Content uploaded by Primož Medved
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Primož Medved on Jul 16, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Primož Medved
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Primož Medved on Oct 05, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Primož Medved
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Primož Medved on Sep 24, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjud20
Journal of Urban Design
ISSN: 1357-4809 (Print) 1469-9664 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjud20
Exploring the ‘Just City principles’ within two
European sustainable neighbourhoods
Primož Medved
To cite this article: Primož Medved (2018) Exploring the ‘Just City principles’ within two
European sustainable neighbourhoods, Journal of Urban Design, 23:3, 414-431, DOI:
10.1080/13574809.2017.1369870
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2017.1369870
Published online: 19 Sep 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 108
View related articles
View Crossmark data
JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN, 2018
VOL. 23, NO. 3, 414431
https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2017.1369870
Exploring the ‘Just City principles’ within two European
sustainable neighbourhoods
PrimožMedved
Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
ABSTRACT
The objective of this paper is to analyse and compare in detail the
social structure of the two most acclaimed European sustainable
neighbourhoods, which have had a completely dierent
implementation approach: bottom-up urban development in Vauban
(Freiburg) and top-down urban development in Western Harbour
(Malmö). The goal is to uncover the unrevealed urban elements
that determine social sustainability. The paper uses an innovative
methodological framework - the Fainstein’s ‘Just City’ concept, which
encompass several social determinants within three main pillars/
principles: democracy, equity and diversity. The ‘Just City’ principles and
its determinants add a new perspective to social urban manifestation
encompassing ‘social justice’ and ‘local governance’ dimensions. These
dimensions represent innovative research approaches in exploring
urban social sustainability. Through the Just City framework, the
social structure of the two representative case studies is dissected
to establish the level of urban social sustainability in each urban
area. The aim of the paper is to answer to the question: “Do the most
acclaimed leading sustainable neighbourhoods embody democratic
values, assure equality and respect (allow) diversity?”
Introduction
This paper focuses on the interrelationship between sustainability (at the urban level) and
justice. Agyeman (2008) developed an innovative formulation of ‘just sustainability’, which
implies a paradigm shift where sustainability takes on a redistributive function. To do this
and to hope for a more sustainable future, justice and equity must move centre stage in
sustainability discourses (Agyeman 2008). ‘Just sustainability’ represents a balanced approach
including an explicit focus on justice, equity and the environment together (Agyeman and
Evans 2004). The foundations of ‘just sustainability’ cover four main areas of concern: ‘quality
of life’, ‘present and future generations’, ‘justice and equity in resource allocation’ and ‘living
within ecological limits’ (Agyeman 2004).
Current modes of community and housing design are experiencing a reimagining of their
philosophy and form. Environmental urban reformists have currently opened the door to
© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Primož Medved primozmedved@yahoo.com
This article was originally published with errors. This version has been corrected. Please see Corrigendum (https://doi.org/
10.1080/13574809.2018.1385921)
JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 415
reconsider how to redesign communities for the betterment of civic life (Gillette, Jr. 2010).
Furthermore, current societal transition processes have also accelerated the process of
rethinking community and urban design (Friedman 2015).
In recent decades, sustainability has become a recognized fundamental element in urban
planning. Although sustainability issues are taken into consideration for city planning, for some
reason they have received less attention with regard to neighbourhood development (Choguill
2008). Despite this, interest in introducing sustainability goals through neighbourhood plan-
ning has been growing in recent years (Shari 2016). The neighbourhood could represent a
starting point for the (sustainable) urban regeneration process as it is great enough to assure
a minimal level of ‘self-suciency’ (for schooling, urban transport, recycling, potentially urban
farming, etc.) and small enough to establish a well-dened local urban identity and a cohesive
community. With regard to social sustainability, neighbourhood population size is small
enough to allow free interchange among local community residents (Choguill 2008).
The neighbourhood could be dened as a functional entity, a spatial construct or a social
formulation (Jenks and Dempsey 2007). Barton, Grant, and Guise (2003) interpret the neigh-
bourhood as a complex ecosystem in the sense that it embodies the essential local habitat
for humans, providing not only shelter but also a network of social support and opportunities
for a wide range of leisure, cultural and economic activities. The neighbourhood as a social
/ urban form represents a special open, permeable and at the same time ‘closed’ / dened
urban cell, which has a proper identity, a uniqueness in its functioning. At the same time,
the neighbourhood urban unit represents a dened space where the physical environment
interlaces with social ows. The urban community, like the neighbourhood, could also be
considered a physical ambience for social interaction and a non-physical concept. The urban
community should be understood as an inseparable ‘soul’, the essence of the physical envi-
ronment of the neighbourhood. The dierent usage of social and purely physical terminology
and the interchangeability of both expressions (‘neighbourhood and community’) also
appear in dierent scientic areas such as urban design, planning and urban sociology (Jenks
and Dempsey 2007).
Considering the aforementioned indispensable essence of the elementary urban cell, the
paper will focus on the concept of ‘urban social sustainability’, which especially fosters the
role of community (‘community sustainability’) in neighbourhoods. Urban social sustaina-
bility emphasizes the importance of citizen participation in collective groups and networks,
community stability, pride/sense of place (community identity), safety and security (Dempsey
et al. 2011). Dave (2011) pointed out that ‘access to facilities and amenities’, ‘community spirit
and social interaction’, ‘mix of use of building forms’ are aspects that heavily inuence and
construe the urban social sustainability of a neighbourhood.
Despite its signicance, (urban) social sustainability has not been the subject of enough
research to date (Dempsey 2009), especially not at the neighbourhood scale (Hamiduddin
2015). Despite being widely accepted as one of the main pillars of sustainability, there is
insucient scientic literature that specically explores social sustainability (Shari and
Murayama 2013).
Background and aim
As mentioned in the introductory section, ‘urban social sustainability’ at the neighbourhood
level has not been researched enough, even in the sustainable urban design eld. It is
416 P. MEDVED
therefore necessary to analyze and research the urban social sustainability factors that have
a strong inuence on local communities in sustainable urban neighbourhoods.
