Social Life and Urban Form in a Historical Perspective

cerum.umu.se
  • No tags were found...

Social Life and Urban Form in a Historical Perspective

Social Life and Urban Form in aHistorical PerspectivePatricia MortonUniversity of California, RiversideFont: Minion (Adobe)CERUM Working Paper 2002:48ISBN 91-7305-306-6ISSN 1404–5362CERUM; Umeå University; SE-90187 Umeå; SwedenPh.: +46-90-786.6079 Fax: +46-90-786.5121Email: regional.science@cerum.umu.sewww.umu.se/cerum


ContentsSocial Life and Urban Form in a Historical Perspective 7Frank Lloyd Wright, Broadacre City, 1935–59 . . . . . . . . 10Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown . . . . . . . . . . 11The New Urbanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Works Cited 17Contents 5


Social Life and Urban Form in a HistoricalPerspective 1In historical terms, the relationship between social life and urbanform has taken two different basic directions. We can think of thesedirections in terms of differing definitions of “urban space.” The firstmeaning of the phrase, used by social scientists such as geographersand sociologists, is “social space,” the spatial implications and resultsof social institutions. From this perspective, the physical characteristicsof the built environment are secondary or epiphenomenal. Thesecond meaning, that used by architects, concentrates on the builtspace itself, its form, the way it affects our perceptions, the way it isused, and the meanings it can elicit. (Colquhoun, 223) Within thearchitectural concept of urban space, there are two approaches: thefirst sees forms as independent of functions (what we can call theAesthetic viewpoint), the second sees functions as determining forms(what we can call Functionalism). The famous motto “form followsfunction,” created by American architect Louis Sullivan, summarizesthis approach. Both of these last two perspectives view form as theirprimary concern, as opposed to the social science approach, but theysee the relation between form and function in opposite ways. TheFunctionalist approach to urban space has been linked with a visionof how architecture could reform society as well as the physical formof the city. Like the social scientists, Functionalists assumed that socialstructure and urban form were co-dependent, but they reversedthe equation. They believed that a new society would emerge simultaneouslywith the new architecture. The basic flaw of modernistplanning was the fantasy that a universal architecture would producethe “new man” of modern life. Form could, they presumed, make thenew society.This debate has been influenced by the late eighteenth centurysplit between science and aesthetics. As architectural historian AlanColquhoun points out, at the same time as the split between scienceand aesthetics occurred, another split appeared: between beauty as arelative, historical phenomenon and beauty as an ideal, transcendentcategory. (Colquhoun, 224) The first notion informed Modernism,which regards architecture and urbanism as the result of functionsand historical conditions that produce a particular kind of urbanspace. The second characterizes postmodern developments, whichargue for the relative autonomy of form and space from function.In addition to this distinction between scientific definitions of1 This paper is a proceeding from The Third Umeå Conference in Urban Design:“Towards a New Urbanism in Sweden? 6–7 June 2002”Social Life and Urban Form in a Historical Perspective 7


