Why Townhouses? A Comparative Study of Emerging Housing Concepts in Helsinki and Stockholm

Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Tilburg University, Manchester Metropolitan University, Eesti Kunstiakadeemia

13

Why Townhouses? A Comparative Study of Emerging Housing

Concepts in Helsinki and Stockholm

Timo Hämäläinen – MA in European Urban Cultures

Supervisor: Prof. Panu Lehtovuori

Second Reader: Vrije Universiteit Brussel

1

Preface

Back in 2012 when I was working before my study break, one of my tasks was to organize a

seminar about townhouse development. The city of Helsinki had recently gotten serious about

promoting this building type and my office got involved in helping out in this effort by

facilitating knowledge exchange. We quickly learned that one specific interest in this context

was to learn from foreign examples and especially from similar planning contexts. Great, we

thought, and decided to invite a foreign speaker.

But from where? Stockholm and Sweden are always considered a safe bet not only for

societal similarity but also city-wise for Helsinki. And bingo, a townhouse development in the

suburbs of Stockholm had just won a newspaper-led “building of the year” award. The

architect also turned out to be interested in the idea and promised to come introduce his

townhouse concept. We then moved on to working with other things, but I later learned that it

was actually quite impossible to find much more information on townhouses in Stockholm.

And when the seminar eventually took place, I learned that no one knew Helsinki’s

townhouse ambitions on the other side of the Baltic Sea.

Soon afterwards I started my POLIS studies, but could not forget about townhouses in the

Nordic capitals. Finally I decided to turn this curiosity into my thesis project. I wanted to

know what is going on with this townhouse development and in the process of doing so I

could help build useful knowledge and hopefully inspire some further inquiries into the topic.

I want to thank Professor Panu Lehtovuori for his supervision, and all the rest of the POLIS

faculty for their support and the new things I’ve learned.

Thank you also POLIS student colleagues 2012/2013, it wouldn’t of have been the same

without you!

Find me on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/timohamalainen1

http://www.linkedin.com/in/timohamalainen1


2

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... 2

Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 4

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 5

2. Theoretical Background .................................................................................................. 8

2.1. Townhouses – Defining Qualities and Evolutions ...................................................... 8

2.2. From Townhouses to Row Houses – The 20th

Century Legacy for Housing

Development ........................................................................................................................ 13

2.2.1. Urban Utopias and the “Suburban Conspiracy” .............................................................................. 14

2.2.2. The Culturalist Critiques ................................................................................................................. 17

2.3. Townhouses in the 21st Century – The Four Cs Driving Contemporary Housing and

Urban Development ............................................................................................................. 18

2.3.1. Conservation & Urban Compaction ................................................................................................ 18

2.3.2. Choice & Changing Housing Demands .......................................................................................... 21

2.3.3. Community & Planning for Urbanity .............................................................................................. 23

2.4.5. Cost & the Economics of Urban Development ............................................................................... 28

2.5. Helsinki & Stockholm – The Local Contexts for Townhouse Development ............ 31

2.5.1. Points of Departure and Terminology ................................................................................................. 32

2.5.2. Conservation in Context ...................................................................................................................... 35

2.5.3. Choice in Context ................................................................................................................................ 37

2.5.4. Community in Context ........................................................................................................................ 40

2.5.5. Cost in Context ................................................................................................................................ 41

2.6. Conceptual Framework and Research Questions ...................................................... 44

3. Design and Method ....................................................................................................... 45

3.1. Frame Analysis .............................................................................................................. 46

3.2. Data Collection & Processing ....................................................................................... 48

4. Comparative Analysis of Townhouses in Helsinki and Stockholm .............................. 50

4.1. What’s Going on? – The Main Concepts of the Townhouse Discourses .................. 50

4.1.1. Conservation ................................................................................................................................... 50

3

4.1.2. Choice ............................................................................................................................................. 55

4.1.3. Community ...................................................................................................................................... 60

4.1.4. Cost ................................................................................................................................................. 64

4.2. Comparison of Materialized Townhouses ................................................................. 69

4.2.1. An Overview of Townhouses in Helsinki and Stockholm .............................................................. 69

5. Discussion and Concluding Remarks ............................................................................ 78

6. List of References .......................................................................................................... 80

7. Appendices .................................................................................................................... 92

A. Interviews and Item list ................................................................................................. 92

B. Systematically examined journals, magazines and newspapers.................................... 93


4

Abstract

Helsinki and Stockholm have witnessed the emergence of townhouses in their urban

landscapes during the past decade or so. This building type is a common way of living in

Central Europe and older North American cities, but it hasn’t been adopted in the Nordic

capitals. Until recently. Why is that? The 21st century has brought about a newly found

interest in urban living concepts and neighborhoods as concerns over climate change force

people to consider more compact living, and the nuclear family of the 20th

century has broken

down into a diverse crowd of individuals working in information industries.

The study applied a frame analysis to discover how the new townhouses in Helsinki and

Stockholm are conceptualized. A number of expert interviews and secondary data research

showed that the emergences of townhouses are not similar processes in the two cities and only

loosely related to changing user needs. In both cities townhouses are linked to desires to

create urban environments, but in Helsinki they simultaneously are sold as detached single-

family homes to lure families into staying in Helsinki instead of the suburbs. In Stockholm

townhouses on the other hand seem to contribute to attracting urbanites from across the globe.

5

1. Introduction

The “townhouse” is a building type with a long history and a distinctive yet metamorphous

character. Its defining architectural qualities are a rectangular long and narrow footprint; a

vertically oriented circulation on multiple stories; and wall-to-wall attachment on one or both

sides of each housing unit (Friedman 2012: 1). Variations of townhouses are found across the

globe and different cultures (Friedman 2012), and they have generally endured over centuries

for two main reasons: their land-use efficiency and adaptability. Locations that one might

associate these buildings with are for example New York with its “brownstones”, the

Netherlands and its townhouse-lined canals or the endless rows of “terraces” in just about any

city in Great Britain.

For much of the post-WWII period townhouse development has however been in considerable

decline due to suburbanization, modern apartment building development, and changes in

planning ideologies and practice (Friedman 2012: 36). But the turn of the millennium has

witnessed a change to this trend and the policies, planning ideals, individualization and

architectural trends of the new century have triggered an “urban renaissance” and

consequently new forms of attached housing - often referred to as townhouses - have emerged

into the urban planning debates and landscapes in Western cities.

The Nordic capitals of Helsinki and Stockholm have followed suit and townhouses have

emerged to the urban landscapes of the cities during the past decade or so. In Helsinki this has

happened through a conscious policy from the City Planning Department whereas in

Stockholm it has occurred largely independent of policy. However, what makes this

development of events particularly interesting is that the townhouse building type has to a

large extent never characterized urban development in the cities (Manninen & Holopainen

2006). On the contrary, both cities consist dominantly of apartment buildings. Principal

concerns that have characterized the discussions revolving around these new townhouses are

that how do they fit into the local contexts and how will they succeed in the housing markets

(e.g. Sanaksenaho 2013)? This is the case especially in Helsinki where there has thus far been

limited success in the materialization of townhouses despite gracious land allocation

(Jalkanen et al. 2012).


6

Very little research has been done on the topic of modern-day townhouses internationally, in

the case cities, and especially from a comparative point of view. In Helsinki, previous studies

have focused on summarizing experiences from the development processes of the first

materialized townhouse projects from the administration’s point of view (Fogelholm 2003;

Helsingin kaupunki 2005); and from the residents’ point of view (Hasu 2010); examining

starting points for townhouse development from the Helsinki City Planning Department’s

point of view (Manninen & Holopainen 2006; Jalkanen et al. 2012), and synthetizing the

discussions from a series of professional workshops on townhouse development (Mälkki

2010). Mälkki’s (2010) conclusion is that the townhouse has potential in offering individual

small-scale living in a good location and by urban services.

In Stockholm, and Sweden altogether, the topic has received much less attention. The only

study retrieved in the scope of this thesis, is another master’s thesis exploring the possibility

of including small-scale actors and end-users in the development processes of townhouses

(Guterstam 2011). Thereby shedding light into the issue of townhouse development in

Helsinki and Stockholm is informative not only for further inquiries into the topic, but also for

all actors engaged in townhouse development in the two cities.

With that being said, the aim of this thesis is directed at discovering and comparing 1) how

townhouses are conceptualized in urban policy and planning in Helsinki and Stockholm, and

2) how these ideas have been materialized in practice.

The study is organized into three main parts:

A) The examination of townhouses begins with a theoretical background chapter (chapter 2).

It commences by outlining defining qualities of townhouses, and continues by positioning

townhouse development within a continuum of housing and urban development forces which

shape contemporary attitudes and development practice. The following chapter discusses

influences driving housing and urban development in contemporary times and places

townhouses within this context based on a literature review. And finally, the specific contexts

of the Helsinki and Stockholm cases are introduced.

B) The second part of the study introduces the research methodology (chapter 3). This

research has been conducted by using frame analysis, which is a research method that is

principally concerned with dissecting how an issue is defined and problematized, and the

7

effect that this has on the broader discussion of the issue (Hope 2010: 1). The basic idea is

that these frames or cognitive schemes help people in identifying “what is going on” in a

given situation, and more importantly they also act as mental shortcuts when communicating

the essentials of that particular situation. This thesis will use frame analysis in an instrumental

manner to highlight “what is going on” with townhouses in the two cities and lay the ground

for a comparative analysis.

C) The third part of the thesis consists of the comparative analyzes (chapter 4). Firstly the

issues are made salient in the discourse surrounding townhouse development are compared

and contrasted. Secondly, select materialized townhouse projects in both cities are compared

and reflected upon.

Finally, the study ends with concluding remarks (chapter 5).


8

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Townhouses – Defining Qualities and Evolutions

The “townhouse” is a building type with a long history and a distinctive yet metamorphous

character. Variations of the building type are found across the globe and different cultures

(Friedman 2012: viii), but this study limits the study of townhouses to its Western context.

The name “townhouse” in itself is obviously from the English-speaking tradition and

specifically used in North America. The roots of the name however lie in Europe and the

British nobility who, following the intense urbanization process triggered by the Industrial

Revolution, sought to reside in several locations for the increasingly grim circumstances in

cities. Hence their city residence was referred to as the “town house” and thus the opposite of

their “country house” (Manninen & Holopainen 2006: 9; Friedman 2012). Besides calling it a

“townhouse” in English, this particular building concept is often also referred to as the

“terraced house” (UK), “row house”, or “town house”. For the sake of clarity, the term

“townhouse” will be used throughout this study, irrespective of the cultural context of the

building type.

Historically, the townhouse concept originates from Ancient Roman urban tradition

(Friedman 2012), but has thereafter evolved in different cultural strands. The most influential

ones were the urban contexts from medieval times to the 19th

-century on the British Isles, and

most notably London, in France and Paris, and in the Netherlands (Manninen & Holopainen

2006; Friedman 2012). Colonial expansion diffused townhouses to for example North

America where different influences, especially the Dutch and British ones, got blended into a

distinct cultural strand on the East Coast (Manninen & Holopainen 2006: 11). In New York,

these buildings are now known as “brownstones” and characterized by a set of steps (a stoop)

which elevate the door slightly from the street level (picture 1.). But overall, there are also

differences within the North American townhouse context with distinct types found in e.g.

San Francisco and Canadian cities (Vernez Moudon 1989; Macdonald 2005).

9

Picture 1. New York ”Brownstones”.

According to Manninen & Holopainen (2006: 12), townhouse-like housing was also common

in the then urbanized areas of the Nordic countries – including Stockholm but not the still

small town Helsinki - up until the mid-18th

century until new urban development ideologies

from Paris and Berlin stressing the age of industrialization and respective modernization of

cities took over (Hårsman & Wijmark 2013: 3-10).

In physical terms, the townhouse has three defining architectural characteristics: a rectangular

long and narrow footprint; a vertically oriented circulation on multiple stories; and wall-to-

wall attachment on one or both sides of each housing unit (Friedman 2012: 1). These defining

qualities stem from history and the accustomed way of building due to scarcity of available

land to build on within city walls (ibid.). Friedman (2012: 4) sets the historical realm of most

townhouses in horizontal and vertical terms within the width of 4.3 to 6.1 meters and not

taller than four stories. If taller, the building type is likely to lose its ground-related qualities

of easy access and human scale.


10

The most ubiquitous volumetric arrangement that define townhouse structures are single

housing units lined up in horizontal rows, but the townhouse can be vertically subdivided to

comprise of more than one housing unit as well (Friedman 2012). One slice or a row with two

housing units is called a duplex and with three housing units a triplex. A stuck townhouse on

the other hand refers to two-story housing units on top of each other (Friedman 2012: 4).

Besides being lined up in horizontal rows, townhouses can also be arranged back-to-back

(two rows with backs facing each other) or front-to-back (a reverse layout that is used e.g. on

slopes to enable views) (Pfeifer & Brauneck 2008: 12).

The physical dimensions of each townhouse structure are determined by how its interior (i.e.

rooms and functions) are arranged. According to Gorlin (1999, cit. Friedman 2012) it is

however not useful to try to conceptualize the interiors of the townhouse in a comprehensive

manner other than the structures ability to adapt to the changing needs of their users, because

a core quality that has historically defined townhouses is that they are “a typology of

enormous restrictions, and therefore a laboratory of creative possibilities within a very

limited realm” (p. 4). Similarly, in Binney’s (1998) examination of the history of townhouses

until recent times, he defines them as “infinitely adaptable” (p.11) due to constant discoveries

of new innovations in using the limited realm. Friedman (2012: 43) however asserts that

adaptability is particularly enhanced when the circulation of a townhouse is centrally placed

and enclosed, because this organization enables an easy transformation of a single-family

dwelling to two or three independent housing units. Multi-functionality is also advanced if the

ground floor is designed to be potentially used as a commercial or office space (Friedman

2012: 43).

Unlike apartment living, where a number of occupants share the main door, exterior space and

hallway, townhouses offer independence and privacy with individual entrances to each

housing unit. The volumetric arrangement of a townhouse (i.e. single- or multi-family) will

determine the number of entrances a given building will have (Friedman 2012: 45), but they

are generally, but not always, placed on the front side of the house and at street level (ibid.).

The configuration of the entrance can be made to either emphasize the relationship between

the house and the street in front of it by for example a porch, or the transition between the

private realm of the home and the public realm of the street by a recession or a small garden

which help create a semi-public space (Friedman 2012: 47).

11

Townhouses typically also offer access to the back of the structure, which may contain an

outdoor private space in the form of a small yard, garden or patio (Friedman 2012: 47). In

multi-housing unit structures these can accordingly be multiple and come in the form of

terraces or balconies in the higher stories (Visanti 2013). The narrower a townhouse gets, the

more important the design of the front and back becomes to maintain the qualities of

independency and privacy (Friedman 2012: 45).

Townhouse housing units or communities can also have various forms of tenure, including

freehold (you own your housing unit and lot), co-ownership (shared ownership of housing

units and lots by residents) and condominium (individual ownership of housing unit, shared

ownership of lots and open spaces) (Friedman 2012: 5).

The forms of tenure are often linked to the ways of constructing townhouses but not defined

by them. Townhouses can be constructed using three different approaches: each housing unit

individually by a private person, a group of units together by a group of private people, or the

entire row mass-produced at once by a construction company. In technical terms, the structure

can be constructed on site or assembled using prefabricated modules.

The idea of the freehold townhouse structure with a private owner who is also its occupant

has its roots in the urban dwelling culture of the noble and bourgeois. These prototypes could

take the form of large or small structures depending on the owner’s wealth and desires

(Stimmann 2011: 34).

The condominium-associated idea to build townhouses in full rows and not slice by slice,

alternately emerged when speculative building took off in 16th

-centiry London in and

gradually diffused to elsewhere on the British Isles. In a combination of the time’s British

housing preferences, social status relationships, and the economic logic of speculative

building, homes started to be standardly constructed in rows of repetitive housing units and on

a single lot (Muthesius 1982: 3).

In more recent times, attached housing has also been produced through group-building which

incorporates elements from both of the previously mentioned traditional methods of

constructing townhouses. Group-building, also elsewhere conceptualized as co-housing or

Baugemeinschaft, is essentially an approach to multi-housing unit construction where the

inhabitants co-operatively acquire land for, finance and manage – with their own hands or e.g.


12

with the help of a small-scale construction enterprise - the construction of a building or group

of buildings as opposed to buying a ready-made product from the construction companies.

This approach is strongly linked to the co-ownership form of tenure (Rantama 2008).

According to Stimmann (2011: 34), townhouses have never been fixed to any specific

architectural idiom regardless of their production method. However, the architectural

prototype which horizontally lines up two to three windows per floor, which characterizes

many existing townhouses, has generally emerged in medieval times and established itself

during later periods of European urban expansion (ibid.). However, the method of

construction does have an impact on the level of variation between the façade architecture of

townhouse units in a row or neighborhood. Mass-produced townhouses are generally more

likely to be repetitive and less flexible for customization than privately built ones (Visanti

2013).

13

2.2. From Townhouses to Row Houses – The 20th Century Legacy for

Housing Development

As the historical transformations in the conceptualization of townhouses suggests, townhouse

development doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Contemporary townhouses therefore need to be

examined in the light of underlying housing and urban development forces that have shaped

attitudes and the pattern of housing during the 20th

century.

According to Choay (1969), there are two fundamental philosophical perceptions of urbanity

and urban life that encompass most planning questions in modern times. Choay (1969)

identifies these as the progressist approach which values the ideals of modernization, the

industrial society, and functionalism as the driving forces of urban planning; and the

culturalist approach which in contrast emphasizes the importance of tradition and cultural

integrity.

Defined in the context of planning, they represent two contradictory views of the "proper"

spatial organization of cities. In short, at odds are those who value the principles of modernist

urban planning over traditional ones and vice versa. For the scope of this thesis, these two will

be introduced as attempts to create qualitatively different environments from each other.

20th

-century urban planning has been dominantly characterized by the progressist approach to

urban living (Taylor 1998). For the townhouse, this has meant a decline in its construction

from the 1920’s onwards as suburban living began to attract people to migrate out of the city.


14

2.2.1. Urban Utopias and the “Suburban Conspiracy”

Modernist urban planning has its roots in the Modern movement and visionary utopian

theorists who were able to capture and reproduce the “soul” of modernism in their city models

which sought to cure the ills of the Industrial City.

Modernism as an idea has its roots in enlightenment-thinking which views man as an

educated and civilized agent who can control nature, his or her destiny and ultimately the

course of society through science. And as superstition was gradually rejected and traded for

reason during the 17th

and 18th

centuries, progress became a key driver of society and the

embracement of science set technological innovation high on the agenda of mankind (Porter

2001).

This new worldview of progress however eventually materialized as the Industrial City, which

expanded in a society with little regulation – planning or environmental-wise. Factories and

other industrial facilities were often situated in close proximity to residential areas and public

places due to limitations in the era’s transportation technology. Gradually throughout the 19th

century the Industrial City evolved into a place of such pollution and poor living conditions

that something had to be done. Consequently, new ideas for organizing the city started to

emerge (Taylor 1998).

One of the most influential ones was Ebenezer Howard’s “Garden City” model. Howard was

inspired by the increasing anti-urban rhetoric of the time and modeled his Garden City

concept on the foundation of decentralization. He envisioned a series of compact and

relatively high-density satellite cities around a given city’s core which would be inter-

connected with rail transit and buffered by generous green space (Lang 1999; Parker 2004).

Another key influencer for the modernist urban planning doctrine was Le Corbusier and his

Radiant City concept from 1924. Le Corbusier was inspired by the Garden City model, but he

embraced the emerging artistic expression and aesthetic of the modernist movement (Bauman

1998; Taylor 1998). The Radiant City model was fundamentally a set of large high-density

skyscrapers, which were surrounded by vast areas of green space for public amenity. The

towers in the city center were for the elite and business functions, and these were separated

from regular apartment building blocks and industrial areas. Transportation was based on the

use of automobiles and separated from elevated pedestrian zones. Modernist progressive

15

thinking in the Radiant City was not only expressed by modern, functionalist, architecture,

building materials and techniques, but it rejected the traditional city completely. Le Corbusier

suggested that any existing urban fabric should be demolished and replaced by his

skyscrapers. Furthermore, he associated the buildings with machines paving the way for

technocratic thinking into construction and living. Houses and buildings became to be

understood as standardized industrial products rather than pieces of art (Bauman 1998; Taylor

1998). According to Taylor (1998: p. 25), the two guiding principles of Le Corbusier were

“the plan must rule” and “disappearance of the street”. The latter principle ultimately led to

the abandonment of the street as the dominant organizing principle of urban form (Dunnett

2000).

