Content uploaded by Primož Medved
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Primož Medved on Jun 19, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Urbani izziv, volume 28, no. 1, 2017
107
UDC: 711.581: 502.131.1(4)
DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2017-28-01-003
Received: 16 Sept. 2016
Accepted: 27 Mar. 2017
Primož MEDVED
Leading sustainable neighbourhoods in Europe:
Exploring the key principles and processes
Local projects involving sustainable urban transformation
are increasingly prominent in cities and towns, and are
oen referred to as sustainable neighbourhoods. ese
initiatives have been described as experiments in urban
sustainability and could provide concrete answers to
many challenges facing cities and society. is article
investigates the design and development of two leading
examples of sustainable neighbourhoods that used dier-
ent implementation strategies: a top-down development
in Western Harbour(Swed. Västra Hamnen, Malmö) and
a bottom-up(participatory) approach in Vauban (Frei-
burg). e article investigates how the initial implemen-
tation approach in sustainable urban redevelopment
inuenced and conditioned the urban design, social sus-
tainability and local governance of the neighbourhoods.
e research also focuses on how Vauban and Western
Harbour have inuenced and disseminated sustainable
urban solutions to other urban contexts.
Keywords: sustainable neighbourhoods, sustainable ur-
ban development, new urbanism principles, urban experi-
mentation processes, eco labs, Vauban, Western Harbour
Urbani izziv, volume 28, no. 1, 2017
108
P. MEDVED
1 Introduction and background
Small-scale community sustainability initiatives of various
types (typically small cities, villages and neighbourhoods)
have become increasingly common over the past decade(For-
rest& Wiek, 2014). Local projects involving sustainable ur-
ban transformation in cities are oen referred to as sustainable
neighbourhoods. Such developments could represent a holistic
solution for new sustainable urban balances at the local lev-
el(Rudlin& Falk, 2009). David Harvey(1990) denes a sus-
tainable neighbourhood as an independent urban area within
a city that preserves the symbolic richness of the traditional
urban form and that is based on dialogue and diversity. e
creation of sustainable neighbourhoods and the development
of local urban communities involve setting clear and robust
environmental, social and economic objectives that are ideally
in constant equilibrium(Churchill & Baetz, 1999). Harriet
Bulkeley etal.(2015) claim that the constellation of interven-
tions that together form the urban climate change governance
landscape is oen explicitly experimental in character, seeking
to develop, try and attest to the experience of responding to
climate change. Sustainable neighbourhoods can be framed
as experiments or living labs providing concrete answers to
many challenges facing cities and society. is particular form
of development could become a new active urban model, in
line with current sustainable development principles. Ideally,
sustainable neighbourhoods embody alternative solutions to
current unsustainable practices in cities.
From a literature review of sustainable neighbourhoods, it is
possible to conclude that most examples of sustainable neigh-
bourhoods in Europe are being implemented in northern and
western Europe(Medved, 2016). Consequently, Stella Kyvelou
etal.(2012) dene the sustainable neighbourhood concept as
a northern European model. Southern European sustainable
neighbourhoods have great potential, but are rarely cited or
mentioned as best-practice examples, and they are not oen
analysed in the literature on urban sustainability. e best
examples of sustainable neighbourhoods(from northern and
western Europe) are oen grouped, analysed or cited together.
e most oen recognised and thus cited leading examples
of sustainable neighbourhood implementation, as identied
in Primož Medved’s (2016) extensive literature reviews, have
been established in: Culemborg (the Netherlands: EVA-
Lanxmeer), Utrecht (the Netherlands: Leidsche Rijn), Am-
sterdam(the Netherlands: GWL Terrein), Malmö(Sweden:
Western Harbour and Augustenborg), Stockholm(Sweden:
Hammarby Sjöstad), Freiburg (Germany: Vauban, Rieselfeld
and Weingarten) Hannover(Germany: Kronsberg), Ost-
ldern(Germany: Scharnhauser Park), Tübingen(Germany:
Französisches Viertel–Südstadt), Helsinki(Finland: Viikki),
Copenhagen (Denmark: Vasterbo), Sutton (UK: BedZed),
London (England: Greenwich Millennium Village) and
Linz (Austria: SolarCity). However, large dierences exist
between the case studies, especially in terms of community-
related “social sustainability” and governance issues. Most of
the acclaimed sustainable neighbourhoods have shown supe-
rior excellence in terms of environmental sustainability, but it
seems that social sustainability and the local governance system
have not been developed systematically in some cases.
2 Research aims
Two contextual circumstances shaped the hypotheses and
the research aims of this article. First, based on a preliminary
analysis of various sustainable urban communities, the author
discovered a potential correlation between a strong cohesive
urban community, local governance and the initial implemen-
tation approach in urban planning. Several urban researchers
have also identied this particular correlation. For example,
Hugh Barton etal. (2003) claimed that the more the local
community is involved in the design and development pro-
cess of the neighbourhood, the greater the likelihood is that
they will create a place that has local relevance. Hildebrand
Frey(1999) noted that people in a neighbourhood are more
responsible and connected if they have been involved in shap-
ing the neighbourhood. Participatory urban design supported
by workshops, communication forums and competitions was
found to increase the sense of the local urban community and
commitment to the sustainable urban project (Bayulken &
Huisingh, 2015). Strengthening participation in local govern-
ance is correlated with direct citizen involvement in making
decisions. Local governance calls for increased participation
of civil society, which traditionally formed part of the public
sphere(Gaventa& Valderrama, 1999).
Based on these theoretical assumptions, the author formulates
two research hypotheses:
1. Sustainable neighbourhoods implemented through a par-
ticipatory bottom-up approach have developed more hu-
man-scale, community-oriented urban forms in comparison
with top-down sustainable neighbourhoods.
2. Sustainable neighbourhoods implemented through a parti-
cipatory bottom-up approach are more socially sustainable
and have developed a stronger and more complex local
urban governance system in comparison with top-down
sustainable neighbourhoods.
In order to analyse the implications and conrm the two hy-
potheses, two leading sustainable neighbourhoods that have
used completely dierent implementation approaches were
chosen: Vauban (in Freiburg, Germany) and Western Har-
Urbani izziv, volume 28, no. 1, 2017
109
Leading sustainable neighbourhoods in Europe: Exploring the key principles and processes
bour(in Malmö, Sweden). For more information, see Section
3 “Approach and methodology”. is article rst explores and
analyses the two sustainable neighbourhoods using unique
methodological approaches and investigates whether (and
how) the initial implementation approach has conditioned the
urban design (Hypothesis 1), social sustainability and espe-
cially community involvement in everyday decision-making or
the local governance of both neighbourhoods(Hypothesis2).
e second contextual circumstance the article focuses on is
related to the contemporary observation that, with the current
rapidly increasing urbanisation rate, it is critically important
to take collective action through bottom-up participation and
top-down commitment to establish more cases of sustainable
urban projects and create mainstream living examples that can
share their sustainable urban innovations(Bayulken& Huis-
ingh, 2015). Based on this, the article’s second research aim
is to identify whether(and how) the two cases have already
inuenced and disseminated sustainable urban solutions to
other urban situations. e author explores whether there is
a signicant dierence related to the transfer of knowledge
between the two case studies with a completely dierent im-
plementation process.
