From Decay to Maintained Heritage
The Case of Sunila, a Residential Area in Finland

Iisa Arvelin [e-mail | Instagram]

How is the value of buildings created and affected? The case of Sunila – a modernist residential area designed by the famous Finnish architect Alvar Aalto in Kotka, Finland – gives insight into the value creation of buildings because after becoming an avoided decaying area, Sunila is changing into a glorious heritage. In claiming that such an enormous value change is possible, I utilise Michael Thompson’s rubbish theory and show how Sunila’s aesthetic, economic, physical and social value aspects have changed in line with the theory’s value categories: transient, rubbish and durable. In the end, Sunila’s journey through these three categories addresses that despite all the other aspects, value creation as a complex combination comes ultimately down to the social value; how people’s views and acts towards buildings – the maintenance – make the buildings valueless and valuable.

Introduction

Along a lake, in the middle of a pine forest emerges white buildings of different sizes and forms (see Figures 1, 3 and 4). There are three details which connect them to form a coherent living area; they are functionalist in their style, designed by the famous Finnish architect Alvar Aalto, and originally part of the Sunila Cellulose Factory. This area is called Sunila – a residential area in Kotka (see Figure 2). It takes only 20 minutes’ drive from the city centre of Kotka to Sunila, and one and a half hour from Helsinki, the capital of Finland (see Figure 5). It could be imagined that the various apartments of Sunila are desired as they should be good investments aesthetically and economically. Usually, the value of art, design or architecture increases with time, but surprisingly with Sunila it is a different case. The apartments of Sunila are sold with prices around 400 euros per square meter, whereas the prices in Helsinki are more than tenfold to that, around 5055 euros per square meter (Kymenlaakson Liitto 2020). Why are the apartments and buildings of Alvar Aalto, one of the greatest architects of Finland, worth almost nothing?

The case of Sunila got me to question the presumption that the value of art, design or architecture increases while it gets older. It may also lose its value, but what causes that? Therefore, I ask in this paper: what creates and affects the value of buildings, especially in the case of Sunila? Ian Steward has asked a similar question in his review of Michael Thompson’s Rubbish Theory: The Creation and Destruction of Value: “How does something second-hand become an antique?” (Thompson 2017, 3). It turns out that this change is not as simple as it seems to be, but even so, it is a universal phenomenon because according to Thompson, “People in different cultures may value different things, and they may value the same things differently, but all cultures insist upon some distinction between the valued and the valueless” (ibid., 20). Thompson has created a theory around this creation and change of value which he calls rubbish theory because he explains the change with the stage of the object: whether its value is transient, durable or rubbish. Therefore, value is tied to the object’s desirability and its durability which both are connected to social relation, the relation between humans and objects (ibid., 25–26). In turn, these two aspects are reliant on decay and maintenance – in other words, how the physical appearance of the object is taken care of.

Hence, I utilise Thompson’s rubbish theory as the mainstay of analysing the creation and change of the value of the buildings of Sunila as the theory intertwines two interesting aspects of Sunila: its decay and becoming heritage through maintenance. Therefore, this paper is in four parts: first, I introduce the case of Sunila with its architect Alvar Aalto. Second, I explore and reason Thompson’s rubbish theory, especially from the perspective of the buildings. Third, I apply the theory to analysing the value of the buildings with the case of Sunila. The theoretical stance of rubbish theory gives material on scrutinising Sunila from two viewpoints: through its decaying from transient to rubbish, and as the continuation of the transition, from rubbish to durable heritage through maintenance. This comparative discussion leads to the concluding part where I complete my argument that although the value is connected to a building’s aesthetic, economic and physical appearance, ultimately, it is created socially.