Parallel to these and other similar visions for a better urban future, urban planning also started

to form as a profession. This was discussed and conceptualized for example during Congrès

Internationaux d'Architecture Modern (CIAM - International Congress of Modern

Architecture) congresses – a series of high-profile urban thinkers’ meetings between 1928 and

1959 (Mumford 2000). In this process ideas from different urban visions and ideals got mixed

and gradually institutionalized into the newly found profession of urban planning. The most

significant CIAM meeting was held in 1933 in Athens, where the congress agreed on a set of

principles for the Modern City: decentralization and separation of land uses, lower-density,

functionalist architecture and construction and the use of the automobile (Mumford 2000).

According to Boomkens (2008: 128) this planning apparatus essentially became an

“instrument for the defense of an inward-looking culture of intimacy against the dangers and

shocks of the urban public realm”. The end product would effectively be stripped of the

“chaos” and “nuisance” of the Industrial City.

Post-WWII society and planning in America and Europe adopted modernism holistically,

because the past was seen as having too much baggage. Modernist ideas were cemented and

institutionalized through government programs. Many of these interventions were so

extensive in scale that there were little alternatives to the Modern City. A good example is the

Interstate Highway Act in the USA (1956), which literally paved the way for the hegemony of

the automobile (Jackson 1985). Furthermore, modernist urban theorists generally assumed

that the general public agreed with their visions (Taylor 1998: 34) and therefore there never

was really any public consultation over such plans.


16

This era saw the emergence of the “row house” as a suburban configuration of the townhouse:

“The street was turned into a traffic zone providing access, and the rows of townhouses

declined into the isolated row-house estates of the periphery, found in the real estate projects

of new urban landscapes and in large and small housing estates” (Stimmann 2011: 35). This

conceptualization of attached housing generally incorporates the idea of standardized and

repetitive attached living, but has replaced the urban architectural qualities of street-linkage

and density with an emphasis on the private over the public by turning their fronts away from

the street, and a desire for wide open spaces by introducing lush and spacious buffer zones.

The era of high modernism didn’t however last very long because housing projects that were

developed with its ethos started to turn into social disasters. A well-known example in this

sense is Pruitt-Igoe, a social housing project in St. Louis, USA, that was erected in mid-1950

and bulldozed only twenty years later. Architecture critic Charles Jencks has made this day

known as the day that “modern architecture died” (Bristol 1991: 163; Fernández Cendón

2013).

Nonetheless, most professional fields dealing with urban development in one way or another

have been institutionalized based on modernist principles and keep the legacy alive. Talen

(2002: 309) dubs this legacy as a “culture of separation”, in which fragmentation is a

fundamental principle of operation on different levels: economic development planners are for

example separated from transportation planners or environmental planners and the planning

regulatory system encourages land-use separation. Similarly, when referring to what this

“suburban legacy” means for the development processes of urban infrastructure

unconventional to modernist standards, regulations and norms, Duany et al. (2000: 21)

crystallize that “the devil is in the details.”

17

2.2.2. The Culturalist Critiques

The culturalist approach to urban planning is often strongly linked with Jane Jacobs (1961),

who was one of the first and most influential – if not the most influential – critics of

modernist planning and torchbearers of traditional urbanism through her landmark book The

Death and Life of Great American Cities. She called for planning based on what has proven to

be time-tested best practice and criticized that the modernist planning model is essentially

based “on a foundation of nonsense” (1961: 13). The core argument of the “traditionalists” is

thereby that the planning approach of the modernist planning model is not less than

comprehensively destructive to the foundations of urban life.

In more contemporary context and following Jacobs’ footsteps, the end of the 1980s and the

beginning of the 1990s saw the emergence of strong reform-seeking planning movements

such as New Urbanism and Smart Growth, particularly in America, but also in Europe with

e.g. the “Urban Village” proponents (Goetz 2013). At the epicenter of the contemporary

culturalists’ critique are the vast suburban landscapes of single-family houses which

characterize many Western cities, the separation of land-uses and creation of dull and non-

stimulating living environments, which are only able to deliver standardized commercial

centers and promenades that lack functions and destinations, and consequently people

(Kunstler 1993; Duany et. al. 2000).

By contrast, the planning doctrine of the “traditionalists” emphasizes that density and

diversity – both features which modernists reject in their planning model – are integral for the

creation of successful, lively, safe and sustainable cities. The culturalist view of urbanism

particularly seeks to re-elevate the street back as the organizing principle of urban form. This

approach combined with traditional building typologies is suggested to result in human-scale

neighborhoods and is connected directly with a city’s ability to deliver vibrancy, viability,

accumulation of social capital and safety (Walters & Brown 2004: 53-66).

For the past decade or two, the culturalist approach to urban planning has been in good

currency and has increasingly led to planning reforms and reform movements such as the

Urban Renaissance in the UK (Urban Task Force 2005) and the establishment of the Council

for European Urbanism (CEU 2013).


18

2.3. Townhouses in the 21st Century – The Four Cs Driving

Contemporary Housing and Urban Development

The townhouse-related literature reviewed for this research reveals that the cases of 21st-

century townhouses in Helsinki and Stockholm are not unique as such. Similar developments

are taking place in other countries as well: in Berlin and other metropolitan areas in Germany

(Stimmann 2011; Marquart et al. 2012), in Amsterdam and most notably its Sporenburg-

Borneo project (CABE 2013), in North America (MacDonald 2005; Dunham-Jones &

Williamson 2011; Friedman 2012) and in Great Britain (CABE 2013) to point out a few. A

common denominator characterizing these events is that the term “townhouse” has regained

attention in associations with attached living at the expense of the “row house”.

Theory underlying the re-emergence of the building type will be introduced and discussed

using Rudlin & Falk’s (1999/2009) framework of “the four Cs” - conservation, choice,

community and cost – which are argued to be influences that have always shaped housing and

urban development to a greater or lesser extent but are especially relevant drivers for

development in the beginning of the 21st century.

2.3.1. Conservation & Urban Compaction

“Conservation” underscores environmental pressures as a driver for new kinds of housing

options and patterns (Rudlin & Falk: 73-87). At present, the most influential environmental

driver is undoubtedly the concern over climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. The

discussions on environmental sustainability were initiated by the 1987 Bruntland Commission

Report and set on official policy agendas with the 1992 Rio declaration (Harding 2005). The

global scope and disastrous impact of climate change on natural and human environments are

notoriously empirically linked to factors such as urban form and land-use patterns, building

design and technology, transport modes and lifestyle choices and impacts (see e.g. Hoornweg

et al. 2011 for further analysis). The core message for urban policy is that: “There is mounting

evidence of the need for adaptation planning at the local scale” (Hallegatte & Corfee-Morlot

2010: 2).

In the planning realm, these arguments are acknowledged globally as metropolitan regions are

increasingly adopting policies that seek to tame the environmentally harmful patterns of urban

19

expansion (OECD 2012). Ideally, the remedy is to promote dense and mixed-use settlement

patterns that support walking and other means of eco-friendly transportation, and reduce the

need for car ownership (Breheny 1997; Jenks & Dempsey 2005; OECD 2012). In existing

urban areas one of the principal means of achieving the proposed benefits is through a process

of urban compaction, which is basically defined as increasing the density or intensity of

development and functions (Dunham-Jones & Williamson 2011).

Townhouses support these environmental conservation efforts for their part because the

grouping of homes into rows can result in similar population densities as achieved with high-

rise housing but with less land consumption (Binney 1998: 11; City of Toronto 2003: 2).

Friedman (2012: 5-6) widens the environmental benefits of high-density townhouses to

energy and resource efficiency. He argues that the attachment of housing units reduces wall

surface up to 53 per cent for units in the middle of a row and therefore decreases the

consumption of building materials. He also notes (p.7) that detached homes lead to increased

heating and cooling requirements due to their exposed envelope whereas, depending on local

climate, townhouses can consume up to 68 per cent less energy. Vernez Moudon (1989: 179)

adds that traditional townhouse designs, such as the North American Victorian house, have

proven to be highly resource-efficient due to their durability. The spacious rooms and central

circulation space of these structures have proven to be highly attractive for generations of

users, which means that the qualities of the buildings have mitigated needs to move house and

needs for urban renewal processes regardless of societal transformations (more on the

flexibility of townhouses in chapter 2.3.2.).

The issue of density is however a greatly debated topic in practice. While the rationale in

urban compaction regarding land use and transportation planning is to reduce the pressure of

building up open spaces and thereby to release more room for parks, other amenities for urban

living, decrease car dependency, and offer a high degree of convenience for work, service and

entertainment (Jenks & Dempsey 2005), some argue that the opposite is also true.

Compaction can be perceived to result in massive high-rise buildings, cramming, less open

space, psychological stress from unwanted social contact or reduced privacy, competition for

facilities and space, and generally a congested cityscape (Breheny 1997; Jenks & Dempsey

2005).


20

Talen (2002: 300) notes that the density debate is a tension that has characterized planning

efforts historically and throughout the 20th

century and revolves around the issue of finding a

consensus about integrating “town” (city) and “country” (nature) in a harmonious way. This

can be observed for example in critiques that a specific development is either too compact for

most people’s preferences (too much ‘town’) or too much like current suburban patterns of

development (too much ‘country’) (ibid.). Research shows that there indeed still are empirical

gaps to be filled in the pursuit for environmentally sound urban development. Potential

negative effects of compaction include for example loss of green space, traffic congestion and

air pollution, gentrification, and loss of recreational space (Breheny 1997; Jenks & Dempsey

2005; OECD 2012).

The complex nature of urban intensification underscores that a single theoretical planning

model for addressing environmental concerns doesn’t exist. Marvin & Guy (2000: 9-18)

suggest that planning for environmentally sound cities could best be interpreted as a range of

context-specific pathways with a common goal but varying practical solutions for achieving

it.

Friedman (2012: 1) suggests that the narrowness and wall-to-wall attachment of townhouses

offers an approach for dense living where small-scale development potentially accommodates

a residential density that can reach the equivalent of apartment-building development while

maintaining an acceptable level of independency and privacy at the same time. Moreover,

Friedman (2012: 111) argues that most densities of townhouse-filled neighborhoods will fit

into somewhere in between 25 to 85 housing units per hectare. For townhouses that face the

street a typical density is between 25 and 60 while off-street townhouses then have the

potential to reach up to 85 housing units per hectare (ibid.).

The higher the density, the more important it becomes to design the buildings carefully since

in high-density townhouses can manage only little private space. The Borneo-Sporenburg

brownfield project in Amsterdam (picture 2) is an often-quoted low-rise and high-density

townhouse development which is designed to resemble a Dutch fishing town. The density of

the area is towards the upper end of Friedman’s above-quoted density scale - officially around

100 housing units per hectare but three large housing blocks bring up the average density of

the area - and the architects have e.g. sought strategic solutions to let daylight flow deep into

the rather small living spaces to make them seem larger (CABE 2013).

21

Picture 2. Borneo-Sporenburg townhouses in Amsterdam (West 8 2013).

The example of Vancouver illustrates a more unconventional pathway for achieving high-

density development with the aid of townhouses. The city of Vancouver’s approach is to

shape new building types that will provide what are felt to be the positive qualities of older

smaller-scale, finer-grained and street-oriented building types, while working within the

contexts of modern large-scale single-developer projects (Macdonald 2005: 15). The outcome

of these ambitions is the introduction of point towers over low- or mid-rise podium bases

containing townhouses, and low- to mid-rise apartment blocks with integrated ground-floor

townhouses (ibid.).

2.3.2. Choice & Changing Housing Demands

The influence of “choice” is about matching user needs and housing design. Rudlin & Falk

(1999: 90-99) discuss two issues likely to have a substantial impact on 21st-century housing: a

changing demographic make-up and a changed socio-economic condition.

Concerning the aspect of the changing demographic make-up, the dominant trends in

household characteristics for the last two centuries and up until today have been declining

household size and increasing household numbers (Rudlin & Falk 1999: 91). This translates

as more singles, single parents, childless couples, and accompanied with generally more

living space per person as societies have become richer (Dunham-Jones & Williamson 2011:


22

18-19; Friedman 2012: 9). Moreover, there is an increasingly significant aging population

segment and an ethnic minority segment which both have their special needs (Rudlin & Falk

1999: 93; Dunham-Jones & Williamson 2011: 18-19; Friedman 2012: 10). These same trends

are well-acknowledged in both the USA (Nelson 2009) and the European Union, where

“growth is fuelled mainly by immigration, whereas the population is becoming older and

more diverse” (European Commission 2011: 1).

The vertical orientation and division into multiple stories are argued to make townhouses a

flexible housing structure which potentially could offer a housing product to these changing

user needs despite that the architectural typology of the generic townhouse adds up to quite

large surface areas per housing unit. According to Schneider & Till (2005: 157), the

flexibility of a house is measured by its ability to cater for users with different lifestyles and

until the end of their use time. Especially historic townhouses have proven to possess these

qualities.

The high-ceilinged spacious rooms of the traditional American Victorian house for example

allow each room to act as a “blank canvas” that may be used in different ways, and the central

circulation space enables privacy and independence for their users within the household

(Vernez Moudon 1989: 179). Moreover, the central circulation space and possible adjoining

yard structures additionally facilitate easy transformations from a single-family dwelling to

two or three independent housing units (Friedman 2012: 43). The narrow footprint of

townhouses also eliminates the need for interior load-bearing walls and thus space can be

taken away from rooms which are no longer used as they were before (Friedman 2012: 12). A

single townhouse structure may thereby accommodate different households with various

functional and spatial needs and adapt to changes in their life circumstances. This ultimately

creates diversity of housing stock in the same development (Vernez Moudon 1989: 179;

Friedman 2012: 10).

The second aspect influencing user needs is a changed socio-economic condition. Richard

Florida (2012) has voicefully interpreted and conceptualized the 21st century socio-economic

condition in his book “The Rise of the Creative Class”. He in tone with other academics (e.g.

Landry & Bianchini 1995) identifies that the shift to a post-Fordist economy alongside the

emergence of information technology have placed creativity and innovation at the core of

economic production. This has had a significant impact on user needs through a

23

reconfiguration of work: “The no-collar workplace integrates elements of the flexible, open,

interactive model of the scientist’s lab or artist’s studio into the machine model of the factory

or the traditional corporate office (Florida 2012: p.101)”.

What this implies is what Rudlin & Falk (1999: 96) also forecast: the conventional 20th

-

century desire to separate the home and work environments is being increasingly challenged

and for example housing units that accommodate both environments will have increasing

demand. The new circumstances also downplay the role of large employers as small

businesses and self-employment are gaining ground. This highlights an increased need for

social organization through networking, which pulls people closer together and ultimately

increases the valuing of accessibility of places considerably (e.g. Potts et al. 2008).

Townhouses can also be transformed partially into working environments, which supports the

needs of many workers in the information age (Friedman 2012: 12). Pfeifer & Brauneck

(2008) additionally remind that townhouses cannot merely compete with their time-tested

qualities, but also need to be open for innovation as “Changing durations and habits of usage

require new and flexible typologies” (p. 6), due to issues “such as social interaction and

adaptation to individual sociological demands across all stages of life, the changing working

conditions” (p. 14), and “the issues of energy, resources and ecological balance” (p. 14).

2.3.3. Community & Planning for Urbanity

Rudlin & Falk (1999: 101-110) elevate the concept of “community” as a key driver in shaping

future housing and urban development, because as the nuclear family is losing its role, the

valuing of community life is likely to become more important. Pfeifer & Brauneck (2008: 13)

agree: “Future ways of living will have to return to relying more on self-organisation of

communities and groups. Work will be part of life up to old age because its definition has

changed. Patchwork families will become multigenerational patchwork families of varying

productivity and activity within a network of affinities and multi-relationships”.

More specifically, the influence that the concept of community will have on housing and

urban development depends on which kind of image of community – or lifestyle - people will

strive for, because this will influence building activities. In his thesis on linking social change

and developmental change, Tönnies (1887/2001) has conceptualized two contrasting types of


24

social organization in his Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaft model, which are often used to represent

the opposing ends in a continuum of settlement ideals.

Gemeinschaft is a form of social integration that is typically associated with a rural or village-

like lifestyle. In this type of ideal community personal ties are important, most people knew

each other, the community is clearly defined both spatially and socially, and people interact

with each other as whole people combining personal and social roles. Due to a sense of

enclosure, outsiders are likely to be treated with skepticism (Rudlin & Falk 1999: 105).

Gesellschaft by contrast is a form of social integration based on impersonal ties of

instrumental and contractual nature, a high degree of role differentiation, and oftentimes

characterized by tension. This type of social organization is linked with urban life. Jane

Jacobs (1961) wrote one of the best-known illustrations of this type of ideal community when

she described the 1950s and 60s life in New York. She writes that urban communities are

crucially different from the village type because they are “by definition, full of strangers

(p.30)”.

Rudlin & Falk (1999: 6) argue that the previously discussed demographic and social

influences argue for the strengthening of the urban ideal. Likewise, Florida’s (2012) research

findings indicate a more urban future as people are likely to opt for weak community ties or

“quasi-anonymity” over strong ones, which keeps on pacing up the “back-to-the-city

movement (p. 321)”. Furthermore, these changes are ultimately displayed in what kind of

surroundings people will ultimately see supportive with respect to their lifestyle. In Nelson’s

(2009: 192) account of the “urbanity” attributes people increasingly value include transit

accessibility; proximity to shopping and restaurants; mixed uses including mixed housing

choices; and mixed incomes, ages, and ethnicities. In Florida’s (2012: 281) thesis, his

“creative class” seeks a specific “quality of place” which is determined by a stimulating

physical setting that will support their lifestyle, a diverse and tolerant range of community

members, and has a wide range of active things going on. Critics however point out that many

of these assumptions are not theoretically informed enough as many studies have shown that

modern-day workers in the creative and knowledge industries are a heterogeneous group in

which individuals are attracted to different kinds of qualities in their living environments (e.g.

Borén & Young 2013).

25

For the urban project, it is relevant how architects and planners read these users’ narratives

and articulate them as concrete urban plans. Kevin Lynch has for example famously theorized

this in his book The Image of the City (1960) by arguing with his concepts of “legibility” and

“imageability” that a city’s structure exists both in physical reality and in the minds of its

inhabitants. Rudlin & Falk (1999) stress the heterogeneous nature of post-industrial society

and highlight that as society more distinctly transforms into groups valuing different ideals,

urban planning will need to adapt accordingly as: “a strong a community… will only thrive in

a particular context” (p. 108). Mäenpää (2008) similarly advances the idea of

“comprehending the city as consisting of diversified milieus and ways of life without

domination of a certain type of urbanity” (p. 22). More specifically, he points out that living

preferences are not absolute values but to be understood in a relative sense (Mäenpää 2008:

39). In this view, closeness to nature can for example mean anything between actually living

close to natural areas to being able to see a tree from the window. The main point concerning

planning practice is that the mental images and practice output need to match accordingly.

Applying for example suburban ideas of the “good community” onto urban areas won’t work

and vice versa.

With respect to any attempts to plan and design for a specific kind of “neighborhood

character”, Jiven & Larkham (2003) and Dovey et al. (2009) among other academics however

remind that such conceptualizations can have multiple meanings, making them extremely

slippery in nature. Attempts to locate and mobilize “character” within urban morphology have

a tendency to reduce character to formal (‘hard’) characteristics at the expense of experiential

(‘soft’) values, and can turn character into caricature (Dovey & Woodcock, 2010). Hence

their mobilization into planning practice is rarely adequately theoretically informed. Ploger

summarizes (2010, p. 321) the dual nature of “urbanity” by stating that it is “not only a

concept, but life lived within new emergences, the imaginary, coding and values”.

