HOUSING REFORM HELSINKI - LIVING IN 2020 COMPETITION PROGRAM - MYCOURSES

Pg. 1

        Housing Reform Helsinki –
              Living in 2020
          Competition Program

Pg. 3
Housing Reform Competition Helsinki - Housing 2020

Greeting
Cranes, construction sites, trucks, dust and banging—Helsinki is growing fast, giving space for the
dreams, the future and the newborn children. ​The amount of housing construction in Helsinki has been
raised to a historically high annual rate of about 5,000 completed dwellings and for the third year there
are about 7,000 new dwellings currently under construction, at present over 8,000. In the Helsinki City
Strategy 2017-2021, the housing production target was decided to increase from 6,000 dwellings per
year to 7,000 dwellings per year during the second half of the city council’s term.

The strategy also decided to restrain the costs of construction and to tighten the urban structure.
Preventing inequality from increasing is one of the central goals of the City Strategy. Helsinki will
continue to pursue the position of a leading European example in segregation prevention, enabling the
equality and well-being in all districts.

Alongside the city's housing and land use program, the MAL Agreement (agreement on land use,
housing and traffic) has been implemented. The MAL Agreement was signed by the state and the
municipalities of the Helsinki region in summer 2016, and its implementation is monitored annually. In
recent years, a joint MAL 2019 plan for the Helsinki region has been prepared so that it can be accepted
in early 2019.

All of the above will affect the lives of thousands of people in Helsinki and elsewhere in Finland in the
coming decades. In the long run it’s required that, in addition to the number of dwellings, attention is
also paid to the dwellings themselves: what is housing design today and what could it be? At the same
time, it is important to consider what kind of community is being created around the new construction.
The path paved with norms is long and full of opportunities.

The cycles and volumes of construction are regularly discussed in the public debate, but the resultant
dwellings are given less attention. The Housing Reform competition provides an important opportunity
to focus not only on the environment and urban space but also on what housing is like today and what it
could be like in the future.

To all the participants of the competition, I wish creative working with Jätkäsaari, Meri-Rastila and
Pohjois-Pasila!

Anni Sinnemäki
Deputy Mayor and Chairman of the Housing Reform Association

Pg. 4

ARTICLES

Pg. 5–6

Helsinki Goals for Housing
The Home Town Helsinki -program gives guidelines to housing

Housing policy objectives of the City of Helsinki are outlined in the Implementation Programme for
Housing and Housing Related Land Use. The current Home Town Helsinki 2016 was approved by the city
council in June 2016. ​The central aim of the housing policy is to raise the dwelling output level to 7,000
dwellings per year by 2019. ​Planning and plot transfer create the conditions for this. The ambitious goal
aims at meeting the needs of a growing city. At the same time, a sustainable city is being built by
increasing housing production close to services and with good connections to public transport.

Another key policy approach is the mixing of housing management and financing methods at urban and
regional levels. In practice, this means in the new areas a diverse range of rented, owner-occupied, right
of residence and Hitas housing (housing price-and-quality control system used in Helsinki). In existing
areas it means diversification of housing types. ​The aim is to increase the number of owner-occupied
housing in rental-intensive areas and vice versa. The underlying objective is to provide versatile housing
alternatives and to curb segregation, i.e., undesirable regional differentiation. Helsinki has also received
international recognition of its management and financing modalities of its mixed housing policy.

The third key objective relates to the regulation of the apartment-level distribution of dwellings. ​The aim
is to ensure the proportion of family dwellings in owner-occupied dwellings. This will enable families to
live in Helsinki in the future. By ensuring a varied apartment type distribution in a regional area, it is also
possible to put households on the path of retaining housing in their own familiar neighborhood as their
lifestyles change over time.

Building the world’s most functional city

The City Strategy adopted in summer 2017 is complementary to the objectives of housing. ​The Most
Functional City in the World - city strategy emphasizes the role of residents in the creation of their own
hometown. With the strategy, the city aims to provide its inhabitants with good, urban life. We want to
make Helsinki more attractive also internationally.

The role of districts in housing and living environments is emphasized in the city's ambitions. Helsinki
wants to be a city where all the districts are livable, comfortable and unique, and where the inhabitants
know their neighborhoods. The influence of residents on their living environment is to be increased. All
districts in Helsinki want to have the conditions for good everyday life, functional traffic, diverse local
services and livelihoods. The objective is to reduce the segregation between regions.

Helsinki wants to be a cozy city where an interesting urban space creates the conditions for encounters
and well-being. Architecture is interesting and diverse, and the high quality of construction creates a
strong identity and image for the city.

Housing construction variety

The ​Kehittyvä Kerrostalo Emerging Housing Program ​(City of Helsinki 2018a) implements both the Home
Town Helsinki -program and the City Strategy. The aim of the program is to diversify apartment building
construction and find new housing innovations that serve the needs of residents​. The aim is to increase
the attractiveness of apartment buildings and make them better from the perspective of residents.
According to the city strategy, the city wants to act as an innovation platform for the ideas of residents
and developers. The city selects the proposals with the most exciting new innovations and supports their
implementation. At the moment, ​new ideas are needed, including live-work combinations and
boulevard-homes that help people live centrally and with high quality living. ​Winning projects in the
Housing Reform Competition will also be part of the Kehittyvä Kerrostalo Emerging Housing Program!

How do people live in Helsinki now?

Most people in Helsinki live in apartment buildings​. Of the dwelling units produced in 2017, as many as
91% were in apartment blocks (Kotikaupunkina Helsinki 2018). There are more and more people living in
new urban areas. Still, most residents of Helsinki live in existing neighborhoods in the suburbs. Up to
63% of the housing production in 2017 was completed as supplementary construction. Both new and old
districts are developing strongly.

