Urban planning in the post-zoning era: From hierarchy to self-organisation in the reform of the Finnish Land Use and Building Act

The Finnish zoning system: State-of-the art

The foundation for the Finnish zoning system dates back to the 1920s and the drafting of the Town Planning Act (enacted 1931). The very essence of the Act was in engendering a planning system where a site is reserved for one particular function to the exclusion of all other functions. In other words, all activities that are not explicitly allowed in a local detailed plan are prohibited. Promoting the zoning of private land, the Town Planning Act was intended to enact the reorganisation of property rights for the common good in support of urban growth. The Act, however, failed to prevent the development of new unplanned and unstructured settlements even in areas unsuitable or undesirable for habitation (HE 91/1954) partially due to already outdated conceptions of a city as a strictly limited municipal unit (Nupponen, 2000: 79, 97–98).

The second reform, The Building Act (1958) was intended to curb unplanned out-of-town development. By creating a three-level zoning system (regional plan–local master plan–local detailed plan), the Act revealed the post-war urge for hierarchic administrative structures, supported by strategic theories of warfare (Pakarinen, 2002: 7). The third reform of the law, the current Land Use and Building Act (1999) emphasised a more open and interactive zoning process in which governmental control is partially replaced by stakeholder surveillance, thus echoing a communicative turn in planning (Taylor, 1998) and resonating with the liberal tendencies of the era. Like the earlier laws, the Land Use and Building Act was also justified by the densification of urban settlements (HE 101/1998). Nevertheless, the three-level planning hierarchy and zoning regulations remained effectively untouched in the Act.

The Land Use and Building Act, while emphasising participation and sustainable development, reflects the themes of the standard narrative of planning (Healey, 2005; Mäntysalo et al., 2013; Taylor, 1998). Statutory planning rests on the values of a strong welfare state and democratic decision-making. However, these concepts have been recently if not questioned, then at least reassessed and reframed. The reorganisation of both territorial relations and governance reflects the shift to flexible and dynamically evolving networks, refuting assumptions of rigid hierarchical relations, central control mechanisms and state of equilibrium. Underlying the new narrative is the notion of a strong civil society taking over the role of the welfare state in the provision of social well-being with the help of digitalisation (cf. Uusiutumiskykyinen ja mahdollistava Suomi, 2015).

Zoning and post-zoning

The current policy-making reflects the narrative of urbanisation, the geopolitical growth of cities and the diminishing role of nation-states. Picturing city-regions as autonomous economic and political agencies (Moisio, 2018) also implies a pivotal role for them in the enactment of sustainability policies (Acuto et al., 2018). Sustainability themes like resilience, resource-efficiency and low-carbon economic transition are increasingly presented as urban questions, even though their operationalisation in planning practices is still underway (Lehtovuori et al., 2017). In essence, zoning is a mechanism created to prevent emerging (spatial) conflicts in the industrialising society (Serkin and Macey, 2013: 307), and it does not help municipalities to deal with the above-mentioned urban challenges.

State-of-the-art zoning practices based on the separation of uses in order to prevent negative externalities are considered inefficient in guiding unpredictably emergent positive dynamics arising from actors’ interactions, altered consumption and production modes or accumulated serendipitous outcomes (Marshall, 2009; Rantanen and Joutsiniemi, 2016; Wilkinson, 2012). The current regulations drawing on the blueprint tradition represent areas reserved for specific activities in static end-states simplified to spatial objects and patches (Rantanen and Joutsiniemi, 2016). As Serkin and Macey (2013: 306) point out, ‘zoning persists and remains faithful to its original goal: separating incompatible uses of land’.

The implications for the reform of the planning system would entail greater responsibility and a more powerful mandate for citizens, civic actors, NGOs and firms. Together these trajectories clearly speak for a more flexible post-zoning planning system, which should make it possible to capture emergence without reducing significant information on real-world complexity. Many current planning processes already consciously incorporate self-organisation but they are in many cases initiated or conducted in collaboration with research institutions, reflecting the municipalities’ willingness to refresh planning procedures through experimentation. Changes at the statutory system level would help to scale the success of tentative projects and to institutionalise new innovative practices. In other words, spatial flexibility requires legal certainty (Moroni et al., 2018).

The term ‘post-zoning’ dates back to a symposium held in Brooklyn Law School in February 2012. The symposium was concerned with alternative forms of public land use controls. However, the term is seldom used and lacks a broadly accepted definition. Been and Infranca (2013), among the first users of the term, actively avoid a definition. Nevertheless, for them, post-zoning means, if nothing else, a much more flexible planning tool than the ‘traditional’ zoning apparatus.

