REUSE Author: Kimmo Lintula, K2S Architects Ltd., professor Aalto-University Helsinki Olympic Stadium Revitalized Introduction Helsinki Olympic Stadium is a national monument, a crown jewel of functionalistic reinforced concrete architecture in Finland. Since its inauguration the stadium presented first as the winning competition entry “1500” by architects Yrjö Lindegren and Toivo Jäntti has undergone several changes and extensions. These supplementary parts constructed in latter decades created valuable history of the relation between use and architecture in built form. It also has a significant symbolic value in the Finnish society; a tool to gain a nation international fame by combining forefront sports and architecture. Since it internationally well known and it has been researched and published widely I will point out features that either led to the current project presented as case study or ones that were to be evaluated during design process. Helsinki Olympic Stadium in its 30`s appearance met the criteria of utilitarian architecture in almost every levels; forms of the building, dimensioning of the spaces, choices of the materials and building techniques. The result of an open architectural competition, was built into a composition of vertical tower ( 70 meters tall) and horizontal stands. It had a canopy on its western main stand and a building beneath connected with a west wing museum. The interiors of the building were painted with earthly colors like chalk, green and gray. The concrete was cast in-situ and all surfaces of the construction were rendered and painted white excluding the stand A canopy which had a painted cast mold board surface. Benches were constructed out of linear timber bars and treated with linseed oil. The stands and the facades behind have been constantly evolving with capacity and appearance when stadium has been prepared for coming large scale events; first the 30s` (20 000) then the streamlined temporary wooden stands for the Summer Olympics 1940 (50 000), then the horizontally meandering mix of temporary timber and permanent concrete construction with vertical wooden claddings to finally host the Summer Olympic Games in 1952 (70 000). After the Olympics major changes were the new premises under the southern stand and northern stand a (1953-1961, Toivo Jäntti), a series of changes in interiors (1953-1961, Toivo Jäntti), the renovation and modernization of the stadium 1990-94 (Markku Aalto), where the cast-in-situ concrete structures were replaced by prefabricated concrete elements in the stands of the south, east and west, and the seats got carved backrest. 2003 as a result of an open international architectural competition stadium got a a permanent cover in the form of steel construction clad with wood on the eastern stand (Kimmo Lintula, Niko Sirola, Mikko Summanen). In 2010 new public facilities were built on the ground floor as well as the field went on a refurbishment in order to accomodate official IAAF track & field conditions as well as UEFA`s requirements of the dimensions of the field with capacity of 39 000 spectators (K2S Architects). The procedure to have building listed was proceeding at the same time and the new canopy became also part of the listed entirety in 2006. Heritage and lasting legacy Since Olympic Games it has been almost 70 years meaning that the building has had to adopt for several usage different from for what it had been originally designed for. Despite the remained symbolic value this has created a blurred combination of scattered functions and built add ons prevailing the original simplicity and pureness of the Helsinki Olympic Stadium. The core functions themselves; sports and events; have changed along with their functional requirements. A series of workshops were organized to find out the needs of the core needs of the stadium activities in the future context. Major stakeholders being national and international sport organizations, event organizers, agencies taking care of tourism and travel, athletes, artists, security and authorities as well. This exercise of defining “ the evolving functionality” was executed in six stages evolving each round more than 80 key groups. Historical building surveys (Mona Schalin) were supplemented with a document “building protection illustrated” defining the “physical heritage”. We created this document to understand written definitions in relation to built reality and further more to identify potential areas to accommodate the future functional needs. A series of technical surveys were done on the whole building for the evaluation of the physical condition of the stadium. Theoretical framework Discussions led in to a mutual understanding between the project partners on theoretical framework; the best way to preserve a building is to keep it in use. Helsinki Olympic Stadium remaining the number one national sport and multipurpose arena to be used daily by citizens and visitors was set as the goal. We concluded this in an assessment plan. Interventions were found justified and with them future goals could be reached. Extending the plot, refitting the tracks and playing field, covering the open stands, replacing the seats, reorganizing the flows and logistics, repairing the structures and facades were to be further motivated and analyzed by architectural design in the scope of preserving the historical and architectural values. Revitalizing The key question for us as architects was to understand how could we turn this historical stadium in to future arena and to maintain the heritage? We approached this question by using analytical methodologies and suggesting functional needs as key components of the listing features. To understand the physical effects of needed interventions a series of experiments were executed. This was to figure out ways of construction and to decide the relation between restoration, reconstruction and conservation. Approach We formed a interdisciplinary project group: K2S and NRT Architects supported with Wessel de Jonge and White architects. A tool set of methodological analyses was applied (with great input by Wessel de Jonge) resulting in the four following architectural approaches: First being preservation of 1930`s facades, interiors and canopy with restorational repairs. Secondly areas with new interventions and new additions: new canopies, new vomitories for the stands, reinforced concrete structures, unobstructed people flow routes, replacement of the stand C, new seats for all stands, new vertical connections in the building A and alterations for the ground floor premises in the building A. Thirdly modificative reconstruction of late 50`s facades with cladded timber facades and outdoor areas and the fence. Fourth being the new underground premises for logistics and multipurpose use in the western and northern parts and a new northern “square”. Method Based on the Historic Building Surveys transformation guidelines were formulated. These were then used as a frame of reference and compared with proposed interventions based on the future functional needs. This was to find out the most determent features for the architecture-historical value of the building or it`s parts. This analytical approach enabled us as a design team to discuss the interpretations with heritage authorities and other stakeholders to anticipate the needed transformations or re-designs. The elements considered ( case by case) were: 1. Urbanistic-historical value - Role of the building part in the whole ensemble and the way it is anchored in the urban and natural setting 2. Culture-historical value - Role of the building part in the representation of the whole ensemble in the cultural history or architecture and art and as a historical venue for sports and culture. 3. Typology - Role of the building part in the whole ensemble representing building typology of it`s era or as a functional structure related to logistics 4. Exterior - Role of the building part in the whole ensemble representing architecture-historical and material qualities 5. Interior - Role of the building part in the whole ensemble representing architecture-historical and material qualities 6. Service systems - The historical value of particular service system representing architecture-historical and material qualities The “transformation potency” of the suggestions was defined according to three categories: A. Limited transformation potency B. High transformation potency C. Mixed transformation potency. Case-study The following examples illustrate how the created methodology was used on the context based approaches. Basically the first thing to check by sketches was to study whether future functional needs could be fulfilled by just adjusting the way spaces are used or people flows are directed. This was identified as a design goal of “make most of what you got”. When needed the next step was to figure out interventions and analyze them through created method. At the same time these interventions were thoroughly studied in order to fulfill another design goal; “solve multiple problems with one architectural gesture”. This was then repeated till the set goal met the evaluated criteria from preservation point of view. The concrete canopy of the original 1930`s building stand A - Preservation with concervation Building A with it`s canopy is a central part of the ensemble recognized as the national venue for sports. This grand stand is marked in the urban environment by tower and a western façade organized in programmatic composition representing almost “