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

The Makkaratalo building, Helsinki

[See photos]

Maire Mattinen, ICOMOS Finland ("Dangerous Liaisons" conference organising committee

“Sausage Follows Function” (Michael Petzet)

A panel discussion was held during the Dangerous Liaisons conference in which the audience took an active role. The wish had been to create a continuous exchange of ideas. We also asked our colleagues to write their opinions after the conference for our own newsletter: we reproduce here some of the replies we received. The inspired discussion succeeded excellently, and the debate continues in the main Helsinki newspaper (Helsingin Sanomat) even though half a year has passed since the conference.
The so-called Makkaratalo (the 'sausage' building) in the centre of Helsinki became a paradigmatic case-study during the conference and the favourite object of debate of both experts and the public. Even though the panel discussion centred around one specific building, the whole problematic can to a great extent be generalized to include any post-war building in an old cityscape.
The building in question is a large commercial building complex, completed in 1964, an example of international modernism clearly differing from the old cityscape, and for which some small shops familiar to the city inhabitants had to be demolished. Originally the whole block was to be demolished and rebuilt in the same modernist style, but the larger project was never completed, and later some of the old buildings were protected. Presently it is felt that the cityscape is broken by the building.
The main architect of the building was Viljo Revell, who was also well known internationally. Even though a part of the facade was built deviating from the original drawings, the building nevertheless is seen as a representative of the best architecture of its time.
The attitude towards the ‘sausage’ building varies depending on the age of the respondent. What makes the debate about the building interesting is that the older generation still has personal memories of the beautiful, humanely-scaled shopping bazaar that existed previously on the site, as well as of the intensive and unsuccessful battle to protect it. For several older inhabitants the post-war architecture represents a despised and ugly style, and in views spiked with strong emotions, it is seen as a poor and even temporary building, one that should rather be got rid of as soon as possible. One respondent to the newspaper put forward the proposal that the building be demolished and the old low facades of the 19th century shopping bazaar be reconstructed on the basis of old photographs and drawings.
The present owner, on the other hand, has to consider how to bring the building, now due for repair, up to a standard which meets present-day requirements. One of the streets next to the building, from where a car ramp rises up to the parking levels in the building, is due to be turned into a pedestrian precinct. The heavy concrete ramps have been a continuous nuisance to pedestrians, and many are of the opinion that at least they should be removed when they are no longer needed. The car- parking is situated on a two-level deck starting from the first floor, and is demarcated with the most hated element of the building, the concrete 'sausage' with accompanying rails.
On the other hand, this clumsy 'sausage' is the most characteristic feature of the building. Some see the parking level, the 'sausage' and the car ramps as the embodiment of the dreams of a society in the process of becoming motorized, as well as a symbolic backdrop for the problems of modern youth, as depicted even in a well-known Finnish film. The generation that remembers only the sausage does not reject it as keenly as the older generation or long for what is lost.
At some time in the future the car ramps will no longer be needed. Naturally, the owner does not want to demolish the whole building and replace it with a low shopping bazaar. On the contrary, the owner sees the possibility of improving its efficiency, for instance, on the parking levels and parts of the under-utilised interior spaces. At the same time, plans for improving the facades have been made; the 'sausage' has been diminished and more up-market and expensive retail outlets have been proposed. Unfortunately the owner did not want to present his proposals to the conference.
The Helsingin Sanomat newspaper has for its part commissioned its own design to improve the building from young architects. To the disappointment of some they did not tackle the issue of the facade or the sausage at all beyond the proposal of covering the latter with plants, but concentrated on a proposal for the interior spaces and the parking deck, covering it with an enormous glass mushroom that rises high above the present parking deck. Again, such an approach would offend the older generation who despise the building’s modern facade.
Some of those contributing to the debate voiced the opinion that during the1960s such severe environmental crimes were committed that will never fall under the statute of limitations, and in the case of the 'sausage' building this would mean that in order for the crime to receive its just punishment at least the clumsiest elements of the facade - the most brutal in scale - should be removed, these being the car ramps and the 'sausage'.
What then do we learn from the 'sausage'? Can there be scientifically-based arguments for the protection of such recent buildings, or do we have to make our decisions based on emotions, personal preferences or tastes? At least we can learn that more research is necessary, professional debate as well as extensive comparative research. Here ICOMOS international has an important opportunity as well as a lot of work ahead.

Translation: Garreth Griffiths