POPS: Privately Owned Public Space - Master's Thesis

POPS:

PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACE How to harness private capital to create public indoor spaces in Helsinki, Finland

Aleksi Vuola Master’s thesis 2020

Aleksi Vuola

POPS: Privately Owned Public Space HOW TO HARNESS PRIVATE CAPITAL TO CREATE PUBLIC INDOOR SPACES IN HELSINKI, FINLAND Tampere University Faculty of management and built environment School of Architecture Master’s thesis April 2020

3

ABSTRACT

Aleksi Vuola POPS: Privately owned public space Tampere University Master’s Degree Programme in Architecture Thesis, 144 pages April 2020

Supervisor: Ilmari Lahdelma Advisor: Panu Lehtovuori

This thesis attempts to examine ways of harnessing private capital to create public indoor spaces in Helsinki, Finland. More precisely, this thesis explores privately owned public spaces (POPS) as a space type.

POPS is a term popularized by professor Jerold S. Kayden in 2000 referring to spaces that were born from the floor area bonus system in New York City. In 1961, the city introduced a new zoning resolution including an incentive for developers to exceed the densities permitted by the zoning rules. Developers got to build bonus floor area in exchange for creating public spaces.

of Helsinki to physical and non-physical elements. Programming is summed up with defined user groups and site-specific explorations. The last part consists of a design proposal for a POPS on a site on the quays of the Helsinki South Harbour.

A POPS is an oxymoron that is made possible with a thorough legal contractual agreement between the public and the private sector. Whereas a successful public space is a design question, the public qualities of the space is a non-physical question. This thesis argues for the fact that ownership does not imply whether a space is public or private.

The main sources for the thesis are books about POPS, news articles about the subject, zoning documents of varying countries, but also research articles and books on public space.

This thesis is tripartite. The first part includes a short overview of the history of POPS, an examination of the term and case studies. The second part focuses on programming a POPS in Helsinki.

The programming advances in additive constraints from zoning characteristics

The originality of this thesis has been checked using the Turnitin OriginalityCheck service.

The subject emerged from current events in the building industry globally, the lack of usable public spaces throughout the year in Helsinki, and the misuse of the term public space. Multiple private developments are taking place in prominent spots in Helsinki, of which many have not complied with initial regulations, including the amount and quality of public spaces. As tthe pace of urbanization increases, so does land value due to densification. Helsinki’s Nordic climate affects the usage of exterior public spaces during the winter months, which is why especially indoor public spaces are needed. Using incentive zoning, developers could achieve more profit of the rising land value, while providing public spaces throughout the city for the general public.

The aim of the thesis is to find a win-winwin situation where the private, public and people benefit from the POPS. The history of POPS has an abundance of failed examples, which are often results of defective contracts or infractions. Learnings from the negative outcomes demonstrate the importance of a comprehensive legal base in order to gain a positive outcome.

The design part of this thesis aims at showcasing a best practice example of a POPS comprising of fundamental physical and non-physical qualities.

Keywords: Public space, private ownership, incentive, publicness, bonus floor area

TIIVISTELMÄ Aleksi Vuola POPS: Yksityisesti omistettu julkinen tila Tampereen yliopisto Arkkitehtuurin tutkinto-ohjelma Diplomityö, 144 sivua Huhtikuu 2020

Tarkastaja: Ilmari Lahdelma Tarkastaja 2: Panu Lehtovuori

Tässä diplomityössä tarkastellaan keinoja, joilla yksityinen pääoma voidaan valjastaa julkisten sisätilojen rakentamiseen Helsingissä. Työ käsittelee julkisia tiloja ja nojaa yksityisesti omistettujen julkisten tilojen, POPS-tilojen (privately owned public spaces) konseptiin.

POPS:in käsitteen popularisoi professori Jerold S. Kayden vuonna 2000. New Yorkin kaupunki otti vuonna 1961 käyttöön uuden kaavoituslainsäädännön, joka sisälsi rakennuttajille suunnatun kannustimen.

Kannustimen myötä rakannuttajat saivat ylittää kaavoituksessa asetetut kerrosneliörajoitteet lisäkerrosalueella vastineeksi siitä, että ne rakennuttivat osaksi hankettaan myös kaupunkilaisille avoimia tiloja. Kayden viittaa POPS:illa tiloihin, jotka syntyivät New Yorkissa, kun kaupunki alkoi säännellä rakentamista kerrosneliöbonusjärjestelmän avulla.

Toisessa osassa tarkastellaan sitä, miten POPS:in konseptia voidaan soveltaa Helsingissä.

Tässä osassa muun muassa rajataan tällaiselle hankkeelle sopiva kohderyhmä ja kiinnitetään huomiota suunnitelmaan vaikuttaviin rajaaviin tekijöihin, kuten paikalliseen kaavoitukseen.

Lisäksi tarkastellaan tilojen fyysisiä ja eifyysisiä ominaisuuksia. Viimeisessä osassa esitellään Helsingin Eteläsatamaan sijoittuva suunnitelmaehdotus toimistorakennuksen yhteydessä toimivasta urheilutilasta.

Diplomityö pyrkii osoittamaan, ettei se, omistaako tilan yksityinen vai julkinen toimija määritä yksin sitä, onko tila julkinen vai yksityinen. Siinä missä suunnittelu määrää sen, onko julkinen tila onnistunut, tilan julkisuus muotoutuu myös tilan aineettomien ominaisuuksien pohjalta. POPS on oksymoroni, jossa yhdistyvät vastakohdat.

Yksityisomisteisten julkisten tilojen historia sisältää lukuisia epäonnistumisia.

Usein epäonnistumiseen on johtanut joko puutteellinensopimustaisääntöjenrikkominen.

Siksi hyvän lopputuloksen saavuttaminen edellyttää perusteellisesti laadittua sopimusta ja täydellistä oikeudellista pohjaa.

Diplomityö on kolmiosainen. Ensimmäisessä osassa on lyhyt katsaus POPS:in historiaan, yksityisen ja julkisen tilan käsitteisiin ylimalkaan ja aiheesta tehtyihin tapaustutkimuksiin.

Tämän julkaisun alkuperäisyys tarkastettu Turnitin OriginalityCheck –ohjelmalla.

on

Lähteenä on käytetty yksityisomisteisia julkisia tiloja käsittelevää kirjallisuutta, tieteellisiä artikkeleita ja teoksia sekä uutistekstejä ja lehtiartikkeleita. Lisäksi lähteenä on käytetty kaavoitusasiakirjoja useista eri maista.

Aihe valikoitui kansainvälisestikin tarkasteltuna rakennusteollisuuden ajankohtaisten tapahtumien perusteella. Kaupungistumisen kiihtyessä kaupunkitila tiivistyy. Seurauksena maan arvo nousee. Ympärivuotisesti käytettäviä tiloja on Helsingissä myös suhteellisen vähän, ja julkisen tilan termiä käytetään yleisessä keskustelusa väärin. Helsingin keskeisillä alueilla on vireillä lukuisia yksityisiä rakennushankkeita, joista monissa ei ole noudatettu alkuperäistä sääntelyä, mukaan lukien julkisen tilan määrää ja laatua. Helsingin pohjoinen ilmasto vaikuttaa ulkona sijaitsevien julkisten tilojen käyttöön talvikuukausina, joten sisätiloille on tarvetta. Hyödyntämällä insentiivikaavoitusta ja tarjoamalla tiloja ihmisten käytettäväksi rakennuttajat voivat saavuttaa merkittävän lisähyödyn hankkimastaan arvokkaasta tontista. Tämän diplomityön tavoitteena on löytää niin sanottu win-win-win-tilanne, jossa POPS:ista hyötyvät niin hankkeen yksityinen ja julkinen osapuoli kuin kaupunkilaisetkin.

Avainsanat: Julkinen tila, yksityisomistus, insentiivi, julkisuus, kerrosbonusjärjestelmä

5

The first mind map

PREFACE

The topic for this thesis is based on observations as a resident of Helsinki. Due to the climate in Finland, people spend a significant amount of time indoors during the winter months. When the temperature drops, people tend to spend time in private and commercial spaces. All the activities done in public outdoor spaces during the warmer months can not be continued during wintertime as there are not enough public indoor third-place alternatives. With multiple private developments taking place in Helsinki, including little or no indoor public spaces, the situation is not getting better.

In a quest to find a solution to create a range of varying public indoor spaces, I came across POPS as a term. In theory, POPS is a solution that creates a winwin-win situation, where the public gets a public space, the city does not have to finance it and even the developers benefit from it. POPS sounded like an opportunity worth while researching. Above all legal and financial aspects of a POPS, I was interested in the opportunity to discover and experiment a new space type.

I would like to thank my supervisor Professor Ilmari Lahdelma for guiding me with the thesis. I would also like to thank Professor Panu Lehtovuori for guiding me on the urban planning aspects of the thesis. I am grateful for the interesting conversations with both.

I am extremely thankful for Karoliina for being a huge support throughout the whole thesis process. Thank you Glory and Essi for reading and commenting on the thesis.

Thank you to Kaarin for the discussions on the topic. I am also highly thankful to my roommates Ikke, Lauri, Merilä and Simppa at the Embassy for being present for the past year and being able to share thoughts on each other’s theses. Thank you Rakkauden limat for all the good times during all these seven years studying together. I would also like to thank my family for their support during my studies.

Thank you everyone at ALA Architects for being understanding and supportive during the making of this thesis.

Aleksi Vuola “Embassy”, Helsinki 29.4.2020

7

TABLE OF CONTENT

Introduction

11

A. POPS

13

1. History

15

1.1 1961 New York City zoning resolution 1.2 Adjustments 1961-present 1.3 Global history 2. POPS as a space type 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

Introduction to POPS as a space type Distribution of responsibilities Controversies and issues Relevancy

3. Case studies 3.1 New York City 3.2 Rotterdam 3.3 Helsinki

15 19 21 25 25 29 31 33 41 43 49 53

4. Public/Private

59

5. POPS Rules

67

5.1 Rules for POPS contracts 5.2 Rules for designing a POPS

67 69

TABLE OF CONTENT B. PROGRAMMING

71

1. POPS in Helsinki

74

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

Introducing POPS to Helsinki Incentives POPS categories Responsibility profiles

75 79 81 83

2. User groups

85

3. Physical elements

91

2.1 Physical separation methods 2.2 Physical quality factors 4. Experimentation of POPS and incentives 3.1 Kasarmikatu 21 3.2 Telakkaranta 3.3 Katajanokanlaituri 4 3.4 Experimentation conclusion

91 93 95 97 101 105 109

C. DESIGN

111

1. Analysis

113

1.1 History 1.2 Site conditions

113 115

2. Concept

117

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

117 119 121 123

Area situation and site concept Massing analysis POPS calculation POPS separation

3. Design proposal

125

4. Rules and responsibilities

137 139

Closing words 140 References

9

TERMINOLOGY As-of-right Development A development that complies with all applicable zoning regulations and does not require any discretion­ary action by the City Planning Commission. Used in New York. (www.nyc.gov) Floor Area Ratio (FAR) The principal bulk regulation that controls the size of buildings. FAR is the ratio of total building floor area to the area of its zoning lot, which reusults in the maximum amount of floor area allowable on that zoning lot.

Host building The main building that situates on the zoning lot that has the POPS. The POPS size is typically proportional to the host building and its given bonuses.

Incentive zoning The use of bonuses in various ways including increased project density or other benefits to a developer in return for benefits for the locality by the developer such as providing desired features, design elements, uses, services or amenities.

POPS Privately owned public space Private Industries and services are owned or controlled by an individual person or a commercial company, rather than by the state or an official organization. (Collins Dictionary) Private sphere A sector of societal life, such as home, in which an individual has a degree of authority, unhampered by interventions

from governmental or other institution.

(Habermas, 1991) Privately owned Means that it is owned by a private individual or organization, rather than by the state or a public body. (Collins Dictionary) Public An adjective means relating to the government or state, or things that are done for the people by the state. (Collins Dictionary) Public Space Refers to an area or place that is open and accessible to all people, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, age or socio-economic level.

These are public gathering spaces such as plazas, squares, and parks. Connecting spaces, such as sidewalks and streets, are also public spaces. In the 21st century, some even consider the virtual spaces available through the internet as a new type of public space that develops interaction and social mixing. (Unesco) Public sphere Physical and mediated spaces in which people come together to identify, express, and deliberate interests of common concern. A platform for social interaction where a particular kind of relationship among participants takes place. (Habermas, 1991) Zoning resolution A legal instrument in New York to regulate and establish limits on the use of land and building size, shape, height, and setback. (www.nyc.gov)

INTRODUCTION Helsinki is growing and densifying at a fast pace. Developments are getting larger in size and many are located in central areas of the city. Economically it is a good trend for the city, but could this trend directly benefit the general public in the form of public spaces?

Public spaces are not profitable spaces, which is why there has to be a system in place that persuades developers to create public spaces.

This thesis examines one option of how private developers could voluntarily create public indoor spaces on the site of their development.

Helsinki has a monopoly in zoning.

In addition, Helsinki and the Finnish government own a large majority of the land in the city. As the city regulates land it owns, the procedure of how regulations are set becomes an in-house process with little externally released information. A comprehensive set of rules such as the zoning ordinance in the United States is lacking in Finland. This leads to case-bycase negotiations between the city and the developers that are not centered on a fixed set of rules, but more on a free discussion of interests. As a result, the general public can only wonder why something happened and on what basis. Some examples are brought up in this thesis, such as the Redi complex in the Kalasatama neighbourhood, where the developer was allowed to build higher and replacing 10 000m2 of public space with commercial space. Another example is Telakkaranta in the Punavuori neighborhood, where cultural activities should have been kept in the area, but are now replaced with a conference center. The fear is that with an unclear process, the city concedes too much without much in return.

An issue with the usage of the term public space is its false broadness. Nowadays multiple projects use the term public space when referring to restaurants and other services on the ground floor that are accessible to the general public. As publicness is not only related to access but also agency

and interest, truly public indoor spaces are lacking in Helsinki. The city of Helsinki seems to not aim for actual public indoor spaces as their demand for spaces of “public nature”, “open nature” or “accessible”, thus not creating any truly public indoor spaces.

Helsinki is not lacking public outdoor spaces, but because of the cold climate, it is public indoor spaces that are crucially needed.

Whereas exterior spaces are a never-ending network, indoor spaces are destination spaces in specific locations. Outdoor activity and leisure spaces become predominantly circulation spaces during the winter. A similar network of varying indoor spaces for activities and leisure is non-existent as the only public indoor spaces are centralized institutions such as railway stations or libraries. During the cold months, people have to rely on commercial spaces such as shopping malls for free spaces to spend time. Instead, a new way of looking at city planning, interior urbanism, could create a network of public indoor spaces.

As a lot of financial pressure is on providing housing and needed infrastructure for the growing population, public spaces, especially indoor ones in pre-existing urban areas, are not a priority. Private developers, on the other hand, are motivated to build in the city center. Opportunities emerging from the combination of the motivation of the private sector and the needs of the city should be examined. Could public spaces be provided by private developers?

A truly public space is possible to achieve under private ownership. A common misconception is that ownership correlates directly whether the space is public or private. Publicness of a space is ultimately an agreement between the public and private entities. If the private side is willing to give up rights of a space to the public, the public gains control of the space. This kind of space type is called a privately owned public space: POPS.

11

POPS

A. POPS The first part of the thesis examines the history and terminology of POPS. Why POPS is relevant is looked at globally and locally. At the end, case studies of POPS and POPS-like spaces are examined.

The history of POPS is largely related to related to New York City and much research on the subject, therefore New York. plays a major role in the first part of this thesis.

1. History 1.1 1961 New York City Zoning Resolution 1.2 Adjustments 1968-present 1.3 Global history 2. POPS as a space type 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

Introduction to POPS as a space type Distribution of responsabilities Controversies and issues Relevance

3. Case studies 3.1 New York City 3.2 Rotterdam 3.3 Helsinki

13 15 19 21 25 25 29 31 33 41 43 49 53

4. Public/Private

59

5. POPS Rules

67

5.1 Rules for POPS contracts 5.2 Rules for designing a POPS

67 69

13

Zoning diagram of three height districts “Four Stages of the Maximum Mass of the Zoning Envelope” created in 1922 Hugh Ferriss

1.1 1961 New York City zoning resolution

In the early 1900s, before the Zoning Resolution came into force, innovations, and progress in the construction industry allowed for ever-higher skyscrapers.

Developers raced to build taller buildings without any regulation on height or bulk at the time. However, some residents of New York were not pleased with the large developments rising in their city (Kayden 2000, 7). In order to secure the gain of light and air in the city and prevent congestion, the 1916 Zoning Resolution was introduced.

The Resolution divided New York City into five classes of height districts which defined the ratios of the building height to the street width (Building Zone Resolution, Article III, 8). Restrictions on the relationship between the street wall and the street were put in place with specific set back

requirements on higher floors. Due to real estate economics at the time, developers wanted to maximize profit by building as much as possible. This resulted mostly in buildings that filled almost the whole lot at the base with setbacks until the building reached the maximum height. This resulted in ziggurat-shaped or “wedding cake” -shaped buildings. A well-known example of the set back style building type is the Empire State Building completed in 1931.

The Zoning Resolution had an exception for height limits. If the building filled no more than 25% of the site, the building could be infinitely high (Building Zone Resolution, Article II, §9 d). Both typologies emerging from the 1916 Zoning Resolution influenced the 1961 Zoning Resolution.

While the 1916 Zoning Resolution resolved light and air issues, the wedding cake buildings did not resolve the issues of open space at the ground floor level. A couple of buildings took a different approach and used the rule of occupying only 25% of the lot. The Lever House desgined by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill built in 1952 and the Seagram Building by Mies van der Rohe built in 1958, both well-known examples of International Style towers, left a major part of the lot unbuilt. Both buildings’ massing is simple, an extruded rectangle. A major part of the prominent street-facing space was left unbuilt on the site. The open spaces were designed as plazas, which unintentionally became the first POPSlike spaces in the city. To resolve the lack of open space and taking inspiration from buildings like the Seagram Building, the 1961 Zoning Resolution was introduced.

A. POPS // 1. History

Privately owned public space (POPS) is a term introduced in 2000 when Jerold S. Kayden, professor of urban planning and design at Harvard gsd, in collaboration with the New York Department of City Planning and the Municipal Art Society of NY, wrote the book Privately Owned Public Spaces: the NYC Experience. POPS as a space type was introduced in 1961 under the new Zoning Resolution of New York City. Incentive zoning allowed developers to build taller buildings on the condition that they provide public space. Back then this arrangement was called plaza and arcade bonuses. The resolution was needed due to the densifying and upwards growing Manhattan borough.

The 1961 Zoning Resolution did not invent or create POPS as a space type. Instead, it took inspiration from open spaces in front of modernist buildings. They had plazas in front of the building instead of the typical New York skyscraper which bases typically occupied the whole lot (Kayden 2000, 11).

15

POST 1916 ZONING RESOLUTION

PRE 1961 ZONING RESOLUTION

POST 1961 ZONING RESOLUTION

The design for the Seagram Building “front yard” was an elevated plaza with fountains.

The plaza was open rather than fenced or otherwise enclosed but it was clearly aimed as a space for employees of the building, not as a leisure space for passing citizens. Philip Johnson recalls van der Rohe saying that when he saw people sitting on the ledges, he was quite surprised. He had never dreamt they would (Kayden 2000, 11). In order to keep these kinds of plazas public on a private lot, the city introduced incentives.

The encouragement was twofold. First, the City used its zoning power by rather encouraging than requiring developers to act in a way desired by the public sector using incentive zoning. Secondly, POPS was introduced as a new accessible to all open space located on the private property (Kayden 2000, 11).

The encouragement was to allow the bonus floor area in return for providing POPS. Developers could gain up to ten square feet for one square foot of provided public space in high-density areas. The amount of gained square footage was capped at 20% of the base maximum FAR. The popularity of the, then called plaza and arcade bonuses, was enormous, as it was a great financial deal for the developers. The ratio of the financial gain of added floor area to the cost of the plaza was at best 48 to 1 3 (Kayden 2000, 12).

Unfortunately, the new POPSs were not of a similar quality as the Seagram Plaza.

The description of the requirements for the POPSs was vague and not detailed.

The bonuses from POPS were “as-ofright” meaning that The City Planning Commission could not approve or deny the developer’s application on the quality of the public space3 (Kayden 2000, 12).

The bonuses were given in relation to the public area on the delivered plans, not on the quality of those spaces. The plazas and arcades had rules for dimensions, locations, and obstructions. With the lack of regulation on the usage of those spaces, some became loading docks, driveways or even places to store garbage bins. Some spaces were covered in asphalt with no other qualities of a plaza than being an open-air space accessible to everyone (Kayden 2000, 16).

A. POPS // 1. History

The new zoning rules allowed for “tower in the park” typology, the ideology introduced

by Le Corbusier in the 1920s2 (Koohlaas 1978). Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) was introduced for the first time, which varied in number by districts 3 (Kayden 2000, 10).

This meant that the total floor area that could be built on a specific zoning lot was proportional to the area of the building lot.

In order to maximize height, the building’s footprint had to be minimized. As the race for height was still happening, buildings started to look more like the Seagram Building than the Empire State Building.

17

300

200

100

100

200

300

Inauguration of the Program

1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970

New types of spaces

1971 1972

Elevated and sunken plazas, through block arcades; covered pedestrian spaces; and open-air concourses.

