Setting the ScSetting the Scale of Sustainable Urban Formale of Sustainable Urban Form

7/29/2019 Setting the ScSetting the Scale of Sustainable Urban Formale of Sustainable Urban Form

1/10

Setting the Scale of Sustainable Urban Form 1(10)

Setting the Scale of Sustainable

Urban Form

Some scale-related problems discussed in thecontext of a Swedish urban landscape

MATTIAS KRRHOLMArchitect, PhDDepartment of Architecture & Built Environment, LTH, LULund, SwedenTEL: +46 46 222 73 [email protected]

AbstractIn 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 Malm-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 Malm, focusing and

elaborating on three tendencies of scale stabilisation: territorial, geometrical andhierarchical. 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.


2/10

2(10) Conference Architectural Inquiries, Gteborg 2008

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 contradictoryand 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 dilemmaof 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 asone 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

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 Caniggias and

MaffeisArchitectural 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 actor-

network 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 abstractenough 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 arenot 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


3/10


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 Malm 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 muchlarger scales at other places, e.g. discussing howpolitical issues can be set at a global scale,depoliticiszing or repudiating the activites taking placeat a national or local scale (Baeten 2000). Although theeffects of the built environment indeed might take us toa global level (and a network context) I constrainmyself in this paper to a regional context (See Law &Mol 2002, on different spatialites and contexts from anANT-related perspective). See also Marcotullio &McGranahan 2007 on scaling urban environmentalchallenges on both local and global levels.

commented in the 1930s 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

1990s (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,

NewmansDefensible 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),

lurbanisme 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 implythat 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 ever-

growing industry, and new institutions are

established at new scale levels. In the end, this

does of course also affect spatial planning, that hasto 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


4/10


territorial issues set within the frames of a hard-

edged 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? InAchieving Sustainable Urban

Form (2000), Williams et. al. conclude that

sustainable urban forms are characterized bycompactness (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

(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 Lynchs 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 ofcourse 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

Rdberg & 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,


5/10


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 pluralityof 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 Malm 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.

Malm is a Swedish municipality, working quite

consciously and ambitiously with aspects of

sustainability and how to implement them in

planning. Malm has been acknowledged

internationally for its sustainable urban

development in Vstra hamnen and the Housing

exhibition Bo 01 of 2001 (State of the World

2007, Giddings et. al. 2005). Malm 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. Italso 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 & st also trace of functional

planning ideology in the effort of planning for a

general user, where socio-economical

stratification and differentiation of the populationare not addressed (Sandstedt & st 2003:164; on

user, cf. Forty, 2000: 312 ff.).

In the complement toMalm 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


6/10


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 (intra-

territorial 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 (Malm P), or the inner

city area (Malm 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 Malm

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& st 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 & Laurell2002).

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

(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 actor-

network-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 Corbusiers Unite

dHabitation (Paneari et al 2004:116) as ahistorical 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 largefor 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


7/10


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.

Malm 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

strkplanering, planning around important routes

has been advocated for example in projects in

stergatan, Norra Sorgenfri and Bennets vg

(Malm 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 Malm 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 onsustainable 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 Malm we can see a lot of examplesof this, from the planning of Bo 01, explicitly set

up with old Venice as a model, to the large

emphasis put on Malm innerstad in the

Comprehensive Plan and other planning

documents, such as Mten 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: Malms

styrka och utvecklingsmjligheter ligger i stor

utstrckning i innerstaden (Malm 2005:28).

According to Malm planning documents, the

Malm work of sustainability focuses on the

integration of all three aspects of sustainability. It

is also stated that Malms 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 stadsmssiga

(urban) businesses that should grow. When it

comes to social sustainability, the main buzz word

isMtesplatser. In the textMten i Staden (part of

the sustainability work through the project Vlfrd

fr 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 post-

modern urbanism has survived, and beenadopted 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 (Krrholm 2008) and mono-

functionality. Its role as a live model for mixed

uses is hence running the risk of becoming out-

dated.

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 urban-

suburban-rural. There are centrists, decentrists and

compromisers (Frey 1999:27), monocentrists and


8/10


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 Malm 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 Lnsstyrelsen and Region Skne.

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

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. Svgetorp-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 Malm

where new retail areas now are produced and

enacted at a new and different spatial scales (e.g.

Svgertorp, 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. Suchan approach need to address the current tendencies

of scale stabilisation discussed above, including

the problems of scales being territorially,

geometrically and hierarchically fixed and pre-

given.

Literature

Alppi, Samuli, Where the Flows Freeze Tracking the

Nodalities in the Network City, Paper presented at


9/10


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 RelationBetween 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 PerformNurturing 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 hllbarhet,

intervjuunderskning om Bo01, Malm

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 ConceptsJournal of

Planning Education and Research 26:38-52, 2006.

Karaktr Malm, Handlingsprogram fr arkitektur ochstadsbyggnad 2005, 1. Hllbarhet, Malm

Stadsbyggnadskontor 2005.

Koolhaas, Rem, 1995: S, M, L, XL, 010 Publ.,

Rotterdam.

Laurell, C. Hllbar arkitektur? En analys av 6 Bo01

bostder, Stadsbyggnadskontoret, Malm 2002.

Lundequist, J. Scale, the theoretical object of

architecturologyNordic Architectural Research

nr1/1999.

Malm 2005, Aktualisering och komplettering av

Malms versiktsplan, Antagen februari 2006,Malm Stadsbyggnadskontor 2006

Mumford, L. What is a City? in The City Reader, 3rd

ed, eds. LeGates & Stout, Routledge, London

2003.

Mten i Staden, Om vikten av att se varandra i

vardagen, Dialog-pm 2006:1, Malm

Stadsbyggnadskontor 2006.

Panerai, P. et. Al., Urban Forms, The Death and Life of

the Urban Block, Architectural Press, Oxford

2004.

Planering, Information frn Malm

Stadsbyggnadskontor, nr 2 2006.

Planprogram fr Hyllie centrumomrde, 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.

Rdberg, J & Johansson, R., Stadstyp & kvalitet, KTH,

Stockholm 1997.

Sandstedt, Eva & st, Tomas, Vstra Hamnen ett

led i den hllbara utvecklingen?, Vstra Hamnen ,

Bo01 Framtidsstaden, En utvrderin, red. B.

Larsson, A. Elmroth, E. Sandstedt. Gteborg 2003.

Scoffham E. & Marat-Mendes, T., The Ground

Rules of Sustainable Urban Form, inAchieving

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).


10/10


State of the World 2007: Our Urban Future, (project

director M. OMeara 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 fr 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 infr omvandling och

planarbete, Malm Stadsbyggnadskontor 2006.Yaneva, Albena, Scaling up and Down: Extraction

Trials in Architectural Design Social Studies of

Science 35/6 (Dec) 867-894, 2005.

Documents

Setting the ScSetting the Scale of Sustainable Urban Formale of Sustainable Urban Form