Why Townhouses? A Comparative Study of Emerging Housing Concepts in Helsinki and Stockholm

Why Townhouses?
A Comparative Study of Emerging Housing Concepts in Helsinki and Stockholm

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures
Supervisor: Prof. Panu Lehtovuori Second Reader: Vrije Universiteit Brussel
13
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Tilburg University, Manchester Metropolitan University, Eesti Kunstiakadeemia
Preface
Back in 2012 when I was working before my study break, one of my tasks was to organize a seminar about townhouse development. The city of Helsinki had recently gotten serious about promoting this building type and my office got involved in helping out in this effort by facilitating knowledge exchange. We quickly learned that one specific interest in this context was to learn from foreign examples and especially from similar planning contexts. Great, we thought, and decided to invite a foreign speaker. But from where? Stockholm and Sweden are always considered a safe bet not only for societal similarity but also city-wise for Helsinki. And bingo, a townhouse development in the suburbs of Stockholm had just won a newspaper-led building of the year award. The architect also turned out to be interested in the idea and promised to come introduce his townhouse concept. We then moved on to working with other things, but I later learned that it was actually quite impossible to find much more information on townhouses in Stockholm. And when the seminar eventually took place, I learned that no one knew Helsinkis townhouse ambitions on the other side of the Baltic Sea. Soon afterwards I started my POLIS studies, but could not forget about townhouses in the Nordic capitals. Finally I decided to turn this curiosity into my thesis project. I wanted to know what is going on with this townhouse development and in the process of doing so I could help build useful knowledge and hopefully inspire some further inquiries into the topic. I want to thank Professor Panu Lehtovuori for his supervision, and all the rest of the POLIS faculty for their support and the new things Ive learned. Thank you also POLIS student colleagues 2012/2013, it wouldnt of have been the same without you! Find me on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/timohamalainen1
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... 2 Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 4 1. 2. 2.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 5 Theoretical Background .................................................................................................. 8 Townhouses Defining Qualities and Evolutions ...................................................... 8
2.2. From Townhouses to Row Houses The 20th Century Legacy for Housing Development ........................................................................................................................ 13
2.2.1. 2.2.2. Urban Utopias and the Suburban Conspiracy .............................................................................. 14 The Culturalist Critiques ................................................................................................................. 17
2.3. Townhouses in the 21st Century The Four Cs Driving Contemporary Housing and Urban Development ............................................................................................................. 18
2.3.1. 2.3.2. 2.3.3. 2.4.5. Conservation & Urban Compaction ................................................................................................ 18 Choice & Changing Housing Demands .......................................................................................... 21 Community & Planning for Urbanity .............................................................................................. 23 Cost & the Economics of Urban Development ............................................................................... 28
2.5.
Helsinki & Stockholm The Local Contexts for Townhouse Development ............ 31
2.5.1. Points of Departure and Terminology ................................................................................................. 32 2.5.2. Conservation in Context ...................................................................................................................... 35 2.5.3. Choice in Context ................................................................................................................................ 37 2.5.4. Community in Context ........................................................................................................................ 40 2.5.5. Cost in Context ................................................................................................................................ 41
2.6. 3.
Conceptual Framework and Research Questions ...................................................... 44 Design and Method ....................................................................................................... 45
3.1. Frame Analysis .............................................................................................................. 46 3.2. Data Collection & Processing ....................................................................................... 48 4. 4.1.
4.1.1. 2
Comparative Analysis of Townhouses in Helsinki and Stockholm .............................. 50 Whats Going on? The Main Concepts of the Townhouse Discourses .................. 50
Conservation ................................................................................................................................... 50
4.1.2. 4.1.3. 4.1.4.
Choice ............................................................................................................................................. 55 Community...................................................................................................................................... 60 Cost ................................................................................................................................................. 64
4.2.
4.2.1.
Comparison of Materialized Townhouses ................................................................. 69