In the process of identifying ideal urban forms, is impossible not to consider the widely
acclaimed urban format, the so-called ‘sustainable neighbourhood’. Several urban research-
ers claim that today the ‘optimal’ community-oriented urban form is represented by the
‘sustainable neighbourhood’. A sustainable neighbourhood is shaped by the three main
sustainability pillars ‒ economic, social and environmental sustainability ‒ which should be
developed and maintained in constant balance (Churchill and Baetz 1999). Unfortunately,
in scientic literature most of the sustainable neighbourhood analyses have been focused
on the technical-environmental issues (Georgiadou and Hacking 2011), and have largely
disregarded the ‘(urban) social sustainability analysis’ (Haapio 2012; Kyvelou et al. 2012). The
observation of the social manifestation, the community role (identity, cohesion, governance),
in sustainable neighbourhoods has mostly been overlooked.
In recent decades there have been two main predominant tendencies identied in urban
planning (Healey, McDougall, and Thomas1982). The tendency which emphasizes the
increasing role and power of technical experts, promotes centralism and de-politicized deci-
sion-making, is labelled as the top-down approach to planning (Murray et al. 2009). On the
contrary, the bottom-up approach to planning demands more participation in decision
making and more accountability on the part of local politicians and ocials (Murray et al.
2009). The bottom-up approach means that local actors participate in decision making
regarding strategy and in the selection of the priorities to be pursued in their local area (EU
Commission, n.d.).
Sustainable neighbourhoods dier considerably one from the other, especially with
regard to the initial implementation approach. Some European sustainable neighbourhoods
which have been implemented using a bottom-up approach developed a relatively high
social cohesion, a strong community with a particular local identity, e.g. Vauban (Freiburg),
EVA Laxmeer (Culemborg), etc. On the other hand, other European sustainable neighbour-
hoods developed using a top-down approach, e.g. Western Harbour in Malmö, Hammarby
Sjöstad in Stockholm, have not developed such a strong local community identity. The afore-
mentioned implication between the development approach of sustainable neighbourhoods
and social sustainability has not been thoroughly researched.
This paper will attempt to examine, analyze and compare the social manifestation in
sustainable neighbourhoods using an innovative method ‒ the Just City framework, which
could reveal a wider spectre of social determinants that have not been put in place in other
studies, and advance a new (social) perspective in sustainable urban planning (at the neigh-
bourhood level).
From the range of dierent European sustainable neighbourhoods two case studies, two
sustainable neighbourhoods, are presented: Vauban (Freiburg, Germany) and Western
Harbour (Malmö, Sweden), as these are ideal representatives of two completely opposite
(extreme examples) in the sustainable urban design approach.
Vauban is a sustainable neighbourhood of 5000 citizens, located in the city of Freiburg
(population: 226,000) near the Black Forest. Vauban is a typical browneld development,
built on a 42 hectare site which was an abandoned French military base. Vauban’s aim was
to ‘build densely,1 but green’, with many parks and open public spaces, e.g. car-free streets,
plazas, urban gardens, etc. The basic local architecture design is characterized by multifunc-
tional three to four storey buildings.
JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 417
The sustainable neighbourhood of Vauban plays the role of eco-laboratory for the city of
Freiburg. For example, the Vauban building energy standard inspired and formed the basis
for the Freiburg’s energy-ecient buildings standard which was applied in 2009 (Bächtold
2013). Vauban has also inuenced other cities around the world as they have attempted to
introduce sustainable urban solutions in their neighbourhoods. Urban planners, designers
and architects from all over the world have come to Vauban in order to learn about their
particular sustainable urban design.
Vauban is a role model and a rst line representative of the bottom-up, participatory
approach to sustainable urbanism. Many citizen associations, local sustainable activities and
cooperatives of many forms (building, food, renewable energy) have been established in
Vauban. Sperling (2016) pointed out that the Vauban participation model diers very much
from the traditional (common) participative practices in cities that he denes as ‘Participation
as Usual’, where the administration (city) organizes and the citizens / NGOs simply take part
in the process. This form of top-down driven participation was partly encountered in Western
Harbour, where the city council of Malmö planned the entire neighbourhood and in the end
unsuccessfully tried to involve and empower local citizens in discussion panels (Interview
with urban project manager, Lund, 2014). On the contrary, in Vauban the NGOs (such as
Forum Vauban) and local citizens initiated and organized and the administration ‘accepted
the partnership’ (Sperling 2014). However, it should be noted that the contradiction in per-
ception where both parties (the City of Freiburg and the local NGOs) lay claim to having
initiated the process of implementation for the Vauban sustainable neighbourhood
(Interviews with Vauban's association representative and urban planner, Freiburg, 2013).
Western Harbour is a sustainable neighbourhood with 4300 residents located in Malmö
(population 342,000). Western Harbour is a browneld development built on a 140 hectare
disused industrial area near the sea. Western Harbour’s architectural design is inspired by
urban design from the nineteenth century with a high population density2 and many public
spaces, e.g. promenade, green areas, extensive canals, fountains, etc. On the sea-front mixed-
use buildings and six-storey buildings can be found, and low-rise buildings are situated in
the interior of the neighbourhood.
Western Harbour embodies a sustainable urban experiment where several socio-technical
sustainable solutions have been the subject of experimentation. For example, the sustainable
building standards developed in Western Harbour are now also applied in the Malmö con-
struction programme. In addition, the Western Harbour approach to car sharing with a special
contract between the municipality, builders and car sharing companies was also transferred
to other Malmö neighbourhoods (Interview with Malmö municipality representative, Malmö,
2014). Furthermore, purely technical solutions such as the Western Harbour waste digestion
system will be introduced throughout the entire city of Malmö (Interview with urban project
manager, Lund, 2014).
Western Harbour is clearly a typical representative of top-down development where the
developers (the municipality) set up the entire urban conguration of the area, and where
community involvement in the neighbourhood is relatively low.
Two sustainable neighbourhoods with completely dierent implementation approaches
and dierent levels of community involvement have been chosen because “atypical or
extreme cases often reveal more information because they activate more actors and more
basic mechanisms in the situation studied” (Flyvbjerg 2006, 229). If there are signicant
418 P. MEDVED
dierences in urban social sustainability manifestation in sustainable neighbourhoods, these
should emerge rst in ‘extreme’ cases of sustainable urban development.
