Professional Documents
Culture Documents
research-article2016
European Urban
and Regional
Studies
Article
Bengt Andersen
Per Gunnar Re
University of Oslo, Norway
Abstract
The well-known and much investigated rise of urban entrepreneurial policies has fuelled a transformation of urban
spaces and landscapes, and has led to changes in the social composition of city centres. This is the case for Oslo,
Norways capital, where increasingly urban policies are designed to attract transnational companies and those in
the creative class. A key strategy to achieve this has been to transform the citys waterfront through spectacular
architecture and urban design, as has taken place in other European cities. Transnational and local architects have been
commissioned to design the Barcode, one of the most striking waterfront projects. This article investigates the role
of architecture and architects in this process, because architects can be seen as influential generators of urban spaces
and agents for social change, and because there is remarkably little published empirical research on this specific role
of architects. It is argued that although there was an overall planning goal that the projects along the waterfront of
Oslo should contribute to social sustainability, with the implication that planners and architects possessed information
about the local urban context and used this knowledge, in practice this was not the case. It is demonstrated that
the architects paid little attention to the social, cultural and economic contexts in their design process. Rather, the
architects emphasized the creation of an exciting urban space and, in particular, designed spectacular architecture that
would contribute to the merits of the firms involved. It is further argued that because of this the Barcode project will
not contribute to the making of a just city.
Keywords
Architecture, urban design, urban entrepreneurialism, urban planning, waterfront transformation
Introduction
Since the 1970s, urban transformation and development have followed an entrepreneurial logic in many
advanced capitalist countries (Tarazona Vento, 2016).
In several cities, central districts and former harbour
Corresponding author:
Bengt Andersen, Work Research Institute, Oslo and Akershus
University College, Div. AFI, Postboks 4 St. Olavs plass, 0130
Oslo, Norway.
Email: bengt.andersen@afi.hioa.no
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at Oslo and Akershus University College of applied sciences on May 11, 2016
or industrial spaces have been converted into business quarters and high-end housing areas, as well as
sites for museums and other buildings of culture in
order to attract inward capital investments, possibly
members of the so-called creative class (as defined
by Florida, 2005), and tourists. This paper makes a
contribution to understanding the role of architecture
and, more precisely, the architectural design process with regard to entrepreneurial urban regeneration, through a theoretical discussion informed by a
singular empirical case study of an on-going waterfront transformation in Oslo. Because architects have
been said to have particular importance for the city
(Short, 2006: 161), since they are the experts designing it, and given professional architectures reliance
on [powerful] clients (Jones and Card, 2011: 232),
we investigate how architects explain their own
designs, and how the design process relates to the
overall planning and development goals, in this case
specifically in the city of Oslo. We are therefore highlighting how architects, as influential actors with little formal power, are not only shaping the physical
structures and elements, but also have a substantial
influence on the social fabric of and possible social
practices in the city.
In recent decades the waterfront of Oslo, the capital of Norway, has been radically transformed. In
1982 the shipyard located close to the town hall, in
the area today known as Aker Brygge (the Aker
Quay), was shut down and restructured into blocks
of condominiums, offices, shops and entertainment
outlets (Aker Brygge, 2012). Internationally, such
transformations were first seen in the USA, for
example the Inner Harbor in Baltimore in the early
1970s (Harvey, 2000), and later in several North
American and European cities, for instance in New
York, Vancouver, London, Hamburg and
Copenhagen, where the former physical manifestations of the industrial epoch have to a large extent
been replaced by cultural, financial and up-market
consumer and residential institutions and structures
(Sandercock and Dovey, 2002). This restructuring is
linked with the well-known rise of entrepreneurial
urban policies in many Western cities (Hall and
Hubbard, 1996; Harvey, 1989), and increased
regional and international competition over economic and human capital (Jessop, 1998; Ley, 2010).
