Framework for Sustainable Urban Infrastructure: a District System Ilkka TÜrmä Department of Architecture, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Abstract Sustainable development calls for systemic changes. The elaboration and adoption of such changes require wide public participation. This paper discusses the questions how to disseminate sustainable practices flexibly and contextdependently and what kind of systems would support the emergence of sustainable modes of operation. Based on network governance and participatory production ideologies and system design concepts, the paper outlines a platform serving an urban district where the municipality, businesses and dwellers can come together. Information flows are looped in the district system to adjust it constantly towards more sustainable performance. The system can also produce financial loops that encourage economical behaviour and keep increases in value local, thus contributing to the economic sustainability of the community. The systemic view on a private-public-people partnership expands the partnership from a mere project implementation towards a continuous and comprehensive process framework of infrastructural delivery that can respond to the contingent future. Bringing the stakeholders closer together to co-produce urban development aims to move the development from the quantitative to the qualitative. This can lead to resource optimisation, long-term satisfaction and thus contribute to the environmental and social sustainability of communities. The paper argues that the emphasis should be on services instead of seeking sustainability primarily through technical solutions. Seeing dwelling as a service rather than as a product would result in flexible satisfaction of specific needs and in a more economical and efficient use of infrastructural resources. Keywords: urban planning, infrastructure, services, system design, network governance.
1
Introduction
Marvin Weisbord (1987, p. 261) has chronicled the thoughts on organisation development in the 20th century. He saw the ideas changing from “experts solve problems” (1900) to “everybody solves problems” (1950) and “experts improve whole systems” (1965). Towards the 21st century, Weisbord thought the paradigm would shift to “everybody improves whole systems”. Somewhat similarly, David Miliband, at the time he was the British Foreign Secretary, described the ethos of past decades changing from the ”I need” welfare society prevailing from the 1940s to the 1970s to a consumerist ”I want” society of the 1980s and ’90s. Now in the 2000's the ethos is ”I can” of the know-how society and soon it will be ”we can” of a peer-to-peer society. (Miliband, 2007). Weisbord and Miliband's “everybody improves whole systems” or “we can” catch-phrases derive from the theoretical concepts and the reality of network and knowledge societies that radically challenge the functionalist rationality of the Industrial Age. The machine metaphor was applied to the whole society in the Industrial Age. In urban planning and management, functionalism relied on pyramidal hierarchies, differentiation of the spheres of operation, pre-planning and regulation. The machine metaphor still seems to dominate the discourse on organisational change (Wilkinson, 1997). Sustainable development presumes radical systemic changes (e.g., Vezzoli, 2007), and it is a process of constant systemic adjustment to the changing environment (Bossel, 1999). A new mindset is needed to respond innovatively to complex and multi-faceted environmental, social and economic issues. The initiation of systemic changes calls for some leadership, while their elaboration and effective adoption requires a more bottom-up strategy (Innes et al., 2000). How to resolve this contradiction to achieve the “we can” ethos of sustainable development is the key question of this paper. It divides into two sub-questions: (1) how to disseminate sustainable practices flexibly and context-dependently and (2) what kind of a system would support the emergence of sustainable modes of operation. The second chapter of the paper studies some trends that shift the paradigms of urban management institutions. The third chapter builds on these findings and outlines a system framework in which infrastructural services could evolve and be delivered more resource-efficiently, participatively, i.e., on a more sustainable basis. Infrastructure is understood here in a wide sense including not only technical services but also soft infrastructure such as health and education services and amenities that are beyond the scope of public sector but still needed in everyday life, such as Internet operators or bicycle repairers. Sustainability is understood as a system's ability to maintain its vitality, sustain itself operationally and financially and adjust itself to the contingent future. Furthermore, a sustainable system aims at making the most out of its resources while consuming as little non-renewable resources as possible. At best, the system has a positive effect on
its environment and may benefit all its stakeholders socially or economically, thus creating cumulative improvements.