An Overview of Townhouses in Helsinki and Stockholm .............................................................. 69
5. 6. 7.
Discussion and Concluding Remarks ............................................................................ 78 List of References.......................................................................................................... 80 Appendices .................................................................................................................... 92 A. Interviews and Item list ................................................................................................. 92 B. Systematically examined journals, magazines and newspapers.................................... 93
Abstract
Helsinki and Stockholm have witnessed the emergence of townhouses in their urban landscapes during the past decade or so. This building type is a common way of living in Central Europe and older North American cities, but it hasnt been adopted in the Nordic capitals. Until recently. Why is that? The 21st century has brought about a newly found interest in urban living concepts and neighborhoods as concerns over climate change force people to consider more compact living, and the nuclear family of the 20th century has broken down into a diverse crowd of individuals working in information industries. The study applied a frame analysis to discover how the new townhouses in Helsinki and Stockholm are conceptualized. A number of expert interviews and secondary data research showed that the emergences of townhouses are not similar processes in the two cities and only loosely related to changing user needs. In both cities townhouses are linked to desires to create urban environments, but in Helsinki they simultaneously are sold as detached singlefamily homes to lure families into staying in Helsinki instead of the suburbs. In Stockholm townhouses on the other hand seem to contribute to attracting urbanites from across the globe.
1. Introduction
The townhouse is a building type with a long history and a distinctive yet metamorphous character. Its defining architectural qualities are a rectangular long and narrow footprint; a vertically oriented circulation on multiple stories; and wall-to-wall attachment on one or both sides of each housing unit (Friedman 2012: 1). Variations of townhouses are found across the globe and different cultures (Friedman 2012), and they have generally endured over centuries for two main reasons: their land-use efficiency and adaptability. Locations that one might associate these buildings with are for example New York with its brownstones, the Netherlands and its townhouse-lined canals or the endless rows of terraces in just about any city in Great Britain. For much of the post-WWII period townhouse development has however been in considerable decline due to suburbanization, modern apartment building development, and changes in planning ideologies and practice (Friedman 2012: 36). But the turn of the millennium has witnessed a change to this trend and the policies, planning ideals, individualization and architectural trends of the new century have triggered an urban renaissance and consequently new forms of attached housing - often referred to as townhouses - have emerged into the urban planning debates and landscapes in Western cities. The Nordic capitals of Helsinki and Stockholm have followed suit and townhouses have emerged to the urban landscapes of the cities during the past decade or so. In Helsinki this has happened through a conscious policy from the City Planning Department whereas in Stockholm it has occurred largely independent of policy. However, what makes this development of events particularly interesting is that the townhouse building type has to a large extent never characterized urban development in the cities (Manninen & Holopainen 2006). On the contrary, both cities consist dominantly of apartment buildings. Principal concerns that have characterized the discussions revolving around these new townhouses are that how do they fit into the local contexts and how will they succeed in the housing markets (e.g. Sanaksenaho 2013)? This is the case especially in Helsinki where there has thus far been limited success in the materialization of townhouses despite gracious land allocation (Jalkanen et al. 2012).
Very little research has been done on the topic of modern-day townhouses internationally, in the case cities, and especially from a comparative point of view. In Helsinki, previous studies have focused on summarizing experiences from the development processes of the first materialized townhouse projects from the administrations point of view (Fogelholm 2003; Helsingin kaupunki 2005); and from the residents point of view (Hasu 2010); examining starting points for townhouse development from the Helsinki City Planning Departments point of view (Manninen & Holopainen 2006; Jalkanen et al. 2012), and synthetizing the discussions from a series of professional workshops on townhouse development (Mlkki 2010). Mlkkis (2010) conclusion is that the townhouse has potential in offering individual small-scale living in a good location and by urban services. In Stockholm, and Sweden altogether, the topic has received much less attention. The only study retrieved in the scope of this thesis, is another masters thesis exploring the possibility of including small-scale actors and end-users in the development processes of townhouses (Guterstam 2011). Thereby shedding light into the issue of townhouse development in Helsinki and Stockholm is informative not only for further inquiries into the topic, but also for all actors engaged in townhouse development in the two cities. With that being said, the aim of this thesis is directed at discovering and comparing 1) how townhouses are conceptualized in urban policy and planning in Helsinki and Stockholm, and 2) how these ideas have been materialized in practice. The study is organized into three main parts: A) The examination of townhouses begins with a theoretical background chapter (chapter 2). It commences by outlining defining qualities of townhouses, and continues by positioning townhouse development within a continuum of housing and urban development forces which shape contemporary attitudes and development practice. The following chapter discusses influences driving housing and urban development in contemporary times and places townhouses within this context based on a literature review. And finally, the specific contexts of the Helsinki and Stockholm cases are introduced. B) The second part of the study introduces the research methodology (chapter 3). This research has been conducted by using frame analysis, which is a research method that is principally concerned with dissecting how an issue is defined and problematized, and the
6
effect that this has on the broader discussion of the issue (Hope 2010: 1). The basic idea is that these frames or cognitive schemes help people in identifying what is going on in a given situation, and more importantly they also act as mental shortcuts when communicating the essentials of that particular situation. This thesis will use frame analysis in an instrumental manner to highlight what is going on with townhouses in the two cities and lay the ground for a comparative analysis. C) The third part of the thesis consists of the comparative analyzes (chapter 4). Firstly the issues are made salient in the discourse surrounding townhouse development are compared and contrasted. Secondly, select materialized townhouse projects in both cities are compared and reflected upon. Finally, the study ends with concluding remarks (chapter 5).
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Townhouses Defining Qualities and Evolutions
The townhouse is a building type with a long history and a distinctive yet metamorphous character. Variations of the building type are found across the globe and different cultures (Friedman 2012: viii), but this study limits the study of townhouses to its Western context. The name townhouse in itself is obviously from the English-speaking tradition and specifically used in North America. The roots of the name however lie in Europe and the British nobility who, following the intense urbanization process triggered by the Industrial Revolution, sought to reside in several locations for the increasingly grim circumstances in cities. Hence their city residence was referred to as the town house and thus the opposite of their country house (Manninen & Holopainen 2006: 9; Friedman 2012). Besides calling it a townhouse in English, this particular building concept is often also referred to as the terraced house (UK), row house, or town house. For the sake of clarity, the term townhouse will be used throughout this study, irrespective of the cultural context of the building type. Historically, the townhouse concept originates from Ancient Roman urban tradition (Friedman 2012), but has thereafter evolved in different cultural strands. The most influential ones were the urban contexts from medieval times to the 19th-century on the British Isles, and most notably London, in France and Paris, and in the Netherlands (Manninen & Holopainen 2006; Friedman 2012). Colonial expansion diffused townhouses to for example North America where different influences, especially the Dutch and British ones, got blended into a distinct cultural strand on the East Coast (Manninen & Holopainen 2006: 11). In New York, these buildings are now known as brownstones and characterized by a set of steps (a stoop) which elevate the door slightly from the street level (picture 1.). But overall, there are also differences within the North American townhouse context with distinct types found in e.g. San Francisco and Canadian cities (Vernez Moudon 1989; Macdonald 2005).
Picture 1. New York Brownstones.
According to Manninen & Holopainen (2006: 12), townhouse-like housing was also common in the then urbanized areas of the Nordic countries including Stockholm but not the still small town Helsinki - up until the mid-18th century until new urban development ideologies from Paris and Berlin stressing the age of industrialization and respective modernization of cities took over (Hrsman & Wijmark 2013: 3-10). In physical terms, the townhouse has three defining architectural characteristics: a rectangular long and narrow footprint; a vertically oriented circulation on multiple stories; and wall-towall attachment on one or both sides of each housing unit (Friedman 2012: 1). These defining qualities stem from history and the accustomed way of building due to scarcity of available land to build on within city walls (ibid.). Friedman (2012: 4) sets the historical realm of most townhouses in horizontal and vertical terms within the width of 4.3 to 6.1 meters and not taller than four stories. If taller, the building type is likely to lose its ground-related qualities of easy access and human scale.
9
The most ubiquitous volumetric arrangement that define townhouse structures are single housing units lined up in horizontal rows, but the townhouse can be vertically subdivided to comprise of more than one housing unit as well (Friedman 2012). One slice or a row with two housing units is called a duplex and with three housing units a triplex. A stuck townhouse on the other hand refers to two-story housing units on top of each other (Friedman 2012: 4). Besides being lined up in horizontal rows, townhouses can also be arranged back-to-back (two rows with backs facing each other) or front-to-back (a reverse layout that is used e.g. on slopes to enable views) (Pfeifer & Brauneck 2008: 12). The physical dimensions of each townhouse structure are determined by how its interior (i.e. rooms and functions) are arranged. According to Gorlin (1999, cit. Friedman 2012) it is however not useful to try to conceptualize the interiors of the townhouse in a comprehensive manner other than the structures ability to adapt to the changing needs of their users, because a core quality that has historically defined townhouses is that they are a typology of enormous restrictions, and therefore a laboratory of creative possibilities within a very limited realm (p. 4). Similarly, in Binneys (1998) examination of the history of townhouses until recent times, he defines them as infinitely adaptable (p.11) due to constant discoveries of new innovations in using the limited realm. Friedman (2012: 43) however asserts that adaptability is particularly enhanced when the circulation of a townhouse is centrally placed and enclosed, because this organization enables an easy transformation of a single-family dwelling to two or three independent housing units. Multi-functionality is also advanced if the ground floor is designed to be potentially used as a commercial or office space (Friedman 2012: 43). Unlike apartment living, where a number of occupants share the main door, exterior space and hallway, townhouses offer independence and privacy with individual entrances to each housing unit. The volumetric arrangement of a townhouse (i.e. single- or multi-family) will determine the number of entrances a given building will have (Friedman 2012: 45), but they are generally, but not always, placed on the front side of the house and at street level (ibid.). The configuration of the entrance can be made to either emphasize the relationship between the house and the street in front of it by for example a porch, or the transition between the private realm of the home and the public realm of the street by a recession or a small garden which help create a semi-public space (Friedman 2012: 47).
10
Townhouses typically also offer access to the back of the structure, which may contain an outdoor private space in the form of a small yard, garden or patio (Friedman 2012: 47). In multi-housing unit structures these can accordingly be multiple and come in the form of terraces or balconies in the higher stories (Visanti 2013). The narrower a townhouse gets, the more important the design of the front and back becomes to maintain the qualities of independency and privacy (Friedman 2012: 45). Townhouse housing units or communities can also have various forms of tenure, including freehold (you own your housing unit and lot), co-ownership (shared ownership of housing units and lots by residents) and condominium (individual ownership of housing unit, shared ownership of lots and open spaces) (Friedman 2012: 5). The forms of tenure are often linked to the ways of constructing townhouses but not defined by them. Townhouses can be constructed using three different approaches: each housing unit individually by a private person, a group of units together by a group of private people, or the entire row mass-produced at once by a construction company. In technical terms, the structure can be constructed on site or assembled using prefabricated modules. The idea of the freehold townhouse structure with a private owner who is also its occupant has its roots in the urban dwelling culture of the noble and bourgeois. These prototypes could take the form of large or small structures depending on the owners wealth and desires (Stimmann 2011: 34). The condominium-associated idea to build townhouses in full rows and not slice by slice, alternately emerged when speculative building took off in 16th-centiry London in and gradually diffused to elsewhere on the British Isles. In a combination of the times British housing preferences, social status relationships, and the economic logic of speculative building, homes started to be standardly constructed in rows of repetitive housing units and on a single lot (Muthesius 1982: 3). In more recent times, attached housing has also been produced through group-building which incorporates elements from both of the previously mentioned traditional methods of constructing townhouses. Group-building, also elsewhere conceptualized as co-housing or Baugemeinschaft, is essentially an approach to multi-housing unit construction where the inhabitants co-operatively acquire land for, finance and manage with their own hands or e.g.
11
with the help of a small-scale construction enterprise - the construction of a building or group of buildings as opposed to buying a ready-made product from the construction companies. This approach is strongly linked to the co-ownership form of tenure (Rantama 2008). According to Stimmann (2011: 34), townhouses have never been fixed to any specific architectural idiom regardless of their production method. However, the architectural prototype which horizontally lines up two to three windows per floor, which characterizes many existing townhouses, has generally emerged in medieval times and established itself during later periods of European urban expansion (ibid.). However, the method of construction does have an impact on the level of variation between the faade architecture of townhouse units in a row or neighborhood. Mass-produced townhouses are generally more likely to be repetitive and less flexible for customization than privately built ones (Visanti 2013).
12
2.2. From Townhouses to Row Houses The 20th Century Legacy for Housing Development
As the historical transformations in the conceptualization of townhouses suggests, townhouse development doesnt happen in a vacuum. Contemporary townhouses therefore need to be examined in the light of underlying housing and urban development forces that have shaped attitudes and the pattern of housing during the 20th century. According to Choay (1969), there are two fundamental philosophical perceptions of urbanity and urban life that encompass most planning questions in modern times. Choay (1969) identifies these as the progressist approach which values the ideals of modernization, the industrial society, and functionalism as the driving forces of urban planning; and the culturalist approach which in contrast emphasizes the importance of tradition and cultural integrity. Defined in the context of planning, they represent two contradictory views of the "proper" spatial organization of cities. In short, at odds are those who value the principles of modernist urban planning over traditional ones and vice versa. For the scope of this thesis, these two will be introduced as attempts to create qualitatively different environments from each other. 20th-century urban planning has been dominantly characterized by the progressist approach to urban living (Taylor 1998). For the townhouse, this has meant a decline in its construction from the 1920s onwards as suburban living began to attract people to migrate out of the city.
13
2.2.1.
Urban Utopias and the Suburban Conspiracy
Modernist urban planning has its roots in the Modern movement and visionary utopian theorists who were able to capture and reproduce the soul of modernism in their city models which sought to cure the ills of the Industrial City. Modernism as an idea has its roots in enlightenment-thinking which views man as an educated and civilized agent who can control nature, his or her destiny and ultimately the course of society through science. And as superstition was gradually rejected and traded for reason during the 17th and 18th centuries, progress became a key driver of society and the embracement of science set technological innovation high on the agenda of mankind (Porter 2001). This new worldview of progress however eventually materialized as the Industrial City, which expanded in a society with little regulation planning or environmental-wise. Factories and other industrial facilities were often situated in close proximity to residential areas and public places due to limitations in the eras transportation technology. Gradually throughout the 19th century the Industrial City evolved into a place of such pollution and poor living conditions that something had to be done. Consequently, new ideas for organizing the city started to emerge (Taylor 1998). One of the most influential ones was Ebenezer Howards Garden City model. Howard was inspired by the increasing anti-urban rhetoric of the time and modeled his Garden City concept on the foundation of decentralization. He envisioned a series of compact and relatively high-density satellite cities around a given citys core which would be interconnected with rail transit and buffered by generous green space (Lang 1999; Parker 2004). Another key influencer for the modernist urban planning doctrine was Le Corbusier and his Radiant City concept from 1924. Le Corbusier was inspired by the Garden City model, but he embraced the emerging artistic expression and aesthetic of the modernist movement (Bauman 1998; Taylor 1998). The Radiant City model was fundamentally a set of large high-density skyscrapers, which were surrounded by vast areas of green space for public amenity. The towers in the city center were for the elite and business functions, and these were separated from regular apartment building blocks and industrial areas. Transportation was based on the use of automobiles and separated from elevated pedestrian zones. Modernist progressive
14
thinking in the Radiant City was not only expressed by modern, functionalist, architecture, building materials and techniques, but it rejected the traditional city completely. Le Corbusier suggested that any existing urban fabric should be demolished and replaced by his skyscrapers. Furthermore, he associated the buildings with machines paving the way for technocratic thinking into construction and living. Houses and buildings became to be understood as standardized industrial products rather than pieces of art (Bauman 1998; Taylor 1998). According to Taylor (1998: p. 25), the two guiding principles of Le Corbusier were the plan must rule and disappearance of the street. The latter principle ultimately led to the abandonment of the street as the dominant organizing principle of urban form (Dunnett 2000). Parallel to these and other similar visions for a better urban future, urban planning also started to form as a profession. This was discussed and conceptualized for example during Congrs Internationaux d'Architecture Modern (CIAM - International Congress of Modern Architecture) congresses a series of high-profile urban thinkers meetings between 1928 and 1959 (Mumford 2000). In this process ideas from different urban visions and ideals got mixed and gradually institutionalized into the newly found profession of urban planning. The most significant CIAM meeting was held in 1933 in Athens, where the congress agreed on a set of principles for the Modern City: decentralization and separation of land uses, lower-density, functionalist architecture and construction and the use of the automobile (Mumford 2000). According to Boomkens (2008: 128) this planning apparatus essentially became an instrument for the defense of an inward-looking culture of intimacy against the dangers and shocks of the urban public realm. The end product would effectively be stripped of the chaos and nuisance of the Industrial City. Post-WWII society and planning in America and Europe adopted modernism holistically, because the past was seen as having too much baggage. Modernist ideas were cemented and institutionalized through government programs. Many of these interventions were so extensive in scale that there were little alternatives to the Modern City. A good example is the Interstate Highway Act in the USA (1956), which literally paved the way for the hegemony of the automobile (Jackson 1985). Furthermore, modernist urban theorists generally assumed that the general public agreed with their visions (Taylor 1998: 34) and therefore there never was really any public consultation over such plans.
15
This era saw the emergence of the row house as a suburban configuration of the townhouse: The street was turned into a traffic zone providing access, and the rows of townhouses declined into the isolated row-house estates of the periphery, found in the real estate projects of new urban landscapes and in large and small housing estates (Stimmann 2011: 35). This conceptualization of attached housing generally incorporates the idea of standardized and repetitive attached living, but has replaced the urban architectural qualities of street-linkage and density with an emphasis on the private over the public by turning their fronts away from the street, and a desire for wide open spaces by introducing lush and spacious buffer zones. The era of high modernism didnt however last very long because housing projects that were developed with its ethos started to turn into social disasters. A well-known example in this sense is Pruitt-Igoe, a social housing project in St. Louis, USA, that was erected in mid-1950 and bulldozed only twenty years later. Architecture critic Charles Jencks has made this day known as the day that modern architecture died (Bristol 1991: 163; Fernndez Cendn 2013). Nonetheless, most professional fields dealing with urban development in one way or another have been institutionalized based on modernist principles and keep the legacy alive. Talen (2002: 309) dubs this legacy as a culture of separation, in which fragmentation is a fundamental principle of operation on different levels: economic development planners are for example separated from transportation planners or environmental planners and the planning regulatory system encourages land-use separation. Similarly, when referring to what this suburban legacy means for the development processes of urban infrastructure unconventional to modernist standards, regulations and norms, Duany et al. (2000: 21) crystallize that the devil is in the details.
16
2.2.2.
The Culturalist Critiques
The culturalist approach to urban planning is often strongly linked with Jane Jacobs (1961), who was one of the first and most influential if not the most influential critics of modernist planning and torchbearers of traditional urbanism through her landmark book The Death and Life of Great American Cities. She called for planning based on what has proven to be time-tested best practice and criticized that the modernist planning model is essentially based on a foundation of nonsense (1961: 13). The core argument of the traditionalists is thereby that the planning approach of the modernist planning model is not less than comprehensively destructive to the foundations of urban life. In more contemporary context and following Jacobs footsteps, the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s saw the emergence of strong reform-seeking planning movements such as New Urbanism and Smart Growth, particularly in America, but also in Europe with e.g. the Urban Village proponents (Goetz 2013). At the epicenter of the contemporary culturalists critique are the vast suburban landscapes of single-family houses which characterize many Western cities, the separation of land-uses and creation of dull and nonstimulating living environments, which are only able to deliver standardized commercial centers and promenades that lack functions and destinations, and consequently people (Kunstler 1993; Duany et. al. 2000). By contrast, the planning doctrine of the traditionalists emphasizes that density and diversity both features which modernists reject in their planning model are integral for the creation of successful, lively, safe and sustainable cities. The culturalist view of urbanism particularly seeks to re-elevate the street back as the organizing principle of urban form. This approach combined with traditional building typologies is suggested to result in human-scale neighborhoods and is connected directly with a citys ability to deliver vibrancy, viability, accumulation of social capital and safety (Walters & Brown 2004: 53-66). For the past decade or two, the culturalist approach to urban planning has been in good currency and has increasingly led to planning reforms and reform movements such as the Urban Renaissance in the UK (Urban Task Force 2005) and the establishment of the Council for European Urbanism (CEU 2013).
17
2.3. Townhouses in the 21st Century The Four Cs Driving Contemporary Housing and Urban Development
The townhouse-related literature reviewed for this research reveals that the cases of 21stcentury townhouses in Helsinki and Stockholm are not unique as such. Similar developments are taking place in other countries as well: in Berlin and other metropolitan areas in Germany (Stimmann 2011; Marquart et al. 2012), in Amsterdam and most notably its SporenburgBorneo project (CABE 2013), in North America (MacDonald 2005; Dunham-Jones & Williamson 2011; Friedman 2012) and in Great Britain (CABE 2013) to point out a few. A common denominator characterizing these events is that the term townhouse has regained attention in associations with attached living at the expense of the row house. Theory underlying the re-emergence of the building type will be introduced and discussed using Rudlin & Falks (1999/2009) framework of the four Cs - conservation, choice, community and cost which are argued to be influences that have always shaped housing and urban development to a greater or lesser extent but are especially relevant drivers for development in the beginning of the 21st century.
2.3.1.
Conservation & Urban Compaction
Conservation underscores environmental pressures as a driver for new kinds of housing options and patterns (Rudlin & Falk: 73-87). At present, the most influential environmental driver is undoubtedly the concern over climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. The discussions on environmental sustainability were initiated by the 1987 Bruntland Commission Report and set on official policy agendas with the 1992 Rio declaration (Harding 2005). The global scope and disastrous impact of climate change on natural and human environments are notoriously empirically linked to factors such as urban form and land-use patterns, building design and technology, transport modes and lifestyle choices and impacts (see e.g. Hoornweg et al. 2011 for further analysis). The core message for urban policy is that: There is mounting evidence of the need for adaptation planning at the local scale (Hallegatte & Corfee-Morlot 2010: 2). In the planning realm, these arguments are acknowledged globally as metropolitan regions are increasingly adopting policies that seek to tame the environmentally harmful patterns of urban
18
expansion (OECD 2012). Ideally, the remedy is to promote dense and mixed-use settlement patterns that support walking and other means of eco-friendly transportation, and reduce the need for car ownership (Breheny 1997; Jenks & Dempsey 2005; OECD 2012). In existing urban areas one of the principal means of achieving the proposed benefits is through a process of urban compaction, which is basically defined as increasing the density or intensity of development and functions (Dunham-Jones & Williamson 2011). Townhouses support these environmental conservation efforts for their part because the grouping of homes into rows can result in similar population densities as achieved with highrise housing but with less land consumption (Binney 1998: 11; City of Toronto 2003: 2). Friedman (2012: 5-6) widens the environmental benefits of high-density townhouses to energy and resource efficiency. He argues that the attachment of housing units reduces wall surface up to 53 per cent for units in the middle of a row and therefore decreases the consumption of building materials. He also notes (p.7) that detached homes lead to increased heating and cooling requirements due to their exposed envelope whereas, depending on local climate, townhouses can consume up to 68 per cent less energy. Vernez Moudon (1989: 179) adds that traditional townhouse designs, such as the North American Victorian house, have proven to be highly resource-efficient due to their durability. The spacious rooms and central circulation space of these structures have proven to be highly attractive for generations of users, which means that the qualities of the buildings have mitigated needs to move house and needs for urban renewal processes regardless of societal transformations (more on the flexibility of townhouses in chapter 2.3.2.). The issue of density is however a greatly debated topic in practice. While the rationale in urban compaction regarding land use and transportation planning is to reduce the pressure of building up open spaces and thereby to release more room for parks, other amenities for urban living, decrease car dependency, and offer a high degree of convenience for work, service and entertainment (Jenks & Dempsey 2005), some argue that the opposite is also true. Compaction can be perceived to result in massive high-rise buildings, cramming, less open space, psychological stress from unwanted social contact or reduced privacy, competition for facilities and space, and generally a congested cityscape (Breheny 1997; Jenks & Dempsey 2005).
19
Talen (2002: 300) notes that the density debate is a tension that has characterized planning efforts historically and throughout the 20th century and revolves around the issue of finding a consensus about integrating town (city) and country (nature) in a harmonious way. This can be observed for example in critiques that a specific development is either too compact for most peoples preferences (too much town) or too much like current suburban patterns of development (too much country) (ibid.). Research shows that there indeed still are empirical gaps to be filled in the pursuit for environmentally sound urban development. Potential negative effects of compaction include for example loss of green space, traffic congestion and air pollution, gentrification, and loss of recreational space (Breheny 1997; Jenks & Dempsey 2005; OECD 2012). The complex nature of urban intensification underscores that a single theoretical planning model for addressing environmental concerns doesnt exist. Marvin & Guy (2000: 9-18) suggest that planning for environmentally sound cities could best be interpreted as a range of context-specific pathways with a common goal but varying practical solutions for achieving it. Friedman (2012: 1) suggests that the narrowness and wall-to-wall attachment of townhouses offers an approach for dense living where small-scale development potentially accommodates a residential density that can reach the equivalent of apartment-building development while maintaining an acceptable level of independency and privacy at the same time. Moreover, Friedman (2012: 111) argues that most densities of townhouse-filled neighborhoods will fit into somewhere in between 25 to 85 housing units per hectare. For townhouses that face the street a typical density is between 25 and 60 while off-street townhouses then have the potential to reach up to 85 housing units per hectare (ibid.). The higher the density, the more important it becomes to design the buildings carefully since in high-density townhouses can manage only little private space. The Borneo-Sporenburg brownfield project in Amsterdam (picture 2) is an often-quoted low-rise and high-density townhouse development which is designed to resemble a Dutch fishing town. The density of the area is towards the upper end of Friedmans above-quoted density scale - officially around 100 housing units per hectare but three large housing blocks bring up the average density of the area - and the architects have e.g. sought strategic solutions to let daylight flow deep into the rather small living spaces to make them seem larger (CABE 2013).
20
Picture 2. Borneo-Sporenburg townhouses in Amsterdam (West 8 2013).
The example of Vancouver illustrates a more unconventional pathway for achieving highdensity development with the aid of townhouses. The city of Vancouvers approach is to shape new building types that will provide what are felt to be the positive qualities of older smaller-scale, finer-grained and street-oriented building types, while working within the contexts of modern large-scale single-developer projects (Macdonald 2005: 15). The outcome of these ambitions is the introduction of point towers over low- or mid-rise podium bases containing townhouses, and low- to mid-rise apartment blocks with integrated ground-floor townhouses (ibid.).
2.3.2.
Choice & Changing Housing Demands
The influence of choice is about matching user needs and housing design. Rudlin & Falk (1999: 90-99) discuss two issues likely to have a substantial impact on 21st-century housing: a changing demographic make-up and a changed socio-economic condition. Concerning the aspect of the changing demographic make-up, the dominant trends in household characteristics for the last two centuries and up until today have been declining household size and increasing household numbers (Rudlin & Falk 1999: 91). This translates as more singles, single parents, childless couples, and accompanied with generally more living space per person as societies have become richer (Dunham-Jones & Williamson 2011:
21
18-19; Friedman 2012: 9). Moreover, there is an increasingly significant aging population segment and an ethnic minority segment which both have their special needs (Rudlin & Falk 1999: 93; Dunham-Jones & Williamson 2011: 18-19; Friedman 2012: 10). These same trends are well-acknowledged in both the USA (Nelson 2009) and the European Union, where growth is fuelled mainly by immigration, whereas the population is becoming older and more diverse (European Commission 2011: 1). The vertical orientation and division into multiple stories are argued to make townhouses a flexible housing structure which potentially could offer a housing product to these changing user needs despite that the architectural typology of the generic townhouse adds up to quite large surface areas per housing unit. According to Schneider & Till (2005: 157), the
flexibility of a house is measured by its ability to cater for users with different lifestyles and until the end of their use time. Especially historic townhouses have proven to possess these qualities. The high-ceilinged spacious rooms of the traditional American Victorian house for example allow each room to act as a blank canvas that may be used in different ways, and the central circulation space enables privacy and independence for their users within the household (Vernez Moudon 1989: 179). Moreover, the central circulation space and possible adjoining yard structures additionally facilitate easy transformations from a single-family dwelling to two or three independent housing units (Friedman 2012: 43). The narrow footprint of townhouses also eliminates the need for interior load-bearing walls and thus space can be taken away from rooms which are no longer used as they were before (Friedman 2012: 12). A single townhouse structure may thereby accommodate different households with various functional and spatial needs and adapt to changes in their life circumstances. This ultimately creates diversity of housing stock in the same development (Vernez Moudon 1989: 179; Friedman 2012: 10). The second aspect influencing user needs is a changed socio-economic condition. Richard Florida (2012) has voicefully interpreted and conceptualized the 21st century socio-economic condition in his book The Rise of the Creative Class. He in tone with other academics (e.g. Landry & Bianchini 1995) identifies that the shift to a post-Fordist economy alongside the emergence of information technology have placed creativity and innovation at the core of economic production. This has had a significant impact on user needs through a
22
reconfiguration of work: The no-collar workplace integrates elements of the flexible, open, interactive model of the scientists lab or artists studio into the machine model of the factory or the traditional corporate office (Florida 2012: p.101). What this implies is what Rudlin & Falk (1999: 96) also forecast: the conventional 20 thcentury desire to separate the home and work environments is being increasingly challenged and for example housing units that accommodate both environments will have increasing demand. The new circumstances also downplay the role of large employers as small businesses and self-employment are gaining ground. This highlights an increased need for social organization through networking, which pulls people closer together and ultimately increases the valuing of accessibility of places considerably (e.g. Potts et al. 2008). Townhouses can also be transformed partially into working environments, which supports the needs of many workers in the information age (Friedman 2012: 12). Pfeifer & Brauneck (2008) additionally remind that townhouses cannot merely compete with their time-tested qualities, but also need to be open for innovation as Changing durations and habits of usage require new and flexible typologies (p. 6), due to issues such as social interaction and adaptation to individual sociological demands across all stages of life, the changing working conditions (p. 14), and the issues of energy, resources and ecological balance (p. 14).
2.3.3.
Community & Planning for Urbanity
Rudlin & Falk (1999: 101-110) elevate the concept of community as a key driver in shaping future housing and urban development, because as the nuclear family is losing its role, the valuing of community life is likely to become more important. Pfeifer & Brauneck (2008: 13) agree: Future ways of living will have to return to relying more on self-organisation of communities and groups. Work will be part of life up to old age because its definition has changed. Patchwork families will become multigenerational patchwork families of varying productivity and activity within a network of affinities and multi-relationships. More specifically, the influence that the concept of community will have on housing and urban development depends on which kind of image of community or lifestyle - people will strive for, because this will influence building activities. In his thesis on linking social change and developmental change, Tnnies (1887/2001) has conceptualized two contrasting types of
23
social organization in his Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaft model, which are often used to represent the opposing ends in a continuum of settlement ideals. Gemeinschaft is a form of social integration that is typically associated with a rural or villagelike lifestyle. In this type of ideal community personal ties are important, most people knew each other, the community is clearly defined both spatially and socially, and people interact with each other as whole people combining personal and social roles. Due to a sense of enclosure, outsiders are likely to be treated with skepticism (Rudlin & Falk 1999: 105). Gesellschaft by contrast is a form of social integration based on impersonal ties of instrumental and contractual nature, a high degree of role differentiation, and oftentimes characterized by tension. This type of social organization is linked with urban life. Jane Jacobs (1961) wrote one of the best-known illustrations of this type of ideal community when she described the 1950s and 60s life in New York. She writes that urban communities are crucially different from the village type because they are by definition, full of strangers (p.30). Rudlin & Falk (1999: 6) argue that the previously discussed demographic and social influences argue for the strengthening of the urban ideal. Likewise, Floridas (2012) research findings indicate a more urban future as people are likely to opt for weak community ties or quasi-anonymity over strong ones, which keeps on pacing up the back-to-the-city movement (p. 321). Furthermore, these changes are ultimately displayed in what kind of surroundings people will ultimately see supportive with respect to their lifestyle. In Nelsons (2009: 192) account of the urbanity attributes people increasingly value include transit accessibility; proximity to shopping and restaurants; mixed uses including mixed housing choices; and mixed incomes, ages, and ethnicities. In Floridas (2012: 281) thesis, his creative class seeks a specific quality of place which is determined by a stimulating physical setting that will support their lifestyle, a diverse and tolerant range of community members, and has a wide range of active things going on. Critics however point out that many of these assumptions are not theoretically informed enough as many studies have shown that modern-day workers in the creative and knowledge industries are a heterogeneous group in which individuals are attracted to different kinds of qualities in their living environments (e.g. Born & Young 2013).
24
For the urban project, it is relevant how architects and planners read these users narratives and articulate them as concrete urban plans. Kevin Lynch has for example famously theorized this in his book The Image of the City (1960) by arguing with his concepts of legibility and imageability that a citys structure exists both in physical reality and in the minds of its inhabitants. Rudlin & Falk (1999) stress the heterogeneous nature of post-industrial society and highlight that as society more distinctly transforms into groups valuing different ideals, urban planning will need to adapt accordingly as: a strong a community will only thrive in a particular context (p. 108). Menp (2008) similarly advances the idea of comprehending the city as consisting of diversified milieus and ways of life without domination of a certain type of urbanity (p. 22). More specifically, he points out that living preferences are not absolute values but to be understood in a relative sense (Menp 2008: 39). In this view, closeness to nature can for example mean anything between actually living close to natural areas to being able to see a tree from the window. The main point concerning planning practice is that the mental images and practice output need to match accordingly. Applying for example suburban ideas of the good community onto urban areas wont work and vice versa. With respect to any attempts to plan and design for a specific kind of neighborhood character, Jiven & Larkham (2003) and Dovey et al. (2009) among other academics however remind that such conceptualizations can have multiple meanings, making them extremely slippery in nature. Attempts to locate and mobilize character within urban morphology have a tendency to reduce character to formal (hard) characteristics at the expense of experiential (soft) values, and can turn character into caricature (Dovey & Woodcock, 2010). Hence their mobilization into planning practice is rarely adequately theoretically informed. Ploger summarizes (2010, p. 321) the dual nature of urbanity by stating that it is not only a concept, but life lived within new emergences, the imaginary, coding and values. Sandercock (2010) in return asserts that despite theoretical gaps, planners nevertheless operationalize urbanity in planning practice. In postmodern times, the general trend has been to emphasize functional and economic diversification and social diversity. This has been done at the expense of modernist mono-zoned spaces. In Sandercocks (2010) view, operationalized conceptualizations of urbanity consist of elements from both socio-cultural and built environment dimensions. She puts forward a targeted definition of urbanity for planners (table 1.) (Sandercock, 2010: 2307):
25
Table 1. Planning for urbanity according to Sandercock (2010),
High-density/densification Multi-functionality, mixed uses Possibilities for cultural enrichment and educational opportunities Possibilities for different forms of living Possibilities for different experiences in urban space Reinstating the street as a pedestrian-friendly space Public transit options Emphasis on landmarks and places of local distinctiveness Emphasis on a lively city culture Emphasis on tolerance, mutual consideration, and open-mindedness in urban public spaces Allow `visible' spaces for the poor, socially marginal, and/or deviant
Townhouses on their behalf are traditional building blocks for the physical context of urban communities (Stimmann 2011: 34). This is manifested in their socio-cultural history and in physical terms especially through their street-related qualities, scale and proportion, finegrained nature, and clear demarcation between the public and private. With their direct linkage with the street, townhouses help create the environment for traditional urban streets (Jacobs 1961). Vernez Moudon (1989: 240) emphasizes that townhouses, and especially mixing townhouses with apartments, have the capacity to add richness to the housing stock and thereby support a greater mix of tenants and diversity. At block level, the townhouse building type may contribute to diversity and an increase in choice by allowing easy grouping of single-housing unit and multiple-unit townhouses together. On the level of the individual, Stimmann (2011: 104) evaluates that townhouses enable the new urban man to celebrate individuality and freedom of self-expression through private ownership and design, especially in respect to the buildings facades. Grayson Trulove (2006: 9) stresses the link between townhouses and walkable urban environments by asserting that townhouses are becoming increasingly desirable as more people move back into our cities and are discovering the joys of walking to work rather than commuting for two hours a day.
26
Friedman (2012: 111-112), Dunham-Jones & Williamson (2011: 31-42) and the planning administration in Toronto (City of Toronto 2003: 2) extend the community-context of townhouses beyond the Jane Jacobian urban by stressing that townhouses are fit for any kind of area (high, medium or low density), but they need to be matched with the according surrounding density context, support a continuation of existing urban patterns, and respect adjoining properties pragmatically and also architecturally to minimize impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. In terms of the qualities of a townhouse, this generally means that the more land-use efficient narrow and tall types as well as the multi-housing unit types are generally associated with urban areas whereas less dense configurations can more likely be found in other parts of the city. Vernez Moudon (1989: 225-229) underscores that the process also has an important role when planning and developing for urbanity. She specifically elevates townhouses as a building type that is useful in this regard. The approach of building them one by one on individual lots namely touches upon the idea of incremental urbanism in which cities evolve over time through gradual accretions and infill (i.e. small-scale building activities and building management), which is associated with the creation of interesting and organic urban places (Vernez Moudon 1989: 225-229; Dunham-Jones & Williamson 2011: 2). This is contrasted with the standard corporate development practice that produces characterless instant architecture which in turn adds up on a larger scale as instant cities. The former approach to creating urban context can predominantly be associated with the culturalist approach to urbanism whereas the latter with the progresseist. Another concern in planning for urban character besides focusing too much on its physical attributes is focusing too much on a narrow perception of the soft qualities. Sharon Zukin (2010) argues that along with the industrial restructuring of the late 20th century, Western societies have shifted from a culture of production to a culture of consumption and reproduction, and also authentic urban life has become an object of consumption and thereby a powerful tool in the remaking of cities. Marquardt et al. (2012) exemplify how this practice of consuming the city also has a dimension of displacement. Their account of a set of inner-city townhouses in Berlin whose designs refer to a range of different cultures, eras and styles (e.g. London, Borneo-Sporenburg Amsterdam, and Northern Germany) but not Berlin, reflect an objectification of the city as a
27
vibrant and exciting atmosphere to be consumed , but where urbanity is conceptualized in a narrow way which downplays the complex social realities of the city: Evoked as a distinguishing feature of the housing product, urbanity is referred to as a universal form of vibrant city life, filled deliberately with reminiscences of iconic cities. Instead of engaging with specific urban atmospheres the new-build developments are shaped by blueprint ideas of urbanism that circulate as best practice in real estate discourses (Marquardt et al. 2012: 9).
2.4.5. Cost & the Economics of Urban Development Rudlin & Falks (1999: 111-121) final C refers to the context-specific economies of urban development. Yet regardless of context, factors such as location, land value, and development industry operating models will continue to influence the cost of housing and urban development. Rudlin & Falk (1999: 111) view the economics of urban development in the sense that costs are largely a constraint to in the development of new structures, but in the global information society urban development also has a strategic dimension as the overall vitality of an urban area obviously has a significant impact on the economics of urban development. In the era of globalization when capital and labor are more mobile than ever, cities increasingly compete with each other making the assets of a given city important strategic tools in the competition for skilled workers and investments. Historically and also today, economic competitiveness i.e. the location decisions of private enterprises and associated urban policy, has relied on transport infrastructure and agglomeration or clustering advantages (Musterd & Kovcs 2013: 4-5). In the 21st century also the the quality of place as described in the previous chapter has taken an important strategic role. In Floridas (2012) interpretation of this, it is now the enterprises that follow people, not the other way around. And this elevates other urban assets that contribute to the livability of a city such as housing to front stage in the quest for economic competitiveness (Musterd & Kovcs 2013: 5). The above-presented example of Berlin (Marquardt et al. 2012) is a prime example of how townhouse development can be used in this strategic context as well through the promotion of a workliveplay lifestyle (p. 9). This strategic approach to townhouse development can also be more modest. The building type has been used as part of urban revitalization schemes
28
to upgrade existing neighborhoods by replacing aging buildings, filling-up empty lots, and by adding variety to the housing and tenure options in a neighborhood - with an ultimate goal of increasing the value of existing buildings and adding tax income (City of Toronto 2003: 2; Friedman 2012: 180). At the regional scale, a significant factor that influences the cost of housing in growing urban areas is how the housing supply keeps up with the market demand. A key factor underlying this is the pattern in which the supply is spread out in respect to the areas with the highest demand, i.e. policy decisions regarding land-use efficiency. According to Loikkanen (2013), dispersed urban growth and the resulting fragmented urban structure not only increase cardependency and make it more difficult to reach environmental targets, but they raise the price of housing as the growing urban population moves further away from the jobs that are typically located in the main and sub centers. As a result, well-located housing becomes "scarcer" and this raises housing prices and rents everywhere, which ultimately gets reflected in the competitiveness of the city (Loikkanen 2013: 9). In addition to the value of land, the cost of housing gets affected whether a housing unit is acquired as a market commodity or constructed directly by the end user as in the case of the former the construction company will include a profit margin in the price (e.g. Harvey & Jowsey 2003). Bengs (2010a) suggests that also concentration processes in the building and construction industry contribute to cost increases in urban development, as monopolies in any field of economy is conventionally associated with higher prices and a lack of innovation due to a lack of competition (Sastry 2005). According to Bengs (2010a: 131-132) this is a phenomenon that tends to occur as the operational field of the building and construction industry happens in a context of limited land in a given place. But in addition, public policies in lot distribution which entail large-scale development projects often increase the level of concentration because the projects are too big for local entrepreneurs to compete for. Grayson Trulove (2006: 9) notes that townhouses are an economical option in places where land is costly for new construction as their density-related qualities will allow housing-unit numbers to be maximized. Friedman (2012: 84) and Pfeifer & Brauneck (2008: 16) also suggest that the simple and rational principle of adding on makes it possible to erect a large number of housing units within a short time frame and lower related installation and maintenance expenses. This makes the townhouse a good building type for large scale
29
construction and potentially reduced housing prices. Friedman (2012: 100-101) especially highlights the potential gained with prefabrication as townhouses are narrow and therefore factory-made components are often suitable for ground transportation. Like Friedman, Dunham-Jones & Williamson (2011: 3) stress that contrary to Vernez Moudons (1989) appeal for urbanistic incremental development, the large-scale instant cities approach is a more beneficial way for creating urban space, because more suburban infill gets done and more cost-efficiently in that manner. Dunham-Jones & Williamson (2011: 9-12) assert that if viewed at the metropolitan scale, this approach helps achieve incremental metropolitanism. Rudlin and Falk (2009: 137) conclude that an optimal future would indeed comprise of differentiated housing production and endless variation that can simultaneously retain the economies of construction.
30
2.5. Helsinki & Stockholm The Local Contexts for Townhouse Development
The local contexts of Helsinki and Stockholm have many important similarities. Both cities lie in geographically similar locations, are national capitals, belong to the same administrative and regulatory family of the Nordic countries, have experienced comparable urban growth trends during the last century, and are currently experiencing strong growth pressures. Concerning urban development, both cities have a deeply embedded culture of governmentimposed urban planning, have a ground lease system, and the municipal authority in both cities owns a significant portion of the land within the municipal boundaries - approximately 70% in each city (Newman & Thornley 1996; Hall 2005). And finally, Helsinki and Stockholm are both important economic engines for their respective countries containing strong knowledge-based clusters and are among the 10 richest metroregions in Europe (FORA 2010). This is reflected by the fact that both cities are currently destinations of intense migration and are among the fastest growing urban regions in Europe. Helsinkis population is projected to grow from the current 603 968 up to 652 230 inhabitants by 2022 (8%) and the Greater Helsinki Region by 10% up to 1 516 217 inhabitants (City of Helsinki Urban Facts 2013). The city of Stockholm is projected to grow more significantly by 17% from the current population of 864 324 to 1 010 492 by 2022 (City of Stockholm 2013). The City Region similarly will grow by 17% 2 436 745 by 2021(Stockholms lns landsting 2012).
31
Picture 3. Outlines of the cities and city regions. The City of Stockholm and Stockholm County on the left, and Helsinki and the Greater Helsinki region on the right (Wikimedia Commons 2013). The pictures are not to scale.
2.5.1. Points of Departure and Terminology In a brief historic account, Stockholm is a much older city than Helsinki and has been the political and economic center of Sweden since the 14th century. Helsinki on the other hand was not much more than a small regional town until it was made the capital of the Finnish Grand Duchy in 1812. However, starting from the processes of industrialization during the 19th century, the growth of the two cities has been characterized by very similar general urbanization patterns (Hall 2005). During the medieval period, Stockholm got its first townhouses as wealthy bourgeois families built themselves urban homes, but this line of townhouse development gave way to apartment living along with the industrial revolution (Manninen & Holopainen 2006: 12; Schartner 2013). Alongside these developments, both Sweden and Finland have a long tradition in small-scale wooden urban development, and wooden houses were generally the primary means of living and building up until the early 20th century. Now only little fragments of this tradition remains as much has been either burnt or torn down in urban renewal processes (Karjalainen & Suikkari 2001: 15-17).
32
In the early 20th century masonry construction gradually became more popular than wooden construction. The beginning of this process was accompanied by influences from Ebenezer Howards Garden City concept, and following this inspiration a few brick-built strings of urban row houses or townhouses were built in both capitals. In Helsinki, Eliel Saarinen designed a couple of them in the neighborhood of Munkkiniemi and Armas Lindgren in Kulosaari (Manninen & Holopainen 2006: 13-15). In Stockholm, similar developments took place for example in the garden city of Bromma (sell 2013). Quite soon afterwards Ebenezer Howards Garden City ideal however started to take influences from Le Corbusian functionalism, which transformed the urbanization patterns of the cities substantially. The Finnish interpretation of these influencers ideas came together in the conceptualization of Tapiola, a modern garden city built to the west of the city (Hurme 1991). The Swedish equivalent at the time was the ABC stad model (Westford 2010: 12). Both models are basically leafy satellite suburbs that consist predominantly of apartment buildings. As economic restructuring processes triggered a shift from agriculture to manufacturing and service industries, especially the latter half of the 20th century witnessed substantial increases in the paces of urbanization, and a significant portion of the post-WWII development in both cities took the form of suburban development using these modern garden city models (Schulman et al. 2000; Hall & Vidn 2005). During the first decades after the war, the growth of the cities was strongly outwards oriented and most intense during the 1960s when construction practice became more industrialized. In Sweden this urbanization period was linked with the governments housing-specific Million Homes Programme
(Miljonprogrammet) which sought to construct a million new homes nationally during 19651974 (Hall & Vidn 2005). In Finland as well as for Helsinki this period has been the most significant period of urbanization in its history. According to (Heininen-Blomstedt 2013: 15) about 90% of the entire existing building stock in the country has been designed under the functionalist paradigm. A key difference in this process was that in Stockholm the ABC stads were configured around the subway or rail transit whereas in Helsinki cars became the dominant mode of transport. Stockholm consequently took a star-shaped urban form where strings of settlements alternate
33
between large open spaces, later on known as green wedges (LSE Cities 2013: 48-49), but Helsinki grew in a more unorganized manner. In the context of these developments and starting from the late 1940s and 50s, attached living in both capitals materialized as modernist row houses. Their construction was especially popular in the 1970s and 80s (Manninen & Hirvonen 2004). Starting from the 1980s and 1990s onwards growth in both cities has in addition to the outwards-directed developments been characterized by an inwards-oriented densification trend as well, and at this point in time the urbanization patterns between the cities have clearly become different in the larger picture. Helsinki has been characterized by parallel growths: inwards at the core and outwards at the edge (Jaakola & Lnnqvist 2007). In Stockholm on the other hand, growth has been diverted more explicitly to existing urban areas (Hall 2009). It was also at this general junction in time, that the idea of the townhouse appeared in discussions again. In Helsinki, this had been preceded by a central government project Dense & low-rise (Tiivis-matala) - initiated by the Ministry of the Environment (YM 2002), which following its name sought to conceptualize and promote dense and low-rise urban development in response to urban sprawl. Parallel to the Ministrys project some early ideas of townhouse-living materialized as pilot projects in e.g. Pikku-Huopalahti (Visanti 2006: 15), Sterinmets (Fogelholm 2003) and Malminkartano (Helsingin kaupunki 2005). In the aftermath and followed by further investigations about the concept (Manninen & Holopainen 2006), the city organized an architecture competition for entries to assist in conceptualizing what the Helsinki townhouse could look like (Sjroos & Jalkanen 2010). At this stage a definition of the townhouse in the citys books had evolved to first and foremost mean the traditional single housing unit on a single lot model, and also the English term was adopted to distinguish it from other similar living arrangements (Manninen & Holopainen 2006: 7; see chapter 2.2. for different conceptualizations). The other terms used in the context of smallscale and low-rise development and interchangeably also to mean attached urban living - are kaupunkipientalo (small-scale urban home), kaupunkirivitalo (city row house), and kaupunkiomakotitalo (urban single-family home). On an applied level, there are currently two main active project sites for the introduction of the more conceptualized Helsinki townhouses adjacent to Malmi airfield in suburban NorthEast Helsinki. Both are pilot project areas, or more aptly development laboratories,
34
specifically for the Helsinki townhouse (Visanti 2013). Ongoing and future plans also include inner-city townhouses in brownfield harbor urban renewal areas and a large townhousedominant small-scale city in stersundom at the eastern edge of the city (Pulkkinen 2011). In Stockholm, townhouses do not have a clear institutional path and on the contrary they seem have emerged via the private housing sector. In any case, around the turn of the millennium attached housing developments were no longer referred to only as row houses (radhus) but also as stadsradhus, cityradhus (city row houses), or urbana enbostadshus (urban single-family homes). This new terminology has been applied to development that is associated with the conventional characteristics of townhouses, but also to structures that can be found on rooftops, adjoining apartment buildings, or emerging from transformed industrial buildings (see chapter 4.2. for pictures). All of these variations share key defining
characteristics of the townhouse such as a connection to the street (albeit the ones on rooftops technically obviously dont have this quality), an individual entrance, a yard or terrace if they are not back-to-back units, and a vertical circulation. All in all, the key defining quality for determining townhouses seems to be contradicting them to the more conventional radhus.
2.5.2. Conservation in Context In Helsinki, the aims for achieving climate-conscious urban development are embedded in the citys current master plan from 2002 and in the city councils Helsinki Action Plan for Sustainability for 20092012 (Silfverberg et al. 2010: 6; Jaakkola 2012: 111-113). Moreover, Helsinki has recently begun to draft a new city-wide master plan where the intensification of existing urban fabric is suggested to be elevated as an ever more central principle in the means to accommodate future growth (KSV 2012). So far compaction and residential infill construction primarily been focused on under-utilized and brownfield areas. Urban compaction beyond the redevelopment of brownfield sites has proven to be challenging and generally not very much has been accomplished in existing residential areas (Uudistuva kaupunki 2012: 35). In response to these concerns, the city has introduced a program called the Renaissance of the Suburbs (Esikaupunkien renessanssi), which primarily seeks to find solutions for advancing infill development (Esikaupunkien renessanssi 2013).
35
Even if the strategic aim in Helsinkis physical planning at the municipal level has been to achieve a compact urban structure that relies on a functional rail transport network and preserves existing networks of green areas (Silfverberg et al. 2010: 7), the settlement pattern in Helsinki has taken a two-directional path when observed at the regional scale. While the city of Helsinki has zoned for housing around the core of the area (Jaakola & Lnnqvist 2007), on the metropolitan level, substantial low-density sprawl has occurred in the outer suburbs especially from the 1990s onwards (EEA 2006; Ratvio 2012). Consequently, the Helsinki region has been noted to be among the most sprawling city regions in Europe (EEA 2006). The main cause for this is that a combined and effective urban planning master plan concerning the whole region has never existed and municipalities have focused on their own strategic goals at the expense of the whole. Consequently the attraction of good tax payers and investments has been high on the local municipalities political agendas (e.g. Taipale 2011). The regional perspective has been established as an official guiding policy only in 2008 as the municipalities of the Helsinki metropolitan region agreed to start preparing a joint master plan with a goal of preventing urban sprawl (Karjalainen 2008). From a regional perspective, the contemporary vision is to intensify the sprawling urban landscape at select locations and create a public transport-reliant polycentric structure (Gordon et al. 2009). In Stockholm, the OECD (2013) acknowledges that environmental criteria have long played an important role in the citys policy making. In the context of land use issues, urban intensification has been a guiding policy since the beginning of the 1980s (Hall 2009: 198; Sthle & Marcus 2009). In 1999 the city adopted a policy known as building the city inwards, which stresses that new development is to be built using already developed land and emphasizing the core of the city. The view to look inwards instead of outwards has for example triggered a policy to promote the construction of housing on suitable rooftops (Hall 2009). In 2010, the city adopted its current master plan which is set to continue the project of inwardbuilding with the exception that there is now pressure to expand new development to green spaces as many brownfield sites and other previously underdeveloped areas have already been developed (Sthle & Marcus 2009; Stockholms stad 2010). In the wider picture, the intense
36
urbanization process and policy aims to preserve the large green wedges (Boyle et al. 2012: 77-82) that characterize Stockholm are at risk of clashing. According to Hall (2009: 197), in Stockholm, and by contrast to Helsinki, there exists a cultural agreement between the other municipalities in the County of Stockholm that growth ought to be directed primarily within Stockholm city limits. To relieve some of the Stockholm growth pressure, a regional plan, RUFS 2010 (Stockholms lns landsting 2010), has been drafted to shift the metropolitan region towards a more polycentric urban structure from the current mono-centric one. Compelling examples of the effectiveness of Stockholms conservation policies are the nomination for the first European Green Capital in 2010, and that the city has managed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions per capita over a period of continuous economic growth and population increase, and resulting in a rate that is among the lowest in OECD metro areas (OECD 2013: 9).
2.5.3. Choice in Context Housing choice in both Helsinki and Stockholm is happening in conditions that are characterized by two important interrelated factors. Both cities are significant modern economic centers and are destinations of considerable net migration. From a housing market perspective, there however are some differences between the cities. Firstly, being cities in Finland and Sweden, the housing markets have been highly regulated during the creation of the Nordic welfare state model, and the public sector has been a significant player in all aspects of the market (Loikkanen & Lnnqvist 2007; Lundstrm & Wilhelmsson 2007). From the early 1990s onwards along with strong economic restructuring, the housing markets have experienced considerable deregulation. According to (Andersson et al. 2007: 24-25), this process has been much faster in Finland than in Sweden. In the case of Stockholm, municipal housing companies are still large players, but their operating model has transformed into that of the private sector. These developments in the Stockholm market have had two important effects: the private sector of the housing market has become an increasingly important player in the development of housing designs as public procurement has decreased (Lundstrm & Wilhelmsson 2007: 338-339), and the political
37
connection to the housing market has prevailed as the municipal housing companies are still publicly owned even if operating as the private sector (Bengs 2010b). Secondly, while there are two main types of tenure in Finland (ownership and renting), in Sweden there is a third form called tenant-ownership that is mainly associated with apartment-building and row-house living. In this type of tenure, the resident owns a share to live a specific apartment but ultimately does not concretely own his or her walls which are owned collectively through the residents association. The tenant-ownership model is close the common apartment ownership model via a housing cooperative that is in place in many countries as in tenant-ownership the resident also has the right to sell the share on the market. The key difference is that in the tenant-ownership model the resident is not free to rent the apartment onwards. The key importance in comparison to e.g. Finland is that in Finland an individual may freely invest in apartments and put them for rent. In Sweden this kind of small-scale private initiative in the urban housing markets doesnt to a great degree exist. It has only been in 2009 that similar owner-occupancy as in Finland has been introduced to Swedish legislation (Borglund et al. 2013). Despite these differences in housing policy, the characteristics of the housing supply in Helsinki and Stockholm are quite similar. It is almost entirely made up of apartment buildings (86% in HEL and 90% in STO) and thereby only a small share of detached or attached houses (City of Helsinki Urban Facts 2013; City of Stockholm 2013). A difference is that Helsinki has performed better than Stockholm in keeping up with the sizeable growth in housing production (Andersson et al. 2007: 19), which means that the need for new housing is much more critical in Stockholm. According to Lundstrm & Wilhelmsson (2007) this has largely to do with the above-mentioned liberation processes of the housing market which have had a stronger impact on the operational side in the Swedish housing industry. Another difference is that in Helsinki apartments are smaller than in Stockholm. In 2004, the average person in the Helsinki Region had 35.4 sqm of living space whereas his or her counterpart in the Stockholm area had slightly over 40 sqm (Lankinen et al. 2009: 17). At the demand side, the nuclear family definitely is not the dominant household type on the market as suggested by e.g. Rudlin & Falk (1999/2009). According to statistics produced by City of Helsinki Urban Facts (2013) and the City of Stockholm (2013), the average household size in both cities is 1.9, which is much lower than the EU average of 2.4 (Eurostat 2013), and
38
in Helsinki for example 49% of them are one-person households whereas 5-person households make only 3% of the total. In Stockholm the share of one-person households is allegedly even higher, around 60% of all households (Fortune 2012). In terms of age, the populations in the cities are younger than the national averages which are also reflected in the share of the elderly. The share of inhabitants over the age of 65 is 15.8% in HEL and 14.2% in STO. Both shares are also below the national average and also the EU average (17.5%). From a multiculturalism perspective, the share of foreign-born inhabitants is much higher in Stockholm (ca. 30%) than in Helsinki (ca. 10%). Future trends indicate that the share of elderly citizens in both cities is increasing but much slower than at national level due to working-aged net migration (Eurocities 2012: 2; HSY 2012: 60). Foreign immigration will also continue to be a characteristic of future growth, but in Helsinki it is projected to significantly intensify (Eurocities 2012: 2; HSY 2012: 60). In Helsinki, the average household size is estimated to decrease and the average dwelling space to increase (HSY 2012: 60) In Stockholm a factor that might influence these trends is that the city experiencing a baby boom and families are increasingly staying in the city (Eurocities 2012: 2). A lot of research has been done to interpret how these changing conditions affect peoples housing decisions. In Finland, the national surveys for living preferences keep showing that more than half of Finns living in urban areas would like to live in a detached home at some point, and that more live in apartments than would like to. The qualities that people mostly desire in their living environments are peace and quietness, access to services, an individual yard and closeness to nature (Strandell 2011: 10-19). More place-specific research in the Helsinki region has however showed that the ideal density people seek in their urban environment is around 100 inhabitants per hectare, which is the same as the maximum that townhouse-dominant neighborhoods potentially could house (Schmidt-Thom et al. 2013: 2). Furthermore, other qualities such as aesthetics, pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and generally functional qualities are elevated among the national ones (Kytt 2012). (Kepsu et al. 2010) on the other hand have researched the location preferences of knowledge workers in Helsinki testing Floridas (2012) arguments and discovered that there is significant differentiation in what people value most within this group too. A common factor for all groups was however that housing quality in the region is all but suffice; it is expensive and lacking choice (Kepsu et al. 2010: 47-56).
39
In studies on Stockholmites living preferences, Fransson et al. (2001) have analyzed that the most important qualities people seek from their living environment are a central location, good accessibility, commercial services and buzz. In another study, themes such as safety, relax and feel fine, well-being, private life, being amongst people, social contact, and will ease my life; save time were topping lists (Arvola et al. 2010: 228-230). The general interpretation of Arvola et al. (2010) was that the preferences were similar to those in Finland with the exception that the nature dimension was downplayed and urban qualities were elevated.
2.5.4. Community in Context In Helsinki, planning for urban milieus is an emerging concept. The conventional practice has been dominated by the modernist planning doctrine. The OECD (2003) for example concludes that the sprawling urban landscape in the Helsinki region is not only due to fierce competition for tax payers between the municipalities, but also because the principles of modernist urban planning and architecture have held their position in Finland: land use planning still emphasises campus-style site plans, with too little physical definition and reenforcement of the street and sidewalk as a primary place for social interaction (with retail shops for instance). And there is increasing dependence on and use of the automobile, even for short trips that could be more conveniently taken on foot in traditional settlement patterns (OECD 2003: 93). This has also had an influence on housing development: Housing projects [] are still designed in a limited number of architectural styles and types (OECD 2003: 93). This might condition might however be changing with the citys new master plan. One of the seven visions that guide the drafting process is called towards an urban Helsinki and some of the preliminary goals for the plan are for example to extend the urban core, create urban environments at local centers, and turn streets into public spaces (Helsingin yleiskaava 2013). In Stockholm on the other hand, planning for urban milieus has been on the citys agenda for much longer. Hall (2009: 199) argues that the word stadsmssighet which translates as urban or urbanity defined as something that the inner city possesses and the suburbs lack - has been an important term in the planning glossary already from the last quarter of the
40
20th century onwards. Tunstrms (2007) analysis of Swedish planning discourse between 1988 and 2003 similarly suggests that a very strong New Urbanist conceptualization of urbanity is a dominant driver of planning practice. Tunstrm however also shows concern over the issue that the conceptualization is rather closed and potentially excludes large parts of the city as anti-urban: The city, or the urban life in the discourse, is not really open to everyone, and those not living in the central city are not considered as living legitimate urban lives (p. 696). In Stockholms new 2010 master plan, The Walkable City, the city continues to emphasize developing neighborhoods for urban communities by not losing sight of the historic assets created throughout the life of the city, while also looking forward and creating conditions for healing the wounds that have been left in the fabric of the city. In the future, the walkable city will not stop at the historic tollgates around the centre, but will stretch far beyond and link up the whole of Stockholm (Stockholms stad 2010: 1).
2.5.5. Cost in Context From the perspective of the global economy, Helsinki and Stockholm are both well-integrated into the global economy and contain strong knowledge-based clusters, which set them among the 10 richest metro-regions in Europe (FORA 2010). Especially Stockholm stands out with the largest ICT cluster in Europe and as the financial center of the Nordic countries (FORA 2010: 14). From a strategic perspective, Stockholm has also prevailed well. The city launched a project Vision 2030 in 2006, branded itself as The Capital of Scandinavia, and has consequently managed to get business and residents to work together for a future that will keep the city prosperous (Paschou & Metaxas 2013). These efforts have been noted elsewhere too. In a recent report by the The Economist Intelligence Unit (2013) of places to be in 2025, Stockholm was ranked 8th among 120 cities worldwide. Helsinki on the other hand has been more modest in this context. The city together with its neighboring municipalities published a competitiveness strategy for the metropolitan region in 2009 (Menestyv metropoli2009) which sets out goals to keep Helsinki in the competition
41
for years to come. But they city region doesnt have a concise marketing or branding strategy as e.g. Stockholm does (Pukkila 2011). The cost of housing is a contemporary challenge in both capitals. According to Loikkanen (2013), one of the key factors for this is a lack of housing supply due to inefficient land-use policies. Helsinki is a prime example of the effects that uncoordinated urban development can cause in growing urban centers as described in chapter (2.5.2.). In Stockholm, the supply deficit is more associated with the housing industry restructuration side-effects as described in the previous chapter. However, the citys green wedges policy can to some degree be associated with similar effects as the fragmented use of land in Helsinki as the large green areas contain growth to already developed areas which are more costly to develop (Boyle et al. 2012). Despite these claims, the green wedges are more closely linked with social costs. According to (Lilja 2002), the star-shaped structure of the city has led to relatively closed-off urban islands which have proven to strengthen social segregation processes, especially in the Million Homes Programme areas. Despite ambitious social integration policies in both cities, there are for example significant differences in spatial ethnic segregation between the cities: in some of Stockholms suburbs 80% of the residents have immigrant backgrounds whereas in Helsinki the highest shares are only 20% (Vilkama 2011). In terms of the construction industry, both cities are dealing with large-scale construction companies and with very few small or medium-sized actors (Bengs 2012). According to Bengs (2012: 52), already in the 1980s the Swedish construction industry was the most concentrated in the OECD countries and Finlands was the second most. Moreover, at the beginning of the 21st century there were only three national construction companies in Sweden (Bengs 2010: 131). The situation has consequently led to allegations of inefficiency and lack of innovation in both cities. Furthermore, both cities have conventionally favored large-scale development areas in their lot policies which has restricted the capacity of small and medium-sized actors to enter these markets (Ahonen et al. 2008: 79-80; Bengs 2010a: 131-132; Bengs 2010b). In Helsinki, the city has begun to support group-building (see chapter 2.2.) efforts as one instrument in its housing policy palette to intervene with this situation: The support to
42
group-building is targeted to diversify the construction domain (Helsingin kaupunki 2012: 63). In Stockholm, such interventions are yet to emerge (Schartner 2013).
43
2.6. Conceptual Framework and Research Questions

