Setting the Scale of Sustainable Urban Form

Setting the Scale of Sustainable Urban Form – Some scale-related problems discussed in the context of a Swedish urban landscape

MATTIAS KÄRRHOLM Architect, PhD Department of Architecture & Built Environment, LTH, LU Lund, Sweden TEL: +46 46 222 73 23 [email protected]

Abstract In this paper I will investigate spatial scale as one vital aspect that needs to be more carefully addressed in discussions on ‘sustainable urban forms’. First, I discuss problems of spatial scales in the light of recent urban transformations, focusing on the Malmö-Lund region. Second, I discuss the discourse of ‘sustainable urban forms’, pointing at some scale related problems that need to be more carefully addressed .In the third, and main part of the article, I discuss plans and projects of urban development in Malmö, focusing and elaborating on three tendencies of scale stabilisation: territorial, geometrical and hierarchical. Concluding, I suggest that if we want research on sustainable urban forms to inform us on how to build better urban environments, we need to think of it is as a tool for integrating issues and problems that formerly were specialised or sub-optimized, counteracting splintering urbanism; one foundational issue of such an effort would be a multi-scalar approach that does not handle scale as a pre-given entity.

Setting the Scale of Sustainable Urban Form

1(10)

“In architecture, one cannot say that 2 is to 4 as 200 is to 400” E. Viollet-le-Duc

1. Introduction The idea of applying the concept of sustainable development to that of urban and architectural form has increasingly been addressed and discussed by researchers, planners and architects during the last decade. The issue of sustainable urban form has, however, both in discourse and practice, been a problematic one, leading to different and contradictory results, e.g. in discussions for and against the compact city (Frey 1999, Jenks & Dempsey 2005, Kaido 2005). The progress of the field is often quite contradictory and complex, but nevertheless implemented in different guidelines and directives (Williams et. al. 2000). One core issue is that of methodology. How do we find and define ‘sustainable urban forms’? How do we investigate the question? How should we even pose the question? To actually judge whether a certain urban form is sustainable or not, does not seem to be an easy task. To some extent the problem echoes the old modernistic dilemma of function and form. Both problems are set up as a relationship between cause and effect, between urban form and outcome. I do not contest that there could be some stable relationships between a set of activities or relations agreed upon as sustainable, and a certain urban structure. This relationship is however not so easily generalized in terms of such dichotomies as nature-culture, object-subject or form/function (cf. Latour 1993). In this paper I will investigate spatial scale as one vital aspect that needs to be more carefully addressed if we are to talk about ‘sustainable urban forms’. I will specifically look at the scales at which different ‘sustainable urban forms’ are implemented and discussed (in research as well as in planning). The argument of the paper is based on the notion that urban forms participate in the production of effects on different scales (they are multi-scalar), and that these effects might vary

2(10)

accordingly. If we want to discuss the meanings and effects of built form, scale is thus an issue of key importance. The paper uses the concept of scale as related to urban form, taking its cue primarily from urban morphology but indirectly also from scale as discussed in a more eclectic architectural discourse (by such diverse authors’ as Rasmussen 1957, Gehl 1980, Boudon 1999, Lawson 2001). Although the aspect of architectural and spatial scale has been widely discussed in architectural theory the actual impacts of built environment as analysed through different scales has rarely be studied (although see Yaneva 2005). I will here use Caniggia’s and Maffei’s Architectural Composition (being one of the classics within the field of urban morphology) to define scale as: “different level of complexity of the components internally arranged to construct a whole” (Caniggia & Maffei, 2001 (1979):245). Although my field of interest is that of an urban morphologist, I will use the perspective of actornetwork theory (Latour 2005), and regard spatial scale as continuously produced by different collectives (in, what can be called, an ontology of becoming). The description of Caniggia & Maffei thus suits me fine since, ‘components’ is abstract enough to include actors (and actants) of different sorts: social, material, political, etc. My urban-morphology-perspective on spatial scale differs from the scale analysis and theories developed lately, largely within the field of political geography (Marston 2000, Brenner 2001, Swyngedow 2000, Randles & Dicken 2004, Collinge 2005, to mention a few). Although I do agree with some points made in this quite heterogenic field of research: e.g. that scales are not pre-given, but produced by human interactions, social relations and political actions – I also think it is important to stress more heavily that materialities, forms, shapes, artefacts, etc. of different kind are indispensable co-producers of such scales and scale-related effects. This, in turn, often means that scalar outcomes are non-direct, unintended and even unpredictable (cf. Randles & Dicken 2004). Keeping this in mind, the politics

