Browsing by Author "Luostarinen, Milja"

In its broadest sense, urban planning is about controlling and modifying space. According to Henri Lefebvre, the space is socially constructed and it can be divided into three aspects. These aspects are conceived/conceptualised space or representations of space, perceived/routinized space or spatial practices, and lived space or representational space. In representational space the reality is covered by symbols linked to the social life. Spatial practices ensure certain order and continuity in society. Representations of space are abstract, spaces simplified in theories and abstracts. Representations of space are based on lived life, but their connection to the reality has deteriorated due to abstractions. Nevertheless, they are part of political and social practices and they direct strongly space and planning of space through different theories and ideologies. By that way representations of space also penetrate lived space and spatial practices. By means of these concepts, it is an intention to understand concepts of space of habitants and experts. Representations of space are abstract space of experts and representational spaces are lived space of habitants. Practices are linked to both experts and habitants' doings. City planning has a huge impact on space and experience of space. Who has the power over space, has the power over its developing and modifying, in other words, over construction of the space. Finnish law guarantees that every stakeholder has a chance of participation in the planning process, but not everyone is satisfied with this. Habitants feel that their opinions do not matter and experts feel like being a pawn in the political game. The purpose of this thesis, is to find how habitants and experts construct and observe space and find a key to better collaborative planning. Collaborative planning brings together stakeholders and tries to make them create common discourse. Its purpose is to make different people from different backgrounds create plans and discourses, where all of them can and want to engage. This is difficult, because even neighbours might share only spatial location. This study is case study, where by means of discourse analysis, reports about Laajasalo and new master plan of Helsinki, reports of interaction, comments of Yleiskaava-blog's Laajasalo related topics, two "citizen discussion nights" and the interview of active Laajasalo dweller and the interview of urban planner from Helsinki urban environment division are analysed. The intention is to find out if different forms of data have emphasized different things, and to find out possible differences between the concepts of space of habitants and experts. The research shows, that habitants see urban space through the concepts of nature, fluent everyday life and visuality. To experts's urban space politics are important as well as city's economic success. Usually these emphases overlap even though they are given different importances. For example to habitants the nature has aesthetical, healthy and recreational value. To the society, on the other hand, aesthetical aspects does not matter as much as nature's significance in promoting habitants' health and well-being. Helsinki's collaborative planning methods get more negative feedback from habitants than from experts. Mostly in interaction reports and in the interview of active Laajasalo dweller show critisism concerning new master plan of Helsinki city. Experts, on the other hand, thank habitants for participation, even though the active Laajasalo dweller says he does know, that not all the experts thank habitants for their input. Differences between different concepts of (urban) space seemed to link to person's age. Young urban citizens are more likely to travel by more sustainable means of communication and long for more compact cities. Elder part of the population, on the other hand, seems to emphasize the importance of nature and parks. The world, in where we born and grow up into, shapes our values through media, researches and social interaction. This is one probable explanation for our different kind of concepts of space. Abstract space penetrates in lived space and shapes it with its own concepts.