3. We Should Talk About Power in Urban Planning More Precisely
Efe Ogbeide
Efe Ogbeide is co-founder of the participatory urban planning agency FEMMA Planning. She is interested in sensuous knowledge, localness and birdwatching.
Together with a small group of architects and social and cultural scientists I am in a book club that focuses on urban planning. Our get-togethers have been rewarding, as discussing the readings from varied perspectives has helped structure my own thoughts. We have discussed power and urban planning thoroughly. In particular, we have discussed market-based logic and its effects on urban planning.
In a book club meeting, it was brought up that we are all a part of a wider capitalist system that we are actively upholding. This perspective left the group silent for a while, as this structure is of course a persistent sin of people living in the Western hemisphere. All our choices have a wider impact than we can imagine, and it is difficult to make “right” choices.
On the grand scale, it simply looks like market forces, or the law of supply and demand, guides urban planning. Profit-seeking combined with urbanization and climate change put unforeseen pressure on the stability and the boundaries of our ecological and social environment. Changing the power dynamics appears challenging, as does changing the course we are on. It is also difficult to separate oneself from the wider structure, where ownership and amassing wealth benefit only the few, and one must participate in the pursuit of owning property and investing in the stock market just to survive in the riptide of market forces.
The consolidation of ownership and influence on ever larger and fewer private actors was discussed in the critical Kenen kaupunki? -pamphlet (1) [Whose city?] published in early 2021. In the pamphlet, which addresses planning-related questions with the city of Helsinki, Finland, as a case example, the writers express concern for the way in which power over urban planning seems to be increasingly in the hands of private real estate and construction companies, and aesthetic qualities and pleasantness of the urban environment are subjugated to financial gain. This critique is not a new phenomenon in Helsinki, as the publication has drawn inspiration from a pamphlet called Kenen Helsinki (2) [Whose Helsinki] written in 1970 by architects Vilhelm Helander and Mikael Sundman, in which the writers critique market-based real estate development, the strive for efficiency, and the readiness to demolish old buildings.
The phenomenon of market-force-driven urban development is tied to a worldwide trend, as noted by the general director of ARA (The Housing Finance and Development Center of Finland) Hannu Rossilahti in his speech in an ARA seminar in January 2021 (3). The market mechanism drives urban development because large corporations and the elite have invested their capital in land and real estate because of low interest rates. This has further consolidated wealth to a smaller group of people and driven up housing prices. Now even fewer can afford to own their own property or rent an apartment in the area they wish to. Moderately priced housing has become ever more scarce.
In the book club we concluded that though this setting feels paralyzing, we should be able to act within the market-driven system and improve the things we can influence.
We should be able to discuss more precisely the forms of power at play in urban planning to be able to build a more sustainable society within the existing systems, while simultaneously dreaming of grander structural changes. This requires us to identify power structures and who uses power at different stages of the process.
A position of power entails the ability to implement changes. Power can derive from the capability to act, social status, authority, or another force that compels other people to act in the way one desires. Traditional power, which has been concentrated in specific institutions or persons, has changed, and become fragmented. According to UC Berkeley researchers David Booher and Judith Innes (4) relying on direct authority in an increasingly complex world is difficult. New ways of wielding power can lay more subtly in shaping ideas and ideals as well as in information warfare. The book club meetings have strengthened my understanding of how complex questions of power are in urban planning and how much broader the issue is than market-driven planning. We must reach deeper.
Researcher Jaana Nevalainen (5) speaks about the power of definition, where power is used to specify a planning problem and carry out the plan. Different actors define things from the perspective of their respective realities and experiences. This can affect how for example urban planners speak about specific planning areas or participants, such as suburbs and their inhabitants. It can also affect what is perceived as a good urban environment in general.
“Good” is a complicated term, to say the least, and it can be viewed from different perspectives. For example, Central Park in New York was built on top of a historically black neighborhood. Developing green infrastructure is surely desirable and developing a large park builds a desirable urban environment according to many, but to whose detriment? Most likely the people evicted from their homes did not feel like the project was building a better city.