The objective of the paper is to analyze in detail the social structure of the two most
appreciated and well-known sustainable neighbourhoods, each of which has a completely
dierent implementation approach, and to uncover the unrevealed elements that determine
the social sustainability of the urban areas. This will be presented within an innovative meth-
odological framework known as the Fainstein ‘Just City’ concept which encompass several
social determinants within the three main pillars / principles: Democracy, Equity and Diversity,
which will be discussed further later in the paper. The concept is based on Susan Fainstein’s
book The Just City (2010). The aim is to determine, ‘how’, ‘where’ and ‘if’ the two sustainable
neighbourhoods dier if they are compared using the Just City framework. Through the
innovative analytical framework, it will be possible to dissect the social structure of the two
‘extreme’ case studies and to establish the level of urban social sustainability in each urban
area. The goal of the paper is to answer the following question: do most acclaimed European
sustainable neighbourhoods embody democratic values, assure equality and respect (allow)
diversity?
Methodology
The empirical research data for the comparative analysis were collected through scientic
literature analysis, case studies analysis (focusing on urban communities’ social manifesta-
tion), interviews with the main stakeholders and an analysis via participant observation.
In April 2013, interviews were conducted with a representative of the former Forum
Vauban community initiative, the urban planner of the Freiburg municipality who planned
both Freiburg’s sustainable neighbourhoods, and a representative from the Vauban Actuel
local newspaper. In May 2014 interviews were conducted with a former project manager of
the Bo01-Western Harbour district, representatives from the Environmental department of
the Malmö municipality, and an employee at the Real Estate Department of the Malmö
Municipality. The representative of the former Forum Vauban community initiative was
re-contacted via email for additional questions in 2016. In total, 10 visits were made to
Western Harbour (in 2014) and seven to Vauban (2013) where the main stakeholders were
interviewed.
The aim was to interview the main protagonists who initiated the sustainable urban
transformation. To that end, the main planners, project managers, urbanists and the main
NGO and citizen representatives were interviewed. Since Western Harbour is a typical top-
down development, there were no local community representatives who participated in
the urban planning. For this reason, only Vauban’s local community representatives were
interviewed.
The interviews were semi-structured and covered all the interdisciplinary ‘strategic urban
sustainability goals’ dened in the “structural model of autonomous sustainable neighbour-
hood” (Medved 2016). The interview questions covered the subjects / indicators listed in the
structural model’s four pillars: energy pillar and natural resources, sustainable transport,
sustainable urban design elements and socio-economic balance. Special emphasis was
placed on the local governance system and on the initial implementation process in the two
neighbourhoods in order to increase understanding regarding the dynamic of the initial
Vauban bottom-up and Western Harbour top-down approach.
JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 419
The collected data represented the empirical basis for the main research focus, which is
the sustainable neighbourhood qualitative comparative analysis. The comparative analysis
between the two sustainable neighbourhoods (Western Harbour, Malmö and Vauban,
Freiburg) was performed with the Just City principles’ determinants (see Table 1), which is
listed and regrouped from Fainstein’s book The Just City (2010).
The Just City concept is delineated with the three main principles: Democracy, Equity
and Diversity, which embody the three governing principles in relation to urban justice
(Fainstein 2014). The Just City concept embodies a revived recognition of the need to explic-
itly formulate social values (Fainstein 2001). The author chose Fainstein’s Just City framework
(see Table 1) because its principal essence is completely in line with the ‘urban social sus-
tainability’ contributory factors identied and specied by Dempsey et al. (2011).
Moreover, the Just City principles and its determinants add a new perspective to social
urban manifestation encompassing ‘social justice’ and ‘local governance’ dimensions. These
elements add innovative research approaches in exploring the urban social sustainability.
With the highlighted determinants of Fainstein’s Just City concept (see Table 1) it is possible
to more thoroughly understand the governance, local politics and social policies behind the
community manifestation ‒ ‘the community governance dimension’ ‒ and more explicitly
comprehend the social justice of a local urban area.
Cruz and Marques (2014) pointed out that local authority actions cannot be evaluated
just from the social, economic and environmental point of view. City authorities and
Table 1.The Just City principles.
Source: The Just City principles (Fainstein 2010), regrouped by Author, 2017.
Principles Determinants /Reference points / Denition
Democracy • citizen participation (especially by the disadvantage groups);
• redistribution of decision power, redistribution of benefits;
• community control over urban polices, in order to ensure local citizens that governmental actions
would benefit them;
• citizen empowerment;
• local consultation; inclusion of community groups; community meetings;
• participating in neighbourhood plans;
• widespread mobilization / no single minority group activists;
• gaining concession in terms of community spaces;
• affordable housing;
• ability to stop the gentrification;
• ‘participatory budgeting’
Diversity • from urban designer perspective: ‘mixing building types;
• from planners’ perspectives: “mixed uses or class and racial-ethnic heterogeneity in a housing
development or a public space”;
• physical heterogeneity that promotes economic and social diversity; inclusion of all city users within
the space of the city, regardless of their cultural differences (‘the right to the city’);
• avoiding ‘citadels’ of exclusivity; providing housing to encompass a broad income range (‘mixed
income model’), and forbidding discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity or disability
Equity • distributional equity (particular concept of fairness in which policy aims at bettering the situation of
those who without the state intervention would suffer from relative deprivation);
• accessible public transportation (an area of strong equity implication on low-income population);
• appropriate forms of tenure (a balance between: private market rental; public, non-profit or
cooperative ownership, individual ownership);
• linkage between housing and policies for urban regeneration (the designation of uses for areas under
redevelopment determines who will benefit from regeneration programmes; to the extent that areas
remain or become residential; who will live in them constitutes the core of redevelopment policy)
420 P. MEDVED
neighbourhood representatives should be examined by their conduct and approach to
performing their responsibilities. For this reason it is important to include the analysis of the
‘local governance’, which relates to the behaviour of institutions, the governing processes
and the relations between the state (municipality), the citizens and other stakeholders (Cruz
and Marques 2014). Adding this particular innovative framework focusing on social justice
and governance (at the neighbourhood level), it is possible to open a new perspective of
community involvement at the neighbourhood level.
In addition to the main research focus, the application of the Just City theoretical frame-
work, which is aimed at understanding the city dynamism, to the neighbourhood level
analysis was especially challenging. During the analysis of Fainstein’s theoretical concepts
and determinants that dene each principle (Table 1), it became evident that the whole ‘city’
framework is transferable / applicable for the neighbourhood level analysis, without losing
any essential element.
