09_the scaling of sustainable urban form_european planning studies

The Scaling of Sustainable Urban Form:A Case of Scale-related Issues andSustainable Planning in Malmo, Sweden

MATTIAS KARRHOLM

Department of Urban Studies, Malmo University, Sweden & Department of Architecture & Built

Environment, Lund University, Sweden

(Received September 2009; accepted October 2009)

ABSTRACT In this article, I investigate spatial scale as an aspect that needs to be more carefullyaddressed in the discussion and planning of sustainable urban forms. Focusing on the MalmoLund region in Sweden, I discuss problems of scale as related to the new take on sustainability inMalmo planning documents, especially the update of the Malmo comprehensive plan from 2005.The article is divided into three sections. First, I discuss the concept and problem of spatialscale, contextualizing it in theory as well as in recent discussions on urban transformations.Second, I briefly discuss the discourse of sustainable urban forms, pointing out some scale-related issues that need to be more carefully addressed. In the third and main section of thearticle, I investigate plans and projects for urban development in Malmo, focusing andelaborating on spatial scale and discussing the findings in terms of three kinds of scalestabilization: in terms of territory, size and hierarchy. The article concludes with a call forfurther work for the possibilities of a more dynamic and multi-scalar approach in urban planning.

1. Introduction

The idea of applying the concept of sustainable development to urban and architectural

form has increasingly been addressed and discussed by researchers, planners and

architects during the last decade. The issue of sustainable urban form has, however,

both in discourse and practice, been problematic, resulting in different and contradictory

results, e.g. in discussions for and against the compact city (Frey, 1999; Jenks & Dempsey,

2005; Kaido, 2005). The research results are thus often uncertain, but various guidelines

and directives have been adopted and produced in recent years, often in favour of a

compact city solution (Williams et al., 2000; cf. a recent attempt in Sweden in Ullstad

(2008)).

Correspondence Address: Mattias Karrholm, Urban Studies, KS, Malmo University, 205 06 Malmo, Sweden.

Email: [email protected]

European Planning Studies Vol. 19, No. 1, January 2011

ISSN 0965-4313 Print/ISSN 1469-5944 Online/11/01009716 # 2011 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/09654313.2011.530394

One core issue is that of methodology. How do we find and define sustainable urban

forms? How do we investigate this question? How should we even pose it? To actually

judge whether or not a certain urban form is sustainable is not an easy task. To some

extent, the problem echoes the old modernist dilemma of function and form. Both pro-

blems are set up as a relationship between cause and effect, between urban form and

outcome. I do not contest that there may be stable relationships between a set of activities

or relations agreed upon as sustainable and a certain urban form. These relationships are,

however, not easily generalized about, using such dichotomies as natureculture, object

subject or formfunction.

The aim of this article is to investigate research and planning discourses on sustainable

urban form, posing the question on what scales are these sustainable urban forms discussed

and implemented? It has often been acknowledged that the integration of social, ecological

and economic sustainability is contradictory, as different aspects of sustainability rely on

different criteria for success. However the contradictions associated with sustainability go

deeper still, as the same effort might increase one aspect of sustainability on one scale (e.g.

the urban), while decreasing it on another (e.g. the neighbourhood). So far such aspects

have been discussed at national, global and regional levels,1 but not so much at urban

level. In order to counteract this, more light needs to be shed on tendencies toward

scale stabilization, i.e. the tendencies of planning from the perspective of only one or a

few pre-fixed scales. In this article, I advocate an approach that sees scales as effects

of processes and actions of the lived environment. Such an approach imply that effects

(whether contributing to a sustainable development or not) are always enacted at different

spatial levels in terms of size and dimension, and they are thus much more multi-scalar

than suggested by the predefined scales of, for example, planning programmes and admin-

istrative organizations.

This article is divided into three sections. First, I give a short introduction to spatial scale,

contextualizing it both theoretically in recent scale theory, and in the empirical notion of

rapidly growing urban landscapes. Second, I provide some brief notes on the discourse of

sustainable urban forms. In the third and main part of the article, I look at the Malmo

planning documents and some of the urban development projects planned there over the

last decade to discuss three tendencies of scale stabilization that seem to be reflected in

these texts and plans. The main empirical material consists of the official plans and

documents concerned with sustainability, produced at the Malmo City Planning Office

during the years 20032006. These were the main years during which the concept of

sustainability was introduced and integrated into the planning documents of the city. I

chose Malmo for several reasons. First, it is the largest city in one of Swedens fastest

growing urban landscapes (second only to the Stockholm region). Second, it is one of the

Swedens most ambitious cities in terms of sustainable planning, producing a great deal

of planning material and ideas about sustainable form, for which it in fact also has been inter-

nationally acclaimed and awarded (e.g. the Liveable communitys award 2007, Swedens

first Fairtrade City 2006 and the fourth greenest city in the world by Grist in 2007).

1.1 Spatial Scale

Spatial scale is a vital but, at a theoretical level, little-discussed aspect in the discourse

on sustainable urban forms. In this article, I will specifically look at the scales on which

different sustainable urban forms are implemented and discussed (in research and

98 M. Karrholm

planning). The argument is based on the notion that urban forms participate in the pro-

duction of effects on different scales (they are multi-scalar), and that if we want to

discuss the meanings and effects of built form, scale is an issue of key importance. The

article uses the concept of spatial scale as related to urban form, taking its cue primarily

from urban morphology but indirectly also from scale as discussed in a more eclectic

architectural discourse by such diverse authors as Rasmussen (1957), Licklider (1965),

Boudon (1999) and Lawson (2001). Although architectural and spatial scales have been

widely discussed in architectural theory, for example, as the human scale, the scale

of the body or the scale of the car, the actual impacts of the built environment as ana-

lysed through different scales is seldom studied (although see Yaneva (2005)). Here I

use Caniggia and Maffeis Architectural Composition, one of the classics in the field of

urban morphology, to define scale as: different level of complexity of the components

internally arranged to construct a whole (Caniggia & Maffei, 2001 (1979), p. 245).

Different scales are thus to be discussed as relationships between spaces of different

dimensions, where the constructed whole of one scale can be a mere component

among components at another (Caniggia & Maffei, 2001 (1979), 68f.). In this sense, I

use scale as a relative (and analytical) concept insofar as one would need at least two

different complexities of the components producing effects (e.g. those of a city and

a city district), where the effects of different complexities can be seen as different

scales. The differences of these components can be found both in terms of category and

size. Discussing the effects of a certain neighbourhood, the outcome of such a discussion

will, for example, surely be different if we discuss it from the perspective of (and the scale

thus implied by) the city, the city district, the motor way system, the cycle way system, the

local street level or the human body.

