Half a Trojan horse? Reflections on Stockholm at Large 2

Jonas R Bylund

Caution: This is a draft. References are not complete and the language may be incomprehensible.

Stockholm at Large 1 (SAL 1) was an exhibition that drew a large audience in the fall 2001. The high number of visitors was quite unexpected since the theme of the event was urban planning and development: what to do in Stockholm the next thirty years or so. Produced and hosted by Färgfabriken in their old paint production plant and former Nobel Industries' machine–gun factory in Liljeholmen. In November 2002 the sequel Stockholm at Large 2 (SAL 2) was due. 1

First of all I would like to congratulate the producers of the SALs for this commendable initiative. As an event it almost begs to be situated. That is why I would like to problematize it for the sheer reason that it seems to be such an exceptional happening in the Swedish capital's planning and general development. It is performing in every possible sense of the word.

Why is this exhibition a fascinating phenomenon? Firstly, as far as I know it is unprecedented in the history of Stockholm urbanism. There are probably similar events in other cities, but the space–time for this text is not enough to map and compare. And to what use? Every mapping is a study of its own and the comparison would only show what you knew from the outset – that there are similarities and differences between the phenomena. What is interesting, in this case, is the existential dimension: how it comes into being and the efforts to keep it alive.

Secondly, because it is happening, or happened recently, with some success and I am really curious on the question how influential it could become. SAL operates in the Stockholm disposition and produce visions and interpretations of its reality. So the question is how it spawns other (new) objects–spaces and facts–realities. In other words, how far can SAL 1 and 2 reach? 'Reach' is here taken as extending its network and therefore topology of influence: how powerful it could become. These are questions that I suspect I cannot answer yet, just give an outline of how to close in on this phenomenon.

'Without networking nothing moves!'

Banal but true as this heading is, my suggestion is that SAL could be conceptualized as a Trojan horse. What was the appetizer behind the original Trojan Horse? That the owner of this horse would be invincible. Instead it broke Troja from within. To take on the role of a Trojan horse proper is a subversive and attack oriented move. This is not the case here, what SAL wants to infiltrate is not what it wants to destroy.

SAL is rather half–a–Trojan horse, because it is inclusive and the other actor–network(s) are not seen as enemies to disarm, more as targets to conquer – i.e. to open up networks for alternatives or new ideas. The semi–Trojan horse as a figure of thought points at the need to situate oneself – for entrepreneurs as well as for revolutionaries – among the fairly stabilized networks and relate to the actors operating in the field you want to operate in. In this case it is the institutions of urban planning in the city and region of Stockholm.

I hope I haven't promised too much in this introduction, it is a common enough mistake. The text is, in its present state, more for 'insiders' than introducing the subject. It does not exhaust examples nor connectivity in the Stockholm setting. It builds upon documents surrounding the SAL 1 and 2, and some participant–observation in workshop sessions in SAL 2, and normal visiting observation of the SAL 1.

Stockholm quite subjectively reflected

In my files of notes I found the following piece: "While the international media depicts Stockholm, not without grounds, as one of the primary competitors to Silicon Valley , as one of the spearheading localities for the information communication industry – 'das digitales Volksheim' (Der Spiegel) and a Newsweek frontpage shows the city port–side; while the state minister opens the parliament year by, among other things, stating that mass unemployment now is history and that there is not enough people in Sweden; while Stockholm planners and politicians agree that the region is booming with some 20,000 in–migrating per year; I still have to give the homeless change for coffee and see drug–addicts shooting up in the late–night commuter train reaching the suburbs." When I wrote it two or three years ago there was still that booming feeling about Stockholm. Then the air went out of the IT–balloon.

As I visit Stockholm today some of the features are still there: the homeless; people with drug–problems, from the least visible in the clubs to the most visible in the streets; and the newcomers do not seem to be fewer than over the last decade. And the ridiculous cues for appartments, or the prices for the condos, resulting in a black market in rent–contracts and many living (secretly because the landlords do not like it) in third– or fourth–hand. Of course these living conditions astonishes people from other European cities. The winter 2003 the street–paper Situation Sthlm had a 'commercial' running on a few places, saying that a conservative politician in Stockholm wanted to forbid begging on the streets because tourists got such a bad image of the city…

Stockholm has left the welfare state self–image of solidarity and social security. The image nowadays is a greatly polarised city or region with forced as well as chosen segregation and a wide spectrum between 'the haves' and 'the have–nots'. The conditions, statistically, shows what can be found in almost any other contemporary European or Western city. Stockholm has its specific topography and history, but commonalities to continental cities are not lacking at all: dreams and visions versus harsh realities of competition over resources.