Conference Architectural Inquiries, Göteborg 2008

of space must be discussed not just by analysing intentions and discourses, but also by taking the issue of form and materiality more seriously. The aim of the paper is to investigate research and planning discourses on sustainable urban form, posing the question: at what scales are these sustainable urban forms discussed and implemented? First, I give a short introduction to the primary context of the paper: the region and the expanding urban landscape,1 as well as the discourse of sustainable urban forms. In the main part of the article I look at Malmö and some of the UD projects planned there during the last decade in order to discuss three tendencies of scale stabilisation that seem to be reproduced in the discourses and plans that I have analysed.

2. The scale of the urban landscape Although perhaps seldom addressed as a subject of its own, scale has always been one of the main issues of urbanity and urban form debate. The French architect and theorist Phillippe Boudon even regard it as the key concept of an autonomous architectural science, a field that he refered to as architecturology (Boudon 1999, cf. Lundequist 1999). Today regional scale seems to be an issue of growing importance in a much larger context than that of architectural research. The transformation of towns and cities to urban regional landscapes has been going on all through the 20th century, starting with the trends of suburbanization, garden cities, etc., in the beginning of the century. Lewis Mumford 1

Sustainability and scale have been addressed at much larger scales at other places, e.g. discussing how political issues can be set at a global scale, depoliticiszing or repudiating the activites taking place at a national or local scale (Baeten 2000). Although the effects of the built environment indeed might take us to a global level (and a network context) I constrain myself in this paper to a regional context (See Law & Mol 2002, on different spatialites and contexts from an ANT-related perspective). See also Marcotullio & McGranahan 2007 on scaling urban environmental challenges on both local and global levels.


commented in the 1930’s seeing how motor ways and railroads enabled a non-hierarchical region where: ”no single centre will, like the metropolis of old, become the focal point of all regional advantages: on the contrary the ”whole region” becomes open for settlement” (Mumford 2005 (1937), p. 96). Although this transformation of the urban structure was noted early on, it did not become thoroughly conceptualised until the 1990’s (partly due to a vast number of influential hierarchical conceptualizations, e.g. Christallers central place theory, The Chicago School ring model, The Athens-charter zoning systems, Newman’s Defensible Space, SCAFT). Today, however, we are witnessing a conceptual production discussing these urban transformations at the scale of the region in terms such as e.g. Zwischenstadt (Sieverts 2003), Netzstadt (Oswald & Baccinin 2003), citta diffusa (Boeri 2003), l’urbanisme des reseaux (Dupuy 1991), the network city (Abrechts & Mandelbaum 2005), the regional city (Calthorpe & Fulton 2001), and splintering urbanism (Graham & Marvin 1998). These conceptualizations, and to some extent also mappings (Boeri 2003, Abrams & Hall 2005) of urban landscapes, networks and nebulae imply that regional scale is rapidly becoming an issue of growing importance (and where Boeri et. al. 2003, even plays with the idea of seeing the whole of Europe as an urban region). New regional developments, infrastructures and politics also affect and involve the everyday life. People commute more and longer, tourism is an evergrowing industry, and new institutions are established at new scale levels. In the end, this does of course also affect spatial planning, that has to come to terms with a new context where distance has more to do with time than kilometres and social process such as urbanisation, greenbelts, investments, centres etc, seem to be scaled up (this planning shift has sometimes been refered to as shift to network planning, Hajer & Zonneweld 2000, Albrechts & Mandelbaum 2005, cf. Healy 2005). Planning and strategies for development are still very much treated as

3(10)

territorial issues set within the frames of a “hardedged container”, (Healy 2005: 151), not fully dealing with the fact that a lot of relations, problems and phenomena are more and more enacted on new and multiple scales. Even though the scale of the urban landscape is increasingly conceptualized and discussed by researchers as an empirical phenomenon, it has not yet reached its potential, one could argue, in more normative texts, in planning visions and in new ideas on how to build. To some extent this is also a result of with how planning practice is organized with responsibilities hierarchically divided at different levels of scales, often focused on intra-territorial issues and different fields of interest, such as an organization might lead to the optimisation of isolated elements, areas or aspects, but could have harder to cope with the multiple relations of the urban landscapes (cf. Healy 2005).

