Reading Socio-Spatial Interplay - Arkitektur- og designhøgskolen i ...

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 2better transmission of knowledge between planners and politicians;alternative proposals should be developed at different stages of the planningprocess (program – plan – project); and routines should be developed forcontinuous evaluation, analysis, critique and feed-back, for enrichment of thewhole planning discourse. The second report – Ammerud II 325 – was aninterview survey that focused on the inhabitants’ experiences from living atAmmerud. In the introduction the researchers quote the modernistarchitectual slogan “forms follows functions” and then present their ownproject as an investigation of “what really are these functions?” The interviewsurvey reflects a multiplicity of individual experiences, some of theinterviewees are very satisfied, others are not: more than 50% of theinformants said that they wanted to stay at Ammerud “for ever”. But many ofthem – also among those who generally were happy with their life atAmmerud – had critical comments related to issues such under-dimensionedfacilities for children (day care centres, schools, kindergartens, activities foryoung people) and inconvenient access to shops and service-facilities ingeneral. A lot of the informants described their apartments as deep and dark,though functional and spacious. Many of the dwellers enjoyed the nice viewand the easy access to outdoor recreation, though commented that the slabblocks were to large, that small children had problems orienting themselves(finding the right building, doorbell and entrance), that there was a too largedistance from the sandpits to the kitchen windows, and that the wide andopen outdoor areas lacked more screened or intimate places for play and stay.The public debate that followed focused in general on problems related tothe social consequences of the environmental tool kits of the mass-produced“housing machines”, in particular represented by the slab blocks: The builtenvironment of the new satellite towns were criticized for having “inhumandimensions”, for being alienating, and for not providing the inhabitants witha sense of belonging, identification and sense of community. 3263 rd generation 1970s satellite towns: reduced scale and complete hierarchy of outdoor spacesFor the remaining satellite town areas of the General Plan of 1950 (i.e. areasthat were not yet built), the critique brought about a shift in planningstrategies: there was a full revival of the hierarchical neighbourhoodscheme 327 and all including community-building communal functions and325 Thorbjørn Hansen, Ragnhild Haug & Grete Bull, 1971: Å bo i drabantby: Ammerud II:intervjuundersøkelse 1968-69, Oslo, Norsk byggforskningsinstitutt.326 As commented by amongst others the sociologist Ivar Frønes, the satellite town-critique escalated in themedia: “Verdens onde rot var funnet, den lå på Ammerud” (my translation: ”The root of all evil in the worldwas found, it was located at Ammerud” (Frønes, Ivar 1984: “Bill.merk. “Ikke Oslo Nord”.Betonggenerasjonen og deres verden” in St. Hallvard 4/84, Oslo, Oslo Bys Vel, p.262).327 The basic principles are back, in terms of central concepts from the neighbourhood scheme of the GeneralPlan of 1950: “quarter playground” (“kvarterslekeplass” in Norwegian), “hamlet” (“grend” in Norwegian),“local community” (“lokalsamfunn”), “local centre” (“lokalsenter”), “country courtyard” (“tun”) – everythingis back. Two new features have appeared though: exceptions: The term “neighbourhood” is replaced with178