Fainstein (2010) clearly stated that she developed the urban justice theory in order to
evaluate the policies, existing and potential institutions and programmes in wealthy, formally
democratic Western countries. She recognizes that such a focus is vulnerable to criticism,
but is equally clear that there is no easy transfer of ideas and practice between rich world
cities, let alone from developed to developing city contexts (Tonkiss 2011). One of the main
critiques of her Just City policy guidelines is that they focus more on what should be done
rather than on how these criteria should be applied (Marou 2012). Lake (2014) also pointed
out potential hesitation on the part of planners and policy makers to adopt such policies,
especially in light of the power imbalances and structural constraints that have prevented
their widespread adoption to date. Despite legitimate criticism, various urban studies con-
sider the Just City framework as a valid ‘policy guide’ focused on urban justice. For example,
Keating (2011) claims that Fainstein’s Just City framework is a thoughtful guide to what
progressive reformist urban policies should be, as an alternative approach to the neoliberal
urban policies. In The Just City, Susan Fainstein draws on her experience of more than three
decades on equity, urban planning and development to consider the prospects for more
just urban processes and outcomes (Tonkiss 2011).
Analyzing the ‘Just City’ dimensions within the sustainable neighbourhoods
of Vauban (Freiburg) and Western Harbour (Malmö)
In this section, there is an emphasis on Fainstein’s Just City principles ‒ Democracy, Diversity
and Equity, principles which are manifested in each sustainable neighbourhood. The com-
parative analysis with the innovative framework will attempt to reveal the urban social struc-
ture and describe the local governance, focusing on the reference points of each Just City
principle (highlighted in Table 1). Information regarding the Just City determinants (listed
in Table 1) has been systematically collected.
Democracy
Vauban has a relatively cohesive local community which has constantly strengthened its
particular ‘Vauban identity’. The multitude of actors involved in the formation of the sustain-
able neighbourhood of Vauban is presented in Figure 1. In the Vauban stakeholders’ network
there have been many political, administrative, economic and social contributors such as
JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 421
the Group of Building owners, student organizations, development companies, etc. (see
Figure 1). Three main acting bodies connected to Vauban’s development were identied
(Bächtold 2013): the Council Vauban Committee, the main platform for information and
discussion exchange initiated by the City Council of Freiburg; Project Group Vauban, respon-
sible for administrative coordination, funding and marketing, which led the development
of the new Vauban district; and Forum Vauban, a benevolent association which allowed 400
self-organized citizens to participate in the planning and development process.
The Forum Vauban grassroots organization had the function of a local umbrella associa-
tion and represented a ‘connecting channel’ for all the district associations and local citizens
in relation to the Freiburg municipality. Forum Vauban (now called ‘Stadtteilverein Vauban’)
organized several local consultations and meetings in order to engage citizens in partici-
pating in urban development.
Regarding Fainstein’s Democracy factor “gaining concession in terms of community
spaces”, Vauban’s rst-comers managed to obtain a very important communal space ‒ the
neighbourhood community centre ‘Haus 37’, which is currently the neighbourhood social
hub for many of Vauban’s activities and associations. The neighbourhood community centre
has allowed many locally driven social services to function, e.g. a kindergarten, an association
for the elderly, an association for individuals with disabilities, etc.
During development, the Vauban community has had a relatively strong voice regarding
local urban policies, and has suggested and implemented many urban redevelopment com-
munal activities, e.g. the public green spaces in Vauban have been managed by the local
residents. Over the years, Vauban’s local community has created a unique participative system
of dierent social groups (Bächtold 2013; Interviews with Vauban's associations represent-
atives, Freiburg, 2013) which include the self-organized group SUSI and Forum Vauban,
building cooperatives (Baugruppen in German), local organic food cooperative Quartiersladen,
Figure 1. Vauban’s local governance structure. Source: Öko-Institut, 2002.
422 P. MEDVED
local cooperatives of renewable energy sources, the Vauban Actuel newspaper, and several
other social associations.
Vauban represents a good example of citizen participation at the neighbourhood level
based on direct democracy. Despite the aforementioned, Sperling (2008) has asserted that
in recent years Vauban has experienced a fragile balance between the rst eco-pioneers and
the ‘newcomers’, who (often) do not have the same stimulus to participate in neighbourhood
associations and activities. The interest and participation level in common (sustainable) local
issues dropped signicantly after the expansion of the neighbourhood (Interview with
Vauban's association representative, Freiburg, 2013). This tendency is in contradiction with
Fainstein’s Democracy principle, which promotes the widespread mobilization for common
interest and not an isolated minority group of activists.
Turning to Sweden, the sustainable neighbourhood of Western Harbour could be con-
sidered outstanding from the technological and ecological perspective; however, from the
point of view of economic and social sustainability, the neighbourhood stagnates (Kärrholm
2011). There is much less citizen participation and community involvement in comparison
to Vauban. This could derive from the fact that the whole area was designed using the top-
down urban development approach. From a typical top-down approach, it is most probably
not possible to expect a strong identity of the local space and vivid initiatives in the local
environment. Consequently, there are not many local community associations and activities.
Unlike in Vauban, the residents of Western Harbour had a limited voice in the development
of common areas because the initial architectural plans set by the developers were very
detailed from the beginning (Interview with Malmö municipality representative, Malmö,
2014). In addition, because of the specic Swedish renewable energy regulations, cooper-
atives of renewable energy were not possible as they are in Vauban (Interview with Malmö
municipality representative, Malmö, 2014). Sweden does not have the ‘feed-in tari system’
for renewable energy sources which has been adopted in Germany.
On the other hand, the common spaces near the sea, gardens and parks of Western
Harbour are used for leisure activities by all the citizens of Malmö and are also very popular
with tourists (Interview with Malmö municipality representative, Malmö, 2014). This demon-
strates that Western Harbour is also a welcoming, hospitable space and could not be con-
sidered a ‘gated community’.
Regarding Fainstein’s Democracy factors of interest, “citizen participation; citizen empow-
erment; local consultation; community meetings; participating in neighbourhood plans”, it
must be stated that the developers in Western Harbour had many public consultations (‘dis-
cussion panels’) during the development process of the area and encouraged people to
express their ideas about ‘how’ the area should be developed (Interview with urban project
manager, Lund, 2014). Critics have pointed out that the inuence of their suggestions was
marginal (Fraker 2013; Interview with Malmö municipality representative, Malmö, 2014). On
the other hand, the urban developers proposed building a neighbourhood community cen-
tre, but there was no willingness from the local community to implement the structure
(Interview with urban project manager, Lund, 2014).
