Found in Lostness

Community Visions for Multiple Future‐Making

Bibliographic Data

ID22018500
AuthorsEkaterina Lapina-Kratasyuk (0000-0002-9396-0937, Leibniz Institute for Regional Geography), Оксана Запорожец (0000-0001-7301-0128, Leibniz Institute for Regional Geography), Sophia Reidl (0009-0006-7329-3715, Leibniz Institute for Regional Geography)
Year2026
Volume11
Publication date2026-06-29
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueUrban Planning (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2183-7635 • E-ISSN: 2183-7635
PublisherCogitatio (PUBLISHER • PT)
DOI10.17645/up.11881
OpenAlexW7166577513
LanguageEN
References cited12

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

Autonomy · Ethnography · Futures contract · Human settlement · Sovereignty · Vision · Geographies of human-animal interactions · Urban Planning and Governance · Urbanization and City Planning

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access