Indicating relational properties and spatial–temporal cross-scale dynamics would require rules and codes beyond conventional mapping techniques. Also, the aim of the new regulations should not primarily be the eradication of norms for short-term economic competitiveness. Instead, the emphasis of regulation and planning rules in the post-zoning era should be on advocating the evolutionary resilience of social-ecological systems, and helping to accomplish a socially just transformation of communities while harnessing emergence (cf. Rauws, 2016; Wilkinson, 2012).

Complex operative environments (with a variety of agencies, multiple and simultaneously active individual strategies and potentials, self-regulating and self-organising mechanisms constantly adapting and seeking equilibrium, and non-linear systems behaviour paralleling linear approximation behaviour) have actually very little to do with the means afforded by ‘traditional’ zoning. Thus, the term post-zoning is understood here literally to refer to the rejection of dividing land into zones with different uses and replacing it with a completely new set of urban planning tools.

Self-organising dynamics have changed the focus from the local level to the levels of city-regions and systems of cities, and hence, beyond the reach of the hierarchic planning system. Instead, unofficial planning tools, that is, non-statutory strategic processes and public–private contracts, have been on the increase in many countries (Kanninen, 2017; Lehtovuori et al., 2019). Informal tools may reflect the growing complexity of society but, more precisely, they indicate an incoherence in the legal planning system regarding the actual behaviour of social–spatial systems – a mismatch between the ‘system of rules’ and the ‘order of actions’ (Moroni, 2010: 139). In practice, informal processes serve to compensate for the inefficiency of the legal apparatus. It has been argued that neither statutory planning systems nor the parallel strategic development tools have succeeded in satisfactorily tackling city-regional problems (Kanninen, 2017).

Complexity and self-organisation in urban planning

In the academic planning discourse, the concept of self-organisation is used to refer to the typical behaviour of complex systems, where emergent order, patterns and organisation arise without external guidance from multiple un-orchestrated interactions between the agents in the system (e.g. de Roo and Rauws, 2012). Such a spontaneous urban transformation implying qualitatively novel and irreducible, upper-scale systemic features is intrinsically non-linear and unpredictable, and hence non-manageable with traditional hierarchical tools. Governing spontaneous processes would also require identifying two distinct yet related categories calling for different planning tactics: that of self-organisation, defined as emergence arising from (inter)actions, and self-governance, referring to citizen-initiated developments (Rauws, 2016). Also, since self-organisation implies the autonomy of actors and utmost operative freedom from authoritative orders, it is not to be conflated with top-down participatory methods (Anttiroiko, 2016; Boonstra and Boelens, 2011; cf. Moroni, 2010).

Conceptualising cities as complex adaptive systems has helped researchers to reveal their inherent self-organising nature and thus to understand phenomena previously considered to be anomalies.

While complexity sciences have allowed for theorisation, analysing and modelling of cities as self-organising systems with sophisticated methods, this has not influenced planning and design practices to the same extent. Also, seen from inside the planning discipline, the mechanism of self-organisation has appeared as something that the planning system cannot absorb (cf. Boonstra and Boelens, 2011), and hence as controversial, even as a threat to the underlying ideals of urban planning (Savini, 2017). Furthermore, complexity theory is an umbrella term for a variety of approaches; it affords no unitary theoretical framework for planning.

However, a common understanding of the underlying premises for operating within complex environments has been achieved. For one, it assumes that instead of trying to steer urban development, planning needs to adjust to the inherent unpredictability and prepare for unintentional accumulative effects emerging both because and in spite of planning. For another, challenging the assumptions of linearity and rationality of conventional planning, such a view requires more strategic, adaptive and evolutionary tools to guide land use (e.g. Bertolini, 2010; Portugali, 2011; de Roo and Rauws, 2012). Nonetheless, even strategic approaches promoting flexibility tend to reduce complex social systems to simple orderly systems. As Stefano Moroni (2010: 142) points out: ‘The idea of flexible planning is not a refutation of the whole-coordinating top-down view of planning, but rather a version of the same […]’. Moreover, not only flexibility but also certainty is a relevant feature for actors to frame their decisions. Somewhat paradoxically, complex systems require simple rules (Moroni et al., 2018).

Self-organisation and emergence may not be ‘controlled’ by planning but instead need sophisticated monitoring techniques to evaluate possible pathways and to detect trajectories of unjust polarisation and mono-functionality (Haasnoot et al., 2013; Rauws, 2016). Moreover, successful guidance of emergence would require facilitation of trust and peaceful communication between stakeholders (Cozzolino et al., 2017: 51; Rantanen and Faehnle, 2017)

Robust rules for emergence and spatiality

In order to contest the mono-functional order of the zoning system, we address the need for robust rules, planning rules that do not determine (stringent) functions or spatial configurations. The idea is compatible with the ‘from planning rules to framework rules’, approach introduced by Cozzolino et al. (2017). In short, the framework rule advocates openness to allow emergence from agent interactions, which is supported by the generic nature of the plan to adapt to changing conditions.