Housing and urban development in the 21st century is affected by contested urban utopias of the past decade, multiple global socio-economic influences, and the context-specific interpretations and approaches to them. Based on this theory and a literature review on townhouses, the basic assumptions that explain the emergences of townhouses in contemporary times are: Townhouses are developed because of their eco-efficient qualities in residential development. Townhouses are developed to provide housing options in order to support the needs of a more heterogeneous mix of household compositions, different cultural backgrounds and contemporary working conditions. Townhouses are developed to create urban milieus for urban lifestyles. Townhouses are developed because of their potential cost-efficiency effects in residential development.
Following this theoretical background, this thesis sets out to examine and compare the emergence of townhouses in Helsinki and Stockholm. The research questions are: 1: How are townhouses conceptualized in urban policy and planning in Helsinki and Stockholm? 2: How have these ideas been materialized in practice? A sub-question for both main research questions is: What are the key commonalities and differences?
44
3.
Design and Method
This thesis approaches the study of townhouse development in Helsinki and Stockholm in a comparative and qualitative manner. This is done on two layers. A qualitative content analysis drawing inspiration from frame theory is applied to make sense of the core motivations that are used to explain why townhouses are being built into the cities urban landscapes. Furthermore, the comparative analysis is deepened by a comparison and description of select materialized townhouse projects based on field observations. Townhouses have official currency in the urban policy and planning debates in Helsinki and there consequently is a somewhat established body of documentation on the topic in different information outlets. The situation in Stockholm is however very much the opposite. This is a crucial point when discussing townhouse development, because if it is examined comparatively strictly in a public policy context, there is little to discuss. Therefore for the purposes of this study it is more relevant to understand townhouse development as a sort of phenomenon that is happening in both cities but reflecting the local ambitions of urban policy-making and planning. This also makes the use of frame analysis and its core question whats going on here? a useful and appropriate approach for examining the topic.
45
3.1. Frame Analysis

