European Planning Studies Vol. 15, No.

3, April 2007

Establishing a Market-orientated Urban

Planning System after State Socialism:
The Case of Tallinn

SAMPO RUOPPILA
Department of Social Policy, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

ABSTRACT The article examines the development of the urban planning system in Tallinn from
1991, when Estonia re-established its independence from the Soviet Union, until 2004. The
planning laws and planning documents are analysed from the point of view of what kind of tools
they provide for the public authority to intervene in urban development. It is argued that a liberal
ad hoc urban planning that was established in the early 1990s is currently gradually being
replaced by a more regulatory system where the rights of landowners are increasingly yet not
always comprehensively defined in advance. Nonetheless, despite the recent revival of planning,
the market still primarily dictates Tallinn’s urban development.

Introduction
The collapse of state socialism placed the urban planning systems of Central and Eastern
European countries in a state of flux. Their former planning systems, which were charac-
terized by command, allocation and regulation by the state, with municipal town planning
a mere implementing agency of state policies (e.g. Bater, 1980; Balchin et al., 1999,
pp. 161–162; Tosics, 2005), were rendered obsolete. Transformation to the market
economy, including the re-establishment of private land ownership and the real estate
market, required the introduction of a new planning system. The reform of urban planning,
however, has been a difficult and controversial task. Market euphoria and the consequent
support for a sharp reduction in public administration, apparent after the Communists had
been defeated, eroded the legitimacy and capacity of planning (Thornley, 1993). The
whole regulative planning system fell into crisis due to the hostile attitude towards all “plan-
ning from above” and confusion about the use and needed extent of a priori restrictions, which
favoured increase of the “demand-driven planning” initiated by private developers and real
estate owners (Maier, 2001). In their Urban Planning in Europe, Newman and Thornley
(1996, p. 69) concluded that “new planning systems in these countries do not yet exist”.
The current literature argues that a new phase began in the late 1990s, characterized in

Correspondence Address: Sampo Ruoppila, Department of Social Policy, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 18,
FIN-00014, Helsinki, Finland. Email: sampo.ruoppila@iki.fi

ISSN 0965-4313 print=ISSN 1469-5944 online=07=030405–23 # 2007 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080=09654310601017117
406 S. Ruoppila

eastern central European cities at least with the implementation of strategic planning (Balchin
et al., 1999; Dimitrowska-Andrews, 2005). Yet due to recent and rapid development little is
known how formal planning systems in Central and Eastern Europe have developed and what
kind of tools they actually provide for cities to intervene in urban development. My study,
which seeks to contribute to this discussion, follows the current interest in urban sociology
in the role of institutions, in this case the urban planning institution, in explaining differences
in urban development across cities and countries (e.g. Kazepov, 2005).
The article presents a case study of the development of an urban planning system in
Tallinn, the capital city of Estonia, from 1991 when Estonia re-established its indepen-
dence, until 2004. The two interrelated research questions are, first, what kind of urban
planning system has been established in Tallinn, and second, how the content of planning
has changed over the years. The focus is on how has the city intervened in the development
through the planning system, i.e. what kind of master plans and/or planning concepts and
rules on development rights have existed and what kind of criteria has the city used in
granting planning permits. In order to show how the role of planning has changed, the
results of the empirical analysis are written in the form of a historical description.
The data comprise the planning laws, Tallinn’s building ordinances as well as the major
planning documents approved between 1993 and 2004, complemented with two expert
interviews with leading city planners. The method of analysing the documents was to
track down the division of labour between public regulation and private development
activity. The two interviews were done in order to understand and explain some situations
which did not have explicitly written rules. The semi-structured interviews were carried
out in Tallinn in September 2002 and April 2005.
The article proceeds with a discussion of government intervention in property develop-
ment and the introduction of the theoretical framework. The empirical section begins with
a brief introduction to the changed context of town planning in Tallinn. The analysis of the
development of the urban planning system is divided between events in the 1990s and the
2000s. The study is concluded with an evaluation of Tallinn’s regulation mode of urban
development.

Change of Urban Planning Systems in Western and Eastern Europe

Under the market economy, urban planning can be defined as a form of government inter-
vention in the urban development process, which is dominated by the private sector (Adams,
1994, p. 2). Planning works through the market, but acting as a regulator and enabler, the
government may influence the development process (Adams, 1994). The intervention is
made in order to achieve certain broader aims (Newman & Thornley, 1996, p. 4), for
instance to “manage the conflict between the objectives of economic development, environ-
mental quality and quality of life in particular places” (Healey & Williams, 1993, p. 716).
Urban planning can intervene through three main instruments: plans, control and promotion
(Adams, 1994, pp. 8–9). Plans provide a context for control decisions by stating the strat-
egies and principles that the planning authority will adopt in seeking to manage land-use and
environmental change. Such guidance provides a framework for the land market, by helping
landowners, developers and investors to know in advance what is likely to be acceptable on
their own land as well as on neighbouring land. Control provides an administrative mech-
anism for the planning authority to exercise discretion on specific development proposals,
by deciding in each case whether to uphold the development plan or depart from it. Control
 Establishing a Market-orientated Urban Planning System after State Socialism 407

is exercised over plans (planning permits) and construction projects (building permits) as a
response to proposals submitted for the approval of the planning authority. In promotion,
urban planning interacts with the development process: authorities seek to stimulate devel-
opment and investment by promoting and marketing locations, making land available to
developers and providing grants and subsidies. The empirical study presented in this
article primarily concerns development plans and planning control.
Government intervention in the property sector and its impact on the local rules of the
market has as long a tradition as the legal concept of property itself (see, Fainstein, 2001,
p. 202). In her classification of the modes of city building, i.e. the measures taken in the
process of making urban space from land, Haila (1999, pp. 263– 264) has identified boos-
terism and town planning as alternative strategies when land is predominantly in private
ownership. In boosterism, urban development is driven by individual businessmen
seeking profit from their investment in land, through “manipulating place for its exchange
values” (Logan & Molotch, 1987, p. 54). In this mode a primary motivation for land devel-
opment is profit, and it is left to the market to determine land use. In town planning, indi-
vidual businessmen have less of a role and planning authorities have more power to
regulate. In this mode, planning and public land-use regulation guide property develop-
ment. Usually the planning system is supplemented with land and property taxes in
order to create incentives for private owners to develop their properties.
In Haila’s classification boosterism is associated with the US and town planning with
Europe. From the planning history perspective the difference is that the city planners in
the US have mainly been concerned with land use and density zoning, roads and transpor-
tation issues, parks and civic centres, whereas the greater social concerns typical of Euro-
pean planning have been scarcely apparent (Ward, 2002). It is widely held, however, that
the market-led approaches, referred to as the entrepreneurial city strategy (Harvey, 1989;
Hubbard & Hall, 1998), and associated with the US model, have been very influential in
the transformation of planning in Europe over the last few decades, although many Euro-
pean countries “have not travelled as quickly, or as far, down the road” (Ward, 2002,
p. 362). Newman and Thornley (1996, p. 81) find that applying boosterism-related
growth-coalition literature “poses substantial problems when applied to European cities
where, traditionally, the public sector rather than private interests tends to dominate
urban policy-making”. The key differences of European cities as compared with the
cities in the US are the strong role of national political institutions and the significance
of public resources (the central government, the European Union (EU)) in local govern-
ment finance (Newman & Thornley, 1996). Häussermann and Haila (2005) argue that
there is still a particular tradition of the European city, bringing with it a tradition of
public administration which attempts to find a compromise between economic interests
and social responsibilities and to take into account the interest of the city as a whole,
instead of letting the market dictate spatial and social development.
In terms of urban planning solely, however, the European model seems too general, as
the local planning systems vary considerable across Europe. Newman and Thornley
(1996), for instance, define four “families” of Western European urban planning
systems—British, Germanic, Napoleonic and Scandinavian—based on their legal appar-
atus and the administrative systems. Even within the “families” the stronger social objec-
tives potentially adopted by urban planning have depended largely on the position adopted
by the nation states (Newman & Thornley, 1996). A tendency for planning systems to con-
verge has emerged, however, given the increased market-orientation of planning and EU
408 S. Ruoppila

