3rd PLATE Conference
September 18 – 20, 2019
Berlin, Germany
Nils F. Nissen
Melanie Jaeger-Erben (eds.)
Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin
Hector, Philip; Jalas, Mikko: Turning utopias into material: the case
of an open space for experimentation in Helsinki . In: Nissen, Nils F.;
Jaeger-Erben, Melanie (Eds.): PLATE – Product Lifetimes And The Envi-
ronment : Proceedings, 3rd PLATE CONFERENCE, BERLIN, GERMANY,
18 – 20 September 2019. Berlin: Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin, 2021.
pp. 325 – 329. ISBN 978-3-7983-3125-9 (online). https://doi.org/10.14279/
depositonce-9253.
This article – except for quotes, fi gures and where otherwise noted – is
licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0).
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
325
3rd PLATE 2019 Conference
Berlin, Germany, 18-20 September 2019
Turning Utopias into Material: the Case of an Open Space for
Experimentation in Helsinki
Hector, Philip; Jalas, Mikko
Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland
Keywords: Materialized Utopia; Experimentation; Lab; Open Space; Humble Design.
Abstract: With an increasing number of open laboratories for cultural and technical experimentation
in place, questions arise regarding how and with what effects they come about, what they mean to
those who partake and how they organize themselves in order to satisfy those involved. Recognizing
the way that these spaces reach of alternative technologies and alternative ways of being we
conceptualize them as materialized utopias, which are fragile socio-material arrangements. Rather
than articulating grand utopian or ecotopian alternative societies, we look at materialized utopias as
the gradual tweaking, probing and fixing of things. We elaborate on this with the study of “Test Site” a
campus-based open space for experimentation in Helsinki designing with matters such as soap,
compost or wood. We show that the thriving of this space is dependent on purposeful
misunderstandings. However, its hybrid character being open to different interpretations does not only
help to spur momentum but by the same token also leads to tensions internally as well as externally.
Materialized utopias are then bound to be compromised, but in the best case scenario, turn
unproductive anxieties into productive care taking of the socio-material surroundings. As the site is in
the making, materials and events function as checkpoints and create legitimacy.
Introduction
Frying oil turned into nice-smelling soap or
urine turned into tomatoes into Bloody – these
are some of the things happening at an
experimental site next to the Aalto University
campus. They underline current tensions
between what sustainable forms of life appear
to request and what the current technology
and political regimes can deliver. Sustainability
narratives thrive on the idea of radical
disruptures between what is and what should
be, informed by utopian thinking including
classics such as Callenbach’s Ecotopia (1978)
and contemporary movements such as
transition towns. By speaking of materialized
utopias we want to highlight approaches where
rather non-futuristic and quite mundane
activities of design and production such as
creating soap from waste oil and setting up a
collective to continuously engage in such
practices are meant to fix parts of the present
rather than fully abandoning it.
Open spaces, as well as other forms of utopia,
raise questions of the relations between
individuals and the collective and those of
recruitment and organizing. In this paper we
ask the following question: What are the
barriers for participating in and materializing
utopias in the everyday? The paper draws on
the ongoing study of a campus-based open
space for experimentation in Helsinki since its
preparation phase in January 2018. To answer
the questions, we make use of interviews with
members, participatory observation, field notes
and data from the internal communication
channels. We argue that sites for such
gradually tweaking the present are utopias.
However, since they are open in terms of
agenda, rules and outcomes, they are hybrids
and highly fragile. In order to stabilize, the role
of material and designing with it therefore
become essential as checkpoints.
Open spaces as materialized utopias
Utopianism offers several propositions and
analytical distinctions for the study of open
spaces. Firstly, as Karl Mannheim has
suggested, utopian forward-looking thinking is
what keeps societies alive (Mannheim 2013).
Utopian promise stems from the recognition
that we do not live in the best of possible world.
Hence, deliberate efforts to think beyond what
is reasonable, possible and ‘real’ may be
particularly relevant for sustainability and has
326
3rd PLATE Conference Berlin, Germany, 18-20 September 2019
Hector P., Jalas, M.
Turning utopias into material: the case of an open space for experimentation
in Helsinki
contributed to ecotopian thinking (Callenbach
1978). With our notion of materializing utopias
we want to add to these distinctions a notion of
radical modesty and highlight arrangements
which are not premised on abandoning the
present but rather reworking it. Be it activities of
fixing and mending, self-build or permaculture,
these are activities combining elements of quite
mundane and non-futuristic kind.
Concurrently with such activities of fixing, repair
and do-it-yourself, a host of spaces dedicated
to technical and cultural experimentation have
appeared. Amongst others they have been
described as fab labs (Hielscher and Smith
2014), open workshops (Lange 2017) or shared
machine shops (Dickel et al. 2014). While some
are initiated as part of academic research
projects or showcase new means of urban
governance, many appear to be self-initiated by
small groups of people as reported in the case
of open workshops. These initiatives driven by
civic collectives exemplify new modalities of
innovation, production and needs based
consumption (Lange and Bürkner 2018).
