the need of a
more deep impact assessment, giving much emphasis on the socio-cultural side of the
effects of this kind of extensive changes in peoples´ everyday environment. In her complaint
about the planning processes of Haaga to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the interviewed
resident activist even brought out the claim that the forest that will be cut off for the planned
sports park might be a living environment of a valuable bat species (leaning on other
experts´s view), and this has not been studied in the planning process. This complaint has
not been decided so far.

C 4.2 Actors and actants

Following list of actors is the interpretation of the researchers based on the written material
and the interviews made. In connection to every actor we have put down the interests (in a
broader sense, interpreted as issues they themselves express they want to promote or act in
favour of) and actants to which or to whom the actor refers to in his/her speech acting as
its/their spokesman.

The local politicians in the City Planning Committee (CPC) and the City Council in Helsinki.
They have formally approved the valid Helsinki Municipal Plan (1992) which roughly
indicated some infill possibilities in Haaga, and very recently also the Local Plan of Central
Haaga. The CPC also approved the Planning Principles of Southern Haaga as a basis for the
updating the local plans in Haaga. However, it seems that their role has been limited to this
formal "performing", and none of the individual politicians has been clearly active otherwise in
this planning case.

The detail planner of the Haaga area (City Planning Department). She was in charge of
making the Planning Principles of Southern Haaga (the way of working initiated by her) and
the following Local Plan of Central Haaga.



                                                48
Interests of which the detail planner says she is the spokesman in Haaga-case: more
dwellings (not using explicitly expressions like future inhabitants etc. that could be named as
actants), maintaining the services, increasing the share of public transport in modal split,
dense urban structure and hence sustainable urban form, more integrated townscape.
Actants: local inhabitants needing bigger dwellings suitable for families with children, and
local inhabitants needing easily accessible dwellings (houses with elevators).

The landscape planner of the Haaga area (City Planning Department / Environmental Office).
He was in charge of making the Green Area Survey for the Planning Principles work of
Southern Haaga.
Actants that he refers to acting as their spokesman: green, green areas as a whole (not
being more spesific what kind of green)

The green manager of the Haaga area (Public Works Department / Green Area Division).
Interests of which the green manager and the head of the green management say they are
the spokesmen in Haaga-case: bringing forth the "true" inhabitant opinions, emphasising
economic interdependencies, especially densification meaning more pressure on the
remaining green areas, and thus need for more built-up type parks and more expensive
management.
Actants that he refers to acting as their spokesman: green areas, especially continuous
forest areas; and the "majority of Haaga inhabitants" that were strongly for these in the
making of the Management Plan of Nature in Haaga, but "were forced into a situation of
choice: either new development and saving the services, or saving the forests and a
withering housing district".

The environment officials of the city (Environment Centre).
Interests of which the environment officials say they are the spokesmen in Haaga-case: the
healthiness of the environment, especially for the new inhabitants.
Actants: nature values

Chairpersons of the inhabitant associations. They personally participated in the working
group of the Central Haaga local plan process, as the detail planner wanted to have an
inhabitant representation in this group.
Actants that they refer to acting as their spokesmen: local inhabitants (both), local
organisations and local business (she, i.e. Pro Haaga), and new future inhabitants (he, i.e.
Northern Haaga Association). It is notable that the chairperson of Pro Haaga uses all the
time the term "District" Association, not "Inhabitant" Association. This can be interpreted as
an emphasis on representing all local actors, not just inhabitants.

Opposing inhabitant activists.
Interests of which the opposing inhabitant activist say she is ("they" are) the spokesman in
Haaga-case: "home district"; social, visual and ecological balance in the home area.
Actants that she refers to acting as their spokesman: the "majority" of the local inhabitants,
that opposed the Eliel Saarinen´s Road, and oppose the planned new densification
development, too, but does not got its voice wider brought out (especially in the media).

We can think of other typical stakeholders that were not actors nor had an explicitly
expressed spokesman in the Haaga planning processes. The most evident group is local
children and youngsters that have not been given any conscious new agency that they would
in any case need to have a possibility to be directly involved. In Haaga case they have been
actants represented mainly by the different planners and inhabitant associations, as well as
by their parents and some other related professionals.

It seems that the local schools and kindergartens have not been active actors despite some
efforts to activate them - the detail planner mentioned sending letters to all local schools and


                                               49
kindergarten during the Planning Principles work, but did not got any answers from them. It
may also be that this activation would have needed a stronger, a more personal attempt to
get first the teachers involved. The absence of the schools and kindergartens in the planning
processes is regrettable for at least three reasons. Firstly, these "communities" often have a
lot of place-related knowledge that would be very useful for this kind of planning in the
existing urban structure and established social community. Secondly, schools and
kindergartens could be important facilitators, bridge-functions that could create children and
youngsters new agencies to be more directly involved in planning, i.e. the schools and
kindergartens can themselves be and they can create "exchange points" where different kind
of knowledge and views can meet. Thirdly, and not the least, schools and kindergartens have
also direct interests related to local green, like trips to the nature and environmental
education.

C 4.3 Tools

We have chosen to categorise the tools identified in Haaga case roughly in two groups: firstly
those that are either legally based or at least formal, established practise in the city of
Helsinki ("formal tools"), and secondly those that are more or less informal and specific in the
Haaga case ("Haaga-specific tools").

Formal strategic tools:
 Helsinki Municipal Plan 1992
 As starting points for Planning Principles work, many general policy documents and
   programmes of the city, like e.g. City Planning and Traffic Planning Programme for the
   years 1995-2000, Common Strategies of the City, Housing Scheme 1995-1999,
   Environmental Policy Programme, Local Agenda 21, Guiding Values for the pursuit of the
   City, and Green Area Programme 1999-2008
Formal operational tools:
 Local Plans of Haaga, especially Central Haaga Local Plan
 Principal Park Plan of the Haaga District Park, prepared together with the Central Haaga
   Local Plan
 Nature Maintenance Plan of Haaga 1997-2006, accepted by the head of the Green Area
   Division, 27.2.1997

Haaga-specific (informal) tools:
 The "Haaga-model": larger principle to implement a densification strategy; including
   several "sub-tools"
      - Planning Principles of a district
      - Valuation of the built and unbuilt environment
      - Compensation: substituting green quality to green quantity
      - District Park -idea
 Resident participation in the Planning Group
 Neighbourhood Forum

Formal tools

The Helsinki Municipal Plan (1992) contained already intentions to locate some new infill
development in Haaga adjusted to the existing urban structure, especially on the western
side of the district. In the plan the already narrow green finger to the west is still narrowed.
The central transversal green areas and corridors have been preserved and some new
development possibilities located especially on the edge of the Central Haaga green areas
(the coming "district park").




                                                50
The Principal Park Plan of the Haaga District Park was prepared together with the Central
Haaga Local Plan. This was mainly done by a consultant landscape architect. The process in
itself was customary expert-based planning work.

The Nature Maintenance Plan of Haaga 1997-2006 was made just before the Planning
Principles work started. The plan is accepted by the head of the Green Area Division,
27.2.1997. This is a normal plan that the Green Area Division makes to get operative
guidelines for maintaining especially the forest areas. What is however innovative compared
to other branches of administration is that the Green Area Division voluntarily and very early
(in the beginning of 1990´s) adopted a participatory working process in the making of these
plans. They inform extensively in the beginning of the process and search volunteers (single
residents and representatives) interested to take part in the planning group. This was also
done in Haaga. According to the green manager responsible for the area, this group widely
emphasised and appreciated the significance of large integrated forest areas in Haaga. This
process and opinions was an important starting point and backbone for the Green
Management for their views and opinions in the densification plan processes.

Haaga-spesific (informal) tools:

The "Haaga-model"

The main tool we are interested in Haaga case is a kind of larger basic principle that has
been taken into the new Helsinki Municipal Plan that is under preparation. For this principle
the way things have been done in Haaga has been a model, a kind of pilot work. This is the
primary reason for why we selected the Haaga-case, and why we want to focus on how this
model came about and worked in Haaga planning processes.

This principle deals with the problem of how to implement the densification strategy, how to
balance growth and green inside the existing urban structure, between the "green fingers".
Basically this principle can be formulated roughly like this: With the whole district in focus the
unbuilt areas are surveyed and valuated (prioritised), the most valuable green areas are
preserved and the less valuable ones can be built, and this loss of green areas is
compensated by increasing quality in the preserved green areas, partly by creating centrally
located, identity-increasing high quality district parks in every district. This principle is
hereafter called as the "Haaga-model".

The Haaga-model is basically a structural planning instrument. What interests us is both how
it works this structural balancing of growth and green, and how the interaction, the planning
process succeeds seeing from different actors´ points of view. As even the planning process
has not been finished yet, not to mention anything has been built or changed in reality, it is
not possible to evaluate the final results "in nature" (e.g. if the inhabitants are pleased with
the increased quality in the preserved parks, or if the new development really contained of
the missing types of dwellings, etc.). Even the process evaluation is possible only partly, as
the process is not finished, and many issues remain still open. So, our analysis have to be
read with these reservations in mind.
The Haaga-model is not explicitly defined anywhere in the written documents nor in the
interviews. The way it is formulated here is our interpretation, based on the study material, of
what characterises the planner´s way of working in Haaga.

The model includes different elements, kind of sub-tools. Thinking of the green-growth -
substance, three central elements can be distinguished in the model. Firstly, the planner
wanted to begin the implementation of the densification strategy by working at first with the
whole district of Haaga, resulting in "planning principles" of the district as a whole. This is not
the kind of normal procedure in city planning of Helsinki; typically the local plans (also the
ones including new "infill development") are based on the municipal plan only and made


                                                51
directly for a smaller area at a time. According to the planner this kind of working with a
larger entity and creating basic principles for it helps her in densification implementation in at
least two ways: it gives more time for the local inhabitants to discuss and get used to the idea
of new development in their district, and softens the confrontations when more alternatives
and options can be discussed in the same time. We could add to this that working with a
district at a time has helped the planner also in finding more, and more solid grounds for
densification based on the needs and lacks of the district, emphasising the district as an
entity, which could be interpreted also as a kind of naturalising tendency to create joint
responsibility of the welfare of this entity. What helps significantly the planner to appeal to
this joint responsibility is that also the inhabitant associations are usually, as in Haaga too,
organised district-wise. It is not a surprise that the planner had put much effort in working in a
close relationship with the existing established inhabitant associations, especially their
boards and chairpersons.

The second central element in the model is the valuation of the existing environment, both
the built and natural environment, of the whole district at hand. The aim of this valuation is to
find out which are the valuable existing areas, buildings and natural entities to be preserved,
and which, on their part, devalued, and therefore suitable for new development. These
valuations have been made as expert work, both as inventories and as valuations. The
inhabitants have been mostly acting as commentators in a late stage of the valuation and
planning principles work, not as active participants bringing their "place-knowledge"
contribution beside the space-based expert knowledge as part of the inventory, and have a
say on the basis the valuation is made. These are from our point of view the two main
shortcomings in the way the valuation was made in the Haaga process.
The district association Pro Haaga has been itself active in following the expert work, and
commenting on the drafts. In the interview we got the impression that at least the board of
the Pro Haaga felt that they had had quite good possibilities to have an effect on the work,
although more due to their own activity. However, the valuation reports as well as the
planning principles work was presented to a wider audience only in a very late stage of the
work. In our view, to really take advantage of the place-based knowledge and to give the
inhabitants a say to the valuation basis would have called for an active effort to arrange the
inhabitants new agencies in the process, especially for the groups not normally active in the
formally organised inhabitant association work or formally organised citizen participation
possibilities in planning processes. Good examples of these groups are the children and
youngsters, often also the parents who have small children and therefore no extra time.

The third central element in the model is the compensation idea of substituting (green)
quality to green quantity. In the planner´s view, the loss of less valuable green could
sometimes be compensated for even by other kind of environmental qualities (better visual
townscape, better orientation etc.). Mostly, however, and the version adopted in the
preparation of the new municipal plan of Helsinki, the compensation by green quality in
particular is emphasised. According to the planner, the problem is that there is so much
green space in Haaga that the Green Management has not enough resources to maintain
them in a way corresponding to their (central) location. Therefore, she sees, it will be an
improvement in the environment and landscape (townscape) to build these areas, and use
the saved resources to increase the quality of the remained green areas. To us, it seems that
there is a clear difference between the planner and the green planners (and this difference is
likely to exist among the inhabitants, too) in what kind of green is seen as preferable in
Haaga, and in this kind of suburban environments in overall. The planner prefers more
urban-type townscapes and built-up parks, and sees the forests mainly as "uncared",
whereas the green planners emphasise the value of forests, the original planning ideas of
these kind of "forest suburbs": living very close to nature, and the cheapness of maintenance
these natural environments demand. We return to these questions later in the chapter
dealing with "Green".



                                               52
As this already demonstrates, it is not clear let alone self evident, if, when, and how the
green quantity could be compensated for. This issue would need more possibilities,
"exchange points" on many levels (local, cross-sectoral and political level) to discuss and
exchange views on the different meanings and qualities associated and attached to urban
green.

To these central elements has been added in the Central Haaga Local Plan process a fourth
element or tool: the idea of the district park, coming from the Environment Office at the City
Planning Department. This is connected to the idea of equal treatment of the city districts,
also when it comes to access and quality of urban green. This is seen as a possibility to
higher the often low status of suburban green areas, and create a "place" of positive
identification and increasing identity and image of the particular district. It is also hoped that
by creating this kind of hierarchy between the main green fingers and numerous single small
green areas, it will help to allocate more green management resources to suburban green
areas, especially during this period of densification intentions. These hopes of increased
resources with the help of the new concept were brought out by the green managers in the
interviews, but in the same time they emphasised that no wider principle discussion or
debate has been had, not to mention decisions made so far about this kind of coupling of
densification and increased green management resources for the remaining green areas.

Resident participation in the Planning Group

The planner wanted to implement the principles of increased participation ("stakeholder
procedure") emphasised in the new law already a bit earlier in the Central Haaga Local Plan
process. This she mainly did by inviting two resident representatives in the Planning Group,
and by putting more effort on information spreading. The planner saw the resident
participation in the group as a positive experience, which could have helped her to get more
understanding about the grounds for densification as well as the complexity of the planning
as an activity. To this could be, of course, added an interpretation that this might help also in
indoctrinating the chairmen of the inhabitant associations into planning, and giving a
backbone towards inhabitant opponents: "but you have had representatives also in the
planning group". It seems, however, that this has not - at least for major part -been the case.

The inhabitants (the chairpersons of the local inhabitant associations) considered their
participation in the group as an interesting opportunity to see the city planning from inside - to
see the different branches of administration of the city discussing, debating and co-operating,
and notice the differences in governmental cultures dealing with inhabitants.
The environmental officer, in her opinion, saw the working of the group as interesting search
of mutual understanding and consensus. She had the feeling in the group meetings that
everyone had accepted the densification principle, and really together trying to find where it
can be densified, and what areas should really be left, restored and maintain well.

