Population decline, the centralization of services, digitalization, and the rise of remote work have permanently changed how much space a city needs, and what kind of space. Quite simply, there are too many taxpayer-funded square feet.
And the problem isn’t even that simple. As buildings sit underused, the already substantial maintenance backlog continues to grow. These properties don’t even cover their operating costs, let alone necessary repairs. In Pieksämäki, this backlog has long since reached alarming levels. We have an abundance of public buildings with too few users to justify their costs—and no money to fix them.
This equation will not solve itself. A real estate strategy exists—but it doesn’t work.
The city has been refining this strategy for years. Buildings have been categorized based on usage needs, condition, maintenance backlog, and their role in providing statutory services. On paper, this makes sense.
In practice, however, the strategy has failed to bring clarity or consistency to decision-making. On the contrary, it has become a constant source of conflict. Buildings are shuffled from one category to another, and discussions get stuck on the fate of individual properties. The big picture gets lost, and decision-making grinds to a halt.
Too often, the underlying assumption seems to be that one day we’ll return to a time – something like the Kekkonen era in 1970s and 1980s – when more space was needed. That time is not coming back. The structural changes in society are permanent.
The city’s economic development policy also needs clearer alignment with its real estate strategy. An additional complication is the management of properties needed by businesses. Responsibility has been passed back and forth for years between technical services and business development, without any clear overall vision.
This is not just an administrative detail, it directly affects the city’s vitality. Businesses need predictability, not bureaucratic ping-pong. Right now, this part of the puzzle remains just as fragmented.
Not everything can, or should, be saved. The debate is further complicated by rising expectations of the city’s role. Some residents and political groups believe the city should not only maintain its own properties but also step in to rescue privately owned buildings.
Reality tells a different story. The city is already acquiring properties through bankruptcies, as seen with the Säästökeskus complex and Hotel Savonsolmu.
Taking on new responsibilities when the city is already struggling with its existing ones is not sustainable. The Savonsolmu case resulted in demolition costs for the city. Säästökeskus, on the other hand, was “saved” and remains a problem: vacant retail spaces no one needs, a partially completed renovation, and significant required repairs still unfinished.
What is needed now is decision-making: not more studies or political wrangling over minor details. Pieksämäki does not need another real estate strategy on paper. It needs one that actually works in practice.
That means three things: truly taking control of the big picture, making choices grounded in reality, and committing to decisions once they are made.
We cannot hold on to every property, but we must hold on to some. We cannot fix everything, but neither can we demolish everything. The longer we delay these decisions in typical drawn-out fashion, the more expensive the final bill will be for taxpayers.
A functional real estate strategy is not built through endless compromise, but through the ability to make difficult, necessary decisions. Now is the time.