influences. After the peak of comprehensive urban modernization in the 1970s, European
planning systems have in general moved towards greater flexibility as well as towards
loosening zoning rules and development and conservation designations, a trend fuelled
by economic concerns (Healey & Williams, 1993; Newman & Thornley, 1996; Ward,
2002). Nonetheless, at the same time the national and supranational (EU) interest in
urban planning has increased given its significant institutional capacity to develop local
economic assets and protect the environment (Healey & Williams, 1993). Both the con-
clusion of the early 1990s EU policy debates on how urban planning systems should
develop (Healey & Williams, 1993, p. 717) and the recent European Spatial Development
Perspective which sets European-wide normative goals and principles for spatial planning
at the regional and national levels (Kunzmann, forthcoming) support the role of the public
sector in guiding spatial development with all its underlying social, cultural and environ-
mental ambitions and concerns, which market forces tend to neglect. These ambitions,
however, contradict the mainstream policies in the EU, which focus primarily on
support for economic growth, as reflected by European urban policy becoming a
promotional competition policy (Frank, forthcoming).
In Central and Eastern Europe the transformation of urban planning systems has been
profound. In the current literature (Balchin et al., 1999; Dimitrowska-Andrews, 2005)
this transformation is typically divided into two phases. The first phase, until the second
half of the 1990s, was characterized by a low political priority given to physical planning
and a generally liberal approach by both the central government and local politicians when
assessing urban development proposals. The legitimacy of planning was challenged as
being counter to free market activities, and instead of the preparation of long-term
plans, strategies or visions, municipal land-use planning and regulation of development
were characteristically based on ad hoc political decisions and approaches (Balchin
et al., 1999; Dimitrowska-Andrews, 2005). New master plans, if they were drawn,
lacked up-to-date implementation mechanisms, such as economic incentives or land
policy instruments (Dimitrowska-Andrews, 2005, p. 181). Therefore, despite the definitive
and quick liberalization of property and urban development, the post-socialist cities were
in the 1990s at least still in transition in terms of the role of planning in their governance.
Feldman (2000) has argued that the concept of “entrepreneurial urban governance” could
hardly be applied to post-socialist cities in the 1990s in the sense of Western Europe or the
US, because of their insufficient institutional capacities, weak governing and a lack of
synergy between the public and private sectors. Keivani et al. (2001) echoed this point
arguing that post-socialist cities lacked strategic and long-term planning as well as
coalition building and planned growth.
In the second phase, from the late 1990s onwards, the role of planning has gradually
strengthened. Studies have reported the implementation of strategic planning and provi-
sional economic tools in order to stimulate local development (Balchin et al., 1999,
pp. 163 –192; Golubchikov, 2004; Dimitrowska-Andrews, 2005; Altrock et al., 2006).
Other novel aims have been greater integration of physical planning and real-estate
regulation, increase of transparency in planning and city management and greater involve-
ment of the general public in the planning process (Dimitrowska-Andrews, 2005, p. 181).
The concept of sustainability is also becoming a major factor in planning in Central and
Eastern Europe, given the harmonization of the environment laws with the EU
(Dimitrowska-Andrews, 2005, p. 182). The transformation continues, however, and it
remains to be seen how crucial a role urban planning will eventually be given.
 Establishing a Market-orientated Urban Planning System after State Socialism 409

The Changed Context of Urban Planning in Tallinn

The parameters of Tallinn’s urban development have changed markedly since Estonia
regained its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. Before analysing what kind
of urban planning has been established, a brief discussion will be made of the Soviet
and earlier heritage of the urban structure in Tallinn within which novel developments
have subsequently taken place, the Estonian property reform and its impact on Tallinn’s
landownership pattern, the rise of private agents in the real estate sector, and finally an
analysis of how the urban pattern is changing.

Urban Development in Soviet Tallinn

During the state socialist period the production of the built environment was characterized
by command, allocation and regulation by the state. All land was expropriated by the state
after Soviet occupation in 1940 and it was allocated rent-free to users through the admin-
istrative allocation method (see, Bertaud & Renaud, 1997). Construction was largely
financed from the state’s budget, and all agents in the urban development process were
more or less connected to the state sector (see, Ruoppila (2004) on the case of
housing). Planning took a leading role in building the city, albeit in a hierarchical state-
supervised manner. At the top of the hierarchy was the National Construction Committee,
a central government planning office that made plans for economic and industrial devel-
opment as well as population estimates for localities and their housing construction
(Bruns, 1993). The role of municipalities was to implement the plans, in which the
major tool was a master plan that was future orientated and contained a rather detailed
land-use development plan. “The master plans concretely steered how the city was devel-
oped” writes Dimitri Bruns (1993, p. 146), who was the head of Tallinn’s planning office
from 1960 to 1980. Tallinn had two master plans during the socialist era, the first was
approved in 1953 and the second in 1971; both were intended to be followed for 20
years. If needed, the master plans were specified and updated with detailed plans also
drawn up by the city planning office.
The development of Tallinn’s urban pattern during the Soviet decades repeats the
typical features associated with socialist cities (e.g. Dimitrowska-Andrews, 2005,
p. 174). Central areas demolished in World War II were re-developed at the beginning
of the Soviet era to conform to the classic Stalinist style, but the remaining historical
urban structure survived relatively unscathed. Only the city centre was gradually moder-
nized by many single-development projects. The preservation of the medieval Old Town
was intentional, but other centrally located “old” areas, including a significant number of
outdated industrial sites, were inadvertently spared due to the lack of re-development.
Urban growth was instead channelled outwards to as-yet vacant land, though in a way
that the urban structure remained compact. The largest construction sites were the three
large housing estate districts located on the edges of the inner city. Such features of social-
ist cities have been explained by the irrelevance of land prices in land-use planning and the
conventions of socialist public housing construction (Sýkora, 1993; Szelényi, 1996;
Bertaud & Renaud, 1997).
While a very low utilization of space in city centres was typical of socialist cities, the
case of Tallinn is a special one on account of earlier history. It is perhaps the only Euro-
pean capital city where large areas of the inner city residential quarters are only 1 – 2
410 S. Ruoppila

storeys high and built of wood. This reflects the “colonial” conditions of the first wave
of industrialization and the subsequent population growth from the 1860s until World
War I, under the regime of Tsarist Russia. The Baltic Germans and the Russians,
who owned most of the manufacturing industries in Tallinn at that time, exploited
the city as a production site and invested their resources in St Petersburg or German
cities rather than in the Estonian capital (Bruns, 1993, pp. 91 –93). City planning and
construction regulation lacked ambition and when building the suburbs Estonian land-
lord-developers used cheap and old-fashioned building materials for the tenements
they provided for the growing urban population. The rise of the economic and political
power of the Estonian bourgeoisie from around 1900 gradually changed the circum-
stances (see, Kalm, 2002). However, while modernization had changed the face of
some central areas by World War II, no major restructuring of the inner city had
taken place and wood was still used as a construction material on its peripheries.
The result, a wooden housing ring around central Tallinn, represented in Figure 1, is
still visible today.

