Infill Development on Collectively Owned Residential Properties: Understanding the Decision-making Process – Case Studies in Helsinki

The Role of Public-Private Partnerships in Housing as a Potential Contributor to Sustainable Cities and Communities: A Systematic Review

“…All in all, we highlight eight arguments in Table 3 that can consolidate PPP as part of the future city's social foundation. [63,70] Under the theme of access, some researchers identify the need for the PPP to make green space more available for resident's irrespective of their class status [50]. Other authors suggest increasing the affordability of social housing [51,52].…”

“…For this reason, and with the attainment of social equity in mind, the researchers in this study recommend that the PPP apply a mixed, that is, top-down and bottom-up, approach to housing development that includes social services. This kind of implementation is more equitable since it satisfies the preferences of residents from different income brackets as well as a wide range of entrepreneurs, coming to terms with an otherwise inefficient and subsequently socially unsustainable decision-making process [63,67]. In fact, Puustinen and Viitanen [63] (p. 495) indicate that the decision-making process is unestablished, and challenges exist on three levels: (1) legal and land use planning, (2) collective action and management and (3) required professionals.…”

“…This kind of implementation is more equitable since it satisfies the preferences of residents from different income brackets as well as a wide range of entrepreneurs, coming to terms with an otherwise inefficient and subsequently socially unsustainable decision-making process [63,67]. In fact, Puustinen and Viitanen [63] (p. 495) indicate that the decision-making process is unestablished, and challenges exist on three levels: (1) legal and land use planning, (2) collective action and management and (3) required professionals. These issues need to be considered in order to develop better practices for the process, and also, when assessing the feasibility of infill development for housing companies from the land use planning, legal and economic perspectives.…”

“…What is termed here as social sustainability via eviction. Counteract negative effects of gentrification [57] Deliberate conflict resolution in land-use [61,63] Promote revamping distressed neighbourhoods [64] Include all stakeholders in a specific governable context [65] Introduce strong social focus on BID property development [73,74] 3. Stigmatization [40,71] Avoid redevelopment through stigmatization of neighbourhood [40] Be wary of territorial destigmatization regimes [71] Concerning the elite power theme intrinsic to justice, researchers suggest that four steps can be taken toward justice (as in Table 5).…”

The distribution of perceived advantages and disadvantages of infill development among owners of a commonhold and its’ implications

“…This type of intensification is often referred to as urban renewal or regeneration. The second alternative, which is the focus of this thesis, is to generate moderate intensification through the planning system, with a multi-owned housing development deciding to allow new residential construction on its site or additional levels (Hauge et al 2012;Puustinen and Viitanen 2015;Troy et al 2015, p. 20). The specific focus of this dissertation is on infill development possibilities on sites owned by limited liability housing companies, the Finnish version of apartment ownership.…”