2001-June 6-8 MILU - Iiinstitute.nl

IFHP Working Party
Multifunctional and Intensive Land Use
MILU
Oslo Meeting
Report
6 - 8 June 2001
drs. Huibert A. Haccoû

IFHP - Working Party
Multifunctional and
Intensive
Land
Use
Oslo meeting
report
6–8 June 2001
drs. Huibert A. Haccoû

Contents
Introduction
Participants
Chapter 1: The proceedings
Chapter 2: The subgroup results
Chapter 3: Evaluation (plenary session)
List of participants
Annexes to the report
Annex 1:
Maj Britt Olsbo, The restructuring of the waterfront of
Göteborg, Sweden
Annex 2:
ir. Toon van der Pas and mr. Marco Schraven of the Dutch
Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment
Annex 3:
mrs. Cilian Terwindt Municipality of Amsterdam
Annex 4:
Prof. dr. ing. Heinrich Klose of the University of Kassel
Germany
Annex 5:
dr. Geza Tompai Budapest Hungaria
Annex 6:
Brede Norderud of the City of Oslo
Annex 7:
Sheet presentation Martijn Simons City of Amsterdam
Annex 8:
Theoretical framework, Arun Jain, Huibert Haccoû
2.

Introduction
During the Founding Meeting of the Working Party MILU (held in Amsterdam May
2000), the Norwegian participants already committed themselves to host the meeting
of the IFHP Working Party MILU in 2001. This would be the first of a series of study
visits to implement the desired exchange of practical experiences and knowledge on
multifunctional and intensive land use.
The motivation to do so, could be found in the huge restructuring tasks that the
Municipality of Oslo is facing in the coming 10 years in the Bjørvika area and at the
same time the growing concern for the deterioration it faces in the Groruddalen
Valley when it would leave the developments without intervention. This concern is
reflected in the broad support that was given to the organisation of this Oslo Meeting.
A series of Norwegian Institutions took part in sponsoring this study visit.
The Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development of Norway.
The Ministry of the Environment of Norway. The Norwegian Association for Housing
and Regional Planning, were besides the Municipality of Oslo the main sponsors.
As the Dutch government takes great interest in the development of new knowledge
and concepts related to MILU, it actively supports the activities of the IFHP Working
Party MILU in facilitating it with means and organisation capacity. The foundation
HABIFORUM and the Dutch Ministry on Housing Spatial Planning and the
Environment, both initiators and sponsors of the IFHP Working Party MILU have
generously sponsored the Oslo meeting as well.
The Institute for Spatial Planning and Environmental Sciences of the Saxion
Hogeschool IJselland a Dutch University for Professional Education situated in
Deventer, has whole heartedly furnished the Working Party MILU with secretarial
support, so essential for the preparation of gatherings that demand accurateness and
persistence.
The study visit that is reported here, had besides the above mentioned Bjørvika area
and the Groruddalen Valley, as central topic, the design of processes in which private
and public participants collaborate financially and functionally, to bring the tasks of
changing the city outlooks to a good end.
Much work has been done by the Preparatory Committee whose members deserve
great gratitude for their efforts to make the Oslo Meeting a success.
Jorn Skaare, Arne Heilemann, Andreas Ivar Hoivik and especially Kari Kiil are to be
mentioned as having given precious time to bring the plan together.
During the workshop sessions much depended on the shrewdness of the chairpersons.
Our special thanks goes to Ole Falk Frederikson, Anne Sigrid Hamran, and
Berit Nordahl. Greg Gabriel, Anke Loska, Brede Norderud contributed greatly to the
drawing up the findings of the workshop sessions.
The benevolent support of the City Commissioner for Business Development and
Urban Development, Mrs Ann Kathrine Tornås and the kind invitation of the Mayor of
the City of Oslo to an official dinner, were unique experiences and made all
participants aware of the high expectations that had to be fulfilled.
It is to the participants and the readers of this report to determine whether these are
met.
Huibert A. Haccoû
Chairman IFHP Working Party MILU, Deventer 9 June 2001
3.

Participants
As could be expected from an international Working Party of the IFHP the
participants came from an great number of countries. As a matter of course the
Norwegian delegation outnumbered the other nationalities and again the Dutch
delegation had a strong presents.
Number of participants
Albania 0
Austria 1
Denmark 1
Germany 1
Hungary 1
Italy 0
Netherlands 11
Norway 16
Poland 1
Portugal 1
Sweden 2
USA 1
Israel 2
38
A detailed list of the participants can be found in the annex to this report.
4.