Frame analysis is a research method that is principally concerned with dissecting how an issue is defined and problematized, and the effect that this has on the broader discussion of the issue (Hope 2010: 1). The concept has been constructed by Ervin Goffman (1974) as a structural sociological analysis of the principles of organization that guide the ways in which men may perceive the real world. This cognitive view (Shmueli 2008: 2049) introduces frames as mental schemes that enable individuals to perceive and represent the world in certain ways and to act upon these perceptions. The basic idea is that these schemes or frames inform people to identify what is going on in a particular situation. In more recent times, frame analysis has also taken a communicative perspective which has been popular especially within media studies to explore how a particular subject is communicated in e.g. journalism, but it has also been used in the study of social movements and policy studies (Knig 2005). This entails that the word frame can be used both as a noun (a frame) and as a verb (to frame). According to Shmueli (2008: 2048-2049), frame as a noun signifies the boundary within which a picture is displayed and made salient from the background; it plays a filtering role in perception, interpretation and understanding of specific situations. The verb to frame on the other hand refers to the process of constructing a frame during communication, which ultimately may be used to conceptualize and interpret, or manipulate and persuade (Shmueli 2008: 2048-2049). This study combines the two perspectives to apply frame analysis in an instrumental manner to highlight what is going on with townhouses in the two cities and lay the ground for a comparative analysis. More specifically, inspiration is drawn from the application of frame analysis in the study of social movements, which generally takes a dynamic approach and focuses on agency and competition about different meanings given to particular issues the movement is concerned with (Snow & Benford 1988). Of relevance to this research is the view that social movements use framing to construct and mobilize their agenda generally by combining three essential elements 1) a diagnosis of the social condition in need of remedy; 2) a prognosis for how to affect such a remedy; and 3) a rationale for action (Snow & Benford 1988; Entman 1993). In the study of social movements a core area of interest is how these processes of issue-framing resonate with wider
46
understandings of the subject area among potential movement supporters which ultimately contributes to the success or failure of a movement (Snow & Benford 1988). The theoretical point of departure stemming from frame theory in this research is thus that whenever an agent communicates about townhouse development, the complex nature of the topic is dissected into a set of interrelated causalities frames which are used when discussing the issue in a given situation. The area of emphasis with these particular frames is however not on the how/why? dimension of framing, but on the content-inspired more static what dimension of the cognitive view of frames. When the discovered frames in the broader discourse around townhouse development in Helsinki and Stockholm are put together and compared and contrasted between both contexts, it is possible to construct an understanding of what is going on in each city.
47
3.2. Data Collection & Processing