Sandercock (2010) in return asserts that despite theoretical gaps, planners nevertheless

operationalize “urbanity” in planning practice. In postmodern times, the general trend has

been to emphasize functional and economic diversification and social diversity. This has been

done at the expense of modernist mono-zoned spaces. In Sandercock’s (2010) view,

operationalized conceptualizations of urbanity consist of elements from both socio-cultural

and built environment dimensions. She puts forward a targeted definition of urbanity for

planners (table 1.) (Sandercock, 2010: 2307):


26

Table 1. “Planning for urbanity” according to Sandercock (2010),

High-density/densification

Multi-functionality, mixed uses

Possibilities for cultural enrichment and educational opportunities

Possibilities for different forms of living

Possibilities for different experiences in urban space

Reinstating the street as a pedestrian-friendly space

Public transit options

Emphasis on landmarks and places of local distinctiveness

Emphasis on a lively city culture

Emphasis on tolerance, mutual consideration, and open-mindedness in urban public

spaces

Allow `visible' spaces for the poor, socially marginal, and/or deviant

Townhouses on their behalf are traditional building blocks for the physical context of urban

communities (Stimmann 2011: 34). This is manifested in their socio-cultural history and in

physical terms especially through their street-related qualities, scale and proportion, fine-

grained nature, and clear demarcation between the public and private. With their direct

linkage with the street, townhouses help create the environment for traditional urban streets

(Jacobs 1961).

Vernez Moudon (1989: 240) emphasizes that townhouses, and especially mixing townhouses

with apartments, have the capacity to add richness to the housing stock and thereby support a

greater mix of tenants and diversity. At block level, the townhouse building type may

contribute to diversity and an increase in choice by allowing easy grouping of single-housing

unit and multiple-unit townhouses together. On the level of the individual, Stimmann (2011:

104) evaluates that townhouses enable the new urban man to celebrate individuality and

freedom of self-expression through private ownership and design, especially in respect to the

buildings’ facades. Grayson Trulove (2006: 9) stresses the link between townhouses and

walkable urban environments by asserting that townhouses are becoming increasingly

desirable as “more people move back into our cities” and “are discovering the joys of walking

to work rather than commuting for two hours a day”.

27

Friedman (2012: 111-112), Dunham-Jones & Williamson (2011: 31-42) and the planning

administration in Toronto (City of Toronto 2003: 2) extend the community-context of

townhouses beyond the “Jane Jacobian urban” by stressing that townhouses are fit for any

kind of area (high, medium or low density), but they need to be matched with the according

surrounding density context, support a continuation of existing urban patterns, and respect

adjoining properties pragmatically and also architecturally to minimize impacts on the

surrounding neighborhood. In terms of the qualities of a townhouse, this generally means that

the more land-use efficient narrow and tall types as well as the multi-housing unit types are

generally associated with urban areas whereas less dense configurations can more likely be

found in other parts of the city.

Vernez Moudon (1989: 225-229) underscores that the process also has an important role when

planning and developing for urbanity. She specifically elevates townhouses as a building type

that is useful in this regard. The approach of building them one by one on individual lots

namely touches upon the idea of incremental urbanism in which cities evolve over time

through gradual accretions and infill (i.e. small-scale building activities and building

management), which is associated with the creation of interesting and organic urban places

(Vernez Moudon 1989: 225-229; Dunham-Jones & Williamson 2011: 2). This is contrasted

with the standard corporate development practice that produces characterless “instant

architecture” which in turn adds up on a larger scale as “instant cities”. The former approach

to creating urban context can predominantly be associated with the culturalist approach to

urbanism whereas the latter with the progresseist.

Another concern in planning for urban character besides focusing too much on its physical

attributes is focusing too much on a narrow perception of the “soft” qualities. Sharon Zukin

(2010) argues that along with the industrial restructuring of the late 20th

century, Western

societies have shifted from a culture of production to a culture of consumption and

reproduction, and also authentic urban life has become an object of consumption and thereby

a powerful tool in the remaking of cities.

Marquardt et al. (2012) exemplify how this practice of consuming the city also has a

dimension of displacement. Their account of a set of inner-city townhouses in Berlin whose

designs refer to a range of different cultures, eras and styles (e.g. London, Borneo-Sporenburg

Amsterdam, and Northern Germany) but not Berlin, reflect an objectification of the city as a


28

vibrant and exciting atmosphere to be consumed , but where urbanity is conceptualized in a

narrow way which downplays the complex social realities of the city: “Evoked as a

distinguishing feature of the housing product, urbanity is referred to as a universal form of

vibrant city life, filled deliberately with reminiscences of iconic cities. Instead of engaging

with specific urban atmospheres the new-build developments are shaped by blueprint ideas of

urbanism that circulate as best practice in real estate discourses (Marquardt et al. 2012: 9)”.

2.4.5. Cost & the Economics of Urban Development

Rudlin & Falk’s (1999: 111-121) final “C” refers to the context-specific economies of urban

development. Yet regardless of context, factors such as location, land value, and development

industry operating models will continue to influence the cost of housing and urban

development.

Rudlin & Falk (1999: 111) view the economics of urban development in the sense that costs

are largely a constraint to in the development of new structures, but in the global information

society urban development also has a strategic dimension as the overall vitality of an urban

area obviously has a significant impact on the economics of urban development. In the era of

globalization when capital and labor are more mobile than ever, cities increasingly compete

with each other making the assets of a given city important strategic tools in the competition

for skilled workers and investments. Historically and also today, economic competitiveness

i.e. the location decisions of private enterprises and associated urban policy, has relied on

transport infrastructure and agglomeration or clustering advantages (Musterd & Kovács 2013:

4-5). In the 21st century also the “the quality of place” as described in the previous chapter has

taken an important strategic role. In Florida’s (2012) interpretation of this, it is now the

enterprises that follow people, not the other way around. And this elevates other urban assets

that contribute to the “livability” of a city – such as housing – to front stage in the quest for

economic competitiveness (Musterd & Kovács 2013: 5).

The above-presented example of Berlin (Marquardt et al. 2012) is a prime example of how

townhouse development can be used in this strategic context as well through the promotion of

a “work–live–play’ lifestyle (p. 9)”. This strategic approach to townhouse development can

also be more modest. The building type has been used as part of urban revitalization schemes

29

to upgrade existing neighborhoods by replacing aging buildings, filling-up empty lots, and by

adding variety to the housing and tenure options in a neighborhood - with an ultimate goal of

increasing the value of existing buildings and adding tax income (City of Toronto 2003: 2;

Friedman 2012: 180).

At the regional scale, a significant factor that influences the cost of housing in growing urban

areas is how the housing supply keeps up with the market demand. A key factor underlying

this is the pattern in which the supply is spread out in respect to the areas with the highest

demand, i.e. policy decisions regarding land-use efficiency. According to Loikkanen (2013),

dispersed urban growth and the resulting fragmented urban structure not only increase car-

dependency and make it more difficult to reach environmental targets, but they raise the price

of housing as the growing urban population moves further away from the jobs that are

typically located in the main and sub centers. As a result, well-located housing becomes

"scarcer" and this raises housing prices and rents everywhere, which ultimately gets reflected

in the competitiveness of the city (Loikkanen 2013: 9). In addition to the value of land, the

cost of housing gets affected whether a housing unit is acquired as a market commodity or

constructed directly by the end user as in the case of the former the construction company will

include a profit margin in the price (e.g. Harvey & Jowsey 2003).

Bengs (2010a) suggests that also concentration processes in the building and construction

industry contribute to cost increases in urban development, as monopolies in any field of

economy is conventionally associated with higher prices and a lack of innovation due to a

lack of competition (Sastry 2005). According to Bengs (2010a: 131-132) this is a

phenomenon that tends to occur as the operational field of the building and construction

industry happens in a context of limited land in a given place. But in addition, public policies

in lot distribution which entail large-scale development projects often increase the level of

concentration because the projects are too big for local entrepreneurs to compete for.

Grayson Trulove (2006: 9) notes that townhouses are an economical option in places where

land is costly for new construction as their density-related qualities will allow housing-unit

numbers to be maximized. Friedman (2012: 84) and Pfeifer & Brauneck (2008: 16) also

suggest that the simple and rational principle of adding on makes it possible to erect a large

number of housing units within a short time frame and lower related installation and

maintenance expenses. This makes the townhouse a good building type for large scale


30

construction and potentially reduced housing prices. Friedman (2012: 100-101) especially

highlights the potential gained with prefabrication as townhouses are narrow and therefore

factory-made components are often suitable for ground transportation.

Like Friedman, Dunham-Jones & Williamson (2011: 3) stress that contrary to Vernez

Moudon’s (1989) appeal for urbanistic incremental development, the large-scale “instant

cities” approach is a more beneficial way for creating urban space, because more suburban

infill gets done and more cost-efficiently in that manner. Dunham-Jones & Williamson (2011:

9-12) assert that if viewed at the metropolitan scale, this approach helps achieve “incremental

metropolitanism”.

Rudlin and Falk (2009: 137) conclude that an optimal future would indeed comprise of

differentiated housing production and endless variation that can simultaneously retain the

economies of construction.

31

2.5. Helsinki & Stockholm – The Local Contexts for Townhouse

Development

The local contexts of Helsinki and Stockholm have many important similarities. Both cities

lie in geographically similar locations, are national capitals, belong to the same administrative

and regulatory family of the Nordic countries, have experienced comparable urban growth

trends during the last century, and are currently experiencing strong growth pressures.

Concerning urban development, both cities have a deeply embedded culture of government-

imposed urban planning, have a ground lease system, and the municipal authority in both

cities owns a significant portion of the land within the municipal boundaries - approximately

70% in each city (Newman & Thornley 1996; Hall 2005).

And finally, Helsinki and Stockholm are both important economic engines for their respective

countries containing strong knowledge-based clusters and are among the 10 richest metro-

regions in Europe (FORA 2010). This is reflected by the fact that both cities are currently

destinations of intense migration and are among the fastest growing urban regions in Europe.

Helsinki’s population is projected to grow from the current 603 968 up to 652 230 inhabitants

by 2022 (8%) and the Greater Helsinki Region by 10% up to 1 516 217 inhabitants (City of

Helsinki Urban Facts 2013). The city of Stockholm is projected to grow more significantly by

17% from the current population of 864 324 to 1 010 492 by 2022 (City of Stockholm 2013).

The City Region similarly will grow by 17% 2 436 745 by 2021(Stockholms läns landsting

2012).


32

Picture 3. Outlines of the cities and city regions. The City of Stockholm and Stockholm County on the left, and Helsinki and the Greater Helsinki region on the right (Wikimedia Commons 2013). The pictures are not to scale.

2.5.1. Points of Departure and Terminology

In a brief historic account, Stockholm is a much older city than Helsinki and has been the

political and economic center of Sweden since the 14th

century. Helsinki on the other hand

was not much more than a small regional town until it was made the capital of the Finnish

Grand Duchy in 1812. However, starting from the processes of industrialization during the

19th

century, the growth of the two cities has been characterized by very similar general

urbanization patterns (Hall 2005). During the medieval period, Stockholm got its first

townhouses as wealthy bourgeois families built themselves urban homes, but this line of

townhouse development gave way to apartment living along with the industrial revolution

(Manninen & Holopainen 2006: 12; Schartner 2013).

Alongside these developments, both Sweden and Finland have a long tradition in small-scale

wooden urban development, and wooden houses were generally the primary means of living

and building up until the early 20th

century. Now only little fragments of this tradition remains

as much has been either burnt or torn down in urban renewal processes (Karjalainen &

Suikkari 2001: 15-17).

33

In the early 20th

century masonry construction gradually became more popular than wooden

construction. The beginning of this process was accompanied by influences from Ebenezer

Howard’s Garden City concept, and following this inspiration a few brick-built strings of

urban row houses – or townhouses – were built in both capitals. In Helsinki, Eliel Saarinen

designed a couple of them in the neighborhood of Munkkiniemi and Armas Lindgren in

Kulosaari (Manninen & Holopainen 2006: 13-15). In Stockholm, similar developments took

place for example in the garden city of Bromma (Åsell 2013).

Quite soon afterwards Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City ideal however started to take

influences from Le Corbusian functionalism, which transformed the urbanization patterns of

the cities substantially. The Finnish interpretation of these influencers’ ideas came together in

the conceptualization of Tapiola, a modern garden city built to the west of the city (Hurme

1991). The Swedish equivalent at the time was the ABC stad model (Westford 2010: 12).

Both models are basically leafy satellite suburbs that consist predominantly of apartment

buildings.

As economic restructuring processes triggered a shift from agriculture to manufacturing and

service industries, especially the latter half of the 20th

century witnessed substantial increases

in the paces of urbanization, and a significant portion of the post-WWII development in both

cities took the form of suburban development using these modern garden city models

(Schulman et al. 2000; Hall & Vidén 2005). During the first decades after the war, the growth

of the cities was strongly outwards oriented and most intense during the 1960s when

construction practice became more industrialized. In Sweden this urbanization period was

linked with the government’s housing-specific Million Homes Programme

(Miljonprogrammet) which sought to construct a million new homes nationally during 1965-

1974 (Hall & Vidén 2005). In Finland as well as for Helsinki this period has been the most

significant period of urbanization in its history. According to (Heininen-Blomstedt 2013: 15)

about 90% of the entire existing building stock in the country has been designed under the

functionalist paradigm.

A key difference in this process was that in Stockholm the ABC stads were configured around

the subway or rail transit whereas in Helsinki cars became the dominant mode of transport.

Stockholm consequently took a star-shaped urban form where strings of settlements alternate


34

between large open spaces, later on known as “green wedges” (LSE Cities 2013: 48-49), but

Helsinki grew in a more unorganized manner.

In the context of these developments and starting from the late 1940s and 50s, attached living

in both capitals materialized as modernist row houses. Their construction was especially

popular in the 1970s and 80s (Manninen & Hirvonen 2004).

Starting from the 1980s and 1990s onwards growth in both cities has in addition to the

outwards-directed developments been characterized by an inwards-oriented densification

trend as well, and at this point in time the urbanization patterns between the cities have clearly

become different in the larger picture. Helsinki has been characterized by parallel growths:

inwards at the core and outwards at the edge (Jaakola & Lönnqvist 2007). In Stockholm on

the other hand, growth has been diverted more explicitly to existing urban areas (Hall 2009).

It was also at this general junction in time, that the idea of the townhouse appeared in

discussions again. In Helsinki, this had been preceded by a central government project –

Dense & low-rise (Tiivis-matala) - initiated by the Ministry of the Environment (YM 2002),

which following its name sought to conceptualize and promote dense and low-rise urban

development in response to urban sprawl. Parallel to the Ministry’s project some early ideas

of townhouse-living materialized as pilot projects in e.g. Pikku-Huopalahti (Visanti 2006:

15), Säterinmetsä (Fogelholm 2003) and Malminkartano (Helsingin kaupunki 2005). In the

aftermath and followed by further investigations about the concept (Manninen & Holopainen

2006), the city organized an architecture competition for entries to assist in conceptualizing

what the Helsinki townhouse could look like (Sjöroos & Jalkanen 2010). At this stage a

definition of the townhouse in the city’s books had evolved to first and foremost mean the

traditional single housing unit on a single lot model, and also the English term was adopted to

distinguish it from other similar living arrangements (Manninen & Holopainen 2006: 7; see

chapter 2.2. for different conceptualizations). The other terms used in the context of small-

scale and low-rise development – and interchangeably also to mean attached urban living - are

“kaupunkipientalo” (small-scale urban home), “kaupunkirivitalo” (city row house), and

“kaupunkiomakotitalo” (urban single-family home).

On an applied level, there are currently two main active project sites for the introduction of

the more conceptualized Helsinki townhouses adjacent to Malmi airfield in suburban North-

East Helsinki. Both are pilot project areas, or more aptly development laboratories,

35

specifically for the Helsinki townhouse (Visanti 2013). Ongoing and future plans also include

inner-city townhouses in brownfield harbor urban renewal areas and a large townhouse-

dominant “small-scale city” in Östersundom at the eastern edge of the city (Pulkkinen 2011).

In Stockholm, townhouses do not have a clear institutional path and on the contrary they seem

have emerged via the private housing sector. In any case, around the turn of the millennium

attached housing developments were no longer referred to only as row houses (radhus) but

also as “stadsradhus”, “cityradhus” (city row houses), or “urbana enbostadshus” (urban

single-family homes). This new terminology has been applied to development that is

associated with the conventional characteristics of townhouses, but also to structures that can

be found on rooftops, adjoining apartment buildings, or emerging from transformed industrial

buildings (see chapter 4.2. for pictures). All of these variations share key defining

characteristics of the townhouse such as a connection to the street (albeit the ones on rooftops

technically obviously don’t have this quality), an individual entrance, a yard or terrace if they

are not back-to-back units, and a vertical circulation. All in all, the key defining quality for

determining townhouses seems to be contradicting them to the more conventional “radhus”.

2.5.2. Conservation in Context

In Helsinki, the aims for achieving climate-conscious urban development are embedded in the

city’s current master plan from 2002 and in the city council’s Helsinki Action Plan for

Sustainability for 2009–2012 (Silfverberg et al. 2010: 6; Jaakkola 2012: 111-113). Moreover,

Helsinki has recently begun to draft a new city-wide master plan where the intensification of

existing urban fabric is suggested to be elevated as an ever more central principle in the

means to accommodate future growth (KSV 2012).

So far compaction and residential infill construction primarily been focused on under-utilized

and brownfield areas. Urban compaction beyond the redevelopment of brownfield sites has

proven to be challenging and generally not very much has been accomplished in existing

residential areas (Uudistuva kaupunki 2012: 35). In response to these concerns, the city has

introduced a program called the Renaissance of the Suburbs (Esikaupunkien renessanssi),

which primarily seeks to find solutions for advancing infill development (Esikaupunkien

renessanssi 2013).


36

Even if the strategic aim in Helsinki’s physical planning at the municipal level has been to

achieve a compact urban structure that relies on a functional rail transport network and

preserves existing networks of green areas (Silfverberg et al. 2010: 7), the settlement pattern

in Helsinki has taken a two-directional path when observed at the regional scale. While the

city of Helsinki has zoned for housing around the core of the area (Jaakola & Lönnqvist

2007), on the metropolitan level, substantial low-density sprawl has occurred in the outer

suburbs especially from the 1990s onwards (EEA 2006; Ratvio 2012). Consequently, the

Helsinki region has been noted to be among the most sprawling city regions in Europe (EEA

2006).

The main cause for this is that a combined and effective urban planning master plan

concerning the whole region has never existed and municipalities have focused on their own

strategic goals at the expense of the whole. Consequently the attraction of good tax payers and

investments has been high on the local municipalities’ political agendas (e.g. Taipale 2011).

The regional perspective has been established as an official guiding policy only in 2008 as the

municipalities of the Helsinki metropolitan region agreed to start preparing a joint master plan

with a goal of preventing urban sprawl (Karjalainen 2008). From a regional perspective, the

contemporary vision is to intensify the sprawling urban landscape at select locations and

create a public transport-reliant polycentric structure (Gordon et al. 2009).

In Stockholm, the OECD (2013) acknowledges that environmental criteria have long played

an important role in the city’s policy making. In the context of land use issues, urban

intensification has been a guiding policy since the beginning of the 1980s (Hall 2009: 198;

Ståhle & Marcus 2009). In 1999 the city adopted a policy known as “building the city

inwards”, which stresses that new development is to be built using already developed land

and emphasizing the core of the city. The view to look inwards instead of outwards has for

example triggered a policy to promote the construction of housing on suitable rooftops (Hall

2009).

In 2010, the city adopted its current master plan which is set to continue the project of inward-

building with the exception that there is now pressure to expand new development to green

spaces as many brownfield sites and other previously underdeveloped areas have already been

developed (Ståhle & Marcus 2009; Stockholms stad 2010). In the wider picture, the intense

37

urbanization process and policy aims to preserve the large green wedges (Boyle et al. 2012:

77-82) that characterize Stockholm are at risk of clashing.

According to Hall (2009: 197), in Stockholm, and by contrast to Helsinki, there exists a

“cultural agreement” between the other municipalities in the County of Stockholm that

growth ought to be directed primarily within Stockholm city limits. To relieve some of the

Stockholm growth pressure, a regional plan, RUFS 2010 (Stockholms läns landsting 2010),

has been drafted to shift the metropolitan region towards a more polycentric urban structure

from the current mono-centric one.

Compelling examples of the effectiveness of Stockholm’s conservation policies are the

nomination for the first European Green Capital in 2010, and that the city has managed to

reduce greenhouse gas emissions per capita over a period of continuous economic growth and

population increase, and resulting in a rate that is among the lowest in OECD metro areas

(OECD 2013: 9).

