Tag Archives: LONDON

-Most links in this post link to websites in Swedish-

In recent years, almost every medium- to large-scale urban project in Stockholm has been subject to such massive public and professional resistance that in the end, the projects have been abandoned. Naturally, this situation is not unique to Sweden or Stockholm, but it has reached a paralyzing level,  veritably hindering the city from development. Projects become bats in the upcoming elections. Most recently, the shadow government promised a more popularized version of the most prominent project at the moment, Slussen – the Lock – which connects the Gamla Stan and Södermalm.

The project’s background is basically this: Gamla Stan, located on a central island in Stockholm, is the oldest remaining part of medieval Stockholm. In the 1930’s, the old lock connecting Gamla Stan and Södermalm was replaced by a traffic solution primarily designed for cars. In many ways it was an ingenious solution, integrating underground, pedestrian, automobiles and buses in a complex shamrock-shaped traffic system designed by Tage William-Olsson.

Today, the traffic node of Slussen is in a state of disrepair. The concrete is deteriorating and for the last two decades, a solution has been sought to replace the existing design. The existing structure is generally deemed unsafe and beyond repair, and decreasing levels of traffic make the original design ineffective.

Design competitions were held, and when the dust cleared in 2004, Swedish architects Nyréns came out with the winning proposal. However, this was not without controversy, and in 2008, the urban planning department informed the architects that their vision was too boring, and the very next day they invited some of the world’s more famous architects – including Jean Nouvel, Sir Norman Foster and Bjarke Ingels – to come up with inspired designs for replacing the traffic node, using Nyrén’s traffic planning.

The city chose Foster and Partners’ proposal. However, the proposal was not very developed, and in subsequent design stages most of the more spectacular features, such as the meandering pedestrian bridges, were erased one by one until finally, the city ended up with a design that was pretty low-key and streamlined, but which included a large amount of commercial space meant to finance part of the development.

At this point, the chaos erupted. Suddenly, alternative solutions were being presented left and right. One such solution, independently presented by a number of architects, vows to make the traffic apparatus more or less invisible and buries the underground line. Invisible solutions are always a hit with the public, so the solution got a lot of media attention for a while. Yet another privately presented solution was entailed the conversion of the bridge to a kind of Ponte Vecchio, complete with replicas of traditional Stockholm buildings. Then Bengt Lindroos, one of the last grand old Swedish Modernist masters, surprised the city with his version – a less commercial development with more public spaces; perhaps the only professional alternative proposal I have seen so far.

Then the public demonstrations, petitions and marches started. Last week the shadow cabinet presented their version in an attempt to gain a few votes it being election year, after all. It was a slimmed down populist version with a very odd pyramid as the centerpiece. Now, yet another group demands that the possibility of constructing a replica of the original 1930’s design be investigated, or repairs to the original structure if possible. The debate rages on, and we will see what the results are when the smoke clears.

It is a large-scale public project, and as such, public debate is essential, but this has turned into a farce. Politicians have turned the project into a battlefield for the upcoming election, which, however irresponsible, is an effective way of winning votes. Some unfortunate developments in central Stockholm in the 1960’s still haunt every project proposed in the city’s central areas, and politicians have been extremely wary of public opinion ever since. This creates populism and compromises that are sometimes good and prudent in retrospect, and sometimes very unfortunate. As a result, the city has become extremely polarized socially – poor satellite suburbs surround a rich and exclusive urban center, fostering segregation of which Stockholm has only seen the beginning, one that will most likely haunt the city for many decades to come.

This is not the first time a project has been deadlocked by tumultuous dispute. A couple of years ago the city held an architectural competition for an addition to the Public Library, one of Sweden’s more famous buildings. A winner was chosen from the around 1200 proposals the city received from across the world, and then the public bashing started. The Swedish public seems to view architects as malefactors out to destroy the city that the inhabitants love and cherish. Here, as in the case of Slussen, individual architects emerged promoting their own designs, determined to sway public opinion, and thereby force the publicly sensitive politicians to consider their project. A number of cheap appeals to public opinion were launched.

Again, demonstrations, marches, petitions appeared overnight, all focusing on Heike Hanada, the German architect who had done nothing more than submit a proposal for a competition. She was ridiculed by the media, the architectural press, and a number of self-righteous and self-proclaimed experts screaming bloody murder. In the end, the politicians caved in to public opinion and scrapped the project on the pretext that it would have been more expensive than first estimated. The politicians neglected to notify Heike Hanada directly. It was an inappropriate project, but the fault was not Hanada’s but the organizers of the competition.

This current situation is unsustainable. The combination of opportunist politicians, opportunist architects,  lobby groups and an intoxicated public resistance to any change whatsoever has resulted in a polarized debate where projects are slowly killed step by step and development becomes next to impossible. The question is what can be done about it.

Sweden lacks an independent advisory board of architects, a common institution in most European countries. The UK has two separate independent advisory boards: English Heritage and CABE. English Heritage is mostly concerned with preserving the cultural heritage, while CABE focuses on quality in design. Both are more or less funded by the Department of Culture. These two bodies often disagree, but the main objective is always to find a solution that will make everybody as happy as possible, both now and in the future. The key is that these advisory boards are independent. Although they have a certain political agenda, they are not affiliated with any particular party and thus can make professional opinions based on their (sometimes) objective analysis. This system is not perfect, but it involves two independent professional bodies, which is as close as you come to an expert opinion.

Stockholm has a “Beauty Council” which is the local version of CABE. This is however financed by the council, and twelve of its thirteen members are appointed by the City Council, although only four are directly politically appointed. The members are artists, politicians and a mere two architects, which strikes me as odd, but probably resonates the Swedish lack of confidence in architects. Riksantikvarieämbetet (RAA) is the corresponding Swedish version of EH, but most of the practical responsibility rests on the (politically appointed) County Council.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with democracy and transparency in architecture. However, when every instance intended to provide professional and objective advice is politically appointed, we end up with the subjective and opportunist advice to subjective and opportunist politicians – an undesirable situation. The time perspective of politics is very different from the time perspective of architecture and urban design. Politics usually focus on shorter terms while architecture and urban design has to work for decades or centuries – and for that reason, an independent architectural and urban advisory board would be a good idea in Sweden. The nearest equivalent to this is the Swedish Architects’ Association. But they can hardly be said to be objective as they are the architects’ union, like the ARB in the UK.

The Swedish Architects’ Association did however recently bring forth a political program, proposing a coordinated architectural political policy. This is in many ways a great idea. An architectural policy has been accepted in many cities – Copenhagen is a nearby example. Copenhagen city council recently published “Arkitekturby København”, which is a set of architectural strategies and priorities explaining how the council wants Copenhagen to grow. One of the essential points of this document was that the council adopted it unanimously. This means that the document can lay out long-term architectural strategies that last longer than one four-year-term, and this is essential. Denmark also has the DAC, the Danish Architecture Centre, an organization funded primarily by the Ministry of Culture, which serves as a presumably objective body of professionals who comment on developments and inform the public through Copenhagen X, a public information project aimed at informing the public about new architecture.

In Sweden, the parties bicker and argue using architecture as bats; this is not very encouraging for developers who feel that the future of their project is insecure and dependent on the outcome of the next election. A unanimously adopted program however will provide the longevity that is needed for all parties, architects, developers, council and inhabitants. An political strategy for architecture which takes a long-term perspective and adopted independently of party lines would create a much more stable platform for the discussion of architecture, for architects, for politicians and for everybody else.

Neither the British nor the Danish systems is perfect, but at least there are organizations and strategies to deal with these situations, whereas Sweden is dominated by anarchy and rampant opportunism. One way or another: to get out of the current conundrum, Stockholm needs to develop a long-term architectural perspective.

This can be achieved by implementing a political strategy for architecture, which needs to be adopted by a broad majority in City Hall so that it remains valid after the next election. In addition to this, I think it would be an excellent idea to create a politically independent body of professionals that can review or comment on projects from a reasonably objective perspective with a long-term focus. In the proud Swedish traditions of self-proclaimed self-righteous know-it-alls, I guess I will just have to go ahead and form it myself.


On a recent trip to London, I started thinking about the concept of Semi-spaces, i.e. Semi-public and semi-private spaces and how these are created. First a short definition of semi-spaces:

Semi Private space– Here defined as a space that is access controlled and accessible to residents and associated people only. An example here would be a communal staircase in a residential building with a controlled front door access. These spaces are not really private since they’re shared, but since they’re usually inaccessible to outsiders, they’re not really public either.

Semi Public space– This is normally defined as a private space accessible to the general public, e.g. a shop or a Public house. In this context however, I’ll define it as a space open to the public but has a certain private character to it. It can be a small local park, an open courtyard or something similar. It is accessible to anyone, but is understood to be used primarily by the surrounding residents.

You find semi-spaces in most major cities in Europe, Berlin, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Barcelona, Paris and so on. New housing projects are usually equipped with a number of semi-spaces all across the range. At the same time, in the U.K, most of the energy goes into creating strict borderlines, fences, gates, access control points and so forth. The semi-private spaces exist out of necessity rather than as an actual space for inhabitants, and the semi-public spaces seems to have disappeared completely from the architectural scene.