The research data for this study was collected through desktop research and field research. Desktop research was firstly used to collect available literature on townhouses both from online journal articles and academic libraries in Helsinki and Stockholm. Secondly, it was applied to collect data for the analysis. This was done through systematic examination of academic and professional journals from both countries and the online archives of well-established newspapers from both cities (see list in appendix B) for articles that deal with townhouses and/or townhouse development between the years 2000 to 2013, when applicable. In addition, an internet search was done to single out relevant articles from other electronic literary sources. The field research also had two stages. Firstly, it consisted of semi-structured interviews with professionals who have been engaged with townhouse development (see overview of interviewees in appendix A). The interviewees were selected based on different combinations of experience in and knowledge of townhouse development in municipal urban planning, private townhouse development and design, and townhouse-related research activities. This thesis will retain a level of anonymity in discussing their interview responses as the goal of the study is to concentrate on the substance and not the actors. Therefore the respondents are given a random code (R1-R7) which will be used in the analysis. The item list for the interviews was constructed based on the theory used in this study and a preliminary examination of a narrow set of the publications and online news stories in order to outline recurring themes in the townhouse discourses. These themes were then used as the basis for guiding the semi-structured interviews. In total, 7 interviews were conducted and transcribed; 3 in Stockholm and 4 in Helsinki. 6 interviews were face-to-face interviews and one of the Helsinki interviews was done via email. The second fieldwork stage was to identify, visit and photograph townhouse projects in both cities to get insights of what has been built so far (see chapter 4.2.). The list of visited townhouses was not exhaustive, but reflects the projects that were mostly discussed in the research data.
48
Concerning data processing, there is no predetermined way for conducting frame analysis (Knig 2005). Most studies however use techniques borrowed from discourse analyses and sociolinguistics to identify frames (Knig 2005). According to Horsti (2005: 51-52), the casespecific research questions, data, and research frame determine the way frame analysis is applied. In this research it is applied as qualitative content analysis. According to Tuomi & Sarajrvi (2009: 103-104) content analysis is textual analysis where the researcher seeks to identify meanings in a text and represent a general and concise description of the related object of study. Content analysis essentially provides raw material for theoretical evaluation. The above-described conceptualization of frame analysis was applied to the collected data to dissect 1) the motivation for townhouse development (i.e. what is the ongoing development of townhouses a remedy/prognosis for?) and 2) for identifying the key development areas within townhouse development (i.e. what are the diagnosis and prognosis for better townhouse development?). In a note about the validity of the research, the research process has been characterized by the use of three languages: some data is translated from Finnish to English by the author and some from Swedish to English. The interviews in Finland were conducted in Finnish and in Sweden in English. In the case of the latter, English was not the first language of the interviewees not the interviewer. Overall, emphasis has been paid to minimize conceptual misunderstandings, but during data processing the researcher has at times had to rely on assumptions as given meanings can many manifold. And finally, due to geographical restrictions, summer-time work arrangements and information outlet opening hours, research material was much more difficult to gather from Stockholm than from Helsinki.
49
4.
Comparative Analysis of Townhouses in Helsinki and Stockholm
4.1. Whats Going on? The Main Concepts of the Townhouse Discourses
The findings of the research are discussed in this chapter using Rudlin & Falks (1999/2009) framework of the four Cs which also structures the theoretical background. The analysis predominantly follows a scheme of first discussing the townhouse discourse in Helsinki, then Stockholm and thirdly comparing and contrasting between the two. A broad picture of the comparisons is concisely summarized in tables under each C, building up to an overall assessment (table 6.).
4.1.1.
Conservation
The research data shows that townhouse development has a clear link to environmental concerns in the Helsinki discourse (table 2.). (R4) for example states that townhouse development is connected with: the need to intensify the urban form and use of land, and (HS 2008) writes that eco-efficiency is one the core concepts in the planning [of townhouses] . Moreover, townhouses and their development are characterized with adjectives such as sustainable (Mukala 2011: 41) and ecologic (R1). In Stockholm, townhouses are conversely not discussed in direct relation to environmental concerns. But they are linked to the need for higher-density development.
Table 2. Conservation in comparsion.
Helsinki Townhouses Environmental concerns a driver
Stockholm Townhouses Environmental concerns not a driver
Land-use efficiency problematized as possibly becoming too high
Land-use efficiency problematized as not being high enough
50
In broader terms, the specific themes that are made salient in the conservation discourse can in the case of Helsinki on the one hand be divided into a frame that emphasizes their land-use efficiency and thereby the connection and departure from the national Dense & low-rise project, and on the other hand into a frame that concerns the practice of infill development. In the Stockholm discourse, townhouses are not a focus in the discussion by any means but rather perceived as by-products of ambitions for achieving high-density neighborhoods. In Helsinki, following the messages of Visanti (2003), Korpivaara & Tuokko (2003), and Kytsaho (2003), (R4) identifies the aims of the national Dense & low-rise project as the root for townhouse development: At that time dense and low-rise development was a hot discussion topic. It was project for the Ministry of the Environment. [] That was one of the motives. Townhouses are however perceived to be more land-use efficient than the national projects guidelines for small-scale development and therefore the building type is elevated as a more suitable option for the needs of urban development in Helsinki. Visanti (2003: 18) for example reflects this motive: There [in the suburbs of Helsinki] dense and low-rise development can come close to the land-use efficiency of apartment buildings. The [] floorarea ratio of 0.3 defined by the Ministry of the Environment is however not sufficient to replace apartment buildings. Overall, this framing of the townhouse as a quest for achieving a denser city clearly corresponds with the background that the Greater Helsinki Region is characterized by sprawling low-density development (EEA 2006). The land-use efficiency of townhouses is taken into a geographical context via the case of the future stersundom project area and linking the issue with the promotion of public transportation, and thereby ultimately also the polycentric structure consisting of a series of dense nodes that the city of Helsinki has claimed to seek after (Gordon et al. 2009). Here the land-use efficiency of townhouses is taken to the top end of the density scale as the goal for achieving a townhouse-dominant neighborhood is problematized. Its ability to meet the sufficient density requirements for functioning rail transport is not seen as a certainty (R4): And then if the place [stersundom] is desired to have the Metro connection, it presumes efficient urban development. But how is that equation going to work out? In this context and also more widely, the fire regulations and handicap norms that guide housing development are identified as key constraints against the development of high51
density townhouses. These are argued to have restrictions on the height of buildings due to elevator and escape-route requirements (e.g. Visanti 2007: 22-23) as well as the narrowness of buildings due to handicap norms (R2). (R1) describes that the combined result is a challenge for building higher than two stories, which basically means that the full potential of townhouse development is not achieved in Finland (R2). It is also interestingly speculated that for the long term, the land-use efficiency of townhouses might altogether not be sufficient enough for Helsinki and the building type will ultimately be pushed towards the outer suburbs (R4): As Helsinki is the core city of the region, I see that the role of detached and attached housing is even smaller in the future. [] Helsinki is even more clearly a city of apartment-buildings in the future. (R1) sees that the question of landuse efficiency is not so much of a factual issue as a political choice of what kind of urban environments will be built, because studies have shown that the sufficient density requirements for e.g. the metro line can be met with townhouses. The other distinguishable frame in the context of conservation links townhouses with the practice of urban intensification in Helsinki. The message made most salient is that while infill development using townhouses is seen as beneficial for the environment, in practice it is troublesome: Because people live there [in the suburbs] and they generally dont accept the construction of new buildings on their yards (R1). (R4) continues that at the moment when dont have a single piece of land that could be developed non-efficiently. And increasingly [] challenging locations such as traffic buffer zones will need to be developed. There are no easy times ahead. This frame resonates with the notions that infill practice is yet to be organized efficiently in Helsinki (Uudistuva kaupunki 2012). Contrary to theory (Vernez Moudon 1989; Friedman 2012), the theme of resource-efficiency is not emphasized apart from a couple of brief references to the durability of townhouses (Mukala 2011: 41; Jalkanen et al. 2012: 25). But a new resource-related argument supporting townhouse development is presented: the building type is perceived to have potential in decreasing peoples needs to drive to their summer houses for yard-related activities (Jalkanen 2012: 36). In the Stockholm discourse the townhouse is not directly linked to environmental policy, but these structures are framed to have a role as by-products in the quest for high-density development. (R7) says that: There are many people asking for flats, they have difficulties in
52
finding a place to live so that it is not the solution to make a lot of row houses In other words, townhouses in this context are dominantly perceived as pragmatic solutions to achieving dense development in places where apartment buildings are not fit. (R5) synthesizes this view: And where you have one-family houses, it can be too brutal to put in apartment buildings, and then you put in these terraces in between. You find little plots that are leftovers. From the citys point of view, the land-use efficiency of townhouses is thus not seen as sufficient enough to have a more significant role in urban densification. That is perceived as (R5) puts it: a bad use of the land. As in Helsinki, the main obstacles in achieving higher densities with Stockholm townhouses are local handicap norms and fire regulations, which similarly restrict the vertical orientation of the buildings to a maximum two to three stories (R5, R6). These concerns in Stockholm as in Helsinki resemble the criticism (Duany et al. 2000) that the proponents of culturalist urbanism have communicated against the legacy of the modernists which has allegedly made the urban project a highly standardized and regulated practice that is not open to innovation. Why environmental concerns are not directly addressed in the Stockholm townhouse discourse is likely to have a connection with the fact that the practice of urban intensification is already a well-established policy in Stockholm (Duany et al. 2000) and it therefore doesnt need the support of environmental arguments. Also the systematical use of townhouses as proxies between existing lower-density development and new higher-density development suggests that there is a mature way to balance the delivery of denser development. Furthermore, since Stockholm is already very comprehensively eco-conscious (OECD 2013), it might be taken as a given issue that development is eco-friendly. In comparison, the townhouse discourse in Helsinki in the environmental context supports the theory on the driving forces of townhouse development whereas in Stockholm explicit environmental concerns are not made salient at all. On the contrary, in Stockholm the issue of adding density is discussed in a very pragmatic way as part of the infill practice discourse and a pressing need to develop all available underused land. These differences between the cities can be understood via the matureness stage of the infill apparatus: the already well-established practice in Stockholm doesnt need the support of environmental arguments whereas in Helsinki solutions for organizing infill practice are still being discussed and environmental
53
arguments are applied to legitimize the densification processes. Why environmental issues are not a focus in the Stockholm discourse ultimately also highlights the fact that townhouse development is not being pushed as a public policy like in Helsinki. The view of an uncertain future for townhouses put forward in the Helsinki discourse is a controversial argument because it makes current efforts to introduce townhouses look rather pointless. One interpretation is that under its growth pressures, the pragmatism apparent in Stockholms approach to land-use efficiency ultimately seems to carry most weight in the densification process. Also the political attitudes towards creating high-density environments seem to be quite narrow and in the context of this study especially the small-scale and finergrained kind of urban environments are contested. Perceiving townhouses as vehicles for material resource-efficiency has little currency in the townhouse discourses in neither Helsinki nor Stockholm. This likely has to do with the fact that townhouses are not replacements for single-family detached homes in either city but for apartment buildings which are comparably equally if not more resource-efficient than townhouses. The main concern in both cities is actually that townhouses could be more resource-efficient should the existing handicap norms and fire regulations be more flexible towards townhouse development.
54
4.1.2.
Choice
In the context of discourses on housing demand and supply (table 3.), the most salient argument for developing townhouses in Helsinki is the idea of offering a substitute for the suburban detached single-family home accompanied with a promise for urban living. In Stockholm townhouses are also considered to offer options for urban living, but as apartments.
Table 3. Choice in comparision.
Helsinki Townhouses Link with detached single-family home living
Stockholm Townhouses Link with apartment living
Link with urban lifestyles
Link with a desire to diversify housing supply
No strong link with goal to diversify housing supply
In the conceptualization that is most prominent in Helsinki, the qualities of the townhouse are seen in the context of Finns living preferences (Strandell 2011) for single-family homes (R2; R4). These include a private yard and entrance (R3), as much space as in a detached single-family home (R2), closeness to nature (Ojala 2001: 36), autonomy from neighbors (Vakkuri 2011: 11), the absence of a housing cooperative (Manninen 2006: 24), ground-related qualities (R4), peace and quietness (Jalkanen 2012: 36), and doit-yourself potential (Kytsaho 2003: 21). Moreover, townhouses are compared to housing options in Sipoo (R3), Nurmijrvi (Vakkuri 2011: 11) and Espoo (R4) which are conventionally associated with spacious detached homes and suburban living in Finland. Potential tenants are dominantly described to be families (R2; R4; Jalkanen 2012: 35) and especially in the case of suburban townhouses, average families (R4). Altogether this conceptualization of the townhouse is seen as something that combines the benefits of row houses and detached single-family homes (Ojala 2001: 36).
55
This framing quite obviously works to benefit Helsinki in the competition for tax payers in the location dynamics of the fragmented Greater Helsinki Region (EEA 2006), and is also elevated as the first aim in the most recent publication on townhouses (Jalkanen et al. 2012: 11) by the citys planning department. (R3; R4) also touch upon this issue: [] the idea is [] That there is an alternative [for families] for leaving Helsinki (R4). When conceptualized in this way, the townhouse is altogether in strict contrast to the theory on townhouse development and changing user needs. There is little to none linkage with the themes of changing household compositions or contemporary socio-economic needs (Rudlin & Falk 1999: 91-93) even if the indicators of these in Helsinki also support the conceptualization suggested by theory (City of Helsinki Urban Facts 2013). In a less salient conceptualization of the townhouse, the building type is however also presented to cater for more diverse ways of urban living. One argument is the need to provide housing options for those with an international lifestyle and who are accustomed to living close to other people (R4). In another argument the townhouse is regarded as a potential housing solution for those that come from different cultures (Manninen 2006: 25). The notion of servicing a more diverse crowd is also extended beyond considering families as the household norm in a few statements: The townhouse will also make a representative home to couples or singles (Jalkanen 2012: 36). This conceptualization of the Helsinki townhouse is more closely associated with the inner-city townhouses, which are according to (R4): designed for a different grouping of people. This view of townhouses is more aligned with the theoretical assumptions explaining townhouse development and respectively also Helsinkis local conditions. Interestingly, there is a geographical difference between the two kinds of conceptualizations of the townhouse. Put together, the non-singular conceptualization of the townhouse is reflective of the view that modern day workers are not a homogenous group of people even if often referred to under a singular banner of knowledge-based workers (Kepsu et al. 2010). But at the same the differences in the townhouse conceptualizations suggest that the inner-city townhouses in Helsinki are more diverted towards this group of people whereas the suburban townhouses have a different policy context to contain families from moving further out into adjacent municipalities.
56
Another issue that is made salient is an overall desire to increase variation to the housing supply scene in Helsinki, which is perceived to be monotonous concerning both the dwelling layouts (Mukala 2011: 41) and the variety of building types (R1):Well, its so that in Helsinki our distribution of building types is very one-sided and we have a lot of apartment buildings and then we have a lot of detached single-family homes. The construction industry is seen to produce only very standardized solutions and the development of townhouses is regarded as an antidote to this situation and which was launched as people have had it up to here with it [the situation] (R4). (R3) likewise sees that the housing producers have a narrow view of their products and that the business is characterized by a general lack of innovation. Townhouses could for example be used more creatively by developing those new building types that combine different conventional building types (R3). The issue of flexibility with respect to the beneficial qualities of a townhouse is also touched upon in this context (R1, R3), but greatly in the sense that it is lacking from townhouses at the moment. Overall, these arguments correlate with research findings about residents criticisms of monotonous housing (Kepsu et al. 2010), and also with the arguments on the concentration of the construction industry and associated lack of innovation (Bengs 2010a). The perceived challenge for creating variation to the housing stock is however not only the blame of the construction companies, but also local politicians. (R1) argues that they have oftentimes proven to be intolerant towards new concepts for living. Examples of this are a decision to block the planning of floating houses and a narrow view that everything needs to suit the average user in public policy. According to (R1), townhouses are also seen in a bad light in this context, because they tend to have large floor surface areas and consequently end up becoming relatively pricey housing products. Thereby they are also potentially out of the reach of the average user. In broader terms, (R3) suggests that the whole culture of construction is trimmed to produce sameness and that sufficient proactive measures are yet to be taken in changing anything despite the criticisms. A third perceived challenge for townhouses is that there is no tradition in living in them in Finland, on more than two levels (R3). If in Helsinki townhouses are predominantly associated with detached single-family homes, in Stockholm townhouses are strongly linked with apartment living. Although some voices (Andersson 2006) in the discourse call for similar qualities of autonomy and single-lot development as in Helsinki, in wider terms there is little debate about the townhouse as an
57
alternative to apartments. On the contrary, it is said (R6) that townhouses are attractive if seen as upgraded form of apartment living: [] if you see it as a more upmarket variation of [] something that is in connection with apartment living. Then it becomes like a more exclusive option. In that context it becomes attractive on the market (R6). Also Vestbro (2006: 60-62) argues that single-lot and single housing-unit townhouses would not be attractive, because there are mostly singles and childless couples on the housing market and additionally people would find the responsibilities of taking care of an individual home too much of a burden. Vestbro (2006: 60-62) also suggests that single-lot townhouses would not suit the needs of families, because they wouldnt offer flexibility to support life changes. Vestbro (2006: 60-62) continues that the kind of private ownership associated with the previously mentioned townhouses is not an interesting option in contemporary times, because people are very mobile and dont want to settle down in one location. (R5) adds that the single-lot townhouse would probably do badly on the market as people tend to choose conservatively and do what they are accustomed to. Schmer (2006: 54) adds that the idea of vertically-oriented living is altogether a strange concept for Swedish living and proposes small-scale apartment buildings as a better alternative. This conceptualization of the townhouse as a care-free and more luxurious mode of apartment living is to some extent in line with the townhouse theory suggesting urban arrangements, and also supported by the fact that families in Stockholm are staying in the city (Eurocities 2012). The conceptualization is however missing arguments about housing concerns for people with different cultural backgrounds, which is interesting given that 30% (City of Stockholm) of residents in Stockholm have foreign roots. Moreover, townhouses in the Stockholm context are not associated with flexibility. Only Vestbro (2006) touches upon this topic and links it to mobility rather than calls for more flexible townhouse development. Another frame in the Stockholm discourse is that townhouses go together with urban living. Townhouses are perceived to be attractive if linked with closeness to center (SvD 2008), urban milieus (R6), public transport (R5) and vibrancy (Slottner 2011). Furthermore, the townhouse is often defined as the opposite of the modernist radhus (R5; R6; R7). This conceptualization supports the arguments explaining townhouse development in the theoretical background (Florida 2012) and associated indicators of the local context (Fransson et al. 2001).
58
In contrast to Helsinki, the aim of adding variation to the housing market is not made salient in the Stockholm discourse. The one of the few exceptions is a conscious move to add family housing in the southern parts of Stockholm, which have traditionally had a higher share of apartment buildings than other suburban areas of Stockholm (R7). All in all, when comparing the choice frames of the two cities, a clear difference is that townhouses are placed quite differently on the imaginary building-typology map in Helsinki and Stockholm: the townhouses in Helsinki are situated next to detached single-family living whereas in Stockholm they are situated next to urban apartment living. This difference between the conceptualizations highlights the ongoing competition for tax payers within the Greater Helsinki Region. But it also underscores the difference as suggested in theory (Hall 2009; Arvola et al. 2010) that people and policies in Stockholm are more urban-oriented than in Helsinki as well as the differences in the role of owner-occupation between the two countries. In Stockholm there are also fewer reasons for competing for relocating families, especially when families are staying in the inner city (Eurocities 2012). The demographic make-up issue is largely not elevated as a cause for motivating townhouse development in either city. Moreover, the elderly are left out the townhouse discourse in both cities altogether. This might be explained especially in Helsinki by the conceptualization towards families, but also by the fact that both cities are attracting young residents and altogether have a relatively low share of elderly people (City of Helsinki Urban Facts 2013; City of Stockholm 2013). Concerning people and townhouses, families aside, the most salient arguments are actually made in both cities that they are not fit for local markets, because people have no previous tradition of living in them. The issue of flexibility is also left to the background, even though the norms and regulations constraining its introduction probably explain its absence as a realistic motivation significantly. Discussion on work-space integration is also virtually non-existent: there are only two brief notes of the topic in the Helsinki discourse (Jalkanen 2012: 36; Jalkanen et al. 2012: 22). These findings imply that townhouses are first and foremost conceptualized through other qualities than their interior designs.
59
4.1.3.
Community
In both capitals, the research data suggests that townhouses are clearly linked to attempts for creating urban milieus (table 4.). Especially in Helsinki this is framed as a breakaway from modernist planning doctrines.
Table 4. Community in comparison.
Helsinki Townhouses Goal to create urban milieus
Stockholm Townhouses Goal to create urban milieus
Backwards-oriented view
More forward-oriented view
Incremental development
Corporate development
The kind of neighborhood character that townhouses are perceived to produce in Helsinki is characterized as urban and it evolves around the urban street (R1; R2; R4). Visanti (2006: 12) crystallizes this view well: There will be a need to build onto the edges of the plot and the neighboring houses. The streets receive a clearly defined character. The resident of the small-scale city is a visible part of the urban community. The small-scale city has public spaces where people meet. Urban streets are very suitable such activities and appropriate places for traditional urban development. Moreover, special emphasis is given to the dimension that townhouses are linked to a departure from modernist urban planning and specifically the kind of planning that has created the modernist garden suburb areas (R1; R2). In addition, the urban approach to planning is seen to be able to heal these areas (R1). The concept of urbanity is also associated with the Helsinki townhouses general departure from the national Dense & low-rise project as it was perceived to be driven by an anti-urbanistic world view (R4). The imaginary setting that townhouses are associated with is a Western European urban context, which underscores a clear demarcation from an Eastern European urban setting (R1). Furthermore, the Western European urban context is associated with Eliel Saarinen, whose
60
work is now perceived to be continued (R1; R4; Visanti 2006: 12). More generally, this conception of a broken tradition is extended to the late 19th-century and early 20th-century Finnish wooden town tradition (R4; Ojala 2001: 35; Visanti 2006: 12). The overall goal is on the one hand to reinforce the urban tradition that Helsinki possesses (R1) but on the other also to create a new kind of culture of living that doesnt currently exist (R4): [] in a way the angle that supply creates demand. That its also possible to change the culture of living in a certain way. In addition, there is also a view that townhouse development is to be done in tandem with safeguarding local distinctiveness (HS 2010) and as exemplified with the Helsinki townhouse competition (Sjroos & Jalkanen 2010). In contrast to the dominant framing, there are also arguments that the townhouse is already too urban and not fit for Finnish conditions (Sanaksenaho 2013: 16). It is made salient that the local construction companies do not share the same ideal for creating urban environments but are conversely proponents of the modernist planning doctrine (R1). This same view is also extended towards the architecture profession (Visanti 2007: 41). The Helsinki townhouse discourse in addition has a link with incremental urbanism through the group-building and private builder models, which are perceived to be able to provide more varied streetscapes than if townhouses are made as instant architecture (Dunham-Jones & Williamson 2011) by the construction companies (R1; R2). (R2) however is worried that townhouse construction at the moment is heading towards the anti-urban instant city approach. (R1; R4) on the other hand note that this isnt a contemporary concern with regard to townhouses, because the construction industry is not interested in building them at all. On the contrary, the large house-building enterprises have allegedly sought to prevent the diffusion of townhouses. Next to the mindset of the construction industry, numerous norms and regulations are discussed as constraints in the planning of urban locations. Especially parking norms and traffic planning norms are elevated as difficult hurdles (R1; Visanti 2007: 22-23] following the critiques of the culturalist urbanists (Duany et al. 2000). Even if all views are predominantly done in the same spirit, it doesnt seem clear that there substance-wise is a shared conceptualization what the urban character would ultimately look like. For example it is argued that townhouses would still contribute to the creation of urban streets if two cars
61
would fit to be parked into the yard of a townhouse (R4) and elsewhere that proper urban areas would only have street-side parking (R1). All in all, Helsinkis townhouses are clearly linked to an ambition for creating urban neighborhoods (Sandercock 2010). These attempts are coupled up by aims to safeguard local identities as suggested by e.g. Dovey et al. (2009). The Helsinki townhouse is also connected to an incremental approach of doing so (Vernez Moudon 1989), but norms and regulations, especially concerning parking arrangements and traffic planning, are found to be a challenge. The OECD (2003) interpretation that modernism has kept its position in Finnish urban planning proves to be accurate to some degree based on this analysis as some forces in the development business are still argued to be pushing for the modernist model. But on the level of rhetoric, the townhouse discourse underscores a clear distancing from the modernist doctrines and a text-book example of traditional urbanism thought (Walters & Brown 2004). Also in Stockholm townhouses are perceived to have a very strong link with ambitions for the planning of urban environments (R5; R6; R7): we had a very clear idea that we wanted to make them a piece of urban context. So it was important for us to have a very close relationship between the house and the street. And to have a patio towards the back, so you get privacy towards the courtyard side and the house is designed also to handle the noise and people passing in the street and other disturbances coming from the street (R6). In fact, the only negative view in the data is concerned that the townhouses which are being built at the moment are not urban enough, even if the whole industry is perceived to have become more urban step by step (R5). In this same context, the regulatory framework guiding physical planning is also seen counterproductive (R5), but clearly less than in Helsinki. [R6 and Anna] for example note that parking norms are sometimes challenging but not unsolvable. Overall, these arguments resonate with the theory on townhouse development (Rudlin & Falk 1999/2009) and the turn towards more urban approaches as well as Stockholms local context of having established this in planning (Hall 2009). The inspiration for Stockholms townhouse development has been drawn from the AngloSaxon tradition (R6; R7) and modern-day projects from the Netherlands (R6), but also from Sweden, following contemporary examples from medium-sized Swedish cities such as Vsters (R7; SvD 2006). According to (R6), the inspiration from abroad however comes second to the attempt to create urban environments: Because it's much the same as in
62
Helsinki where you have this inner city, which is very well defined and how do you expand that? That was the basic problem and there we saw a role for the townhouses. As a way of achieving that denser context. Contrary to Helsinki, architects and also developers to some extent are identified to be the ones who are most interested in townhouses and creating urban context with them [R5; R6; R7). (R7) has a good example of this from a project: In this case there were no row houses in the competition planned. I think the developer wants them. And they want a mixture of different kind of buildings. In Stockholm the townhouses are built in a large-scale format - the instant cities format (Dunham-Jones & Williamson 2011) - and not incrementally as is attempted in Helsinki. There are some voices calling for a small-scale approach to townhouses (R5; Andersson 2006; Schmer 2006), but these calls are perceived to be blocked by city authorities, politicians, and the construction industry. These perceptions reflect the situation described in context theory (Bengs 2010b). A key thing that frames townhouses in Stockholm is that they are almost entirely said to be developed in attractive locations, the only exception being the Million Homes Programme areas. This is rather logical given that they are predominantly market products, but when we add that unlike in Helsinki there isnt any discussion about extending the virtues of urbanity to the Million Homes Programme areas (see next chapter for more on the Million Homes Areas) the setting entails that the Stockholm townhouses celebrate only a certain kind of urbanity as suggested by Tunstrm (2007), and which thereby potentially excludes other views. These kinds of sentiments are apparent in the view of (SvD 2010): Should you be able to transform the Million Homes Programme areas to attractive residential areas it would change the bigger cities dramatically. Then you could do infill production with for example townhouses instead of looking for new land in the middle of nowhere . In Helsinki by contrast, many of the developments labeled as urban are associated with places that are characterized as unattractive on the market apart from the inner-city ones (R1), which could to some extent be considered to resemble Stockholms conceptualization of townhouses. In comparison, townhouse development in both cities is framed with a desire to create urban environments but in Helsinki there seems to be a stronger emphasis on the departure from modernism. And especially concerning the desire to bridge a broken tradition and become
63
more European. These ambitions are however not shared by everyone as the political obstacles and calls for more local conceptualizations exemplify. In Stockholm inspiration is also drawn from abroad, but also from Sweden in a contemporary context. The framings in both cities have New Urbanist (Walters & Brown 2004) connotations in the physical sense, but the neo-traditional thought is stronger in Helsinki even if Stockholm has been associated with such ideas before (Tunstrm 2007). And finally, the conceptualization of urbanity appears to be, at least to some extent, more open for different views in Helsinki than in Stockholm, where urbanity has argued to be out of reach for especially the populations of the modernist suburbs (Tunstrm 2007). Furthermore, an interesting difference is that in Helsinki there clearly is some conceptual confusion between the perceptions of for whom townhouses are developed for and what kind of an urban environment they seek to produce. The former one is set out to support leafy single-family home environments whereas the latter conceptualization is specifically seeks to introduce urban milieus.
4.1.4.
Cost
In the economic dimension of townhouse development, the building type in Helsinki is very much in the middle of debates about how construction should be organized. In Stockholm on the other hand, the economic context of the townhouse is clearly a part of an agenda to make the city more attractive in the global competition for investments and labor. In both capitals townhouses are also linked to the socio-political revitalization ambitions in the modernist garden city neighborhoods (table 5.).
Table 5. Cost in comparison.
Helsinki Townhouses Townhouses associated with a break away from large-scale corporate construction
Stockholm Townhouses Townhouses associated with global markets
Linked with social mix and urban renewal Linked with social mix and urban renewal
64
In Helsinki, townhouses are framed as vehicles to achieve cost-efficiency in urban development. The small-scale incremental nature of developing them is strongly attached to an idea to be able to achieve cheaper housing than via the services of the large-scale construction industry (R3). But the most salient angle in this context is that there are challenges in organizing this in practice. (R4) explains that: [] It isnt always a very easy equation. The problem with these townhouses is [] that a sufficiently attractive equation for their realization can be crafted. As its already challenging to build with walls a ttached to the neighbor, then not to mention doing it in a difficult area. The identified underlying problem is that there is no tradition in building small-scale attached housing (R1; R3; Vakkuri 2011: 12). (R3) stresses that when the entire culture of construction is geared toward creating large-scale apartment building areas or prefabricated detached homes, the perquisites for building a townhouse are at odds with the established practices of the entire industry. (R3) continues, and suggests along the lines of Bengs (2010a), that the problem is not only pragmatic, but is enforced by links between the construction industry and local policy-making, namely regarding lot-policy. Consequently, small and medium-sized actors are marginalized. The previously discussed dilemma about whether the townhouse-dominant areas in stersundom would ultimately be able to deliver such land-use efficiency that would support the metro and other public transport has an economic dimension as well. In addition to questions about the amount of political will to introduce a certain level of density, this issue can also be linked to questions about the innovation capacity of the construction industry (Bengs 2012: 52). Finally, the Helsinki townhouse has a strategic revitalization frame which links townhouses to a target for prolonging housing careers and increasing housing type variation in the neighborhood unit areas (R4; Manninen & Holopainen 2006: 36). (Jalkanen 2012: 38) synthesize the underlying goal: Attractive townhouse dwellings can potentially be used [] to lift the status of the area. This conceptualization is however also seen as controversial because townhouses are such small housing units that they are not likely to have any substantial impact to the wider imbalance of the residential structure in a given location (R1). This motivation driving townhouse development is new to theory in the sense that this revitalization scheme doesnt first and foremost belong to a neo-liberal agenda to compete
65
with global cities (Musterd & Kovcs 2013), but to a socio-political one. This can be interpreted as a reflection of the strong welfare state background of Finland and the Nordic countries that has played a very active role in the housing market some decades ago and in relative terms still continues to do so (Loikkanen & Lnnqvist 2007; Lundstrm & Wilhelmsson 2007). A vague link to the neo-liberal agenda can also be drawn through the previously discussed urban attributes of the inner-city townhouses as expressed by (R4) when discussing an international lifestyle, but predominantly Helsinki townhouses are not perceived as assets in the global economy. In Stockholm, the citys growth pressure is raising land prices, which (R7) interpreters as: In Stockholm we build small row houses that cost very much. This conceptualization has a link to the theory of Loikkanen (2013) on land-use policy and its effect on rising land costs, which in Stockholm has a link to the practiced green wedges policy (Boyle et al. 2012) that diverts urban growth only to limited areas of the city and creates a need for highly-efficient land use. And as discussed before, the construction industry is very concentrated, which can contribute to rises in development costs due to inefficiency and lack of innovation (Bengs 2012). (R5s) earlier analysis of current townhouse development ranks them as a bad use of the land, implying they could be more efficient if made narrower, deeper and taller. (R5; R6; Schmer 2006: 54) plea that the local and national decision-makers would let small actors such as group-builders enter the development scene as one solution for more efficient urban development: You do the small-scale, you do the direct connection between the people responsible for what to build and the people using what is built. And all experience also in Sweden tells that this is cheaper and better (R5). Against this view, the large scale of the construction industry and its connection to local decision makers is in a way blocking innovation from the scene in Stockholm. Regarding townhouses and the modernist suburbs, the townhouse discourse in Stockholm is almost identical to the one in Helsinki and about mobilizing townhouses to enhance social cohesion in the Million Homes Programme areas. The same arguments drive this view in Stockholm too (e.g. DN 2005): We heard great things about the necessary integration and housing career. A crucial difference between the cities with regard to this framing is that in Stockholm the frame is characterized by more controversy. Like in Helsinki, townhouses in
66
the Million Homes Programme areas are perceived as an action that is likely not to have any substantial desired effect due to the large scale of the problem (SvD 2009). An additional critical view of the project stands on the ground that this has been tried already in the neighborhoods of Rinkeby (R6; DN 2006b) and Tensta (R5; DN 2006a) and found predominantly unsuccessful (DN 2006a): Just over three months after the high-profile housing expo in Tensta, only seven out of 38 new townhouses are sold. According to (R5), the Million Homes Programme revitalizations have not been successful, because it wasnt the people in charge but they have been executed as top-down initiatives. But much more explicitly than in Helsinki, the townhouses in Stockholm seem to be linked to the global competitiveness race between cities (SvD 2008; SvD 2006; Jensfelt 2003: 19). An ambition for international recognition is namely linked to townhouse development and especially to roof-top and inner-city townhouses (SvD 2006): the city needs different forms of expression. These comments are especially made in the sense of reaching outwards or to put Stockholm on the map (SvD 2008), reflecting the ideas of Floridas (2012) and Musterd & Kovcs (2013) about contemporary ambitions of selling the city. In line with this theory, townhouses would be part of an agenda to enhance the livability of the city to accommodate for the preferences of those working in the knowledge and creative industries. In comparison, the townhouses in Helsinki are very much in the middle of debates about how construction should be organized. There is a quite explicit desire to try something new and create opportunities for small and medium sized construction enterprises. In Stockholm, townhouses are done by large contractors. There however seems to be some discontent over their dominance. In Stockholm the townhouse can clearly be conceptualized as being part of an agenda to make Stockholm more attractive in the global completion for investments and skilled labor force. Throughout the discourse different aspects point in this direction: they reinforce ongoing trends that make Stockholm a competitive city. In Helsinki this aspect is not dominant; it is discussed only slightly in the associations towards inner city townhouses. On the contrary, townhouses are conceptualized against ongoing processes. Both capitals also link townhouses to the socio-political revitalization of their modernist suburbs. The experiences from Stockholm also raise questions about whether the top-down
67
approach of it is actually beneficial or should those communities given a chance to decide if they want townhouses in the first place or not. Furthermore, since especially in Stockholm many of these areas are inhabited by immigrants, it is somewhat questionable that the issue of introducing housing concepts for people with different cultural backgrounds is not made salient in either city.
Table 6. Summary of the comparative analysis.
Helsinki Townhouses
Stockholm Townhouses
Strong relation to public policy
Loose relation to public policy
Environmental concerns a driver Land-use efficiency problematized as possibly becoming too high Link with a desire to diversify housing supply
Environmental concerns not a driver Land-use efficiency problematized as not being high enough No strong link with goals to diversify housing supply
Link with detached single-family home living Link with urban lifestyles
Link with apartment living
Goal to create urban milieus Backwards-oriented view Incremental development
Goal to create urban milieus More forward-oriented view Corporate development
Townhouses associated with a break away from large-scale corporate construction Linked with social mix and urban renewal
Townhouses associated with global markets
Linked with social mix and urban renewal
68
4.2. Comparison of Materialized Townhouses