2.5.3. Choice in Context

Housing choice in both Helsinki and Stockholm is happening in conditions that are

characterized by two important interrelated factors. Both cities are significant modern

economic centers and are destinations of considerable net migration. From a housing market

perspective, there however are some differences between the cities.

Firstly, being cities in Finland and Sweden, the housing markets have been highly regulated

during the creation of the Nordic welfare state model, and the public sector has been a

significant player in all aspects of the market (Loikkanen & Lönnqvist 2007; Lundström &

Wilhelmsson 2007). From the early 1990’s onwards along with strong economic

restructuring, the housing markets have experienced considerable deregulation. According to

(Andersson et al. 2007: 24-25), this process has been much faster in Finland than in Sweden.

In the case of Stockholm, municipal housing companies are still large players, but their

operating model has transformed into that of the private sector. These developments in the

Stockholm market have had two important effects: the private sector of the housing market

has become an increasingly important player in the development of housing designs as public

procurement has decreased (Lundström & Wilhelmsson 2007: 338-339), and the political


38

connection to the housing market has prevailed as the municipal housing companies are still

publicly owned even if operating as the private sector (Bengs 2010b).

Secondly, while there are two main types of tenure in Finland (ownership and renting), in

Sweden there is a third form called tenant-ownership that is mainly associated with

apartment-building and row-house living. In this type of tenure, the resident owns a share to

live a specific apartment but ultimately does not concretely own his or her “walls” which are

owned collectively through the residents’ association. The tenant-ownership model is close

the common apartment ownership model via a housing cooperative that is in place in many

countries as in tenant-ownership the resident also has the right to sell the share on the market.

The key difference is that in the tenant-ownership model the resident is not free to rent the

apartment onwards. The key importance in comparison to e.g. Finland is that in Finland an

individual may freely invest in apartments and put them for rent. In Sweden this kind of

small-scale private initiative in the urban housing markets doesn’t to a great degree exist. It

has only been in 2009 that similar owner-occupancy as in Finland has been introduced to

Swedish legislation (Borglund et al. 2013).

Despite these differences in housing policy, the characteristics of the housing supply in

Helsinki and Stockholm are quite similar. It is almost entirely made up of apartment buildings

(86% in HEL and 90% in STO) and thereby only a small share of detached or attached houses

(City of Helsinki Urban Facts 2013; City of Stockholm 2013). A difference is that Helsinki

has performed better than Stockholm in keeping up with the sizeable growth in housing

production (Andersson et al. 2007: 19), which means that the need for new housing is much

more critical in Stockholm. According to Lundström & Wilhelmsson (2007) this has largely

to do with the above-mentioned liberation processes of the housing market which have had a

stronger impact on the operational side in the Swedish housing industry.

Another difference is that in Helsinki apartments are smaller than in Stockholm. In 2004, the

average person in the Helsinki Region had 35.4 sqm of living space whereas his or her

counterpart in the Stockholm area had slightly over 40 sqm (Lankinen et al. 2009: 17).

At the demand side, the nuclear family definitely is not the dominant household type on the

market as suggested by e.g. Rudlin & Falk (1999/2009). According to statistics produced by

City of Helsinki Urban Facts (2013) and the City of Stockholm (2013), the average household

size in both cities is 1.9, which is much lower than the EU average of 2.4 (Eurostat 2013), and

39

in Helsinki for example 49% of them are one-person households whereas 5-person

households make only 3% of the total. In Stockholm the share of one-person households is

allegedly even higher, around 60% of all households (Fortune 2012). In terms of age, the

populations in the cities are younger than the national averages which are also reflected in the

share of the elderly. The share of inhabitants over the age of 65 is 15.8% in HEL and 14.2%

in STO. Both shares are also below the national average and also the EU average (17.5%).

From a multiculturalism perspective, the share of foreign-born inhabitants is much higher in

Stockholm (ca. 30%) than in Helsinki (ca. 10%).

Future trends indicate that the share of elderly citizens in both cities is increasing but much

slower than at national level due to working-aged net migration (Eurocities 2012: 2; HSY

2012: 60). Foreign immigration will also continue to be a characteristic of future growth, but

in Helsinki it is projected to significantly intensify (Eurocities 2012: 2; HSY 2012: 60). In

Helsinki, the average household size is estimated to decrease and the average dwelling space

to increase (HSY 2012: 60) In Stockholm a factor that might influence these trends is that the

city experiencing a baby boom and families are increasingly staying in the city (Eurocities

2012: 2).

A lot of research has been done to interpret how these changing conditions affect people’s

housing decisions. In Finland, the national surveys for living preferences keep showing that

more than half of Finns living in urban areas would like to live in a detached home at some

point, and that more live in apartments than would like to. The qualities that people mostly

desire in their living environments are peace and quietness, access to services, an individual

yard and closeness to nature (Strandell 2011: 10-19). More place-specific research in the

Helsinki region has however showed that the ideal density people seek in their urban

environment is around 100 inhabitants per hectare, which is the same as the maximum that

townhouse-dominant neighborhoods potentially could house (Schmidt-Thomé et al. 2013: 2).

Furthermore, other qualities such as aesthetics, pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and

generally functional qualities are elevated among the national ones (Kyttä 2012). (Kepsu et al.

2010) on the other hand have researched the location preferences of knowledge workers in

Helsinki testing Florida’s (2012) arguments and discovered that there is significant

differentiation in what people value most within this group too. A common factor for all

groups was however that housing quality in the region is all but suffice; it is expensive and

lacking choice (Kepsu et al. 2010: 47-56).


40

In studies on Stockholmites’ living preferences, Fransson et al. (2001) have analyzed that the

most important qualities people seek from their living environment are a “central location”,

“good accessibility”, “commercial services” and “buzz”. In another study, themes such as

“safety”, ”relax and feel fine”, ”well-being”, “private life”, ”being amongst people”, ”social

contact”, and “will ease my life; save time” were topping lists (Arvola et al. 2010: 228-230).

The general interpretation of Arvola et al. (2010) was that the preferences were similar to

those in Finland with the exception that the “nature” dimension was downplayed and “urban

qualities” were elevated.

2.5.4. Community in Context

In Helsinki, planning for urban milieus is an emerging concept. The conventional practice has

been dominated by the modernist planning doctrine. The OECD (2003) for example

concludes that the sprawling urban landscape in the Helsinki region is not only due to fierce

competition for tax payers between the municipalities, but also because the principles of

modernist urban planning and architecture have held their position in Finland: “land use

planning still emphasises campus-style site plans, with too little physical definition and re-

enforcement of the street and sidewalk as a primary place for social interaction (with retail

shops for instance). And there is increasing dependence on and use of the automobile, even

for short trips that could be more conveniently taken on foot in traditional settlement patterns

(OECD 2003: 93)”. This has also had an influence on housing development: “Housing

projects […] are still designed in a limited number of architectural styles and types (OECD

2003: 93)”.

This might condition might however be changing with the city’s new master plan. One of the

seven visions that guide the drafting process is called “towards an urban Helsinki” and some

of the preliminary goals for the plan are for example to extend the urban core, create urban

environments at local centers, and turn streets into public spaces (Helsingin yleiskaava 2013).

In Stockholm on the other hand, planning for urban milieus has been on the city’s agenda for

much longer. Hall (2009: 199) argues that the word “stadsmässighet” which translates as

“urban” or “urbanity” – defined as something that the inner city possesses and the suburbs

lack - has been an important term in the planning glossary already from the last quarter of the

41

20th

century onwards. Tunström’s (2007) analysis of Swedish planning discourse between

1988 and 2003 similarly suggests that a very strong New Urbanist conceptualization of

urbanity is a dominant driver of planning practice. Tunström however also shows concern

over the issue that the conceptualization is rather closed and potentially excludes large parts

of the city as anti-urban: “The ‘city’, or the ‘urban life’ in the discourse, is not really open to

everyone, and those not living in the central city are not considered as living legitimate urban

lives (p. 696)”.

In Stockholm’s new 2010 master plan, The Walkable City, the city continues to emphasize

developing neighborhoods for urban communities “by not losing sight of the historic assets

created throughout the life of the city, while also looking forward and creating conditions for

healing the wounds that have been left in the fabric of the city. In the future, the walkable city

will not stop at the historic tollgates around the centre, but will stretch far beyond and link up

the whole of Stockholm (Stockholms stad 2010: 1)”.

2.5.5. Cost in Context

From the perspective of the global economy, Helsinki and Stockholm are both well-integrated

into the global economy and contain strong knowledge-based clusters, which set them among

the 10 richest metro-regions in Europe (FORA 2010). Especially Stockholm stands out with

the largest ICT cluster in Europe and as the financial center of the Nordic countries (FORA

2010: 14).

From a strategic perspective, Stockholm has also prevailed well. The city launched a project

“Vision 2030” in 2006, branded itself as “The Capital of Scandinavia”, and has consequently

managed to get business and residents to work together for a future that will keep the city

prosperous (Paschou & Metaxas 2013). These efforts have been noted elsewhere too. In a

recent report by the The Economist Intelligence Unit (2013) of “places to be in 2025”,

Stockholm was ranked 8th

among 120 cities worldwide.

Helsinki on the other hand has been more modest in this context. The city together with its

neighboring municipalities published a competitiveness strategy for the metropolitan region in

2009 (Menestyvä metropoli…2009) which sets out goals to keep Helsinki in the competition


42

for years to come. But they city region doesn’t have a concise marketing or branding strategy

as e.g. Stockholm does (Pukkila 2011).

The cost of housing is a contemporary challenge in both capitals. According to Loikkanen

(2013), one of the key factors for this is a lack of housing supply due to inefficient land-use

policies. Helsinki is a prime example of the effects that uncoordinated urban development can

cause in growing urban centers as described in chapter (2.5.2.). In Stockholm, the supply

deficit is more associated with the housing industry restructuration side-effects as described in

the previous chapter. However, the city’s green wedges policy can to some degree be

associated with similar effects as the fragmented use of land in Helsinki as the large green

areas contain growth to already developed areas which are more costly to develop (Boyle et

al. 2012).

Despite these claims, the green wedges are more closely linked with social costs. According

to (Lilja 2002), the star-shaped structure of the city has led to relatively closed-off “urban

islands” which have proven to strengthen social segregation processes, especially in the

Million Homes Programme areas. Despite ambitious social integration policies in both cities,

there are for example significant differences in spatial ethnic segregation between the cities:

in some of Stockholm’s suburbs 80% of the residents have immigrant backgrounds whereas

in Helsinki the highest shares are only 20% (Vilkama 2011).

In terms of the construction industry, both cities are dealing with large-scale construction

companies and with very few small or medium-sized actors (Bengs 2012). According to

Bengs (2012: 52), already in the 1980s the Swedish construction industry was the most

concentrated in the OECD countries and Finland’s was the second most. Moreover, at the

beginning of the 21st century there were only three national construction companies in

Sweden (Bengs 2010: 131). The situation has consequently led to allegations of inefficiency

and lack of innovation in both cities. Furthermore, both cities have conventionally favored

large-scale development areas in their lot policies which has restricted the capacity of small

and medium-sized actors to enter these markets (Ahonen et al. 2008: 79-80; Bengs 2010a:

131-132; Bengs 2010b).

In Helsinki, the city has begun to support group-building (see chapter 2.2.) efforts as one

instrument in its housing policy palette to intervene with this situation: “The support to

43

group-building is targeted to diversify the construction domain (Helsingin kaupunki 2012:

63)”. In Stockholm, such interventions are yet to emerge (Schartner 2013).


44

2.6. Conceptual Framework and Research Questions

Housing and urban development in the 21st century is affected by contested urban utopias of

the past decade, multiple global socio-economic influences, and the context-specific

interpretations and approaches to them. Based on this theory and a literature review on

townhouses, the basic assumptions that explain the emergences of townhouses in

contemporary times are:

Townhouses are developed because of their eco-efficient qualities in residential

development.

Townhouses are developed to provide housing options in order to support the needs of

a more heterogeneous mix of household compositions, different cultural backgrounds

and contemporary working conditions.

Townhouses are developed to create urban milieus for urban lifestyles.

Townhouses are developed because of their potential cost-efficiency effects in

residential development.

Following this theoretical background, this thesis sets out to examine and compare the

emergence of townhouses in Helsinki and Stockholm. The research questions are:

1: “How are townhouses conceptualized in urban policy and planning in Helsinki and

Stockholm?”

2: “How have these ideas been materialized in practice?”

A sub-question for both main research questions is: “What are the key commonalities and

differences?”

45

3. Design and Method

This thesis approaches the study of townhouse development in Helsinki and Stockholm in a

comparative and qualitative manner. This is done on two layers. A qualitative content analysis

drawing inspiration from frame theory is applied to make sense of the core motivations that

are used to explain why townhouses are being built into the cities’ urban landscapes.

Furthermore, the comparative analysis is deepened by a comparison and description of select

materialized townhouse projects based on field observations.

Townhouses have official currency in the urban policy and planning debates in Helsinki and

there consequently is a somewhat established body of documentation on the topic in different

information outlets. The situation in Stockholm is however very much the opposite. This is a

crucial point when discussing townhouse development, because if it is examined

comparatively strictly in a public policy context, there is little to discuss. Therefore for the

purposes of this study it is more relevant to understand townhouse development as a sort of

“phenomenon” that is happening in both cities but reflecting the local ambitions of urban

policy-making and planning. This also makes the use of frame analysis and its core question

“what’s going on here?” a useful and appropriate approach for examining the topic.


46

3.1. Frame Analysis

Frame analysis is a research method that is principally concerned with dissecting how an issue

is defined and problematized, and the effect that this has on the broader discussion of the issue

(Hope 2010: 1). The concept has been constructed by Ervin Goffman (1974) as a structural

sociological analysis of the principles of organization that guide the ways in which men may

perceive the real world. This cognitive view (Shmueli 2008: 2049) introduces frames as

mental schemes that enable individuals to perceive and represent the world in certain ways

and to act upon these perceptions. The basic idea is that these schemes or frames inform

people to identify ‘what is going on’ in a particular situation. In more recent times, frame

analysis has also taken a communicative perspective which has been popular especially within

media studies to explore how a particular subject is communicated in e.g. journalism, but it

has also been used in the study of social movements and policy studies (König 2005).

This entails that the word ‘frame’ can be used both as a noun (a frame) and as a verb (to

frame). According to Shmueli (2008: 2048-2049), ‘frame’ as a noun signifies the boundary

within which a picture is displayed and made salient from the background; it plays a filtering

role in perception, interpretation and understanding of specific situations. The verb ‘to frame’

on the other hand refers to the process of constructing a frame during communication, which

ultimately may be used to conceptualize and interpret, or manipulate and persuade (Shmueli

2008: 2048-2049).

This study combines the two perspectives to apply frame analysis in an instrumental manner

to highlight ‘what is going on’ with townhouses in the two cities and lay the ground for a

comparative analysis. More specifically, inspiration is drawn from the application of frame

analysis in the study of social movements, which generally takes a dynamic approach and

focuses on agency and competition about different meanings given to particular issues the

movement is concerned with (Snow & Benford 1988).

Of relevance to this research is the view that social movements use framing to construct and

mobilize their agenda generally by combining three essential elements 1) a diagnosis of the

social condition in need of remedy; 2) a prognosis for how to affect such a remedy; and 3) a

rationale for action (Snow & Benford 1988; Entman 1993). In the study of social movements

a core area of interest is how these processes of issue-framing resonate with wider

47

understandings of the subject area among potential movement supporters which ultimately

contributes to the success or failure of a movement (Snow & Benford 1988).

The theoretical point of departure stemming from frame theory in this research is thus that

whenever an agent communicates about townhouse development, the complex nature of the

topic is dissected into a set of interrelated causalities – frames – which are used when

discussing the issue in a given situation. The area of emphasis with these particular frames is

however not on the “how/why?” dimension of framing, but on the content-inspired more static

“what” dimension of the cognitive view of frames. When the discovered frames in the broader

discourse around townhouse development in Helsinki and Stockholm are put together and

compared and contrasted between both contexts, it is possible to construct an understanding

of “what is going on” in each city.


48

3.2. Data Collection & Processing

The research data for this study was collected through desktop research and field research.

Desktop research was firstly used to collect available literature on townhouses both from

online journal articles and academic libraries in Helsinki and Stockholm.

Secondly, it was applied to collect data for the analysis. This was done through systematic

examination of academic and professional journals from both countries and the online

archives of well-established newspapers from both cities (see list in appendix B) for articles

that deal with townhouses and/or townhouse development between the years 2000 to 2013,

when applicable. In addition, an internet search was done to single out relevant articles from

other electronic literary sources.

The field research also had two stages. Firstly, it consisted of semi-structured interviews with

professionals who have been engaged with townhouse development (see overview of

interviewees in appendix A). The interviewees were selected based on different combinations

of experience in and knowledge of townhouse development in municipal urban planning,

private townhouse development and design, and townhouse-related research activities. This

thesis will retain a level of anonymity in discussing their interview responses as the goal of

the study is to concentrate on the substance and not the actors. Therefore the respondents are

given a random code (R1-R7) which will be used in the analysis.

The item list for the interviews was constructed based on the theory used in this study and a

preliminary examination of a narrow set of the publications and online news stories in order to

outline recurring themes in the townhouse discourses. These themes were then used as the

basis for guiding the semi-structured interviews. In total, 7 interviews were conducted and

transcribed; 3 in Stockholm and 4 in Helsinki. 6 interviews were face-to-face interviews and

one of the Helsinki interviews was done via email.

The second fieldwork stage was to identify, visit and photograph townhouse projects in both

cities to get insights of what has been built so far (see chapter 4.2.). The list of visited

townhouses was not exhaustive, but reflects the projects that were mostly discussed in the

research data.

49

Concerning data processing, there is no predetermined way for conducting frame analysis

(König 2005). Most studies however use techniques borrowed from discourse analyses and

sociolinguistics to identify frames (König 2005). According to Horsti (2005: 51-52), the case-

specific research questions, data, and research frame determine the way frame analysis is

applied. In this research it is applied as qualitative content analysis. According to Tuomi &

Sarajärvi (2009: 103-104) content analysis is textual analysis where the researcher seeks to

identify meanings in a text and represent a general and concise description of the related

object of study. Content analysis essentially provides raw material for theoretical evaluation.

The above-described conceptualization of frame analysis was applied to the collected data to

dissect 1) the motivation for townhouse development (i.e. what is the ongoing development of

townhouses a remedy/prognosis for?) and 2) for identifying the key development areas within

townhouse development (i.e. what are the diagnosis and prognosis for better townhouse

development?).

In a note about the validity of the research, the research process has been characterized by the

use of three languages: some data is translated from Finnish to English by the author and

some from Swedish to English. The interviews in Finland were conducted in Finnish and in

Sweden in English. In the case of the latter, English was not the first language of the

interviewees not the interviewer. Overall, emphasis has been paid to minimize conceptual

misunderstandings, but during data processing the researcher has at times had to rely on

assumptions as given meanings can many manifold. And finally, due to geographical

restrictions, summer-time work arrangements and information outlet opening hours, research

material was much more difficult to gather from Stockholm than from Helsinki.


50

4. Comparative Analysis of Townhouses in Helsinki and

Stockholm

4.1. What’s Going on? – The Main Concepts of the Townhouse

Discourses

The findings of the research are discussed in this chapter using Rudlin & Falk’s (1999/2009)

framework of the “four Cs” which also structures the theoretical background. The analysis

predominantly follows a scheme of first discussing the townhouse discourse in Helsinki, then

Stockholm and thirdly comparing and contrasting between the two. A broad picture of the

comparisons is concisely summarized in tables under each “C”, building up to an overall

assessment (table 6.).

4.1.1. Conservation

The research data shows that townhouse development has a clear link to environmental

concerns in the Helsinki discourse (table 2.). (R4) for example states that townhouse

development is connected with: “the need to intensify the urban form and use of land”, and

(HS 2008) writes that “eco-efficiency is one the core concepts in the planning [of

townhouses]”. Moreover, townhouses and their development are characterized with adjectives

such as “sustainable” (Mukala 2011: 41) and “ecologic” (R1). In Stockholm, townhouses are

conversely not discussed in direct relation to environmental concerns. But they are linked to

the need for higher-density development.

Table 2. ”Conservation” in comparsion.