1973 1974

Major improvements to plaza standards

1975 1976 1977 1978

Three established categories of spaces: open air concourse, sidewalk widening, and the urban plaza. The bonuses were no longer allowed as-of-right,

1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984

Incremental changes

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Data collection and book publication

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Ushering in a new era of plazas

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

POPS BY YEAR BUILT

Starting in the late 1990s, Jerold S. Kayden, the DCP, MAS joined forces to conduct an analysis of New York City POPS and developed an electronic database about each POPS. Based on this work and published in 2000, “Privately Owned Public Space: The New York City Experience” “Public plaza” standards were adopted, which introduced owners to voluntarily redesign or modify their existing plaza. The standards are applied to all prior types of plazas ensuring plazas of prior standards to be upgraded to higher quality. In 2009 a follow-up text amendment further fine-tuned standards.

1.2 Adjustments 1968-present

The covered pedestrian spaces category was introduced in 1970 and it was the first time an interior space was introduced as a POPS type3 (Kayden 2000, 13). At the time the zoning description text defined the space as an enclosed area of at least 1,500 square feet or 139 square meters with the height of at least 30 feet or 9,1 meters and with appropriate uses such as small stores and cafes fronting the space. It is notable, that since the 1970’s the amount of used space allowed has doubled: nowadays the limit is 3,000 square feet or 278 square meters (Building Zone Resolution, 74842). Banks, loan and insurance offices and similar types of uses were prohibited. The space had to be open between 7 am and midnight, the space would provide public sitting areas while continuing to serve as part of the general pedestrian circulation system of the city3 (Kayden 2000, 13). The bonus rate was not fixed to only the square footage, but also on the quality of the space and provided services. The bonus rate varied from 11 square feet for each square foot of basic pedestrian space to 14 square feet for a fully indoor air-conditioned and heated space, to 16 square feet for a space additionally providing a subway connection (Kayden 2000, 34).

231 POPs were created in 1975, 14 years after the initial 1961 zoning resolution (Kayden 2000, 16). While the city was achieving an adequate quantity of POPS, the quality was severely lacking. People and city officials started to question what was gained from these unpleasant and sometimes unusable spaces (Whyte 1988, 234). With the help of the American urban sociologist William H. Whyte, the city released in 1975 the new zoning amendment, including specific requirements for public spaces. Most of the characteristics of failed plazas, like having obstruction or using it for building maintenance, were prohibited. Signage about the public space was required, informing who owns the space, who maintains it and most importantly, that it is indeed a public space (Whyte 1988).

POPS rules in New York City have been improving by small steps since 1977, but have also had their struggles. POPSs were popular spaces for homeless people, which did not please the building owners. They sought and got permission from the city to close some of the spaces at night. In the 90s the city wanted to encourage “tower-on-abase” development instead of “tower-in-aplaza” and banned plazas in certain parts of the city (Kayden 2000, 19).

To date in New York, there are over 550 POPS of 350 buildings across New York City. Combined, POPS provide nearly 3.8 million square feet (3,5 square meters) of additional public space in the City (NYC Planning 2019).

Nowadays incentive bonuses are also given in exchange for other public amenities than public spaces. Developers who provide visual or performing arts spaces, subway improvements, theater preservation, FRESH food stores and affordable housing can also get exemptions to exceed the FAR limit (NYC Planning 2020).

A. POPS // 1. History

After the first try of the new Zoning Resolution failed qualitatively, city officials started working on a more detailed updated Zoning Resolution in 1968–1973. The revision included most importantly getting rid of the “as-of-right” approval process.

That gave power to the City Planning Commission to review the design quality as the basis to approve or deny the applications.

The public spaces were divided into five categories: the elevated plazas, the sunken plazas, block arcades, covered pedestrian spaces, and open-air concourses. Within those categories, the quality requirements were much more specific (Kayden 2000, 12).

19

London, UK

Bangkok

Santiago de Chile

Singapore

Privitazation of already existing public spaces has brought opposition from the public

Case-by-case negotiations between the developer created better POPSs than a codified as-of-right process

A too small FAR bonus did not attract developers to apply for bonuses in return of POPSs. Culturally, outdoor POPS were not seen beneficial by the public either

In some cases, the country requires POPSs for developments if in some cases e.g. land is sold by the government.

1.3 Global history

Santiago, Chile started using incentive zoning to produce public spaces started in the 1970s. In the beginning, the city and the developers negotiated the design of POPS case by case with the aim for public spaces that felt public. Starting from the 1990’s the POPS became a codified element in the city department of planning, which eliminated the need for negotiation. Since then, POPSs have been processed in a more quantitative than qualitative way. The only condition for a bonus was to create a good relationship with the existing street. In the case of Santiago, shifting from a case-bycase negotiation to an undetailed but more organizational zoning process led to bad outcomes (Fuhrmann 2013).

In Bangkok, Thailand FAR rules were introduced in 2006. The city already had regulations on building setbacks from the street, creating wide sidewalks in front of buildings. Therefore, POPS were already existing without floor area bonuses. The amount of bonuses given was too small at 5% of the FAR. The developers did not see it worthwhile to have stricter rules applied to their lot for such a small increase in buildable floor area. The FAR bonus system was not popular and only two applications during the first five years after 2006. Furthermore, people did not see a similar benefit from outdoor public spaces as in New York because of the different climate. Implementing western city planning theories from colder climates in addition to the cultural tendency of people not thinking public space as their space never made the POPS system successful in Bangkok (Anurakpradom 2013).

In Hong Kong POPS as a type of public space was introduced in the 1980s. On the contrary to many other cities, POPSs were mostly indoors in the beginning. Due to the increasing pursuit of economic gain and the dense urban environment in Hong Kong, there are now insufficient non-consumerdriven outdoor public spaces available in the city. Additionally, outdoor POPSs have replaced the traditional communal public spaces due to the demolition of the original public spaces. Most of the outdoor POPS have insufficient amenities and some have been commercialized. Residents of Hong Kong are well-aware of their civil rights and protests have been held if the private owners have acted illegally. The lack of overall public space has made the shopping centers the dominant form of public space (Xing & Siu 2013).

Singapore has a unique space type, the void deck, of which some are POPS. Void decks were introduced after 1969 and are the communal and social space spaces located on the ground floor of Housing and Development Board blocks of flats (Singapore Infopedia, Koh, 2015).

Developers are required to provide public spaces at certain developments, such as new sites where public spaces are required as part of government land sales and redevelopment sites where public spaces are required as part of the planning conditions. Also, POPS is required for those seeking Gross Floor Area (GFA) exemption for a first-story covered public space (URA Design Guidelines and Good Practice Guide for Privately Owned Public Spaces 2017).

In Europe, London has had a 50 year history with POPS. In a lot of cases, POPS in London are public spaces bought by private entities (Pratt 2017). Privatization of public space has raised anger and opposition. London POPS are not born in a similar way than New York and therefore not completely comparable. Many port cities in northern Europe are developing old harbours. The developments are often privately led and developed, but under the supervision of public officials, are often required to create public spaces.

A. POPS // 1. History

The POPS phenomenon is becoming more and more common in big cities around the world. Major North American cities like San Francisco and Toronto followed New York quickly to add bonus systems at the end of the 1960s. Japan has had a POPSlike system in place since the 1930’s, and Tokyo already has three times the amount of POPS than New York.

21

THE GOTHAMIST

BY BEN YAKAS OCT. 8, 2011

Picture: www.occupy.com

On the right, flyer distributed around Zuccotti Park in reaction to the NYPD’s statement, and Bloomberg’s ominous comments about the longevity of the (Occupy Wall Street)protest.

The flyer quotes from “Privately Owned Public Space: The New York City Experience”.

Zuccotti Park (formerly Liberty Plaza Park) is one of the privately owned public spaces (POPS).

23

More private

Management

More public

Ownership

More public

More private

POPS

Accessibility

Inclusiveness

2.1 Introduction to POPS as a space type POPS is a physical place located on private property to which the owner has granted legally binding rights of access and use to members of the public, most often in return for something of value from the City to the owner.

-Jerold S. KaydenPrivately owned public space (POPS) has been from the beginning a legal experiment. Having two opposites combined in one term has more to do with the nonphysical qualities instead of the physical qualities of the space. In the realm of the built environment, spaces are so often divided into public or private. It usually encompasses not only who owns the space, but also who operates, maintains, and controls it. If any of these responsibilities are distributed in different variations, it leaves a questionable grey area between the black and white divide of public and private.What is the difference between a public space and a private space and what is the consequence of the ownership? Some terminology has been used to define a space that is somewhere between private and public. Semipublic and semiprivate spaces are situated in the middle of the public-private spectrum. Semipublic is

often used to describe shopping malls.

Shopping malls have been given, or have given to themselves, the image of being urban centers. Places where people come to spend time, meet each other, and use services, but in a covered and climatecontrolled space. Whereas shopping malls are private spaces that are used publicly, POPS are public spaces used publicly. This distinction illustrates how POPS is not situated in the middle of the axis between private and public but is entirely on the public end. POPS still being under private ownership cannot be classified as entirely public, therefore POPS can not be measured on a one-dimensional private-public axis.

The OMAI model created by Langstraat and van Melik (2013) represented on the left attempts to ranks publicness. Ownership and management, two hard factors to measure, are complemented with two soft factors, accessibility and inclusiveness.

A POPS is a complicated legal agreement between government agencies and private developers, while users are the general public. Privately managed public spaces are always shaped by a negotiation between commercial interests and regulatory policies and practices (Carmona 2019). The enabler for a POPS is the zoning power of the cities. Zoning typically limits how much floor area for a certain function can be built on a specific site. The allowed floor area is also typically reached to the maximum by the developers in locations of high land value in order to get maximal financial gain from the site. In achieving POPS, incentive zoning is used dominantly to allow private developers to construct more floor area than permitted in the zoning. In exchange, the developer constructs and maintains

public space according to design standards written in the zoning policies and allows access to all members of the public. The reason why cities are willing to yield from the zoning restrictions is the thought that bigger buildings and more public spaces is better than smaller buildings and fewer public spaces. In short, if the city is able to get more public spaces in exchange for larger buildings, it is considered a win for the public. It has also been a win, in some cases a hefty one, for the developer, as the additional floor area gained has resulted in financial gain multiple times larger than the price of constructing the public space (Kayden 2000, 22). By increasing the income or reducing the cost for the developers and gaining a public space for the city can, at its best, be a win-win situation.

A. POPS // 2. POPS as a space type

Parties invloved

25

Pianta Grande di Roma. The Nolli map of Rome by Giambattista Nolli. Black represents private spaces and white public open acces spaces, whether inside or outside.

The Nolli map of Helsinki. In black are private spaces and in white public open acces spaces.

Made by the author.

Indoor-Outdoor “I end then in praise of small spaces. The multiplier effect is tremendous. It is not just the number of people using them, but the larger number who pass by and enjoy them vicariously, or even the larger number who feel better about the city center for knowledge of them. For a city, such places are priceless, whatever the cost. They are built of a set of basics and they are right in front of our noses. If we will look.”

-William H. Whyte-

Interior POPSs have the risk of being unnoticed by the public. This creates the need for more specific and strict guidelines and regulations. The POPS has to be accessible and visually connected to pedestrians on an adjoining public space, like a street for example. Somehow the POPS has to separate itself from the host building.

For example, an interior public space above ground level with no windows to the street

and no architectural differentiation from the host building would not be easily found and reached, therefore not being a successful public space.

The interior POPS should have opening hours according to the public need, not necessarily tied to the host building opening hours. The proportions of the space are important for a pleasant public space. A too-narrow space would feel like a corridor. The pedestrian movement also has to be thought out carefully, as these spaces would easily be considered as lobbies for the private functions of the building.

There are more possibilities for year-round function in an interior POPS, but also more risks, which calls for strict regulation.

Commercial functions could be allowed on the edges of the space if they are able to make the space livelier and more inviting.

It’s disputable if the public character of the space is kept if commercial functions are on or next to the space. The space should have unrestricted access to all members of the public, with public control and without the need of using any services and the services should be carefully selected. Otherwise the space will become a space no different than a shopping mall.

A. POPS // 2. POPS as a space type

At first, in New York City, the typical POPS was a plaza or an arcade. Psychologically an outdoor space without barriers next to public streets appears initially as a public space. On the contrary, an interior space appears initially private, as if entering someone’s property. Most of the POPS are exterior spaces and a large part of the discussion around POPS revolves around these seemingly publicly-owned outdoor spaces. The hidden private aspect of the space is clearly confusing. The language used around it exemplifies it well in London, where outdoor public spaces sold to private ownership to form POPS are often talked as pseudo-public spaces. In contrary, this thesis is narrowed to indoor POPS, which has the opposite preconception of publicness.

27

f to en em ag n a

ce spa c i l b pu

lic space ent of pub agem n a M

Manag emen t of

pub lic s pa ce M an ag em en

to

e ac sp lic ub fp

INVESTMENT

sp ac e

M

PUBLIC SPACE POLICIES AND ASPIRATIONS

pu blic

Finance, redeveรถpment, skills and expertise

COORDINATION MAINTENANCE Interventions, actions, aspirations

Routines & practices

M a na ge m e nt of p ub lic

lic ub fp o t en m e ag an M

ce spa

Actions, uses and conflicts between uses

Management o f p u blic s pac e

ement of public space Manag

Man age me nt o f

ce blic spa of pu ent em nag Ma

REGULATION

OPERATION Routines & practices

s

ce pa

f nt o me ge na Ma

pace lic s pub

Management of public space

Man a g em ent o fp ub li c sp ac e

PUBLIC SPACE QUALITY Public space management and its key dimensions. Carmona, de Magalhรฃes, Hammond, 2008.

Visualization byt the author

2.2 Distribution of responsibilities A POPS creates a situation where the responsibilities of the space are distributed between the public and the private. A responsibility profile given to each space is more useful in examining and measuring the public qualities of a space that involves private and public actors. A large German study called STARS - Stadtraume in Spannungsfeldern (eng. Urban Spaces in Between Public and Private Activities) examined POPSs in Germany. In the study, a responsibility profile was assigned to every space according to three factors: Right, Regulation, and Production. Right answers the questions of who is the property owner and who has further rights. Regulation answers questions of who regulates the use, sets rules for users and has the domestic right. Production answers questions of who built the space, who maintains it and who upgrades it. Looking at POPS from these perspectives, it becomes easier to measure the publicness of the space. The STARS study seems to only focus on the physical space and not the possible public service or function the private owner might provide. Therefore, a fourth responsibility factor, operation, could be added to enable qualitative measurement of the possible functions. Focus on security has also increased in public spaces. (Kaw & Wahba 2020) Security should also be its own category as it provides safety for the space,

but has also been a tool for building owners to surpass their rights of controlling a POPS. These responsibility factors are needed in order for a POPS to succeed from a legal point of view. It also broadens the spectrum of liabilities from the simple owner versus user perspective. The study is effective for contractual agreements, but not for designing the spaces. Any actors associated with a space can be regulated in various ways with legal responsibilities and freedoms, but that does not make the public space successful. Although, legal requirements can be implemented into the contracts to heighten the quality of the space.

What the STARS study enlightens is the fact that POPS can not be perfectly situated on a private-public spectrum, without breaking it down to subcategories. Without a clear and thorough contractual agreement, there is a risk of confusion and overstepping on both the private and public sides. Even if quality requirements are added, a truly successful POPS, or any public space by that matter, has to be well designed. The design guidelines and requirements are essential for POPS to diminish confusion of access and ownership and how the private and the public spaces coexist on the same site.

POPS can be confusing when some spaces are similar, but without the legal agreements of a POPS. A privately owned private space can be used publicly.

Shopping malls are a prime example of that because the commercial intention of a shopping mall is to gather people to spend time in them. The ultimate intention is to bring people to spend their time there so that they would shop and use the services.

People do not have to pay to get in and do not necessarily need to spend any money, but all the responsibilities of the space are in private hands. The general public is given access to the space, but it is not their right, thus lacking the crucial element of a public space, the public right to it. As Kristine F. Miller writes in the book Designs on the

Public: The Private Lives of New York’s Public Spaces, 2007 “physical access is of course crucial to public spaces being public.

But equally important is access to and agency within the processes that govern public spaces.”

Private spaces can also be owned by public entities. There are a multitude of publicly owned spaces that are not accessible to the general public. Whereas there are public agencies or private functions in those spaces, restrictions on access are applied.

Public ownership does not equal public rights. This exemplifies how ownership of the space has little to do with the publicness of a space.

A. POPS // 2. POPS as a space type

Privately/publicly owned public/private space

29

2.3 Controversies and issues Common issues The history of POPS has been defined by confusion. Starting from the constant confrontations between public and private in all sectors and domains, the idea of the private sector owning public spaces is like clashing two opposite worlds in one. The conversation about public and private is too often polarized to public meaning good and private meaning bad. Privatization is feared and public rights are fought for. Originally POPS was not connected to privatization. In most cases, POPS is about the publicization of private land. This subtle differentiation is key for the foundation of a successful POPS. Most of the cuationary examples of POPS relate to restricting certain people accessing

the space and prohibiting completely legal actions within the space. Both are essential parts of defining a space public. The quality of the spaces have been subpar in a lot of cases due to the lack of clear and detailed design requirements. In the beginning, after the 1961 Zoning Resolution in New York, the spaces could virtually be any kind of open space, resulting in driveways or even spaces to store garbage bins. Other problems can arise when, for example, a new owner wants to make changes to the POPS to fit a new usage or image of the building. That often ends up tying the POPS more to the private spaces of the host building than to the citywide network of public spaces.

Privatization vs. Publicization publicness than shopping malls, therefore not really being POPS. A privatized public space where all the responsibilities are in private hands can not truly be a public space, and becomes a space lost by the public.

Publicization instead is a space gained by the public. Publicization does not necessarily mean taking over a private space. It can, and most of the time does, mean implementing public spaces to areas and sites zoned for private functions. This was the basis of the 1961 zoning resolution in New York, as the bonus floor area system was used in commercial districts. Opposition for the POPS experiment was not as strong, as it was a gained and not a lost space for the general public. Throughout history the disappointed and angry opposition towards those spaces has not been related as much to the ownership of the space, but to the misusage and attempts of gaining private control. As the British Professor Mattew Carmona says “it matters little who owns and manages it. What matters is that citizens’ rights are safeguarded. But these long-term management issues are not given proper consideration (Dowdy 2019).

A. POPS // 2. POPS as a space type

In London, POPSs or pseudo-public spaces, have sparked a lot of outrage amongst the public due to privatization. Private companies have started to buy public spaces, such as squares and parks, from the city (Shenker 2017). Private groups often use the argument that they can take better care of the space than the public government and point out that it will save the taxpayers money. On a broadcast Selling space - Britain’s public spaces going private by that Channel 4 News, that can be found on YouTube, it is noted, that the public opposition is strong with rightful arguments concerning the publicness of the spaces. The spaces might be better maintained, but within the image the owners want it to be. POPS have been criticized to be sterile and unconnected to the surroundings (Public life in private hands, 2011). The public has no say in the qualities and amenities of the public space.

These privatized spaces are also controlled by private security and essential public activities like protesting is prohibited. Even journalists have been denied the right to film on those spaces without a permit from the owner (Garrett 2015). These kinds of privatized spaces are not any different in

31

2.4 Relevancy

Examples of large private developments have sparked the questioning of publicness, not only for a specific place, but in the area as a whole. Typically an area is developed in a way that the city owns everything, but the zoned lots for development. In that case space between lots is unquestionably public, and the city is responsible for them.

If the whole area, not only the zoned lots, is developed by a private entity, the space inbetween sites is also privately owned, thus the responsibility of the private entity.

Some of the most well-known examples are Hudson Yards in New York City and King’s Cross development in London, which are just about to be completed. Both areas are mixed-used and offer a large amount of public space. Of the 11 hectare Hudson Yards development 6 is open public space (Kimmelman, M.,2019). King’s Cross is a 27 hectare development with 10 hectares of public space (Cathcart-Keays et al.

2017). With a variety of different spaces surrounded with shops, restaurants and other services, the area seems public at first glance. Controlled by the owner of the development, people can be restricted to be in the space or otherwise do not have the same rights as one should in a public space. News about homeless people and even reporters banned from King’s Cross and news about Hudson Yards claiming

ownership of picture taken of the 200 million dollar staircase sculpture the Vessel reveal that these spaces only have physical aspects of a public spaces while the nonphysical ones are private. (Yakas 2019) (Cathcart-Keays et al. 2017) There has also been more successful large private developments in terms of publicness.

Oslo is relying strongly on the market to deliver open public spaces. Contrary to previous examples, the city of Oslo has set governance tools that in their specificity have created truly public spaces from the get-go. Most of these developments are centrally located waterfront developments, that are mostly completed but partially still on-going (Carmona 2019).

The 2008 financial crisis was a big turning point in the amount of private developments worldwide. Lack of public funds pushed cities to innovate in cooperation with the private sphere to keep the city running and managed. Some have even argued that post 2008 is a period that marks a new and distinctive era with its own politicaleconomy, governance and societal norms (Carmona 2019). While creating and maintaining public spaces is important, funding in cities has been pressured to be allocated to provide housing and related services in the rapid era of urbanization.

In Oslo, for previous reasons, the city authorities rely more and more on the market to provide public spaces (Carmona 2019). Interestingly enough, achieving public spaces with private funding has been more successful in the social-democratic Nordic countries than in the United States or the United Kingdom. Carmona often points Oslo and Malmö as good examples of public-private partnerships (Dowdy 2019).