The green manager of the area did not talk much about the experiences of the group but
mentioned that he had the feeling that the inhabitants (or their representatives) somehow
"were forced into a situation of choice: either new development and saving the services, or
saving the forests and a withering housing district". Her boss expressed her worries about if
the interaction with the inhabitants had been token in the way that the planners had not been
able to describe the inhabitants the changes in the environment the implementation of the
plan will mean (like cutting off nearly all the trees from the planned new sports park area).
For us, it seems that the green managers had the fear that the inhabitants, especially their
representatives, were abused, manipulated by the planners in the process, and that the
green managers themselves, as experienced professionals and actors in the planning
processes, should defend "the true interests" of inhabitants [our interpretation]. As the
planning process is not finished and the construction has not started yet, we do not know the
inhabitants´ reactions - if they really understood what was going to happen.


                                                53
Neighbourhood Forum

From the mid 1990´s there has been citizen-based activity called "Neighbourhood Forums" in
Helsinki. This activity was brought to Haaga, too, by a member of the board of the inhabitant
association. The first forum was held in September 1999. This enthusiastic member gathered
a small group as a kind of organising group, so the forums were not directly organised by Pro
Haaga district association. The idea of the forums is to discuss a theme selected beforehand
that somehow raises interest and deals with the development of that local district or
neighbourhood. The forums are open to everybody, and no decisions are made in these
occasions. So far nine forums have been organised; two times (end of 2000 and beginning of
2001) the theme has related to the densification and new infill development in Haaga.

The forum was mentioned spontaneously in the interviews by the inhabitants, both by the
chairperson of Pro Haaga, and the opposing inhabitant. The chairperson brought out the
forum as being an important tool to get information about what the majority of the local
inhabitants think about e.g. densification and green areas in Haaga - for her it is an
important tool in legitimising the representative role of the association. In contrast, the
opposing inhabitant mentioned the forum in the sense that although there are these kind of
forums etc., the true opinions of the majority of the Haaga inhabitants cannot be decently
brought out. To her, the neighbourhood forums are only occasions to work the pressures of
the inhabitants off; and to get information about the decisions of the officials early to have
more time to adapt oneself to changes.

C 4.4 Communication

In this section we shall discuss the communication situations that seemed to be the most
relevant ones in the Haaga planning processes, both the Planning Principles and the Central
Haaga Local Plan processes. The map of the communication situations is based on the
scheme presented in the GREENSCOM Work Package 1, and it is not meant to represent
the complete truth about communication situations in this case, but it is a sum of all the
communication referred to by the interviewees.




                                               54
                            Haaga Nature
                            management
                            plan 1997,
                                                      Inventory
                            Critical Statement
                                                      & valuation
    Existing                                          of green areas
    nature data,
    Comments
                              Green
                              Managers
                                                    Landscape                Heads of
                                                    Planner                  the City Planning
        Environment
                                                                             Department
        Office



   Other                                                         Detail               Planning
   sector                                                        Planner              Principles of
   experts                                                                            Haaga 1998,
                                                                                      Central Haaga
                                                                                      Local Plan


                                                              Inhabitant
                                                              associations            Comments
                                                                                      on drafts
           Politicians                                                                and proposals,
                                                                                      Organised
                                                                                      Forums etc.
                                                 Opposing
                                                 inhabitant      Inhabitants
      Decisions                                  group
      on Plans


                                  Complaint to
                                  the Parliamantery
                                  Ombudsman



                   Actors


                   Explicit expressions

                   Open relations studied


Figure: Map of Communication Situations in Haaga-case.



1. Detail planner and landscape planner

The detail planner and the landscape planner both work at the same department. The link in
principle is a normal official working link between two different but quite close professions.
This link was established as the planner wanted to have an inventory and valuation of all the
green areas in Haaga for the Planning Principles work. According to the landscape planner,
already when he entered the detail planner had extensive new development sketches for
Haaga, and this created tension, as the landscape architect was more preservation-oriented.
The detail planner´s view was that the landscape planner could not do the valuation properly
and give clear analytical answers why some areas were valuable, and what would happen if
these were built upon. The landscape planner, for one, considered his work as fighting
against the ever-emerging (and without clear grounds) new floor square meter goals.

2. The landscape planner and the green managers

The landscape planner worked in close co-operation with the green manager of the area in
preparing the inventory and valuation of green areas in Haaga. The green manager had just
finished the plan for the maintenance of nature (mainly forests) in Haaga, in which the
preservation of large integrated forested areas was seen as an important feature. Leaning on
this, the green manager opposed largely the new development in Haaga, and this view was
shared by the landscape planner, too.



                                                                  55
3. The detail planner and the green managers

This link was characterised by the green manager as "co-operation but out of tune with the
detail planner". Mostly this communication was official and formal: because of the
disagreements, formal statements expressing these disagreements got a significant role.
According to the green manager the detail planners have a "different set of value" how they
prioritise issues, whereas the detail planner considered the green managers too idealistic,
not having enough "sense of reality": according to her, if they cannot maintain such large
green areas (as she sees it), they should leave the less valuable ones for other purposes,
and focus their resources on the more valuable areas. Accordingly, the head of the green
managers criticises later in the statement about the Central Haaga Local Plan that there has
not been done any kind of cost-benefit analysis about densification, and no calculation of
how much more green management resources this densification would demand.

4. The detail planner and the Environment Centre

This communication was official, and based on the normal procedures of cross-sectoral co-
operation. From the point of environmental health, the environment officer considered the
process of Central Haaga quite successful, but from the point of nature values, the co-
operation seems to be not as well functioning. It is not quite clear why - one reason is that
person in charge of the nature values in the Environment Centre changed due to retirement
during the process. Anyhow, the environment officer felt that they had not had enough
possibilities to co-operate and have a say early enough in the process. According to the
detail planner she did not got data about the nature values early enough, and what she finally
got was not interpreted for her (only sent as "raw data"). She also felt that she could not got
any clear analytical answers from the nature experts about the probable environmental
impacts of the planned new development in Haaga, and the different options she would have
for this densification task.

5. Detail planner and other sector experts

This communication was official and mostly formal. Other sector experts include, among
others, traffic planners, sports department planners and real estate officials.

6. Detail planner and the inhabitant associations

This link was created as a more intensive one in the beginning of the Planning Principles
work, and it has become stronger in the course of the process. It seems that both the planner
and the chairpersons of the inhabitant associations have considered the more closer co-
operation during the years as rewarding. The planner feels she gradually has got more
response and understanding for the new development in Haaga, and seems to prefer the
more small-scale working with the chairpersons and the boards of the inhabitant associations
to more traditional "direct resident contacts" in open public meetings. The chairpersons,
accordingly, felt that they had a better chance to be involved, and really to express their
views and suggestions in the process due to closer co-operation, especially during the
Central Haaga Local Plan process (where they attended the working group). The detail
planner, however, also mentioned the because of this more intensive co-operation it can also
happen in the future that the inhabitant representatives somehow diverge from the other
inhabitants. During the Planning Principles work the inhabitant associations themselves were
actively asking the planners about the current planning issues for Haaga. The detail planner,
for her part, in addition, went to discuss the plans with the board of Pro Haaga only to clarify
her points of view and the grounds for the new infill development. During the Central Haaga
Local Plan process the planner wanted one representative from each of the two associations
to participate in the planning group, and both associations chose their chairpersons for this.



                                              56
7. Detail planner and inhabitants (users)

The basic mode of communication used to be in Finnish urban planning, and still is during
the new legislation (1.1.2000 onwards), that the planners organise public meetings which the
inhabitants and users attend. This was clearly the case in Planning Principles work process,
in which the communication was strongly placed in a very late stage of the process.
However, the communication situation of one meeting was here changed into the form of the
2-weeks planning exhibition. In this, the inhabitants had more time and possibilities to
deepen into the plans, and to discuss them person-to-person, which the planner saw as
easing off the possible tensions that often increase in one-occasion-meetings. The exhibition
raised a lot of interest, and about 300-400 visited the exhibition. Altogether 73 written letters
of opinion were given.

During the Central Haaga Local Plan process, these public meetings were held already in the
very early stage of the planning. The first one presented the starting points for planning, and
two alternative locations for the new sports park. 43 inhabitants attended the meeting. In the
last meeting 37 persons were present. This occasion was particularly tensioned due to many
reasons: the date was considered bad, and the information about the meeting came very
late, and did not reach everyone interested. A significant part of the inhabitants present had
not attended the previous meetings. The planned new development was generally objected,
also the need for a new sports park was questioned. Moreover, in this occasion especially,
the legitimacy of Pro Haaga to represent Haaga inhabitants was questioned as well. The
chairperson of Pro Haaga was not present but told in her interview that the following week
was sheer "telephone terror" to her. However, and interestingly, after the City Planning
Committee later on made a decision to accept the plan proposal to send it further, there was
time to send in official objections, and no objections were sent. According to the opposing
inhabitant this was due to the earlier defeat related to the dispute concerning the Eliel
Saarinen´s Road: "when the road was constructed, everything was already lost".

A new means of communication between the inhabitants and e.g. the planners was added
when local active inhabitants started the neighbourhood forum activity in Haaga in autumn
1999. Two of the first forums had the city planning and especially the new infill development
as a theme. Interestingly, according to the detail planner, who attended the forum as an
asked introducer, the forum occasions were seemingly more calm in general, and more
positive towards new development than the public plan meetings. It may be that the more
open agenda and more informal setting of these occasions together with awareness that no
decisions will be made in these occasions contribute to this observation.

However, according to the interviewed opposing inhabitant activist, the forums were only
occasions to work the pressures of the inhabitants off; and to get information about the
decisions of the officials early to have more time to adapt oneself to changes. Otherwise, the
message of the inhabitants will not be taken into further account, she felt. She pointed out
that there were very few means of communication for their "alternative" or "true" view of the
inhabitants to be heard. Moreover, the politicians normally did not react to their letters, but
now she feels the political culture is starting to change. The interviewed resident activist
made a complaint about the planning processes of Haaga to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
An important reason for this was the lack of communication she (and some of her opponent
friends) saw in the planning processes of Haaga for a longer time. She refers to a planning
initiative and many letters from the inhabitants that she claims have not been answered to by
the planners.

C 4.5 Growth and green

In this section, we discuss how the different kind of values, views and emphasises on urban
growth and green have emerged in the Haaga planning processes.


                                               57
Haaga district lies in between two of the many "green fingers", main radial green areas of
Helsinki. According to the head of the Municipal Plan Office, this basic green and built
structure is well established, and he did not see it as problematic from any point of view.
However, so far there has not been any clear policy for dealing with the balancing growth
and green between the green fingers, i.e. inside the urban structure. What we have here
called the "Haaga-model" is the first attempt to create that kind of principles or general
guidelines in balancing new development and existing green areas.

The general attitude in both the master and detail planning of Helsinki is positive towards and
promoting new infill development. As for the general grounds for this are presented the
ongoing large in-migration to the Helsinki region, the already felt lack of "raw" land (meaning
larger unbuilt areas) inside the boundaries of the city of Helsinki, and the view that building
closer to services and good public transportation (as is the mainly the case inside Helsinki)
contributes better to achieving sustainability goals in Helsinki region. It seems that at least
the leading politicians of the two traditionally biggest political parties in Helsinki share this
view. Two of these leading politicians had visited a planning meeting in Haaga, and given
their support to the detail planner expressing that "whatever new infill development areas can
be brought through, the better" (referring to the great lack of dwellings and buildable land,
and the known difficulties of densification processes).

It is obvious that the theme of balancing urban growth and green inside the existing urban
structure is quite new in Finnish context, also in the context of Helsinki. The tradition has
been to build totally new areas more or less outside the existing structure in natural
surroundings, on a "raw land". This has been possible even inside the boundaries of Helsinki
municipality in the past decades after the World War II. This partly explains our observations
that there has been very little "line-discussions" about basic policy decisions concerning
growth and green in existing urban areas. This holds true both inside different branches of
administration, like urban planning and green management, in cross-sectoral view, and on
the political and public level. Therefore the new Municipal Plan 2002 under preparation will
be an interesting and important setting or tool to have this discussion about principles, too.

In Haaga case we could separate between two basic views on green areas in Haaga. The
detail planner promotes new infill development on the, to her, seemingly uncared and less
valuable green areas ("urban view"), whereas the green managers and the landscape
planner promote the preservation of larger green areas as untouched, and do not understand
the alleged uncaredness, as to them the green areas are maintained ("green view").
This reveals an interesting difference in what kind of green is appreciated: the detail planner
seems to prefer more urban, built-up type nature, and a more open type of green offering
longer views etc. To her especially smaller forested green areas appear as unkept and un-
used, more as regrettable holes in an otherwise more integrated and better visual
townscape, or barriers blocking the views and (mentally, sometimes also physically
preventing people to use otherwise closely situated services or other possibilities. She also
wants scientifically based clear evidence about the nature values in the green areas, and
about the impacts of the planned development to nature. She regrets that in the Haaga-case
neither the green planners nor the environment experts could provide her this, or at least not
in a usable form, for most part of the green areas in Haaga.
The traditional sectoral boundary controversies also emerge in this case. The new district
park was planned and designed, and also paid, in co-operation with the detail planner,
landscape planner and the green manager. The detail planner mentioned that the green
managers see the green areas as their "possession", as something that they plan by
themselves only.

The green managers, for their part, seem to prefer and appreciate specifically the large,
integrated forested green areas, and the forested image of Haaga in overall. In this view they


                                               58
also lean on the results and opinions of the inhabitants indicated during the preparation of
the Nature Management Plan of Haaga in 1996. Therefore they especially oppose the new
sports park in its planned location, as this would mean nearly totally cutting off a large
existing forested area. They also stress that all the green areas in Haaga are maintained, the
forested areas mainly in a more naturalistic way. They claim that the detail planners do not
want to see the values of forests and nature as such in urban areas.
The green managers also pointed out to sectoral boundary disputes, e.g. as they wanted to
open up a discussion about wider green policies when preparing the Green Area Programme
(1999). Then they were strictly discouraged from entering other than already legally accepted
green areas.

What about the residents, then - how did they saw the values of green and growth?
It seems that at least the boards of the inhabitant associations, and presumably also a large
amount of other inhabitants have accepted the given grounds for new development,
especially if it would help in getting larger dwellings and dwellings with elevators to the area,
and preserving the existing services. When it comes to the preferred type of green, or the
different meanings and uses of green, to us it seems that the opinions of the inhabitants vary,
and many of the actors want to present themselves as speaking for what the majority of
Haaga inhabitants would like to have. It was pointed out in the interview that the inhabitants
opposing the new development set a high value on the forested image (Haaga as a "forest
suburb"), and the silence and nature experiences the larger green areas could offer them. Be
that as it may, we may conclude that the varying meanings, uses and valuations of the local
inhabitants are not very well known in Haaga cases: the inventory and valuation of green
areas was made by experts only, the involvement of the inhabitant associations was more
limited to commenting on presented plans via the boards, and the often "silent" groups of
children, youngsters, parents of small children and disabled persons were not actively given
new agencies to better participate and have a say in these valuation aspects of green. This
problem appears more serious, as we know that these are the same groups that usually are
most bound to their close living environment, and use it most of all.


