The practise of urban planning is not what it used to be. Having lost its political foundations, dominated by market forces, dealing with an increasingly segregated society, and challenged by a completely new set of economic, social, and ecological factors – its old rules and methods no longer apply. Yet, the ideology of planning seems to have remained the same. The city is still regarded as defined by its physical form, rather than as a configuration of spatial and temporal qualities, emerging from immaterial conditions.
So what are the issues we are facing today – as politicians, architects, planners or developers – in planning for a sustainable future? The recently published anthology Bor vi i samma stad? [Are we living in the same city? On urban development, plurality, and justice] is an important contribution to this debate.
A compilation of recent texts by architects and researchers, it presents a multi-faceted array of perspectives that question the forces that shape the city and their driving forces. Whether it is by disclosing the market strategies of Skanska and Vasakronan (Karin Bradley), the media stigmatization of suburbs (Irene Molina), the notion of "sprawl" as a societal disease (Lars Mikael Raattamaa), the phantasm of the "creative city" (Mats Franzén) or the narratives of Swedish planning culture (Lars Orrskog), in each case, it is a matter of revealing the nature of those "images" through which society is being re-produced.
A recurrent theme here is to reveal the nature of those "images". One such "image" is the firm belief in the correspondence between form and content: Low-rise, small-scale
buildings and clearly defined spaces are generally taken to be superior to the high-rise, large scale and open space paradigm of late modernism.
Christian Grafe, however, in his account of current Dutch housing projects, reveals the illusionary character of such simplified truths. Each case presented by Grafe constitutes a specific time-space with different relational and political implica-tions, although similar in scale and form.
The absence of general principles is one of the recurring themes of the book. Informed by theories of power and justice it stresses the ideological nature of planning. Based neither on naturalized "public opinion", nor on scientific truth, planning is fundamentally a political activity.
The cultural geographer Irene Molina, for instance, shows how the state housing policies of the 1970's contributed to the setting up of the segregated society we are faced with today. She identifies it as a situation that can only be confronted by a better-informed political will, actively striving for social justice in housing. In a society dominated by commercial forces and media, the lack of
political awareness and responsibility is evidently a problem in itself.
How do we go about setting up alternative strategies? One of the articles in the book, by the architect Charlotte Ruben Nyström and her colleagues, points out a number of concrete obstacles in current planning procedures. Developing methods to work across administrative borders and exploring new forms of public consultations are two issues that seem particularly important, in order to re-invent the legitimacy and efficiency of planning. These new methods can only evolve through the close collaboration of all those involved. Such channels are however severely hindered today, with each layer representing a separate
"culture" set apart from the rest.
In this respect, an objection can be made to the importance the editors' place on the professional figure of the planner, who is expected to take the lead in this transformation while also criticizing the power structures involved. To actively question one's own legitimacy is a massive task for a profession that in itself struggles constantly for recognition – and it reflects a faith in the architect as an authority that in itself belongs to the past.
The book is intended as an "inspiration and provocation" and is designed to generate new ideas; stresses the necessity of finding ways of planning for "plurality and justice." Again, it points to the direction of a political responsibility – that is to say, a responsibility for all, whether professional or private. The future of the city must be elevated into an issue of public debate, which requires new channels of communication. Considering however the amount of knowledge and critical research that never reaches a wider audience, and the level at which decisions are made, this popular and accessible publication is something of a success.
By Catharina Gabrielsson, architect and Ph D student, KTH