The document discusses the critical heritage studies approach, emphasizing the dynamic interplay between cultural heritage, power relations, and community engagement. It highlights the collaboration between cultural heritage experts and residents in the context of urban planning, particularly in the case of wooden Käpylä. The analysis reveals diverse conceptions of cultural heritage among the public and experts, raising questions about the validity of existing narratives and their implications for urban development.

1. Communicating cultural heritage –
nostalgia, expert knowledge and the
antithesis of cultural environment protection
Aura Kivilaakso, PhD, Senior Advisor
University of Turku & National Board of Antiquities
Workshop: Experts, Communities and the Negotiation of the Experience of Modernity
Tampere 21.9.2017

2. Eino Saarela Rossi 2012. CC-BY 4.0

3. Eino Saarela Rossi 2011. CC-BY 4.0

4. Uusi Suomi 18.2.1967.
Hufvudstadsbladet 23.2.1964.
Käpylä-lehti 1/1960.
Helsingin Sanomat 22.9.1966.

5. Critical Heritage Studies
A study that fits within the tradition of
critical heritage studies approaches the
subject in light of the discursive nature of
cultural heritage and of power relations.
What means critical approach?
 You do not take things for granted.
Museovirasto, Teuvo Kanerva 1975–1980. CC-BY 4.0

6. Science Communication
Maki Naro, CC BY 3.0

7. Wide arrange of participants
• Cultural environment
professionals
• Different kinds of associations
(professional and local)
• City planning department
• Planning architect
• Different kinds of city boards
• Town board
• City council
• Helsinki City Museum
• Architecture Museum
• Helsingin Kansanasunnot Oy
(rented apartments)
• Housing co-operatives
• Residents
• Political decision makers

8. 1) Historical significance
2) Deprivation and decay
3) Coziness
4) ”The excellence” of the residents
5) Disputable repair costs
6) Societal significance
7) Power relations
Discourses of Wooden Käpylä
Museovirasto, Volker von Bonin. CC-BY 4.0

9. My analysis reveals that in the dispute on Wooden Käpylä,
the voices of cultural heritage experts and residents were
united. Hence, they supported each other.
However, the study material included lot of nostalgic
writings that is not suitable for reasoning adopted by
cultural environment authorities.
Most important matters were continuity, pleasantness,
economic factors and power relations related to urban
planning.
What can we deduce of these discourses?
Otto Wuoria 1921, Helsingin kaupunginmuseo. CC-BY 4.0

10. Conceptions of cultural heritage may vary
• Stefan Bohman (2003):
1. Cultural heritage with positive
associations
2. All inclusive cultural heritage
3. Analytical cultural heritage
• There are differences between the
conceptions of general public and
(today’s) cultural environment experts –
but still, is an antithesis too strong word
to use?
Teuvo Kanerva, Museovirasto. CC-BY 4.0

11. Eino Saarela Rossi 2012. CC-BY 4.0
Thank you!
Aura Kivilaakso
aura.kivilaakso@museovirasto.fi
@AuraKivilaakso