Helsinki Townhouses Stockholm Townhouses

Environmental concerns a driver

Environmental concerns not a driver

Land-use efficiency problematized as

possibly becoming too high

Land-use efficiency problematized as not

being high enough

51

In broader terms, the specific themes that are made salient in the conservation discourse can

in the case of Helsinki on the one hand be divided into a frame that emphasizes their land-use

efficiency and thereby the connection and departure from the national Dense & low-rise

project, and on the other hand into a frame that concerns the practice of infill development. In

the Stockholm discourse, townhouses are not a focus in the discussion by any means but

rather perceived as by-products of ambitions for achieving high-density neighborhoods.

In Helsinki, following the messages of Visanti (2003), Korpivaara & Tuokko (2003), and

Kytösaho (2003), (R4) identifies the aims of the national Dense & low-rise project as the root

for townhouse development: “At that time dense and low-rise development was a hot

discussion topic. It was project for the Ministry of the Environment. […] That was one of the

motives”.

Townhouses are however perceived to be more land-use efficient than the national project’s

guidelines for small-scale development and therefore the building type is elevated as a more

suitable option for the needs of urban development in Helsinki. Visanti (2003: 18) for

example reflects this motive: “There [in the suburbs of Helsinki] dense and low-rise

development can come close to the land-use efficiency of apartment buildings. The […] floor-

area ratio of 0.3 defined by the Ministry of the Environment is however not sufficient to

replace apartment buildings”. Overall, this framing of the townhouse as a quest for achieving

a denser city clearly corresponds with the background that the Greater Helsinki Region is

characterized by sprawling low-density development (EEA 2006).

The land-use efficiency of townhouses is taken into a geographical context via the case of the

future Östersundom project area and linking the issue with the promotion of public

transportation, and thereby ultimately also the polycentric structure consisting of a series of

dense nodes that the city of Helsinki has claimed to seek after (Gordon et al. 2009). Here the

land-use efficiency of townhouses is taken to the top end of the density scale as the goal for

achieving a townhouse-dominant neighborhood is problematized. Its ability to meet the

sufficient density requirements for functioning rail transport is not seen as a certainty (R4):

“And then if the place [Östersundom] is desired to have the Metro connection, it presumes

efficient urban development. But how is that equation going to work out?”

In this context and also more widely, the fire regulations and handicap norms that guide

housing development are identified as key constraints against the development of high-


52

density townhouses. These are argued to have restrictions on the height of buildings due to

elevator and escape-route requirements (e.g. Visanti 2007: 22-23) as well as the narrowness of

buildings due to handicap norms (R2). (R1) describes that the combined result is a challenge

for building higher than two stories, which basically means that “the full potential of

townhouse development is not achieved in Finland (R2)”.

It is also interestingly speculated that for the long term, the land-use efficiency of townhouses

might altogether not be sufficient enough for Helsinki and the building type will ultimately be

pushed towards the outer suburbs (R4): “As Helsinki is the core city of the region, I see that

the role of detached and attached housing is even smaller in the future. […] Helsinki is even

more clearly a city of apartment-buildings in the future.” (R1) sees that the question of land-

use efficiency is not so much of a factual issue as a political choice of what kind of urban

environments will be built, because studies have shown that the sufficient density

requirements for e.g. the metro line can be met with townhouses.

The other distinguishable frame in the context of “conservation” links townhouses with the

practice of urban intensification in Helsinki. The message made most salient is that while

infill development using townhouses is seen as beneficial for the environment, in practice it is

troublesome: “Because people live there [in the suburbs] and they generally don’t accept the

construction of new buildings on their yards (R1)”. (R4) continues that “at the moment when

don’t have a single piece of land that could be developed non-efficiently. And increasingly

[…] challenging locations such as traffic buffer zones will need to be developed. There are no

easy times ahead”. This frame resonates with the notions that infill practice is yet to be

organized efficiently in Helsinki (Uudistuva kaupunki 2012).

Contrary to theory (Vernez Moudon 1989; Friedman 2012), the theme of resource-efficiency

is not emphasized apart from a couple of brief references to the durability of townhouses

(Mukala 2011: 41; Jalkanen et al. 2012: 25). But a new resource-related argument supporting

townhouse development is presented: the building type is perceived to have potential in

decreasing people’s needs to drive to their summer houses for yard-related activities (Jalkanen

2012: 36).

In the Stockholm discourse the townhouse is not directly linked to environmental policy, but

these structures are framed to have a role as by-products in the quest for high-density

development. (R7) says that: “There are many people asking for flats, they have difficulties in

53

finding a place to live so that it is not the solution to make a lot of row houses” In other

words, townhouses in this context are dominantly perceived as pragmatic solutions to

achieving dense development in places where apartment buildings are not fit. (R5) synthesizes

this view: “And where you have one-family houses, it can be too brutal to put in apartment

buildings, and then you put in these terraces in between. You find little plots that are

leftovers”.

From the city’s point of view, the land-use efficiency of townhouses is thus not seen as

sufficient enough to have a more significant role in urban densification. That is perceived as

(R5) puts it: “a bad use of the land”. As in Helsinki, the main obstacles in achieving higher

densities with Stockholm townhouses are local handicap norms and fire regulations, which

similarly restrict the vertical orientation of the buildings to a maximum two to three stories

(R5, R6). These concerns in Stockholm as in Helsinki resemble the criticism (Duany et al.

2000) that the proponents of culturalist urbanism have communicated against the legacy of the

modernists which has allegedly made the urban project a highly standardized and regulated

practice that is not open to innovation.

Why environmental concerns are not directly addressed in the Stockholm townhouse

discourse is likely to have a connection with the fact that the practice of urban intensification

is already a well-established policy in Stockholm (Duany et al. 2000) and it therefore doesn’t

need the “support” of environmental arguments. Also the systematical use of townhouses as

proxies between existing lower-density development and new higher-density development

suggests that there is a mature way to balance the delivery of denser development.

Furthermore, since Stockholm is already very comprehensively eco-conscious (OECD 2013),

it might be taken as a given issue that development is eco-friendly.

In comparison, the townhouse discourse in Helsinki in the environmental context supports the

theory on the driving forces of townhouse development whereas in Stockholm explicit

environmental concerns are not made salient at all. On the contrary, in Stockholm the issue of

adding density is discussed in a very pragmatic way as part of the infill practice discourse and

a pressing need to develop all available underused land. These differences between the cities

can be understood via the matureness stage of the infill apparatus: the already well-established

practice in Stockholm doesn’t need the “support” of environmental arguments whereas in

Helsinki solutions for organizing infill practice are still being discussed and environmental


54

arguments are applied to legitimize the densification processes. Why environmental issues are

not a focus in the Stockholm discourse ultimately also highlights the fact that townhouse

development is not being pushed as a public policy like in Helsinki.

The view of an uncertain future for townhouses put forward in the Helsinki discourse is a

controversial argument because it makes current efforts to introduce townhouses look rather

pointless. One interpretation is that under its growth pressures, the pragmatism apparent in

Stockholm’s approach to land-use efficiency ultimately seems to carry most weight in the

densification process. Also the political attitudes towards creating high-density environments

seem to be quite narrow and in the context of this study especially the small-scale and finer-

grained kind of urban environments are contested.

Perceiving townhouses as vehicles for material resource-efficiency has little currency in the

townhouse discourses in neither Helsinki nor Stockholm. This likely has to do with the fact

that townhouses are not replacements for single-family detached homes in either city but for

apartment buildings which are comparably equally if not more resource-efficient than

townhouses. The main concern in both cities is actually that townhouses could be more

resource-efficient should the existing handicap norms and fire regulations be more flexible

towards townhouse development.

55

4.1.2. Choice

In the context of discourses on housing demand and supply (table 3.), the most salient

argument for developing townhouses in Helsinki is the idea of offering a substitute for the

suburban detached single-family home accompanied with a promise for urban living. In

Stockholm townhouses are also considered to offer options for urban living, but as

apartments.

Table 3. ”Choice” in comparision.


Link with detached single-family home

living

Link with apartment living

Link with urban lifestyles


Link with a desire to diversify housing

supply

No strong link with goal to diversify

housing supply

In the conceptualization that is most prominent in Helsinki, the qualities of the townhouse are

seen in the context of Finn’s living preferences (Strandell 2011) for single-family homes (R2;

R4). These include ”a private yard and entrance (R3)”, “as much space as in a detached

single-family home (R2)”, “closeness to nature (Ojala 2001: 36)”, “autonomy from

neighbors (Vakkuri 2011: 11)”, “the absence of a housing cooperative (Manninen 2006:

24)”, “ground-related qualities (R4)”, “peace and quietness (Jalkanen 2012: 36)”, and “do-

it-yourself potential” (Kytösaho 2003: 21).

Moreover, townhouses are compared to housing options in Sipoo (R3), Nurmijärvi (Vakkuri

2011: 11) and Espoo (R4) which are conventionally associated with spacious detached homes

and suburban living in Finland. Potential tenants are dominantly described to be families (R2;

R4; Jalkanen 2012: 35) and especially in the case of suburban townhouses, “average families”

(R4). Altogether this conceptualization of the townhouse is seen as “something that combines

the benefits of row houses and detached single-family homes” (Ojala 2001: 36).


56

This framing quite obviously works to benefit Helsinki in the competition for tax payers in

the location dynamics of the fragmented Greater Helsinki Region (EEA 2006), and is also

elevated as the first aim in the most recent publication on townhouses (Jalkanen et al. 2012:

11) by the city’s planning department. (R3; R4) also touch upon this issue: “[…] the idea is

[…] That there is an alternative [for families] for leaving Helsinki (R4)”.

When conceptualized in this way, the townhouse is altogether in strict contrast to the theory

on townhouse development and changing user needs. There is little to none linkage with the

themes of changing household compositions or contemporary socio-economic needs (Rudlin

& Falk 1999: 91-93) even if the indicators of these in Helsinki also support the

conceptualization suggested by theory (City of Helsinki Urban Facts 2013).

In a less salient conceptualization of the townhouse, the building type is however also

presented to cater for more diverse ways of urban living. One argument is the need to provide

housing options for those with an “international lifestyle” and who are “accustomed to living

close to other people” (R4). In another argument the townhouse is regarded as a potential

housing solution for those that come from different cultures (Manninen 2006: 25). The notion

of servicing a more diverse crowd is also extended beyond considering families as the

household norm in a few statements: “The townhouse will also make a representative home to

couples or singles (Jalkanen 2012: 36)”. This conceptualization of the Helsinki townhouse is

more closely associated with the inner-city townhouses, which are according to (R4):

“designed for a different grouping of people”.

This view of townhouses is more aligned with the theoretical assumptions explaining

townhouse development and respectively also Helsinki’s local conditions. Interestingly, there

is a geographical difference between the two kinds of conceptualizations of the townhouse.

Put together, the non-singular conceptualization of the townhouse is reflective of the view that

modern day workers are not a homogenous group of people even if often referred to under a

singular banner of knowledge-based workers (Kepsu et al. 2010). But at the same the

differences in the townhouse conceptualizations suggest that the inner-city townhouses in

Helsinki are more diverted towards this group of people whereas the suburban townhouses

have a different policy context – to contain families from moving further out into adjacent

municipalities.

57

Another issue that is made salient is an overall desire to increase variation to the housing

supply scene in Helsinki, which is perceived to be monotonous concerning both the dwelling

layouts (Mukala 2011: 41) and the variety of building types (R1):”Well, it’s so that in

Helsinki our distribution of building types is very one-sided and we have a lot of apartment

buildings and then we have a lot of detached single-family homes”. The construction industry

is seen to produce only very standardized solutions and the development of townhouses is

regarded as an antidote to this situation and which was launched as people have “had it up to

here with it [the situation] (R4)”. (R3) likewise sees that the housing producers have a narrow

view of their products and that the business is characterized by a general lack of innovation.

Townhouses could for example be used more creatively by “developing those new building

types that combine different conventional building types (R3).” The issue of flexibility with

respect to the beneficial qualities of a townhouse is also touched upon in this context (R1,

R3), but greatly in the sense that it is lacking from townhouses at the moment. Overall, these

arguments correlate with research findings about residents’ criticisms of monotonous housing

(Kepsu et al. 2010), and also with the arguments on the concentration of the construction

industry and associated lack of innovation (Bengs 2010a).

The perceived challenge for creating variation to the housing stock is however not only the

blame of the construction companies, but also local politicians. (R1) argues that they have

oftentimes proven to be intolerant towards new concepts for living. Examples of this are a

decision to block the planning of floating houses and a narrow view that everything needs to

suit the average user in public policy. According to (R1), townhouses are also seen in a bad

light in this context, because they tend to have large floor surface areas and consequently end

up becoming relatively pricey housing products. Thereby they are also potentially out of the

reach of the average user. In broader terms, (R3) suggests that the whole “culture of

construction” is trimmed to produce sameness and that sufficient proactive measures are yet

to be taken in changing anything despite the criticisms. A third perceived challenge for

townhouses is that there is no tradition in living in them in Finland, “on more than two levels

(R3)”.

If in Helsinki townhouses are predominantly associated with detached single-family homes, in

Stockholm townhouses are strongly linked with apartment living. Although some voices

(Andersson 2006) in the discourse call for similar qualities of autonomy and single-lot

development as in Helsinki, in wider terms there is little debate about the townhouse as an


58

alternative to apartments. On the contrary, it is said (R6) that townhouses are attractive if seen

as upgraded form of apartment living: “[…] if you see it as a more upmarket variation of […]

something that is in connection with apartment living. Then it becomes like a more exclusive

option. In that context it becomes attractive on the market (R6)”.

Also Vestbro (2006: 60-62) argues that single-lot and single housing-unit townhouses would

not be attractive, because there are mostly singles and childless couples on the housing market

and additionally people would find the responsibilities of taking care of an individual home

too much of a burden. Vestbro (2006: 60-62) also suggests that single-lot townhouses would

not suit the needs of families, because they wouldn’t offer flexibility to support life changes.

Vestbro (2006: 60-62) continues that the kind of private ownership associated with the

previously mentioned townhouses is not an interesting option in contemporary times, because

people are very mobile and don’t want to settle down in one location. (R5) adds that the

single-lot townhouse would probably do badly on the market as people tend to choose

conservatively and do what they are accustomed to. Schömer (2006: 54) adds that the idea of

vertically-oriented living is altogether a strange concept for Swedish living and proposes

small-scale apartment buildings as a better alternative.

This conceptualization of the townhouse as a care-free and more luxurious mode of apartment

living is to some extent in line with the townhouse theory suggesting urban arrangements, and

also supported by the fact that families in Stockholm are staying in the city (Eurocities 2012).

The conceptualization is however missing arguments about housing concerns for people with

different cultural backgrounds, which is interesting given that 30% (City of Stockholm) of

residents in Stockholm have foreign roots. Moreover, townhouses in the Stockholm context

are not associated with flexibility. Only Vestbro (2006) touches upon this topic and links it to

mobility rather than calls for more flexible townhouse development.

Another frame in the Stockholm discourse is that townhouses go together with urban living.

Townhouses are perceived to be attractive if linked with “closeness to center” (SvD 2008),

“urban milieus” (R6), “public transport” (R5) and “vibrancy” (Slottner 2011). Furthermore,

the townhouse is often defined as the opposite of the “modernist radhus” (R5; R6; R7). This

conceptualization supports the arguments explaining townhouse development in the

theoretical background (Florida 2012) and associated indicators of the local context (Fransson

et al. 2001).

59

In contrast to Helsinki, the aim of adding variation to the housing market is not made salient

in the Stockholm discourse. The one of the few exceptions is a conscious move to add family

housing in the southern parts of Stockholm, which have traditionally had a higher share of

apartment buildings than other suburban areas of Stockholm (R7).

All in all, when comparing the “choice” frames of the two cities, a clear difference is that

townhouses are placed quite differently on the imaginary building-typology map in Helsinki

and Stockholm: the townhouses in Helsinki are situated next to detached single-family living

whereas in Stockholm they are situated next to urban apartment living. This difference

between the conceptualizations highlights the ongoing competition for tax payers within the

Greater Helsinki Region. But it also underscores the difference as suggested in theory (Hall

2009; Arvola et al. 2010) that people and policies in Stockholm are more urban-oriented than

in Helsinki as well as the differences in the role of owner-occupation between the two

countries. In Stockholm there are also fewer reasons for competing for relocating families,

especially when families are staying in the inner city (Eurocities 2012).

The demographic make-up issue is largely not elevated as a cause for motivating townhouse

development in either city. Moreover, the elderly are left out the townhouse discourse in both

cities altogether. This might be explained especially in Helsinki by the conceptualization

towards families, but also by the fact that both cities are attracting young residents and

altogether have a relatively low share of elderly people (City of Helsinki Urban Facts 2013;

City of Stockholm 2013). Concerning people and townhouses, families aside, the most salient

arguments are actually made in both cities that they are not fit for local markets, because

people have no previous tradition of living in them.

The issue of flexibility is also left to the background, even though the norms and regulations

constraining its introduction probably explain its absence as a realistic motivation

significantly. Discussion on work-space integration is also virtually non-existent: there are

only two brief notes of the topic in the Helsinki discourse (Jalkanen 2012: 36; Jalkanen et al.

2012: 22). These findings imply that townhouses are first and foremost conceptualized

through other qualities than their interior designs.


60

4.1.3. Community

In both capitals, the research data suggests that townhouses are clearly linked to attempts for

creating urban milieus (table 4.). Especially in Helsinki this is framed as a breakaway from

modernist planning doctrines.

Table 4. Community in comparison.


Goal to create urban milieus


Backwards-oriented view

More forward-oriented view

Incremental development

Corporate development

The kind of neighborhood character that townhouses are perceived to produce in Helsinki is

characterized as “urban” and it evolves around the urban street (R1; R2; R4). Visanti (2006:

12) crystallizes this view well: “There will be a need to build onto the edges of the plot and

the neighboring houses. The streets receive a clearly defined character. The resident of the

small-scale city is a visible part of the urban community. The small-scale city has public

spaces where people meet. Urban streets are very suitable such activities and appropriate

places for traditional urban development”.

Moreover, special emphasis is given to the dimension that townhouses are linked to a

departure from modernist urban planning and specifically the kind of planning that has

created the modernist garden suburb areas (R1; R2). In addition, the urban approach to

planning is seen to be able to heal these areas (R1). The concept of urbanity is also associated

with the Helsinki townhouse’s general departure from the national Dense & low-rise project

as it was perceived to be driven by an “anti-urbanistic world view (R4)”.

The imaginary setting that townhouses are associated with is a Western European urban

context, which underscores a clear demarcation from an Eastern European urban setting (R1).

Furthermore, the Western European urban context is associated with Eliel Saarinen, whose

61

work is now perceived to be continued (R1; R4; Visanti 2006: 12). More generally, this

conception of a “broken tradition” is extended to the late 19th

-century and early 20th

-century

Finnish wooden town tradition (R4; Ojala 2001: 35; Visanti 2006: 12).

The overall goal is on the one hand to reinforce the urban tradition that Helsinki possesses

(R1) but on the other also to create a new kind of culture of living that doesn’t currently exist

(R4): “[…] in a way the angle that supply creates demand. That it’s also possible to change

the culture of living in a certain way”. In addition, there is also a view that townhouse

development is to be done in tandem with safeguarding local distinctiveness (HS 2010) and as

exemplified with the Helsinki townhouse competition (Sjöroos & Jalkanen 2010). In contrast

to the dominant framing, there are also arguments that the townhouse is already too urban and

not fit for Finnish conditions (Sanaksenaho 2013: 16).

It is made salient that the local construction companies do not share the same ideal for

creating urban environments but are conversely proponents of the modernist planning doctrine

(R1). This same view is also extended towards the architecture profession (Visanti 2007: 41).

The Helsinki townhouse discourse in addition has a link with incremental urbanism through

the group-building and private builder models, which are perceived to be able to provide more

varied streetscapes than if townhouses are made as “instant architecture” (Dunham-Jones &

Williamson 2011) by the construction companies (R1; R2). (R2) however is worried that

townhouse construction at the moment is heading towards the anti-urban “instant city”

approach. (R1; R4) on the other hand note that this isn’t a contemporary concern with regard

to townhouses, because the construction industry is not interested in building them at all. On

the contrary, the large house-building enterprises have allegedly sought to prevent the

diffusion of townhouses.