Alvar Aalto’s Sunila

Alvar Aalto (1898–1976) is the best-known Finnish architect and designer whose creations have been acknowledged worldwide (see Figure 6) (Alvar Aalto Foundation 2020). His architectural style has varied from Nordic Classicism to International Style but the turning points for him have been the periods of functionalism and modernism. Throughout his career, practicality considering a human scale, the atmosphere created by the used materials, and a building’s relationship to the nature surrounding it have been characteristic of Aalto (ibid.; Viljo 2000). With this distinctive vision, he has planned and designed aesthetic areas, individual buildings and furnishings (Viljo 2000). Many of the areas have been either institutional such as the Paimio Sanatorium – which started Aalto’s humanist approach to architecture – or industrial such as the Sunila Cellulose Factory (see Figures 7 and 8). Both were designed in the 1930s, Paimio first and then Sunila, and pioneered in the field of architecture because of Aalto’s way of connecting the humanist approach with institutional and industrial features (ibid.; Chapman & Roberts 2014).

In the case of Sunila, the humanist approach is apparent when Sunila is seen as a whole, consisting of the cellulose factory as well as the residential area around it. At first, Aalto was only commissioned to build a factory, but soon the residential area followed it as there was a need for housing the factory workers. The intention of having Aalto designing the Sunila residential area was to both lure the workers to the area and to the factory and keep them satisfied with the area’s living conditions and opportunities (Chapman & Roberts 2014, 80). Aalto’s own vision with the area was to create a classless architecture (ibid., 78; Viljo 2000). Nevertheless, he had to take into account the hierarchy of the factory and that is why there are distinct buildings for manager, engineers, foremen and workers in Sunila, albeit the buildings are spread over the mainland of Sunila like a hand fan forming a community with the factory as its beating heart on the island (see Figure 9) (Alvar Aalto Sunila 2020; Chapman & Roberts 2014, 82).

The local plan of Sunila shows as well how Aalto planned the area to be in harmony with the surrounding nature (see Figures 9 and 10). Built between 1936 and 1939, these manifold white modernist buildings which in some cases seem to threaten the laws of gravity still create an interesting contrast to the hillside and the pine forest where they are located. Especially famous amongst the buildings of Sunila are the terraced houses with their balconies, Karhu and Päivölä, because of their challenging construction technique, which has been acknowledged among architects even internationally (see Figure 11) (Alvar Aalto Sunila 2020). The elegance of the buildings of Sunila has been well preserved, at least in their façade. This seems to be a result of the acknowledgement of the Finnish Heritage Agency. The agency has defined Sunila as a nationally significant built cultural environment which means that along with the local planning the area is protected by the Act on the Protection of the Built Heritage. The ways to use and maintain the buildings have to guarantee that the architectural aesthetic is preserved permanently. Therefore, the materials and qualities of the buildings may not be transformed; if something must be replaced, it has to equate with the original solution. The surrounding nature has to be kept the same as well (Hänninen 2011, 6 & 15; Finnish Heritage Agency 2020).

The acknowledgement of the Finnish Heritage Agency implies that the residential area of Sunila has value – due to Aalto’s influence and its national recognition. Nevertheless, the selling prices of the apartments indicates something else as they are one-tenth of the selling prices of apartments in Helsinki today – and even though cheap prices might be a way to lure people to move there, Sunila has had trouble finding new residents (Kymenlaakson Liitto 2020; Tillaeus 2018). It has been proposed that this change in Sunila’s social structure has been the main reason behind Sunila’s reverse development of internationally appreciated architectural creation into avoided decaying area. When the Sunila Cellulose Factory sold the buildings at the end of the 1980s, they fell into many different actors from individuals to the city council of Kotka (Tillaeus 2018). In addition, the number of workers at the factory had decreased over the years, and therefore Sunila has needed new residents. The timing of the selling of Sunila’s buildings was challenging because the economic depression hit Finland hard at the beginning of the 1990s, and there were many unemployed in need of social support. While the city council placed people with social problems in the apartments of Sunila, the other landlords did not care about the social status of the residents either (ibid.). Therefore, Sunila has suffered many years from its reputation as a residential area of people with social problems. However, Sunila’s reputation is becoming better now, owing to its residential association called Pro Sunila Ry which was created in 2000 (Alvar Aalto Sunila 2020). These new residents of Sunila know and admire Aalto’s work and want to give it recognition. Nevertheless, many of them are either retired or working in a field which enables remote working because there are not many work opportunities or services offered in the Sunila area nowadays (Melender 2020). Thus, Sunila is an interesting case to analyse the value of buildings, especially the change of value, into which Thompson’s rubbish theory will give insight.