Almost half of Helsinki's households are single-occupied (City of Helsinki 2018b). Almost 80% of
households in Helsinki are occupied by one or two people. ​In Helsinki, however, the average size of
dwellings has not diminished, as has been the case in neighboring cities and further in the Helsinki
region (City of Helsinki 2018c). In fact, the opposite has occurred. Just over the past few years, the
average size of households in Helsinki has increased. This is explained, inter alia, by the fact that families

with children are increasingly living in the city. Housing demands have been urbanized, both for families
with children and for the elderly. Helsinki has a great opportunity to meet the demand for urban living.

About half of households live in rental units and half in owner-occupied dwellings (City of Helsinki
2018b). The City of Helsinki's own rental housing is home to 91,000 people (City of Helsinki 2018d). The
diversity of housing units is the result of the city's goals of maintaining diverse housing stock and diverse
management and financing methods.

Conclusion

Initiatives like the Housing Reform Competition are needed to inspire creation of future living in the
cities. I wish the participants of the competition an open and daring attitude. The goal of the city
strategy is a worthwhile one—to make Helsinki better, day by day, and make it possible for the residents
of Helsinki to enjoy a good urban life!

Riikka Karjalainen
The City of Helsinki

Pg. 7–8

How is a family home used today?

The modernist period in housing design, just like in
urban planning, drew attention to the most
important issues of housing: how should housing be
used? and who lives there? The appropriateness and
standardization of housing were keywords that
guided the design of new suburban residences for
nuclear families. ​A child-friendly environment meant
light and greenery between buildings. Rational
planning was largely based on housing research.
Even though the apartments were small, different
functions had their own places. S​eparate bedrooms
provided parents and children with privacy, the
kitchens were specifically designed for the needs of
a housewife, and the living rooms became common
spaces for socializing. However, family members
spent a significant part of their time outside the
apartment: at work, in the yard, running errands
(e.g. Saarikangas 2002, Nylander 2013).

Then there was a change: strong urbanization, criticism of suburban districts, single-family housing, the
Nurmijärvi phenomenon [suburban sprawl]​, and entering the 21st century also the possibility of large
long-term mortgages.

Over the past ten years, Helsingin Sanomat [Finnish newspaper] (e.g. Takala & Takala 2013; Härkönen
2017; Taipale 2018) has been surprised to see the rise in the number of children first in Helsinki, and
later in other cities. According to the latest resident survey (Strandell 2017), ​good transport links and
access to services in residential areas have become more important to families who are thinking about
their housing. In the center of Helsinki, families are ready to adjust living habits as they get older, to stay
in the environment that feels most desirable (e.g. Lilius 2014, 2016). It seems that other types of family
housing have emerged alongside the open environment and the single-family house.

But while the perceptions of a child-friendly residential environment are in the midst of change, so are
the perceptions of the "normal family" being expanded: the nuclear family is not the only model for
which housing should be designed. In fact, according to a resident survey, in every fifth family with
school-age children, the size of the household varies weekly (Strandell 2017). Existing research on how
these families organize their lives within the home, however, is very limited. We know from Sweden that
single parents living downtown may not be able to afford a separate bedroom (Westerman & Öhrfelt,
2011).

It is often claimed that urban planning has contributed to rational thinking, or at least urban planners
have strongly suggested as much. However, in housing design, engagement with future residents still is
in its conceptual infancy. Should we reflect on how the present-day family looks and what it needs? How
are alternative families emerging? The answer could be sought, for example, by using a service design
toolbox, for example by asking different families what they feel is functional and what needs
improvement, or perhaps completely new perspectives and solutions. There is a need for a two-way
feedback system between housing and residency.

At the same time, it may also be considered whether the best aspects of modern housing design, such as
the use of research-based information, and the emphasis on lighting and privacy, should be emphasized
when looking for new, multifaceted solutions to people's habits and the homes organized around their
individual lives.

Johanna Lilius

Pg. 9–11

Reform of Multi-Generational Housing

The need for multi-generational living has been said to be a transient phase of life. However, the city can
accommodate many lifestyles, as residential areas and apartments offer different types of living for
different people. Residences of mixed generations may persist, and people of various stages of life may
encounter each other under the same roof in many different ways (e.g. Clapham 2005). In the following,
I think of housing as a basis for ideas about family living solutions. I address multi-generational housing
from the point of view of individuality, intergenerational care, migration and livelihood.

Happiness in One’s Own Space

One’s own space and home have been important values in Finnish housing culture. Parents and adult
children living together has traditionally been rare and young people have moved very early to their own
homes (e.g. Eurostat 2016, Central Petäjä 2017). In Helsinki, however, in 2017 more than 25,000 adults
lived with their parents or relatives. ​Nearly 60% of young adults aged 18–20 years still lived in their
parents’ homes. Only around 17% of 20–24 -year-olds lived together with their parents. (Statistics
Finland 2017.) For a self-sufficient young adult, for example, having their own room apart from the
common living quarters and other bedrooms, or ​even having their own entrance may be a crucial
guarantor for their own peace.

On the other hand, the elderly living in their own apartments, either at home or in service houses, has
been more and more both the will of individuals and the cultural norm of society (eg Juhila et al., 2016,
15, Ilmarinen 2017). In spite of the community planning efforts, it would be a good idea to take into
account the Finnish people's appreciation of privacy in housing design. Even if families or elderly
homeowners live in compact, efficient dwellings, all apartments, buildings and blocks should included at
least some private corners where one can retreat to their own peace.

Close to Help?

In Finland, the presence of enhanced-service housing—as well as the role of spouses, relatives, and
friends as caregivers—has grown for those over 75 years old (Noro et al., 2014, 22-23). Elderly living at
home and the availability of home-based services will increase, but an important question is whether
the care provided by the municipality is adequate, or if additional care of the elderly is also needed from
relatives, friends or others. If the latter, what are some home-care housing solutions and the policy
plans that will make it possible to reconcile caring for family with the normal working and living?