3. Sustainable urban form in research What is sustainable architecture, sustainable urban design or form? In Achieving Sustainable Urban Form (2000), Williams et. al. conclude that sustainable urban forms are “characterized by compactness (in various forms), mix of uses and interconnected street layouts, supported by strong public transport networks, environmental controls and high standards of urban management” (Williams et. al. p. 355.). Compactness and concentration of the built environment to transit nodes are two of the most common statements (and can for example also be seen in Swedish reports such as SOU 1997:35 and Boverket “Vison 2009”, cf. Westford 1999, 2004). In research on sustainable urban forms (Jabareen 2006, Frey 1999, anthologies such as Jenks et al 1996, Williams et al 2000, Jenks & Dempsey 2005) there seem to be some kind of agreement on the themes that are relevant (summarised above). But what kind of ‘forms’ are sustainable? Looking at the discourse from the perspective of

4(10)

(morphological) spatial scale, three things come to mind. First, and perhaps most striking, is the lack of differentiation when it comes to the notion of form. The key themes for sustainable urban form is often represented as e.g. a formless statistical number of density, number of uses, or distances (one-dimensional form), discussing some wanted effects characterised as sustainable, rather than the urban forms that could accommodate for them. Using Kevin Lynch’s definition of urban form as: “the spatial pattern of the large, inert, permanent physical objects in a city” (Lynch in Jabareen 2006:39), one can note that the notion of pattern or shape is seldom addressed at all in a more concrete manner. The differentiation of form is often quite weak, listing some ideal models (such as Jabareen listing four idealised models) rather than discussing different morphological aspects. Discourse on sustainable urban form surprisingly seldom takes its cue from urban morphology, though there are of course exceptions (notably Scoffman & Marat-Mendes 2000, and to some extent also e.g. Westford 2004 & Frey 1999). To illustrate the problem of neglecting form, we can take the example of density. Density does of course fluctuate with scale, changing borders and perimeters of the place also changes density. Even within the same borders the same density or floor space ratio could very well represent totally different building typologies and ways of life (cf. Jenks & Dempsey 2005). For diagrams on how different building types relate to number of storeys, floor space index, and density ratio, see Rådberg & Johansson (1997:75), and Bergshauser Pont & Haupt (2007). Second, although scale is addressed, it is often done in a quite simplistic and hierarchical manner, where scales are set by administrative borders or typological area classifications. Furthermore, most discussions seem to focus either at the scale of the city (e.g. ‘the compact city’) or at a neighbourhood scale. Some look at the region, in discussion of e.g. polycentric versus monocentric models (Frey 1999, Okabe 2005). However,


changing scales, jumping surging scaling up and down, lies in the very heart of the design process. (Yaneva 2005). This kind of scaling (done in architectural practice) often take a more phenomenological approach, producing scales from the perspective of lived space: how does this particular building affect the skyline, the life on the street, the view from the park, the light in the rooms of the building next door, etc. Just setting the height or the width of the building could immediately affect all of these scales and of course many more. Sadly, this activity of scaling is not yet much verbalized or conceptualized in discourse. In what networks is this building (or parts of the building) an actor/actant? What roles does it play in different scales? Mixed uses within a city district does not per se mean that people walk or cycle – that has to do with other things like urban design, spatial structure, but also with scale. At what scale are these activities mixed, at the level of the building, the street, the block, the district, is the mix to some extent repeated on several streets within the district or the located to one street, or a mall? Third, there seem to be a tendency of favouring certain aspects, such as density and mixed use, looking for a one-rule model. Whereas, e.g. Jabareen, develops a matrix for the evaluation of particular suggestions, one could argue for the possibility of several futures and pathways (Guy & Marvin 2000). The possibility of scaling problems and solutions differently, together with a diversity of social interest, etc. seem to suggest that there could not be one optimal solution. Thus, a discussion on sustainable urban form need to take a more heuristic trail, addressing a plurality of important issues and methods rather than producing one-rule-models, one-liners or optimal solutions.