A. POPS // 2. POPS as a space type

The relevancy of POPS has risen in the past years due to multiple reasons. One reason is the large size of private developments that have started to take place in cities.

Another reason, which is more locationspecific, is the lack of public funds or city administration greed. A surprising reason is the rise of technology companies investing in real estate, but also in an increasing voluntary creation of public-like spaces.

33

Tech companies as developers A new trend in technology companies developing and investing in real estate. In 2017 Amazon and Alphabet invested almost 40 billion dollars in Research and Design (Loeb 2018). That is almost eight times the early budget of the city of Helsinki (Helsingin kaupungin talousarvio 2020).

From that sum, an increasing amount goes to the profitable and safe real estate market. Alphabet, the parent company of Google, started a new think tank Sidewalk Labs, which focuses on merging tech infrastructure with urban planning. Their first plan for an actual project is to develop Toronto’s East Bayfront neighborhood (Sidewalk labs RFP 2019).

On top of a good financial investment, tech companies aim to implement their technologies to these spaces and create

smart cities that have a digital layer within the physical layer of the place. Promoting tech-filled spaces as an optimized place for living, the real winners are not the citizens living in a modern age functioning city, but the tech companies gathering data.

Having a public space within a city that is full of sensors that tracks every movement, identifies people and uses the gathered data for financial gain puts in question freedom of these public spaces (Cecco 2019). As The Economist magazine noted in may 2017, data has, after all, become even more valuable than oil. The understanding of the lack of free rights in the digital world has to be understood similarly as the lack of free public rights in the public space. Is the exchange of the lack of privacy in data gathering with the gain of public spaces a fair exchange?

Tech companies have also started to create public-like spaces in different forms. Apart from their gigantic campuses that are like miniature cities and only accessible to employees, tech companies have shifted their presence in cities from commerciallike space to public-like spaces. Whereas large scale developments putting in question the meaning of public space within them are mostly outdoor spaces, these tech owned spaces are smaller scale and mostly indoors. In 2017 Apple’s senior vice president of retail Angela Ahrendts announced that the company would rebrand their retail locations as town squares, instead of stores (Hartmans 2017).

Apple stores were intended to become hang-out and working spaces that just so happens to be surrounded by Apple products and promoting advertisement of the company. Apple stores are still stores, however they want to use their retail

space and name it. Many tech companies provide free workspaces in cities, which has an increasing demand for the more mobile work-life and rise of freelancer jobs.

As mobile work is usually associated with working in cafĂŠs, spaces where you are not obliged to buy anything are attractive. Free coworking spaces have also popped up in hotel lobbies and even banks have provided such spaces. Even if provided for free, these spaces are typically promotional spaces for the provider of the space or a way to attract entrepreneurs to one space. As free spaces to use, but by no means real public spaces, exchanging the lack of public rights to the free use of an indoor space with wifi seems to be a transaction people are willing to make. Not being public spaces, but open spaces, these are good examples of the will of private companies to create open spaces in cities.

A. POPS // 2. POPS as a space type

Retail spaces as public-like spaces

35

Large developments in Helsinki, Finland

Helsinki, Finland Previous examples are public spaces handed to private actors in a deal beneficiary for the city and the general public. But an older example that could have easily been a POPS, if only we had the regulations and policies needed, is the Media Square of Sanomatalo.

Sanomatalo is a fully private building.

Completed in 1999, it was built on the most prominent site at the time and against the initial zoning rules for the site (ARK 1/2000).

The building also has an interior pathway across the building with services on the side of it. The Media Square has no obligation to be public by the city and it is fully private.

The space wouldn’t need to change a lot physically, but if responsibilities and obligations towards the publicness spaces were different, Media Square could be a true POPS in Helsinki.

Having a new zoning resolution to achieve POPS is not necessarily needed in Finland, but is an opportunity that cities and municipalities should take into account.

Helsinki is a growing and densifying city like any other major city in the world. As exemplified in other nordic countries, bringing in private actors to provide public spaces and services has had good results.

When a city densifies enough, there starts to be a lack of space for both the private and the public sectors. In that case, it is worthwhile to find a solution that includes both. If done right, it is an opportunity for the city to gain funds from selling land and building rights and at the same time, saving money from operation and maintenance costs related to public spaces. Compared to previous examples in Helsinki, POPS would not be about selling or renting out public real estate, but creating an incentive to get public spaces into private development sites.

A. POPS // 2. POPS as a space type

Finland and Helsinki have also seen an increase of privately funded public spaces, as well as voluntary open spaces created by private companies. Helsinki does not have any proper POPS, but the city is visibly leaning more on private entities to provide services or spaces that would otherwise be provided with public funds. The Think Corner at the Helsinki University is an open space for everyone that provides spaces to work, services and events. Located on the first two floors of a renovated administration building, the rest of the building is occupied by a private tenant. The renovation of the building of the space was partially possible by renting the upper floors, even if under university ownership, to a private company. The new Architecture and Design museum has been a major talking point in the architecture community and in politics. The city wants the museum but does not want to put in a lot of public funds. The current model for the museum would be to have hotels and other private services to be allowed to be built on the same site. The city would sell the land and allow profitable private services to build, and the same developer would build the museum “for free” in exchange (Tiikkaja 2019). Previously, in the case of the museum Kiasma, the city of Helsinki sold land further away from the city center, to get funding for the museum (Holmila, 2019) . In the new neighborhood Jätkäsaari, Bunkkeri is an old deposit storage that was sold to a real estate development company in a deal that allowed building housing on top while providing public sports services within the old structure. Bunkkeri is an ongoing public-private cooperation that will combine public education and recreation services with private housing (B&M Architects).

37

Public access is under the owner’s control. The more people are allowed in, the more sales are possible

A SHOPPING MALL IS NOT A PRI IT IS A PRIVATELY OWNED PRIV The public has free access, not free will

They (shopping malls)create their own worlds, tightly controlled by the private owner meanwhile seemingly providing “public interior spaces”. Shopping centers are non-places, whose users are considered as economic commodities (ARK 6/2019)

Public services within a shopping mall does not make the whole mall public, only the public service spaces

IVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACE. VATE SPACE - USED PUBLICLY.

A protest could not happen in a shopping mall

39

Sanoma House Itämerentori Think Corner

590 Madison Avenue 550 Madison Avenue David Rubenstein Atrium

Markthal Timmerhuis

3. Case studies

Case studies are picked from three different locations. Three examples of POPS or similar spaces are picked in each location. As this thesis’ aim is to explore possibilities of interior POPS as a zoning type and typology in Finland, locations are picked from that perspective.

New York City, USA First is New York,the birthplace of the plaza and arcade bonus system that created POPS. It is a natural choice for case studies, as the topic has been well researched and POPS has the longest history in New York City.

Rotterdam, Netherlands Second is Rotterdam. New York City can not be compared to Helsinki in many ways.

Therefore, it is important to have examples of POPS in a similar size city in Europe to find more similarities to Finnish laws and building types.

Helsinki, Finland There are no POPS in Helsinki, but there are spaces that could be under different legislation. Studying those spaces is to showcase the possibilities of POPS in preexisting spaces, if contractually they had been set up differently in the past.

41

Bonus area gained approx. 5+ floors

Only one side of the POPS connected to the host building POPS 60% of the build footprint Outdoor Plaza

OWNERSHIP

USER RIGHTS

MANAGEMENT

Private

General public

Private

RULE SETTING

SECURITY

OPERATION

Public governance

Private

Private

View of the Atrium from outside. On the right the 590 Madison Avenue tower.

View of the inside of Atrium in it current form.

3.1 590 Madison Avenue (IBM Building) 590 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10022, USA

POPS Information:

Built year Architects Total floor area Building height Owner Building function

Area of POPS Area of covered POPS Bonus Floor Area Open hours POPS functions

1983 Edward Larrabee Barnes 93 500 m2 184 m Odyssey Investment Partners Offices

1540 m2 1365 m2 13 710 m2 08-22 Pedestrian and seating area, artwork

The Design

The Deal

The 590 Madison Avenue Atrium is one of the most successful and praised POPS is New York City. Architectural critic Herbert Muschamp said, “With its tall, airy bamboo stalks set off by walls of charcoal granite, the atrium of the IBM Building … resembles a cross between a public park and a corporate lobby.” The architect of the tower Edward Larrabee Barnes in collaboration with the well-renowned landscape architecture firm Zion and Breen decided to make the atrium entirely out of glass and filled it with the space with 14m high bamboo trees (Miller 2007).

When the IBM tower was built the Plaza Bonus Zoning Ordinance had already been revised once in 1975, demanding more specific requirements of a POPS. Before construction, IBM and the city negotiated the standards of the POPS. Having not only the Atrium, but also an arcade, a seating area, a through block arcade and an urban plaza at ground level, the total percentage of public space on the site is around 60%. The site is around 2 500 sqm and with the 60% 1540sqm public space, IBM was able to build 13 700 sqm of bonus floor area, estimated at a 13 300 000$/yr financial gain. Not only is the extra floor space valuable, but also the added height (Miller 2007).

The Controversies

The Analysis

IBM sold the tower to the real estate mogul Edward Minskoff in 1994. Minskoff proposed to take out almost all the bamboo trees and change the atrium into an art gallery. The proposal was met with a lot of opposition. The City and Minskoff agreed on a compromise, where only some of the bamboo strands could be removed.

Minskoff failed to comply with the rules set for the space multiple times. He used the space to promote only artworks he was financially tied to and started to close the space for the installation of the artwork and private events. An initial problem was to categorize the renovation as minor, thus implementing a smaller review process. Resources and penalties to prevent Minskoff’s violations were too small to have a real impact (Miller 2007).

The 20-meter-high atrium can be accessed from two different streets. It is connected only by one face to the host building and connected to the adjacent building on one side. The atrium is architecturally clearly separated from its host building and due to the all glass materiality, it has an open and inviting look. Hiring talented architects and landscape architects who used high-quality materials resulted in a great design. The space, an “enclosed sky-lit landscaped park” is much needed and refreshing in the dense Midtown. If only the ownership change would have been regulated better, the space would be as good today, as when it was constructed. This goes to show the importance of long-term regulation when planning POPS.

A. POPS // 3. Case studies

Building Information:

43

Bonus area gained approx. 2 floors

Entrance to the offices on the opposite side Covered Public space Sony opened the before closed part Exterior arcade on two sides of the building

OWNERSHIP

USER RIGHTS

MANAGEMENT

Private

General public

Private

RULE SETTING

SECURITY

OPERATION

Public governance

Private

Private

View of the original AT&T galleria

The galleria closed on the sides after the renovation by Sony

Approved proposal by Snøhetta, reopening the covered space

3.1 550 Madison Avenue (AT&T Building) 550 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10022, USA

POPS Information:

Built year Architects Total floor area Building height Owner Building function

Area of POPS Area of covered POPS Bonus Floor Area Open hours POPS functions

1983 Philip Johnson 76 830 m2 197 m Olayan Group and Chelsfield Offices

1 300(prev.1830) m2 520 m2 4 200 m2 07-23 Pedestrian and seating area, artwork

The Design

The Deal

AT&T hired one of the most important architects at the time, Philip Johnson, to design their new headquarters. The high rise is cladded in marble and topped with an iconic roof shape. It is situated next to the IBM building at almost 200m high. The building has multiple types of POPS. The curved glass roof covered space is modeled after the Galleria in Milan. Arcades along the side of the building are situated on the South and North sides of the building. The third POPS is a free and open to the public museum on the ground floor. The public spaces were changed dramatically once and will again, as a new design just got approved this year (Miller 2007).

AT&T and IBM were competitors in the computer industry at the time and the rivals were now physically looking at each other. AT&T was able to build higher than IBM partially because of bonuses gained from POPS. The site is around 3 420 sqm and with the original 54% 1 830sqm public space, AT&T was able to build 4 200 sqm of bonus floor area, estimated at a 4 500 000$/ yr financial gain. Not only is the extra floor space valuable, but also the added height.

When Sony leased the building in 1992, the City agreed on Sony`s plan to reduce the total amount of POPS by providing more covered POPS (Miller 2007).

The Controversies

The Analysis

When Sony leased the building in 1992, they redesigned the building’s interior, including all the public spaces. Sony’s proposal was to reduce a third of the public space to add retail spaces by diminishing the arcade area while adding covered public spaces.

Sony argued that this would be a better deal for the public and the city agreed. This proposal got mixed reactions. Some agreed with Sony, whereas others thought that having all public spaces within the building would “be as private and controlled as a suburban mall”. Johnson himself was in favor of the changes, saying that his arcade was not as pleasant as the neighboring IBM Atrium (Miller 2007). Recently, new renovation plans opening the covered space

by Snohetta have been approved.

The original atrium was not as pleasant as planned and the arcades did not provide more than a sidewalk widening. When Sony remodeled the spaces, arcades were gone and the interiors became the Sony Wonder Technology Lab. Although unquestionably a promotion space for Sony, the space became more popular and has been praised as one of the best POPS due to its number of public amenities. While the space became more pleasant and more used, the space lost it`s publicness. It became a free and openly accessible commercial space with attempts of litigating access.. The new plans of Snohetta`s park-like design promise for a more public-like space, but the publicness of the space and how POPS rules are followed are yet to be seen.

A. POPS // 3. Case studies

Building Information:

45

Bonus area gained approx. 100 aparments

Third entrance to the atrium

Covered Public space

Double height space with skylights

OWNERSHIP

USER RIGHTS

MANAGEMENT

Private

General public

Private

RULE SETTING

SECURITY

OPERATION

Institution

Institution

Institution

Entrance to the atrium from Broadway before the renovation.

The main new elements of the space: Natural light, green wall and water fountain.

People watching climbers sitting on plastic chairs.

3.1 David Rubenstein Atrium 61 W 62nd St, New York, NY 10023, USA

Built year Architects Total floor area Building height Owner Building function

POPS Information: 1979 Philip Birnbaum 76 830 m2 27 floors Giffuni Bros.

Housing

Area of POPS Area of covered POPS Bonus Floor Area Open hours POPS functions

645 m2 645 m2 8 850xx m2 08-22, weekends 09-22 Pedestrian and seating area, artwork, events

The Design

The Deal

The building complex was completed in 1981, when the special Lincoln district zoning regulations were already in place.The Harmony does not have great architectural significance, but the POPS has an interesting history. On ground level, partially under the building, the public space spans between Broadway and Columbus Avenue.

The space is two-story high with skylights in places where it is not situated under the host building. First there was quite an unique function for a POPS: a climbing wall, run by a climbing club, which had its offices in the space. There was also a café and seating spaces and tables from which people looked at climbers (Apops MASNYC 2019).

The site is situated next to the Lincoln center, an important cultural center in New York City. Therefore, Special Lincoln Square District zoning laws applied to the space. Street level uses and limitations to commercial developments were implied and floor area bonuses were available by special permit. The space is counted as a covered plaza, not a covered pedestrian space, by the city. The distinction between the two types is unclear, as all the covered plaza in the area are closed spaces within buildings (Apops MASNYC 2019). The atrium generated 8 850 m2 of bonus floor area, which equals to roughly 100 apartments (Dunlap 2006).

The Controversies

The Analysis

Over the space had become dirty and filled with rats, but also a popular space for the homeless. The city wanted to bring life to the space again and gathered private funding.

The redesign by Tod Williams Billie Tsien Architects was designed more for events related to Lincoln center. The mezzanine was demolished, making the full space two stories high and enabling more daylight from the entrances. “My view is that less but better space can sometimes be superior to more but lousy space”, Mr. Kayden said (Dunlap 2006). Some commercial elements in the space were negotiated with the city: the box office and information desk is not in the main space and a TV screen was allowed in the space, on the condition that it would only show images of performances and not advertising (MASNYC 2012).

The space used to be unique in providing a specific activity, but the quality of the space declined as soon as there was no more a provider of the activity. While spatial qualities have increased with the redesign, the space was inviting while it still had an active climbing wall. Redesigning the space to fit the surroundings with more cultural activities, while remodeling the space itself and increasing its findability has brought new life to the space. A good understanding of regulations on commercial elements keeps the space’s publicness. Events organized by only one provider is unquestionable, but as Kayden said, he hopes the adoption of Harmony Atrium by Lincoln Center will serve as a model for other partnerships to revitalize underused public spaces.

A. POPS // 3. Case studies

Building Information:

47

Housing around the hall with also windows towards the hall

Mural on the surfaces of the hall

Market hall with cable net glass facade

Grocery stores on the side of the market hall

OWNERSHIP

USER RIGHTS

MANAGEMENT

Private

Public

Private

RULE SETTING

SECURITY

OPERATION

Private

Private

Private

Apartments cover the fresh food market

A cable net faรงade keeps the closure as transparent as possible

96 fresh food stalls under a 11,000 square meters mural

3.2 Martkhal

Ds. Jan Scharpstraat 298, 3011 GZ Rotterdam, Netherlands

Built year Architects Total floor area Building height Owner Building function

Open Space Information: 2014 MVRDV 95 000 m2 40 m KlĂŠpierre Market hall, retail, apartments

Area of covered Open Space 4200 m2 Open hours 10-20, weekend 12-18 Open Space function Market hall

The Design

The Deal

The Markthal is the first-ever covered market of the Netherlands. Markthal consists of a market on the ground floor under an arch of apartments. The shape and size of the building is unique, but so is the configuration of the combination of all functions. The design was born from stricter European rules for the open-air sale of fresh and chilled food. The initial idea of having two residential slabs with an economically constructible market hall slab in between was flipped resulting in two residential blocks that are connected with a slab on top. This led to a larger hall with two wide cable net façade glass openings towards the city.

Markthal is formed by the construction of privately-developed apartments strategically allowing a private initiative to create a public space. One argument the architect Winy Maas has stated to make the building affordable was that the configuration would create more penthouses. There is no obligation towards the owner of keeping the space as a market hall but the design favors that function.

With apartment windows towards the center space, there could be opposition of functional changes from apartment owners. The budget of the Markthal was not increased in consequence of the arc configuration and cost had to be saved from other parts, such as the cladding.

The Controversies

The Analysis

The original idea of having a local fresh food market for residents has not fared well over time. Markthal has become a major tourist attraction with 8 million visitors a year, which is more than the number of visitors in the Eiffel Tower. Tourists don’t tend to buy fresh food such as vegetables and meat but meals and delicatessens. High rents and service costs have increased the prices of products or even made the stall unprofitable.

Architecturally the Markthal is unique and a great innovative example of using a private initiative to create a public space.

The space is large and as transparent as an indoor space can be. The large mural adds to the enjoyability of the space, but also emphasizes the landmark value of the building. Calling a marketplace a public space is questionable but market activities have always been a big part of public squares. As for the initial idea for the Markthal, gathering local residents around food, brings life and communality into the space. In reality, the space has become so popular amongst the tourists that the space is serving more the tourism industry instead of the locals, which is a result of a market driven space without public obligations.

A. POPS // 3. Case studies

Building Information:

49

Office spaces of the Rotterdam city

Housing above the 6th floor

Passage with full height light well

Should have been the “City shop”

OWNERSHIP

USER RIGHTS

MANAGEMENT

Public/Private

General public

Public

RULE SETTING

SECURITY

OPERATION

Public

Public

Public/institutions

The passage atrium

The passage lit at the ground floor of the building

3.2 Timmerhuis

Halvemaanpassage 1, 3011 AH Rotterdam, Netherlands

Open Space Information:

Built year 2015 Architects OMA Total floor area 45000 m2 Building height 58 m Owner Stadsontwikkeling Rotterdam Building function Mixed-used

Area of covered Open Space Open hours Open Space functions

800 m2 12-18 m2 Lobby, exhibition

The Design

The Deal

The building is built for the city hall and accommodates municipal services, offices and residential units. The modular building is 14 stories tall, with the modules gradually stepping back towards the top. The project is built to be attached to an older municipal building. The ground floor is left open for the public and houses cafés, a museum and a public passage with an atrium in the middle. The building is an all glass pixelated building. The modules are the same throughout the whole building, thus generating maximum efficiency and versatility both in construction and in program.

The building was realized as a public-private partnership, which was commissioned by the city. The idea behind the building was to have three different program types vertically: ground floor for public services, the next five floors for offices and the rest as high-end apartments. Bringing apartments to the mix helped to pay for the rest of the spaces. Making the ground floor columless demanded a lot of structure, half the steel of the Eiffel Tower, which was an expensive undertaking. The original idea of having public services on the ground floor with affordable micro living units on top was not possible due to the cost and the city never put their services on the ground floor.

The Controversies

The Analysis

In the initial plans, the ground floor was meant to totally be open for the public with the “City Shop” which was intended to be a new transparent governance space with public services..In the middle of the planning process, the city decided otherwise and new tenants had to be found. As the whole architectural idea was to have an open space on the ground floor with seemingly floating modules on top housing other services, the facades already promoted openness. Instead of public services, a museum is now the tenant of a large part of the ground floor. The museum is publicly accessible, but does not have the same open public relation to the street as the original program.

The whole building was designed with the aim of clearly separating the public and private parts. Private parts enclosed in a pixelated modular mass floating above an airy ground floor level gives an image of two different types of spaces from afar. Unfortunately the client changed plans in the middle of the process, and the functions of the building do not match the architecture anymore. The one space that was left public is the passage, which is a POPS-like space in the middle of the building on the ground floor. The space is a wide pathway with a platform and steps. The space opens up to a skylight. The space is used for events, but could easily be used for leisure if more furniture was placed in it.