The value creation according to rubbish theory

Michael Thompson studied the creation and destruction of value and created a theory called rubbish theory (Thompson 2017). According to Thompson, value cannot be created without creating non-value at the same time (ibid., 3). Therefore, rubbish theory is based on categorising objects to value categories: transient and durable (ibid., 4). When an object belongs to the transient, it has value, but it decreases with time and thus the object, as well as its value, has a short lifespan. Whereas when the object belongs to the durable, it has a long lifespan as its value increases with time and thus lasts longer (ibid. 4 & 25). As an example, Thompson noted how people react differently to a vase when it is branded as an antique – a delicate and valuable piece of history – versus as secondhand, i.e. a worn and worthless piece of an old season (ibid. 24).

The categorisation of rubbish theory seems to be based not on an object’s natural and physical qualities, but it is rather based on social control – how people view and act towards objects (Thompson 2017, 25–26). Nevertheless, these two categories – transient and durable – are not enough to cover the variability of the value of objects, because they give only two options and keep them separate albeit the clear transition happening between them. Thompson plays with a riddle which describes how differently a rich man and a poor man sees rubbish to show the transition (ibid., 19–20). This could be contrasted with the old saying “One man’s trash is another man’s treasure” which indicates that there must be the transition from valueless to valuable happening in the object’s appreciation when its owner changes. That is why we need a third value category making the transition possible: rubbish (ibid., 5).

Thompson utilises rubbish as a staging post between transient and durable which are overt and simpler categories, whereas rubbish resides in the more covert category for objects with unchanging or no value (Thompson 2017, 27). Hence, rubbish creates a value and time vacuum in the middle of the journey of the transition from transient to durable – which is also the only direction for the transition as with the other directions, changes in time and value would be in contradiction (see Figure 12) (ibid., 4). The object has to first lose its value and become negligible in its value or valueless – such as rubbish – before it can gain value again, and thus, change its lifespan from temporary to permanent. According to Thompson, it is social control which categorises an object’s value and makes it possible to change the category and redefine the rubbish (ibid., 25–28). That redefining requires someone to see the potentiality – the durability – of the rubbish, which Thompson explains with the socioeconomic division which in turn has an influence on people’s world views (ibid., 58–60). Therefore, the social aspect which controls the rubbish theory comes down to world views.

People’s reactions to objects are based on their world views, which Thompson analyses by utilising Wittgenstein’s theory of aesthetic games. Aesthetics are socially embedded as aesthetic judgments are made more or less consciously by following the rules – world views – entrenched to us, steering us towards certain gestures and actions (Thompson 2017, 91–93). According to Wittgenstein, these ways to acknowledge value differ in different eras, but his answer to differing world views “in the same society at the same moment in time” is insufficient (ibid., 92 original emphasis). Hence, Thompson develops it by noting that world views may conflict, but that implies that there must be interaction between them to create a meeting point where these views are accommodating. Accommodating means keeping differing views but changing the actions for sustaining the mutual relationship (ibid., 93–95). Through actions, world views are expressed and realised which enables the formation of a new relationship or world view between them. Thus, there is a third view affecting and steering the original views, but it is more like a reputation or a common opinion because it consists of two conflicting views which cannot be acted at the same time, so it is socially realisable (ibid.). This aspect of rubbish theory gives understanding why the value of Sunila seems to be more socially constructed than aesthetically or economically constructed. Therefore, using rubbish theory, I show next how Sunila has been undergoing the value category transition, and at the same time, I argue how the value is ultimately affected and created socially.