My take on spatial scale differs somewhat from the scale analysis and scale theory that has

been developed since the 1980s, largely within the field of political and human geography

(Smith, 1984, 2003; Jonas, 1994; Swyngedouw, 2000; Brenner, 2001; Randles & Dicken,

2004; Collinge, 2005; Marston et al., 2005, to mention a few). I agree with some points

made in this quite heterogeneous field of research: e.g. Neil Smith notions that scales are

materially real frames of social action (Smith, 2003, p. 228), and that they are socially pro-

duced. However Smith also describes scale as the spatial resolution of contradictory social

forces (Smith, 2003, p. 228) taking the nation as an example. In this article, scale is not

necessarily understood as so closely intertwined with the process of institutionalization,

but as a phenomenon that also could relate to less stable spatial usages or effects, e.g. the

space used by six-year-old kids at a certain neighbourhood might tend to have a certain

scale in common, whereas the space used by teenagers living at the same place have

another (cf. Lieberg, 1992). I also think that it is fair to argue that scale theory needs to

become more sensitive to materialities; forms, shapes and artefacts, than has hitherto

been the case. These materialities are indispensable co-producers of scales and scale-

related effects. This in turn often means that scales are not always institutionally fixed

and that scalar outcomes can be non-direct, unintentional and even unpredictable (cf.

Randles & Dicken, 2004). The politics of space must thus be discussed not just by analysing

intentions and discourses, but also by taking the issue of form and materiality seriously.

In this article, I regard scale as an analytical concept that is both dynamic and relational,

and does not connote pre-fixed sizes or levels per se. Spatial scales are continuously

produced by different components, human actors, rules, built structures, objects, paving,

etc. An investigation of urban form in terms scale could, for example, follow the roles

The Scaling of Sustainable Urban Form 99

of a certain urban block in different settings, acknowledging and tracking the impact of the

block in systems of different sizes, levels, lengths, etc. The role of the block would of

course be totally different if analysed from the scale suggested by the city grid or from

the scale suggested by the perspective of a single apartment. Similarly, the spatial

impact of the urban block is heterogeneous, producing certain effects at the scale of the

city grid, and other effects (setting limits and opportunities) at the scale of the apartment.

1.2 The Scale of the Urban Landscape

Although it is not always fully recognized as a subject of its own, scale has always been

one of the main issues of urbanity and the urban form debate. French architect and theorist

Phillippe Boudon even regards it as the key concept of an autonomous architectural

science, a field he refers to as architecturology (Boudon, 1999; cf. Lundequist, 1999).

Today regional scale seems to be an issue of growing importance in a much larger

context than that of architectural research. The transformation of towns and cities to

urban regional landscapes was ongoing throughout the 20th century, starting with the

trends of suburbanization, garden cities, etc. early in the century. Lewis Mumford com-

mented in the 1930s that motorways and railroads enabled a non-hierarchical region

where: no single centre will, like the metropolis of old, become the focal point of all

regional advantages: on the contrary the whole region becomes open for settlement

(Mumford, 2003 (1937), p. 96). Although this transformation of the urban structure was

noted early, it did not become thoroughly conceptualized until the 1990s (partly owing

to a vast number of influential hierarchical conceptualizations, e.g. Christallers central

place theory, The Chicago School ring model, The Athens-charter zoning systems and

Newmans Defensible Space). Today, however, we are witnessing a seemingly never-

ending conceptual production discussing these urban transformations on the scale of the

region in terms such as Zwischenstadt (Sieverts, 2003), Netzstadt (Oswald &

Baccini, 2003), citta diffusa (Boeri et al., 2003), lurbanisme des reseaux (Dupuy,

2005), the network city (Abrechts & Mandelbaum, 2005), the edge city (Garreau,

1991), the regional city (Calthorpe & Fulton, 2001) and splintering urbanism (Graham

& Marvin, 2001). These conceptualizations, and to some extent also mappings (Boeri

et al., 2003; Abrams & Hall, 2006) of urban landscapes, networks and nebulae imply

that regional scale is rapidly becoming an issue of growing importance (Boeri et al.,

2003), even play with the idea of seeing the whole of Europe as one urban region,

echoing Doxiades notion of a world city, Ecumenopolis. New regional developments,

infrastructures and politics also affect and involve everyday life. People commute more

and longer, tourism is an ever-growing industry, and new institutions are being established

on new scale levels. Aldo Rossi suggested as early as the 1960s that the new urban scale of

the metropolitan area was more or less defined by the size of the local labour market (cf.

Lobsinger, 2006). In the province of Skane (where Malmo is situated) the number of esti-

mated labour markets decreased from 16 to 4 between 1970 and 2000, whereas there was,

and still is, a steady increase in the number of commuters. Spatial planning is thus facing a

new context in which distance has more to do with time than kilometres, and in which

urbanization, greenbelts, investments, centres, etc. seem to be facing scalar shifts (Hajer

& Zonneveld, 2000; Albrechts & Mandelbaum, 2005; cf. Healy, 2005).

The change of perspective from city to urban landscape does not just involve a scalar

shift. It increases scalar complexity as it adds a new scale of relevance to the urbanization

100 M. Karrholm

process. The urban life of today seems to be enacted at more different spatial levels or

scales than ever before. The transformation and addition of new relevant scales have,

however, not yet been sufficiently dealt with in Swedish planning, where spatial develop-

ment still is very much treated as territorial issues set within the frames of a hard-edged

container (Healy, 2005, p. 151), which does not take into account the fact that many

relations, problems and phenomena are being increasingly enacted on new and multiple

scales. Although the scale of the urban landscape is increasingly conceptualized and dis-

cussed by researchers as an empirical phenomenon, it has not yet achieved its full poten-

tial, one could argue, in more normative terms, in texts such as planning visions and in

expressions of new ideas about how to build. It has even less raised the meta-question

of new scalar approaches to urban issues. To some extent this is also a result of how plan-

ning practice is organized, with responsibilities hierarchically divided on different scales,

often focused on intra-territorial issues and different fields of interest. These organizations

can at worst result in the optimization of isolated elements, areas or aspects, which could

make it more difficult to cope with the multiple relations of the urban landscapes (cf.