In Oslo this has been translated into the step-bystep dismantling, rerouting and disappearance variously of highways, railroads, shipyards, port
functions and warehouses, and the building of an
iconic opera house, shopping centres, restaurants,
museums, semi-public spaces, high-end residential
developments and, not least, high-rise office buildings for financial corporations and transnational producer services (Re, 2015; Skrede, 2013; Smith and
Strand, 2011). This is part of an overall policy and
plan for making the waterfront area, renamed the
Fjord City, a vibrant and attractive new district
(The Municipality of Oslo, 2008a).1 The goal has
been to create a waterfront for everybody to use (The
Municipality of Oslo, 2008b), thereby meeting the
criteria of the just city as defined by Fainstein
(2010, 2005), namely democracy, equity, diversity,
growth and sustainability. The challenge according
to Fainstein (2005) is to create synergies and handle
contradictions between these goals. Based on previous research (Andersen, 2013; Aspen, 2013; Bergsli,
2005; Re, 2015), however, there are reasons for
claiming that the Fjord City is becoming an area
designed for well-off inhabitants, tourists, visitors
and investors, and to a lesser degree the lower classes
of the city and socially marginalized groups. Much
of the waterfront is owned and controlled by private
interests. As Heringstad (2008) has demonstrated,
the designers and owners have attempted to use the
design of the buildings and spaces as a means to control the de facto access of welcomed and non-welcomed groups. Consequently, a substantial part of
these waterfront areas does not qualify as a truly
public space as defined by Smith and Low (2006:
4).
The particular case discussed in this article is the
most visible and most debated project in the Fjord
City Plan, namely the Barcode project, a row of
mainly office buildings, which is part of the development plan for the larger Bjrvika area (see Figure 1).
We present an investigation of the initial phase of
this building project, focusing on the work of the
hired architects, the architectural competition and
the immediate process thereafter. We question especially how the Barcode design was developed, and
on what types of knowledge, specifically regarding
the urban social context, it was based. Because it
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at Oslo and Akershus University College of applied sciences on May 11, 2016
Andersen and Re
Figure 1. Barcode under construction (Barcode Project, Bjrvika, Oslo, seen from Srenga, June 2012 photo by
Helge Hifdt, licenced under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons (https://
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Barcode_June_2012_seen_from_S%C3%B8renga.JPG).
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at Oslo and Akershus University College of applied sciences on May 11, 2016
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at Oslo and Akershus University College of applied sciences on May 11, 2016
Andersen and Re
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at Oslo and Akershus University College of applied sciences on May 11, 2016
most parts of the detailed planning process (especially its initial phases), while the city government is
more of a regulatory power. For example, of all the
adopted zoning plans in Oslo in 2007, 82% were private proposals (Falleth etal., 2008: 2129). As such,
urban planning practices in Norway can be categorized as either adhering to a neoliberal logic or as
being largely deregulated (Re, 2014: 510). It is
also private actors or semi-private/semi-public institutions that, in the words of the former city planner
we interviewed, execute the plans. The City
Municipality can designate an area as ready for
development, but if a private entrepreneur does not
find it profitable, plans will not be followed by construction. As one of the largest residential developers
stated, when asked about the citys ambition to
develop environmental friendly housing in Oslos
East End:
It is out of the question for us to build anything like that
there. The demands formulated by the city makes it too
expensive to sell as the prospective [East End] home
seeker does not have the ability to pay for it. Even
though we have a property there, we wont develop it.
(Interview, 2013)
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at Oslo and Akershus University College of applied sciences on May 11, 2016
Andersen and Re
we started to collaborate with the Norwegian Public
Roads Administration [the NPRA] to make new plans
for Bjrvika () It was necessary to get the major
roads there into [an underwater] tunnel. The NPRA was
positive but viewed it as an urban development issue,
and not a road issue. But [in 2000] the [parliament]
decided that the National Opera was to be relocated to
Bjrvika, and everyone knew that the opera could not
have Norways largest intersection as it nearest
neighbour. You know; in for a penny, in for a pound
the parliamentary resolution [to relocate the opera]
implied [that the NPRA had to make big changes to the
roads in Bjrvika]. Bjrvika involved considerable
work, amounting to 7 or 8 agreements. (Interview,
2014)
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at Oslo and Akershus University College of applied sciences on May 11, 2016
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at Oslo and Akershus University College of applied sciences on May 11, 2016
Andersen and Re
the new, dense Oslo with a lot of noise and people is
absent. [But] if we are to succeed with Oslo, then we
have to succeed with the new, dense, future-oriented
and democratic Oslo. That points towards the future
() When people first saw the Barcode plan, it caused
a public outcry. They didnt like the heights and the
density that we proposed. However, Barcode has now
become the illustration of the new Oslo that more and
more people like. In 2003, we said to ourselves that
what were going to be criticized for Barcode in 2023,
is that we didnt build taller. I still think that. Also, I
dont think Barcode would have turned out the way it
did if it wasnt for our collaboration with the Dutch
they had a very different urban planning competence.