This chapter will briefly compare and contrast townhouse development based what has been accomplished in practice (see pictures 4.-15.). The basic details and general characteristics of each project are described under each picture, leaving this chapter for discussion. Furthermore, the comparison consists of select townhouses as their definition is open for interpretation and the chapter above all aims at illustrating what kind of concrete forms the building type takes in Helsinki and Stockholm. The general guiding principle for the selection has been to choose townhouse projects that either are mentioned in this study or have been referred to in the research data. In Helsinki, also two townhouse projects (picture 8. and 9.) that lie outside of city limits are incorporated into the study, because they have been referred to in the discourse. Another reason for adding them is to give a wider illustration of existing designs as most projects in Helsinki are still under planning or at an early stage of construction. Therefore two unfinished projects (pictures 5. and 7.) are also added. In Stockholm, materialized projects are more numerous and the selection has been made based on different basic types of townhouses that have been referred to in the data. All of the Stockholm townhouse examples are within city limits.
4.2.1.
An Overview of Townhouses in Helsinki and Stockholm
A first defining issue between Helsinki and Stockholm is that there are much fewer townhouses in Helsinki than on the other side of the Baltic Sea. This has naturally to do with how townhouses are defined between the cities. In the examples compared here, only the townhouses in the area of Kartanonkoski in Vantaa (picture 9.) and the ones under construction in Kalasatama (picture 7.) are constructed as instant architecture by largescale construction companies. In the rest of the projects the owner of each housing unit has to a greater or lesser degree been part of the design and construction process. These types also represent the model of how townhouses originally were conceptualized in Helsinki (Manninen & Holopainen 2006). If only this particular definition of the townhouse is applied, there are no modern-day townhouses in Stockholm as they are all built by construction companies (Schartner 2013). In Helsinki row houses that have urban qualities have so far been to a great
69
extent left out of the townhouse discourse. But also as the townhouse discourse has highlighted, the construction processes of group-building and other smaller-scale building activities have faced multiple challenges, and leaving Helsinki with rather few materialized townhouses in comparison to Stockholm. In the Helsinki projects the linkage with single-family homes, as made salient in the discourse, is quite apparent. Most significantly this is illustrated in Sterinmets (picture 8.). This particular project has been one of the first ones and is situated in Espoo just outside of Helsinkis jurisdiction. Also the project in Malminkartano (picture 1.) features some of these qualities, most notably through the parking spaces on the lot. The houses have a connection with the street, but this is only for the benefit of cars as as the sidewalk is on the other side of the street. In Kartanonkoski many rows of townhouses on the other hand have qualities that relate them more to the modernist row house that turns itself away from the street. The buildings in the picture for example do not have any connection with the street. The Pikku-Huopalahti (picture 6.) and Kalasatama townhouses that are located in inner-city areas on the other hand have a very clear connection with the street, which immediately gives them a more urban character. These structures are also taller and narrower than the suburban types. Over all, the Helsinki and Helsinki region townhouses can be characterized as quite suburban. In this view, the discourse that conceptualizes them through urban living cannot be argued to be a defining quality of the townhouse projects in Helsinki at this stage. The authors experiences from the fieldwork also support the view that the pictures suggest: visiting the project sites without having access to a car would have been a considerable effort. In Stockholm the case is very different. All of the sites exemplified in this study - and also most sites that the author visited - were easily accessible by public transport and in most cases by subway or tram. Moreover, what is similar in all but one project (picture 11.), is that the townhouses have rather urban characteristics. None of the examples have for example on-lot parking. Furthermore, many of them lie in urban milieus. A very significant difference to Helsinki is also obviously that the townhouses in Stockholm come in many forms. In the local townhouse discourse, a townhouse stops being conceptualized as a townhouse once it starts getting too many characteristics that are associated with modernist urban development, and then transforms into a row house.
70
An interesting question is where the limit is at the other end of the scale. For example the dwellings that are made on rooftops share obvious linkages with defining qualities of the townhouse such as a vertical orientation, a private entrance (at roof level), a terrace or patio and wall-to-wall attachment with neighboring dwellings. But they obviously lack a direct connection with the street and with it a clear demarcation between the public and private. Both of which are qualities that also typically lack in the modernist row house. All in all, the Stockholm townhouse scene is much more varied than the one in Helsinki even if the Stockholm projects are created as industry products. In Helsinki one of the key motivations made salient about townhouse development is a desire to increase variation to the housing market which is allegedly made homogenous by the building and construction industry. The overall impression of the Helsinki townhouse from the view of an external observer (i.e. excluding the interior design) does not seem to deliver very significant variation to the housing market at this time.
71
Location Malminkartano, Helsinki Number of floors 2
Number of units 20 Year of construction 2005
Location Ormuspelto, Helsinki Number of floors 2-3
Number of units N/A Year of construction N/A
Picture 4. - Qualities
Location and Surroundings: This set of town houses is located in the Northern suburbs of Helsinki right next to a green artificial hill. The general area is very green and quiet. Architectural qualities: The buildings form a nice variety of facades and are certainly not monotonous. The buildings are rather wide and not tall. You may park on the lot in front. Interestingly the houses are built directly to the street, but there sidewalk is only on the other side of the street. Accessibility: The location is difficult to get to and relatively far from the center of Helsinki.
Location and Surroundings: The project area of Ormuspelto is located in Northeastern Helsinki. It locale is very suburban in general. There is a small industrial/warehouse area right next to the future townhouses. Architectural qualities: The buildings are still underway and it is difficult to evaluate them. Accessibility: The area is quite badly serviced by public transport.
Location Pikku-Huopalahti, Helsinki Number of floors 2-3
Number of units N/A
Location Kalasatama, Helsinki Number of floors 2-3
Number of units N/A
Year of construction 1990s
Year of construction N/A
Location and Surroundings: The townhouses are situated at the edge of the inner city. The neighborhood is quite urban, although very quiet. There is a park on the other side of the buildings. Architectural qualities: The buildings are tall and connected directly to the street. No two buildings are alike. Accessibility: The area is relatively easy to get to; there is a tram connection nearby.
Location and Surroundings: The houses are being built on a brownfield project site on the Eastern edge of the inner city. At the moment much of the area is just empty, but there still is an urban atmosphere. Architectural qualities: Architectural qualities are difficult to evaluate as the project is under construction. The houses will however a very direct connection with the street. Accessibility: The area is serviced by the metro.
73
Location
Number of units N/A
Location Kartanonkoski, Vantaa Number of floors 2-3
Number of units N/A
Sterinmets, Espoo Number of floors 2 Year of construction 2000
Year of construction ca. 2000-2008
Picture 9. - Qualities Location and Surroundings: The houses are located in Espoo, just outside of Helsinkis jurisdiction. The area has the atmosphere of a detached single-family home suburb, although there are some other varieties of attached living here too. Architectural qualities: The buildings appear as they were single-family homes squeezed together. There is a lot of variety and all houses seem very different from each other. The houses are connected to a private-like small street that circulates the area. There are generally a lot of cars and parking facilities around. Accessibility: The location is very difficult to get to and relatively far from the center of Helsinki.
Location and Surroundings: There are many townhouse-like houses around the area of Kartanonkoski. The neighborhood is located near to the Helsinki airport and is characterized by neo-traditional architecture. Very close by there is a big shopping mall. Architectural qualities: All of the buildings in Kartanonkoski display neo-traditional architecture. This is however only limited to the buildings, as the rest of the general follows a more conventional way of organizing space. The townhouses in the picture for example dont have a connection to the street at all. Accessibility: The location is difficult to get to and relatively far from the center of Helsinki.
74
Location
Number of units 15
Location
Number of units 22
Krrtorp, Stockholm Number of floors 3 Year of constructio n 2010-2011
Enskededalen, Stockholm Number of floors 2 Year of constructio n 20082010
Location and Surroundings: These townhouses have been built on a small piece land in the Southern suburbs of Stockholm. There area is very green and there are detached single-family homes right across the street from the project. But there also are some low-rise apartment buildings adjacent. Architectural qualities: The buildings resemble English townhouses and stand out quite clearly as they are very tall. The houses have a clear connection to the street. Accessibility: The location is east to get to with the subway.
Location and Surroundings: The buildings lie on a narrow piece of land between a bigger and a smaller street. The area is very green and suburban. The site in in Southern Stockholm. Architectural qualities: These townhouses have characteristics that associate them more with row houses. On the front side the entrances have been drawn back from the street and there are storage buildings covering them. The buildings are almost all alike. Accessibility: The location is east to get to with the subway.
75
Location
Number of units ca 35
Tensta, Stockholm Number of floors 2 Year of construction 2006
Picture 13. - Qualities Location Hammarby Sjstad, Stockholm Number of floors 2 Year of construction 2004 Number of units 12 Location and Surroundings: The townhouses in Tensta were built as part of a housing trade show in 2006. The buildings are located right in the middle of a Million Homes Programme neighborhood. Architectural qualities: The townhouses are very small-scale and thus not very tall. They create a sort of block with a pedestrian way in the middle. Only the ones in the picture thus have a connection with the street. Accessibility: The location is east to get to with subway.
Location and Surroundings: The location is in Hammarby Sjstad, which is just south of Sdermalm and the inner-city proper. The neighborhood is rather urban although not comparable to the inner city. Architectural qualities: The townhouses are as if there was an apartment-building built around them. They still appear to just like other townhouses, the houses have their own entrance and yard Accessibility: The location is east to get to with tram.
76
Location
Number of units 8
Location
Number of units 18
Hammarby Sjstad, Stockholm Number of floors 2 Year of construction 2010
Ladugrdsgrdet, Stockholm Number of floors 1-2 Year of construction 2010
Location and Surroundings: This set of townhouses is also in Hammarby Sjstad in a former industrial building which has been turned into apartments. The sea is just on the other of the buildings. Urban atmosphere. Architectural qualities: The townhouses create such a nice small street-scape that one might think they have always been there. Terraces facing the sea on the other side. Accessibility: The location is east to get to with tram.
Location and Surroundings: The location is a former industrial site on the Northeastern edge of the inner city. Right next to it there is a large open space for outdoor activities. The atmosphere quite urban. Architectural qualities: The townhouses are built on top of the roof an industrial building that is transformed into apartments. Each house has its individual entrance on the roof, but need to get there via the apartment building. Accessibility: The location is east to get to with subway.
77
5. Discussion and Concluding Remarks