3 Approach and methodology
From among the best examples of sustainable neighbourhoods
mentioned in the introductory section, two case studies were
chosen for comparative analysis(Bächtold, 2013; Fraker, 2013;
Medved, 2016). e rst is one of the best-known leading
sustainable neighbourhoods developed using the bottom-up
approach: Vauban(in Freiburg, Germany). e second is one
of the most representative sustainable neighbourhoods de-
veloped using the top-down approach: Western Harbour(in
Malmö, Sweden). ese two neighbourhoods represent prac-
tical prototypes of how a sustainable neighbourhood can be
designed and developed using the top-down and bottom-up
implementation approaches (Bächtold, 2013; Fraker, 2013).
Vauban and Western Harbour represent two extremes in rela-
tion to urban development implementation strategies. “Atypi-
cal or extreme cases oen reveal more information because
they activate more actors and more basic mechanisms in the
situation studied”(Flyvbjerg 2006:229). Certainly, an analysis
based on only two case studies will not make a “universal”
statement, but it can still open up new perspectives for further
analysis and discussion.
To address the rst hypothesis, the comparative analysis of the
two sustainable neighbourhoods is based on the “new urban-
ism principles” analytical framework(CNU & HUD, 2000;
Grant, 2006; Rahnama etal., 2012; Internet1). To address the
second hypothesis, the analytical framework of “processes for
urban experimentation” was chosen(Bulkeley etal., 2015). e
new urbanism principles framework was selected because new
urbanism is one of the main contemporary movements that
focuses on how to recreate and generate human-scale dense
developments in cities. New urbanism promotes specic urban
design elements that should be adapted to local needs (and
not vice versa). New urbanism calls for a more human scale,
walkable streets, mixing shops and residences to generate city
life, higher density and a less automobile-dominated com-
munity(Kushner, 2002). e new urbanism framework was
also chosen because it integrates most of the parameters and
important basic elements of the compact city framework(Ro-
gatka& Ramos Ribeiro, 2015). e new urbanism principles
framework made it possible to address the rst hypothesis
and eventually conrm that sustainable neighbourhoods im-
plemented with a participatory bottom-up approach have de-
veloped more community-oriented, human-scale urban forms
in comparison with top-down sustainable neighbourhoods.
e comparative analysis starts by examining the basic char-
acteristics and urban design features of Western Harbour and
Vauban. Aer presenting the two neighbourhoods, it uses the
checklist in Table1 to identify whether the neighbourhoods
have implemented features that are in line with new urbanism
principles. e comparison research elements include the ten
principle denitions described in the second column of Ta-
ble1(Section4). In this way, it is possible to better understand
the main sustainable characteristics of both urban areas and
to establish the development level toward the urban-planning
ideals advanced by the new urbanism movement. e analysis
highlights the physical environment of the neighbourhoods
and the sustainable goals they achieve, especially those related
to urban design and sustainable transport.
Processes for urban experimentation were selected because
they appear to be absent from other frameworks on cities
and because the framework oers an important perspective
on the dynamic relation between various stakeholders through
time. Nuno Ferreira daCruz and Rui Cunha Marques(2014)
noted that nowadays social, economic and environmental
performance is not sucient to judge the actions of a local
authority; it should also be evaluated by its conduct and the
way it actually carries out its responsibilities. For this reason it
is important to include an analysis of local governance, which
relates to the behaviour of institutions, the governing processes
and the relations between the state(municipality), the citizens
and other stakeholders(Ferreira da Cruz& Marques, 2014).
Local governance at the neighbourhood level is highlighted
through the processes framework. Analysis of the processes
framework by Bulkeley et al. (2015) makes it possible to
address the second hypothesis and conrm that sustainable
neighbourhoods implemented with a participatory bottom-up
Urbani izziv, volume 28, no. 1, 2017
110
approach are more socially sustainable and have developed a
stronger and more complex local urban governance system in
comparison with top-down sustainable neighbourhoods. For
the processes underpinning sustainable neighbourhoods(Sec-
tion5), the analysis focuses on the following activities: making,
maintaining, living and disseminating. e “processes” section
derives from Bulkeley et al. (2015), who identify making,
maintaining and living as key aspects of urban experimenta-
tion. e author adds disseminating as an innovative additional
process to investigate how sustainable neighbourhoods evolve
and inuence other urban developments. With the innovative
disseminating process, it is possible to achieve the second re-
search aim and identify whether the initial implementation ap-
proach inuences the transfer of sustainable urban solutions to
other urban realities. In this section, the criteria of comparison
for the two sustainable neighbourhoods are the four(3 +1)
processes themselves (see the denition of processes in Ta-
ble2, Section5). e process analysis provides an innovative
overview of the dynamic formation of the local governance
system through time. In this way it is possible to understand
how(and whether) the initial implementation approach(the
“making” process) in the selected case studies determined so-
cial sustainability and local governance within the subsequent
processes(maintaining, living and disseminating).
e data collection methods include interviews with key
stakeholders, site visits in Vauban and Western Harbour, and
literature reviews focused on the case studies. e author vis-
ited both sustainable neighbourhoods, where he had the op-
portunity to gain rst-hand experience of the neighbourhoods
as living environments, collect audio and graphic material,
interview key stakeholders, make site visits and develop the
case studies. In April 2013, the author visited and stayed in
Vauban(Freiburg) for two weeks. From March to May2014,
he visited Western Harbour nine times. He had the oppor-
tunity to interview the main urban developers, municipality
representatives and main representatives of local community
groups in order understand the role of all of the stakeholders
involved in developing the neighbourhood. Interviews primar-
ily focused on municipal sta involved in developing the pro-
jects, as well as, in the case of Vauban, local opinion leaders
and local associations’ representatives. In Western Harbour,
he could not interview local citizen representatives because
the neighbourhood has no community centres or local com-
munity associations. In Vauban in Freiburg, the author had
the opportunity to interview Wulf Daseking(the urban plan-
ner of the Municipality of Freiburg, who planned the entire
sustainable neighbourhood), Andreas Delleske(the leader of
the community initiative Forum Vauban) and Sigrid Gomb-
ert (former editor of the local newspaper Vaubanactuel). In
Western Harbour in Malmö, he interviewed Eva Dalman(the
former project manager of the Bo01 project in Western Har-
bour), Maria Lööf(working at the Municipality of Malmö’s
Environment Department) and Jan Johansson (working at
the Municipality of Malmö’s Real Estate Department). All
of the interviews were based on the same open-ended struc-
tured questionnaire. e questions covered the points of in-
terest presented in Medved’s (2016) structural model of an
autonomous sustainable neighbourhood and refer to topics
related to natural resource management, sustainable transport,
socioeconomic balance and sustainable urban design. e in-
terviewees were also asked about the specic local governance
system in their neighbourhood, the implementation process
for forming sustainable districts, the role and decision-making
power of each stakeholder involved, community participation
in planning and so on.