2
Emerging urban institutions
2.1 From projects to processes To face the contingent future, societies need internally flexible and cooperative institutions and structures that are convertible according to needs (Beck et al., 1994 as cited in Koskiaho, 1997). That is, a city as an adaptive dynamic and complex system cannot be built only on the rationality (Koskiaho, 1997) because �an a priori plan will either not make much difference or it will have an unpredicted and possibly counter-productive effect� (Innes et al., 2000, p. 179). However, scenarios are needed for sustainable development. Instead of an a priori plan, a strategy is needed. What is then a city like built on a premise other than functionalistic rationality? One answer could be: it is a city that dismisses the illusion of a centrally produced and pre-planned future and instead relies on open planning. Such a city also acknowledges the opportunities provided by inevitable contingencies; a city that is process-oriented rather than project-oriented. Processes do not need to refer to fixed procedures that may be antithetic to flexible planning and management. Process-orientedness means a mind-set different from functionalism: there are no final states to aim at. Attention is paid more to how projects relate to each other and how they affect the subsequent projects and hence gradually change the overall system, rather than focusing on finalising single cases. A systemic view on urban management implies that the viability of projects and the sustainability of the greater whole can be maintained only if projects are aligned with the greater overall system in which they are embedded (Bossel, 1999; Schwaninger et al., 2004) 2.2 From objects to interactions: dwelling as a service The hard core of urban planning focuses strongly on bringing change through objects: buildings and hard infrastructure. Their improvement to better ecoefficiency is essential, but the focus on objects misses the point of systemic causes behind some unsustainable patterns. Housing developments should perhaps not be considered as house-object production, but rather creating dwelling as a service. The technocratic viewpoint is deeply rooted in architecture and engineering education. The discourse on post-modern service society that is deemed essential in achieving sustainability without questioning economic growth, has not shaken the paradigms of urban planning or builder professions. Soft infrastructural services surely constitute a major part of municipal planning, and better customer service is a concern for housing industry. Even so, services could be more closely attached to the act of dwelling itself.
An advanced conception of sustainability in industrial design is to first define the need that should be satisfied and then (in case a product is needed to satisfy the need) to design products and their related services in parallel. As a consequence, the product design must also include the design of stakeholder interactions: who provides the services for whom, who produces and who maintains what (Vezzoli, 2007). Similar thinking can also be transferred to urban planning. Interaction and governance patterns should be designed in conjunction with physical structures on a case by case basis. Dwelling as service would include considerations of flexibility, maintenance, building services, energy consumption, waste management and other infrastructural services as one holistic package. This would place the focus on the serviceability of infrastructure which again implies life-cycle considerations. Such a holistic approach to new developments would perhaps lead to a more optimal use of resources. From the point of view of the residents, the price tag on dwelling would reflect the living expenses better than the price based solely on surface area – and lead to more sustainable decisions. For a developer it would be more attractive to invest in eco-efficient solutions when their initial cost would bring return in the form of service fees. Dwelling as service requires a systemic approach to urban management and building industry. Planners need to recognise the interdependency of the visible and invisible structures of society (Turnbull, 2007). 2.3 Towards self-organisation ”A complex system like a city is capable of improving itself, but such adaptation requires feedback – various kinds of information – to flow among the players” (Innes et al., 1999, p. 179). Such a city is ”not just a complex system, but a complex, adaptive learning system that can be sustainable in the face of unpredictable futures” (Innes et al., 1999, p. 179). In Finnish urban planning, informing and hearing stakeholders is institutionalised but it is done rather formally in regard to certain planning issues and projects. For a layperson, a proactive stance to one's environment and an enduring touch to bigger planning processes are rather difficult to form. Some institutions, such as city forums in Berlin, may have succeeded in conveying a better picture of wider planning issues. Critics argue, however, that city forums only externalised the expert discourse and were used to prevent blockades rather than to facilitate participatory planning (Bylund, 2001). Open planning is based on feedback and presumes open and uncoerced discourse since it is ”a process capable of admitting complex, quantitative and qualitative information to the decision making process” (O’Hara, 1999, p. 1338). The ability to create a connected and conversing network of the key players (industry, academia, schools, health, government) reflects the city’s ability as a system to adapt to internal and external changes and utilise the value of a heterogeneous society, not only in the way of tolerance but in the creation of value and knowledge from this diversity” (Tresman et al., 2007, p. 56). Yet the