Chapter 1. The proceedings
Introduction
After a heartily welcome on Wednesday 6 June 2001 by Mr. Arne Heilemann Board
member of the IFHP, he introduced Mrs. Ellen de Vibe Director of the Department of
Business Development and Urban Planning of the Municipality of Oslo for her
opening speech.
She gave an overview of the planning tasks the Municipality of Oslo faces in the
coming ten years.
The chairman Huibert A. Haccoû followed up in refreshing the memory on the
decisions and commitments the Founding Meeting had produced.
He started with the general aims of the IFHP Working Party
- Increase awareness of the consequences (both positive and negative) of an
intensive multifunctional (mixed) use of space.
- The extent to which such projects can contribute to the quality of social,
economic, and physical structure of urban and rural areas.
- Containment of cities in order to preserve open space nature and valuable
landscape.
The aims of this Oslo Meeting were to contribute to these general ones, but focused
more specifically on the tasks that the Oslo Municipality faces.
So the function of the Oslo Meeting was twofold:
- for the host; it enables the Oslo colleagues both, professionals and decision
makers, to use the gathering of urban expertise as sounding board for their
plans,
- for the participants; it provides them the unique opportunity to compare,
analyse and exchange views on the Oslo – and similar cases- ideas and
projects they have to deal with in their own countries and cities. In this way
the IFHP Working Party MILU truly becomes an international community of
practise.
The study visit focused on two vast urban areas: Groruddalen and Bjørvika, the
characteristics of which were introduced in the information brochure that was sent to
all participants.
The program structure explained
The programme is structured around 4 major topics
- Changing harbour related functions into city related functions and the options
a MILU strategy can provide for which the Bjørvika Area was the focus (A).
- Building above a railway station, the opportunity, the costs, and how a MILU
strategy can help out. Here also the Bjørvika Area was the object of study (B).
- Designing the process of commissioning public an private parties, contributing
financially and functionally to realise a MILU strategy (C).
- What spatial programs can be combined in a MILU strategy and under what
circumstances is an intensive monofunctional strategy the only option.
When and how multifunctional, when and how intensive monofunctional? (H).
5.

These topics fitted perfectly in the study focus that was chosen in the Founding
Meeting of the IFHP Working Party MILU of May 2000 in Amsterdam.
It is composed of four “directions”.
- Urban areas (A fits in here)
- Infrastructure (B can be considered to belong to this category)
- Process (C is the perfect match her)
- Rural interface (H Groruddalen is brought home here)
The aims of the Working Party MILU
According to earlier decisions, what the Working Party wants to do is:
I. Building a knowledge base of studies, people (experts) discussing cases, do
comparative analysis of contexts and develop background theory.
II. Develop a general basis for evaluation, encompassing social, structural,
ecological and political performance standards.
III. Develop intervention criteria not as prescriptions, but with the intention to
contribute to a sensitivity checklist of critical considerations.
Ad I: Knowledge base.
The matrix that was developed for Habiforum, a foundation that has developed a
research programme on bases of the knowledge gabs that have to be filled to
stimulate the implementation of concepts of multi-functionality (see below).
The matrix of the Habiforum-study covering seven domains of knowledge (the
knowledge supply side). And five relevant areas of concern (knowledge demand
side).
Knowledge
Supply
Knowledge
demand
Economic
Centres
Building
Constr.
Restruct
Nature
Environment
ICT
Process
Governance
Finance
Rules
Regulation
Instruments
Spatial
Economy
Spatial
Quality
Urban
Renual
Corridors
Fitting infra
structure
in the
landscape
Green
areas and
water
6.

This matrix serves as a framework to articulate the topics for further research.
Avoiding, on the one hand splintering of focus when we would the knowledgesuppliers
(research institutes universities) take the lead and on the other hand,
avoiding the dominance of the demand side, that would lead to short term answers
for problems of developers with a little innovative character.
What Habiforum wants to do is sail between these rocks; finding a balance between
innovative new concepts that are not too far fetched to be absorbed in practise.
7.

Ad II: General basis for evaluation.
The theoretical framework as it was called, was drawn up as a result of the founding
meeting and was presented during the MILU workshop on the 45th IFHP World
congress in Rotterdam, September 2001.
This theoretical framework was put on paper 1 ) and made available for all participants
of the Oslo meeting.
The essence of this theoretical framework is a list of
Opportunities and Constraints related to the aspects that are considered
essential for a solid evaluation of project or cases.
Aspects Opportunities Constraints
Social
Political
Economic
Structural
• Satisfying common community
goals.
• Increase in shared resources &
public services including open
space.
• Improved interactivity &
opportunities
• Improved coherence between
social, political and ecological
boundaries.
• Shared goals across political
interests.
• Creating economic strength
through concentrated diversity.
• Cost efficiencies from higher
density.
• Long-term flexibility &
adaptability.
• Optimal use of increasing land
value.
• Shared public resources.
• More efficient use of
infrastructure.
• Increased variety & intensity in
communications and
transportation.
• Local social agendas
may negatively bias
planning and development
preferences.
• Addressing local not
regional issues.
• Limits to social
integration.
• Poor political and
regulatory co-ordination
• Competing planning
territories and interests.
• Poor regional perspective
& co-ordination.
• Higher initial investment
capital (risk) required.
• Potential competition for
resources.
• Addressing short term,
not long term needs.
• Greater dependency on
adjacent uses.
• Timing affects
public/private investment.
• Poor integrated &
comprehensive
planning.
• Large initial planning
and design efforts.
• Greater maintenance &
management effort.
1
Noot: Arun Jain & Huibert Haccoû; Annex 8
8.