4. Three tendencies of scale stabilisation In the following I suggest and discuss three tendencies of scale stabilisation found in


sustainability planning and discourse. My empirical material mainly consists of plans and programs for Malmö urban development during the last decade. These tendencies are not to be read as a critique toward the planning going on but as a suggestion for issues that need to be conceptualised and elaborated on further. Malmö is a Swedish municipality, working quite consciously and ambitiously with aspects of sustainability and how to implement them in planning. Malmö has been acknowledged internationally for its sustainable urban development in Västra hamnen and the Housing exhibition Bo 01 of 2001 (State of the World 2007, Giddings et. al. 2005). Malmö is also a good city for a discussion on scale, since it is very much part of an ongoing urban development and transformations at the scale of the region, involving scalar shifts from one hierarchical level to another, as old villages and towns becomes transit-nodes for commuters, local squares and services decline and retail spaces increasingly appear at inter-district or even interurban levels. Bo 01 was a pilot-project, trying to build ‘the city of the future’, by focusing on e.g. ecological sustainability and promoting the compact city. It also stressed the important role of architectural and urban design in sustainable development. The evaluations made (Larson et. al 2003) argues that, although Bo01 could be regarded as successful in terms of ecology and technology, the aspects of social and economical sustainability tended to be weaker. Sandstedt & Öst also trace of functional planning ideology in the effort of planning for a general ‘user’, where socio-economical stratification and differentiation of the population are not addressed (Sandstedt & Öst 2003:164; on user, cf. Forty, 2000: 312 ff.). In the complement to Malmö comprehensive plan (2005) one can now see a general and wider approach to sustainability than the one accomplished in Bo 01. The focus is now very much on how to integrate the three aspects of sustainability, social, economical and ecological. This integration might cause contradictions as

5(10)

different aspects of sustainability rely on different criterias for success. However, the contradictions of sustainability go deeper still, as the same efforts might increase a certain aspect of sustainability at one scale, while decreasing it at another (Marcotullio & McGranahan 2007). So far such aspects have been discussed at national, global and regional level, but not so much at the level of the urban. a. Stabilising scale at the level of an area (intraterritorial bias) There seem to be a clear tendency in most plans and planning documents of setting a territory, and thus a scale at which sustainability is discussed, be it the city region (Frey 1999), Bo 01 (Dahlman 2003), the municipality (Malmö ÖP), or the inner city area (Malmö 2005), and then keeping to that scale. Bo 01 was, at first, planned to be socially more heterogeneous, but at one point the city chosed to look upon the question of integration at the scale of the municipality claiming that Malmö needed more wealthy tax-payers. They thus argued for social homogeneity at the scale of the area to increase a greater heterogeneity in terms of income at the scale of the municipality (Sandstedt & Öst 2003:165). To some extent the planning of Bo01 has focused on the area as an isolated object of itself. It was planned as a spatial enclave and the aspects of sustainability were primarily dealt with as an intra-territorial issue. Evaluations and discussions have tended to do the same, focusing on the scale of the area, or a certain building, not just at an actantial level, but at the level of a network (cf. Larsson et al 2003, Dahlman 2003 & Laurell 2002). This intra-territorial fetishism (to put it blunt) should not be confused with spatial fetishism, which is much discussed in scale theory. In Amsterdam Zuidas – European Space, Swyngedouw criticises the tendency of solving certain social problems by way of territorial planning, changing focus from comprehensive planning to projects for urban development

6(10)

(Swyngedouw 2005:70 f). This, might in turn lead to a spatial fetishism, treating space ‘in itself’ rather than the social relationships that are present in (and produce) that space (Lefebvre 1991, Collinge 2005). This is to some extent a critique of solving problems that are social by spatial interventions, Following the trail of actornetwork-theory, one could guess that problems are indeed always both social and material/spatial (Latour 1003, 2005). Thus leaving the question of spatial (or social) fetishism aside there is, however, another related problem at stake here: that of a fixed scale, delegating sustainability to be solved within the boundaries of one (or at best a number of) territories, an intra-territorial bias. Even though the sustainability of the area at hand is prioritized in planning, its effects are in fact multi-scalar. Indeed, the modernist tendency of territorialisation, building the city as molecules, objects, zones or big boxes, is a well known one. Modernist architects often discussed their architectural projects and “buildings as enclosed, self-contained systems” (Forty 2000:94). Panaeri et al (2004) points at Le Corbusier’s Unite d’Habitation (Paneari et al 2004:116) as a historical key example of how the urban morphology of block and street was transformed to the single building, reducing city building to the building of monuments. The issue of sustainability seems to have triggered a new interest in the neighbourhood as a unit for the city or urban region, conceptualising them as TODs, TNDs, urban villages, or communities of different sorts, etc. (Frey 1999:41). However, the neighbourhood as a base for intervention is sometimes too large for some questions, such as safety, and too small for others, such as integration and employment (Lahti Edmark 2004:165ff). As for now, urbanist issues are mainly described in terms of nodes and connections reducing the discussion of mobilities to relationships between nodes and subnodes or centres and peripheries. Such models still have the problem of non-differentiation; they set up a rather homogenous morphology, echoing modernistic


