The Strategic Incrementalism of Lahti Master Planning: Three Lessons

References

• Airamo, R., & Permanto, T. (1997). Yleiskaavoitus ja vaikutusten arviointi. Esimerkkinä Lahden yleiskaavoitus 1946–1996 [Master planning and impact assesment. Master planning of Lahti 1946–1996 as an example] (pp. 88). Helsinki: Ympäristöministeriö, Suomen ympäristö.
   Google Scholar
• Albrechts, L. (2004). Strategic (spatial) planning reexamined. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31(5), 743–758.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albrechts, L. (2005). Creativity as a drive for change. Planning Theory, 4(2), 247–269.
   Google Scholar
• Albrechts, L. (2006). Shifts in strategic spatial planning? Some evidence from Europe and Australia. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 38(6), 1149–1170.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albrechts, L. (2013). Reframing strategic spatial planning by using a coproduction perspective. Planning Theory, 12(1), 46–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albrechts, L., & Balducci, A. (2013). Practicing strategic planning: In search of critical features to explain the strategic character of plans. disP, 49(3), 16–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albrechts, L., Healey, P., & Kunzmann, K. (2003). Strategic spatial planning and regional governance in Europe. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(2), 113–129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allmendinger, P., & Haughton, G. (2009). Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: The new spatial planning in the thames gateway. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 41(3), 617–633.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balducci, A. (2015). Strategic planning as the intentional production of a “Trading Zone”. City, Territory and Architecture, 2(1), 1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Balducci, A. (2017). Strategic planning and ’trading zones’. In L. Albrechts, A. Balducci, & J. Hillier (Eds.), Situated practices of strategic planning (pp. 362–372). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Balducci, A., & Mäntysalo, R. (Eds.). (2013). Urban planning as a trading zone. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Etzioni, A. (1967, December). Mixed-scanning: A ”third” approach to decision-making. Public Administration Review, 27, 385–392.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (1970). The planning environment and the meaning of planning. Regional Studies, 4(1), 1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (1973). Planning theory. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (2000). The performance of spatial planning. Planning Practice & Research, 15(4), 299–318.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, F. (1990). Technocracy and the politics of expertise. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (1993). Critical theory, public policy, and planning practice. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Friedmann, J. (1964). The social context of national planning decisions: A comparative approach. Occasional Paper. Bloomington: American Society for Public Administration, International Research Center.
   Google Scholar
• Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain. From knowledge to action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Friedmann, J. (2004). Strategic spatial planning and the longer range. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(1), 49–67.
   Google Scholar
• Galison, P. (1997). Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Härkönen, T. (2018). Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (SUMP) -Prosessin soveltuvuus Lahden yleiskaavoitukseen [The applicability of the Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (SUMP) process in Lahti master planning] (Unpublished Bachelor Thesis). Aalto University School of Engineering, Espoo.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (1995). The argumentative turn in planning theory and its implication for spatial strategy formation. In T. Pakarinen & H. Ylinen (Eds.), Are local strategies possible? – Scrutinizing sustainability (pp. 46–70). Tampere: Tampere University of Technology, Department of Architecture, Institute of Urban Planning, Publications 29.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (2006). Relational complexity and the imaginative power of strategic spatial planning. European Planning Studies, 14(4), 525–546.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (2007). Urban complexity and spatial strategies. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (2009). In search of the “strategic” in spatial strategy making. Planning Theory & Practice, 10(4), 439–457.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (2013). Comment on Albrechts and Balducci “Practicing strategic planning”. disP, 49(3), 48–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillier, J. (2011). Strategic navigation across multiple planes: Towards a Deleuzean-inspired methodology for strategic spatial planning. Town Planning Review, 82(5), 503–527.
   Google Scholar
• Holopainen, H., Huttunen, K., Malin, K., & Partinen, H. (2013). Muutoksenhaku maankäyttö- ja rakennuslain mukaisissa asioissa. [Appealing in issues pertaining to land use and building act]. Helsinki: Ympäristöministeriön raportteja 19/2013. Retrieved from https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/41376/YMra19_2013_Muutoksenhaku_FINAL_web.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Jalonen, K. (2017). Strategy work as dialogue. Reflections on institutional voices in a city organization (pp. 317). Helsinki: Publications of the Hanken School of Economics Nr.