urban space, on the one hand, and architectural ones, the very word“space” itself has a history. In modern architectural usage, it came tomean abstract, undifferentiated space rather than the defined, limitedspace of pre-modern times. We can understand this differenceby comparing the traditional perimeter apartment block of mostEuropean cities, which encloses a courtyard inside and defines thestreet wall outside, with the modern Siedlung type, which consistsof parallel slabs set in open space. They are buildings in space ratherthan buildings that define space.We can trace Functionalist urban design to Le Corbusier’s firsturban plan, the Contemporary City for Three Million People, 1922.This was a total environment in which man, nature, and the machinewould be brought into harmony, “a city for our times,” that wouldseparate the past from the future and create the perfect industrial city.The efficient linking of the segments of the city was a critical aspect ofthe new city for Le Corbusier. Speed was the essence of his urbanism-“speed is freedom” he stated, freedom to exchange, to meet, to trade,to coordinate. In the Contemporary City, the transportation systemswere elaborately designed and separated to keep incompatible speedsapart. He also separated living and work functions into a businesscenter of cruciform skyscrapers and high-density housing blocks.Later, Le Corbusier led CIAM (Congrès Internationaux d’ArchitectureModerne) to follow this apparently efficient planningmethod. In the 1928 “La Sarraz Declaration,” largely written by LeCorbusier and Sigfried Giedion, CIAM asserted that “building” wasan “elementary activity of man intimately linked with evolution andthe development of human life.” They refused to use methods fromthe past and declared that “works of architecture can spring onlyfrom the present time.” While machines have created “deep disturbancesof the social structure,” architecture could best respond tothese changes. Architecture, for these architects, was placed on itstrue plane when it addressed economic and sociological phenomena,freed from the formulas of the traditional academies. Town planningwas an additional focus for CIAM. The first congress defined it as “theorganization of the functions of collective life. . . the organization oflife in all regions.” Its essence was functional rather than aestheticand divided into three categories: dwelling, producing, relaxing. Itsessential objects were: division of land, organization of traffic, andlegislation. By establishing the relationships between inhabited areas,cultivated areas and traffic, and fixing population densities, the CIAMfounders believed the city could be controlled in accordance withmodern economic and social conditions.The “Charter of Athens” (1933) extended this Functional code andmarked a new CIAM agenda in which town planning was preeminent.The participants analyzed 33 cities for the Charter which, accordingto the manifesto, presented a picture of chaos. The 111 propositionscontained in the Charter addressed the condition in existing8 Social Life and Urban Form in a Historical Perspective


cities and proposed rectification of their problems. The original threefunctional categories were expanded to five: Dwellings, Recreation,Work, Transportation, and Historic Buildings. From this point, CIAM‘s methods became increasingly dogmatic and general. The Charterof Athens propositions appeared universal rather than principles tobe applied to specific regions and cities as appropriate. The Chartercommitted CIAM to the rigid functional zoning of city plans, withgreen belts between the areas reserved for different functions and asingle type of urban housing, expressed as high, widely spaced apartmentblocks. While the social housing of the 1920s to the 1960s wasa utopian critique of the nineteenth century housing block, but itbecame essential to the success of twentieth-century economic centralismin such disparate countries as Sweden, Japan, and the formerEast Germany. The fundamental principle was that by identifying thefunctional needs that form would follow and a particular social formationwould result. Across the world, the same forms were used forvery different social aims.The United States has produced a very different urban space: therelentless development of suburban tracts; single family housing subdivisions,office parks, commercial strips, and highways dominate thelandscape to the exclusion of all other building types and urban configurations.“. . . for the past fifty years, we Americans have been building a nationallandscape that is largely devoid of places worth caring about.Soulless subdivisions, residential “communities” utterly lacking incommunal life; strip shopping centers, “big box” chain stores, andartificially festive malls set within barren seas of parking; antisepticoffice parks, ghost towns after 6 p.m.; and mile upon mile ofclogged collector roads, the only fabric tying our disassociated livesback together. . . ” (Duany, x)Although it takes a different physical form, American sprawl alsohas its roots in modern economic imperatives, especially the largescaleconstruction of housing units, and the functional zoning espousedby Functionalists.The vast infrastructural network necessary for modern consumerandmedia-based society appears to be in fundamental conflict bothwith the individual’s sense of “being at home” in the modern cityand the production of a modern public sphere with a meaningfulspatial and symbolic vocabulary. Private space dominates the moderncity, with “public space” often consisting of abstract, ill-definedspaces between the private buildings. Further, the abstract space ofmodern architecture negated and denied the possibility of meaningfulspatial representation within the city. Instead, it emphasized function,in keeping with its view that function would determine the formof the city and answer modern social needs. This reality has generatedquestions about the human environment produced and a search forSocial Life and Urban Form in a Historical Perspective 9