Aspects Opportunities Constraints
Ecological
• Minimizing the regional
ecological footprint of
development.
• Maintaining an ecological
balance between the urban,
suburban & rural.
• Limitations to integration
of the natural
environment.
• Potential for higher
concentrations of
environmental
degradation.
Studying the cases: this list of opportunities and constraints provides an evaluation
scheme (no doubt open to improvements) basically with one question: how do the
cases we study, perform in handling the opportunities and constraints as listed here.
Ad III: Intervention criteria.
Development of a spectrum of intervention criteria for which the list of opportunities
and constraints offers a fundament on which we could build further.
The program content
To effect all these ambitions, a program was drawn up for the Oslo meeting, that
provided the opportunity to refresh the contacts in an informal setting. The Oslo
meeting started Wednesday in the afternoon with personal introductions that were
loosely interrupted by longer presentations of cases of Oslo and short presentations
of related cases from cities in other countries. These presentations enabled all
participants to select a subgroup.
These other-then-Oslo-cases were presented in more detail during the subgroup
session on the second conference day Thursday 7 June. These presentations are
enclosed in the annexes to his report. The persons that volunteered to present one or
more cases that were linked to a topic were the following:
Topic A: Changing harbour related functions into city related functions:
Maj Britt Olsbo, Göteborg, Sweden (enclosed in annex 1)
Joao Costa, Lisbon / Barcelona Portugal (not available)
Topic B: Building above railway stations
Jaap Modder, The Hague, The Netherlands (not available)
Martijn Simons, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (enclosed in annex 7)
Topic C: Process design
Cilian Terwind, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. (enclosed in annex 3)
Toon van der Pas, The Hague, The Netherlands. (enclosed in annex 2)
Brede Norderud of the City of Oslo (enclosed in annex 6)
Topic H: When a multi-, when a monofunctional strategy?
Heinrich Klose, Kassel, Germany. (enclosed in annex 4)
Geza Tompai, Budapest, Hungary. (enclosed in annex 5)
9.

Theoretical frame work
For the evaluation of MILU cases and the development of intervention criteria
Presentation made in Oslo 2001-06-07
at IFHP-MILU workshop by Arun Jain and Huibert Haccoû. (enclosed in annex 8)
Thursday 7. June 2001 was dedicated to in depth discussions and the comparative
analyses in subgroups.
Thursday started with a plenary session in which subgroups were selected.
In these subgroups the cases were presented and compared and the group focused
on similarities and differences; laying the ground floor for the improvement of the
evaluation scheme and the intervention criteria and strategies that the working party
aimed at for Friday the last day of the conference, as well as all the tips and tricks
that the group could come up with.
10.

Chapter 2. The subgroup results
Introduction
The participants selected out of the four scheduled topics A, B, C and H their
preference. Due to the choices that were made, topic B: Building above the railway
station was combined with topic A: changing harbour related functions into city
related functions, both being located in the Bjørvika area. In this way three subgroups
were formed.
The three subgroups, were invited to stick together during the entire working party.
Cases from other countries were presented after which in the first instants, the
Norwegian participants could come up with reactions, treating the following
questions.
1. What are differences and similarities in the other-then-Oslo-cases ?
2. What are the evaluation points for the Norwegian participants of the other cases?
3. What are the considerations or intervention that could be useful - especially- to
the Oslo cases.
Subgroup A&B:
Subgroup C:
Subgroup H:
Changing harbour related function into city-related
functions and building above and around a railway
station?
Reported by Anke Loska
Process design; how can public and private parties work
together financially and functionally?
Reported by Brede Norderud
When a multifunctional and when a mono-functional
intensive strategy? Case Groruddalen.
Reported by Arun Jain/Gregg Gabriel
In the remaining of this chapter contains these subgroup reports.
11.

Report of working group A: Changing harbour related functions into city
related functions, together with group B: Building above railway stations.
The Bjørvika case
Report by Anke Loska
On the background of the
presentation of the planning
project in the Bjørvika area in
Oslo and related projects of
revitalization of the waterfront
in Amsterdam, Göteborg,
Lisbon, Barcelona, Melbourne
and other cities, the group
discussed points of evaluations
and intervention criteria related
to the MILU-strategy.
Due to the comparison of the
Bjørvika case and the other
presented cases it became
clear that we dealt with different
needs for reclaiming and
revitalizing the waterfront.
A main reason for the otherthen-Oslo
cases was the urge
for more space for dwellings. Even though there is also a need for more housing in
Oslo, the project of the Bjørvika area is not driven specifically by the lack of space
elsewhere in the city. It’s a common urban redevelopment project 2 .
The reclaiming of the waterfront is of great significance for any city in order to find or
re-define its identity. Especially when a reclaimed waterfront is connected to the city
centre. Such a crucial project is a priority for both, the planning authorities and the
politicians.
During the discussion several key aspects around the planning process were
elaborated:
• The need of flexible plans: Put influence of policy in perspective (economically
and technically). That means have no fear of time; you need to treat time in a
flexible way.
• Who owns the land, has the financial benefit?: The city has to plan public
functions and -spaces first and sell land in accordance with these plans. In this
way the city will profit from the value increases triggered by here own quality
ambitions regarding public spaces and it ensures that the developments live up to
these ambitions. In the case of Göteborg it was the State who owned the land.
2
There will be some protests around the word ”common” since the Oslo opera is located here. But in terms of
providing new land, the area seeks to provide more public space by using the old harbour areas.
12.

