Power, Democracy and the Built Environment in Helsinki

Erkki Berndtson

Literature:

Jonathan Moorhouse, Michael Carapetian, Leena Ahtola-Moorhouse: Helsinki Jugendstil Architecture, 1895-1915. Otava, Helsinki 1987.

Kirsi Saarikangas: Home for Model Families. Gender, Ideology and the Modern Dwelling. The Type-Planned Houses of the 1940s in Finland. Vammalan kirjapaino Oy, Vammala 1993.

Statistical Yearbook of the City of Helsinki (annual).

Background information

The growth of Helsinki

The city of Helsinki was founded by the Swedish king Gustaf Vasa in 1550 to compete with the city of Tallinn on the other side of the Baltic sea. At that time the present day Finland was a part of the Swedish empire (as Sweden had spread its power over the area from the 12^thcentury onwards). The cultural and administrative center of the country, however, was the city of Åbo (Turku).

After Finland had been annexed by Russia in 1809, Helsinki was made a Capital of the Autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland (in 1812) for political reasons. Turku was too close to Sweden. At the time of becoming a Capital in 1812 the city was more like a small village with about 4000 inhabitants. Still in 1875 there were only 23 000 inhabitants in the city. This in spite of the fact that Helsinki had become a cultural and administrative center of the country. Even the old Royal Åbo Academy (which had been founded in 1640) was ordered to move to Helsinki in 1828 and became the University of Helsinki.

Population did not begin to increase rapidly until the turn of the century with the industrialization and strong economic growth. In 1895 there were just a little over 40 000 inhabitants in Helsinki, but at the time when Finland gained its independence from Russia (1917) the population had increased to well over 150 000. Today the population of the city iself is over 550 000, but with neighboring communes it forms the area of the Greater Helsinki with cirka 1.2 million people.

Architectural styles in Helsinki

When Helsinki became a Capital of the Autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland, Czar Alexander I (1801 - 1825) decided to build a new monumental center for the city to show its new position. The city plan was designed by a Finn, Johan Albrecht Ehrenström, but it was realized by a young German architect Carl Ludvig Engel. The result was a city square in the formal neo-classical style. Considering the fact that the city at that time really was a small village, the square was a dominating place giving its surroundings a new character. The square (the Senate Square) remains one of the main architectural sights even today in Helsinki.

During the reign of the succeeding Russian Czars, Nicholas I (1825-1855), Alexander II (1855-1881) and Alexander III (1881-1894), there was not much architectural innovation in the city. The area around the Senate square consisted of small wooden houses and still in 1880 there were not many high buildings in Helsinki. The economic and population growth of the turn of the century coincided, however, with the emergence of new architects and with a new architectural style. Young architects, such as, for instance, Herman Gesellius, Armas Lindgren and Eliel Saarinen gave expression to the Finnish Jugendstyle (1895 - 1915), which still can be seen as one of the most exciting architectural styles in Helsinki. As it very much developed during the russification period of Czar Nicholas II (1894-1917), it became to be associated with the rising Finnish nationalism, taking its symbols from the cultural heritage of the Finnish countryside.

After the independence (1917) there were more interesting things to do than to design buildings. Architecturally the 1920s represented more a move towards the past than to future. There were signs of a return to classical architecture, one example being a new Parliament building by J.S. Sirén (built in 1926-1931). It was only in the 1930s when new modern winds began to blow in the Finnish architecture in the form of functionalism (e.g., in the work of Alvar Aaalto ). Modernism continued to the 1950s, although the hard economic situation after the Second World War made it difficult to realize the aims of modernism properly at that time. In contrast to the political symbolism of the early 19^th century or the Jugendstyle, the modern architecture was, however, more an example of an attempt to good domestic living than to political awakening. The same can be said about the new wooden houses which were built in the 1940s and in the 1950s in the Helsinki suburbs.

The 1960s and the 1970s were a disastrous period architecturally. Many old houses were demolished, mainly because of business interests, at the same time when new large apartment complexes were built in suburbs. The new suburbs were needed because of the structural change in the Finnish society, which compelled many to leave the countryside to find jobs in the Southern Finland. It has only been in the 1990s when the Finnish architecture has again captured its innovative character through postmodernism.

Democracy and the Built Form in Helsinki

The main arguments concerning power and democracy in Helsinki:

1) Helsinki is structurally a relatively democratic city. This means that although there exists segregated areas (as in all big cities), spatial exclusion is relatively small in nature. The same goes with the scale of buildings. There is no "threat of force". Besides, people have good access to different parts of the city. The future is, however, uncertain and there are signs of development which point towards the rise of more non-democratic structures.

2) On the other hand, Helsinki is not an actively democratic city. The political symbolism very much died with the independence and the "city text" has become very pragmatic (cf. street names). This can also be seen in the development of monuments. During the Russian rule many monuments had a clear political meaning (e.g., the statue of Alexander II in 1894 by Walter Runeberg and even Havis Amanda in 1908 by Ville Vallgren), but there are very few political statues any more (although, for instance, the statue of General Mannerheim has given rise to a heated political argument now and then). The pragmatic nature of the city text means also that there are no meaning given to active democracy or multiculturalism in the city structure. Even some of the historically important buildings have been destroyed. At the same time Helsinki is both a centralized and a dispersed city. Political, economic and cultural life is concentrated in a very small downtown area, while in the areas where most people live, there are no strong neighborhoods. There are also very few places for active democratic talk. Even political institutions have been decentralized from each other and there are symbolically no clear "political area" in the city. Helsinki is shaped today more by business interests than political ones.

3) The situation can be explained partly by referring to the ideology of the Nordic welfare states (structural democracy) and to the Finnish political culture in general (weak political symbolism). On the other hand, the lack of active democracy in Helsinki is also due to weak identity of its citizens. For this there are two main reasons. Firstly, Helsinki has been created by political decisions, by Gustaf Vasa in 1550 and by Alexander I in 1812. In that sense it has always been an artificial city. Secondly, the city is a relatively young one. There are no deep traditions linked to it. Even today about two-thirds of adult population in Helsinki has been born outside the city. This has left the development of the city in the hands of different political and economic elites who often have had other interests in mind than those of Helsinki.