Sunila’s journey from transient to rubbish

Even though Sunila was most probably planned to become a residential area with durable value – as its modern forms and new approaches to creating housing for factory workers suggest (see Figure 13) – Sunila’s value turned out to be transient. I refer to this loss of value as decaying, with both physical and social aspects like Constance Smith has done in her ethnographical article of decay as a process of accumulation in Nairobi (Smith 2018). By dividing urban decay between a socially formed policy category and a material process, Smith is able to address an urban area comprised of social, material, economic and even moral stances. That enables us to acknowledge the influence of architectural spaces on social lives and vice versa, as the acknowledgement signifies the mutual relationship between people and the material worlds surrounding them (ibid., 107 & 119). Nevertheless, Smith notes that the term urban decay is problematic as such because the decision to condemn the area as well as its residents as decay is made externally, although the decision has a great impact on them since in practice it states that both the area and its people are futureless (ibid., 119). That is why I combine Smith’s way to divide decay with Thompson’s rubbish theory which overrides the problems of urban decay with its category of rubbish.

How did Sunila become transient and its value start to decay into rubbish? Although the value of Sunila is constituted by its aesthetic and economic value, it is important to consider these two fractions separately because they are not one and the same, and their relation, which nevertheless exists, is not fixed (Thompson 2017, 94). With an ethnographic example of the demolition of some buildings in Islington, North London, Thompson argues that from an economic perspective there are only two value categories: transient and rubbish. When a house is built, it has a certain, expected lifespan as well as a certain value, especially because of its newness. With time, both its lifespan and economic value will decrease and at some point, they will reach zero, which means demolition and replacement (ibid., 50). This common-sense presumption has come true in the case of Sunila because its economic value has decreased to a level where the price is significantly less than its aesthetic value, i.e. only 400 euros per square (Kymenlaakson Liitto 2020).

Nevertheless, Sunila’s aesthetic value has been affected too because of the physical decay of the buildings. Although the façade of the residential area has been maintained properly with respect to its original design by the Finnish Heritage Agency, the interiors of the buildings have decayed in various ways as their facilities do not conform to today’s standards. There are two schools of thought on how Alvar Aalto’s designing should be preserved: either keeping all as authentic as possible or allowing changes if the façade and staircases are kept original (Hänninen 2011; Tillaeus 2018). Therefore, there has not been a unified procedure for maintaining interior design. However, a bigger challenge has been the floor plans of the buildings because they do not meet with people’s demands anymore (see Figure 14). Since Aalto has designed the residential area for the workers of Sunila Cellulose Factory at the end of 1930s, it has responded to their more minimalistic and communal requirements. That is why Sunila contains only bachelor and two-room apartments, with laundry, showers and sauna facilities housed in a separate building (Hänninen 2011, 29; Tillaeus 2018). The apartments have needed a great renovation which has decreased the areas’ temptation for new residents and that in turn has left the apartments on the market for a long time which decreases their price (Kymenlaakson Liitto 2020; Tillaeus 2018).

The physical decay of Sunila has had an influence on its social decaying as it has affected those moving there. Thompson observes that the value categorisation of buildings is connected to the socioeconomic divisions of society. The people of the exalted middle and upper classes live in durable buildings, whereas the people of the lower middle class and upper working-class dwell in the transient houses. Thus, the people of the lower class, such as workers or people in need of social support, inhabit the buildings defined as rubbish (Thompson 2017, 58). The structural change of Finnish society has affected this socioeconomic division since the status of factory workers used to be better during the first decades of Sunila, when the society leaned more on the industrial rather than service sector. For example, the housing for workers of the Kalso Veneer Mill in Vuohijärvi does not have such a distinct exterior as Sunila because it was built in the 1960s, when the economic importance of industry had already declined (see Figure 15).