citizenry is just too large to assemble and discuss, let alone decide on any specific issue, so how to bring about conditions for a timely, informed and responsible judgement (Tresman et al., 2007)? Information and communication technology is often offered as an answer. It is surely a powerful tool but not a viable solution by definition (Tresman et al., 2007). Open conversation requires that public space for public uncoerced discourse facilitating a proactive decision process of local stakeholders should be institutionalised (O’Hara, 1999). This cannot be done in a hierarchical, centrally organised governance structure. Such organisation ”cannot deliver requisite variety to govern complexity” (Turnbull, 2007, p. 1554). Information piles up overwhelmingly on the top levels. On the lower levels, the model does not create conditions for self-governance. Decision-making should therefore be decomposed into a number of decision-making centres simple enough to allow people to govern complexity (Turnbull, 2007). The result is network governance. Networks are more capable of self-organisation – a quality in urban development that was temporarily ignored in the early stages of modern city design but is now regarded as worth preserving (Joutsiniemi et al., 2009). A ”distributed network of agents, each with little knowledge individually, can produce outcomes that are coordinated and that demonstrate more intelligence collectively than any individual” even ”without seeing or understanding the dynamics of the larger system” (Kelly, 1994 as cited in Innes et al., 2000, p. 179). 2.4 A common platform to deliver services Public-private partnerships are nowadays amply utilised as they are seen to provide a more flexible answer to defined projects. A third P for People has recently been added to the partnership concept. The integration of people is paramount since without the early engagement of end-users the development aims largely at quantitative prescriptions only. Cooperative production and utilisation of communication applications will be the next major development step in housing production, for instance (Keskitalo, 2006). Such cooperation concepts are, nevertheless, still vague. Equal public-private-people partnerships seem extremely tricky. Housing production is afflicted by fixed habits and deeprooted myths of customers' expectations and their abilities to participate in the planning (Rask et al., 2008). Moreover, in terms of the public-private link, partnerships tend to favour large investors while small and temporary investors tend to be ignored even if they would have much to give to the process (Bradley et al., 2006 as cited in Louekari 2009). Figure 1 illustrates the development of societal service delivery towards a prospective participatory service production model. Such a system would be a more satisfaction-based and user-oriented democratic system in contrast to the contemporary service economy that is an economy-driven and performanceoriented consumerist system (Neuvonen et al., 2007).
Figure 1: Systems of societal service delivery (Neuvonen et al., 2007). A concept of community-based facilities management introduced by Keith Alexander and Martin Brown (2006) opens up one perspective to the tricky PPPpartnerships. It implies what participatory service production could be in practice. Alexander and Brown (2006) have identified an increasing tendency to involve the facilities management discipline in residential planning to deliver genuine sustainability of developments. They see an emerging trend of bringing together agencies responsible for social services, health services, voluntary services and community and media information services (Roberts, 2004 as cited in Alexander et al., 2006). Community-based facilities management indicates profound shifts in the paradigms of facilities management. The emphasis should move from: – organisation to community – workplace to neighbourhood – business service to community resource – advocate of the user to advocate of the citizen The above-mentioned shifts suggest that there needs to be a platform where public and private sectors and citizens can come together in a new innovative setting for mutual benefit. (Roberts, 2004 cited in Alexander et al., 2006). Such a platform can also provide competitive advantage for urban districts. Besides providing premium access to different infrastructures, services and amenities, such a platform can be used for branding a city as well as building projects, but with less material input and emphasis on connectivity and interaction. Here the features of knowledge cities (Yigitcanlar et al., 2008) reflecting the contemporary conception of competitive precincts, coincide with features of sustainably managed urbanism.
