At the beginning of the event, Liaison Manager of Urbaria Mikko Posti presented the contents of the book, which is divided to four main chapters: 1. Yhteisö ja kansalainen, 2. Katutila, 3. Suunnittelu, käyttö ja kontrolli, ja 4. Kaupunkiluonto ja katu. Under them, there are 23 articles from 34 academic writers.
Street as the symbol of modern life
Next Laura Kolbe, professor emerita of European history and an editor of the book came to the stage. Her opening words addressed the essence, history, and planning of streets. She summarized that street is a space, the core and symbol of urbanism, where we live, sense and appear. They are also a continuation of power. For example in Rome, the first consistently planned streets were created by the pope. Kolbe went through the phases of streets, which can be understood through “periodization,” where the trends of planning link to major events, such as the rebuilding after world wars. Kolbe also pointed out that planning of streets has mostly been traffic planning and in the Western world, the car is still the king of streets.
According to Kolbe, we struggle with how to modernize them despite historical buildings across the world in the present moment. Additionally, the street is a stage for dreams and wills: who is the street for? Who decides and who has the power? Kolbe highlighted that it is important to have this discussion. In any case, we can see layers, continuation, and transformation in the street space.
Street as a habitat for other species
Next the Coordinator of Urbaria Jussi Jännes held two panel discussions: “Who does the street belong to? To other species?” ja “Who does the street belong to? To all people?”
In the first panel, the Professor of urban biodiversity Ian MacGregor-Fors and Docent, university lecturer in urban ecosystem ecology Johan Kotze discussed the other species on the street. A large theme of the discussion was whether biodiversity belongs to streets. MacGregor-Fors hoped that we would have more philosophical discussion about what kind of biodiversity do we really need and want on streets. Kotze pointed out a common concern that increasing meadows increases ticks as well. MacGregor-Fors stated that on the other hand we need to think from the perspective of the species: sometimes they do not do as well in urban areas. For example, is it right to attract elks to the center of Helsinki? Additionally, according to MacGregor-Fors, the highest biodiversity in an area does not automatically make it better. For example, residential areas can have higher species richness than forests. Kotze reminded that high biodiversity requires a lot of management, otherwise the area will become similar to other areas overtime.
Next questions addressed what ecological research can tell us about how well we are managing cities, and what other benefits could it have. Both speakers told that certain species and species groups can tell about the quality of the environment with their presence, so they function as bioindicators. Furthermore, research can reveal easy and cost-effective ways of solving human-wildlife conflicts: in MacGregor-Fors’ study, also presented in the book, they found that certain trash bin types attract feeding (and mess-making) birds more. According to MacGregor-Fors, public discussion could move from increasing biodiversity to more into how we could live more smoothly with other species.
The speakers discussed that maybe we do not want ecosystems as natural as possible (with ticks) in cities, but instead something that is functional, looks natural and that we can enjoy. To the speakers, a dream street before anything would be usable and safe for humans, and there is no big solution for making streets better. However, if we do want to attract biodiversity such as birds, we can do so by, for example, planting trees that they favor.
Everyone’s street
In the second panel, the professor of urban theology Henrietta Grönlund, university lecturer of human geography Lotta Junnilainen, researcher in social sciences Georg Boldt, and Laura Kolbe discussed who does the street belong to.
The first question was about whether the street space is more limited than before. Kolbe stated that in northern countries, a street is public space by default, but for example, regulations limit activities. Boldt told that before, protests and also entertainment was more limited, for example in the 1960s in Kerava a ball on prayer Saturday brought police with water cannons to the place, because “licenses for entertainment” (hupilupa) which the ball required, were not given for prayer Saturdays. In that sense, streets are more unrestricted, but on the other hand according to Boldt, it is getting more private and commercial.
Grönlund pointed out invisible restrictions: for example, a hijab user must think when they can use the street, because of the risk of facing islamophobia. Kolbe added that on streets, especially in big cities abroad, there exists geography of fear and invisible urban knowledge: when can you use a street? According to Junnilainen, there are too little spaces for young people, and that young people, who visibly belong to ethnic minorities, feel unsafe because they get harassing calls on the streets. Therefore, it depends on who you ask whether streets are more restricted or not.
The next question was about controlling streets. Kolbe began with how planning has always been a way of controlling crime and violence. For example, the worker district of Puu-Kallio in Helsinki was seen as a threat, so its renovation was justified by “healing” it, so new, middle-class residents were brought in. Junnilainen added that political discussion has a lot of power. Speaking about the unsafety of streets translates to people’s minds, and then normally questionable political decisions such as camera surveillance pass more easily. She pointed out that recently the danger of streets was written to laws, because in the new law belonging to a criminal group makes punishment more severe, especially if crimes “threaten the safety of public spaces.”
Boldt added that the police often speak about illegal protests, even though they do not exist: there is only a duty to disclose, which is a relic from times when unrests were feared to provoke the Soviet Union. Increasingly protests are not announced beforehand, because they are held by movements which require coverage and publicity, even though disturbance. Additionally, according to Boldt, the police see the discloser to be responsible for the actions of all participants, so in case of consideration of pressing chargers, their personal data will become public.
The next question addressed the concept of street gangs, but the discussion quickly moved to other frames through which we see street dwellers. According to Kolbe, before class, gender and age defined how to behave and dress: upper class with hats, workers with caps. Even today we know what belongs to our role when we go outside onto the streets. Junnilainen added that there have always been groups who are seen as threats and to whom all societal problems condense into, as if controlling these groups would somehow make the world more understandable. Groups of young people have been a group like this even in 19th century, and in discussions people always yearn for a golden time 20 years back when problems did not exist.
Religion is also under control. Grönlund pointed out that dividing religion and culture is not possible, because religions are too interconnected with world views and actions of people. Even though striving for religion-free spaces often comes from good intentions and wanting inclusivity, at the same time it is supremacy of nonreligion view, which in particular hits minority religions.
Boldt told how in protests people with no political power get their opinions visible, which creates conflicts with people in power. Additionally, ever more the question is about what and how you can protest, even in countries considered constitutional states. For example, in the recent years in Great Britain, activists got a five-year sentence for planning to close a road. In Finland, peace activism has become more questioned, too.
The dream street of the panelists is not just a passageway, not a road for cars, but a space for people. They agree that there would be a lot of diverse, different-aged people and a lot of services reflecting the community instead of large chain shops. Boldt’s dream street would go back to Greek agora, which is a place to meet people and have democratic discussions without worrying about violations of rights. Therefore, the dream street is everyone’s street.
Warm thanks to speakers and participants!
More research and discussion on these topics and other street-themes can be found in Unelmien katu -book, which will be translated to English in the future.
Download the book (in Finnish) for free here:
Watch the recording of the publication event here (in Finnish except Panel I):