Next to the mindset of the construction industry, numerous norms and regulations are

discussed as constraints in the planning of urban locations. Especially parking norms and

traffic planning norms are elevated as difficult hurdles (R1; Visanti 2007: 22-23] following

the critiques of the culturalist urbanists (Duany et al. 2000). Even if all views are

predominantly done in the same spirit, it doesn’t seem clear that there substance-wise is a

shared conceptualization what the “urban” character would ultimately look like. For example

it is argued that townhouses would still contribute to the creation of urban streets if two cars


62

would fit to be parked into the yard of a townhouse (R4) and elsewhere that proper urban

areas would only have street-side parking (R1).

All in all, Helsinki’s townhouses are clearly linked to an ambition for creating urban

neighborhoods (Sandercock 2010). These attempts are coupled up by aims to safeguard local

identities as suggested by e.g. Dovey et al. (2009). The Helsinki townhouse is also connected

to an incremental approach of doing so (Vernez Moudon 1989), but norms and regulations,

especially concerning parking arrangements and traffic planning, are found to be a challenge.

The OECD (2003) interpretation that modernism has kept its position in Finnish urban

planning proves to be accurate to some degree based on this analysis as some forces in the

development business are still argued to be pushing for the modernist model. But on the level

of rhetoric, the townhouse discourse underscores a clear distancing from the modernist

doctrines and a text-book example of traditional urbanism thought (Walters & Brown 2004).

Also in Stockholm townhouses are perceived to have a very strong link with ambitions for the

planning of urban environments (R5; R6; R7): “we had a very clear idea that we wanted to

make them a piece of urban context. So it was important for us to have a very close

relationship between the house and the street. And to have a patio towards the back, so you

get privacy towards the courtyard side and the house is designed also to handle the noise and

people passing in the street and other disturbances coming from the street (R6).”

In fact, the only negative view in the data is concerned that the townhouses which are being

built at the moment are not urban enough, even if the whole industry is perceived to have

become more urban “step by step” (R5). In this same context, the regulatory framework

guiding physical planning is also seen counterproductive (R5), but clearly less than in

Helsinki. [R6 and Anna] for example note that parking norms are sometimes challenging but

not unsolvable. Overall, these arguments resonate with the theory on townhouse development

(Rudlin & Falk 1999/2009) and the turn towards more urban approaches as well as

Stockholm’s local context of having established this in planning (Hall 2009).

The inspiration for Stockholm’s townhouse development has been drawn from the Anglo-

Saxon tradition (R6; R7) and modern-day projects from the Netherlands (R6), but also from

Sweden, following contemporary examples from medium-sized Swedish cities such as

Västerås (R7; SvD 2006). According to (R6), the inspiration from abroad however comes

second to the attempt to create urban environments: “Because it's much the same as in

63

Helsinki where you have this inner city, which is very well defined and how do you expand

that? That was the basic problem and there we saw a role for the townhouses. As a way of

achieving that denser context.”

Contrary to Helsinki, architects and also developers to some extent are identified to be the

ones who are most interested in townhouses and creating urban context with them [R5; R6;

R7). (R7) has a good example of this from a project: “In this case there were no row houses in

the competition planned. I think the developer wants them. And they want a mixture of

different kind of buildings”.

In Stockholm the townhouses are built in a large-scale format - the instant cities format

(Dunham-Jones & Williamson 2011) - and not incrementally as is attempted in Helsinki.

There are some voices calling for a small-scale approach to townhouses (R5; Andersson 2006;

Schömer 2006), but these calls are perceived to be blocked by city authorities, politicians, and

the construction industry. These perceptions reflect the situation described in context theory

(Bengs 2010b).

A key thing that frames townhouses in Stockholm is that they are almost entirely said to be

developed in attractive locations, the only exception being the Million Homes Programme

areas. This is rather logical given that they are predominantly market products, but when we

add that unlike in Helsinki there isn’t any discussion about extending the virtues of urbanity

to the Million Homes Programme areas (see next chapter for more on the Million Homes

Areas) the setting entails that the Stockholm townhouses celebrate only a certain kind of

urbanity as suggested by Tunström (2007), and which thereby potentially excludes other

views. These kinds of sentiments are apparent in the view of (SvD 2010): “Should you be able

to transform the Million Homes Programme areas to attractive residential areas it would

change the bigger cities dramatically. Then you could do infill production with for example

townhouses instead of looking for new land in the middle of nowhere”. In Helsinki by

contrast, many of the developments labeled as “urban” are associated with places that are

characterized as unattractive on the market apart from the inner-city ones (R1), which could to

some extent be considered to resemble Stockholm’s conceptualization of townhouses.

In comparison, townhouse development in both cities is framed with a desire to create urban

environments but in Helsinki there seems to be a stronger emphasis on the departure from

modernism. And especially concerning the desire to bridge a “broken tradition” and become


64

more “European”. These ambitions are however not shared by everyone as the political

obstacles and calls for more “local” conceptualizations exemplify. In Stockholm inspiration is

also drawn from abroad, but also from Sweden in a contemporary context. The framings in

both cities have New Urbanist (Walters & Brown 2004) connotations in the physical sense,

but the “neo-traditional thought” is stronger in Helsinki even if Stockholm has been

associated with such ideas before (Tunström 2007). And finally, the conceptualization of

urbanity appears to be, at least to some extent, more open for different views in Helsinki than

in Stockholm, where urbanity has argued to be out of reach for especially the populations of

the modernist suburbs (Tunström 2007).

Furthermore, an interesting difference is that in Helsinki there clearly is some conceptual

confusion between the perceptions of for whom townhouses are developed for and what kind

of an urban environment they seek to produce. The former one is set out to support leafy

single-family home environments whereas the latter conceptualization is specifically seeks to

introduce urban milieus.

4.1.4. Cost

In the economic dimension of townhouse development, the building type in Helsinki is very

much in the middle of debates about how construction should be organized. In Stockholm on

the other hand, the economic context of the townhouse is clearly a part of an agenda to make

the city more attractive in the global competition for investments and labor. In both capitals

townhouses are also linked to the socio-political revitalization ambitions in the modernist

garden city neighborhoods (table 5.).

Table 5. ”Cost” in comparison.


Townhouses associated with a break

away from large-scale corporate construction

Townhouses associated with global

markets

Linked with social mix and urban renewal


65

In Helsinki, townhouses are framed as vehicles to achieve cost-efficiency in urban

development. The small-scale incremental nature of developing them is strongly attached to

an idea to be able to achieve cheaper housing than via the services of the large-scale

construction industry (R3). But the most salient angle in this context is that there are

challenges in organizing this in practice. (R4) explains that: “[…] It isn’t always a very easy

equation. The problem with these townhouses is […] that a sufficiently attractive equation for

their realization can be crafted. As it’s already challenging to build with walls attached to the

neighbor, then not to mention doing it in a difficult area.”

The identified underlying problem is that there is no tradition in building small-scale attached

housing (R1; R3; Vakkuri 2011: 12). (R3) stresses that when the entire “culture of

construction” is geared toward creating large-scale apartment building areas or prefabricated

detached homes, the perquisites for building a townhouse are at odds with the established

practices of the entire industry. (R3) continues, and suggests along the lines of Bengs (2010a),

that the problem is not only pragmatic, but is enforced by links between the construction

industry and local policy-making, namely regarding lot-policy. Consequently, small and

medium-sized actors are marginalized.

The previously discussed dilemma about whether the townhouse-dominant areas in

Östersundom would ultimately be able to deliver such land-use efficiency that would support

the metro and other public transport has an economic dimension as well. In addition to

questions about the amount of political will to introduce a certain level of density, this issue

can also be linked to questions about the innovation capacity of the construction industry

(Bengs 2012: 52).

Finally, the Helsinki townhouse has a strategic revitalization frame which links townhouses to

a target for prolonging housing careers and increasing housing type variation in the

neighborhood unit areas (R4; Manninen & Holopainen 2006: 36). (Jalkanen 2012: 38)

synthesize the underlying goal: “Attractive townhouse dwellings can potentially be used […]

to lift the status of the area”. This conceptualization is however also seen as controversial

because townhouses are such small housing units that they are not likely to have any

substantial impact to the wider imbalance of the residential structure in a given location (R1).

This motivation driving townhouse development is new to theory in the sense that this

revitalization scheme doesn’t first and foremost belong to a neo-liberal agenda to compete


66

with global cities (Musterd & Kovács 2013), but to a socio-political one. This can be

interpreted as a reflection of the strong welfare state background of Finland and the Nordic

countries that has played a very active role in the housing market some decades ago and in

relative terms still continues to do so (Loikkanen & Lönnqvist 2007; Lundström &

Wilhelmsson 2007). A vague link to the neo-liberal agenda can also be drawn through the

previously discussed urban attributes of the inner-city townhouses as expressed by (R4) when

discussing an “international lifestyle”, but predominantly Helsinki townhouses are not

perceived as assets in the global economy.

In Stockholm, the city’s growth pressure is raising land prices, which (R7) interpreters as: “In

Stockholm we build small row houses that cost very much”. This conceptualization has a link

to the theory of Loikkanen (2013) on land-use policy and its effect on rising land costs, which

in Stockholm has a link to the practiced green wedges policy (Boyle et al. 2012) that diverts

urban growth only to limited areas of the city and creates a need for highly-efficient land use.

And as discussed before, the construction industry is very concentrated, which can contribute

to rises in development costs due to inefficiency and lack of innovation (Bengs 2012). (R5’s)

earlier analysis of current townhouse development ranks them as “a bad use of the land”,

implying they could be more efficient if made narrower, deeper and taller. (R5; R6; Schömer

2006: 54) plea that the local and national decision-makers would let small actors such as

group-builders enter the development scene as one solution for more efficient urban

development: “You do the small-scale, you do the direct connection between the people

responsible for what to build and the people using what is built. And all experience also in

Sweden tells that this is cheaper and better (R5)”. Against this view, the large scale of the

construction industry and its connection to local decision makers is in a way blocking

innovation from the scene in Stockholm.

Regarding townhouses and the modernist suburbs, the townhouse discourse in Stockholm is

almost identical to the one in Helsinki and about mobilizing townhouses to enhance social

cohesion in the Million Homes Programme areas. The same arguments drive this view in

Stockholm too (e.g. DN 2005): “We heard great things about the necessary integration and

housing career”. A crucial difference between the cities with regard to this framing is that in

Stockholm the frame is characterized by more controversy. Like in Helsinki, townhouses in

67

the Million Homes Programme areas are perceived as an action that is likely not to have any

substantial desired effect due to the large scale of the problem (SvD 2009).

An additional critical view of the project stands on the ground that this has been tried already

in the neighborhoods of Rinkeby (R6; DN 2006b) and Tensta (R5; DN 2006a) and found

predominantly unsuccessful (DN 2006a): “Just over three months after the high-profile

housing expo in Tensta, only seven out of 38 new townhouses are sold.” According to (R5),

the Million Homes Programme revitalizations have not been successful, because it wasn’t the

people in charge but they have been executed as top-down initiatives.

But much more explicitly than in Helsinki, the townhouses in Stockholm seem to be linked to

the global competitiveness race between cities (SvD 2008; SvD 2006; Jensfelt 2003: 19). An

ambition for international recognition is namely linked to townhouse development and

especially to roof-top and inner-city townhouses (SvD 2006): “the city needs different forms

of expression”. These comments are especially made in the sense of reaching “outwards” or to

“put Stockholm on the map (SvD 2008)”, reflecting the ideas of Florida’s (2012) and Musterd

& Kovács (2013) about contemporary ambitions of selling the city. In line with this theory,

townhouses would be part of an agenda to enhance the “livability” of the city to accommodate

for the preferences of those working in the knowledge and creative industries.

In comparison, the townhouses in Helsinki are very much in the middle of debates about how

construction should be organized. There is a quite explicit desire to try something new and

create opportunities for small and medium sized construction enterprises. In Stockholm,

townhouses are done by large contractors. There however seems to be some discontent over

their dominance.

In Stockholm the townhouse can clearly be conceptualized as being part of an agenda to make

Stockholm more attractive in the global completion for investments and skilled labor force.

Throughout the discourse different aspects point in this direction: they reinforce ongoing

trends that make Stockholm a competitive city. In Helsinki this aspect is not dominant; it is

discussed only slightly in the associations towards inner city townhouses. On the contrary,

townhouses are conceptualized against ongoing processes.

Both capitals also link townhouses to the socio-political revitalization of their modernist

suburbs. The experiences from Stockholm also raise questions about whether the top-down


68

approach of it is actually beneficial or should those communities given a chance to decide if

they want townhouses in the first place or not. Furthermore, since especially in Stockholm

many of these areas are inhabited by immigrants, it is somewhat questionable that the issue of

introducing housing concepts for people with different cultural backgrounds is not made

salient in either city.

Table 6. Summary of the comparative analysis.

Helsinki Townhouses

Stockholm Townhouses

Strong relation to public policy

Loose relation to public policy

Environmental concerns a driver

Land-use efficiency problematized as possibly becoming too high

Link with a desire to diversify housing

supply

Environmental concerns not a driver

Land-use efficiency problematized as

not being high enough

No strong link with goals to diversify housing supply

Link with detached single-family home

living


Link with apartment living



Backwards-oriented view

Incremental development


More forward-oriented view

Corporate development

Townhouses associated with a break

away from large-scale corporate construction


Townhouses associated with global

markets


69

4.2. Comparison of Materialized Townhouses

This chapter will briefly compare and contrast townhouse development based what has been

accomplished in practice (see pictures 4.-15.). The basic details and general characteristics of

each project are described under each picture, leaving this chapter for discussion.

Furthermore, the comparison consists of select townhouses as their definition is open for

interpretation and the chapter above all aims at illustrating what kind of concrete forms the

building type takes in Helsinki and Stockholm. The general guiding principle for the selection

has been to choose townhouse projects that either are mentioned in this study or have been

referred to in the research data.

In Helsinki, also two townhouse projects (picture 8. and 9.) that lie outside of city limits are

incorporated into the study, because they have been referred to in the discourse. Another

reason for adding them is to give a wider illustration of existing designs as most projects in

Helsinki are still under planning or at an early stage of construction. Therefore two unfinished

projects (pictures 5. and 7.) are also added. In Stockholm, materialized projects are more

numerous and the selection has been made based on different basic types of townhouses that

have been referred to in the data. All of the Stockholm townhouse examples are within city

limits.

4.2.1. An Overview of Townhouses in Helsinki and Stockholm

A first defining issue between Helsinki and Stockholm is that there are much fewer

townhouses in Helsinki than on the other side of the Baltic Sea. This has naturally to do with

how townhouses are defined between the cities. In the examples compared here, only the

townhouses in the area of Kartanonkoski in Vantaa (picture 9.) and the ones under

construction in Kalasatama (picture 7.) are constructed as “instant architecture” – by large-

scale construction companies. In the rest of the projects the owner of each housing unit has to

a greater or lesser degree been part of the design and construction process. These types also

represent the model of how townhouses originally were conceptualized in Helsinki (Manninen

& Holopainen 2006). If only this particular definition of the townhouse is applied, there are

no modern-day townhouses in Stockholm as they are all built by construction companies

(Schartner 2013). In Helsinki row houses that have urban qualities have so far been to a great


70

extent left out of the townhouse discourse. But also as the townhouse discourse has

highlighted, the construction processes of group-building and other smaller-scale building

activities have faced multiple challenges, and leaving Helsinki with rather few materialized

townhouses in comparison to Stockholm.

In the Helsinki projects the linkage with single-family homes, as made salient in the

discourse, is quite apparent. Most significantly this is illustrated in Säterinmetsä (picture 8.).

This particular project has been one of the first ones and is situated in Espoo just outside of

Helsinki’s jurisdiction. Also the project in Malminkartano (picture 1.) features some of these

qualities, most notably through the parking spaces on the lot. The houses have a connection

with the street, but this is only for the benefit of cars as as the sidewalk is on the other side of

the street. In Kartanonkoski many rows of townhouses on the other hand have qualities that

relate them more to the modernist row house that turns itself away from the street. The

buildings in the picture for example do not have any connection with the street.

The Pikku-Huopalahti (picture 6.) and Kalasatama townhouses that are located in inner-city

areas on the other hand have a very clear connection with the street, which immediately gives

them a more urban character. These structures are also taller and narrower than the suburban

types.

Over all, the Helsinki and Helsinki region townhouses can be characterized as quite suburban.

In this view, the discourse that conceptualizes them through urban living cannot be argued to

be a defining quality of the townhouse projects in Helsinki at this stage. The author’s

experiences from the fieldwork also support the view that the pictures suggest: visiting the

project sites without having access to a car would have been a considerable effort.

In Stockholm the case is very different. All of the sites exemplified in this study - and also

most sites that the author visited - were easily accessible by public transport and in most cases

by subway or tram. Moreover, what is similar in all but one project (picture 11.), is that the

townhouses have rather urban characteristics. None of the examples have for example on-lot

parking. Furthermore, many of them lie in urban milieus. A very significant difference to

Helsinki is also obviously that the townhouses in Stockholm come in many forms. In the local

townhouse discourse, a townhouse stops being conceptualized as a townhouse once it starts

getting too many characteristics that are associated with modernist urban development, and

then transforms into a “row house”.

71

An interesting question is where the limit is at the other end of the scale. For example the

dwellings that are made on rooftops share obvious linkages with defining qualities of the

townhouse such as a vertical orientation, a private entrance (at roof level), a terrace or patio

and wall-to-wall attachment with neighboring dwellings. But they obviously lack a direct

connection with the street and with it a clear demarcation between the public and private.

Both of which are qualities that also typically lack in the modernist “row house”.

All in all, the Stockholm “townhouse scene” is much more varied than the one in Helsinki

even if the Stockholm projects are created as industry products. In Helsinki one of the key

motivations made salient about townhouse development is a desire to increase variation to the

housing market which is allegedly made homogenous by the building and construction

industry. The overall impression of the Helsinki townhouse from the view of an external

observer (i.e. excluding the interior design) does not seem to deliver very significant variation

to the housing market at this time.

Location

Malminkartano, Helsinki

Number of

units 20

Number of floors 2 Year of

construction

2005

Picture 4. - Qualities

Location and Surroundings: This set of town

houses is located in the Northern suburbs of

Helsinki right next to a green artificial hill. The

general area is very green and quiet.

Architectural qualities: The buildings form a nice

variety of facades and are certainly not

monotonous. The buildings are rather wide and

not tall. You may park on the lot in front.

Interestingly the houses are built directly to the

street, but there sidewalk is only on the other side

of the street.

Accessibility: The location is difficult to get to and

relatively far from the center of Helsinki.

Location

Ormuspelto, Helsinki

Number of

units N/A

Number of floors 2-3 Year of

construction

N/A


Location and Surroundings: The project area of

Ormuspelto is located in Northeastern Helsinki.

It locale is very suburban in general. There is a

small industrial/warehouse area right next to the

future townhouses.

Architectural qualities: The buildings are still

underway and it is difficult to evaluate them.

Accessibility: The area is quite badly serviced by

public transport.

73

Location

Pikku-Huopalahti,

Helsinki

Number of units

N/A

Number of floors 2-3 Year of construction

1990’s


Location and Surroundings: The townhouses are

situated at the edge of the inner city. The

neighborhood is quite urban, although very quiet.

There is a park on the other side of the buildings.

Architectural qualities: The buildings are tall and

connected directly to the street. No two buildings

are alike.

Accessibility: The area is relatively easy to get to;

there is a tram connection nearby.

Location

Kalasatama, Helsinki

Number of units

N/A

Number of floors 2-3 Year of

construction N/A


Location and Surroundings: The houses are being

built on a brownfield project site on the Eastern

edge of the inner city. At the moment much of the

area is just empty, but there still is an urban

atmosphere.

Architectural qualities: Architectural qualities are

difficult to evaluate as the project is under

construction. The houses will however a very direct

connection with the street.

Accessibility: The area is serviced by the metro.


74

Location

Säterinmetsä, Espoo

Number of units

N/A

Number of floors 2 Year of construction

2000


Location and Surroundings: The houses are

located in Espoo, just outside of Helsinki’s

jurisdiction. The area has the atmosphere of a

detached single-family home suburb, although

there are some other varieties of attached living

here too.

Architectural qualities: The buildings appear as

they were single-family homes squeezed together.

There is a lot of variety and all houses seem very

different from each other. The houses are

connected to a private-like small street that

circulates the area. There are generally a lot of cars

and parking facilities around.