There was no haste to cash the profit as probably would be the case if it was in
private hands. The municipality could wait and develop and realize high quality
public spaces in the meantime.
• Have ambitious plans: Start with high ambitions instead of a compromise.
Otherwise one makes future options impossible.
• Stress quality programmes: Emphasize architectural and cultural quality in terms
of area management.
• Preserve old buildings: Mixture of old and new buildings adds to quality.
• Distinguish between nuisance and safety: Nuisance caused by noise, odour,
traffic is different from the lack of safety.
• Plan the timing when you make the debate public: It’s important to be aware of
the distinction between the political and public debate. The public is to be
involved in the planning process, but in some cases it is better to involve the
public at a later planning stage. The political decision-making can be distorted in
the populistic arena.
There’s no doubt that waterfronts are popular - you can allow for high density. There
is always a market for more waterfronts. Still, high density only adds to quality of the
build environment if it is accompanied by the creation of more open space.
What does this mean for the Bjørvika area?
It seems that the high density ambition for the Bjørvika area is not legitimate in view
of the abundantly available space in other parts of the city. That makes it more
important to argue in terms of quality ambitions.
Although Bjørvika is the location for the new Oslo Opera house a planned building of
high architectural value. An one-eyed-focus on the Opera can do much harm. If
Bjørvika will acquire the public popularity as planned on the drawing boards, the
prime planning attention should emphasize the connection to the city; to the diversity
of functions and its quality of the public space. At this planning stadium, it seems that
Bjørvika provides far too less public spaces and functions nor does it link effectively
enough the city to the waterfront; the Opera house figures to much as an isolated
monolith. At the same time, Bjørvika doesn’t have as many high quality old buildings
or monuments that could perform quality functions, as is often the case in other
harbour cities – an aspect which again stresses the importance of a high quality
standards in terms of architecture and design of public spaces and attractions.
In view of the crucial (physical) connection of the Bjørvika waterfront area to the city
centre the subgroup stressed the importance of the following guidelines:
• Make public functions that generate movements of the public. Walking area’s,
bicycle paths, (public) transportation connections, green spaces, situate a
embarkation point of the ferry to the islands in the fjord in this area’s etc. No
connections means that the waterfront will be a dead point in the city.
• Create public spaces first (cities derive their identity from the character of their
public spaces).
• Make visual attractive sight lines.
• Give more access to water (both, to the fjord and the Alna river).
13.

• Create new city spaces over the railway station (Oslo central-station, which has
an important entrance function to the Bjørvika area). Look more for opportunities
and consider the high potencies the area offers, instead of the costs.
• Don’t focus uniquely on density – it can spoil the future spot.
• Locate a broad and diverse activity programme in this area.
• Make sure you provide for day- and night activities to keep the area lively and
socially safe.
It is important to establish certain pull factors. This can be done by creating
several attraction points in the city that cause a 24 hours daily activity. The opera
by itself is not enough, because it only serves a small group of the society. (not
for children/teenagers). It is a closed building that is only opened during the
evening. So make a design in which the opera building also can be used as a
public space (e.g. relaxing on the roof like in Amsterdam New Metropolis).
In order to develop Bjørvika according to the plan, more than a combination of just
physical functions is necessary. Because of the diverse ownership structure and the
diversity of interests of the involved partners, the municipality, the railway and
harbour authorities and the road administration should join forces in one
development corporation. At the same time the politicians should become more
involved into the planning process. Bjørvika should be arranged as a stage for the
politicians in order to create constant pressure on the developers and of course on
themselves as the decision-makers. The “time-issue” is very important. Make the
debate public.
‣ create a distance between the political sphere and the public debate (e.g. an
exhibition about waterfronts at the architectural museum)
‣ make more institutional agreements by creating dependable situations between
the parties involved
Let politicians carry the idea!
Create pressure, otherwise the process will last “forever”.
14.

Report of working group C: Designing the process in which several
commissioning public and private parties can work together contributing
financially and functionally in order to realize a MILU strategy. Cases "Skøyen"
and "Nydalen"
Report by Brede Norderud
Case studies:
Two Oslo-cases were presented:
• "Skøyen" and "Nydalen": Business area’s laying in the direct extension of the
urban structure of Oslo. The question here is: Transformation of earlier
industrial areas into (still private) monofunctional urban satellites or into
multifunctional extensions of Oslo.
(see in the annex the facts sheets as presented by Brede Norderud)
Two Dutch cases were presented:
• Improvements of urban structure in Delft and Nijmegen organized as PPP
(Private Public Partnership). Questions here is: What are the favorable
process designs and what steps or elements have to be emphazised in the
process design.
(see in the annex the presentation of Toon van der Pas)
• A proposal for an evaluation-and decision making tool for the application of
different building typologies versus criteria for density.
(see in the annexes the presentation of mrs. Cilian Terwindt)
Similarities:
The group found obvious similarities in the complexity of concerning physical frames,
partners and roles, and the need for PPPartnership.
The group found also common interest in the need of a tool for evaluation of different
building concepts versus density and quality in different urban situations. The
proposed density-nomogram (see in the annex the presentation of Mrs. Cilian
Terwindt) supplied with typology-typical illustrations can provide a useful tool for
assessing and communicating the consequences of and preferences for different
building typologies versus a "desired" FloorSpaceIndex (FSI).
15.