In the literature, robustness is often related to (but also distinguished from) resilience (e.g. Haasnoot et al., 2013; Pavard et al., 2008). The two terms are often used in parallel, yet their definitions and interrelatedness remain debated. Generally speaking, robustness refers to the ability of the system to maintain its functionality despite the perturbation, whereas resilience refers to the ability of the system to reorganise after a perturbation. While robustness commonly suggests unaffectedness to a perturbation, Walker et al. (2013: 956) read it as an ability to ‘perform satisfactorily under a wide variety of futures’. What we refer to here is solutions that advocate flexibility and support resilience. By robust rules we refer to special properties of rules and ruling systems (regulations, policies, plans), rather than the systems behaviour that they are meant to guide. In other words, the code per se is not resilient but it enables resilience (adaptation and transformation of agents, networks, systems, the varied performance of institutional planning). Planning deals explicitly with social–ecological (or evolutionary) resilience, which emphasises the capacity to respond to change (adaptability), underscoring continuous learning and transformability to change the direction of development (Davoudi, 2012; Folke et al., 2010). Flexibility, on the other hand, is often associated to spatial resilience (Kärrholm et al., 2014), but can be thought of as a resilience-enabling property of the system.

The principle of the framework rule (Cozzolino et al., 2017) and robustness suggest that flexibility is not only a normative goal of planning but, ideally, an emergent pattern, allowing for constant adaptation, evolution and rules that themselves evolve. The ‘flexibility for flexibility principle’ would imply that the primary aim of a planning process is not to allocate definitive activities (as in blueprint planning) but more likely to sustain and create conditions for greater diversity (intra- and cross-scale), paving the way for serendipitous interactions, innovations and evolutionary trajectories. The goal would not only be to design diversity but to allow for its emergence, which in turn would create more diversity – a mechanism identified as inherent in urbanity (Jacobs, 1969). Thus, emergent flexibility implies actor dynamics which evolves over time, changing operative modes (such as technologies). Planning would enable activities, users (human and non-human), investors and developers, first, to benefit from and create new synergetic relations, and second, allow for modal variations. For instance, within the perimeters of a city block, actors (residents, retailers, operators) and activities may change over time (along with the customers, demographics, economies, consumption behaviour, user values, etc.), but the block remains economically viable, or resilient, both socially and environmentally.

A robust policy or plan is therefore open and amenable to changing uses and orders. Examples of robust approaches at different scale levels of spatial production (strategic, detail and construction plan levels) include cross-sectoral strategies (rather than sub-optimisation), changing and shared uses (instead of mono-functionality) and hybrid projects (Rantanen and Joutsiniemi, 2016). Openness would also imply that rather than programming action, planning can provide ‘breeding grounds’ for self-organised activity, catalysing agents’ interaction (Rantanen and Faehnle, 2017) through governance support, such as facilitation, technical and financial support (Saad-Sulonen and Horelli, 2017) and generative spatial conditions, such as connections, critical functional and spatial diversity across scales (Rantanen and Joutsiniemi, 2016). The provision of flexible and transformable spaces for temporary uses, sharing and peer-to-peer processes come into question (Lehtovuori, 2010). A robust planning system would make it possible to apply programmes, initiatives and other strategic means deviating from traditional plan maps. Instead of conventional top-down dissemination of information from authorities to citizens, contemporary digital planning tools enable developed participation, collaboration and self-governance. Action-planning, co-creative platforms (Duvernet and Knieling, 2013), living labs (Puerari et al., 2018) and tactical urbanism (Silva, 2016) can be combined with formal plans, feeding each other through iterative feedback loops while emphasising learning and incremental transformation.

Apart from openness, boundaries (or boundary conditions from the environment) are considered equally important, enabling self-organisation to occur (inner conditionality, Fuchs, 2003). The idea underlines path-dependency: as the process evolves, it establishes certain patterns and rules for future projects – what is feasible and acceptable and what is not. It is noticeable that self-organising systems are not chaotic but obey innate orders based on interaction and value capturing within given social–spatial and legal boundaries. Actors assess the suitability of sites on the basis of value creation and return on investment. Behavioural rules emerge, first, from the unorchestrated interaction of the system’s agents and their adaptation to each other’s strategies, clustering or dispersing, in competition or co-operation. Spatial patterns, inertia and lock-ins conversely frame the behaviour. Rules evolve along with the emergence of new properties within the system. This unconscious rule underlies the evolution of cities. However, the prevention of negative externalities, such as the development of systemic lock-ins leading to polarisation and monopolisation, is crucial for sustaining the critical diversity needed for continuous evolution (Iltanen et al., 2014; Rantanen and Joutsiniemi, 2016). Tracing cross-scale transitions, dynamic path-dependencies and being able to weigh on corrective actions would require adaptive policies with developed evaluation and scenario tools (Haasnoot et al., 2013).

