The consequences of these three serious issues are visible all over in the city: e.g. the large number of industrial areas of any size encroaching inhabited areas (e.g., Lövskatan, Bergviken, Skurholmen, etc.); the use of public money to finance new developments in virgin areas that ultimately will, at the same time, destroy green areas, encourage the use of the car instead of more sustainable buses, and fail to provide affordable housing (e.g. Krona); the lack of attractive urban centres that can cater to both the wealthy and the middle-class, the youth and the families, and the long-term and new inhabitants; and citizens’ distrust on the ability of the kommun to meet their needs and aspirations.
Insofar, short-sighted decision making, lack of participatory planning, and poor urban design and planning are all contributing to make Lulea more unequal (rich vs. poor, newcomers Vs. long-time residents, creatives Vs. mainstreamers; industrial Vs. residential areas; etc.). To exemplify this situation, let me take three examples: the industrialization of the city centre, the saga of the relocation of the ÅVC, and the launch of the new city district of Krona.
Poor Urban Design and Planning
Lulea is a unique city on its own. The city has been able to scatter a large number of industrial areas (manufacturing plus large distribution) all around its inner city centre. A rational logic would have suggested the consolidation of the current and future industrial activities in one or two areas outside and far from the inhabited centre. Instead, to counter this argument, the city has over and over chosen to industrialize its inhabited city centre in improbable areas such as the pleasant neighborhood of Bergviken, the old and once colorful settlement of Lövskatan, as well as in Bergnäset.
Lövskatan, for instance, is one of the smallest residential neighborhoods with quite a distinctive character - similar to the other endangered district of Svartöstaden. One would think that the kommun would take steps to protect Lövskatan rather than the opposite. Besides, Lövskatan is already surrounded by a number of small industrial areas that probably should have never been located in a residential area in the first place. The area would benefit from, among others, a better connection to larger green areas that today are fenced off by the railway, to the heritage neighborhood of Svartöstaden, and better access to its lake. If production facilities should be located in Lövskatan, it would make a lot of sense to attract young creatives to set up their offices in today’s industrial buildings (it has been done in many cities such as in Helsinki, Tallinn, etc.).
Lack of Participatory Planning
I have been fortunate to attend the first public consultation (on May 18, 2015) held in Lövskatan for the relocation of the ÅVC in Luleå. It was obvious from the very beginning that the planners had very little interest to engage the community to find a better solution for all. The meeting was flawed with a number of issues e.g.:
- several weeks before the first public consultation, city officials had already spoken openly about their will to relocate the ÅVC to Lövskatan, thus rendering the community-meeting useless and angering the community whenever, during the meeting, city officials were repeating that nothing was decided yet (an oxymoron obviously);
- the analyses that were shown failed to provide enough justification about their decision - many information were missing, other were incorrect (the owners of the plots of land alternative to the Lövskatan option were never contacted by the kommun), and the alternative sites were always presented in a very biased way;
- city officials also failed to provide an assessment of the impacts of the ÅVC in Lövskatan (traffic, noise, pollution, etc.);
- finally, the city officials gave no opportunity to the local resident association to present their counter-ideas, but rather people were forced to give individual feedbacks to the planners’ idea.
Already in 1969, Sherry Arnstein proposed a method to classify citizens participation in planning decisions. In her “Ladder of Citizen Participation” she distinguished between Non-Participation, Tokenism (when planners allow citizens to hear and to have a voice but not to influence the outcome), and Citizen Power (when planners empower citizens to influence planning and have an impact in the final decision, this is typical in mature democratic and developed countries). Unfortunately, on May 18, Lovskatan's inhabitants saw more Non-participation and Tokenism than Citizen Power, and the lack of citizens’ trust on the kommun should not come as a surprise.
If the principle of urban justice had been applied, the proposal would have seen the waste recycling centre and also existing industrial activities be relocated as far as possible from residential areas, perhaps closer to the existing industrial city of Storheden (where, by the way, most of the things thrown in Krona come from) or anyway closer to the highway E4 which is more accessible by car and trucks (I did some comparisons with other cities see www.cityleft.blogspot.com/search/label/Lulea). Urban justice means also that a change in land use in one area (like the one made for the ÅVC in Krona) should not come at the expense of other residential areas (especially when the indicated area is a green park used by the residents of Lövskatan).
Since a long time now, urban planning students in Europe are taught that both extensive analyses and participatory planning comes always before airing a strategy or draw-up a plan. Without technically-sounded analyses and democratic input there cannot be sustainable urban development. Decision makers (politician, planners, erc.) in Lulea should learn from other cities in Europe when it comes to empower its citizens and build a more just city and avoid social inequalities (rich vs. poor, newcomers Vs. long-time residents, creatives Vs. mainstreamers; industrial Vs. residential areas; etc.).
Short-Sighted Decision Making
Over the years, the kommun in Luleå has autonomously decided that the demand for housing in the city must be addressed by developing new neighborhoods in green areas (see Lulsundet/Krona). However, today it is common knowledge that the choice to expand the city to virgin, green areas should always come as the last option, the one that is chosen whenever the existing city cannot be further intensified (and in Luleå there are many areas that could be better used). it is rightly so because academics, professional organizations, national and international organizations (in one word, a lot of experts) believe that to deliver sustainable cities we need to: reduce the city’s carbon footprint given by the waste of energy to build new infrastructures and increased commuting; facilitate mixed-use compact neighborhoods that can bring closer workplaces and dwellings; provide affordable housing by better using the existing built-up areas; use better public resources (our taxes) to level-out spatial inequalities and to provide good services to neighborhoods that at the moment do not have (e.g., Svartöstaden, Örnaset, Tuna, etc.).
In a city like Luleå it can happen that areas such as Lövskatan, that have a higher population density (which means more tax money per sqm) than, say, Björkskattan, has a lot less and poor maintained infrastructures (bicycle paths, public amenities, good road and sidewalk pavements) than the latter (basically the definition of city inequality). The kmmun should do an effort to redevelop existing industrial areas with new housing and mixed-use projects, rather than expanding the city in green-field areas such as in Krona. Also, following the principle of urban justice, a change in land use in one area (like the one made for the ÅVC in Krona) should not come at the expense of other residential areas (especially when the indicated area is a green park used by the residents of Lövskatan).
A way forward: Halting inequalities, learning from other cities, and engaging planners and politicians in training programs
In order to be constructive in this critique, a way forward must be suggested. First, Luleå Kommun should halt the ongoing plans and projects such as the ÅVC plan for Lövskatan, as well as the many other controversial plans that have been aired for other areas (such as Svartöstaden). More thinking should be done before launching Krona.
The kommun should also invest a reasonable amount of time and resources to update politician and planners on the latest ideas, strategies, and urban projects being developed in the rest of Europe. This useful training program could be easily and conveniently sought by leveraging on the research and education provided by Swedish universities. A strategic partnership between them and, perhaps, with other stakeholders in the city should be sought to launch a Luleå Urban Lab that would help politician, planners, and other stakeholders to get useful training, develop frameworks for informed decisions, help to empower inhabitants in order to build a more equitable and attractive Luleå. this partnership could be an invaluable resource for continuous education, inspiration, and expert advice for building a just and attractive Luleå.
With more and better participatory planning, decision making, and urban design, we would all have a better city, a city that would provide more choice for quality urban living, and a city that could stand as an example, a model to follow, for other middle-size cities in Europe and abroad.
Find out more and see our maps here:
www.cityleft.blogspot.com/search/label/Lulea
