Starting to recover from the shock of the terrible tragedy on Friday 22nd now. The pictures still haunt me.

What used to be the epicentre of political power in Norway, is now an empty, windowless concrete skeleton. Chances are, the whole thing will have to be demolished.

Olje- og Energidept might also be demaged beyond repair, so the whole area may soon start undergoing a radical change.

That means we'll soon be in for a vibrant debate: Whatever comes up where the old PM office tower still stands, is certainly not going to be any lower than the current building.

I therefore grab the opportunity to start that debate here in this forum!

For sure, there will be a competition to design the new Governement HQ complex. Due to the nature of this building, and to the fact that there are very few residential buildings in the immediate vicinity, NIMBYs are likely to make less noise about the height, than in other parts of Oslo. Also, the regulation process is likely to be a "statlig regulering", providing them with fewer opportunities to thwart a tall building!

For Oslo, this means a unique opportunity to come up with a memorial site, adjacent to a truly spectacular landmark building.

Of course, most of these aspects are likely to be addressed in an architectural competition, where - hopefully - several spectacular alternatives will be on the table.

What I would LIKE to see, is something along these lines:

- Grubbegata is shut off for motorized vehicles. The section between Finansdepartementet and Deichmanske becomes integrated into a memorial square.
- The new building, or buildings, should be centered in the square between Grubbegata and Akergata, delimited by Deichmanske and the Ministry of Finance. Provided those 2 old buildings did not get damaged beyond repair, they should be given emphasized, visible positions in the new setting.
- Whether the new PM's office is one or several buildings, there should be at least one tower. Since this is probably THE opportunity to completely overrun NIMBYists, make it Scandinavia's tallest!

For Oslo, this means a unique opportunity to come up with a memorial site, adjacent to a truly spectacular landmark building.

We don't know what will happend with the existing buildings yet. Probably they will be demolished( at least R4 I think), but it is not guaranteed that the departments still will be located in this area. If the highrise is demolished I'm not sure we will see a higher building in the future either. It could just as well be lower.

Hopefully something spectacular to show the world that Oslo is still strong.

A memorial would be a good idea. I also hope the building will be demolished and replaced with a true highrise.

I don't want a misplaced highrise here. I'm not a fan of the '60s ideology of placing highrises everywhere in the city. We should rather concentrate them in one area (read= Vaterland). Especially not when the gov decide the design.

My wishes for the area:

Demolish the shitty lowrise. Use the orange area to create an iconic new lowrise with some park/memorial thing around. Remove the lid over Ring 1 and restore the square in front of Deichman/Hovedbrannstasjonen into their pre war glory.
http://i1193.photobucket.com/albums/aa352/ruterruter/regjeringskvartalet.png

Or alternatively: Ignore all cost, move all gov departments out of the city and demolish all of their buildings built after the war.

I hope they rebuild Høyblokka as it used to look. I don't care that much for R4.

My wishes for the area:

Demolish the shitty lowrise. Use the orange area to create an iconic new lowrise with some park/memorial thing around. Remove the lid over Ring 1 and restore the square in front of Deichman/Hovedbrannstasjonen into their pre war glory.
http://i1193.photobucket.com/albums/aa352/ruterruter/regjeringskvartalet.png

Or alternatively: Ignore all cost, move all gov departments out of the city and demolish all of their buildings built after the war.

Y-blokka isn't that damaged...

^^ Sure, but I still want it demolished. This could be our opportunity to change all that is wrong with the current buildings. Y-blokka as it stands today have completely ruined Arne Garborgs Plass. We should also have some security concerns about the building being placed directly above a public road - meaning it would be very easy to place a car full of bombs there..

I hope they rebuild Høyblokka as it used to look. I don't care that much for R4.

Agree. Always liked Regjeringskvartalet, but I won't miss R4.

Been there myself, it's not as terrible as some want it to seem... I'd rather they rebuilt the highrise exactly like it is.

Or alternatively: Ignore all cost, move all gov departments out of the city and demolish all of their buildings built after the war.

Really? Move all of the government departments out of the city and reduce Oslo’s significance as a political power house and diminish that part of its identity? And move to where exactly – an office park in the suburbs? Removing thousands of people and jobs from the city center?

Regarding spreading of highrises I think it’s a good idea in Oslo to concentrate the tallest buildings around Oslo S/Vaterland to create a defined skyline and let the highrises function in collectiveness, but I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad idea to have single highrises in different parts of town. Contrasts are good in my opinion, and Oslo is definitely a city of contrasts. It’s not a planned masterpiece of urban space and a single style of architecture like Florence or the center of Paris, it’s a diverse and somewhat messy city, and I think we should emphasize that. The brutalist 50/60-architecture of some of the buildings in Regjeringskvartalet are certainly not easy on the eyes, but they are part of Oslo’s diversity and identity. So – if they can fix them – fix them. If they have to tear down the highrise, I would like for something modern to stand in its place – but I think it should be tall (taller). A slim modern tower for the Department of Justice and Prime Minister’s Office would be welcome. Anyways I hope they find the space to make a peaceful memorial park and maybe a center for multicultural tolerance, or something – something that can take advantage of the opportunity to contribute to the identity and unity of Oslo’s diverse inhabitants.

Erling Viksjøs buildings are listed so they would be rebuilt i guess.

Really? Move all of the government departments out of the city and reduce Oslo’s significance as a political power house and diminish that part of its identity? And move to where exactly – an office park in the suburbs? Removing thousands of people and jobs from the city center?

I would rather have an less important city international (which to be honest I couldn't care less about) than a huge area of downtown almost completely sealed due to security reasons and with bland buildings like today.

Regarding spreading of highrises I think it’s a good idea in Oslo to concentrate the tallest buildings around Oslo S/Vaterland to create a defined skyline and let the highrises function in collectiveness, but I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad idea to have single highrises in different parts of town. Contrasts are good in my opinion, and Oslo is definitely a city of contrasts. It’s not a planned masterpiece of urban space and a single style of architecture like Florence or the center of Paris, it’s a diverse and somewhat messy city, and I think we should emphasize that.
The city isn't a planed masterpiece precisely because we in the '60s decide to demolish historic buildings and replace them with halfassed highrises and plazas everywhere. There are actually very few places in the city that weren't originally built after a masterplan. Hamersborg originally had one for instance. We should take this opportunite to change the wrongdoings of the '60s for the better.
Erling Viksjøs buildings are listed so they would be rebuilt i guess.

Doubt it. We have no history of rebuilding listed buildings. The only times we done it have been because the locals have demanded it. I don't know a single person (outside of architects and Riksantikvaren) that like these buildings.

Erling Viksjøs buildings are listed so they would be rebuilt i guess.

But how does it work if a listed building is ruined for whatever reason? Is the consensus to automatically rebuild it? And does the reason for it being ruined have any consequence? An argument for not rebuilding the WTC twin towers was that who would want to work in an exact copy of a building that had been the center piece for so much terror and human suffering, and that the buildings would be a constant reminder of the atrocities for the people of NYC. Not that the situation is the same in Oslo, for a lot of reasons, but I would think that this would at least be considered. Also – the historic value of a rebuilt copy wouldn’t exactly be equal to the original.

This is Hamersborgs masteplan from '30s:
http://www.digitaltmuseum.no/BigImageContent.do?imageIndex=0&owner=BAR&identifier=A-10002%2FUa%2F0032%2F039&filename=A-10002_Ua_0032_039.jpg

The square pre gov:
http://www.digitaltmuseum.no/BigImageContent.do?imageIndex=0&owner=OMU&identifier=OB.X1422&filename=OB.X1422.jpg

http://www.digitaltmuseum.no/BigImageContent.do?imageIndex=0&owner=BAR&identifier=A-20145%2FUaa%2F0011%2F015&filename=A-20145_Uaa_0011_015.jpg

http://www.digitaltmuseum.no/BigImageContent.do?imageIndex=0&owner=BAR&identifier=A-20145%2FUaa%2F0011%2F008&filename=A-20145_Uaa_0011_008.jpg

From youngstorget pre gov:
http://www.digitaltmuseum.no/BigImageContent.do?imageIndex=0&owner=OMU&identifier=OB.X0702&filename=OB.X0702.jpg

Høyblokken was built in 1958 under AP rule and is effectively a symbol of everything ABB hated and wanted to destroy. Thats why the bomb was placed here.

What kind of message do we send if we finish the job for him and tear it down?

Then we now can restart as a better and even stronger country and city? Should we keep everything that ABB hated?

I would rather have an less important city international (which to be honest I couldn't care less about) than a huge area of downtown almost completely sealed due to security reasons and with bland buildings like today.

Well, there is not just the international significance of Oslo – it’s just as much the national. Oslo has served as the seat of our national government for a long time and the terror attacks shouldn’t change that. A city’s importance is considered from a lot of different factors, but significant institutions contributes to the job market, residential market and tourism and I don’t share your apathy to the strategic importance of the placement of our main government. In relation to representation, the Prime Minister’s Office is also benefiting from the closeness to other important institutions in Oslo. I don’t think it would have to be sealed of either – although there probably will be an increase in guards and other security measures.

