Found in Lostness: Community Visions for Multiple Future‐Making

Ekaterina Lapina‐Kratasiuk, Oksana Zaporozhets and Sophia Reidl
Additional contact information
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

Urban Planning, 2026, vol. 11

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.

Keywords: future‐making; lostness; minor futures; post‐military landscapes; projective grammars (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2026
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/11881 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cog:urbpla:v11:y:2026:a:11881

DOI: 10.17645/up.11881

Access Statistics for this article

Urban Planning is currently edited by Tiago Cardoso

More articles in Urban Planning from Cogitatio Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by António Vieira () and IT Department ().