Gerrit Mosebach

The claustrophobic consensus

Most cities are full of unrealized projects. In Oslo it is different. The city is full of half-realized projects and realized half-projects. Fragments of master plans from different époques, organic structures, single objects and undeveloped areas meet in a heterogeneous collage of ideas, ideals and laissez-fair. The uncompleted and fragmented structure represents in many ways the distinctive character of the city and has a deep historic dimension. Although plenty of visionary proposals have been drawn during the ages, Oslo has historically rarely been an arena for players with power, time or ability to realize large-scale or risky projects. Compared to other European capitals this heterogeneous landscape has, with some exceptions, a lack of brilliant or innovative architecture. The average is standard - the special is suspect. The claustrophobic consensus is king.

The fear of the new and the fear to fail seem to have been stronger than optimism and belief in success. The entering of the global flow in addition to a powerful economy gives these days a different backdrop and opens for new mechanisms and different expectations.

The old industrial harbour Bjørvika is today the biggest transformation area in the centre of Oslo. The process of discussing its future development started in the early eighties and was from the beginning accompanied by different urban proposals and visions, coloured by various ambitions and the contemporary spirit of the age. Most of these early proposals were never meant to be realized – they rather represented a contribution to a quite open discussion about values, shape and density.

When the government in 1998 decided to locate the new national opera in Bjørvika, the process of development got content and direction. This fact also seemed to show the collective ambition for the whole of the area. Snøhetta won the opera competition with its spectacular design. This first brick has naturally influenced and directed the following process and discussion.

A limited competition about the overall urban scheme was arranged and four very different concepts for a potential future were delivered, each of them consistent and based on individual ideals. The public reaction came as expected in favour or disfavour of the different proposals. But instead of selecting one of the schemes it was in democratic manner decided to make a collage consisting of fragments from the different proposals in addition to new ideas. The aim seemed to be to satisfy everybody, the result was disappointing. All the four concepts were separately more ambitious than the final collage. Measured by the result this “method” and dealing with potential architecture hardly can be seen as successful. Since nothing was risked, it all got lost.

In the following process different studies and competitions about smaller parts were arranged and more or less discussed in public. To bring the story into the present I want to highlight two of them.

Firstly, a “high-rise study” made by PLAN B/ARUP that investigated the sustainability of using different grades of “high-rise” buildings at the Bjørvika traffic-hub. High-rise buildings are very visible and have always been symbols for power and individuality. Ignoring the question of sustainability wide parts of the discussion got a very symbolic approach and ended in almost religious spheres. The political reflex was to define a height-limit for all the future buildings in Bjørvika. This very clearly shows the power of illustrated futures and how it directly can lead to politics.

The last example was a competition this year for the area next to the new opera. The architects were asked to make proposals for commercial space with a fixed amount of square-meters within a defined framework of height-regulations. The view and access to the opera were important additive objectives. This site has been controversial since the opera competition was decided. The paradox has been to find the “balance” between building and not building at all. All the four competitors were loyal to the program given by the municipality and it was not a surprise that the outline of the proposals had similarities. After a debate about the old paradox question, the client and municipality decided to cancel the further process and “return to start”. Neither time nor programme for the competition seemed to be ripe. As in the first case, the future process is strongly dependent on the political climate. The purpose of these proposals has obviously been to identify schizophrenic goals.

The interesting question at the end is if these unrealized proposals and following discussions have had a progressive or operational effect to the development. Today we can conclude they did not. The content of discussion has been random and repetitive; the physical result is not in sight yet. The process seems to be out of control and can be described as an indifferent hybrid between architecture, media and politics. It is maybe democratic, but it has not been evolutionary.

Gerrit Mosebach runs PLAN B A+U and is associated professor at NTNU.

24.09.07

Comments 0

Add comment