Regarding Fainstein’s Democracy factors ‘aordable housing’ and ‘ability to stop the gen-
trication’, in the end both neighbourhoods failed to achieve these essential ‘Democracy’
values. The background of these non-fullments is further discussed in the next section,
Diversity, where it describes how Vauban and Western Harbour have been unable to avoid
the formation of the so-called ‘citadels of exclusivity’.
JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 423
Diversity
From the perspective of Fainstein’s Just City point of reference, diversity in building types,
the Vauban bottom-up approach in planning allowed the groups of future residents to design
their own homes in synergy with (and next to) the traditional buildings developers. This
process allowed an architecturally non-uniformed, non-homogenized and picturesque dis-
trict (Field 2011; see Figure 2). “Urban plans were aimed to create a living space, where there
is no need for cars, and everything is at the doorstep, like in medieval towns” (Interview with
urban planner, Freiburg, 2013). Most of the ground oor spaces are designed for service
functions in order to provide basic facilities to the neighbourhood residents.
The urban design of Western Harbour looks back to the 1800s and tries to recreate the
urban space with a high population density. Most of the buildings’ structures along the main
street create a mixed usage of space encompassing residential and commercial spaces. In
Western Harbour, as in Vauban, the urban design is very heterogeneous (see Figure 3). In
the rst Western Harbour area, the Bo01, a total of 10 building developers and 20 architects
designed approximately 1900 apartments (Bächtold 2013).
Considering the aforementioned, from the urban design perspective (‘mixing building
types’), both neighbourhoods achieved a very high level of diversity with dierent building
typologies and public spaces (promenade, plazas, urban gardens, skate parks, etc.) (see
Figures 2 and 3). Both neighbourhoods achieved a diversity of urban form with a functional
separation between master developer and parcel developers. Smart parcelization enforces
Figure 2. Diversity in urban form, Vauban (Freiburg). Source: Author.
424 P. MEDVED
physical diversity and avoids uniformity of new urban developments (Adams, Tiesdell, and
White 2013).
In contrast, referring to the heterogeneity of population, in the end both neighbour-
hoods failed to achieve (or maintain) a heterogenic social structure and there is a risk that
the two sustainable neighbourhoods could become what Fainstein (2010) would call ‘cit-
adels of exclusivity’. Especially in the rst years, Vauban succeeded in assuring a substantial
proportion of low-cost apartments for underprivileged citizens (Fraker 2013). Unfortunately,
in recent times, rent for apartments in Vauban has risen considerably. Today, Vauban is
considered to be amongst the most expensive residential areas of the Freiburg municipality.
The increase in rent contributes to the gentrication of the area (Mössner 2015).
Consequently, most of Vauban’s current inhabitants are educated professionals (Bächtold
2013; Interview with urban planner, Freiburg, 2013). An interview with Vauban's association
representative, (Freiburg, 2013) and Sperling (2008) also identied the switch regarding
the social structure, from the initial activist towards young upper-middle class families.
Despite the tendency towards the homogenization of the population, Vauban still remains
a culturally open society with a relatively strong communitarian (participatory) way of life
(Interview with Vauban's association representative, Freiburg, 2013), especially due to the
eort of the two main citizen organizations, Stadtteilverein Vauban and SUSI.
Figure 3. Diversity in urban form, Western Harbour (Malmö). Source: Author.
JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 425
Interestingly, Mössner (2016) pointed out that there is an identied absence of social
diversity in Vauban, which had already started at the beginning of the urban development
with the particular ‘building cooperative groups’ (Baugruppen in German). Within the initial
building cooperatives, people with the similar ‘green aspirations’ designed, implemented
and nanced the new residential buildings together. This specic communitarian planning
process in Vauban has apparently led to a rather homogenous social structure regarding
the sustainable lifestyle of the local residents and their social positions (Mössner 2016). The
cooperatives in general are usually considered forms of inclusivity and not exclusivity. This
acclamation could open a dierent perspective on perceiving the ‘cooperatives’ inclusion’.
In fact, the initial building cooperatives members in Vauban had been relatively homoge-
neous (young, well-educated German students), which unintentionally inuenced a certain
direction of urban policy in Vauban.
Western Harbour was also initially planned as a heterogeneous and socially sustainable
area (Kärrholm 2011). Currently, however, the Swedish sustainable neighbourhood is mostly
inhabited by upper middle-class residents. The rst settlement of the Western Harbour area,
the Bo01, was clearly designed for upper-income families (Interview with Malmö municipality
representative, Malmö, 2014). Madureira (2015) conrms that this is the aim of the munici-
pality representatives in order to repopulate the city centre of Malmö with a particular social
stratum (upper-middle class families) who are now living in the suburban zones of the city.
Some critics have pointed out that for this reason the Western Harbour could be interpreted
as a prototype of social segregation (Holgersen 2014).
The municipality of Malmö, along with the cooperation of building developers, have tried
to encourage the heterogeneity of the population structure in the later development of the
area, for Bo02 and Bo03. The municipality of Malmö subsidized apartment rents and together
with the building developers xed the maximum rental price in order to assure enough
aordable rental accommodations (Tjärnstig 2012; Interviews with urban project manager
and Malmö municipality representative, Lund and Malmö, 2014). The aim was also to enforce
the minimal social mix of Western Harbour, especially in Bo02 and Bo03 (Interview with
urban project manager, Lund, 2014). Despite all these eorts, the average rent in Western
Harbour is still over 60% higher than average rates in Malmö (Malmö City 2011)
Despite all the criticism, it should be noted that both neighbourhoods have at least
attempted to stimulate the diversity of population by providing special urban structures
such as special student houses, social houses, homes for the elderly, etc. in order to avoid
becoming socially monochromatic neighbourhoods. In addition, the urban design of both
neighbourhoods is completely adapted to the needs of individuals with disabilities.
Equity
One of the main components that denes Fainstein’s Equity principle is the ‘accessible public
transportation’, which allows local citizens who cannot aord a car or who are not able to
drive (children, the elderly, people with disabilities, etc.) to be completely connected with
the city facilities. The ecient and accessible public transport system diminishes the ine-
quality based on income. From that perspective, both neighbourhoods could be seen as
role models. Both neighbourhoods are very well connected with frequent bus and / or
tramlines, popular car-sharing systems, bike-friendly roads, aesthetic walking paths, etc.