4 Principles of new urbanism
In this section, the basic characteristics of each sustainable
neighbourhood are presented, with a special focus on urban
design elements and sustainable design goals related to new
urbanism principles. At the end of the section, the author iden-
ties how these achievements and the urban design characteris-
tics of each sustainable neighbourhood agree with the ten new
urbanism principles(see Table1). e aim is to verify whether
the urban form in the neighbourhoods analysed is sustainably
built(from the perspective of new urbanism).
Vauban in Freiburg is a neighbourhood with a population
of ve thousand in the foothills of the Black Forest. Seven
hundred people work there (Fraker, 2013). It was built on
the forty-two-hectare site of a former French military base.
Vauban’s bottom-up approach in planning allowed groups of
potential residents to design their own homes on allocated
plots of land alongside established developers. is has resulted
in an architecturally non-uniform, non-standardised and pic-
turesque district(Field, 2011).
Regarding sustainable energy and natural resource manage-
ment, Vauban is an example of an ecient low-energy urban
area and at the same time a space for innovation. At the edge
of the neighbourhood, a local cogeneration plant(CHP) was
built, which is fuelled by80% woodchips(from a nearby for-
est) and 20% natural gas. Over 65% of the total electricity
used in the district of Vauban is generated through photovol-
taic panels, which are owned by the local residents grouped in
various solar energy cooperatives(Sperling, 2002). In terms of
building energy use, a mandatory low energy standard applies
for both commercial and residential buildings(65kWh/m²),
and bottom-up initiatives for green technologies in buildings
have been promoted and administered by local stakeholders
in the neighbourhood. e neighbourhood has provided a
P. MEDVED
Urbani izziv, volume 28, no. 1, 2017
111
a
c
b
d
testing ground for various techniques with the potential to
reduce the consumption of natural resources and increase per-
sonal recycling. For example, in the experimental living lab in
Vauban–Passivhaus Wohnen und Arbeiten–many innovative
green technologies have been adopted, such as vacuum toilet
systems and small biogas reactors for kitchen use(Internet3;
Delleske, 2013).
Transport in Vauban is shaped by the vision of life without a
car, which promotes and stimulates alternative forms of mo-
bility such as cycling initiatives, car-sharing systems and e-
cient public transport(Sperling, 2002). Vauban is completely
integrated into a public transport network, with several city
bus lines and the Freiburg tram(Figure 1c). e local urban
plan practically prohibits parking in the neighbourhood of
Vauban, where the roads are fully adapted to pedestrians and
cyclists(see Figures1a and1d). e trac policy in Vauban
is supported by an eective car-sharing system. Because of all
these local measures, laws, policies and environmental pro-
tection awareness of the locals, car ownership in Vauban is
extremely low. Cars ownership per 1,000 people in Vauban is
150. In the Municipality of Freiburg, car ownership per 1,000
people is 427, and in Germany as a whole it is 517(Sperling,
2008; World Bank, 2013).
Regarding urban design, Vauban succeeded in its initial goal to
build densely, but green with plenty of parks, trees and open
green spaces (see Figures 2b and 2d). e population den-
sity(persons/ha) in Vauban is122, and in the city of Freiburg
it is15(Foletta, 2011; Banister, 2005). Urban plans aimed to
create a living space where there is no need for cars and eve-
rything is at the doorstep, like in medieval towns(Daseking,
2013). e buildings primarily consist of three- to four-storey
residential buildings. All ground-oor space is designed for
service functions in order to provide basic life necessities to
all residents of the neighbourhood.
Regarding public spaces, an important achievement of the civil
initiative Forum Vauban was to set up an enormous collective
space in the neighbourhood–the central neighbourhood com-
munity structure “Haus 037”–which was restructured from
the former French barracks(see Figure2a). Haus037 embod-
ies a modern multifunctional facility, a heterogeneous public
space with a restaurant, a pub, community meeting rooms,
Figure 1: Vauban’s sustainable transportation and car-free streets; a) a street as a playground; b) a car-free street; c) a tram; d) a bicycle
shed (photo: Primož Medved).
Leading sustainable neighbourhoods in Europe: Exploring the key principles and processes
Urbani izziv, volume 28, no. 1, 2017
112
oces and a hostel(Fraker 2013). Such a space strengthens
the identity of the local urban space and oers the local resi-
dents a place where they can meet and communicate. Another
important public space in Vauban is the central Alfred Döb-
lin Square(Aled-Döblin-Platz), which is located in front of
Haus037. Alfred Döblin Square is the heart of social life in
Vauban, where the organic market(held twice a week) and
exchange market(held once a month) take place. Vauban’s ap-
proach to public urban spaces conrms the ndings by Nataša
Bratina Jurkovič (2014) that urban renovation plans imple-
mented with the participation of a neighbourhood’s residents
diminish the risk of inappropriate or even poor programme
planning.
Together with Hammarby Sjöstad in Stockholm, Western Har-
bour in Malmö is the most representative Swedish example of
a sustainable neighbourhood. Western Harbour was primarily
used as a port and industrial area, and was also home to the
Kockums shipyard. e urban transformation process started
with the closure of the Saab factory in 1990 at the original
site of the Kockums shipyard, which freed up 140 hectares of
attractive land near the centre and the sea. e area has now
been developed into a modern neighbourhood with high sus-
tainability ambitions. Western Harbour was developed in three
stages: Bo01, Flagghusen(Bo02) and Fullriggaren(Bo03). e
entire area of Western Harbour is still under construction. New
sustainable construction is being created in the area. Currently,
Western Harbour has 4,300 residents and provides jobs for
nine thousand people (Foletta, 2011). e ratio of jobs per
resident is very high if one compares it to similar sustainable
neighbourhoods across Europe. When fully developed, thirty
thousand people will work and study in the transformed ur-
ban area. Western Harbour is becoming a new student and
economic centre of Malmö.
Regarding sustainable energy and natural resource manage-
ment, the sustainable urban area in Western Harbour called the
Bo01 district was the rst sustainable neighbourhood in the
world supplied by100% renewable energy(Bächtold, 2013).
Electricity is produced from solar and wind energy. e heat-
ing for Western Harbour comes mainly from the geothermal
potential of groundwater(80%) and partly from solar ener-
a
c
b
d
Figure2: Vauban’s public open spaces: a) the neighbourhood community centre Haus 037 and Vauban’s Alfred Döblin Square; b) a park; c) an
urban garden; d) a park (photo: Primož Medved).
