Understanding people-centered planning practice in Europe: an institutionalist comparison between urban development projects in Vienna and Helsingborg

Figures & data

Figure 1. Institutional landscape of people-centered planning practice: analytical framework inspired by the IAD framework (Polski & Ostrom, 1999; Ostrom, 2005).

Figure 2. Location of the urban development projects within their cities and countries (images are without scale) [Source: Author].

Figure 3. Office of neighborhood management in Aspern Seestadt [Source: Author].

Table 1. Basic information about the two UDPs in which the people-centered practices took place.

	Seestadt (Vienna)	DrottningH (Helsingborg)
Type	Brownfield; new-built development	Urban regeneration; renovation and densification
Size	240 hectares	40 hectares
Densification	From 0 to 20,000 residents in 2050	From 1,000 to 2,700 dwellings in 2035
Initiating actor	City of Vienna	Municipal housing company (Helsingborgshem) + City of Helsingborg
Main developing actor	Development agency (public-private consortium Wien3420 AG)	DrottningH (project group consisting of City of Helsingborg & Helsingborgshem)
Project developing actors	Private developers, housing cooperatives, municipally-owned housing companies	Private developers, municipally-owned housing company
Former land owner	City of Vienna	Municipal housing company & City of Helsingborg
Duration^a	2007–2030	2012–2035

^aDuration from approval masterplan until intended completion.

Figure 4. Activities during H22 exhibition as part of dialogue approach in DrottningH [Source: Author].

Table 2. Main people-centered activities in Seestadt and DrottningH.

	Neighborhood management in Seestadt	Dialogue approach in DrottningH
Observing locally emerging needs of residents and other users	x	x
Initiating and facilitating community projects	x	x
Facilitating network platforms for project actors	x	x
Distributing neighborhood budget among residents	x
Recruiting residents to become part of the urban development project		x

Table 3. Governance situations of the two people-centered activities in the two cases.

		Neighborhood management in Seestadt	Dialogue approach in DrottningH
Actors	Organization operating the PCP activities	Non-profit consortium consisting of a private landscape consultant and aid organization	Urban development project team
	Members operating the PCP activities	Architects, planners, social workers	Civil servants from planning, employment, culture, safety departments; civil servants from municipal housing organization; action-researchers
	Duration of participation	3–6 years per phase (multiple phases possible)	As long as the project takes (intended period of 25 years)
Position	Commissioner	Development agency + City of Vienna	City of Helsingborg + Helsingborgshem
	Collaborating actors	Companies, residents, NGOs, public service organizations, research institutes	Companies, residents, NGOs, public service organizations, research institutes
Information	Resident-developer information exchange	Via daily contact with development agency and an office centrally located in the neighborhood	Via dialogue projects and offices located in the neighborhood
	Interdisciplinary information exchange	Via periodic meetings with other UDP actors	Via biweekly meetings with all UDP actors and via thematic subgroups
Scope	Scope of activities	Defined via task description	Undefined
Control	Appointment of position	External (via public competition)	Internal
	Evaluation of performance	Formal (through funding and contract)	Informal
	Position towards commissioner	Semi-dependent	Semi-dependent
Funding	Funding arrangement	Periodic (annual)	Project-based
	Funding provider	Development agency + City of Vienna	City of Helsingborg

Table 4. (a) Variables affecting actors, positions, and control in Seestadt and DrottningH.

Aspern Seestadt
Explanatory variable	Affected governance element	Institution?
Vienna has a tradition of already-existing Gebietsbetreuungen Stadterneuerung	Actors, position	Yes, rule
The social department (MA25) of the City of Vienna has the capacity to commission, coordinate and evaluate Gebietsbetreuungen Stadterneuerung	Actors, control	Yes, rule
Selecting participants of Neighborhood Management through a public competition is common in Vienna	Actors, control	Yes, rule
DrottningH
Explanatory variable	Affected governance element	Institution?
In Helsingborg, it is expected from the municipal housing company to do something extra for social development	Position	Yes, norm
The project is led by an intra-departmental project team in which members prioritize DrottningH over their regular work	Actors, position	No, project decision
The extensive involvement of residents in DrottningH is defined as a political decision	Actors, position	No, project decision
The urban development project has a ‘slow’ duration of at least 25 years	Position	No, project decision

Table 4. (b) Variables explaining scope, control, and information in Seestadt and DrottningH.