The city isn't a planed masterpiece precisely because we in the '60s decide to demolish historic buildings and replace them with halfassed highrises and plazas everywhere. There are actually very few places in the city that weren't originally built after a masterplan. Hamersborg originally had one for instance. We should take this opportunite to change the wrongdoings of the '60s for the better.

I don’t agree with a lot of the urban developments and ideas of the 60s either, but that doesn’t make it insignificant. And – an ugly building can still be interesting, as I think is the case with Høyblokka. That there exist masterplans doesn’t make Oslo less chaotic, diverse, messy, and that’s the point – we have a culture of building a lot of different architecture styles in close proximity, although that is often forgotten when modern, different buildings are proposed with bold visions that a lot of people find “alien”.

Well, there is not just the international significance of Oslo – it’s just as much the national. Oslo has served as the seat of our national government for a long time and the terror attacks shouldn’t change that. A city’s importance is considered from a lot of different factors, but significant institutions contributes to the job market, residential market and tourism and I don’t share your apathy to the strategic importance of the placement of our main government. In relation to representation, the Prime Minister’s Office is also benefiting from the closeness to other important institutions in Oslo. I don’t think it would have to be sealed of either – although there probably will be an increase in guards and other security measures.

The area is almost completely sealed of today. How many people use Arne Gaalborgs Plass, and how many shops are there in Grubbegata, Akersgata and Hammersborggata? No one besides the people who work there use the area today. Such a prominent placement in the city require more than what the gov appears to be prepared to give (nicer architecture and generally more life). Then they are better of in a office park that fits their requirement for security better too.


I don’t agree with a lot of the urban developments and ideas of the 60s either, but that doesn’t make it insignificant. And – an ugly building can still be interesting, as I think is the case with Høyblokka. That there exist masterplans doesn’t make Oslo less chaotic, diverse, messy, and that’s the point – we have a culture of building a lot of different architecture styles in close proximity, although that is often forgotten when modern, different buildings are proposed with bold visions that a lot of people find “alien”.
The fact that it was bombed makes it insignificant in Riksantikvarens eyes. I would argue that very few people outside of Architects and the Antikvars think the building is anything special. At least here at home the opinion was that "at least something good come out of the bombing" when they heard that Statsbygg consider to demolish it. Is it right that one man we have no democratic ways to choose over, can decide that certain buildings are important even though the "whole" city hates them and they have ruined the area they stand in (again, how many people use Arne Gaalborgs plass today?)? Should we have well functioning, as pretty as possible city or a museum based on a very limited set of peoples opinions? If the buildings are that important then place them at Folkemuseet.

The fact that it was bombed makes it insignificant in Riksantikvarens eyes. I would argue that very few people outside of Architects and the Antikvars think the building is anything special. At least here at home the opinion was that "at least something good come out of the bombing" when they heard that Statsbygg consider to demolish it. Is it right that one man we have no democratic ways to choose over, can decide that certain buildings are important even though the "whole" city hates them and they have ruined the area they stand in (again, how many people use Arne Gaalborgs plass today?)?

It's a government block, of course they dont want crowds of people hanging around it. Imagine how many people would have been killed if this was a popular hangout spot?

And for the record, you're the one that hates regjeringskvartalet, not the whole city.

This building is and always has been, like it or not, a symbol of modern Norway, and that's what the attack was directed at. We should restore it, reinforce it and put it in better condition than its ever been to show that you can't change our society through terror, not pysically nor mentally.

It's a government block, of course they dont want crowds of people hanging around it. Imagine how many people would have been killed if this was a popular hangout spot?

Which are why they are better of in a place that aren't usually popular hang out spots like cities are.


And for the record, you hate regjeringskvartalet, not the whole city.

The city haven't been asked. In fact the people living here haven't got a word to say when it comes that what buildings we should keep. Most of these "important" modern listed buildings usually comes up when people choose which buildings are the ugliest in the city.

This building is and always has been, like it or not, a symbol of modern Norway, and that's what the attack was directed at. We should restore it, reinforce it and put it in better condition than its ever been to show that you can't change our society through terror, not pysically nor mentally.
He probably didn't care about the buildings. He cared about the party inhabiting the building. Should AP rule forever because he hates them?

Peter Butenshøn said it very well on Dagsrevyen today. Keep Høyblokka! (if possible)

Well I hope at least the public can be part in the deciding the destiny of the building rather than it just being trumped through like with the rest of our hideous post war buildings.

Peter Butenshøn said it very well on Dagsrevyen today. Keep Høyblokka! (if possible)

They also discussed this in Dagsnytt 18 today. Butenshøn said it shouldn't be a question of money. It will always be possible to support the structure with a strong core of steel.

Personally I have always liked the highrise and Y-blokka + the park in front with the water. The buildings are nicely decorated and I find them as quality examples of it's period. It would be sad if it were lost, especially after this.

About people in the street argument. I think it is nice with some areas in the city which is more quiet and less people. It is almost like a park where you can breath a bit. Miost cities have places like this. Not all places need to be busy and full of shops. What we don't need in the city though, are areas full of cars.

Can't the public decide? I hate them and have always done. I have never heard a single nice word said about them before this attack. Not even at this forum. I would also make much greater statement that we now are optimistic and looking to the future with building a new, great building there imho.

About people in the street argument. I think it is nice with some areas in the city which is more quiet and less people. It is almost like a park where you can breath a bit. Miost cities have places like this. Not all places need to be busy and full of shops. What we don't need in the city though, are areas full of cars.

No, it's not like a park. It's like a freeway ffs. This is the streetview of the square today:
http://i1193.photobucket.com/albums/aa352/ruterruter/Untitled.png

This is what you describe as a quiet area where you can breath a little?

This is what you describe as a quiet area where you can breath a little?

Are you for real? This is not Regjeringskvartalet, this is a photo of the tunnel beneath it. I hope you will be more serius if you want to discuss this further..

^^ Uhm, he's probably talking about Johan Nygaardsvolds plass with Regjeringsparken. The area definitely has better areas for pedestrians than the tunnel you are showing.

Are you for real? This is not Regjeringskvartalet, this is a photo of the tunnel beneath it. I hope you will be more serius if you want to discuss this further..
Are you serious? That is how Arne Garborgs plass looks like today which I believe the gov complex completely ruined along with Hammersborgsgata leading to it. I believe that is an example of a failed '60s planing which we should use the opportunity to change for the better now.

Are you serious? That is how Arne Garborgs plass looks like today which I believe the gov complex completely ruined along with Hammersborgsgata leading to it.

We were discussing the highrise and the area around it. If you want to discuss the tunnel or other parts of the city thats fine, but please give a hint so I know what this is about.

We were discussing the highrise and the area around it. If you want to discuss the tunnel or other parts of the city thats fine, but please give a hint so I know what this is about.

I posted a map of what I was talking about on page 1 along with the name of square and the streets that surround it as well as old pictures of the square! Isn't that enough clues?

And it is part of the gov complex which I want to have demolished. It's not "another part of the city".

Is it right that one man we have no democratic ways to choose over, can decide that certain buildings are important even though the "whole" city hates them and they have ruined the area they stand in

Well, we are at least 3 forumers here that wants to keep the building. I'm not sure if the democrazy you cry for would have the outcome you think..

Well, we are at least 3 forumers here that wants to keep the building. I'm not sure if the democrazy you cry for would have the outcome you think..

Of course it would have the outcome I think: The majority would have been heard. Is not that important which way the majority votes, although I of course would prefer if they had the same opinion as me.

I posted a map of what I was talking about on page 1 along with the name of square and the streets that surround it as well as old pictures of the square! Isn't that enough clues?

And it is part of the gov complex which I want to have demolished. It's not "another part of the city".

Sorry if I didn't read that post close enough, but you have criticized the highrise for being ugly and surroundings for not having enough shops. I don't see the connection with the tunnel. The tunnel is needed, and they are rarely shopfriendly.

Sorry if I didn't read that post close enough, but you have criticized the highrise for being ugly and surroundings for not having enough shops. I don't see the connection with the tunnel. The tunnel is needed, and they are rarely shopfriendly.

I have criticized the whole complex with being ugly and killing all street activity in the area, were I among other mentioned Hammersborggata as one of the streets being affected. The tunnel you speak of starts later - this lid is only there to support the gov building above and have done nothing to increase the capacity of the road underneath. I suggest to demolish the whole complex which would have meant that this lid is no longer needed.

If the lid was removed as Galro suggests this ugly express-road-system becomes a canyon in the landscape instead of hidden (partly) underground as it is today - to change this one would have to go crazy with billions of NOK demolishing R5, Ibsen block aswell... I am one of those who like this area as it is. The air that building tall has made allows one to enjoy the 3 churches and library building. If anything we should build one or two modern brothers of simular height as Høyblokka at the site of R4.

^^ You only have to remove the lid + the building above. Nothing more. I don't see what the Ibsen quarter has to do with it? That's a good stretch away from there. It still wouldn't optimal but it would be damn sight better than todays solution with a completely hidden library and this semi-tunnel thing going on.

We should also try to dig a proper, 2+2 wide tunnel all the way down to Schweigaardsgate in the future.

