Balancing on the trapeze of building conservation The legal protection of historic buildings and the built environment in western nations has developed fundamentally within recent decades. Acknowledging their value nevertheless proceeds as a cumbersome and seemingly never-ending process – but with the outcome that, as with aspirations of environmentalist groups, as well as human rights and minority groups, it eventually becomes integrated and generally accepted in society. There is a continuous struggle over both the buildings to be protected and the methods to repair them. Some would refurbish an old building using harsh measures, denigrating it in the thorough renewal to such an extent that the building is unrecognisable, while others would repair it with such reverence that the changes can hardly be noticed. This issue of ark presents different examples of extensions and repairs of old buildings. It is easier to protect the architecture of a heroic architect The buildings designed by Alvar Aalto form the vanguard ofthe Finnish modernist building heritage, the value of which has already been quite widely accepted. Architects Maija Kairamo and Hanni Sippo present an overview of the problems related to the repair of Aalto’s buildings. It is only now that we are beginning to understand that a vast number of valuable buildings in Finland are due for extensive renovation. Very few inventories have been made of post-war buildings. For instance, none of the buildings designed by Raili and Reima Pietilä are protected; to mention just one example, the Dipoli Student Union building, a central work of 1960’s Finnish architecture, has been mauled by numerous alterations. Why does Oulu destroy its history? While the systematic demolition of the historic wooden districts of Oulu in north Finland has been brought almost to a conclusion, the valuable masonry buildings in the centre of the city have become, one after another, victims of facadism. If a building in Oulu is ‘protected’ usually it is only the facades that have been spared, while extra floors or a noticeable attic extension might be added. It is a case of demolition and refurbishment property speculation. The owners of the buildings have a fairly free hand in defining the limits of protection, demolition or additional building, because the stipulations in the official Oulu town plan often require nothing more than the preservation of the facades along the main street. Why is it that in Oulu people act as if they were still living the heady years of technocracy of the 1960s? At the same time, a significant number of skilful conservations of modern buildings have been carried out in Helsinki, in which even the most minute details have been preserved. Strategy Protecting only parts of the building frame is the very travesty of building conservation. There is a need for an inventory of the more recent Finnish building stock, preservation and the updating of town plans, as well as further training of engineers and architects in matters of building restoration and conservation. So, there is certainly no shortage of challenges. One excellent answer to the questions of building conservation can be found in Rakennusperintöstrategia [Building Heritage Strategies] authorised by the Finnish Council of State. It is a national programme of action for the protection of Finnish historical buildings. According to the Finnish constitution, the responsibility for the environment and the cultural heritage belongs to each and every citizen. 7.10.2001 Harri Hautajärvi