C 5 Assessment of tools
Our assessment here is concentrated on the main innovative tool in Haaga, the tool that we
have called the "Haaga-model", and is related to three criteria which where distinguished in
Greenscom work package 2.
It should be noted that the evaluation is always relative and dependent on which kind of
context you relate it to, and what kind of conditions you compare it to. In this case we have
assessed the tool mainly in relation to the so-called "normal practise" of urban planning in
Helsinki, and generally in Finland.

C 5.1 Social criteria:

The Haaga-model is basically a structural, substance-oriented model. However, as it has
been practised and developed in Haaga, it contains innovative features also from the point of
view of planning processes and social aspects. The detail planner´s pursuit of working in
close co-operation with the inhabitant associations in the district is seen positive from both
sides, and can be said to contribute to the empowerment of inhabitants in planning in
general. However, and what remains still unclear is whether this is enough to contribute to
the inclusion of all the inhabitant groups, or only to those already most "abled". To expand
the participation and to strengthen the legitimacy basis of those representing "the
inhabitants´ voice" would need more efforts to arrange new agencies, and new settings for
their place-related knowledge to meet the space-related practises, for the "silent groups",
both in valuation of the green and in setting the goals for planning.


                                               59
C 5.2 Communication criteria

The detail planner´s way of working in Haaga, in close cooperation with the inhabitant
associations, has helped to build mutual trust at least between the planner and the board of
the association. From the inhabitant associations viewpoint the biggest problem relates to
that the somehow the goals, i.e. the amount of new development to be located in the district,
seems to be set beforehand somewhere "higher above" but these amounts are not openly
presented, not to mention the grounds for them. This easily disrupts the discussions and
creates distrust in the way the city is working towards its inhabitants.
To deal with a larger area at a time, and to discuss about planning principles for this larger
area first seems to soften the contradictions, as the pros and cons of the possible new
development can be studied in relation to the whole, kind of "functional area", as well as the
valuation of the green can be made in relation to the whole area, not just as a piecemeal,
easily conflicting, spot by spot build/not-to-build -decisions. This longer process model also
gives more time to discuss and think about the values and needs of the area.
What is problematic also from the communicative point of view is the possible - and also
meant - use of planning hierarchy, and therefore the Municipal Plan as already given and
accepted goals for densification, as far as there has been no larger, open explicit debate
about the principles of balancing urban growth and green on existing urban areas, and about
the various impacts of implementing the densification policy. Without these kind of
discussions on both the administrative and the political and citizen discussion level, the local
implementation processes are always in danger to end up in deadlocks concerning this kind
of principles and distrust of what kind of negative impacts will happen if the densification is
allowed, and the promised advantages are not coming.

C 5.3 Ecological criteria

The ecological aspects have not been brought up significantly in Haaga case, although the
preservation of green areas and forests as larger integrated units is partly based on
ecological grounds. The model includes potentials to contribute positively according to
ecological criteria: larger areas are studied at a time, and the model includes an inventory
and valuation of the ecological values of the area.

C 6 Conclusions and recommendations
We conclude the Haaga case study by summarising the pros and cons of the Haaga-model,
and giving some recommendations how to develop the process model further.

It is positive to work with a large area like one district, at a time: to search for its strengths
and weaknesses, and to find out if and how advantages of densification could be found for
every stakeholders.
 to be developed: the planners have to commit all the other administrative (and private)
     branches that are crucial for realisation of the promises given in the process, like the
     larger type of dwellings, and houses with elevators
 to be developed: in searching of the pros and cons of densification, and the different
     meanings attached to green, the participation should be as extensive as possible:
     neighbourhood forums are one good tool, but other new type of agencies should be
     created as well, especially for the so-called "silent groups".
It is positive to search for the all the values of the area in an early stage of the process (here
especially the values attached to green)
 to be developed: the inhabitant viewpoint is missing from the inventory of the green
     values, and mostly also from the prioritising phase.



                                                60
    to be developed: biodiversity aspect was relatively weakly present in the inventory. Even
     the position of nature values have to be made clearer in the process (who is responsible
     of inventing and interpreting the nature data, when and how, etc.).
It is positive to try to couple the densification together with increased inputs in remaining
green areas, i.e. to create a compensation policy.
 to be developed: there is a need for an explicit open discussion about compensation
     principles on different levels and spheres (citizens, administration, political level): what
     are the values, and how can they be compensated?
 to be developed: there is a need for cost-benefit accounts about densification and
     compensation; and especially actor by actor: who benefits, who suffers, who pays, etc.)
 ecological building decisions should be coupled to densification implementation; also for
     mitigation of possible disadvantages and compensation of some lost green qualities
Other points to be developed:
 as far as the quantitative goals for densification is concerned, the starting points for
     planning new development in certain area should be more open, and all presented
     targets should be well and openly justified.
 this is a difficult question, but the representativeness and legitimacy of the inhabitant
     associations and all the actors representing the inhabitants should be strengthened: good
     examples are the new neighbourhood forums on one side. Alongside with this, more
     direct forms of ad hoc-participation should be developed (ref. the Uggledal-forums in the
     Greenscom Gothenburg case, and many experiences of children participation).




                                               61
C      THE BROÄNDA VALLEY CASE
Summary
The case is about balancing urban growth and green in and on the edges of one of the
"green fingers" - main structural green areas - of Helsinki. This part of the green finger is
called Broända brook valley, and it is situated in the eastern suburban areas, about 15 km
from the city centre. The case has two interrelated stages: first the local plan of Fallbacka
housing area extension, that then triggered the larger processes containing the whole valley
area.

The case presents an ambiguous, somewhat contradictory picture about balancing policy
related to the "green fingers". It shows very positive elements, but not so much related to
processes or innovative tools. At the same time it also it reveals the weak status of (at least
this) green fingers in planning practise.

In overall, Fallbacka new housing development has proved to be a good example of
successful implementation of densification policy in many relations, and it has been
mentioned as such by many different officials in the city. It shows that areas can be found
where (at least nearly) all stakeholders see the new development as positive, even on the
border of one of the green fingers. It includes an interesting situation of balancing nature
protection aspects of a meadow, and social aspects of a more safe, more integrated housing
area that is dealt with in deciding whether the main road should stay going through Fallbacka
or whether it should be moved to another alignment between the housing area and the
valuable meadow. However, it seems that this success of Fallbacka is not so much related to
clear innovative tools or processes, than to sheer locational advantages. It also points out the
planners skill and sensibility to find areas to integrate different interests (especially in the
Municipal Plan process, but also in other more detailed level planning processes).

The proximity of Fallbacka extension to a Natura 2000 area triggered the work of nature and
landscape survey and development principles for the whole green finger of Broända valley. It
had not been a normal practise to do such large integrated green area surveys or plans in
Helsinki. Starting any planning "from the green side" has been feared for it might chain up the
future possibilities for densification and new development. It seems that the "idea" of the
Green Finger is quite strong and established in the planning discourse, but in reality the
wideness, the quality of the finger, and its actual legal position and the commitment the idea
has behind it, is still not strong. This is reflected in the new draft Municipal Plan just
presented for public comments (after this study was done), that includes a new housing area
reservation located just in the middle of the Broända valley green finger.

C 1 The case
C 1.1 Description of the area

Broända brook valley is an aggregate of green areas in the eastern suburban areas of
Helsinki, about 15 km from the centre of the city. It extends from a narrow Vartiokylä Bay to
Mustavuori forest and Natura 2000 area, about 2 km to the north, and the green area
continues even further northwards outside the Helsinki municipal border. It is one of the
"green fingers" of Helsinki. The brook valley is one of the last field and meadow areas that
have remained unbroken in eastern Helsinki. This low-lying landscape is outlined by forest
covered ridges to the east, and also to the north-west.




                                               62
Figure. The location of Broända brook valley in Helsinki.


To the west the green aggregate is functionally bounded by the regional main road Itäväylä.
Kallvik Road (now about 13 000 cars/day, the northern main road to Vuosaari district of some
40 000 inhabitants) crosses the valley dividing it into two parts. The northern part of the
valley is called Mellunmäki meadow, mainly left in its natural state, periodically moulded by
floodwater. This part is rich in bird and plant species. Two of the species belong to species to
be specifically kept on eye according to EU Bird Directive. However, this area does not
belong to the neighbouring (to the northeast) Mustavuori Natura 2000 area.

On the half-way of the valley on the eastern side lies Fallbacka area, originally a farm house
at the eastern end of the ridge area of Mellunmäki. On these hills grow a lot of old oak and
lime trees that are very visible in the landscape. Around the farm house was built a small
housing area of about 800 inhabitants in the 1980´s, both four-storey-high apartment houses
and row houses. Two of the three apartment house blocks were built as social housing
owned by the city. There are no services in the area. Schools and kindergartens are located
in Mellunmäki blocks-of-flats-suburb to the north-west, as well as the nearest food shops.
Fallbacka is functionally and physically separated from Mellunmäki by the Itäväylä main road
(now about 17 000 cars/day, and a speed limit of 60 km/h). The public transport connections
are not very good: there is a connecting bus to the nearest metro stations in Mellunmäki
(about 1,5 km away) and Itäkeskus (some 3 km away) about every 20 minutes.

To the south of Fallbacka lie planted lawns, meadows, and an area of small agricultural plots
for local residents, surrounded partly by small wooded hills. On the sides of Broända brook,
and covering the bottom of the Vartiokylä Bay in the south lie groves of alder trees, some
parts of which are significant in nature values.




                                                   63
Figure. An aerial view on the Broända brook valley.

C 1.2 Planning situation

The planning case of Broända valley has two interrelated stages: first the local plan of
Fallbacka extension, that then triggered the larger processes containing the whole valley
area. Our main research interest in this case is to study the way Helsinki is balancing urban
growth and green inside and along a "green finger" of the city.

Fallbacka extension

There is a small area of about 5 hectares on the hill slope of Fallbacka, north of the existing
housing area, in a kind of triangle that is left between the roads Itäväylä (to the northwest)
and Kallvik Road (to the southwest), and the Mellunmäki meadow to the east. Near the traffic
junction lies nowadays a gas station and some repair workshops and storehouses.
Otherwise this "triangle" is unbuilt, bushes and meadows. This area was planned for housing
already in the former (existing) Municipal Plan of Helsinki (1992). Now the private landowner
of it has made an initiative to start the detail planning of this area according to the Municipal
Plan. The city planners have favoured the initiative, as they consider - apart from the overall
lack of housing in Helsinki - that the existing Fallbacka area is lacking the public services.
One reason can also be that the planners consider the area getting to be stigmatised as a
socially problematic area (as there has been some problems in the social housing blocks -
and these blocks have not been popular which has lead to a large amount of immigrants
living in the area). More social mixture (along the new housing) and better services could
maybe help in avoiding this stigmatisation and socially problematic process.

The area of the Local Plan now under preparation covers, apart from the "triangle area", also
the Itäväylä main road and the edges of Mellunmäki housing area on the other (western) side
of the road, the area around the farm house courtyard, Kallvik Road, and the main parts of
the Mellunmäki meadow. The north-eastern bounds of the Local Plan area touch the
Mustavuori Natura 2000 nature conservation area.


Broända posterista
3. tools

Figure. A map indicating the Fallbacka new development Local Plan area.




                                                      64
Itäväylä regional main road is maintained by the Finnish Road Administration, and the FRA is
simultaneously preparing improvement principles for this part of the road. Kallvik Road is
maintained by the city. It is estimated that the amount of traffic on both of these main roads
will be 20 000 cars/day in 2020.

The whole brook valley

Because the Local Plan area touches Mustavuori Natura 2000 nature conservation area, the
law provides that a Natura impact assessment have to be made. For this the planners had to
consult the Regional Environment Centre (REC), a state body. In these discussion the REC
paid attention also to other new development plans nearby the green finger, and due to the
increasing use pressures required the nature values to be assessed concerning the whole
brook valley at the same time.

Besides the Municipal plan there was no overall plan for the whole green finger. The
landscape planner wanted to make a kind of green plan for the whole green area (which was
not a normal practise in larger green areas in Helsinki). However, the nature value survey
and green plan was decided to be kept as a "development principles" only, and not an official
plan. This was due to the quick timetable, and that the "green plan" did not study the new
development possibilities in this area - an overall goal strongly promoted by the City Planning
Department. The survey and development principles work was kept as an expert study only.

The actual detail planning of the southern part of the green finger is starting in summer 2002.
In this process the new development possibilities are studied, and all stakeholders ought to
be participating.

C 1.3 Planning process

The private landowner made the Local Plan initiative to his land in Fallbacka at the end of
March, 2000. The planning process started during the same spring. A private architect and
traffic consultants were hired to make alternatives for the new housing area, and for the
traffic arrangements (e.g. improving Itäväylä and Kallvik Road). Simultaneously the city
planners started a landscape and nature survey covering not only the Local Plan area but the
whole Broända brook valley green area. A private consultant was hired also for this work.

The plan for participation and impact assessment (PPIA) for the Local Plan was presented,
and the starting points of the planning work discussed in an organised open discussion
occasion in May 2000, at the play park meeting room in Mellunmäki. The planners prepared
a questionnaire that could be filled in at the occasion. Five questions were included:
 - What is best in the planning area nowadays?
 - What is worst in the planning area nowadays?
 - In what way would you like the planning area to be changed?
 - How do you think the building up of the new northern Fallbacka would affect your daily life?
 - How do you think the building up of the new northern Fallbacka would affect the landscape
and the environment?
As the best in the area was by far most often mentioned that the area is close to nature. As
the worst was as overwhelmingly most often mentioned traffic and traffic arrangements
(junctions). The suggestions for changes in the area differed; most often were mentioned the
traffic safety, and substituting housing to the existing gas station and storehouse area (but
not building any more). The estimated effects on daily life included most often the reduction
of living comfort, and increase in traffic amounts. Also the estimated effects on landscape
and environment were mainly negative, but not entirely.

In January 2001, the prepared four different land-use alternatives (called A1, A2, B1 and B2)
for the Local Plan area were presented in an organised open discussion occasion in


                                              65
Itäkeskus (the eastern sub-centre of Helsinki). At the same time also the Broända valley
landscape and nature survey, and the improvement plan for the Itäväylä regional main road
were presented. The plans were also on display for two weeks in Itäkeskus, the Mellunmäki
play park, and at the City Planning Department.

