The Vallastaden model – alternative
urban governance and energy system
designs
Wiktoria Glad
Linköping University
TEMA – Department of Thematic Studies Technology and Social Change SE-581 83 Linköping Sweden
wiktoria.glad@liu.se
Madelene Gramfält
Linköping University
TEMA – Department of Thematic Studies Technology and Social Change SE-581 83 Linköping Sweden
madelene.gramfalt@liu.se
Keywords
governance, urban planning, design, local energy system, in-frastructure, building design
Abstract
In 2017, the new city district Vallastaden hosted an urban planning and housing exhibition to show the innovative and sustainable results of “the Vallastaden model”, a cross-sectoral governance concept and energy system designed at local level in Sweden. The concept cut across sectors such as energy, hous-ing, transport and local businesses. One of the core features of the concept was quality criteria-based land sale. These quality criteria included alternative energy systems such as the de-sign of passive and plus-energy housing, dede-sign diversity and renewable construction material, e.g. timber frames. This re-search analyses energy relevant European Union Directives as implemented at local level: the alternative urban governance concept “the Vallastaden model” and resulting diversity and alternative energy designs. Research questions are: how was alternative urban governance possible and how was the “Val-lastaden” concept implemented? The research is a detailed case study, based on an analysis of public documents from the local council, interviews with stakeholders and field observations. The results show how for several years the concept was part of the political processes at local level, publicly debated and in focus during post-election periods, but survived and was eventually embraced by several political parties along the left-right scale. The implementation followed one of the core ideas of the concept: Diversity in architectural design and design of energy systems as well as housing tenure. In contrast to the vis-ible diversity “above ground”, the underground energy system
has one single designer: the local publicly owned energy com-pany, which implemented an innovative infrastructure culvert for all basic energy services. The conclusion is that, under the pressure of joint challenges such as housing shortages, local economic constraints and low-emission carbon goals, alter-native urban governance concepts can emerge which provide long-term commitments and joint efforts across sectors and political party agendas.
Introduction
Urban realms have been foregrounded as both causing negative impact on the environment and representing important arenas for finding alternative ways to manage existing unsustainable built environments and practices (Bulkeley, 2013; Edwards and Bulkeley, 2017; Edwards and Bulkeley, 2018; Karvonen and Ra-ven, 2016). Housing and energy systems are two specific inter-connected infrastructures, which are targeted by governments and authorities, on both national and supranational agendas (Lovell, 2004). It is hoped that the density urban areas provide would cater for a more efficient use of resources, the creation of new ideas and the implementation of sustainable innova-tions where flows of capital are directed. There has been a call for research with integrative approaches, acknowledging urban governance for sustainability, and viewing housing and energy systems as socio-material entities, and as parts of urban infra-structures (Edwards and Bulkeley, 2018). Previous research has acknowledged obduracy features of housing and energy systems, and has brought the structural and “stuck” elements of housing and energy systems to the fore (Hommels, 2005). Obduracy has been particularly noticeable in research on
re-developments, renovations and retrofitting (Thoresson, 2015; Lovell and Smith, 2010), but the planning and construction of new infrastructure are also known to have a tendency to follow historical paths (Magnusson, 2013).
Bulkeley (2013; Bulkeley et al., 2015) suggests a theoreti-cal understanding of urban governance and infrastructural change in an era characterised by climate change issues and calls for enhanced sustainability. Theoretical fundaments are perspectives on the built environment as socio-technical sys-tems, where humans and material worlds are interlaced and constitute each other. These systems are constantly in a state of flux, and are subject to transition movements and change. Edwards and Bulkeley (2018) bring fluidity, circulation and flow into focus, drawing on Harvey’s (1973) critical theoretical contributions on urban areas as flows of capital. These theo-retical understandings of power at the urban geographical level have yielded insights into indirect and network-based influence over our built environment, for example housing and energy systems, and brought into focus new ways of excluding people from political processes and decisions. Richardson et al. (2018) propose a new direction of focus to governing urban spaces and a critical stance to coproduction as alternative ways to address these issues.
The present research focuses on green field new development when a new city district and neighbourhood – Vallastaden – was planned, designed and developed. Previous similar city district developments in Sweden include Hammarby Sjöstad in Stockholm (1994–ongoing), Norra Älvstranden in Gothen-burg (1996–ongoing) and Västra Hamnen in Malmö (1999– ongoing), all three being brownfield redevelopments convert-ing decommissioned shippconvert-ing and industrial land into mainly housing areas – with some public and commercial properties – in three of Sweden’s major cities. By contrast, Vallastaden is situated in a mid-sized town, Linköping.
The Vallastaden planning process has been framed “the Vallastaden model” by local politicians and civil servants in Linköping. The urban governance of the Vallastaden model has characteristics that can be identified in previous city district developments in Sweden, but also new elements of govern-ance and infrastructural designs. The aim of the current paper is to increase the understanding of urban built environment development processes and energy systems designs. The aim will be fulfilled by answering the following research questions: How was this alternative urban governance possible? And how was the “Vallastaden” concept implemented? The research has been performed as a qualitative detailed case study focusing on the planning and construction processes of Vallastaden as a city district development and a housing and built environ-ment exhibition in the year 2017. Empirical material consisted of public documents from the local council, public media, and interviews with stakeholders and field observations. Secondary data from published public reports, research publications and journals were also used to produce a thorough description and analysis of the case.
Background
The energy saving potentials in housing have been targeted by a number of laws and regulations, among them the Ecode-sign Directive (EU 2009/125), the Energy Labelling
Regula-tion (EU 2017/1369), the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EU 2010/31) and the Energy Efficiency Directive (EU 2012/27), and in Swedish policies, building codes and en-vironmental objectives, for example the objectives to reduce climate impact and create a good built environment. Unfortu-nately, present assessments of how Sweden performs in relation to these objectives are not optimistic, and the Swedish Envi-ronmental Protection Agency states that “progress towards a sustainable housing structure represents the biggest challenge” (SEPA 2018, p 22). The Swedish construction sector has been described as conservative and slow in changing its direction in terms of current unsustainable ways of designing and con-structing buildings (SCC, 2002; SAPM, 2009). The construc-tion of passive houses and associated energy systems at local level has been described as being possible to fit into existing modes of construction and system designs (Mlecnik, 2014). The Swedish approach to such a possible integration has been defined as market-driven, in contrast to for example the Ger-man regulation policy approach (Schade et al., 2013). Sweden experienced a move from strict building codes in the 1970s and 80s towards deregulation in the 1990s, which had a negative impact on energy efficiency in buildings. Voluntary agreements developed by network organisations in Sweden have instead tried to influence a development towards energy efficiency. Also, there are significant geographical differences, where pas-sive houses are more common in the south-west of Sweden than in other parts of the country (Niskanen, 2018). Support structures such as a passive house centre and local and regional policies in the south-west have evolved since the 2000s. The proximity between the centre and the building market in the south-west proved important, and the jurisdiction of poli-cies covers municipalities and regions in the south-west. Val-lastaden is situated in the south-eastern part of Sweden.
