Reading Socio-Spatial Interplay - Arkitektur- og designhÃ¸gskolen i ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

R E A D I N G S O C I O - S P A T I A L I N T E R P L A Y P A R T 2most be combined. With both the city and the populationgrowing, the access to outfields outside the city is complicated,making it necessary to solve the need for free outdoor lifewithin the city. 284Planning and construction of playgrounds (for children) became a main issueof the department of parks and recreation. 285 Lawns were no longer only ondisplay, but for use.A system of radial park strings was gradually developed to connect theinner city with the forests and open greenery surrounding the city. 286 Incontrast to the “park-corridors” and “park-belts” of the later satellite towngrowth belt, these park strings were designed to connect the adjacent builtareas, and the park spaces along these continuous park strings were designedas public parks delimited by public streets, equipped for co-presence ofdiverse activities: the park strings contained music pavilions, different paths,benches, staircases and planting, playground equipment, fountains, sculpturesand skating rinks, sledging and skiing slopes in the winter (if the topographymade it possible), etc. In addition, a number of sports arenas were constructedin connection with the park system.At Grünerløkka the large graveyard around Petrus church, established in1858, was about to be filled up. After a local people’s movement, most of thegraveyard was in 1918 decided transformed into a public sports park, to becompletely opened by 1960. At the same time, the two main public folk parksin Oslo, Frognerparken and Ekeberg sportspark, was developed.284 Røhne himself wrote a history of the organisational and ideological development of the municipal parkadministrationand the development of the park-systems of Oslo: Marius Røhne 1967: Oslo kommunale parkerog grønnanlegg 1810-1948, Oslo, p.68 (my translation)285 In the study areas Grønland and Grünerløkka 14 new playgrounds were established in the existing publicparks. Røhne, p.96.286 The idea of the radial park system, including rehabilitation of the Akerselva riversides, was first developedin the 1916 plan for development of the parks system by Marius Røhme, and later incorporated in Hals’ 1929plan. Magne Bruun: “Visjon og virkelighet”, pp 14-41 in Ida Fossum Tønnesen & Dagfinn Tveito (ed.) 1991:Den grønne by. Oslo park- og idrettsvesen gjennom 75 år 1916-1991, Oslo, Grøndahl & Søn Forlag As. Alsodescribed in Marius Røhme 1967: Oslo kommunal parker og grønnanlegg 1810-1948, Oslo, Myhrespapirindstri as.156
R E A D I N G S O C I O - S P A T I A L I N T E R P L A Y P A R T 2Environmental types in the reformed urban block system of 1900-1945The architectural systems of the reformed urban blocks comprised threedifferent housing types: The garden city, the open block and the lamellarhouses. 287The Garden cityThe satellite garden city, as an urban prototype, was inspired by the village asa way of life, and was invented and tested out in England at the beginning ofthe 20 th century – as a reaction against observed problems of the traditionalindustrial working class areas. 288 Unlike the English prototype, the gardencity areas in Oslo were never planned as autonomous satellite towns, theywere planned to be garden suburbs. The garden cities in Oslo have a mix ofdifferent housing typologies: semi-detached houses (Arktanderbyen, 1910-11; Kværnerkolonien, 1913), (Ullevål hageby, 1913-22), semi-detachedhouses and 4-family houses (Holtet hageby, 1925-31), row-houses (LilleTøyen, 1916-22; Hoffsbyen, 1923), and 4-family houses (Tåsen haveby,1920-24). The largest and most complete garden city in Oslo is Ullevålhageby (1913-22), composed of single family houses, semi-detached houses,4-family houses, row houses, and 3-storey apartment buildings and shopscommunal square with shops. Ullevål hageby can therefore be considered asthe best example of the garden city model in Oslo:The detached buildings of the garden city are organized in an openpattern, loosely defining block-like units. The detached buildings are pulledback from the streets, and both the private front gardens and the visualopenings towards the shared gardens for mixed activities inside the “blocks”,constitute an image of a city of gardens. The street system of the garden citymakes use of the topography to segregate the private and shared outdoor287 Although named by different scale references (city/block/house) all three typologies define characteristicbuilding forms, characteristic ways of organizing spaces within and around the buildings, and characteristicways of organizing buildings and adjacent open spaces in relation to each other in larger ensembles.288 Cf. the ideas of Ebenezer Howard’s manifest (1898) on how the rapid growth and sanitary problems relatedto urban working class areas in 19 th century London, should be solved by decentralized, autonomous satellitetowns. The garden city was presented as the most economic and soundest solution for the growth of largercities. Each garden city was to function as a complete, small industrial town with an ideal number ofinhabitants, which, according to Howard, should be 30,000. The ideas in Tomorrow: A Peaceful Path to RealReform (1898) were further developed in Howard’s book The Garden Cities of Tomorrow (1902). Incooperation with the architects Parker & Unwin three different tests of the prototype were set out in life:Letchworth (1904) – the first garden city built according to the economic development-model of Howard andthe first important realization by Raymon Unwin and Barry Parker; Hampstead (1909) – the first gardensuburb built according to the design ideas of Unwin; and Welwyn (1919) – the first garden city that combinedin the same project the theories of Howard and the practical models of Unwin. Unwin had borrowed elementsfrom the traditional English village – such at the village green, the cul-de-sac and the quadrangle, the small andrepresentative front garden, the communal green, the semi-public sequential village street, etc. – andreinterpreted and elaborated them into a sophisticated system of qualitatively differentiated and more or lesscommunal spaces, all of them wrapped in neoclassic brick architecture. Raymond Unwin 1902: Town Planningin Practice: An Introduction to the Art of Designing Cities and Suburbs, London, Fisher Unwin;Philippe Panerai, Jean Castex et al 2004: Urban forms. The death and life of the urban block, Oxford, ElsevierArchitectural press, pp. 30-55; Tore Brantenberg 2002: Hus i hage. Privatliv og fellesskap i små og storeboligområder, Oslo, Arkitekturforlaget/Den Norske Stats Husbank.157
Page 1 and 2:
CON • TEXTHilde HaslumReading Soc
Page 3:
CON • TEXTTil Mikkel, Nora og Hau
Page 6 and 7:
R E A D I N G S O C I O - S P A T I
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116: R E A D I N G S O C I O - S P A T I
Page 165: R E A D I N G S O C I O - S P A T I
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
Page 375:
show all

Reading Socio-Spatial Interplay - Arkitektur- og designhÃ¸gskolen i ...

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

Delete template?

Save as template?