The amount and the type of new building was almost the same in every alternative, about
1000 new inhabitants, of which about 700 on the Fallbacka side, and 300 on the Mellunmäki
side of Itäväylä. Proposed A-alternatives had the main road Kallvik Road on its existing
location, and B-alternatives contained a new alignment for it, bypassing the old and planned
new Fallbacka from the northeast, on the bottom of the slope, and touching the Mellunmäki
meadow. Proposed 1-alternatives kept the Itäväylä in its existing elevation level (climbing the
hill), and 2-alternatives put the Itäväylä in a section in this spot.

Figure. Proposed alternatives A2 and B2 for the new Fallbacka area.

Also for this discussion occasion the planners had prepared a questionnaire. The participants
were asked to choose the best plan alternative from the point of view of shopping, traffic
safety, landscape values, nature values, being in the nature, and public transport. Further
was asked, if the amount of planned new building in Fallbacka was suitable, and - again -
how the respondent estimated the new building to effect his/her everyday life. Finally, the
respondent was asked to name the biggest problem in Fallbacka, to which he/she would like
to have an improvement at once. The Finnish Road Administration also had an open
questionnaire to collect the problems faced on the existing road, improvement suggestions
and other comments.

Because the Local Plan area touches Mustavuori Natura 2000 nature conservation area, the
law provides that a negotiation had to be organised between the city of Helsinki (planners of
the area), the Regional Environment Centre (a state body), and other possible stakeholders.
This was held in April, 2001. In this negotiation was stated that the impact assessment
reports (of the plan to the Natura area and the Mellunmäki meadow) were very well done.
Also it was stated that the plan would not have significant harmful impacts to the nature types
and species in the Natura area. However, it was stated, if the Kallvik Road will be changed to
bypass Fallbacka from the northeast, traffic noise will increase on the Mellunmäki meadow.
Helsinki City Environment Centre and the Regional Environment Centre preferred the A-
alternatives (keeping the Kallvik Road in its existing location).
The City Planning Committee discussed the plan alternatives in June, 2001, and decided that
planning should be proceeded using the B2-alternative as the basis. Now the official outline
proposal for the Local Plan is under preparation, and should be presented to public at the
early autumn.

C 2 Practical planning problem
The overall planning problem could be formulated as safeguarding the nature and user
values of the green finger as a whole, and in the same time responding to the general need
of new housing in Helsinki. Further, the specific planning problem for Fallbacka can be
formulated as how to implement these targets so that the image, functionality and overall
quality of the Fallbacka housing area could be improved.

C3       Methodology of the case study
This case study was generally made according to the guiding instructions and questions set
out in the case study manual of Work Package 3. We started the Broända valley case study
by first having some informal talks with the detail and landscape planners of the area. These
talks helped to have the first storylines, the planners´, of the case. They also indicated to an


                                                      66
interesting phenomenon in the case, namely that there seemed to be very little resistance
towards the new Fallbacka development, which is very exceptional in densification plans in
Helsinki. If this really was the case, it was very interesting to find out the reasons.

In the second round we interviewed all the actors that we considered to be relevant key-
informants in the case. These we tried to identify with the help of planning documents and
actor-interviews already made earlier (that could be called a "snowball method"). All
interviews, except one informal group interview, were semi-structured thematic interviews
following roughly the themes set out in the Manual. Altogether 6 interviews with city officials,
and 2 interviews with state officials were made. All of these were taped and written out later.
All the persons we asked also accepted to be interviewed.
We interviewed the following persons:
 planner in charge of the Local Plan of Fallbacka, City Planning Department (18.10.2001)
 head of the Municipal Plan Office, City Planning Department (27.11.2001)
 landscape planner in charge of Broända valley area, and the nature surveys, City
      Planning Department, Environment Office (18.10.2001)
 head of the Environment Office, City Planning Department (8.10.2001)
 head of the Green Area Division, Public Works Department (27.11.2001)
 environment officer in charge (environmental health and nature protection), Helsinki City
      Environment Centre (17.12.2001)
 environment officer in charge of land use, Regional Environment Centre (state body)
      (30.11.2001)
 environment officer in charge of nature protection, Regional Environment Centre (state
      body) (3.12.2001)
In addition, we made an informal group interview in the "inhabitant café" in Fallbacka
(27.11.2001). This café is organised as a part of the local parish work. The organisers
informed about the interview situation before, but not extensively or formally. Presumably the
some 10 inhabitants present at that time represented the normal café visitors, as there was
also much other programme in the café. Probably due to morning time, most participants
seemed to be pensioners or mothers with small children. The questions asked followed
roughly the themes used in other thematic interviews. The group interview was not taped,
only notes were taken. The atmosphere of the occasion was very convivial and free, but it is
still good to keep in mind the possible influence of group dynamics on answers in this kind of
situation. We have not yet arranged a group meeting or development seminar of all the
actors involved as planned for the third round.

The Fallbacka part of the case study is otherwise quite well covered in our study, but even
the plans are not yet finished. For the other, southern parts of the green finger, the official
planning has not even started yet. This means that our results are limited to the findings of
the Fallbacka study, and to some more general findings related to the overall green finger
policy in Helsinki.




                                               67
C 4 Analysis
C 4.1 Case

When we look at the storylines the different actors told us about the Broända valley case, we
noticed that, on the contrary to the Haaga case, here the storylines appear to be
extraordinarily similar. This also points to our first impression of the Fallbacka extension as
an exceptional case of densification in Helsinki: despite the so common resistance of
inhabitants, here the new infill development is seen positive from many different
stakeholders´ point of view, (at least many of) the inhabitants included.

For the detail planner, the case is basically detail planning of the area according to the
Municipal Plan (1992) which already allocated the area for housing. Besides responding to
the overall lack of housing in Helsinki, the planner argues the new development positive also
for it brings new inhabitants and thereby a population basis large enough to create basic
services for the area, like a kindergarten and two first levels of the elementary school, and
creating conditions to have a larger grocery shop in the vicinity. Furthermore, more social
mixture along the new housing, and better services could maybe help in avoiding
stigmatisation of the area and socially problematic process.

The landscape planner agrees with the detail planner on the Fallbacka area. Concerning the
whole brook valley she considers very positive the possibility to study the whole green finger
at a time. Normally it has not been seen as a good way to proceed, to start from the planning
of the green area before all the other issues of planning are decided (i.e. the new
development possibilities studied), as the green planning can be seen as a possible obstacle
or threat limiting new development possibilities beforehand. What actually created the
opportunity this time (although the survey and planning still was consciously called as
"development principles" and not as a plan) was firstly the starting of the Local Plan process
of Fallbacka, and secondly, due to this and more importantly, the fact that the Regional
Environment Centre wanted the City to make a larger survey for the whole green finger.

Our interpretation of the inhabitants´ opinions is based on the group interview, but in addition,
also on the written comments on the questionnaires (collected by the planners during the
plan exhibitions), and on the oral comments during a plan presentation. The inhabitants were
pleased to have the somewhat untidy looking gas station and storehouse plots replaced by
new housing. Being so near the main roads, and not attractive from the recreational point of
view, the inhabitants did not find the area valuable as a possible green area. They also had
nice recreational and natural green areas already to the south of the existing housing area
(the southern part of the green finger) where they were used to go. Even a local (group)
interviewed nature enthusiast (a well-known butterfly expert) did not see any particular nature
values in the planned extension area.
The inhabitants strongly supported the planners´ idea of moving the Kallvik Road (now going
between the planned and existing housing areas) to a new alignment, bypassing the old and
planned new Fallbacka from the north-east, on the bottom of the slope, and touching the
Mellunmäki meadow. This decision would then contribute to the social and functional unity of
the whole Fallbacka area, increasing safety and reducing noise and pollution especially in
the old part of the area.

The only issue that somewhat divided the opinions of the different stakeholders in the case is
this planned new alignment for the Kallvik Road. The actors officially in charge of nature
values considered the existing road alignment better than the planned new one, from the
point of view of safeguarding the nature values of the Mellunmäki meadow. This view was
shared by the City Environment Centre and the Regional Environment Centre. They saw that




                                               68
the new row housing would be a better neighbour for the meadow than the road. However,
at least so far, they have not been strongly resisting the other alternative either.

Figure. A view on the Mellunmäki meadow.

C 4.2 Actors

Following list of actors is the interpretation of the researchers based on the written material
and the interviews made. It is important to note that Broända case is still an ongoing case;
new actors may emerge, and the roles of the actors can change on the course of the case
process later on. In connection to every actor we have put down the interests (in a broader
sense, interpreted as issues they themselves express they want to promote or act in favour
of) and actants to which or to whom the actor refers to in his/her speech acting as its/their
spokesman.

The local politicians in the City Planning Committee (CPC) and the City Council in Helsinki.
They have formally approved the valid Helsinki Municipal Plan (1992) which e.g. indicated
the infill possibility in Fallbacka area. So far it seems that their role has been limited to this
formal "performing", and none of the individual politicians has been clearly active otherwise in
this planning case.

The detail planner of the Broända area (City Planning Department). She is in charge of
making the Local Plan of Fallbacka. This has been made in cooperation with other
administrative branches of the city, as well as with the Finnish Road Administration.
Interests of which the detail planner says she is promoting in the case: more dwellings, more
integrated urban structure, improved traffic safety and connections between areas, clear
borderlines in the landscape, and safeguarding the nature values of Mellunmäki meadow.
Actants: no clearly explicit actants.

The landscape planner of the area (City Planning Department). She is in charge of making
the nature survey and the landscape "development principles" for the whole Broända valley.
Interests of which she is promoting in the case: a comprehensive view of the landscape,
including e.g. clear borderlines and re-opening of the somewhat overgrown natural
landscape.
Actant that she refers to acting as its spokesperson: landscape

Other city officials. Helsinki City Environment Centre had a role in promoting the making of
nature survey for the whole valley, via formal and informal discussions with the Regional
Environment Centre already before the formal Fallbacka negotiations. The green
management´s role has been limited so far. They have basically been positive for the
Fallbacka new development, too.
Actants that they refer to acting as their spokesperson: nature (for the HCEC)

Uusimaa Regional Environment Centre (a state body). They officially wanted a larger nature
survey to be made besides the strictly formal Natura impact assessment.
Interests: Two different divisions inside the REC are included in the case: the land use and
the nature protection division. Interestingly, the goals of these are often contradictory in
urban areas: the land use division promotes densification of urban structures, and the
decisions of the nature protection division many times counteract these goals. Especially the
land use division indicated in the interview that they should have much more intra-
organisational discussion about these issues.
Actants that they refer to acting as their spokesperson: nature (for nature protection
division), urban structure (for land use division)




                                               69
Local inhabitants of the existing Fallbacka housing area. They have been quite pleased with
the planned extension and traffic arrangements.
Interests: better services, like kindergarten, elementary school, and a better and more
closely situated grocery shop; traffic safety and reduced noise and pollution in the existing
area.

Potential/missing actors: the future inhabitants of the planned new Fallbacka extension are
partly excluded, as they have not been explicitly mentioned even by the planners of the area.
It also seems that the immigrants (especially from Russia) living in the area have been
excluded in the process - at least they have not been active participants, and no other actor
has explicitly said to represent them in the process.

C 4.3 Tools

Here we identify which tools have had an impact on the planning processes of Fallbacka and
the whole Broända valley case.

On formal strategic level the Helsinki Municipal Plan (1992) is the basic tool indicating the
"green finger" and its rough borderlines, and e.g. the now planned new Fallbacka extension
for housing purposes. On the operational level, the formal tool in (planners´) action is, above
all, the Local Plan. In addition, in the Helsinki context a new informal tool in landscape
planner´s action, is the nature survey of, and especially the preparation of the landscape
development principles for the whole Broända valley green finger.

Tools used for interaction between planners and inhabitants are mostly the ones that can be
called "standard operational procedures", normal practise in similar planning cases in
Helsinki. These include a meeting at the beginning of the planning task between the planners
and everybody interested in the planning case, and other meetings later on after the
alternatives have been prepared, and when the chosen alternative has been elaborated. An
innovation in these meetings in Fallbacka case has been that the planners have prepared a
questionnaire for these meetings. In the first one e.g. the strengths and weaknesses of the
area were collected, and the next contained structured multiple-choice questions about the
best alternative from different points of view. These questionnaires can be seen as a step
towards more systematic gathering of the views and feedback from the residents but still a
one-way tool not offering much as a potential tool in interaction, to create a mutual respect
and shared understanding of the planning situation. Seen very positively it could be seen as
a new agency to the inhabitants, but a very limited and framed agency, something that could
be called as a weak grade of consultation according to our research criteria of the levels of
interaction. It tries to find a new way to "turn place to space" - to make the local experience
explicit and better understood and "usable" for planners. It seems that the results from both
the planners´ and research point of view are quite limited, as also the development potential
of the tool as such.

C 4.4 Communication

This section deals with the communication situations that we have been studying in the
Broända valley case. The map of the communication situations is based on the scheme
presented in the GREENSCOM Work Package 1, and it is not meant to represent all the
communication situations in the case, but it is a sum of all the ones referred to by the
interviewees.




                                              70
                           Haaga Nature
                           management
                           plan 1997,
                                                     Inventory
                           Critical Statement
                                                     & valuation
   Existing                                          of green areas
   nature data,
   Comments
                             Green
                             Managers
                                                   Landscape                Heads of
                                                   Planner                  the City Planning
       Environment
                                                                            Department
       Office



   Other                                                        Detail               Planning
   sector                                                       Planner              Principles of
   experts                                                                           Haaga 1998,
                                                                                     Central Haaga
                                                                                     Local Plan


                                                             Inhabitant
                                                             associations            Comments
                                                                                     on drafts
          Politicians                                                                and proposals,
                                                                                     Organised
                                                                                     Forums etc.
                                                Opposing
                                                inhabitant      Inhabitants
     Decisions                                  group
     on Plans


                                 Complaint to
                                 the Parliamantery
                                 Ombudsman



                  Actors


                  Explicit expressions

                  Open relations studied


Figure: Map of Communication Situations in Broända-case.



1. Detail planner - landscape planner

They both work at the same department, and the link is in principle a normal official working
link. Here the co-operation is functioning well between these two quite closed professions.
They both agreed on the same alternative to proceed further in Fallbacka.

2. Detail planner & landscape planner - City Environment Centre

These links are also normal working links in this kind of situation of planning close to
valuable natural areas. Here the environment officials consider they had been taken along in
the planning early enough, and that the nature surveys and considerations had been very
well done.

3. Detail planner & landscape planner - Regional Environment Centre

This link was established quite early in the process, as the planned Fallbacka extension area
is situated close a Natura 2000 -area, and the planners had to consult the nature impact
assessment procedure with REC. REC then wanted the City to make a larger nature survey
including the whole green finger, to be better able to assess the possible impacts of future
development on the nature in this area.

4. City Environment Centre - Regional Environment Centre

This link was established in Broända valley case already before the formal connections due
the Fallbacka planning. Connected to another new housing development plan close to this
green finger there had already emerged problems concerning preservation of nature and



                                                                                71
ground water in this sensible area. These problems were already discussed informally
between the City and REC.