There has been a wave of real life experiments,
situated in the wild, therefore not aiming at
producing general valid knowledge but at
exploring specific cases and adopting generic
technologies locally (Jalas et al 2017). They
exemplify semi-protected spaces, premised
upon welcoming failure and irritation as part of
learning, and being productive in terms of new
ideas, knowledge, artefacts and practices.
Hence, Lange and Bürkner (2018)
conceptualise such spaces as assemblages,
where actors, materials and tools link together
in changing constellations. What is interesting
in the open labs is open-ended, imaginative,
and footloose propositions which are developed
in there and how this is qualitatively different
and complementary to traditional science
organization rather than competing with it.
Openness can be understood as a free access
to the means of production as found in the
majority of fablabs (Lhoste and Barbier 2018),
but also as less hierarchical, egalitarian
structure, and trust. Regarding the supposedly
flat organisational structure, Lange and Bürkner
(2018), in their study on open workshops in
Germany, point out that power imbalances are
present, and what is more, ironically, readily
accepted by the practitioners. To be more
specific, the founders or amateur experts within
the space can even unintentionally create
hierarchies and regulate access (Toombs
2016). At the same time, there are also various
practices of mutual material and social support,
which are claimed to be signs of emerging post-
growth modalities (Lange and Bürkner 2018)
and might be conceptualized as repair work on
a communal scale (Hector 2018).
We next turn the focus to the organizing
principles of the sites and in particularly on
what kinds of organizing work is done with the
notion of design. Here, the practice of open
spaces indicates a more humble design
practice of tweaking existing reality, fixing
material and building collectives.
Humble design
Utopian thought is part of design theory and
practice since its formal origins at the end of
19th century. The rise of modernism by the
1920ies located design as central means to
support social change on a grand scale. The
supposedly mass-produced products of
functionalism were hoped to deliver quality to
everybody, while social housing in the form of
new building blocks provide the cocoon within
designed settlements. In the second half of the
20th century the paternalistic take of modern
design was critically reflected upon and
became gradually substituted by research into
specific, situated user needs (Dorrestijn and
Verbeek 2013). For Drukker (writing at the turn
of the 20th century) this period (60ies and
70ies) was the final chapter of socially engaged
design, replaced by the decorative and ironic
elements of postmodernist aesthetics (Drukker
2004). Others have argued, that the critique of
rational, unified progress exemplified by
postmodernism still puts forward utopian ideals,
namely that technologies can after all mediate
the multiple ways of people living their life
(Dorrestijn and Verbeek 2013).
Across these epochs, design was intricately
linked with utopian thought reliant on some form
of technical mediation. This mediation took
different forms from highly functional to more
metaphorical ones. Specifically with respect to
the less functionally driven aesthetic of early
postmodernist design, we see parallels to
contemporary developments of speculative
design and design fiction. Here, not solutions
but issues are foregrounded and made explicit
with the help of designed artifacts (Auger 2013).
327
3rd PLATE Conference Berlin, Germany, 18-20 September 2019
Hector P., Jalas, M.
Turning utopias into material: the case of an open space for experimentation
in Helsinki
Graphical illustrations as well as more
immersive three-dimensional settings shall help
to point to future(s) often far ahead in time. No
matter if they depict the future infrastructure of
living and commuting, or provocate in the form
of seemingly functional, everyday objects, they
make use of an essential component of utopian
stories. The new and distant needs to be
connected with the old and familiar (forms)
(Sargisson 2007). The weaving together of
presence and future as well as the level of
technological sophistication might however take
different routes as shall be explored in the
following.
In collective sites for experimentation, new but
also old, forgotten practices are explored and
made available to others through designing
digital but also physical and social
infrastructures (Hector 2018). Thus, while they
embody hopeful and partly hyped visions of a
better future, they appear to be much more
pragmatic. What we refer to here, is the use of
rather mundane activities, tools and
infrastructures in order to materialize parts of
utopian futures in the presence. Compared to
earlier utopian designs they are not endpoints
in the sense of products delivered to users, but
ongoing experiments, premised on relative
broad accessibility. Most strikingly, when
thinking of the ad-hoc and DIY approach,
design in this context often starts with what is
at hand rather than conceiving something
complex no matter what resources it will take
(Jencks and Silver 2013). Comparing these
characteristics with other forms of design
discussed above we suggest to referring to
this as humble forms of design
Methods
For this study, the first author has conducted 4
semi-structured interviews with members
(three of them involved strongly in three of the
6 projects each and the fourth joining for some
of the meetings and workshops) of the
initiative lasting between 30 and 60 minutes.