As said earlier, the economic depression at the beginning of the 1990s and the change in the ownership of Sunila’s buildings had a great influence on the area’s socioeconomic status. Many of the factory workers had left the area as the factory no longer offered as many work opportunities as before, and they were replaced with people in need of social support (Tillaeus 2018). Thus, the value of the buildings of Sunila transferred from the transient to rubbish category. This transition is also the point when the area loses its value, its price, from an economic perspective (Thompson 2017, 51). In addition, the transition affected the reputation of the area because Sunila became known for its social problems (Tillaeus 2018). Nevertheless, as Thompson argues, reputation is a third world view created when two conflicting world views accommodate to each other (Thompson 2017, 93–95). Thus, this suggests that there is another viewpoint on Sunila and its value.

Sunila’s journey from rubbish to durable

Since the beginning of the 2000s, there have been changes in Sunila which implies that the transition of the value of Sunila has not ended at rubbish; rather, it is transferring from rubbish to durable. Although Sunila’s economic value has remained low, its aesthetic value has been acknowledged in a new way – providing another viewpoint on Sunila: seeing the potentiality to become durable through maintenance. This new world view takes into account the importance of maintenance and repair which allows approaching Sunila in two different ways: as buildings which are in a constant flux fending off decay and as an essential source for inspiration and innovation (Graham & Thrift 2007, 5–6). In the case of Sunila, these two aspects go hand in hand because the people of Sunila – its social asset – are behind both of them.

Some of the new and old residents of Sunila have seen the potentiality of the area because they have renovated their apartments to meet with people’s current demands. Smaller apartments have been combined to form bigger ones, which has created space for bathroom too. During bigger renovations of plumping and drainage systems, the bachelor apartments also received their own showers (see Figures 16 and 17) (Hänninen 2011, 29; Pihlaja 2004; Tillaeus 2018). At the same time, it has meant an end to the building of communal sauna and showers. However, first, an entrepreneur changed it to a hostel and now the residents are seeking a new actor there from the field of tourism (Alvar Aalto Sunila 2020; Pihlaja 2004). Thus, the buildings’ way to fend off decay has been recognised by some of the residents. At the beginning of the 2000s, the active residents of Sunila innovated and established an association for the residential area called Pro Sunila Ry (Tillaeus 2018; Alvar Aalto Sunila 2020). The aim of this innovative association is to make Sunila better known and more appreciated in Finland as well as abroad. It wants to document the history and develop the area and its buildings while valuing and preserving its distinct architecture and relation to the surrounding nature. To achieve these aims, the association has, in addition to the aforementioned, commissioned detailed instructions for the residents for repairing and maintaining the buildings of Sunila, for often these aspects of the buildings and their value – the repair and maintenance of them – have been forgotten in the original design process (Alvar Aalto Sunila 2020; Graham & Thrift 2007, 6; Hänninen 2011).

These innovative residents of Sunila, as well as Pro Sunila Ry, indicate how Sunila has been acknowledged as valuable again, which in turn suggests that the value of Sunila is in the transition from rubbish to durable. However, this acknowledgement requires a different world view which is, according to Thompson, tied to one’s socioeconomic status (Thompson 2017, 58). Therefore, it is not surprising that the leading character of Pro Sunila Ry was also an architect, Rurik Wasastjerna, who represents the upper middle class along with the other active residents – thus representing the socioeconomic status of the durable value category (ibid.; Melender 2020; Tillaeus 2018). In this way, the socioeconomic status of Sunila is also changing, which affects the lifespan and the aesthetic and economic value of the area. This change requires even more maintenance as the reasonable amount of maintenance depends on the buildings’ socially controlled value category and not on its physical appearance (Thompson 2017, 52–53). This creates a circle because the maintenance requires a world view which only the people of the upper socioeconomic status have (ibid.). In its entirety, the value of Sunila is increasing over time and it is becoming acknowledged more widely as durable – as the glorious heritage (ibid., 50–51).