It would still be on the same level with Grubbe and Akersgata bridging over it? Great solution... If could go along with removing parts of or all of Y-block (memorial site?) but not removing lid.

Why would that be bad solution? Stockholm managed to get it to work ...

I don't know what you are refering to in Stockholm. Please link.

^^
http://stockholmsguide.blogg.se/images/2008/img_1055_1204572749_15755357.jpg

http://www.djembe.se/hitta/kungsgatan35.jpg

http://dejarue.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Kungsgatan.jpg

Coolest place in Stockholm too.

It would just be an extension of this except no one in their right mind would make commerical space to streetlevel today - it's not particularly "nice":

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll218/Ingenioren/Oslo/DSC_0173.jpg
(Posted by myself a while back.)

Off topic: I guess an elevated walkway was planned/or did exist here, look at the door in 3rd floor.

Yes, the street in Stockholm is very similar to Hammersborgsgata. The biggest difference is that they never "topped" it up with a '60s/'70s building and with a lid completely covering the upper part of the street. Kungsgatan (the name of the street) is today a popular shopping street in Stockholm while no one every goes down Hammersborgsgaten (with the exception of you;)). I think we in this case have something to learn from the Swedes. Especially when the streets are so similar, yet the end results is so different.

Here is a another picture of the street (taken by myself):

http://i1193.photobucket.com/albums/aa352/ruterruter/P1010417.jpg

You would have to keep the ramps aswell. There is no sense in having a Ring1 unless it connects to important streets such as Ullevålsv. connection to firehouse and and government buildings are also speaking against making the opened street lively.

You would have to keep the ramps aswell. There is no sense in having a Ring1 unless it connects to important streets such as Ullevålsv.
Yes, I agree with this and that gives us more of an handicap compared to Stockholm. However I do believe that the removal of the lid would automatically results in a little more street activity there, and then we could later think about building a tunnel underneath the whole length between Hammersborg and Scweeigaardsgate to accommodate Ring 1.

While we're at it. Some more mood-photos from 3 years ago

This beauty will shine again as new (In 4-5 years time?)
http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll218/Ingenioren/Oslo/DSC_0174.jpg

Not often you get to walk next to a 4-lane expressway underground, artwork was removed due to vandalism:
http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll218/Ingenioren/Oslo/DSC_0158.jpg

Street-level in the tunnel - more pedestrians!
http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll218/Ingenioren/Oslo/DSC_0160.jpg

Plenty of room for views to the beautiful older buildings in the current urban layout:
http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll218/Ingenioren/Oslo/DSC_0171.jpg

But surely even you think this was a better solution?
This is Hamersborgs masteplan from '30s:
http://www.digitaltmuseum.no/BigImageContent.do?imageIndex=0&owner=BAR&identifier=A-10002%2FUa%2F0032%2F039&filename=A-10002_Ua_0032_039.jpg

The square pre gov:
http://www.digitaltmuseum.no/BigImageContent.do?imageIndex=0&owner=OMU&identifier=OB.X1422&filename=OB.X1422.jpg

http://www.digitaltmuseum.no/BigImageContent.do?imageIndex=0&owner=BAR&identifier=A-20145%2FUaa%2F0011%2F015&filename=A-20145_Uaa_0011_015.jpg

http://www.digitaltmuseum.no/BigImageContent.do?imageIndex=0&owner=BAR&identifier=A-20145%2FUaa%2F0011%2F008&filename=A-20145_Uaa_0011_008.jpg

Not really - that wall against Deichman/Trefoldighetskrk is more of a nuissence than Y-blokka - atleast the architecture of mentioned building is interesting. And that square in the middle looks more sad and useless than the quiet spaces found on either sides of this building.

The landscaping on the square is quite limited to the fact that the fire trucks have to cross it. This should be compared to the same square down in the tunnel, in front of the fire stations. And this square isn't very exciting today either even though I agree that it wasn't much to think of in the old days.

However the rest of Hammersborgsgata all the way from Arbeidersamfunnets plass up to Akersgaten was a much better looking place before. Now it is almost completely empty and without a single shop. I don't think the removal of Y blokka would offers a magical solution, but it would be a step in the right direction. You don't disagree with that Stockholms versions looks more lively and attractive than ours?

This should be compared to the same square down in the tunnel, in front of the fire stations
We got 2 new urban spaces at the surface in replacement of that square.

Rather cover up that last remaining surface-bit between the 2 tunnels and offer some compensation (extra height) to landowners on either side who's 2 bottom floors is reduced to storage only. (Who would pay for this tough?)

You don't disagree with that Stockholms versions looks more lively and attractive than ours?

Absolutly not. But making Hammersborgsgt. into that is impossible.

I guess you guys will just have to agree to disagree:)

For me I wouldnt mind the highrise be replaced with something slimmer, so that it won't obstruct the view of the cupola of the church from the opera roof.

Should do the same as New York. Memorial and something higher, more modern.

I think Y-blokka and the lid really do ruin the area, but it seems unlikely that they would be demolished. I think the damage to Y-blokka is fairly limited, right? Nevertheless I do wonder about security. Placing a government buildiing on top of a lid seems like an invitation for a terrorist to detonate a truckload of explosives underneath.

The highrise and R4 are historically significant I suppose but architecturally mediocre. I would not mind new buildings, but without removing the lid and and Y-blokka there are limits to what you can do with the area.

From statsbygg:

I første omgang søker vi etter lokaler som er ledig omgående og kan romme minimum 100 kontorarbeidsplasser innenfor en gangavstand på 10-20 minutter fra Regjeringskvartalet. Andre henvendelser om arealer av en viss størrelse noe lenger unna kan imidlertid også komme i betrakning.

Det er ønskelig å inngå kortere leieavtaler for en periode på 1-2 år, med mulighet for forlengelse på samme vilkår og med rett til oppsigelse for leietaker. Vi arbeider nå med å koordinere henvendelsene, og vil ta nærmere kontakt med aktuelle eiendomsbesittere/utleiere.


http://statsbygg.no/Aktuelt/Nyheter/Takk-for-eiendomstilbud/

1-2 years? Seems they will try to restore the current buildings, then..

1-2 years? Seems they will try to restore the current buildings, then..

They're hedging their bets. Note that they want both the option of renewing the contract and the possibility to quit the lease early.

The highrise and R4 are historically significant I suppose but architecturally mediocre.

The only buildings that have historic values in the area is the G-block and the few old buildings that have been kept since before the Gov moved in. Some claim that the highrise have architectural importance though. R4 however dates from the '80s/'90s and was set up on a shoestring budget.

This beauty will shine again as new (In 4-5 years time?)
http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll218/Ingenioren/Oslo/DSC_0174.jpg


Quoting this.

I think it's a great building. With the artwork on the side, the wooden details and the use of naturbetong, it's probably Norway's best example of brutalism.

For those of you that hate it, let's not forget that Oslo Rådhus was ranked as the most hated building in Oslo up until a few years ago. Last time they had a public vote to choose the best building in the city, it won. Now it's often seen as the very symbol of Oslo.

Quoting this.

For those of you that hate it, let's not forget that Oslo Rådhus was ranked as the most hated building in Oslo up until a few years ago. Last time they had a public vote to choose the best building in the city, it won. Now it's often seen as the very symbol of Oslo.
Is still is ranked among the most hated buildings in Oslo. At least it was the last time anyone did a list:
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article1434917.ece

The difference is though that the are strong and large part of population on the other side that absolutely love it. The majority probably does.

Do you think that the people in the city shouldn't have a say that we buildings that we keep? If the majority was against keeping the city hall and it needed to be completely rebuilt, then I would except to see something else come up there. Even though I personally like the building.

I agree with Nordicon: Ground Zero in NY should be the model.

My preferred scenario would be to have R4, S-Blokken, Y-Blokken and H-Blokken removed, and an international competition launched to redesign the area.

A memorial site should be the centrepiece of the new setting, with a taller and slimmer tower (or towers) with an iconic design.

The question of the lid could be left open, so that the participants could propose whatever fits best into their solutions.

I have said it before an i will say it again. Y block an H block are great buildings. I live only 400m away and pass the H block everyday two and from work.. I always give this complex a glance with admiration when i pass it. They have my full support to rebuild this highrise.

This i also a matter of if the tower is salvageable or not..

R4 on the other hand is nothing to keep imo. Obviously more damaged and an eyesore even on a sunny day. R5 in that case too. Actually this bit of pløens gate is poorly planned and could need a total regenereation (read tear down and reclaim more space)..

I think it is a terrible idea to totally rebuild the core of this complex and build some over the top sentimental memorial for the 8 people that were tragically killed here or use this place for any grande memorial.. Ulvøya will most likely have a memorial in a appropriate location.

Is still is ranked among the most hated buildings in Oslo. At least it was the last time anyone did a list:
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article1434917.ece

The difference is though that the are strong and large part of population on the other side that absolutely love it. The majority probably does.

Do you think that the people in the city shouldn't have a say that we buildings that we keep? If the majority was against keeping the city hall and it needed to be completely rebuilt, then I would except to see something else come up there. Even though I personally like the building.

I think it's up to the governmental employees appointed by our democratically elected officials to decide which buildings should be put on a preservation list.