21st-century housing development has been theorized to be influenced by two macro-level drivers: environmental concerns on the one hand, and changing and diversifying lifestyles on the other. These are consequently argued to lead to an increase in the valuing of urban communities over the suburban settlement patterns that have been dominantly built during the 20th century. This study concludes that the recent emergences of townhouses in Helsinki and Stockholm cannot be conceptualized in such a straightforward manner. The forces driving townhouse development are much more multi-faceted and even paradoxical at times. Furthermore, even if similar types of buildings are entering the housing market in the two cities, these processes resemble each other only at times. The townhouse discourses in the cities actually have only two similar conceptualizations. Firstly, in both cities townhouses are, at least on the level of rhetoric, quite strongly linked to ambitions for creating urban milieus. All evidence suggests this is a continuation of a longer trend of urban planning in Stockholm, but in Helsinki the townhouse interestingly is set to bridge back to a line of the urban project that was broken a hundred years ago with the arrival of modernism. Secondly, both capitals have or have had goals to use townhouses in their efforts to enhance social mixing and counter residential segregation. This conceptualization is particularly used when referring to the modernist suburbs, and tells about the similar socio-political traditions in the urban policies of both countries. But it also tells about the need to tackle similar problems of increasing economic and ethnic segregation. The differences in the other conceptualizations can be interpreted to stem from the background that townhouses have emerged as local-policy driven housing concepts in Helsinki but largely through the private sphere in Stockholm. In Helsinki this brings townhouses much more strongly to the political dimension of urban development and to a confrontation against the operation of market forces. The Helsinki townhouses are largely conceptualized through something that is not happening in the housing markets: they object monotony, standardization, and the hegemony of apartment production that is driving families to the fringes of the metropolitan area. In Stockholm, the building type is conversely conceptualized as something that reinforces contemporary patterns of housing consumption: they offer urban experiences and opportunities for upmarket differentiation. Neither overall conceptualization is unproblematic. In Helsinki the rejection of business-asusual workings of housing development is pulling the townhouse in two directions. The urban planning physical - dimension of the townhouse is departing from modernist planning solutions and seeking to (re)introduce traditional planning values and thereby seeking to
salute urban lifestyles. At the same time the experiential the housing policy dimension of the townhouse is anchored next to the qualities of the detached single-family home. Some of the materialized projects raise questions whether the end products are only reversing the contested point of departure. During the 20th century the planning doctrine was pushing for wide open spaces and housing policy for urban apartment buildings, which as a combination led to high-rise towers in lush settings. With the townhouse concept the tables seem to have turned: urban spaces and small-scale housing close to nature. Is the destined end result just low-rise building in the same lush settings? In Stockholm the townhouse is free from such policy controversy and is relatively uncontestably working towards delivering urban milieus for urban lifestyles. But this just may be the root for a bigger tree of problems. Critics have voiced that Stockholm is already starting to be too urban. Not in the physical planning sense, but in the experiential dimension as urbanity has been locked to a particular view of the city and city life. This in turn raises questions over who are allowed take part in living it. As the townhouse discourse exemplifies, there seems to be a split between the inner city that is defined as urban and the modernist suburbs that are defined as anti-urban. Hence it is arguable to question to what degree the populations living there get to be part of and benefit from the construction of the Capital of Scandinavia. Finally, the materialized townhouses raise interesting points of discussion. The construction scene is known to have relatively high concentration rates in both cities and is also criticized in the discourses examined for this study to produce bulk architecture and stifle innovation. From the Helsinki perspective, at least concerning townhouse development, it does not seem that the Stockholm scene is lacking ideas and ambition of introducing new ways of living. Simultaneously from the perspective of the Stockholm small-scale housing developer, the grass might seem greener in Helsinki as the city has managed comparably well to support group-building activities and the associated bottom-up approach in housing development. With respect to ambitions for introducing new housing concepts for the 21st century, there may be fruitful interphases for mutually beneficial cooperation in this contrast between the cities.
79
6. List of References
Ahonen, A., L. Pyry, J. Pkknen & R. Ryhnen (2008). Rakennusalan markkinoiden toimivuus Ongelma-alueita ja edistmisen mahdollisuuksia. Kilpailuviraston selvityksi 2008:1. 87 p. Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority, Helsinki. Andesson, O. (2006). Inga fler bostadsomrden, tack!. Arkitekten 2006:4, pp. 52-57. Andersson, .E., L Pettersson, & U. Strmquist (2007). European Housing Markets - An Overview. In Andersson, .E., L Pettersson, & U. Strmquist (eds.). European Metropolitan Housing Markets, pp. 1-26. Springer, Berlin. Arvola, A., P. Lahti, P. Lampila, A. Tiilikainen, R. Kyr, S. Toivonen, K. Viitanen & S. Keskifrantti (2010). Asuinymprystn ominaisuudet ja asukkaan arvot. Kuluttajatutkimusnkkulman sovellus asuinymprystn koetun laadun tutkimukseen. 239 p. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland. sell, Anna (2013). Planning Architect at Stockholm City Planning Office. Interview in Stockholm on 26.6.2013. Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalization: The Human Consequences. 136 p. Columbia University Press, New York. Bengs, C. (2010a). Paikallistalous. In Hirvonen, T. & K. Schmidt-Thom (eds.). ESPONin ytimess ja ymprill, pp. 125-138. Yhdyskuntasuunnittelun tutkimus- ja koulutuskeskuksen julkaisuja B 100, Espoo. Bengs, C. (2010b). Yhdyskuntasuunnittelu ruotsalaisittain mielikuvien ihanuus. Yhdyskuntasuunnittelu 48:4, pp. 52-76. Bengs, C. (2012). Globaali kilpailu, markkinat ja paikallistalous. In Hynynen, A. (ed.). Takaisin kartalle. Suomalainen seutukaupunki, pp. 51-60. Kuntaliitto/Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities. Binney, M. (1998). Town Houses: Urban Houses from 1200 to the Present Day. 176 p. Mitchell Beazley, London. Boomkens, R. (2008). Modernism, Catastrophe and the Public Realm. OASE 75, pp. 120-135. Born T. & C. Young (2013). The Migration Dynamics of the Creative Class: Evidence from a Study of Artists in Stockholm, Sweden. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 103:1, pp. 195-210. Borglund, M., J. Brchner, J. Gerremo, J. Prytz, & H. Willborg (2013). Perspektiv p garlgenheter. 48 p. Centrum fr management i byggsektorn. Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg.
80
Boyle, C., G. Gamage, B. Burns, E. Fassman, S. Knight-Lenihan, L. Schwendenmann & W. Thresher (2012). Greening Cities: A Review of Green Infrastructure. 201 p. The University of Auckland, New Zealand. Breheny, Michael (1997). Urban compaction: feasible and acceptable? Cities 14:4, pp. 209217. Bristol, K.G. (1991). The Pruitt-Igoe Myth. Journal of Architectural Education 44:3, pp. 163171. CABE = Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (2011). Building for Life. Accessed on 25.7.2013. < http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110107165544/http://www.buildingforlife.org /home> CEU = Council for European Urbanism (2013). Council website. Accessed on 4.9.2013. < http://www.ceunet.org/> Choay, F. (1969). The Modern City: Planning in the 19th Century.128 p. George Braziller, New York. City of Helsinki Urban Facts (2013). City of Helsinki statistical service. Accessed on multiple occasions between June and August 2013. < http://www.hel.fi/hki/tieke/en/etusivu> City of Stockholm (2013).Stockholm Office of Research and Statistics website. Accessed on multiple occasions between June and August 2013. < http://www.statistikomstockholm.se/> City of Toronto (2003). Toronto Urban Design Guidelines Infill Townhouses. 30 p. City of Toronto Urban Development Services. DN = Dagens Nyheter (2006a). Banken stoppar husdrm i Tensta. Accessed on 10.7.2013. < http://www.dn.se/sthlm/banken-stoppar-husdrom-i-tensta/> DN = Dagens Nyheter (2006b). Billiga radhus i Rinkeby slda till slut. Accessed on 11.7.2013. < http://www.dn.se/sthlm/billiga-radhus-i-rinkeby-salda-till-slut/> DN = Dagens Nyheter (2005). Ny boendeform testas I Tensta. Accessed on 11.7.2013. <http://www.dn.se/sthlm/ny-boendeform-testas-i-tensta/> Dovey, Kim & Ian Woodcock & Stephen Wood (2009). A Test of Character: Regulating Place-identity in Inner-city Melbourne. Urban Studies 46:12, pp. 25952615. Duany, A., E. Plater-Zyberk & J. Speck (2000). Suburban Nation. The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. 294 p. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York. Dunham-Jones E. & J. Williamson (2011). Retrofitting Suburbia. Urban Design Solutions for Redesigning Suburbs. 256 p. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken..
81
Dunnett, J. (2000). Le Corbusier and the City without Streets. In Deckker, T. (ed.). The Modern City Revisited, 56-79. Routledge, London. EEA = European Environment Agency (2006). Urban Sprawl in Europe. The ignored challenge. EEA Report 10/2006. 56 p. Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43:4, pp. 52-58. Esikaupunkien renessanssi (2013). Project website. Accessed 15.7.2013. <http://www.esikaupunki.hel.fi/> Eurocities (2012). Demographic change and active inclusion in Stockholm: ABC parental support programme. 12 p. <http://nws.eurocities.eu/MediaShell/media/Stockholm%20demographic%20change%20re port1.pdf> European Commission (2011). Demography Report 2010. Older, more numerous and diverse Europeans. Commission Staff Working Document. 168 p. Eurostat (2013). European Commission statistical service. Accessed on multiple occasions during July and August 2013. <http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/> Fernndez Cendn, S. (2013). Pruitt-Igoe 40 Years Later. Is the ghost of Modernism still haunting north St. Louis? The American Institute of Architects. Accessed on 3.7.2013. <http://www.aia.org/practicing/AIAB092656> Fogelholm, K. (2003). Espoon Sterinmets. Tutkimus yhteenkytkettyjen omakotitalojen rakentamisesta. 192 p. Rakennustieto Oy, Tampere. Fortune (2012). Solo nation: American consumers stay single. Fortune Magazine. Accessed on 20.8.2013. < http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/01/25/eric-klinenberg-going-solo/> Florida, R. (2012). The Rise of the Creative Class, Revisited. 481 p. Basic Books, New York. FORA (2010) Metro-regions and their unique assets. An assessment of specialized clusters in Stockholm, Helsinki, and Copenhagen. 37 p. Metropolitan Inc.< http://www.regionh.dk/NR/rdonlyres/5593FECA-0157-4924-B0DB0E22F6021329/0/Clusters_FINAL.pdf> Fransson, U., G. Rosenqvist & B. Turner (2001). Hushllens vrdering av egenskaper i bostder och bostadsomrden. 40 p. Institutet fr bostads- och urbanforskning, Uppsala University. Friedman, A. (2012). Town and Terraced Housing: For Affordability and Sustainability. 272 p. Routledge ,New York.
82
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. 600 p. Harper & Row, New York. Gordon, D., R. Manninen & O. Veltheim (2009). From City to City-Region. City of Helsinki Strategic Spatial Plan. Helsinki City Planning Department publications 2009:8. 41 p. City of Helsinki. Gorlin, A. (1999). The New American Town House. 240 p. Rizzoli, New York. Goetz, A. (2013). Suburban Sprawl or Urban Centres: Tensions and Contradictions of Smart Growth Approaches in Denver, Colorado. Urban Studies, special issue article. 18 p. Grayson Trulove. J. (2006). The Modern Townhouse. The Latest in Urban and Suburban Design. 188 p. Collins Design, New York. Guterstam, S. (2011). Urbana enbostadhus och inkluderande byggande. Om planering av varierade stadsrum och mjligheterna fr privatpersoner och sm aktrer att delta i ett marknadsstyrt bostadsbyggande. 66 p. Examensarbete, magisterniv/Masters thesis no. 77. Department for Real Estate and Construction Management, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. Hall, T. (ed.) (2005). Planning and Urban Growth in the Nordic Countries. 315 p. E & FN Spon, London. Hall, T. (2009). Stockholm. The Making of a Metropolis. 232 p. Routledge, London and New York. Hall, T & S. Vidn (2005). The Million Homes Programme: a review of the great Swedish planning project. Planning Perspectives 20:3, pp. 301-328. Hallegatte S. & J. Corfee-Morlot (2011). Understanding climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation at city scale: an introduction. Climatic Change 104, pp. 1-12. Harding, R. (2005). Ecologically sustainable development: origins, implementation and challenges. Desalination 187, pp. 229-239. Hrsman, B. & B. Wijmark (2013). Stockholm from ugly duckling to Europes first green capital. CESIS Electronic Working Paper Series 307. 26 p. < http://swopec.hhs.se/cesisp/abs/cesisp0307.htm> Harvey, J. & E. Jowsey (2003). Urban Land Economics. Sixth Edition. 480 p. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Hasu, E. (2010). Kaupunkipientalo asukasunelmia ja todellisuutta. Malminkartanon Vuorenjuuren asukaskokemuksia. In Norvasuo, M. (ed.). Asutaan urbaanisti! Laadukkaaseen kaupunkiasumiseen yhteisell kehittelyll, pp. 151-170. Yhdyskuntasuunnittelun tutkimus- ja koulutuskeskuksen julkaisuja B 99.
83
Heininen-Blomstedt, K. (2013). Jlleenrakennuskauden tyyppitaloalue. Paikan merkitykset ja tydennysrakentaminen. 273 p. PhD dissertation. Department of Philosophy, History, Culture and Art Studies. University of Helsinki. Helsingin kaupunki (2012). Kotikaupunkina Helsinki. Asumisen ja siihen liittyvn maankytn toteutusohjelma 2012. Helsingin kaupungin keskushallinnon julkaisuja 2012:21. 93 p. Helsingin kaupungin talous- ja suunnittelukeskus. Helsingin kaupunki (2005). Malminkartanon kaupunkipientalot. Projektin kokemukset ja johtoptkset. 74 p. Kiinteistvirasto/City of Helsinki Real Estate Department. Helsingin yleiskaava (2013). Yleiskaavan visio 2050: Urbanismi ja kaupunkikulttuuri. Helsinki City Planning Department. Accessed on 17.8.2013. < http://www.yleiskaava.fi/wpcontent/uploads/2013/05/visioteema_5_urbanismi_130513.pdf> Hoornweg, D., L. Sugar, & C.L.T Gomez (2011). Cities and greenhouse gas emissions: moving forward. Environment and Urbanization 23, pp. 207227. Hope, M. (2010). Frame Analysis as a Discourse-Method: Framing climate change politics. 16 p. Paper delivered to the Post-Graduate Conference on Discourse Analysis. University of Bristol. Horsti, K. (2005). Vierauden rajat. Monikulttuurisuus ja turvapaikanhakijat journalismissa. 316 p. Tampere University Press, Tampere. HS = Helsingin Sanomat (2008). Sipoo ei lhde mukaan liitosalueen yhteiseen suunnitteluun. News article. Accessed on 23.7.2013. < http://www.hs.fi/kaupunki/artikkeli/Sipoo+ei+l%C3%A4hde+mukaan+liitosalueen+yhteis eensuunnitteluun/HS20081204SI1KA03xmh> HS = Helsingin Sanomat (2010). Pientalo kaupungista alle kyhinnan. Accessed on 2.7.2013. < http://www.hs.fi/paivanlehti/arkisto/Pientalo+kaupungista+alle+%C3%B6kyhinnan/aaHS 20100623SI2KA023b3> HSY = Helsingin seudun ympristpalvelut kuntayhtym/Helsinki Region Environmental Services Authority (2012). Helsingin seudun asuntoraportti 2012. 113 p. Edita Prima, Helsinki. Hurme, R. (1991). Suomalainen lhi Tapiolasta Pihlajamkeen. 211 p. Suomen tiedeseura, Helsinki. Jaakkola, M. (2012). Helsinki, Finland: Greenness and Urban Form. In Beatley, T. (ed.). Green Cities of Europe, pp. 109-128. Island Press, Washington, DC. Jaakola, A. & H. Lnnqvist (2007). Kaupunkirakenteen kehityspiirteist Helsingin seudulla. Kvartti 1/2007, pp. 35-45.
84
Jackson, K.T. (1985). Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. 396 p. Oxford University Press, New York. Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. 458 p. Random House, New York. Jalkanen, R. (2012). Townhouseja Helsinkiin. RY Rakennettu Ymprist 2012:4, pp. 35-39. Jenks, M. & N. Dempsey (eds.) (2005). Future Forms and Design for Sustainable Cities. 456 p. E & FN Spon, London. Jensfelt, A. (2003). Takradhusen fr internationell uppmrksamhet. Arkitekten 2003:2, p. 19. Jiven, G. & P.J. Larkham (2003). Sense of Place, Authenticity and Character: A Commentary. Journal of Urban Design 8:1, pp. 6781. Karjalainen, M. & R. Suikkari (2001).Puukaupunkiperinteen jljill/Tracing the wooden town heritage. Arkkitehti 2001:6, pp. 14-22. Karjalainen, R.(ed.). (2008). Helsingin seudun maankytn, asumisen ja liikenteen toteutusohjelma (MAL - 2017). Helsingin kaupungin talous- ja suunnittelukeskuksen julkaisuja 2008:4. 42 p. Kepsu, K., M. Vaattovaara, V. Bernelius, M. Itlahti (2010). Vetv Helsinki. Luovien ja tietointensiivisten alojen osaajien nkemyksi seudusta kotimainen ja kansainvlinen nkkulma. Research series 2010:4. 96 p. City of Helsinki Urban Facts. Knig, T. (2005). Frame Analysis: Theoretical Preliminaries. Accessed on 5.7.2013. < http://www.ccsr.ac.uk/methods/publications/frameanalysis/> Korpivaara, A. & L. Tuokko (2003). Tiivist ja matalaa edistmss. Asu ja Rakenna 2003:3, pp. 5-6. KSV = Helsingin kaupunkisuunnittelvirasto/Helsinki City Planning Department (2012). Helsingin yleiskaavan lhtkohdat ja tyohjelma. Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston yleissuunnitteluosaston selvityksi 2012:2. 26 p. KSV = Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluvirasto/Helsinki City Planning Department (2012). Townhouse-rakentaminen Helsingiss. Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston julkaisuja 2012. 67 p. Kunstler, J.H. (1993). The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of Americas Manmade Landscape. 303 p. Simon & Schuster, New York. Kytt, M. (2012). Main research findings. Urbaani onni sosiaalisesti & rakenteellisesti kestvn yhdyskunnan kartoittaminen research project.< http://ytk.aalto.fi/fi/tutkimus/hankkeet/Tiiviys_kytta_uusi.pdf>
85
Kytsaho, I. (2003). Tiivist ja matalaa Malminkartanossa. Asu ja Rakenna 2003:3, pp. 2122. Landry, C. & F. Bianchini (1995). The Creative City. 60 p. Demos, London. Lang, M.H. (1999). Designing Utopia: John Ruskin's Urban Vision for Britain and America. 215 p. Black Rose, Montreal Lankinen, L., P. Selander & T. Tikkanen (eds.). (2009). The State of Helsinki Region 2009 European Comparisons. 54 p. City of Helsinki Urban Facts. Lilja, E. (2002). Segregationens motsgelsefullhet. Integrerad i en stadsdel segregerad i staden. 61 p. Kulturgeografiska institutionen, Stockholm University.< http://people.su.se/~elilj/Meddelande114.pdf> Loikkanen, H.A. (2013). Kaupunkialueiden maankytt ja taloudellinen kehitys maapolitiikan vaikutuksista tuottavuuteen sek ty- ja asuntomarkkinoiden toimivuuteen. VATT Valmisteluraportit 17/2013. 54 p. Government Institute for Economic Research. Loikkanen, H.A. & H. Lnnqvist (2007). Metropolitan Housing Markets The Case of Helsinki. In Andersson, .E., L Pettersson, & U. Strmquist (eds.). European Metropolitan Housing Markets, pp. 63-84. Springer, Berlin. LSE Cities (2013). Stockholm. Green Economy Leader Report. LSECities. 161 p. Economics of Green Cities Programme, London School of Economics and Political Science. Lundstrm & Wilhelmsson (2007). The Stockholm Housing Market. In Andersson, .E., L Pettersson, & U. Strmquist (eds.). European Metropolitan Housing Markets, pp. 321-340. Springer, Berlin. Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. 194 p. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Macdonald, E. (2005). Street-facing Dwelling Units and Livability: The Impacts of Emerging Building Types in Vancouver's New High-density Residential Neighbourhoods. Journal of Urban Design 10:1, 13-38. Menp, P. (2008). Avara urbanismi. Yritys ymmrt suomalainen kaupunki toisin. In Norvasuo, M.(ed.). Asuttaisiinko toisin? Kaupunkiasumisen uusia konsepteja kartoittamassa, pp. 21-47. Yhdyskuntasuunnittelun tutkimus- ja koulutuskeskuksen julkaisuja B 95. Mlkki, M. (2010). Kytketyt kaupunkipientalot ja urbaani rakentaminen. In Norvasuo, M. (ed.). Asutaan urbaanisti! Laadukkaaseen kaupunkiasumiseen yhteisell kehittelyll, pp. 131-150. Yhdyskuntasuunnittelun tutkimus- ja koulutuskeskuksen julkaisuja B 99. Manninen, R. (2006). Townhouse mahdollisuus kaupunkirakenteen eheyttmisess. Asu ja Rakenna 2006:6, pp. 24-25.
86
Manninen, R. & J. Hirvonen (2004). Rivitalo asumismuotona. Toiveiden tyttymys vai mahdollisuuksien kompromissi?. Suomen ymprist 694. 80 p. Manninen, R. & T. Holopainen (2006). Townhouse. Kytketty omatonttinen pientalo kaupungissa. Lhtkohtia ja tavoitteita. Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston yleissuunnitteluosaston selvityksi 2006: 8. 50 p. Marquardt, N., H. Fller, G. Glasze and R. Ptz (2012). Shaping the Urban Renaissance: New-build Luxury Developments in Berlin. Urban Studies, pp. 1-17. Marvin, S. & S. Guy (2000). Models and Pathways: The Diversity of Sustainable Urban Futures. In Williams, K., E. Burton & M. Jenks (eds.). Achieving Sustainable Urban Form, pp. 9-18.E & FN Spon, London and New York. Menestyv metropoli (2009). Menestyv metropoli. Metropolialueen kilpailukykystrategia. 42 p. < http://www.hel.fi/hel2/Helsinginseutu/Pks/PKS_kilpailukykystrategia_020609.pdf> Mukala, J. (2011). Arkkitehtitoimisto Karin Krokfors. Paritalot Kellokas/Kellokas Housing, Helsinki. Arkkitehti 2011:4, pp. 41-43. Mumford, E. (2000). The CIAM Discourse on Urbanism, 1928-1960. 395 p. The MIT Press, Cambridge. Musterd, S. & Z. Kovcs (2013).Policies and Place-Making for Competitive Cities. In Musterd, S. & Z. Kovcs (eds.). Place-making and Policies for Competitive Cities, pp. 310. Muthesius, S. (1982). The English Terraced House. 278 p. Yale University Press, New Haven. Nelson, A.C. (2009). The New Urbanity: The Rise of a New America. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 2009:626, pp. 192-208. Newman, P. & A. Thornley (1996). Urban Planning in Europe: International Competition, National Systems and Planning Projects. 304 p. Routledge, London and New York. OECD = Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2012). Compact City Policies: A Comparative Assessment. OECD Green Growth Studies. 284 p. OECD Publishing. OECD = Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2013). Green Growth in Stockholm, Sweden. OECD Green Growth Studies. 118 p. OECD Publishing. OECD = Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2003). OECD Territorial Reviews: Helsinki, Finland 2003. 238 p. OECD Publishing. Ojala, K. (2001). Unohduksissa ollut kaupunkipientalo tulee takaisin. Kuntalehti 2001:6, pp. 35-37.
87
Parker, S. (2004). Urban Theory and the Urban Experience: encountering the city. 210 p. Routledge, London. Paschou, E. & T. Metaxas (2013). Branding Stockholm. MPRA Paper No. 48118. < http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/48118/> Pfeifer, G. & P. Brauneck (2008). Row Houses. A Housing Typology. 112 p. Birkhuser, Berlin. Ploger, J. (2010). Urbanity, (Neo)vitalism and Becoming. In Hillier, J. & P. Healey (eds.). The Ashgate Research Companion to Planning Theory: Conceptual Challenges for Spatial Planning, pp. 319-342. Ashgate, Farnham. Porter, R. (2001). The Enlightenment. Second Edition. 95 p. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Potts, J., S. Cunningham, J. Hartley, & P. Ormerod (2008).Social network markets: A definition of the creative industries. Journal of Cultural Economics 32:3, pp. 167-185. Pukkila, E. (2011). Kohti kaupunkibrndin johtamista tapaustutkimus Helsingin metropolialue. Aluetieteen pro-gradututkielma. 86 p. University of Tampere. Pulkkinen, S. (2011). stersundom ja kaupunkipientalot. Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston yleissuunnitteluosaston selvityksi 2011:4. 27 p. Rantama, K. (2008). Osuuskuntarakentamista Zrichissa. In Norvasuo, M.(ed.). Asuttaisiinko toisin? Kaupunkiasumisen uusia konsepteja kartoittamassa, pp. 239-262. Yhdyskuntasuunnittelun tutkimus- ja koulutuskeskuksen julkaisuja B 95. Ratvio, R. (2012). Elm keskustassa ja kaupunkiseudun reunoilla. Urbaani ja jlkiesikaupungillinen elmntyyli asumisen valinnoissa ja arkiliikkumisessa Helsingin seudulla. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Geosciences and Geography A15. 223 p. University of Helsinki. Rudlin, D. & N. Falk (1999). Building the 21st Century Home. The Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood. 271 p. Architectural Press, Oxford. Rudlin, D. & N. Falk (2009). Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood. Building the 21st Century Home. 2nd edition. 288 p. Routledge Sanaksenaho, P. (2013). Pientaloasuminen hakee muotoaan. Arkkitehti 2013:2, pp. 11-21. Sandercock, L. (2010). Planning Urbanity?. Commentary. Environment and Planning A 2010:42, pp. 2302-2308. Sastry, B. (2005). Market Structure and Incentives for Innovation. 9 p. < http://www.intertic.org/Policy%20Papers/Sastry.pdf> Schartner, Staffan (2013). Partner at Omniplan and Chairman of Svenska freningen fr byggemenskaper. Interview in Stockholm on 28.6.2013.
88
Schmidt-Thom, K., M. Hayabatollahi, M. Kytt & J. Korpi (2013). The prospects for urban densification: a place-based study. Environmental Research Letters 2013:8, 11 p. Schneider, T. & J. Till (2005). Flexible Housing: Opportunities and Limits. Architectural Research Quarterly 9:2, pp. 157-166. Schmer, E. (2006). Dags fr fler sm byggfretag. Arkitekten 2006: 10, p. 54. Schulman, H., Pulma, P., & Aalto, S. (2000). Helsingin historia vuodesta 1945. 2, 2. 521 p. Helsingin kaupunki. Shmueli, D.F. (2008). Framing in geographical analysis of environmental conflicts: Theory, methodology and three case studies. Geoforum 2008:39, pp. 20482061. Silfverberg, K., P. Huuska & M. Lukin (eds.). (2010). Environmental Sustainability Issues and Challenges in Helsinki 2010. 39 p. City of Helsinki. Sjroos, P. & R. Jalkanen (2010). Helsinki Townhouse kilpailu. Jtksaaren ja Kruunuvuorenrannan kaupunkipientalotyypit 1.2.-30.4.2010. Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston julkaisuja 2010:1. 38 p. Slottner, E. (2011). Ny trend skapar mjligheter fr bostder i city. vice gruppledare fr Kristdemokraterna i Stockholms stadshus, ledamot i Stadsbyggnadsnmnden. Svenska Dagbladet. Accessed on 14.7.2013. < http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/ny-trendskapar-mojligheter-for-bostader-i-city_6226733.svd> Snow, D.A. & R.D. Benford (1988). Ideology, Frame Resonance and Participant Mobilization. International Social Movement Research 1, pp. 197-219. Sthle, A. & L. Marcus (2009). Compact Sprawl Experiments. four strategic densification scenarios for two modernist suburbs in Stockholm. Ref. 109. 15 p. In Koch, D., L. Marcus & J. Steen (eds.). Proceedings of the 7th International Space Syntax Symposium. KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. Stimmann, H. (2011). Townhouses. Construction and Design Manual. 367 p. Lakewood Art & Architecture. Stockholms lns landsting. (2010). RUFS 2010. Regional utvecklingsplan fr Stockholmsregionen. S blir vi Europas mest attraktiva storstadsregion. R 2010:5. 261 p. Stockholms lns landsting. (2012). Stockholms ln Huvudrapport Befolkningsprognos 2012-2021/45. Demografisk rapport 2012:9. 99 p. Stockholms stad (2010). The Walkable City. Stockholm City Plan. 84 p. The City Planning Administration, Stockholm. Strandell, A. (2011). Asukasbarometri 2010. Asukaskysely suomalaisista asuinympristist. Suomen ymprist 2011:31. 58 p. Suomen ympristkeskus, Helsinki.
89
SvD = Svenska Dagbladet (2010). Betongens fall ger revansch fr tr. Accessed on 2.8.2013. < http://www.svd.se/naringsliv/betongens-fall-ger-revansch-for-tra_5259725.svd> SvD = Svenska Dagbladet (2009). Mtesplatser ska mixa nollttorna. Accessed on 11.7.2013. < http://www.svd.se/nyheter/stockholm/motesplatser-ska-mixa-nollattorna_3002973.svd> SvD = Svenska Dagbladet (2006). Radhus kan ndra stadsbilden. Accessed on 5.7.2013. < http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/radhus-kan-andra-stadsbilden_375538.svd> SvD = Svenska Dagbladet (2008). Stadsradhus vid Rlambshov . Accessed on 10.7.2013. < http://www.svd.se/nyheter/stockholm/stadsradhus-vid-ralambshov_1933481.svd> Taipale, K. (ed.). (2011). Metropolipolitiikkaa!. Helsingin seudun hallinta ja ihmisen ni. 96 p, Vapaus valita toisin verkosto, Vantaa. Talen, E. (2002). Help for Urban Planning: The Transect Strategy. Journal of Urban Design 7:3, pp. 293-312. Taylor, N. (1998). Urban Planning Theory since 1945. 184 p. SAGE Publications, London. The Economist Intelligence Unit (2013). Hot Spots 2025. Benchmarking the future competitiveness of cities. A Report from The Economist Intelligence Unit. 31 p. Tnnies, F. (2001/1887). Community and civil society. 32 p. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Tunstrm, M. (2007). The vital city: constructions and meanings in the contemporary Swedish planning discourse. Town Planning Review 78:6, pp. 631-698, Tuomi, J. & Sarajrvi, A. (2009). Laadullinen tutkimus ja sisllnanalyysi. 5th edition. 175 p. Tammi, Helsinki. Urban Task Force (2005). Towards a Strong Urban Renaissance. 19 p. < http://www.urbantaskforce.org/UTF_final_report.pdf> Uudistuva kaupunki (2012). Houkutteleva ja ohjelmallinen tydennysrakentaminen (HOT-R) Research project report. 253 p. Aalto University. YM = Ympristministeri/The Ministry of the Environment (2002). Tiivist ja matalaa kaupunkirakennetta toteuttaminen - valtakunnallinen Tiivis-matala projekti. Accessed on 8.8.2013. < http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?contentid=59633> Vakkuri, R. (2011). Townhouse hakee muotoaan. Kivest muuraamalla 2011, pp. 10-14. Vernez Moudon, A. (1989). Built for Change. Neighborhood Architecture in San Francisco. 286 p. MIT Press, Cambidge, MA.
90
Vestbro, D. U. (2006). Brukarinflytande bara genom gandertt?. Arkitekten 2006:5, pp. 6062. Vilkama, K. (2011). Yhteinen kaupunki, eriytyvt kaupunginosat? Kantavestn ja maahanmuuttajataustaisten asukkaiden alueellinen eriytyminen ja muuttoliike pkaupunkiseudulla. Tutkimuksia Helsingin kaupungin tietokeskus 2011:2. 238 p. City of Helsinki Urban Facts. Visanti, M. (2013). Former Project Manager at Helsinki City Planning Department, Architect. Interview in Helsinki on 24.6.2013. Visanti, M. (2003). Helsingin keskustassa matala ja tiivis toimii vain satunnaisesti. Asu ja rakenna 2003:3, pp. 18-19. Visanti, M. (2007). Pienimittakaavainen kaupunginosa haastaa normiohjauksen. Asu ja rakenna 2007:4, pp. 22-23. Visanti, M. (2006). Pientalokaupunkia etsimss. Betoni 2006:2, pp. 12-15. Walters, D. & L.L.. Brown (2004). Design First. Design-Based Planning For Communities. 277 p. Architectural Press, Oxford. West 8 (2013). West 8. Borneo-Sporenburg townhouse project developer. Picture retrieved on 5.9.2013. < http://www.west8.nl/> Westford, P. (2010). Neighborhood Design and Travel. A Study of Residential Quality, Child Leisure Activity and Trips to School. 207 p. Doctoral Thesis in Infrastructure. KTH Royal Institute of Technology. Wikimedia Commons (2013). Wikimedia Commons media repository. Picture material retrieved on 5.9.2013. < http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page> Zukin, S. (2010). Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places. 312 p. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
91
7. Appendices
A. Interviews and Item list