P. MEDVED
Urbani izziv, volume 28, no. 1, 2017
113
gy(15%). Western Harbour is also a good example of applying
green innovation to other areas than energy, especially to water
and waste management. For example, in some buildings rain-
water is used for washing clothes, for watering gardens and for
ushing toilets(e.g.,in the elementary school); domestic waste
is transformed into a new energy source through a waste system
with anaerobic vacuum digestion; organic waste is converted to
biogas; and at roofs are usually “green”, covered with various
vegetation(Bächtold, 2013).
Western Harbour’s sustainable transport strateg y begins, like in
Vauban, with reducing car dependency. However, as recently as
in2011 the car ownership rate in Western Harbour was rela-
tively high(440 cars per1,000 residents), which is slightly less
than the Malmö average(480 cars per1,000; Foletta, 2011).
In Western Harbour, cars are allowed in some streets, but the
sustainable neighbourhood with a dense and vivid urban de-
sign tries to encourage walking and biking(Bächtold, 2013).
A signicant eort has been made to encourage bicycling and
to improve the pedestrian network (see Figures3c and 3d).
Access to the harbour area from other suburbs of Malmö is
provided by an ecient bus system running on biogas, elec-
tricity and natural gas. Parking is mainly provided through
underground parking lots, with limited on-street parking. e
parking ratio set by developers for the initial phase of Bo01
was0.7 spaces per apartment in order to encourage walking,
biking, and public transit use (Fraker, 2013; Zinkernagel,
2014). However, in later phases, because of resident pressure
and market demand, the parking policy changed to1.5 parking
spaces per apartment. Neighbourhood residents can use the lo-
cal car-sharing service(see Figure3a), which has become very
popular(Johansson, 2014; Lööf, 2014). In the development
of Fullriggaren(Bo03), membership in a car-sharing scheme
was included in the rent for the rst two years. Recently, even
“bike sharing” of cargo bikes has become popular in Western
Harbour.
Regarding the architectural perspective, Western Harbour is
inspired by urban design from the1800s with a relatively high
population density. e population density (persons/ha) in
Western Harbour is57 and in the city of Malmö it is19(Fo-
letta, 2011). Mixed-use buildings facing the main street have
a
c
b
d
Figure3: Western Harbour’s sustainable transportation and car-free streets; a) an electric car sharing vehicle; b) a car-free public space; c) and
d) car-free streets (photo: Primož Medved).
Leading sustainable neighbourhoods in Europe: Exploring the key principles and processes
Urbani izziv, volume 28, no. 1, 2017
114
residences, services or commercial spaces. ere are six-storey
buildings in the front, facing the sea, and low-rise buildings
inside. In Western Harbour, like in Vauban, the urban de-
sign is also very heterogeneous. For the area of Bo01 alone,
with1,900 apartments, there were ten developers and twenty
architects(Bächtold, 2013). Western Harbour is pedestrian-
friendly with many interconnected streets and it has many
green areas, a skate park (Figure 4c) and a large-scale open
storm water system with canals, pools and fountains(see Fig-
ures4a and4d).
A strip of Western Harbour’s waterfront has been converted
into a popular public promenade. Although the concept at
the beginning was disputable, today the promenade Sund-
spromenaden (Figure 4b) is an attractive place for citizens
and visitors(Foletta, 2011). Sundspromenaden embodies the
social role of an auent convergent meeting place, like the
central plaza in Vauban(Alfred Döblin Square). In contrast
to Vauban, in Western Harbour there is no neighbourhood
community centre for the local population.
e new urbanism movement especially promotes urban di-
versity and social heterogeneity within the urban environment.
erefore, a comparison of sustainable neighbourhoods also
focuses on these aspects. From the urban design perspective
of mixed building types, both neighbourhoods have achieved
a very high level of diverse building typologies and public
spaces(a promenade, plazas, urban gardens, skate parks,etc.).
However, with regard to population heterogeneity, both neigh-
bourhoods eventually failed to achieve(or maintain) a hetero-
genic social structure, and there is a risk that these sustainable
neighbourhoods could become what Susan Fainstein(2010)
calls “citadels of exclusivity”. Especially in the initial years,
Vauban succeeded in providing a considerable share of aord-
able housing (Fraker, 2013). Unfortunately, in recent times,
rents in Vauban increased signicantly, and Vauban is now
among the most expensive residential areas in Freiburg. Con-
sequently, most of its inhabitants today are educated profes-
sionals(Bächtold, 2013). Sigrid Gombert(2013) and Carsten
Sperling(2008) also identied the switch in Vauban’s social
structure from the initial activists towards young upper-middle
class families. However, the initial social urban structure(to a
a
c
b
d
Figure4: Western Harbour’s public open spaces; a) a canal; b) promenade (Sundspromenaden); c) a skate park; d) a park (photo: Primož Medved).
P. MEDVED
Urbani izziv, volume 28, no. 1, 2017
115
Table1: Principles of new urbanism (Vauban and Western Harbour).
New urbanism
principle
Definition / factor of interest Vauban Western Harbour
1. Walkability
Most things within a ten-minute walk of home and work + +
Pedestrian-friendly street design (buildings close to the street; porches, windows
and doors; tree-lined streets; on-street parking; hidden parking lots; garages in a
rear lane; narrow, low-speed streets)
+ +
Pedestrian streets free of cars in special cases + +
2. Connectivity
An interconnected street grid network disperses traffic and eases walking + +
A hierarchy of narrow streets, boulevards and alleys + +
A high-quality pedestrian network and public realm make walking pleasurable + +
3. Mixed-use and
diversity
A mix of shops, offices, apartments and homes on site; mixed use within neigh-
bourhoods, blocks and buildings + +
Diversity of people in terms of age, income level, culture and race – –
4. Mixed housing A range of types, sizes and prices in close proximity + +
5. Quality architecture
and urban design
Emphasis on beauty, aesthetics, human comfort and creating a sense of place + +
Special placement of civic uses and sites within the community + o
Human-scale architecture and beautiful surroundings nourish the human spirit + +
6. Traditional neighbo-
urhood structure
Discernible centre and edge + +
Public space in the centre + o
Importance of a quality public realm; public open space designed as civic art + +
Transect planning: highest densities in the town (neighbourhood) centre; progres-
sively lower density towards the edge + +
7. Increased density
More buildings, residences, shops and services close together for ease of walking,
more efficient use of services and resources, and a more convenient, enjoyable
place to live
+ +
8. Green transporta-
tion
A network of high-quality trains/trams/buses connecting cities, towns and neigh-
bourhoods + +
Pedestrian-friendly design that encourages greater use of bicycles, rollerblades
and walking as daily transportation + +
9. Sustainability
Minimal environmental impact of development and its operations + +
Eco-friendly technologies, respect for ecology and the value of natural systems + +
Energy efficiency + +
Reduced use of non-renewable fuels + +
More local production + +
More walking, less driving + +
10. Quality of life Taken together these add up to a high quality of life well worth living, and create
places that enrich, uplift and inspire the human spirit + +
Source: Author, 2016.