Direct public vote in something as subjective as what's ugly/good looking usually a bad way to run a democracy. If you really want a building to be torn down you have to have a better reason than "I don't like it".

I think it's up to the governmental employees appointed by our democratically elected officials to decide which buildings should be put on a preservation list.

Direct public vote in something as subjective as what's ugly/good looking usually a bad way to run a democracy. If you really want a building to be torn down you have to have a better reason than "I don't like it".

The building is already torn down. That's why we have this tread. Do you think that the people who use the city and pays for the construction shouldn't be able to decide what we build? Why should the city be a museum for a few peoples opinions? Or do think the different Antikvars are right no matter what?

[QUOTE=Galro;82205894]The building is already torn down. That's why we have this tread. QUOTE]

We don't know that yet. I wouldn't miss it, but if it can be rehabilitated it will. If if needs to be demolished I think it would be absurd to rebuild it, but that's another issue.

The building is already torn down. That's why we have this tread. Do you think that the people who use the city and pays for the construction shouldn't be able to decide what we build? Why should the city be a museum for a few peoples opinions? Or do think the different Antikvars are right no matter what?

Torn down means demolished. And it's not demolished, it's just in poor state.

The antikvar actually has a reason to put it on the preservation list. It is a building with a lot of historical and architectural value. Liking/disliking it is one thing, but if you actually want it to be demolished then you need to have a better reason.

Galleri Oslo is a good example. I personally think it's a quite nice building, and the indoor space is lovely. However, the building creates a very negative urban space around it the favours heavy traffic, while shoehorning people into bad and unnatural pedestrian solutions. Therefore, I think it would probably be best to change it heavily or demolish it altogether.

Høyblokken is just a regular old highrise with a nice open car-free space aroung it. Some people might make the argument that is shuts out sunlight, but that's not a point we would make here on this forum. Y-blokka is another thing, it's slightly more controversial but that's not what we're discussing here.

Basically beauty is subjective and we can't go around tearing down a unique building designed by one of Norways most famous architects just because some people don't think it looks nice. Especially not right after it's been bombed by a terrorist.

Why does it matter if it has historical and architectural value if the majority in the city hates it? We have museums to keep our history, the city should try to be as attractive as positively. The fact that beauty is subjective shows exactly why we can't have a one man and his department dictate the citys future development.

And do you agree with the demolishing of Skansen, Engelske Kvarter, det reduction of Barcode and the sightlines from Middelalderparken?

No no no. The path you are on will have us demolish Plaza, Folketeateren, Postgiro aswell as all of Barcode. We need the diversity in architecture even if only loved by a minority.

Can't us who love scale-crushing and post-war details have a few buildings safe.

No, because Postgiro, Plaza, Barcode and Folketeateret are all private owned buildings without any need for major rebuilding. We can't force the landlord to demolish their buildings now that we have approved them, however we should listen to the people (and not only the nimbys mind you) when it comes to approval of them in the first place.

I see riksantikvaren has invaded this forum :sly:

Personally, I think its fine if it stays as it is. But if their have to tear it down anyway, they should build something completely different.

If the lid was removed as Galro suggests this ugly express-road-system becomes a canyon in the landscape instead of hidden (partly) underground as it is today - to change this one would have to go crazy with billions of NOK demolishing R5, Ibsen block aswell... I am one of those who like this area as it is. The air that building tall has made allows one to enjoy the 3 churches and library building. If anything we should build one or two modern brothers of simular height as Høyblokka at the site of R4.

Totally agree with all of this.

I'd like to see the hole filled in and have the road totally filled in to reintroduce something of a square in front of diechmans.

I'd like to see høyblokka retained, it's not the best of proportions but it's a fine building and, from that era, actually a very decent bit of design, the use of wooden window frames alone makes it different to so many other blocks of that era - it's clean and simple, no frightening dark corridors and alcoves.

R4? well, they couldn't pull that down quicker IMO, one of the ugliest buildings in oslo, with zero redeeming features. a great opportunity for something special, i reckon.

i'm pretty sure they showed some machine ripping great chunks out of it today.

According to Wiki, the huge wall paintings on it's short side is Picasso. At least that's something to keep. Nothing would suite me more than a 150m+ at this place, but truth told, we're not likely to see anything taller than the 17 floors already approven. In stead of some modern boxy midrise, I'd rather see a restauration of the damaged building, even if the cost equals tearing down and building something new.

R4 should be subject of an international architect competition no matter what, though.

They didn't get access to Høyblokka, but this is Statbygg's preliminary report:

Bæringssystemet i flere bygg er sjekket, og i følgende bygg er det ikke synlige skader på bærende elementer: Y-blokken, S-blokken, R4, Finansdepartementet og Høyesterett.

Looks as they may get away with only reparing surfaces, then...

I see this might be a better place to post this:
Riksantikvaren vil bevare Høyblokken (http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article4186580.ece)

Riksantikvaren invades the thread indeed.

Guess the saying "aldri så galt at det ikke er godt for noe" will have to be revised.

According to Wiki, the huge wall paintings on it's short side is Picasso.

I believe they were done by Carl Nesjar based on Pablo Picassos drawings.

More on Høyblokka history:
http://www.bygg.no/2011/07/en-fryktelig-uke

Vil stenge deler av Oslo for all biltrafikk (http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article4221395.ece)
http://media.aftenposten.no/archive/01537/_SCC-AIPub_F-Br_dt_1537925f.jpg

^^In that case, I can nothing but expect the government will pay for a new metro-connection to the area, as I can see no other way to enter the area that will be "safe" enough for the government's need. And let's face it, a madman can still do pretty much harm, no matter how big the make this pedestrian "bubble".

There is underground car park connecting all government buildings in the area with access from Ring1.

^^In that case, I can nothing but expect the government will pay for a new metro-connection to the area, as I can see no other way to enter the area that will be "safe" enough for the government's need. And let's face it, a madman can still do pretty much harm, no matter how big the make this pedestrian "bubble".

I guess that would fit with the new 'Hammersborg T'...

There is underground car park connecting all government buildings in the area with access from Ring1.

That was supposed to be a secret. Now they have to rebuild everything.:bash: You're post will cost us billions of kroner :ohno:

Erling Fossen about Høyblokka:

http://www.estatenyheter.no/component/content/article/1-nyhter/1592--gi-oss-et-nytt-regjeringsbygg.html

Can't say I don't agree!

:applause:
Completely agree. This is a great change for the city and the country to build a government building we can be proud of and meets modern requirement to security, environment and need for space while not completely ruining the area it's placed in.

This would be my outlandish suggestion:

Demolish the highrise and finish the building begun by Henrik Bull.

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o190/jmoxon/gblokk1930.jpg

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o190/jmoxon/regjeringsbyggetmodell.jpg

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o190/jmoxon/hbullpersp.jpg

The ministry of finance could move to a new complex at Solli plass behind the English quarter's rebuilt facades.
Yes, I am serious. If I was in a position to make suggestions, I would put this forward, however unrealistic it may be. :)

Don't try to deny, that this view looks better!:

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o190/jmoxon/regjering.jpg

^^ I think I would support it actually. Thought about sending Byens Fornyelse a mail? I'm sure they would love it. They need something to fit for other than just being against highrises either way. :)

i couldn't resist knocking out a compromise....

http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w255/greatcentral/Image1-6.jpg

^^It's a bit Reichstag. I like it!:)

:okay:

FAD and Rigmor Aaserud about the "Nye regjeringskvartalet"-project: http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.7823322

Hmm... I hate to say it, but this gives me a little too much "prison" feeling.
http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o190/jmoxon/regjeringsbyggetmodell.jpg

Well, I guess we can take this as an early confirmation that at least some of the buildings will be demolished.

http://e24.no/eiendom/aasrud-vil-ha-nye-loesninger-i-regjeringskvartalet/20108154

Remains to be seen how many of those buildings will go down, but I won't shed a tear if they take out Høyblokken and Y-blokken. Regarding R5 and S-blokken, I guess anyone with a sense of aesthetics would be glad to see them turned into a pile of rubble anyway!

R5 isn't exactly an amazing peice of architecture but I hope they keep the main buildings.

Hmm... I hate to say it, but this gives me a little too much "prison" feeling.
http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o190/jmoxon/regjeringsbyggetmodell.jpg

Yeah, I don't really think this kind of architecture is appropriate for a modern government building. All the symbolism and aesthetic in buildings like that is geared towards centralized power and control. For private buildings it doesn't matter, let people build what they want, but when it comes to a government building symbolism is pretty important.

Should they be foreced to build something new it should at least be something that reflects modern Norwegian society.

Current state of affairs, very depressing that it is still very boared up...

http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w255/greatcentral/Regjeringskvartalet-october2011.jpg

Quoting this.

I think it's a great building. With the artwork on the side, the wooden details and the use of naturbetong, it's probably Norway's best example of brutalism.