The construction of Central Park is a classic example of the complicated relationship between power and planning, or how power is often used to promote the interests of members of the middle class or the wealthy. In Helsinki, the majority of members of the City Council live in centrally located or wealthy districts (6), which may create a similar structural imbalance, where the issues that are important to the middle and upper classes get more attention from politicians. It is difficult to compare one’s perception of reality to those of others, as it is hard to know or see that which one does not experience personally.
Finland's biggest daily newspaper Helsingin Sanomat (7) wrote about a doctoral student's Master's thesis, which found that the city area people actively use is significantly more localized among inhabitants with a lower education level. They also visit the city center more seldom than citizens who have received higher education. The analysis does not, however, consider the relationship between low education and income, and how this affects mobility and choice of place of residence in the capital region where the cost of housing is rapidly rising. The study looks at how people frequent the downtown area, which is very expensive to live and spend time in. Desirable use of urban space is thus defined as a setting that only middle-class and higher-income citizens can afford.
I see this research setup and research problem as a typical example of exercising the power of definition, which we should be more conscious of. Accumulation of wealth and education is a trend that is equally worrisome as the cycle of poverty and low education, but the first-mentioned is rarely a hot topic for the country’s largest newspapers.
This example exemplifies a common, though debatable, way of thinking. Policy and actions aimed at reducing segregation as well as studies on the topic are typically rooted in the assumption that vulnerable people and groups, for example immigrants or people with low income, and their actions, are seen as a problem. Instead, we should scrutinize political decisions and planning, which create structural problems, such as concentrating rental apartments in specific neighborhoods, boosting segregation, or cutting funding for teaching and learning services which increases learning differences and weakens learning outcomes.
To continue the idea from the book club: we could start changing urban planning narratives by discussing power structures and their impacts on planning in a more precise way. Only then can we identify the places where the greatest impact is made and hold those in positions of power accountable.
references
1 Hautajärvi, H., Heikonen, J. et al. 2021.Kenen kaupunki? Helsingin kaupunkisuunnittelu ja kulttuuriympäristö törmäyskurssilla. [Whose city? City planning of Helsinki and built heritage at odds.] Docomomo Suomi Finland [Finnish chapter of ICOMOS] Rakennustaiteen seura [Society of architecture], Rakennusperintö-SAFA [Finnish Association of Architects Built Heritage society]. Helsinki. https://icomos.fi/kenen-kaupunki/?/
2 Helander, W., Sundman, M. 1970. Kenen Helsinki. [Whose Helsinki]. WSOY. Helsinki. https://www.helsinginvasemmisto.fi/kenen-helsinki-2020-luvulla/
3 Rossilahti, H. January 21th, 2021. Varakkaiden asuntomarkkinat – case Zimbabwe. [Housing market for the wealthy - case Zimbabwe]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkZP1japkWs
4 Innes, J. E., Booher, D. E. 2000. Network Power in Collaborative Planning. UC Berkeley. Berkeley. https://escholarship.org/content/qt2mm270mp/qt2mm270mp.pdf?t=lnqdsv&v=lg
5 Nevalainen, J. Kaupungista puhumisen tavat vallankäytön välineenä – julkista puhetta kaupunkikeskustan muutoksesta. [The ways we talk about cities is a way of using power]. Yhdyskuntasuunnittelu, vol. 42: 3-4, 13-29. http://www.yss.fi/Nevalainen.pdf
6 City of Helsinki, City Executive Office. 2017. https://www.sttinfo.fi/tiedote/helsingin-kaupunginvaltuutettujen-asuinpaikat-painottuvat-kantakaupunkiin?publisherId=60590288&releaseId=62180099
7 Helsingin Sanomat, July 20th, 2021. https://www.hs.fi/paivanlehti/20072021/art-2000008111192.html
