Helsinki/Tallinn bipolarcity
ALEKSI NEUVONEN
26.05.2004
Bipolarcities, what are they?
Over the course of history there have been twin-cities: cities, earlier fortresses located symmetrically on the opposite sides of a border, a river or a strait. They have stood opposing each other, growing together, developing their identities with the other, as gates to something that lies on the opposite side.
Bipolarcities are something else. A twin-city can be a bipolarcity. Bipolarcity can be a new development stage in a history of a twin-city. But there are twin-cities that are not bipolarcities, and bipolarcities that are not (nor ever have been) twin-cities.
A bipolarcity is a bicity – one functional system with two centres. Having more than one centres of gravity characterises strongly the identity of the entity, eg. city. However, there are several ways to be a bicity; the underlying functional systems have numerous natures. Bipolarity is one possible realisation of a bicity. By definition, polar is opposite in character or action ; bipolar, then, is to have two centres pushing each other to opposite directions. A bipolarcity is strongly united, yet its ends are opposite in character, making it to be in a dynamic state of constant flux.
Helsinki and Tallinn, or Helsinki/Tallinn, could be described as a twin-city in a verge of becoming a bipolarcity. Starting from the fact that Helsinki was founded to become a rival to Tallinn, their development could be imagined to have happened in a bipolar manner, in opposition to the counter part’s development. This would be, however, contrary to the current interpretation of the history, according to which the fate of these cities has been moved along with the kingdoms, empires and power regimes to which they belonged to from time to time. That is to say: polarity was not between the two cities but between larger entities.
We are about to enter new phase in the history: Helsinki and Tallinn are becoming part of the common European integration. They will both parts of the union, sharing a large amount of common laws, common parliament, partly common foreign affairs etc. Unlike the previous times the two cities belonged to the same ruling systems, there is no remote capital to which all the roads end and all the money is collected. At least in principle we live in a de- or multi-centralised world consisting of complex networks between hubs of different size.
The core of the integration is economic: common markets are the strongest and the most prominent line of development in the EU. However, we naturally tend to interpret it as something more symbolic, something that unifies identities in a new way. But it is not only our inclination to common symbols; European identity has been also pushed to the citizens of the member counties. I have witnessed an European growing inside me, taking gradually
|