Significance for the Oslo-cases: Among alternative issues for the discussion the
group choose to focus on the current situation in Nydalen: Important elements to
emphasize in an agenda for a process for planning and financing of a new access to
and from the main road.
"MILU" is considered to be “an attitude” or a mind set; a focus which enables planner
to understand and assess a specific planning situation in a more complete way.
In situations of high density, the focus on multi functional land use and roles, and
corresponding financial complexity, enforces the planners to ask the right questions
on the right time.
For Oslo the focus on MILU is interesting in shaping a missing link between
• The municipal strategic level, and
• The project - or local plan.
An example: the Oslo Master plan is a strategic plan. Next to this plan exists a local
master plan of the municipality (land use plan). There is a gap between these plans.
A structure plan is needed to fill up the gap.
Discussion: After some (fruitful) confusions Group C concluded to the following
considerations:
Proposed agenda for the program for Nydalen phase II:
• Who are, or should be, the stakeholders during the process?
• What are the interdependencies between the stakeholders?
• What are the interests for each party, - and for yourself?
• Municipality: Public quality goals must be explicit from the beginning and the
intention must be to attract and influence interests of other partners in order to
make them co producers in a shared quality ambition.
• Create and communicate visions or images of the place.
• Is there enough "common ground" in the different interests?
• Make a "letter of intent" or other form of agreement about
- legal form
- program
- finance
- commercial
- time line
- maintenance
- social plan.
• Keep the process transparent. If confidentiality is functional to the process
agree on exclusion of specific information to specific parties.
There is not a specific kind of process relating to MILU, but iimportant through the
whole process is systematic involvement of politicians. This can be achieved by
starting the process with inviting them to establish clearly defined goals and
creating commitment by forming an alliance with political parties.
16.

Report of working group H: When a multifunctional and when a monofunctional
intensive strategy? Case Groruddalen Valley.
Report by Arun Jain
The Groruddalen Valley is a key residential, industrial holding and distribution area
within the Greater Oslo Metropolitan area. It is also a major road and rail
transportation corridor connecting Oslo airport, port and city center with the rest of
Norway. The area is characterized by a mix of uses and has been subject to
numerous studies and efforts looking at aspects such as congestion relief and better
coherence amongst existing land uses.
The IFHP MILU working group was invited to collectively take a fresh unbiased look
at the valley, note current issues, comment on them and suggest possible new
directions for solutions. Three days of working sessions were arranged to facilitate
the development of ideas. A site visit during the second day of the effort provided a
better sense of the scale and magnitude of issues at hand.
During this time, the hosts tried to provide some clarity on the valley’s main issues
and preferred development priorities. Background and concerns pertinent to the
valley were revealed to the working group only during the sessions themselves and
only upon detailed questioning or in response to faulty assumptions. The inability to
review existing background studies or mappings also greatly limited the working
group’s ability to provide meaningful commentary.
The above notwithstanding, the following is a summary of the understanding of the
proceedings. All the observations and comments below are of course, limited by the
extent of the site exposure and information provided and accordingly, limited in their
applicability.
17.

1. CONTEXT
The following is a list of current conditions as conveyed to the MILU working party:
General
• The valley as a history of being a developed industrial area and consists of 6
boroughs.
• The valley’s daytime population is around 135,000 (note: Oslo’s pop. Is 500,000).
• The valley has a residential population of 5,000 inhabitants, 25% of which are
immigrants.
• In the context of Norway’s exiting population distribution, the valley is practically a
city.
• The valley is considered to be a low-income haven with corresponding social
problems.
• The increasing average age of the general population requires rethinking of the
existing social and public amenities as well as the organization of land uses (i.e.
the inability to drive directly to homes is becoming important - is this a current or
anticipated problem?).
• The valley experiences an inversion layer during cold spells causing retained
periods of poor air quality.
• Current ambient noise levels are considered a problem.
Land Use
• The valley contains several old residential neighborhoods.
• There is not much variation in housing types (i.e. not many opportunities for
upgrades in typology).
• There are some residential high-rise blocks from 1970’s.
• Some prevailing Le Corbusier architectural precedents are not considered good.
• The valley is a major goods distribution center for Oslo. These distribution
functions are strategic in their current location, which is in proximity to the city
center and harbor.
• The valley contains 13-14 commercial centers (some are regional).
Transportation
• The valley has been experiencing steady increases in vehicular traffic.
• Several road and rail regional transportation corridors run through the valley.
• 50% of all traffic volume is internally generated within the valley.
2. PREVAILING ISSUES
(As interpreted from responses to working party questions)
• Need for better communication systems.
• Need for better infrastructure.
• Need for “Green Structures” (environmentally sensitive developments).
• Need to revive the river to restore its use as a continuous regional connection to
the Oslo Fjord.
18.