Leading sustainable neighbourhoods in Europe: Exploring the key principles and processes
Urbani izziv, volume 28, no. 1, 2017
116
lesser extent) persists within the neighbourhood(Vauban’s “so-
cial houses”: SUSI, Haus 037,etc.). Western Harbour was also
initially planned to be a heterogeneous and socially sustainable
area(Kärrholm, 2011). Today, however, the neighbourhood is
predominantly populated by upper middle-class people. e
rst settlement in the area (Bo01) in particular was clearly
designed for upper-income families(Madureira, 2015).
e presentation of sustainable neighbourhood urban design
characteristics shows that both neighbourhoods achieved most
of the factors of interest encompassed in the new urbanism
principles (Table 1). As described, the only factor (within
the third principle: mixed use and diversity) that was not
achieved in either of the neighbourhoods is connected with
the diversity of people(in terms of age, income level, culture
and race). Western Harbour did not achieve a full checkmark
regarding the special placement of civic uses and sites within
community because it has not implemented a very important
urban design element: the neighbourhood community centre.
It also fell short regarding public space in the centre because
it has not created a main public meeting space in the centre
of the neighbourhood.
5 Processes for urban
experimentation
is section investigates urban experimentation as dened by
Bulkeley etal.(2015), covering making, maintaining and living
in order to analyse the local governance system in each neigh-
bourhood. Disseminating is added as an additional activity to
investigate(see Table2). Studying these processes as part of the
dynamic evolution of a neighbourhood is fundamental for the
research because the “making” process claries the “conceiving
momentum” of urban regeneration (the initial implementa-
tion strategy: top-down vs. bottom-up), which is the main
independent research variable. e research also focuses on
the impact that the implementation approach (the “making
process”) has on other subsequent processes.
5.1 Making
To understand the complex system of dierent actors and com-
ponents in Vauban and Western Harbour, it is rst necessary to
understand the prerequisites, and the history and the develop-
ment processes for these specic sustainable urban areas. In the
beginning, both neighbourhoods represented “spaces of excep-
tion” in relation to common unsustainable urban practices.
Both neighbourhoods were eco-labs in sustainable urbanism,
or “spaces of innovation”. However, the visions, planning strate-
gies and development mechanisms were completely dierent
between the two eco experiments, which involved dierent
stakeholders in planning.
In1993, the Municipality of Freiburg developed an urban plan
to reconstruct the former French barracks into a modern sus-
tainable neighbourhood called Vauban. e timing of the city
plan for the neighbourhood transformation coincided with the
establishment of the activist organisation SUSI, which occu-
pied the abandoned military barracks in1992. e SUSI group
and later the association Forum Vauban were the initiators
of an autonomous sustainable neighbourhood in Vauban. A
strong local community and good organisation between the
initial residents was crucial in establishing a long-term(local)
Table2: Processes for urban experimentation
Processes Definition
Making
Conceiving, framing and operationalising the will to improve the urban milieu in relation to climate change
The process of assembling socio-technical parts, elements and actors that form a “space of exception” and at
the same time a “space of innovation”
Maintaining
Upkeep of experimental qualities and keeping unruly elements at bay
Metabolic adjustment (methods applying experiments that attempt to reconfigure existing forms of circulati-
on)
Living
Bringing into being distinct subjectivities, including multiple elements that are assembled in experiments and
create an “experimental subject”
Experiments operate in uncertain terrains (totalising rationalities and alternative subjectivities are under con-
stant negotiation)
***Disseminating
Sharing experience with other urban areas and organisations, expanding knowhow to networks outside their
borders, serving as incubators of change and conveying sustainability to the wider city environment
Introducing sustainable lifestyles, technological solutions to adjacent (and distant) districts, cities and regions
by using the neighbourhood as a showcase
Source: Bulkeley et al., 2015 (modified/regrouped by the author, 2016).
P. MEDVED
Urbani izziv, volume 28, no. 1, 2017
117
identity and in strengthening the sustainable orientation of the
neighbourhood. During the “making” process, the Municipal-
ity of Freiburg recognised the association Forum Vauban as
a legitimate partner and coordination entity in the planning
process. e association Forum Vauban introduced more radi-
cal measures into the local urban master plan and achieved a
ban on cars in the neighbourhood in order to create safe streets
where children could play(Field, 2011). e energy concept
was also developed through collaboration between the Mu-
nicipality of Freiburg, Forum Vauban and the Freiburg Energy
Company(Bächtold, 2013). During the area’s development,
Forum Vauban supported various non-prot organisations,
such as building cooperatives, and at the same time also ini-
tiated special food and energy cooperatives. Vauban embod-
ies the radical-ecocentrist transition version, which proposes
a grassroots, localist approach to deep social, environmental
and cultural transformations(Audet, 2014).
e Western Harbour area was owned by the Municipality of
Malmö, which wanted to transform this industrial area aer
the bankruptcy of many companies(Lööf, 2014). e purpose
of the transformation was to create an example of sustainable
urban development and to strengthen the image of Malmö
as a place to live and invest (Madureira, 2014). e initia-
tors of Western Harbour were not the residents that lived and
worked in the area, but the government authorities(namely,
the Municipality of Malmö). e public sphere had a very
marginal inuence on the urban plan of the area of Western
Harbour. One reason identied is that the initial architectural
plans created by the developers were very detailed from the
beginning(Lööf, 2014).
e dierence in the initiation process between Vauban and
Western Harbour was in the degree of residents’ involve-
ment in creating the sustainable neighbourhood concept.
e Vauban “learning while planning” participation process,
managed by Forum Vauban, was a typical grassroots project
with a bottom-up approach. In Vauban, although the city made
the process possible, much greater inuence was exerted by
residents through building cooperatives(Germ. Baugruppen)
in terms of setting higher standards, selecting the architect,
directing the design and managing the construction. In con-
trast, for Bo01 and all of Western Harbour, the Municipality
of Malmö engaged architect-developer teams and commercial
building developers. Western Harbour shows a typical top-
down approach in building design, in which the goals and
objectives were set entirely by the city. e critics point out
that the “making” process of the local transformation in West-
ern Harbour entailed no(eective) participatory involvement
from civil society.
5.2 Maintaining
“Maintaining” refers to two distinct but related forms of prac-
tice for “the maintenance phase of urban experiments”(Bulke-
ley et al., 2015). Bulkeley et al. (2015) dene two forms of
maintenance: upkeep and metabolic adjustment. Upkeep
adjustment is more physical and direct; it involves mundane
practices(removing waste, painting,etc.) with some more stra-
tegic interventions(energy investment and blocking of roads).