Conclusion

The transition of Sunila from rubbish to durable is still happening, but nevertheless, scrutinising the journey of Sunila from decay to maintained heritage has given insight into how the value of buildings is created and what affects this value creation. In fact, value consists of various fractions: it is aesthetic and economic, physical and social, decay and maintenance, and a journey through three categories – transient, rubbish and durable. Nevertheless, these fractions are intertwined together in a complex way. Thus, they all have a meaning to the value creation of the buildings which, in accordance with rubbish theory, is formed by the transitions from transient to rubbish and from rubbish to durable. The lifespans of the buildings as well as their value increase along these transitions, which is why the building has to first decay before it can become heritage (Thompson 2017, 25–28).

By approaching these value category transitions of Sunila with the same fractions – aesthetic, economic, physical and social – I have shown that the change of value is dependent on the inner changes of these fractions rather than on the mutual replacements of these fractions. Some of the examples of these inner changes are the decrease and increase of the buildings’ prices, the varying socioeconomic statuses of the buildings, and the replacement of decay by maintenance. This comparativeness in analysing the different transitions has enabled analysing the relations of these fractions too, which has confirmed that there is one fraction over the others: the social aspect. The social aspect is present as people with different socioeconomic statuses and views on the buildings’ potentiality – as different, even conflicting, world views which affect how people are reacting to the buildings. This constitutes the third world view creating the buildings’ reputation as well as a space for accommodating the differing views.

Although the physical appearance of the buildings – which is especially central in creating their aesthetic and economic value – is an important factor as it affects how people see and react to the buildings, it is not as essential as the social aspect which lies behind all the different fractions, in all the world views steering the action causing the changes in the fractions. As Thompson has stated, “The physical properties of houses … are the by-products, not the determinants, of the process [of the value creation]” (Thompson 2017, 51–52). The social aspect controls the whole journey of the value creation: the transition from transient to rubbish and from rubbish to durable, equally. In the case of Sunila, the journey did not stop from transient to rubbish but after being in the value and time vacuum – after being rubbish – it has continued to become durable (see Figures 18 and 19). Thus, Sunila creates a good base for analysing both of the transitions and their influence on the fractions, especially in a comparative way, which has emphasised that these transitions have happened because of the social aspect. Therefore, I argue that ultimately, along the buildings’ various journeys to decay and heritage, the value of the buildings is created and changed socially.

References

Primary

Alvar Aalto Sunila., Visited 8.5.2020. Aallon Sunila [Aalto’s Sunila]. https://www.alvaraaltosunila.fi

Kymenlaakson Liitto [Alliance of Kymenlaakso]., Visited 8.5.2020. Alvar Aallon kädenjälkeä pilkkahintaan: Sunilassa kaupataan perhekokoista asuntoa neljättä vuotta [Creations of Alvar Aalto in Ridiculously Low Price: They Have Been Selling a Family Apartment in Sunila for Four
Years]. Kymenlaakson Liitto. https://kymenlaakso.fi/maakunnan-uutisia/13215-
Alvar%20Aallon%20kädenjälkeä%20pilkkahintaan-
%20Sunilassa%20kaupataan%20perhekokoista%20asuntoa%20neljättä%20vuotta

Melender, T., 17.7.2020. Visited 2.8.2020. Takana loistava tulevaisuus – Alvar Aallon suunnittelemaan Sunilaan ei halua muuttaa kukaan [Past the Bright Future – No one Wants to Move to Sunila Designed by Alvar Aalto]. Image, Apu. https://www.apu.fi/artikkelit/takana-loistava-tulevaisuus-alvar-aallon-suunnittelemaan-sunilaan-ei-halua-muuttaa-kukaan

