Everyday landscapes - the relationship between everyday life and place of residence

The traditional understanding of the relationship between town and country has been – and to some extent remains – that town and country are distinctive and diverse entities in the physical as well as psychological sense. However, the process characterizing contemporary urban development, including continued suburban development, the transformation from agriculture to recreational landscapes etc., pays testament to the withering distinction between urban and rural areas.
This blurring of the urban-rural distinction contributes to the creation of new urban landscapes, which have attained the character of network systems in which neighbourhoods, entire towns and the (increasingly urbanized) landscapes between them are part of an overall structure. At the same time, the extent of the urban network has become ever greater as a result of commuting over increasing distances, and its external borders have become increasingly diffuse. It is this disappearing distinction and diffusion that we are interested in grasping and understanding by studying the relationship between everyday life and where one chooses to reside.

The ‘Everyday Landscape’ research project focuses on understanding and studying the relationship between everyday life and how one chooses and uses one’s place of residence. In this approach, ‘place of residence’ covers the actual residence itself (form, architectural value etc.), as well as the physical location of the place of residence, i.e. area, city or country, residential area/neighbourhood etc. As such, conditions such as the image of the area (the signal effect), natural surroundings, cultural and social attractions, the form of the actual residence itself (physical appearance), public services, distance to jobs, institutions and recreational activities, infrastructure etc. attain significance in the understanding of the relationship between everyday life and place of residence.

We do not narrowly perceive ‘everyday life’ as being filled with routines and habits. Everyday life also consists of projects with associated strategies, which are to be seen in relation to the individual’s life situation: family and working situation, gender, age etc. Analytically, we choose to focus on the family in the examination of the relationship between place of residence and everyday life. This is due to the circumstance that we assume that family (life) plays a central role for the choice and use of the place of residence. Our approach to and understanding of the family is not that of “the traditional nuclear family”; rather, we see the family as consisting of everything from singles, unwed mothers with children/a child, couples without children and to couples with their own or ‘combined’/part-time children . When a place of residence is to be chosen and everyday life unfolds, the family’s priorities in relation to their situation (projects and strategies) play a central role.

Relevance

The relevance of the research focus of the project is first and foremost to be seen in relation to attaining insight regarding why and how families settle down in various parts of the network structure of the urban landscape. Which daily priorities and strategies determine the choice of the place of residence? How is the place of residence used on a daily basis? How does the social integration in the newly chosen place of residence unfold? And so on. The project will also examine how politicians and planners manoeuvre within and relate to this new urban landscape: how they attempt to maintain and attract certain types of families via various measures relating to housing policy and planning. Via knowledge regarding the priorities of certain types of families when choosing a new place of residence and knowledge about how municipalities strive to attract certain types of families, the research project can point out possible municipal strategies for action. This includes sketching the conditions that specific types of families emphasize when a given place of residence is chosen. In this manner, the project contributes to the development of the basis of knowledge for integrated, overall decisions regarding the urban development, which is the overriding purpose of the Centre for Strategic Urban Research.

Theoretical perspectives

Central theoretical concepts such as ‘everyday life’, ‘local identity’, ‘local understanding’, ‘place of residence’, ‘residential qualities’, ‘lifestyles’ and ‘housing preferences’ are used as the theoretical basis for the entire research project and for the four related sub-projects. They are all terms that can be used to study how different types of places of residence are attributed significance and meaning through the daily use of the place of residence; as well as how and why various families choose certain types of places of residence. In the first phase of the research project, these concepts will be developed and discussed, including a survey of recent related studies. Examples of such studies are Ærø, 2002, Gram-Hanssen, 2004, Marling, 2004, Pløger, 2002 & 2002b. The ambition is to develop a theoretical framework capable of encompassing these studies and approaches.

These efforts include using two theoretical fields that are coupled to one another and developed in dialogue with the fieldwork as the point of departure. This includes theories pertaining to ‘identity’, ‘life forms/lifestyle’, life strategies etc. (see among others Bourdieu, 1995, Jacobsen, 1999, Johansson & Miegel, 1992, Gram-Hanssen & Beck-Danielsen, 2004, Gram-Hanssen, 2004, Beck, 1997, Bauman, 2001), where the connection between working life, family life and social life are maintained as the point of departure.