A. POPS // 3. Case studies

Building Information:

51

The building increased by the height equivalent to one additional floor

Atrium is as high as the building

Exhibition alley and shops

Media square Almost 50% of the ground floor is open space

OWNERSHIP

USER RIGHTS

MANAGEMENT

Private

General public

Private

RULE SETTING

SECURITY

OPERATION

Private/Public

Private

Private

View of the Atrium from outside at night time.

Open political debate in the media square

Exhibition on the pedestrian path

3.3 Sanoma House

Töölönlahdenkatu 2, 00100 Helsinki, Finland

Built year Architects Total floor area Building height Owner Building function

Open Space Information: 1999 SARC Architects 43 000 m2 41 m Deka Immobilien Offices

Area of Open Space 1540 m2 Area of covered Open Space 1365 m2 Bonus Floor Area 13 710 m2 Open hours 07-20, weekend 09-20 Open Space functions Pedestrian and seating, events, retail

The Design

The Deal

The Sanoma House is the headquarters of Sanoma, one of the biggest media houses in Finland. The building is a glass box that houses media outlet offices, retail stores, and other services. The transparency of the building on the outside and on the inside is meant to give the feeling of press transparency. The building has nine stories above ground and three below. An interior public pathway on the ground level splits the building’s interior from corner to corner. On the north side a triangle-shaped space, a quarter of the ground floor area, is also open to the public and is the height of the whole building. This space is called the media square and is accessible to the public.

The city of Helsinki and Sanoma agreed on zoning a new lot and sold it to Sanoma in 1994. The building was intended to be nine stories high and zoning requirements were to have services and retail on the ground level. The city did not require anything specific but demanded that because of the building’s central location, the ground floor would have cafés, restaurants or other functions that would bring life to the space. Many qualities of the space, like the tall glass facade facing north, pedestrian access crossing the building and the seating furniture were required by the City.

Opening times were to be agreed upon with the city (Ak10275, 1996).

The Controversies

The Analysis

The site is surrounded by significant buildings which limited the size of the building in the first phase. Now at nine floors high, it is only a couple of meters lower than the parliament house and the Postitalo building. The process of building Sanoma House is unclear in parts, which has raised questions amongst the public.

The building was allowed to built higher, as the original floor plates were not thich enough. The height increase came as a surprise for the public. Whereas Kiasma was highly criticized by the Helsingin Sanomat newspaper, their own building Sanoma House was only talked about in a positive way. The objectivity of the press was questioned by the public, especially having already raised the building’s height somewhat secretly (ARK 2000/1).

Entering the space feels more like a generous invitation and accommodation by Sanoma than a public right. The entrance doors have all the company names on top of them, without a mention of the public spaces. The indoor path is surrounded by shops and other services, creating a shopping mall like space. It typically has an exhibition in the middle, popular enough to draw people to the space. The second space , the media square has a small café on the side. The furniture layout is fairly unpredictable. During election campaigns, there is a lot of seating but sometimes the space is totally empty, except for a couple of phone booths. TV screens show Sanoma related advertisements and information.

The media square can be closed for private events, such as the Sanoma pre-Christmas party.

A. POPS // 3. Case studies

Building Information:

53

Atrium surrounded by offices

Almost 50% of ground floor open space

Grocery store expansion

OWNERSHIP

USER RIGHTS

MANAGEMENT

Private

General public

Private

RULE SETTING

SECURITY

OPERATION

Private

Private

Private

The atrium is hardly visible from any direction of the building.

The atrium visible from the glass roof in the middle of the building mass.

On the right the restaurant is still open to the space. On the left the grocery store.

3.3. Itämerentori

Töölönlahdenkatu 2, 00100 Helsinki, Finland

Built year Architects Total floor area Building height Owner Building function

Open Space Information: 2000 Helin & Co. Architects 21 000 m2 66 m Exilion Capital Oy Offices

Area of covered Open Space 1000 m2 Open hours 07-22, weekend 09-22 Open Space functions Reastaurants, retail

The Design

The Deal

The Itämerentori complex designed by Helin&Co. Architechts consists of a tall and a low part. The publicly accessible atrium is in-between the tower and the lower part of the building The highrise Itämerentorni was built in 2000 as a landmark building for the new neighborhood of Ruoholahti which was built during the tech boom in Finland. The building complex itself was an innovation filled project for the steel company Rautaruukki. The atrium has a high degree of lightness, due to the slender steel elements. As the atrium of Sanomatalo, offices open up on the facades of the atrium. The atrium is like a covered and climate-controlled interior courtyard.

Ttämerentori was built for the Finnish Innovation Fund Sitra and the Academy of Finland and the Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation Tekes. The Atrium was originally planned to symbolize their synergic objectives, a space for a scientific exhibition serving the whole cluster of ITrelated know-how and companies based in Ruoholahti.

The Controversies

The Analysis

The atrium was never used as intended.

Already during the design process, the idea of an open exhibition space was ditched.

The Atrium was kept in the design but was rented out to services. The large lightfilled space has been remodeled to destroy the qualities of the space. The ground floor grocery shop expanded its premises into the atrium, building a one-story high extension part to diminish the space. On the other side, a restaurant has closed itself to a corner with glass partition walls. In the middle, an empty, but wide corridor is left for circulation. 1000m2 of five-story high open space in the center of a neighborhood has ultimately ended up being a secondary circulation space between bus stops.

Ruoholahti could have benefited from an open space in the center of the neighborhood. As a whole, the neighborhood is lacking public spaces.

There are some empty squares, but no parks or interior public spaces. Ruoholahti is highly privatized with large office complexes and fenced housing blocks. If not an exhibition, the Itämerentori atrium could have been a multifunction space for the neighborhood. The itämerentori is facing the starting point of a highway. The atrium is therefore hidden from the metro station and the main pedestrian circulation of Ruoholahti. Maybe the atrium could have succeeded better, if it was facing pedestrian traffic, and not car traffic.

A. POPS // 3. Case studies

Building Information:

55

Second floor coworkig spaces

Double height event and cafĂŠ space

Entrance to Think Corner

Entrance to offices Large opening towards the street

OWNERSHIP

USER RIGHTS

MANAGEMENT

Public institution

General public

Public institution

RULE SETTING

SECURITY

OPERATION

Public institution

Pulic institution

Public institution

The ground floor has large openings

The large space has seating and occasional events

Smaller spaces for leisure and studies are scattered around the space

3.3 Think Corner

Yliopistonkatu 4, 00100 Helsinki, Finland

Rennovation year Architects Total floor area Building height Owner Building function

Open Space Information: 2017 JKMM 12 600 m2 30 m Helsinki University Offices, University

Area of covered Open Space 2400 m2 Open hours 07-22, weekend 9-20 Open Space functions Reastaurants, study spaces, event space

The Design

The Deal

Think corner is a public space on the Helsinki University Campus. The aim of the space is to bring research and the University’s design projects easily accessible to the University’s stakeholders and the general public. The current space is situated on the ground floor of a renovated 1970s administration building. The complete renovation included opening up the ground floor for the Think Corner space and creating open floor plan office spaces on the four upper floors. Large openings were added on the ground floor for the space to have a stronger relationship to the street. The space itself is flexible is its usage and has a couple services such as a café and a university store.

The space is not a POPS, but was made possible with private capital. Previously the building was entirely a public administration building, whereas now it is mostly a private office building. University of Helsinki aimed to find tenants whose operation aligned with the ideals of the Think Corner. The current tenant, Reaktor, is an IT services company that cooperates with the University of Helsinki on some projects and courses. In that sense the goal was not to exclude the private offices from university activities, but rather have them as part of the goals of the Think Corner to be the outreach point of the university towards the private sector and the general public.

The Controversies

The Analysis

The space has been popular and has not gotten much, if at all, critique. The overall strategy of bringing companies on campus and having a tighter relationship between the academic world and the private sector has been a goal of many universities in Finland.

The design of the space has reached well its goals. Opening up the facade to the street has augmented the quality of the space inside but also the streetscape outside.

Materials and furniture are well thought out and of high materiality, making the space an architectural destination of sorts.

The café tables can be used without being a customer and the space is used for multiple events. The private and the public spaces have been well separated with separate entrances. The office tenant is not hidden, as logos of the company are visible in the public ground floor space. In a scenario where the University of Helsinki would have sold the building, the Think Corner could have been a required POPS, paid by the private owner.

A. POPS // 3. Case studies

Building Information:

57

LIBRARY PLAYGROUND WORK TABLES

CAFE GAME ROOMS

3D PRINTERS OPEN KITCHEN RESTROOMS

EVENTS AUDITORIUM

MOVIE THEATER

EXHIBITION READING ROOMS

INFO

INTEREST: RESIDENTS OF HELSINKI

AGENCY: CITY OF HELSINKI

OWNER: CITY OF HELSINKI

ACCESS: EVERYONE

OPEN: 8-22, 10-20

OFFICES OFFICES OFFICES OFFICES OFFICES

RETAIL

SECURITY

OWNER: YIT, Ahlstrรถm Capital and HGR Property Partners

ACCESS: EMPLOYEERS, CUSTOMERS

SHOP OPEN: 10-18, 11-16

59

Publicly accessible spaces in central Helsinki

4. Public / Private What public and what private means in the context of an interior POPS in Helsinki? What are the characteristic differences between them? How should they be perceived? And especially in the case of POPS, how should they coexist? These are questions that need to be answered on all scales in order to make a POPS work for both the private and public entities.

Public

Public space can vary in physical form and function but is typically set to a consistent set of non-physical qualities. A public space is a component of the public sphere, which is understood in a couple of different ways.

Either as the co-presence of humans and the impact they have on each other or as a kind of power structure where human interaction is conducted. (Madanipour 2003, 96). A public space is the physical place where this can occur and in order for the space to be public, it must have the qualities of the public sphere. A public space has to be controlled by the public authorities, concern people as a whole, open and available but also used by all members of the community (Madanipour 2003, 117).

A public space is understood as what it is not, a private space. The private realm is hidden, the public realm is shown and open.

A public space has public access, agency and interest of the public (Benn & Gaus 1983). The question of interest is especially interesting in terms of commercial activity.

Is a commercial space in the interest of the public or the private commercial actor?

Looking at history, the first known public space was the Greek agora, which was the most important and central place in the town. Although it was a place for assembly and performances, it was first and foremost a marketplace (Madanipour 2003, 169).

If a space has commercial activity but is under public control, the publicness is

still maintained, in contrast to current commercial spaces like shopping malls.

The term public is amongst others sociological, political and psychological.

Therefore, its meaning and perception may vary depending on the location. Finland is a social democratic country and a lot of power has been given to the government.

Finland is a good example of how a personal sense of publicness might not relate to the overall publicness of the community.

Finnish people are known to embrace their rights for privacy. Personal space, home ownership and unrevealing personalities are some examples. Meanwhile, services such as education, mass transportation, health and cultural buildings are under public ownership.

In terms of access, agency and interest, taxes play a big role. Taxes are relatively high in Finland, and people expect to get something in return. People expect access to places that have been paid with tax money. It is the public interest to pay taxes and get it back in forms of services and spaces. Agency in the sense of free will and independent choices is thought obvious. If one does not break the law, one is within their rights to do as they wish.

There is a speciality in Finland that could be classified as privately owned public space. Outside of cities, landowners can not prohibit the general public from accessing their land under the everyman’s right law.

This law is put in place to keep nature open to everyone, even if the owner is the only one with the right to profit from it e.g. forestry.

A. POPS // 4. Public/Private

The word public comes from the Latin word populus, meaning people. Public refers to a large number of people, who are either conceptualized as society or as state, and what is associated with them. (Madanipour 2003, 96)

61

Private spaces in central Helsinki

Private

A private space is a component of the private sphere. The private sphere is controlled by an individual or a certain entity which is outside public observation, knowledge and public control (Madanipour 2003, 202). The same applies for a private space.

Although, the private sphere can extend to a public space, as any individual’s private life and privacy can take place in any space.

As privacy of an individual is not bound to place, the focus on what makes a space, not the personal experience, private. A private space is born by establishing a territory, which is often associated with ownership of the space within the territory. Ownership is also thought of as an entitlement for control of the space. Owners can also give out space to be someone’s private territory e.g. a private office that is not owned by the individual, but the company.

Broadly thinking, an individual can assert a temporary private territory e.g. a pic nic blanket in a park, where the individual has control within and keeping others out.

Territoriality is a way to organize space.

In most cases it appears physically as a threshold. Walls, barriers, doors and other elements indicate a territory. The sense of territory is ingrained in human consciousness throughout history and seems self-evident. It becomes important in the case of interior spaces. How does the public know, when they step through the entrance doors, that the space is public or private?

Home is an obvious example of a private space. The border is clear either at the lot borders or outer walls of the territory. If that border is intruded, it is a crime. In the case of privately owned office buildings, hotels, factories and such, the border is not as clear. Lobby and reception spaces typically have open doors and walking in is not a crime. The receptionists can evaluate if the person entering can go further in the space or they also have the right to kick the person out of the private premises.

Private space is part of the private sphere if access, agency and interest is private.

Control over who can access the space, where people act on their or the private entity’s behalf, in interest and profit of the private entity. Ownership of the space is one possibility for the right for private use and control of the space, but not a necessary component.

Finland is an individualist country where people are appreciative of their personal and private space (Hofstede 1994). In Finland, the public sector is big and personal choices in many areas in life are limited. Thus, creating an emphasis on maintaining a divide between public and private life and spaces.

A. POPS // 4. Public/Private

The word private comes from the Latin word privius, meaning single, individual, private. When conjugated in latin, the word was often related to deprivation and withdrawal from other members of the public. While originally having a mostly negative tone, private life and privacy nowadays are essential even to the point that it is a human right, as it was declared in 1948. Private can refer to people, places or activities which are restricted and/or intended for an individual or a particular entity. Private ownership is anything that is not under public ownership, state ownership in most cases.

63

Together A public space can coexist next to a private space, but not within. Anyone is entitled to be in public spaces with access to whatever activity, information, or resource is available in the space, which is not the case in private spaces (Madanipour, 2003, 98).

In modern cities, the public spaces have become specialized and spread out in different forms and sizes around the city.

The line between public and private has been blurred with restaurants, museums, and theaters considered as public spaces.

Spaces and services within the private sphere, even being talked about as public and are seemingly public and accessible to all, are not public spaces. On the other hand, if a similar space is controlled by the public sphere with public access,

agency, and interest, it can be considered as a public space. This goes to show that ownership or provider of an activity is not relevant in defining the space public or private. Aristotle also defended the private ownership of property but held that its use could be communal (Aristotle, 1992).

Private spaces are easier to coexist in the public sphere. An individual’s private space and privacy can be maintained in a public space. The history of the public spaces shows that a private activity, commerce on a market place, was the first form of public space, the agora. A clear distinction between a private and public space with commercial activity is whether the public is considered as an economic commodity and who has the right to control the space.

Seperate

Creating a separation of the private from the public has usually been realized with a physical border which is often built by the private side, leaving the public on the other side. Borders enclose a privately controlled space, but the border itself is also an element to control the interaction with both sides. The more imposing the border is, the less communication there is between the private and the public side varying from massive walls to the to softer elements and signage. Nowadays a clear border around the private territory is more often used to eliminate confusion and as an expression of power.

Vertical distribution is often used to separate space types. Every floor creates a new realm (Koolhaas, 1978). Within the same structure, the ground floor can easily be public space, while the next floor is private as the slab in between creates a clear enough distinction between both spaces.

Physical or ideological boundaries only work if all members of the society believe in them. Legislation is proof that there is a general consensus on the idea of a clear separation of the private from the public.

A strong public sphere, where public life is conducted and which is clearly separated from the private realm, is seen to be essential for the health of a society (Madanipour, 2003, 192).

Private activities can coexist with, and even within a public space, but a private space needs to be clearly separated. While having the possibility for communication and access for all, private spaces must maintain control over their space. The same applies for public spaces, where access, agency, and interest must be within the public sphere and completely controleld by the public.

A. POPS // 4. Public/Private

Public spaces are seen as borderless, physically and ideologically. They form a network of accessible spaces from roads to sidewalks to parks that mediates between the private spaces that make up the bulk of the city. When contained inside a building, the public space is often talked about as a public service.

65

RULES FOR POPS CONTRACTS Indoor POPS in Helsinki. Rules are selected and gathered from other countries and case studies.

I

VI

A thorough responsibility profiles

Require performance bonds

The allocation of responsibilities should be stated for all situations and physical elements of the space.

To ensure mandatory requirements for the space performance bonds should be provided.

Building owners thus have a legal obligation and failures can be enforced by the city.

II

VII

Design guidelines and regulations

Set maximum incentive

Design regulations per POPS type should be provided by the city with additional guidelines in order to ensure a high quality public space.

If the incentive is additional floor area, there should be a cap on how much the developer can get. The city should have the right to set case by case a lower number than the maximum.

III

VIII

Written definition of publicness

Set ratio of POPs to incentive

Both the city and the developer should have a clear understanding of what makes a space public. E.g. commercial functions should not be allowed, but some food facilities could.

The POPS should be proportional to the given incentive. If the incentive is bonus floor area, the POPS floor area should be a set percentage of the given bonus floor area.

IV

IX

Lifecycle rules

Clear limits of allowed floor area

Clear rules for ownership changes, the building becomming vacant or other possible future scenarios should be included in the original contract.

In order to give incentives, the base amount of floor area should be clear. Negotations of incentives are impossible without a mutual understanding of e.g an FAR number.

V

Required design documents and review process

Architectural drawings of the POPS should be submitted to the city. A review process on the design should be held. A statement should be added to clarify intended uses and users.

X

Operation agreements Terms on opening times, allowed and prohibited actions, holding events, possible modifications to the space should be agreed between the city and the owner of the buiilding.

5.1 Rules for POPS contracts To end the first section of the thesis, preliminary rules are set for POPS contracts and design.

Based on learnings from history, the zoning process of different countries and case studies, a set of ten rules are allocated to both contracts and design.

From the three case study locations, New York is the only one with clear rules and regulations of POPSs. Since New York City is divided into zoning districts with a set of rules and regulations in each, the basis for the development of a lot is clear. The FAR of the lot is the basis for the amount of buildable floor area. If the developer wants to build more, bonus floor area is possible to get via incentives or by buying air rights of the surrounding blocks. If the bonus floor area is to be gained from creating a POPS, the design, that follows POPS rules of the zoning district in question, must be submitted to the Planning Department. A review of the design is held and if approved, the developer can build the bonus floor area. The city officials are in a supervisory role, whereas the private developers are providing plans that comply with the rules and regulations. Helsinki does not have clear and strict rules for areas within the city. In order to obtain POPSs with incentive zoning, there has to be absolute limits, which are exceeded on certain terms.

In the Netherlands, almost all the plans are initiated by the private sector with an agreement with the municipality (Lehtovuori et al. 2019). In Amsterdam, if the private sector produces publicly accessible space on their lot, they are not allowed to use the same materials as the public sector. This intentional limitation by the City to create a clear line between public and private has gotten criticism from the private sector, as the limitation rules out the possibility for POPSs to fully feel public and integrate to the city’s network of public spaces (Sijbrandij 2018).

Over recent years, in the Netherlands, the call for more market-oriented instruments has been increasing (Janssen-Jansen et al.

2008). The contribution of the private sector can be direct where the private sector buys land from the governement and finance the public space, or semi-direct where the government develops public space with extra investment from the private sector, or indirect where the private sector buys part of the public space from the government in order to develop a new building (Melik 2008). The Netherlands has non-financial compensation models that are possible if the goal of the program is explicitly related to the goal for spatial quality improvement in the area (Tweede Kamer 2004). The concept is called Space for Space. As land value rises, discussions about harnessing surplus-value of planning decisions for the benefit of society is on the rise. Many of the examples In the Netherlands are regional, where funds are distributed evenly in the society. For POPS, the action of harnessing capital for the public good is much more local, where the benefit happens on the same site. Incentive zoning does not exist in the Netherlands, but the idea that public space increases the property value has acted as incentive for the private developers to invest in public space (Melik 2008).

Helsinki too sells land or land use rights in order to finance e.g. new housing areas.

The involvement of the private sector, on the other hand, is much smaller in Helsinki than in the Netherlands. In the big picture, it is understanable to distribute funds in the society, but a portion of the land value rise could also benefit the areas that are profitable. POPS could be the result of the bonus floor system, while the land sale or rent could still be allocated in other parts of the municipality, as it is done currently.

A. POPS // 5. Rules

The basis of POPS is contractual. It is a deal between the private, the public and the people. As seen in most of the case studies, it is the lack of a thorough contract or the violations that have sparked controversies and even the deterioration of the space.

67

RULES FOR DESIGNING POPS Indoor POPS in Helsinki. Rules are selected and gathered from other countries and case studies.

I

VI

Physically accessible to all

Connected to other public spaces

The space must be accessible to everyone regardless of limitations.

The POPS should be accessible from the city’s network of public spaces, whether it is a sidewalk, plaza, park or another POPS.

II

VII

Visible to the outside

Retail and commercial spaces

Not only the entrance, but the whole space should be clearly perceived to the outside

Some commercial actitivites should be allowed such as cafĂŠs. They should be designed to be on the sides of the space and feel as additional components and not the main function.

III

VIII

Distinctive separation from host building

The POPS should be physically separated from the host building outdoors and indoors. Private and public functions should not be connected in any way.