   Google Scholar
• Kahila-Tani, M. (2015). Reshaping the planning process using local experiences: Utilising PPGIS in participatory urban planning (Doctoral dissertation). Aalto University Doctoral Dissertations 223/2015, Espoo.
   Google Scholar
• Kalliomäki, H. (2015). Reframing strategic spatial planning as a ‘coproductive trading zone’ between state-led and place-based interests: Reflections from Maryland and Finland. Land Use Policy, 42, 113–123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanninen, V. (2017). Strateginen kaupunkiseutu - Spatiaalinen suunnittelu radikaalina yhteensovittamisena [The strategic city-region - Spatial planning as radical coordination] (Doctoral dissertation). Aalto University Doctoral Dissertations 227/2017, Espoo.
   Google Scholar
• Kaupunkiseutujen yhteistyön tilan arviointi. (2015). Maankäyttö, asuminen ja liikenne [Evaluation of the state of collaboration of city regions]. Helsinki: Suomen Kuntaliitto. Retrieved from http://shop.kunnat.net/download.php?filename=uploads/kaupunkiseutujenyhteistyo_ebook.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Land Use and Building Act 132/1999. (1999). Retrieved from https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1999/en19990132.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Leino, H., & Laine, M. (2012). Do matters of concern matter? Bringing issues back to participation. Planning Theory, 11(1), 89–103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luonnos alueidenkäytön suunnittelujärjestelmän suuntaviivoiksi (2017 November, 8). A draft for the guidelines of the land use planning system. Retrieved from http://www.ym.fi/mrluudistus
   Google Scholar
• Mahoney, J. (2000). Path dependency in historical sociology. Theory and Society, 29(4), 507–548.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2010). A theory of gradual institutional change. In J. Mahoney & K. Thelen (Eds.), Explaining institutional change. Ambiguity, agency, and power (pp. 1–37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Majoor, S. J. H., & Salet, W. G. M. (2008). The enlargement of local power in trans-scalar strategies of planning. GeoJournal, 72(1–2), 91–103.
   Google Scholar
• Malin, K. (2008). Muutoksenhaku kaava-asioissa. Hallintotuomioistuimet 2003–2006 [Court appeals in planning issues. Administrative courts 2003–2006]. Helsinki: Ympäristöministeriön raportteja 9/2008. Retrieved from http://www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?contentid=80960&lan=sv
   Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, R., & Grišakov, K. (2017). Framing ‘evidence’ and scenario stories in strategic spatial planning. In L. Albrechts, A. Balducci, & J. Hillier (Eds.), Situated practices of strategic planning (pp. 348–361). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, R., Jarenko, K., Nilsson, K. L., & Saglie, I. L. (2014a). Legitimacy of informal strategic urban planning – observations from Finland, Sweden and Norway. European Planning Studies, 23(2), 349–366.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, R., Kangasoja, J. K., & Kanninen, V. (2014b). Rakennemallit kaupunkiseutujen suunnittelussa – Strategisen maankäytön suunnittelun paradoksi [The use of structural schemes in the planning of Finnish urban regions - The paradox of strategic spatial planning] (Raportteja 18/2014). Helsinki: Ympäristöministeriö.
   Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, R., Kangasoja, J. K., & Kanninen, V. (2015). The paradox of strategic spatial planning: A theoretical outline with a view on Finland. Planning Theory and Practice, 16(2), 169–183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, R., Saglie, I.-L., & Cars, G. (2011). Between input legitimacy and output efficiency: Defensive routines and agonistic reflectivity in Nordic land-use planning. European Planning Studies, 19(12), 2019–2126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyerson, M. M. (1956). Building the middle-range bridge for comprehensive planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 22, 815–832.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of the Environment. (2014). Arviointi maankäyttö- ja rakennuslain toimivuudesta 2013 [Assessment of the effectiveness of the land use and building act in 2013] (Suomen ympäristö, 1/2014). Helsinki: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Newman, P. (2008). Strategic spatial planning: Collective action and moments of opportunity. European Planning Studies, 16(10), 1371–1383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nyman, K., & Mäntysalo, R. (2014). Patologisia piirteitä maankäyttö- ja rakennuslain sovelluksissa: Tapaus Savonlinnan Kasinonsaari [Pathological traits in the applications of the Land Use and Building Act. The case of Kasinonsaari, Savonlinna]. Kunnallistieteellinen Aikakauskirja, 3/14, 324–339.
