Standardizing play in the century of the car: the building information cards as shapers of the ideal urban childhood in Finland in the 1960s and 1970s

ABSTRACT

Children’s playgrounds became part of the urban planning and evolution of Western cities at the turn of 19th and early 20th centuries. The overall objective was to improve urban children’s well-being and enhance safety by channelling play activities away from city streets towards designated play spaces. This article zooms in on the process of creating recommendations, norms and standards related to playgrounds. The subject under scrutiny is the standardization of childhood in Finland during the 1960s and 1970s, a period characterized by the most intense phases of urbanization, the establishment of welfare state institutions and the evolution of legislation pertaining to children's play spaces as well as vigorous discussions concerning children's environments. These planning discussions, norms and standards have had far-reaching consequences. They are not only prominently evident in today's Finnish cities but have also significantly influenced our contemporary perception of children's place within urban contexts. This study brings a social history approach to the academic discussion of the role of standardization in urban planning. Simultaneously, it examines the development of the increasingly standardized urban childhood in Finland in the 1960s and 1970s and asks what kind of childhood this standardization aimed to promote.

KEYWORDS:

• Urban planning
• play
• playgrounds
• standards
• urban childhood
• Finland
• 1960s
• 1970s

Introduction

The urbanization and motorization of Finland occurred during the childhood years of the post-war baby boomer generation, born between 1945 and 1954.¹ The rapid urbanization of the country led to a severe housing shortage, for instance in the capital city of Helsinki,² which began to alleviate towards the end of the 1970s. The combination of limited living space in small apartments, underdeveloped childcare institutions, and a high number of children within households had resulted in a high amount of time spent by children in the yards, streets and urban green spaces.³ However, the conjunction between children moving independently on the one hand, and the exponential growth of traffic on the other, posed a challenging situation. From the 1950s on, there was a consistent increase in the number of fatal traffic accidents and in 1972, the number of fatalities reached an unprecedented peak, prompting concerns at the highest levels of politics.⁴ Moreover, the perception of urban childhood was undergoing a slow transformation: In contrast to the traditional settings of courtyards, streets and urban nature, where children had played for decades, children were increasingly thought to need specialized spaces within the urban fabric that were tailored to children’s specific requirements, such as playgrounds and sports fields.⁵ Independently roaming children were regarded as a problem that required solutions involving both institutions⁶ and, relevant to this study, careful planning.

Modern urban planning, which in Finland developed mainly in suburban areas and alongside the emergence of the welfare state and the infrastructure necessary to support its services, established families as the central planning unit. To improve the well-being of families with children in urban settings, their needs and suitable environments had to be defined. This involved the active participation of a multidisciplinary group consisting primarily of child welfare advocates and planning professionals. For instance, child protection specialists, Seppo Sauro and Mauri Upanne and architect Tapio Periäinen, played pivotal roles in producing reports for the NGO Mannerheim League for Child Welfare and in compiling recommendations aiming at improving children’s living conditions in urban contexts. Periäinen and Upanne, among many others like interior designer Yrjö Sotamaa brought children’s issues to the urban planning discussions also in the influential architectural journal Arkkitehti. Moreover, numerous other professionals including medical doctors, psychologists and child protection advocates were engaged in discussions that aimed at improving children’s environments.⁷ For instance, Kirsti Pajunen, who served as a chief inspector of day care, was a key advocate for playgrounds, particularly in Helsinki during the post-war decades. These discussions not only played an important role in increasing understanding of children's perspectives in urban environments and setting minimum standards for, for instance, playgrounds, but also contributed to the evolution of comprehensive social planning within the framework of the welfare state.⁸ These professionals actively contributed to the discourse by showcasing national and international studies and examples in professional journals and publications for wider audiences, and in producing recommendations, pamphlets and reports focused on creating an urban environment conducive to children's well-being.⁹ The following planning instructions and standards were derived from these extensive deliberations. One example of such standards is the Building information file (Rakennustietokortisto i.e. RT-kortisto),¹⁰ comprising individual instructions known as RT cards¹¹ (RT-kortti). Each RT card may consist of one or more pages. These RT cards constitute the primary dataset for this study. The key concept ‘standardization’ pertains to a collection of broader and more rigorous recommendations, normative guidelines and binding regulations related to children’s environments. I will provide a more precise definition of the concept in a later chapter.

Research materials, methods, and earlier studies

The main objective of this article is to study the historical context and evolution of standards concerning urban childhood and children’s play in the Finnish context during the 1960–1970s. By examining the RT cards, supplemented with additional sources such as reports and recommendations produced by NGOs, City of Helsinki and the Ministry of the Interior, as well as supporting discussions with former planners, this article aims to explore how childhood and children's needs were conceptualized in the source materials and what kind of urban childhood the standards aimed to promote. The relevant RT cards are accessible on the Rakennustieto Information Services website within the database of archived RT cards.¹² Additional RT cards were found in the play equipment manufacturer Lappset Group company private archive in Rovaniemi, Finland. However, it is important to note that due to the incomplete documentation of old RT cards, it is probable that some cards are missing and consequently not included in the analysis.

The research employs a qualitative content analysis methodology.¹³ In the initial step, all pertinent (n = 9) RT cards from the 1960s and 1970s that dealt with children’s play were gathered. The research materials were subsequently read and analyzed with a particular focus on how they depict the problems that children were believed to face in urban environments and the solutions presented by the RT cards. After this, the source material underwent refinement, resulting in the creation of the following categories: play, safety and motorization. Lastly, the RT cards were read through political lenses and a category related to children’s diminishing power to define their use of urban space was created. In the final stage of the analysis, the themes identified in the materials were juxtaposed with those found in other sources of the time, while also being situated within their historical context and in relation to theoretical discussions regarding children’s role in their environments. Lastly, the study delved into the political aspect of expert discourses, aiming to reveal the fundamental underpinnings upon which the information conveyed in the RT cards established their inherent necessity.

In the realm of planning discussions, this study pertains to the historical and societal discussions about standards that ‘describe the context in which standards have come to be developed and applied’ and that aim to comprehend the ideologies and political forces that influence the formulation of standards.¹⁴ At the same time, this article contributes to the studies on the history of architecture and landscape architecture that have recently cast a more nuanced light on the 1960s and 1970s, a period often criticized for its monotony and proliferation of mass-produced apartment buildings.¹⁵ For instance, scholars such as Ranja Hautamäki and Julia Donner observe that the regulation of playground standards and recreational spaces of the 1970s facilitated the incorporation of landscape and recreational areas into comprehensive urban planning, subsequently enhancing the overall quality of the urban environment.¹⁶

Moreover, the examination of the historical evolution of childhood standards is also motivated by the contemporary and relatively critical deliberations concerning the role of children in urban settings, particularly within the Western urban milieu. Children’s use of space is said to be increasingly restricted to child-specific spaces, such as to playgrounds and schoolyards.¹⁷ Both the public and academic discussions have raised concerns about children’s decreased opportunities for movement, exploration, and play.¹⁸ These discussions are linked to safety and risk perception. It is argued that, while in previous decades children acquired an understanding of risk through experiential learning, since the latter half of the twentieth century, the perception of risk and accidents has increasingly shifted towards manageability and preventability.¹⁹ This emphasis on risk avoidance is said to yield not only positive but also adverse repercussions on children and their overall quality of life.²⁰ Related to this, the article also engages in critical research pertaining to contemporary playgrounds, where the term ‘standardization’ has come often to be associated with monotony and a dearth of risk. The goal, however, is not to unveil an inherent, correct, or original notion of urban childhood that standardization and modernization perhaps challenged. Rather, the focus lies on how the use of power over children's mobility and play, which is always present, changes over time. By meticulously analysing materials related to the standards of the 1960s and 1970s, the study aims to critically examine the rationales that supported standardization.

RT cards as early standardizers of childhood

It is challenging to establish a precise starting point for the standardization of childhood environments in Finland. According to Benno Engels, many of the contemporary urban planning standards can be traced back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a time when pioneers in the field of urban planning endeavoured to enhance the living conditions of people living in urban areas plagued by issues related to health, safety and, allegedly, morality.²¹ In line with international precedents, the incorporation of designated areas for recreational play began to appear in Finnish city plans towards the end of the nineteenth century. The first playgrounds in Helsinki were established in 1899, and by the 1920s, there were 18 such playgrounds in existence.²² In Finland, the legislative requirement for planning child-specific spaces was established with the enactment of the Local Detailed Planning Act in 1932,²³ which obligated cities to provide public parks and sports fields for their citizens, and thus playgrounds and sports fields became integral aspects of urban planning, often integrated within more expansive park complexes. Their first design standards also took shape in the interwar period.²⁴ It was only in 1973 that the building legislation was updated to include a requirement for adequate provision of playgrounds for the plots of new blocks of flats, too.²⁵

Ideologically, the Modern Movement of the early twentieth century played an important role in shaping the concept of urban childhood requirements and establishing standardization in this regard. The notions of egalitarian living environments, family-centricity, and the overarching belief that it is possible to define average individuals with their needs were at the core of the movement.²⁶ The pursuit of equitable housing in Finland took shape gradually and predominantly after the Second World War. During post-war urban planning and construction, there was a notable shift towards a more comprehensive consideration, not only for dwellings but also for the living environment outdoors, compared to the pre-war period.

Therefore, standardization of children's play environments in the 1960s and 1970s, studied in this paper, did not materialize spontaneously; rather, they evolved within a wider historical framework driven by the goal of acknowledging children as a distinct group necessitating specialized considerations within the urban milieu. What was new in the 1960s and 1970s was a heightened drive to construct dedicated playgrounds for children, the assurance of the adequacy of playgrounds through legal measures and the proliferation of recommendations, norms and standards concerning them. The expanding and increasingly detailed planning principles and standards were strongly influenced by Sweden, which had formulated recommendations before Finland.²⁷

The standardization of play environments can be divided as follows: (1) the playground network level, which deals with accessibility to playgrounds, including recommendations for maximum distances to different types of playgrounds (see Figure 3); (2) standardization within individual playgrounds, covering recommendations for the spatial and functional arrangement of the playground; and (3) standardization of play equipment (Figures 1-2). The standardization of play environments also can be divided into quantitative and qualitative aspects. In this study, however, these categories overlap. The standardization of childhood environments is defined as the establishment of both broader norms and principles as well as more rigorous ‘rules, regulations, codes and specifications that underpin the actual act of plan preparation, implementation and regulation’.²⁸

Figures 1–2. RT card on swings. RT 897.15, 1961. Keinut, metallirakenteiset, asuntotalon. [Metal swings in residential yards]. Rakennustietosäätiö RTS sr [Building Information Foundation RTS sr], Helsinki.

In Finland of the 1960s and 1970s, one systematic instrument in the standardization of childhood environments was the utilization of RT Building information file, henceforth referred to as ‘RT file’. The RT file was, and have remained, a comprehensive compilation of data containing relevant information needed in planning and construction. The file has been widely adopted by various professionals involved in the planning field and have been employed throughout the country. Most of the individual RT instruction cards, henceforth referred to as ‘RT cards’ analyzed here lack attribution to their creators. Nevertheless, their content bear a resemblance to the instructions and publications issued by the Mannerheim League for Child Welfare and one RT card is a copy of the planning instructions by the Ministry of the Interior.

The very first RT cards, dating back to the 1940s, provided guidelines for the construction of rural-type houses. The main goal of early standardization was to reduce costs, enhance the efficiency of housing production and prevent the construction of low-quality apartments during the post-war reconstruction phase. The development of the RT file was influenced by or bore resemblance to at least four different international sources: the CIAM network, construction practices implemented by the German Nazi administration, the Sweet’s Catalog File from the US, and the Swedish standardization efforts known as Byggstandardisering.²⁹ The initial RT cards were issued by the Finnish Association of Architects’ Reconstruction Office, which evolved into the Standardization Institute in 1947. Currently, the RT file is operated by Rakennustieto Oy³⁰, owned by Rakennustietosäätiö RTS sr (Building Information Foundation RTS sr).

The standardization within the context of children’s environments involves, on one hand, the incorporation of standardization principles derived from industrial technology into the architectural framework of the welfare state,³¹ on the other hand, it involves the integration of socio-political initiatives of the emerging welfare state aimed at creating a high-quality and equitable environment for all individuals. Standardization served as a tool to concurrently enhance the quality of environments for everyone while optimizing efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

The initial RT cards pertaining to children’s environments (Figures 1-2) were primarily composed of technical guidelines for constructing elements such as swings or sandboxes.³² Subsequent cards, notably those from 1969,³³ 1972³⁴ and particularly 1978,³⁵ contained substantial contextual information regarding the topic. For instance, the 1978 RT card titled ‘Planning of Playgrounds’ presented a comprehensive exploration of play and its importance, giving detailed instructions on how to provide a comprehensive network of playgrounds within urban environments. Considering the multifaceted content of many the analyzed RT cards, they could alternatively be called simply a collection of instructions, guidelines or recommendations rather than standardization documents. Similarly, the phenomenon under investigation could be termed urban design or planning with a focus on children.

In this study, the technically nuanced term ‘standardization’ is used in accordance with the definition provided by the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines a standard as ‘a rule, principle, criterion, or measure by which something can be judged or evaluated.”³⁶ The RT cards analyzed encompassed a diverse range of information concerning children's environments. This information ranged from detailed technical instructions to more generalized recommendations for creating such environments, as demonstrated in the earlier examples. Nonetheless, due to the compact format of the RT cards, an impression of technical and objective directives is fostered. These cards effectively conveyed the rules and principles against which children's environments were assessed. Another justification for using the term standardization is the likelihood that RT cards contributed to the development of national standards and speeded up the introduction of international standards pertaining to playgrounds. Today, especially the safety standards are a profoundly influential facet of playground design both nationally and internationally.³⁷

The RT cards are classified into three distinct types. The first type, known as instruction cards (ohjekortti), provided construction guidelines, such as instructions on installing swings or general planning guidance for children's playgrounds. These guidelines were optional to follow. Most of the RT cards analyzed for this article belong to the instruction category. The second type, referred to as regulation cards (säännöstiedosto or säännöskortti), derived their instructions from legislation, making them more significant. Regulations offered practical instructions on how to interpret legislation, in this case concerning children's play environments. The third type, product cards (tuotekortti), comprised instructions provided by different companies for their specific products. During the 1960s and 1970s, at least 9 RT cards related to children's play spaces were published (refer to Table 1), each contributing in different ways. These cards serve as the primary source material for this article. Prior to the establishment of the RT file, all the valuable information needed in planning and construction were scattered across various sources such as textbooks, legislation, professional journals, and advertising magazines. The RT file served as a centralized resource, continually refreshed, and updated to ensure that outdated instructions were replaced with current ones.³⁸

Table 1. RT cards analyzed for this article.

	Published (year)	Topic	Instruction card (I)/ Regulation card (R)/ Product card (P)	Out of use
1.	1961	Metal swings in residential yards	I	1994
2.	1967	Children’s sandbox	I	1994
3.	1969	Children's playgrounds, general planning aspects	I	1978
4.	1969	Housing, activities, and space requirements	I	1978
5.	1972	Children’s playgrounds, equipment	I	1996
6.	1972	Leisure-time facilities in housing blocks	I	1994
7.	1978	Planning of playgrounds	R	2002
8.	1970s	Finnola Playground Equipment / Oy Pohjoiskalotti-Nordkalotten Ab	P	not known
9.	1979	Lappset play and outdoor equipment / Oy Pohjoiskalotti-Nordkalotten Ab	P	1982

The initial objective of the emerging trend to standardize children's environments, was to enhance safety and provide children with higher quality play equipment. However, this objective soon expanded to encompass not only play equipment but also entire playgrounds and children’s living environments. There is a prevailing argument that modern childhood is increasingly organized in spatial terms,³⁹ leading also to the adoption of heightened planning and standardization as a means of facilitating a better childhood experience. When subjected to a critical interpretation, the concept of standardization endeavours to establish not only where children ought to be but also where they ought not to be.⁴⁰ This article delves into the intricate nature of the expanding emphasis on child-centred design.

Urban children as playful, creative and requiring adult intervention

Play as a concept seems almost an opposite to the concept of ‘standard’.⁴¹ Play is often defined as a free, spontaneous, creative, voluntary activity that children tend to do almost all the time and anywhere, a source of joy and amusement,⁴² whereas standards on a general level can be defined as ‘agreed-upon rules that aim to regulate, organize, and calibrate social life by rendering the world equivalent across time and space’, as Riina Lundman put it.⁴³ The RT card of 1969 states that, for instance, the area required for maintenance and parking in a residential block can be relatively precisely defined, whereas determining the space requirement for parks, playgrounds, and plantings is more challenging.⁴⁴ As the director of the Swedish Play Council expressed at the International Play Seminar Playthings in Helsinki in 1976, ‘Designing for inanimate objects is much simpler than designing for life itself.’⁴⁵

In tackling this issue, the RT cards draw upon references to international and domestic studies and reports. Swedish and German reports on children's play environments from diverse cities were frequently cited. Among local sources, reports from the NGO Mannerheim League for Child Welfare, which initiated a project exclusively focusing on children's environments in the 1970s, carried considerable importance. In these reports, children's environments were discussed in a variety of ways, but with an emphasis on the developmental psychology perspective.⁴⁶ A similar point of view is repeated in many of the RT cards.

The 1969 RT card, entitled ‘Children's Playgrounds: General Planning Aspects,’ stands out as the first one to delve more deeply into the exploration of children's needs and play preferences in urban contexts. The 1969 RT card starts by dividing childhood into five different age groups, outlining their respective play preferences and specifying the hours during which they typically engage in play. Consequently, the recommendations propose three types of playgrounds. The first is a designated play space intended primarily for the youngest children, located no more than 50 metres from the main entrance of residential buildings. The second type is a larger playground situated ideally around 150 metres from home, accommodating a wider range of age groups. The third type is a neighbourhood playground designed to serve children from the entire community, located at a maximum distance of 400 metres from the main entrance (Figure 3). Similar threefold divisions of playgrounds were presented in influential Swedish building instructions, as well as in earlier recommendations by Helsinki City Council's committee dedicated to playgrounds from the 1950s.⁴⁷ Interestingly, this network of playgrounds is still partially observable in contemporary Helsinki.

Figure 3. Suggestion for organizing a playground network. 1. play space on the grounds of the block of flats, 2. Block playground, 3. Neighbourhood playground 4. Natural/wild area ••• Safe pedestrian access. RT 995.33, 1969. Lasten leikkipaikat, yleisiä suunnitteluohjeita. [Children’s playgrounds, general planning aspects]. Rakennustietosäätiö RTS sr [Building Information Foundation RTS sr], Helsinki.

The RT card from 1972 Children’s playgrounds, equipment further expands the topic to encompass ‘essential information necessary for planning regarding children's play requirements, children’s ways to play, as well as the necessary spaces and equipment for play.’ According to the RT card, play equipment should strike a balance between avoiding excessive pre-design and promoting creativity and highlights the importance of creating a spacious environment around the play equipment to allow for a diverse range of games and activities.⁴⁸ The importance of play for children is highlighted, along with the role of the environment in supporting play. Play is primarily regarded as crucial for a child's development, and the child's surroundings should provide diverse stimuli. Additionally, the importance of enabling independent choices within play areas is emphasized, ensuring that the available stimuli and activity options align with children’s different levels of development. In this RT card, play is categorized into seven distinct categories, such as sensory and creative play, with specific equipment defined for each type of play. In addition to the extensive information about the play in general, the RT card provides practical guidelines for the proper placement of rope swings, seesaws, climbing frames, slides, huts and playhouses, ball fences, sandboxes, tunnels and balance beams in the playground. Furthermore, the RT card includes instructions for equipping special spaces for construction, fire, scrap, adventure, water play, as well as cycling tracks within supervised playgrounds. These special play spaces would allow children, under adult supervision, to engage in activities such as handling fire, being creative through building with scrap materials and playing with water. Children are viewed as continuously evolving, and play is recognized as a tool for learning. The RT card does not express any opinion on play equipment and environments, such as fences, rug beating racks and streets (see Figures 4–6), often used by the urban children of the time.⁴⁹ While it is acknowledged that, for example, large, smooth stones or tree trunks, if appropriately modified, can be suitable for children's play, the primary focus of the recommendations is on play equipment specifically designed and constructed by adults.

Figures 4–6. (4) Two boys standing on the barbed wire fence between the yards in Kallio neighbourhood, Helsinki, in 1970, Simo Rista, Helsinki City Museum. CC BY 4.0.; (5) Children climbing on a rug beating rack and playing in the yard of an apartment building in the neighbourhood of Roihuvuori, Helsinki, in 1970, Eeva Rista, Helsinki City Museum. CC BY 4.0; and (6) Young boys engaged in street play during the spring of 1962, Teuvo Kanerva, Finnish Heritage Agency [Museovirasto, Historian kuvakokoelma]. CC BY 4.0.

The RT cards portray the ideal child as active, creative, curious, and eager to learn new skills. The instructions convey the idea that children's innate play, natural curiosity, and creativity should be preserved and nurtured, but relocated to adult-planned play spaces to increase safety. The RT cards set high expectations for playground design. The play environment should be of such exceptional quality that there would be no inclination to venture outside of it, particularly to areas in the city that were deemed unsafe or hazardous.⁵⁰

Risks, however, cannot be eliminated completely from a child's world. For instance, the aforementioned RT card from 1972, which offers guidelines construction playgrounds, adventure playgrounds, and junk playgrounds, recognizes the significance of skills such as fire handling and acknowledges children’s desire for wild and experimental play. However, it is emphasized that this type of play should take place in designated playgrounds that are supervised by adults. Perhaps instructions of this nature steered childhood towards a culture wherein the prevailing notion shifted away from directly confronting risks to one where risks were intended to be pre-emptively managed and mitigated.⁵¹ On the other hand, the purpose of the instructions was not to entirely isolate children from potential risks, but to help them gain a wide range of skills so that they could manage risks themselves. It is however worth noting that that the specialized play spaces depicted here, most likely due to the substantial staff requirements for their operation, never gained widespread popularity in Finland. However, some of the features, like paddling pools and bicycle tracks, were integrated into many of the supervised playgrounds.

Hence, a genuine aspiration to comprehend and honour children's play and movement is evident within the RT cards, with the intention of seamlessly integrating children into urban planning.⁵² Simultaneously, the objective was to guide children's play towards areas that are planned and overseen by adults. The writings convey a confidence in the power of planning, typical for the era.⁵³

The standardization of play also held economic interests. As an example, the play equipment manufacturer Lappset Group oy (previously known as Oy Pohjoiskalotti-Nordkalotten Ab until 1991), which emerged as the largest manufacturer of play equipment in Finland was established in 1970. From its inception, the company actively advocated for standardization, and some of their products already had their own dedicated product RT cards in the 1970s. Apart from their early adoption of national guidelines and standards, the company actively advocated for international standardization in Finland.⁵⁴ This strategic approach was driven by their early pursuit of international markets, where uniform standards offered advantages.⁵⁵

The development of standards occurred at a crucial time. On the one hand, there was a wealth of information available regarding children's needs and a strong determination to implement this knowledge, while on the other hand, challenging circumstances prevailed: escalating car traffic posed greater risks for children, and the encroachment of highways and car parks reduced the spaces where children once played. The playground standards and guidelines emerged as a kind of compromise between the world of adults and the world of children. They aimed to facilitate a playful urban childhood within an environment predominantly shaped by motorized traffic, a subject that will be examined in the upcoming sections.

Urban Children in need of protection

The primary requirement for children's playgrounds and the pathways leading to them is to ensure that they are separated from motorized roads. Other potential hazards can arise from features such as ponds, cliffs, and improperly planned or installed play equipment. In addition, the pollution and noise that enter the play area, as well as the management of waste and arrangements for rug beating and dusting, also have an impact on the overall safety and well-being of the play space.⁵⁶

Safety is a central theme within RT cards that pertain to children's environments. The safety problems to be solved with the help of planning instructions can be divided into two main topics. Firstly, the emphasis lies on enhancing the safety of individual play equipment as well as their positioning in the environment in relation to other functions of the urban space. Secondly, the RT cards aim to solve the problem of increasing traffic and children’s diminishing safe urban space. The overall goal is to address the issue of inadequate play spaces by providing guidance on how to plan safe, inviting, and engaging play areas and environments for all children.

In the very first child related RT cards from the early 1960s, the risks mentioned revolve around the presence of other individuals within the yard. Swings should not pose harm to other users of the yard, and ball games should not cause disturbances for young children playing in the sandbox. For instance, the very first RT card related to children from 1961 (see Figures 1-2) provides instructions for the construction and placement of the swing, taking into consideration its relationship with other elements within the playground as well as its positioning within the entire play area. Perhaps the intention was also to resolve conflicts between children, who played creatively in the surrounding environment, and adults who, at times, found children's play to be bothersome or disruptive.⁵⁷ On similar lines, safety was a central theme of the following 1967 RT card that focused on sandboxes. The card advises maintaining a safety distance of 2 metres around the sandbox and recommends positioning the sandbox in such a way that ensures that other activities do not cause any disturbances. The positioning of the sandbox in relation to the residential building was deemed crucial, aiming for maximum visibility from as many apartments as possible. Additionally, ensuring children's safe access to the sandbox was emphasized, with careful consideration given to ensuring that traffic in the rest of the yard posed no danger to the sandbox users. Overall, the relationship between the small children's playground in the yard and the windows of the residential building held significant importance in post-war planning. Ideally, parents, particularly mothers, would supervise their children from their home windows.⁵⁸ Meanwhile, from today’s perspective, very young children were presumed to play and to be capable of managing on their own in the yard, with adults offering only indirect supervision. While the previous RT card still hinted at the notion that children's play should not disrupt traffic and other users of the yard, the emphasis in this 1967 RT card has shifted towards prioritizing the protection of (small) children by emphasizing the importance of completely separating children from motorized traffic.⁵⁹

The 1972 RT guidelines regarding children's playgrounds provide the most comprehensive discussion concerning the safety of both playground equipment and locations. The play equipment should not pose a risk to children or others, even if they used the equipment incautiously or in ways other than intended. Furthermore, the RT guidelines specify that play equipment should be designed to ensure safety and minimize hazards. This includes features like smooth edges, absence of sharp corners, secure attachments and the use of harmless, non-toxic materials. The document emphasizes the importance of consistent monitoring and maintenance to uphold equipment safety. Additionally, the guidelines offer instructions, much like earlier versions, regarding the appropriate spacing among different play equipment, the materials used for the equipment's foundation and the suitable dimensions for safe usage.

In numerous aspects, the guidelines pertaining to playground equipment appear to be sensible, and many individuals involved in the constructing playgrounds for children likely adhered to such principles even without instructions. Given the accident statistics of that period, directing resources toward safety measures appears both justified and understandable. For instance, medical doctor Soini Ryöppy noted in the Children and Society magazine (Lapset ja yhteiskunta) in 1978 that the number of accident deaths, expressed as a percentage of the number of deaths from all causes, was the highest in Finland among other European countries.⁶⁰ While the RT cards do not directly cite accident statistics, their intention likely revolved around mitigating all kinds of accidents. For instance, fractures, according to the aforementioned article, stood as one of the most prevalent causes for children's hospitalizations.⁶¹ Therefore, increasing standardization and more detailed guidelines appear reasonable and understandable. However, more critically, the growing emphasis on children's safety may have also contributed to negative long-term consequences, such as a decline in children's spontaneous play and overall physical activity.

Increasing traffic safety with standards

In the urban environment of the 1960s and 1970s, the greatest threat to children's play and movement was motor traffic. This problem was not entirely new; already in the 1950s, the government issued instructions to urban planners via a circular. It stipulated that playgrounds should be located so that children could access them directly from their homes without having to navigate through busy streets.⁶² Similarly, one of the rationales behind post-war suburban planning since the 1950s was grounded in the necessity for children to reach school ‘without having to cross a single highway.”⁶³ The importance of protecting playgrounds and the associated routes from vehicular traffic was frequently mentioned in the RT cards, too.

In the Finnish post-war traffic education, responsibility for traffic safety was often attributed to pedestrians, rather than to motorists, traffic culture, or insufficient infrastructure.⁶⁴ On similar lines especially the early RT cards delve into the varying abilities of children at different ages to comprehend traffic situations, highlighting that the competency for independent movement in traffic only truly emerges around the age of 10–12. While RT cards indeed recognize children's inclination towards diverse play, it is also noted that play can lead to hazardous situations. For instance, in the 1969 RT card on the general planning aspects of playgrounds, it is noted that the most common reasons for accidents are children playing in unsuitable locations, cycling on driveways, joining in winter activities near motorized traffic or children ‘dashing’ onto roadways.⁶⁵ The problem is not adults driving cars too fast or carelessly, but children playing or simply moving in the ‘wrong’ places.

In the RT cards, this is an issue to be solved with more detailed planning and careful separation of motorized traffic and children.⁶⁶ Thus, while problematizing children’s independent play, the RT cards also clearly served as a way to shift the responsibility for solving traffic problems from individuals to urban planning. At the same time, safety initiatives in Sweden underwent a shift, placing greater emphasis on the responsibility of urban planning as opposed to individual awareness and education. Children's traffic accidents played a significant role in catalysing this change in approach.⁶⁷

However, for a long time motor traffic held a paramount position in legislative priorities in Finland. For example, the gradual development of speed limits aimed at enhancing traffic safety was a sluggish process, despite the availability of alarming accident statistics.⁶⁸ Moreover, parked cars were given precedence over other users of urban spaces. For instance, in the Building Decree of 1959,⁶⁹ the responsibility for organizing car parking fell increasingly upon plot owner, leading to the inclusion of designated parking spaces exclusively for car parking within new residential building yards.

For children, this had at least two implications: first, the influence of cars in housing areas own grounds, which served as natural play areas for children, grew ever stronger in the everyday life. The space that was relinquished to accommodate cars became a subject of heated contemporaneous debate in newspapers and among planning experts in the 1970s.⁷⁰ At the core of the issue was the absence of playground regulations. In the 1978 RT card, the matter was articulated as follows:

The absence of playground standards equivalent to the detailed parking regulations stipulated in the building legislation has led to an emphasis on prioritizing parking spaces to the detriment of playgrounds.⁷¹

This dynamic – children's minor role in building legislation compared to the role of cars and parking – contributed to the development of playground standards for children. At the very least, this dichotomy was used to promote the need for child-specific standards.

The most central and concrete step forward in improving child-specific standards in relation to parking standards was the The Decree on the Amendment of Building Decree of 1973, according to which adequate space for play spaces had to be allocated also in the grounds of apartment buildings.⁷² Compliance with the decree and the related instructions and standards was frequently delayed, but over time, playgrounds of various sizes became an integral component of the everyday environment of the urban dwellers, particularly in the newly built suburbs.⁷³

The 1978 RT card Planning of playgrounds was mainly dedicated to this new legislation.⁷⁴ It is also a regulation card, signifying that the guidelines are grounded in legislation and therefore mandatory to adhere to, whereas the preceding RT cards analyzed for this article primarily functioned as recommendations. What is noteworthy from the traffic safety perspective in this is that the RT card text straightforwardly addresses a central issue of the era: the diminishing play opportunities for children due to the surge in motorized traffic, rather than children recklessly venturing onto roads, and it is believed that the resolution for harmonizing traffic and children lies in well-planned environments. What is – again – emphasized is the importance of completely separating children from traffic. Thus, especially in the latter part of the 1970s, the standardization of children’s environments primarily involved adapting spaces for children to accommodate the increasing traffic, which was perceived as inevitable, or at least not a problem to be solved with RT cards related to children’s play environments.

The legislation of 1973, the subsequent design guidelines and the impacts of the RT cards examined in this study, have had a lasting influence. For instance, the Ministry of the Interior's 1974 Leikkialueiden suunnittelu [Planning of playgrounds]⁷⁵ currently stand as the sole national recommendation for play environments and continue to be relevant.⁷⁶ The 1978 RT card, which is a copy of this planning document, was also in use until 2002. The discussions and recommendations made in the 1970s have had a profound and enduring impact.

Taming the urban child with standards

The playground should provide ample and diverse opportunities for play … It should be engaging and versatile enough so that the child does not feel compelled to venture into prohibited or hazardous areas for play.⁷⁷

The quote crystallizes the repeated tension within the RT cards related to child-specific environments.⁷⁸ Children's need for versatile play is clearly expressed, and standardization appears to be a necessary evil: children's movement ‘has to be limited because not all parts of the environment can be made suitable for playing.’⁷⁹ Moreover, the 1978 RT card states that ‘the boundaries should follow as well as possible children's natural prerequisites and tendencies for movement.’⁸⁰ In practice, however, the RT cards mainly instructed a three-level playground network to meet this need.

The combination of urban children's considerable freedom of movement up until the end of the 1970s⁸¹ and limited adult supervision played a crucial role in the evolvement of what previous studies have referred to as ‘children's realms’.⁸² While children often lacked the power to determine their own locations for play due to constraints, they managed to establish their own distinct urban world within the larger adult-centric city. This was accomplished by utilizing spaces that adults tended to avoid and by finding own paths and routes. However, this independent movement, and especially its associated risks, were seen as increasingly problematic.

If we look at children's independent movement and play – and the standardization that aimed to limit it – through political lenses, standardization can be interpreted as a tool to diminish the power children wield in moving around and shaping their own environment. Politics is here understood broadly, and it refers to children’s everyday activities, movement, and interaction within the urban environment and with other people.⁸³ Children as political actors are perhaps most visible when their actions conflict with norms dominated by adults: when they, for instance, go to forbidden places, choose their own paths, avoid places where they are expected to go or defy adult instructions.

For example, those very areas defined as potentially dangerous or unsuitable for children in the RT cards (quote, Figures 4–6) could be intriguing and exhilarating for the children themselves.⁸⁴ Additionally, defining roads as unsuitable for children underscored the idea that the streets were primarily intended for adults with cars. This becomes problematic, especially considering that the city was becoming increasingly dominated by roads and motorized traffic. Consequently, while there were active efforts to create ideal and suitable environments for children in certain areas, simultaneously, efforts were being made to completely exclude them from other urban spaces. This exclusion was rationalized by emphasizing traffic safety.

Thus, a critical interpretation of the aims of the standardization would suggest that one of its objectives revolved around ‘taming the urban child,’ perceiving the earlier children's mobility and their interaction with the environment as a problem to be resolved by offering child-specific, increasingly standardized, and supervised play. All of these standardization efforts were, of course, justified under the premise of benefiting the children themselves. As earlier studies have noted, the concept of a good childhood is closely intertwined with the allocation of space and positioning within that space. The RT cards vigorously advocated for certain areas where it was deemed appropriate for children to be (such as versatile and planned playgrounds) and conversely highlighted spaces where they were not expected to venture (unclearly defined hazardous locations and motorized roads), actively ignoring the existing urban play culture and children’s own urban worlds.

Ironically, even as children's surroundings became more standardized, meticulously planned, and purposefully built, and as childhood itself gradually became associated with various institutions, a concurrent worry began to highlight the importance of increasing children's perspectives in planning and design. This discourse urged for their proactive engagement in planning their own environments.⁸⁵ To put it provocatively, initially, children's autonomous and imaginative utilization of space – their spatial-political engagement – was suppressed, only to be substituted with expectations for them to partake in adult-driven planning procedures, not on their own terms. This absence of a genuine voice for children in the realm of planning continues to persist as a pertinent challenge up to the present day.⁸⁶

The intention here is not to argue that children's own realms or independent mobility of the past are inherently more genuine, accurate or better for children. What holds greater relevance in this context is to analyse the underlying assumptions utilized to rationalize the implementation of the new standards.

It is evident that in the urban planning of 1960s and 1970s, children’s play was not the primary focus; instead, children’s mobility was adapted to an urban landscape primarily dominated by other priorities. In essence, what was perceived as inevitable and unalterable was the escalating traffic, whereas children’s play was considered possible to change and mould. In the RT cards, the urban environment is portrayed as dangerous due to its motorized traffic and natural elements like steep cliffs or badly installed play equipment, and the presence of children playing and moving independently is considered problematic.

In essence, there was nothing new in adults’ endeavours to regulate children’s use of space. What underwent a transformation with standardization was the consolidation of adult and expert authority in determining children’s environments. Whereas earlier, spatial conflicts primarily unfolded on an individual basis (such as between adults and children) within the context of the urban environment, some of these conflicts had now evolved into urban planning concerns.