In the future, adult children will have to take care of their elderly parents at an earlier stage of their life,
as parents are older and older when they have their children​. On the other hand, today's retirees are
in better shape and spend more active years between the working life and the need for special care.
Adult children living the busiest years of their lives, may be offered help in taking care of their parents.
Living close to grandparents provides an opportunity for mutual care. For everyone, however, help from
inside of the family is not available. In such cases, solutions such as Jätkäsaari generation quarters​,
elderly communal housing or other new kinds of community housing can offer solutions (e.g.,
Sukupolvienkortteli 2018, Loppukiri 2018, Koti kaupungissa 2018).

Return of Families (Migration)

Migration and housing studies show that ​one of the factors most significant migration motivations is the
desire to move closer to relatives or friends (e.g. Vilkama et al 2016, Kytö et al 2016). According to the
nationwide resident survey of 2016, social contacts, neighbors, and friends were important factors in
housing for all population groups, but especially for people aged 15 to 19 and for older people who
spend a lot of time in residential areas (Strandell 2017, 95). However, migration due to caring for close
relatives is rather marginal (Kytö & Väliniemi 2009, 31).

Although 73% of people who are migrating in Finland are under the age of 35 (Statistics Finland 2016),
there are interesting causes and consequences in the reasons why older people migrate, that could
affect housing design. In a survey of over 75-year-olds in Finland, ​reasons for migration included
retirement, care for grandchildren, increased need for assistance, inaccessibility of housing, and lack of
services. The need for elderly parents' assistance was also linked to the children's decisions to move
(Jolanki 2015).

However, the solid housing stock effectively controls and limits migration. That is why it makes sense to
design such apartments and residential areas where the resident would be able to live their entire life if
desired. This means conversion flexibility both in buildings and in dwelling units. Inside the apartments,
for example, ​windows should be designed so that, if necessary, partitions and space dividers can be used
to increase or reduce the number of rooms according to needs​. Also combining or separating
apartments and changing the use of buildings should be taken into account when designing a building.

Finally, ​each residential area should have such a diverse building stock that elderly parents and their
adult children could swap their homes. For example, an exchange between the house of older parents
and a young family’s apartment could be a good solution. Surveyed or statistical information is not
available on how many end up in such an arrangement.

Alternate Living and Spatial Arrangements for New Generations

For families who live far apart, ​there may be a need to periodically accommodate relatives​. However, it
is good to note that, for example, the space solutions for children of divorced parents are completely
different with regard to privacy from those for the parents of adult children. Combining the living
conditions of various family situations requires generous creativity and adaptation.

Although living alone in small apartments—as a result of age and by choice—is an increasing
phenomenon, it does not mean that only one person will be occupying the apartment. Existing
accommodation arrangements in everyday life may be mainly pull-out sofas and spare beds. This does
not meet the requirements of Finnish privacy and the need for one’s own space. Could a more flexible
and radically new design of common spaces for residential buildings create solutions to temporary
accommodation?

If apartments, apartment buildings and residential areas are becoming more and more compact in the
future, I would also like designers to wonder ​what kind of generational arrangements could be in the
future​.

Jenni Väliniemi-Laurson
Researcher, Helsinki City Hall

Pg. 12–14

Living alone became commonplace—Perspectives on the design of
residential environments

Singles as a Consumer Group

The emergence of living alone and the lack of affordable housing will guide the housing construction of
the Helsinki metropolitan area towards a scarcity of square metres (Wallin 2017), which is not justified
by housing preference studies on residential housing (Tervo & Lilius 2017, Backman 2015, Silvennoinen
& Hirvonen 2002). On the other hand, financial resources efficiently shape our housing choices (Lapintie
2010).

The increase in living alone has affected the average size of households​, which has decreased in Finland
from 3.34 to 2.01 in the period 1960-2017. Single-occupied household is the most common type of
housing throughout the country (Statistics Finland 2017). By the end of 2017, 49% of the 330,933
households in Helsinki were made up of single occupants (City of Helsinki 2018).

The social dimension of living alone explains housing needs in the article on the housing wishes of single
urban dwellers. From the point of view of individual spaces, the attitude towards kitchen and dining
area determines an individual’s housing wishes. From the point of view of floor plans, the desire for a
separate kitchen with a dining table is interesting information in a situation where it is difficult to find an
alternative for an open kitchen-living-room in the new housing production. (Tervo & Lilius 2017.)

Diversification of housing supply

Appropriate       diversification  of
housing supplies gains strength from
heterogeneity identified in multiple
sources (e.g. Jamieson & Simpson
2013, Klinenberg 2012). Typically,
there are assumptions of age-related
life situations and connected housing
wishes and needs in the background
of demands for more diverse housing
offering. For single students, this
might be the case. However, the size
of the household does not tell much
about the housing preferences of
joint custody parents living alone or
of those living in a relationship in different addresses. Resident segmentation associated with

diversification of housing supply can also be done, for example, via lifestyles, whereby the size of the
household may be secondary (Hasu et al 2017).

From the point of view of the development of new housing models, it is also important that ​preferences
for living are context-related, that is, they can be different in different environments ​(Ilmonen 2017b).
Thus, the three sites of the competition offer the starting points for different solutions.

After the unprecedentedly hot summer, the competition proposals can expected to offer innovative
solutions to promote ecological construction and lifestyle. An example is the Vihreistä vihrein apartment
building in Jätkäsaari in 2016 (City of Helsinki 2017, Ilonen 2016).

Sharing of living space

The growing popularity of solitude provides a natural starting point for developing new housing
patterns. New thinking is needed at least in the sphere of sharing living spaces in different ways. Shared
spaces located in apartment blocks are a resource whose relationship to apartments and housing is
often vague. The shared facilities are rarely raised as part of people’s preferences for living, if some of
the community building projects of the 21st century are left out.