IV

Amenities according to the type of usage

Seating and restrooms should be included in all POPSs. Additional amneties such as vegetation, wifi or equipment related to the function of the POPS should be reviewed case by case.

IX

Indicative signage of publicness

User comfort

Signage oudoor and indoor to indicate that the space is public which states opening times, space ownership, user right and responsible entities.

Lighting, ventilation and heating levels should be set to a certain level to ensure user comfort and quality of the space. Furniture and materials should also aim for comfort.

V

Clear threshold between private and public

Circulation to the private and pubic spaces should be separated. The POPS can not be an extension of a private space e.g. a lobby.

X

Shape and size The space should be usable for intended uses.

Height of the space should be at least 1,5 stories high and the proportions of the space should prevent corridor-like spaces or mazes.

5.2 Rules for designing a POPS The basis for the POPS should be that the space creates its own realm, seperate from the private spaces on the site. Based on learnings from history, the zoning process of different countries and case studies, a set of the ten most important rules are gathered to create a successfully designed POPS. The more each rule is specified, the most predictable the quality of the space will be.

Too man rules would create homogenous POPSs in the city and give little freedom to the designers.

Signage indicating the publicness of the space is needed at the entrances and within the space. When inside, the space should not feel as an extension of the private parts, such as a different part of a lobby. The New York examples and the Think Corner have clear signage indicating the functions, but also a disconnect with circulation and other connections to the private spaces.

The Finnish atriums are distinctly different space inside but with office windows looking in and using the same entrances.

The main character of a public space is that it is accessible to all members of the public. In order to make that physically possible, it has to have necessary features for people with limitations and disabilities.

Accessibility should include not only the access to the space, but the possibility to participate in an activity taking place in the space. This has been well taken care of in all case studies.

Amenities and retail spaces have to be well considered in order to keep the publicness of the space and make it enjoyable. The examples of New York were built after the specific guidelines for POPSs came in place in 1975. The amenities included seating and permitted specific commercial activities such as cafĂŠs. The atriums in the Finnish atriums and the Timmerhuis passage lack amenities, which does not invite people to stop and spend time in them. The markthal is a spacious space, but has too much commercial activities to be an enjoyable space for non customers.

The POPS should be visible from surrounding public spaces and also the interiors, as it should the space should be inviting and transparent to bypassers. Most of the case studies have large windows from the space to the exterior, except the David Rubenstein Atrium. After the remodeling of the space, a lot of attention was given to the entrances to increase the attainability of the atrium. Martkhal with its cable net glass facade is a great example of transparency between the exterior and indoor public spaces.

The more the POPS is physically a separate part of the building the better it is perceived as public. The best examples are the IBM and AT&T atriums that are like glass pavilions on the side of the tower. In Sanomatalo the Media Square is embedded within the same glass box as other buildings and does not achieve to create two different realms. The David Rubenstein atrium is also embedded in the main mass, but in contrary to Sanomatalo, entrances are separated.

The dimensions of the space and building services are big factors in making the space enjoyable. The space should be tall enough and proportions kept avoid a corridor-like space. Heating and ventilation should be included to maintain comfort. Natural light should be prioritized. The space should be illuminated during opening hours. All the case studies are spacious and take good advantage of natural light. In cases where natural light could have been scarce, such as in the Think Corner and the David Rubenstein atrium, skylights are added.

Overall the case studies are well designed spaces which have a good transparent connection to the surroundings. The biggest issues in the enjoyability and publicness of some of the spaces is the lack of separation between the private and public parts and the lack of amenities. A POPS should not be a non place that people pass by. It should be designed to be spent time in and feel public.

69

PROGRAMMING

B. PROGRAMMING Programming a POPS is mostly an exercise about arranging non-physical qualities. Programming the public space itself is an exercise about physical qualities, like any other city owned public spaces. In the case of POPS, the design of the public space is under more scrutiny for the fact that it is hosted by a private building. Finding a set of guidelines that ensures good public spaces, but does not limit possibilities is a fine balance. This programming exercise is led to go to one direction with the chosen factors.

In this second part of the thesis elements enabling and securing the quality of a POPS are explored. POPS is a result of zoning and the city’s willingness to involve private entities in th zoning process.. The questions of enabling elements such as incentives are explored along physical and non-physical elements needed for a successful POPS. As public spaces are getting more and more specialized, user groups and intended uses are also defined.

Sites for private development in Helsinki can vary is size and spatial qualities. New multi-building complexes, shoreline offices, infill buildings and stadiums are underway. Looking at how a POPS can work on different types of sites is looked at with three different examples.

1. POPS in Helsinki 1.1 Introducing POPS to Helsinki 1.2 Incentives 1.3 POPS categories 1.4 Responsibility profiles

74 75 79 81 83

2. User groups

85

3. Physical elements

91

3.1 Physical separation methods 3.2 Physical quality factors 4. Experimentation of POPS and incentives 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Kasarmikatu 21 Telakkaranta Katajanokanlaituri 4 Experimentation conclusion

91 93 95 97 101 105 109

71

Nolli Map of Helsinki city center with selected free publicly accessible indoor space categories: Public space

Sport

Shopping

Culture

Church

Education Government

Non free publicly accessible space categories: Building

Area

Chargeable 73

1.1 Introducing POPS to Helsinki Public spaces and private ownership

If public buildings are only built to new neighborhood developments, the preexisting areas that get private developments will be disproportionately more private. In Helsinki, apart from centralized libraries and mass transportation buildings, interior spaces are mostly private or one has to pay to get in. The drive to have Helsinki as a good investment environment does not have to exclude the city being a good living environment for its citizens. A POPS proportional to the development, would keep the balance between public and private spaces wherever private developments happen.

Developments in Helsinki have been getting bigger and bigger to the point that some of them are almost like small towns. The Redi complex in the Kalasatama neighborhood is massive and has a multitude of functional programs.

Public space has been a commodity that has been largely diminished during the planning and construction phases. The city of Helsinki paid the developer 50 million euros to build the public spaces and a

health center, but the center was moved away from the complex enabling SRV to build more commercial spaces. Over 10 000 square meters of planned public spaces got converted to commercial spaces. In total SRV got 85 000 m2 instead of the original 55 000 m2 of commercial space and the remaining public spaces diminished in size and quality (Marable 2019).

Other examples could be the Telakkaranta development, originally including cultural spaces, which were later changed to be a conference center (Hämäläinen 2014).

The new stadium project Helsinki Garden has allegedly public indoor spaces in the schematic plans, but they are four stories underground and seem to be lobby spaces for the stadium (Helsinki Garden Viitesuunnitelma 2018). As an incentive, the City is willing to sell housing land elsewhere to the developer at market price, without tendering (Oksanen 2020). Current plans for the new architecture and design museum are for the city to sell the land to a developer, who would build the museum “for free” and consequently have the right to build commercial buildings (Tiikkaja 2019). All these examples make it seem that the city of Helsinki is developed first and foremost to be a good environment for investment and not the life of its citizens.

Private development, even large ones, are not a bad thing. On the contrary, they are great for the city and the residents. Creating more jobs, services and housing is what makes the city grow and evolve. Exceeding the permitted building volumes should not be allowed if not in exchange for something favoring the city and its citizens. Planned public spaces and services should be kept as originally planned and not given up for commercial use. These are the situations where incentive zoning and POPS as a space type would be needed in securing Helsinki as a city for its citizens and not only for investement.

B. Programming // 1. POPS in Helsinki

How zoning happens in Helsinki and what are the future plans gives an image of the possibilities and needs for POPS as a space type. The new master plan came into effect at the end of 2018. In 2013 the vision for Helsinki 2050 was released. The new master plan for the city is highly based on providing new housing for the growing city. Relatively little attention is given to public spaces, even less to indoor public spaces. On the other hand, in the vision of Helsinki for 2050, being an attractive city for developments and investments is a clear goal. The importance of economic life is described as the cornerstone to a lively city.

Different urban spaces such as squares, plazas, shores and parks are described as residents’ living rooms. Describing only outdoor spaces when talking about living rooms is an odd statement and again, interior public spaces are not talked about.

75

NORMAL

POPS

DETAILED PLANNING PROCESS

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION & ASSESSEMENT

INITIAL SKETCH PLANS

DETAILED PLANNING PROCESS

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION & ASSESSEMENT

WORK PROGRAMME

EXHIBITION & DISCUSSON FORUMS ON DRAFT PLAN

EXHIBITION & DISCUSSON FORUMS ON POPS RULES AND INCENTIVES AND POPS USAGE

DRAFT PLAN

PROPOSED PLAN REVISIONS & PUBLIC COMMENTS DEVELOPER PARTICIPATES

PROPOSED PLAN ON-DEPOSIT

PLAN MAY BE RETURNED TO PLANNING COMMITTEE

PROPOSED PLAN TO CITY BOARD

PLAN APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL

WORK+POPS PROGRAMME

DRAFT PLAN AND DESIGN STATEMENT ON INTENDED USES

DRAFT PLAN AND STATEMENT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE

DRAFT PLAN TO PLANNING COMMITTEE

PROPOSED PLAN TO PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR APPROVAL

INITIAL SKETCH PLANS WITH POPS

PROPOSED PLAN TO PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR APPROVAL

PROPOSED PLAN REVISIONS & PUBLIC COMMENTS

PROPOSED PLAN ON-DEPOSIT

PLAN MAY BE RETURNED TO PLANNING COMMITTEE

PROPOSED PLAN TO CITY BOARD

PLAN APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL

Detailed planning process in Helsinki with and without a POPS. Based on Detailed Planning in Helsinki, 2013 Visualization by the author

Implementing POPS to the zoning process

The city of Helsinki oversees the preparation of the master plan and the detailed plan while having the authority on decision-making. It is the legal duty of the City of Helsinki to prepare all detailed plans. Land ownership in Helsinki is mostly under public authorities, as the city owns 66% and the State 13%. Therefore, not only does the city have a monopoly in preparing the plans, but also a near-monopoly in controlling the development. In order to create POPSs, the city of Helsinki would mostly regulate land it owns. POPSs could be created as an obligation as part of the contract when the land is sold or rented or it could be mandatory in a certain city district. A prefered option would be using incentive zoning in specific city districts.

The creation of a POPS would then be voluntary in a situation where the developer wants to exceed the initial permitted building volume. The city would be using its zoning power by rather encouraging than requiring developers to act in a way desired by the public sector.

In a normal process, the City Planning bases the draft plan on-site surveys, health regulations, fire safety, traffic policies, and it has to meet conditions for creating a comfortable and pleasant environment. If a POPS would be included in the process, the city would inform the developer, after making their own initial analysis, the amount of obtainable bonus floor area and the floor area requirements for the POPS. The developer would make a draft design proposal with a design statement with the intended user groups, functions and type

of POPS proposed. As in a normal detailed plan process, the proposal would also be released for public participation.

After the public has made comments on the draft plan, it is presented to the City Planning Committee, which will approve it or demand changes and improvements. As in a normal process, after a 30 day period for public and other authority inspection, the Committee sends the plan to the City Board for endorsement. In the end, the City Council approves the plan (Detailed Planning in Helsinki 2012). Using the same process for a building with bonus floor area and a POPS, the public has the chance to participate in the realisation of their space, the POPS. Normally, the developer can apply for a building permit only when the detailed plan is done and approved. If the plan includes a POPS, the developer has already been more involved in the zoning process and the building permit process should be faster. Normally, the developer can be a commentator but not a participator in the zoning process which often leads to exemptions asked from the land owner after the process. The need for exemptions would be diminished, as the developers would already be involved and setting themselves rules for developing the site when doing draft design plans and statements at the beginning.

The zoning process of Helsinki is relatively slow, rigid, and includes little private partnerships. In other Nordic countries the private sector is more involved in zoning and planning. While the public authorities have the control, plans can be made by private individuals or entities (Lehtovuori et al. 2019). The process of planning a site with a POPS would be closer to the faster process of other Nordic countries where the public authorities have the control, but the private sector would be more involved in making the plans.

B. Programming // 1. POPS in Helsinki

In order for POPSs to be realized in Helsinki, the possibility for the space type has to be included in the zoning laws and processes. Planning in Finland is divided into three different scales: the regional plan, the master plan, and the detailed plan.

The higher plan always governs the lower one and is legally binding. A POPS should be decided on a detailed plan level, with strategic guidelines on areas where they would be possible on the master plan level.

77

No incentive

X €€€

Monetary incentive

X 1X

Even incentive

X nX

Profitable incentive

X

1.2 Incentives

Other incentives could be tax breaks, which would not be as favorable for the city.

Losing tax revenue is as if the city would pay for the space. Therefore, an incentive should result in a win-win situation, and not an exchange.

An incentive could be anything that the public is willing to give up and that would normally not be possible for the developer.

It is a means of exchange that should be fair but a bit advantageous for the private side. As seen in the past, the incentive can be too favorable for the developer, or on the other hand not favorable enough. At the beginning of the history of POPS, the advantage of building a POPS in ratio to the financial gain of the bonus floor area was 1 to 48. On the other hand, in Bangkok, the maximum bonus was only 5% of the FAR, which was not a big enough motivation for the developers to provide a POPS.

There is also an option of having no incentives. An area or a single lot can be regulated in the city plan in a way that a POPS needs to be provided. If zoning has the power to regulate common spaces such as saunas for apartment buildings, it can also have the power to require a POPS. This would be the most favorable for the city but might have an impact on the attractiveness of the lots for developers.

The Oslo Municipal Plan for Public Space and Meeting Places from 2009 includes a binding requirement for privately developed projects exceeding 20,000 m2. In The Idea Handbook (2019) published by Norwegian Ministry of the Local Government and Modernisation is presented, that they should reserve a minimum of 5% land for public space. 26 Some of the resulting spaces end up being privately owned and managed whilst others are managed by the municipality (Carmona 2019). Taking the same percentage for indoor POPS from Oslo with the same 20% for the bonus floor area could be a starting point for Helsinki.

In that case, the bonus given is four times bigger than the provided POPS floor area wise. Not only the cost of building the POPS but also the cost of possible maintenance should be accounted for.

Going forward, the math for a bonus floor area as an incentive will be this: The amount of bonus floor area is capped at 20%. The POPS should be a quarter of the bonus floor area. Thus, the POPS is 5% of the floor area before the bonus.

POPS CACLULATION:

•

• Maximum bonus: 20% • POPS: 25% of bonus or 5% of original host GFA Total GFA: original GFA + 20% bonus + 5% POPS = Original GFA x 1,25

B. Programming // 1. POPS in Helsinki

The history of POPS has been strongly tied to incentive zoning in the past. The incentive has been more allowed floor area in most cases. An incentive could be anything else. Giving rights to build more creates a “more is more” situation, where in order to get extra space for the public, more floor area is built in the host building too. Neither side loses, and because of this win-win situation, the floor area bonus has been a popular incentive. The debate about whether it is a win-win situation for the public and private sides is that the buildings get bigger than intended, sacrificing light and air in the city.

79

POPS/Host iterations

1.3 POPS Categories

In the book Privately Owned Public Spaces: The New York City Experience (2000), Jerold Kayden categorized the POPS to destination, neighborhood, hiatus, circulation and marginal spaces.

Marginal spaces lack satisfactory levels of design, amneties, or aesthetic appeal.

In other words, marginal spaces are unwanted public spaces. Circulation spaces improve the pedestrian’s experience of moving through the city by making the route faster of more comfortable. In Helsinki, we already have some interior circulation space. Although connecting commercial spaces, they are pleasant to use when the weather is bad. A hiatus space accommodates for a brief stop. Usually small in size, adjacent to a sidewalk and seating as the only amnetie, the need for them is not crucial.. But once built, if well designed, they are nice pocket spaces in a city. Neighborhood spaces are high-quality spaces that draws residents and employees

from the immediate neighborhood. They host multiple functions, are constructed of good materials and are well maintained. A destination space is a high quality public space that attracts employees, residents, and visitors from outside, as well as from, the space’s immediate neighborhood. The design supports a broad audience. Spaces are sizable, well proportioned, brightly lit, aesthetically interesting, and constructed with first-class materials. Amneties are varied.

The spaces that are generally needed and wanted are the neighborhood and destination spaces. Both types of POPS would be great additions to the urban structure of Helsinki. Neighborhood spaces partially already exist and are being built as community centers. Helsinki lacks destination spaces. The new central library Oodi is the most recent example of a destination public space.

In an event held by The Municipal Art Society of NY in october 2012, that can be found on YouTube, Jerold Kayden shared the idea that POPSs in New York are like a decenentralized Central Park. In comparison, destination indoor POPSs in Helsinki could be perceived as a decentralized Oodi. This thesis is aimed to find solutions for a destination POPS in central Helsinki.

B. Programming // 1. POPS in Helsinki

Iterations of massing without knowing the site and user groups may still be possible following the general rules for creating an indoor POPS. Whatever the usage of the space, the aimed purpose and importance of the space in a city can be defined.

81

OWNER

SECURITY

MANAGEMENT OPERATION

RULE SETTING USER RIGHTS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Private

Public governance

General public

1.4 Responsibility profiles Responsibility profiles of the POPS can vary, where some combinations are more favorable to the city and some to the private owner. As long as the city is setting the rules, the general public has the right for the space and the owner is a private entity, a POPS can be realized.

1. All responsibilities but ownership is in the governing city’s hands. This means that the owner of the space has no obligations to operate any activity and maintain, repair or upgrade the space. This option is the costliest to the city. The space is built raw and empty by the developer and has no obligations or freedoms on the space after being built.

2. The owner might provide the security of the space. As the city is setting the rules, security must follow them. This eliminates the possibility of the owner controlling the space. Security can play a major role when creating a public space as security officers are the embodiment of control. Security should not be a visible part of the space, but more an overseeing control in the background.

3. The owner has the freedom to maintain, clean, repair and upgrade the space to its liking, as long as it respects restrictions provided by the city. Management can be costly for the city. With a well done contract between the city and the owner, POPS are typically better maintained, as the owner is legally obliged, but also because the financial situation of the city does not affect the management of the space.

4. A public space often has a certain activity or function, which in this case could be the owner’s responsibility. Having all other responsibilities too, this is the option requiring the least involvement from the city. The city’s role is to set rules and restrictions for security, management and operation during development, but having no obligations after completion of the space. In this case, contractual needs are the largest.

5. If security is seen as a risk of control and power, the city can be the provider of the security for the space. By default, the police are securing any space whether private or public. Outdoor public spaces mostly rely on police for security. If the POPS is looked at as such, security might not even be needed from the point of view of the public. On the other hand, if the space is considered similar to a public library, security is often needed.

7. Leaving management as a responsibility of the city while the owner is in charge of security and operation is improbable. This situation would be relevant if cost split of running the place would be a priority. THe security would be handled by the same direction as the rest of the building and the owner could have some influence, again within the set restrictions, on the functions and activities in the space.

8. In this case, there is a clear divide between physical and non-physical factors of the space. The owner would manage the space according to regulations, while the city controls its security and operation. This clear separation of roles is favorable, as there is the least probability for overstepping and confusion. For its clarity this model is chosen for a POPS in this thesis.

B. Programming // 1. POPS in Helsinki

6. In this case, operation of the space is the city’s responsibility. The owner provides security and manages the space. Function and activities of the space are provided by the city, meaning that the space is a piece of real estate that can be used deliberately by the city. This The city has the freedom of usage, and the owner has no obligation to run a separate operation.

83

TIME SPENT IN PRIVATE URBAN SPACES

TIME SPENT IN PUBLIC URBAN SPACES

COLD MONTHS

WARM MONTHS

COLD MONTHS

20 Rainy days

18

18 14

52 Rain mm

36

38

13

32

12

13 57

14 63

15 80

15 56

76

19

20

22 20 18 16

70 58

14 12 10 8

37

6 4 2

Temp °C 1

0

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

-2 -4

2. User groups

Whether it is commercial spaces such as shopping centers, restaurants and cafĂŠs or public spaces such as museums, theaters or sports halls, people have to pay to use the spaces. Churches, libraries and masstransit stations are some of the few free indoor public spaces.

There are many aspects of an outdoor public space an interior public space during the winter can not replace. Fresh air, connectivity to nature, and large demonstrations are some examples. While leisuring in parks is free, according to the Finnish Forest Research Institute (2009) there is also a health benefit to them. It is crucial in western countries where people spend 90% of their time indoors (Timonen 2015). A greenhouse can provide the natural elements such as plants, but it can by no means replace outdoor parks and other natural spaces. The gathering of a group or people advancing or objecting something for the public good is a perfect example of why public spaces are the physical settings

of democracy. Demonstrations need the outdoor space in order to cater to as many people as possible and to be visible and heard. An interior public space could ideally be allowed to be used for demonstrations but realistically they would not serve the aimed intentions. While previously mentioned situations can not be replicated indoors, there are some outdoor public functions that could continue in an interior space during the cold months of the year.

Walking around public spaces of Helsinki during summer months, many casual sports activities can be seen. A couple of people might be throwing a frisbee to each other, a park yoga group might have gathered to a park from a facebook event, pick up basketball with teams gathered from strangers, a slackline has been set up between two trees,and many other examples. Nobody has asked permission for these activities, neither have paid for them or reserved the space. Walking the same route during winter time and all activity that is left is people walking or running. Circulation through public spaces still occurs, but spontaneous stationary activities do not. All those physical activities happening during the summer months do not transfer to indoor places during the winter, because there are no free public spaces for them to take place.