The interviews focused on question regarding
the forming of the project, the internal and
external relations as well as everyday
organization. Furthermore, both authors have
participated in the monthly meetings of the
initiative throughout the year 2018 as well as in
three special events, from which they have
collected field notes. These events were the
planning meeting, the official opening day and
the building of the dwelling. Internal
communications have been organized through
a whatsapp group which was recently
substituted by a slack channel. The first author
has accessed these digital pools in an ongoing
manner for purposes of participating in the
initiative as well as this study.
Case Test Site
‘Test Site’ is an open space located on the
campus of Aalto University in an outer city
district of Otaniemi in the greater Helsinki
region. This outdoor space was set up at the
start of 2018 by students who were interested
to explore low-tech, frugal innovations for
sustainability, and is funded and planned to
exist for a minimum of two years. From the
beginning the exploration was planned to target
both infrastructure such as water, energy and
sanitation, food, soil health and food production
issues, material circulation, but also exploration
on organising events and creating learning
opportunities for sustainability. Key to the set
up was the will get out of the classroom, out of
theory and conceptual thinking.
Despite a low profile start, the Test Site
initiators have collected support from and
created diverse interests among the University
campus management, from teachers in the
field of sustainability, researchers working on
innovations for sustainability and the business
development and start-up actors at the
campus. As of this moment there are 5
projects on the Test Site (Pee-osk, Garden,
Solar Disk, Eco Soap Toolbox and Community
Shelter) and the frequency of members visits
of the site during the summer season was
around 1-2 times a week.
Figure 1. Photoshop visualization by one of
the students.
328
3rd PLATE Conference Berlin, Germany, 18-20 September 2019
Hector P., Jalas, M.
Turning utopias into material: the case of an open space for experimentation
in Helsinki
Discussion
We see different interpretation among the
actors inside the Test Site. Similar to FabLabs,
also the case at hand is neither a living room,
workplace, nor scientific laboratory (Kohtala
and Bosque 2014) and represents something
different to all members. Therefore, the
implementation of such spaces in itself appears
to require experimentation and trial and error
(Hector 2018). When achieved, open-
endedness of the agenda and any results of it,
might render them interesting to different
groups of people and different purposes (Akrich
et al 2002). Here, activities and artefacts of
open spaces can be brought into networks by
purposeful, partial interpretations and even
purposeful misunderstandings. Indeed, when
looking at the initial “Call for proposals” for the
Test Site, it clearly attracts more people if you
talk about hybrid, experimental spaces where
the outcome could be almost anything as long
as it fulfils some criteria such as excluding hate
speech.
However, the open-endedness also brings
problems. This includes overcoming frustration
related to obstacles, slow pace of progress and
the difficulties living up to the ideals of the open
space discourse. Quite clearly, notions and
experiences of efficacy seem to require clear
leadership and management of the activities.
Different than Lange and Bürkner’s observation
of assemblages, our own empirical analysis
hints at more ordered spaced organised around
visionary leaders, who introduce and push
ideas about projects or events (Lange and
Bürkner 2018).
The flipside of open-endedness further appears
in the difficult negotiations between different
actors both regarding external as well as
internal relations. When potential newcomers
do not really know what the initiative is about,
this highlights one important point about such
experimental sites. Often neither the purpose
nor the rules are clear – unlike say a football
game – they are continuosly in the making.
Therefore, the discourse of open-ended,
imaginative and latent places needs to find
material forms and get articulated in real
outcomes as Kohtala (2018) suggests for
maker-spaces. Hence, the great joy for
example when a pile of compost soil arrives at
the Test Site as a product of a large scale
centralized municipal operation and delivered
by a commercial service provider. This pile of
soil functions in several ways. Firstly, it allows
the students to implement the gardening project
and thereby adds to the overall site. Secondly,
it underlines that they have reached a certain
level of visibility and credibility, if these actors
work with them. Much the same can be said
about the sustainability event in which the site
was displayed as the recent successful impact
of the school.
The site responds to the anxiety of the
impasse of sustainable consumption and
represents utopian thinking in its attempts to
imagine, articulate and practice social life.
Despite diversity of participants and their
understandings of the place, the rhetoric of
openness indicates that these spaces facilitate
trust, respect and aims of participating
individuals. Ideally, some of such spaces may
turn unproductive anxiety of individuals to
inspired collective action, be it growing food,
making soap, building shelter, find support for
the initiative or decide about the name and
look of the place.
Dates Actions
Fall 2017 A handful of Creative Sustainability
(CS) MA students begin to look for
support for different project ideas
Head of CS MA Programme and
Sustainability liaison of the university
had discussed sites of display for the
work related to sustainability
January
2018
Open call for students to propose
activities results in over 30 proposals
April 2018 Physical area designated
May 2018 Official opening of the site with 4
projects
November
2018
Exhibition at university with 6
projects put forward by 18+ regular
collaborators, coming mainly from
the CS MA programme with
background in design, engineering
and business.