For those of you that hate it, let's not forget that Oslo Rådhus was ranked as the most hated building in Oslo up until a few years ago. Last time they had a public vote to choose the best building in the city, it won. Now it's often seen as the very symbol of Oslo.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/UN_Headquarters_2.jpg

I am not such a big fan of the wooden details and the artwork that you are refering to. I personally think that something closer to the FN Headquarters in Manhattan would be more appropraite. The building would then be more modern looking, however it will maintain that brutal look that you are talking about, agree? :)

Yes, lets cover it in glass. Thats original:ohno:

Yes, lets cover it in glass. Thats original:ohno:

Excuse me but the building as it is now is not very creative besides the artwork, and tbh the artwork is not that outstanding. Due to building being a government building I dont find it appropriate to do something "completely different" i think the design of possible new government building should be simple. Additionally would you honestly prefere looking at a concrete building rather than a glass building? Depends on the concrete i guess but for the most part i think "covering" the building in glass would be quite suitable.

^^ But what's the point in keeping it if you don't like the design?

I would personally prefer something low there as the current building is ruining the skyline we would have had with Trefoldighetskirken, St.Olavskirken and Margretakyrkan (or something) if it had not been there.

A couple of days ago I just made a quick sketch how the wall could be integrated in a new building. My idea is that there can be a memory park between the wall and the new building. Please dont pay attention to the building, it is just a duck..

It was quite funny that I read earlier today that they actually are thinking the same way as myself, keeping parts of the old building in a new one. I don't think my solution is what they have in mind though..

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u315/erreflot/regjering.jpg

Additionally would you honestly prefere looking at a concrete building rather than a glass building?
Yes. Covering old, not popular/good looking buildings in glass is just a cheap and cowardly way to hide its history. If they tear it down on the other hand, great.

Yes. Covering old, not popular/good looking buildings in glass is just a cheap and cowardly way to hide its history. If they tear it down on the other hand, great.

What i prefere they do is of course, build a completely new building not just cover the current one in glass, however i wouldnt want the new building to be too different e.g a "curvy/rounded design". In my opinion it would be best with a simple design like the FN Headquarters in manhattan and if that is not innovative enough there are many ways to make the building more "original" without changing the shape of the structure too much. :)

^^ But what's the point in keeping it if you don't like the design?

I would personally prefer something low there as the current building is ruining the skyline we would have had with Trefoldighetskirken, St.Olavskirken and Margretakyrkan (or something) if it had not been there.
What perspective are you talking here? As I'm writing this, I'm watching the sun rise over that exact part of town from about 3.5km north-east (love the view here in this light: Plaza is a giant mirror :D); and from my perspective the most distinguishing features that way are the yellow commies in Westye Egebergs gate besides ofc H-blokka. The churches have no impact at all - I can notice them if I look for it, but they wouldn't be a distinguishing features of the skyline even with everything else gone. Not that I would want them to - I want my city to have landmarks that show us having progressed from the 1890s. Without those two, it wouldn't be a skyline, but a treeline.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that as a standalone building, H-blokka is ugly as sin - brutalism usually is - and besides that suffers from the same problem as so many of our high-rises: not high enough and too wide in one direction (while fairly thin in the other). But as a part of the skyline it actually does good - it makes it more defined and with more texture and interest than just a boring, flat plane. Almost makes me forget how nimby this town can be. :)

So to be honest: if it was torn down and replaced with just another groundscraper I'd hate it, even if the new building was architecturally superior.

^^ I was mainly thinking when viewed from Mosseveien /Ekeberg. There are other places in the city where you can see regjeringsbygget (like Drammensveien) although I'm not completely sure it would be possible to see the churches from here either way. The yellow funkis you talk about do quite a lot of harm to skyline too and I would love to see them torn down. Perhaps it would then be possible to get Ekebergslottet as a visible part of the city again?

I think your mentality that appears to be "anything goes as long as it slightly taller than the surrounding the buildings" it's making our skyline looks so shit compared to our neighbours despite us having some gorgeous historic buildings around. I'm not against making modern buildings contribute to the skyline, but think there should be room for historic contributes too.

^^ I was mainly thinking when viewed from Mosseveien /Ekeberg. There are other places in the city where you can see regjeringsbygget (like Drammensveien) although I'm not completely sure it would be possible to see the churches from here either way. The yellow funkis you talk about do quite a lot of harm to skyline too and I would love to see them torn down. Perhaps it would then be possible to get Ekebergslottet as a visible part of the city again?
Both H-blokka and the commies? I don't get to keep any skyline at all? :cry:
I think your mentality that appears to be "anything goes as long as it slightly taller than the surrounding the buildings" it's making our skyline looks so shit compared to our neighbours despite us having some gorgeous historic buildings around. I'm not against making modern buildings contribute to the skyline, but think there should be room for historic contributes too.
In principle I could agree, only problem is that historic buildings tend to have been built to old standards when height limits were even more extreme than they are today. Apart from Uranienborg church it's all really small - insisting you still have to see them makes us a prisoner of past mistakes.

To be honest, I think even H-blokka is fairly modest in height. The fact that it is taller than everything around it says more about the rest of the city than anything else.

Open meeting (http://www.oslomuseum.no/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=159&Itemid=277) about Regjeringsbyggets future on Tuesday.

Hva: Debattmøte om Regjeringsbyggets fremtid
Hvor: Bymuseet i Frognerparken
Når: Tirsdag 25. oktober kl. 18-19.30

Both H-blokka and the commies? I don't get to keep any skyline at all? :cry:


It's funny how different our views are on this. Whereas you see these buildings creating a skyline, I see them as obstructing one.
For me, the problem with our highrises is that they are essentially compromises. Not tall enough to create a defined skyline, but tall enough to drown out the existing skyline.

^^ I agree with that, however I think it's possible for a lowish highrise to contribute to the skyline too as long as it is pretty. Which neither the yellow fortress-commies or Regjeringskvartalet is imho.

Yes, but a whole bunch of fat midrises in the same area, all with roughly same height, flat roofs, That doesnt create a good skyline. worst example is the area around pilestredet-Ibsentunnelen. Hammersborg is actually more acceptable in this sense, but not great. Even barcode seems to be falling into the same trap. What we need is a more defined skyline.

^^I generally agree with you, however I think Barcodes saving grace is the two higher buildings at the back which gives some diversity in the height. And if we could get more higher buildings there then would look even better.

Høyblokka må bevares (http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/--Hyblokka-m-bevares-6679591.html)

Det var konklusjonen da regjeringsbyggets fremtid sto på agendaen under en debatt i regi av Oslo Museum nå i kveld.

:cheers:

Looks like your 'public opinion' has deserted you Galro. :ohno:

Høyblokka må bevares (http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/--Hyblokka-m-bevares-6679591.html)



:cheers:

Looks like your 'public opinion' has deserted you Galro. :ohno:

Did you see the poll in the newspapers? Around 75% wanted to demolish in Aften, 15% wanted to keep it and the rest was unsure. Most people who wanted to keep it arguing with the likes of "any new buildings will most likely look even worse, so it's better to keep the old and ugly building". And the conclusion in your article is that the terrorist wins if we demolish it which is clearly bullshit as he didn't cared about the building. He cared about AP. We should abounded the democracy and let AP rule as dictators forever if the goal was to not let him "win".


And for the record: I have never said that the public is against keeping the current building (although I do suspect the majority is), but that they should be able to chose for themself rather than having a few people forcing the protection through. Which you was against.

Høyblokka må bevares (http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/--Hyblokka-m-bevares-6679591.html)



:cheers:

Looks like your 'public opinion' has deserted you Galro. :ohno:

I don't think we should be surprised that this group of protectionists wanted to keep the highrise. I am however a bir surprised you suddenly call such a group "public opinion", which seems a bit strange.

Did you see the poll in the newspapers? Around 75% wanted to demolish in Aften, 15% wanted to keep it and the rest was unsure. Most people who wanted to keep it arguing with the likes of "any new buildings will most likely look even worse, so it's better to keep the old and ugly building". And the conclusion in your article is that the terrorist wins if we demolish it which is clearly bullshit as he didn't cared about the building. He cared about AP. We should abounded the democracy and let AP rule as dictators forever if the goal was to not let him "win".


And for the record: I have never said that the public is against keeping the current building (although I do suspect the majority is), but that they should be able to chose for themself rather than having a few people forcing the protection through. Which you was against.

I'm pretty sure you said that you spoke for the public when saying it should be demolished.

Besides, there were thousands of signatures against barcode, so what's your point?

'Public opinion' was a bit tounge in cheek, I meant the audience who was clearly in favour of keeping the building. I mean, generally if there's a public meeting even about something as small as cutting down a tree, you'll have at least one heckling nimby. Here there were none.

I'm pretty sure you said that you spoke for the public when saying it should be demolished.

I'm pretty sure I just say I thought most people wanted it demolished, and the polls in the newspaper seems to support that. I do not know for sure if that's the majorities opinion. But I do think it is.

This is what I said:
Can't the public decide? I hate them and have always done. I have never heard a single nice word said about them before this attack. Not even at this forum. I would also make much greater statement that we now are optimistic and looking to the future with building a new, great building there imho.

The closest I got to say that "I spoke for the public was here":

The fact that it was bombed makes it insignificant in Riksantikvarens eyes. I would argue that very few people outside of Architects and the Antikvars think the building is anything special.

I will argue that appears to be right based on polls. I can't know for sure though.



Besides, there were thousands of signatures against barcode, so what's your point?


