1

From a provincial to a national centre: Helsinki

Laura KolbeDepartment of History, University of Helsinki, Finland

Centrally governed Helsinki, a provincial capital since 1812 in the Russian Grand Duchy ofFinland was urbanized late. The railway turned Helsinki at the end of 19th century into a mainport for export and a real capital with connection to all over the country. The new industrialdistricts, ports, Paris-style boulevards and large stone house areas wittnessed bourgeois wealth.The change in policy and governance transferred planning gradually from central to local level.The city’s new Urban Planning Committee (1908) got the assignment of making new urbanplans in the spirit of European metropolitan plans. This change coincided with the introductionof the one-chamber parliament (1906) and with the golden era of national arts and culture.

After the First World War Finland separated from Russia and Helsinki became capital for theindependent republic (1917). The master plan proposal Pro Helsingfors, ordered by privatecommercial councelor for a Greater Helsinki, was made by architects Eliel Saarinen and BertelJung in 1918. It was marked with a continental planning ideas, modernistic monumentalismand traffic optimism. This plan influenced the development of the capital throughout the 20thcentury. Among the large problems to be solved was the planning of a new city centre, theTöönlahti bay area. The symbolic value of this area grew with Parliament House (1930).However, the final planning of this “republican core”is still an open issue, with mixed interestby the state and the city.

After 1945 the has migration been steadily. With the 1952 Olympics Helsinki joined theexclusive club of Olympic cities. Land area grew five-fold when the suburban zones wereannexed in 1946 by decree of the National Government. Local urban planning could see capital,regional, metropolitan, traffic and suburban planning as a whole. The first master plan wasapproved in 1972.

laura.kolbe@helsinki.fi

Introduction

In the planning history of every city, there is a moment of transition into “the modern”. InHelsinki, that moment came in 1899, when a city plan competition was arranged for the Töölödistrict near Helsinki’s geographical centre. Although a tumultuous preparation processpreceded this first competition in the field, it was a definite breakthrough in the history ofFinnish city planning. The new planning ideals of the early 1900s were obvious in Nyström andSonck’s scheme: a picturesque and landscape-adapted urban street network and an intimateatmosphere accompanied by architectural effects (Brunila and Schulten, 1955; Nikula, 1981).

Helsinki’s development before 1914 was similar to that of many other medium-size capitalsin continental and northern Europe. At that time, Helsinki was a part of the Russian Empire andcan be compared with many similar cities in the other European empires (Blau and Platzer,1999). An administrative tradition of civil servant rule, an industrial structure still orientedtowards agriculture, a lack of capital, and slow industrial and infrastructure developmentcaused the urbanisation process to begin late in Helsinki. The driving force of modernisationconsisted not of a weak civic society but of cadres and civil servants who had received a 19thcentury education. The situation changed when in the 1870s cities started to grow and urbanfunctions and structures became more specified. The Töölö competition coincided with the peakof the take-off, and in one stroke, it launched Helsinki’s bureaucratic town planning into themodern day of Europe (Klinge and Kolbe, 1999).

Provincial capital: imperial and centralist planning

We cannot possibly grasp the scope of this change unless we know the historical roots ofcentralised rule in Finland. In a large, sparsely inhabited and peripheral country like Finland,cities have been founded by state interest. The ambitions and investments of the central powerhave strongly labelled the development of the capital Helsinki. Helsinki is not an old bourgeoistrade town. It came about as the result of political projects. The change in town planning policythat occurred around the year 1900 should be seen in light of the change in the relationshipbetween the state and the citizens. It implied a gradual effort to transfer planning from thecentral power to the local level, from the civil servants to the citizens. In this sense, too, Helsinkiis an interesting case to study (Kervanto-Nevanlinna, 2002).

In 1812, Helsinki was made capital of Finland by decree of Russian Emperor Alexander I.Finland had been separated from its old mother country Sweden in 1809 in the wake of thegreat wars in Europe, and annexed to the Russian Empire. The Grand Duchy immediately dealtwith the capital city question. During the time (from appr. 1200 to 1809) when Finland was apart of Sweden, Stockholm had been the capital of the Finns, and administrative, economic andcultural contacts happened directly between Stockholm and the provinces. In the new situation,Finland’s position was connected to St. Petersburg - at the time capital of Russia and anexpansive centre of power on the Baltic Sea rim. Due to national and military considerations,Helsinki - located only 400 km from St. Petersburg - was made capital in the Autonomous GrandDuchy of Finland (Åström, 1957).