alternative models of architecture and urban design and for understandingtheir impact on social life.I would like to discuss briefly several American theories of urbanform and its relationship to social life that contrast with the Europeanexperience and might offer some alternative methods.Frank Lloyd Wright, Broadacre City, 1935–59For Wright, the metropolis as it existed was an antiquated, obsoletephenomenon. The crowded conditions, the rampant land speculation,the competitive, cutthroat life of the big cities and the anonymityof urban life were all repugnant to him. He believed that theyweren’t just disappearing; he maintained that they had already disappearedby 1930, when he formulated his plan for a new society:Broadacre City.Broadacre City was based on an open grid plan of one milesquares, divided into one acre plots, that would extend over the countrysideindefinitely. It was a fusion of country and city. The houses,factories, stores, offices are in the middle of farmland and forests.Further, everyone would do both mental and physical labor- theywould be part-time farmers as well as mechanics and intellectuals.According to Wright, this would eliminate the fragmentation ofmodern life and strengthen the family. Factories and other economicinstitutions were supplementary to the labor on the family farm andwere located throughout the Broadacre City plan so that they wouldbe within driving distance of the farms. A Roadside Market would belocated at the crossroads of two highways- place where families wouldsell their crops, craftsmen would sell their handiwork, etc. Other centerssuch as festival halls and public institutions were also placedwithin the plan but spread out within it, not concentrated in oneplace as in Howard’s Garden City. Governmental functions would beperformed by the County, housed in a modern skyscraper. Withinthis government, the most powerful man would be the county architectwho would oversee all aspects of Broadacre City. His office wasin the high-rise, overlooking the City below.Universal ownership of land would be enabled by decentralizationsince people could buy land and buildings over a large area insteadof in concentrated settlements where land values are inflated. Hethought that this would also spread wealth and power over the wholepopulation. This would make America more democratic. He stated:“When every man, woman, and child may be born to put his feeton his own acres, then democracy will have been realized” (quotedin Fishman, 124). Wright was quite prescient when he predicted thatthe automobile and the telephone would eliminate the need for concentrationsof people in big cities. This was wasteful and expensive,in his opinion. The new mastery of space and time brought by these10 Social Life and Urban Form in a Historical Perspective


technological innovations would enable people to live in decentralizedunits spread over the countryside.Wright assumed that a middle class, family-centered lifestyleshould the norm for all Americans. He assumed that everyone wantsto live in the country, with a family, that everyone wants to live inthe same way. Although Wright’s Broadacre City was never realized,many of the same assumptions underlie the vast American suburbandevelopment of the postwar period. The “American Dream” thateveryone would have his or her own house on a separate plot of land,accessible by automobile and distant from the workplace, has beenpursued to the exclusion of other urban forms and lifestyles, withdevastating consequences for the social and natural environment.Robert Venturi and Denise Scott BrownRobert Venturi was one of the first American architects to break withthe Functionalist reliance on function to generate form and the modernbelief that architectural form could create a new society. In Complexityand Contradiction (1966), he moved away from modernistsimplicity of form toward complexity and ambiguity, away from highart souces of beauty, and used popular, common forms like thosefound in Pop Art. His theory was still in line with other modern theoristsin the search for an architecture appropriate for modern life,but Venturi defined modern life in terms of formal complexity ratherthan the stream-lined, simplicity of machine forms. Philosophically,Venturi also gave up the notion that the architect can save society,that architecture can remake society and solve its problems. He rejectedthe tradition of idealism in architecture and the explicit connectionbetween social structure and architectural form. He reducedthe architect’s responsibility to the creation of pleasing and challengingforms, rather than a social mission. His work was, in part, anegative response to the radical claims made for architecture in theCIAM manifestoes and other modernist treatises.Venturi and his wife, Denise Scott-Brown, were interested in thesociological aspects of architecture and urbanism, how people live inspaces and how they are affected by their environment, what it meansto them. Scott Brown was critical of Modernism’s claim to know whatis best for people, and its tendency to dictate to the inhabitants ofbuildings and urged architects to learn from the everyday environment.She was against the egotism and arrogance of the architect whothinks that she or he can totally remake a city by rebuilding it fromscratch. Her work challenges this idea and the idea that the past, eventhe recent past, has nothing to give to the present.Venturi and Scott Brown’s book, Learning from Las Vegas (1972),began as an architectural studio at Yale University in 1968. Venturi,Scott-Brown, and Steven Izenour took a group of students to Las Ve-Social Life and Urban Form in a Historical Perspective 11