Which we were gathered after it was approved. Not completely sure what's that got to with it. Do you think that people shouldn't be allowed to have a say when it comes to developing the city? Are you against Yimby for example?

1 out of 4 isn't "very few". Not many buildings are considered preserveable by more than 1 out 4!

1 out of 4 isn't "very few". Not many buildings are considered preserveable by more than 1 out 4!

Not for a lot of that shit we are protecting maybe ...

From the frontpage of tu.no right now they are running a poll on tear down vs keep with some questions about why. Just expressed my opinion there now :)

From the frontpage of tu.no right now they are running a poll on tear down vs keep with some questions about why. Just expressed my opinion there now :)
Result, Flertall vil rive høyblokka (http://www.tu.no/bygg/article293278.ece)

Høyblokka blir trolig revet - uansett utfall av rapport
http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10016866

http://static.vg.no/uploaded/image/bilderigg/2011/12/18/1324195575075_456.jpg

:cheers:

I agree ^^ !
I hope the era of "power-socialist" commies will soon be over at least in the inner city of Oslo :)

Wish they would start evaluating Indeks-huset as the next one to go, although from what I know that is not very likely.

This really is good news, especially if Y-blokka goes too as VG seems to imply.

^^Thats the best news imo. With Y-blokka gone, hopefully they can rebuild the square in front of Deichmanske.

:banana::banana::banana::banana::cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers:
:dance::dance:


This will do so much for this part of the city!!!

Wish they would start evaluating Indeks-huset as the next one to go, although from what I know that is not very likely.

This will never, ever happen. As long as the building is in good condition no one will ever tear it down. Its just makes really bad economic sense. Unless there was a prospect of getting significantly more square metres out of the plot.

Besides, it looks rather nice IMO:)

i like the Ind eks huset's tower, but not the ground buildings.

I don't like it (Ind eks) at all personally, although I guess if they built something different instead of the ground buildings, the tower could also become more attractive.

But personally I don't see any huge value in any part of the complex, aesthetically speaking. And even if I've never seen it, it almost hurts thinking about the British quarter that used to stand there. For this reason, that they tore down such a nice complex for it, I'd like "revenge" and see the whole IndEks go for something fresh and new that would invigorate the whole Solli area.

Great news!

I'm not too happy about this as since i actually like the building.. BUT if they decide to tear it down, I seriously hope that they will make this 'square' an open public one and not a fort. And only if they tear down Y and R4 and its red brick neighbor (the educational or what that is again)...

What i fear the most is that they replace this stylish building with some cheap glass and steel bogus building.

In any respect. Dont build more walls..

I'll miss it - i liked the architecture, though it's location was hopelessly wrong - if it means the whole complex gets redone then i'm all for it, if they just shove in some new building it'll be more of a mess than before...

as for indeks, that's one of my favourite buildings... i even used it on an album cover (http://veslemusikk.bandcamp.com/album/kyotooslo)

http://f0.bcbits.com/z/11/98/1198267852-1.jpg

Well, taste varies that's for sure.

I might be out of touch with architecture as a "serious" "high-standard" "academical" expert discipline, but it's grey, boring and without any particular redeeming qualities at all in my eyes. I also don't see how it fits in the environment, except for maybe the "Hydro" highrise not far away. But all buildings around Solli Plass except for that one, is quite different from the IndEks complex.

BUT sorry for discussing this offtopic subject so much in this thread - this is about Regjeringsbygget - so lets get back to topic.


Concerning regjeringsbygget, I actually like it quite a bit, at least more than I do IndEks, I like both the top ending of it as well as the art on it (made in cooperation with none less than Picasso(!)), and yeah, I think I'm less of an enemy of this building than many others. But after the terror bombing, and with the information given in the VG article that started this discussion, I don't mind at all if it gets torn down and replaced. So in short, I'm not really an "enemy" of Regjeringsbygget per se, but I won't cry myself to sleep if it gets replaced either. :)

I do hope the replacement project improves the area substantially though, but knowing the track record of the state in architecture in general, I suspect we can't get our hopes too high either.

Concerning regjeringsbygget, I actually like it quite a bit, at least more than I do IndEks, I like both the top ending of it

Yeah, that's the part that don't date from the '60s (and hence is slightly less hideous). This of course wouldn't have been in the "new" høyblokk if they decided to rebuilt it.

I hope Høgblokka can be refurbished. That in my mind would be the strongest signal after the terrorist attack. You tried to knock me down, but here I stand, m**********r!

I'm glad he didn't attack Bispelooket then.

I'm glad he didn't attack Bispelooket then.I can see your point. :)

Most importantly, we need to build something equally tall or taller....

Skyline will hurt a lot if this is replaced by a low-rise!

This is not the right place for highrise. The end results would then be another 30 years with heavy nimbyism against everything tall.

Ofcourse it is, smack in the middle of the designated zone "Ring1" of downtown suitable for highrises upto 30 floors as Pbe themselves suggested in their study back in 03.

Nimbys case is very weak considering there is already a tall structure in this location, just like when Phillips building was replaced by Kpmg.

I didn't say that they will be able to stop it. I'm saying that it will be hated and hence they will fight even stronger against highrises elsewhere. And all the highrises here looks absolutely awful. Isn't it about time we start building a skyline instead of just putting these boxes everywhere?

This is not the right place for highrise. The end results would then be another 30 years with heavy nimbyism against everything tall.

The aim should be to build at least an equal amount of square metres/number of workspaces (densification of the inner city etc.). And if you at the same time want a nice public plaza I wonder how that would be achived without building tall.

And why on earth do we need a public plaza? We already have Youngstorget, Arbeidersamfunnets plass and soon the square in front of deichman close by for those who think large open places represent the ultimate in city experience. And Fornebu is more or less a theme park dedicated to it. Lets try something different now.

I agree in principle though I shudder to think what clunky low rise they may come up with it. In that case, higher might be better, as long as it is taller and slimmer. That is, If they come up with something that actually looks like a tower, and not a box, which I kinda doubt.

Isn't it about time we start building a skyline instead of just putting these boxes everywhere?

It might just end up with a different shape than the one standing there now... There isn't many locations where a tower can stand out more in the skyline, since this is located higher than the rest of downtown.

Location calls for a more pinnacle-ish design with the two nabouring churches... Symbolics of the site also means more toughts should go into this than just cost-saving.

And why on earth do we need a public plaza? ´.

Security reasons? I would imagine that they'll want some open spaces for that reason alone.

In that case, I suggest they move out of the city centre,

In that case, I suggest they move out of the city centre,

+1. Besides, if security is such a big issue then surely a highrise is out of the question either way?

http://www.dagbladet.no/2011/12/21/nyheter/politikk/hoyblokka/jorn_holme/riksantikvaren/19501268/

I am usually more concerned about preserving older architecture than I think most users on this forum are, but this article just made me sigh. I liked Jørn Holme back in the days when he vigorously protected Vestbanen, but since then he seems to have started acting as a relatively obstructive force in the development of Oslo.

Well, this is of course just as expected. The antiquarians have way to much power to obstruct developments in this country.

What a shock ...

The gov. is keen on tearing it down, so Holme can just...:censored:

Good thing he stands up for the small and weak in the society, such as the brutalist highrises.

And if he were that keen on protecting the architecture, then why did they accept the completely changing expansion in the 90ies?!

The gov. is keen on tearing it down, so Holme can just...:censored:

The gov and the clear majority of the people it represent is keen on it. I therefore doubt Holme will get his way. If anything He is just making a fool out of himself rendering his opinions even less relevant.

http://www.dagbladet.no/2011/12/21/nyheter/politikk/hoyblokka/jorn_holme/riksantikvaren/19501268/

I am usually more concerned about preserving older architecture than I think most users on this forum are, but this article just made me sigh. I liked Jørn Holme back in the days when he vigorously protected Vestbanen, but since then he seems to have started acting as a relatively obstructive force in the development of Oslo.

I'm not a fan of riksantikvaren in general, but I think he's right in this case.

Høyblokka is an imprtant piece of post-war architecture with a high symbolic value. It represents the modern Norwegian state and all the values the ABB was against. Tearing it down would in many ways be like finishing the job for him.

http://i.imgur.com/QJf3F.jpg
(Foto: Riksarkivet)

Again: The same stupid arguments could be used if he attacked Bispelokket: We are finished the job for him and it represent the "modern norway". Should we let ABBs hate for various stuff dictate all future developments in the city? He hated AP, should they rule forever?

Again: The same stupid arguments could be used if he attacked Bispelokket: We are finished the job for him and it represent the "modern norway". Should we let ABB all future developments in the city? He hated AP, should they rule forever?

Stupid arguments? What's wrong with you man. Calm down.

Stupid arguments? What's wrong with you man. Calm down.

It is stupid unless you want ABBs hate to dictate every future developments in the country. You want that? Should we let AP rule for ever or is it okay to vote them out and "finish the job for ABB"? Or should that argument only be used about the government quarter because you like it and know that very few others do? So in others, you have no calms about using this tragedy to further your own agenda?

I have to say that it is rather sickening and tasteless seeing how people like you are equaling a view about demolishing this building with the things done by ABB.