Tillaeus, J., 22.4.2018. Visited 8.5.2020. Kiinteistön välittäjät pulassa Alvar Aallon suunnitteleman asuinalueen kanssa – asukkaat hyppivät sammuneiden naapureiden yli, asuntojen hinnat pohjamudissa [Estate Agents Having Troubles with the Neighbourhood Designed by Alvar Aalto – Inhabitants Jumping over Drunks, Prices of the Apartments Very Low]. Yle Uutiset. https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10169781

Pihlaja, J., 21.3.2004. Visited 8.5.2020. Sunila palaa eläväksi Kotkan asumalähiöksi [Sunila Is Becoming a Lively Neighbourhood of Kotka Again]. Helsingin Sanomat.
https://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/art-2000004211338.html

Secondary

Alvar Aalto Säätiö [Alvar Aalto Foundation]., Visited 8.5.2020. Alvar Aalto – Modernin arkkitehtuurin ja muotoilun edelläkävijä [Alvar Aalto – The Pioneer of Modern Architecture and Design]. https://www.alvaraalto.fi/tietoa/alvar-aalto/

Chapman, M. and Roberts, J., 2014. Industrial Organisms: Sigfried Giedion and the Humanisation of Industry in Alvar Aalto's Sunila Factory Plant. Fabrications: The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand, 24(1), pp. 72-91.

Graham, S. and Thrift, N., 2007. Out of Order: Understanding Repair and Maintenance. Theory, Culture & Society, 24(3), 1–25.

Hänninen, H., 2011. Modernin aikakauden rakennuskannan korjausmahdollisuudet – esimerkkinä
Alvar Aallon suunnittelema Sunilan asuinalue Kotkassa [The Renovation Possibilities of the Buildings of Modernism – The Example of Sunila, the Residential Area Designed by Alvar Aalto in Kotka]. Dissertation. Kymenlaakson Ammattikorkeakoulu.
https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/26570/Hanninen_Henri.pdf?sequence=1

Museovirasto [Finnish Heritage Agency]., Visited 8.5.2020. Built Cultural Environment.
https://www.museovirasto.fi/en/cultural-environment/built-cultural-environment

Smith, C., 2018. Accumulating History: Dirt, Remains and Urban Decay in Nairobi. Social Dynamics 44:1, 107-127.

Thompson, M., and Reno, J., 2017. Rubbish Theory: The Creation and Destruction of Value.
Foreword by Joshua O. Reno. New ed. London: Pluto Press.

Viljo, E. M., 2000. Visited 8.5.2020. Aalto, Alvar (1898 - 1976). Kansallisbiografia [National
Biography of Finland]. https://kansallisbiografia.fi/english/person/1408

Figures

Figure 1. Alvar Aalto Sunila., 2010. Visited 8.5.2020. Sunilan asuinalueen korjausohjeisto:
Vesikatot [The Reparation Instructions for Sunila: Rooftops].
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a216888ace864c4e864c279/t/5a58a86024a69497e6f54361/1 515759751875/76.pdf

Figure 2. Alvar Aalto Sunila., Visited 8.5.2020. Aallon Sunila [Aalto’s Sunila].
https://www.alvaraaltosunila.fi

Figure 3. Alvar Aalto Sunila., 2010. Visited 8.5.2020. Sunilan asuinalueen korjausohjeisto:
Julkisivurakenteet [The Reparation Instructions for Sunila: Facade].
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a216888ace864c4e864c279/t/5a58a7db71c10baff721577a/1 515759597353/75.pdf

Figure 4. Visit Kotka-Hamina., Visited 8.5.2020. Alvar Aallon Sunila, Kotka [Alvar Aalto’s Sunila, Kotka]. https://www.visitkotkahamina.fi/nae-ja-koe/kokous-ja-juhlapalvelut/alvar-aallon-sunilakotka