Table 1. Timeline.
329
3rd PLATE Conference Berlin, Germany, 18-20 September 2019
Hector P., Jalas, M.
Turning utopias into material: the case of an open space for experimentation
in Helsinki
In contrast to bold, spectacular and visionary
design, open spaces are compromises
themselves. These tamed utopias are not fixed
spatial utopias as earthly heavens, even when
good for temporary relief. In the Test Site,
projects like the Peeosk (using human urine to
produce food) or the Eco Soap (using waste
cooking oil to produce beautiful objects), turn
ideas which appear radical to the majority into
practice. The projects implicate the body, bend
and blend politics and, as we have suggested,
come out of the humble design attempts to
reconcile human existence with other beings
and sustainability. They are, however, also
communities of innovation-in-practice, which
seek to produce the component parts of
sustainable forms of human life for broader use
in the society (Smith et al. 2016). By the same
token, they are not completely estranged and
do not demand by far as much time as e.g.
intentional communities require (Sargisson
2007).
To continue this thought and to be very blunt,
the cases seem not to be able to deliver their
original, radical utopian aspiration and might
even be bound to “fail” in this sense. Still, they
can continue to exist and deliver something.
Acting out your ideals is utopian in the sense
of the forward-looking society of Mannheim.
Different to the strict, modernist narratives on
future, open spaces and particularly the
modest, humble design and trial and error in
there, can be thought as a new, postmodern
modality of engaging with our material
surroundings.
References
Akrich, M., Callon, M., Latour, B. & Monaghan, A.
(2002). The Key to success in innovation part I: The
art of interessement. International Journal of
Innovation Management, 06 (02), pp.187– 206.
Auger, J. (2013). Speculative design: crafting the
speculation. Digital Creativity, 24 (1), pp.11– 35.
Callenbach, E. (1975). Ecotopia: the notebooks and
reports of William Weston. Berkeley: Banyan Tree
Books.
Dickel, S., Ferdinand, J.-P. & Petschow, U. (2014).
Shared Machine Shops as Real-life Laboratories.
Journal of peer production, (5).
Dorrestijn, S. & Verbeek, P.-P. (2013). Technology,
Wellbeing, and Freedom: The Legacy of Utopian
Design. International Journal of Design, 7.
Drukker, J. W. (2004). When snowhite was cast in
concrete. Design, Dasein, or not to be...(4) Product,
12(3), 28-32.
Hector, P. (2018). Making and repairing places for
making and repairing. Strategic Design Research
Journal 11 (2).
Hielscher, S. & Smith, A.G. (2014). Community-
Based Digital Fabrication Workshops: A Review of
the Research Literature. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Jalas, M., Hyysalo, S., Heiskanen, E., Lovio, R.,
Nissinen, A., Mattinen, M., Rinkinen, J., Juntunen,
J.K., Tainio, P. & Nissilä, H. (2017). Everyday
experimentation in energy transition: A practice-
theoretical view. Journal of Cleaner Production.
Jencks, C. & Silver, N. (2013). Adhocism: the case
for improvisation. Expanded and updated edition.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Kohtala, C. & Bosqué, C. (2014). The Story of MIT-
Fablab Norway: Community Embedding of Peer
Production. Journal of Peer Production. 5
Kohtala, C. (2018). The sociomateriality of FabLabs:
Configurations of a printing service or counter-
context? Journal of peer production, (12).
Lange, B. & Bürkner, H.-J. (2018). Open workshops
as sites of innovative socio-economic practices:
approaching urban post-growth by assemblage
theory. Local Environment, 23 (7), pp.680–696.
Lange, B. (2017). “Offene Werkstätten und
Postwachstumsökonomien: kollaborative Orte als
Wegbereiter transformativer
Wirtschaftsentwicklungen?” Zeitschrift für
Wirtschaftsgeographie 61 (1), pp.38–55.
Lhoste, E. & Barbier, M. (2018). The
institutionalization of making: The entrepreneurship
of sociomaterialities that matters. Journal of peer
production, (12).
Mannheim, K. (2013). Ideology and Utopia.
Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.
Sargisson, L. (2007). Strange Places: Estrangement,
Utopianism, and Intentional Communities. Utopian
Studies, 18 (3), pp.393–424.
Selle, G. (1973). Ideologie und Utopie des Designs:
Zur gesellschaftlichen Theorie der industriellen
Formgebung. Köln, Germany: DuMont Schauberg.
Smith, A., Ely, A., Fressoli, M., Abrol, D. & Arond, E.
(2016). Grassroots innovation movements.
Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY, Routledge.
Toombs, A., Bardzelll, S. & Bardzel, J. (2014).
Becoming Makers: Hackerspace Member Habits,
Values, and Identities (Issue 5).