Aspern Seestadt
Explanatory variable	Affected governance element	Institution?
The Neighborhood Management acts according to a task description that it agreed on with its commissioners	Scope, control	Yes, rule
Social sustainability is a basic concept in Viennese urban planning, e.g. it is one of the four criteria of housing competitions	Scope	Yes, norm
Vienna’s socio-democratic tradition is understood as that ‘the state needs to take care of the residents’ and not leave it to the market or residents themselves	Scope	Yes, norm
Seestadt is seen by its planners and developers as an urban laboratory for innovation and learning	Scope	Yes, shared strategy
Vienna has had a stable socio-democratic political climate for almost 100 years (‘Red Vienna’)	Scope	Yes, shared strategy
Seestadt’s developers and planners believed that something like the Neighborhood Management was needed for the project to succeed	Scope	Yes, shared strategy
The Neighborhood Management is seen as one of the operational strategies for social sustainability in Seestadt	Scope	No, project decision
The Neighborhood Management in Seestadt is seen as the communication channel between the developer’s agency and residents	Information	No, project decision
Seestadt has a large scale and a lot of political commitment	Scope	No, location characteristic
Seestadt is located in an isolated area of Vienna	Scope	No, location characteristic
DrottningH
Explanatory variable	Affected governance element	Institution?
Politicians in Helsingborg were consensually convinced that it would be the wrong thing not to involve residents	Scope	Yes, norm
Some Swedish private investors find it important to invest in socially demanding areas	Scope	Yes, norm
DrottningH’s planners and developers believed that developing socially challenging areas is not possible without engaging residents	Scope	Yes, shared strategy
After some years of development, planners and developers realized that DrottningH’s social development should get more attention	Scope	Yes, shared strategy
The City of Helsingborg has an ‘innovation culture’ that encourages project employees to experiment and make mistakes	Scope, control	Yes, shared strategy
DrottningH’s ambition for 50% social development and 50% physical development is defined in a political decision	Scope	No, project decision
The Dialogue Approach is seen as one of DrottningH’s operational strategies to improve people’s quality of life in the area	Scope	No, project decision
The City of Helsingborg wanted to show through DrottningH that it cares about all its citizens	Scope	No, project decision
DrottningH’s project leader insisted on biweekly meetings between all project team members to encourage integral solutions	Information	No, project decision
Drottninghög is developed by the owners of the land	Control	No, location characteristic
Drottninghög is considered the socially weakest area in Helsingborg	Scope	No, location characteristic

Table 4. (c) Variables affecting actors, positions, and control in Seestadt and DrottningH.

Aspern Seestadt
Explanatory variable	Affected governance element	Institution?
The Neighborhood Management is generously funded (compared to other Gebietsbetreuungen in Vienna) as it receives funding from both the City of Vienna and the development agency	Funding	Partly rule and partly project decision
Seestadt is developed on land that is owned by the City of Vienna, for which non-monetary created money can be ‘captured’	Funding, control	Partly rule and partly location characteristic
Seestadt is located at a brownfield location in a pressing housing market, for which the value potential is high	Funding	No, location characteristic
DrottningH
Explanatory variable	Affected governance element	Institution?
The City of Helsingborg’s departments prioritize their regular budgets for DrottningH	Funding	Yes, rule
The municipal housing company is able to accept short-term losses for long-term benefits	Funding	Yes, rule
Drottninghög had low property values for which the potential value creation is high	Funding	No, location characteristic

Table

Inter- viewee no.	Case	Organization	Role in urban development project^a
1	DrottningH	City of Helsingborg	Project manager
2	DrottningH	City of Helsingborg	Strategic developer labor market
3	DrottningH	Helsingborgshem	Area developer performing dialogue projects
4	DrottningH	City of Helsingborg	Spatial planning architect
5	DrottningH		Resident
6	DrottningH	–	Resident
7	DrottningH	–	Resident
8	DrottningH	City of Helsingborg	Former project manager
9	DrottningH	City of Helsingborg	City director
10	DrottningH	Ikea Do More	Director Do More
11	DrottningH	–	Resident
12	DrottningH	City of Helsingborg	Chairman of the board of urban planning, deputy mayor
13	DrottningH	City of Helsingborg	Security strategist
14	DrottningH	Riksbyggen	Area manager
15	DrottningH	Tornet	Project manager
16	DrottningH	Helsingborgshem	Assistant project manager
17	Aspern Seestadt	IBA (formerly Wien 3420 AG)	Lead coordinator IBA, former project manager, resident
18	Aspern Seestadt	PlanSinn/Stadtteilmanagement	Deputy head
19	Aspern Seestadt	City of Vienna	Program manager in Seestadt coordination management
20	Aspern Seestadt	City of Vienna	Coordinator Gebietsbetreuung Stadtneuerung
21	Aspern Seestadt	–	Resident
22	Aspern Seestadt	–	Resident
23	Aspern Seestadt	University of Vienna	PhD researcher on Aspern Seestadt
24	Aspern Seestadt	Independent researcher and architect	Member of quality board
25	Aspern Seestadt	Wien 3420 AG	Planner coordinating Neighborhood Management
26	Aspern Seestadt	Que[e]rbau	Founder baugruppe, manager neighborhood room
27	Apsern Seestadt	Que[e]rbau	Founder and architect baugruppe, resident
28	Aspern Seestadt	Wien 3420 AG	Infocenter
29	Aspern Seestadt	Urban Innovation Vienna	Senior Expert, Smart City Agency Vienna

^aAt the time when the research was conducted.