For me, as having experienced Stockholm both from the suburban and 'Stockholm proper' perspective, and even if I am academically interested in the theme, the Stockholm planners in action was curiously invisible, as if they were hiding somewhere in the wings. Maybe this triggered my interest in the planning and public representation/empowerment questions. Like the case of Berlin's Stadtforum where planning at least steps out on the stage of the public sphere (although not giving any defining power away anyway). I think this invisibilty should be contrasted with David Harvey's verdict more than a decade ago:

As the scale of urban systems has exploded, and as they have become increasingly networked into global systems, planning has become more fragmented and piecemeal. At the same time, there has been a kind of imaginative collapse: what was once driven by vision and energy is now drained of affect. The utopian collapsed into the banal. We do not plan the ideal city, but come to terms with the 'good enough' city. (Harvey 1989: 316)

This is connected to the general level of sophistication in urban planning today. Or maybe more to the point: how sophisticated really? Urban planning and development in Stockholm has resources to map, to do cartography and envision urban design, and it has to be sophisticated because of all the checks and balances, all the interests that has to be weighed against others when deciding what to do with this entity we call the city. But in Stockholm I had the feeling they were anyway lagging behind rather than plan ahead. Still the planners and politicians sees the region as growing, maybe not the wished for economical growth but certainly growing and attracting people and ideas. And precisely this is what the SAL producers have given some thought and space for others to formulate their thoughts on this situation.

Size and Complexity

As a reflection on my own understanding of the Stockholm condition and its urban specialists I present my favourite slogan concerning this city. I also threw it out in one seminar session–group at SAL 2 and it made intuitive sense according to the group leader, if not reason: Stockholm is big enough to be too small.2

What I intend to say with this is that there is a breaking point in the spatial size and density of a built area, and Stockholm still has to come to terms with its urbanity and leave the small–town mind–set behind. To acknowledge heterogeneity: e.g. suddenly segregation becomes an acute problem, but something that was already there because of uneven spatial qualities, it was 'built in' so to speak (see Lilja no date; Molina 2001).

Scott Lash has described or presented a way of understanding the understanding of the city as sublime in the Kantian sense. As a contrast to the beautiful – 'Hellenic' in its 'representability in the imagination and the harmony of faculty' – the sublime is an 'Hebraic mode' in its 'darkness and invisibility': "The object here is so overwhelming that it cannot at all be represented even imaginatively in any sort of graven image." (Lash 1996: 91) And Lash argues that the city, at least in the last hundred years, has that sublime quality to it:

In judgements of the sublime we are overwhelmed by complexity and movement, in the sense that the imagination and understanding are overwhelmed by Kant's mountain. Similarly the turn–of–the–century [i.e. 20th century to 21st] vastness of urban growth in the likes of Berlin and a number of cities, the chronic disturbance of movement create the sort of overload Simmel mentioned that disrupts and evade our categories. The same could be said about the contemporary city. Only there is however a major difference with contemporary cities: their infrastructure is no longer primarily material, but instead informational. (ibid: 94)

Could it be that every representation of the contemporary city or region always comes short of that characteristic – unless it is as sublime, and then shoved into the realm of art and not science or scientifical knowledge? Well, nobody seemed surprised when the art exhibition company–entrepreneurs Färgfabriken – except their collegues in the art–business perhaps – started to mingle with urban development.

The inherent problem in conceptualizing the city is that, in the modern practice or the tradition of modern planning, you search for an overall comprehensive view. To capture the city as an object with definite characteristics. And then suddenly find it paradoxical or contradictory. Because in planning practice (the everyday life of the tribe of planners and urban specialists) you can only follow the effects of and manage the different networks and societies (in Tarde's sense as well as Durkheim's) that the city is made out of.

In the Lefebvrian jargon it would be to stare oneself blind on the representations of space, and having trouble making the representational space and spatial practice graspable while at the same time, in practice, effecting precisely those spaces and conditions. The city then becomes a bit like the bubbly wallpaper syndrome: you press at one point and a new bubble unexpectedly turns up somewhere else.