Figure 1. Central Tallinn. The wooden housing areas and industrial areas are highlighted. The
numbers in the map refer to locations where the photographs published in this article were taken
 Establishing a Market-orientated Urban Planning System after State Socialism 411

Property Reform
The redefinition of property relations has been one of the cornerstones in the transition to
the market economy; the Act on Ownership Reform (1991) was among the first to be passed
by the re-established Estonian Parliament. Land has been transferred from the state to
private ownership through restitution and land sales. In restitution, the property expro-
priated by the socialist government in 1940 has been returned to the previous owners or
their heirs. If new buildings had been built on the lot since the expropriation and
someone else had claims to these buildings, properties were not returned but compensation
was paid instead. Approved city plans to change the land use did not prevent restitution.
Estonian property restitution has been among the most comprehensive in Central and
Eastern Europe (Blacksell & Born, 2002). Unless the property right was recognized
through restitution, tenants were entitled to the right of first refusal on the property. This
has been the major form of privatization in the areas built during the socialist era.
Private individuals have paid for the residential land mainly with national privatization
vouchers and land auctions have been used to sell non-residential properties to investors.
Property reform is not yet over, so the statistical information about the division of land
ownership is incomplete. Nevertheless, the main features of the land-ownership pattern are
already apparent. As Table 1 shows, restitution has been the major method to re-establish
private land ownership in Harju County (i.e. the Tallinn region). By the end of 2005,
altogether 57% of the registered land was in private ownership, of which three-quarters
had been returned to the previous owners. These properties are located mainly either in
the inner city, old garden cities, or in the urban hinterlands which used to be cultivated.
As Table 1 shows, the number of sales based on the right of first refusal is larger but con-
cerns a smaller area than the property returned by restitution. Table 1 reveals yet another
striking and important fact: the state remains a major landowner, whereas municipalities
own very little land. In Tallinn, the figure is slightly higher, around 5%, most of which
is already built over (Tvk, 2001a, p. 8). In the property reform municipal ownership was
established only regarding roads, parks, plots used by the municipal administration and
services, in a few plots where the infrastructure had been built up in the 1980s but had
not been developed further, and plots that were owned by the city prior to expropriation
by the state in 1940.

Table 1. Land ownership in Harju County (Tallinn region) up to December 2005, registered units
(75% of all land)
Registered as Number Area (ha)

Privately owned
Restitution 43,632 137,012 (42%)
Sold based on the right of first refusal 60,220 104 224 46,688 (14%) 185 651 (57%)
Sold in auction 372 1951 (0.6%)
Free agricultural land 980 9984 (3.1%)
Free forest land 633 4415 (1.4%)
Owned by municipalities 2026 4218 (1.3%)
Owned by the state 4311 119,400 (37%)
Total 112,174 323,669

Source: The Estonian Land Board, http://www.maaamet.ee/

412 S. Ruoppila

The Rise of Private Agents in Property Development

Another important step in the development of the real estate market has been the rise of
private agents, including developers, construction companies, estate agencies (brokers),
commercial banks, investors, etc. The first steps towards the reintroduction of the
market economy had been taken under perestroika, but viable entrepreneurship was
only possible after Estonia regained its independence in 1991. While the roots of some
larger construction companies are connected with the privatization of parts of state-
owned building enterprises, most businesses from the early 1990s onwards have been
founded as new firms.
The real estate market has developed rather quickly thanks to Estonia’s substantial
economic growth since 1993 and a drop in the interest rates to a level that by the mid-
1990s increased investment. In addition to land auctions the properties with a private own-
ership title were increasingly established through restitution after 1993 and became a
major resource for developers. An important role in this process was played by brokers,
often through estate agencies. In addition to people who claimed the ownership of prop-
erty, brokers actively sought former owners, using the land registers and other records of
the first independent era as a source of information. Many of the owners who had their land
returned in the restitution immediately sold it to brokers. Brokering has been needed to
pool land and regroup the plots to meet the requirements of contemporary property
development. Behind many development projects, the first fortunes were made through
successful land acquisition and speculation.
Research on property development in Central Europe has emphasized the importance of
international agents as developers, investors and end-users of major commercial real estate
(Adair et al., 1999). In Estonia companies from the neighbouring countries of Finland and
Sweden have been important players, but there are also large Estonian companies that
have sustained their position in the property market (Uus Maa, 2004). Today in Estonia
developers consist mostly of larger real estate owners, including most large construction
companies and estate agencies—many companies are active in various ways in the
industry either directly or through their subsidiary companies (Hankewitz, 2005).

Locations Under the Pressure of Change

While during the socialist era the emphasis was on building compact housing estates on
the edges of the city, in post-socialist cities property developers have shifted the emphasis
to the re-development of central areas and the expansion of suburbs. The consequent land-
use changes can be explained by applying new (“Western”) models or ideas of urban
development and the re-emergence of land rent as a qualifier of land uses and users.
The demand for new commercial properties has been steady given the economic restruc-
turing and rapid expansion of fields such as financial intermediation, insurance, com-
merce, tourism and services, while the households who have gained wealth in the
transition have sought for new and renewed housing. These developments have modified
the urban pattern.
In central Tallinn the change in the urban pattern has been marked by the renewal of
areas formerly occupied by wooden houses or manufacturing industries, and filling the
existing rather loose urban structure with new buildings to increase density. The focal
point of such development has been the extended central business district (CBD) in
 Establishing a Market-orientated Urban Planning System after State Socialism 413

which a large proportion of the new office buildings are concentrated, as well as depart-
ment stores, large hotels and even residential buildings. The extension of the CBD is ana-
lysed in detail later. Major office developments also concentrate along main arteries
(Narva mnt, Pärnu mnt) where they have replaced the industrial function. In central
areas, new housing developments are spread to the south of the Old Town and to Kadriorg,
replacing mostly modest wooden housing. Questions have arisen though on the need to
protect some old residential milieus. Several spots where renovation and subsequent gen-
trification have taken place have emerged, including some wooden housing neighbour-
hoods. The renovated Old Town has increasingly been reduced to a tourist enclave. The
large former industrial areas in the north and south of the city centre possess a major devel-
opment potential, but their re-development has so far been relatively modest. Until
recently, the northern waterfront has gained more interest (analysed later), and the ques-
tion how to reopen the city towards the sea has been one of the most recognized planning
challenges. In the outskirts an increasing residential and commercial suburbanization has
taken place. New single-family housing areas, initiated by real estate developers, appeared
on the market in 1996 and the supply has grown steadily since. Developments are concen-
trated on Tallinn’s north-east and north-west shores, both within the city borders and in
neighbouring municipalities, representing the first wave of urban sprawl (Ruoppila,
2002). The major retail developments have been located in the centre and in important
transport intersections on the edge of the inner city and in suburbs.

The 1990s: A Shift to Market-orientated Planning

A Change in the Planning Framework
The local government system was re-established in Estonia shortly before regaining inde-
pendence (Mäeltsemees, 2000). Like most European countries (Newman & Thornley,
1996, p. 30) Estonia follows the doctrine of the general competence of local authorities:
according to the Constitution of Estonia (1992) “all local issues will be resolved and regu-
lated by local authorities, which operate independently in accordance with the law”
(§ 154). Consequently, the Law on the Organization of Municipal Government (1993)
recognizes municipalities’ power in town planning, i.e. the power to draw development
plans, master plans, detailed plans and building ordinances (i.e. rules for planning and
construction). As a legislator, however, the central government retains the right to estab-
lish the overall framework for planning.
Tallinn’s Temporary Building Ordinance (Tvk, 1993)—and the Law on Planning and
Construction1 (1995) 2 years later—renewed the system and opened up opportunities
for new types of development. Most importantly, the new rules established the importance
of a detailed plan drawn for each development project and enabled private landowners and
developers to take the initiative in planning. In principle, the municipality outlines the
spatial development by drawing the master plan, which broadly defines land uses and
road networks and creates general conditions for construction. A detailed plan is made
for a smaller area and it gives permission for construction. The detailed plan defines the
conditions for a construction project, including division of the area into lots, traffic
arrangements, green areas, infrastructure, architectural requirements, and requirements
based on legislation. Importantly, the precise land-use function together with the building
rights, including the number of buildings in a lot, allowed floor space and maximum height
414 S. Ruoppila