Accessibility: The location is very difficult to get to

and relatively far from the center of Helsinki.

Location

Kartanonkoski,

Vantaa

Number of units

N/A

Number of floors

2-3

Year of

construction ca.

2000-2008


Location and Surroundings: There are many

townhouse-like houses around the area of

Kartanonkoski. The neighborhood is located

near to the Helsinki airport and is

characterized by neo-traditional architecture.

Very close by there is a big shopping mall.

Architectural qualities: All of the buildings in

Kartanonkoski display neo-traditional

architecture. This is however only limited to

the buildings, as the rest of the general follows

a more conventional way of organizing space.

The townhouses in the picture for example

don’t have a connection to the street at all.

Accessibility: The location is difficult to get to

and relatively far from the center of Helsinki.

75

Location

Kärrtorp, Stockholm

Number of

units 15


constructio

n 2010-2011


Location and Surroundings: These townhouses

have been built on a small piece land in the

Southern suburbs of Stockholm. There area is very

green and there are detached single-family homes

right across the street from the project. But there

also are some low-rise apartment buildings

adjacent.

Architectural qualities: The buildings resemble

English townhouses and stand out quite clearly as

they are very tall. The houses have a clear

connection to the street.

Accessibility: The location is east to get to with the

subway.

Location

Enskededalen, Stockholm

Number of

units 22


constructio

n 2008-

2010


Location and Surroundings: The buildings lie

on a narrow piece of land between a bigger and

a smaller street. The area is very green and

suburban. The site in in Southern Stockholm.

Architectural qualities: These townhouses have

characteristics that associate them more with

“row houses”. On the front side the entrances

have been drawn back from the street and there

are storage buildings covering them. The

buildings are almost all alike.

Accessibility: The location is east to get to with

the subway.


76

Location

Hammarby Sjöstad,

Stockholm

Number of units 12


2004


Location and Surroundings: The location is in

Hammarby Sjöstad, which is just south of

Södermalm and the inner-city proper. The

neighborhood is rather urban although not

comparable to the inner city.

Architectural qualities: The townhouses are as if

there was an apartment-building built around

them. They still appear to just like other

townhouses, the houses have their own entrance

and yard


tram.

Location

Tensta, Stockholm

Number of units ca 35


2006


Location and Surroundings: The townhouses in

Tensta were built as part of a housing trade show

in 2006. The buildings are located right in the

middle of a Million Homes Programme

neighborhood.

Architectural qualities: The townhouses are very

small-scale and thus not very tall. They create a

sort of block with a pedestrian way in the middle.

Only the ones in the picture thus have a connection

with the street.


subway.

77

Location

Hammarby Sjöstad,

Stockholm

Number of units 8


2010


Location and Surroundings: This set of

townhouses is also in Hammarby Sjöstad in a

former industrial building which has been turned

into apartments. The sea is just on the other of the

buildings. Urban atmosphere.

Architectural qualities: The townhouses create

such a nice small street-scape that one might think

they have always been there. Terraces facing the

sea on the other side.


tram.

Location

Ladugårdsgärdet,

Stockholm

Number of units 18

Number of floors 1-2 Year of construction

2010


Location and Surroundings: The location is a

former industrial site on the Northeastern edge of

the inner city. Right next to it there is a large open

space for outdoor activities. The atmosphere quite

urban.

Architectural qualities: The townhouses are built

on top of the roof an industrial building that is

transformed into apartments. Each house has its

individual entrance on the roof, but need to get

there via the apartment building.


subway.

5. Discussion and Concluding Remarks

21st-century housing development has been theorized to be influenced by two macro-level

drivers: environmental concerns on the one hand, and changing and diversifying lifestyles on

the other. These are consequently argued to lead to an increase in the valuing of urban

communities over the suburban settlement patterns that have been dominantly built during the

20th

century.

This study concludes that the recent emergences of townhouses in Helsinki and Stockholm

cannot be conceptualized in such a straightforward manner. The forces driving townhouse

development are much more multi-faceted and even paradoxical at times. Furthermore, even

if similar types of buildings are entering the housing market in the two cities, these processes

resemble each other only at times.

The townhouse discourses in the cities actually have only two similar conceptualizations.

Firstly, in both cities townhouses are, at least on the level of rhetoric, quite strongly linked to

ambitions for creating urban milieus. All evidence suggests this is a continuation of a longer

trend of urban planning in Stockholm, but in Helsinki the townhouse interestingly is set to

bridge back to a line of the urban project that was broken a hundred years ago with the arrival

of modernism.

Secondly, both capitals have or have had goals to use townhouses in their efforts to enhance

social mixing and counter residential segregation. This conceptualization is particularly used

when referring to the modernist suburbs, and tells about the similar socio-political traditions

in the urban policies of both countries. But it also tells about the need to tackle similar

problems of increasing economic and ethnic segregation.

The differences in the other conceptualizations can be interpreted to stem from the

background that townhouses have emerged as local-policy driven housing concepts in

Helsinki but largely through the private sphere in Stockholm. In Helsinki this brings

townhouses much more strongly to the political dimension of urban development and to a

confrontation against the operation of market forces. The Helsinki townhouses are largely

conceptualized through something that is not happening in the housing markets: they object

monotony, standardization, and the hegemony of apartment production that is driving families

to the fringes of the metropolitan area. In Stockholm, the building type is conversely

conceptualized as something that reinforces contemporary patterns of housing consumption:

they offer urban experiences and opportunities for upmarket differentiation.

Neither overall conceptualization is unproblematic. In Helsinki the rejection of business-as-

usual workings of housing development is pulling the townhouse in two directions. The urban

planning – physical - dimension of the townhouse is departing from modernist planning

solutions and seeking to (re)introduce traditional planning values and thereby seeking to

79

salute urban lifestyles. At the same time the experiential – the housing policy – dimension of

the townhouse is anchored next to the qualities of the detached single-family home. Some of

the materialized projects raise questions whether the end products are only reversing the

contested point of departure. During the 20th

century the planning doctrine was pushing for

wide open spaces and housing policy for urban apartment buildings, which as a combination

led to high-rise towers in lush settings. With the townhouse concept the tables seem to have

turned: urban spaces and small-scale housing close to nature. Is the destined end result just

low-rise building in the same lush settings?

In Stockholm the townhouse is free from such policy controversy and is relatively

uncontestably working towards delivering urban milieus for urban lifestyles. But this just may

be the root for a bigger tree of problems. Critics have voiced that Stockholm is already

starting to be too urban. Not in the physical planning sense, but in the experiential dimension

as urbanity has been locked to a particular view of the city and city life. This in turn raises

questions over who are allowed take part in living it. As the townhouse discourse exemplifies,

there seems to be a split between the inner city that is defined as urban and the modernist

suburbs that are defined as anti-urban. Hence it is arguable to question to what degree the

populations living there get to be part of and benefit from the construction of the “Capital of

Scandinavia”.

Finally, the materialized townhouses raise interesting points of discussion. The construction

scene is known to have relatively high concentration rates in both cities and is also criticized

in the discourses examined for this study to produce bulk architecture and stifle innovation.

From the Helsinki perspective, at least concerning townhouse development, it does not seem

that the Stockholm scene is lacking ideas and ambition of introducing new ways of living.

Simultaneously from the perspective of the Stockholm small-scale housing developer, the

grass might seem greener in Helsinki as the city has managed comparably well to support

group-building activities and the associated bottom-up approach in housing development.

With respect to ambitions for introducing new housing concepts for the 21st century, there

may be fruitful interphases for mutually beneficial cooperation in this contrast between the

cities.


80

6. List of References

Ahonen, A., L. Pöyry, J. Pääkkönen & R. Ryhänen (2008). Rakennusalan markkinoiden

toimivuus – Ongelma-alueita ja edistämisen mahdollisuuksia. Kilpailuviraston selvityksiä

2008:1. 87 p. Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority, Helsinki.

Andesson, O. (2006). Inga fler bostadsområden, tack!. Arkitekten 2006:4, pp. 52-57.

Andersson, Å.E., L Pettersson, & U. Strömquist (2007). European Housing Markets - An

Overview. In Andersson, Å.E., L Pettersson, & U. Strömquist (eds.). European

Metropolitan Housing Markets, pp. 1-26. Springer, Berlin.

Arvola, A., P. Lahti, P. Lampila, A. Tiilikainen, R. Kyrö, S. Toivonen, K. Viitanen &

S. Keskifrantti (2010). Asuinympärystön ominaisuudet ja asukkaan arvot.

Kuluttajatutkimusnäkökulman sovellus asuinympärystön koetun laadun tutkimukseen. 239

p. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland.

Åsell, Anna (2013). Planning Architect at Stockholm City Planning Office. Interview in

Stockholm on 26.6.2013.

Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalization: The Human Consequences. 136 p. Columbia University

Press, New York.

Bengs, C. (2010a). Paikallistalous. In Hirvonen, T. & K. Schmidt-Thomé (eds.). ESPONin

ytimessä ja ympärillä, pp. 125-138. Yhdyskuntasuunnittelun tutkimus- ja

koulutuskeskuksen julkaisuja B 100, Espoo.

Bengs, C. (2010b). Yhdyskuntasuunnittelu ruotsalaisittain – mielikuvien ihanuus.

Yhdyskuntasuunnittelu 48:4, pp. 52-76.

Bengs, C. (2012). Globaali kilpailu, markkinat ja paikallistalous. In Hynynen, A. (ed.).

Takaisin kartalle. Suomalainen seutukaupunki, pp. 51-60. Kuntaliitto/Association of

Finnish Local and Regional Authorities.

Binney, M. (1998). Town Houses: Urban Houses from 1200 to the Present Day. 176 p.

Mitchell Beazley, London.

Boomkens, R. (2008). Modernism, Catastrophe and the Public Realm. OASE 75, pp. 120-135.

Borén T. & C. Young (2013). The Migration Dynamics of the “Creative Class”: Evidence

from a Study of Artists in Stockholm, Sweden. Annals of the Association of American

Geographers 103:1, pp. 195-210.

Borglund, M., J. Bröchner, J. Gerremo, J. Prytz, & H. Willborg (2013). Perspektiv på

ägarlägenheter. 48 p. Centrum för management i byggsektorn. Chalmers University of

Technology, Gothenburg.

81

Boyle, C., G. Gamage, B. Burns, E. Fassman, S. Knight-Lenihan, L. Schwendenmann & W.

Thresher (2012). Greening Cities: A Review of Green Infrastructure. 201 p. The University

of Auckland, New Zealand.

Breheny, Michael (1997). Urban compaction: feasible and acceptable? Cities 14:4, pp. 209-

217.

Bristol, K.G. (1991). The Pruitt-Igoe Myth. Journal of Architectural Education 44:3, pp. 163-

171.

CABE = Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (2011). Building for Life.

Accessed on 25.7.2013. <

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110107165544/http://www.buildingforlife.org

/home>

CEU = Council for European Urbanism (2013). Council website. Accessed on 4.9.2013. <

http://www.ceunet.org/>

Choay, F. (1969). The Modern City: Planning in the 19th Century.128 p. George Braziller,

New York.

City of Helsinki Urban Facts (2013). City of Helsinki statistical service. Accessed on multiple

occasions between June and August 2013. < http://www.hel.fi/hki/tieke/en/etusivu>

City of Stockholm (2013).Stockholm Office of Research and Statistics website. Accessed on

multiple occasions between June and August 2013. <

http://www.statistikomstockholm.se/>

City of Toronto (2003). Toronto Urban Design Guidelines – Infill Townhouses. 30 p. City of

Toronto Urban Development Services.

DN = Dagens Nyheter (2006a). Banken stoppar husdröm i Tensta. Accessed on 10.7.2013. <

http://www.dn.se/sthlm/banken-stoppar-husdrom-i-tensta/>

DN = Dagens Nyheter (2006b). Billiga radhus i Rinkeby sålda till slut. Accessed on

11.7.2013. < http://www.dn.se/sthlm/billiga-radhus-i-rinkeby-salda-till-slut/>

DN = Dagens Nyheter (2005). Ny boendeform testas I Tensta. Accessed on 11.7.2013.

<http://www.dn.se/sthlm/ny-boendeform-testas-i-tensta/>

Dovey, Kim & Ian Woodcock & Stephen Wood (2009). A Test of Character: Regulating

Place-identity in Inner-city Melbourne. Urban Studies 46:12, pp. 2595–2615.

Duany, A., E. Plater-Zyberk & J. Speck (2000). Suburban Nation. The Rise of Sprawl

and the Decline of the American Dream. 294 p. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New

York.

Dunham-Jones E. & J. Williamson (2011). Retrofitting Suburbia. Urban Design Solutions for

Redesigning Suburbs. 256 p. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken..


82

Dunnett, J. (2000). Le Corbusier and the City without Streets. In Deckker, T. (ed.). The

Modern City Revisited, 56-79. Routledge, London.

EEA = European Environment Agency (2006). Urban Sprawl in Europe. The ignored

challenge. EEA Report 10/2006. 56 p.

Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of

Communication 43:4, pp. 52-58.

Esikaupunkien renessanssi (2013). Project website. Accessed 15.7.2013.

<http://www.esikaupunki.hel.fi/>

Eurocities (2012). Demographic change and active inclusion in Stockholm: ABC parental

support programme. 12 p.

<http://nws.eurocities.eu/MediaShell/media/Stockholm%20demographic%20change%20re

port1.pdf>

European Commission (2011). Demography Report 2010. Older, more numerous and diverse

Europeans. Commission Staff Working Document. 168 p.

Eurostat (2013). European Commission statistical service. Accessed on multiple occasions

during July and August 2013.

<http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/>

Fernández Cendón, S. (2013). Pruitt-Igoe 40 Years Later. Is the ghost of Modernism still

haunting north St. Louis? The American Institute of Architects. Accessed on 3.7.2013.

<http://www.aia.org/practicing/AIAB092656>

Fogelholm, K. (2003). Espoon Säterinmetsä. Tutkimus yhteenkytkettyjen omakotitalojen

rakentamisesta. 192 p. Rakennustieto Oy, Tampere.

Fortune (2012). Solo nation: American consumers stay single. Fortune Magazine. Accessed

on 20.8.2013. < http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/01/25/eric-klinenberg-going-solo/>

Florida, R. (2012). The Rise of the Creative Class, Revisited. 481 p. Basic Books, New York.

FORA (2010) Metro-regions and their unique assets. An assessment of specialized clusters in

Stockholm, Helsinki, and Copenhagen. 37 p. Metropolitan Inc.<

http://www.regionh.dk/NR/rdonlyres/5593FECA-0157-4924-B0DB-

0E22F6021329/0/Clusters_FINAL.pdf>

Fransson, U., G. Rosenqvist & B. Turner (2001). Hushållens värdering av egenskaper i

bostäder och bostadsområden. 40 p. Institutet för bostads- och urbanforskning, Uppsala

University.

Friedman, A. (2012). Town and Terraced Housing: For Affordability and Sustainability. 272

p. Routledge ,New York.

83

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. 600 p.

Harper & Row, New York.

Gordon, D., R. Manninen & O. Veltheim (2009). From City to City-Region. City of Helsinki

Strategic Spatial Plan. Helsinki City Planning Department publications 2009:8. 41 p. City

of Helsinki.

Gorlin, A. (1999). The New American Town House. 240 p. Rizzoli, New York.

Goetz, A. (2013). Suburban Sprawl or Urban Centres: Tensions and Contradictions of Smart

Growth Approaches in Denver, Colorado. Urban Studies, special issue article. 18 p.

Grayson Trulove. J. (2006). The Modern Townhouse. The Latest in Urban and Suburban

Design. 188 p. Collins Design, New York.

Guterstam, S. (2011). Urbana enbostadhus och inkluderande byggande. Om planering av

varierade stadsrum och möjligheterna för privatpersoner och små aktörer att delta i ett

marknadsstyrt bostadsbyggande. 66 p. Examensarbete, magisternivå/Master’s thesis no.

77. Department for Real Estate and Construction Management, KTH Royal Institute of

Technology, Stockholm.

Hall, T. (ed.) (2005). Planning and Urban Growth in the Nordic Countries. 315 p. E & FN

Spon, London.

Hall, T. (2009). Stockholm. The Making of a Metropolis. 232 p. Routledge, London and New

York.

Hall, T & S. Vidén (2005). The Million Homes Programme: a review of the great Swedish

planning project. Planning Perspectives 20:3, pp. 301-328.

Hallegatte S. & J. Corfee-Morlot (2011). Understanding climate change impacts, vulnerability

and adaptation at city scale: an introduction. Climatic Change 104, pp. 1-12.

Harding, R. (2005). Ecologically sustainable development: origins, implementation and

challenges. Desalination 187, pp. 229-239.

Hårsman, B. & B. Wijmark (2013). Stockholm – from ugly duckling to Europe’s first green

capital. CESIS Electronic Working Paper Series 307. 26 p. <

http://swopec.hhs.se/cesisp/abs/cesisp0307.htm>

Harvey, J. & E. Jowsey (2003). Urban Land Economics. Sixth Edition. 480 p. Palgrave

Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Hasu, E. (2010). Kaupunkipientalo – asukasunelmia ja todellisuutta. Malminkartanon

Vuorenjuuren asukaskokemuksia. In Norvasuo, M. (ed.). Asutaan urbaanisti!

Laadukkaaseen kaupunkiasumiseen yhteisellä kehittelyllä, pp. 151-170.

Yhdyskuntasuunnittelun tutkimus- ja koulutuskeskuksen julkaisuja B 99.


84

Heininen-Blomstedt, K. (2013). Jälleenrakennuskauden tyyppitaloalue. Paikan merkitykset ja

täydennysrakentaminen. 273 p. PhD dissertation. Department of Philosophy, History,

Culture and Art Studies. University of Helsinki.

Helsingin kaupunki (2012). Kotikaupunkina Helsinki. Asumisen ja siihen liittyvän

maankäytön toteutusohjelma 2012. Helsingin kaupungin keskushallinnon julkaisuja

2012:21. 93 p. Helsingin kaupungin talous- ja suunnittelukeskus.

Helsingin kaupunki (2005). Malminkartanon kaupunkipientalot. Projektin kokemukset ja

johtopäätökset. 74 p. Kiinteistövirasto/City of Helsinki Real Estate Department.

Helsingin yleiskaava (2013). Yleiskaavan visio 2050: Urbanismi ja kaupunkikulttuuri.

Helsinki City Planning Department. Accessed on 17.8.2013. <

http://www.yleiskaava.fi/wp-

content/uploads/2013/05/visioteema_5_urbanismi_130513.pdf>

Hoornweg, D., L. Sugar, & C.L.T Gomez (2011). Cities and greenhouse gas emissions:

moving forward. Environment and Urbanization 23, pp. 207–227.

Hope, M. (2010). Frame Analysis as a Discourse-Method: Framing ‘climate change politics’.

16 p. Paper delivered to the Post-Graduate Conference on Discourse Analysis. University

of Bristol.

Horsti, K. (2005). Vierauden rajat. Monikulttuurisuus ja turvapaikanhakijat journalismissa.

316 p. Tampere University Press, Tampere.

HS = Helsingin Sanomat (2008). Sipoo ei lähde mukaan liitosalueen yhteiseen suunnitteluun.

News article. Accessed on 23.7.2013. <

http://www.hs.fi/kaupunki/artikkeli/Sipoo+ei+l%C3%A4hde+mukaan+liitosalueen+yhteis

eensuunnitteluun/HS20081204SI1KA03xmh>

HS = Helsingin Sanomat (2010). Pientalo kaupungista alle ökyhinnan. Accessed on 2.7.2013.

<

http://www.hs.fi/paivanlehti/arkisto/Pientalo+kaupungista+alle+%C3%B6kyhinnan/aaHS

20100623SI2KA023b3>

HSY = Helsingin seudun ympäristöpalvelut –kuntayhtymä/Helsinki Region Environmental

Services Authority (2012). Helsingin seudun asuntoraportti 2012. 113 p. Edita Prima,

Helsinki.

Hurme, R. (1991). Suomalainen lähiö Tapiolasta Pihlajamäkeen. 211 p. Suomen tiedeseura,

Helsinki.

Jaakkola, M. (2012). Helsinki, Finland: Greenness and Urban Form. In Beatley, T. (ed.).

Green Cities of Europe, pp. 109-128. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Jaakola, A. & H. Lönnqvist (2007). Kaupunkirakenteen kehityspiirteistä Helsingin seudulla.