In other words: the city is complex, no one denies that, but urban specialists has a taste for trying to transform it to be merely complicated.3 SAL adresses this syndrome as well, when it tries to confront and sort out the complexity of the task at hand – Stockholm's future – by provocing ruptures in the usual way of thinking about this particular place. Needless to say, the communication among the gathered actors sometimes misses precisely these track–changes.

The 'Stockholm Model'

I am not sure that this is a common notion in the field of urbanism surrounding Stockholm. I have heard it being used by civil servants. The Stockholm Model – alternatively the Swedish Model – as a practice is strongly consensus oriented negotiations between the public administration and the building/entrepreneurial–industrial context. This way of running the Society was perpetuated in the Social Democrat wellfare–state fo the People's Home (see Hall 1998: 873). The conglomerate of these actors make up a strong interest in the wider group of urban specialists. The Stockholm Model is built upon the few big actors on the scene that can excercise power to stabilize buildings and spatial formations.

Urban specialists, this term requires an explanation. In planning the contemporary city the skills and input needed is not exclusively delivered by the professional planner. It never was, though the self–image of modern planning held that as an ideal situation. Because, "…the boundary between planners and related professionals (such as real estate developers, architects, city council members) is not mutually exclusive; planners don't just plan, and nonplanners also plan." (Campbell & Fainstein 1996:2) There is a lot of information flowing among the people professionally producing space.

For now, let me suggest that urban specialists are, as social category, fairly mixed – a conglomerate of competences and interests with more than a few least common denominators in terms of interpretation or filtering of 'reality'. Does this loose category explain more when put in use than the separation according to education and other social categories when we deal with the professionalized production of space? I think so. SAL is a perfect example of the experienced need to network these competences and tie them together around a focus. These various perspectives are needed to keep track on such a sublime entity as the city. And SAL 2 tries to include and empower other actors. Of course discourses and counter discourses build up and starts to move the actors. This is exactly what is meant by 'reaching' – the power to excite and to define what is to be done, what kind of spaces this larger (more extended network) of urban specialists is supposed to produce.

Here is a short summary of the potential urban specialists in the Stockholm setting: The Stockholm Real Estate and Traffic Administration (GFK), the Stockholm Planning Administration (SBK), the Stockholm Business Administration (SNK), the politicians, the Skönhetsrådet, the builders (very few and could be characterized as a cartel), the Environmental Administration, the lobbying organisations such as City i samverkan, the Royal KTH, the Stockholm School of Planning at Stockholm University, etc.

SAL 2 and the urban specialists

SAL 2 tries to gather a certain kind of opinion–makers, though sometimes in conflict with one another. Through these experts or specialists saying 'we are society (samhället)', and avoiding demands on the public sector to serve solutions on a plate. Instead it is about taking charge over producing visions and alternaitves – producing representations of future Stockholms. Even if the SAL takes pride in inviting 'normal' citizens it is still very much about experts working things out.

Why is this gathering interesting to problematize? Because in the gathering of urban specialists and offering a forum, this resembles what a patient organisation fighting against orphan genetic diseases is doing in France: they actively start to formulate research questions and starts industries to pursue them instead of waiting for the 'white collars' to come up with a solution (Latour [2001] 2003:3). To make this point a short interlude on a general fallacy in understanding innovations and even collective political and material practice. The fallacy is the 'trickling down' theory of scientific influence:

[F]rom a confined centre of rational enlightenment, knowledge would emerge and then slowly diffuse out to the rest of society. The public chose to learn the results of the laboratory sciences or remain indifferent to them, but it could certainly not add to them, dispute them, and even less contribute to their elaboration. Science was what was made inside the walls where white coats were at work. Experiments was undergone by animals, materials, figures and softwares. Outside the laboratory borders began the realm of mere experience – not experimentation. (Latour [2001] 2002:2)

Somewhat generalized the Swedish Social Democrats have cultivated such a trickle–down image of the formally institutionalized society (samhället as colloquially understood in Swedish) as the experts and innovators that delivers these services of maintaining the world–order. In Stockholm the technocrats and social engineers of holding the city together through planning and the resulting fair spread of wellfare. Now they try to correct this by opening up for privatizing, thereby falling more in to the neo–liberal categorization slot in political categorization. (But of course, there was some bitter conflict between Social Democrat government and right–wing led Stockholm city hall in the last years of the nineties over how far to privatize public service providers.)