are only defined in the detailed plan. Plans have a legal status in the Estonian system.
Landowners (or other legal entities) may initiate the detailed planning process: municipa-
lities can make contracts that allow landowners to draw up detailed plans and restrict their
role to review these plans. Municipalities can also draw up detailed plans themselves. In
principle, the detailed plan must follow the master plan, but both Tallinn’s Temporary
Building Ordinance (Tvk, 1993) and the Law on Planning and Construction (1995)
allowed landowners to apply for changes to the master plan.
In practice, master planning played a minor role in the 1990s. Tallinn’s Master Plan
1971 was rendered obsolete by the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the city council
also annulled the validity of more recent urban development plans drawn during the social-
ist era. The drawing up of a new master plan was initiated in 1994 (Tvk, 1994, p. 8), but it
was only approved in 2001, 4 years later than originally scheduled. Meanwhile it immedi-
ately became a practice that landowners and developers initiated the planning process by
applying for planning permission and subsequently drawing up the detailed plans. In its
first development plan (for the years 1994 –1997) the city of Tallinn had formulated a
policy to restrain from construction and instead to invest in infrastructure to enable
private property development, the drawing up of a detailed plan being considered the
preparatory stage of a construction project (Tvk, 1994, p 10). The role of urban planning
authorities in detailed planning has been mostly reduced to reviewing the applications
drawn up by landowners and developers case by case.
In principle, the city planning office reviews whether the detailed plans satisfy the
requirements of the master plan and are suitable for the particular lot and location.
Because Tallinn did not have a valid master plan in the 1990s, reviewing concerned
only the question of suitability. As the written rules on appropriate function, height,
density, volume, etc. were few there was plenty of room left for discretion and negotiation.
According to a planner interviewed, the question of suitability was largely confined to
whether the architectural solution of the proposed project was reasonable or not.
Because of the flexible criteria fixed case by case, it is suggested that the established
system be called ad hoc urban planning. The characterization is thus similar to the first
phase of planning transformation in other Central and Eastern European countries.

Ad hoc Planning in Practice: Neighbouring Buildings as a Reference

In practice, the planners have evaluated the function, height, density and volume of new
building(s) primarily using the buildings in the neighbourhood as a criterion.2 In cases in
which the neighbouring buildings are of good quality and form a coherent pattern, this
method may produce satisfying results. However, this is not always the case. In Tallinn
re-development of the wooden housing zone is a case in point where nothing necessarily
offers a valid reference point. In the situation where urban planners have not yet produced
a vision and a re-development plan, all kinds of initiatives by private developers have been
welcomed. Such flexibility has embraced innovative architecture and urban design, but it
has also resulted in low-quality projects motivated by the sheer pursuit of profit. A notor-
ious example is the so-called “parasite houses” (Figure 2). The concept (originally by
Estonian architecture historian Mart Kalm) refers to oversize buildings which cover the
whole lot, and have been built with the presumption that they will enjoy (like parasites)
the light and greenery of the neighbouring smaller scale buildings. Parasite houses also
 Establishing a Market-orientated Urban Planning System after State Socialism 415

Figure 2. A parasite house in Süda Street, central Tallinn. The author, 2005

impede future renewal; excessive building in one plot limits the construction rights to
develop the neighbouring ones.

Attempts to Intervene in Two Major Development Sites

Scattered individual projects initiated by landowners and developers and reviewed case by
case by the city planning office characterize Tallinn’s urban development.
However, in two major sites of urban renewal in the 1990s, the extension of the CBD
and the re-development of the central waterfront, the city tried to take the leading role in
development. In the following these attempts will be discussed.

Development of Tallinn’s CBD

The extension of Tallinn’s CBD has been going on since the mid-1990s in and around a
site formerly occupied by an old paper factory and wooden houses. The re-development is
concentrated along and around a new road passing through the area and connecting the
Tartu Road with Rävala Boulevard. The principles for the re-development were drafted
in the “Detailed Plan for City Centre” approved in 1983 (though nothing was constructed
in the area in the 1980s) and they were also deployed in the early 1990s, albeit with the
addition of further architectural visioning about features of a new CBD under the
market economy. Since then there has been an “aesthetic agreement” that significantly
tall buildings could be built in the CBD.3 The re-development process commenced after
the state had sold the properties of the old paper factory to the Finnish retailer Stockmann
in 1992. The detailed plan drawn up for their department store in Liivalaia Street
(approved in 1994) placed it in the corner of the new road and also set the final width
of the road to be constructed (Raud, 1999, p. 32).
416 S. Ruoppila

Based on approved re-development plans the City of Tallinn tried to appropriate land
in the new CBD area, which in the context of the Estonian property reform meant that
the city applied to transfer the land from state to municipal ownership, excluding it
from restitution. The application was, however, rejected and most of the residential
land (i.e. the wooden houses) was returned to the private owners. The City of
Tallinn contested the decision in court but lost because the land use of the plots had
not yet changed. Private land ownership was thus re-established following the
pattern of a dense tenement area, which required that the plots should be amalgamated
to form new projects. The fragmented landownership pattern and the well-known fact
that the site was an outstanding development area triggered a major land speculation.
This in particular slowed down the public road construction project, as acquiring the
land became unexpectedly expensive. After private landownership was established,
building projects were initiated and carried out one by one, many of them before the
road was constructed, and the area remained a collage of post-modern commercial
properties and rundown wooden houses for years (Figure 3). Tallinn’s policy has
been to buy land instead of expropriating it, but apparently this street construction
project is the only site where the city has eventually also used expropriation, since it

Figure 3. Piecemeal development in Tallinn’s new CBD: a post-modern office building standing
next to an early twentieth-century wooden house with unsightly extensions. Mikko Mälkki, 2000.
 Establishing a Market-orientated Urban Planning System after State Socialism 417

could not agree on a price with all the landowners. The road extension was completed
finally in 2002 (Figure 4).
Despite deploying an old plan, no comprehensive development plan was ever drawn
up for the area after the property reform, and landowners and developers have had con-
siderable freedom in deciding what should be built in the CBD. In addition to the usual
checking of detailed plans, developments have been regulated only by the detailed plan
of the road construction project (1995) and the so-called “view-zone plan” (1996, included
later in the Master Plan 2000). This plan defined where the construction of tall buildings
should be restricted in order that the historical view of the Old Town from the sea and
the main arteries would not be blocked. Tall buildings were not banned on the side of
the new road, and the first one, the headquarters of Ühispank bank (shown in Figure 3)
was completed in 1996.

