Pieksämäki’s Iso-Pappila is undeniably a significant historical site. It is a building that deserves appreciation and care, and it should continue to thrive as a cultural hub and tourist attraction in the future. There seems to be broad consensus on this. However, the discussion has stalled on one single question: Who owns the walls?
In my view, giving up public ownership is not an end in itself. The town administration has managed Iso-Pappila for nearly four decades, yet its status as a cultural center has remained precarious. Given this situation, shouldn’t we consider whether new ownership could bring fresh energy and more active use to the site?
History shows that successful cultural and tourism destinations rarely emerge as the result of bureaucratic efforts. More often, they are the product of a dedicated individual or community—where passion meets hands-on action.
Many fear that if the town relinquishes public ownership of Iso-Pappila, cultural activities there will cease. But wouldn’t it be better to focus on what happens inside and around the building rather than who owns its walls? Why not direct our efforts toward finding an owner with both the genuine will and the necessary resources to develop Iso-Pappila in a way that honors its value?
This is not just a theoretical question. Finland has numerous examples of historically significant sites that have been revitalized by transitioning into the hands of devoted organizations. Private associations, foundations, or businesses have far more diverse funding opportunities compared to public ownership, allowing them to restore the building and develop its activities. The town administration, on the other hand, has very limited options—essentially relying solely on taxpayers’ money.
The town council’s previous decision to sell the property does not signify a disregard for culture or tourism, nor does it imply that Iso-Pappila will be demolished or that its historical significance will vanish from Pieksämäki. When selling the property, the town can carefully select the buyer and assess potential candidates based on their commitment and ability to preserve and enhance Iso-Pappila as a cultural and tourism destination.
The worst possible outcome for Iso-Pappila would be for it to remain under town ownership, underutilized and lacking the interest or resources for proper upkeep or development. Instead of clinging to the idea that only the town of Pieksämäki should own the building—despite clear limitations in its ability to maintain it—why not focus on finding a new owner who can ensure that Iso-Pappila remains a vibrant and flourishing cultural site?
If the conversation continues in its current tone—blaming the town administration for neglect and lack of vision while simultaneously insisting that it must continue shouldering the responsibility without adequate resources—it will do little to encourage cultural development in the area.
The building is not at risk of disappearing, nor is its cultural function solely dependent on whether the town owns it. So, instead of getting stuck in a debate over ownership, let’s focus on what kind of life and activities we want to create at Iso-Pappila.
When the right people and the right ideas come together, Iso-Pappila can embark on a new era—one where history and culture go hand in hand toward a thriving future, without being tied to town politics or bureaucracy.