• Need better area planning – reinforcing existing residential neighborhoods.
• Need to reinforce the existing good cultural life (more community gathering
places), a few existing farms of historical significance still exist in the area.
• Need to find financing for new improvements – looking for a mix of public-private
sources.
3. RELEVANT CASE STUDY CONSIDERATIONS
The working party was asked to present a few comparable case studies with a view
to illustrating possible relevancy’s and unique approaches to the problems of the
Groruddalen Valley. The following considerations emerged from two case studies
presented:
• Redevelopment can cause dislocations on local establishments and opportunities
i.e. equilibrium of land use (compatible land uses).
• Need for consistency with local character.
• No preference for mixed use over single use – expediency should dictate
approach.
• Establish a clear regional plan or strategic context for all interventions.
Specific issues emerging from these presentations were:
• Consider a telescoped scale of thinking – from the regional to local.
• Consider the advantages of current and future infrastructure.
• Consider the need for clear community definitions.
• Consider the nature of edges.
• Examine the degree of land coverage (large roof areas, degree of visible
exposure).
• Match ecology with topography.
• Do not ignore political realities while considering economic and ecological
considerations.
4. RECURRING WORKING PARTY QUESTIONS
The prevailing issues as listed were obtained through a series of observations from
the working party. Although they are descriptive of the valley, these issues do not
provide a sense of the larger imperatives for intervention necessary to assign
development priority and planning focus. Recurring questions from the working party
that would assist in this regard were:
• How critical are the existing distribution functions? What are the current and
future needs of this function?
• Regional imperatives – has the cost of losing infrastructure been considered?
• What are the known local imperatives by residents and local employers?
• Is there any assessment of the valleys potential for redevelopment?
19.

5. WORKING PARTY DISCUSSIONS
Following presentation of the case studies, the working party decided that in light of
an inadequate understanding of the valley and clarity on local vs. regional
development imperatives, a discussion of intervention strategies was premature.
Three members of the group had the following observations:
Heinrich Klose
1. Evidence of good islands of residential development (single family homes of good
quality)
2. Toll Roads – revenue generating, but not clear to what end.
3. Existing valley patterns are a porridge of mixed uses.
4. Local identity appears completely confused.
Jacek Malasek
1. Low aggregate densities characterize the valley.
2. The valley has no clear land use patterns.
3. Are the existing railway connections valuable? If so, to whom?
Arun Jain
1. The site presents evidence of fractured land use and complicated existing
circulation.
2. There are no apparent hierarchies of circulation or physical land use coherence
(i.e. relationship of residential areas with public amenities such as schools, open
space or local commercial facilities).
3. What are the development priorities? (Local and regional - residential, work or
industrial)
4. Residential areas convey no apparent sense of community.
5. Clear need to rationalize transportation – separate better the local from the
regional traffic better.
6. CONCLUSIONS
The subgroup only loosely identified apparent areas of dysfunction within the valley
without being able to develop detailed approaches or strategies for intervention. The
working party underscored the need for a more comprehensive view of the area free
from local planning departments and their more focused agendas.
Needed also was a clear sense of process that took into account regional, local and
neighborhood considerations, suggesting that a community visioning process be
initiated. This in addition to more detailed analysis by an interagency planning group
capable of looking at the range of scales necessary to effect meaningful change in
the valley.
20.

The plenary discussion evaluating the findings of the subgroup H stressed the
importance of three elements that have to be kept in mind:
- the identity of this area
- access systems eg roads their function and location
- goals (what is the position of the area in Oslo and in the region/country)
Important for this area is the perspective of scope (regional, national and
international position of the area)
− Develop a series of key question Aspects mentioned:
expansion development principle
principle of equilibrium
edges: separation and integration of certain areas
major surfaces: fabric/topography
− Visualize the opportunities and constraints. What follows out of this are the
alternatives.
− Develop alternatives for the area (if ecological goals are predominant what will be
the consequences of this for the area.
− What are the advantages especially on the long term of the existing infrastructure
(develop long term goals).
− Identity has to be created at:- community-level, regional level and national level.
This results in the following strategy:
There are three components in the area: the residents, the industry and the transport.
By making a clear distinction between the local and the regional scale a couple of
questions can be addressed to each level:
Components Local scale National/regional scale
1. Inhabitants make a more ‘complete’
community
create meeting places
2. Industry Make it better organized What is important to develop?
Lack of identity
3. Transportation Local accessibility is it good
enough?
What functions to add?
Rail priority or/and road
priority?
Important is also that it is a valley not a city. So create an identity around this quality.
The social activities can be organised around the stations so that in other areas a low
density can be preserved.
21.

Chapter 3. Evaluation (plenary session)
In the final plenary session all participants were invited to come up with remarks both
related to the results of he Oslo meeting and the proceedings of the conference itself.
The conclusions and suggestions for improvement were the following:
‣ Define the problems well and ask specific questions
To make the results of future conferences even greater for the hosting country from
which the cases are studied, it is recommended to have well defined problems and
questions available of the host country before hand.
Together with more background information on planning conventions, rules and
regulations of the visited country, enables the visiting experts to form a better funded
opinion about he planning performances that are shown and studied on site.
It appeared that with the limited information that was available beforehand one could
ask many questions and generate few answers and one even feared to have given
answers to wrong questions. It is on the Norwegian delegation to sort out the
wisdom.
With the given limited opportunity of preparation one was afraid for false pretensions.
The ambitions for the Oslo meeting goes no further that the exchange of
experiences.
‣ Bear in mind the threefold Working Party formular
On the other hand one has to bear in mind that the formule of the IFHP Working
Party is threefold: It provides the opportunity for :
Intervision: which boils down to a debate between professionals in which case
studies are compared and analyzed. In this way providing inspiration. The Oslo
Meeting lived up to this expectation.
Verification: of the cases on a one-to-one scale The site visits and talks with the
project leaders fitted in here nicely.
Counseling: of professional colleagues who have questions that they would like to
discuss in a platform of experts.
Especially in the latter function, one should be aware of the pitfalls that there are no
universal solutions to specific questions, and that every solution should be tailor
made. In comparing cases one should look for corresponding levels of scale.
To this effect the suggestion was made to give a follow-up to this meeting and
consider an expert meeting especially dedicated to specific question Oslo might still
have.
‣ Publish or perish
A question of a more general nature is how a Working Party could establish a sort of
collective memory. This is so much more a point of concern, when the participants of
the Working Party are as a rule not always the same persons attending. It underlines
the usefulness of publishing results of the work that has been done during the
meetings of the Working Party MILU.
To built further on a network of “experts“ and expertise the plenary session endorsed
the proposal to publish short Curricula Vitae of its members of the IFHP Working
Party MILU on the web-site, stating amongst others, the fields of interests and their
email address.
22.