Regeneration of the central waterfront

The most central part of the waterfront is a former military, manufacturing and port area
located around the passenger harbour in the immediate vicinity of the Old Town and the
CBD. During the socialist era most of the area was in closed industrial and military use and
public access was restricted. The area, which was administrated by various Moscow-based
institutions, most notably the Ministry of Defence and the State Shipping Company, was
also off-limits to civilian planning. The waterfront re-development plans became relevant
after the derelict facilities of the Soviet institutions had become the property of the
Republic of Estonia. An increase in passenger traffic via the harbour, including a

Figure 4. A new road under construction in the middle of Tallinn’s expanding CBD. Arne Maasik,
2002
418 S. Ruoppila

rapidly growing number of international (especially Finnish and Swedish) tourists

provided the impetus to begin re-developing the area (Feldman, 2000, p. 837).
Planning of the area was initiated by the city government in 1994. The development plan
for the central waterfront area, approved in 1995 (Tvk, 1995),4 described the pattern of land
ownership, and defined the plots, land uses and traffic arrangements in the area. Offices, ser-
vices, recreation and housing were presented as new uses. The plan also defined the building
rights of each plot, including the maximum number of floors, floor area and floor-to-area
ratio. A noteworthy feature of the plan was its emphasis on the bird’s eye view, while it
left largely undefined how the shoreline itself should be developed. The plan did not
involve ideas of positioning the buildings or the creation of particular urban spaces or ambi-
ence. The area was given its most concrete shape in the traffic plan, but that also concen-
trated on defining how a major thoroughfare should be built through the area. A sketch of
a network of beach promenades was included, however, but the idea was not discussed.
Likewise in the CBD area, local government activity was driven by an understanding that
the city could appropriate properties around the port, although this possibility was by no
means obvious in the turmoil of the first half of the 1990s (see, Feldman, 2000, pp. 837–
838). Nevertheless, the likelihood of a major regeneration project increased after the Port
of Tallinn, which had jurisdiction over the waterfront, decided to transfer the buildings
to municipal ownership in 1995–1996. As the title to the land was established on the
basis of property holdings, this decision enabled the city to apply for the ownership of
the land and meant that the city became a major property owner in the area. During
the period 1996–1997, the city aimed to develop the area in a public–private partnership.
This, however, failed because of the fragmented and unstable institutional setting and
poor preparation by the partnership. Among major problems was the rivalry between
the two real estate development companies involved in the project, including a long
court case which practically suspended development. Furthermore, the legal transference
of land to municipal ownership proceeded slowly, presumably hampered by the state due
to a clash of interest over land ownership. The city also failed to make public investments
(i.e. to build the infrastructure) and to show enough political muscle and organizational
capacity to lead the project (for details, see, Feldman, 2000).
The partnership broke up in 1998 without any developments having taken place. Instead
of starting a new and better prepared partnership, the city sold its plots to private devel-
opers. Along with the ownership title, the initiative to develop the land also fell under
private domain. The developers seem to have regarded their acquisition as speculative
investment and have not hurried with development. The decision by the city was criti-
cized, especially by the Union of Estonian Architects, which condemned leaving the
waterfront re-development to private developers without a defined development concept
and without city involvement in its implementation. As a countermove, in 2000 the
Union organized an architectural competition to generate an urban planning concept for
the area (Sadamaalakonkurs, 2000). Support from the city council was weak, however,
and the planning ideas were not developed further.
The first project was initiated by a private developer, who proposed building a hyper-
market on the waterfront in 2001. Instead of regarding the site as a prime location for
the future, this application clearly approached it as an urban hinterland. The application
did not, however, violate any of the restrictions established in the development plan
(1995) and in the absence of a defined planning concept the planning office could not
question the project. Even the Architectural Council—an independent advisory body
 Establishing a Market-orientated Urban Planning System after State Socialism 419

that checks the most visible and strategically important projects—settled for it after a lame
compromise that a slim multifamily house was added in front of the hypermarket to “land-
scape” the project on the waterfront.5 The hypermarket was completed in 2002 (Figure 5)
and the residential house one year later. The example shows how vitally important it would
have been for the city to devise a planning concept at least before selling the land in order
to give the location a new significance. By constructing a hypermarket on the waterfront
the re-development of the whole area had a bad start and it is questionable whether high
profile developments will follow.
In both cases, the active role played by the city government was based on the understand-
ing that the City of Tallinn could have appropriated the land and developed it. Nonetheless,
the city-led approach, which was characterized by comprehensive planning, was eventually
replaced by the developer-led one, where the plans are only reviewed on a case by case basis.

The 2000s: Reintroduction of Restrictive Measures

Until the end of the 1990s the planning measures applied were above all ad hoc. Since
2000 several steps have been taken towards gradually strengthening the urban planning
marking thus beginning the second phase of planning transformation.

Figure 5. Waterfront development “Tallinn style”: a hypermarket in what should have become a
prime location. Arne Maasik, 2002.
420 S. Ruoppila

Changes to the Planning Framework

Tallinn’s Master Plan 2000 was approved in 2001 (Tvk, 2001a). It provides guidelines for
spatial development at a general level, proposing functional zones, traffic organization and
infrastructure networks. The head of the Master Planning Department has described the
plan as “much more general and schematic than the previous master plans” which
“allow[s] flexible and fast reactions to changes in society” (Nigul, 1999, p. 31). The
critics have claimed, however, that Master Plan 2000 is a mere description of the existing
situation, and unlike what a master plan should do, it lacks a planning vision—for instance,
how to carry out the transition from an industrial to a post-industrial society (e.g. Kalm,
2002, p. 480). Crucial to the latter, Tallinn’s Building Ordinance, revised in 2001, re-
established the district-level master plans and “thematic plans” as new measures to
specify or redefine the requirements of the city-level Master Plan in a specific site or
neighbourhood.6 The term sub-area master planning will be used to refer to both of
these measures.
The Building Ordinance 2001 (Tvk, 2001b) increased the importance of planning per-
mission in the detailed planning process. Since then, the city planning office checks the
application’s compatibility with the master plan, building ordinance(s) and the city
development plan, and tentatively examines the sketched architectural and functional
suitability of the project when granting planning permission. If it is granted, the plan-
ning office also sets the guidelines for drawing up the plan, thus confirming that the
viewpoints of the public authority are better taken into consideration. When deciding
whether the proposed detailed plan should be approved or not, the city planning
office only checks whether those guidelines have been followed, including approval
by relevant city authorities and other agents, including neighbours. The final decision
is taken by the city government.
Planning and construction legislation was reformed in 2002. The Planning Law (2002)
is based on the previous law, but the new formulations emphasize the social role of plan-
ning; public leadership is stressed in controversial issues, especially in conservation and
nature protection. For instance, the law restricts private persons or companies from
drawing detailed plans that contradict the master plan or concern an area under national
environmental or cultural heritage protection, and requires such plans to be drawn only
by the public planning office (§ 10.6). This can be interpreted as the legislators’ will to
emphasize the role of the master plan and national laws on conservation and environment
protection rather than mainly considering the detailed plan. Compared to the 1995 law,
which required municipalities to draw master plans, the 2002 law thus obliges them to
update these plans. Importantly for this aim, the law strengthened the legal basis of
sub-area master planning and also enabled the drawing up of sub-area building ordinances.
The law also increased the requirements of transparency in planning and provided private
individuals with more rights to contest the plans.
After the revision of the law, the City of Tallinn approved a new Building Ordinance
in 2003 (Tvk, 2003), applying the content described earlier. The greatest novelty here
was the emphasis on the protection of the historic built environment. The practice
that landowners or other interested legal entities should draw up detailed plans was
not questioned. In cases where the action of private agents is restricted by the new
law, a contract can be made that the planning office draws the plan, but the private
party pays for it.
 Establishing a Market-orientated Urban Planning System after State Socialism 421