Healy, 2005). These issues are part and parcel of the tendencies of scale stabilization dis-

cussed below, but first we need to address the question of sustainable urban form.

2. Sustainable Urban Form in Research

Sustainability has, since its definition in the Brundtlandt report of 1987, become an

increasingly important concept not just in politics, but also in research and planning. It

is, however, not so easily translated into built form. In Achieving Sustainable Urban

Form, Williams et al. conclude that sustainable urban forms are characterized by com-

pactness (in various forms), mix of uses and interconnected street layouts, supported by

strong public transport networks, environmental controls and high standards of urban man-

agement (Williams et al., 2000, p. 355). Compactness and concentration of the built

environment to transit nodes are two of the most common recommendations in the litera-

ture of the field (and can, for example, also be seen in Swedish reports such as SOU

1997:35 and Boverket Vison 2009; see Westford (1999) and Ullstad (2008)).

In research on sustainable urban forms (Frey, 1999; Jabareen, 2006) and anthologies

such as Williams et al. (2000) and Jenks and Dempsey (2005), there almost seems to be

a consensus on the themes that are relevant. But what kinds of forms are sustainable?

Looking at the discourse from the perspective of (morphological) spatial scale, three

things come to mind.

First, and perhaps most striking, is the absence of differentiation when it comes to the

notion of form. The key themes for sustainable urban form are often represented as form-

less statistical numbers of density, numbers of usages (in mixed-use areas) or distances

(that at best could be described as one-dimensional form), and some of the desired

effects are characterized as sustainable, rather than discussing the urban forms that

could accommodate these effects. Using Kevin Lynchs definition of urban form as:

the spatial pattern of the large, inert, permanent physical objects in a city (Lynch in

Jabareen, 2006, p. 39), I note that the notion of pattern or shape is seldom addressed at

all concretely. The differentiation of form is often quite weak with lists of some ideal

models (Jabareen, for example, lists four idealized models) (Jabareen, 2006) rather than

discussions of various morphological aspects (such as different block types to follow

classical urban morphology, or different spatial configurations and integration values to


follow the theories of space syntax) (Hillier & Hanson, 1984; Hillier, 1996). The discourse

on sustainable urban form surprisingly seldom takes its cue from urban morphology,

although there are exceptions (e.g. Scoffham & Marat-Mendes, 2000; and to some

extent Frey (1999)). Let us consider the example of building density to illustrate the

problem of neglecting more thorough discussions on form. Changing the borders and per-

imeters of a place obviously changes its density but even within the same borders the same

density or floor space ratio could very well represent totally different building typologies

and ways of life (cf. Radberg & Johansson, 1997; Jenks & Dempsey, 2005).2

Second, when scale is addressed, this is still often done quite simplistically and hier-

archically. Scales are set in terms of administrative borders or typological area classifi-

cations; scale is then used as a pre-fixed and static entity rather than a dynamic field of

inquiry. Furthermore, most discussions seem to focus either on the scale of the city

(e.g. the compact city) or the neighbourhood. Some authors look at the region, in discus-

sions of, for example, polycentric vs. monocentric models (Frey, 1999; Okabe, 2005).

However the ability to change scales, to jumping up and down them, lies at the very

heart of the design process (Yaneva, 2005), as well as of the ways in which we relate to

our surroundings in our everyday lives. In architectural practice, scaling often is more

phenomenological, scales are produced from the perspective of lived space, asking, for

example, how does this particular building affect the skyline, life on the street, the view

from the park, or the light in the rooms of the building next door? (cf. Licklider, 1965).

Just determining the height or the width of a building immediately affects all of these

scales and many others. This kind of multi-scalar approach has, however, unfortunately

not been much verbalized or conceptualized in discourse to date. Relevant questions

would be: In what contexts does this building (or parts of the building) have an effect

on everyday life? What roles does it play on different scales? Different and mixed uses

within a city district do not necessarily imply that people will walk or cyclethat has

also to do with other things such as income, workplace, distance, urban design and

spatial structure, but scale is also relevant. On what scale are these activities mixed, at

the level of the building, the street, the block or the district? Is the mix to some extent

repeated on several streets within the district or located to one street or a mall?

Third, there seems to be a tendency to favour certain aspects such as density and mixed

use, and to look for a one-rule model. Jabareen develops a matrix for the evaluation of

particular suggestions, but it would also be possible to argue in terms of several futures

and pathways (Guy & Marvin, 2000). The possibility of seeing scaling problems and

solutions differently, together with a diversity of social interests, etc., suggests that

there might not be one single optimal solution. Thus a discussion of sustainable urban

form needs to follow a more heuristic trajectory, addressing a plurality of important

issues and methods rather than producing one-rule models, one-liners or optimal solutions

such as the compact city.

3. Three Tendencies of Scale Stabilization

During 2004, Malmo published ten dialogue-memoranda (here referred to as M110)

followed by a new Comprehensive Plan in 2005. These planning documents, together

with other planning material from the time 20002007, form the basis of my investigation.

One of the primary aims of Malmo Citys work with the new Comprehensive Plan was to

integrate three aspects of sustainability (social, economic and ecological) into planning in

102 M. Karrholm

general and the Comprehensive Plan in particular. Although I am critical in my readings of

this material, it is important to note that this article is not primarily to be read as a critique

of Malmo planning (cf. Anderberg & Clark, 2009, for a more critical approach), but more

as a road map that opens up for further work on the issue of a dynamic and multi-scalar

approach in urban planning.

Malmo is a good city to use for a discussion on scale, since it is very much undergoing

urban development and transformations on the scale of the region, involving scalar

shifts, as old villages and towns become transit-nodes for commuters, local squares

and services decline and retail spaces are increasingly appearing at inter-district or

even interurban levels. Malmo has also been internationally acknowledged for

sustainable urban development in the area of Vastra hamnen, and for the Housing

exhibition Bo01 in 2001 (State of the World, 2007). Bo01 was a pilot project, an

attempt to build the city of the future, by focusing on ecological sustainability, etc.

and promoting the compact city. It also stressed the important role of architectural

and urban design in sustainable development. The evaluations made (Larson et al.,

2003) argue that, although Bo01 could be regarded as successful in terms of ecology

and technology, the aspects of social and economical sustainability tended to be

weaker. Sandstedt and Ost were also able to trace a functional planning ideology in

the efforts made to plan for a general user, while socio-economical stratification

and differentiation of the population were not addressed (Sandstedt & Ost, 2003:164;