examples such as the Linear city, Broadacre city, Ville Radieuse, etc. (cf. Dupuy 2005). Such uniform, standardized ways of living seem even more utopia now than ever. To host all the activities of contemporary society, one would expect differentiation at least at the level of the region. Regional structure can not be built from bottom up alone, neither from a few uniform elements such as centres and sub centres. Malmö planning seems to be more careful in its attendance to important routes (capital routes) than planning in general, and also than most research on sustainability. An explicit focus on stråkplanering, planning around important routes has been advocated for example in projects in Östergatan, Norra Sorgenfri and Bennets väg (Malmö 2006, cf. Persson 2003). These projects play important roles on different scales as they both enhance the local city spaces and connect different parts of Malmö with each other. Morphological literature often tends to point at the road structure and the urban grid as important and generative aspects of urban form (Caniggia & Maffei 2001, Hillier 1996, Hillier & Hanson 1984). If one adds mixed mobilities to the often repeated demand for mixed uses (in debates on sustainable urban form), the question of intermingling scales would be addressed in a more explicit way. b. Stabilising the scale to that of the city centre district (the geometrical bias) The model of the compact city often explicitly or implicitly refers to the old European city cores (cf. Guy & Martin 2000). In the planning material of Malmö we can see a lot of examples of this, from the planning of Bo 01, explicitly set up with old Venice as a model, to the large emphasis put on Malmö innerstad in the Comprehensive Plan and other planning documents, such as Möten i Staden. At some points this is not just an intra-territorial bias (as suggested above) but also the fetishisation of a special area, grain and thus a scale: “Malmös


styrka och utvecklingsmöjligheter ligger i stor utsträckning i innerstaden” (Malmö 2005:28). According to Malmö planning documents, the Malmö work of sustainability focuses on the integration of all three aspects of sustainability. It is also stated that Malmö’s most important contribution to an ecologically sustainable city is to maintain a compact city; the inner, denser city, good for cycles and pedestrians. Economical sustainability is focused on enhancing and expanding the inner city, it is the “stadsmässiga” (urban) businesses that should grow. When it comes to social sustainability, the main buzz word is Mötesplatser. In the text Möten i Staden (part of the sustainability work through the project Välförd för alla), good examples of meeting places are named, and about 80 % of these are located wholly, or partly, in the inner city. Discourse on sustainability started a process of de- and reinsitutionalization (Lundquist 2004, Hajer & Zonneveld 2001), where a lot of the old planning issues needed to be reappropriated within the new discourse. After one hundred years of deurbanization it does not come as a surprise that the pro-urban rhetoric of postmodern urbanism has survived, and been adopted by the ‘sustainable form discourse’. The fetishisation of the inner city, setting its spatial scale and extensions as a model, is also problematic in the perspective of recent changes of urban development. In a sense it seems as if the inner city is gradually becoming a district of consumption (Kärrholm 2008) and monofunctionality. Its role as a live model for mixed uses is hence running the risk of becoming outdated. c. Stabilising the process of scaling (the hierarchic bias) The discourse on sustainability actually still echoes the Ebenezer Howard triad-perspective, be it town, town-country and country, or urbansuburban-rural. There are centrists, decentrists and compromisers (Frey 1999:27), monocentrists and