In contrast, metabolic adjustment relates to methods in which
the application of experiments attempts to recongure existing
forms of circulation(Bulkeley etal., 2015). Metabolic adjust-
ment can be seen in policy adaptations, technological develop-
ment and the development of new cultural sensitivities, and
may also be directed towards new ends and the adaptation of
new urban contexts.
is article focuses on how concrete “experiments intervene
to recongure network circulation through metabolic adjust-
ment”(Bulkeley et al., 2015: 39). To explain the metabolic
adjustment of Vauban, it is necessary to consider two main
waves of adaptation and modication. e rst one is related
to the energy standards of the building cooperatives. Forum
Vauban was particularly successful in encouraging self-builders
to adopt a stricter ecological approach than the compulsory
standard. Apparently, the 65kWh/m²/y set by the Municipal-
ity of Freiburg was not stimulating enough, and Forum Vauban
initiated an informal competition between the cooperatives
to reduce the energy demand of future buildings (Delleske,
2013). Forum Vauban arranged free consultations at organ-
ised events and seminars to help and inform self-builders
and homeowners by providing information on energy-saving
techniques(Bächtold, 2013). Many members of the building
cooperatives and developers set their own, more aggressive
standards. e second metabolic adjustment of Vauban is
based more on the composition of the neighbourhood popu-
lation, which has slightly changed over the years. From the
radical green activism of the rst pioneers, Vauban is slowly
moving toward a more family-oriented neighbourhood, but
without losing its particular “holistic sustainable orientation”.
In addition, the initial driver behind the Vauban development,
SUSI, is still completely integrated in the neighbourhood and
today has an important role in the local community, oer-
ing aordable council estate rentals. However, the tendency
toward gentrication is evident.
rough urban transformation, Western Harbour has also re-
adapted itself many times by adopting specic metabolic ad-
justments. At the beginning of the sustainable transformation,
Western Harbour had a poor image and it was oen criticised
by the media. A fenced park, a for-pay housing expo for the
Leading sustainable neighbourhoods in Europe: Exploring the key principles and processes
Urbani izziv, volume 28, no. 1, 2017
118
citizens of Malmö and consequently a boycott of it, nancial
scandals of building companies, unpaid local companies and
the bankruptcy of the main developer are just some of the
negative circumstances that accompanied the beginning of
the urban transformation (Dalman, 2014; Lööf, 2014). Lo-
cal criticism and the media also pointed to the high prices
for the apartments and the consequent “ghettoisation” of the
area(Holgersen, 2014). However, over the years Western Har-
bour has not only become a highly desired area to live in, but
it has also become a central leisure(or recreation) spot in the
city and a tourist attraction. e process of maintenance and
metabolic adjustment is evident in how the neighbourhood
reacted to its new role–that is, by providing special services
such as bars, restaurants and so on. However, some local citi-
zens were not very enthusiastic about this new openness to visi-
tors and preferred a more closed local community(Dalman,
2014). e other aspect of reconguration during the experi-
ment is shown in the behaviour of the Municipality of Malmö,
which reacted to inaccurate predictions about the buildings’
energy eciency(Bächtold, 2013). e city responded to the
unexpected situation with a variety of methods to change and
improve residents’ understanding of and commitment to sus-
tainable development goals(Johansson, 2014).
5.3 Living
Living involves bringing into being distinct subjectivities, or
multiple elements that are assembled in the experiment and
create an experimental subject (Bulkeley et al., 2015). Both
neighbourhoods are experimental living labs, but with a very
dierent local governance system and dierent decision-
making stakeholders. In Western Harbour, the main stake-
holder and decision-maker is the Municipality of Malmö. It
operates and manages the neighbourhood through its public
institutions and with the cooperation of some private compa-
nies(such as E.ON), which perform various technical experi-
ments in relation to the environmental solutions applied in
low-energy housing, renewable energy grids and so on. In con-
trast, Vauban, through its citizens’ participative associations
Forum Vauban and SUSI, and through its various building
cooperatives, renewable energy source cooperatives and vari-
ous local citizens’ organisations, has built up a multitude of
interlaced stakeholders, which form a unique local governance
system(see Figure5). Vauban’s local governance system, which
encompasses many dierent stakeholders, has empowered lo-
cal citizens.
Bulkeley etal. (2015) claim that experiments operate in un-
certain terrain and are under constant negotiation. In Vauban,
the association Forum Vauban experienced a serious existen-
tial threat and bankruptcy when the EU stopped funding its
activities. However, in the end the legacy of Forum Vauban
was able to recover under a dierent name: Stadtteilverein
Vauban(Delleske, 2013). e constant negotiation processes
and re-adaptation of the internal rules in the local “living”
experiments could also be identied in Western Harbour.
Figure5: Vauban’s local governance structure (source: Internet 2).
P. MEDVED
Urbani izziv, volume 28, no. 1, 2017
119
Because of the unplanned relatively homogenous social struc-
ture of the population in Bo01, the Municipality of Malmö
negotiated a very specic “social contract” with the building
developers for the subsequent developments. e Municipal-
ity of Malmö did not want Western Harbour to become “the
golden coast of Malmö”(Dalman, 2014). ey wanted to en-
sure that the continuation of Bo01 provided inclusivity. For
this reason, the city wanted to build the cheapest rentals in
Malmö. e city subsidised the land for the rentals in some
parts of the Bo02 area. In return, the developers had to sign
an agreement that they would not charge higher rent than the
lowest quartile of the average rentals in Malmö. Unfortunately,
the rents did not stay that low for long(Dalman, 2014). As
mentioned before, Western Harbour(Bo01) experienced fra-
gility and constant criticism at the beginning(especially from
the media). However, aer the initial stigma, the experiment of
Western Harbour is now globally recognised as a success story
of sustainable neighbourhood implementation. e creation of
new forms of urban experiments seeks to create new expecta-
tions about what is(and is not) normal(Bulkeley etal., 2015).
5.4 Disseminating
Vauban and Western Harbour are sustainable neighbourhoods
with a holistic approach to urban sustainability. For this rea-
son, many cities around the world are eager to learn from
Vauban and Western Harbour. e innovative disseminating
process is important to the ongoing development of sustain-
able neighbourhoods because it entails sharing experience with
other urban areas and organisations. Both neighbourhoods
have directly and indirectly expanded their networks outside
their borders. It is very complex to measure and dene to what
extent Vauban and Western Harbour have inuenced the rest
of their city, region and country with their urban sustainable
approaches, and to what extent they have generated interna-
tional impact. Some concrete actions, inuences and knowhow
that the two neighbourhoods have transmitted beyond their
borders are presented below.
e disseminating process in the case of Vauban can be sum-
marised in four forms of learning. First, knowledge about gov-
ernance strategies and other organisational solutions has been
transferred to other parts of the city (e.g., Rieselfeld) and to
urban areas of other cities in the region (e.g., Französisches
Viertel – Südstadt in Tübingen). For example, the Vauban
building energy standard inspired the standard for energy-
ecient buildings in Rieselfeld. ese standards formed the
basis for a standard, which in2009 came to apply for the en-
tire city of Freiburg (Bächtold, 2013). Second, the creation
of the rst plus-energy multifamily house in the world is a
technical solution that has been intensively analysed by urban
planners, designers and architects. ird, the Vauban guided
tours for tourists and researchers by local residents are a chan-
nel for spreading experience. e organisation of informational
seminars about the development process of Vauban also pro-
motes learning. Finally, the creation of the living lab Passivhaus
Wohnen und Arbeiten(the rst passive multi-dwelling house),
including guided tours of the passive house, provided for more
hands-on sharing of the sustainability solutions applied.
e disseminating process in the case of Western Harbour
can be described in terms of three learning-related activities.