5. Detail planner - existing local inhabitants

Here the communication has happened mostly via the standard mode of communication in
Finnish urban planning: planners organise public meetings which the inhabitants and users
attend. In the meetings, an innovation was the questionnaires the planners had prepared for
the attendants. This tool probably gave the planners a better insight in the inhabitants´
opinions but did not change the mostly one-way character of these communication situations.

C 4.5 Growth and green

The Fallbacka case is seemingly dominated by the "official" discourse of the "nature values
of green". This is not surprising, as the area lies so close to a larger Natura 2000 nature
protection area, and the planning area itself includes another valuable nature area, the
Mellunmäki meadow. The area of the planned extension is not much used or valuated as a
recreational area, neither as a valuable nature area. What divides the opinions especially
between the officials is how close the new area can come to the meadow, and whether the
Kallvik main road should stay in its previous location cutting across the Fallbacka area, or
should it be aligned bypassing the area from the north and touching the edge of the meadow.
In this situation the nature values are acknowledged from both sides, but the prioritisations
vary: others, including the planners and existing inhabitants set a higher value to social and
functional (and economic) aspects, and the others, including mostly officials in charge of
nature issues, set higher value to preservation of nature values. In the Local Plan proposal
the meadow itself has been allocated as a recreational area but with a special indication of a
valuable area for biodiversity, where the conditions for flora and fauna shall not be changed.
From the point of view of balancing urban growth and green, the Fallbacka part of the case
shows that areas can be found where (at least nearly) all stakeholders see the new
development as positive, even in this kind of situation on the border of one of the green
fingers of Helsinki.

Concerning the whole green finger, then, it is, to our disappointment, somewhat too early to
analyse deeply the "green finger policy in action" or "balancing urban growth and green in
and around green fingers", as the actual formal detail planning of the southern part of the
green finger is only about to start in this summer. This will be an interesting case to look at in
the future, as the starting points include a study of new housing development possibilities
inside the green finger.

C 5 Assessment of tools
According to our analysis, especially the Fallbacka new housing development planning has
proved to be a good example of successful implementation of densification policy in many
relations, and it has been mentioned as such by many different officials in the city of Helsinki.
However, it seems that this success is not so much related to clear innovative tools or
processes, than to sheer locational advantages.

The aspect in the case that could be understood as a tool in a broad sense, is the planners´
skill and sensibility to find areas to integrate different interests (especially in the Municipal
Plan process, but also in other more detailed level planning processes). However, in itself
this is not a tool to have a potential of being a tool in interaction (or even a tool in transition)
that we have been looking for in our research. It is more a better tool in action for the planner
to use for interaction with other stakeholders, and creating potentially more fruitful context
and starting point for the communication situations in the case.


                                                 72
C 6 Conclusions and recommendations
According to our analysis, especially the Fallbacka planning has proved to be a good
example of successful implementation of densification policy in many relations, and it has
been mentioned as such by many different officials in the city of Helsinki. However, it seems
that this success is not so much related to clear innovative tools or processes, than to sheer
locational advantages. It also points out the planners skill and sensibility to find areas to
integrate different interests (especially in the Municipal Plan process, but also in other more
detailed level planning processes). The questionnaires for inhabitants were an innovation
used in Fallbacka planning process, but it seems that their role in the process has been quite
limited in the end.

The other successful feature in the Broända case is also more related to a tool in action,
namely the extensive survey of nature values. This was very carefully done and highly
appreciated among the nature protection officials, also for it was done for the whole green
finger at a time. It certainly contributes to improve the substantial basis of communication
between planners and environment officials, but as a traditional expert based work and
language it does not open up new agencies for other stakeholders to contribute to discussion
about values and meanings of green. What is also lacking is that as it was not connected to
other infill planning than Fallbacka, it in itself did not create a tool or setting to gather both the
interests of building new development (growth) and green.

The landscape and nature survey was an innovation in the sense that it has not been a
normal practise to do such large integrated green area surveys or plans in Helsinki. One
possible reason, pointed out in the interviews, was that the chief planners have feared to
start any planning "from the green side", for it might chain up the future possibilities for
densification and new development. It has been considered better to have only rough
structural green networks in the Municipal Plan, and then define the borderlines only
piecemeal in the Local Plans. It seems that the "idea" of the Green Finger is quite strong and
established (in the planning discourse), but the reality: the wideness, the quality of the finger,
and its actual legal position and the commitment the idea has behind it, is still not strong.




                                                 73
C      THE IIDESJÄRVI CASE

Summary
The case is about the planning regarding the lakeshores of Iidesjärvi, a small lake some 2
km distance from the centre of Tampere. The planning process has two stages: new
municipal plan for the urban area of Tampere, begun in 1990ies and finished in 1998; and a
local plan for infill-building on a lakeshore lot on the southern side, Nekalanranta, begun in
1999. In December 2000 the Ministry of Environment ratified the municipal plan, with the
exception of some disputed areas, and among these the lot intended for Nekalanranta. The
city has made a complaint to the Highest Administrative Court, and at the present the
planning process is halted.

The case presents a contradiction between the definitions given to the lakeshore during the
planning process. In the important original report on the green areas resulting in a “green
area network”, a green structure plan for Tampere, Iidesjärvi was defined a fundamental
structural element of the landscape and of the green network of the whole Tampere region,
and the lakeshore lots were designated as green areas. Another important report, the
densification program designated these lots for infill-building. The municipal plan followed the
designation of the densification program.

The local planning was begun with an urban planning game introducing the densification
issue to citizens on the city’s webpages. The game was about putting 1800 new inhabitants
in the Viinikka – Nekala area, and among the possible lots was also the lakeshore lot of
Nekalanranta. The game was tried by 1500 people of whom 222 sent in their proposal; of
these 37 were from people living in the area.

We conclude first of all that it is too easy to disregard green structure in favour of
densification.

Secondly it has to be carefully considered at what stage of planning decisions are made, if
openness and democratic participation is sought. If detailed decisions are made at the level
of the municipal plan, the stakeholders concerned might not be aware or interested to follow
discussions. At the level of the local plan it should still be possible to choose between distinct
alternatives.

The planning game is a way of involving citizens. It can be seen as a way of reaching users
who might not participate in public meetings, and thus widening the scope of stakeholder
participation. However, for interaction and social justice it is decisive what use is made of the
stakeholder participation, whether it is an isolated stage or taken seriously in planning.


C 1 The case
C 1.1 Description of the area

Iidesjärvi (Lake Iides), is small lake 2 -3km southeast from the centre of the city, extending in
west – east direction, south of the watershed esker Kalevanharju. It is a fundamental
element of both the topographical structure of Tampere region and its water system, and for
this reason it is considered a fundamental structural element of the landscape and of the
green area network of the region. Since 1981 it is classified as a significant “national bird-
water” belonging to the national conservation program of bird-waters, and for this reason the
eastern end is a protected area.



                                                74
Figure. The location of Iidesjärvi in Tampere.

Iidesjärvi is surrounded by housing areas on the northern and southern sides. Most of the
housing is low-rise and wooden and built between 20ies – 60ies, especially on the southern
side. On the north there are six-storied apartment houses from the 60ies and the 90ies.
Iidesjärvi is surrounded by rather heavy traffic routes 100m – 500m from the lake: railroad in
west and north, motorway west and east; and in addition there is the traffic through the
housing areas north and south. At the eastern end there are fields and former fields that
have become wet-land, at the western end there is an old industrial area.

The lake is at present in natural state, the coastline overgrown with weeds and bushes. A
lane for light traffic runs around the lake; there is also a foot-path on the southern side. The
lake is not used for swimming or for boating as it is quite shallow; instead there are fishers
and birdwatchers, and people walking. In winter, weather permitting, people also ski on the
lake.

C 1.2 Planning situation

We have named the case after the lake as “Iidesjärvi case” for two reasons: firstly, the
planning case begins with the municipal plan stage and initially concerns the whole lake.
Secondly, the lake is a structural entity as a factor of landscape and within an ecological
system. The second point is however not neutral, as whether the lake is treated as a
structural entity or not is an issue in the planning process.

The municipal plan was based on a densification program, where two lots concerned
Iidesjärvi: one at the eastern end of the lake intended for public buildings (a school), another
on the southern shore for a housing area of about 450 people called Nekalanranta (Nekala
lakeshore). Nekalanranta was originally part of Hatanpää estate, which the city bought in
1920. The estate buildings have been pulled down. The western part was used from the
beginning of 1900 to 1957 as a dumping place for waste, at present it is used for dumping
snow. The eastern part serves as a reserve for the Parks Department. A small part is taken
up by allotment gardes; on another there are five barracks meant for temporary housing. The
lot at the eastern side end is in natural state, messy-looking wetland, and it belongs to the
protected area.




                                                 75
Figure. A view on Iidesjärvi and Nekalanranta.

The case was chosen since it seemed a typical densification issue where there had been
tried new interactive methods, i.e. an internet planning game. The planning process however
is interrupted at present, since the Ministry of Environment ratified the municipal plan but
without a number of disputed areas, among them both lots of the Iidesjärvi case. The city has
found a new lot for the school, and is waiting for the decision of the Highest Administrative
Court on the Nekalanranta area.

C 1.3 Planning process

The planning process involving Iidesjärvi area has two distinct stages: first the municipal plan
(yleiskaava) for the urban area of Tampere (excluding the inner city); then the local plan
(asemakaava) for the Nekalanranta lot.

The municipal plan process was begun in the end of 1980ies. The first proposal to form the
basis for the planning was approved in November 1992, and was put out for the public for
December. The plan was processed all through the nineties, and put out for comments for
the public two more times, February 1996 and January – February 1998. It was approved by
the City Council 27.5.1998, and sent to the Ministry of Environment for ratification on the
initiative of the city as they wanted a “strong” plan which binds development.

The municipal plan process included several reports, of which the most important are the
report on the green areas begun in 1987 and completed in 1994; and the densification
program based on a report on the economical impact of planning (kaavatalousselvitys)
approved in 1994, involving a strategic choice in favour of densification. A separate plan for
Iidesjärvi was commissioned from the landscape architect Virve Veisterä in 1992. While the
municipal plan process was going on in 1997 there was approved a regional plan concerning
the areas in the municipal plan.

Figure. An excerpt of the original green network map in Iidesjärvi.

The original report on green areas classified the Iidesjärvi lakeshore areas as “important part
of the green network of the city, that can be changed only due to very cogent reasons”. The
areas close to the lake were classified as green areas in natural state, and the lot marked for
densification in the densification program was classified as a green area for recreation. This
is also how it is classified in the regional plan.The densification program appointed these lots
for infill building, and so did the final municipal plan which included two documents: green
area network with green areas and cycle lanes, and land-use plan.



                                                         76
Figure. An excerpt of the green network map of the Municipal Plan in Iidesjärvi.

The approved final municipal plan proposal with all reproofs and appeals made by the public
were sent to the Ministry of Environment. One appeal and three reproofs were made for the
lot intended for a school at the eastern end and one reproof for Nekalanranta. In December
2000 the Ministry ratified the plan, with the exception of some disputed areas, and among
these there were the two lots by the Iidesjärvi lake. The Ministry stresses the meaning of lake
Iidesjärvi as a nationally important birdwater and a biological entity. According to them the
city has not made necessary inquiries about the impact of building close to the protected
area, and that all inquiries made make it evident that there are not sufficient grounds for infill
building on the lakeshore. The municipal plan also deviates from the regional plan that has
been ratified.

The city made an appeal of the Ministry’s decision to the Highest Administrative Court, where
the decision is hanging at the present.

After the Ministry’s decision there followed intense discussion about the placing of the
school, a Steiner pedagogical private school. The result was that another lot was appointed
for the school in a few weeks. The city has officially no intention of planning anything in its
stead at the eastern end of the lake at present.

The local plan concerns the lakeshore lot Nekalanranta. It was begun in the summer 1999
with an urban planning game “Tampere 2020” on the city’s webpages. In April 2000 there
was arranged a meeting for the residents of Viinikka – Nekala, where the planner explained
the principles of the detailed plan and the public had possibility to comment. Next the city
commissioned from a private firm three alternative designs for the area, to form the basis of
further planning. In October 2000 the alternatives were presented to a second meeting of
residents.

An alternative was chosen to be the basis for further planning. After the alternatives were
drawn up the possible area for infill building proved to be smaller than had been thought.
Since the area had been narrowed, it was thought it ought to be built more densely and
efficiently to be able to put in the intended amount of inhabitants. At this stage the planning
process was halted as the Ministry did not ratify the use of the lot in the municipal plan.

Figure. The chosen alternative of the Nekalanranta new housing area.

Green issues contained

The main green issue is green vs. growth, conservation vs. densification. More specifically
there is the question of the green structure or green network, since Iidesjärvi is defined to be
part of the structural landscape-combination and water system typical and fundamental to the
city area. The missing issue directly connected to the afore mentioned is the question of the
Iidesjärvi area as part of the green that is supposed to serve as recreation and quality of
living for a larger area: this was not taken up in the official planning process, but should have
been. This structural role of green was taken up in the report on green areas, but it did not
influence the municipal plan. Several interviewees, also planners involved with the municipal
plan comment on this. More specific green issues concern the lake as a national birdwater
and how any kind of building has affected or would affect its quality.

C2       Practical planning problem

The practical planning problem of the Iidesjärvi case at the municipal plan stage was to make
a densification program, and at the local plan stage to implement the densification program.


                                                        77
C3     Methodology of the case study

In the first stage we (Olli Maijala) talked with the city representatives: planners from
Municipal Planning Unit Pekka Harstila and Ritva Kangasniemi; a planner from Local
Planning Unit Sakari Leinonen; and the city communications director (who created the
planning game) Jari Seppälä. Then we considered the possible cases and chose Iidesjärvi
because of the new tool. We got all the official documents of the case, and also a sample of
discussion in internet, including material on the planning game. On the basis of these Olli
Maijala wrote the first storyline.

Next we (Taina Rajanti) wrote a work-plan, tentatively identifying also the actors to interview.
The following actors were interviewed:
   - planners of the Municipal Planning (MP) Unit Kati Kivimäki and Ritva Kangasniemi,
        who did the work for the municipal plan
   - head of the MP Unit Topi Hankonen who managed the work for the municipal plan
        and has had a strong say on the line taken by the planners
   - planner of the Local Planning (LP) Unit Sakari Leinonen who did the work for the local
        plan
   - head of the Tampere Environmental Protection Department (EDP) Harri Kallio who
        participated in the planning process in the Environmental Committee overseeing
        environmental values
   - lawyer of the Ministry of Environment Tuula Lunden who drew up the statement of the
        Ministry where the Nekalanranta lot was not ratified
   - member of the City Council for the Green Party and secretary of Association for
        Nature Conservation Harri Helin who made the appeal about the lakeshore lot
        designated for a school-building and was active for conservation of the lake
   - president of the local Residents’ Club Pentti Siitonen (M.Sc. in Technology,
        professional planner and lecturer at the University of Tampere) who drew up the
        statements for the Club and was active in meetings.