Additionally, how they worked with knowledge
differed compared to what we traditionally do here in
Norway. In Norway, we are used to work in a masterapprentice kind of way, were the chief architect will
teach the others who will then digest what they have
heard. Then they will follow the masters instructions.
When we met the Dutch, they worked very differently.
It was go wide, go deep. (Interview, 2014)
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at Oslo and Akershus University College of applied sciences on May 11, 2016
10
The Norwegian architect also referred to physical factors when clarifying what their aims were
when designing Barcode: [We wanted to create] a
vibrant urban place [] What we did was a modern
version of the harbour in Bergen, with streets and
roads to pull the activities out. When asked, what is
Barcode? the answer was simply, It is houses that
look different, but that are organized according to a
pattern with a passage through. The main thing is
that they address a front side.
Concluding discussion
The aim of the larger Fjord City master plan has
been to design a waterfront that all of Oslos residents can make use of, and new urban districts that
are varied socially and culturally. It was specified
that Bjrvika would be accessible to the inhabitants
of the city and that this seaside space would
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at Oslo and Akershus University College of applied sciences on May 11, 2016
11
Andersen and Re
contribute to its neighbouring parts (quoted and
translated by Berg, 2007: 24). For the adjacent eastern areas, it was hoped that the relocation of the
opera, and the subsequent urban development at the
seaside, would benefit these neighbourhoods and
their residents. How Barcode and the development
of the rest of Bjrvika would contribute to the larger
city and the adjacent areas in terms of accessibility,
equity, social sustainability or the improvement of
living conditions was not, however, either part of the
architects vision or their concern. Consequently, we
argue that the Barcode project can be seen as a case
of socially insensitive and decontextualized urban
design. Whilst the potential of the waterfront areas
as a public urban space open for a variety of groups
and practices should not be dismissed, we agree with
Aspen (2013: 198) that there are indeed few traces
of how the citys existing social and cultural diversity informed the planning and design of the new
waterfront. The architects stated that they worked
analytically and tried to contribute to [the] specific
context; but it is difficult to see any indication of
how or if the architects actually included knowledge
of the local social context in their work. The heterogeneous social environment and the vernacular
architecture are not reflected in the final design. In
other words, neither the planning process nor the
final design of this large-scale architectural project
was ever informed by the kind of knowledge that
could situate and integrate the project within the
wider socio-spatial urban context. Today, the
Barcode buildings make up a business district that
targets a very limited group of people. The frame
constructed by the architects enables some practices
more than others: or, rather, using their knowledge
and through their design, the architects acting on the
world have created a habitat or a place of work
mainly for the upper classes, thereby fitting into a
political economic strategy of positioning culturally
the new districts of the city centre in a transnational
sphere of competition.
While we do not subscribe to any kind of architectural determinism, we nevertheless see the built
environment as being an expression of power relations (Flierl and Marcuse, 2012), as a spatial framework for urban spatial practices, and as an influential
factor in (new-build) gentrification processes that
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at Oslo and Akershus University College of applied sciences on May 11, 2016
12
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial
support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article: This article presents some of the results from the
research project Governance and Learning (project no.
143762), funded by the Norwegian Research Councils programme Democratic and Effective Governance, Planning
and Public Administration (DEMOS).
Note
1. All translations from Norwegian to English are our
own unless otherwise noted.
References
Aker Brygge (2012) The no.1 destination for shopping,
dining and entertainment. Available at: http://www.
akerbrygge.no/nb-NO/Engelsk.aspx
Andersen B (2001) Making territory in Urban America:
new urbanism and Kentlands. In: Heitmann T,
Kirkerud EH, Lian G, Mrch K and Oppjordsmoen L
(eds) Hovedfagsstudentenes rbok. Oslo: University
of Oslo, pp. 89107.