A paradox in this context is the strong position of Swedish municipalities in relation to the built environment in Sweden. The municipalities – 290 local councils and geographical ar-eas – have a spatial planning monopoly and in several cases own locally based energy and property enterprises. As a con-sequence, Swedish municipalities can use their power over resources such as land and energy to develop certain types of energy systems and housing. Historically, the municipalities have been responsible for entire city district developments, resulting in what in retrospect has been criticised as large-scale, repetitive architecture and a focus on functionality rather than a sense of place and homeliness (Movilla, 2017). Today, at the city district level, municipalities are increasingly dependent on collaboration with private developers rather than with the housing and facilities companies they own themselves. The responsibilities for initiating and managing formal planning procedures and overarching time plans still lies with the municipalities. In the present case, a temporary municipal enterprise – Linköpingsexpo AB (Ltd) – was es-tablished, with the sole purpose of managing the housing and built environment exhibition held in 2017.
At the municipal level in Sweden, grid-based systems for district heating and other energy services have a dominant po-sition in large and medium-sized Swedish cities (Magnusson, 2013). This is a consequence of a historical co-development in policies and planning on a large scale, perceived as creating ef-ficient energy systems and housing areas. In several cases, this
stemmed from the 1950s as was the case in Linköping. The decades that followed come under the umbrella term “record years” to capture a previously unseen strong economic develop-ment in Sweden. During times of stagnation in the construc-tion of new housing and general economic decline, district heating and combined heat and power plants and grid-based systems retained their strong position. The fuels used in these plants have changed from fossil-based to bio-mass, and from the 1990s onwards these technologies have benefitted from governmental support via subsidies and the taxation system, and have been a crucial policy means by which to reach local and national environmental objectives and work with climate issues.
In a similar manner, housing has been subject to state in-terventions, and in recent decades has been included in the same or similar governmental programmes for the environ-ment and against climate change at local level (local invest-ment programmes – LIP 1998–2008, climate investinvest-ment programmes – KLIMP 2003–2012 and the Climate Step – Klimatklivet 2015–ongoing). Hammarby Sjöstad in Stock-holm and Västra Hamnen in Malmö were two of the city districts that received the most funds from LIP and KLIMP programmes (SEPA 2012), while Vallastaden has not benefit-ted from Climate Step funds. While Hammarby Sjöstad and Västra Hamnen were planned and built at a time when the Swedish housing market was still suffering from economic decline in the 1990s, Vallastaden was able to benefit in sev-eral ways from the rapid increase in demand for housing in Linköping. The urbanisation process in Sweden has lagged behind developments in several other countries, but – partly as a consequence of the previous years’ immigration and ur-banisation processes – urban developments picked up speed in the 2010s, resulting in pressure on Swedish municipalities. The municipality-owned energy utility company Tekniska verken in Linköping is a powerful local actor (Palm, 2004). Tekniska verken owns several combined heat and power plants, grids for distributing district heating, electricity and fibre op-tic broadband, plants for producing biogas and infrastructure for selling biogas. These facilities have been developed over a long period of time, and permeate the built environment of Linköping, both literally and figuratively. The existing infra-structure of plants, underground pipes, connection points in the different neighbourhoods and flows of energy entering the buildings could be defined as obdurate features of the built en-vironment (cf. Hommels, 2005). In a similar vein, the organisa-tion and management of the local energy system follow certain paths of direction, where for example the board of Tekniska verken consists of local politicians who have been known to act jointly within the local council, regardless of political wing or party (Palm, 2004). Obduracy is also manifested in future plans for Linköping, in which services provided by Tekniska verken are prioritised in the comprehensive plan for the mu-nicipality: “District heating will be the main method for space heating, and the network for district heating will be enlarged as the town expands” (LCP, 2010, p. 138). Over the decades, Linköping Municipality has developed a mutual interdepend-ence with Tekniska verken, as the company delivers fee-based important services, and the collection of fees contributes to the annual finances of the municipality. The comprehensive plan states that energy services should be “resource efficient”,
and energy efficiency will be a means to lower energy demand (p. 138). Also, “[n]ew technology and new system solutions for technical provision will be encouraged in new town devel-opments […]” (p. 138) – the technology is not specified, but ecologically and economic long-term sustainable “solutions” will be prioritised. Compared to other similar municipalities, Tekniska verken has been viewed in broad terms as providing knowledge, competence and development to Linköping – a re-liable stakeholder with the capacity and interest to contribute to economic development (Palm, 2004). In the Vallastaden case, Tekniska verken proved to be such a partner in the project.
PREVIOUS CITY DISTRICT DEVELOPMENTS IN SWEDEN
Research on Hammarby Sjöstad, Norra Älvstranden and Västra Hamnen showed the importance of governing through networks and using alternative ways of collaboration between democrati-cally elected representatives, civil servants, and industry (Green, 2006; Sydow, 2004). Sydow concluded that coalitions of gov-erning actors consisting of leading politicians, industries and Chalmers University of Technology formed an agenda together with the aim of making Gothenburg a competitive player in the global market. Among the first to establish their businesses in Norra Älvstranden were Ericsson and Lindholmen Science Park. The coalition of stakeholders was successful because of their re-sourcefulness in terms of already being strong players on the lo-cal scene: politicians from the Social Democratic party, which had been in power for many years, and long-established busi-nesses. In these development processes, other stakeholders were less successful in fulfilling their aims; for example, the Museum of Gothenburg failed in its attempts to preserve historical con-structions, and cultural heritage value in the built environment was lost in order to make way for new developments.
In the cases of Hammarby Sjöstad and Västra Hamnen, counter-coalitions were established with the aim of altering the direction of the planning processes (Green, 2006). These coalitions consisted of developers who enacted their “old-boys networks” (cf. Björklöf, 1986) with former classmates and col-leagues. In Hammarby Sjöstad, the energy requirements for housing were contested – politicians suggested 60 kWh/m2 and
the counter-coalition of developers stated 125 kWh/m2 would
be reasonable – while in Västra Hamnen on of the issues was car parking spaces (Green, 2006). In both cases, the counter-coalitions were able to influence how the process proceeded and the decisions were made, since the coalitions headed by politicians were dependent on the developers’ intentions to buy the land and, within the present time frame, build on the land. In the case of Västra Hamnen, time was a particularly sensitive issue since a prestigious project, the Bo01 housing exhibition, was planned to be held in 2001.