7(10)

polycentrists (Okabe 2005). However, a lot of urbanists of today seem confident in that a simple hierarchy no longer works as a metaphor for the city. The urban region consists of a whole range of overlapping hierarchies and even non-hierarchical structures. In discourse as well as in planning, one can sometimes find a tendency of establishing one hierarchy for the city, setting the process on how to scale up and down (bias towards a specific scale hierarchy).In Malmö for example there is the inner city, the districts, and the municipality. Most hierarchical planning seems to create a focus and competition between municipalities, since these make up the strongest nodes of the hierarchical structure. The scale of the region is still quite weak in Swedish planning, but at least discussed and analysed by Länsstyrelsen and Region Skåne. Latour has always focused on processes rather than places (2005), arguing that space and times are constructed in networks of heterogeneous actants. He has also criticizes the notion of scales, (other criticism of scale see Brenner 2001, Collinge 2005): The whole metaphor of scales going from the individual, to the nation state, through family, extended kin, groups, institutions, etc. is replaced by a metaphor of connections. A network is never bigger than another one, it is simply longer or more intensely connected. (Latour, 1997:3, cf. Tryselius 2007:68)

The quote could, in a sense, be read as a pleading for a non-fixed concept of scales, where scales are produced rather than pre-given. Scale is the level of complexity set by the size of the network and a different scale imply a network of a different size. It is sometimes assumed that cities change in parts rather that in their entity (e.g. Frey 1999:45). One has to come up with district and build the city from bottom and up. Caniggia & Maffei suggest that different scales have different time intervals of change. Caniggia & Maffei have, however also pointed to the of scalar change It might be argued that the old city centre in some aspects might be loosing its place as a privileged node in the urban region: the

8(10)

Mumfordian shift (as we might call it in this paper) when the old urban and rural centres are deterritorialized and dispersed. Centres are, however, also reterritorialized and we might perhaps also talk of a Caniggian shift (if such an expression is allowed) where centres de- and reterritorialize not just geographically but also hierarchically. Svågetorp-Hyllie is a retail centre that will not just have impact on the neighbouring local retail centres. It already has a considerable impact on all the local retail centres in Malmö where new retail areas now are produced and enacted at a new and different spatial scales (e.g. Svågertorp, the pedestrian malls of the inner city, Pilelyckan, Center Syd, etc.). This also includes a shift of territorial scales. As the pedestrian precinct has been territorialized as an urban type on a scale between the urban core and the street, a lot of issues, activities and forms, formerly handled or enacted on certain scales, now seem to take place at a scale produced by the pedestrian precinct. New retail is thus established at new spatial scales affecting the whole field of retail establishments, destabilising previous structures and starting the process of finding a new balance and hierarchic structure at other scale levels (Caniggia & Maffei, Alppi 2006).

5. Concluding remarks If the discourse on sustainable urban forms could inform us on how to build better urban environments, I think it is as a tool for integrating issues and problems that formerly were specialised or sub-optimized, counteracting a splintering urbanism (Graham & Marvin). One main issue here is a multi-scalar approach. Such an approach need to address the current tendencies of scale stabilisation discussed above, including the problems of scales being territorially, geometrically and hierarchically fixed and pregiven.

Literature Alppi, Samuli, ”Where the Flows Freeze – Tracking the Nodalities in the Network City, Paper presented at


Nordic and International Urban Morphology in Stockholm 3rd-5th September, 2006. Baeten, Guy, “The Tragedy of the Highway: Empowerment, Disempowerment and the Poitics of Sustainability Discourse and Practices”, European Planning Studies, vol 8, 1/2000. Berhauser Pont M. & Haupt, P., “The Relation Between Urban Form and Density” Urban Morphology vol 11, n.1 jan 2007 pp.61-65. Boeri, S. et. al. A Trip through a Changing Europe, Multiplicity, USE, Uncertain States of Europe, Skira Milano 2003. Boudon, Phillippe, “The Point of View of Measurement in Architectural Conception: From the Question of Scale to Scale as Question”, Nordic Journal of Architectural Research 1/1999. Bramley, G. et al., “What is ‘Social Sustainability’ and How do our Existing Urban Forms Perform Nurturing it?”, Paper presented at Planning Research Conference, Bartlett School of Planning, UCL, London, April 2006, at Calthorpe, P. & Fulton, W., The Regional City, Island Press, Washington 2001. Caniggia, G. & Maffei G. L., Architectural Composition and Building Typology, Interpreting Basic Building, Alinea, Firenze 2001 (1979). Dahlman, Eva, Arkitektur och hållbarhet, intervjuundersökning om Bo01, Malmö Stadsbyggnadskontor, 2003. Dupuy, G, “Challenging the “Old” Urban Planning Paradigm: The Network Approach”, ” in The Network Society, eds. L. Albrechts & S. Mandelbaum, Routledge, London 2005. Forty, Adrian, Words and Buildings, Thames & Hudson, London 2000. Frey, Hildebrand, Designing the City, Towards a more Sustainable Urban Form, Spon press, London 1999. Guy S & Marvin S., “Models and Pathways: The Diversity of Sustainable Urban Futures”, in Achieving Sustainable Urban Form, eds. Williams, K. Burton E. & Jenks M., Spon Press, London & New York 2000 Hajer M, & Zonneveld W “Spatial Planning in the Network Society – Rethinking the Principles of Planning in the Netherlands”, European Planning Studies, vol 8 no 3/2000.