The thing is: Collective experiments is not even needed, they are already here, they were always here. Functionalism and Modernistic planning was a giant experiment set up in the midst of everyday lives, not behind the walls of the laboratory – society was and is the laboratory, there's no other way since we have to try things out. And the same goes for the trends in European and Western planning for the last thirty years (A21, empowerment, public participation etc.). And what does the Swedish Planning and Building Code (PBL) say? It states mandatory exhibitions of plans and that comments or suggestions made by the public should be sent to the authorities in written.

So there is no inevitable logic about that SAL 1 was conceived as an open samtidslaboratorium, as if the SAL could claim 'we have gone forward and we can now see with open eyes'. It is more the financial entrepreneurial courage to push this laboration to the front in the public sphere, where it actually belongs but has had a problem of establishing itself (I put it this way to avoid conspiracy–theoretical jargon). It had a conscious agenda of inviting the public to add and take part, 'dispute them' and 'contribute to their elaboration'. In the printed papers presenting SAL 2, there are (if a selected contingency) comments made by visitors to the SAL 1.

Thereby it is legitimate to analyze its and SAL 2's visionary and rotavator–in–the–top–soil activity as a call for collective experimentation. As a response for a need to create a forum for translations. As the social engineering and localizer (zone–ing!) laboratory modern planning always ways and not letting go of the belief in 'experts' to solve the complex problem–bundles of the contemporary city. But even if SAL is sees itself as a fire–starter for the visionary bonfire, this institution then becomes a producer of meaning and experts on their own (the NSBK is a good example) because that is still the only way to sell it to the more powerful networks in charge of the city.

There is also a connection here to Olsson's teaching at Nordplan 1977–1997. Nordplan, as it turned out, could be seen as a laboratorium as well, but – from the commissioning politicians at least – framed in the trickling down modus or expectations. Although it started to present findings that weren't asked for (see Olsson 2002; Olsson 1996). SAL is not the dangerous, at that time at least, question 'why and how do we plan?', but the more 'constructive' in the eyes of the urban specialist and practitioners 'what do we have to plan?'. It is as radical – meaning 'to the roots' – but not the philosophical critical radicalness of Olsson's Nordplan that the 'scientific' modern planning couldn't swallow, more the grassroots and giving voice, acting as messenger, a delegation for catalysing issues to be dealt with – in other words to translate the setting into suggestions for planners and politicians.4

The translation

What is being translated?

The producers of SAL states: "We care about our own and the society's [samhällets] ability to plan something sensible for them [i.e. the current and future Stockholmers]." (SAL 2 Programme; emphasis added) That Stockholm according to the current prognoses will grow with about 600,000 people over the next thirty years is taken as a challenge and opportunity to overhaul Stockholm planning praxis. If this growth is not well–planned the current and future Stockholmers wont get a good city: "It's as easy as that." (SAL 2, p. 2). As a focusing lens the translation is then to crystallize opinions and perspectives, a fair amount of ad–lib and open–minded and produce something that, whatever comes out (this is truly experimental), will have force and re–ignite the Stockholm planning scene. Two themes can be identified to the rhetoric of SAL: the crisis theme and the excitment theme.

SAL uses the crisis–theme to cultivate a distrust in the city's planning authority and the city hall's visions – rightly or wrongly is not really significant, it is about fostering a crititcal spirit. By this theme Stockholm is opened up to be defined, redefined and then reshaped into something benevolent instead of the monstruous place – if left to the politicians and planners – the city is headed towards: the needs of the thousands who will be 'out of place' and the the already segregated ones. To take command over the perimeters for development.

In SAL 1 they concluded that everybody, from politicians over big developers to the inhabitants themselves, agreed upon that there was a need for a systems check and new visions for a better result. And a formiddable task: to get some directions on what Stockholm could look like in the future, the investigation was focused on what city the Stockholmers wanted. Therefore SAL 1 became – in the eyes of the producers – an 'independent' scene were participants could state their opinions without necessarily having to take sides.

In the texts the producers mostly uses 'we' instead of 'Stockholmers'. It is rhetorical build–up of SAL as a spokesperson, a representing entity, a delegation. This associates SAL as being the Caring Citizen and at the same time channelling the voice of the very same. Also directed as a wake–up call to precisely this group – who should be alarmed! – constituted by anyone, only they have to be that caring citizen in person, in private. SAL is thus a delegation with the self–assumed mission to get the parts – all the different, big and small in terms of power – interests to start communicating with one another: 'to involve the public in what is to come, to speak on the home ground and to speak to a surrounding world.' (SAL 2, p.2)

The second theme connects to the claim that Stockholm is truly exciting and the different reasons for different people motivates their will to live in a city. This is the urban romance.

