Local politics and planning over transnational initiatives: the case of Guggenheim Helsinki

Abstract

There has been a tendency to portray municipalities as prone recipients of transnational growth-oriented development initiatives. The processes of transferring transnational urban development models are increasingly depicted as progressively de-politicized, with an emphasis on ‘strategic projects’ over long-term general planning. This study investigating the Guggenheim Helsinki museum initiative (2011–2016) provides one counter-example to highlight the relevance of local politics and planning. In Helsinki, the mayor-driven attempt at de-politicization was quickly rejected by the city council, which instead kept the initiative under political control, supported by a rich public debate highlighting crucial weaknesses and risks in the proposals. The municipality tried negotiating a better deal and adapting the initiative to the local context, including the museum design being shaped by Helsinki’s planning ideals and guidelines. However, the initiative was eventually rejected after a negative risk assessment showing too much dependence on public funding. The study shows that, instead of acting as prone recipients, cities may invest in public debate, improve their ability to assess projects, and avoid bypassing regulations, planning procedures or democratic decision making as if this was required by generic forces of globalization.

Notes

1. Among all cities in which Guggenheim conducted viability studies or made further proposals, Helsinki is the only one in which all the documents were made public, given the transparency rules of the local administration.

2. In the final vote in Helsinki City Council in 2016, the initiative gained most support from right-wing National Coalition Party (12–9 pro-contra) and Central Party (3–0). It divided especially the politically central liberal parties, the Greens (11–11) and the Swedish National Party (3–3). The leftist Social Democrats (3–12), the Left Party (0–11) were mostly against, as were the populist True Finns (1–6) and others (0–2). The most visible politicians in the debate included the head of City Government Tatu Rauhamäki (National Coalition Party, pro), the head of Social Democrats group Osku Pajamäki (against), and members of City Government Kaarin Taipale (Social Democrats, against) and Hannu Oskala (the Greens, pro).

3. A marketing study reported during the preparations revealed that among 250 Chinese, Japanese and South Korean travellers interviewed at Helsinki airport or in front of the city’s main sights, only 20% knew what the Guggenheim museum was and only 10% had visited any of the museums (Sundqvist 2016).

4. The point of the Next Helsinki ‘anti-competition’ was to argue against “a give-away of government funds ... to this Starbucks museology” and to “inquire as to whether this very valuable site in this wonderful city can’t somehow be leveraged beyond a franchise museum building”, as explained by one of the organizers, urbanist Michael Sorkin (Edelson 2015).