"Dangerous liaisons. Preserving post-war modernism in city centers".
Conference,15-17 February 2001, Helsinki, Finland

Makkaratalo- Discussion

[See photos]

Jukka Jokilehto, Training Committee of ICOMOS International, President CIF

Regarding this makkara, I am afraid it is now there, whether we like it or not. I tend to agree with the intervention of the city planner during the discussion, who was against the proposed mutilation of the building, and rather less with some of the ideas that came out from the pannel itself (ie, changing the form of the terrace or demolishing the ramps). Saturday afternoon, in a small group we walked to the Railway station, and had another look at the Makkara, and our foreign guests thought that the quality of the architecture was not so bad after all. It was obviously a mistake to build it first of all. However, it would be another mistake to start reducing it and making it a torso, e.g., by removing or changing the 'makkara' itself or demolishing the ramps. Instead, there might be a good reason now as the parking areas have been built underground to change the use of the old parking area, and to introduce some new activities that can make this area more pleasant (not a kitsch market or beer garden, please). The ramps are an integral part of the architecture as it stands, and I believe there should be some creative solution for their utilisation. The solution should however take into account the quality of the present design, and not fall short of it producing another awful kitsch. I do agree with the problem for pedestrians, though. The new solution should give special thought to this as a priority issue. Pedestrians should not be hidden behind the concrete structures, but should have a clear pathway - possibly around the ramps (once they are not used for cars anymore).
It would seem that, rather than beginning to destroy the building, there is something to learn from this example. We were rather sad to hear about the fact that the planning process had been completely surpassed, and that there had not been a proper evaluation nor a formal building permit. It is really surprising. Nevertheless, whether with permit or not, similar destructions seem to continue in Helsinki. I am afraid, the very recent solution of the Kämp quarter is at least as poor as Makkara. Rather than having destroyed the whole buildings, the facades have here been kept - at least, one could say! However, what has been lost is quite serious. In reality, this is a drastic destruction of the urban fabric of the historic centre of Helsinki with the excuse of keeping the visual appearance. What we achieve is a typical 'international mall' in the American manner, which is like a cancer that creeps in all over the world. What we lose is a sense of the city, its history, its identity, its architectural and urban structure, and a feeling of continuity. Another question is how new buildings are integrated into the existing context so as to contribute to its historical stratigraphy, rather than being imposed like a bull into the china shop.
The issue is how such examples as Makkara and Kämp are integrated into the current and future strategies of Helsinki. It has been my impression that the City has given a good consideration to various aspects of its history and culture. At the same time, I continue being amazed about cases such as Kämp and the other centre areas, which have become examples of pure facadism. I am equally frightened to see the problems faced with a building such as Rautatalo, where the burden of past miscalculations still weighs over the future of such an exceptional heritage as that of Aalto, one of the best examples of his production, which has been exceptionally well integrated into its environment, including the Saarinen building. Another question is his Enso design in the harbour, where we lost a fine historic structure, replaced with a rather common-place Skidmore-Owings-Merrill building.
It has been interesting to note the general recognition that the previously prevailing commercial argumentation of development has not brought desired results. Many important international organizations, such as UNDP and the World Bank, not to speak of UNESCO, are promoting the question of human sustainable development. This is particularly relevant in historic urban areas. During the MARC discussions, it seemed quite worrying to learn that the increasing clearance of the interiors of Helsinki city quarters was a really serious risk, justified purely on relatively weak commercial motives and on some formalistic architectural cliché thinking. I suggest that a good debate should be undertaken in order to develop strategies that are more intelligent, more sympathetic, and more sustainable from the human and cultural point of view. Helsinki is one of the finest remaining historic environments in Finland, now as many of the others have been severely reduced or completely lost, such as Turku or Vaasa, and I feel sorry for places like Hämeenlinna, not to speak of the other wooden towns.

Jukka Jokilehto