We have not interviewed all possible actors, but a representative of all the main actors.
Interviews were done without taping. During interviews we tried to let every interviewee
introduce the issues and angles that he felt fundamental, checking that all items in the Matrix
were discussed.

We have not found basis for making a group-interview, as the planning process is interrupted
and the planners have no interest to organise anything at this stage.


C 4 Analysis
4.1    Case

As we had expected, the storylines of the different actors differ clearly. Different actors see
the case from very different perspectives, which stem from the different practices through
which they are connected to the case. The stories differ also according to the field of action
the actors identify themselves with, and the main issue they see in the case and
consequently the meaning the action has for them. Some actors seem to be talking of a
different case altogether.

Most of the actors interviewed see the case from a professional perspective. For
professionals the meaning of action in this case as in any other is to do their job well, “to find
alternatives and propose good”. Some professionals think this “good” is presupposed in their



                                                78
work and it is sufficient to perform the tasks according to professional requirements: “when I
get this task I do it”. For them the professional is not making active choices or decisions, he
has no issues at stake; in fact the professional is not really “acting”, but only performing.
They refrain from any judgements or criticisms, containing their stories to a list of facts within
the official process, coinciding with the initial storyline.

For some the “good” is achieved through active choices in their work, and their stories stress
a critical view of the case. Their common criticism is that planning proceeds from the
interests of a small group, and choices and policies are based on arbitrary reasons without
argumentation. This way of proceeding with planning is seen to be typical to Tampere,
“Tampere has such weird modus operandi”; and the Iidesjärvi case is a typical case of this
“old planning culture”.

The city has no firm policy about lakeshores, which have been neglected. First Iidesjärvi was
classified as important green area and plans were commissioned for improving it; but then
“was expressed the opinion” that it should not be all green, and the area “was given as a
housing area”. The starting point for planning lake Iidesjärvi should have been that it is
“green area for the whole environment, that we should examine if there are sufficient green
areas within the whole area”, instead of “staring at the precise spot”. This opinion is
expressed also by the representative of the users, who is a professional planner himself:
“land-use and alternatives of land-use were really not considered … dubious craftmanship”.

As is typical to Tampere, there was no “commitment to the municipal plan”, “strategies are
only on paper”. “There comes the fellow” who has some land and who “wants a permit for
building volume”, and then the planner has to start planning for a specific building volume.
The planners are given “densities and square metres (kerrosalat ja neliömetrit)”, and “the
interests of some developers” go before the principles of the municipal plan. Environment
protection is now universally “being stressed, at least in words” in the city’s strategies and
documents. It has been “wrung into management … officially part of all preparation and
motivation of decision-making”. “Structures are beginning to be ok … but when will individual
people and leaders commit themselves?”

The head of MP Unit Topi Hankonen focuses on the conflict between “us in Tampere” and
the Ministry of Environment. His story is divided between a matter of fact exposition of the
main stages of any official planning process, and a vivid description of the strategic factors of
the conflict over the municipal plan in this case. Hankonen speaks of the case and of
planning in terms of adversaries and strategic moves. It is “us” against the Ministry: the
Ministry asks for all the documents and we give them “this huge pile of paper”; the Ministry
refuses to ratify but doesn’t realise this just means “planless situation” ; the Ministry makes
its decision and “we” make an appeal to show them that “what damn business is it of yours!”

In principle Hankonen is not at all against the Ministry for making its own decisions or
decisions contrary to what he/”us in Tampere” would want. The Ministry “looks after public
property, as it rightfully should, the jingle of money sounds all the while we draw a line”. In
practice Hankonen is against the decision of the Ministry, which messes up the densification
program: “what damn business is it of yours”. Hankonen speaks of planning as it were a
game. The game has rules, which regulate the positions and moves of all the participants.
The Ministry is an adversary: according to the rules it has every right to look after its
interests, and according to the rules we have every right to look after our interests. The main
stake in this conflict is the densification program; the ultimate stake in the planning game
power and money.

The environmental activist and Green politician Harri Helin tells a completely different story of
a different case altogether. He starts with the foundation of the regional Nature Conservation
association in 1969 and its programs. “For once”, he says “ we have been active in time –


                                                79
normally nature conservation arrives behind, to defend when something horrible is about to
be done. Iidesjärvi has been (on our agenda), we have realised its bird value, but it has not
been appreciated (by the decision makers)”. Helin’s story is basically a story of the
conservation process of the lake, not of the planning. Planning appears only as an adversary
of conservation.

Speaking of the planning process he focuses on the lot appointed to the Steiner-school at the
eastern end of the lake, not being specifically interested in the Nekalanranta lot. The school
had been looking for a place for ten years, “they ran about the City Council, wrote and
painted and sung too, to get their lodgings”. It was also an issue within the Green party, as
many have their kids in the school: “we discussed it, I said if we support this decision then
the Green were born in lake Koijärvi and died in lake Iidesjärvi … doesn’t much help if you
build a house on a bird’s nest and then think kindly of it inside”. Helin called people,
discussed the case, wrote on the issue, and it was he who made the official appeal.

When the decision of the Ministry arrived Helin took part in putting pressure on the city to find
another place for the school. According to Helin “the city has been leading them on a merry
go round absolutely indecently”. The school keeps asking for a place for ten years and in the
end they give it a lot in a conservation area. When the Ministry does not ratify this, they
suggest another lot – on another of the disputed areas not ratified by the Ministry. And when
real political pressure is finally organised, within a month a place is found, “on the other side
of the road”. “I think it’s gross horse-play, put it down: clear case of fucking with the citizens.”
According to the city the school has for ten years been refusing all lots offered to it.

The user representative Pentti Siitonen speaks from the mixed position of a user stakeholder
and professional planner. He has been active in the Residents’ Club for years, engaging his
professional expertise for safeguarding the interests of the residents on previous occasions.
He noticed the alternatives for local plans on internet and started to “figure out what the plans
would mean in reality”. The Club organised a meeting to discuss the future of the area,
inviting political representatives and planners. His arguments and his story are formulated in
professional language, which according to him is also the only way to be “taken seriously by
municipal officials”. For him the process is “an awful example of a mishandled planning
procedure”, and “the lakeshores of Iidesjärvi are a common issue”. Yet his interest in the
plans was roused when “walking my dog on the path by the lake I realised that a corner of a
house (in the alternatives for a local plan) would lay straight on the path … right now its
under water like every spring”: from a mixture of his professional expertise and his daily
practices as a resident.

4.2      Actors and actants

Actors

All those interviewed have been asked to identify the actors of the process. Most actors
agree more or less with our initial list (see Methodology) when naming actors, but some
answers show interesting differences.

We began by interviewing planners. The MP planners described a kind of tripartite scheme of
actors in any planning process:
    1. The most important actors are the decision makers. This refers to political decision-
        making, City Board and Council, and the Committee (lautakunta); but also to the
        higher planning and maintenance officials. The decision makers “hand down the
        frames for planning”, and make the final decisions after planners have done their job.
    2. Then there is “we”, “us planners”, whose “task is to find choices and propose good”.
        Into this category enter also other professionals engaged in the planning process,
        environment protection officials, biologists etc.


                                                80
    3. The general public, the stakeholders, people, users, make the third foundation pillar.

Most professionals name actors in the case similarly. However there are some significant
differences also.

All the professionals stress the importance of decision-makers, whom they also name first,
except the head of MP Topi Hankonen who does not name them at all. The decision-makers
give the basis and frames for planning, within which the planners must do their work. For the
planners this is both the necessary structure of planning, but also cause for possible
misunderstandings: especially “people”, the general public or users think that it is the
planners who make decisions and are responsible for how areas are defined or what
alternatives are chosen or how the building in the end is realised: “the planner gives his/her
name and face to the plan”. The planners in fact think it is more problematic to involve the
decision-makers in a process, than users and stakeholders.

The most influential decision maker is “a small group that makes decisions”. The planners
make only indirect references without specifying these actors. The head of EDP Harri Kallio
points to a similar phenomenon by identifying as the most important actor in the case as “the
old planning culture, the way of handling things”. He goes on to define “the head of the
Planning Department (kaavajohtaja) and the deputy mayor in charge of planning”, adding as
an afterthought “the city as landowner”. The political and environmental activist Harri Helin
and the user representative Pentti Siitonen do not name decision-makers as actors, but Helin
discusses at length and with names precisely his version of “the small group” of the “old
planning culture”.

All interviewees except Helin name the planners as actors. In fact even indirectly Helin
speaks very little of the actual planners, and he explicitly has little trust in their influence. For
Helin the significant decisions are made elsewhere, by political decision-makers, by
pressure-groups, by developers and their money. Also Kallio says after naming the old
planning culture and its top representatives that “others have just followed after”.

At present planners are not the only professional public officials engaged in a planning
process, and planners talk about other professionals in connection with the actors in the
process. The planners from the MP unit stress the present role of Regional Environment
Centres, which they think “have assumed the role of supervisors”, and which are responsible
for the rising number of research and surveys that are required in a planning process.

The LP planner names the Ministry and the Highest Administrative Court as actors in the
case. Indirectly also the other interviewees discuss the Ministry and its role, which
undoubtedly is decisive in this specific case, but they do not name it as an actor – not even
the Ministry official.

All interviewees name some kind of user or interest groups as actors in the process. The
two MP planners saw them as the third pillar stone. Kallio seems to agree, as after the “old
planning culture” and “others who just follow” he adds: “more and more citizens and interest
groups are luckily becoming more important”. The other professionals define the user actors
more specifically with regard to those active in this case: Hankonen names Helin and the
president of the residents’ club, Leinonen speaks of those who attended the public meetings,
and the Ministry official names the representatives of the Steiner School.

Most interviewees have a positive view about active users, people, citizens, or interest
groups. Also the planners see active users as a resource for doing better planning.
Interaction is “hard” and takes time, the planners feel they do not always have proper
education or abilities for handling interaction, but “from the stakeholders you can get



                                                 81
information you wouldn’t otherwise have”. Leinonen thinks it is good that “different things
have their spokesmen, then they have to be taken into account”.

Hankonen has a double view of active users. On one hand he cites the Finnish Constitution,
“that’s where it comes from”: what is planning if not “man’s right to influence his
environment”. He also refers to the traditional municipal autonomy of Nordic society, that
gives the stakeholders a say in planning. On the other hand he thinks that “the only thing that
arouses people’s passion is what they see from their living room window”. The stakeholders’
task in planning is “to observe, pass opinions to us … and our opinions to others … listen
and understand, that’s also a kind of participation, no? … “But they think they ought to be
allowed to plan!”

Consistently with seeing the case as the case of conservation of the lake Helin names as
most important actors in the case the users and interest groups: the local organisation and
activists for nature conservation, “the birdmen” i.e. the birdwatchers, and the people from
Steiner School. Similarly the user representative Siitonen names first the Residents’ Club
and then the “bird club or something” interested in the lake, but unlike Helin, Siitonen names
also “municipal officials”, i.e. planners, who “presented their drafts”.

Besides the named actors, the interviewees bring up actors in their expressions. An
interesting feature is the use of passive mode. “The small group of decision-makers”
mentioned by planners figures in passive, and the frames for Iidesjärvi seem indeed to have
been “handed down from above”, as the area is first green but “then was expressed the
opinion” and “it was given as housing area”, with no reference as to according to whose
opinion and by whom it was made into a housing area. Also Helin speaks of “them”, referring
to the city and its officials as an adversary and representatives of local planning culture. This
way of speaking in passive might of course only stem from reluctance to name certain people
and commit oneself, but for instance Helin also puts clear names on his adversaries. It
seems to refer more to the way these “them” are conceived to be beyond reach so that they
cannot be communicated or argued with, nor singled out as deliberate actors doing
deliberate actions. This is a very common way of conceiving power and those in power as
something impersonal and beyond reach.

The Ministry official uses the passive mode throughout her interview. In her story the action
rolls out by itself: “It was considered … an appeal had been made … it was intervened … it
has had to be seen that … it was not stated unconditionally … there has not been that here”.
The Finnish language gives good opportunity for these kind of neutral expressions, and it can
be done even without using a passive subject like “one” or “it”. Besides cultural customs, this
must stem from the essence of professional neutrality. A professional public official does not
see himself making choices or acting, but performing actions or letting actions happen for the
general good. Things happen and are not made or done. I have to ask several times before I
get the explicit expression: “I wrote the statement”, which was then presented for the Minister
and sent to the city as the standpoint of the Ministry.

Actants

Actants are things or people to whom the actors refer to in their speech acting as their
spokesmen. We shall later discuss the actant green in 4.5. Here the focus is on actant users
or stakeholders.

Planners and other public professionals engaged in planning are by definition acting as
spokesmen for public good and the good of users. It is their job. Structurally users have
predominantly had the position of an actant in a planning process, with only limited ways and
occasions for expressing their opinions and influencing the process. At present the new Land
Use and Building Act has wrought a change in this actant role of the users. The municipal


                                               82
plan was carried out under the old Act, the local plan under the new one, but all professionals
discuss the Act at length in their interviews.

The double view Hankonen has of users as actors in a planning process represents well the
traditional conception of the relation between planners and users. In principle the
participation of the users is unquestionable and fundamental to planning; yet when the users
start being active in an actual planning process they have completely mistaken their position:
“but they think they ought to be allowed to plan!” The action of the users should be restricted
to “listening and understanding” the work done by professional planners.

The concepts of actor and actant can be used to resolve this contradiction. In this traditional
view the “good” user is an actant, with no voice of his/her own, represented by the planner
who acts as his/her spokesman. Instead the user who changes from actant to actor interferes
with something he/she by definition has no ability to cope with. From the perspective of
planners, planning needs to be attended to by professionals with professional education and
knowledge. The role of users has traditionally been well defined and limited. Users as actors
in this process transgress the limits and break up the definitions, influencing the position of
other actors, especially the position of planners, and changing the whole process.

The planners feel the changing role of the users means more and heavy work for them, but
they think that active users are a positive trend: “it is good that different things have their
spokesmen, then they have to be taken into account. Active users can give voice to interests
and opinions that would have no weight coming from one planner, and active users can bring
their place-related practical knowledge to the planning process.

4.3      Tools

Different actors mention different tools. The planners discuss the tools in use in a normal
planning process, and as the planning department is divided into the Municipal and the Local
Planning Units, planners from either unit focus naturally on their proper level.The tools can
be listed as follows:

      1.a. Municipal plan
      1.b. the tools used used during the planning process:
      - report on green area network:
      - densification program including the block model
      - other reports
      - public meetings

      2.a. Local plan
      2.b. the tools used during the planning process
      - the planning game
      - public meetings
      - alternatives by consultants
      - reports

The municipal plan and the local plan and the various reports, programs and alternative
drafts, and the public meetings are the basic tools in action for the planners. The public
meetings are the traditional tools for interaction. The plans have a main agency for the
planners as a body of public officials whose responsibility and task the preparation of the
plan is. The planning process has also an agency for different specialists from whom the
planners may commission a report; but these specialists enter the process only when invited
by the planners, and it is up to the planners to decide how their contributions are used. They
have no autonomous role in the planning process.



