The focus of the recent high-rise debate in Oslo has been the Barcode-project. The excavations indicate the length of the first phase of the project. Behind: The Postgirobygget (left) and Oslo Plaza Hotel (right). Photo: Odd Iglebaek
Opponents of the project claim that construction will block access to, and views of, the sea for many inhabitants in the eastern part of the city. They call the project "the wall" or "the loopholes" (the embrasures). Supporters however suggest that the project represents "progress and modernity". It is perhaps more correct to see it as a set of railings rather than a massive fence, notes Erling Lae, conservative politician and for a decade leader of Oslo City Council. Other supporters have argued that the final collection of the new Barcode-buildings will "look like a comb".
Majority support for the project existed in the city council from the outset. Debate has however been long and hard, and from time to time some Council representatives, particular the social-democrates, have even called for the planning-process to be restarted. This question emerged as a particular theme during the election in 2007.
Local residents have organised numerous hearings and debates and have made proposals to the effect that the whole concept should be completely redesigned. Instead of building high, the widening of the site was proposed in addition to building over the railway lines. In this way they argued that the height of the buildings could be reduced to a maximum of 25 meters and 8 floors. In 2006, 30 000 people signed a petition in protest against the Barcode project. A public opinion poll in December of the same year showed that 71% of Oslo's inhabitants were against it while only 10% were in favour. Erling Lae, head of the City Council, however suggested that people had simply not been provided with adequate information about the advantages of the project.
In reality however not much has come of these protests. In late February 2008 the city council finally brought the debate to a close. The result was a reduction in the floor-space equivalent of 5-6% plus some minor adjustments in respect of heights towards the east. Thereafter opposition has been relatively quiet. Most likely they now acknowledge that the battle has been lost.
The merits, or otherwise, of high-rise buildings have of course been discussed for decades in Oslo. In the 1940s the debate concentrated on the new city-hall. In the 1960s protest stopped a high rise block initiated by Det norske teateret on Oslo's Karl Johan Street, the city's main parade-street. This was also the decade when Selskabet for Oslo Bys Vel, an NGO with the task of looking after the historical and architectural heritage of the city, initiated an architectural competition focusing on the future of the then working-class tenement housing area Grünerløkka. This proved to be a rather interesting exercise as the winners suggested flattening at least one square-kilometre of the existing three or four floor storey high buildings and replacing it with high-rise Le Corbusier-inspired living-machines and motorways.
This probably never came to anything because neither the politicians nor the building-entrepreneurs were really interested. They were already at full capacity building new houses in the suburbs. The 197Os saw new inroads made into the eastern working-class areas of Oslo. This time the interested tenement owners joined forces with entrepreneurs and managed – often with the help of the police - to pull down a few blocks here and there. In their place they built "modern" flats - however no skyscrapers or urban motorways were constructed.
Many politicians, architects, planners and others also wanted to tear down the three wooden villages in Oslo - Kampen, Rodeløkka and Vålerenga - but had to give in. The protests against such plans were too well coordinated. However, a decade earlier a similar project at Enerhaugen was successful. Up in their place went three rather high new housing-complexes. Something of a memorial to the small wooden houses can now be seen at the Folkemuseet, the national museum for Norwegian folklore.
Parallel to these rather gruelling political fights over the future of Oslo in the eastern part of the city, in 1975 the 80 metre and 19 storey high Postgirobygget was erected in the centre of the city. Nobody, probably not even the architect, has ever argued that it is a nice looking building.
Some ten years later, the LPO-architects launched the idea of building "a slim needle" just beside the massive green-brownish Postgirobygget. The argument was that this would create a new milieu. "The needle" should be a hotel – today the Radisson Oslo Plaza Hotel. However, when introduced, no hotel-company would accept the needle-concept. It afforded too few rooms per floor to make it profitable to operate, they argued. The city council listened and soon the building was broadened and became like any other massive high-rise box. To maintain the needle-concept the top floors were sharpened into a broad chisel. By 1990 construction was complete and Oslo had the highest (117 metres and 37 storeys) building in the Nordic countries. Oslo held this record until the Kista-tower was erected in 2002 in the northern outskirts of Stockholm
By 2003 Oslo had a total of 100 buildings of more than 40 metres (13 floors) in height.
- Happy to have a high-rise strategy
- Of course, we do not have to build high to express modernity, says Ellen de Vibe. She is the head of the municipal Agency for Planning and Building Services in Oslo.
The reason for asking pointedly about modernity is double-edged. Firstly, when Oslo City Council adopted their strategy for high-rise buildings in 2004, they reiterated that "high-rise buildings are an important symbol of modernity". Secondly, one of the key arguments forwarded by the planning agency is that: "Today high-rise buildings are being constructed with growing enthusiasm across Europe." In other words both the political and professional authorities argue strongly for 'building high' in Oslo.
– And now it seems like Norway's capital has edged ahead, in a Nordic sense at least, on height-concentration – particularly related to densification in the city-centres?
- The point is that we have in Oslo for a long time faced significant pressure to build high in many parts of the city. Therefore it became important to develop clear policies for high buildings. This proved to be a long process and the conclusion was that, except for Bjørvika and one other single slim building of 24 floors in the northern outskirts of the city, no buildings should be higher than twelve floors. An additional exception is also made for tower-like, sculptural buildings, notes de Vibe, the chief town-planner of the city.
- When high-rise buildings were discussed in 1991 Oslo City Council advised against building high. They argued then that the city should maintain its traditional character as "a carpet" at the bottom of the huge green amphitheatre created by the natural landscape. The same argument was subsequently deployed again and again by the city and the planning authorities in later reports and analyses, but with the Barcode-project it seems like this principle has been dropped and that the city will now gain a new visual expression in particular when viewed from the fjord?
- Much of this debate is linked to the fact that Bjørvika has for many years been a very open area with hardly any buildings at all. In other words it is impossible to build a town equal in size to Lillehammer without it being visible in the landscape. What we are doing now is securing commons/public spaces or "fingers" as we call them, to maintain the relationship between the sea and the hinterland. In addition we will create ample open spaces and green areas and establish several good urban spaces for people to pursue recreational activities. This is a clear and well thought out strategy for planning and I think it will be successful.
- The CEO of OSU Mr. Paul Lødøen has argued that the high-rise buildings in the Barcode-project provide an excellent approach to climate adaptation. In fact, he thinks that even higher constructions the should be allowed?
- I think the most important argument is that it is very beneficial to have a high concentration of jobs here because of Bjørvika's location with regard to public transport, says Ellen de Vibe.
She also explains the decision to build 960 000 m² of new floor-space in the Bjørvika area was taken based on an urban design feasibility studies that showed this amount was appropriate for the area.
By Odd Iglebaek, Editor
The writer would like to thank architect Arne Sødal, the staff of Oslo S Utvikling AS (OSU) and the Municipal Agency for Planning and Building Services in Oslo for their help in providing the background material for the articles about high-rise policies in Oslo contained in this issue of JoN.