Increasing Restrictions in Sub-areas

Protection of the historically valuable built environment
By the term protection of the historically valuable built environment, I mean protection of
whole urban areas with a particular character, not merely individual buildings.7 I will also
exclude from the analysis the particular case of Tallinn’s medieval Old Town, which was
taken under conservation in the socialist era and inscribed to the UNESCO World Heritage
List in 1997. The charting of the architectural heritage in other urban areas started only in
the 1980s and was continued in the 1990s with the aim of formulating the principles of
their protection (Tvk, 1994, p. 11). Defining eight “built environment protection areas”
in the Master Plan 2000 (Tvk, 2001a, p. 63) was a result of this work. The blueprint for
the protection of these areas which include some wooden housing districts, villa districts
and historical manufacturing areas was to draw a restrictive plan or a building ordinance
for each in order to define the principles of conservation and the further development per-
mitted. Consequently, a specific conservation plan was quickly approved for an inner city
residential neighbourhood Kadriorg and a historical industrial area Rotermanni Kvartal,
both already under pressure from real estate development in the 1990s.
The Building Ordinance 2003 (Tvk, 2003) modified the concept slightly to “valuable
built environment” (miljööväärtusega hoonestusala) referring to an area, defined by a
plan, where the whole milieu is under protection (the street pattern, green areas, the
way it is constructed, etc.) either because of its distinctive architecture or for other
public interest reasons (Tvk, 2003, § 2.16). Currently that concerns, though, the areas
designated in Master Plan 2000. The blueprint for their protection also remains
unchanged. As a new measure, however, the city’s Department of Cultural Heritage
was obliged to control all new building projects taking place in areas defined as a valuable
built environment but not yet protected by other measures (Tvk, 2003, § 31.2– 31.3) which
in practice meant that these areas were immediately taken under protection. The first sub-
area building ordinance was approved for Nõmme city district in 2004 (Tvk, 2004b).
Reflecting the architectural variety of this large garden city almost completely defined
as a valuable built environment, the Nõmme Building Ordinance divides the district
into five neighbourhoods, each with its own strict restriction on building rights, including
restrictions on the maximum height, number of floors, floor-to-area ratio and a minimum
lot size to protect the characteristics of its milieux.8

The master plan for Tallinn’s urban waterfront

A new page was turned in Tallinn’s urban planning with the approval of the Master Plan
for the Urban Waterfront between Paljassaare and Russalka (Tvk, 2004c) in December
2004.9 It is an attempt to introduce a vision for the development of the entire length of
the urban waterfront, covering 20 km of shoreline and 500 hectares of land, and to
respond to a challenge to open the city towards the sea. The plan provides both a vision
for the development of the whole area and guidelines for further design of single stretches
of the shoreline. The shore is divided into eight areas following their main functions
(leisure, offices, housing, retail, industrial, or their combinations), and altogether there
are 26 sub-areas with separately defined building rights. The plan outlines the develop-
ment of major traffic lanes for cars, pedestrians and bicyclists, including a beach prome-
nade. It also identifies the 12 most important “sites”, comprising functional entities like
harbours, anticipated developments, including a new concert hall, and the conversion of
422 S. Ruoppila

a historic defence barrack for other use, possibly an art university. Land-use function and
building rights including maximum heights for the buildings, their positioning, floor-to-
area ratio and a minimum share of green area are defined separately in the 26 sub-
areas. In some of the sub-areas the definitions of building rights are very detailed and
strict, while in others more is left to be decided at the detailed planning stage. In particular
the future of the most central and the most controversial areas is left open with an obli-
gation to conduct an architectural contest there. Interestingly, despite the future orientation
of the plan, the building rights are defined mostly using the buildings in the neighbourhood
as a criterion.

Plans under preparation and “semi-official” plans

In December 2005, a number of other sub-area master plans or building ordinances which
will include restrictions on development were being prepared. City district master plans
are being prepared for the Nõmme, Mustamäe and Pirita city districts. Sub-area building
ordinances are under preparation for several neighbourhoods, most of them designated a
historically valuable built environment (Kadriorg, Kalamaja, Kassisaba, Pelgulinn and
Veerenni), and a building ordinance is under preparation for the city district of Central
Tallinn. Further, a building ordinance for an area called Astangu, formerly defined as a
reserve land, was approved by the city council in May 2005 (Tvk, 2005). Moreover, the
drawing up a thematic plan for locations and conditions of constructing tall buildings in
the whole city is also ongoing since 2004. The city development strategy Tallinn 2025
has announced that all city district master plans and all “necessary” thematic plans
should be approved by 2025 (Tvk, 2004a, p. 74).
Although municipalities have a right independently of the will of the landowner to
restrict building rights on privately owned land with a plan or a building ordinance, a
major obstacle to plans under preparation coming into force are isolated ambiguities in
the legislation concerning land use and landownership, which require a precedent to be
set in court in order for them to be resolved.10 However, the fact that a master plan has
not been approved does not necessarily mean that it would not be followed. An
example of the power of a “semi-official” plan is the master plan for the Pirita city district.
When the drawing up of Tallinn’s Master Plan was initiated in 1994, the goal was to
accomplish the work first in the Pirita city district, because it was anticipated to be a neigh-
bourhood where rapid suburban growth would take place (Tvk, 1994). The plan has been,
for all practical purposes, ready since 1998, although burdened with ambiguities concern-
ing building rights in particular plots. Nevertheless, the plan has had a great impact on the
development, “because it has provided a logical aggregate that single developments could
have followed, and thus it has been largely accepted by the developers and the residents”,
as explained by the planner whom I interviewed. In practice, the unofficial plan has been
incorporated into the guidelines given with the planning permissions of detailed plans.
Apparently, another rapidly expanding suburban district Kakumäe has similarly followed
a semi-official road plan.

Conclusions
This article has analysed the development of urban planning systems in Tallinn from 1991
until 2004, focussing on how the city has through planning measures intervened in devel-
opment. The first research question was what kind of urban planning system has been
 Establishing a Market-orientated Urban Planning System after State Socialism 423

established in Tallinn. The main regulatory principles of urban development are set by the
city in the master plan and the building ordinance, supplemented by sub-area master plans
and building ordinances providing tools for future-orientated physical planning and
control. The content and scope of planning is also influenced by city development plans
(since 1994) and recently what has been called the first city strategy (Tvk, 2004a).
These include broad development visions rather than detailed ideas how areas should
be developed. Concrete building projects are based on detailed plans which are primarily
drawn up by private landowners and developers, based on planning permits following the
guidelines issued by the city planning office. The planning office checks whether detailed
plans follow the master plan, satisfy other requirements and whether the proposed build-
ings are suitable for the particular site.
As to the second research question, in what ways the content of planning has changed
over the years, the analysis has identified two phases of development. The first phase, com-
menced with the approval of Tallinn’s Temporary Building Ordinance in 1993, marked a
shift from the Soviet comprehensive planning to the liberal planning system that enabled
private landowners and developers to draw up detailed plans and thus take an initiative in
urban development. Since then, a major part of the work at the urban planning office has
consisted of case-based reviewing of the detailed planning applications drawn up by land-
owners and developers. Initially private actors were given great latitude to operate,
because Tallinn neither had an accepted master plan nor too many predefined restrictions
of development. In practice, planners evaluated the function, height, density and volume
of proposed buildings primarily using the buildings in the neighbourhood as a criterion. As
the written rules were few, there was plenty of room for discretion and negotiation.
Because of the flexibility of criteria used and improvised case by case, I have called the
planning system established in the early 1990s ad hoc planning.
Whereas in most areas only ad hoc planning was carried out in the 1990s, there were
two cases, the extension of the CBD and the re-development of the central waterfront,
in which the city government, and consequently also the planning office, attempted to
take a leading role based on an understanding that the city could have appropriated the
land and developed it. In the CBD, however, the former residential land was returned to
private owners in restitution. In the case of the central waterfront, the city eventually
became a major landowner, but after an unsuccessful public –private partnership it sold
the land to private developers. After private landowners seized the land, public interven-
tion was reduced to the case-based reviewing of private developments in both areas.
In the second phase, since 2000, restrictions on the right to build have been gradually
increased following the approval of the new master plan as well as sub-area master
plans and building ordinances concerning separately designated areas. The Tallinn
Master Plan 2000, however, is still more a summary of the spatial structure of the city
(its functional zones, organization of traffic and infrastructure networks) than a strategic
plan to envisage urban transformation. Elaborate guidelines for future developments
have been set only in sub-area master plans and building ordinances, which establish
more precise limits within which the landowners are permitted to exercise their
freedom to develop the land. Restrictions have been strict in areas where the goal has
been to protect architectural and historic features and less strict in areas where moderniz-
ation is welcomed. Instead of defining precisely how the latter areas should be built, this
arrangement allows scope for the creativity of the developer. Despite the recent progress
it should be noted, however, that restrictions on building rights have so far only been
424 S. Ruoppila

introduced in a fraction of Tallinn’s area. In other areas only the Tallinn Master Plan 2000
and the general Building Ordinance apply, and consequently ad hoc planning continues.
However, it seems that urban development has been guided in some areas by applying
semi-official city district master plans and traffic plans to the guidelines on detailed plan-
ning. In 2004 the city announced its long-term strategy to be that more precise construction
restrictions will be established in all city districts.