gas to analyze its urban and architectural structure. They made anattempt to examine, analyze, and synthesize the symbolism of the architectureand urbanism of Las Vegas, not as Las Vegas alone, but asa representative of the new American urbanism of the commercialstrip.They found a new symbolic architecture in Las Vegas based onbillboards, parking lots and the relationship between buildings andparking lots. They compared the spatial organization of Las Vegas toother grand spaces (such as Versailles) and other urban spaces, andcorrelated them with the speed at which they were comprehended. Inthis system, buildings are reduced to symbols within the vast spaceof the parking lot and the vast perceptual space of the automobilestreet. The building becomes either a “decorated shed” (a billboard)or a “duck” (a sign). They also extended these ideas to an architectureand urbanism founded on the Strip, an urbanism of symbolism.The vitality of this architecture appealed to Venturi and Scott-Brown,especially its allusions to the past that were not reverent or “correct.”They criticized the way Modern architects thought that Commodityand Firmness would equal Delight (structure plus function equalarchitectural form) and their overuse of industrial elements and imagery.They looked to suburbia and the commercial strip for symbolismthat most Americans could understand and appreciate, what theycalled “silent-white-majority architecture.” Venturi and Scott Brownbelieved that architects could not change the problems and socialinequities of modern life, so they felt that architects should try tochange what they can: architectural form. This represents the postmodernreturn to Aesthetics over Functionalism.The New UrbanismThe New Urbanism movement has its origins in the preservation andenvironmental movements. It is part of the postmodern critique ofFunctionalism, but it has not followed Venturi and Scott Brown’s disassociationof architectural form and social effect. By contrast withthose postmodernists who believe the architect can and should onlyconcern herself with design, the New Urbanists persist in a faith thatgood design can help create good social outcomes. Two quotes fromthe recent book, Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Declineof the American Dream demonstrate this continued confidencein form’s power:Almost without exception, the message we have heard, a message ofdeep concern, has been the same: the American Dream just doesn’tseem to be coming true anymore. . . A higher standard of living hassomehow failed to result in a better quality of life. . . . And frommayors to average citizens, we have heard expressed a shared beliefin a direct causal relationship between the character of the physical12 Social Life and Urban Form in a Historical Perspective


environment and the social health of families and the communityat large. . . . Lacking a physical framework conductive to public discourse,our family and communal institutions struggle to persist inour increasingly sub -urban surroundings. (Duany, xii-xiii)They go on to affirm their faith in form’s ability to solve social andphysical problems.. . . we believe more strongly than ever in the power of good designto overcome the ills created by bad design, or, more accurately,by design’s conspicuous absence. . . . This book is a primer on howdesign can help us untangle the mess we have made and once againbuild and inhabit places worth caring about. (Duany, xiii-xiv)One of the headings on the Congress for the New Urbanism website is titled “Giving Physical Shape to Community.” The idea that theNew Urbanism can provide the physical forms that create or stimulatecommunity is a crucial element in their program, I believe aleftover of the modernist program for social reform. But what do theymean by community? In 1978, historian Thomas Bender wrote thedefinitive study of community in American, in which he examinedthe history of the term and its subsequent meaning in post-WW -II United States. Bender found that community had largely positiveconnotations, but that an undercurrent of fear accompanied associatedwith it. “Modern Americans fear that urbanization and modernizationhave destroyed the community that earlier shaped the livesof men and women, particularly in the small towns of the Americanpast” (Bender, 3–4).According to Bender, popular and academic conceptions of Americancommunity often looked to the colonial New England town as aparadigm. This territorially-based definition of community ignoredthe historical processes and specific social, economic and politicalconditions that formed those communities.Americans seem to have something else in mind when they wistfullyrecall or assume a past made up of small-town communities.This social memory has a geographic referent, the town, but it isclear from the many layers of emotional meaning attached to theword community that the concept means more than a place or localactivity (Bender, 6).I believe that just this paradigm of the colonial New England townforms the New Urbanist conception of community. It is linked to themodernist credo that form (in this case the form of the small town orneighborhood) creates social relations (early American democracy).This attitude belies several social realities about the early Americantown: first, citizens and participants in the democratic institutionswere limited to male property owners, excluding men without property,women, and minorities (such as slaves). Second, a close examinationof early American history shows that these towns were hardlySocial Life and Urban Form in a Historical Perspective 13