Figure 5. Alvar Aalto Sunila., 2017. Visited 8.5.2020. Miten Sunilaan pääsee? [How to get to Sunila?]. https://www.alvaraaltosunila.fi/sijainti

Figure 6. Alvar Aalto Sunila. 2010., Visited 8.5.2020. Sunilan asuinalueen korjausohjeisto:
Johdanto [The Reparation Instructions for Sunila: Introduction].
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a216888ace864c4e864c279/t/5a33a9488165f5e58a3e99cc/1 513335151513/1-6.pdf

Figure 7. Alvar Aalto Säätiö [Alvar Aalto Foundation]., Visited 8.5.2020. Paimion parantola
[Paimio Sanatorium]. https://www.alvaraalto.fi/arkkitehtuuri/paimion-parantola/

Figure 8. Alvar Aalto Sunila., 1939. Visited 8.5.2020. Kuvia [Pictures]. https://www.alvaraaltosunila.fi/kuvia

Figure 9. Alvar Aalto Sunila., Visited 8.5.2020. Aallon Sunila [Aalto’s Sunila]. https://www.alvaraaltosunila.fi

Figure 10. Visit Kotka-Hamina., Visited 8.5.2020. Alvar Aallon Sunila, Kotka [Alvar Aalto’s Sunila, Kotka]. https://www.visitkotkahamina.fi/nae-ja-koe/kokous-ja-juhlapalvelut/alvar-aallonsunila-kotka

Figure 11. Alvar Aalto Sunila., 2010. Visited 8.5.2020. Sunilan asuinalueen korjausohjeisto:
Rakennusryhmät [The Reparation Instructions for Sunila: Buildings].
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a216888ace864c4e864c279/t/5a58aaf353450a9c63134b35/1 515760469628/90.pdf

Figure 12. Thompson, M., and Reno, J., 2017. Rubbish Theory: The Creation and Destruction of Value. Foreword by Joshua O. Reno. New ed. London: Pluto Press.

Figure 13. Visit Kotka-Hamina., Visited 8.5.2020. Alvar Aallon Sunila, Kotka [Alvar Aalto’s Sunila, Kotka]. https://www.visitkotkahamina.fi/nae-ja-koe/kokous-ja-juhlapalvelut/alvar-aallonsunila-kotka

Figure 14. Alvar Aalto Sunila., Visited 8.5.2020. Kuvia [Pictures].
https://www.alvaraaltosunila.fi/kuvia/mantylan-ja-honkalan-alkuperaiset-asuntopohjat

Figure 15. Iisa Arvelin., 3.5.2020.

Figure 16. Alvar Aalto Sunila., 2010. Visited 8.5.2020. Alvar Aalto Sunila. 2010. Visited 8.5.2020.
Sunilan asuinalueen korjausohjeisto: Tilat [The Reparation Instructions for Sunila: Rooms].
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a216888ace864c4e864c279/t/5a69819f53450ac4bc546b1b/1 516863929613/Tilat.pdf

Figure 17. Alvar Aalto Sunila., 2010. Visited 8.5.2020. Sunilan asuinalueen korjausohjeisto: Tilat [The Reparation Instructions for Sunila: Rooms].
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a216888ace864c4e864c279/t/5a69819f53450ac4bc546b1b/1 516863929613/Tilat.pdf

Figure 18. Alvar Aalto Sunila., 2010. Visited 8.5.2020. Sunilan asuinalueen korjausohjeisto:
Rakennusryhmät [The Reparation Instructions for Sunila: Buildings].
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a216888ace864c4e864c279/t/5a58aaf353450a9c63134b35/1 515760469628/90.pdf

Figure 19. Visit Kotka-Hamina., Visited 8.5.2020. Alvar Aallon Sunila, Kotka [Alvar Aalto’s Sunila, Kotka]. https://www.visitkotkahamina.fi/nae-ja-koe/kokous-ja-juhlapalvelut/alvar-aallonsunila-kotka