Abstract
Formal spatial planning procedures tend to neglect the importance of socio-cultural elements that are inherently present as part of 'soft infrastructure' and are constituted from traditions, lifestyles, wishes, and the routines of individuals that form a local community. In contrast, the concept of cultural sustainability is closely linked with the socio-cultural heterogeneity of a local community. The inability of the formal spatial planning system in Slovenia to adequately engage with the social wishes and resistances of residents is highlighted in situations involving problematic confrontations between the members of the dominant 'common culture' and marginal groups. Two cases from Ljubljana are presented: the stigmatization of the Fužine neighbourhood and the problematic of mosque construction. The cases illustrate that the 'majority' of residents tend to perceive many subcultural representations in space as foreign, non-indigenous elements that could disrupt the everyday routine in a local community. They show how the deficiencies of the current spatial planning system in Slovenia are unable to address challenges posed by contemporary society's cultural, social, and economic transformations and can work quite the opposite way – by increasing the complexity (and level of difficulty) for possible implementation of measures supporting cultural heterogeneity in planning practice.
Highlights
Sustainability, culture and spatial planning Spatial planning is too often understood as a ‘values free’ or even ‘technical’ exercise based on precise instruments, skills, and mechanisms that support decisions for interventions in space
Deficiences of current spatial planning procedures Postmodern approaches to spatial planning advocate for the convergence of ‘soft’, socio-cultural factors and the formal system of spatial planning
Conflicts are a characteristic of any urban system and should be considered as a disruptive force and as an important agent of change or a mechanism of adaptation for formal spatial planning systems, which are incapable of self-regulation in today’s hyper-complex world
Summary
Sustainability, culture and spatial planning Spatial planning is too often understood as a ‘values free’ or even ‘technical’ exercise based on precise instruments, skills, and mechanisms that support decisions for interventions in space. The concept of individual cost-benefit analysis is an important mechanism that can explain the person’s apparently irrational behavior, that is, why individuals oppose decisions made by a formal spatial planning system It shows that physical space always functions as a social category and that the effectiveness of spatial planning is, at its very base, dependant upon the ‘social construction of reality’ (Berger & Luckmann 1988), which is the result of a complex intermingling of physical circumstances and social interests, needs, and wishes. Sanctions are usually visible only when the individual is not sufficiently synchronized with the local context and some sort of designated transgression from dominant norms and habits occurs or is perceived as likely to occur
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 call