   Google Scholar
• Palomäki, J. (2013). Lahden yleiskaava [Lahti master plan]. In P. Korkala, M. Laitio, R. Manninen, P. Paajanen, J. Palomäki, L. Rossi, & V. Vänskä (Eds.), Yleiskaavoituksen uusia tuulia (pp. 9–16). Helsinki: Ympäristöministeriön raportteja 10/2013. Retrieved from http://www.ym.fi/download/noname/%7BAFFA035F-CD01-4C91-991E-F904030CB853%7D/32785
   Google Scholar
• Palomäki, J. (2018). Lahden yleiskaava [Lahti master plan]. In P. Hastio, P. Korkala, M. Laitio, R. Manninen, P. Paajanen, & J. Palomäki (Eds.), Yleiskaavoituksen uusimpia tuulia - Lahdessa, Oulussa, Tampereella ja Helsingissä vuonna 2017 (pp. 14–22). Helsinki: Ympäristöministeriön raportteja 2/2018. Retrieved from http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/160442/YMra_2_18_Yleiskaavoituksen_uusimpia_tuulia_web.pdf?sequence=1
   Google Scholar
• Rannila, P. (2018). Relationality of the law: On the legal collisions in the Finnish planning and land use practices. Journal of Planning Education and Research. doi:10.1177/0739456X18785443
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sager, T. (1994). Communicative planning theory. Aldershot: Avebury.
   Google Scholar
• Salet, W. G. M. (2006). Rescaling territorial governance in the Randstad Holland: The responsiveness of spatial and institutional strategies to changing socio-economic interactions. European Planning Studies, 14(7), 959–977.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salet, W. G. M. (2018a). Public norms and aspirations. The turn to institutions in action. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Salet, W. G. M. (Ed.). (2018b). The Routledge handbook of institutions and planning in action. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz, P. (1991). The art of the long view. New York, NY: Doubleday.
   Google Scholar
• Searle, G. (2017). Strategic planning and land use planning conflicts: The role of statutory authority. In L. Albrechts, A. Balducci, & J. Hillier (Eds.), Situated practices of strategic planning (pp. 317–330). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sheingate, A. (2010). Rethinking rules: Creativity and constraint in the U.S. house of representatives. In J. Mahoney & K. Thelen (Eds.), Explaining institutional change. Ambiguity, agency, and power (pp. 168–203). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sorensen, A. (2015). Taking path dependence seriously: an historical institutionalist research agenda in planning history. Planning Perspectives, 30(1), 17–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steele, W., & Ruming, K. J. (2012). Flexibility versus certainty: Unsettling the land-use planning shibboleth in Australia. Planning Practice & Research, 27(2), 155–176.
   Google Scholar
• Tuomisaari, J. (2015). Lahden yleiskaava strategisen maankäytön suunnittelun työkaluna [Lahti master plan as a tool of strategic land use planning]. Yhdyskuntasuunnittelu, 53(2), 40–57.
   Google Scholar
• Tuomisaari, J. (2017). Kahden kaupungin tarinat: yleiskaavan performatiivinen voima [Tales of two cities: the performative power of master plan]. Terra, 129(3), 171–181.
   Google Scholar
• Uuskallio, V. (2016). ESS kokosi yhteen Lahden kaavakiistat – näistä kohteista on valitettu [ESS collected together the planning disputes in Lahti – complaints on these subjects]. Etelä-Suomen Sanomat. Retrieved from https://www.ess.fi/uutiset/paijathame/art2293074
   Google Scholar
• Vaara, E., Sorsa, V., & Pälli, P. (2010). On the force potential of strategy texts: a critical discourse analysis of a strategic plan and its power effects in a city organization. Organization, 17(6), 685–702.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valtonen, E., Falkenbach, H., & Viitanen, K. (2017). Development-led planning practices in a plan-led planning system: empirical evidence from Finland. European Planning Studies, 25(6), 1053–1075.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Den Broeck, J. (2013). Balancing strategic and institutional planning: The search for a pro-active planning instrument. disP, 49(3), 43–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wähä, S. (2008). Kaavavalitukset hallintotuomioistuimissa vuosina 2001–2007 [Appeals on plans in administrative courts in 2001–2007]. Yhdyskuntasuunnittelu, 46(3), 56–71.
   Google Scholar