                                               83
Even if the planners think some of the work required at present for a municipal plan could be
done at another stage, they still stress the importance of a municipal plan as a strategic
document. They think problems arise not so much because of the plans as because the
plans are not adhered to. This is precisely a trait of the local planning culture. “It always
possible to deviate from the municipal plan.”

The stakeholders (users) have not had an autonomous agency in the planning process.
According to the old Building Act which was observed during the municipal planning process,
at a certain stage of the process the outlines and then the proposals had to be made
available to the public who could then comment or make an official appeal about them. The
planners could not decide whether to invite the public or not, but what and especially how
plans were presented, and to a great extent what was done about the comments depended
on the planners, and on the political decision-makers.

During the planning proper the planners have the main agency, professional responsibility
and control over the planning process. The planning process has however two other
important stages, the way the plan is “framed” before the planning begins, and the way the
plan is realised after it is completed. Here the planners have much less influence, and the
main agency belongs at the first stage to political decision makers, at the second to decision
makers and developers. This is discussed from various aspects by the interviewees. The
discussion concerns planning in general, not the specific case.

The interviewees are not satisfied with the present relation between planning and
developers. They think the work of the planners does not sufficiently direct the developers, to
the contrary: “the wishes of certain developers are followed” instead of “committing to the
municipal plan and its goals”. Helin has a very sarcastic view of the role of the developer.
“There’s this thing, it’s called money … no matter what it says in a plan or is drawn there …
there’s no way, they say, to ensure that the builder is going to adhere to them”. The demands
of quality made in the plan “cost like hell – concrete is cheaper so far”. The planners also
discuss the problematic role of political decision makers in a planning process (see chapters
on Actors and Communication).

The report on green area network was carried out by planners and consultants from other
municipal offices between 1987 – 1994. Its goal was to locate those green areas that should
be conserved green, and it consists of a survey of soil, topography, watersystems, climate,
vegetation, landscape; and presents a typology for urban green areas. It was intended for
use in further planning and resulted in the green area network that was the other document
of the final municipal plan. It should be noted that simultaneously the Environment Protection
Department commissioned a report on green areas from The Environment Protection
Association, which was based on a survey made with 200 interest groups, kindergartens,
schools and residents’ clubs. This report was also finished in 1994 and its main goal was to
find out how the citizens experience the meaning of green areas. This report was not used by
the Planning Department.

The densification program is a plan that shows the lots that can be used for infill-building,
for the use of local planning. The program included a “block model” made by Hankonen,
which presents a dozen different types of blocks, varying between high-rise and low-rise,
apartment houses and one-family housing, according to efficiency and density. The lots
designated for densification were also appointed a specific type of block, so that “decision
makers should know what they are deciding about”, and that “people whose territory we
mess with know what’s coming”. The block model was thus also meant as a tool for
interaction, for informing decision-makers and stakeholders.

The urban planning game on the city’s webpages was a new tool first tried in the process of
local planning of our case. The city has been developing interaction through internet, and the


                                              84
city communications director Jari Seppälä designed this game on his own initiative. The
game was about putting 1800 new inhabitants in the Viinikka – Nekala area on a dozen
appointed lots, and it was intended to inform the citizens about the densification program.




Figure. The planning game in the internet.

The planning game is a new tool for interaction since the players of the game were both
informed about densification, and could send in their proposals and comments. The game
also gives its players an insight into planning from the point of view of the planner. The
players were presented with a map and a choice of lots for densification in the area, and a
number of inhabitants to put in the lots. The lots and the number of new inhabitants was
fixed, the players could not make their own decisions or proposals. It was also completely up
to the planners what to do with the proposals the players sent in.

In the last analysis the planning game gave the users just the same agency in the process as
do the formal public meetings. What is different is the form of interaction: instead of sitting in
a room with several people one is alone or anyway by oneself in one’s home. Instead of
putting up a hand and standing up and speaking aloud in front of other people one can make
one’s comments anonymously. Instead of attending a meeting at a fixed point in time and
space, one can do it when one has time. The interaction is probably more accessible to more
people, especially young people who normally don’t attend public meetings. The playing
game is a mode of interaction through internet, a resource of interaction, and has a wider or
different reach and range than do public meetings, but as such it doesn’t affect the planning
process and its agencies.

We criticised the game for its indocrinative character to Jari Seppälä (original storyline of the
case) as the players were put in the position of the planner and induced to think like the
planner, to see the densification as their task without questioning the basic choices. Seppälä
took the feed-back positively, and the game has been modified. It is being used now to
introduce the densification in another area, and now it is possible also to put in less
inhabitants or none at all, the players are provided with photographs of the lots, they are
asked to comment on what the area should look like in 20 years, what services will be
needed, how traffic should be organised and how parks and public areas should be


                                               85
conserved. Information and interaction, not indoctrination was clearly the goal of the game. In
future it could be developed to giving an agency for participant stakeholders. Much depends
on the use that is made of the proposals and comments.

The LP planner had followed the Viinikka - Nekala game and the response it got. He felt the
feed-back justified densification, since most who had sent in their proposal had put
inhabitants on the lakeshore. He also thought it was a good way of informing people about
densification and planning. He was however the only one of the actors who attached any
importance to the game in the planning process. The MP planners, Hankonen and Helin had
heard of it, but had not looked it up. Hankonen thought it was for killing time, “the most eager
ones have a let-off for their yarning to plan … a mode of participation”. The game “has not
been any trouble”, but it has not been any use either, “it hasn’t moved the line a bit”. Siitonen
had looked it up but did not send in his proposal, as he thought there were no real
alternatives from which to choose.

There are also tools for other actors. Negotiating, discussing and influencing people
seem to be the decisive tools in action and for interaction in political struggle, and Helin feels
they are much more effective than a plan as such. Helin mentions discussions within his
group and negotiations between different groups. He calls people and talks with them to
convince them. He also sends his opinions to newspapers and especially to various local
internet chats.

An interesting feature is that this discussion is connected to “knowing”. This knowing is a
very significant mode of action for Helin. He says often “don’t put this down” or “I shouldn’t
know this” or “I know this/him/her because …”. Knowing things and people is power, it is a
tool in the struggle. Knowing things is also a tie between people, knowing about something
means that you belong to a group, and giving knowledge to somebody means involving or
inviting him into the group. In the discussions it is vital to “know”, to know what the others
think and have decided or want, and to know influential persons or other key-figures.

Also the interest group of the Steiner School used tools to attract attention and sympathy for
their cause. They organised performances, “wrote and painted and sung”, and spoke with
influential people.

The users through their organisation organised a meeting with decision makers and
planners. They too participated in discussions, through written statements signed by the
club, and through individual interventions. The users used both their professional knowledge,
and their practical experience. It was Siitonen who combined his professional understanding
of maps and plans with his practical experience of the shoreline who caused the planners to
check the actual shoreline.

4.4     Communication

Studied links between the groups

We include the informal and unofficial links mentioned by the interviewees. The map of
communication situations is not meant to represent the complete truth about communication
situations in the case, but it is a sum of all the communication referred to by the interviewees
and studied during this research case.




                                                86
                                                             Reports




                                                                              Green area
                                                         Sector               network report
                  Decision to                            experts
                  ratify/not

                                                                              MP
                                                                              head

                        Ministry
                                                                                 Planners          1. Municipal
                                                                                                      plan
  Decision                                                                                         2. Local plan
  approve
  MP and LP             Decision
  appeal                makers
                                                                                     Users


                                Politicians
                                                                                                  Resident
                                                   Nature                                         Club
                                                   conservat           Steiner
                                                   icon                school


        Actors                                Programs,                                      Statement
                                              appeal of MP                                   about local
                                                                 Happenings                  plan
        Explicit expressions

        Formal and official

        Informal and unofficial

        Informal and official


Figure. The map of communication situations in the Iidesjärvi case.

    1. Planners and sector experts

All of this communication is formal and official. Planners commission research or draft
designs, which have been decided on formally to be included in the planning process. The
sector experts produce their reports and send them to the planners.

Some of the sector experts are employed within the planning department, as the biologist.
Some are employed by the city in other departments, as environment protection department
or technical department. Some are private consultants, like the firm that drew the draft
designs. The Green network report was a joint project of planners from the planning
department and official from the Park department (maintenance).

For the Municipal Plan process there was made a comprehensive report of the green areas.
The work was begun in 1987 and finished in 1994. There was the plan by the landscape
architect. There were also made three separate environmental reports concerning three
different fringe areas. There was an extensive report on municipal economy completed in
1994, in which partook several city departments; this was used in the strategic decision
between expansion and densification.

For the Local Plan process there were made various smaller reports, on the soil, the state of
the shoreline etc. The LP unit commissioned and prepared together with a private Architect
Studio three alternative draft designs. The planning game was designed by the
communications director of the city, on his own initiative.




                                                                       87
   2. Planners and decision-makers

It is important to point out here that the head of Planning Department, and likewise the head
of the Environment Protection Department are both members of the Environmental
Committee of the city, which is a body of municipal decision-making, representing their
departments. The other members of this committee are chosen according to political
divisions, but most of them are sc. lay-members. This committee considers all the matters
concerning planning and environment before they are put to the City Board or Council.

2.a) Formal and official communication

Planners send drafts and proposals of plans to the decision makers. These go first to the
Committee, then the City Board, and finally to the City Council. These bodies of political
decision-making discuss the plans, comment on them, make suggestions, reject things or
approve. While the process is going on, they then send the plans and comments back to the
planners. The stages of these instances of communication are fixed by the law.

This link is felt to be problematic by the planners. They feel that they have no real link to the
decision-makers. The decision-makers are the most important actor of a planning process,
but they are not engaged in reciprocal communication. Decision-makers “hand down the
frames”, and make the final decisions “disregarding discussions and joint policies”. “Where’s
the gap in the flow of information?”

The felt gap between planners and decision-makers is doubly problematic because it leads
to lack of confidence between stakeholders and planners. Users see planners as responsible
for the realisation of plans, “we have negotiated and reconciled, the planner gives his name
and face to the plan”, and if the result is not the one agreed to by stakeholders, they blame
the planners. The planners feel the decision-makers ought to be committed to the plans, and
involved in the communication process.

2.b) Informal and unofficial communication

Several interviewees speak also of informal links and communication between planning and
decision-makers. This is very typical of municipal politics, where public and private
necessarily mix. It is also very natural in the circumstances where the head of the Planning
Department is a member of the Environmental Committee.

These links are also criticised because it is felt that important issues get decided behind the
scenes, outside public discussion. This communication and these relations are based on
political affiliation, belonging to same the party or coalition. Helin describes vividly and
expertly various instances of this kind of communication. It is based on the strategic
“knowing”. This informal and unofficial communication is shared only by those who “know”. It
is impossible to be included in it except by invitation.

It is evident that these exclusive informal connections and communication cannot fill the gap
the planners feel there is in the communication process between decision-makers.

   3. Planners and users

3.a) Formal and official

The basic mode of communication under the old Act was for planners to organise public
meetings, which the users attended. These meetings were established by law, and were thus
of formal and official nature. The initiative comes always from the planners. In the MP
process there were held two of these meetings, at the appropriate stages of the process. The


                                               88
new Act which concerned the LP process requires a “plan for participation and evaluation” to
be made, and establishes the right of stakeholders to have an impact on plans which
concern their environment.

In the LP process there was a plan for participation which in a very traditional way listed
three stages, where different versions of the plan would be available to the public, and two
public “hearings” would be organised. The first meeting was held 27.4.2000 after the initial
documents had been available to the public. 42 people attended; 11 comments were written
down; 4 of these concerned the quality of building and the general feeling was for low-rise
and spaciousness. 3 comments spoke for services. 2 comments were about calming the
traffic. 1 comment was for the natural values of the lake.

The second meeting was held 5.10.2000 after three draft designs had been available to the
public. 120 people attended. This time there had been delivered notices about the meeting to
all inhabitants. There were 20 passionate comments for the natural values. 25 comments
were about building, again wishing for spaciousness and accordance with the environment.
The draft designs were thought to be too alike and too heavy. 14 comments were about
services. 11 comments were made about the dump, and the planner got precious information
about the scale of the dump from people who had long experience about the area; and the
comment from Siitonen about the real situation of the shore-line. 86 signed the list of
participants and of those 70 were against building.

The planning game was considered a mode of exchanging information by the planners. It
was not directed especially to the people living in the area, and most of the respondents
were not living there. The initiative came from the municipal officials. The frames of the game
were set rather tightly in favour of densification, and the majority of people who sent in their
propositions suggested building in the area. There was also the possibility to send in
comments. These contain both those strongly in favour of building and against it.

3.b) informal and official

The Residents’ Club organised a meeting about the future of the area, where they invited
political decision makers and planners. They also handed a written statement about points to
be considered in planning, which stresses the need to consider the lake as a whole as an
important recreation area and as an important bird-water.

Siitonen thinks interaction with planners has two problems. Firstly “no soft participation is of
help … no ordinary person can do it”. To be heard one has to use resources, study the
matter, make a careful written statement with undeniable arguments. “It’s an excessive
demand to make on people – I’m a professional and even I don’t always have the time or the
strength after day’s work.” Secondly the interaction ends when the situation is over, there is
no continuity.

The map of communication situations shows clearly that the users are a rather isolated group
in a planning process, unless members of a group. In a normal process they have their say
only at specific instances, invited by the planners, communicating with the planners only. At
present the users seem to be without a voice of their own in the process, as they only
communicate with planners and elsewhere are represented by planners who act as their
spokesmen. So despite the new Building Act and communicative planning users seem in this
case to be only actants, not real actors – unless they become members of an interest group.




                                               89
   4. Decision-makers and Ministry

4.a) Formal and official

After having approved the plan received from the planners, the City Council sent it to the
Ministry to be ratified. The decision was made 27.5.1998.

The Ministry examined the plan and made sure it was in accordance with other effective
plans and decisions. After this the Ministry made its decision to ratify the plan, with some
exceptions, one of which concerned the Iidesjärvi lakeshore lots. The Ministry published the
document on its decision, including the grounds for the negative decision to the city
12.12.2000.

After receiving the decision, the city decided to make an appeal. This was sent to the Highest
Administrative Court KHO, where the decision is still hanging.

All of this communication was official and formal to the highest degree. In fact we could have
included the KHO as an actor, since it will make a decision that will have an impact, but there
has been no communication on this matter whatsoever. Most interviewees think it is unlikely
that KHO would change the decision of the Ministry, but only Helin is willing to bet on it.