The perspectives related to the question of living alone—the social dimension of housing, the amount of
living space and the cost of housing—provide reasons and concrete outcomes for the possibilities of
shared facilities in housing. The scale can be from an apartment building to a block. It is necessary to
focus attention on the nature and location of the shared space: in addition to accessibility, a visual link
between the space and its potential users supports a natural and secure co-existence. (Tervo et al 2018.)

The sharing of living space is most topical with the rise in the popularity of sharing economy. The
starting point for sharing economy may be the transition from ownership to access through service and
community platforms. A dense urban structure creates the conditions of operation when the shared
assets are local. From the point of view of the sharing economy, it is significant that private people want
to play an active role in the context of community experience. The urban environment itself provides a
model to handle the boundary between the private and public life spheres that is suitable for each
individual. (Mäenpää & Faehn, 2017.) However, sharing the living space does not have to be a matter of
community.

Since the sharing of living space is not about using any given space in a resource-driven way, attention
must be paid to the various needs in privacy management. At the same time, it is appropriate to reflect
on how the concept of home is changed in environments characterized by the need for social interaction
without immediate connection between the individual and the family. The experience of privacy may
well be different in homes where, in principle, there are no other people. In this way, living alone
becoming common will change housing and the entire society in a radical way.

Does living alone feel oppressive, liberating, or something in between, and what does this mean from
the point of view of designing a living space? The question unfolds in alignment with the traditional

nuclear family where the individual is naturally experiencing the same spectrum of experiences from the
point of view of private space use. Common to members of different size households will probably still
be the need to determine how and with whom to use living space.

Anne Tervo
Architect, lecturer, Aalto University

Pg. 15–17

Living with International Eyes

Internationalisation of Helsinki

Finns do not talk to their neighbors. At least not in a Helsinki apartment block.

But would he want to talk?

People of Helsinki are coming from increasingly diverse backgrounds. At the beginning of 2018, the
proportion of foreign language speakers in Helsinki was 15% (City of Helsinki 2018a). According to the
forecast, in 2030, 23% of Helsinki's population will be foreigners (City of Helsinki 2018b). Even though
foreigners are more and more common in Helsinki, there is little debate about their housing needs and
experiences. In urban planning, the perspective of multiculturalism is still out of the ordinary (Lapintie
2014).

With regard to Helsinki’s vitality and economic competitiveness, it is important to attract and engage
international professionals, i.e. highly skilled and/or demanding people. According to Statistics Finland
(Sutela & Larja 2015), 45% of 25–54 -year-old foreign students who were permanent residents in

Helsinki in 2014 had a higher education degree, which is almost equal to that of the native Finnish
population (Helsinki's foreign population ... 2017). Job opportunities for international professionals are
important for choosing where to move, but "soft factors" associated with the city, such as the quality of
housing, have a bearing on the decisions of professionals to stay in a particular city (Musterd & Kovács
2010).

About three out of four foreign language speaking households in Helsinki are rental dwellings: in 2014,
almost as many lived in a private rental sector as in government-subisidized rental housing (City of
Helsinki 2018c). From the point of view of international professionals coming to Helsinki, the availability
and suitability of private rental housing is important, since often the first housing is found on the private
rental market.

What does living in Helsinki look like, when you observe it with international eyes?

Housing from the professionals’ point of view

In the 70 interviews of my doctoral study, international professionals and experts in their affairs were
heard about their situation (Eskelä 2015). They came from very different cultural and socio-economic
backgrounds: there were professionals working in creative and knowledge-intensive sectors,
international students, and Indian professionals.

Social interaction occurs when searching for an apartment, in an apartment, among the neighbors, and
more widely in residential areas and in the city. It affects the meaning given to housing and the
experiences of housing satisfaction. With the concept of housing pathways (Clapham 2005), I paid
particular attention to housing-related interaction from a temporal and a spatial perspective.
Immigrants' housing satisfaction is influenced by their previous housing experience—for example, the
Indian historian's key experience was that almost everyone had grown up in single-family homes.

Although the interviewees were a very heterogeneous group, the topic of metropolitan housing raised a
lot of critical discussion. The professionals particularly stressed the tightness of spaces and
expensiveness of housing. Many were astonished at the price level even at the peripheries. The
professionals found it difficult to find respectable homes at reasonable prices, and the cost of living was
particularly hard for families with children.

The long-term growth in dwelling spaciousness stopped in Helsinki in 2007, when the living space per
person was 34.5 square meters. In 2017 the average living space was 34.0 square meters per inhabitant
(Helsinki City 2018d). Based on my interviews, this development does not help the commitment of
professionals to the metropolitan area. Professionals reported that the small size of housing made it
difficult to accommodate relatives and invite guests to their homes. One of the interviewees said that he
did not want to invite his colleagues to his studio because he felt the combined sleeping and living space
was too private to be presented to guests.

In particular, the Indians also pointed out that instead of open kitchen, the better solution would be a
separate kitchen, so that the scents associated with cooking remain away from the rest of the
apartment. In addition, a few interviewees reported that they were accustomed in their earlier homes
for each bedroom to have their own toilet.

The professionals also criticized the monotony of the built environment, especially in new construction.
They would want more variation in typology aside from ever prevalent apartment blocks, as well as
more interesting architecture.

The flats got flak from the professionals but the residential areas were mostly given positive reviews.
Professionals appreciated the greenness, tranquility and security of the residential areas in the Helsinki
metropolitan area. Effective public transport connections and a convenient location with respect to the
workplace were important for them. The ratings are therefore very similar to those of the native
population (Strandell 2017).

Indian professionals appreciated the reliable operation of housing-related infrastructure (water,
electricity, heating) (Eskele 2017). However, the difficulty and costliness of buying housing services, such
as renovation work, received criticism.

The social dimension of housing

Almost all the professionals I interviewed hoped for more interaction with their neighbors. Generally,
the desire was not to actually make friends, but to exchange greetings, smiles and a few words.
Interviewees' reports about the discomfort of Finnish neighbors, for example in the elevator, had
comical tones.

According to sociologist Mark Granovetter (1973), weak social ties (acquaintances) are more useful, for
example, in job search than strong social ties (friends), because through them information passes across
large groups of people which provides information other than that provided by their own circle of
friends. The neighborhood is an important arena of weak social ties (Henning & Lieberg 1996), and
especially for immigrants without a broad social network, they can act as bridges to the rest of society.

Good encounters with Finnish neighbors were remembered with warmth. For example, a professional
talked about his a retired neighboring couple who talked German, and another friendly family in the
same stairwell, with whose children it was nice to play with.

Community living has been discussed over the last few years but alongside it there is a need for
solutions in mainstream housing where activities linked to housing and their spatial planning promote
people's encounters in new ways. Loneliness also affects those other than foreigners. For example, 19%
of Helsinki's single citizens felt quite often or consistently lonely (Borg 2016).

The spouse of one of the professionals found herself very lonely in the new country as a housewife. A
turning point for her was a playground where she became acquainted with other neighborhood families.

Individual characteristics and cultural backgrounds, of course, affect the emergence of social relations,
but housing and urban planning can create the conditions for them, for example by guiding passageways
and communal spaces.

The city is planned for residents. Now, it would be good to open your eyes to who the people of Helsinki
are.

What kind of new solutions can help to increase the resident satisfaction of an increasingly diverse
Helsinki population?

Elina Eskelä
Designer, City Hall
(Housing and Urban Reform)

Pg. 18–20

The City as a Consumer Good

The Layers of Evolution

Seeing the city as a consumer good opens your eyes to processes and events. In urban space, as well as
in the life cycle of a product, everything starts with design. After manufacturing and distribution, it
eventually ends up being marketed for users to consume. It is not possible to guarantee that the
manufactured goods, items, dwellings or urban space will be used as planned. Unintentional uses are
created and shaped only through user needs. And the kind of dwellings and city spaces users need will
change over time with people.

Need can be approached, for example, through economic evolution, which has embedded elements of
agrarian and industrial society, services, experiences and, most recently, circular economy, social and
sharing economy (Pine & Gilmore 1999, Pearce & Turner 1989, Harmaala et al., 2017). Fourth-sector
activism modifies the market, and due to sharing economy commodities are used differently than
before. Lending, exchanging and renting, recycling and sharing of goods (and services) are increasing (eg
Mäenpää & Faehnle 2017, 2018). The eco-project of circular economy changes materials, design,
construction and ultimately residents' suspicions about, for example, the use of recycled materials in
residential construction (eg Hyvönen et al., 2012).

Since homes and residential buildings do not require as many possessions to be contained but rather the
social networks of individuals, the new communality of housing decreases the sizes of personal spaces
(Mäenpää 2017). Spaces outside the home and combining functions become central. From the
designer’s point of view, designing these materially and spatially hybrid houses and blocks is exciting,
but for the residents or entrepreneurs, the advance planning of the use of space functions may be
unrealistic. Myths about consumers and choices can lead to delusions in design (Rask et al. 2008,
Väliniemi et al., 2008).

Shopping in the neighborhoods

When users of the city shop activities in their everyday lives according to their alternating desires, places
also change with these flows of people. The scale of the places used by each consumer varies according
to life stages and styles, but the new wave of walking urbanism has brought up the ideal of local life and
locality in which also economic activity resides (eg Leinberger & Rodriquez 2016). People prefer to spend
time in the communal spaces of their homes, quarters, parks and the city, rather than hundreds or
thousands of miles away at their cottages or Thailand. As life is increasingly focused to a smaller area
close to home, places should have their own identity and interesting things to offer.

When discussing shared and service spaces, one should be able to get rid of the limiting street-level
business space planning. It would be interesting to see the integration of different horizontal and

vertical scales in the apartment buildings and blocks of the future. An aged, poorly moving person has
access within the house with the elevator, but cannot get very far outdoors any longer. A young hipster
picks the best parts of the city either on a city bike or driving a co-owned car. A family with small
children wanders in the nearby blocks from family cafes to parks while exchanging and borrowing goods,
and occasionally taking a train to an amusement park. A single dweller accommodates a sofa surfer
through Airbnb, getting both company and extra income to pay for the expensive living. Single parents in
a commune receive assistance for childcare in shared living rooms and terrace balconies. In the darkness
of the winter, underground Helsinki begins to attract with its interior spaces. For instance, the building
of the Allas Sea Pool on the edge of Helsinki Market Square could serve as an exciting view of the future
of housing in how public and private spaces vary in different floors and levels across the building.

The city as a shopping center

The city and its blocks could be thought through the logic of anchor companies in shopping centers,
where certain most attractive companies, actors or events bring human flow to the premises. In the city,
the same could be thought to happen either in the scale of the entire city or a residential area, where
larger centers attract enthusiastic customers and enable the vitality of the regions more broadly. In New
York areas with this kind of a profile include the Flower District and the Meat Packing District. In which
department of the "city department store” would life be channeled in the neighborhoods of Helsinki and
what would be the new departments?

Through the logic of sharing economy, the role of the anchor company could be held by neighborhood
communities, individual actives or social groups formed by social media whose activities surface in a
certain place. For example, the Sipsikaljavegaanit (Chips and Beer Vegans) Facebook group bought an
old wooden kiosk from Museokatu. How does urban planning identify such creation of places and follow
its logic with tactical urbanism (see Lydon & Garcia 2015)? Citizens are no longer a group of consumers,
but communities involved in the production of space and economy.

At best, an attractive actor or community located in a certain block or apartment building may attract
other actors, allow a consumption cluster to be born and at the same time bring fame to an area. On the
other hand, the fading of an attracting operator may leave premises empty, which creates need for
transformation. What kind of lifecycle-flexible buildings and living spaces should be planned for the next
stages of economic evolution, through the logic of which people with different ages and backgrounds
can find suitable housing alternatives and shared interests in shared spaces?

Jenni Väliniemi-Laurson
researcher, Helsinki City Hall

Pasi Mäenpää
docent of urban sociology, researcher,
university of Helsinki

Pg. 21–22

Sustainable urban transport from your front door

As the city becomes more concentrated, the number of people and the need for mobility increase, but
the space available for traffic does not grow. A dense urban structure requires an efficient and versatile
traffic system that saves both common space, costs and the environment as well as the time, money and
nerves of its user. In order to keep traffic functional in the growing city, more and more journeys have to
be done with sustainable means of transportation - by walking, by bicycle and by public transport.

Helsinki is proudly different from the rest of Finland. The share of sustainable modes of travel is 62
percent, compared with the nationwide 37 percent. An average Finn travels on average 41 kilometers
per day and uses an hour and fifteen minutes for it, while a Helsinki inhabitant travels for 36 kilometers
spending a time of 1 hour and 22 minutes. Averages do not tell the whole truth. Even in sparsely
populated areas, many daily trips are short enough for walking, but on the other hand, there is a
growing number of those who drive longer day-to-day distances than before. The differences in the
distribution of different means of transportation are therefore explained only partly by the long
distances in the other parts of the country or by the congestion of the capital. A more important
explanation lies in the available options that make car-free living in the city possible.

The general principle of Helsinki's traffic planning is to take care of the needs of the walkers first. Next,
in the order of priority, come the needs of cyclists, public transport, business transport and passenger
cars.

When the pedestrian is number one, the routes are smooth and interesting. This will improve both the
vitality of commercial areas and the attractiveness of residential areas. High-quality walking
environments are increasingly appreciated. They are no longer seen merely as transit routes, but they
provide opportunities for encounters, staying and enjoyment.

This year, Helsinki was chosen the cycling municipality of the year. This was due to the transportation
mode share of cycling increasing from 6% to 10%, one of the most popular urban bike systems on the
planet, new design guidelines, improved winter maintenance and high-quality monitoring and
communication in bicycle traffic.

Versatile public transport is traditionally a source of pride in Helsinki. Over the last ten years, the
number of public transport passengers traveling in or out of the peninsula has increased by 11% (49,500
people) and the number of passengers traveling by passenger cars has decreased by 22% (57,700
people).

In most areas of Helsinki, more than half of the households have been carless since the early 1990s and
their share is growing. Nevertheless, the streetsides of the city center are full of cars, and one can only
imagine how congested it would be if the ownership of a car was more common. In the edges of the

metropolitan area, the passenger car density has grown strongly. With the exception of areas close to
commuter train stations, the majority of households have two or more cars and carless households are
getting less common.

Anyhow, car has a role in cities as well, and parking has become one of the most difficult issues in urban
planning. Previously, building enough parking spaces for people was taken for granted, but in the
condensing city the prices of lots and parking spaces make builders pensive. Helsinki’s guideline for
calculating the number of required parking spots has been renewed to better meet the objectives of a
sustainable transport system. For example, the proximity of a station or car sharing reduce the number
of required spots. In case that parking spaces are not necessarily needed forever, it is good to be able to
convert them to other uses.

As environmental awareness increases, it is important for future residents to reduce their own carbon
footprint, reduce their dependence on the car, and opt for sustainable modes of transport. The building
and its surroundings communicate which modes of transport have had the greatest importance in the
design, what is the easiest way to get out of the home and how to guide someone who doesn’t know the
area. Is there an attractive walking path between the apartment and a bus stop, is there a space for the
car outside the door, or possibly for loading an electric bike?

Moving to a new home is a natural step to adopt changes in everyday habits. Good practices spread
when children learn from their parents, parents follow the example of other townspeople, the city is
listens to the wishes of its residents, and cities around the world benchmark each other. The target
status of urban transport is the natural and healthy mixed use of sustainable modes of transport, ie
walking, cycling and public transport.

Leena Silfverberg

Pg. 23–24

Wooden apartment buildings in Finland

Wood construction as part of the forest industry

The forest sector is very important for the Finnish economy; It covers one fifth of Finland's export
earnings, 5% of Finland's gross domestic product, employs about 200,000 Finns and produces about 70%
of renewable energy in Finland. Finnish forests grow annually by nearly 110 million m³ stemwood, of
which about 60-65% has been used in recent years. The use of wood could be significantly increased
(about 20 million m³ / yr) for example in bioenergy, construction, wood product industry and various
bio-refined products. Approximately four fifths of Finnish sawnwood consumption is used for
construction. Housing construction plays a key role in construction: some 65% of the Finnish building
stock are residential buildings.

The largest growth opportunities for wood construction in Finland are in apartment building, public
building, hall-like structures, bridges, garden and environmental construction, and in energy renovation
of the suburban apartment façades as well as in supplemental construction.

Wood construction as part of fighting climate change

Wood construction is ecological. As the significance of questions concerning global climate, environment
and natural resources is increasing, further efforts will be made to increase timber construction in
Finland. When one cubic meter of wood grows, it binds up to one tonne of carbon dioxide from the air,
while at the same time photosynthesis releases 700 kilos of oxygen into the atmosphere. Half of the dry
weight of wood is carbon. Growing forests are carbon sinks and wood products are carbon stocks.

The aim of the Finnish Ministry of the Environment is that the carbon footprint of buildings will be taken
into account in the building regulations by the mid-2020s. As a domestic, local, renewable and
environmentally friendly energy source and as a building material, wood will be in this respect an
increasingly sought-after raw material.

Wooden blocks are making a final breakthrough

About 45% of all Finnish dwellings are located in apartment buildings, the second largest share in Europe
after Spain. Over half of the annual new dwellings (about 30,000-45,000 dwellings per year) are still
being built in apartment buildings. This far 62 wooden apartment buildings with more than two storeys
have been constructed in Finland, totaling 1 545 dwellings. Some 1,300 dwellings in wooden apartment
buildings are certain to be constructed in the next few years. In addition, about six thousand dwellings in
wooden apartment buildings around Finland are currently being planned.

According to the current Finnish fire regulations (RakMK E1, January 1, 2018), it is possible to design and
build residential and office buildings with wooden frames and facades, as well as accommodation and
care buildings, up to the height of eight storeys. By means of functional fire safety review, wooden
buildings taller than that are also possible. In Finland, over two-storey wooden buildings have to be
equipped with automatic fire extinguishing equipment. Today, the most common fire extinguishing
system is high pressure jet spray technology developed in the shipbuilding industry, which uses only 10
% of the extinguishing water required by traditional sprinkling. Housing sprinkling costs about 100 € / m²
of room space.

Different frame systems for wooden apartments

There are several different frame systems available for wooden apartment building, with sufficient wood
production facilities and production capacity in Finland. Most of the first residential wooden blocks in
Finland were built with the American platform-frame system. This method of construction is based on a
layered frame-structure. With this construction, the frame is usually made of planed timber either on
site by assembling the frame of one floor at a time or utilizing various prefabricated (small or large)
elements. The use of large elements in wooden blocks is now very common. Glued wood has also been
used as the frame material. Different types of mixed frame systems are also possible. For all wooden
frame systems, relatively short spans of the bearing structures (4.5 to 6 meters) are typical. Wooden
apartment buildings in Finland typically have wooden facades, but other facade solutions are also
possible.

In recent years, CLT (Cross Laminated Timber) technology has become increasingly popular in Finnish
wooden apartment construction. In CLT, slabs of cross-glued solid wood panels function as the vertical
and horizontal bearing elements of the building. The CLT system was initially exported to Finland by
StoraEnso, which in 2016 launched the production of its own glued veneer based LVL (Laminated Veneer
Lumber) solid wood board in Varkaus. LVL can be used in building construction similarly as CLT. Due to
the ease of joining technology, airtightness, stiffening of the frame and minimal sagging, CLT and LVL are
competitive especially in high-rise wooden blocks as large elements. In Kuhmo, Finnish CLT production
began in December 2014 with the CrossLam factory. CLT is also produced in Alajärvi (Hoisko) and in the
near future in Kauhajoki.

The space element technology based on the CLT and LVL frame has particularly become common in
Finland's wooden block construction. The dry, lightweight, factory-prefabricated and fast construction of
space element construction shortens building time on site and thus reduces total costs. The most
common sizes of space elements are: 4 500 (width) x 3 000 (height) x 13 500 (length). Also Swedish
Lindsbäck Bygg, whose wooden structure is based on rigid frame elements, is entering the Finnish space
element construction market. In Finland there are also a few wooden apartment blocks with a LVL-based
pillar - beam - ribbed floor slab system. The system is well-conceived and its most competitive area of
use are probably 3-4-storey wooden residential blocks and office buildings. Glued wood is also suitable
for pillar - beam frames.

Housing and construction inquiries for wooden blocks

A large number of resident feedbacks have been collected from wooden blocks in 2000 and 2017. The
resident surveys have been conducted by architect Markku Karjalainen. Residents have a positive
attitude towards wooden buildings, and wood and timber use is wished to be increased in Finland. The
wooden blocks have generally been perceived as homely, comfortable, having good indoor climate,
functional, architecturally successful, fireproof and soundproof. On the basis of a resident survey, special
attention must be paid to the sound insulation of the lightweight floor slabs of apartments. Residents
prefer wood to be used especially for indoor staircases, balconies and residential interior finishes and
façades.

According to the feedback from the developers of all the sites, the projects are very successful and their
feedback has been positive. The builders are still planning to build new wooden apartment buildings.
The builders are keen to see competition in the housing construction sector between different building
materials, different construction methods and wood industry among the various actors in order to keep
the development work continuous, and to provide housing builders and residents different alternatives
to mainstream construction..

More information about the Finnish wooden blocks is available on Puuinfo Oy's website;
www.puuinfo.fi​.

Markku Karjalainen
Associate Professor, TkT, Architect
Tampere University of Technology (TUT), architecture
laboratory
markku.karjalainen@tut.fi

Pg. 25–27

Sustainable spatial design

Reform as a concept usually refers to an action or process that improves circumstances, and which also
has a social dimension. Reform is generally most successful when it is able to serve both individual
well-being and broader social needs at the same time. The Housing Reform Competition has a long and
glorious history, but if the name is viewed more closely from contemporary starting points, its approach
to housing is too narrow to meet the challenges we are facing today. Solutions cannot be found solely
on the level of transformations of a dwelling, but the scope should be substantially extended and
approach the reform of housing and the living environment from completely new perspectives.

[The previous chapter might not make complete sense in English. The Finnish word “asunto” in
“asuntoreformi” refers to a single flat or dwelling, whereas “housing” in English has a broader meaning.]

Pressures for change

The developmental needs of space production reflect three major changes: climate change,
over-exploitation of natural resources and constant social change, where the future needs of people are
almost impossible to predict in the long run. Pressure for change has brought a new kind of legitimacy
for having a critical look at current-day production of space as well as to modifying the processes that
guide it.

For understandable reasons the focus in the fight against climate change has been on energy efficiency
because of the urgency of the matter, but disregarding spatial matters also has a significant impact on
the use of energy and natural resources if we are are forced to constantly dismantle and rebuild our
building stock. The construction phase always leads to a peak in energy use in lifespan analysis, with an
ecological "repayment time" which can be over half a century (Säynäjoki 2014). Even the
energy-efficient building is not necessarily sustainable if it does not adapt to unpredictable changes in
the future and disappears. In social change, the trend is towards cities, which creates pressure for rapid
production based on the current understanding of space production. However, major changes such as a
fundamental shift in work and production (Mettler & Williams 2011) are emerging, resulting in housing
and the whole spectrum of living being interwoven in a completely new way. Urban space and buildings
form a user interface that is subject to new types of pressure due to changing lifestyles and logics of
earning.

Defining Goals

What should new construction production be like and what needs should it serve to be comprehensibly
sustainable? Are we talking about housing production where production of dwellings and other space
production is separated in the urban structure, or should the problem be defined in a considerably
broader way, where the uses could also change within the already constructed new construction

production? Critical review of space production should be based on the criteria of spatial sustainability
that are largely related to the unforeseen and spontaneous needs of people. Thus it is also important to
figure out who we are building for, for consumers or for people whose life span covers almost all human
                                                                                             ​ y philosopher
activities. A noteworthy concept in the review of the spontaneity of a space is ​lived space b
Henri Lefevre (1991), which takes into account the multi-dimensionality of the notion of space. The
concept also includes an understanding of human proactivity and creativity, and hence the ability to
continuously produce new meanings in relation to space. This results in the view of space production
also changing. It is no longer a commodity, but a continuous spatial process evolving in time, and getting
new kinds of interpretations both by present and future generations. In present-day housing, buildings
are largely seen as end-products serving specific needs, whose life cycle targets largely focus on
materials. From the point of view of the state of sustainability, buildings should be understood as
processes and as creative social environments that form human meanings.

Research and progressive urban strategies view adaptable and flexible building stock as an essential
factor in sustainable development, but this understanding has not yet been reflected in the production
of built environment (Carmona 2009, Krokfors 2017). The size of housing built in Finland since 2007 has
decreased (Statistics Finland). Housing has become increasingly efficient in space use (Krokfors 2016).
This has led to the building stock becoming gradually less adaptable to change. Which kinds of flexible
and adaptable solutions building design should aim at requires in-depth review concerning content. All
forms of flexibility do not necessarily promote an adaptive building stock or autonomous space use in
the long run. It is important to detect the difference between the possibility of cultivating the space
(usually only available for the first resident) and the opportunity for continuous flexibility of the space.
Pressures for change in space use are always present and are accelerating in nature, so the building
stock should possess features that will allow rapid and spontaneous changes.

A new understanding of adaptable and flexible space production could also allow a new spontaneous
formation of both material and intangible resources. This would also enable creating entirely new kinds
of individual and social contexts that could have a dynamic and positive impact on the spatial challenges
of changes in human life. Besides housing, available facilities could serve, for example, promoting
people's livelihoods and creating new kinds of services. New kinds of space production would be able to
create spatial potential that would be able to incorporate a large part of the pressures of change into
the inherent property of the buildings without substantial changing processes or additional need for
construction somewhere else. At the moment, however, the inhabitant adjusts their dwelling and life
situation to the preconditions created by the space. People are also forced to make big decisions about
their home when they are most vulnerable, for example when they are seriously ill, divorced, become
widowed or get unemployed, and the need to attach to the shelter and meanings provided by the home
at its highest. For example, part of the apartment could be sold or leased, which could ease acute need
to move away. People should have the opportunity to gain continuity in their lives and even to promote
their current economic situation through the space they manage.

Interpretation of flexibility

Resiliency is an essential concept in how to understand the flexibility and adaptability of the building
stock, and on which basis sustainable space production should be guided and implemented. The concept
combines simultaneously both change and persistence. Flexibility and adaptability are key features of
complex systems that promote long-term sustainability. For resilience, it is of particular importance to
understand and control the optimization and effectiveness of different systems. If you only optimize a
certain part of the system [such as the apartment and its spatial solutions], without understanding its
effects on other parts, only the features of a specific part are reinforced at the expense of others. This
means moving away from sustainable solutions (Walker & Salt 2006). Sustainability can be maintained
by promoting self-organization. Self-organization is closely related to the modular nature of the systems,
in which the interactions between the various components are enabled. The more the different
connections of the parts can be influenced, the better the organism is able to repair itself.
Super-efficient bedrooms and condos with strict borders and usually with only one entrance, are difficult
to adapt to new purposes or to adapt housing sizes to better meet new emerging needs. Resilient
thinking (Walker & Salt 2006) criticizes the enhancement of the short-term goals and the emphasis on
suboptimization. In housing construction, we increase the wrong unit in the wrong way from the point
of view of sustainability.

The diversity of the housing stock is not a sufficient perspective in the long term unless the buildings are
simultaneously flexible. Then, the space supply would respond to demand throughout the life cycle of
the building despite the possible changes in the urban structure. If we take analogy with biological
organisms, their diversity comes from the ability of the system to produce diversity as its inherent
built-in property. Space production, which would be able to do so without definitely defining the flat
distribution of buildings and the uses of spaces, would ultimately contribute to the resilience of the
building stock. Building design should therefore incorporate a strategic dimension to allow for a
multilateral resilience at different levels from dwelling to urban structure up to the society level. Instead
of focusing on a single dwelling, we would increase the overall utilization rate of the entire building
stock, so the building stock would always be in suitable use.

Key concepts for a resilient building and space are versatility and modifiability and defining the
relationship between them. Versatility should be the goal of all aspiration for flexibility, which can be
assisted by modifiability. If the goal is mere modifiability and consideration remains at the level of the
internal variable properties of the home, it has no effect outside itself. Examining flexibility from the
point of view of versatility should target the entire building from its typological background. (Krokfors
2006, 2017). Achieving flexibility in a building requires some degree of flexibility in the allowed land use
in the planning stage to allow different typological approaches.

Each designer defines the contents of the typographic flexibility (Krokfors 2006, 2017) within the
architectural concept created by them differently. It is important to note that the building or space does
not have to be "neutral" in nature to be typologically flexible. Typological flexibility refers to the
strategic and dynamic dimension of the building without affecting the architectural appearance and
identity of the building, which also plays an important role in preserving the building stock from
generation to generation.