the harmonious, egalitarian social environments of popular, nostalgicimagination. Intolerance of religious and political dissent wascommon, women were oppressed politically, economic power wasdominant, and they were quite racially and culturally homogenous.If one accepts the premise that urban form generates or helps createsocial life, one has to be aware that the small town was a particular,historical social structure, one that may not correspond to contemporarydemographic, political or economic conditions. If one detachesform from the modern link to social determinism, the smalltown becomes more feasible, but this is not what the New Urbanistshave done.Bender proposed a different definition of community, one basedon social affiliations rather than a coincidence of territory or locality:Community, which has taken many structural forms in the past, isbest defined as a network of social relations marked by mutualityand emotional bonds. . . . A community involves a limited numberof people in a somewhat restricted social space or network held togetherby shared understandings and a sense of obligation. (Bender,7)Can architecture and urban form produce this kind of community?Our experience with modernist experiments in social engineeringand functional planning suggest not.Ironically, New Urbanism reproduces many of the assumptions ofthe modernism it seeks to replace. As critic Michael Sorkin states,“The basic problem of the New Urbanism is that it simply promotesanother style of universality that – like modernism – is overreliant onvisual cures in attempting to produce social effects” (Sorkin, 65). Likemodernists, New Urbanists overestimate architecture’s power overbehavior. The replication of traditional towns and neighborhoods isnot enough to address the problems of sustainability, environmentaldegradation, racial conflict, immigration, economic discriminationand exploitation, uneven resource consumption, political apathy orthe other woes afflicting urban life.In 1974, architect Charles Moore and his colleagues identified theproblems with both Functionalist planning and the traditional revivalbeing evoked in its place.The existence of large-scale ordering of the environment is not initself oppressive. It becomes so only when the formal structuring isso literally associated with use that it inhibits free-ranging improvisationand interpretation – when it controls rather than stimulateschoice. . . . To our eyes the types of order that are least credibleare those which sacrifice individual response to mindless repetitionand stereotype (Moore, 270–271).They envisioned a landscape with a wide variety of forms and possibilitiesthat have not been ordained by the architect.14 Social Life and Urban Form in a Historical Perspective


What we must create is an environment that carries evidence ofchoice. We need an environment that we can comprehend. . . asplaces that have been made by and for people. . . . We need placeswhere people can exercise their wills and enjoy the willfulness ofothers within a pattern of accord that is physically rooted to theplace – more enduring than, but enlivened by the transient interestsof those who each day can give it new life and point (Moore, 274).The beauty of the buildings and urban settlements of the past,including modernism, can provide new inspiration for the developmentof a more diverse and visually exciting built environment,one that would reflect the real ethnic and cultural diversity of theglobal population. Rather than an urbanism that produces samenessand boredom, we should aim for a mixture of historical and modernstyles with a freshness and distinction that is not produced by amarketing survey or television poll. That is the difficult task facingarchitects, urbanists, and all inhabitants of the built environment.Social Life and Urban Form in a Historical Perspective 15