Discussion
This article—like other recent contributions on planning in Central and Eastern Europe (e.g.
Dimitrowska-Andrews, 2005; Altrock et al., forthcoming)—has approached urban plan-
ning systems from the viewpoint of how it has developed as a set of regulations which func-
tion as constraints within which individual or collective actors in urban development have to
act. The study has described the urban planning system established in Tallinn and the tools
the city possesses to intervene in development through planning. Admittedly, this approach
risks representing the development of planning as too linear. Other approaches are needed to
grasp more profoundly the character of intervention in Tallinn—and elsewhere in Central
and Eastern Europe. Three further research topics are essential.
Firstly, while the article has shown that the regulation of urban development is “coming
back”, further research is needed to say why. What are the aspirations underlying the strength-
ening of planning or the influences in the implementation of new measures? Moreover, who
are pursuing such a change—and who are standing against it? Secondly, further research is
needed also on the process of drawing plans and establishing rules and restrictions connected
to specific urban development projects. Both questions require focusing on the web of
relations and power networks in the field of urban development, including identification of
the key agents as well as an analysis of conflicts or different viewpoints within collective
organizations such as the urban planning office or among private developers. Expanding
these topics necessitates conceptual work on planning as a social institution, i.e. as a set of
regulations which constrain action, but also as a social product in the sense that regulations
are altered by changes of values, preferences and power structures within society.
Thirdly, further research is needed on how plans should be implemented, the focus
being on master plans and/or other visions on the desired course of development.
Empirical studies can focus either on the control or promotion aspect, using Adams’s
(1994) terminology. In the first case the question is how well does the public agency
ensure that private actors actually follow the plans and other predefined restrictions on
development. In the case of promotion, which I find a particularly valuable subject of
research, especially from a comparative perspective, the focus should be on the role of
the public sector in supporting the development according to plans through public invest-
ment, incentives for the private landowners to implement their plans, and forming partner-
ships. I presume that there are considerable differences between Central and Eastern
European cities.
Looking at the promotion aspect from the limited viewpoint of this study, following
Haila’s (1999) terminology, the mode of city building in Tallinn resembles boosterism in
the sense that urban development is initiated and driven by private agents seeking profit
from their investment in land, but it lacks the features characteristic of growth machines
(Logan & Molotch, 1987) or entrepreneurial city strategy (Hubbard & Hall, 1998). A lack
of synergy between the public and private sectors, which clearly came out in Feldman’s
 Establishing a Market-orientated Urban Planning System after State Socialism 425

(2000) study on Tallinn in 1997, does not seem to have changed. Planning documents and
planners’ interviews show that regulation is considered to facilitate growth as such rather
than create growth in a particular place or places. Urban planning continues to be limited
to spatial land use planning and urban design, while only a little attention is given to its
impact on economic or social development. There are also no incentives provided by land
and property taxes for private owners to develop their properties. The biggest public invest-
ment in urban development is road building, which also seems to be considered more from
the point of traffic flows than the development opportunities it creates. For instance, the
benefits it creates for landowners are not taxed or otherwise collected. Therefore, Tallinn’s
mode of city building could best be defined as liberal but passive.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Anne Haila and the two anonymous reviewers for their
valuable comments on an earlier version of this article.

Notes
1. Mr Jüri Lass, from the Estonian Ministry of Interior Affairs, who has been the main author of both the
planning laws enacted in 1995 and 2002, told the author in an email correspondence that the principles of
the first law were drawn based on an analysis of the planning laws of several European countries instead
of directly copying any particular model. The content of the first law was influenced mostly by the appli-
cable parts of the practice during the Soviet years, the planning practices of the Nordic countries, and the
principles of the European Regional/Spatial Planning Charter adopted in Torremolinos in 1983.
2. Based on an interview with the head of the City Planning Office in October 2002.
3. I am indebted to Estonian architecture historian Triin Ojari for the concept of aesthetic agreement.
4. My analysis is based on a sketch of the development plan found in the archive of the city planning office,
because the approved plan could not be found from the city council archive. Nonetheless, the sketch con-
tains documentation of approvals by all other relevant bodies prior to the final approval of the city
council. I have presumed that the sketch is similar to the final approved version.
5. The Architectural Council, established in 1993, is an independent advisory body whose members are
appointed partly by the city and partly by the Union of Estonian Architects. Its resolutions are not binding.
6. A district-level master plan is not a new measure in Estonian town planning, but it did not have a legally
clear position and it was not used during the 1990s. In this sense it was re-established. A thematic plan is
used to regulate some specific feature, for instance the maximum height of buildings.
7. The protection of single buildings is ensured by the Heritage Conservation Act (1994).
8. Although the new building ordinance is a step ahead in the protection of the Nõmme garden city, the area
has not been in a total regulative void before. News reporting approval of the new building ordinance
referred to a temporary building ordinance on the construction of single-family housing lots approved
in 1989, which defined maximum floor-to-area ratio and has been followed since, as well as a decision
that the minimum size of a lot that can be constructed in Nõmme is 1200 m2, taken by the Tallinn city
council in 1996 (Toompark, 2004).
9. See http://veeb.tallinn.ee/rannaala/ranna_web/ (also in English)
10. Based on an interview with a town planner in April 2005.
11. Reference made to the first published versions of the Acts.

Laws,11 Planning Documents and Building Ordinances

Eesti Vabariigi põhiseadus (The Constitution of Estonia) (1992) RT 1992, 26, 349.
Kohaliku omavalitsuse korralduse seadus (The Law on the Organization of Municipal
Government) (1993) RT I 1993, 37, 588.
426 S. Ruoppila

Muinsuskaitseseadus (The Heritage Conservation Act) (1994) RT I RT1 1994, 24, 391.
Planeerimis-ja ehitusseadus (The Planning and Construction Law) (1995) RT I 1995, 59,
1006.
Planeerimisseadus (The Planning Law) (2002) RT I 2002, 99, 597.
Tallinna linnavolikogu (Tallinn City Council) (Tvk) (1993) Tallinna ajutine ehitusmäärus
(The Temporary Building Ordinance for the City of Tallinn) Tvk m 1.7.1993.
Tallinna linnavolikogu (Tallinn City Council) (Tvk) (1994) Tallinna arengukava aastateks
1994-1997 (Tallinn Development Plan for the Years 1994 – 1997). Tvk o 5.5.1994.
Tallinna linnavolikogu (Tallinn City Council) (Tvk) (1995) Mere pst, Narva mnt,
Kadrioru pargi ja Kesklinna sadama vahelise maa-ala arengukava (The Development
Plan of the Area between Mere Boulevard, Narva Road, Kadriorg Park and the
Central Harbour). Tvk o 12.1.1995.
Tallinna linnavolikogu (Tallinn City Council) (Tvk) (2001a) Tallinna üldplaneering 2000
(Tallinn Master Plan 2000) Tvk m 11.1.2001.
Tallinna linnavolikogu (Tallinn City Council) (Tvk) (2001b) Tallinna linna ehitusmäärus
(The Building Ordinance for the City of Tallinn) Tvk m 20.7.2001.
Tallinna linnavolikogu (Tallinn City Council) (Tvk) (2003) Tallinna linna ehitusmäärus
(The Building Ordinance for the City of Tallinn) Tvk m 29.5.2003.
Tallinna linnavolikogu (Tallinn City Council) (Tvk) (2004a) Strateegia “Tallinn 2025”
(The City Development Strategy “Tallinn 2025”) Tvk m 10.6.2004.
Tallinna linnavolikogu (Tallinn City Council) (Tvk) (2004b) Nõmme linnaosa ehitus-
määrus (The Building Ordinance for the Nõmme City District) Tvk m 28.10.2004.
Tallinna linnavolikogu (Tallinn City Council) (Tvk) (2004c) Paljassaare ja Russalka
vahelise rannaala üldplaneering (Master Plan for the Urban Waterfront between
Paljassaare and Russalka) Tvk m 9.12.2004. Available at http://veeb.tallinn.ee/
rannaala/ranna_web/
Tallinna linnavolikogu (Tallinn City Council) (Tvk) (2005) Astangu ehitusmäärus (The
Astangu Building Ordinance) Tvk m 5.5.2005.