Kvartti 1/2007, pp. 35-45.

85

Jackson, K.T. (1985). Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. 396 p.

Oxford University Press, New York.

Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. 458 p. Random House, New

York.

Jalkanen, R. (2012). Townhouseja Helsinkiin. RY Rakennettu Ympäristö 2012:4, pp. 35-39.

Jenks, M. & N. Dempsey (eds.) (2005). Future Forms and Design for Sustainable Cities. 456

p. E & FN Spon, London.

Jensfelt, A. (2003). Takradhusen får internationell uppmärksamhet. Arkitekten 2003:2, p. 19.

Jiven, G. & P.J. Larkham (2003). Sense of Place, Authenticity and Character: A Commentary.

Journal of Urban Design 8:1, pp. 67–81.

Karjalainen, M. & R. Suikkari (2001).Puukaupunkiperinteen jäljillä/Tracing the wooden town

heritage. Arkkitehti 2001:6, pp. 14-22.

Karjalainen, R.(ed.). (2008). Helsingin seudun maankäytön, asumisen ja liikenteen

toteutusohjelma (MAL - 2017). Helsingin kaupungin talous- ja suunnittelukeskuksen

julkaisuja 2008:4. 42 p.

Kepsu, K., M. Vaattovaara, V. Bernelius, M. Itälahti (2010). Vetävä Helsinki. Luovien ja

tietointensiivisten alojen osaajien näkemyksiä seudusta – kotimainen ja kansainvälinen

näkökulma. Research series 2010:4. 96 p. City of Helsinki Urban Facts.

König, T. (2005). Frame Analysis: Theoretical Preliminaries. Accessed on 5.7.2013. <

http://www.ccsr.ac.uk/methods/publications/frameanalysis/>

Korpivaara, A. & L. Tuokko (2003). Tiivistä ja matalaa edistämässä. Asu ja Rakenna 2003:3,

pp. 5-6.

KSV = Helsingin kaupunkisuunnittelvirasto/Helsinki City Planning Department (2012).

Helsingin yleiskaavan lähtökohdat ja työohjelma. Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston

yleissuunnitteluosaston selvityksiä 2012:2. 26 p.

KSV = Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluvirasto/Helsinki City Planning Department (2012).

Townhouse-rakentaminen Helsingissä. Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston julkaisuja

2012. 67 p.

Kunstler, J.H. (1993). The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of America’s Man-

made Landscape. 303 p. Simon & Schuster, New York.

Kyttä, M. (2012). Main research findings. Urbaani onni – sosiaalisesti & rakenteellisesti

kestävän yhdyskunnan kartoittaminen research project.<

http://ytk.aalto.fi/fi/tutkimus/hankkeet/Tiiviys_kytta_uusi.pdf>


86

Kytösaho, I. (2003). Tiivistä ja matalaa Malminkartanossa. Asu ja Rakenna 2003:3, pp. 21-

22.

Landry, C. & F. Bianchini (1995). The Creative City. 60 p. Demos, London.

Lang, M.H. (1999). Designing Utopia: John Ruskin's Urban Vision for Britain and America.

215 p. Black Rose, Montreal

Lankinen, L., P. Selander & T. Tikkanen (eds.). (2009). The State of Helsinki Region 2009 –

European Comparisons. 54 p. City of Helsinki Urban Facts.

Lilja, E. (2002). Segregationens motsägelsefullhet. Integrerad i en stadsdel – segregerad i

staden. 61 p. Kulturgeografiska institutionen, Stockholm University.<

http://people.su.se/~elilj/Meddelande114.pdf>

Loikkanen, H.A. (2013). Kaupunkialueiden maankäyttö ja taloudellinen kehitys –

maapolitiikan vaikutuksista tuottavuuteen sekä työ- ja asuntomarkkinoiden toimivuuteen.

VATT Valmisteluraportit 17/2013. 54 p. Government Institute for Economic Research.

Loikkanen, H.A. & H. Lönnqvist (2007). Metropolitan Housing Markets – The Case of

Helsinki. In Andersson, Å.E., L Pettersson, & U. Strömquist (eds.). European

Metropolitan Housing Markets, pp. 63-84. Springer, Berlin.

LSE Cities (2013). Stockholm. Green Economy Leader Report. LSECities. 161 p. Economics

of Green Cities Programme, London School of Economics and Political Science.

Lundström & Wilhelmsson (2007). The Stockholm Housing Market. In Andersson, Å.E., L

Pettersson, & U. Strömquist (eds.). European Metropolitan Housing Markets, pp. 321-340.

Springer, Berlin.

Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. 194 p. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Macdonald, E. (2005). Street-facing Dwelling Units and Livability: The Impacts of Emerging

Building Types in Vancouver's New High-density Residential Neighbourhoods. Journal of

Urban Design 10:1, 13-38.

Mäenpää, P. (2008). Avara urbanismi. Yritys ymmärtää suomalainen kaupunki toisin. In

Norvasuo, M.(ed.). Asuttaisiinko toisin? Kaupunkiasumisen uusia konsepteja

kartoittamassa, pp. 21-47. Yhdyskuntasuunnittelun tutkimus- ja koulutuskeskuksen

julkaisuja B 95.

Mälkki, M. (2010). Kytketyt kaupunkipientalot ja urbaani rakentaminen. In Norvasuo, M.

(ed.). Asutaan urbaanisti! Laadukkaaseen kaupunkiasumiseen yhteisellä kehittelyllä, pp.

131-150. Yhdyskuntasuunnittelun tutkimus- ja koulutuskeskuksen julkaisuja B 99.

Manninen, R. (2006). Townhouse – mahdollisuus kaupunkirakenteen eheyttämisessä. Asu ja

Rakenna 2006:6, pp. 24-25.

87

Manninen, R. & J. Hirvonen (2004). Rivitalo asumismuotona. Toiveiden täyttymys vai

mahdollisuuksien kompromissi?. Suomen ympäristö 694. 80 p.

Manninen, R. & T. Holopainen (2006). Townhouse. Kytketty omatonttinen pientalo

kaupungissa. Lähtökohtia ja tavoitteita. Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston

yleissuunnitteluosaston selvityksiä 2006: 8. 50 p.

Marquardt, N., H. Füller, G. Glasze and R. Pütz (2012). Shaping the Urban Renaissance:

New-build Luxury Developments in Berlin. Urban Studies, pp. 1-17.

Marvin, S. & S. Guy (2000). Models and Pathways: The Diversity of Sustainable Urban

Futures. In Williams, K., E. Burton & M. Jenks (eds.). Achieving Sustainable Urban Form,

pp. 9-18.E & FN Spon, London and New York.

Menestyvä metropoli (2009). Menestyvä metropoli. Metropolialueen kilpailukykystrategia. 42

p. < http://www.hel.fi/hel2/Helsinginseutu/Pks/PKS_kilpailukykystrategia_020609.pdf>

Mukala, J. (2011). Arkkitehtitoimisto Karin Krokfors. Paritalot Kellokas/Kellokas Housing,

Helsinki. Arkkitehti 2011:4, pp. 41-43.

Mumford, E. (2000). The CIAM Discourse on Urbanism, 1928-1960. 395 p. The MIT Press,

Cambridge.

Musterd, S. & Z. Kovács (2013).Policies and Place-Making for Competitive Cities. In

Musterd, S. & Z. Kovács (eds.). Place-making and Policies for Competitive Cities, pp. 3-

10.

Muthesius, S. (1982). The English Terraced House. 278 p. Yale University Press, New

Haven.

Nelson, A.C. (2009). The New Urbanity: The Rise of a New America. The ANNALS of the

American Academy of Political and Social Science 2009:626, pp. 192-208.

Newman, P. & A. Thornley (1996). Urban Planning in Europe: International Competition,

National Systems and Planning Projects. 304 p. Routledge, London and New York.

OECD = Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2012). Compact City

Policies: A Comparative Assessment. OECD Green Growth Studies. 284 p. OECD

Publishing.

OECD = Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2013). Green Growth in

Stockholm, Sweden. OECD Green Growth Studies. 118 p. OECD Publishing.

OECD = Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2003). OECD

Territorial Reviews: Helsinki, Finland 2003. 238 p. OECD Publishing.

Ojala, K. (2001). Unohduksissa ollut kaupunkipientalo tulee takaisin. Kuntalehti 2001:6, pp.

35-37.


88

Parker, S. (2004). Urban Theory and the Urban Experience: encountering the city. 210 p.

Routledge, London.

Paschou, E. & T. Metaxas (2013). Branding Stockholm. MPRA Paper No. 48118. <

http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/48118/>

Pfeifer, G. & P. Brauneck (2008). Row Houses. A Housing Typology. 112 p. Birkhäuser,

Berlin.

Ploger, J. (2010). Urbanity, (Neo)vitalism and Becoming. In Hillier, J. & P. Healey (eds.).

The Ashgate Research Companion to Planning Theory: Conceptual Challenges for Spatial

Planning, pp. 319-342. Ashgate, Farnham.

Porter, R. (2001). The Enlightenment. Second Edition. 95 p. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

Potts, J., S. Cunningham, J. Hartley, & P. Ormerod (2008).Social network markets: A

definition of the creative industries. Journal of Cultural Economics 32:3, pp. 167-185.

Pukkila, E. (2011). Kohti kaupunkibrändin johtamista – tapaustutkimus Helsingin

metropolialue. Aluetieteen pro-gradututkielma. 86 p. University of Tampere.

Pulkkinen, S. (2011). Östersundom ja kaupunkipientalot. Helsingin

kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston yleissuunnitteluosaston selvityksiä 2011:4. 27 p.

Rantama, K. (2008). Osuuskuntarakentamista Zürichissa. In Norvasuo, M.(ed.). Asuttaisiinko

toisin? Kaupunkiasumisen uusia konsepteja kartoittamassa, pp. 239-262.

Yhdyskuntasuunnittelun tutkimus- ja koulutuskeskuksen julkaisuja B 95.

Ratvio, R. (2012). Elämää keskustassa ja kaupunkiseudun reunoilla. Urbaani ja

jälkiesikaupungillinen elämäntyyli asumisen valinnoissa ja arkiliikkumisessa Helsingin

seudulla. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Geosciences and Geography A15. 223 p.

University of Helsinki.

Rudlin, D. & N. Falk (1999). Building the 21st Century Home. The Sustainable Urban

Neighbourhood. 271 p. Architectural Press, Oxford.

Rudlin, D. & N. Falk (2009). Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood. Building the 21st Century

Home. 2nd edition. 288 p. Routledge

Sanaksenaho, P. (2013). Pientaloasuminen hakee muotoaan. Arkkitehti 2013:2, pp. 11-21.

Sandercock, L. (2010). Planning Urbanity?. Commentary. Environment and Planning A

2010:42, pp. 2302-2308.

Sastry, B. (2005). Market Structure and Incentives for Innovation. 9 p. <

http://www.intertic.org/Policy%20Papers/Sastry.pdf>

Schartner, Staffan (2013). Partner at Omniplan and Chairman of Svenska föreningen för

byggemenskaper. Interview in Stockholm on 28.6.2013.

89

Schmidt-Thomé, K., M. Hayabatollahi, M. Kyttä & J. Korpi (2013). The prospects for urban

densification: a place-based study. Environmental Research Letters 2013:8, 11 p.

Schneider, T. & J. Till (2005). Flexible Housing: Opportunities and Limits. Architectural

Research Quarterly 9:2, pp. 157-166.

Schömer, E. (2006). Dags för fler små byggföretag. Arkitekten 2006: 10, p. 54.

Schulman, H., Pulma, P., & Aalto, S. (2000). Helsingin historia vuodesta 1945. 2, 2. 521 p.

Helsingin kaupunki.

Shmueli, D.F. (2008). Framing in geographical analysis of environmental conflicts:

Theory, methodology and three case studies. Geoforum 2008:39, pp. 2048–2061.

Silfverberg, K., P. Huuska & M. Lukin (eds.). (2010). Environmental Sustainability Issues

and Challenges in Helsinki 2010. 39 p. City of Helsinki.

Sjöroos, P. & R. Jalkanen (2010). Helsinki Townhouse –kilpailu. Jätkäsaaren ja

Kruunuvuorenrannan kaupunkipientalotyypit 1.2.-30.4.2010. Helsingin

kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston julkaisuja 2010:1. 38 p.

Slottner, E. (2011). Ny trend skapar möjligheter för bostäder i city. vice gruppledare för

Kristdemokraterna i Stockholms stadshus, ledamot i Stadsbyggnadsnämnden. Svenska

Dagbladet. Accessed on 14.7.2013. < http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/ny-trend-

skapar-mojligheter-for-bostader-i-city_6226733.svd>

Snow, D.A. & R.D. Benford (1988). Ideology, Frame Resonance and Participant

Mobilization. International Social Movement Research 1, pp. 197-219.

Ståhle, A. & L. Marcus (2009). Compact Sprawl Experiments. four strategic densification

scenarios for two modernist suburbs in Stockholm. Ref. 109. 15 p. In Koch, D., L. Marcus

& J. Steen (eds.). Proceedings of the 7th International Space Syntax Symposium. KTH

Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.

Stimmann, H. (2011). Townhouses. Construction and Design Manual. 367 p. Lakewood Art

& Architecture.

Stockholms läns landsting. (2010). RUFS 2010. Regional utvecklingsplan för

Stockholmsregionen. Så blir vi Europas mest attraktiva storstadsregion. R 2010:5. 261 p.

Stockholms läns landsting. (2012). Stockholms län – Huvudrapport Befolkningsprognos

2012-2021/45. Demografisk rapport 2012:9. 99 p.

Stockholms stad (2010). The Walkable City. Stockholm City Plan. 84 p. The City Planning

Administration, Stockholm.

Strandell, A. (2011). Asukasbarometri 2010. Asukaskysely suomalaisista asuinympäristöistä.

Suomen ympäristö 2011:31. 58 p. Suomen ympäristökeskus, Helsinki.


90

SvD = Svenska Dagbladet (2010). Betongens fall ger revansch för trä. Accessed on 2.8.2013.

< http://www.svd.se/naringsliv/betongens-fall-ger-revansch-for-tra_5259725.svd>

SvD = Svenska Dagbladet (2009). Mötesplatser ska mixa nollåttorna. Accessed on 11.7.2013.

< http://www.svd.se/nyheter/stockholm/motesplatser-ska-mixa-nollattorna_3002973.svd>

SvD = Svenska Dagbladet (2006). Radhus kan ändra stadsbilden. Accessed on 5.7.2013. <

http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/radhus-kan-andra-stadsbilden_375538.svd>

SvD = Svenska Dagbladet (2008). Stadsradhus vid Rålambshov . Accessed on 10.7.2013. <

http://www.svd.se/nyheter/stockholm/stadsradhus-vid-ralambshov_1933481.svd>

Taipale, K. (ed.). (2011). Metropolipolitiikkaa!. Helsingin seudun hallinta ja ihmisen ääni. 96

p, Vapaus valita toisin –verkosto, Vantaa.

Talen, E. (2002). Help for Urban Planning: The Transect Strategy. Journal of Urban Design

7:3, pp. 293-312.

Taylor, N. (1998). Urban Planning Theory since 1945. 184 p. SAGE Publications, London.

The Economist Intelligence Unit (2013). Hot Spots 2025. Benchmarking the future

competitiveness of cities. A Report from The Economist Intelligence Unit. 31 p.

Tönnies, F. (2001/1887). Community and civil society. 32 p. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Tunström, M. (2007). The vital city: constructions and meanings in the contemporary

Swedish planning discourse. Town Planning Review 78:6, pp. 631-698,

Tuomi, J. & Sarajärvi, A. (2009). Laadullinen tutkimus ja sisällönanalyysi. 5th edition. 175 p.

Tammi, Helsinki.

Urban Task Force (2005). Towards a Strong Urban Renaissance. 19 p. <

http://www.urbantaskforce.org/UTF_final_report.pdf>

Uudistuva kaupunki (2012). Houkutteleva ja ohjelmallinen täydennysrakentaminen (HOT-R)

Research project report. 253 p. Aalto University.

YM = Ympäristöministeriö/The Ministry of the Environment (2002). Tiivistä ja matalaa

kaupunkirakennetta toteuttaminen - valtakunnallinen Tiivis-matala –projekti. Accessed on

8.8.2013. < http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?contentid=59633>

Vakkuri, R. (2011). Townhouse hakee muotoaan. Kivestä muuraamalla 2011, pp. 10-14.

Vernez Moudon, A. (1989). Built for Change. Neighborhood Architecture in San Francisco.

286 p. MIT Press, Cambidge, MA.

91

Vestbro, D. U. (2006). Brukarinflytande bara genom äganderätt?. Arkitekten 2006:5, pp. 60-

62.

Vilkama, K. (2011). Yhteinen kaupunki, eriytyvät kaupunginosat? Kantaväestön ja

maahanmuuttajataustaisten asukkaiden alueellinen eriytyminen ja muuttoliike

pääkaupunkiseudulla. Tutkimuksia – Helsingin kaupungin tietokeskus 2011:2. 238 p. City

of Helsinki Urban Facts.

Visanti, M. (2013). Former Project Manager at Helsinki City Planning Department, Architect.

Interview in Helsinki on 24.6.2013.

Visanti, M. (2003). Helsingin keskustassa matala ja tiivis toimii vain satunnaisesti. Asu ja

rakenna 2003:3, pp. 18-19.

Visanti, M. (2007). Pienimittakaavainen kaupunginosa haastaa normiohjauksen. Asu ja

rakenna 2007:4, pp. 22-23.

Visanti, M. (2006). Pientalokaupunkia etsimässä. Betoni 2006:2, pp. 12-15.

Walters, D. & L.L.. Brown (2004). Design First. Design-Based Planning For Communities.

277 p. Architectural Press, Oxford.

West 8 (2013). West 8. Borneo-Sporenburg townhouse project developer. Picture retrieved on

5.9.2013. < http://www.west8.nl/>

Westford, P. (2010). Neighborhood Design and Travel. A Study of Residential Quality, Child

Leisure Activity and Trips to School. 207 p. Doctoral Thesis in Infrastructure. KTH Royal

Institute of Technology.

Wikimedia Commons (2013). Wikimedia Commons media repository. Picture material

retrieved on 5.9.2013. < http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page>

Zukin, S. (2010). Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places. 312 p. Oxford

University Press, Oxford.


92

7. Appendices

A. Interviews and Item list

Helsinki

Manninen, Rikhard. Director of the Strategic Urban Planning Division at the Helsinki City

Planning Department. Interview in Helsinki on 17.6.2013.

Muntola, Heikki. Owner of Arkkitehtitoimisto Heikki Muntola and winner of Helsinki

Townhouse 2010 architecture competition. Email interview. Responses submitted on

30.6.2013.

Krokfors, Karin. Researcher at Aalto University’s Land Use Planning and Urban Studies

Group (YTK) and owner of Karin Krokfors Architects. Interview in Helsinki on 25.6.2013.

Visanti, Matti. Former Project Manager at Helsinki City Planning Department, Architect.

Interview in Helsinki on 24.6.2013.

Stockholm

Andersson, Ola. Architect at A1 Arkitekter. Interview in Stockholm on 27.6.2013.

Åsell, Anna. Planning Architect at Stockholm City Planning Office. Interview in Stockholm

on 26.6.2013.

Schartner, Staffan. Partner at Omniplan and Chairman of Svenska föreningen för

byggemenskaper. Interview in Stockholm on 28.6.2013.

Generic Item List for Interviews

- Definitions and terminology

- Changing user needs and reacting on them

- Housing production

- The townhouse and urban space

- The challenges for developing townhouses

- Intra-municipal competition for tax payers

- Environmental issues

- Urban renewal

- Townhouse inspiration; domestic and international

93

B. Systematically examined journals, magazines and newspapers

For Helsinki

Arkkitehti

Asu ja Rakenna

Helsingin sanomat

RY Rakennettu Ympäristö

Yhdyskuntasuunnittelu

For Stockholm

Arkitekten

Arkitektur

Dagens Nyheter

Nordisk arkitekturforskning

Plan

Planera Bygga Bo

Svenska Dagbladet

Why Townhouses? A Comparative Study of Emerging Housing Concepts in Helsinki and Stockholm

Documents

Transcript of Why Townhouses? A Comparative Study of Emerging Housing Concepts in Helsinki and Stockholm