I have to say that it is rather sickening and tasteless seeing how people like you are equaling a view about demolishing this building with the things done by ABB.

"People like me?" Okay? I'm sure you can argue without starting with personal attacks. I'm sorry if my post offended you.

"People like me?" Okay? I'm sure you can argue without starting with personal attacks. I'm sorry if my post offended you.
I haven't come with a single personal attack. People like you = people with the same opinion like you. That's not a personal attack. You starting this discussion with saying that people who were pro demolishing of the government block was also pro finishing the job done by ABB, or in other words we were pro mass killing. That's a utterly sickening thing to say.

I haven't come with a single personal attack. People like you = people with the same opinion like you. That's not a personal attack. You starting this discussion with saying that people who were pro demolishing of the government block was also pro finishing the job done by ABB, or in other words we were pro mass killing. That's a utterly sickening thing to say.

I haven't accused anyone of having those intentions. That's just your interpretation of my post. I'm sorry if my wording made it come across like that.

I haven't accused anyone of having those intentions. That's just your interpretation of my post. I'm sorry if my wording made it come across like that.
What you said:
Tearing it down would in many ways be like finishing the job for him.

ABBs job: Mass killing of immigrants, bombing of Oslo and trying to case a revolution.


You are implying that this is what we are doing if we demolish the building, and hence it should be out of the question. If you are not implying that, then what relevance does ABBs view on the building have?

What you said:


ABBs job: Mass killing of immigrants, bombing of Oslo and trying to case a revolution.


You are implying that this is what we are doing if we demolish the building, and hence it should be out of the question. If you are not implying that, then what relevance does ABBs view on the building have?


His intentions with the bombing were to tear down høyblokka. So obviously tearing it down would be finishing the job. I don't see how you can disagree with that? It's simple logic.

I never called the people who want to demolish it terrorists, that's just you putting words in my mouth.

Å skulle bevare høyblokka fordi AAB ønsket å sprenge den blir en ganske tåpelig logikk. Da lar vi jo i enda større grad AAB få diktere hva som burde gjøres. Drit nå i hva denne mannen mente eller ikke mente. Hva som er viktig her er regjeringens behov og sikkerhet. For oss som er opptatt av arkitektur og byforming er det selvfølgelig vanskelig å legge skjul på at dette er tidenes mulighet til å rette opp noe av skaden som ble gjort og få Deichmanske fram i lyset igjen ved reetablere et torg foran bygget, dersom man bestemmer at også y-blokka skal rives.

Utlys en arkitektkokurranse der arkitektene får i oppgave å tegne et bygg som er både funksjonelt og fyller andre behov regjeringen måtte ha, samt å bruke kunsten fra H og Y blokka som endel av nybygget(byggene), som bygulv e.l.

His intentions with the bombing were to tear down høyblokka. So obviously tearing it down would be finishing the job. I don't see how you can disagree with that? It's simple logic.

No, his intentions was to case civil uprising. Tearing down the høyblokka was way to do that he thought. Besides why is it a bad thing to finish that small part of the job for him? We aren't doing it to please him you know.

I never called the people who want to demolish it terrorists, that's just you putting words in my mouth.
You did it imply it.

Noen flere grunner til at Høyblokka kanskje burde bevares:

Et Hus til Ettertanke (http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/Et-hus-til-ettertanke-6694059.html)

http://ap.mnocdn.no/incoming/article6693954.ece/ALTERNATES/w780c169/FS00002364.jpg

I wish they could just keep that wall seen above ^^, and develop an entirely new building in the rest of the space behind it, as I said it's not that I hate the building, but I still wouldn't mind seeing something new in that space.

I think it would be cool to keep the wall as seen above, and make something slightly "organic" looking (for lack of a better term) as a new building. Would be a cool contrast between old and new as well as square and roundish/organic looking. I do realize there might be some structural challenges in accomplishing something like that though, they would need to come up with a way to keep the wall standing while constructing the new complex. But this is just me thinking loud anyway.

All in all I can't say I agree with either that article or the Riksantikvar.

why did they accept the completely changing expansion in the 90ies?!

More importantly - how can these changes (adding floors 16-17) be allowed in a building with only one stair-case :bash:

Listened to the Norwegian Antiquary about preserving the Highrise "Høyblokka".
He said that in the time "Høyblokka" was built, buildings from the 1840's had to give way for the new modern Norway. Now his using this argument for keeping the building. Isn't he going against his own words here?

In my opinion, "Høyblokka" should give way for, as the older buildings did in their time, a new modern buildng that could be an inspiration for projects to come.

It seems to be a lot of talk about what this building represent, but at the end of the day does it matters what it represent if the building ended up being hideous? Is bad architecture better if it represent something? Does Hotel Opera and Oslo Atrium for example suddenly become masterpieces when you say they represent the beginning of the modern Oslo in Bjørvika?

It seems to be a lot of talk about what this building represent, but at the end of the day does it matters what it represent if the building ended up being hideous? Is bad architecture better if it represent something? Does Hotel Opera and Oslo Atrium for example suddenly become masterpieces when you say they represent the beginning of the modern Oslo in Bjørvika?

For the pretentious, yes.

Personally, I don't really hate Høyblokka. Out of all the commie blocks in Norway I think its one of the most successful. That doesn't mean it's beautiful though. It's way too brutalist. If Regjeringskvartalet wasn't so accessible and open (used to be anyways), Høyblokka and Y-blokka would fit perfectly in to the Orwellian universe. And that's definitely not the signal you want to convey with such a building. I am having a hard time imagining a good modern alternative though. A new building would have to contain at least the same amount of square-meters and probably adhere to strict safety demands. So without going too tall, I can only imagine a big flat fort, probably without much glass.

In my mind, the best thing to do would be to tear down everything. Restore the old plaza and build some july 22 memorial in the place of Regjeringsbygget. Then move the government to Akershus festning/Vippetangen. It's never going the happen though. The symbolism and practicality of having it centered between the parliament, courts and Youngstorget is probably too important.

Surprised no one has mentioned this yet

http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.7968506
(http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.7968506)

Three alternatives:
1. Restoration
2. Demolish, but preserve some of the art in new buildings.
3. Complete demolition and construction of new buildings.

I'm guessing we'll end up with 2. which is fine with me and a suitable compromise. The article also confirms that y-blokka is being considered for demolition, which is a big relief.

Jan Bøhler mentioned something about Oslo Ap wanting to tear down everything and replace it with something larger, better and taller. If that happens, all I say is
0oh yeah! :cheers:

If on the other hand it gets replaced, but not by something taller, I'd be sad... :( I really need a building I can see from here*.

*Yes, this city should be built around MY needs (unlike everyone else's)

It would be such a shame if this fucker gets pulled down only to be replaced by another fatrise. Like we haven't learned a thing since the '60s. :ohno:

At least this means no moving out of the city. I'm scared this will be even more Festung Hammersborg than it already is. Let us hope the minister in charge (Rigmor Aaserud) is capable of guiding this project in a way that gives something back to the city.

My ideal suggestion would be to have a twice as tall highrise with one wall intergrated from the old highrise. Then for the rest of the area, keep density so high that we will have room for both open spaces, outdoor activities/a memorial, and the safety institutions that will have to be there.

Video here: http://www.nrk.no/nett-tv/indeks/294592/

It would be such a shame if this fucker gets pulled down only to be replaced by another fatrise. Like we haven't learned a thing since the '60s. :ohno:
Who said fatrise? All I heard Bøhler say was taller. So that's OK with me*. If there is a new building I seriously doubt it will be as fat in one direction compared to another as the current building. Besides, if they level the other smaller damaged buildings (Y, S and R4), you have a huge canvas to work with - you could build something really grand and still give something back to the city as you like to say.

*Now, I'll admit I'm still a little torn, because I'm afraid there will be a NIMBY backlash AFTER the building has been torn down. In that case, we might end up with the worst of both worlds: no history and no future.

^^another article with more information:

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10076621

-Both S-blokka and R4 will most likely be demolished!

-Høyblokka is more uncertain, but likely to be demolished too

-Y-blokka, although not very damaged, is taking up too much space and containing relatively few offices and with a fear of safety issues relating to the underlying road tunnel is therefore considered to be demolished too!

I think this is good news, it allows for a much denser office cluster and more life to the area. It will be nice to see some new and better development in replacement of the ugly S-blokka.

Who said fatrise?

I said. Here (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=87906885&postcount=173). I we won't get a slim skyscraper here. Forget about it. We haven't gotten a single un-fat highrise elsewhere in the city and we are certainly not going to get it here either. What we are going to get is another piece of government highrise "architecture" that secures that Oslo is still rated as one of Europes ugliest cities for the future.

I said. Here (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=87906885&postcount=173). I we won't get a slim skyscraper here. Forget about it. We haven't gotten a single un-fat highrise elsewhere in the city and we are certainly not going to get it here either. What we are going to get is another piece of government highrise "architecture" that secures that Oslo is still rated as one of Europes ugliest cities for the future.

I guess the only scraper that could ever meet your demands is Logo tower. But I don't get how we can fit 2,000 gov. employees in that one.