Table

Inter-viewee no.	Evaluating quote
5	‘Some of them [residents] are like, glad, because, you know, our neighbourhood is getting better, la-la-la. And others are feeling like they’re not appreciated for how they were before. […]. But most of them are happy. Most of them are happy’
5	‘I think there are doing a great job, I really do. […] Because I always see them. They’re always in the area, they talk to people, they sit with children, they’re always here, they’re always here. You always see them. You cannot miss them. You see them.’
6	‘They could have done it and said “OK, we just need people who are educated, people who are fit for this job.” But instead, they chose people who live here, who know about the area. And then they said “Well, we have encourage the people who live here, because it’s their project.” So, for me it was something which I really appreciate, and I really think it’s a good thing.’
6	‘Some people think it’s a negative thing, some people think it’s a positive thing. But I think that people who take it as a positive is more.’
7	‘I think they are excellent. I think so. Helsingborgshem have always had a dialogue with the residents. And that’s the most important thing, I think. It’s the most important thing to do, and have a communication between Helsingborgshem and the residents. So not, it should not be a dialogue from Helsingborgshem to the residents that say “Now we are going to do this.” They have done this: “We are thinking about doing this. What are you thinking?” That’s the most important, I think. And they have done that excellent.’
7	‘The working style is more loosen up.[…] you see people are more relaxed now than in the beginning.’ SP1: ‘How was it in the beginning then?” SP2: ‘A little nervous, a little uptight and everything should be perfect. But they realised everything cannot be perfect, you have to take it as it is.’ SP1: ‘And what is better? The planned version or this loosened…’ SP2: ‘This, this loosened up. Because you get more done when you’re not so uptight. You have more ideas when you’re loosened up.’
11	‘The idea behind it is great, I think, to base your decisions on what the residents in the area actually want. […] We’ve already had a lot of visitors during the expo now that are unhappy with some of the newer elements of the area, mostly the buildings, they’re worried about the parking. So it kind of seems like they haven’t really taken into account 100% of these dialogues. But I haven’t been a part of these dialogues on either side, so I’m not really sure what has been asked for and what has been used, so…’
11	‘I would probably not have the expo at all and try to solve… Like, xenophobic or racist tendencies in the job market. Because when it comes to areas like this, a lot of it is filled with minorities, and they have… As one myself, I find it a lot harder to find a job than most of my Swedish friends that have Swedish names that you see on their CV. And to fix, or try to help people with addictions, because that’s also a big thing in the area, both drug and alcohol addictions. And yeah, just try to focus more on those problems rather than kind of drape them over and show like…’

Table

Inter-viewee no.	Evaluating quote
21	‘Some of the people in our building have been in touch and participated in some of the things, and that’s been really good. […] I mean for me it’s just been really busy too that I haven’t take part in things.’
22	‘I think that this is something that the Stadteilmanagement does really well here. That they really want to get people involved. That want to hear the voices of the people living here. […] For example, then at the front of the Wangari-Maathai-Platz. Besides the U-Bahn. That was originally, completely just asphalt. And then there was a lot of dissent. And a lot of, hey, what is this? It was named after the woman who planted trees, the Greenbelt movement. And it’s, there’s no green life here. There’s nothing. And now, with people working hard, it’s now, there are trees being planted. And it’s, I think, partly due to people saying, hey, we want something different.’
22	‘I think they have a difficult job. Because they’re trying to gather a very diverse group of people. […] I think, there are many groups of people living in Seestadt. It’s a big enough minority that this language group should be represented. The things shouldn’t just only be presented in German, and possibly English. But for example, in Turkish, or in one of the, some of the Baltic languages. Or something like this. To feel more open to people.’
22	‘Only been there a few times in person. And it’s been more in relation to social initiatives that have been there, for example. I think, yeah. It was, for example, Christmas time that they had a collection of where you could buy Advent. Or you could bring your Advent calendars that will then be donated to like a mother and child home. Or these kinds of things that you’re showing support to other people. So, for that social aspect of being there. But I’ve not been in and had a conversation with anybody, about aspects of city planning or anything. Because it’s also something that’s not a super important theme for me, personally.’
27	‘I think at the beginning, they were at the same level, and to find out and try out what people need. Maybe because there were just a few people who lived there, that made it easier. And now, it is like on another level. […] It is more from top to down. In the beginning, it was really to find out what do people need, and then to try to make it in that way. Now, it comes more from “up”, they have some ideas and bring it to the people. Then the people can react.’ SP2: ‘Do you have an example of that?’ SP1: ‘Maybe this … were the jury is. The money for the people. This is now… it is like a competition. So the people sit at home, and think about what they can do, because there is some money, and they can get it. This… I think this is the wrong side. It is better to let people come and tell them what they need, and then to have the money and find a way to… to make it possible.’

Polski, M. M., & Ostrom, E. (1999) An institutional framework for policy analysis and design, in: H. Cole & M. D. McGinnis (Eds) Elinor Ostrom and the Bloomington School of Political Economy, Vol. 3, pp. 13–48 (Maryland: Lexington Books).

 Google Scholar

Ostrom, E. (2005) Doing institutional analysis digging deeper than markets and hierarchies, in: C. Ménard & M. M. Shirley (Eds) Handbook of New Institutional Economics, pp. 819–848 (Dordrecht: Springer).

 Google Scholar