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

In the planning programmes and memoranda produced in connection with the Malmo

Comprehensive Plan (2005) there is a more general approach to sustainability than in

Bo01. Its focus was very much on how to integrate the three aspects of sustainability:

social, economical and ecological. Although there are some examples of empty rhetoric

(cf. Anderberg & Clark, 2009), especially when it comes to the level of actual architectural

or urban design,3 Malmo also started a more decisive line of sustainable planning, pin-

pointing some of the core aspects for sustainable planning (M110). I will not be able

to address all the aspects in this article, but I focus on some of the most important ones

concerned with issues of scale and urban form. Half the memoranda focus on the different

geographical areas in Malmo; the other half focus on issues such as trade and industry, the

transport of dangerous goods, regional strategies, and restrictions for air pollution. For

example the documents underline the importance of keeping the city and the city areas

dense. The dense inner city is meant to grow and promote sustainable development as a

mixed, walkable city with retail and work opportunities. This is clearly described in

M1, where it is stated that:

Malmos most important contribution to an ecologically sustainable development is

to keep a dense city that can offer both inhabitants and visitors a many-sided and

easy accessible content. (my tansl., M1:6)

The documents are also concerned with integrating different parts of Malmo spatially; this

especially includes the spatial integration of the eastern parts of Malmo with the central

parts, and the integration of the new area of Hyllie with the rest of the city (Aktualisering

av Oversiktsplan 2003). To summarize in terms of urban form, the documents investigate

some well-known prerequisites associated with the sustainable citya denser and

more well-integrated (spatially and socially) walkable citybut they fall into the


common spatial, and in this case also scalar trap of cutting connections too soon, following

preconceived spatial categories rather than the spatial effects of activities regarded as

sustainable or non-sustainable.

In the following I will present three tendencies of scale stabilization, i.e. tendencies of

institutionalization and reification of scale as certain predefined and thus predictable sizes

or categories of components.

3.1 Stabilizing Scale at the Level of an Area (Intra-territorial Bias)

Most of the plans and planning documents define a territory as being of a certain size,

focusing discussions and plans to that territory, and thus also defining the scale at

which sustainability is discussed. This scale may be the urban region (e.g. M7; Oresunds-

regionen 2045), a certain city district such as Augustenborg or Bo01 (Dahlman, 2003), or

perhaps most vividly the municipality (Malmo OP; M1; Malmo, hallbarhet blir verklighet

2008), or the inner city area (Malmo 2005), and then they tend to keep to that scale.

The most well-known example of sustainable urban design in Malmo is still the building

of the city area Bo01. Bo01 was initially planned to be a heterogeneous and socially

sustainable area, but at one point the city chose to consider the question of integration

on the scale of the municipality, claiming that Malmo needed more wealthy taxpayers.

They thus argued for social homogeneity on the scale of the area to increase heterogeneity

in terms of income on the scale of the municipality (Sandstedt & Ost, 2003:165). Apart

from this, the planning of Bo01 focused on the area as an isolated object of itself. It

was planned as a spatial enclave and the aspect of sustainability was primarily dealt

with as an intra-territorial issue. Evaluations and discussions have tended to do likewise,

focusing on the scale of the area (cf. Laurell, 2002; Dahlman, 2003; Larsson et al., 2003).

This tendency is to some extent echoed in the planning memoranda (M110), which

mainly focus on specific geographical areas. Even more surprisingly, some statements

in these planning documents suggest strategies of functional zoning rather than mixing,

thus contradicting the overall aims and strategies presented in M1 and quoted above.

The inner city, for example, is defined as a retail area (M10:8, which it has in fact also

become increasingly transformed into, cf. Karrholm, 2008), and other zoning examples

could also be found in the new large centre of logistics suggested for the North harbour

(M2) and the development ideas for the hospital and university areas (M1).

Although sustainable planning primarily seems to be an intra-territorial endeavour,

some exceptions should be noted. First of all, a lot of the projects seem to involve the con-

nection between different city areas. These projects work on different scales, enhancing

local city spaces and connecting different parts of Malmo with each other. This,

however, does not change the fact that the notion of the city area still seems to be the

primary spatial category.

Malmo planning also seems to be increasingly attentive to important urban routes that

make for important social connections between different parts of the city. This is interest-

ing since Swedish planning in general, but also most research on sustainability seem to be

focused on the area as a basic unit for discussion. An explicit focus on strakplanering

(route planning) was advocated, for example, in projects in Ostergatan, Norra Sorgenfri

and Bennets vag (Malmo 2006, Vision Norra Sorgenfri 2006; cf. Persson, 2003). The

importance of the grid plan is also noted in plans of older parts of the city, where a coherent

and well-connected grid is seen as an important aspect in defining a city area. The inner

104 M. Karrholm

city, for example, is defined at one point as the city within walking distance of the central

square Gustav Adolfs torg (M10:8). However in newly built areas such as Hyllie, the

notion of the grid seems to be of less importance (M9; Planprogram for Hyllie) and is

not addressed as ambitiously as, for example, in relations to the more centrally located

area Norra Sorgenfri, and the attention to the spatial connections between Hyllie and its

surroundings is kept to a minimum.

The tendency towards intra-territorial fetishism (to put it bluntly) should not be

confused with spatial fetishism, which is much discussed in scale theory. In Amsterdam

Zuidas European Space, Swyngedouw criticizes the tendency of solving certain social

problems by way of spatial intervention or territorial planning, changing focus from com-

prehensive planning to projects for urban development (Swyngedouw, 2005, 70f.). This

might in turn lead to a spatial fetishism, treating space in itself rather than the social

relationships that are present in (and produce) the space (Lefebvre, 1991; Collinge,

2005). Leaving the question of spatial (or social) fetishism aside there is, however,

another related problem at stake: that of pre-fixed scale, delegating sustainability to be

solved within the boundaries of one (or at best a few) territories and thus at one (or a

few) scales. This we could call an intra-territorial bias.

The modernist tendency towards territorialization, building cities as molecules, objects,

zones or big boxes, is a well-known one. Modernist architects often discussed their archi-

tectural projects and buildings as enclosed, self-contained systems (Forty, 2000, p. 94).

