Re:Urbia : Lähiöiden segregaatiohaaste ja tulevaisuus

Towards the end of the 1970s Finland – as a
result of a longlasting and strong welfare devel-
opment - – 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 con-
fined 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 disadvantged. 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 ur-
ban 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 dec-
ades, the general trend is rather the opposite. The
demand for workforce with minimal qualifica-
tions has diminished in a way which, in its mag-
nitude 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 con-
ditions of the new structural change there is no
increase in demand anywhere. The result is that
unemployment, inability to work and other dep-
rivation 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 dep-
rivation 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 at-
tention 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 ris-
en 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 neigh-
bourhood. 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
repondents 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 signif-
icantly happier in the area.
209
2023
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 res-
idential areas. In order to halt this development
we present in our work as a point of departure
for planning five forgotten, neglected or misin-
terpreted 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.