Actions
Oslo considers the usefulness of an expert meeting for specific questions Oslo has
related to project as Bjørvika and or Groruddalen.
Action by: Jørn Skaare
The results of the Oslo meeting will be encompassed in the next version of the
theoretical framework.
Action by: Arun Jain and Huibert A. Haccoû
The reports will be drawn up in co-production with the chairpersons and reporters of
the subgroups A, C and H.
Action by: Huibert A. Haccoû, Arke Loske, Brede Norderud and Gregg Gabriel.
The participants who volunteered to present cases are invited to write their oral
presentation down so they can be enclosed as annexes to the final report of the Oslo
meeting.
Action by: Heinrich Klose, Geza Tompai, Cilian Terwindt, Maj Britt Olsbo,
Martijn Simons, Jaap Modder, Joao Pedro Costa, Toon van der Pas.
Contacts will be used to fill in the Multispace Use database.
Action by: Jaap Modder.
Participants that were present in Oslo for he first time will consider to have
themselves registered as regular member of the Working Party MILU and will do their
best to participate in the next Working Party Meetings.
The next meeting of the Working Party MILU is scheduled to be in May or June 2002
in Vienna, Austria.
Action by: Volmar Palmer and Huibert A. Haccoû.
A limited workshop is envisaged during the International Congress of the IFHP which
is held in 9-13 September in Barcelona Spain. Monday 10 September 2001 from
14:30 till 17:00 hours followed by a guided bus tour along interesting MILU sites in
the city of Barcelona.
The preparation of the research proposal will be picked up again. Efforts will be set in
motion to compete for funding out of the Interreg 6 programme of the EC.
Action by: Huibert A. Haccoû.
23.

List of Participants and e mail addresses
NAME
Anke Loska
Anne Sigrid Hamran
Arun Jain
Berit Nordahl
Brede Norderud
Cilian Terwindt
Elsbeth van Hylckema
Géza Tompai
Gregg Bennett
Gregory R. Gabriel
Heinrich Klose
Hoshiar Nooraddin
Huib Haccoû
Ivar Andreas Høivik
Jaap Modder
Jacek Malasek
Jørn Skaare
Maj-Britt Olsbo
Marco Schraver
Martijn Simons
Nils Moltubakk
Ole Damsgård
Paul Chorus
Peter van der Kolk
Rein Koopmans
Toon van der Pas
Ulla-Britt Wickström
Volkmar Pamer
EMAILADDRESS
alo@ra.no
annham@vegvesen.no
arun@id8media.com
berit.nordahl@byggforsk.no
enorderu@online.no
twt@dro.amsterdam.nl
ifhp.nl@inter.nl.net
geza.tompai@fvm.hu
Bennett@syzygy.nl
Greg.gabriel@veidekke.no
hklose@hrz.uni-kassel.de
hoshiar.nooraddin@vegvesen.no
huib.haccou@hsij.nl
ivarandreas.hoivik@pbe.oslo.kommune.no
modder@nirov.nl
dyr@igpik.waw.pl
skaare@arkitektskap.no
maj.britt.olsbo@stadsbyggnad.goteborg.se
marco.schraver@rop.rpd.minvrom.nl
mnsimo@mda.amsterdam.nl
nils.jorgen.moltubakk@ark.ntnv.no
od@byplanlab.dk
p.chorus@frw.uva.nl
p.vdkolk@fugro.nl
rein.koopmans@rmno.nl
Toon.vanderpas@rop.rpd.minvrom.nl
ulla-britt.wickstrom@sbk.stockholm.se
pam@m21abb.magwien.gv.at
24.