How much public interior space is needed in Helsinki can be counted with how many months people would not sit on the grass of a park.

B. Programming // 2. User groups

The issue of public spaces in Helsinki is not about the quantity of them, but their usability during the whole year. Why Helsinki especially needs indoor public spaces is mostly because of the nordic climate. Helsinki has 115 rainy days in a year with only five months with the average daytime temperature of 10 degrees celsius (Pirinen et al. 2012). Without outdoor third places, people rely on indoor spaces, which unfortunately are predominantly commercial or chargeable.

85

Futsal/Handball

Ice hockey

Squach

Swimming 50m

Swimming 25m

Badminton

Table Tennis tennis

3 m2

Boxing

Darts

740/160 m2

625 m2

1250 m2

Long jump

600 m2

Basketball

1500 m2

800 m2

Athletics 400m track

60 m2

81 m2

420 m2

75 m2

14 110 m2

Sports field dimensions

Volleyball

Indoor public sports facilities

Helsinki has good sports facilities and even won the national Most Active Municipality award in 2019 granted by Urheilugaala (Sports Gala). But when looking at sports preferences of Finns, the most popular activities are not done in an organized or club setting. The most popular activities in order are walking, home training, biking, gym, jogging and swimming.

Casual activities that can be done on one’s own terms seem to be the ones that get people moving. 34% of people did physical activity independently in a group and 66% independently alone (Mäkinen 2019).

The deficit between the summer and winter activity can be understood, as many of the most popular sports are done outdoors.

Physical activity outdoors is not only about a certain sport, but it can be games, such as throwing a frisbee with a group of friends.

Weather is not the only factor, but also cost and attainability. Public outdoor spaces and some of the fields can be used freely.

On the other hand, indoor spaces, even if subsidized by the city and government, still cost something and are centralized institutions.

Indoor playing fields are largely used and booked by sport clubs for practices and games. Outdoors, on the other hand, they are often free for all. It is important to have both, organized and unorganized sports options available, but during the winter it only leaves one of the two. Teams on outdoor fields can be totally mixed with strangers, whereas inside, outsiders can rarely stumble on the field and ask to join a game. Organized teams are typically homogenous in age and gender, which is not the case in spontaneous games outdoors.

It is exactly public spaces for casual, spontaneous, free and easily accessible physical activity that are lacking in Helsinki during the winter. Sports brings people together to do the same activity and on a larger scale it can unify a whole country behind a national team. Sports also bring liveliness to the city. While some might be doing the activity, others might be engaged and waiting for their turn to participate, and bystanders migh follow from a distance. People attract people, but so does movement, and sports has the potential to bring people together in a public space.

Spaces designated for sports also have the great quality of typically not prohibiting other usage. There are no signs next to a basketball court saying what you can not do in the space. Because that piece of land has lines on the ground and a basket at each end, it is typically used as intended. Nobody is prohibiting someone to lay out a pic nic blanket on the field, but it is in a way a silent social agreement that it is not suitable for that space.

Even if helsinki has made physical activity one of the main goals, it does not seem to tackle the issue of the winter months. The issue of physical activity during the winter months is increasingly important because of global warming. Winter activities such as cross-country skiing and outdoor ice hockey are at risk of disappearing.

B. Programming // 2. User groups

18% of over 10-year olds do Sports and physical exercise almost everyday during the winter in the Helsinki metropolitan area. The same number for summer months is 32% (Tilastokeskus 2017). Overall, only a quarter of the citizens of Helsinki move enough. One of Helsinki’s main policies is to get citizens of the city moving. In its Helsinki liikkuu (Helsinki moves) project emphasized is the importance of moving over exercise. The amount of movement and exercise is directly and indirectly related to the national economy in health costs. The fact that people do not move enough is the fourth largest reason for deaths caused by long-term illness. According to the project this issue extends to any age groups from children to elderly people.

87

POPS proportional to host building

100

0m

2

le s Ttaebnni

50 00

m

2

10

000

n into

dm

Ba

2

m

l

bal t e k

s

Ba

20 0

000

k c a r T

2

m

00

00

10

m2

d n a

d l fie

Fu

l a ts

Indoor sports POPS

Helsinki is growing and new neighborhoods are built with needed public facilities in them. Helsinki is also densifying due to a multitude of private developments. Varying in scale, some of the largest developments are like miniature cities. Smaller private developments, such as office buildings are being built and planned around the city center. Interestingly enough, Helsinki city center does not lack office space. 14% of the office spaces are sitting empty. Meanwhile a lot of office spaces have been constructed.

Location and spaces unsuitable for current usage are the main reasons for the phenomenon.

During the last 10 years in the metropolitan area of Helsinki, 400 000 square meters of office space has been demolished or converted to other uses. At the same time 900 000 square meters of office spaces have been built. 200 000 more are planned (Brännare 2017). It is questionable if the city center needs new office spaces.

Nevertheless, new office buildings are being built and planned. The motivation of developers to build in the city center could be used to create a network of indoor public spaces.

Regardless of the size of the private development, there would always be a way to implement a sport facility of some type as a POPS. Using the formula of maximum 20% bonus floor area with the POPS being proportionally 25% of the amount of bonus floor area, the amount of sports facilities realized would be directly proportional to the bulk size of private developments.

If a development is large enough, and the developer is eager to build even more, the POPS could be as big as an indoor track and field arena. On the other hand,if the project is a smaller infill project, a small space the size of a ground floor boutique, could still be used as a dance or table tennis space. As developments vary in size, the potential is to have a variety of sports spaces for different activities wherever the developments take place.

B. Programming // 2. User groups

Public sports halls are big buildings containing a multitude of sports possibilities. In contrast, outdoors, these spaces are scattered around the city including spaces like parks that are not meant for physical activity but still used as such. The fact that sports halls are big, centralizes them to a certain location, typically further away from the densest city center. Creating a network of smaller indoor POPSs for physical exercise throughout the city center, would make sports more attainable for the citizens of Helsinki. The size of the space may vary, as the size needed for different sports fields vary. In some cases sports can accommodate whatever space is available without any specific dimensions required, such as skateboarding.

89

1

2

3

4

Physical separation elements

3.1 Physical separation methods It is clear by observing the qualities of the public and private space that both need to be clearly separated. Leaving no grey areas in between the two, is the only way to make both succeed. In this section, explorations on how this divide can be achieved physically is examined.

4. Signage creates a verbal barrier. They can indicate the functions or direct circulation.

Having uniform signaletic elements in all public spaces in a city, e.g. Helsinki branding and symbols, the space is instantly connected to the network of public spaces.

Brand names of private companies visible by entrances on the other hand tells a clear message of private territory. A sign has the power to be indicative, but if unnoticed, it is an ineffective barrier. Signage is more of a clarification device.

Physical elements

2. Massing can indicate two different space types within a site. Massing in this case can mean total separation of the masses by space type, or massing variance within one building. Using vertical distribution of spaces, totally different environments can be created at each level. As Rem Koolhaas writes in his manifesto Delirious New York, 1978, the presence of the elevator denies the need for contiguous functional relationship. Massing is more important as an indicative device that creates clarity from further away. If the spaces are part of the same building, a border is still needed inside the building. As buildings can have varying forms even when catering one function inside, other means are typically needed to clarify the distinction between spaces.

3. Materiality and form can play a significant role in distinguishing the two types of spaces from the outside. In addition to other means of separation, such as massing, the distinction becomes even clearer.

High rise hotels have used materiality to architecturally signal different functions.

Glass walls in lobby spaces, more enclosed walls where rooms are located and an all glass top floor which typically houses a panoramic restaurant or bar. Some materials and forms are also thought of as typical to public or private buildings. Private buildings such as apartments, hotels and offices typically have a rigid appearance, whereas public buildings might have more variance and unconformity. Using stereotyped apparences for both sides can have a clear impact of separation through contrast.

B. Programming //

1. A full size wall is the extreme way of cutting any connection or communication between the two realms. A half size wall can still maintain communication and other connections, but access. The wall can be punctuated with openings such as doors and windows, which abstracts the separation. If the door is on the wall to provide circulation access from one side to another, is one of two realms undermined by the other? If a private office space can only be accessed through the public space, should the public be responsible in maintaining that route? If a public space is only possible to access through an office lobby, does it compromise the control rights of the private entity? An opening can exist to create a path of connection, but can not be an indispensable element for either side’s function. It must stay as a threshold where control is not lost on either side.

With a softer border, such as a fence, the spaces still remains clearly separated.

The question remains which connection, circulation, visual, audible or olfactory, either side wants to maintain or prevent.

91

I

II

III

IV

V

VI

VII

VIII

IX

X

XI

XII

3.2 Physical quality factors To advance in programming a POPS in Helsinki, some quality components are stated. The 12 point below are gathered from pevious research and case studies. Some spaces, space organization and elements can create a base for a successful interior public space architecturally.

The more of these are used, the better the space and its publicness are ensured.

The POPS has to:

I

Be on the ground floor or have a connection to the ground floor

II

Be connected to the pedestrian/public space network of the city

III

VII

Reveal its function and/or activity to the outside

VIII

Have natural light if not separately agreed on a function/action that would not benefit from natural light

IX

Be separated from the private spaces physically looking from the outisde

Be accessible people with disabilities

IV

Public bathrooms

V

Seating with the amount varying from function

VI

No visible security at entrances

X

Be visibly separated from the private spaces physically when inside the space

XI

B. Programming //

The space must be illuminated

XII

Physical elements

Have signage to indicate the publicness of the space and rules within

93

Siltasaari

Siltavuorensalmi

Kaisaniemenlahti

Pohjoissatama

Helsingin päärautatieasema

Helsingin yliopisto metroas.

as

Rautatientorin metroasema

as

Kampin metroasema

Palvelutalo

3

1

Sairaala

Lampi

Hietalahdenallas

Sairaala

2 Kaivopuiston väylä

Sairaala

Kaivopuistonpaasi

Kompassin tark.

Uunisaarensalmi

Pohjoinen Uunisaari

Sirpalesalmi

Hernesaari Liuskaluoto

1. Kasarmikatu 21

2. Telakkaranta

3. Katajanokanlaituri 4 Eteläinen Uunisaari

Sirpalesaari

Uuninsuu

Mustikkamaansalmi

4. Experimentation of POPS and incentives

Korkeasaarenluoto

Korkeasaari

Tervasaari

To finalize the programmin part, the idea of POPS and incentive zoning is experimented on three different sites in central Helsinki.

POPS calculations presented previously are used in all the cases. The sites are studied with a 20% bonus floor area and a POPS which is a quarter of the bonus. The objective is to find multiple ways of how a POPS as a space type could be implemented in the city planning of Helsinki.

The second site is Telakkaranta, which is a large 45 000 square meter development in the Punavuori neighborhood. The site is under construction and will consist of multiple buildings with functions such as housing, offices, retail and a lot of open outdoor space. A POPS is studied according to bonus percentage and usage of existing buildings.

Hylkysaarensalmi

Hylkysaari

The third site is Katajanokanlaituri 4 in the Katajanokka neighborhood. The site currently has a storage building which will be demolished. The site is being zoned and an architecture competition started at the beginning of 2019 for an office and hotel building. The site will have one building with no touching neighboring buildings. A POPS is studied according to the relation and separation of the host building and the POPS with massing and the effect on the city scape.

All of the sites are private developments where one is a recently built office building, one large development under consideration and one mixed-use building in the zoning stage. Central Helsinki is chosen as a POPS can only be realized where developers want to build more than is allowed, but also where the public is. The POPS are studied with different parameters from site to site.

Palvelutalo

kj

Valkosaarenkari

Valkosaarensalmi

Luoto

Katajanokanluoto

Experimentation of POPS and incentives

Valkosaari

The first site is Kasarminkatu 21 in the Kaartinkaupunki neighborhood, a block away from the esplanade. The 16 000 square meter office building was completed at the end of 2017. The building is an infill project that has no open lot space on the street side. A POPS is studied according to the impact of floor area versus volume and how does the location of the POPS impact the design.

Ryssänsaari

Pikkuluoto

B. Programming //

Puolimatkansaari

Pormestarinhepo

Limppu

Pormestarinluodot

95

Esplanade park

Kasarmikatu

VII

VII

atu Pohjoinen makasiinik

Kasarmitori

Completed project by SARC Architects

4.1 Kasarmikatu 21

Kasarmikatu 21, 00130 Helsinki, Finland

The Design The site is located in the Kaartinkaupunki neighborhood, a block away from the Esplanade. The 16 000 square meter office building was completed at the end of 2017.

The site is a combination of two lots in a corner of a city block. The project started by demolishing a 1960’s office building that used to house the building control services of the city of Helsinki. Currently the main tenants are law offices, paying one of the highest rents in Helsinki. The rent is about 40€/m2, while the average in Helsinki is 30. The building was constructed at high standards for “sophisticated” tenants.

(Brännare 2017)

The ground floor has retail spaces and services such as a restaurant, a car washing company and a furniture store. The building fills the lot more than the previous one and follows the height of the adjacent buildings. The building is seven stories high with setbacks at both ends to follow the rooflines of adjacent buildings making the corner mass appear higher. The facades are monotonic and clad with natural stone with large window openings.

Background information

POPS Analysis The building is built to the very edges of the site on all sides, therefore the bonus floor area could only be added on top. The building is 16 000m2 in total and seven stories high. On average the floor area per level is 2 250m2. A 20% bonus would make up for 3 200m2, adding up to two floors in height. For city scape reasons the building should not be visibly taller. With setbacks and one additional floor, the city scape could still be maintained. If the bonus would be 10%, the bonus floor area would be 1 600m2, resulting in a POPS of 400m2.

If a 10% floor area bonus would have been given, the added monthly revenue would have risen by 64 000€, 768 000€ per year. Proportionally if the building and maintenance of the POPS would be 25%, this would result in a total of 576 000€ financial gain for the owner of the building.

If the POPS would be 400m2, it would make the restaurant smaller and a loss of revenue for the owner

Experimentation of POPS and incentives

office spaces in the city center. The city saw a good opportunity to achieve their goal by selling the lot and the to-be-demolished building to the developers. The price of the demolition was estimated to be 3,8M€ and was to be paid by the developers. This sale is one of the examples of the city selling property from the city center and relocating its public services further away in Helsinki.

(Helsinki päätökset, tontit 3048/2 ja 7, 2105)

B. Programming //

The building is on two lots. One is zoned in 1836 and the other 1958. The lots have a restriction of not being rezoned or that the zoning can not be changed. Therefore, the new building follows the old restrictions and only grew 2000m2 in square meters.

The lots were sold to developers at the price of 21,5M€. Selling the property was part of the city’s goal to sell 100M€ worth of real estate in 2015. The developers saw the need for new, modern and flexible

97

Base picture: Completed project by SARC Architects

Sports field / Ground Level Instead of a ground floor restaurant, the POPS would be situated on the other side of the offices’ entrances.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

5

1 2 6 3 7 4 8 5 9

Dance Hall / Above Ground

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

5

1 2 6 3 7 4 8 5 9

5

1 2 6 3 7 4 8 5 9

Vertical circulation for an above ground POPS has to be counted in the POPS floor area, thus reducing the usable floor area of the POPS

B. Programming //

4 3 9 2 8 1 7 6

A vertical space, e.g. climbing wall has a small footprint but a big volume.

Experimentation of POPS and incentives

4 3 9 2 8 1 7 6

Climbing wall / Vertical

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

4 3 9 2 8 1 7 6

99

sp

Visualisation of the upcoming project by Huttunen-Lipasti Architects

4.2 Telakkaranta

Telakkakatu, 00150 Helsinki, Finland

The Design The site is a waterfront 4,4 ha area, of which 3,8 ha is land area and the rest water area, in the neighborhood of Punavuori.

The area used to be a shipyard, which is not in operation anymore. An architecture competition was held for the development of the area in 2010. The danish office Lundgaard&Tranberg Arkitekter A/S won the competition and the winning proposal was the basis for the detailed city plan completed in 2012. The area is currently under construction with the first building completed at the end of 2019. There will be 45 000 m2 of floor area built, of which

1500m2 will be underground, 19 250m2 housing, and the remaining 25 720m2 will be cultural, commercial and office buildings. Some of the buildings, 9 920m2 in total, are protected and must be kept.

The total FAR for the area is 1,0. As some of the housing buildings will be as high as 12 stories, a lot of outdoor space will be kept open. The spaces and the waterfront are going to be publicly accessible with restaurants and retail at the ground level of the buildings. (Telakkaranta, Asemakaavan muutoksen selostus, 2012)

Background information

POPS Analysis If the original 2150m2 space would have been a POPS, the developer would have gained 8 600m2 of bonus floor space, which is around 20% of the total GFA. That would roughly equal the size of building mass on the lot with the highest 12 story building or an added floor to every building.

Another option would have been to allow the construction of two additional floors within the machine workshop building and leaving the ground floor level as a POPS.

At 10%, the bonus would have been 4 500m2 and the POPS 1125m2. In that case the old machine workshop could have had the two additional private floors, with one having an opening to provide a double height space for the POPS. Half of the ground floor would be private.

Experimentation of POPS and incentives

voted on by local governement. But during the process, in 2017, but due to financial reasons, the functions are decided to be moved elsewhere (Rakennuslehti, 2014).

First, ELMU was to be moved to the festival area of Suvilahti 5km away, but later was moved even further (Skanska, 2016).

B. Programming //

In recent years, most of the existing buildings have been empty, but one building, Nosturi, has been an important cultural hub for artists and performances.

In the original plan, Nosturi was to be demolished but the cultural activities were to be moved into one of the protected old buildings. Keeping the functions of Nosturi, run by ELMU (Live music association), was

101

Base picture: Visualisation of the upcoming project by Lundgaard&Tranberg Arkitekter

Sports field / Ground Level By using only 10% of bonus floor area, the POPS and the bonus floor area fit into the pre-existing building without affecting the city scape at all.

Sports arena / High If the whole warehouse building would be a POPS, the space would be three stories tall.

The bonus floor area would be allocated to other buildings, making them all higher or selectively some significantly taller.

B. Programming //

Using both the warehouse and some of the buildings would result in a small increase in total bulk and would use the excessive height of the warehouse as bonus floor space.

Experimentation of POPS and incentives

Sports arena / Low

103

Visualisation of a proposal for the site by Architects Soini&Horto

4.3 Katajanokanlaituri 4

Katajanokanlaituri 4, 00160 Helsinki, Finland

The Preliminary Design The site is situated in the Katajanokka neighborhood, just a stone’s throw away from the presidential palace. The site is part of the port of Helsinki and located on the waterfront of the South Harbour.

The site currently has an empty storage building. At the moment, new talks about a new 16 000 m2 office and hotel building are underway. There will be an architecture competition held and the area is in process to be rezoned. The site is one of the most

prominent spots in Helsinki, with good visibility to major municipal buildings, the main market square and the incoming ferries. The expectations for the quality of the building are high and an invited architecture competition will be held. The building will be timber construction and high sustainable standards are required.

The city demands an open publicly accessible ground floor to liven up the area.

Background information The whole South Harbour area has had several development proposals. On the opposite side of the bay is the site for the cancelled Guggenheim museum. The site itself has had a couple of noticeable architecture competitions. In 2002 an architecture and design museum competition was won by JKMM. In 2008 the swiss architecture office Herzog & de

Meuron made a proposal for a cross shaped hotel. The fact that Stora Enso is moving from 100m away from to a similar size office building means that the need for more space or relocation is not relevant. The current building, desined by Alvar Aalto, does not suit the current need of an office buildings, and therefore a new building is needed.

The total floor area for the building in the competition is 16 000m2. With a 20% bonus floor area of 3200m2 and a 5% POPS of 800m2, the gross floor area would be 20 000m2 in total. As there are no buildings on the site boundaries, there is a freedom in massing. The exploration on consequences of a POPS on this site is about massing and how the separation of the private and public sides of the building affect the cityscape in different ways.

B. Programming //

The site will be one of the first steps in freeing up the waterfront of the South Harbour to the public. The site restrictions given in the competition brief are related to height and distance from the harbour. The building should not exceed the height of 22m and should be set back 19m from the shoreline. The city of Helsinki’s priorities for the site are an open ground floor and a high level pedestrian environment. As the ground floor’s importance for the public is emphasized, that is where the POPS should be.

Experimentation of POPS and incentives

POPS Analysis

105

Base picture: Visualisation of a proposal for the site by Architects Soini&Horto

Part of the overall mass Having the POPS part of the overall mass weakens the public perception of the space but does creates a smaller impact on the city scape.

Separate but attached mass By separating the mass, the host building grows in height and massing does not follow the typology of the surrounding buildings.

B. Programming //

By completely separating the POPS to a separate building creates a drastic increase in the height of the host building, but maximizes the differentiation of the private and public spaces.

Experimentation of POPS and incentives

Separate building

107

4.4 Experimentation conclusion

Telakkaranta is an example of a large development with existing and to be preserved buildings on the site. The site is a good example of what can happen when the city only applies goals, and not regulations to spaces. All the goals that were in favor of the public have started to vanish over time. Original cultural activities of Elmu have finally been moved out of the site and publicly accessible ground floor spaces are strictly private in the first two finished buildings. The machine workshop

The site on Katajanokanranta is spacious.