Healy, Patsy, “Network Complexity and Imaginative Power” in The Network Society, eds. L. Albrechts & S. Mandelbaum, Routledge, London 2005. Jabareen, Y. R., ”Sustainable Urban Form, ”Their Typologies, Models, and Concepts” Journal of Planning Education and Research 26:38-52, 2006. Karaktär Malmö, Handlingsprogram för arkitektur och stadsbyggnad 2005, 1. Hållbarhet, Malmö Stadsbyggnadskontor 2005. Koolhaas, Rem, 1995: S, M, L, XL, 010 Publ., Rotterdam. Laurell, C. Hållbar arkitektur? En analys av 6 Bo01 bostäder, Stadsbyggnadskontoret, Malmö 2002. Lundequist, J. ”Scale, the theoretical object of architecturology” Nordic Architectural Research nr1/1999. Malmö 2005, Aktualisering och komplettering av Malmös översiktsplan, Antagen februari 2006, Malmö Stadsbyggnadskontor 2006 Mumford, L. ”What is a City?” in The City Reader, 3rd ed, eds. LeGates & Stout, Routledge, London 2003. Möten i Staden, Om vikten av att se varandra i vardagen, Dialog-pm 2006:1, Malmö Stadsbyggnadskontor 2006. Panerai, P. et. Al., Urban Forms, The Death and Life of the Urban Block, Architectural Press, Oxford 2004. Planering, Information från Malmö Stadsbyggnadskontor, nr 2 2006. Planprogram för Hyllie centrumområde, Dp 4669, februari 2003. Randles, S. & Dicken P., ”’Scale’ and the instituted construction of the urban: contrasting the cases of Manchester and Lyon”, Environment and Planning A, 2004, vol 36, pp.2011-2032. Rådberg, J & Johansson, R., Stadstyp & kvalitet, KTH, Stockholm 1997. Sandstedt, Eva & Öst, Tomas, ”Västra Hamnen – ett led i den hållbara utvecklingen?”, Västra Hamnen , Bo01 – Framtidsstaden, En utvärderin,” red. B. Larsson, A. Elmroth, E. Sandstedt. Göteborg 2003. Scoffham E. & Marat-Mendes, T., ”The ’Ground Rules’ of Sustainable Urban Form”, ” in Achieving Sustainable Urban Form, eds. Williams, K. Burton E. & Jenks M., Spon Press, London & New York 2000. Sieverts, T, Cities without Cities, Spon Press, London & New York 2003 (1997).

9(10)

State of the World 2007: Our Urban Future, (project director M. O’Meara Sheehan), Swyngedouw, E (2005) “A new urban living?”, in: Majoor, S. and Salet, W. (Eds) Amsterdam Zuidas – European Space, pp. 55-76, Rotterdam: 010 Publishers. Westford, Pia, Urban forms betydelse för resandet, KTH, Stockholm 2004. Wheeler, S., “Planning Sustainable and Liveable Cities” in The City Reader, 3rd ed, ed. R. LeGates & F. Stout, Routledge, London and NY 2003. Williams, K. Burton E. & Jenks M., “Achieving Sustainable Urban Form: Conclusions” in Achieving Sustainable Urban Form, eds. Williams, K. Burton E. & Jenks M., Spon Press, London & New York 2000. Vision Norra Sorgenfri – inför omvandling och planarbete, Malmö Stadsbyggnadskontor 2006. Yaneva, Albena, ”Scaling up and Down: Extraction Trials in Architectural Design” Social Studies of Science 35/6 (Dec) 867-894, 2005.

10(10)
