Author
Listed:
- Ekaterina Lapina‐Kratasiuk
(Regional Geography of Europe Department, Leibniz Institute for Regional Geography, Germany)
- Oksana Zaporozhets
(Regional Geography of Europe Department, Leibniz Institute for Regional Geography, Germany / Georg Simmel Center for Urban Studies, Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany)
- Sophia Reidl
(Regional Geography of Europe Department, Leibniz Institute for Regional Geography, Germany)
Abstract
The question of what becomes of urban future‐making when a city loses its institutional anchor has received insufficient scholarly attention. This article addresses this gap through the concept of lostness—developed here as an analytical alternative to deficit‐oriented frameworks such as shrinkage or decline. Lost cities are settlements that, following large‐scale disruption, have been displaced from the purview of state or corporate control and expert‐driven urban development, and find themselves in search of new trajectories. Rather than a condition of passivity or failure, lostness may engender distinctive, place‐based forms of agency—and, in some cases, a deliberate resistance to being “found” and absorbed into systems that do not serve local interests. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork at JHQ Rheindahlen, Germany—a former joint headquarters of British Forces and the NATO Northern Army Group, operational from 1954 to 2013 and now poised between abandonment and a deferred state and federal development agenda—the article examines how residents continue to enact futures despite their marginalisation from formal planning. Engaging theories of minor futures, projective grammars, and temporal disenfranchisement, we demonstrate that institutional withdrawal does not suspend future‐making but fundamentally reconfigures its character. Expert visions tend toward conclusive futures with defined endpoints and abstract assessments of value, while residents articulate minor futures through transgressive spatial appropriations, informal memory practices, and a persistent prioritisation of use‐value and accessibility. These two orders of future‐making rarely enter into direct dialogue, producing an asymmetry of recognition we term “limited inclusion”—with significant implications for inclusive urban planning and governance.
Suggested Citation
Ekaterina Lapina‐Kratasiuk & Oksana Zaporozhets & Sophia Reidl, 2026.
"Found in Lostness: Community Visions for Multiple Future‐Making,"
Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11.
Handle:
RePEc:cog:urbpla:v11:y:2026:a:11881
DOI: 10.17645/up.11881
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:urbpla:v11:y:2026:a:11881. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.