The boundaries set by the city would result in more floor area than the goal of the amount of floor area. The studies of the site show that when the host building and the POPS are being separated the massing grows in height, which is not favorable for the cityscape. A balance between the separation of the two space types and the cityscape must be met, even if a completely separated POPS would clearly have a higher public quality. Covered POPSs in New York, such as the IBM and AT&T atriums, are clearly separated pavilion-like glass structures next to the host building.

Similar possibilities are easier to achieve in a district with skyscrapers than in a fairly low Helsinki. As most lots in central Helsinki are not zoned to include large amounts of unbuilt space, buildings usually reach the wanted height by filling the lot.

In Manhattan, a couple of extra floors on a over 30 story building does not affect the cityscape tremendously, which is not the case in Helsinki.

Experimentation of POPS and incentives

In the case of Kasarmikatu 21, a 20% bonus would have been hard to justify, as it would have meant almost two additional floors.

The building mass is already maximized, as it follows the heights of the adjacent buildings. Multiple additional floors would make the building look like a misfit. As of the POPS, the small studies of POPS placement show that it is favorable to have the entrance to the space itself, where circulation spaces are minimized. In the case of a POPS type that does need to be on top of a building, circulation spaces can be justified. The volume of the POPS has consequences on the overall mass of the building. That raises the question if bonus floor area should be given based on volume and not area.

building that was first allocated to cultural activities has now tripled in floor area and is in private use. These are the kind of situations where a strict policy from city officials on public spaces. Protecting and creating clear boundaries on buildable floor area is needed. Telakkaranta is also an example of how confusing it can be to call a space public-like with no control on the publicness. A restaurant on the ground floor does nothing for the public or the liveliness of the place if it is a lunch cafeteria for employees only.

B. Programming //

The creation of POPS with incentive zoning is in a way a value judgement, where maintaining the cityscape and gaining public space are up against each other. Is the addition of public spaces worth losing light and air in cities? The three previous studies explore different implications of a POPS.

109

DESIGN

C. DESIGN The last part of this thesis is the design part. The site is Katajonakonlaituri 4, which currently houses a storage building. Plans are to demolish it and build an office and hotel building, of which there is an invited architecture competition going on at the same time as this thesis has been written. The site was chosen as it is the perfect opportunity to test design-wise how a POPS should be designed in central Helsinki and how it would affect the design of the whole building. The design implements knowledge and information acquired is previous parts of the thesis in order to showcase a best practice example of a POPS in Helsinki.

The design is partially based on the competition program for the site. The amount of gross floor area is 16 000 m2, the height limit +22.00 and the offset from the shoreline.

1. Analysis 1.1 History 1.2 Site conditions

113 113 115

2. Concept

117

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

117 119 121 123

Massing analysis Are situation and site concept POPS calculation POPS separation

3. Design proposal

125

4. Rules and responsibilities

137

111

1 2

5

3

6

4

7

SIT

E

Alvar Aalto city scape studies for the Enso-Gutzeit headquarters

The site and the surroundings has been the subject of multiple plans, architecture competitions and developments.

During the 1700’s some plans were made for the Katajanokka peninsula, including fortresses that were never built. When Helsinki became the capital city of Finland in 1812, Katajanokka was zoned for storage and defensive purposes. This is also when a canal was planned to separate it from the city center, making the area an island. The Uspenskin cathedral was built in 1868. Otherwise, Katajanokka became mainly a port on the southern part with housing on the north side. Train tracks were continued to the area to support the port functions.

1. In 2001 an architecture competition for a new architecture and design museum Armi was held. The architecture firm JKMM won the competition, but it was never realised, mostly for financial reasons.

2. On the same site, a norwegian developer comissioned the swiss firm Herzog& de Meuron to design a hotel in 2008. The cross shaped hotel sparked a lot of discussion amongst city officials and local architects.

The city council voted against the project and it was never built.

3. In 2008, the city commissioned ALA Architects to do a new master plan vision for the South Harbour. The plan included interventions and improvements to the area, but also 50 000m2 of new development.

4. The city of Helsinki organized an idea architecture competition for the whole South Harbour area in 2012. Both of the winning proposals included a museum buildings at the beginning of Katajanokka with large buildings along the water.

5. In 2014, the Guggenheim Helsinki competition was held for a site on the opposite side of the harbour. The winning project was never realised due to financial and political reasons.

6. Also in 2014, the ferry wheel was built on the adjacent side. The 40m high structure and a temporary FlyTour building was also built on the site. Both have extended their temporary permits.

7. In 2016, Allas Sea Pool, a sauna building with floating swimming pools was realized.

The building is temporary and has a 15 year contract.

The head of the Bank of Finland developed one of the port lots as a four story high apartment building partially for himself. It was named after the owner, Normén andwas designed by Theodor Höijer. The forestry company Enso-Gutzeit, now called Stora Enso, bought the site in 1959 and demolished the building. Enso-Gutzeit commissioned Alvar Aalto to design their new headquarters. Aalto persuaded the company to build one floor less than allowed to fit it better into the surroundings. The building with a white raster facade was clad in Carrara marmor was completed in 1962.

Behind the site, and entrepot and customs house was built in 1901. Designed by Gustaf Nyström, the brick building had customer service and storage spaces. Nyström was interested in the possibilities of brick laying and the building is one of the most interesting brick buildings in Helsinki.

At the same time as the Aalto building, new storage buildings were built along the water. One of which is on the chosen site and will be demolished. Stora Enso will move from the Aalto building to the new office and hotel complex.

The next step for the Katajanokka neighborhood is the demolition of the storage building and an architecture competition for a new office and hotel building. Further east, housing for 2000 people is planned on the shoreline.

C. Design //

Katajanokanlaituri is situated in the Katajanokka neighborhood on the shore of the South Harbour.

1. Analysis

1.1 History

113

ma ka tu

ma ka tu

Sa ta Ka

Ka

na va k

Ka

taj

an

ok

an

Market place

lai

na va k

atu

An kk ur ika tu

atu

Ka

taj

an

ok

an

lai

tur

tur

i

Market hall

An kk ur ika tu

Helsinki Catherdral

Sa ta

Uspenski Catherdral

i

VII

Visibility range III

Open sea

Kaivopuisto

tam Sa

Sa

tam

ak atu

4. Pedestrian circulation

ak atu

1. Views

Ka

Ka

na va k

na va k

an

ok

an

lai

ika ur taj

An

taj

kk

Ka

kk

Ka

an

An

ur

ika

tu

atu

tu

atu

ok

an

lai

tur

tur

i

5. Vehicular circulation

taj

an

ok

an

lai

tur

i

I

Ka

taj

II

an

ok

ak

atu

/s

tor ag

atu

nts

ur ik

ura

atu

IV

VI

VI

an

e

lai

Of

fic

e

tur

tel

Co

nf Ce eren nte ce r

6. Building functions

Em

pty Of

i

Ho

III

3. Building heights

ak

sta

atu

An

Ka

Re

Ho Ho usin us g ing Ka na v kk

II

kk

III

Sa

VI

na va k

ur ik

Sa

Ka

tam

ak

atu

pty

atu

Em

tam

IV

An

2. Daylight

i

fic

e

4. Pedestrian circulation

The site has great views towards the city center of Helsinki and to the south to the sea. The site is also an a highly prominent spot, and highly visible from multiple locations. The site is within the Built cultural environments of national significance (RKY) in the City of Helsinki. The emphasis on the cityscape is of high importance, and due to the site’s exposure, the city scape has to be looked at from multiple spots.

At the moment, there is not much pedestrian traffic by the site. The road has heavy traffic due to the ferries. Pedestrian access to the residential area is mostly done on roads further away. The vision for the area is to open the shoreline more for pedestrian traffic and leisure. Wheter the temporary buildings stay or not in place, the building on the site will play a major role in contributing to the future liveliness of the area.

2. Daylight

5. Vehicular circulation

The site is optimally facing the sea towards the south-west. The topography and buildings gets higher towards the north, thus not creating any daylight obstruction.

Traffic is heavy, but not constant on the Katajanokankatu and the next street up Kanavakuja. Congestion happens when ferries are anchored on the docks. Otherwise the area is relatively quiet. There is also a tram line close by with a a couple of stations two blocks away.

3. Building heights

6. Building functions

The old part of Katajanokka can be divided into three parts: The port buildings, the residential buildings and the Uspenskin cathedral area. The residential area is mostly 4-6 story high Jugend-style buildings. The Uspenskin cathedral is high on the hill, with lowe brick buildings around it by the water.

The port area has comprised of a larger variation of typologies. The buildings alongside the water are mostly three story buildings with the 40m high ferry wheel and the two storey high sauna complex. The second row of buildings has anything from one storey warehouse to the seven storey Stora Enso headquarters.

Originally, all buildings were serving port functions, but most of them have been rehabitated. Some have been converted to hotels, apartments or offices. Quite many of the buildings sit empty or underused.

C. Design //

1. Views

1. Analysis

1.2 Site conditions

115

PUBLIC ACCESS

NO

FRE EA

CCE SS

SIT

E NO

PUB

LIC A

NO

CCE SS

IC BL PU SS CE

AC SA TA M

AK

TU

TO VE

J PU ANS IS SO TO N IN

Publicly accessible area on the shores of the South Harbour

E

AT U

EE NE RY

BU

M

AS

IL DI NG

TO K

S

BUILDINGS

AT U

BU

ETELÄINEN MAKASIINIKATU

PI KK

IL DI NG

U

S

SA TA M

AK

GR

BUILDINGS

AN

KK

SIT

BU

POHJOINEN MAKASIINIKATU

UR

IL DI NG

S

IK AT U

BUILDINGS

BU IL DI N

GS

BERNHARDINKATU

GREENERY

TÄHTITORNINVUOREN PUISTO

Space types around the South Harbour

+3.40

+3.40

0

0 +3.4

+3.4

+3.40

SIT

E

+3.4 flood level around the South Harbour

POPS

Plaza

Greenery

2.2 Area situation and site concept POPS

Plaza

Greenery

Public route on +3.40 high breakwater

POPS

Plaza

Greenery

Public route on +3.40 high breakwater

Public route on +3.40 high breakwater

POPS

Public space?

The seaside of the site should be publicly accessible. Thus, the route should be across the Allas complex to conveniently access the shoreline. The space on the Northeast side of the site is at the end of the Satamakatu, which is a visual axis across Katajanokka. The space also has good connectivity to the Tove Janson park. Greneery of the park could +2.20 be extened to the shores of the South Harbour.

COMMERCIAL SPACE

POPS

Public space?

+2.20 +3.40

COMMERCIAL SPACE

POPS

Public space?

+2.20 +3.40

COMMERCIAL SPACE

The empty space on the Northeast side of the site would be a great opportunity for a new outdoor public space along the South Harbour. Being +3.40 on public land, this would be provided by the city of Helsinki. The needed breakwater at +3.4 creates a possibility for a scenic route.

POPS

Public space

+2.20 +3.40

COMMERCIAL SPACE

POPS

Public space

Integrating the privately owned public space with +2.20 the publicly owned public space would increase +3.40can be used to emphasize the separation between the publicness of the indoor space. The breakwater the public and private spaces by having themCOMMERCIAL at different levels.

2. Concept

COMMERCIAL SPACE

C. Design //

POPS

Public space

+2.20

SPACE

+3.40

117

ka

tu

IV

Sa ta

ma

VIII

Ka

na va k

atu

Ka

m

taj

ok

an

lai

tur

i

11

5m

View to the sea

13

7m

kin

ga

nd

ma

int

en

ac

e

POPS

an

Pa r

Views to and from the city center

III

47

70

m

Public routes

2.1 Massing analysis

m

2

00 x32

54 00

5

2

m

115

m 28

86 m 00 m

m 19

2

1. Lot size and building area

4. 16 000m2 filling the back of the volume .00

.00

+28

+25

.50

+21

0

.00 +18.5 +25

.00

+18

.00

.50

+21

+17

00

22. it + t lim ors h g Hei = 5 flo

2

5x 200 m 3 m

47

64m

5. 16 000m2 filling the side of the volume

O

N

US

2. Volume limitations

0

PO 0+

00

00

C. Design //

m

47

2. Concept

0

16 m

115

=2

3x5

2

m

PS +B

2

m 800

3. 16 000m2 filling the bottom of the volume

6. Filling the volume with 20% bonus + 5% POPS = 3200 m2 119

POPS + host concept

Rakennusoikeus: 16 000m2 Max. Bonus: 0,2x16 000m2 = 3200m2

2.3 POPS calculation

Max. POPS: 0,25 x16 3200m2 Rakennusoikeus: 000m2= 800m2 Max. Bonus: 0,2x16 000m2 = 3200m2 000m2 TOTAL: 16 000m2+3200m2+800m2=20

Max. POPS: 0,25 x 3200m2 = 800m2 Rakennusoikeus: 16 000m2 TOTAL: 16 000m2+3200m2+800m2=20 2200m Max. Bonus: 0,2x16 000m2 = 3200m2 000m2

2

4.

4600m

2

3.

4600m

2

2.

2 2

1.

4.

2

3.

4600m2

2.

4600m2 2200m2

1.

4.

3.

4 krs 2.

Double height spaces

4600m2 4600m22 4600m 4600m2 4600m22 2200m

3 krs 1.

2 krs

“PUBLIC CHARACTER”

2 4600m 4600m2

1 4 krs

4600m

2

3 krs

2200m2

2 krs

4600m2 4600m2

1 krs 4 krs

4600m2 2 1200m 2200m2

3 krs 5 krs krs 2 4 krs 1 krs 3 krs

Max. POPS: 0,25 x 3200m2 = 800m2

2200m 4600m TOTAL: 16 000m2+3200m2+800m2=20 000m2 4600m

1. The original program of the competition (16 000m2) would result in 3,5 stories.

Double height spaces

“PUBLIC CHARACTER”

Double height spaces

“PUBLIC CHARACTER”

4600m2 4600m2 4600m2

2 krs 5 krs 2. If the ground floor is openedPALVELUITA, with double“AVOIN heightLUONNE” spaces the building would be 4 stories high.

2 4600m 1 krs 4 800m2 3800m2 3 krs

1800m2

2 krs

1200m22 3800m 4600m2

5 1 krs 4 krs

4600m2

3 krs

1800m 4400m2 3800m22 4600m

2 krs 5 krs 1 4 krs krs

4600m2

3 krs

1800m 4400m

2 4600m 3800m2

2 krs 5 krs 1 4 krs

4600m2

3 krs

Double height spaces

1800m

2

2 krs

“PUBLIC CHARACTER”

4400m 3800m 4600m2

5 krs 1 4 krs

POPS 800m2

POPS 4x POPS 800m2

POPS 4x POPS 800m2

POPS 4x POPS 800m2

PALVELUITA, “AVOIN LUONNE”

2

PALVELUITA, “AVOIN LUONNE” Double height spaces

“PUBLIC CHARACTER”

2 2

2 2

4600m2 high.

3. With the 20 % bonus floor area and the POPS, the building would be 5 stories

POPS 800m2

Double height spaces

“PUBLIC CHARACTER”

1800m

2

3800m2

3 krs 2 krs 1 krs

C. Design //

4600m2

2. Concept

1800m22 1200m

POPS

121

Concept axonometric view

+2.2

1. Object

4. Materiality

As the city demands the ground floor of the building to have an open nature, then the POPS has to separate itself by being an object.

The blue rubber material of the public space morphs with the material of the POPS, in that way separating from the formal office material palette of the host building.

+2.2

+3.4

+2.2

+3.4

2. Height

5. Form

Using the breakwater to bring the public space and the commercial space on two different levels, +2.2 and 3.4.

The host building has a formal language, whereas the POPS has a more playful and organic shape.

+2.2

+3.4

3. Orientation +2.2

+3.4

Public and private circulation and apporach paths are separated as much as possible.

2. Concept

Switching the public space and the POPS orientation to match the city center grid but also differentating from the host building.

6. Circulation

+3.4

C. Design //

.2

2.4 POPS separation

123

+

Pe

de

1

str

ian

1

th

Public space

Ho

st

bu 2

ion

POPS

taj

an

ok

ka

gr

id

or

ien

tat

City grid orientation

Ka

4

3

pa

Urban context 1:5000

ild

ing

Site

2. From the office terrace

3. From across the street

4. From across the harbour

C. Design //

3. Design proposal

1. From Satamakatu

125

View from across the harbour

Elevation

+49.20

+49.40

+26.90

+49.20 +10.40 +3.40

+2.20

Area Elevation Northeas 1:2000

+26.90 +17.60

+29.40 +22.80

+10.40 +3.40

+27.80 +21.50

C. Design //

+49.20

+43.30

3. Design proposal

Area Elevation Northwest 1:1000

Area Elevation Southwest 1:2000 127

View from the stairs towards the POPS

C. Design //

3. Design proposal

Plan

1:500

129

Inside the POPS

C. Design //

3. Design proposal

Section

1:500

131

From the waterfront path

133

Interior view

135

C. Design //

3. Design proposal

Helsinki City Hall

3. Rules and responsibilities The private owner of the building would be responsible for the physical aspects of the POPS. The developer would cover the cost of building the space in exchange for additional floor area. The owner of the building would maintain and, when necessary, repair the space. The city of Helsinki would provide security in the space with possibly hiring via a security company. Operation of the space such as events and maintaining the means for sport activities would be the responsibility of the city. Lastly, rules for the space would be set by the city.

For the owner, the POPS would be a kind of easement. As public spaces have been proved to increase the real estate value of surrounding buildings, this easement could in theory be beneficial for the developer.

This possible benefit would be in any case additional, as the developer would have already gotten bonus floor space via incentive zoning.

How the space is expected to be maintained and updates should be clearly stated at the beginning of the design phase. Rules would be set either case-by-case or preferably with a district plan. In the case of the South Harbour, the district could be as small as the harbour shoreline or as large as the whole city center. As the South Harbour will be redeveloped, a specific plan and rules for POPS for that area would make sense.

Maintenance would include cleaning, but also ensuring the functionality of heating, ventilation and other building services.

Rules should at the minimum be at a similar level than the maintenance level of city run sports facilities. The same level expectancy should be for repairs. As the POPS is a

sports space, surfaces are heavily used, but also because of being next to the sea, also outdoor surfaces are under harsh weather conditions.

Security should be handled by the city.

Problematics of POPSs are often related to security and the abuse of power by the private side. As the design proposal’s POPS should be no different in character than an outdoor sports and activity space, the need for security officials is not necessarily needed. If the owner of the building demands constant security for the space, a deal could be made where the city handles hiring the security company and billing the building owner for it. This system would ensure that the security officials would answer to the city and not the owner of the building.

Operation of the space would be run by the culture and leisure committee.

Maintenance of the sport equipment, for example goals and nets would be handled by the city’s maintenance department. The separation of maintenance and operation responsibilities is needed in order for the city to be able to use the space according to the needs of the public over time, while the cost for maintaining the space would still be the building owner’s responsibility.

As seen in previous POPS examples and case studies, the specifity of the rules but also the resources to enforce them affect the predictable outcome of the longterm publicness and quality of the space.

Therefore, rules should be detailed and set for the building’s lifetime.

137

Closing words The root issue this thesis examines is the lack of free public indoor spaces in Helsinki.

POPS can be an option and when done correctly it can ultimately create a win-winwin situation for the public governance, the private sector, and the general public.

POPSs are found in some of the largest cities around the world. Helsinki is not yet comparable to those cities, but as the city grows, it faces new challenges. As land value rises, public space becomes an increasingly more expensive commodity. By looking at how larger cities have faced this issue, learning from their successes and failures, is imperative. As the trend of privatization is growing in cities worldwide, having zoning laws that allow for the creation of POPS is one way to ensure the creation of public spaces.

A POPS created with incentives is a highly market-driven tool in zoning. The benefit would be that wherever private buildings are built, a small portion would be public.

A balance would be achieved as the more private buildings would be built, the more public spaces would be created in the same locations.

In order to have a win-win-win situation, the developer should voluntarily want to build additional floor area. Secondly, the city should be setting clear limits when zoning lots and areas. Finally, the citizens should feel like more public indoor spaces is a justifiable trade-off for less light and air in the city. All of the previous points would be assessed in the detailed planning process where plans, including the POPS, would be released to the public.

In this thesis, a large portion is dedicated to finding ways of securing the publicness of the POPS. Making sure that the space is part of the public sphere, but also convincing the general public that a POPS is no different from a publicly owned public space is crucial in the success of the

space. Mainly, what should be agreed on between the private and the public sector is how the control of the space is released from the private sector to the public sector.

Therefore, the perception of the space should be equivalent to a normal public space.

Privately owned public spaces or open spaces shown in this thesis are mostly high-quality spaces that are well designed.

In most cases, controversies related to the spaces are not results of deteriorations of the physical space itself, but the deterioration of publicness.

The idea with the design proposal is to tie the POPS to a publicly owned space. This solidifies the threshold between the private and public spaces. It is more important that the POPS is separated from the private functions of the site, than from other public spaces under different ownership. In a way, a similar collaboration can be thought of as a PPP, but instead of creating one project, it results in two projects that are well linked together.

A POPS should be examined in various fields before being implemented in Helsinki.

I hope the subject will be researched further with more disciplines involved. A research team including planners, lawyers, sociologists, economists, and designers could achieve comprehensive guidelines and regulations for POPSs in Helsinki.

Personally, research on the subject and experimentation with the idea of introducing POPS as a space type in Helsinki has been a thrilling exercise.

Taking on issues I have personally found problematic while implementing solutions, ideas and designs I am interested in, have made the thesis a personal quest, although taking on societal issues.

Again, I would like to thank everyone who has helped along the way making this thesis possible.