Signicantly, the public transportation services (buses in Western Harbour; buses and trams
426 P. MEDVED
in Vauban) were implemented before the rst settlers ocially moved to these neighbour-
hoods (Interviews with Vauban's association representative and urban planner, Freiburg,
2013; and interview with Malmö municipality representative, Malmö, 2014). In 1993, the rst
pioneers grouped in the organization SUSI occupied the rst barracks in the Vauban, and
did not formally (ocially) reside in Vauban.
An important Equity factor, ‘cooperative ownership’, is manifested only in Vauban. Vauban
represents a successful and unique urban example of applied cooperative ownership, espe-
cially building, energy and food cooperatives. Vauban has been very dynamic in forming
locally owned companies whose activities take place in the local territory ‒ within the neigh-
bourhood. The local management and ownership of cooperatives empowers Vauban’s citi-
zens, who have achieved a higher degree of independence and self-suciency in comparison
to other neighbourhoods.
However, in both neighbourhoods other ‘Equity notions’ advanced by Fainstein could not
be considered ‘ideally implemented’. For example, Vauban experienced an ‘Equity question’
with regard to a special issue advanced by Fainstein (2010) which is the “designation of uses
for areas under redevelopment which determines to whom will be assigned the area”. The
squatter collective ‘Kommando Rhino’ occupied a small abandoned area of Vauban for two
years in order to live there in approximately 30 trucks and trailers. The pacist group became
a symbol of Vauban’s social heterogeneity. In 2010, the city of Freiburg sold the ‘occupied’
area, which was later transformed into a new hotel (Mössner 2015). Mössner (2016) noticed
that only a small number of Vauban’s residents came to the protests against the dislodgment
of the Kommando Rhino group. This is just one circumstance which symbolically represents
a change in the local sense of place / collective consciousness, and demonstrates an obvious
trend that the market driven processes are present in the Vauban area, which has become
an increasingly exclusive zone. At the beginning of the urban transformation, Vauban suc-
ceeded in assuring enough aordable housing for the local residents (Fraker 2013). However,
during the last few years apartment rent has increased to the point that Vauban is now
considered one of the most expensive neighbourhoods in Freiburg. Consequentially,
Vauban’s social structure has changed and young upper-middle class families are now pop-
ulating the sustainable neighbourhood (Sperling 2008; Interview with Vauban's association
representative, Freiburg, 2013).
Similar trends could be observed in Malmö’s policy for new urban development projects.
At the beginning of the sustainable transformation, Western Harbour was also planned as
a heterogeneous urban area (Kärrholm 2011) and yet it has always been inhabited by upper
middle-class people. Baeten (2012) claims that the neoliberal high-end urban design process
in Western Harbour is one of the most explicit experiments in attracting the wealthier resi-
dents back to the centre of Malmö. The municipality has promoted the new neighbourhood
developments of Western Harbour and Hyllie as high prole exclusive eco-laboratories in
order to attract a very specic social class (Baeten 2012). Consequentially, the city has deter-
mined the characteristics of the desired resident for Malmö’s new renaissance (Mukhtar-
Landgren 2008).
An important Equity factor is represented by “the appropriate balance between various
forms of tenure”. In addition to the already mentioned special ‘contract’ between the devel-
opers and the city to set the xed (accessible) rent, the municipality of Malmö employed a
‘70% rental / 30% ownership’ housing scheme in order to stimulate the social heterogeneity
of Western Harbour (Liu 2012). In Vauban, approximately 40% are rental apartments, and
JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 427
around 10% of all ats are social housing, with aordable rents for underprivileged citizens
(Field 2011). It should be noted that despite the criticism, both neighbourhoods at least try
to oer dierent forms of tenure in order to obtain a mixed social structure, and they have
not been completely abandoned to neoliberal market driven practices.
Final analysis and conclusion
It could initially appear that bottom-up urban developments should, in theory, result in more
just, inclusive, socially sustainable urban communities in comparison with top-down urban
developments. After using the innovative Just City framework to examine the two most
representative case studies of European sustainable neighbourhoods (bottom-up Vauban
and top-down Western Harbour), it is possible to partly conrm the initial assumption, but
the correlation between bottom-up development and urban social sustainability does not
appear as strong as rst thought. There are signicant ‘urban social sustainability’ contribu-
tory factors (Dempsey et al. 2011) such as the eradication of social exclusion, mixed tenure
and fair distribution of income which are not adequately manifested in Vauban and Western
Harbour. Initially the building cooperatives in Vauban managed to implement aordable
apartments which were considerably cheaper compared to market prices for apartments at
that time. Currently, Vauban is one of the most expensive areas of city and mostly attracts
young wealthy families. On the contrary, Western Harbour, particularly its rst urban devel-
opment Bo01, has always targeted the auent.
In addition, and from the perspective of the urban social sustainability determinant ‘social
and community cohesion’ (Dempsey et al. 2011), it is possible to observe a controversial
attitude from the majority of Vauban’s local population. The indierence of Vauban’s local
community in relation to the forced relocation of the Kommando Rhino group from the
Vauban area would not have been imaginable at the beginning of Vauban’s development.
This demonstrates how the social structure and consequently the local community ethic
and social cohesion have changed over the last two decades.
In a comparative analysis of the neighbourhoods using Fainstein’s Just City framework,
it was possible to determine how the three principles Democracy, Diversity and Equity are
manifested in the analyzed case studies. Both neighbourhoods have demonstrated several
similarities, especially regarding the principles of Diversity and Equity. For example, both
neighbourhoods have achieved an adequate mixture of building typologies, an appropriate
(although expensive) balance of rental properties and owned apartments, accessible public
transportation, etc. Both neighbourhoods have also similarly failed to achieve the hetero-
genic social structure and are becoming exclusive and expensive urban areas.
It could be argued that these case studies are not exceptions in that process and that
other sustainable urban communities have experienced a similar inclination. Mapes and
Wolch (2011), in their extensive research of sustainable urban communities, noted that the
economic and social aspects of community building are mostly disregarded, especially in
relation to the provision of aordable housing which is what brings in social (income) mix
and the heterogeneity of the population.
Vauban and Western Harbour dier most in relation to Fainstein’s Democracy principle.
Vauban is a very participative community and there are still many active local associations
and social community oriented activities, although this has seen a decline in recent years.