Criteria-based governance became important in the cases of both Hammarby Sjöstad and Västra Hamnen (Green, 2006). This type of governance involves project-specific goals, set by for example politicians, and the goals were used to take control of and govern the planning processes (Healey, 1997). Criteria concerning energy were applied to both Hammarby Sjöstad and Västra Hamnen, and in the case of Hammarby Sjöstad mainly involved the use of existing large-scale energy systems, for example district heating, while Västra Hamnen concep-tualised its energy system as “100 % local renewable energy” (Green, 2006, p 169).
In Stockholm, the existing systems were presented as a mod-el and labmod-elled “the Hammarby Sjöstad modmod-el” (Fraker, 2013). The model was presented by Stockholm Water, Stockholm En-ergy and Stockholm Waste – all being municipal utilities in the 1990s – as closed loops to visualise what the utilities wanted to present as renewable and recyclable resource use. The model became a symbol for the sustainability efforts being imple-mented in the new city district, but mainly consists of technolo-gies and systems generally present throughout Sweden in major urban areas. The Hammarby Sjöstad model has been used as a tool to communicate in connection with technologies and sys-tems for energy provision and has kept the focus off energy de-mand and use in the built environment of Hammarby Sjöstad, but the buildings proved not even to fulfil the requirements of the building code at the time (Green, 2006).
Vallastaden
The name Vallastaden was introduced in 2012 after an open competition for the citizens of Linköping to choose the name of the new city district, which is formally part of the “Västra Valla” district. The geographical area of Västra Valla had for centuries hosted one of Linköping University’s campuses, an open-air museum, recreational facilities, an area of allotments, a forest nature reserve and buildings for governmental and re-gional authorities, such as a rescue centre and the fire brigade. “Vallastaden 2017” was the name of a housing and built en-vironment exhibition, which was held in Linköping and the Vallastaden district in September 2017. Linköping Municipal-ity has chosen to frame the planning process “the Vallastaden model” to distinguish how the municipality managed spatial planning in this case. The planning process started in 2011 when politicians began to discuss the idea of a new, different city district in Linköping. The next sections of this paper de-scribe the planning processes and energy system design.
A VISION AND POLITICAL GAMES
Vallastaden has been described as driven by a vision (Sven-sson and Manner, 2018; Granath, 2016; Haslum et al. 2012). During the political, planning and construction processes, this vision was defined differently by different stakeholders. One of the political visions was to “put Linköping on the map” of in-novative built environments. This was a reaction to the recent mainstream city district developments in the Linköping area. Mainstream designs of both building architecture and energy systems characterised these neighbourhoods. The local com-missioner responsible for the Linköping built environment policy area in 2009 –2014, Muharrem Demirok from the po-litical Centre party, justified his commitment to a vision for the Linköping built environment:
We have looked into the crystal ball for challenges Linköping might face in the future, and the international competition will become fierce, and cities will have to renew themselves. […] Tomorrow, we will need something to stand out from the rest. (SR, 2011).
In his role, Demirok was one of the front figures for Vallastaden, and for the coalition of right-wing parties in power during the 2010–2014 mandate period. The idea and vision of a ground-breaking built environment project that would attract attention
from the surrounding world was shared among parties along the left-right wings in Linköping (Granath, 2018). However, the Green party representative Ulf Flodin objected to the plans, and called the proposition “conventional and predictable […] investments in a new, flashy city district” (SR, 2011).
One year before the 2014 local assembly election, the Social Democratic party announced its intention not to support the exhibition if the party and its coalition of parties had a major-ity of seats on the local council. Kristina Edlund, the leading Social Democratic politician in Linköping, left her position as Vice Chairman of the expo company, which caused tur-bulence at the city hall (SVT, 2013). The reason for the shift in position was, according to the Social Democrats, an unre-alistic time frame and budget. Demirok rejected these argu-ments, but the Green party in Linköping followed Edlund’s example and took a stand against the exposition. These an-nouncements resulted in the developer’s activities related to Vallastaden coming to a halt, and the process being paused until after the election.
In parallel with the commotion surrounding the exhibition, the Linköping local assembly passed the spatial detailed plan in September 2013, which had been generated from the win-ning proposal in a 2012 architecture competition. Most po-litical parties supported the plan, which at this stage included 1,000 housing units, a school, a pre-school, care housing, a main square and a park. The Green party and Left party did not support the plan since they claimed the planning process had been too rapid and other developments in Linköping should be prioritised.
A suitable site for implementing the vision in Västra Valla was identified by Linköping Municipality, but the land was owned partly by Linköping Municipality and partly by Aka-demiska Hus, a government property owner that owns and administers university buildings in Sweden. Land ownership issues and all the interested stakeholders called for building good relationships between them and the municipality, Akad-emiska Hus and Linköping University. A Linköping University professor and the university architect were invited to join the Linköping Expo board, and the university became one of the hosts for open workshops to generate ideas, and to make use of university-based knowledge and infrastructure. Linköping City Architect Johanna Wiklander stressed the influence of Linköping University on the Vallastaden vision (Svensk byg-gtjänst, 2017). Wiklander pointed out the geographical location of the university – considered to be on the outskirts of the town – and the benefits of closer collaboration for both the university and Linköping Municipality: the university would offer knowl-edge and solutions to societal challenges faced by Linköping, and the municipality would offer housing and neighbourhood services for students and researchers. Both parties would be strengthened in the international competition for competence and economic development.
Since Vallastaden was intended to be quite a large area and would be based on the winning concept from the architecture competition, five ideas were highlighted to guide the realisation of Vallastaden (LDSP, 2013). The first of these was “allotments for diversity”, where the focus was on a variety of houses and tenures in a small-scale district to encourage a variety of im-pressions. The second, “urban life density”, aimed to enhance meetings between people. This led the third idea, “meetings in
everyday life”, to enable interaction between people at differ-ent social levels. “Parks for iddiffer-entity and well-being” values the importance of the green areas in Vallastaden, and ultimately a walking and cycling perspective, which does not exclude mo-tor-driven vehicles but prioritises cycling and walking.