First, knowledge about governance strategies and other organi-
sational solutions has been transferred to other parts of the
city(e.g.,Hyllie and Augustenborg) and to other urban areas
in the region(new plans for a sustainable neighbourhood in
Lund; Dalman, 2014). Similarly to Vauban, the sustainable
building standards developed throughout the dierent phases
of Bo01 later formed the basis for a programme applying to all
buildings developed on municipally owned land in the cities of
Malmö and Lund(Smedby, 2016). Also, the builders’ dialogue
concept(with the social contract) between building developers
and the Municipality of Malmö was transferred to the Munici-
pality of Copenhagen(Lööf, 2014). Similarly, the approach to
car sharing with a special contract concluded between the mu-
nicipality, builders and a car sharing company was transferred
to a dierent area of Malmö: Hyllie(Lööf, 2014). e Western
Harbour trac system has also become a model for the entire
city of Malmö(Fraker, 2013). Second, in terms of more techni-
cal solutions, the waste digestion system that was developed
in Western Harbour in Bo01 was used again in Bo03 and it
will become a model for the entire city(Dalman, 2014; Lööf,
2014). Finally, guided tours of Western Harbour have been
organised for thousands of international visitors.
6 Conclusion
Based on the new urbanism principles framework, it can be
concluded that the bottom-up case of Vauban has achieved
a human scale and community-oriented urban form very
similar to the top-down case of Western Harbour. e initial
implementation approach (top-down or bottom-up) did not
inuence the urban design form of the cases studied. Near-
ly all of the new urbanism principles were covered in both
neighbourhoods. However, it is important to point out that
in both neighbourhoods a fundamental aspect of new urban-
ism – that is, the diversity and heterogeneity of the urban
population–has not been achieved. Based on a new urban-
ism analysis, the rst hypothesis is rejected: that sustainable
neighbourhoods with a bottom-up implementation approach
create more human-oriented sustainable urban forms. In con-
trast, the top-down development in Western Harbour’s urban
form(see Table1) is completely in line with new urbanism
principles. Other top-down sustainable neighbourhoods
Leading sustainable neighbourhoods in Europe: Exploring the key principles and processes
Urbani izziv, volume 28, no. 1, 2017
120
across Europe (like Hannover’s Kronsberg or Stockholm’s
Hammarsby Sjöstad) similarly have a very functional and sus-
tainable dense urban structure, which encourages walkability,
incorporates mixed-use buildings, is well connected with green
urban transport, has many parks, oers plenty of(civil) services
in the vicinity of residential areas and so on(Fraker, 2013).
erefore, it can be concluded that most of the new urbanism
principles in sustainable urban neighbourhoods are attainable
regardless of the initial implementation approach.
Based on the comparative analysis, it is possible to conrm
the second hypothesis: that the sustainable neighbourhoods
implemented with the participatory bottom-up approach gen-
erate stronger local governance systems and are more socially
sustainable. Based on the processes framework, it can be es-
tablished that the implementation approach (bottom-up or
top-down) is relevant because it determines who(the citizen
associations or the municipality) will act or react to the neigh-
bourhood’s daily progression or retrogression. It determines
which stakeholder is the main protagonist and decision-maker
for the neighbourhood. e analytical processes framework
showed that in both case studies the initial development pro-
cess (i.e., “making”) directly inuenced the subsequent pro-
cesses and dened the nal governance system and community
social structure. Vauban’s local residents have been the main
decision-making stakeholders and, through building coopera-
tives and the association Forum Vauban, they set the social,
economic and environmental targets for the whole area. In
contrast, in Western Harbour, the entire area has been man-
aged and developed by the Municipality of Malmö. rough
the “maintaining” and “living” processes analysis, it could be
established that the main stakeholders–the administrators or
caretakers of the neighbourhoods–have not changed drasti-
cally over time.
e processes framework analysis also revealed that Vauban’s
bottom-up case study stimulated more socially sustainable
organisations and activities, which have enabled the local
community to express its vitality. Similarly, other European
sustainable neighbourhoods implemented with the partici-
pative bottom-up approach (e.g., Amsterdam’s sustainable
neighbourhood GWL Terrein and Culemborg’s EVA Lanx-
meer) have also developed a very strong local urban identity
and strong social cohesion, and have empowered local resi-
dents, who are now responsible for several neighbourhood is-
sues. erefore, for developing socially sustainable urban areas
with strong community-driven local governance in the future
it would be benecial to include the participative dialogue in
planning and include the community-based organisation in
the urban development strategy from the beginning (in the
“making” phase).
Regardless of the dierences between the two neighbourhoods
established in terms of their “making”, “maintaining” and “liv-
ing” processes, both have acted similarly in the “disseminat-
ing” process. ere appears to be no signicant dierence in
the transfer of knowledge processes between the case studies.
Both sustainable neighbourhoods have successfully transferred
technical knowhow (building energy standards, creation of
a living lab, a waste digestion system,etc.) and shared their
governance strategies and other organisational solutions(the
builders’ dialogue concept, car sharing, guided tours,etc.) to
other urban communities.
Finally, the case studies provide a range of insights into the
principles and processes of sustainable neighbourhoods. ere
is no universal solution or plan that can be followed when
implementing sustainable neighbourhoods. Today both exam-
ples are internationally recognised as good urban sustainability
models. In addition, both districts are living examples of the
possibilities that can inspire cities and organisations around
the world. Vauban and Western Harbour provide examples of
diverse principles and processes that can be adopted to achieve
a similar goal: sustainable neighbourhoods.
Primož Medved
Ljubljana, Slovenia
E-mail: primozmedved@yahoo.com
References
Audet, R. (2014) The double hermeneutic of sustainability transi-
tions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 11, pp. 46–49.
DOI: 10.1016/j.eist.2014.02.001
Bächtold, P. (2013) The space-economic transformation of the city. Heidel-
berg, Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-5252-8
Banister, D. (2005) Unsustainable transport: City transport in the new
century. Abington, Routledge.
Barton, H., Grant, M. & Guise, R. (2003) Shaping neighbourhoods: A guide
for health, sustainability and vitality. New York, Spon Press.