The emperor pronounced the words of genesis of the new capital, and the state took itsplanning and construction - and finance - in hand. Becoming an Imperial Russian city afterbeing a Royal Swedish town implied an ascent in the urban hierarchy. In 1812, the RussianEmperor appointed Helsinki’s first town planning authority under the name of theReconstruction Committee. Johan Albert Ehrenström, a famous engineer officer born in Helsinkiand a connoisseur of European arts and culture, was invited to head this committee. This

2

marked a clear change of policy, since the old Helsingfors had grown very slowly without a cityplan (Klinge and Kolbe, 1999; Blomstedt, 1963; Stenius, 1969).

Helsinki became a means of expression for the Russian imperial power. Ehrenström’s townplan was completed in 1812, to be confirmed by the emperor in 1817. It showed the classicaltown planning ideal of European princely towns and a regular, functionally and architecturallyproportioned urban structure. Construction began in 1816, when the Reconstruction Committeehired Berlin-born Carl Ludwig Engel, an architect who had also worked in Reval (Tallinn) and St.Petersburg. “L’Empéreur a gouté et apprové le Plan. Dans son exécution il seroit un desmonuments glorieux de son règne”, Ehrenström later commented in one of his letters. The newcity’s identity as a provincial government centre was backed by an architecturally andideologically suitable Imperial style (Åström, 1957; Blomstedt, 1963; Klinge and Kolbe, 1999;Lilius, 1984; Hall, 1986).

The Reconstruction Committee finished its work in 1825. The world could see that Helsinkiwas able to compete in beauty with the most prominent European capitals. Monumentalismand classicism expressed the spirit of this centrally governed garrison, and administrative anduniversity town. After the Vienna peace treaty in 1815, a regular and hierarchical classicismconveyed a message of political conservatism, continuity, order and stability. Differentiationappeared in the city centre, which in the name of distinction had been chosen for the upperstrata of society. The imperial and the urban dimension met in the stone buildings of the centralSenate Square. Suburbs with a lower status were wooden. Monumentalism expressed itself inboth the Senate House (today the National Government Building) and in the main edifice of theuniversity on the opposite side of the square. The large Lutheran Cathedral on the northernedge of the square dominated the panorama (Eskola and Eskola, 2002). [see Illustration 1]

Illustration 1 Senate Square

3

Up until the 1850s, the new town plans, enlargement plans and park plans, etc., of thesurveyors and engineers were fitted into a square grid street pattern. The responsibility for theplanning had been transferred to the City, but the Emperor still confirmed the plans. Therailway influenced the city’s development. The end of the railway lay on what was then thenorthern rim of the city. The western major road Västra chausséen (later Henrikinkatu andMannerheimintie) had been drawn through this area. The wedge-like area between this majorroad and the railway has been a problem in the growing city even to the present day. Therailway system expressed how important the State’s goals and investments were to the wholenation. The railway turned Helsinki into a main port for export and a real capital withconnections all over the country. This began to change the originally imperial character of thecity centre. The Railway Square became second monumental square, which was spatiallyexpressed by the union of bourgeois capital activities, a national awakening and urbanmodernism. The square was edged by businesses, the Ateneum Art Museum, the College forIndustrial Arts (1887), the Finnish-language National Theatre (1902) and two of the mostfamous hotel-restaurants, the Fennia and the Seurahuone (Lindberg and Rein, 1986; Kervanto-Nevanlinna, 2002).

During the imperial reign, the right to make urban plans was monopolised by theauthorities much in the fashion of centrally governed countries. The Senate, i.e. the highestState authority, also took many concrete initiatives, such as encouraging Helsinki to build awater supply network (in 1862), and promoted the construction of stone buildings (instead ofwooden) by granting state loans. Yet, planning proposals still had to be confirmed by theEmperor. Distinction, hierarchy and fire safety were still apparent features in the urban plan andconstruction rules for Helsinki that were confirmed in 1875 (Åström, 1957; Hall, 1986).