References
Adair, A., Berry, J., McGreal, S., Sýkora, L., Parsa, A. G. & Redding, B. (1999) Globalisation of real estate
markets in Central Europe, European Planning Studies, 7, pp. 295 –305.
Adams, D. (1994) Urban Planning and the Development Process (London: UCL Press).
Altrock, U., Güntner, S., Huning, S. & Peters, D. (Eds) (2006) Spatial Planning and Urban Development in the
Ten New EU Member States (London: Ashgate).
Balchin, P. & Sýkora, L. with Bull, G. (1999) Regional Policy and Planning in Europe (London: Routledge).
Bater, J. (1980) The Soviet City (London: Arnold).
Bertaud, A. & Renaud, B. (1997) Socialist cities without land markets, Journal of Urban Economics, 41,
pp. 137 –151.
Blacksell, M. & Born, K. M. (2002) Private property restitution: The geographical consequences of official
government policies in Central and Eastern Europe, The Geographical Journal, 168, pp. 178 –190.
Bruns, D. (1993) Tallinn: linnaehituslik kujunemine (Tallinn: Formation of the urban structure) (Tallinn: Valgus).
Dimitrowska-Andrews, K. (2005) Mastering the post-socialist city: Impacts on planning the built environment,
in: F. E. I. Hamilton, K. Dimitrowska-Andrews & N. Pichler-Milanovich (Eds) Transformation of Cities
in Central and Eastern Europe, pp. 153 –188 (Tokyo: UNU Press).
Fainstein, S. (2001) The City Builders (2nd revised edition) (Lawrence, KS: The University Press of Kansas).
Feldman, M. (2000) Urban waterfront regeneration and local governance in Tallinn, Europe-Asia Studies, 52,
pp. 829 –851.
 Establishing a Market-orientated Urban Planning System after State Socialism 427

Frank, S. (2006) The European Union and the European cities: Three phases of the European urban policy, in: U.
Altrock, S. Günther, S. Huning & D. Peters (Eds) Spatial Planning and Urban Development in the Ten New
EU Member States, pp. 39–58 (London: Ashgate).
Golubchikov, O. (2004) Urban planning in Russia: Towards the market, European Planning Studies, 12,
pp. 229 –247.
Haila, A. (1999) City building in the East and West, Cities, 16, pp. 259–267.
Hankewitz, G. D. (2005) Kinnisavaraturul domineerivad suurfirmad (Large companies dominate in the real estate
market), Äripäev (Estonian business daily), 22 April.
Harvey, D. (1989) From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation of urban governance in late
capitalism, Geografiska Annaler, 71B, pp. 3–17.
Häussermann, H. & Haila, A. (2005) The European city: A conceptual framework and normative project, in:
Y. Kazepov (Ed.) Cities of Europe, pp. 43–64 (Oxford: Blackwell).
Healey, P. & Williams, R. (1993) European urban planning systems: Diversity and convergence, Urban Studies,
pp. 701 –720.
Hubbard, P. & Hall, T. (1998) The entrepreneurial city and the ‘new urban politics’, in: T. Hall & P. Hubbard
(Eds) The Entrepreneurial City, pp. 1–26 (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons).
Kalm, M. (2002) Eesti 20. sajandi arhitektuur (Estonian 20th Century Architecture) (Tallinn: Sild).
Kazepov, Y. (2005) Cities of Europe: Changing contexts, local arrangements, and the challenge to social cohe-
sion, in: Y. Kazepov (Ed.) Cities of Europe, pp. 3–42 (Oxford: Blackwell).
Keivani, R., Parsa, A. & McGreal, S. (2001) Globalisation, institutional structures and real estate markets in
central European cities, Urban Studies, 38, pp. 2457–2476.
Kunzmann, K. R. (forthcoming) Spatial development and territorial cohesion in Europe, in: U. Altrock,
S. Günther, S. Huning & D. Peters (Eds) Spatial Planning and Urban Development in the Ten New EU
Member States, pp. 19–30 (London: Ashgate).
Logan, J. & Molotch, H. (1987) Urban Fortunes (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).
Maier, K. (2001) Planning in the post-planned society: Who needs planners? Paper published in the conference
abstract book of the RGS/PSGRC conference “The End of Socialism . . .? 10 Years on . . .”, London, 4–5
May.
Mäeltsemees, S. (2000) Local government in Estonia, in: T. M. Horváth (Ed.) Decentralization: Experiments and
Reforms, pp. 61–114 (Budapest: Open Society Institute/LGI Books).
Newman, P. & Thornley, A. (1996) Urban Planning in Europe (London: Routledge).
Nigul, T. (1999) Tallinna üldplaneering ja linnaehituslikud arengusuunad (Tallinn’s city planning and architec-
tural developments), Maja, 2/1999, pp. 29–31.
Raud, I. (1999) Tallinna peatänavatest (On Tallinn’s main streets), Maja, 2/1999, pp. 32 –33.
Ruoppila, S. (2002) Elamute arendusprojektid: paikneminen ja tingimused Tallinnas (Location and conditions of
residential real estate development in Tallinn), Maja, 4/2002, pp. 20–25.
Ruoppila, S. (2004) Processes of residential differentiation in socialist cities, European Journal of Spatial
Development, 9(24). Available at http://www.nordregio.se/EJSD
Sadamaalakonkurs (2000) Architectural competition for the harbour area, Maja, 4/2000, pp. 85 –91.
Sýkora, L. (1993) City in transition: The role of rent gaps in Prague’s revitalization, Tijdschrift voor Economische
en Sociale Geografie, 84, pp. 281–293.
Szelényi, I. (1996) Cities under socialism—and after, in: G. Andrusz, M. Harloe & I. Szelényi (Eds) Cities after
Socialism, pp. 286–317 (Oxford: Blackwell).
Thornley, A. (1993) Letter from Sofia: Building the foundations for a market-oriented planning system in
Bulgaria, Planning Practice and Research, 8, pp. 27 –30.
Toompark, T. (2004) Linnavolikogu kinnitas Nõmme ehitusmääruse (Nõmme Building Ordinance was approved
by the City Council). Available at http://kinnisvara.live.ee/ (published 28 October 2004).
Tosics, I. (2005) City development in Central and Eastern Europe since 1990: The impact of internal forces, in:
F. E. I. Hamilton, K. Dimitrowska-Andrews & N. Pichler-Milanovich (Eds) Transformation of Cities in
Central and Eastern Europe, pp. 44–78 (Tokyo: UNU Press).
Uus Maa (2004) Tallinna kinnisvaraturu trendid sügis 2004 (The trends of Tallinn real estate market, autumn
2004) (Tallinn: Uus Maa grupp).
Ward, S. V. (2002) Planning the Twentieth-century City (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons).