Massidea.org

The Observer initiates a three minute imaginary trip to Suurpelto area. The results of what people imagined are written down in silence during the 30 seconds.
Observer: imagine – closing eyes for three minutes, examining Suurpelto from within, figuring out what is important, what makes you comfortable, what makes Suurpelto exceptionally great…
People are openly expressing their view of the Espoo Suurpelto.
Openness, safety and vibrancy, space and harmony, proximity, self-expression. Ability to take care of everyday activities. These are the key points emphasised through individual wishes. Although so far no innovation or creating new has taken place, these personal experience and thoughts over Suurpelto could be considered as a starting point towards innovation and these first steps were made in the form of more active discussion as opposed to the Q&A –like first element.
There was also some discussion over whether we are looking at Suurperto as an intermediary for context or as a place. Emphasising context instead of place when talking about urban activity does not go without opposition; place can be considered important (friends and family).
Suominen proposes that why invent new when you can go back. This is to activate new thoughts how technology can enable to join past with future through technology. This can be best understood through the analogy presented; a mini-cooper from the 1960s modernised with current technology could be regarded as popular as ever. Question of preferences – how do these change? How this relate to urban area?
Olli-pekka: Do you agree that Espoo Suurpelto is a living area .. mentions also residential. Mentioning of residential provokes discussion. However, the concept holistic area is agreed upon by all. The question of customer is .. Branding is important – this is questioned?
Questioning that is it wise to have different aspects in one place: elderly want peace and quiet while children require stimulants. Branding is essentially.
Think locally, act globally. ..

Closing of the session, choosing the three most important ideas / issues.
Notes of group discussion:
Brand issue is considered with enthusiasm, especially by Vrhovski and Kruzljak (students majoring in marketing). This is countered by questioning whether there can be only one brand, as in “Suurpelto”, or should different areas be branded (as has been done in business parks). Some examples were provided for a single brand: Las vegas (fun), Paris (Love), but branding with a single label was generally considered infeasible bar any possible new ideas over this part. It nevertheless appears to be generally agreed that brands have many layers and each have different metrics. Co-branding with Tapiola as the “New Tapiola of the 21st century” is suggested.
A final note from Hatanpää: Suurpelto could be considered a new complex on which one could be willing to experiment what new services could be built. If the experiments are successful, Suurpelto could be made an example (and as such will create brand value on its own as the recorder understood).


Three most important issues or ideas from the day as agreed by group members at the end of the day:
1. Flexibility
2. Branding – the importance is questioned, but the issue never abandoned. Different layers, and different metrics for these – expanded upon but no clear consensus.
3. Context. We need more information (!) – the project is very broad and the time is insufficient for the first day.
No post-its were collected as nothing was written to them. This is due to overshooting the allotted time by 20 minutes already.