c



    c

      

c
 
  
Introducing Espoo Suurpelto and its surroundings in its current form. Background information on
Espoo Suurpelto mainly by Jarno Suominen (Aalto University) and Olli-Pekka Hatanpää (Planning
Manager for Uudenmaan liitto).




 

   

- Orientation, Suominen Jarno presentation and the following discussion
- Discussion about Espoo Suurpelto and Espoo in general.

!
 

º
   
 

Discussion topics mainly concern Suominen͛s presentation and the discussion is somewhat
dominated by Suominen and often complemented by Hatanpää, the two who appear to be the most
knowledgeable of the current state of Espoo urban areas. The ͞Responsive City͟ view was
introduced, applying the T3 (tiede, taide talous) and expanding on the existing ͞Living campus͟,
͞Learning campus͟ and ͞Business campus͟, i.e. Tapiola, Otaniemi and Keilaniemi. Suurpelto was thus
introduced as the fourth new ͞campus͟. This could be considered complementary, meeting the new
demands of the new age. N.B. In a later working element of the session there was talk of branding
the area as the 21st Tapiola (co-branding), but this issue was countered by whether we͛re modelling
Suurpelto as a living environment where the residential aspect is emphasised (as could be said for
Tapiola).

Issue of urban sprawl has been considered problematic and something to be avoided and addressed
where possible. Suurpelto could be considered as an example of urban sprawl. However, natural
platforms such as the Metro can make

Some concerns were voiced over how much can be predetermined; much of the land is owned by
private investors and thus often one must remind oneself that one needs to sell the ideas.

While private land owners are dominant in the development process from a capital perspective, it
was suggested that ultimately Espoo City would be considered the main ͞customer͟ of the Espoo
Suurpelto project as it has the most at stake (or most to gain), a final note on a somewhat confusing
discussion on who would be clients/drivers of this project (to be separated from users or end-users
of which there was less talk). This discussion was in conjunction with discussion over brands and
their meaning. In this element, or phase of the session, could be summed with the stated statement
͞Brand is a promise, delivery is more difficult.͟ The issue of branding surfaced again towards the end
of the session and remains as one of the most discussed issues.
Suominen asks: ͞what makes you choose the area?͟ i.e. why Suurpelto?

Observer initiates the imagination session. This is the following discussion element.




 


   

The Observer initiates a three minute imaginary trip to Suurpelto area. The results of what people
imagined are written down in silence during the 30 seconds.

Observer: imagine ʹ closing eyes for three minutes, examining Suurpelto from within, figuring out
what is important, what makes you comfortable, what makes Suurpelto exceptionally great͙

!
 

º
   
 

People are openly expressing their view of the Espoo Suurpelto.





  

 
   

Openness, safety and vibrancy, space and harmony, proximity, self-expression. Ability to take care of
everyday activities. These are the key points emphasised through individual wishes. Although so far
no innovation or creating new has taken place, these personal experience and thoughts over
Suurpelto could be considered as a starting point towards innovation and these first steps were
made in the form of more active discussion as opposed to the Q&A ʹlike first element.

There was also some discussion over whether we are looking at Suurperto as an intermediary for
context or as a place. Emphasising context instead of place when talking about urban activity does
not go without opposition; place can be considered important (friends and family).

º

 

  


Suominen proposes that why invent new when you can go back. This is to activate new thoughts
how technology can enable to join past with future through technology. This can be best understood
through the analogy presented; a mini-cooper from the 1960s modernised with current technology
could be regarded as popular as ever. Question of preferences ʹ how do these change? How this
relate to urban area?

Olli-pekka: Do you agree that Espoo Suurpelto is a living area .. mentions also residential.
Mentioning of residential provokes discussion. However, the concept holistic area is agreed upon by
all. The question of customer is .. Branding is important ʹ this is questioned?

Questioning that is it wise to have different aspects in one place: elderly want peace and quiet while
children require stimulants. Branding is essentially.

Think locally, act globally. ..

 


 


   

Closing of the session, choosing the three most important ideas / issues. This sub-element should be
about 10 minutes, but expands to 30 minutes.

!
 

º
   
 

Brand issue is considered with enthusiasm, especially by Vrhovski and Kruzljak (students majoring in
marketing). This is countered by questioning whether there can be only one brand, as in
͞Suurpelto͟, or should different areas be branded (as has been done in business parks). Some
examples were provided for a single brand: Las vegas (fun), Paris (Love), but branding with a single
label was generally considered infeasible bar any possible new ideas over this part. It nevertheless
appears to be generally agreed that brands have many layers and each have different metrics. Co-
branding with Tapiola as the ͞New Tapiola of the 21st century͟ is suggested.

A final note from Hatanpää: Suurpelto could be considered a new complex on which one could be
willing to experiment what new services could be built. If the experiments are successful, Suurpelto
could be made an example (and as such will create brand value on its own as the recorder
understood).

"
  


 
 
 


   
1. Flexibility

2. Branding ʹ the importance is questioned, but the issue never abandoned. Different layers, and
different metrics for these ʹ expanded upon but no clear consensus.

3. Context. We need more information (!) ʹ the project is very broad and the time is insufficient for
the first day.

No post-its were collected as nothing was written to them. This is due to overshooting the allotted
time by 20 minutes already.