Works Cited✗ Bender, Thomas. Community and Social Change in America. 1978;Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982.✗ Colquhoun, Alan. “Twentieth-Century Concepts of UrbanSpace,” in Modernity and the Classical Tradition: Architectural Essays,1980–87. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1989.✗ Duany, Andres, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk and Jeff Speck. SuburbanNation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream.New York: North Point Press, 2000.✗ Fishman, Robert. Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press, 1982.✗ Moore, Charles, Gerald Allen, and Donlyn Lyndon. The Place ofHouses. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1974.✗ Sorkin, Michael. Some Assembly Required. Minneapolis and London:University of Minnesota Press, 2001.Works Cited 17


CERUM Working PapersMost of these are available at:www.umu.se/cerum/publikationer/index.html1. Einar Holm, Ulf Wiberg (Red.) (1995, in Swedish) Samhällseffekterav Umeå universitet2. Örjan Pettersson, Lars Olof Persson, Ulf Wiberg (1996, inSwedish) Närbilder av västerbottningar – materiella levnadsvillkoroch hälsotillstånd i Västerbottens län3. Jeanette Edblad (1996) The Political Economy of Regional Integrationin Developing Countries4. Lena Sahlin, Lars Westin (1996, in Swedish) Prissättning av subventioneradkultur. Vilka är de internationella erfarenheterna?5. Lars Westin, Mats Forsman (1997, in Swedish) Regionerna och finansieringenav infrastrukturen: Exemplet Botniabanan6. Erik Bergkvist, Lars Westin (1997) Estimation of gravity modelsby OLS estimation, NLS estimation, Poisson, and Neural Networkspecifications7. Niklas Nordman (1998) Increasing Returns to Scale and Benefits toTraffic. A Spatial General Equilibrium Analysis in the Case of TwoPrimary Inputs8. Lars Westin, Niklas Nordman (1998) The dialogue of universitieswith their partners: The case of Umeå University, Sweden9. Robert Sörensson (1998, in Swedish) Systemanalys av godstransporter.Simulering av en uppgraderad Inlandsbana10. Carina Sundgren (1998, in Swedish) Beräkning av bruttoregionprodukterför Sveriges regioner. En analys av metodvalet och regionindelningensbetydelse11. Erik Sondell (1999, in Swedish) Halvtidsutvärdering av InterregprojektetVirtual Education Environment MittSkandia12. Erik Sondell (1999, in Swedish) Det regionala uppdraget: En fjärdeuppgift?13. Örjan Pettersson (1999) Population Changes in Rural Areas inNorthern Sweden 1985–199514. Robert Pettersson (1999) Foreign Second Home Purchases: TheCase of Northern Sweden, 1990–9615. Patrik Asplund, Niklas Nordman (1999) Attitudes toward theThird Mission: A Selection of Interviews from Seven Universities inSweden16. Kent Eliasson, Magnus Johansson, Lars Westin (1999) EuropeanIntegration: Eastern Europe and the Swedish Regions17. Janerik Gidlund, Sverker Sörlin, Susanne Gidlund (2000, inSwedish) Ensam hemma. Den norrländska elitens nya syn på regionalutvecklingCERUM Working Papers 19