Tradition and change: municipal and bourgeois urban planning

In Finland and elsewhere in Europe, the pressures caused by traffic, new forms of production,social groups, trade, the educational system and new urban life styles influenced legislation inthe late 19th century. Urban functions developed faster than urban planning. [see Illustration 2]The 1875 reform of the municipal administration marked a change in urban planning. The city’sadministrative court became the central administrative body. The new city council, consisting ofenlightened and influential men of the community, approved the urban plans and theconstruction rule. The shift from the central to the local level expressed itself in people’sattitudes. The idea that a town should be planned before it grew - not after - gained ground.

The influence of municipal authorities over urban planning and the formation of a nationalprofession of urban planning architects implied a first phase in the modern era. The planningcompetition for the Töölö district mentioned earlier was a result of this change of custom. Thetrend was backed up by Helsinki’s development towards a major city, by population growth andby an increasingly varied social fabric. In the 1910s when its population exceeded 100,000inhabitants, Helsinki joined the international metropolis category. The city started expanding tothe north - the first industrial district - and to the west, where some more industries and a portcame about. The Paris-style Esplanadi Park with its twin boulevards and the new large stonehouse areas were expressions of bourgeois wealth and growth of capitalism in Helsinki(Kuusanmäki, 1992). The modernist turn towards local urban planning was seen in the years1906 to 1908. The introduction of architect education in Finland meant the birth of modernurban planning. In 1908, the city’s new authority for municipal planning, the Urban PlanningCommittee, was assigned to reform and make new urban plans, improve public transportbetween the central and the peripheral districts and take measures for drawing up a master

4

plan. During just a few years, many technical offices were created. The models were Sweden’snew and progressive law on urban planning (1907) and Stockholm’s land purchase policy. Urbanplanning shifted from engineers to architects. For the first time since Engel’s days, architects as acadre got the opportunity to influence construction and planning in Helsinki (Nikula, 1981;Kuusanmäki, 1992; Sundman, 1991).

After Helsinki’s first city planning architect Bertel Jung entered his office he determinedthat a master plan should be drawn up for Helsinki in the spirit of Vienna’s metropolitan plansby Otto Wagner and the 1910 urban planning exhibition in Berlin. Jung’s first comprehensivemaster plan for Helsinki was inspired by the Berlin exhibition and was based on populationforecasts, as was then the practice in central Europe. Jung recommended high constructioncoverage and population density for the historical parts of Helsinki, which in turn promptedtransport arrangements resembling Stockholm’s local railways. Due to non-existent land policy,Jung’s master plan was never confirmed or carried out (Nikula, 1981; Åström, 1957).

A third modernist and democratic phase was seen between 1908 and 1914. Helsinki hadbecome the cultural and political centre of the new country, a real capital. The introduction ofthe one-chamber parliament in 1906 coincided with the birth of working-class and bourgeoisvalues, the national awakening, a golden era of arts and culture and the change in urbanplanning. In line with European models, planning the capital city underlined technologicalmodernity, aesthetic dimensions, urban intimacy and historical-organical continuity instead ofregularity and ready-made patterns (Kuusanmäki, 1992; Korvenmaa, 1992).

But municipal support for planning was weak, so enlightened private companies hiredskilled young architects to plan large residential districts. The land companies combined capitalwith technical skills and urban architectural visions from designers like Eliel Saarinen.

5

Illustration 2: Late 19th century plan

The Republic of Finland: capital city planning and new urban centre

The First World War shattered the old world, destroyed cities and gave birth to new nationalstates. Helsinki remained the natural capital when Finland separated from Russia and becamean independent republic in December 1917 in the shadow of the world war and the Russianrevolution. A bloody civil war in the spring of 1918 divided the nation and interrupted socialreforms for some time. The master plan proposal Pro Helsingfors made by Saarinen and Jungtogether in the spring of 1918 marked the beginning of a new era. The plan was commissionedby commercial counsellor Julius Tallberg, a business magnate and a background force inmunicipal policy. Tallberg’s Commission must be seen as the last display of strength of the“enlightened bourgeoisie”. In his preface, Jung wrote that the city’s officials trapped in theexhausting treadmill of everyday matters would not have been able to produce a similarcomprehensive plan (Jung, 1918).

In the background of the 1918 plan we find the theoretical population goal: according tothe lowest forecast, Helsinki would have 370,000 inhabitants in 1945. The metropolitanatmosphere in the capital of an independent state was manifested in the extension of thecentral business district by filling the Töölö bay and moving the railway station northwards toPasila. A new central road, the Kuningasavenue (King’s Avenue) united the old and the newrailway station neighbourhoods and symbolised Helsinki’s political role as a national centre [seeIllustration 3]. The avenue’s name also reminds us of the monarchist dreams nourished amongcertain bourgeois circles in Finland in the spring of 1918. The name was later changed intoValtakunnankatu (Nation Street). The Kuningasavenue’s wide cross streets to the east and westformed an urban backbone for the city and shifted the weight from the old imperial centre.Housing, manufacturing and part of the harbour functions spread outside the city boundariesalong richly developed suburban railways.

Illustration 3: King’s Avenue

6

Pro Helsingfors was the only modern master plan proposal made in Finland in the 1910sthat followed international trends. Although it did not have a lawful mandate, Saarinen andJung’s principles influenced the development of the capital throughout the 20th century.Among the large problems to be solved in the 1920s and 1930s were the railway yard matter,the housing problem and the planning of a new city centre. According to the outline made bycity officials in the 1923 official plan, the Töölönlahti bay was filled, but the resistance of thestate railways prevented the transfer of the main railway station. The city centre remainedunsolved, although a solution was sought in a 1925 competition for a comprehensive city plan.The winner, architect Oiva Kallio, suggested that the area be developed in the spirit of urbanmonumentalism and historical-classical dignity. Much the same way as Saarinen and Jung, Kallioemphasised the city centre as a space for both public functions and housing (Sundman, 1991).

The symbolic value of the Töölönlahti bay area grew when the planning of the mostimportant political building of the new republic, the Parliament House, started. The newunicameral building needed premises commensurate with its new functions. Above all, therewas a need for a chamber where all 200 deputies could assemble in plenary session. Thatmarked the beginning of a building project that went on for nearly twenty years. The alternatesolutions were either to extend the 1889 House of Estates (which was built close to SenateSquare to accommodate the non-noble estates) or build a completely new home for theparliament. From 1907 to 1930 the Parliament met in rented premises (Hakala-Zilliacus, 2002).

The planning of the Parliament House and its location was the result of an architecturalcompetition held in 1923. The building, designed by architect J.J. Sirén was completed in 1930.The national and local interests were combined in the key issue, the location. The real planningwork before the competition was in the hands of the Parliament, but the City of Helsinkicontrolled the land use. The areas around the old administrative city centre and the centralcoastal park area (Tähtitorninmäki) close to the old harbour were the favourite locations ofmany architects. The city was not willing to give up park area or allow more buildings in theSenate Square area, but it was prepared to sell state land in the Töölönlahti bay area. The cityplanners had already reserved space there for public and cultural buildings. The rocky site of theparliament building was spacious enough, undeveloped and hilly for creating a ceremonialeffect(Hakala-Zilliacus, 2002).

It was now possible to plan a new institutional symbol and democratic city centre bymoving the political power away from the “Russian and imperial” Senate Square. This wasrealised only in part. In the planning competitions the architects had a free hand to place thebuilding in the city structure. Monumentality caused some problems. It was difficult to combinethe over-dimensioned and idealised mass of the Parliament House with its modest surroundingsThe result was a lonely stone castle with strong roots anchoring it to a rock outcrop. [seeIllustration 4] Security and stability was sought with the aid of the architecture’s form andmaterial. The frontal stairs linked the building with the main street area No square in front ofthe building was ever completed although Sirén himself and other architects made plans forthat purpose. The whole composition speaks the same “national” language as the oldadministrative buildings - the Classical architecture (Hakala-Zilliacus, 2002).

The economic depression in the 1930, however, hampered all larger urban design andconstruction in both the old and new city centre, and the planning of the Töölönlahti bay areaonly resumed after 1945. A 1949 competition endorsed the idea that the Töölönlahti areashould be preserved as a green area and the Main Railway Station be kept in its presentlocation. In the 1954 plan the Kamppi district, west of the station and Parliament, was plannedas the new administrative centre. The planning of this area and was in hands of the city and therole of the state was marginal (Kolbe, 2002; Kervanto-Nevanlinna, 2002).

7

With the 1952 Olympics (first planned for in 1940), Helsinki joined the exclusive club ofOlympic cities. A joint committee of national and local governments and sport circles plannedthe games. The Olympics activated planning and left a permanent impact on the streetscapeand implemented functional transport arrangements and sports facilities. The Olympicsconsolidated Helsinki’s position as a capital both in Finland and abroad. This sports nationalism,joined with local and national forces turned Helsinki into a modern sports city (Nikula, 1981).

The nation state: metropolisation in the capital city planning

Finland fought two wars against the Soviet Union, in 1939-1940 and 1941-1944. Although thecountry was neither invaded nor Helsinki destroyed in the extensive 1944 bombardments, thewar years were a definite turning point. By 1945 the population number had risen to over300,000, and migration to Helsinki grew steadily. Its land area grew five-fold when thesuburban zones were annexed to Helsinki in 1946 by decree of the National Government. Thisannexation brought urban planning in Helsinki into a new era, where both capital, regional,metropolitan, suburban and traffic planning could be seen as a whole. The 1960s saw suburbanexpansion in a scattered urban structure.

The role of the local planning was strengthened in 1964, when the city’s urban planningoffice was founded and a political urban planning board appointed. Municipal planning andlong-term municipal economy planning were consolidated. Since 1964 the local authorities haveplayed an exceptionally strong role in urban and capital city planning in Helsinki. This role isbased on the city’s strong land ownership, estate policy and its investments in basicinfrastructure (Kolbe, 2002).

8

Illustration 4: Mannerheim in the Parliament photo

The tasks of the new city department included the continued planning of Alvar Aalto’ssecond monumental plan (1964) for the city centre [see Illustration 5] The City of Helsinki hadassigned the development of the city plan for the centre to Aalto in 1959, and the commissionwas soon extended to include the Pasila area, too. The proposal presented a dense urbanstructure in Kamppi and a monumental approach around Töölönlahti Bay, thus emphasisingHelsinki’s position as a capital. The railway yard was covered by a terrace and the shore ofTöölönlahti was edged with a row of cultural edifices. The plan caused much debate and beforelong its heavy traffic arrangements and the sacrifice of the green shores of the bay were heavilycriticised. Although the City Council approved Aalto’s plan as a basis for further planning, onlytwo buildings included in it have been built to date: the Finlandia Hall by the bay and theSähkötalo (Electricity House) in the Kamppi area (Kolbe, 2002).

Illustration 5: Aalto and Politicians photo

After 1959, regional planning and master planning became mandatory. The largest projectsin Helsinki developed the Itä-Pasila in the 1970s and Länsi-Pasila area in the 1980s into aconcentration of jobs, housing, public administration and offices in the spirit of La Défenseoutside Paris. It was done for the same reason as La Défense - deflecting modern growth awayfrom the historic core. This commercial construction was complimented by large-scalecommunity construction throughout the metropolitan area (Schulman, 2000).

After 1945, the state, the municipalities and various civic organisations were interested inthe planning of the capital city. Anxieties about the changes caused by rapid growth and the

9

criticism expressed after 1968 by the new Left were directed against the ideals of efficiency, infavour of historical values. During the post-war rebuilding era, many wooden and stonebuildings from the 19th century were destroyed or converted for other functions in the name ofbusiness and efficiency. By the 1950s, however, certain civic and heritage organisations hadexpressed their concern about the old milieu. In 1952, the City of Helsinki declared the SenateSquare and its surroundings the historical centre of the city, which should be preserved(Schulman, 2000). Since the 1970s, the urban policy of Helsinki has been characterised by themaintenance of a strong capital city centre. Preservation of historic buildings became of thehighest importance. Meanwhile, the problematic Töölönlahti bay area has remained unsolved.Not even the 1985 all-Scandinavian competition managed to produce a permanent solution forthis republican forum. Construction has been started here and there, one property at a time,including the Museum of Contemporary Art on the Mannerheimininaukio (Mannerheim’sSquare).

Conclusions: the spirit of urban planning

Many of Helsinki’s strongest meanings are embodied in waterways. The capital city of Finlandwas planned by the Baltic Sea. The river, the ocean waterfront areas, the bays, shores andcoastlines, as well as the isthmus site have, to a varying degree, figured prominently in thehistorical development of the city. The sea has played a role in shaping the city’s capital andsymbolic image, as well as its spiritual urban essence. The historic centre, located on the narrowpeninsula, is linked to the sea in an exquisite fashion and its neo-classical waterfront facade is awell known symbol of the capital city. Extensive harbour and industrial areas express theeconomic vitality of the city. With the rapid industrialization in the early 20th century, land wasreclaimed from the sea for harbours and dockyards. Also suburban planning has moved alongthe coastline (Kolbe, 2002).

Helsinki has a particularly rich shoreline and very different spaces linking the city and thewater. The new urban waterfront projects will reinforce Helsinki’s capital image as a maritimecity. Shore area planning has become timely due to the rearrangement of harbour andindustrial areas and oceanfront zones have become desirable residential and recreational areas.Even the official residence of the President of Finland, Mantyniemi was planned in 1994 on arocky pine promontory inside a slim western bay. The plan of the building is shaped into a longbroken sweep facing the sea.

Helsinki, the seat of government in Finland, is of quite recent origin. It was built in the 19thand 20th century, which were “centuries of capitals”. There is nothing medieval or feudal inHelsinki’s atmosphere. The first phase of the planning took place under the specialcircumstances of Russian rule, yielding a city of order and dignity. Engel’s city plan created thewhite, architectural image of neo-classical parts of central Helsinki. The city still retains ratherlow roof heights and any vertical element is highly visible in the townscape. Helsinki today is nolonger bound by this neo-classicist framework. In the post 150 years, alternative urban andplanning approaches have been explored and a unique capital city has been constructed.

10

Bibliography

ÅSTRÖM, S. (1957). Samhällsplanering och regionsbildning i kejsartidens Helsingfors.Helsinki.BLAU, E. and PLATZER, M. (eds.) (1999). Shaping the Great City. Modern Architecture in Central

Europe 1890-1937. MünchenBLOMSTEDT, Y. (1963). Johan Albrecht Ehrenström, kustavilainen kaupunkirakentaja.Helsinki.BRUNILA, B and AF SCHULTEN, M. (1955). Asemakaava ja rakennustaide, HelsinginESKOLA, M. and ESKOLA, T. (eds.) (2002). Helsingin helmi. Helsingfors pärlä. The pearl of

Helsinki. Helsinki Cathedral 1852-2002. Helsinki.HAKALA-ZILLIACUS, L-M. (2002). Suomen eduskuntatalo. Kokonaistaideteos,

itsenäisyysmonumentti ja kansallisen sovun representaatio. Helsinki.HALL, T. (1986). Planung europaischer Hauptsadte, Zur Entwicklung des Stadtebaues im 19. Jh.

Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Helsingin kaupungin historia, III:I. Helsinki.JUNG, B. (1918). Pro Helsingfors. Ett förslag till stadsplan för Stor-Helsingfors utarbetat av Eliel

Saarinen m.fl. Helsingfors.kaupungin historia, IV:I, Helsinki. kaupunkirakentamisen ihanteista ja päämääristä, esimerkkinä Helsingin Etu-Töölö ja uusiKERVANTO-NEVANLINNA, A. (2002). Kadonneen kaupungin jäljillä Teollisuusyhteiskunnan

muutoksia Helsingin historiallisessa ytimessä. Helsinki.KLINGE, M. AND KOLBE, L (1999). Helsinki - The Daughter of the Baltic Sea.Helsinki.KOLBE, L. (2002). Helsinki kasvaa suurkaupungiksi. Julkisuus, politiikka, hallinto ja kansalaiset

1945-2000. Helsingin historia vuodesta 1945, 3. Helsinki.KORVENMAA, P. (ed.) (1992). Arkkitehdin työ Suomen Arkkitehtiliitto 1892-1992. Hämeenlinna.KUUSANMÄKI, J. (1992). Sosiaalipolitiikkaa ja kaupunkisuunnittelua. Tietoa, taitoa,

asiantuntemusta. Helsinki euroopplaiasessa kehityksessä 1875-1917, 2.Helsinki.

LILIUS, H. (1984). The Esplanade During the 19th Century. Helsinki :Akateeminen Kirjakauppa.LINDBERG, C. AND REIN, G. (1950). Asemakaavoittelu ja rakennustoiminta. Helsinki.NIKULA, R. (1981). Yhtenäinen kaupunkikuva 1900-1930. SuomalaisenSCHULMAN, H. (2000) Helsingin aluesuunnittelu ja rakentuminen, in Helsingin historia vuodesta

1945, Helsinki.SUNDMAN, M. (1991). “Urban planning in Finland after 1850”, in HALL, T. (ed.), Planning and

Urban Growth in the Nordic Countries. Oxford.Vallila. Helsinki.

11