2001-June 6-8 MILU - Iiinstitute.nl

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 <strong>MILU</strong>-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.
Page 1 and 2: IFHP Working Party Multifunctional
Page 3 and 4: Contents Introduction Participants
Page 5 and 6: Participants As could be expected f
Page 7 and 8: These topics fitted perfectly in th
Page 9 and 10: Ad II: General basis for evaluation
Page 11: Theoretical frame work For the eval
Page 15 and 16: • Create new city spaces over the
Page 17 and 18: Significance for the Oslo-cases: Am
Page 19 and 20: 1. CONTEXT The following is a list
Page 21 and 22: 5. WORKING PARTY DISCUSSIONS Follow
Page 23 and 24: Chapter 3. Evaluation (plenary sess
Page 25 and 26: List of Participants and e mail add
Page 27 and 28: Name Organisation Address Zip- City
Page 29 and 30: Annexes to the report of the Oslo m

2001-June 6-8 MILU - Iiinstitute.nl

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?