Helsinki Manninen, Rikhard. Director of the Strategic Urban Planning Division at the Helsinki City Planning Department. Interview in Helsinki on 17.6.2013. Muntola, Heikki. Owner of Arkkitehtitoimisto Heikki Muntola and winner of Helsinki Townhouse 2010 architecture competition. Email interview. Responses submitted on 30.6.2013. Krokfors, Karin. Researcher at Aalto Universitys Land Use Planning and Urban Studies Group (YTK) and owner of Karin Krokfors Architects. Interview in Helsinki on 25.6.2013. Visanti, Matti. Former Project Manager at Helsinki City Planning Department, Architect. Interview in Helsinki on 24.6.2013.
Stockholm Andersson, Ola. Architect at A1 Arkitekter. Interview in Stockholm on 27.6.2013. sell, Anna. Planning Architect at Stockholm City Planning Office. Interview in Stockholm on 26.6.2013. Schartner, Staffan. Partner at Omniplan and Chairman of Svenska freningen fr byggemenskaper. Interview in Stockholm on 28.6.2013.
Generic Item List for Interviews
92
Definitions and terminology Changing user needs and reacting on them Housing production The townhouse and urban space The challenges for developing townhouses Intra-municipal competition for tax payers Environmental issues Urban renewal Townhouse inspiration; domestic and international
B. Systematically examined journals, magazines and newspapers

For Helsinki Arkkitehti Asu ja Rakenna Helsingin sanomat RY Rakennettu Ymprist Yhdyskuntasuunnittelu For Stockholm Arkitekten Arkitektur Dagens Nyheter Nordisk arkitekturforskning Plan Planera Bygga Bo Svenska Dagbladet
93

Why Townhouses? A Comparative Study of Emerging Housing Concepts in Helsinki and Stockholm

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Why Townhouses? A Comparative Study of Emerging Housing Concepts in Helsinki and Stockholm

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Why Townhouses?

A Comparative Study of Emerging Housing Concepts in Helsinki and Stockholm

Supervisor: Prof. Panu Lehtovuori Second Reader: Vrije Universiteit Brussel

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures

4.1.2. 4.1.3. 4.1.4.

Comparison of Materialized Townhouses ................................................................. 69

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures

Picture 1. New York Brownstones.

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures

Urban Utopias and the Suburban Conspiracy

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures

The Culturalist Critiques

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures

Conservation & Urban Compaction

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures

Picture 2. Borneo-Sporenburg townhouses in Amsterdam (West 8 2013).

Choice & Changing Housing Demands

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures

Community & Planning for Urbanity

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures

Table 1. Planning for urbanity according to Sandercock (2010),

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures

2.6. Conceptual Framework and Research Questions

Design and Method

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures

3.1. Frame Analysis

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures

3.2. Data Collection & Processing

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures

Comparative Analysis of Townhouses in Helsinki and Stockholm

Helsinki Townhouses Environmental concerns a driver

Stockholm Townhouses Environmental concerns not a driver

Land-use efficiency problematized as possibly becoming too high

Land-use efficiency problematized as not being high enough

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures

Helsinki Townhouses Link with detached single-family home living

Stockholm Townhouses Link with apartment living

Link with urban lifestyles

Link with urban lifestyles

Link with a desire to diversify housing supply

No strong link with goal to diversify housing supply

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures

Helsinki Townhouses Goal to create urban milieus

Stockholm Townhouses Goal to create urban milieus

More forward-oriented view

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures

Timo Hmlinen MA in European Urban Cultures

Stockholm Townhouses Townhouses associated with global markets