3
A district framework to deliver services in a sustainable way
To sum up the findings presented in the previous chapter, centrally organised governance should be decomposed into network governance consisting of systems small enough to allow open and informed discourse. In a municipality, they would be districts or boroughs. There should be platforms where public administration, communities and businesses can come together flexibly as equal partners conversing and cooperating reciprocally for more sustainable solutions. The focus should move from mere buildings and technologies to stakeholder interactions, product-services and continuous processes. 3.1 A nodal point for infrastructural services Infrastructural services are produced by various sectors and different actors. Viewed from a certain locality, they are difficult to perceive as a tangible entity that one would feel empowered to influence one's own neighbourhood. From the perspective of the locality, inserting a platform of service delivery as a nodal point to manage local infrastructure would tie up and align the producers and users of infrastructural services towards the locality. This can be partly virtual with the help of information and communication technology. It does not eliminate the customary one-to-one interactions, but it can perhaps partly channel them in a more comprehensible manner because it opens an accessible contact point for all stakeholders. Figure 2 illustrates the principle of the local nodal point of service interactions. The stakeholders of the locality become more approachable as individuals and groups. A local clientele can seek services as a group in an organised way. New businesses have better chances of finding their customers and tailoring their services – especially small businesses that typically operate more locally and hence their success also profits the locality. Businesses can identify each other and co-produce services. As a nodal point for services, the platform can facilitate their joint production. Joint production is potentially eco-efficient since it can lead to greater resource optimisation compared with the situation where resources were optimised discretely and semi-finished products sold or disposed of separately (Vezzoli, 2007). For example, a fuel supplier would typically make better profits the more it sells fuel. A fuel supplier and a car pool enterprise co-producing one service package would, however, lead them to have a shared interest in reducing fuel consumption, since the profits now come from saving fuel if the package has a set price.
Figure 2: The district corporation as a nodal point of service delivery in comparison to the current situation.
3.2 Managing the district corporation A district platform should be an economically independent unit – a corporation of its own. Thereby it can better maintain its operational independence and neutrality in the middle of the stakeholders. Secondly, as a corporation it is capable of powering certain financial functions locally. They are discussed in Section 3.2.2. The municipality bears the responsibility for basic infrastructure and is the most organised sector among the three stakeholder sectors to start with. The municipality is in charge of initiating the district corporation. The municipality demands a seat in the Board of the corporation in order to maintain the continuity of its influence, which is essential since the municipality represents longest-term objectives regarding the district, i.e. sustainability. The district corporation connects to the municipal organisation as a recursive whole. It acknowledges the necessity to contribute to the needs and objectives of the overall municipal system but it will not try to interfere directly with it. Nor will the corporation try to micro-manage its own sub-projects. When organisations are sliced into recursive wholes, attention focuses on the interfaces between the levels of recursion. Consequently, ”recursive relationships combine control with self-organisation in a complex pattern” (Schwaninger et al., 2004, p. 563). 3.2.1 Levels of management Naturally, all the stakeholders in a locality have different priorities as regards the development of the area. Moreover, some expect short-term benefits while others aim at long-term results. There is a need for a manager to pursue whatever potential there might be in this cocktail of actors (Mäkynen, 2009a). Leadership is also required, for example to ensure that the indicators of sustainable performance are applied and discussed (Innes et al., 2000). That is, while the local stakeholder sectors (public-private-people) need to be represented in the district corporation, the corporation itself should provide local leadership to facilitate the co-constructing of the potential of the district. In order to avoid confusion in the management and to keep the goals of the corporation clear, difference has to be made between various levels of planning and execution. Scwaninger and Koerner (2004) suggest that the logical threelevel model of management, familiar to the enterprise world, could also be applied in urban projects. The three levels are: (1) operative management – “efficiency” (2) strategic management – “effectiveness” (3) normative management – “sustainability” Distinguish these levels is essential in order to resolve the contradiction or competition that often arises between them. Distinguishing them helps to settle complex issues of management and to ensure that normative long-term and wider
context issues, i.e. sustainability, are identified and pursued consistently (Schwaninger et al., 2004). Figure 3 specifies the expected roles that the representations of the three sectors have in relation to the tasks of the district corporation. Municipal administration underlines the normative level and the ethos is for the most part invariant. The citizens' representation emphasises the strategic level of management as well as the quality of services and commitment to their use. While local communities can have elected representatives, wide representation is guaranteed by local residents’ joint ownership in the corporation. Businesses affiliating to the district corporation highlight the operative level. Businesses' participation aims at excellence in service production in terms of economic, social and ecological benefits, also in terms of productivity.
