Puu-Käpylä. Then and now.

A few months ago I wrote about Puu-Vallila, a small and idyllic 1900s’ wooden district located in the northern part of Helsinki. As I was learning more about its history, the name of Vallila’s younger sister Puu-Käpylä came up, and as soon as the term garden city appeared, I was determined to visit this place right away. These two districts share nearly the same history, the same purpose, the same architectural styles, and many more aspects. However, they both have entirely different and unique identities; something very specific about each one of them that is difficult to describe, but can be immediately felt once you arrive there.

Puu-Käpylä, like Puu-Vallila, was born out of the pressing necessity for new housing that would provide the working-class families with a higher standard of living conditions at the beginning of the 20^th century. Located even further out of the city centre than Vallila, the construction of Puu-Käpylä began in 1920 under the supervision of the project’s main architects Akseli Toivonen and Martti Välikangas.¹ Five years later the number of buildings in this neighbourhood had already reached 168. Although the presence of nature in Finnish culture has always played a significant role, the concept of a private garden used for growing food (particularly in such urban environment) was something rather new.

During the 1950s and 1960s when various new Finnish suburbs emerged along with new large housing projects and master plans, the area was facing serious demolition threats. These wooden houses could no longer compete with the new level of comfort and sanitation that the modern suburbs provided (the dwellings in Käpylä, for example, had outdoor toilets), and many of them had already been badly damaged or destroyed in the Second World War.² In 1960 Ahti Korhonen and Erik Kråkström won the architectural competition organised by the city’s officials. They proposed a new plan for the area which suggested replacing the old wooden buildings with new two-storey stone houses, changing the overall street layout, and turning some of the green areas into parking spaces.³ Even though Käpylä would still remain a Green Suburb (emphasis on green), the sense of community that had grown very strong over the previous decades would have been completely destroyed. For many years an ongoing debate continued between those who supported and those who were against the new plans. Finally, in 1971 an official report, made by a special committee who had investigated the actual conditions of the houses as well as the economical differences between the area’s redevelopment and renovation, declared that the restoration is possible and the buildings are of a historical importance, therefore Puu-Käpylä acquired the status of a conservation area.⁴ The most significant renovation works took place until 1977, lead by architect Bengt Lundsten.⁵

 

The wooden houses in Puu-Käpylä also belong to Nordic Classicism, but compared to the buildings in Puu-Vallila these dwellings appear a lot simpler and more modest. Instead of having the sophisticated and playful gambrel roofs which are very common in the Vallila district, here the houses are often finished with plain gable or hip roofs, while the weatherboarding is covered in darker and earthier tones. These buildings are said to resemble the traditional rural life in Finland, which is quite unlike some of the other examples of Nordic Classicism that try to stand out and impress with their boldness.⁶

One element that does stand out, however, is the ornaments above and below the window surrounds. These decors help to identify and distinguish the houses, as well as making you admire the craftsmanship of their makers.

Puu-Käpylä feels a lot more spacious than Puu-Vallila, which, of course, is a result of the amount of green space that surrounds the houses. The buildings are aligned in a very straightforward rectangular grid, but the trees and the greenery seem to ignore these boundaries and rebel against the bold geometry, which is probably a lot more noticeable in the summer. Also, the terrain in Vallila, although being far from flat and boring, feels somewhat more tamed than here. From certain hill tops it is possible to overlook nearly the entire neighbourhood, while the bottom of that hill protects a small and fragile fruit tree from the North wind. It is almost as if the wilderness had managed to survive and resist the urbanisation and is now holding onto every little piece of land where the human has not yet placed a concrete foundation.

