Abstract
One of the main findings in the study on social inequality and spatial segregationin seven European cities is that, in spite of the scale of social differences in thedifferent cities, a similar pattern of urban spatial development is evident. Thephysical pattern of area differentiation shows a strong spatial pattern of continuityin the location of advantaged and less advantaged neighbourhoods. In addition, aclustering of both advantaged and deprived neighbourhoods was observed. Thesame pattern of change appears both in London and Helsinki - cities that stand atopposite ends of the spectrum of social and spatial difference (BETWIXT i; McIntoshand Vaattovaara 2001).The spatial clustering of advantaged and more deprived neighbourhoods appearsboth in Helsinki and London, but the grounds for change are different. Are we stillfacing a similar future? The aim in this paper is to compare patterns of residentialdifferentiation in Helsinki and London. Thus, the differences and connectionsbetween social and spatial differentiation and segregation are elaborated. GIS andcensus data will be utilized to examine social and spatial developments. A twophasemodel for the background of the developments in the Helsinki area isintroduced, resulting in a formulation for a model for future developments inresidential differentiation in the Helsinki metropolitan area.
Highlights
One of the main findings in the study on social inequality and spatial segregation in seven European cities is that, in spite of the scale of social differences in the different cities, a similar pattern of urban spatial development is evident
I The findings are from a larger research project on segregation and social exclusion in seven European cities which is due to be completed and published by the end of year 2001
The trends that emerge from cities with regard to social inequality and spatial segregation can be manifold
Summary
There are two essential dimensions of difference when studying society: social and spatial (Vaattovaara 1998; Valkonen et al 1998). Hamnett (1994 and 1996), has provided a thorough critique of Sassen through his work on income and occupation in London He sees her proposal of an ‘hour-glass’ shaped occupational and income distribution, with its “shrinking supply of middle-income jobs”, as specific to the United States, where there is a large downgraded manufacturing and service sector staffed predominantly by immigrant and young labour. He sees Sassen as using the US context to apply the idea of real growth in top and bottom level occupations to all global cities. Somehow urban spatial differences are emphasised when “wrongly similar people cluster too heavily together” (Bäcklund 1999)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