In contrast to Western Harbour, Vauban’s citizens have always participated in the
428 P. MEDVED
development of the urban area. Vauban has an important communal space called ‘Haus 37’
which was lobbied for and subsequently granted at the beginning, where many local com-
munity associations can meet. The particular community empowerment found in Vauban
and the citizens’ communal sustainable expression represent the continuation of the social
relation system established at the beginning of the development through the building coop-
eratives, through the SUSI activism and in the later phase through the establishment of the
Forum Vauban. Vauban’s par ticular local governance and the community democratic empow-
erment are also transmitted to new generations, including through the local kindergarten.
Vauban’s community involvement in planning conrms Ataöv’s (2007) ndings that the
participatory planning is the principal activator of democratic socialization processes.
Using Fainstein’s Just City concept it was possible to determine that the initial implemen-
tation approach is crucial as it constructs a relatively durable neighbourhood social-relation
system, which enables (in Vauban) or restrains (in Western Harbour) the social interaction
of local citizens. Vauban’s current community involvement represents the continuation of
the social structure created at the beginning with the bottom-up approach, and the ‘lack’
of citizen participation in Western Harbour at least partly derives from the top-down devel-
opment initiative. However, it should be noted that the situation in Western Harbour is not
as socially unsustainable as critics indicate. The municipality and other developers have been
engaged to provide the neighbourhood with a more socially sustainable and pluralistic
timbre, e.g. by stimulating the car-sharing initiative, setting the contract with the developers
in order to lower rent, providing housing for student and elderly etc. Because both neigh-
bourhoods represent the ‘eco laboratories’ for multidisciplinary sustainable urban research,
and because of the intense media coverage, they are under close scrutiny and are therefore
more often subject to criticism.
Fainstein (2010) claims that bottom-up urban strategies are important to counter the
top-down crises. This is true in general; the bottom-up approach in Vauban generated more
human oriented urban practices, especially at the beginning of the development. At the
beginning, activists in Vauban manage to ‘save’ the neighbourhood community centre and
the group SUSI formalized the social housing structure, but these social urban actions have
not been enough to slow the gentrication of the area. It is now possible to observe that
Vauban has tended towards an elitist, expensive zone.
Based on the analysis of several sustainable urban developments, Dale and Newman
(2009) claim that there is no assurance that local sustainable development urban projects
will stimulate or even maintain existing social diversity or equity. These projects often have
a ‘reverse eect’ and could increase apartment values, boost gentrication and paradoxically
decrease the diversity of the local community (Dale and Newman 2009). The question that
arises at present, and also for the future of urbanism, is how to preserve the heterogenic
structure of a sustainable urban area in order not to become an exclusive neighbourhood.
Perhaps the answer could be in the establishment of a special ‘legal status’ of the neighbour-
hood urban area which could set long-term aordable rent, or the legal empowerment of
the local resident representatives, or any other urban policy that promotes social equality.
As Larco (2016) pointed out, the urban design alone is often not eective in controlling the
market prices of apartments. In order to be eective, urban design for aordability should
be followed by policies that safeguard underprivileged citizens (Larco 2016).
Finally, with the analysis of the two role model sustainable districts, considering the high-
lighted topics, it is possible to claim that the ‘urban social sustainability’ level is not fully
JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 429
achieved in either of the two ‘extreme cases’ of sustainable urban development. The tendency
towards the ‘eco-elitism’ is evident in both neighbourhoods and it will represent an important
issue for future sustainable urban areas.
Notes
1. The population density(persons/ha) in Vauban is122, and is considerably higher than the
average density of Freiburg which is 15 persons/ha(Foletta 2011).
2. Western Harbour’s population density is57 persons/ha, which is three times higher than the
Malmö average density, which is 19persons/ha (Foletta 2011).
Disclosure statement
No potential conict of interest was reported by the author.
References
Adams, D., S. Tiesdell, and J. T. White. 2013. “Smart Parcelization and Place Diversity: Reconciling Real
Estate and Urban Design Priorities.” Journal of Urban Design 18 (4): 459–477.
Agyeman, J. 2004. “Environmental Justice and Just Sustainability.” Sustain 10: 13–17.
Agyeman, J. 2008. “Toward a ‘Just’ Sustainability?” Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 22
(6): 751–756.
Agyeman, J., and B. Evans. 2004. “Just Sustainability: The Emerging Discourse of Environmental Justice
in Britain?” The Geographical Journal 170 (2): 155–164.
Ataöv, A. 2007. “Democrac y to Become Reality: Participatory Planning through Action Research.” Habitat
International 31: 333–344.
Bächtold, P. 2013. The Space-Economic Transformation of the City. Heidelberg: Springer.
Baeten, G. 2012. “Normalising Neoliberal Planning: The Case of Malmö, Sweden.” In Contradictions of
Neoliberal Planning, edited by T. Tasan-Kok and G. Baeten, 21–42. Berlin: Springer.
Barton, H., M. Grant, and R. Guise. 2003. Shaping Neighbourhoods: A Guide for Health, Sustainability and
Vitality. New York: Spon Press.
Choguill, C. L. 2008. “Developing Sustainable Neighbourhoods.” Habitat International 32: 41–48.
Churchill, C. J., and B. W. Baetz. 1999. “Development of Decision Support System for Sustainable
Community Design.” Journal of Urban Planning and Development 125: 17–35.
Cruz, N. F., and R. Marques. 2014. “Scorecards for Sustainable Local Governments.” Cities 39: 165–170.
Dale, A., and L. L. Newman. 2009. “Sustainable Development for Some: Green Urban Development and
Aordability.” Local Environment 14 (7): 669–681.
Dave, S. 2011. “Neighbourhood Density and Social Sustainability in Cities of Developing Countries.”
Sustainable Development 19: 189–205.
Dempsey, N. 2009. “Are Good-Quality Environments Socially Cohesive?: Measuring Quality and Cohesion
in Urban Neighbourhoods.” Town Planning Review 80: 315–345.
Dempsey, N., G. Bramley, S. Power, and C. Brown. 2011. “The Social Dimension of Sustainable
Development: Dening Urban Social Sustainability.” Sustainable Development 19: 289–300.
EU Commission. n.d. The European Network for Rural Development (ENRD). Accessed March 30, 2017.
https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/content/1-bottom-approach_en
Fainstein, S. S. 2001. “Competitiveness, Cohesion, and Governance: Their Implications for Social Justice.”
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 25: 884–888.