It may be that many people would have benefited more if Puu-Käpylä was redeveloped in the 1960s. It may be that the area would have had a completely different importance today. It is very easy to look at a photo of an old building, say that it probably has no use anymore and quickly think of a more profitable way to exploit the site. But it takes a lot of effort to see past that weather-beaten surface and willingness to find the ways in which it is still superior to some of the contemporary buildings rather than emphasising what it lacks. When I look at these pictures now, I, too, see only old wooden houses. But I have been there. I have stood next to them and I clearly remember that intangible uniqueness this area possesses like no other place in Helsinki. And that is the only way to understand the meaning of such places. You have to get familiar with them.

1. Clark, Peter, ed. The European City and Green Space: London, Stockholm, Helsinki and St. Petersburg, 1850-2000. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2006.

2. ”Puu-Käpylän kaavoituskiista – Kulttuuriympäristöön kohdistuvien asenteiden muuttumisesta 1960-luvulla.” Rakennusperinto.fi. Accessed February 14, 2016. http://www.rakennusperinto.fi/kulttuuriymparisto/artikkelit/fi_FI/Puu_Kapylan_kaavoituskiista/

3. Clark, The European City and Green Space: London, Stockholm, Helsinki and St. Petersburg, 1850-2000.

4. Rakennusperinto.fi. ”Puu-Käpylän kaavoituskiista – Kulttuuriympäristöön kohdistuvien asenteiden muuttumisesta 1960-luvulla.”

5. ”Käpylän puutaloalueet ja Käärmetalo.” Museovirasto. Accessed February 14, 2016. http://www.rky.fi/read/asp/r_kohde_det.aspx?KOHDE_ID=1566

6. Quantrill, Malcom. Finnish Architecture and the Modernist Tradition. London: Taylor & Francis, 1995.

Tapiola. The Utopian dream.

Tapiola is an urban district in Espoo – one of the four cities (together with Helsinki, Vantaa, and Kauniainen) that form the Capital Region of Finland. Tapiola is best known for its developments which date back to 1950’s and 60’s and were designed following the principles of a garden city, first established by Ebenezer Howard. As I quickly realised, no description can really prepare you for what you eventually see and experience in Tapiola. However, I will try my best to describe how I perceived this place.

The initial goal in Tapiola was to create a low-density urban area with a dominant central element (the town centre) that would connect a number of residential neighbourhoods where a broad range of building types (varying in size and price) would exist side by side, allowing to break the social barriers between classes.¹ The main focus would then become the integration of the natural elements – water, forest, garden – into the community’s daily life.

As you start to explore the area, its spatial organisation and the network that consists of these residential neighbourhoods, motorways and pedestrian bridges, soon become clear. Although all the residential areas together form one city, each of these clusters feel somewhat isolated from the others. Partially because of the forested landscape creating a protective enclosure around each development, and also because of the main roads often splitting and becoming the boundaries of these neighbourhoods.

In some ways, it is a little difficult to see what is so special about Tapiola and why does it stand out so much from other typical Finnish suburbs since urban developments within forested landscapes are common everywhere in Finland. Perhaps it is that idea of high-rise buildings and one-storey family houses existing so naturally next to each other. The eastern neighbourhood of Tapiola, which is also the oldest of them all, is the best example that demonstrates how this concept works in the physical world.

One of the main rules that made a significant impact on the majority of the designs was the decision to preserve the natural terrain, to create buildings which would respond to it, and to find a way that would allow the residents to fully and effectively use the outdoor spaces.² That seem to have been achieved very well. The high-rise buildings, although externally appearing almost identical, have established very dynamic relationships between one another. This energetic feel is definitely to some extent created by the landscape which, for example, does not allow even for two neighbouring buildings to be built on the same ground level. To avoid the possibility of the tall houses becoming overwhelming and monotonous, their façades are also often broken down, resulting in an illusion that each house consists of many smaller fragments, thus also imitating the nature of the landscape.³

Small pockets between these houses accommodate little recreational zones and playgrounds right on the edges of the rocky slopes covered in moss and pine trees – a rather wild terrain which in most cases would have been left untouched and even made unreachable by placing a fence around it. However, here the outdoor social activities and the interaction with the forest is strongly encouraged.