Figure 3: The district corporation and its expected tasks in relation to the stakeholder groups. 3.2.2 The financial loops through the district corporation Launching a district corporation requires start-up funding from the municipality. Yet, once a participatory system of discourse, feedback and follow-up is fully operational after a few years, the savings made through improved infrastructural performance are likely to more than compensate for the initial start-up costs (Innes et al., 2000). Similarly, business partners channelling and tailoring their services through the district corporation could profit from the outsourcing. Residents are joint owners in the district corporation model. The joint owner status has three different motivations. First, it guarantees a voice to the residents
in the corporation and consolidates the commitment to its development. Second, joint ownership produces a circular value-creating process leading to cumulative improvement, or in case of bad performance, automatically generates “selfcorrecting feedback signals and incentives to maintain the community on a sustainable basis” (Turnbull, 2007, p. 1550). Economical efficiency often coincides with eco-efficiency: if the district generates less waste, it profits from savings in refuse disposal expenses. The joint owner arrangement in the district corporation makes such a pattern more manifest and negotiable. Thirdly, when joint ownership in the district corporation is associated with residency – be it tenancy or ownership of the property – the joint ownership arrangement prevents windfall profits from the investments in the district from leaking elsewhere. It promotes the district’s chances of becoming self-financing, thereby supporting the economic sustainability of the system (Turnbull, 2007). The joint ownership concept combined to the ownership of a property creates a duplex ownership system. Turnbull (2007) notes that there are already duplex ownerships such as housing companies in which the owner of a flat owns a share in the company. However, these systems ”do not provide separate publicly negotiable title deeds to each type of property right. Nor do they operate over an area sufficiently large to capture most of the values generated externally to any single site” (Turnbull, 2007, p. 1548).
Figure 4: The financial loops through the district corporation.
3.3 An adaptive system Current planning methods are usually based on the concepts of cause and effect and problem and solution (Schwaninger et al., 2004). Such bipolar and deterministic approaches lean on a priori information which, as noted earlier, do not correspond to complex and contingent environments such as modern cities. We do not know what a sustainable community of the future will look like. We need to create systems producing information that leads the way (Innes et al., 2000, p. 175; Bossel, 1999). As an alternative to determinism, systems thinking introduces circularity as a basic concept. It means that the output of a process is re-used as an input to that process – directly or indirectly – to create selfenhancing or self-attenuating loops. Circularity is hence a planned learning process. In this way, planning effort is focused on the critical variables and issues and reduced to a reasonable and efficient level of detail instead of rigid operations planning (Schwaninger et al., 2004). Adaptive systems work on feedback, and producing disposable feedback to all stakeholders is a central function of the district corporation. Open discourse is one source of feedback, but it is critical to define suitable indicators for the other sources. Discourse and indicator feedback should be parallel processes facilitating each other. The process of debating the design of indicators shapes the players’ conception of the policies. Actually, the main influence of the indicators is not necessarily seen after they are developed and published, but rather during the course of their development (Innes et al., 2000). Values of the urban planning outcomes are understood in the process of planning. Furthermore, the satisfaction of the planning process itself has value to the participants, in addition to the outcome value (Mäkynen, 2009b). A satisfactory process increases acceptance. Judith Innes and David Booher (2000) have identified three types of indicators that are needed to get feedback from urban environments. They coincide well with the three management levels proposed by Scwaninger and Koerner (2004) (Figure 5). System performance indicators are developed in a public joint effort to measure the system performance (e.g. “vehicle miles travelled” as an indicator of the sustainability of the transportation and land use patterns). Policy and programme indicators are developed with the participants in a particular policy area to allow policy-makers to see both the outcomes of policies. The indicators look at customer satisfaction, cost-effectiveness, or measures of activity or usage. Rapid feedback indicators need less public discussion but allow people to use their own and the city’s resources with greater efficiency. New information technology has created opportunities to diffuse and use this kind of information (e.g., on-line information on traffic). As the district corporation is a single interface and communication link to all major stakeholders in a district, it can provide an answer to Innes and Booher's (2000) statement that ”the community needs to develop a way to bring its key stakeholders, agency players, experts and citizens into a process to select a set of system indicators” (p. 175).