Fainstein, S. S. 2010. The Just City. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Fainstein, S. S. 2014. “The Just City.” International Journal of Urban Sciences 18 (1): 1–18.
Field, S. 2011. “Case Study: Vauban.” In Europe’s Vibrant New Low Car(Bon) Communities, edited by N.
Foletta, and S. Field, 94–106. New York: IDTP.
430 P. MEDVED
Flyvbjerg, B. 2006. “Five Misunderstandings about Case-Study Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 12 (2):
219–245.
Foletta, N. 2011. “Case Study: Västra Hamnen.” In: Europe’s Vibrant New LowCar(Bon) Communities, edited
by N. Foletta, and S. Field, 82–93. New York: IDTP.
Fraker, H. 2013. The Hidden Potential of Sustainable Neighborhoods. Washington: Island Press.
Friedman, A. 2015. Fundamentals of Sustainable Neighbourhoods. Basel: Springer International
Publishing Switzerland.
Georgiadou, M. C., and T. Hacking. 2011. “Future-Proofed Design for Sustainable Communities.
Sustainability in Energy and Buildings E Smart Innovation.” Syst. Technol. 7: 179–188.
Gillette, Jr., H. 2010. Civitas by Design. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Haapio, A. 2012. “Towards Sustainable Urban Communities.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review
32: 165–169.
Hamiduddin, I. 2015. “Social Sustainability, Residential Design and Demographic Balance:
Neighbourhood Planning Strategies in Freiburg.” Town Planning Review 86 (1): 29–52.
Healey, P., G. McDougall, and M. J. Thomas, eds. 1982. Planning Theory: Prospects for the 1980s. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Holgersen, S. 2014. The Rise (and Fall?) of Post-Industrial Malmö Investigations of City-Crisis Dialectics.
Lund: Lund University.
Jenks, M., and N. Dempsey. 2007. “Dening the Neighbourhood: Challenges for Empirical Research.”
Town Planning Review 78 (2): 153–177.
Kärrholm, M. 2011. “The Scaling of Sustainable Urban Form: A Case of Scale-Related Issues and
Sustainable Planning in Malmö.” European Planning Studies 19 (1): 97–112.
Keating, D. 2011. “Book Review: The Just City.” Urban Aairs Review 48 (1): 138–140.
Kyvelou, S., M. Sinou, I. Baer, and T. Papadopoulos. 2012. “Developing a South-Europeaneco-Quarter
Design and Assessment Tool Based on the Concept of Territorialcapital.” In Sustainable Development
E Authoritative and Leading Edge Content for Environmental Management, edited by S. Curkovic,
561–588. Rijeka: Intech.
Lake, R. W. 2014. “Review: The Just City.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 34 (3): 358–360.
Larco, N. 2016. “Sustainable Urban Design—A (Draft) Framework.” Journal of Urban Design 21 (1): 1–29.
Liu, G. 2012. Cities in Transformation: Lee Kuan Yew World City Prize. Singapore: Tien Wah Press.
Madureira, A. M. 2015. “Physical Planning in Place-Making through Design and Image Building.” Journal
of Housing and the Built Environment 30 (1): 157–172.
Malmö City. 2011. Halvtidsutväering Av Västra Hamnen [Half time assessment of the Western Harbour].
Accessed October 10, 2016. https://malmo.se/download/18.24a63bbe13e8ea7a3c69594/
1383643956406/Halvtidsutv%C3%A4rdering+f%C3%B6r+V%C3%A4stra+Hamnen+(2011).pdf
Mapes, J., and J. Wolch. 2011. “‘Living Green’: The Promise and Pitfalls of New Sustainable Communities.”
Journal of Urban Design 16 (1): 105–126.
Marou, H. 2012. “Review of the Just City, by Susan S. Fainstein.” Cities - the International Journal of Urban
Policy and Planning 29 (6): 428–429.
Medved, P. 2016. “A Contribution to the Structural Model of Autonomous Sustainable Neighbourhoods:
New Socio-Economical Basis for Sustainable Urban Planning.” Journal of Cleaner Production 120:
21–30.
Mössner, S. 2015. “Urban Development in Freiburg, Germany—Sustainable and Neoliberal?” Die Erde
146 (2–3): 189–193.
Mössner, S. 2016. “Sustainable Urban Development as Consensual Practice: Post-Politics in Freiburg.”
Regional Studies 50 (6): 971–982.
Mukhtar-Landgren, D. 2008. “City Marketing in a Dual City: Discourses of Progress and Problems in
Post-Industrial Malmö.” In Majority Cultures and the Everyday Politics of Ethnic Dierence, edited by
B. Petersson and K. Tyler, 55–74. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Murray, M., J. Greer, D. Houston, S. McKay, and B. Murtagh. 2009. “Bridging Top down and Bottom up:
Modelling Community Preferences for a Dispersed Rural Settlement Pattern.” European Planning
Studies 17 (3): 441–462.
Öko-Institut. 2002. Nachhaltige Stadtteile auf innerstädtischen Konversionsächen: Stostromanalyse
als Bewertungsinstrument. Darmstadt, Freiburg, Berlin: Öko-Institut
JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 431
Shari, A. 2016. “From Garden City to Eco-Urbanism: The Quest for Sustainable Neighborhood
Development.” Sustainable Cities and Society 20: 1–16.
Shari, A., and A. Murayama. 2013. “Changes in the Traditional Urban Form and the Social Sustainability
of Contemporary Cities: A Case Study of Iranian Cities.” Habitat International 38: 126–134.
Sperling, C. 2008. Freiburg—Vauban; from Military Area to Model District: Sustainable Neighbourhood
Design—A Communicative Process. Newcastle: CABE Urban Design Summer School. Accessed
October 10, 2016. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/https:/www.cabe.
org.uk/les/udss2008-carstensperling.pdf
Sperling, C. 2016. Collaborative Planning and Mobility concept of Freiburg-Vauban. Accessed June 21,
2017. https://www.carstensperling.de/pdf/vauban_paper_web2016.pdf
Tjärnstig, A. 2012. The Municipalities’ Land Allocation for Residential Developments: A Study of Land
Allocation in Malmö, Lund and Växjö [In Swedish: Kommunernas markanvisningar för bostäder: En
studie av markanvisningar i Malmö, Lund och Växjö]. Department for Real Estate and Construction
Management. Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology.
Tonkiss, F. 2011. “The Just City by Susan Fainstein.” Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews 40
(5): 584–585.