Rows of tall apartment buildings and low private houses are separated only by narrow roads, creating a very unique environment. By the look of it, the initial goal of erasing the boundaries between different classes has been certainly reached. However, it feels that along with breaking these social barriers the privacy curtains have fallen as well. The one-storey family houses on Itäranta street that are completely exposed to the much taller apartment buildings on the opposite side of the road (which also has a higher ground level), resemble an entrance to the prison more than anything else, with the dark opaque doors and the high brick walls enclosing the courtyards. Although their occupants are able to enjoy the beautiful view of the waterfront on the west, it is hard to imagine how one could feel at ease on the east side of these dwellings, with the previously mentioned ‘defence systems’ constantly reminding that, if it was not for them, the family’s activities would turn into a theatre play on a brightly illuminated stage.

Tapiola’s centre, which has been designed as the connecting dominant element, differs from these residential neighbourhoods in some ways. From the very beginning its main function was to provide shared and equal facilities for all residents of this district, in order for Tapiola to become fully self-sustaining.⁴ Although the centre is also very green and large fragments of the natural landscape are preserved throughout the place, it is a lot denser than its surrounding neighbourhoods. Tapiola has its own cinema, public swimming pool, church, and it is the home of the Espoo Cultural Centre which accommodates ”concert hall (Tapiola Hall), theatre hall (Louhi Hall), gallery, Tapiola Library, Espoo Music Institute, Tapiola Citizen’s Office and Tapiola facilities of the Espoo Adult Education Centre”.⁵

Another notable component of Tapiola’s centre is a large building complex where shopping centres and various commercial organisations are located. This complex is a rather enormous maze with countless pedestrian paths winding through its structures. It is very easy to get lost in this labyrinth where you instantly feel trapped as there is almost not a single point from which you can see beyond its boundaries. Designed based on very futuristic notions, this shopping complex appears as a detached and isolated bubble among all its surrounding developments. Even though it retains the same fragmented style pattern, its position and connection with the rest of the central area is a little confusing. Certainly for those who are visiting the place for the first time.

Currently Tapiola is a large construction site – a new shopping centre, apartment buildings and transport infrastructure are all under the construction. It seems that now, more than half a century later, the original utopian ideas might become at least partially fulfilled once the new developments (including the metro stop) in Tapiola are completed. However, considering how inevitably different the very nature of these new designs will be compared to the current complex which forms Tapiola’s centre, there is a high risk that the place will lose its character. Perhaps it is true that some parts of the Tapiola had to be (re)developed and improved in order for them to become more integrated, but at the moment it feels that in only a couple of years an entirely different district will have taken the place of the existing one. Although the original Tapiola can be described as an unresolved Modernist experiment, it certainly suggests great ideas for the same problems that many urban planners struggle with today (e.g. lack of green spaces, alienation, destruction of natural landscape). Therefore it is extremely important to ensure that the place continues to grow without completely defying and abandoning the initial concepts.

1. Philip Pregill and Nancy Volkman, Landscapes in History: Design and Planning in the Eastern and Western Traditions. 2nd Edition, (New York:John Wiley & Sons, 1999).

2. Pregill and Volkman, Landscapes in History: Design and Planning in the Eastern and Western Traditions. 2nd Edition.

3. Elie G.Haddad, ed., and David Rifkind, ed., A Critical History of Contemporary Architecture: 1960-2010, (London:Ashgate Publishing, 2014).

4. Mark B. Lapping, ”Review: Building a New Town: Finland’s New Garden City-Tapiola by Heikki von Hertzen, Paul D. Spreiregen”, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 31, no. 3 (1972): 245.

5. ”History and architecture,” The City of Espoo, accessed November 26, 2015, http://www.espoo.fi/en-US/Culture_and_sport/Culture/Cultural_centres_and_cultural_houses/Espoo_Cultural_Centre/About_us/History_and_architecture