Figure 5: Feedback loops through the district corporation, its three logical levels of management and its environment (Modified from Schwaninger et al., 2004)
4
Concluding remarks
Municipalities can initiate district corporations to help the administration to fulfil its responsibility to deliver infrastructural services to a district. Nevertheless, more than that, the district corporation is a tool for nurturing sustainable practices in a specific locality. The district corporation creates a single interface and thereby intensifies the communication between the municipal administration, private business partners and the local communities and individuals. In addition to setting up the communication link, the corporation actively assists the organisation process. This creates conditions for the stakeholders' self-organisation in local issues. Residents, companies and civil servants can identify other actors with the same interests regarding the district, and then get organised. Resident groups can suggest improvements or seek new services in an organised way, e.g. look for a
car pool company, form car sharing groups or create local grocery order and delivery circles. Vice versa, private businesses can approach their clientele through the interface or find other businesses with which they can jointly produce flexibly tailored service packages hence potentially in a more economical and eco-efficient way. The district corporation shifts the emphasis from housing products to dwelling as a holistic service. Seeing dwelling as a service highlights the serviceability of infrastructure which, in turn, leads to life-cycle assessment considerations, and finally produces eco-efficiency. Moreover, the service view empowers dwellers to influence the infrastructure, thereby increasing the respective acceptance and satisfaction. Without these properties, systemic changes are that are needed to divert societies towards a more sustainable future are hard to implement. Developing indicators to produce feedback of the overall sustainability of the system and its operation, is one key function of the corporation. Bringing the three different players together to develop the indicators in an open, facilitated conversation aims at a constant adjustment of the system towards performance that is environmentally, socially and economically more sustainable. The municipality has tools to gather and discuss feedback, sharing information and experimenting with various urban policies. Businesses can improve their efficiency and performance with the indicators. Individual residents benefit especially from the rapid-feedback indicators. Emerging geographic information systems can provide powerful indicators, comprehensible to the lay person, on almost a real-time basis and allow anticipation of change and a proactive rather than a reactive stance (Innes et al., 2000). They enable on-demand services that may significantly optimise the use of resources, for instance in traffic. The corporation is commonly owned by the residents who are its joint owners. This arrangement protects locally produced windfalls from draining out of the district. It creates a loop where bad performance sends warning signals and good performance leads to cumulative improvements. Moreover, it guarantees the residents the possibility to exercise influence on the arrangements of their environment. Sustainable technologies for single houses in Finland are well studied and ready to be utilised. The neighbourhood-scale sustainable technologies, not to mention larger scales, remain, however, quite unexplored (Nieminen, 2008). Bundling and pooling of resources, e.g. in power production of a district, can lead to drastic savings as such issues can nowadays be managed and optimised with modern tools. A district corporation makes the management of these issues transparent, equally accessible and efficient. The discovery of such concepts, together with the aim of making the environmental, economic and social processes and structures more explicit and fostering a deeper relationship to environment, may result in neighbourhoodisation – or rather reneighbourhoodisation which means that defined districts emerge again as economic and social units.