One example. SAL 1 echoes the Futurist understanding of urbanity: metropolitan areas needs a different way of conceptualising places than the Swedish tradition offers, because we now live in a world whos very essence is change, and change in movement, communications and relations. SAL defined the problem of the Swedish tradition as the habit of planning bruksorter (industrial communities) with overly determined structures and functional spaces. The consequence of this practice are suburban isolated islands surrounding Stockholm. So the unfinished character of every city – and, I would add, of anything you could possibly think of to plan – has to be acknowledged as a favourable condition full of possibilites, not as something to work against. SAL puts the finger on the existentialism of urbanism and planning when it proclaims: this is Sisyphos' work, like it or not. To flesh out this rhetoric SAL mobilized more or less renowned media personalities to write small pieces on their experience of this exciting urban order in other (real) big–cities around the world.

Even more to the romantic point is Andersson's (co–producer and teacher at KTH) diagnosis of 'a national urban deficiency': "The Swedish culture is not an urban culture." (SAL 1, 4–5) Stockholm is the only big city or metropolitan area in Sweden, he proclaims, with a strange lack of urbanity or urban spaces – although the demand for such urban spaces is precisely what attracts people from the other parts of Sweden. Although Andersson is really polemical against the amount of green–spaces in Stockholm, it is clear that SAL has to produce (or provoke?) a remedy to this condition, as it also furthers segregation in that attractive spaces locks the 'have nots' in 'ghettoes' in the hierarchy of degrees of urbanity.

Into what?

SAL is really trying to grasp everything, from gritty politics, over hardcore economical questions and architectonics–aesthetics of place, place marketing to the right to the city and the sweet ideals of citizen empowerment.

Hence a holistic perspective and an inclusive approach is established. SAL 2 breaks the two themes, with all their spreading sub–themes, down into five headings or lines for 'visioning'. Five headings that were to be brewed in the seminars – further and re–translated through the actors gathered. If we take the strategic metaphor further here, we could say that this translation constitutes the wood–frame of the polemical horse (SAL 2, p. 3–4):

1. New focus: social needs, economical reality and the questioning of holy cows.

2. Dynamic urban development: relational city building.

3. The need for social integration vs. green structures: case–studies.

4. Systems, finance, cost efficiency

5. Vision Stockholm

And in the workshops – one occasion for each heading with parallell workshops after hearing lectures from specialists – the method of brainstorming and open stage was made the rule. The sessions were arbitrarily filmed and but documented by by–sitting journalists, all presentations were filmed. The documentation was used in the following public exhibition to present the findings of SAL 2 as a process. The visitors could then comment upon the session discussions and presentations. (Sadly, I had no time to visit the exhibition but this is what I've heard.)

Example: SAL 2 is evidently focused on housing. As the poster and front page of the printed paper suggests: a photo of a note saying "Wanted: dwelling in Stockholm. We are a gang of people (at least 75,683) who wants a place to live in." To this focus it is interesting to note that in several texts around SAL 2 the producers tries to give the term gentrification a positive tone, as something that is needed in Stockholm but there is no space for it. They are interested in the processes that are entailed in gentrification, this mobility or change – like ventilation – is lacking in Stockholm, which is then seen as a bit too static and stuck in discursive as well as physical mobility.

So the challenge or the translation ends up two–step: first, challenging the 'establishement' to open their minds and offering them visions (the visionary never made it any different). Second step, translating these visions into pragmatics to challenge the establishement to operationalize them (because SAL is not unaware of how politics works).

Allies in a transparent horse

SAL 2 is produced by Färgfabriken in co–operation with SBK and KTH, sponsored by Skanska and Alcro–Beckers, and then there is a load of co–operation partners.

For now, the most interesting ally is SBK. There is a direct connection to SBK 2030, the commission that SBK got from the City Planning Committee to start developing – describing how to – visions and strategies out of the Stockholm Comprehensive Plan (SÖP99) and in the timeframe until the year 2030. This visioning activity is compressed into three items: to describe 1) how a growth of 150,000 inhabitants could look like; 2) what infrastructural investments would be needed; 3) how a social, economical and ecological sustainable urban develpment can be achieved (SBK 2030). As SBK is a 'strong' ally for SAL 2, this trace leads to the statements in SÖP99 on what the city wants and what perspective they have on the future development.

