Blue, Green, and Everything in Between — part 1

Oslo, Norway — the Fjord City

CONTEXT: this is a cleaned up version of my notes from the lecture — Blue, Green, and Everything in Between.

Oslo, Norway — the Fjord City — has a long, rich history emblematic for its commitment to preserving nature alongside development. In the 1800s planning intentionally left a green belt around the city of Oslo using the productive landscape as protection. As the region pushed into the modern era, development spilled into the periphery of Oslo. This push to the periphery fomented a deterioration of the city center where residence and infrastructure became increasingly neglected and derelict. In the 70s with the entrenchment of Modernism in the design fields, city planners and designers levied critiques against Oslo’s peripheral development highlighting the abandonment of its city center. Later the 80s sees an international turn towards the political right. With conservative politics at the helm, the government enacted neoliberal policies that loosened regulations and leaned into capitalism. To reinvigorate the city center new policies were introduced allowing citizens to easily buy apartments in the neglected parts of the city catalyzing real estate and urban development. Simultaneously, Oslo residents buy more cars as restrictions around car ownership loosen even though there is a mild road infrastructure.

Oslo Opera House

In the 90s after the financial crisis we see Norway shift back towards social democracy and a continued reinvestment in development, particularly cultural projects. Norway used a strategy of state interventionism and state-backed bailouts for banks and workers to blunt the severity of the financial crisis. As a result new development and transportation infrastructure projects become a joint venture between private developers and the state. We also see heavy investment in cultural institutions such as the iconic Oslo Opera House, parks, and a new library. Many bridges were repaired and reconstructed into green spaces, and much of the initiative to convert grey infrastructure into green was pioneered by state agencies, notably the Road Authorities. Overall, there’s a shift away from expansion towards densification, a reinvestment in city centers, and a major push for public transportation.

The political economy of Norway, especially in Oslo, can be characterized as a social democratic state that embraces capitalism. The Labor Party plays along with economic powers. Even though there’s been a redistribution of cultural production and value after WWII, there is no significant redistribution of wealth. For the most part economic inequality is not a salient issue in Norway because the economy remains strong even during crises. Oslo can be described as democratic in terms of access to nature, but not democratic in access to housing options. But as Oslo’s political-economic apparatus invested in development and the city densified, the cultural tenet of maintaining access to nature everyone was momentarily threatened.

For planners the solution is what is now called the “Commons”. Planners strategically provide communal greens spaces that preserve sight lines to the fjord and also serve as community gathering and recreational spaces. The Scandinavian commons is different from the commons we might think of in England. Historically the commons in Norway served more as transportation nodes and access points to the harbor. Here Oslo is reconstructing the commons fused with a historical narrative, which now acts as an access point to new development and infrastructure.

As mentioned earlier Oslo has always had sustainability as a cultural tenet, before sustainability carries the ubiquity and weight it carries today. In addition to readily adopting it into public health and planning policy, sustainability is also written into Norway’s constitution. In 1992 the constitution included the human rights of future generations meaning Norway must consider the trajectory of its resources and development and whether it’ll rob future generations of stability, security and resources.

Flatbread Society Bakehouse — a sculptural gathering space for artistic and community events

Inevitably with state, municipal authorities, and real estate developers dominating development, there comes a push back. Initially the push back came from artists with an increasing movement towards re-appropriating the commons. This movement asks, why do we need the same kind of landscapes everywhere. Oslo became a city with all the right ingredients — residential densification concentrated around transportation nodes with accessible blue and green infrastructure — but it lacked spontaneity. It lacked public spaces that were neither profitable and required a credit card for entry or sanctioning by the state. Students and multicultural coalitions like the Flat bread society also pushed back opening new, temporary uses of the urban landscape. There are now cases where the creation of ecological corridors can be piloted into programs that build community. Instead of the state and developers dominating the urban landscape, development in Oslo can potentially be a collaboration between residents, developers, municipalities, and designers.

If we track the history of development in Oslo during the modern era, it began with a push into the periphery, followed by a reinvestment in the city centers, and now massive attempts to connect on a regional scale with smaller cities. The planning framework for Oslo shifts scales, zooming out and in and back out again. Norway is now focused on creating a poly-centric or multi-nuclear network at a regional scale led by the governmental sector — a massive coordination between land-use and transportation agencies — coupled with private development with a focus on building around transportation nodes. These smaller cities have all the same amenities as the larger city, Oslo, but on a smaller scale.