Areal Guidelines and Up-to-Date plan

In practice, a more strategic and flexible regulative code could be achieved by using a written language-based plan, inspired by A Pattern Language (Alexander et al., 1977) and referred to as Areal Guidelines. Area in this context alludes to a geographically defined territory similar to master plans and partial master plans, but it may also refer to bigger and smaller settlements or characteristic neighbourhoods. Areal Guidelines are always fitted into the specific planning site (embracing situated knowledge). They include at least the following topics: common areal profiling, public space, transportation, building and environmental protection, natural environment and climate strategy. Guidelines form a solid structure for design and project development: freedom of choice is retained within the framework.

The overall goals for land use would be outlined in municipal development strategies and city-regional collaboration in cross-sectoral and inclusive learning processes. The dual task of this context is, first, to guide local level planning and, second, to communicate intentions bottom-up to national and regional land use objectives. Areal Guidelines are guided by city-regional goals and developed in mutual communication with unofficial strategic planning and envisioning, real estate development and legislation. These intentions and conditions together frame the institutional ‘option space’.

While Areal Guidelines are not prescriptive, they nevertheless guide a more delicate and exact planning instrument named Up-to-Date Plan (or Up-to-Date Code), a digital data model and 3D-coded plan (Figure 1, bottom left). Its purpose is to give accurate instructions on building density, building volumes and architectural form. With the help of digital 3D features, the traditional zoning parameters, such as FAR (floor area ratio), can be defined more flexibly. For instance, it would let the planner assess, justify and indicate preferable locations, heights and relations of blocks to their surroundings and communicate the proposals to the public. A developed tool could also define ranges for building volumes and ratios. Up-to-Date Plan also provides specific instructions for implementing Areal Guidelines. It is constantly updated and available on the municipality’s website. Even if Areal Guidelines are supposed to cover a larger area than Up-to-Date Plan, they are not hierarchically related. Instead, each time an Up-to-Date Plan is composed, Areal Guidelines are also checked and adjusted if necessary.

Discussions of the new planning system

The proposal for the new planning system explained above describes a tentative model. At a preliminary stage of development, the system reveals apparent challenges and limitations which need to be addressed. For instance, an obvious challenge in using Areal Guidelines would probably be in finding suitable spatial entities that could have common guidelines. Furthermore, a major challenge and key task would be the accessibility, clarity and generality, hence, the simplicity of rules – which is not the same as laissez-faire (Moroni et al., 2018: 3, 7) – to help avoid fuzzy interpretations, among other things.

An assessment made by Finnish planning experts and authorities during the project raised further questions. First, legitimate concerns were expressed about the role of public space in the 3D-coded Up-to-Date Plan, which focuses exclusively on buildings, not the space between them. Second, the legal relationship between Areal Guidelines and Up-to-Date Plan was unclear. The solution to this would be that in case of contradictions, the more precise plan (Up-to-Date Plan) would take precedence. Third, a suggestion was made to combine Areal Guidelines and Up-to-Date Plan into one scalable plan. Fourth, flexibility was, once again, raised as one of the most important qualities for future planning.

The last two points were actually included in the discussion paper presented by the Finnish Ministry of the Environment, proposing that only one scalable planning level combining local master plan and local detailed plan would suffice for municipalities. Furthermore, the paper stated that ‘the procedures linked to planning processes could be flexibly tailored’ (KeskustelupaperiMaankäyttö- ja rakennuslain uudistamisen suuntaviivoiksi, 2018). The suggestion is a fairly radical one, setting aside the hierarchical planning system at the municipal level. Furthermore, the Ministry of the Environment proposed a new planning level, a strategic City Region Plan, which would have a restricted legal effect (if required and on specific issues only). This implies a first step towards a non-hierarchical land use planning system in Finland (see Figure 1, bottom right). Consequently, the proposal raises the question as to whose mandate it is to govern the planning process according to the new non-hierarchical system. Considering the long history of municipal zoning monopoly in Finland, for the time being, we would suggest retaining the authority for planning at the local level within municipalities. If they so wish, municipalities could in certain cases delegate the plan-making right to an outside party, such as private developers. Regardless of the operative liabilities, transparency in planning may be secured and improved by new digital tools open to all citizens and stakeholders and legislative actions towards better transparency policy and developed monitoring practices.