Andersen B (2013) Using and Visiting the Oslo Waterfront:
The Right to the City. Oslo: Oslo Museum.
Andersen B (2014) Westbound and Eastbound. Managing
sameness and the making of separations in Oslo.
Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Oslo, Oslo.
Andersen B, Re PG and Ster O (2015) Trust and distrust in Oslo: examining the relationship between the
ideals of urban policy and (re)actions and ideals of
citizens. In: Righard E, Johansson M and Salonen T
(eds) Social Transformations in Scandinavian Cities:
Nordic Perspectives on Urban Marginalisation and
Social Sustainability. Lund: Nordic Academic Press,
pp. 107123.
Aspen J (2013) Oslo The triumph of zombie urbanism.
In: El-Khoury R and Robbins E (eds) Shaping the
City. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, pp. 182200.
Barth F (2002) An anthropology of knowledge. Current
Anthropology 43(1): 118.
Berg HB (2007) Plan, vision And paradox. In: Berre
N and Kjellsen CH (eds) Stemmer om Fjordbyen.
En artikkelsamling om Oslos framtidige fjordkant
[Views on the Fjord City. An anthology about the
Fjord City Plans]. Oslo: TAB, pp. 2232.
Bergsli H (2005) Entreprenrpolitikk og byutvikling.
Byutvikling og globale trender. In: Aspen J (ed.) By
og byliv i endring. Studier av byrom og handlingsrom i Oslo. Oslo: Scandinavian Academic Press, pp.
87118.
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at Oslo and Akershus University College of applied sciences on May 11, 2016
13
Andersen and Re
Florida R (2005) Cities and the Creative Class. New York:
Routledge.
Foss AS (2013) Nr Norden bygger i hyden. Available at:
http://www.forskning.no/artikler/2013/april/354010
Galster GC (2012) Driving Detroit: The Quest for
Respect in Motown. Philadelphia, PA: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Grnning M (2011) What is the Fjord City? Territorio
56(1): 141150.
Grubbauer M (2014) Architecture, economic imaginaries
and urban politics: the office tower as socially classifying device. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research 38(1): 336359.
Gundersen HH and Strand NP (2014) Befolknings framskrivningen 20152035. Oslospeilet, No. 11. Oslo:
City of Oslo.
Habhab BBF (2013) Den nye byen i byen: En studie av
utviklingsforlpet i Bjrvika. Unpublished Masters
Thesis, University of Oslo, Oslo.
Hagen AL (2014) Fear and magic in architects Utopia:
the power of creativity among the Snhettas of
Oslo and New York. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis,
University of Oslo, Oslo.
Hall T and Hubbard P (1996) The entrepreneurial city:
new urban politics, new urban geographies? Progress
in Human Geography 20(2): 153174.
Hanssen GS (2010) Ensuring local community interests in market-oriented urban planning? The role
of local politicians. Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy 28(4): 714732.
Harvey D (1989) From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation in urban governance in late
capitalism. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human
Geography 71(1): 317.
Harvey D (2000) Spaces of Hope. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Harvey D (2006) The political economy of public space.
In: Low S and NS (eds) The Politics of Public Space.
New York: Routledge, pp. 1734.
Heringstad AE (2008) Fra Panoptikon til Tjuvholmen: en
avhandling om kriminalitetsforebygging ved hjelp av
design av omgivelsene. Unpublished Masters Thesis,
University of Oslo, Oslo.
Huse T (2014) Everyday Life in the Gentrifying City: On
Displacement, Ethnic Privileging and the Right to
Stay Put. Farnham: Ashgate.
Jessop B (1998) The narrative of enterprise and the enterprise of narrative: place marketing and the entrepreneurial city. In: Hall T and Hubbard P (eds)
The Entrepreneurial City: Geographies of Politics,
Regime, and Representation. Chichester: Wiley,
pp. 7799.
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at Oslo and Akershus University College of applied sciences on May 11, 2016
14
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at Oslo and Akershus University College of applied sciences on May 11, 2016