Panerai et al. (2004) point out Le Corbusiers Unite dHabitation (Panerai et al., 2004,

p. 116) as a key historical example of how the urban morphology of block and street was

transformed to the single building, reducing building cities to building monuments. The

issue of sustainability seems to have triggered a new interest in the neighbourhood as a

unit for the city or urban region, conceptualizing neighbourhoods as TODs, TNDs, urban

villages, communities, etc. (Frey, 1999, p. 41). However the neighbourhood as a base for

intervention is sometimes too large for questions such as safety, and too small for others

such as integration and employment (Lahti Edmark 2004, 165ff.). Such models still have

the problem of non-differentiation; they set up a quite homogeneous morphology,

echoing modernistic examples such as the linear city, broadacre city, Ville Radieuse, etc.

(cf. Dupuy, 2005). Such uniform and standardized ways of living seem more utopian

today than ever. To host all the activities of contemporary society, one would expect differ-

entiation at least at the level of the region. Regional structures cannot be built from bottom

up alone, or from a few uniform elements such as centres and sub-centres.

3.2 Stabilizing the Scale to That of the City Centre (the Inner City Area Bias)

The tendency towards scale stabilization does not just follow an intra-territorial line of

thinking (as suggested above) but more specifically it involves a certain territory, and

thus a certain grain (Lynch, 1990), a certain measure and a scale of a certain size. In

the case of Malmo the fetishization of the inner city is quite evident. In the Malmo plan-

ning documents it is stated that Malmos most important contribution to sustainability is

maintaining and enlarging the inner city: Malmos strength and potential is primarily to

be found in the inner city area (my transl., Malmo 2005, p. 28). This goes for all three

aspects of sustainability: ecological sustainability is promoted by maintaining a

compact inner city, adapted to cyclists and pedestrians; economic sustainability is

focused on enhancing and expanding the inner city, encouraging urban businesses; and


in terms of social sustainability the operative term is meeting points (Motesplatser). In

the booklet Meeting in the City (Moten i Staden), part of the sustainability efforts in the

project Welfare for all (Valfard for alla), good examples of meeting points are given,

and at least three quarters of them are located wholly or partly in the inner city.

The model of the compact city often refers, explicitly or implicitly, to the old European

city cores (cf. Guy & Martin, 2000). The planning material for Malmo contains many

examples, from the planning of Bo01, explicitly planned with old Venice as a model, to

the emphasis put on Malmo inner city in the Comprehensive Plan and other planning docu-

ments such as Meeting in the City (Moten i Staden). The focus on the image of the

urban inner city follows the logic of postmodern urbanism (Ellin, 1999). In fact one

could argue that the discourse on sustainability started a process of de- and reinstitutiona-

lization (Hajer & Zonneveld, 2000; Lundquist, 2004), in which a lot of the old planning

issues needed to be reappropriated within the new discourse. After one hundred years

of suburbanization it does not come as a surprise that the pro-urban rhetoric of postmodern

urbanism has survived and been integrated into the sustainable form discourse. However

the fetishization of the inner city, with its spatial scale as a kind of model (in terms of size)

for planning, is also problematic in the perspective of recent changes in urban develop-

ment. In one sense it seems as if the inner city is gradually becoming a district of consump-

tion (Karrholm, 2008) and mono-functionality, and its role as a live model for mixed uses

is thus slowly becoming an anomaly. This would thus contradict the goals of Malmo plan-

ning since mixed functions, dwelling and work places (my transl., M10:8) are seen both

as a characteristic and an exemplary trait of the inner city.

3.3 Stabilizing the Process of Scaling (the Hierarchical Bias)

The discourse on sustainability actually still echoes the critique of industrialism of the

Ebenezer Howard triad-perspective, be it town, towncountry and country, or urban

suburbanrural. There are centrists, decentrists, compromisers (Frey, 1999:27), monocen-

trists and polycentrists (Okabe, 2005). However as described above a simple hierarchical

model no longer works as a metaphor for the city. The urban region consists of a whole

range of overlapping hierarchies and even non-hierarchical structures. In discourse as

well as in planning, one can sometimes find a tendency towards establishing one hier-

archy for the city, defining the process on how to scale up and down (cf. Healy, 2005)

and establishing the bias of a specific scale hierarchy. In Malmo, as in most cities in

Sweden, the scale levels discussed are often limited somewhere between one and four;

the region (Oresund), the county (Skane, represented by administrative institutions such

as Region Skane and the county administrative board), the municipality (Malmo) and

the city districts. Most hierarchical planning seems to create a competition between muni-

cipalities, since these make up the strongest nodes of the hierarchical structure. The scale

of the region is still quite weak in Swedish planning, but it is at least discussed and ana-

lysed by the county administrative board and Region Skane. There are also some less insti-

tutionalized spatial categories such as Southwest Skane (Samverkan Skane sydvast,

SSSV) and the MalmoLund area (evolving as an important region for planning in

M7), but still there is much work to do in establishing regional instruments of planning.

As an example one could mention the planning and localization of retail. This has

clearly become an issue of regional importance in the MalmoLund region, but is still

only planned at a municipal level, causing competition among municipalities fighting to

106 M. Karrholm

secure the first mall or the largest retail areas (Franzen, 2004). This problem is not men-

tioned in the municipal planning documents (focusing as it were on the municipal level)

but becomes clear in the light of recent national investigations (Vagverket, 2006, 2008).

On the urban level the municipality of Malmo is divided into western and eastern parts.

This was formerly also an administrative division at the City planning office, but today the

division is most noticeable in terms of a socio-economic gap, differences in political

affiliation, etc. (cf. Persson, 2008). The western districts of Vastra hamnen (including

Bo01), Bunkeflo and Hyllie are the places of most of the important recent investments

and urban development projects in Malmo. The memoranda (M110) dealing with the

sustainable planning of the eastern part are largely focused on the border between west

and east in general and the connection between the eastern part and the inner city area

in particular, rather than on the development of eastern part itself.