Actual projects

1. sub-project: Migration/moving patterns
The first sub-project is a quantitative study of moves from concentrated areas to less concentrated areas. The purpose of this sub-project is to study where which types of families move.

2. sub-project: The life lived – use and understanding of the locality (internal perspective)
The common denominator for the projects in sub-project 2 is that the ‘place of residence’ perspective is regarded from an internal perspective via people living their everyday lives. The main question is why various types of families move to certain places. The internal perspective on the place of residence is studied by examining how the conceptions of ‘the good everyday life’ are expressed and how everyday life is lived at the place of residence in a number of selected case areas.

3. sub-project: The production of places of residence – planning “good everyday life” (external perspective)
This project involves closer examination of the planning policy perception/discourse of “the good everyday life” in the selected case areas. More specifically, it is an examination of how places of residence are presented as attractive to specific types of families. This includes consideration of socio-physical and aesthetic (e.g. architecture, location, pleasure) qualities, which are offered in an attempt at attracting (and retaining) certain types of families.

4. sub-project: Residential area culture/residential family forms
This project serves as an abstract and theoretical accumulation of the preceding sub-projects. It is therefore intended to function as a kind of synthesis of the entire research project. The pivotal point will be to examine the connection between internal and external perspectives on the selected places of residence (cases). 

History of the project

The program of the project was completed in the autumn of 2004. The different projects were elaborated and concretized at the end of 2004 and time schedules due to each project were worked out.  Furthermore the result of the first project – a pilot project – was discussed at this meeting. In the beginning of 2005 Louise Aner was involved as a PH.D student. In the spring of 2005 a Nordic seminar took place, and different Nordic researchers were invited to comment on the program, the pilot project and the program of the PH.D project. The group members have participated in Nordic and European conferences where the program and the results of the pilot project has been presented and commented.  

State of the art

The group has recently had a meeting where the projects once again were discussed and concretized. The different projects are all in their first stages. Some of the projects are developed further than others in terms of cases and theoretical framework/conceptions. 

Challenges

There are of cause many challenges but we have chosen to focus on only three. These challenges are at the same time themes that we would like to discuss at the thematic workshop (November, 22^nd). 

No 1: Inside and outside perspectives

We are using an analytical inside and outside perspective, concerning respectively the dwelling place experienced from inside by its inhabitants and users (a strong connection to Lefebvre/Shields and Massey – ‘discourses in space’) and the living place conceptualised and thought of from outside by planners: The outside perspective (once again strong connection to Lefebvre/Rob Shields – ‘discourses of space’). 

The questions are:

• Does it make sense to work with these perspectives separately? Do we need to work with this separation and what are the consequences of the separation?
• Are the qualities of the dwelling place to be seen relationally as produced both by outside ‘actors’ and inside ‘actors’?
• Do we in fact work with cases which are commuting between an inside and an outside perspective? And are they to be understood as interrelated being produced in an interaction between knowledge and understanding gained from outside and inside  (space/place interaction)

No 2: The knowledge production

To whom do we produce knowledge? The official aim of the project is to produce knowledge to local planners/local politicians as a planning tool to attract resource full families. The question is if this focus is too narrow? One could also imagine that the knowledge we are producing can be used by the families in order to (assist to) create ‘good places of living’ corresponding to their given needs. In this way our research could help the families to realise expectations and dreams related to their (new) place of residence.  Furthermore the statistical material - which is a part of the PH.D project – can be used to produce a social map: Where do different types of families move to considering income, education, work situation etc? 

No. 3: Clarification of concepts

The concept of ‘everyday life’ and ‘place’ are two central concepts. Both concepts have to be discussed continuously: How do we define everyday life according to other kinds of ‘fields’ like work, social and cultural life etc? How do we understand the relation between place and everyday life? Discussion of meaningful places in relation to everyday praxis, everyday use and related discourses is essential here.