Re:Urbia : Lähiöiden segregaatiohaaste ja tulevaisuus

Towards the end of the 1970s Finland – as a result of a longlasting and strong welfare development - – was by international standards one of the most egalitarian countries in the world as regards distribution of income. Evening out had been very sudden, within the space of a few decades. Evening out of differences was not confined to incomes: the ethos of all national policy – including social, healthcare and housing policy - was to even out differences in the population strata, above all by promoting an improvement in the conditions of the disadvantaged. The building of the suburbs was a project inextricably linked to this national project, the upshot of which was a significant rise in people’s standard of housing. The shift from the rural areas and cramped urban dwellings to stone buildings according to the Arava norms, in which there was central heating, an indoor lavatory and bathing facilities in warm interior spaces was a great change for the better. If we now contemplate from this perspective the structural change occurring in the last decades, the general trend is rather the opposite. The demand for workforce with minimal qualifications has diminished in a way which, in its magnitude and speed, can only be compared to the shrinking of the rural population at the time of the so-called great migration. Now not only has a great change come about because in the conditions of the new structural change there is no increase in demand anywhere. The result is that unemployment, inability to work and other deprivation are increasing more markedly where this section of the population originally settled, that is, in the suburbs. It would be reasonable to assume that the connection now observed, differing from the former, with the respondents’ real financial straits and perceived dissatisfaction, is based on the simple fact that in the present conditions the differences between respondents are greater. The connection between life conditions and perceived satisfaction now appears more marked because it is more marked. Differences in the population structure and the service structure are producing differences particularly for those residents who are living more locally. The strong proof emerged earlier of how deprivation in the mainstream population and ethnic minorities have since the early 1990s increasingly intensified in some of the suburbs (Kortteinen & Vaattovaara 2000, Vilkama et al., 2015). Less attention has been paid to how much the share of single dwellers in the suburbs has increased and the implications of this for life in the suburbs. When the share of various single dwellers has risen to well over half of all households (61%), the finding manifests as a decline in social life and a weakening of the internal networks of the neighbourhood. According to our questionnaire survey, about 60 per cent of the people resident in the suburbs examined had at least one acquaintance with whom they could stop to chat. Turning the finding the other way around shows that of the respondents 40 per cent had no such acquaintance in the area. The narrowing of the range of local services also hits pensioners, other disadvantaged people, and ethnic minorities hard. In this respect the situation of the working middle class is easier: if the residential area does not have an adequate range of services, these can be hand on the way to work (Ratvio 2012). These people are also significantly happier in the area. The change in the population of the suburbs and the change in the service structure fit poorly together, at least if the change is assessed from the perspective of the traditional ethos of the welfare state: the differences in the well-being of residents in different positions would appear to be increasing. There is a risk that over time we shall be facing an emerging new set of class differences within Finnish society and within different residential areas. In order to halt this development we present in our work as a point of departure for planning five forgotten, neglected or misinterpreted planning perspectives to improve local living environments. In addition to this, we need national help and the local residents’ opportunity, ability and commitment to the planning of the area and the directing of development.