It has sometimes been assumed that cities change in parts rather than in their entity

(e.g. Frey, 1999, p. 45), and architectural inventions are often district solutions, with the

city built from the bottom and up. This is, however, an oversimplification (cf. Hillier,

1996). Caniggia and Maffei (2001) suggest that different scales have different time inter-

vals of change. Caniggia and Maffei, however, have also pointed out a hierarchical change

where de- and reterritorialization not only influence new spaces, but also can destabilize

whole hierarchies of spatial institutionalizations. As retail areas such as the shopping/pedestrian precinct of the inner city area have been territorialized as an urban type on a

scale between the urban core and the street, a lot of issues, activities and forms, formerly

handled or enacted on these scales, now seem to take place on the scale produced by the

pedestrian precinct. Local neighbourhood centres are another point in the case, where a lot

of local services and shops close down, leaving people to buy their everyday goods at large

outlying malls. The ongoing development and expansion of the retail areas Svagertorp-

Hyllie (M9), with IKEA as one of its latest additions (in 2009), will not, for example,

just impact on the neighbouring local retail centres. It has already had a considerable

impact on all the local retail centres in Malmo, where new retail areas are now being pro-

duced and enacted on new and different spatial scales (e.g. Svagertorp, the pedestrian

malls of the inner city, Pilelyckan, Center Syd, etc.). New retail business is thus being

established on new spatial scales affecting the whole field of retail establishments, desta-

bilizing previous structures and starting the process of finding a new balance and

hierarchic structure on other scales (Caniggia & Maffei, 2001; Alppi, 2006). Such trans-

formations call for a new approach to planning that does not always take pre-fixed spatial

categories as its cue. Urban transformations affect and shed light on the notions of prede-

fined territories, sizes and hierarchies. It can be argued that the old city centre in some

respects might be losing its place as a privileged node in the urban region: this Mumfor-

dian shift (as we might call it) indicates a horizontal de- and restabilization of scales, e.g.

as the old urban and rural centres are deterritorialized and dispersed. Centres are, however,

also reterritorialized and we can thus also speak of a Caniggian shift (if such an expression

is possible), indicating a vertical de- and restabilization of scales where centres de- and

reterritorialize not just geographically but also hierarchically.

4. Concluding Remarks

The aim of the research on sustainable urban forms is to inform us about how to

build urban environments without compromising the possibilities of future generations.


A possible strength of the sustainability concept is as a tool for integrating issues and pro-

blems that were previously specialized or sub-optimized: this would also open for a multi-

scalar approach that does not conceive of scale as given and as an institutionalized entity,

but as a multitude of spatial effects and a field open to enquiry. Although the sustainability

of a certain area at hand is prioritized in planning, the effects of the suggested plans are in

fact always multi-scalar. If we follow the entities that make up the effects that are to be

accounted for as sustainable or not, these entities, actors or components are found at differ-

ent levels or dimensions of complexity, and thus at different scales. An important task

would then be to develop the administrative structures and planning instruments that

enable identification and discussion of the different scales at which the suggested

efforts for sustainable development seem to be effective and have spatial impacts.

In this article, I have investigated some aspects of spatial scale in sustainable urban

planning, focusing mainly on those having to do with impacts and meanings of urban

form. Following three tendencies towards stabilization presented above (intra-territorial,

inner-city area and hierarchical), I conclude by suggesting some questions that might be

important in discussions on sustainable urban form. First, avoiding an intra-territorial

bias, we might, for example, look more carefully at the aspect of mobilities. Morphologi-

cal literature often tends to point out the road structure and the urban grid as important and

generative aspects of urban form (Hillier & Hanson, 1984; Hillier, 1996; Caniggia &

Maffei, 2001). If one adds mixed mobilities to the often repeated demand for mixed

uses (in debates on sustainable urban form), the question of intertwining scales could be

addressed in a more explicit way. A mixed mobility approach implies that different

modes of transport can be integrated at the same place, establishing more complex topol-

ogies allowing connections to places both far away and close by, for example, places

where the infrastructure of the neighbourhood, the city district, the city and region

mingle and meet. I think that we need to address the mixed mobility question more con-

sciously if we, for example, are to counteract the car dependency produced by the dialectic

between large retail areas of mono-mobility (pedestrians only, cf. Karrholm, 2008, 2009)

and vast parking areas (cf. M10:4 that suggest better parking and pedestrianization for the

inner city). This dialectic is, as I see it, partly a problem that has its root in negligence of

scalar complexity, i.e. how activities of different scales come together at a certain place.

Second, we need to be aware of the pars pro toto fallacy, where a certain area such as

Bo01, the inner city or a municipality comes to stand for the whole of the urban landscape.

The production of identity and image through symbolic buildings or areas might be impor-

tant to a town, but when it comes to sustainability one cannot focus all the effort on a single

and discrete space. Third, I think that we need to be more aware of the ongoing production

of different scalar shifts. These might be horizontal (Mumfordian) or vertical (Caniggian),

minor or major, but since they are constantly at work, we need to address them more con-

sciously.

Turning again to Caniggia and Maffeis definition of scale, it seems easy enough to

detect a problem with the way scale is treated in the sustainable planning of Malmo. Of

course there are some components or categories of different scales such as Vastra

Hamnen, Hyllie, Malmo municipality and the region, but these components seem rather

static and pregiventhe relation between components of different scales is not much ana-

lysed, and it seems as if the question of scale is not taken seriously. Whereas political regu-

lations and spatial planning often are territorial by nature, thus tending to establish and

institutionalize certain scales, the effects of urban forms are not. The impact of urban

108 M. Karrholm

design solutions and forms needs to be analysed in a more unbiased manner. One of the

problems of making such an analysis possible is the lack of a common ground where

these different scales could be discussed in an effective manner. In terms of planning, plan-

ning institutions such as the Municipal Comprehensive Plan, the town planning office or

the county administrative board neither could nor should be easy to alter right away.

Nevertheless, the fact that the issues they address and their areas of responsibility increas-

ingly both affect, and are affected, by processes and spatial productions outside their

jurisdiction, needs to be acknowledged, and calls for further work on the institutionaliza-

tion of collaboration between different planning institutions, e.g. on an inter-municipal

level. The new scales of an urban region, like the Malmo metropolitan area, cannot be

solved at the level of the municipality, e.g. by handing out yet another pamphlet of guide-

lines. In order to be handled more efficiently, the question of scale might call for stronger

and more democratic regional planning instruments.

Acknowledgements

This article has benefitted from encouragement, criticism and comments from Katarina

Nylund, Guy Baeten, Bengt Holmberg, Eva Kristensson and Nora Rathzel. The supportive

suggestions of the anonymous referees are gratefully acknowledged. The work reported in

this article was financed by the Swedish research council FORMAS.

Notes

1. Sustainability and scale have been addressed on much larger scales elsewhere, e.g. discussing how pol-

itical issues can be set at a global scale, depoliticizing or repudiating the activities taking place on a

national or local scale (Baeten, 2000). Although the effects of the built environment might indeed take

us to a global level (and a network context) I constrain myself in this article to the regional level. See

also Marcotullio and McGranahan (2007) on scaling urban environmental challenges on both local and

global levels.