18. Christine Hudson (2000) The University and Regional Reciprocity19. Linda Helgesson (2000) Why Some Girls Go to School and OthersDon’t. A study about girls’ education on an upper primary level innorthern Mozambique20. Hans Åkerlind (2000, in Swedish) Framtidens stad21. Göran Aldskogius (2000) Urban Policy in the Structural Policy ofthe European Union22. Leif Kåpe (2000, in Swedish) Förändringar i medelstora svenskastäder23. Örjan Petterson, Anna Nordström, Linda Rislund (2000, inSwedish) Utvärdering av LEADER II Stad och Land – Hand i Hand24. Sören Olsson (2000, in Swedish) Stadens attraktivitet och det offentligastadslivet25. Maria Asplund (2000, in Swedish) Elektronik- och dataingenjörsutbildningeni Pajala, Studentperspektivet26. Lars Marcus (2000) On Architectural Knowledge27. Henry Etzkowitz, Patrik Aslund, Niklas Nordman (2001) BeyondHumboldt: Emergence of Academic Entrepreneurship in the U.S.and Sweden28. Maria Asplund (2001, in Swedish) Om måluppfyllelsen för Umeåuniversitets elektronik- och dataingenjörsutbildning i Pajala29. Maria Asplund, Anna Nordström (2001, in Swedish) Utvärderingav SAMS-projektet30. Eva Bergdahl, Magnus Rönn (2001, in Swedish) Planering förfunktionsintegrering – problem och utgångspunkter31. Maria Asplund (2001, in Swedish) Ex Ante utvärdering av E12 Alliansen32. Olof Stjernström (red.), Stig-Olof Holm, Johan Håkansson,Urban Lindgren, Håkan Myrlund, Jesper Stage, Kerstin Westin,Lars Westin, Ulf Wiberg (2001, in Swedish) Den hållbara regionen.Om förutsättningar och framtidsmöjligheter för en hållbar samhällsutvecklingi Västerbottens län – ett projektförslag33. Gemma Francès, Ian Layton, Jordi Rosell, Joan Santana, ErikSondell, Lourdes Viladomiu (2001) The Measurement of On-FarmDiversification34. Johan Lundberg (2001) On the Determinants of Average IncomeGrowth and Net Migration at the Municipal Level in Sweden35. Johan Lundberg (2001) A Spatial Interaction of Benefit Spilloversfrom Locally Provided Public Services36. Chris Hudson (2001, in Swedish) Regionala partnerskap – ett hotmot eller ett förverkligande av demokrati?37. Krister Sandberg, Jörgen Johansson (2001) Estimation of HedonicPrices for Co-operative Flats in the City of Umeå with SpatialAutoregressive GMM38. Elin Lundmark (2002, in Swedish) Fastighetstaxeringsvärdetsspridningsmönster i centrala Umeå39. Ulf Wiberg (2002, in Swedish) Hållbarhet i glesa regionala struk-


turer – exemplet södra Norrlandskusten40. Robert Sörensson (2002) Estimation of Interregional Empty RailFreight Car Flows41. Emma Lundholm (2002, in Swedish) Den sociala ekonomin i glesamiljöer – en teoretisk diskussion42. Niklas Bergström (2002, in Swedish) Kontraurbanisering i Umeåregionen43. Ian Layton, Linda Rislund (2002) Socio-Economic Dimensions ofAgricultural Diversification in Västerbotten, Northern Sweden44. Aurora Pelli (2002) Coping with Innovative On-farm Diversification– a Qualitative Analysis of Farm Household Case Historiesfrom Västerbotten, Sweden45. Linda Sandberg (2002, in Swedish) Rädslans restriktioner – Enstudie av kvinnors rädsla i Umeå46. Martin Paju (2002, in Swedish) Kulturmiljön och den regionalatillväxten – Länsantikvariernas syn på de regionala tillväxtavtalen47. Tönu Puu, Irina Sushko (2002) A Business Cycle Model with CubicNonlinearity48. Patricia Morton (2002) Social Life and Urban Form in a HistoricalPerspective


The Centre for Regional Science at Umeå University, CERUM, initiatesand accomplishes research on regional development, carriesout multidisciplinary research, and distributes the results to variouspublic organisations. The research projects are pursued in interactionwith the numerous scientific disciplines within the regional sciencefield.The CERUM Working Paper are interim reports presenting workin progress and papers that have been submitted for publicationelsewhere. These reports have received only limited review and areprimarily used for in-house circulation.CERUM; Umeå University; SE-90187 Umeå; SwedenPh.: +46-90-786.6079 Fax: +46-90-786.5121Email: regional.science@cerum.umu.sewww.umu.se/cerumISBN 91-7305-306-6ISSN 1404–5362

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines