First inaugurated in 1938, the Helsinki Olympic Stadium reopened last month after an extensive modernisation and rebuild. While the four-year renovation project was carried out with great respect towards the Stadium’s original modernist architecture, new functionalities have been added and comfort and safety have been increased to match the demands of the future.
[tttgallery id=”909″]
In the early noughties, the future looked uncertain for the Helsinki Olympic Stadium. The arena was in poor condition and no longer met the standards for an events venue. Although the cost estimate showed a figure that would buy you a new arena, the “Nordic capital of cool” decided to appreciate the old and invest in rebuilding and refurbishing the Olympic Stadium. Now, the Stadium is a place where the past and the future meet, and old and new elements blend seamlessly.
A national monument and symbol of independence from the 1930s
The Helsinki Olympic Stadium is not only a landmark central to the Helsinki cityscape but also a building of significant national relevance. For many Finns, the combination of pure functionalist architecture of the 1930s and the external appearance of the 1952 Helsinki Olympics symbolises the dawn of a new era for the young nation. Having declared independence only twenty years prior to the inauguration of the Stadium on 12 June 1938, Finland was already preparing to host the Olympics in 1940. The breakout of the Second World War postponed the Olympics, which were ultimately held in summer 1952.
Perhaps the most beautiful Olympic Stadium in the world, the arena is a result of an architectural competition held in the 1930s, won by the Finnish architects Yrjö Lindegren (1900–1952) and Toivo Jäntti (1900–1975) who submitted a proposal in pure functionalist style. The original architecture aimed at practicality, functionality, and rationality.
[tttgallery id=”910″ template=”content-slider”]
Finnish modernism meets new standards
While the Stadium has been renovated with great respect towards the original architecture, it has also undergone great changes to meet the 21st century standards for a multipurpose arena. The Stadium is now more comfortable, more accessible, and more functional while remaining instantly recognisable. The entire Stadium premises as well as the stands, pitch and tracks have been modernised. Moreover, another stadium has been built underground: 20,000 square metres of new underground space doubles the amount of warm indoor space at the Stadium. Smart and versatile sports facilities, a tunnel following the tracks above, a logistics area and a multipurpose hall constitute a completely new part of the Olympic Stadium.
The Stadium’s external architecture of 2020 combines the restored 1930s concrete architecture and the renovated parts of the 1950s with a new North stadium square, where food and beverage kiosks in concrete serve audiences. The various elements make up a familiar and recognisable monument in human dimensions. The materials in old and new parts of the whole are timeless and durable: white concrete, brick, wood, and glass.
[tttgallery id=”911″ template=”content-slider”]
Even for taller eventgoers
The renewed wood cover of the façades, made of Finnish spruce and pine timber, conceals new rain shelter structures above the stands. The use of wood harks back to the 1950s, when wood was used to extend the concrete-structured Stadium to reach its current appearance. Wood provides the audience stands with a tactile material and texture with minute scale. To ensure audience safety, the cover of the rain shelter is in fireproofed wood. The composition of the 36,300 new wood composite seats, made nearby in Salo, Southern Finland, is also fire-resistant. The new seats are more comfortable even for taller eventgoers. In concerts, the Stadium can host up to 50,000 guests.
The plastered façades, their visible concrete structures and the brickwork in the curves have been restored to their original look. The new entrances to the stands, with the concrete stairs poured in place, have been adapted to meet the rhythm of the concrete structure curves and brickwork façades. Thanks to new emergency exits, the Stadium can now be emptied in just 8 minutes.
The details in the façade steel parts have been restored and the steel metal flashing has been made according to the original drawings. The original frames and sashes of the steel and wooden windows have been restored while the glass sheets are new and more energy efficient.
“The Olympic Stadium was built for action, and it has a wide range of different user groups.”
The architectural design is by the consortium K2S and NRT in cooperation with Swedish architecture collective White Arkitekten and Wessel de Jonge from the Netherlands. “The Olympic Stadium was built for action, and it has a wide range of different user groups. The Stadium offers a frame for all this action. As architects, we had to listen to representatives of all the different user groups, learn about their needs, and fit them together in a way that allows the Stadium to serve all users with as little changes as possible – all the while maintaining an architecturally harmonious, experiential stadium”, explains architect Kimmo Lintula from architecture office K2S.
A venue for world-class events
The facilities in the 1930s part of the Stadium now serve as multipurpose space for various events, and the functional clarity of interior spaces has been restored. Many improvements have been made to maximise audience comfort and accessibility: For example, the number of restrooms has been grown from 248 to 600, and the number of sales stands is now manifold. Left outside the scope of the renovation, the Stadium tower offers fantastic views over the city from 72 metres above ground.
The Olympic Stadium will celebrate its opening weeks in September 2020.
//
Text credit: Marketing and Communication Olympic Stadium Helsinki
Architecture and urban development often give rise to discussions. But few projects attract as much attention as the proposals for the Guggenheim Museum in Helsinki. On the one hand are the 1715 teams of architects from 77 countries who submitted their visions for a new museum in this international competition. On the other hand are those in the city who have resisted the project right from the beginning. The activists who demonstrated in front of Helsinki’s Lasipalasti, i.e. the Glass Palace, during the presentation of the six finalists on 2 December, were proof of this. “Not With Our Money” was written on their banner.
[tttgallery template=”content-slider”]
In the Glass Palace Mark Wigley, chairman of the jury and dean emeritus of the Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation at New York’s Columbia University, talked about the search for a museum of the 21st century and about the finalists. The selection of these six designs in no way meant that finished projects were being presented. Instead, it was the beginning of a dialogue, a conversation about the question of what a museum in the 21st century needs to provide. And about how this kind of institution can be anchored in the city, about how both new public space and space for the public can be created. Each of the teams was given an extensive list of questions by the jury. Lists of questions that serve as a starting point for the further development of the project. And thus, in a formal and programmatic sense, everything in this process can still be altered. The images that were unveiled are only the first impressions of what is possible. The projects and the names of the teams involved were introduced separately. The question of who was responsible for which design will not become public knowledge until the end of the competition in June. And it is still unclear what will happen with the winning submission. The city of Helsinki still has to decide which further action should be taken. For supporters of the project this is seen as a smart investment that will put Helsinki on the international map of culture and attract tourists. Ideally, this will lead to more investment within the city.
Opponents complain about the waste of public money in times of tight budgets and about the sell-out of the city to an international cultural organisation. In 2012 Helsinki was named World Design Capital and was also recently awarded the UNESCO title of Design City. And thus, people in the city should be able to develop their own ideas. One group within the opposition is currently hosting a competition entitled “The Next Helsinki” in its search for possible answers. Scenarios for the South Harbour, a potential Guggenheim location, will be developed. Everyone is invited to participate, and international ideas will also be considered in this new competition. The winner will be picked by an international jury chaired by Michael Sorkin.
At the moment, it seems that urban development in Helsinki is not only being discussed within professional circles. And this is also one of the positive results of the Guggenheim competition.
Finalist teams:
• AGPS Architecture Ltd. (Zurich, Switzerland and Los Angeles, United States of America)
• Asif Khan Ltd. (London, United Kingdom)
• Fake Industries Architectural Agonism (New York, United States of America; Barcelona, Spain; and Sydney, Australia)
• Haas Cook Zemmrich STUDIO2050 (Stuttgart, Germany)
• Moreau Kusunoki Architect (Paris, France)
• SMAR Architecture Studio (Madrid, Spain and Western Australia)
Summary of Jury Findings on the Finalist Schemes:
GH-04380895
The Jury felt this was a unique proposal, with a grouping of pavilions creating a continuation of the city. The scheme blended well into the city fabric, reflecting the market close by. The use of natural daylight deep into the plan was praised. However, the Jury was skeptical about the design of the roof scape. The tower-lighthouse created debate amongst the Jury, with concerns over the placement and size of the galleries, nevertheless the Jury felt the overall concept has great potential to redefine the museum as a more urban experience.
GH-1128435973
The Jury praised the industrial vernacular of the design, with its internal flexibility and external effect. This was felt to be a very compelling response to the Guggenheim principles for the new museum even if it was not fully developed yet. There was a very strong organizing concept with public/incubator on the ground floor and exhibition above. The low form yet pronounced silhouette was considered particularly interesting.
GH-121371443
The Jury praised the integration of image and technology, and called the design simple but extraordinary. Jurors thought the scheme had such a density of visual impact that it would draw a nickname from the public but also needs to develop an equally compelling internal logic as the internal program is still too diagrammatic. The proposal used the aesthetic of the building as a sustainable energy device. There were some potential concerns raised over construction risks.
GH-5059206475
This proposal responded well to the cityscape and the site, using the materials from the existing buildings and creating close relationships with its surroundings. The architecture is based on an evolving ecology of materials, forms and atmospheres. The scheme was based on an old store house, which was felt to be a subtle concept with a great deal of potential both for the museum and for the urban and social fabric.
GH-5631681770
This scheme demonstrated a good understanding of how the city works and the proposal presented valuable research demonstrating a new direction for the museum internally and in relation to the urban fabric. There is particular attention to public space and the potential exhibition spaces were considered authentic. The Jury acknowledged the scheme was at an early, conceptual phase, but its non-stereotypical approach was seen to open up a particularly promising future for the project on the site.
GH-76091181
The Jury praised the basic concept behind the proposal. The use of timber seemed especially elegant and the internal courtyard could be memorable with circuits of independent galleries. The use of nine lifts was especially questioned by the Jury but it was felt that the gallery ‘rooms’ could work well if the horizontal and vertical circulation scheme could be developed both in terms of efficiency and complexity of visitor experience.