Granath (2016) has described the Vallastaden project as a “prestige project” for several of the stakeholders involved, such as the municipality (both politicians and civil servants), the university and municipal companies. Several of these partners were members of the board of the expo company, which put pressure on the politicians to find an agreement for the exhibi-tion. Six months before the 2014 election, Mr Demirok and the ruling coalition agreed to postpone the expo until 2017 and eventually renamed the event Vallastaden 2017. The official argument was to facilitate a display of a more “complete neigh-bourhood” (SVT, 2014a). In addition, the right-wing coalition decided on an increased budget for the exhibition, resulting in almost doubling the previous amount from MEUR 3.5 to MEUR 6.5. The Social Democratic party continued to object to the exhibition, and argued that the local council’s focus must be on other, more important projects, such as a new combined heat and power plant, a high-speed railway, a new public swim-ming pool and a horse-riding centre (SVT 2014b). Implement-ing Vallastaden 2017 would mean less resources for these other future developments.
The energy utility company Tekniska verken came on board early, but the construction and property companies hesitated. One of the expo company board members described her and Mr Demirok’s attempts to persuade developers to commit to Vallastaden as “walking on hot asphalt” (Ellegård, 2018). De-velopers required better conditions from the municipality, with less rigid quality criteria. In 2015, a total of 30 developers were contracted to develop buildings in Vallastaden, and in 2016 the number of developers was 40.
DESIGN OF A CITY DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEM
Tekniska verken was one of the first, and few, municipal compa-nies to sign an agreement with the expo company, and became a formal partner of Vallastaden (Palm & Wihlborg, 2013). The agreement was an economic commitment to co-fund the pro-ject and the exhibition, at the time called LinköpingsBo 2016 (Sjölin, 2011). Certain other expectations followed with this role, for example to take the lead and manage the energy-relat-ed aspects of the development. Staff members from Tekniska verken expressed concerns at an early stage about being forced into the Vallastaden project due to political pressure, and being expected to contribute without business-like considerations, which is normally the case (Palm & Wihlborg, 213). Eventually, these concerns diminished and Vallastaden was perceived as a test bed in which to try new solutions, both relationships be-tween developers, property owners, the university and end-us-ers, and combinations of technologies, such as neighbourhood-based small-scale electricity production, “smart” or “dynamic” networks for the distribution of electricity and a system where consumers who own solar panels are also producers of electric-ity. However, another concern was raised about the time frame within which Tekniska verken was expected to both come up with innovative ideas and implement them.
Tekniska verken also took an informal role as a participant in other arenas, such as the workshops – so called café
work-shops – hosted by Linköping University. In the early planning phase, workshops were held at three different locations: the municipality, the university and Tekniska verken’s head office in Linköping. The focus of the workshops was to generate ide-as on three concepts for Vallide-astaden, which at that time were quite vague: knowledge, social sustainability and creativity. The objective was to “realise the latest innovations in energy, en-vironmental engineering and sustainable town development” (Haslum et al., 2012, p. 15). Specific examples were given: ener-gy-efficient buildings, locally produced electricity and sustain-able construction materials.
The infra culvert – a 1.8 km major underground construc-tion of pipes, holding smaller pipes for all media – has been defined by Granath (2016) as a result of creativity and the use of knowledge in activities preceding the formal planning process. During one of the creative workshops, simple tools like straws and cardboard paper rolls were handed out to the participants, who used them to play and experiment with new designs of underground pipe-bound technologies, and the infra culvert was born. One of the apprehensions was that this design would be too expensive for Tekniska verken, since the concrete culvert would have to be constructed only for this project. However, the circular concrete designs were already available on the mar-ket and made the system more affordable. Similar to the pro-cesses during the Swedish “record years”, the infrastructure for district heating, electricity, telecommunications, sewage and waste was put in place first (cf. Magnusson, 2013). A lesson learnt from previous underground infrastructure constructions is that the maintenance and repair of pipe-bound systems are expensive and disrupt flows in cities, as streets and land would have to be closed and dug up. This work affects accessibility and traffic flows, and causes annoyance among citizens. Tekniska verken and its partners for the infra culvert have been keen to market this technology as sustainable in various ways, such as being durable, and as workplace-friendly and future-oriented in terms of maintenance.
The energy system design process has been criticised for not involving citizens (Palm & Wihlborg, 2013). However, this is also a criticism of the general planning process of Vallastaden (Svensson & Manner, 2018). Dialogue with citizens was market-ed by the municipality as one of the core concepts of Vallastaden (Haslum et al., 2012), but the design of the energy backbone of the neighbourhood was not considered a suitable task for dis-cussion with future inhabitants (Palm & Wihlborg, 2013). The arguments from employees were a lack of competence and a lack of interest on the part of citizens, while Palm and Wihlborg (2013) argue that citizens are experts on their everyday life and have useful knowledge about how services provided by Tekniska verken are perceived and used on a daily basis.
The 2013 local council approval of the detailed spatial plan (site plan) includes a quality programme with 77 requirements and 56 recommendations, of which seven requirements and four recommendation could be interpreted as directly related to energy (LDSP, 2013). Tekniska verken was assigned respon-sibility for the implementation of five of these, in some cases in collaboration with developers, and developers were assigned responsibility for six of the requirements. The requirements and recommendations are summarised in Table 1.
In addition to the overarching requirements and recom-mendations applicable to the site, Linköping Municipality also
allocated land for the construction of buildings based on so-called “pledges” (see Table 2. Criteria for the second stage of the process). In their land applications, developers volunteered to fulfil “pledges”, which were worth different points. The points were added up, and the land was sold to the developers with the highest total scores. Two of these “pledges” directly addressed the energy system: passive houses and plus-energy houses. In the 2013 and 2014, four different land allocation events took place, but the energy-related “pledges” were among the least popular. Still, around 100 housing units were built as passive houses or plus-energy houses by six different developers on eight different properties.
Innovation happened in this case as a result of the work by committed staff members and financial support from Tekniska verken, as well as personal and financial commitments from Tekniska verken and its employees (Svensson and Manner, 2018). Other municipal corporations hesitated initially, and the boards of these companies had to put pressure on the organisa-tions before they committed to Vallastaden.
THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS
The construction phase, when all the theoretical ideas, designs and plans take their physical shape, is probably the part of the process that was perceived as most problematic by the stake-holders involved (Svensson and Manner, 2018). Challenges at this stage included coordinating work between the many de-velopers and various parts of the municipal organisation, the restricted time frame with a fixed deadline due to the set date of the expo, and logistics at the construction site.
The construction stage was not well-prepared due to the complexity of the construction site being underestimated, making the process unnecessarily stressful and complicated according to stakeholders (Svensson and Manner, 2018). For-ty different developers and hundreds of building contractors and subcontractors were working at the site at the same time, making construction logistics and safety measures crucial to achieve an efficient construction process with good working conditions for all involved partners.
Linköping Municipality chose not to have an internal pro-ject organisation dedicated to Vallastaden – all processes and planning were managed by members of the existing organisa-tion and structure with regular tasks to handle at the same time (Svensson and Manner, 2018). Leadership from Linköping Mu-nicipality was lacking, from both the politicians’ and the civil servants’ sides, and boundaries of responsibilities were unclear between the expo company and Linköping Municipality. This caused frustration among all stakeholders.
The limited time frame called for new ways of managing the construction process, with one way being simultaneous plan-ning and construction (Svensson and Manner, 2018). Normally these processes follow a sequential pattern, with several steps in the planning process being finalised before construction can begin. The normal sequences should guarantee thorough work with all the different planning ingredients – for example the statutory interplay between civil servants, politicians and citi-zens before the turf-cutting ceremony and the construction of a new building can begin. In the case of Vallastaden, more details in the plans were set in parallel processes and informal discus-sions between developers and civil servants, and some contro-versies were resolved during the building permit procedures, making the process less transparent for citizens. An advantage might be that several civil servants and authorities responsible for different parts of the plans have to make coordinated and simultaneous assessments and decisions, facilitating a more ho-listic view of the building permits and plans.
Tekniska verken chose to maintain its public visibility dur-ing the construction process, despite the fact that its own con-struction work was “buried” and hidden underground, and continued to host study visits in temporary buildings and in an aboveground display culvert on the construction site. Most of the other parts of the construction site were surrounded during the construction process by a fence and were not accessible to the general public. The fencing was necessary according to the developers, but it was debated by representatives of the munici-pality since the land was defined as public ground and should be accessible to the public (Svensson and Manner, 2018). In
Table 1. Criteria for the first stage of the process (LDSP, 2013).
Requirements Recommendations Responsible
Energy demand in buildings is 25 % lower
than the 2012 building code (BBR2012) Underground pipes for pre-heating or pre-cooling of air Developers District heating for hot water and indoor
space heating Construction of district heating to minimise energy loss Tekniska verken/developers
District cooling for cooling of buildings Underground pipes for heating or pre-cooling of air. Solar panels on outside sun screens in south and west directions.
Developers/Tekniska verken Grid for electricity is designed to manage
surplus electricity to the grid Tekniska verken
Housing units are equipped with individual meters for electricity, water and hot tap water
Developers/Tekniska verken
White goods are labelled A, if available Developers
Water-efficient fittings and toilets (No dedicated responsibility) Lighting in communal areas is at least
2016, all on-going construction work temporarily stopped and the site was opened to the public for a weekend, in response to the criticism.
THE EXHIBITION
Setting up an organisation to focus on the Linköping Expo could be beneficial in several ways, according to the munici-pality. Arguments included a clear identity, showing the im-portance of the project, offering codetermination to stakehold-ers and attracting external parties to the council. There was an explicit ambition to involve citizens, academia and the busi-ness sector in the process as well as the council, that is, the organisation was given an extensive mission (Svensson and Manner, 2018). The mission of the organisation was described in an annual report in 2012. This states that Linköpingsexpo AB should ensure Vallastaden is characterised by knowledge, social sustainability and creativity, and drive the Vallastaden project to be an attractive and interesting urban environment which creates exciting encounters and innovations. Further, the organisation should strive to make Vallastaden a practical example of future community building with generally high am-bitions. The expo should be characterised by a broad dialogue and knowledge development. In the Articles of Association of Linköpingsexpo AB, the missions of the company are de-clared. First of all, the prime mission was to carry out the expo based on the idea programme of Vallastaden. The members should also plan and market Vallastaden, present Vallastaden as a national role model for ecological and social sustainability, and build bridges between citizens, the business sector, public utilities and Linköping Municipality. Further, the Articles of Association describe that the company should work with the implementation of environmental policies, and should pro-mote Linköping as an attractive place in which to live and work (Svensson and Manner, 2018).
The Vallastaden housing and built environment exhibition was held during three weeks in September 2017. The CEO Mr Helmér commented on the event: “Many thought it was impos-sible, but what we see now is this incredible and unique neigh-bourhood” (Helmér, 2018, authors’ translation). 75,000 people visited Vallastaden during the exhibition, which attracted at-tention from the media and the built environment sector. The Swedish Minister for the Environment Karolina Skog visited Vallastaden a few months before the expo and stated: “Previ-ously I worked in Malmö and with the expo in 2001. The expo was very important for the development of Malmö, but also for sustainable development in the built environment. We have been astounded that 15 years after the expo, study visits still came to Malmö – can’t anyone compete with Bo01? But now I think Bo01 has a worthy competitor.” (Skog, 2017, authors’ translation.)
Within the Vallastaden 2017 expo, 72 different exhibitions were on display, organised on different themes – similar to the pillars of the idea programme – such as creativity, social sustain-ability, knowledge and resource efficiency. Resource efficiency was among the first features on display and available for visits since the municipality-owned energy utility company Tekniska verken started the construction of an infra culvert before the construction of buildings could commence. Another feature foregrounded as an example of energy efficiency was build-ings designed as low-energy houses which were presented in
a context by the expo organisers as: “A large number of passive and plus-energy houses make Vallastaden an unusually energy-efficient city district.” (Vallastaden, 2017, authors’ translation.) There were seven passive or plus-energy buildings consisting of 100 housing units. These buildings consisted of a mix of owner-occupancy, co-operative housing and rental apartments, and all were open for visits during the three weeks of the exhibition in Vallastaden.
Architectural design and aesthetic values have not been pri-oritised in Vallastaden, which can be viewed as a paradox since an architectural competition was held and the winner – the Okidoki architecture company – was perceived as an influen-tial stakeholder in the planning and construction processes, and the main interpreter of the vision for Vallastaden (Sven-sson and Manner, 2018). Architectural designs are perceived as eclectic, as a consequence of small plots, many developers and architects, and not being prescribed or specified in the plans. The communal neighbourhood spaces are the restrictions: the direction of waterways and lanes, and the position of squares and community halls, not the shapes, heights or colours of in-dividual buildings. Criticism from architects includes:
Will Vallastaden be the end of the paradigm which for many years has been prevalent with politicians, developers and ar-chitects: the pursuit of variety in design? (Kling, 2017)
The Vallastaden Model
The planning process and end-product have been framed as the Vallastaden model, but there are several interpreters who claim a definition of the model. According to the Okidoki architecture company (2017), the Vallastaden model is built upon involving a diversity of actors to avoid a segregation of residency types. The Vallastaden model divides the area into smaller properties and advocates a mixture of detached houses, town houses and apartment blocks that makes it possible for more actors to build. The local planning should be finished be-fore selling, since the municipality can express higher demands before selling. It also shortens the time for the actors between monetary investment and yield, which is often beneficial for smaller actors. The Vallastaden model uses a fixed price for the land and lets the constructor compete by offering the most ap-pealing proposals weighted using a points system. For example, a diversity of apartment sizes and premises for other activities on the ground floor is worth more points, and the actors who offer these kinds of solutions will be given precedence for the plots. This encourages the innovative ability of the market to rethink and develop how a district can take form (Okidoki ar-chitects, 2017).
Granath (2016), a researcher in information systems, defined the Vallastaden model as: spatial detail planning before land was sold by the local council; small land plots, promotion of small-scale building, variation, and new actors; quality as a condition for land sale (not price); a focus on social and eco-logical sustainability (Granath 2016, p 153). Svensson, a pro-fessor of architecture, and Manner, a sustainability consultant (2018), propose an extended definition: strong political vision throughout the project; an ambition to move beyond prevalent ideas of the built environment; non-negotiable deadline; open innovation with clear direction and broad participation; spatial
detailed plan with strict structure but open designs; leadership which encourages new methods with a risk of poor decisions; project organisation for coherence and accountability to the lo-cal council; and a coordinated assessment of building permit and conflicts of aims. In this paper we argue that depending on the scope of communication regarding the model, other and different ingredients could be included in the definition of the model. To win international attention, like the Hammarby Sjöstad model (cf. Green, 2006), the design of infrastructure and resource management could be included in the Vallastaden model. Such an approach would also be more inclusive for different Vallastaden stakeholders, such as the municipality-owned energy company, developers and present property own-ers in Vallastaden.
One of the main purposes of Vallastaden was to get away from quantitative objectives and instead work with qualitative aims, and to instantiate new ways of how urban areas can be shaped in future projects. In the evaluation by Svensson and Manner (2018), interviewees were asked how they defined the Vallastaden model and their answers differed, but often in-cluded: the small land plots (“allotments” or “patches”); “open” spatial, detailed planning; land allocation agreement after a decision on the detailed plan; and fixed price land sale based on quality criteria. The quality criteria consisted of 77 require-ments and 56 recommendations, none of which focused on architectural design or material, which are normally included in “quality” as defined by architects. The extensive number of requirements and the unclear status of “recommendations” will make a future evaluation of whether developers fulfilled their obligations difficult. The responsibility to assess the developers’ propositions of how they would reach the requirements and follow the recommendations lay with the expo company. This division of labour between municipal civil servants and the expo company’s employees could cater for quality in relation to expectations for the exposition, but who takes responsibility for quality in the long run, and for the future inhabitants’ home environment?
The model and use of land allocation criteria – so called “pledges” – could be discussed further (see Table 2). Devel-opers could make tactical decisions based on their plausible investment, costs and the benefits of their “pledge”. For exam-ple, a pledge to build passive or plus-energy houses would only generate one or two points respectively, while “winter gardens” would generate three points, and was also one of the most pop-ular pledges from the developers. Svensson and Manner (2018) claim that the land allocation “pledges” for passive houses are “very concrete and measurable” (p. 62) and consequently easy to follow up and assess, but this could be debated. Standards for passive houses have not been commonly agreed in Sweden, but are set by for example a Swedish national association – FEBY1
– or by a private company – IG Passivhus Sverige2. As a result,
developers could use different standards in Vallastaden to reach the pledge.
From the perspectives of the developers, the Vallastaden model made them less influential and they lost some of the 1. FEBY is an abbreviation for Forum för Energieffektiva Byggnader (Forum for En-ergy-Efficient Buildings), which is an association for Swedish housing sector actors. 2. IG Passivhus Sverige (IG stands for Intressegrupp, or “interest group”) manages the international passive house standard.
power they had come to view as “normal” (Svensson and Man-ner, 2018). Developers active in Linköping are used to close and continuous dialogue with the local council and civil servants, and land is usually allocated either through a tendering process to the highest bidder or directly to developers (Granath, 2016). Quality criteria are not normally used; only pricing, and the de-veloper with the highest bid can buy the land. In the Vallastaden case, when the detailed spatial planning became a competition for architects, developers were excluded from the process. As a consequence, the spatial planning process was quicker, but several of the major developers – who also have a large share of the market nationally – withdrew from the process, making space for less established and smaller developers (Svensson and Manner, 2018). However, the major developers were needed in order to reach the objective of a certain number of housing units for the expo, and they put pressure on the local council to change the detailed spatial plan. On the day before the decision by Linköping local council, the detailed spatial plan was revised to cater for the demands from the developers and to allow some bigger plots and developments along the local thoroughfare in Vallastaden. Along this road, one developer – but three differ-ent architects – was allocated land for blocks of flats that would fulfil the quality criteria of passive houses: the Garden House, the Glass House and the Wood House.
In retrospect, the regulatory power of the criteria – “pledges” – was relatively weak (Svensson and Manner, 2018). The selec-tion of criteria, their relative weight in relaselec-tion to each other, the maximum benefit for the developers (each “pledge” cor-responds to 1–8 points) and the connection to the overarching visions for the neighbourhood could have been dealt with more thoughtfully. Assessments and evaluations of all criteria will re-quire a substantial amount of work for Linköping Municipality, and it could be doubted that such resources would be available after the exhibition, which drained several organisations of en-ergy and staff members. The expo company was, for example, decommissioned in 2018. Still, for some developers, the criteria spurred interest in Vallastaden and commitment to the broad scope of the plans for the neighbourhood and exposition.
Conclusions
Alternative urban governance, defined in this paper as new governing spaces and coproduction (cf. Richardson et al., 2018), was possible in the Vallastaden case since it did not chal-lenge the existing order of the relationships between powerful stakeholders (cf. Palm, 2004; Magnusson, 2013). On the con-trary, the municipality-owned energy utility company could strengthen its position since resources were allocated to de-velop new ideas and implement innovations, such as the infra culvert. Linköping Municipality was also able to reinforce its existing legal and institutional powers and govern the planning and construction processes in alternative ways. Linköping Uni-versity became a stakeholder, partly because of the choice of location for the new neighbourhood – in the vicinity of the main campus – and partly because the vision – defined as Val-lastaden built on the foundations of knowledge, social sustain-ability and creativity – could benefit from collaboration with an institution perceived as a holder of all three areas. Since the planning of Vallastaden included several parallel processes, it is difficult to determine the influence of different stakeholders,
organisations as a challenging project comes to an end and they return to dealing with more common tasks.
The relationships between different stakeholders are in some ways similar to the situations during the Swedish “record years”, when an extensive modernisation of the built environment took place. Close collaborations between local councils and municipality-owned companies characterised that historical era, and in that sense were similar to the planning and con-struction processes of Vallastaden. Energy companies have pre-viously delivered prerequisites underground, in order for the development of the built environment to happen aboveground (cf. Magnusson, 2013).
The Vallastaden model includes ingredients from previous city district planning processes in Sweden and criteria-based governance (cf. Healey, 1997). The model has been described as mainly a model for planning and organisation, making the energy systems and the built environment invisible. In com-parison, the Hammarby Sjöstad model only included technical systems for recycling and renewable energy. To make the Val-lastaden model a tool to communicate internationally, infra-structure and resource use systems, like energy systems, could be included in the model and a model including organisational and socio-technical aspects could be scrutinised, developed and perhaps also used more broadly.
Regardless of what is included in the Vallastaden model or concept, the answer to the research question of how the concept was implemented is generally that it was top-down, where for-mal stakeholders and existing power networks maintained their influence over the energy system and the built environment in i.e. how ideas were generated and implemented. Similar ideas
resulted from different arenas, such as the workshops at the university, and Tekniska verken’s and the municipality’s dia-logue with citizens, but generally the model could be defined as top-down. The intention to include citizens in the process and facilitate housing for less resourceful groups – and that aspect of social sustainability – failed, partly because of the suc-cess of the project: transforming a less attractive location into a city district with relatively high property prices. Developers could be viewed as both winners and losers in the processes. In the planning process, developers lost some of their influence due to how the process was arranged by the municipality – an architectural competition for the detailed spatial planning and site plan – and the winning architecture company became an important stakeholder. At a later stage, developers managed to influence the decision of the local council on land allocation, and bigger, potentially more economically viable plots became available and attractive to major developers.
Individual civil servants, staff members and politicians have been pointed out as important for Vallastaden, rather than their organisations or project teams (Svensson and Manner, 2018). The lack of overarching organisational infrastructure was iden-tified as a barrier in the process. Some involved individuals be-came personally committed, enthusiastic about the vision and dedicated to finishing the project on time. This type of project might attract committed people, but also drains organisations of energy if resources are not available. The types of challenges typical of the Vallastaden project are not likely to be available often, so committed individuals might also choose to leave the
Table 2. Criteria for the second stage of the process (LMLA, 2013).
Criteria Definition
Architecture company One architecture company can design a maximum of three
buildings, and not two adjacent buildings. All detached houses will have different architects.
Architecture company – wild card Small and/or new companies
Activities and business Building premises on the ground floor in addition to what is
predetermined
Distribution of properties Building four or more different apartment sizes (rooms)
Energy requirements Building passive houses and plus-energy houses
Solar energy (from 2017) Solar panels for producing energy, more points for replacing
façades with solar panels
Residents’ participation Show a clear plan for the involvement of residents dwellers
in future projects
Labour market Involvement of people who are seen as being “outside”
the labour market for various reasons, such as the elderly, immigrants or people with difficult backgrounds
Winter gardens Creating a winter garden within the property
New form of tenures Such as condos or cooperatives
Low monthly rent for rental apartments Low monthly rent
Dividable apartments Build apartments which can vary in size and rooms
Wood construction techniques Building load-bearing construction out of wood
Creativity and playfulness Creative details which communicate creativity on the
outside
Social idea concept Points will be given to the actor who contributes the most
Evans J, Karvonen A and Raven R (eds.), 2016. The Experi-mental City. London: Routledge.
Fraker H. (2013) Hammarby Sjöstad, Stockholm, Sweden. In: The Hidden Potential of Sustainable Neighborhoods. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Granath, M. 2016. The smart city – how smart can “IT” be?: discourses on digitalisation in policy and planning of urban development. Diss. Linköping: Linköping Studies in Arts and Sciences.
Green, A. 2006. Hållbar energianvändning i svensk stads-planering: från visioner till uppföljning av Hammarby sjöstad och Västra hamnen. Diss. Linköping: Linköping University. (In Swedish.)
Harvey D. 1973. Social Justice and the City. London: Edward Arnold.
Haslum, J., Wahlqvist, F., Setterdahl, L and Sjölin, J., 2012. Idéprogram, LinköpingsBo2016. Linköping: Linköping Municipality. (In Swedish.)
Healey, P. 1997. Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Helmer, S. 2018. “23 days of expo in a minute”. Video
avail-able: https://www.vallastaden2017.se/expot/ (available 22/12/2018). (In Swedish.)
Hommels A. 2005. Studying obduracy in the city: Toward a productive fusion between technology studies and urban studies. Science, Technology, & Human Values 30 (3): 323–351.
Kling, A. 2017. Stadsplan Vallastaden in Arkitektur, Septem-ber 2017. (In Swedish.)
LCP, 2010. Översiktsplan för staden Linköping (Linköping comprehensive plan), 2010-06. Linköping: Linköping municipality. (In Swedish.)
LDSP, 2013. Detaljplan i Västra Valla för del av Intellektet 1 m.fl. (Vallataden): Kvalitetsprogram. (Detailed spatial plan for Vallastaden: Quality programme), 2013-06-05. Linköping: Linköping Municipality. (In Swedish). LMLA, 2013. Land allocation criteria 2013 –2016. Linköping:
Linköping Municipality. (In Swedish...)
Lovell H. 2004. Framing sustainable housing as a solution to climate change. Journal of Environmental Policy & Plan-ning 6 (1): 35–55.
Lovell H and Smith SJ. 2010. Agencement in housing markets: The case of the UK construction industry. Geoforum 41 (3): 457–468.
Magnusson, D. 2013. District heating in a liberalized energy market: a new order? : planning and development in the Stockholm region, 1978–2012. Diss. Linköping: Linköping Studies in Arts and Sciences.
Mlecnik, E. 2014. Which factors determine the success of strategic niche developments? Reflections from the emer-gence of a passive house network. Construction
Innova-tion, 14 (1), 36–51.
Movilla Vega, D. (ed.) 2017. 99 years of the housing question in Sweden. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Niskanen, J. 2018. Mainstreaming passive houses: a study of energy efficient residential buildings in Sweden. Diss. Linköping: Linköping Studies in Arts and Sciences. Okidoki architects (2017) Okidoki presenterar Vallastaden,
http://www.okidokiarkitekter.se/nyheter/5342/ [2018-12-28]. (In Swedish.)
the new city district. To make the picture more nuanced, we can conclude that developers lost some of their power in the process and a new kid on the block – an architectural company – became a key player and an important interpreter of the vision and spa-tial plan. With Vallastaden being mainly a positive experience for the municipality, it might be braver in the future and rearrange processes to be more inclusive for less resourceful stakeholders, such as citizens. The Vallastaden model enabled new and smaller developers to build, and the municipality must ask itself: How can we continue to make space for these developers and not de-pend on a few dominant developers?
Our conclusions are that, under the pressure of common chal-lenges such as housing shortages, local economic constraints and low carbon-emission goals, alternative urban governance con-cepts can emerge that provide long-term commitments and joint efforts across sectors and political party agendas. However, some developers, especially the municipality-owned companies, who were subject to political pressure, made investments that would not otherwise have been viable. Construction costs and the cur-rent building boom also meant that the flats were unaffordable for many citizens.
References
Björklöf, S. (1986). Byggbranschens innovationsbenägenhet: The building sector’s propensity for innovation : en studie om den svenska byggbranschens inställning till innova-tioner och branschens beredskap att hantera innovations-frågor. Linköping: Linköping Studies in Management and Economics. (In Swedish.)
Bulkeley H, 2013. Cities and Climate Change. London: Rout-ledge.
Bulkeley H, Castán Broto V and Edwards GAS (2015) An Urban Politics of Climate Change: Experimentation and the Governing of Sociotechnical Transitions. London: Routledge.
Byggvärlden (2015) Ny VD för Linköpingsexpo AB, https:// www.byggvarlden.se/ny-vd-for-linkopingsexpo-ab-88200/nyhet.html [2018-12-28]. (In Swedish.) Edwards, G. A. S. and H. Bulkeley. 2017. Urban Political
Ecologies of Housing and Climate Change: The ‘Cool-est Block’ Cont‘Cool-est in Philadelphia. Urban Studies 54 (5): 1126–1141.
Edwards, G. A. S. and H. Bulkeley. 2018. Heterotopia and the Urban Politics of Climate Change Experimentation. En-vironment and Planning D: Society and Space 36 (2): 350–369.
Ellegård, K. 2018. Interview. 16/05/2018.
European Commission; Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council – Ecodesign directive (EU 2009/125). European Commission; Directive of the European Parliament
and of the Council – Energy performance of buildings directive (EU 2010/31).
European Commission; Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council – Energy labelling regulation (EU 2017/1369).
European Commission; Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council – amending Directive 2010/31/EU on the energy performance of buildings, no. COM(2016) 765 final, Brussels; Nov 2016.
lokalt/ost/s-sager-nej-till-bomassa-i-linkoping (accessed 5 Jan 2019). (In Swedish.)
SVT 2014c. Presenterar nya stadsdelen i Linköping, Sveriges Television, den 15 november 2014. https://www.svt.se/ nyheter/lokalt/ost/presenterar-nya-stadsdelen-i-linkoping (accessed 5 jan 2019). (In Swedish.)
Swedish Agency for Public Management (SAPM) 2009. Vis-cous men: Follow-up of Swedish construction commis-sion. Stockholm: SAPM. (In Swedish.)
Swedish Construction Commission (SCC) 2002. Pull your-selves together men: competition, quality, costs and com-petence in the construction sector: report. Stockholm: SCC. (In Swedish.)
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) 2012. Effect of the investment programmes LIP and KLIMP. Stockholm: SEPA. (In Swedish.)
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) 2018. Swedish environmental objectives – Annual report 2018. Stockholm: SEPA. (In Swedish.)
Sydow, Å.V. (2004). Exploring local governance in urban planning and development: the case of Lindholmen, Göteborg. Diss. Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology.
Thoresson, J. 2015. Omställning – Tillväxt – Effektivisering : Energifrågor vid renovering av flerbostadshus. Diss. Linköping: Linköping University. (In Swedish.) Vallastaden, 2017. The city district: Energy efficiency with
smart infrastructure. https://www.vallastaden2017.se/ upptack/stadsdelen/ (available 22/12/2018). (In Swedish.)
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Swedish Energy Agency under grant number 46229-1. The authors are grateful for the con-structive feedback and insightful suggestions from the panel leader and anonymous reviewers.
Palm, J. 2004. Makten över energin: policyprocesser i två kommuner 1977–2001. Diss. Linköping: Linköping Stud-ies in Arts and Sciences. (In Swedish.)
Palm, J. and Wihlborg, E. 2013. Vallastaden växer fram: policy och planering för en ny stadsdel. Linköpings universitet: Perspektiv på tekniken. (In Swedish.)
Richardson, L., C. Durose, and B. Perry. 2018. Coproducing Ur-ban Governance. Politics and Governance 6 (1): 145–149. Schade, J., Wallström, P., Olofsson, T., & Lagerqvist, O. (2013).
A comparative study of the design and construction pro-cess of energy efficient buildings in Germany and Sweden.
Energy Policy, 58, 28–37.
Sjölin, J. 2011. Interview 9/11/2011.
Skog, K. 2017. Video with Karolina Skog – spring 2017. https://www.vallastaden2017.se/wp/custom/uploads/ LEX-0218-Karolina-Skog_minister_FINAL_170602.mp4 (available 22/12/2018). (In Swedish.)
SR, 2011. Stor satsning på ny stadsdel i Västra Valla., Sveriges Radio, den 21 november 2011. https://sverigesradio.se/ sida/artikel.aspx?programid=160&artikel=4814086 (ac-cessed 7 Jan 2019). (In Swedish.)
Svensk byggtjänst 2017. Från Vision till Inflyttning på 5 år. Hur gick det till? [podcast] Available at: https://sound- cloud.com/svenskbyggtj-nst/snaret37-fran-vision-till-inflyttning-pa-5-ar-hur-gick-det-till [Accessed 29 Dec. 2018]. (In Swedish.)
SVT, 2013. Socialdemokraterna hoppar av Bo2016, Sveriges Television, den 24 september 2013, https://www.svt.se/ nyheter/lokalt/ost/socialdemokraterna-hoppar-av-bo2016 (accessed 5 Jan 2019). (In Swedish.)
SVT, 2014a. Linköping flyttar bomässan till 2017, Sveriges Te-levision, den 3 februari 2014, https://www.svt.se/nyheter/ lokalt/ost/linkoping-flyttar-bomassan-till-2017 (accessed 5 Jan 2019). (In Swedish.)
SVT 2014b. S säger nej till bomässa i Linköping, Sveriges Television, den 18 mars 2014, https://www.svt.se/nyheter/
