Throughout Europe, large numbers of people live in housing estates built during the latter half of the 20th century. The idea of building new housing apart from the existing urban structure dates from the inter-war period but it was not until after the Second World War that these planning ideals became widely applied (Tosics 2004: 79).
During the decades following the Second World War, the social situation in Western Europe called for a significant increase in housing production. Housing shortages were rampant due devastations of war and there was a great need to rebuild the existing housing stock and to improve overall housing standards. Increased birth rates and migration from rural areas to cities also required a significant increase in housing production in order to provide adequate housing for the growing city populations (Musterd & van Kempen 2005: 15). The post-war period was the golden age for social housing, as issues related to housing became important on the policy agenda and government support was given for addressing housing shortages and other housing problems (Malpass 2008: 18).
The need to intensify housing production was answered by industrial mass housing. Housing construction became highly industrialized as a result of technological advances and the development of new building materials, particularly prefabricated components that allowed increasing productivity. Industrial construction became both the fundamental technology for mass housing as well as the main stylistic principle for modern city design internationally (Urban 2012: 8). Compared to traditional housing construction where buildings were constructed individually, industrialization meant that buildings were now assembled from prefabricated materials and in larger units according to a rationalized process (Urban 2012:
12). Industrialized production thus favored the building of large uniform housing areas and, as a result, housing estates consisting of medium- and high-rise multifamily dwellings were constructed throughout Europe, usually in peripheral locations on the urban fringes.
In Finland, the post-war era was a time of great societal change. Finland became an industrialized society later than most other parts of Western Europe but underwent rapid transformation in the 1960s and 1970s. A late but rapid industrialization was followed by a quick growth in wealth (Vaattovaara et al. 2011: 49). In Finland this time period was also signified by rapid urbanization due to large-scale migration from rural areas to urban areas, which required a substantial increase in housing production. Industrialized housing production became widely adopted during the 1960s and 1970s and this period was marked by large-scale construction. Around a fourth of all residential buildings and over a third of all multi-story buildings were built during the time period (Asuminen 2012).
This era of intensive urbanization was also a period of suburbanization, as new residential areas were constructed on the outskirts of cities. Up until the 1940s, Finnish cities had gradually expanded from their fringes, but from the 1950s onwards urban growth began to occur further away from the existing town structure (Lähiöiden kehittämisen ongelmia 1985:
2). This type of urban growth reflected the prevailing planning ideals of the time which were well in-line with the wider societal development in Finland.
Finnish urban planners were greatly influenced by numerous internationally influential figures, whose ideas had a great impact on urban and suburban development during the decades following the Second World War. A central figure within post-war urban planning in Finland was Otto-Iivari Meurman who set the guidelines for planning in his book Asemakaavaoppi (A Guide to Planning) in 1947. Meurman promoted the idea of decentralization where housing areas were separated from each other by green areas (Lento 2006: 204). Meurman, who was the first professor of planning at the Helsinki Technical University, was able to spread his ideas through his teaching and writing, as well as through his own planning work, that included master plans for several Finnish cities (Hurme 1991:
175). Eventually, many of his planning principles became the main standards for planners.
Besides Meurman, Heikki von Hertzen also greatly influenced post-war planning in Finland and shared many of his ideals. He was an advocate of suburban living and a severe critic of life in the city center, and published an influential pamphlet in 1947 entitled Koti vaiko kasarmi lapsillemme? (A Home or a Barrack for our Children?), where he criticized urban living in central Helsinki and promoted healthier living environments further away from the congested central city. Meurman and von Hertzen would eventually collaborate and test their ideas in Tapiola, an internationally well-known example of suburban planning in Finland.
Hurme (1991: 69) has described the Finnish postwar housing estate as a synthesis of numerous international influences. These influences are to a high degree similar as the ones that influenced planning in Europe more generally. Meurman’s guidelines for planning were based on the Neighborhood Unit Principle, developed by Clarence Perry in 1929 (Hurme 1991)This planning principle was presented as an alternative to unhealthy industrial cities and it was promoted as a way to provide the premises for a healthier family life and a more community orientated way of living. The English garden city movement and particularly Ebenezer Howard’s ideas of decentralization and combining the best of town and country were also strong influences and clearly reflected in Meurman’s planning principles. In
addition to many other important thinkers of the time, the ideas of Le Corbusier also had great impact on planning and construction during the decades following the Second World War. He was an advocate of industrial housing production and regarded standardization and rationalization as central principles for future housing production. His influence can be detected visually as his futuristic ideas from the 1920s were to be widely applied in the planning and construction of housing estates in Finland several decades later.
The societal conditions in Finland as well as the planning ideals of the time were well suited for the use of industrial construction techniques. Industrialized housing construction based on standardization requires large scale production as building costs are high (Urban 2012: 9).
Building on the urban fringes apart from the existing city structure was therefore well-adapted for such industrial construction, as planners and construction companies had more flexibility in planning and developing large and uniform housing areas. Land ownership issues also helped steer housing development away from the urban centers to locations where property values were lower (Lähiöiden kehittämisen ongelmia 1985: 3).
The first suburban housing estates in Finland were built during the 1950s mainly around Helsinki and other larger cities. The first developments were rather small with populations of less than 2000 and they were located relatively near the town center (Lähiöiden kehittämisen ongelmia 1985: 3). The first estates were typically planned with close regard to their natural conditions and are thus often referred to as forest suburbs (metsälähiö). Tapiola is as a well-known product of this type of suburban planning. These estates typically attracted middle class families when they were built and they have remained relatively attractive living environments even to this day (Lähiöiden kehittämisen ongelmia 1985: 4).
From the planners’ perspective however, many of the early estates had a population too small for providing adequate services. Consequently, planning ideals started to change during the 1960s with planners seeking to develop more vibrant areas and to provide a sufficient level of services (Lähiöiden kehittämisen ongelmia 1985: 3). These objectives meant that the intensity and scale of building increased towards the 1970s. This development occurred parallel with the construction sector becoming more industrialized and increasingly concentrated and dominated by a few large companies. Furthermore, there was strong societal pressure to increase housing production in order to cope with accelerating migration from the countryside to cities. In order to ease planning, land use agreements were made between construction companies, banks and local government, thus enabling builders to development larger housing areas than before (Lähiöiden kehittämisen ongelmia 1985: 5).
These developments marked a change in the way that planning and construction was carried out in Finland during the 1970s. The size and intensity of construction grew along with the size of the estates. Some of the newly built estates had populations equivalent to many smaller Finnish towns and they were often also located further away from the center than previous estates. This marked a change from forest suburbs to the more dense compact suburbs (kompaktilähiö) (Hurme 1991). With more emphasis on production efficiency and the need to build as rapidly and cost-effectively as possible, architectural quality become
secondary (Hankonen 1994: 26–27). This meant that construction became increasingly stripped-down as housing units were assembled from prefabricated components in a rationalized manner. Whereas the early housing estates dating from the 1960s had mainly been built on the outskirts of larger Finnish cities, it was during the 1970s that the use of industrialized production techniques and the principle of constructing uniform housing areas on the outskirts of towns became a part of housing policy nationally (Lähiöiden kehittämisen ongelmia 1985: 7). Consequently, suburban housing estates were erected throughout Finland according to similar planning principles and relying on prefabricated materials. This type of construction persisted throughout the 1970s. Towards the end of the decade, housing policy and construction would however eventually change and the building of housing estates would decrease significantly during the 1980s. This was partly due to a change in societal development as migration from the countryside to cities slowed down. Living in detached housing also grew in popularity, leaving the massive and peripheral housing estates somewhat outdated (Lähiöiden kehittämisen ongelmia 1985: 10).