Life in urban sprawl Hannes Palang Tallinn University

Life in urban sprawl Hannes Palang Tallinn University, Estonia

Suburbanisation 2000 -2010 • Modest in 1990 s, intensive in 2000 s • on lands having other focus • Attracts younger people with higher income • Studied mostly from demographic point of view, not landscape

Four key issues • how the newcomers adapt to the existing structures (as landscape can never be “built from the scratch”); • in what way do the patterns created by the two strategies differ from each other; • is it possible to judge whether one of them is closer to the traditional landscape than the other; • in what way are the traditions sustained in these new landscapes.

What am I about? • What is remembered? – Structures – Knowledge of the past • Who is happy? • Outsider as a researcher • Insider as a local inhabitant

Two strategies for place making • One group opts for ready-made solutions, i. e. , they buy homes with finalized landscaping. • Another group starts shaping the land according to their own ideas, visions and understanding of beauty, sustainability and stewardship.

The outcome – 2 approaches Ready-made environment Vernacular approach

Kangru - a former military area

Motivations • • Municipality wanted income Developers wanted money New inhabitants wanted nature „former locals“ stood by

Kiili municipality Population 5000 4500 4182 3944 4000 3617 3500 3224 2854 3000 2500 2000 4310 1699 1781 1812 1828 1875 1920 1994 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2146 2331 2554 1500 1000 500 0 2001 2002 Population 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Outcome • Municipality got income, but also problems • Developers got their money and left problems to the municipality • New inhabitants got their home, but also everyday problems • „former locals“ praise the changes

So how does the landscape remember? • Structures remind the previous; the current system allows it, the soviet one did not. • The people don’t want to remember • rapid change and adaptation have been the rule rather than an exception in Estonia

Comparing 1970 s and 2000 s • In 1970 s rural people moved to towns and took along their rural practices. • In 2000 urban people go contryside and carry urban practises there. • Compare with colonial landscapes of New Zealand or Argentina • How can you quantify?

Some more conclusions • In 1970 s, people used their own knowledge and hints by neighbors • In 2000 s, fashion, leitbilder, examples run the show • In 2000 s – alien plants; no knowledge of local differences; lawn and flowers instead of vegetables and apple trees • In 2000 s, boundaries depart from ownership patterns – patchwork planning • Globalised visions? • Let land not go waste.

Thank you for your attention!