Planning Perspectives Prize

The Planning Perspectives Prize 2022 was awarded for the best paper published in Planning Perspectives during the calendar years 2020-2021: https://planninghistory.org/awards/planning-perspectives-prizes/

The prize was received for the paper:

Mikkel Høghøj (2020), ‘Planning Aarhus as a welfare geography: urban modernism and the shaping of “welfare subjects” in post-war Denmark’, Planning Perspectives, 35(6): 1031-54.

Commendation:
Mikkel Høghøj’s ‘Planning Aarhus as a welfare geography: urban modernism and the shaping of ‘welfare subjects’ in post-war Denmark’ is a carefully considered, skilfully crafted and highly engaging article. It stands out for its innovative and interdisciplinary approach which introduces the concept of ‘welfare geography’ to readers who may be unfamiliar with that notion. As developed in this study, Høghøj uses ‘welfare geography’ as the lens to interrogate the relationship between ‘welfare’, broadly defined, and the active process of the socio-cultural production of urban space. Drawing on the work of geographers, historians and, particularly, the French critical theorists Michel Foucault and Henri Lefebvre, Høghøj assiduously introduces the purpose, theoretical basis and key tenets of ‘welfare geography’. He demonstrates the application of the concept in the context of urban planning in post-war Denmark and particularly of two regional plans for Greater Aarhus (1954, 1966) that will be unfamiliar to the wider audience.

Høghøj’s exposition of the background to, intentions behind, and details and outcomes of the Aarhus plans introduces the key actors, processes, and sources of knowledge that underpinned their production and implementation. His findings and interpretation draw not only on the writings of authors who have conceptualised ‘welfare geography’ but also on publications by scholars ranging from Danish urbanists to British and North American urban, architectural, and planning historians. The adept interweaving and use of ideas and findings from other scholars adds a richness and depth to Høghøj’s analysis. As he asserts and commandingly substantiates in his article, ‘welfare geography’ has the potential to be used more widely as the analytical approach for planning historians investigating ‘national and local contexts’ other than Denmark and Greater Aarhus. Therein lies a major contribution of Mikkel Høghøj’s article.