2. For diagrams on how different building types relate to the number of storeys, floor space index and density

ratio, see Radberg and Johansson (1997, p. 75) and Berghauser Pont and Haupt (2007).

3. Typical statements include, e.g.: the city that affords a good life is also a sustainable city (Staden som

erbjuder ett gott liv ar ocksa den hallbara staden) (Malmo, Hallbarhet 2005, p. 12), or High architectural

quality is a good starting point for designing sustainable buildings (s13). Such statements do not say

much, and the little they say could easily be criticized, e.g. by asking: is a good life always sustainable?

(my guess is not, if you do not set good sustainable, in which case the sentence becomes nonsense).

References

Abrams, J. & Hall, P. (2006) Else/Where: Mapping New Cartographies of Networks and Territories (Minneapo-lis, MN: University of Minnesota Press).

Albrechts, L. & Mandelbaum, S. (2005) The Network Society (London: Routledge).

Alppi, S. (2006) Where the flows freeze Tracking the nodalities in the network city, Paper presented at Nordic

and International Urban Morphology, Stockholm, Sweden, 35 September 2006.

Anderberg, S. & Clark, E. (2009) Green and sustainable resund region Or eco-branding Copenhagen and

Malmo? in: I. Vojnovic (Ed.) Sustainability: A Global Urban Context (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State

University Press).

Baeten, G. (2000) The tragedy of the highway: Empowerment, disempowerment and the politics of sustainability

discourse and practices, European Planning Studies, 8(1).

Berghauser Pont, M. & Haupt, P. (2007) The relation between urban form and density, Urban Morphology, 11(1),

pp. 6165.


Boeri, S. & Bregani, M. (2003) A Trip through a Changing Europe, Multiplicity, USE, Uncertain States of Europe

(Milano: Skira).

Boudon, P. (1999) The point of view of measurement in architectural conception: From the question of scale to

scale as question, Nordic Journal of Architectural Research, 12(1), pp. 718.

Brenner, N. (2001) The limits to scale? Methodological reflections on scalar structuration. Progress in Human

Geography, 25(4), pp. 591614.

Calthorpe, P. & Fulton, W. (2001) The Regional City (Washington, DC: Island Press).

Caniggia, G. & Maffei, G. L. (2001) Architectural Composition and Building Typology, Interpreting Basic

Building (Firenze: Alinea).

Collinge, C. (2005) Flat ontology and the deconstruction of scale, Transactions of the Institute of the British

Geographers, 31(2), pp. 244251.

Dahlman, E. (2003) Arkitektur och hallbarhet, intervjuundersokning om Bo01 (Malmo: Malmo Stadsbyggnads-

kontor).

Dupuy, G. (2005) Challenging the old urban planning paradigm: The network approach, in: L. Albrechts & S.

Mandelbaum (Eds) The Network Society, pp. 120122 (London: Routledge).

Ellin, N. (1999) Postmodern Urbanism (New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press).

Forty, A. (2000) Words and Buildings (London: Thames & Hudson).

Frey, H. (1999) Designing the City, Towards a more Sustainable Urban Form (London: Spon Press).

Garreau, J. (1991) Edge Cities (New York, NY: Doubleday).

Graham, S. & Marvin, S. (2001) Splintering Urbanism (London: Routledge).

Guy, S. & Marvin, S. (2000) Models and pathways: The diversity of sustainable urban futures, in: K. Williams, E.

Burton & M. Jenks (Eds) Achieving Sustainable Urban Form, pp. 918 (London: Spon Press).

Hajer, M. & Zonneveld, W. (2000) Spatial planning in the network society Rethinking the principles of

planning in the Netherlands, European Planning Studies, 8(3), pp. 337355.

Healy, P. (2005) Network complexity and imaginative power, in: L. Albrechts & S. Mandelbaum (Eds) The

Network Society, pp. 146160 (London: Routledge).

Hillier, B. (1996) Space is the Machine, a Configurational Theory of Architecture (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press).

Hillier, B. & Hanson, J. (1984) The Social Logic of Space (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Jabareen, Y. R. (2006) Sustainable urban form, their typologies, models, and concepts, Journal of Planning

Education and Research, 26(1), pp. 3852.

Jenks, M. & Dempsey, N. (Eds) (2005) Future Forms and Design for Sustainable Cities (Oxford: Architectural

Press).

Jonas, A. (1994) The scale politics of spatiality, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 12(3),

pp. 257264.

Kaido, K. (2005) Urban densities, quality of life and local facility accessibility in principal Japanese cities, in: M.

Jencks & N. Dempsey (Eds) Future Forms and Design for Sustainable Cities, pp. 311338 (Oxford:

Architectural Press).

Karrholm, M. (2008) The territorialisation of a pedestrian precinct in Malmo: Materialites in the commercialisa-

tion of public space, Urban Studies, 9(45), pp. 19031924.

Karrholm, M. (2009) To the rhythm of shoppingOn synchronisations in urban landscapes of consumption,

Social and Cultural Geography, 10(4), pp. 421440.

Larsson, B., Elmroth, A. & Sandstedt, E. (Eds) (2003) Vastra Hamnen, Bo01 Framtidsstaden, En utvardering

(Goteborg: Chalmers).

Laurell, C. (2002) Hallbar arkitektur? En analys av 6 Bo01 bostader (Malmo: Stadsbyggnadskontoret).

Lawson, B. (2001) The Language of Space (Oxford: Architectural Press).

Lefebvre, H. (1991) The Production of Space (Oxford: Blackwell).

Licklider, H. (1965) Architectural Scale (London: The Architecture Press).

Lieberg, M. (1992) Att ta staden i besittning BFL (Lund: Arkitektursektionen).

Lobsinger, M. L. (2006) The new urban scale in Italy, Journal of Architectural Education, 59(3), pp. 2838.

Lundequist, J. (1999) Scale, the theoretical object of architecturology, Nordic Architectural Research, 12(1),

pp. 7780.

Lynch, K. (1990) Urban textures and networks, in: T. Banerjee & M. Southworth (Eds) City Sense and City

Design, Writings and Projects of Kevin Lynch, pp. 261276 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

Marcotulli, P. & McGranahan G. (2007) Scaling Urban Environmental Challenges: From Local to Global and

Back (London: Earthscan).

110 M. Karrholm

Marston, S., Jones, J. P. III, & Woodward, K. (2005) Human geography without scale, Transactions of the

Institute of British Geographers, 31(2), pp. 416432.

Mumford, L. (2003) What is a city? in: R. LeGates & F. Stout (Eds) The City Reader (3rd ed.), pp. 9296 (London:

Routledge).

Okabe, A. (2005) Towards the spatial sustainability of city regions, in: M. Jencks & N. Dempsey (Eds) Future

Forms and Design for Sustainable Cities (Oxford: Architectural Press).

Oswald, F. & Baccini, P. (2003) Netzstadt, Designing the Urban (Basel: Birkhauser).

Panerai, P., Castex, J., Depaule, J.-D. & Samuels, I. (2004) Urban Forms, The Death and Life of the Urban Block

(Oxford: Architectural Press).

Persson, R. (2003) Some thoughts on strak, Space & Culture, 7(3), pp. 265282.

Persson, R. (2008) Segregation, Education and Space, A Case Study of Malmo (Lund: LU/LTH).Randles, S. & Dicken, P. (2004) Scale and the instituted construction of the urban: Contrasting the cases of

Manchester and Lyon, Environment and Planning A, 36(11), pp. 20112032.

Rasmussen, S. E. (1957) Om at opleve arkitektur (Copenhagen: GAD).

Radberg, J. & Johansson, R. (1997) Stadstyp & kvalitet (Stockholm: KTH).

Sandstedt, E. & Ost, T. (2003) Vastra Hamnen ett led i den hallbara utvecklingen? in: B. Larsson, A. Elmroth & E.

Sandstedt (Eds) Vastra Hamnen, Bo01 Framtidsstaden, En utvardering, pp. 161166 (Goteborg: Chalmers).

Scoffham, E. & Marat-Mendes, T. (2000) The ground rules of sustainable urban form, in: K. Williams,

E. Burton & M. Jenks (Eds) Achieving Sustainable Urban Form, pp. 97106 (London: Spon Press).

Sieverts, T. (2003) Cities without Cities (London: Spon Press).

Smith, N. (1984) Uneven Development (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).

Smith, N. (2003) Remaking scale: Competition and cooperation in pre-national and post-national Europe, in:

N. Brenner et al. (Eds) State/Space, pp. 227238 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).

State of the World (2007) Our Urban Future, Project Director M. OMeara Sheehan (London: Worldwatch

Institute, Earthscan).

Swyngedouw, E. (2000) Authoritarian governance, power and the politics of re-scaling, Environment and

Planning D: Society and Space, 18(1), pp. 6376.

Swyngedouw, E. (2005) A new urban living?, in: S. Majoor & W. Salet (Eds) Amsterdam Zuidas European

Space, pp. 5576 (Rotterdam: 010 Publishers).

Ullstad, E. (2008) Hallbar stadsutveckling, en politisk handbok for Sveriges arkitekter (Stockholm: Sveriges

arkitekter).

Westford, P. (1999) Bebyggelsefortatning som miljostrategi. KFB rapport 1999: 12 (Stockholm: Kommunika-

tionsforskningsberedningen).

Wheeler, S. (2003) Planning sustainable and liveable cities, in: R. LeGates & F. Stout (Eds) The City Reader,

(3rd ed.), pp. 486496 (London: Routledge).

Williams, K., Burton, E. & Jenks, M. (2000) Achieving sustainable urban form: Conclusions, in: K. Williams,

E. Burton & M. Jenks (Eds) Achieving Sustainable Urban Form, pp. 347356 (London: Spon Press).

Yaneva, A. (2005) Scaling up and down: Extraction trials in architectural design, Social Studies of Science, 35(6),

pp. 867894.

Appendix. Planning Documents, etc.

Aktualisering av Oversiktsplan for Malmo 2000, Arbetsprogram, Malmo Stadsbyggnadskontor 2003.

Att bo och arbeta i Skane, Region Skane 2006.

Karaktar Malmo, Handlingsprogram for Arkitektur och Stadbyggnad i Malmo, 14, Malmo Stadsbyggnadskon-

tor 2005.

[M1] Mal och strategier, Dialog-pm 2004:1, Malmo Stadsbyggnadskontor 2004.

[M2] Stadsbyggande och farligt gods, Dialog-pm 2004:2, Malmo Stadsbyggnadskontor 2004.

[M3] Malmos stationsnara omraden, Dialog-pm 2004:3, Malmo Stadsbyggnadskontor 2004.

[M4] Miljokvalitetsnormer, Dialog-pm 2004:4, Malmo Stadsbyggnadskontor 2004.

[M5] Battre forutsattningar for naringslivet, Dialog-pm 2004:5, Malmo Stadsbyggnadskontor 2004.

[M6] Fran Varnhem till Dalaplan, Dalog-pm 2004:6, Malmo Stasbyggnadskontor 2004.

[M7] Regional strategi for Malmo, Dialog-pm 2004:7, Malmo Stadsbyggnadskontor 2004.

[M8] Fran Triangeln till Heleneholm, Dialog-pm 2004:8, Malmo Stadsbyggnadskontor 2004.


[M9] Hyllievang och sodra Malmo, Dialog-pm 2004:9, Malmo Stadsbyggnadskontoret 2004.

[M10] Mer och battre Innerstad, Dialog-pm 2004:10, Malmo Stadsbyggnadskontor 2004.

Malmo 2005, Aktualisering och komplettering av Malmos oversiktsplan, Antagen februari 2006, Malmo

Stadsbyggnadskontor 2006.

Malmo hallbahet blir verklighet, Malmo stad och ISU, Malmo 2008.

Moten i Staden, Dialog-pm 2006:1, Malmo Stadbyggnadskontor 2006.

Oresundsregionen 2045, Scenarier for trafik och byutveckling, ORIB 2007.

Planering, Information fran Malmo Stadsbyggnadskontor, nr 2 2006.

Planprogram for Hyllie centrumomrade, Dp 4669, februari 2003, Malmo Stadsbyggnadskontor 2003.

SSSV och tilvaxten, Stadskontoret Malmo 2008.l.

Vision Norra Sorgenfri infor omvandling och planarbete, Malmo Stadsbyggnadskontor 2006.

Vagverket, (2006), Tatortsnara externa affarsetableringartillganglighet och utslapp. Publikation 2006:83,

Borlange.

Vagverket, 2008, Lokalisering av extern handelvagledning och effekter av trafik och miljo. Publikation

2008:34, Borlange.

112 M. Karrholm

Copyright of European Planning Studies is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied oremailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.