London used to have some great semi-public spaces, Bedford Square, Berkeley Square and so on. Something happened however, possibly post-war modernism, and the concept went into decline. Most of the gardens and green squares have been turned into Semi-private spaces rather than Semi-Public ones. Just walk around in South Kensington, and you’ll see a number of examples of these spaces.

Somehow, London has arrived at the conclusion that either, Semi-public spaces don’t work, or that theses spaces will yield profit if converted into semi-private spaces instead. In South Kensington, the latter is probably true, while in East London, presumably the former is more accurate.

The notion that semi-public spaces don’t work is wide-spread, the main issues being of course security and maintenance. Security is obviously an issue, and the concept of designing away crime would suggest that the semi-public spaces just have to go. At the same time, in most European cities, these spaces work when the residents themselves use and identify with these spaces. In those cases, security is maintained through the presence and observation of local residents. Maintenance is always complicated in these instances, the best ones are maintained through self-organisation, the job is divided among the people who use the space. In other cases, organizations are formed to deal with the spaces. Neither of these issues should be insurmountable in London one would think.

Then, does the city actually want semi-public spaces, does the city need them, or are they as London has concluded, waste spaces to turn into other types of spaces? What purpose do they serve?

One could argue that these types of spaces serve a number of immaterial purposes. The semi-public spaces provide residents somewhere neutral to get together and get to know each other. They also provide a reason for contact between residents, or force rather.

Normally people who know their neighbors feel safer than people who have no idea about anybody living in the vicinity and who step out in completely unknown territory as soon as they exit their front door. Jane Jacobs’ local Greenwich village street-scapes functioned more or less as semi-public spaces and from her point of view, they would provide a number of functions.

There are on the other hand no end to the possible arguments between neighbors that can be generated. Whether they function or not is very much up to the individuals who live around the semi-public space. The semi-public spaces can go completely wrong and destroy an entire neighborhood if they end up neglected.

From an economical point of view, semi-public space only makes sense from a long term perspective. If the same organisation that builds the surrounding context will maintain it over the years it makes sense, but in speculative projects it makes no sense whatsoever.

I’m not entirely sure about the answers to the questions above, but I do however think it’s a worthwhile debate that does not really exist at the moment.

Shopping arcades may be fighting a losing battle for consumers in the long run. They appear to be too rigid in structure, lack complexity and adaptability. For the last years, internationally, there’s been a triumphant return for the department store. In London; Selfridge’s, Harvey Nichol’s and last, but not least; Dover Street Market, these are changing the idea of a department store. At least with Dover Street Market, the idea is to create a more adaptable structure. Brands are organised independently and can update lines and stalls freer than a shop with a generic men’s department. The fact that it is decorated like a shanty town just increases its impression of instant flux. Departments can expand and retract according to need whereas the shopping arcade is locked in so many ways to the physical borders between the actual shops.

Another great strategy is to mix in other activities with the shopping, eating, drinking, art exhibitions and so on, among the merchandise rather than in a food court. It’s basically all done in order to expose the customer too as many products as possible in a friendly environment. The need to sell is not emphasized, cash registers are almost hidden away, staff don’t accost you, the need to browse is understood and encouraged. The longer you spend there the more profitable you are and thus it’s in the interest of the store is to make you feel welcome and make you linger around. The shopping area becomes curated rather than engineered, art exhibitions are interlaced with products and the borders between art and consumer goods are blurred.

This concept has now found its way to Stockholm, it may have been around for a while, what do I know, I haven’t been there in ages. PUB is one of the classic department stores in Stockholm, but has in recent years become less exclusive and popular. The top floor has recently been refurbished to accommodate a very DSM inspired fashion outlet. Even most of the aesthetics seem to come from the same shanty-town concept.

This type of venues will probably pop up all over the place in the coming years, and whether or not they succeed will basically depend on whether they manage to maintain their exclusive reputation. You can only have so many luxury shantytowns in one city. I am quite positive to the concept I must admit, it adds a few of the layers of complexity that the shopping mall lacks by mixing bars and exhibition spaces with the shopping. These developments are more living room like, whereas shopping malls are highways, pick your exit from the main aisle, do your business, get back out. Places like D.S.M. and PUB manage to keep me interested quite a while longer. I am however no expert in shop design and profitability per square foot and so forth, and in the end, that’s what it all comes down to.

From an urban perspective, I don’t really mind them neither. They don’t pretend to be an extension of the street, that’s the whole point; it’s exclusive. These stores are highly controlled environments, but so are shopping malls, possibly to an even higher degree. At the same time, they never claim to be public, they never pretend to be an ersatz for the city centre, they are a part of it.