Conclusions

The pursuit of standardization was conducted under the premise of promoting the best interests of children, incorporating a range of expertize from various fields. Within the RT cards under examination, children are depicted as active, creative, curious and enthusiastic learners. The instructions convey the notion that children's inherent inclination for play, natural curiosity and creativity should be conserved and nurtured. The definition of play is comprehensive, and the objective is to enhance the quality and quantity of adult planned play environments, both at the level of individual play equipment, as well as at the broader playground network level. The increasing standards for playgrounds appear particularly justified if we look at already built neighbourhoods that were not affected in the same way by the new guidelines and standards. The absence of legal directives and recommendations often resulted in automobiles taking over many of children’s traditional play areas in many parts of the Finnish cities, for instance the courtyards of the city centre of Helsinki.

The overall impact of increasing discussions and subsequent recommendations and standards including RT cards was an increasing number of child-specific spaces such as built playgrounds. Not only did the quantity of playgrounds increase significantly over time, but the quality also underwent a gradual transformation. For instance, while playgrounds in the 1950s were often limited to features such as sandy play areas with swings and sandboxes, thirty years later the playground environments were significantly more versatile. Built playgrounds swiftly became an integral part of the urban landscape, especially in the newly built suburbs.

More critically, the expansion motorized traffic and the subsequent child-specific planning served as a means to reduce the influence children held in terms of navigating and shaping their own surroundings. This may have had far-reaching effects on children's desire to move and play in an urban environment. Children’s involvement in the planning processes remains limited even up to the present day.

Particularly the 1970s RT cards reveal a distinct power hierarchy. Motorized traffic and its drawbacks are perceived as an unavoidable inconvenience that creates numerous challenges for children's urban play and mobility. While there is recognition that children's traffic concerns should be addressed at the master plan level, the primary focus of the RT cards was to provide guidelines for completely segregating children's play areas from motorized traffic.

An analysis of the RT cards from the 1960s and 1970s reveal two main and contradicting objectives within standardization. On one hand there was a desire to nurture children’s play and creativity, while on the other hand there were active efforts to restrict it in the name of safety and protection. Standardization was a tool to fit children’s play into an adult-designed urban environment dominated by motorized traffic.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the anonymous referees for their good feedback and my dear colleagues Essi Jouhki, Matilde Kautsky and Hanna Tyvelä for their valuable comments and inspiration. I also appreciate the guidance and comments from Academy Research Fellow Tiina Männistö-Funk, Professors Marketta Kyttä and Ranja Hautamäki from Aalto University, and Kirsi Saarikangas from University of Helsinki.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Alli Paasikiven Säätiö; Helsingin Kaupunki; Opetus- ja Kulttuuriministeriö [grant number OKM/1097/626/2020].

Notes on contributors

Veera Moll

Veera Moll works as a doctoral researcher at Aalto University, Department of Built Environment in Espoo, Finland. Her forthcoming thesis focuses on children’s role in post-war urban planning in Helsinki, Finland. Veera has authored several articles on the urban history of children, exploring it from both a planning perspective and through the lens of children’s experiences. Alongside children’s urban history, her research interests encompass child-friendly urban planning, playgrounds and children’s mobility and play in urban contexts.

Notes

1 Juntto and Vilkko, “Monta kotia,” 115.

2 Moll and Kuusi, “From City Streets,” 127.

3 Laakkonen, “Asphalt Kids and the Matrix City”.

4 Moll and Männistö-Funk, “Kids vs cars,” 8; Masonen, “Liikenneturvallisuus ja ympäristö,” 233–36.

5 The concept of playground was not entirely new; Helsinki established its first playgrounds as early as 1899. However, after the Second World War, with a growing population of children and urban expansion, the number of playgrounds increased, and the first year-round playgrounds were established.

6 Onnismaa, “Lapsi, lapsuus ja perhe,” 258.

7 Moll and Jouhki, “Leikin paikka”. Multi-professional discussions on children’s needs in urban contexts were actively explored in various publications, including those by the NGO Mannerheim League for Child Welfare, the Finnish Architectural Review (Arkkitehti), and in the Children and Society (Lapset ja yhteiskunta), published by the Central Union for Child Welfare."

8 Moll and Jouhki, “Leikin paikka”; Tyvelä, “Welfare State Institutional Architecture”.

9 Moll and Jouhki, “Leikin paikka”; Moll and Kuusi, “From City Streets”.

10 Another established name for the file is “RT construction information files”.

11 Another established name for RT cards is “RT instruction cards”.

12 Both current and outdated RT cards can be found on the Rakennustieto website https://kortistot.rakennustieto.fi/

13 Tuomi and Sarajärvi, Laadullinen tutkimus ja sisällönanalyysi.

14 Ben-Joseph and Szold, Regulating Place, 2–5. Ben-Joseph divides the discussions on the use of standards in urban planning generally into three categories (1) descriptive/directive (2) evaluative/normative, and (3) historical/societal. Jansson, Bucht & Bodelius, ”Fri lek och fasta normer.” My research also shares similarities with the study by Jansson, Bucht & Bodelius, where they critically examine the development of playground norms in Sweden.

15 Kummala, Murrosten vuosikymmen; Saarikangas et al., “Lived, Material and Planned Welfare”; Jansson et al., ”Fri lek och fasta normer”.

16 Hautamäki and Donner, “Maisema-arkkitehtuurin 1970-luku,” 101; Moll and Jouhki, “Leikin paikka."

17 Zeiher, “Children’s Islands in Space and Time”; Kyttä et al., “Children as Urbanites,” 319.

18 Kyttä et al., “The Last Free-Range Children?"; Shaw et al., Children’s Independent Mobility; Kalliala, Paras leikkini; Moilanen, Kaisu. “Lapset eivät saa enää liikkua niin vapaasti kuin 50-luvulla.” [Children are no longer allowed to move as freely as in the 1950s] Helsingin sanomat, November 24, 2019; Mutanen, Annikka. “Vapauttakaa lapset.” [Free the children] Helsingin sanomat, February 10, 2022.

19 Lundman, “Coping with Standards,” 432; Ball, Risk and the Demise, 58–59.

20 Brussoni et al., “Risky Outdoor Play and Health?”; Lundman, “Coping with Standards.”

21 Engels, “Community Facility Provision Standards,” 694–95.

22 Jouhki, “Politics in Play,” 8.

23 Local Detailed Planning Act.

24 Salmela, “Leikin ja urheilun tilat,” 153.

25 The Decree on the Amendment of Building Decree.

26 Saarikangas, Model Houses for Model Families; Saarikangas, Asunnon muodonmuutoksia.

27 God Bostad i Dag och i Morgon, 46–8.

28 Engels, “Community Facility Provision Standards,” 694.

29 Michelsen, “Arkkitehdit, rakentaminen ja standardit.”

30 “Rakennustieto web page.”

31 Hankonen, Lähiöt ja tehokkuuden yhteiskunta, 74.

32 “RT Card: Metal Swings”; “RT Card: Children’s Sandbox.”

33 “RT Card: Children’s Playgrounds, General Planning Aspects.”

34 “RT Card: Children’s Playgrounds, Equipment.”

35 “RT Card: Planning of Playgrounds.”

36 Online Oxford English Dictionary standard - Quick search results | Oxford English Dictionary (oed.com), (accessed May 13).

37 Lundman, “Coping with Standards.”

38 Michelsen, “Arkkitehdit, rakentaminen ja standardit”, 129.

39 James, Jenks, and Prout, Theorizing Childhood; Strandell, “Liikkuminen ja yhteydenpito”, 33.

40 Strandell, “Liikkuminen ja yhteydenpito”, 33.

41 “Coping with Standards”, 438. Similarly, Lundman addresses the challenging relationship between safety standards in playgrounds and the actual act of playing.

42 Lundman, 438; Kalliala, Paras leikkini; Huizinga, Homo Ludens.

43 Lundman, “Coping with Standards,” 3; Timmermans and Epstein, “A World of Standards,” 71.

44 “RT Card: Children’s Playgrounds.”

45 “Lappset. Uusi leikkipaikkojen rakentamisjärjestelmä.”

46 Jansson et al., “Fri lek och fasta normer.” The developmental psychology perspective was also important in the development of Swedish play environment norms.

47 God Bostad, 46–8; Leikin Ympäristö.

48 “RT Card: Children’s Playgrounds, Equipment.”

49 Laakkonen, “Asphalt Kids and the Matrix City.”

50 “RT Card: Children’s Playgrounds,” 1; “Lappset. Uusi leikkipaikkojen rakentamisjärjestelmä.”

51 Ball, Risk and the Demise of Children’s Play, 58–61; Lundman, “Coping with Standards,” 432.

52 Moll and Jouhki, “Leikin paikka.”

53 Hautamäki and Donner, “Maisema-arkkitehtuurin 1970-luku,” 98.

54 Ikäheimo and Ikäheimo, “Promotional Letter.”

55 Kekola, Suomi: 100 Menestyksen vuotta, 130.

56 “RT Card: Planning of Playgrounds.” Translation by the author from Finnish to English.

57 Moll and Kuusi, “From city streets to suburban woodlands,” 138–39; Periäinen and Upanne, Leikkipaikkasuositus, 39.

58 Saarikangas, “Sandboxes and Heavenly Dwellings,” 49; Jansson et al., ”Fri lek och fasta normer,” 88.

59 “RT Card: Children’s Sandbox.”

60 Ryöppy, Soini. “Lasten vammautuminen tapaturmien seurauksena.” Lapset ja yhteiskunta, April 1978; For further information regarding historical shifts in children’s accidents in Finland, see: Korpilahti et al., “Lasten ja nuorten tapaturmakuolleisuus”.

61 Ryöppy, Soini. “Lasten Vammautuminen Tapaturmien Seurauksena.” Lapset ja yhteiskunta, April 1978.

62 Mannerla-Magnusson, “Tiivistyvä normiviidakko,” 157.

63 Moll and Kuusi, “From City Streets,” 132; Saarikangas, Moll, and Hannikainen, “Lived, Material and Planned Welfare,” 224.

64 Männistö-Funk, “The Struggle over Pedestrians.”

65 “RT Card: Children’s Playgrounds, General Planning Aspects,” 2.

66 Jansson, Bucht & Bodelius, “Fri lek och fasta normer,” 84. Similar to the RT cards, Swedish traffic safety efforts emphasized the need to protect children under the age of 12 from traffic. A key strategy was the separation of children and motor traffic.

67 Lundin, Bilsamhället.

68 Männistö-Funk, “The Struggle over Pedestrians,” 258–59.

69 Building Decree.

70 Moll and Männistö-Funk, “Kids vs Cars.”

71 “RT-Card: Planning of Playgrounds.” Translation by the author from Finnish to English.

72 The Decree on the Amendment of Building Decree.

73 Suomalaisia Asuntoalueita 1960–75, 13; Moll and Jouhki, “Leikin paikka.”

74 “RT-Card: Planning of Playgrounds.”

75 Leikkialueiden suunnittelu.

76 Hautamäki and Donner, “Maisema-arkkitehtuurin 1970-luku,” 101.

77 “RT Card: Children’s Playgrounds, General Planning Aspects,” 1.

78 “RT Card: Planning of Playgrounds”; “Lappset. Uusi Leikkipaikkojen Rakentamisjärjestelmä”; Moll and Jouhki, “Leikin paikka,” 17.

79 “RT Card: Planning of Playgrounds,” 1.

80 “RT Card: Planning of Playgrounds,” 1.

81 Malinen and Tamminen, Leikitäänkö? Lasten kaverisuhteet, 318.

82 Laakkonen, “Asphalt Kids”; Malinen and Tamminen, Jälleenrakentajien Lapset; Moll and Nevalainen, ”Silloin oli ihan normaalia, että lapset kulkivat itsekseen tarhaan ja sieltä kotiin.”

83 Pauliina Kallio and Häkli, “Are There Politics in Childhood?”; Palonen, Tekstistä politiikkaan, 19; Strandell, “Liikkuminen ja yhteydenpito paikan tekemisessä,” 33.

84 Moll and Nevalainen, “Silloin oli ihan normaalia”, 21. Restrictions on mobility set by adults within the city and the defiance of such restrictions emerge as recurrent themes across multiple memory history studies related to children’s urban history.

85 Sauro, Mitä lapsi tarvitsee asumisessa, 16.

86 Cele and van der Burgt, “Participation, Consultation, Confusion: Professionals’ Understandings of Children’s Participation in Physical Planning.”