Bayulken, B. & Huisingh D. (2015) Are lessons from eco-towns help-
ing planners make more effective progress in transforming cities into
sustainable urban systems: A literature review (part 2 of 2). Journal of
Cleaner Production, 109, pp. 152–165. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.099
Bratina Jurkovič, N. (2014) Perception, experience and the use of public
urban spaces by residents of urban neighbourhoods. Urbani izziv, 25(1),
pp. 107–125. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2014-25-01-003
Bulkeley, H., Castán Broto, V. & Edwards, G. (2015) An urban politics of
climate change. London, Routledge.
Churchill, C. & Baetz, B. (1999) Development of decision support system
for sustainable community design. ASCE Journal of Urban Planning and
Development, 125(1), pp. 17–35.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(1999)125:1(17)
CNU & HUD (2000) Principles for inner city neighborhood design: A col-
laboration of the Congress for the New Urbanism and the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development. San Francisco: Congress for the
New Urbanism.
P. MEDVED
Urbani izziv, volume 28, no. 1, 2017
121
Dalman, E. (2014) Interview about the development and character-
istics of the sustainable neighbourhood Western Harbour (interview,
13 May 2014).
Daseking, W. (2013) Interview about the development and characteristics
of the sustainable neighbourhood Vauban (interview, 7 Apr. 2013).
Delleske, A. (2013) Interview about the development and characteristics of
the sustainable neighbourhood Vauban (interview, 6 Apr. 2013).
Fainstein, S. S. (2010) The just city. Ithaca, Cornell University Press.
Ferreira da Cruz, N. & Marques, R. (2014) Scorecards for sustainable
local governments. Cities, 39, pp. 165–170.
DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2014.01.001
Field, S. (2011) Case study: Vauban. In: Foletta, N. & Field, S. (eds.) Eu-
rope’s vibrant new low car(bon) communities, pp. 94–106. New York, IDTP.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study research.
Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), pp. 219–245. DOI: 10.1177/1077800405284363
Foletta, N. (2011) Case study: Västra Hamnen. In: Foletta, N. & Field,
S. (eds.) Europe’s vibrant new low car(bon) communities, pp. 82–93. New
York, IDTP.
Forrest, N. & Wiek, A. (2014) Learning from success – Toward evidence-
informed sustainability transitions in communities. Environmental Inno-
vation and Societal Transitions, 12, pp. 66–88.
DOI: 10.1016/j.eist.2014.01.003
Fraker, H. (2013) The hidden potential of sustainable neighborhoods.
Washington, DC, Island Press. DOI: 10.5822/978-1-61091-409-3
Frey, H. (1999) Designing the city: Towards a more sustainable urban
form. London, Spon. DOI: 10.4324/9780203362433
Gaventa, J. & Valderrama, C. (1999) Participation, citizenship and local
governance. Paper presented at Strengthening Participation in Local
Governance, 21–24 June, Brighton. Typescript.
Gombert, S. (2013) Interview about the development and characteristics
of the sustainable neighbourhood Vauban (interview, 7 Apr. 2013).
Grant, J. (2006) Planning the good community: New urbanism in theory
and practice. London, Royal Town Planning Institute Library Series,
Routledge.
Harvey, D. (1990) The condition of postmodernity. Cambridge, Blackwell.
Holgersen, S. (2014) The rise (and fall?) of post-industrial Malmö: Investi-
gations of city-crisis dialectics. Lund, Lund University.
Internet 1: http://www.newurbanism.org/newurbanism/principles.html
(accessed 20 May 2016).
Internet 2: https://www.oeko.de/ (accessed 18 May 2016).
Internet 3: http://www.passivhaus-vauban.de/ (accessed 20 May 2016).
Johansson, J. (2014) Interview about the development and characteris-
tics of the sustainable neighbourhood Western Harbour (interview, 20
May 2014).
Kärrholm, M. (2011) The scaling of sustainable urban form: A case of
scale-related issues and sustainable planning in Malmö, Sweden. Euro-
pean Planning Studies, 19 (1), pp. 97–112.
DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2011.530394
Kushner, J. A. (2002) Smart growth, new urbanism and diversity: Pro-
gressive planning movements in America and their impact on poor
and minority ethnic populations. UCLA Journal of Environmental Law
and Policy, 21(1), pp. 45 –74.
Kyvelou, S., Sinou, M., Baer, I. & Papadopoulos, T. (2012) Developing a
south-European eco-quarter design and assessment tool based on the
concept of territorial capital. In: Curkovic, S. (ed.) Sustainable develop-
ment – Authoritative and leading edge content for environmental man-
agement, pp. 561–588. Rijeka, Intech. DOI: 10.5772/45885
Lööf, M. (2014) Interview about the development and characteristics of
the sustainable neighbourhood Western Harbour (interview, 9 May 2014).
Madureira, A. M. (2014) Physical planning in entrepreneurial urban gov-
ernance – Experiences from the Bo01 and Brunnshög projects, Sweden.
European Planning Studies, 22(11), pp. 2369–2388.
DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2013.843650
Madureira A. M. (2015) Physical planning in place-making through de-
sign and image building. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment,
30(1), pp. 157–172. DOI: 10.1007/s10901-013-9381-2
Medved, P. (2016) A contribution to the structural model of autono-
mous sustainable neighbourhoods: New socio-economical basis for
sustainable urban planning. Journal of Cleaner Production, 120, pp. 21–
30. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.091
Rahnama, M. R., Roshani, P., Hassani, A. & Hossienpour, S. A. (2012)
Use principles of new urbanism approach in designing sustainable
urban spaces. International Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 2(7),
pp. 195–203.
Rogatka, K. & Ramos Ribeiro, R. R. (2015) A compact city and its social
perception: A case study. Urbani izziv, 26(1), pp. 56–66.
DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-2015-26-01-005
Rudlin, D. & Falk, N. (2009) Sustainable urban neighbourhood: Building
the 21st century home. Oxford, Architectural Press.
Smedby, N. (2016) Assessing local governance experiments for
building energy efficiency – the case of Malmö, Sweden. Environ-
ment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34, pp. 299–319.
DOI: 10.1177/0263774X15614176
Sperling, C. (2002) Sustainable urban district Freiburg – Vauban. Avail-
able at: http://www.carstensperling.de/pdf/dubai-submission.pdf (ac-
cessed 8 Jun. 2016).
Sperling, C. (2008) Freiburg – Vauban; From military area to model
district: Sustainable neighbourhood design – A communicative process.
Newcastle: CABE Urban design summer school. Available at: http://we-
barchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.org.
uk/files/udss2008-carstensperling.pdf (accessed 10 Jun. 2016).
World Bank (2013) Passenger cars (per 1,000 people). Available at: http://
data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.VEH.PCAR.P3 (accessed 8 Jun. 2016).
Zinkernagel, R. (2014) Interview about the development and charac-
teristics of the sustainable neighbourhood Western Harbour (interview,
9 May 2014).
Leading sustainable neighbourhoods in Europe: Exploring the key principles and processes
