Koti keskellä kaupunkia : Keskusta lapsiperheen asuinalueena, esimerkkeinä Tukholma ja Helsinki

Families with children have traditionally moved to suburbs. In the last 20 years a modest counter process has however been recognized. Families with an urban lifestyle stay in the city centres. This study looks at the phenomenon through two cases, Stockholm and Helsinki. In the first case it has already been observed that the city centre has grown in popularity among families with children. Therefore it serves as a basis for the study and as well as a point of comparison. Stockholm’s city centre is expanding as new neighbourhoods have been built and are being planned. In the city centre of Helsinki the building of two large neighbourhoods for 30 000 inhabitants will start in a few years. The first aim of the study is to look closer at what has really happened in the city centre of Stockholm, why families choose to live there with their children and how the City of Stockholm has reacted to the change. The main sources of information are secondary sources, statistics and interviews with planners, politicians and experts in the field. The main object is to look at the situation in the city centre of Helsinki. Can a preference for urban residential environments be observed in Helsinki? What are the reasons for a family to choose the city centre as a living place? How does the everyday life of a family in the city centre appear? How are these families taken into account in the planning of the city? The main sources of information here are statistics, interviews with dwellers in the neighbourhood Kruununhaka and interviews with planners. In Stockholm the birth rate has grown constantly during the 2000s and is highest in the city centre. Some of the families still move elsewhere, but many of them do not. One of the most important reasons for living in the city centre is short working distances which give working parents more time with their children. Another reason is a preference of an urban, active lifestyle. Families prefer to live close to everything, childcare, schools, shops and entertainments. The popularity of the city centre among families with children has taken politicians and planners by surprise. Helsinki has not experienced a baby boom like Stockholm. However the negative changes in the birth rate have been more modest in the central areas than in the suburbs. Statistics show, that many families move away from the city centre as the children grow. Families who stay in the city centre especially appreciate closeness to public and private services and good public transportation which means that they are not dependent on using the car. Further they find that the city centre has a tolerant climate and is a safe and beautiful place to live in. The families enjoy the social life of the neighbourhood and feel that it makes a good climate to raise children in. However they are concerned with traffic safety and the lack of stimulus in the playgrounds of the neighbourhood parks. Two large neighbourhoods with homes for about 30 000 inhabitants are now planned in the former Port Districts in the city centre of Helsinki. The other one, Jätkäsaari has been planned to become an attractive alternative for families with children. Traffic safety has been one of the main objects for the planning. The other, Kalasatama, has been planned to attract all groups in society.

Trade Blocs and the Cold War : The CMEA and the EC challenge, 1969-1976

The coherence of the Soviet bloc was seriously tested at the turn of the 1970s, as the Soviet Union and its allies engaged in intensive negotiations over their relations with the European Communities (EC). In an effort to secure their own national economic interests many East European countries began independent manoeuvres against the wishes of their bloc leader. However, much of the intra-bloc controversy was kept out of the public eye, as the battle largely took place behind the scenes, within the organisation for economic cooperation, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA). The CMEA policy-making process vis-à-vis the EC is described in this study with reference to primary archival materials. This study investigates the negotiating positions and powers of the CMEA member states in their efforts to deal with the economic challenge created by the progress of the EC, as it advanced towards the customs union. This entails an analysis of the functioning principles and performance of the CMEA machinery. The study traces the CMEA negotiations that began in 1970 over its policy toward the EC. The policy was finally adopted in 1974, and was followed by the first official meeting between the two organisations in early 1975. The story ends in 1976, when the CMEA s efforts to enter into working relations with the EC were seemingly frustrated by the latter. The first major finding of the study is that, contrary to much of the prior research, the Soviet Union was not in a hegemonic position vis-à-vis its allies. It had to use a lot of its resources to tame the independent manoeuvring of its smaller allies. Thus, the USSR was not the kind of bloc leader that the totalitarian literature has described. Because the Soviet Union had to spend so much attention on its own bloc-politics, it was not able to concentrate on formulating a policy vis-à-vis the EC. Thus, the Soviet leadership was dependent on its allies in those instances when the socialist countries needed to act as a bloc. This consequently opened up the possibility for the USSR s allies to manoeuvre. This study also argues that when the CMEA did manage to find a united position, it was a force that the EC had to reckon with in its policy-making. This was particularly the case in the implementation of the EC Common Commercial Policy. The other main finding of the study is that, although it has been largely neglected in the previous literature on the history of West European integration, the CMEA did in fact have an effect on EC decision-making. This study shows how for political and ideological reasons the CMEA members did not acknowledge the EC s supranational authority. Therefore the EC had no choice but to refrain from implementing its Common Commercial Policy in full.