Acknowledgements This paper was developed from an essay to “Sustainable Industrial & Urban Design” course held in the University of Art and Design Helsinki (merged with the Helsinki University of Technology and the Helsinki School of Economics to create the Aalto University in 2010. The course is part of the Creative Sustainability programme in the Aalto University). I would like to thank the teachers of the course, professor Eija Nieminen and D.Sc (Econ.) Mika Kuisma. My thanks also go to architect Karin Krokfors for commenting on the text.
References Alexander, K. & Brown, M. (2006). Community-based facilities management. Facilities, Vol. 24, 250-268. Bossel, H. (1999). Indicators for sustainable development: Theory, method, application. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development. Bylund, J. (2001). Defining Berlin: Planning Policy Discourse After the Wall. Retrieved March 20, 2009, from http://www.urbanalys.se/texts/bylund2001-defining-berlin.pdf Innes, J. E. & Booher, D. E. (2000). Indicators for Sustainable Communities: A Strategy Building on Complexity Theory and Distributed Intelligence. Planning Theory & Practice, Vol. 1, 173-186. Joutsiniemi, A., Partanen, J. & Pakarinen, T. (2009). An urban context that generates the impulse to development. In Ahlava, A. & Edelman, H. (Eds), Urban Design Management: A Guide to Good Practice (pp. 127128). Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor & Francis. Keskitalo, K. (2006). Kehittävä työntutkimus rakennusalalla: Tulosta ja työhyvinvointia. Helsinki: Etera. Koskiaho, B. (1997). Kaupungista ekokaupungiksi. Tampere: Gaudeamus. Louekari, M. (2009). Situation-sensitive temporary use as a means to increase attractiveness. In Ahlava, A. & Edelman, H. (Eds), Urban Design Management: A Guide to Good Practice (pp. 129-131). Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor & Francis. Miliband, D. (2007). We can: politics for the Facebook generation. Google Zeitgeist Conference, London. May 21, 2007. Retrieved January 19, 2009, from http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=NldjdLCy-lU Mäkynen, T. (2009a). Co-constructing capabilities. In Ahlava, A. & Edelman, H. (Eds), Urban Design Management: A Guide to Good Practice (pp. 204205). Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor & Francis. Mäkynen, T. (2009b). What is value? Partnering starts from understanding ‘value’. In Ahlava, A. & Edelman, H. (Eds), Urban Design
Management: A Guide to Good Practice (pp. 82-84). Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor & Francis. Neuvonen, A. & Mokka, R. 2007. City 2.0. Retrieved January 10, 2009, from ttp://www.slideshare.net/mokka/demos-helsinki-city-2/ Nieminen, J. (2008). Energy Efficiency. A lecture at Helsinki University of Technology, Department of Architecture, November 29, 2008. O'Hara, S. U. (1999). Community based urban development: a strategy for improving social sustainability. International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 26, 1327-1343. Rask, M., Timonen, P. & Väliniemi, J. (2008). Kuluttajamyytit asumisen mikroilmastossa. In Lammi, M. & Timonen, P. (Eds), Koti-ihanteet ja tehtävät. Helsinki: Kuluttajatutkimuskeskus. Schwaninger, M. & Koerner, M. (2004). City planning: “Dissolving” urban problems insights from an application of management cybernetics. Kybernetes, Vol. 33, 557-576. Tresman, M., Pásher, E. & Molinari, F. (2007). Conversing cities: the way forward. Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11, No. 5, 55-64. Turnbull, S. (2007). A framework for designing sustainable urban communities. Kybernetes, Vol. 36, 1543-1557. Vezzoli, C. (2007). System Design for Sustainability: Theory, methods and tools for a sustainable “satisfaction-system” design. Santarcangelo di Romagna: Maggioli Editore. Weisbord, M. (1987). Productive workplaces: Organizing and Managing for Dignity, Meaning and Community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Wilkinson, D. (1997). Whole system development – rethinking public service management. International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 10, 505-533. Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyoglu, K. & Martinez-Fernandez, C. (2008). Rising knowledge cities: the role of urban knowledge precincts. Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12, No. 5, 8-20.