2001-June 6-8 MILU - Iiinstitute.nl

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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.
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 and 12: Theoretical frame work For the eval
Page 13: Report of working group A: Changing
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?