One reason for SBK to be an ally could be stated by the following quote. On building in Stockholm the SBK–boss Ingela Lindh commented that the history doesn't end because of the 'depression' (lågkonjunktur) and that Stockholm will continue to grow:

–The whole of the 1990s was a big no. There was empty appartments and no planning was allowed. If we'd kept a cool head and continued planning we would've been able to build today. (Quoted in DN A10, 2002–11–15.)5

Another is the comment a planner from SBK made during SAL 2, on how many citizens that usually appears at detail/local plan and SÖP99 public exhibitions according to the PBL (in comparison to the number of inhabitants in Stockholm not very many) and the number of visitors at SAL 1 (around 23,000). SBK really wants to be in dialogue with the citizen.

A research agenda to follow SAL further?

As a final part I will put some questions to the fore. My proposition is that the samples above would be very interesting to follow further and take into account other domains than the discursive. Hence an ethnography – and perhaps some participant participation – of SAL, of what possible effects and influences it really has in the Stockholm urbanistic setting and production of space. The questions below might repeat some of the discussions above and remain in the discursive domain, i.e. questions concerning the generation of representations of space.

– SAL is an alternative, but to what? It is presented as an opening, but for what exactly? It is an unorthodox actor in the Stockholm model, but, again, compared to what? For example: how many of the participants – in the seminars or as speakers/lecturers – could be categorized as 'not white middle–aged male'?

– A theme could be to apply 'sustainability' on SAL 2. To what degree it takes part in the sustainability discourse(s) and compare SAL 2's visions or provocations with the recently taken Stockholm environmental programme and the comprehensive plan?

– Turning everyday politics into a performance? Art as acting out and discussing the state of the city?

– The question of framing the city: as urban vs. green? or as the only big city vs. the rest of the country? as inner– vs. outer–city (i.e. it is really conceived as two cities, SBK does it too)?


1. See www.stockholmatlarge.com or www.fargfabriken.se.

2. It was Krister Lindstedt in the workshop on the Dynamisk stadsutveckling –relationell stadsbyggnad by the way and in Swedish the slogan goes: Stockholm är tillräckligt stort för att vara för litet.

3. I think this is why the complexity of 'urban sustainability' almost always gets lost in rhetorics because it is treated stepwise and compartmental, and at the same time the conflicts starts synchronically between the triadic 'ecology, economy, social' operations.

4. The formula for the Nordplan activity pre–1997 was, according to Olsson (2002), the formula 'a=b', as I understand it the exploration and investigation of what it means to translate.

5. –Hela 90–talet var ett enda stort nej. Det fanns tomma lägenheter och ingenting fick planeras. Om vi hade haft is i magen då och fortsatt planarbetet hade vi kunnat bygga idag.


Campbell, S. & Fainstein, S. (1996), 'Introduction: The Structure and Debates of Planning Theory', in Campbell, S. & Fainstein, S. (eds.), Readings in Planning Theory, Oxford, Malden Mass.: Blackwell Publishers.

DN, Dagens Nyheter 'XX' A10, 2002–11–15.

Hall, P. (1998), Cities in Civilization: Culture, Innovation, and Urban Order, London: Phoenix Giant.

Harvey, D. (1989), 'XX', in Geografiska Annaler 71B.

Lash, S. (1996), 'The sublime and the informational city', in Verwijnen, J. & Lehtouvori, P. (eds.), Managing urban change, Helsinki: The University of Art and Design Heslinki, UADH.

Latour, B. ([2001] 2003), What rules of method for the new socio–scientific experiments?, draft prepared for the Darmstadt Colloqium Plenary Lecture, 30th March 2001, at http://www.ensmp.fr/~latour/artpop/P–95%20Darmstadt.html , 2003–01–26.

Lilja, E. (no date), 'Periferi och identitet: den moderna förortens paradox', draft paper, Stockholm School of Planning.

Molina, I. (2001), 'Den rasifierade staden', in Magnusson, L. (ed.) Den delade staden: segregation och etnicitet i stadsbygden, Stockholm: Boréa.

SAL 1 (2001), Stockholm at large: hur framtidens Stockholm skall byggas, Stockholm: Färgfabriken.

SAL 2 (2002), Stockholm at large 2, Stockholm: Färgfabriken.

SAL 2 Programme, pdf at http://www.stockholmatlarge.com.

SBK 2030, at http://www.stockholm.se, 2003–02–25.