139

REFERENCES Literature Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L.G. & Stone, A.M. (1992). Public space. Cambridge England: Cambridge University Press.

Benn, S. & Gaus. G.F. (1983). Public and private in social life.

London: Croom Helm.

Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.

Hofstede, G. (1994). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind: intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. London: HarperCollins.

Janssen-Jansen, L., Spaans, M. & van der Veen, M. (2008).

New instruments in spatial planning: An international perspective on non-financial compensation. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Lehtovuori, P., Ekroos, A., Kuusela, K., Rantanen, A., Rajaniemi, J. & Schmidt-Thomé, K. (2019). Tulevaisuuskatsaus eräiden maiden alueidenkäytön suunnittelujärjestelmiin.

Ympäristöministeriö. Available at (Accessed Mar 14, 2020): http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/161779.

Pratt, A. (2017). The rise of the quasi-public space and its consequences for cities and culture. Palgrave Communications, 3(1), pp. 1-4.

Kayden, J.S & New York Department of City Planning & Municipal Art Society of New York. (2000). Privately owned public space: the New York City experience. New York: John Wiley.

Public life in private hands Managing London’s public space.

(2011). London Assembly. Available at (Accessed Mar 10, 2020): https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gla_migrate_files_destination/Public%20space%20June%20 2011%20Webme.pdf.

Koolhaas, R. (1994). Delirious New York: a retroactive manifesto for Manhattan. Rotterdam: 010 Publ.

Madanipour, A. (2003). Public and private spaces of the city.

London: Routledge.

Sijbrandij, J. (2018). The privatisation of public space in Amsterdam: Divergent perceptions of public and private sector actors. Available at (Accessed Mar 20): https://scripties.uba.uva.nl/scriptie/670511.

Madanipour, A. (2003). Public and Private Spaces of the City. London: Routledge.

Melik, R. (2008). Changing public space: The recent redevelopment of Dutch city squares. Available at (Accessed Mar 20): https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/handle/2066/139835.

McKeon, R. (1992). Introduction to Aristotle. New York: Modern Library.

Miller, K.F. (2007). Designs on the Public The Private Lives of New York’s Public Spaces. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Whyte, W.H. & Underhill, P. (2009). City Rediscovering the Center. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Publications and online articles Carmona, M. (2019). Does it really matter who owns it?

RICS MODUS, Public Space Issue, Iss. 2, 2019, pp. 17.

Carmona, M., Hanssen, G.S., Lamm, B., Nylund, K., Saglie, I. & Tietjen, A. (2019). Public space in an age of austerity.

Urban Design International, 24(4), pp. 241-259. Available at (Accessed Mar 25, 2020): https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/331134102_Public_space_in_an_age_of_austerity Dimmer, C., Kurose, T., Maekawa, A., Tchapi, M., Shih, P., Lien, C., Hou, J., Baba Y., Fuhrmann, E., Beza, B., Xing, N.m Anurakpradorn, S., Berding, U., Havermann A., Pegels, J., Hsu, Y. & Siu, M. (2013). Privately owned public space: The international perspective. Available at (Accessed Mar 19, 2020: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303878719_Privately_Owned_Public_Space_The_International_Perspective_gonggongkongjiantoshitenominyougongkaikongde_shijienoshilitoxintanafazhan.

Dowdy, C. (2019) Privately owned public space: does it matter who owns it? Rics 25.2.2019. Available at (Accessed Mar 5, 2020): http://www.rics.org/uk/news-insight/future-of-surveying/sustainability/privately-owned-public-space-doesit-matter-who-owns-it/.

News and articles Arkkitehti 1/2000. (2000) Sanomatalo. pp. 64-71.

Brännare, S. (2017) Toimistotiloista on taas kysyntää – Helsingin keskustassa vuokrat jo nousussa. Yle 21.5.2017.

Available at (Accessed Mar 5, 2020): https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-9624593.

Cathcart-Keays, A., Larsson, N., Michael, C. & Shenker J. (2017) Revealed: the insidious creep of pseudo-public space in London. The Guardian 24.7.2017. Available at (Accessed Mar 8, 2020): https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/ jul/24/revealed-pseudo-public-space-pops-london-investigation-map Cecco, L. (2019) ‘Surveillance capitalism’: critic urges Toronto to abandon smart city project. The Guardian 6.6.2019.

Available at (Accessed Mar 5, 2020): https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/06/toronto-smart-city-google-project-privacy-concerns.

Dunlap, D. (2008) From Underused Public Space to Cultural Commons. The New York Times 8.6.2008.

Available at (Accessed Mar 11, 2020): https://www.nytimes. com/2006/06/08/nyregion/08blocks.html Garrett, B. (2015) The privatisation of cities’ public spaces is escalating. It is time to take a stand. The Guardian 4.8.2015.

Available at (Accessed Mar 10, 2020): https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/04/pops-privately-owned-publicspace-cities-direct-action.

Hartmans, A. (2016) Apple’s retail boss wants Apple stores to resemble ‘town squares’. Business Insider 20.8.2016. Available at (Accessed Mar 31, 2020): https://www.businessinsider.com/angela-ahrendts-apple-stores-social-2016-8.

REFERENCES Helsingin Telakkaranta uudistuu. Projektiuutiset 17.1.2019.

Available at (Accessed Mar 5, 2020): https://www.projektiuutiset.fi/helsingin-telakkaranta-uudistuu/.

Helsinki myynee Telakkarannan kymmenien miljoonien tontit Skanskalle. Rakennuslehti 1.7.2014. Available at (Accessed Apr 1, 2020): https://www.rakennuslehti.fi/2014/01/ helsinki-myynee-telakkarannan-kymmenien-miljoonien-tontit-skanskalle/.

Holmila, P. (2019) Uusi ”supermuseo” aiotaan runnoa läpi ilman aitoa kilpailua – Suunnitelma sotii Suomen arkkitehtuuri­ menestyksen luonutta perinnettä vastaan.

Helsingin Sanomat 29.4.2019. Available at (Accessed Mar 5, 2020): https://www.hs.fi/kulttuuri/art-2000006087145. html.

Pukkila, O. (2016) Guggenheim-museo kaatui selkein luvuin – päätöstä edelsi kiivas ja tunteikas keskustelu. Yle 1.12.2016.

Available at (Acessed Apr 2, 2020): http://yle.fi/uutiset/guggenheim-museo_kaatui_selkein_luvuin__paatosta_edelsi_kiivas_ja_tunteikas_keskustelu/9326966.

Repo, H. (2018) Rakentaminen käy kuumana, vaikka yli miljoona neliötä toimistotilaa seisoo Helsingin seudulla tyhjänä – kiinteistösijoittaja Silverang T&T:lle: “Suurin osa pitäisi purkaa”. Talouselämä 8.20.2018. Available at (Accessed Mar 5, 2020): https://www.talouselama.fi/uutiset/ rakentaminen-kay-kuumana-vaikka-yli-miljoona-neliota-toimistotilaa-seisoo-helsingin-seudulla-tyhjana-kiinteistosijoittaja-silverang-ttlle-suurin-osa-pitaisi-purkaa/212de9e8-374c-3bcb-9bfa-89a5eb83b964.

Holmila, P. (2013) Skandaali Katajanokalla. Uusi Suomi 19.12.2013. Available at (Accessed Apr 2, 2020): https://www. uusisuomi.fi/uutiset/skandaali-katajanokalla/49eca463-843 6-3ed1-9cf9-47672998771d.

Shenker, J. (2017) Revealed: the insidious creep of pseudo-public space in London. The Guardian 24.7.2017.

Available at (Accessed Mar 5, 2020): https://www. theguardian.com/cities/2017/jul/24/revealed-pseudo-public-space-pops-london-investigation-map.

Hämäläinen, J. (2014) Skanska kärkkyy Elmulle luvattua konepajaa. Helsingin Uutiset 24.3.2014. Available at (Accessed Apr 1, 2020): https://www.helsinginuutiset.fi/artikkeli/159498-skanska-karkkyy-elmulle-luvattua-konepajaa.

The world’s most valuable resource is no longer oil, but data.

The Economist 6.5.2017. Available at (Accessed Apr 2, 2020): https://www.economist.com/leaders/2017/05/06/theworlds-most-valuable-resource-is-no-longer-oil-but-data.

Kiistelty designhotelli ei nouse Katajanokalle. Yle 8.4.2010.

Available at (Accessed Apr 2, 2020): http://yle.fi/uutiset/kiistelty_designhotelli_ei_nouse_katajanokalle/6152899.

Tiikkaja, S. (2019) ”Harvemmin tulee hyvää lopputulosta” – Arkkitehdit eivät kannata Guggenheimin tontille suunnitellun museon toteutustapaa. Helsingin Sanomat 30.4.2019.

Available at (Accessed Mar 5, 2020): https://www.hs.fi/kulttuuri/art-2000006089428.html.

Kimmelman, M. (2019) Hudson Yards Is Manhattan’s Biggest, Newest, Slickest Gated Community. Is This the Neighborhood New York Deserves? The New York Times 14.3.2019.

Available at (Accessed Mar 7, 2020): https://www.nytimes. com/interactive/2019/03/14/arts/design/hudson-yardsnyc.html?mtrref=www.google.com&assetType=REGIWALL&mtrref=www.nytimes.com&assetType=REGIWALL Loeb, W. (2018) Amazon Is The Biggest Investor In The Future, Spends $22.6 Billion On R&D. Forbes 1.11. 2018.

Available at (Accessed Mar 5, 2020): https://www.forbes. com/sites/walterloeb/2018/11/01/amazon-is-biggest-investor-for-the-future/.

Lättilä, H. (2017) Ulkomaiset sijoittajat rynnivät jälleen Suomen kiinteistömarkkinoille. Rakennuslehti 22.9.2017.

Available at (Accessed Apr 1, 2020): https://www.rakennuslehti.fi/2017/09/ulkomaiset-sijoittajat-rynnivat-jalleen-suomen-kiinteistomarkkinoille/.

Manninen, A. (2012) Sanooko kolmas kerta toden Katajanokalla? Helsingin Sanomat 15.4.2012. Available at (Accessed Apr 2, 2020): https://www.hs.fi/kaupunki/art2000004868044.html.

Marable, L. (2019) Myöhäis­kapitalistinen kaupunki. Arkkitehti 6/2019. Available at (Accessed Mar 12, 2020): https:// www.ark.fi/fi/2019/06/myohaiskapitalistinen-kaupunki/ Oksanen, K. (2000) Helsinki päättää tänään uudesta jätti­ areenasta – Kuvat näyttävät, miten Töölön maisema mullistuisi. Helsingin Sanomat 12.2.2000. Available at (Accessed Apr 1, 2020): https://www.hs.fi/kaupunki/art2000006404340.html.

Timonen, J. (2015) Länsimainen ihminen viettää 90 prosenttia ajastaan sisätiloissa – huonosta ilmasta valittajia ei vieläkään oteta tosissaan. Helsingin Sanomat 1.8.2015. Available at (Accessed Apr 1, 2020): https://www.hs.fi/talous/art2000002842239.html.

Yakas, B. (2019) PSA: The Hudson Yards ‘Vessel’ Has The Right To Use All The Photos & Videos You Take Of It Forever. Gothamist 18.3.2019. Available at (Accessed Mar 5, 2020): https://gothamist.com/arts-entertainment/psa-the-hudson-yards-vessel-has-the-right-to-use-all-the-photos-videos-you-take-of-it-forever.

Internet sites and databases Bunkkeri Hybrid. B&M Architects, 2016. Available at (Accessed Mar 17, 2020): http://www.bm-ark.fi/bunkkeri/.

Definitions for public and private. The Cambridge English Dictionary. Available at (Accessed Mar 5, 2020): https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/public.

Design guidelines and good practice guide for privately owned public spaces (POPS). Circular to professional institutes. Singapore Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2017 Detailed Planning in Helsinki. Helsinki City Planning, 2013.

Available at (Accessed Feb 16, 2020): https://www.hel.fi/ hel2/ksv/julkaisut/esitteet/esite_2012-3.pdf

141

REFERENCES ELMU ry:n 3-tonninen edistyy!. Skanska Oy, 2016. Available at (Accessed Apr 1, 2020): https://www.skanska.fi/ tietoa-skanskasta/media/uutiset/168968/ELMU-ry-n-3tonninen-edistyy-.

Helsinki valittiin Suomen liikkuvimmaksi kunnaksi Urheilugaalassa. Press release. Helsingin kaupunki, 2020. Available at (Accesed Mar 5, 2020): https://helsinkiliikkuu.fi/ helsinki-valittiin-suomen-liikkuvimmaksi-kunnaksi-urheilugaalassa/.

Helsingin kaupungin talousarvio 2020 ja taloussuunnitelma 2020–2022. Helsingin kaupunki, 2019. Available at (Accessed Mar 5, 2020): https://www.hel.fi/Helsinki/fi/kaupunki-ja-hallinto/strategia-ja-talous/talousarvio/.

Kayden, J. 61 West 62nd Street – David Rubenstein Atrium.

APOPS, Available at (Accessed Mar 5, 2020): https://apops. mas.org/pops/m070016/.

Kiinteistölautakunnan esitys kaupunginhallitukselle kiinteistönkaupan esisopimuksen tekemiseksi ja tonttien myymiseksi (Kaartinkaupunki, Kasarmitori, tontit 3048/2 ja 7).

Helsingin kaupunki, 2015. Available at (Mar 5, 2020): https:// dev.hel.fi/paatokset/asia/hel-2015-003739/klk-2015-7/.

Liite poikkeamishakemukseen, Helsinki Allas Oy, 2016.

Luonnon terveysvaikutusten tutkimus laajenee. Press release. Metsäntutkimuslaitos, 2009. Available at (Accessed Mar 5, 2020): http://www.metla.fi/tiedotteet/2009/2009-04-29-lvvi.htm.

Muutos vuokrasopimukseen, SkyWheel Helsinki Oy (Katajanokka). Helsingin kaupunki, 2017. Available at (Accessed Apr 2, 2020): https://dev.hel.fi/paatokset/asia/hel-2017002589/.

Mäkinen, J. (2019) Aikuisväestön liikunnan harrastaminen.

Research Institute for Olympic Sports. Available (Accessed Mar 24, 2020): https://www.urheilututkimukset.fi/web/julkaisut/7422/.

Network of public spaces – an idea handbook. The Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation. Oslo, 2019. Available at (Accessed Mar 12, 2020): https://www.regjeringen. no/en/dokumenter/network-of-public-spaces----an-ideahandbook/id2524971/.

Pirinen, P., Simola, H., Aalto, J., Kaukoranta, J., Karlsson, P. & Ruuhela, R. (2012). Tilastoja Suomen ilmastosta 1981–2010.

Ilmatieteen laitos.

Privatisation of public space – an inevitable rise in privately owned public spaces whithin our cities by 2040. CBRE. Available at (Accessed Mar 5, 2020): https://www.cbre.co.uk/ research-and-reports/our-cities/privatisation-of-public-space.

Pormestari Jan Vapaavuori: Liikkuminen on liikuntaa tärkeämpää. Press release. Helsingin kaupunki, 2018. Available at (Accessed Apr 1, 2020): https://www.hel.fi/uutiset/ fi/kulttuurin-ja-vapaa-ajan-toimiala/pormestari-jan-vapaavuori-liikkuminen-on-liikuntaa-tarkeampaa.

Putkonen, L (2010). Katajanokan kanavaterminaalin alue; asemakaavahistoria, rakennushistoria ja kaupunkikuvan kehitys, 2010. Available at (Accessed Apr 2, 2020): https:// www.hel.fi/static/helsinki/paatosasiakirjat/Kvsto2010/Esityslista6/liitteet/Katajanokan_Kanavaterminaalin_alue_ asemakaavahistoria.pdf?Action=sd&id=%7B7A1079D5FF8F-4AE7-BC58-3E570113F16A%7D. Secrets of San Francisco. The Urbanist. Iss. 478. 1/2009.

Available at (Mar 5, 2020): https://www.spur.org/publications/spur-report/2009-01-01/secrets-san-francisco.

South harbour masterplan – ALA Architects, 2008. Available at (Accessed Mar 17, 2020): http://ala.fi/work/south-harbour-masterplan/.

Sidewalk Lab RFP. Offer document from Google to Toronto city about housing. Available at (Accessed Apr 4, 2020): https://www.sidewalktoronto.ca/documents/ The Harmony, Building Review. City Reality. Available at (Accessed Mar 5, 2020): https://www.cityrealty.com/nyc/ lincoln-center/the-harmony-61-west-62nd-street/7738.

The Public Space Issuea. Rics Modus, 2019. Available at (Accessed Mar 31, 2020): http://www.rics.org/uk/news-insight/ publications/modus/the-public-space-issue/.

Tilastokeskus – Vapaa-aikatutkimus - Vapaa-ajan merkitys lisääntynyt. Tilastokeskus, 2017. Available at (Acessed Apr 1, 2020): http://www.stat.fi/til/vpa/2002/vpa_2002_2005-0126_tie_001.html.

Toimitilamarkkinat Helsingissä ja pääkaupunkiseudulla syksyllä. Kaupunkitutkimus ja -tilastot. Helsingin kaupunki; kaupunginkanslia, 2018.

Toronto Tomorrow. Sidewalk Toronto. Available at (Accessed Feb 27, 2020): https://www.sidewalktoronto.ca/documents/.

Töölönlahden aloitusale, Asemakaavan muutoksen selotus, asemakaava 10275. Helsingin kaupunki, 1996.

Zoning resolution. The City Of New York City Planning Commission. Available at (Accessed Feb 14, 2020): https:// zr.planning.nyc.gov/.

Video and other media Privately Owned Public Spaces: Let’s Invigorate the Inventory. The Municipal Art Society of NY. 8.11.2012. Available at (Accessed Mar 25, 2020): https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=3o5VsjHrKIk. Selling space – Britain’s public spaces going private.

Channel 4 News. 12.2.2016. Available at (Accessed Mar 8, 2020): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yMuZ6m9MeE&t=185s.

Winy Maas on innovating into the future of architecture.

Design Indaba, 7.72017. Available at (Accessed Mar 28, 2020): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfrvKNPP6us&t=1086s

REFERENCES Pictures All graphics and pictures not leasted below are taken or made by the author Aleksi Vuola.

17.1 Empire State Building. Mark Asthoff, 2015 https://unsplash.com/photos/Y_7wXiRn_J8 17.2 Seagram building http://375parkavenue.com/Building 17.3 Zucotti park, Paul Hermans, 2017 22 Zucotti park protest https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/ story/2014/02/potential-en-masse/

52.3 Sanomatalo www.canon.fi 54.1 Itämerentori https://exilion.fi/ 54.2 Itämerentori https://exilion.fi/ 54.3 Itämerentori https://helinco.fi/ 56.1 Think Corner. https://jkmm.fi/work/think-corner-helsinki-university/

26 Giovanni Battista Nolli-Nuova Pianta di Roma (1748) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Giovanni_Battista_Nolli-Nuova_Pianta_di_Roma_(1748)_05-12.JPG

56.2 Think Corner. https://jkmm.fi/work/think-corner-helsinki-university/

38 Black Friday. https://www.evropa2.cz/clanky/ulety/lidese-mezi-sebou-rvali-mrknete-na-prehlidku-toho-nejsilenejsiho-co-se-stalo-na-black-friday

96 Kasarmitori 21, Mikael Lindén

42.1 IBM Atrium www.590madisonavenue.com/

100 Telakkaranta Huttunen-Lipasti Arhchitects

42.2 IBM Atrium www.mas.org

102 Telakkaranta Lundgaard&Tranberg Arkitekter

44.1 AT&T Galleria Source: www.mas.org

106 Pääkonttori havainnekuva 1, 2019 Arkkitehdit Soini & Horto

44.2 AT&T Galleria http://www.590madisonavenue.com/

112 Alvar Aalto-säätiö / Fleig 1963.

44.3 AT&TGalleria https://ny.curbed.com/2019/2/12/18222131/landmarks-preservation-commission-postmodern-snohetta-550-maidson-avenue

136 City Hall. MIKA RANTA / HS https://www.hs.fi

56.3 Think Corner. https://jkmm.fi/work/think-corner-helsinki-university/

118 Kasarmitori 21, Mikael Lindén

46.1 Kayden et al. (2000) https://apops.mas.org 46.2 David Rubenstein Atrium. Kayden et al. (2000) https:// apops.mas.org 46.3 David Rubenstein Atrium. http://twbta.com/ 48.1 Martkhal. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index. php?title=Special:Search&limit=250&offset=0&ns0=1&n s6=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1&search=markthal&advancedSearch-current={}#/media/File:NL-Rotterdam-markthal.jpg 48.2 Markthal. https://www.flickr.com/photos/dordrecht-holland/15483570396 48.3 Markthal. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ File:Markthal_Rotterdam_B.jpg 50.1 Timmerhuis. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ File:Timmerhuis_-_Rotterdam_06.jpg 50.2 TImmerhuis. https://www.wernersobek.de/en/projects/status/completed/stadskantoor-rotterdam/ 52.1 Sanomatalo www.sarc.fi 52.2 Sanomatalo www.sanoma.fi

143

Aleksi Vuola

POPS: Privately Owned Public Space HOW TO HARNESS PRIVATE CAPITAL TO CREATE PUBLIC INDOOR SPACES IN HELSINKI, FINLAND Tampere University Faculty of management and built environment School of Architecture Master’s thesis April 2020