List of participants Oslo Meeting of the IFHP Working Party Milu
City
Country
Name Organisation Address Zipcode
P.H. van der Kolk Fugro Ecoplan B.V. Postbus 3006 2260 DA Leidschendam Netherlands
Jaap J. Modder NIROV P.O. Box 30833 The Hague Netherlands
Jacek Malasek Inst. of Phys. Plan. 9 Krywickiego Str. Warszawa Poland
Munic. Econ.
Maj-Britt Olsbo Stadsbyggnadskontoret P.O. Box 2554 S-40317 Göteborg Sweden
Ole Dansgaard The Danish Town Norregade 36 DK-1145 Copenhagen Denmark
Planning Ist.
Dr. Giza Tompai Min. for Agriculture and H 1055 Budapest Kassuth
Hungary
Regional Development
Ter 11
H. Klose Public planning Board Lilienweg 9b D34128 Kassel Germany
Graham Bennet Syzygy P.O. Box 412 6500 AK Nijmegen Netherlands
Mrs. Cilian Ter Municipality of
Jodenbreestraat 25 1011 NH Amsterdam Netherlands
Windt
Amsterdam
Nils Jorgen Norwegian University of NTNU Trondheim Norway
Molutbakk Science and Technology
Martijn Simons Municipality of
Jodenbreestraat 25 1011 NH Amsterdam Netherlands
Amsterdam Milieudienst
Marco Schraves Ministry VROM / RPD / P.O. Box 30940 2500 GX The Hague Netherlands
ROP ipc 352
Mrs. Kari Kill Municipality of Oslo Radhuset Oslo Norway
Arun Jain Urban Design
91 Monte Cresta 94611- Piedmont, USA
Consultants
Avenue
4831 California
Ulla-Britt City Planning
P.O. Box 8314 104 20 Stockholm Sweden
Wickström Administration
H.A. Haccoû Saxion Hogeschool P.O. Box 357 7400 AJ Deventer Netherlands
IJselland
Toon van der Pas Ministry VROM / RPD / P.O. Box 30940 2500 GX The Hague Netherlands
ROP / StIR
Joao Pedro
Rue Bacelar e Silva, 1000-068 Lisbon Portugal
Teixeira de Abreu
Costa
n:4, 2:andar
drs. R.
RMNO P.O. Box 5306 2280 HH Rijswijk Netherlands
Koopmans
Rita Viegas e
Rua Bacelar E Silva, 1000-068 Lisbon Portugal
Costa
n:4, 2: andar
Volkmar Pamer Vienna Munpl. Dep. Urb. Rathausstrasse 14, 1081 Vienna Austria
Plan.
16
Anne Kathrine S Municipality of Oslo
Tornaas
Kjell Ove Sollie Municipality of Oslo
Johansen
Elisabeth Eidså Municipality of Oslo
Dale
Rina Brunsell Municipality of Oslo
Harsvik
John Tore Municipality of Oslo
Norenberg
Ellen de Vibe Municipality of Oslo
Øystein Linnerud Municipality of Oslo
Stein Kolstø Municipality of Oslo
Anne Sigrid SVO
Hamran
Knut Felberg Statsbygg
Berit Nordahl Statsbygg
Anka Loska Riksantikvaren
Brede Norderud Municipality of Oslo
Ole Falk
Civitas
Fredriksen
Ivar Høivik Municipality of Oslo
Arne Heilemann Lørenskog kommune
25.

Name Organisation Address Zip- City Country
code
Jørn Skaare
Ragnvald Dahl
Rune
Andreassen
Eldrid Langåker
Kjell Spigseth
Igner Wold
Zappfe
Ivar Almæs
Gergory R.
Gabriel
Hoskir
Nooraddan
Arkitektskap
Municipality of Oslo
Municipality of Oslo
Municipality of Oslo
MD
KRD
KRD
Veidekke
SVO
26.

27.

Annexes to the report of the Oslo meeting
Working group A&B: The Bjørvika Area
How to change harbour related function into city related functions
Contributions of:
• Maj Britt Olsbo, The restructuring of the waterfront of Göteborg,
Sweden (Annex 1)
• Joao Costa, Spanish and Portuguese waterfronts (not available)
• Martijn Simons, City of Amsterdam, Environment department
Optimization of environmentally affected harbour areas (Annex 7)
• Jaap Modder NIROV (not available)
Working group C: Designing the process in which several commissioning public and
private parties can work together contributing financially and functionally in order to
realize a MILU strategy.
Contribution of:
•
•
•
Brede Norderud of the City of Oslo (Annex 6)
ir. Toon van der Pas and mr. Marco Schraven of the Dutch Ministry of Housing,
Spatial Planning and the Environment (Annex 2).
mrs. Cilian Terwindt Municipality of Amsterdam (Annex 3).
Working group H: When and where multifunctional and mono functional intensive
landuse The case of Groruddalen Valley
Contribution of:
•
•
Prof. dr. ing. Heinrich Klose of the University of Kassel Germany (Annex 4).
dr. Geza Tompai, Budapest, Hungaria (Annex 5).
Theoretical frame work
For the evaluation of MILU cases and the development of intervention criteria
Presentation made in Oslo 2001-06-07
at IFHP-MILU workshop by Arun Jain and Huibert Haccoû. (Annex 8)
28.

Up-to-date information can be found on our website:
http://ifhp-milu.hsij.nl/
If you are interested in participating in the Working Party MILU,
please send in the registration (fax) form.
Would you like further information,
please visit our web-site.
The Oslo meeting of MILU
was held in the City Hall
(Radhuset) of Oslo
- Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development of Norway
- Ministry of Environment of Norway
- Norwegian Association for Housing and Regional Planning
THE CITY OF OSLO
Expertisenetwerk
Meervoudig
Ruimtegebruik
IFHP-MILU
Huibert A. Haccoû
Saxion Hogeschool IJsselland
P.O. Box 501
7400 AM Deventer
The Netherlands
Tel. +31 (0) 570 66 30 51
Fax. +31 (0) 570 66 30 82
E-mail: h.a.haccou@saxion.nl
http://ifhp-milu.hsij.nl/