Experience of a Preventive Experiment: Spatial Social Mixing in Post-World War II Housing Estates in Helsinki, Finland

Abstract

The contingent of large housing estates built in the 1960s and 1970s accounts for almost a half of all high-rises in Finland. The primary ideology in their genesis was to combine industrially prefabricated urban housing development with the surrounding forest landscape-together with a policy of spatial social mixingto prevent social disorder and segregation. These policies seemed to work as intended until the early 1990s, but have since proved to be insufficient. With Western integration and new information and communication-based economic growth, new trends of population differentiation have emerged. As new wealth has moved out to the fringes of cities, the large housing estates have declined socioeconomically and have been enriched ethnically. This differentiation is structurally produced, works through the regional housing market and, as such, is beyond the scope of the preventive policies pursued. Recent attempts at controlling the regional markets and new forms of spatial social mixing have so far proved difficult.

Everyday consequences of selectiveness. Borderwork in the informal sphere of a lower secondary school in the metropolitan area of Helsinki, Finland

“…The school in question is located in a relatively disadvantaged residential area, which nevertheless comprises smaller areas with different characteristics and reputations in terms of residents' social classes and ethnic and racialized backgrounds, also mainly middle-class and white Finnish areas. Following the segregation patterns in Finland (Vaattovaara et al 2018), disadvantage is concentrated in small clusters within the area. The share of residents with minoritized ethnic backgrounds is higher than average (17.7%) in the metropolitan area, but there is significant variance inside the residential area.…”

Rural-Urban Migration Pathways and Residential Segregation in the Helsinki Region

“…who moves when and for what reasons, can play an import-levels of segregation (Lankinen 1997). After a deep recession in the early 1990s and the economic boom that followed, however, segregation steadily increased well into the 2010s (Kortteinen & Vaattovaara 2015;Vaattovaara et al 2018;Vilkama & Hirvonen 2018). On the other hand, a study comparing the Helsinki, Tampere, and Turku regions concluded that no large changes had occurred in the levels of socioeconomic segregation during the years 2005-2014, while ethnic segregation had increased slightly (Kauppinen & Vaalavuo 2017;Saikkonen et al 2018).…”

“…The majority of the studies have focused on describing the levels and patterns of socioeconomic or ethnic segregation, either based on GIS squares (250x250 m) (e.g. Vaattovaara et al 2018) or postal codes (e.g. Saikkonen et al 2018).…”

“…Most studies have focused on the Helsinki region or the greater metropolitan area around it (e.g. Kortteinen & Vaattovaara 2015;Vaattovaara et al 2018;Vaattovaara & Kortteinen 2003;Vilkama et al 2014), but some analyses have also focused on other large cities (e.g. Turku and Tampere) or compared the situation in the three largest urban areas (Rasinkangas 2013;Saikkonen et al 2018).…”

“…In Helsinki region, neighbourhoods that are perceived as segregated, i.e. areas with higher unemployment rates, lower education levels or income, include neighbourhoods with a greater share of housing estates built in the 1960s and 1970s and more social housing units, usually in the outer circle of the city (Vaattovaara et al 2018). To some degree, residents with an immigrant background cluster in the same areas (Vilkama et al 2014).…”