4.b) Informal and official

Only Helin speaks explicitly about negotiations made between the city, planners, EPD and
the Ministry. The Ministry official too answers when asked, that they have been speaking
about some issues, on a general level, with “the city” about the plan: “in that sense didn’t
come as a surprise (the Ministry’s decision), it had been intervened in discussions … on
general lines …”. The Ministry official assures though that “the procedures here are written
and based on written material”. She wants to stress that even though there may be informal
discussions and negotiations, the formal decisions are based on formal and public written
documents.

In the future the new Land Use and Building Act ought to result in more discussions, which
too would be official, in the sense that they are based on legal rules which regulate who must
be included, but informal in the sense that there are no established rules about how matters
should be taken up or when. In the future the municipalities shall not be sending plans to be
ratified by the Ministry; instead the municipal bodies must find an agreement with the
Regional Environment Centres, and stakeholders.

   5. Interest groups and decision-makers

5.a) Formal/informal and official

As Helin tells, the Nature Conservation Association has had Iidesjärvi in its programs since
1969. These programs are public documents, as are the other programs involving the lake.
From time to time there has been public discussion in the media about the lake.

Helin also made the appeal about the lot assigned for the Steiner School at the eastern end
of the lake, on area marked for conservation. He signed this as the secretary of NAC. The
appeal is a very official document that has to be made according to strict rules; among other
things one has to acquire an officially certified abstract from the documents costing 40 euros.
The city received the appeal, and sent it to the Ministry along with the approved municipal
plan. By law an official decision has to be made of an official appeal so the maker gets a
written official statement.



                                              90
Several interviewees tell about the ways the Steiner School representatives “lobbed” for a lot
for a new school building: “ran about the City Council, wrote and painted and sung”. Their
actions were aimed both at the decision-makers, to impress and influence them, and at the
general public, to get their support. Their communication cannot be called formal, but the
degree of publicity makes it official even if it is rather informal. This kind of action had been
going on “for years”. The Steiner School can be considered to have received an answer as
they got the lot they asked for.

5.b) Informal and unofficial

This is again about the discussion and negotiations based on “knowing”: knowing influential
or key-figures and having essential information about situations and opinions of others. All
communication and interaction is in a way the field of action proper to Helin, who in this case
represents the interest group of environmental activists and a political party. Also official
meetings and complaints and programs are important, but the informal discussions are
decisive.

To sum up we can say that users and stakeholders have better chances of influencing a
planning process if they form an interest group or use their connections with interest groups.
Interest groups have more weight and are more readily accepted as actors in a process,
even if their opinions might be contested. In the new Act they have an official position as
stakeholders, as they have a right to be heard in matters belonging to their field of activities.

4.5    Growth and green

Both the conservation of the lake and the densification are based on sustainable reasons.
The conservation is based on the lake as a national bird-water, a unique and valuable natural
environment of national value. The densification is chosen also as a more sustainable
strategy, not having to expand the built environment, using existing infrastructure, favouring
public transport. Specifically at Iidesjärvi it is considered that densification will help to calm
down the traffic and the infill building is even said to act as a noise-barrier between the
conservation area and traffic.

Either sustainable values have become the general point of departure for all planning; or they
have become politically correct arguments everybody has to use. In any case we can see
that what is sustainable in a given situation is not evident. Contradictory opinions can be
justified by sustainable arguments.

The only one who does not bother with arguments of sustainability is Hankonen. For him the
natural value of the lake is that it is “a lake area in the middle of the city, next to the centre,
why wouldn’t that be valuable”. The value of the nature is the value it adds to the value of the
land.

Most of the interviewees stress that Iidesjärvi is a national bird-water. The Ministry official
refers to accurate scientific terms such as “nesting” and “a site for resting for the migrant
birds”. Helin of course gives an even more detailed definition of the natural value, rating the
lake 8- as a bird-water, listing the rare birds that are there and those that have been lost, and
8,5 for the plants, which gives it a strong 8 media and makes it many-sided as a nature
object. The LP planner states that the area is classified in a definite way and has thus a
definite natural value. For most the natural value is thus seen in scientific terms.

The MP planner Ritva Kangasniemi presents the development of reaction of the public to
green issues
   - 92 the point of departure is the area where one lives, and the focus is on plants
   - 96 the point of departure is the own area and focus on plants and small creatures


                                                91
   -   98 the own area, plants, small creatures plus a need to participate
   -   now the reactions question in addition whether the research made of the area is
       sufficient and satisfy the law.

The public seems thus to have kept up with the development of the legislation in their modes
of conceiving and speaking about green issues. The legislation is an effective mode of
teaching how green issues should be conceived and argued convincingly. And legislation
seems to favour natural science definitions, conceive the lake as species or as an ecological
system classified in a specific way.

The actant green is spoken of in terms of natural science, as a separate object from human
culture, and in opposition to human culture, not through definitions based on cultural reasons
or identity and affections. That one likes the lake or that it is beautiful are not convincing as
arguments, instead referring to a species of birds or plants and inquiring whether the
conditions of such species have been examined sufficiently are arguments that can carry
weight within a process. Important tools are natural scientific researches that establish the
value of the green. In the process the “spokesmen” of definite objects carry weight, and the
spokesmen of green must find such objects to back their arguments.

The MP planners have a slightly different way of conceiving natural values. They think that
the fundamental thing is to look at green areas within larger planning areas, to satisfy the
needs of inhabitants to have access to green. They see the most important natural value of
Iidesjärvi as “green area for the whole environment” and “structural element of the
landscape”. They think of its value in terms of a municipal plan, urban structures, which is
also their professional perspective and practice. Also Siitonen stresses this perspective,
which also for him is a professional way of looking at urban green.

The EPD head has a similar perspective. He does not speak of certain species or scientific
classifications, nor of green, or of nature, but of the environment. His focus is not on green or
nature as opposed to human culture or urban, but on the dimension that is in common to
nature and culture, the common good of both. He does not see himself as a spokesman of
an Other, but as a spokesman of a whole that ought to be managed instead of “nibbling it
away”. Good environment is not a separate area but a common good underlying everything,
and it can be achieved only by regarding whole structures instead of “too small stamps”.

Helin is very fluent with the natural science terminology. He doesn’t bother to speak for the
users at all, from his expressions it would seem that what is good for the nature or
environment is obviously good for human beings too, or should be. Interesting here is his
perspective, where the case is about the conservation process and the instigators and main
actors are the environmental activists. The opponents of green are not active but passive,
their actions are not about green or against green but about power.

Helin has no personal relation with the lake, and admits that “I’m not in to it, I’m no birdman”.
Kallio is the only professional who does have a personal relation with the lake, and he
confesses himself to be “a birdman”. Siitonen has a personal relation based on everyday
experience and usage of the lake for walking the dog or skiing. Helin speaks also of another
planning case, where he is involved because his cottage is close to a disputed fringe area.
Here he “knows those divers (a species of water birds) personally”, and speaks of the view
that opens from the steps of his sauna, of what he does there. He’s defending his friends the
divers and a shared experience, not speaking for an impersonal nature or environment in
scientific terms.

The arguments for actant green can differ. They can be based on a scientific view of nature,
or on some other professional perspective. They can also be based on companionship, on



                                               92
shared experience, dwelling together. In the last instance green is not anonymous or an
object, but a being with a face and personality.


5. Assessment of tools
The tools we shall assess here are the municipal and local plans, the green area network
and the densification program, and the planning game.

5.1    Social criteria

The case offers neither unusual instances of empowerment and inclusion nor extreme
instances of exclusion. Yet most of the interviewees are worried about the state of
empowerment of citizens in the present local situation, the “old planning culture”. It is felt that
in the present situation the real decisions get made out of reach by “a small group of
decision-makers”, which tends to exclude even the planners from the crucial stages of a
planning process, not to mention the users. The most extreme critique sees a conscious
policy of disregarding democratic principles.

The block model of the densification program tends to fix the realisation of a plan before it
arrives at the detailed local plan stage, even if this is not declared to be its goal, thus making
it more difficult to discuss options at that level, and is thus not a good tool for upholding
democracy.

The planning game is a way of involving citizens. It is most easily in the range of those who
have a computer and internet at home, but can also be played in public libraries. It can be
seen as a way of reaching users who might not participate in public meetings, and thus
widening the scope of stakeholder participation. On the other hand it was not felt to have
influenced the actual planning.

The tools themselves do not contain definite elements one way or another. For social justice
it is decisive what use is made of the stakeholder participation, whether it is an isolated
instance or taken seriously in planning.

5.2 Communication criteria

The green area network and the densification program as such were not intended for wider
public. On the level of framed interaction they functioned well as instruction and information.

The planning game also functioned well on the level of framed interaction, adding to
instruction and information consultation: promoting intended attention within the range of
both users and planners and creating better access to persons in charge. The game did not
involve open-ended interaction within frames or reframing of interaction.

5.3 Ecological criteria

The green area network results ecological on all three accounts, it is part of the flow
management and includes cycle tracks, it is a decisive structural element in using the
ecological potentialities of the local landscape, and as for commitment, it is one of the sites of
ecological education of the city. The problem in the case is, that the definitions of the original
green area report, essentially a green structure plan, were not adhered to where they
contradicted the interests of the densification program. Commitment to green structure and
priorities of different structures are clearly issues that ought to be considered, unless one is
satisfied with having ecological values on paper only.



                                                93
The densification program is responsible chain management, but it seems that is has not
been made for using the ecological potentialities of the landscape.

5.4 Economic criteria

The micro economic aspect of survival of businesses did not arise in the case. The macro
economic aspect of public funding of green areas was not addressed. The economic carriers
of green areas were not addressed, except in the sense of land value: if the lakeshore is
appointed for infill building, it can be sold with profit. Economic issues were involved in the
intent to densify, as densification is considered to save both expenses and environment.


6      Conclusions and recommendations
The original green area report and the densification program designated the Iidesjärvi
lakeshore areas in a contradictory way. The densification program is the one followed in
further planning. From this we can infer that a green structure plan is only operative if there is
no pressure to build.

The block model of the densification program points out another issue. The block model is
indeed informative, and in this sense interactive. The problem is the one pointed out by the
planners: how much should be decided at municipal plan level, what should be left for the
local plan level. The block model might in fact have come too early in the process to be
informative to stakeholders, as the people “on whose territory” the densification was intended
were not necessarily interested to follow the process. The recommendations of the block
model seems to have been used in a rigid way. It would seem that within the densification
program the binding factor were the densities, the amount of people to be placed, and not
the type of housing fitting in a certain environment.

All this seems to point to priorities effective in actual planning that seem to have more weight
and be more binding than other factors, especially environmental values. As Kallio says,
officially and on paper strategies are based on sustainable values, and environment
protection is part of all decision making, but it is not legally binding. The planners feel that the
“green side” should be better organised, i.e. have a more active and independent official part
in a planning process. The strengthened position of the Regional Environment Centres is a
move in this direction. Kallio asks also for commitment of the individual professionals and
managers, which he sees necessary: “unless one has some idealism, if one just came to
work and enjoyed the pay, many things would be left undone, as one just wouldn’t bother”.



REFERENCES:
The Built Environment in Finland. Land use, housing and building. Ministry of Environment,
1999.

Hankonen, Johanna (1995). Tampellan tapaus ja kaupunkisuunnittelun umpikuja [The Case
of Tampella and the dead end of urban planning]. In: Pasilasta Vuotokselle.
Ympäristökamppailujen uusi aalto. Toim. Ari Lehtinen & Pertti Rannikko. Gaudeamus,
Helsinki.

Ilmonen, Mervi et al. (2000). Rauhaa ja karnevaaleja. Tieto- ja taitoammattilaisten
asumistavoitteet Helsingin seudulla [Peace and carnivals. Housing preferences of new urban



                                                94
professionals in the Helsinki region]. Teknillinen korkeakoulu, Yhdyskuntasuunnittelun
tutkimus- ja koulutuskeskuksen julkaisuja B 78. Espoo.

Korpinen, Pia & Silfverberg, Kari (1999). The State of the Environment in Helsinki. A
summary report. City of Helsinki, Environment Centre, publications 3/99. Helsinki.

Lankinen, Markku & Sairinen, Rauno (2000). Helsinkiläisten ympäristöasenteet vuonna 2000
[Inhabitants´ environmental attitudes in Helsinki in the year 2000]. Helsingin kaupungin
tietokeskus, tutkimuksia 2000:6. Helsinki.

Luonnon virkistyskäyttö 2000 [Outdoor Recreation 2000]. Toim. Tuija Sievänen.
Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja 802, 2001. Vantaa.

Henkilöliikennetutkimus 1998-1999 [Passenger Transport Survey 1998-1999].
Liikenneministeriö, julkaisuja 43/99. Helsinki, 1999.

Reform in the Land Use Planning System. The new land use and building act of Finland.
Ministry of Environment. Helsinki, 2000.

Salovaara, Marjatta (1999). Katsaus ympäristön tilaan Tampereella [An overview of the state
of the environment in Tampere]. Tampereen kaupunki, ympäristövalvonnan julkaisuja
3/1999.

Sairinen, Rauno (1998). What do Finns think about environmental policy? In: After All These
Years. Eds. Jani Päivänen & Kimmo Lapintie. Helsinki University of Technology, Centre for
Urban and Regional Studies, C 48. Espoo.

Schulman, Harry (2001). Helsingin suunnittelu ja rakentuminen [Planning and building of
Helsinki]. In: Schulman, Harry et al.: Helsingin historia vuodesta 1945. Helsinki.

Siirilä, Seppo (1999). Finnish Urban Regions. Futura 18 (1999). Available:
http://elektra.helsinki.fi/se/f/0785-5494/18/3/finnishu.pdf

Statistical Yearbook of Finland 2000. Statistics Finland. Helsinki, 2000.

Sundman, Mikael (1991). Urban Planning in Finland after 1850. In: Planning and Urban
Growth in the Nordic Countries. Edited by Thomas Hall. E & FN Spon, London.

Suomen Maakuntien Liitto (1992). Suomalaisten elinympäristö. Toiveet ja todellisuus. [The
living environment of the Finnish people. Wishes and the reality.]

Tykkyläinen, Markku (1996). The Legacy of Postwar Settlement Policy. In: New Rural Policy
- Finnish Journal of Rural Research and Policy. English Supplement 1996.

Ulkomaalaisten elämää Helsingissä [Life of the Foreigners in Helsinki]. Helsingin kaupungin
tietokeskus, tilastoja 2000:22. Helsinki.

Urban Guide Helsinki. Helsinki City Planning Department, 2000.

Vaattovaara, Mari (1998). Pääkaupunkiseudun sosiaalinen erilaistuminen. Ympäristö ja
alueellisuus. [Residential Differentiation within the Metropolitan Area of Helsinki, Finland -
Environment and Spatiality]. Tutkimuksia 1998:8. Helsingin kaupungin tietokeskus, Helsinki.




                                               95

				
DOCUMENT INFO