How about incorporating the old Deichmanske into a new Regjeringskvartal? Or are there other plans for that complex that I am unaware of? I for one think that Arne Garborgs plass should be revived and be the centre of the governmental buildings, whith a square that befits such a concentration of political power.:)

I don't think they've found a new use for it, but I can't really imagine Oslo city selling it to the state for them to use it as an office building...

Some ideas
(http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10076765)
http://static.vg.no/uploaded/image/bilderigg/2012/01/26/1327580819196_981.jpg


http://static.vg.no/uploaded/image/bilderigg/2012/01/26/1327580894280_93.jpg


http://static.vg.no/uploaded/image/bilderigg/2012/01/26/1327580971824_946.jpg

I guess the only scraper that could ever meet your demands is Logo tower. But I don't get how we can fit 2,000 gov. employees in that one.

Nah, I don't think the a scrapper is the solution here at all. And the renders above looks absolute hideous. Straight out of the '60s.

The high-rise cluster in the second rendering looks great and worthy of a governmental quarter. Fairly slim and sculptural.

Yes, indeed. Illustration number two is the only one worth working on. In fact I think its quite good; slim skyscrapers with a plaza between them, and more importantly old Deichman is no more hidden in a back alley.

The government will now take advise from "experts" and others. They will make a public blog open to anyone to speak their mind. So Aasrud said in today's Østlandssendingen.

Ugh, public views and development don't go well together. Expecting a lot of hatred, nimbyism and jante.

I have to say, looking at a lot by using Gule Sider® Kart's Skråfoto™ service I can usually visualize fairly quickly the general shape I want it to look. In this case, though, I'm just out of ideas. I'll probably know it when I see it, but not right now. So, in the mean time, I'll just keep wavering and give out conflicting messages.

Now, just how protected are Hovedbrannstasjonen and Møllergaten 19 really :cheers:

Ugh, public views and development don't go well together. Expecting a lot of hatred, nimbyism and jante.

Haha. I am usually in support of more democracy when it comes to city development, but I am afraid you are right on this one. At least I think the majority will support tearing down Regjeringsbygget and Y-blokka.

I have to say, looking at a lot by using Gule Sider® Kart's Skråfoto™ service I can usually visualize fairly quickly the general shape I want it to look. In this case, though, I'm just out of ideas.

Same here. It's a difficult area to develop. So I think illustration number two is a good step in the right direction, if it entails the required square meters.

Ugh, public views and development don't go well together. Expecting a lot of hatred, nimbyism and jante.
No wonder you will get a lot of nimbyism against these kind of developments. Not everyone is into neo-le corbusier planning.

No wonder you will get a lot of nimbyism against these kind of developments. Not everyone is into neo-le corbusier planning.

Just curious; how to you define neo Corbusier planning, and how do you see it these projects? I am by no means an expert, but I do believe that what was heavily criticized in Corbusier's designs were his house in a park-idea, resulting in useless open spaces. But I don't see how any open spaces in this otherwise very dense area would be useless, as it's heavily trafficked by pedestrians and serves as a crossroad between the east and west. And the buildings themselves, although only general suggestions, bear little resemblance to Corbusier's. A government building/area is also supposed to stand out amongst the rest, and to achieve this you need some kind of opening, right?

edit

No wonder you will get a lot of nimbyism against these kind of developments. Not everyone is into neo-le corbusier planning.

With the exception of the lamell blocks in the foreground, which I suspect are not meant to be the centre of attention in these renders, I see as much relevance to Le Corbusier in the second render as I see in the park in front of the Renzo Piano museum.

Cities have plazas. I would be very surprised if there's going to be a highway or a big lawn between the towers.

These are slim and sculptural towers; they are work places and not residential, and they are extremely central.

Just curious; how to you define neo Corbusier planning, and how do you see it these projects? I am by no means an expert, but I do believe that what was heavily criticized in Corbusier's designs were his house in a park-idea, resulting in useless open spaces. But I don't see how any open spaces in this otherwise very dense area would be useless, as it's heavily trafficked by pedestrians and serves as a crossroad between the east and west. And the buildings themselves, although only general suggestions, bear little resemblance to Corbusier's. A government building/area is also supposed to stand out amongst the rest, and to achieve this you need some kind of opening, right?

Le corbusiers ideas were based upon bringing openness, air and light into the cities and breaking with the traditional street grid which he believed was the case of so many 19th century slums. This often meant to follow the tower in the park concept when building apartments, but when it comes to offices then he usually put them around open plazas like you can see above. The critics against all this (both tower in the park and open plazas) is that it create vast, open places devoid of life and any human scale.

Look at the central plaza here as an example:
http://planocidade.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/le_corbusier_plan_voisin_031.png

I have to say, looking at a lot by using Gule Sider® Kart's Skråfoto™ service I can usually visualize fairly quickly the general shape I want it to look. In this case, though, I'm just out of ideas.

You should rather look at it from a street perspective, where we actually gonna experience the buildings. Very few will see it from above, so a nice shape from a birds view may be less interesting from ground. But I see your point, I do it too :)

Le corbusiers ideas were based upon bringing openness, air and light into the cities and breaking with the traditional street grid which he believed was the case of so many 19th century slums. This often meant to follow the tower in the park concept when building apartments, but when it comes to offices then he usually put them around open plazas like you can see above. The critics against all this (both tower in the park and open plazas) is that it create vast, open places devoid of life and any human scale.

Look at the central plaza here as an example:
http://planocidade.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/le_corbusier_plan_voisin_031.png

Ah, interesting. And I agree that this is generally not how a city should be built. But I still don't know if you could call the project above neo Corbusier. There is a rigidness in the organisation of Corbusier's buildings which we don't see in the project above, where the buildings are quite dynamically spread. And I believe that what created these places void of life was the idea that every single building should have a large area of open space around it. It is something entirely different when an open area/plaza occurs in an otherwise dense area. Is it not under such circumstances that a plaza actually attains meaning? And if there are any places that deserve space it is the seat of government. Not to mention the monumental facade of the Deichman building which doesn't deserve to be squeezed in.

http://blogg.nrk.no/byen/files/2009/10/DEICHMANSKE-500x370.jpg

But how can you call this area dense? We have another square at Youngstorget, one at Arbeidersamfunnets Plass, one behind Trefoldighetskirken, one in front of Deichman and we will get one next to the square in front of Deichman again. I agree that Deichman should come back into the open, but the square in front of Deichman don't need another square next to it (the one proposed with the towers around) but rather a building fenced the square off imho.

But how can you call this area dense? We have another square at Youngstorget, one at Arbeidersamfunnets Plass, one behind Trefoldighetskirken, one in front of Deichman and we will get one next to the square in front of Deichman again. I agree that Deichman should come back into the open, but the square in front of Deichman don't need another square next to it (the one proposed with the towers around) but rather a building fenced the square off imho.

True, there are other open squares in the area, but they are not connected. They are experienced individually, and are all surrounded by buildings standing close together. As for the two plazas, the way I see it there is an axis from Deichman to the new plaza, so I don't really experience it as two different plazas. Possibly the tall buildings could open somewhat more to Deichman to reinforce this impression. And I feel like the area available is to small to build one single, good looking structure, given the hight restrictions and square meters needed. But I will give you that if someone still managed to come up with a good design based on this, it could be an even better solution. And as "OnTheNorthRoad" said, the lamelle buildings in the foreground do indeed offer some useless open space, so this area could be organized more intimately.

I'm not quite sure why all alternatives seems to fixate on keeping this building:

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o309/IceCheese/Mllergata.jpg

It's perhaps the ugliest and the least functionate building of the whole Regjeringskvartal. Could it not be a part of the identity of a new Regjeringskvartal, better tying it to Youngstorget as well?

Oh God, what an ugly building! But does it belong to the government? And since it's hidden behind the, is it the oil and gas department?, I guess it didn't suffer much damage from the bomb. And they don't want to make the project more expensive than it already is.

^^It's basicly integrated in R4. This picture illustrates it well:

http://blogg.regjeringen.no/regjeringskvartalet/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/regkvart.jpg

^^It's basicly integrated in R4. This picture illustrates it well:

http://blogg.regjeringen.no/regjeringskvartalet/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/regkvart.jpg

Ah, yes. Lets cross our fingers that they eventually decide on involving that hideous structure in their plans then.

The biggest shame is that it used to stand a late 19th century commercial building there that was demolished and replaced with the current pink hideous thing that is of no higher density then the previous historic building. I guess it was done to save money on maintenance. The government also did the same thing Akersgata with a art nouveau building that used to stand beside the red/orange commercial building.

^^From the looks of it, the building houses a pretty big auditorium. That would explain why they had to tear down the old building... (not that I support the decission, though)

^^ No, you could a done a little bit of facading similar to what was done with the lonely red building in Akersgata. But this of course would have meant that they had use more money to maintain this facade afterwards.

Breivik: - Ikke riv høyblokka (http://www.dagbladet.no/2012/01/28/nyheter/terrorangrep_i_oslo/innenriks/anders_behring_breivik/terror/19969332/)

So I guess everyone should be pro demolition then, to not have the same opinion as the bomber.

:hahaha:

They should have asked Bin Laden about his opinion on the reconstruction of WTC too. :nuts:

How about incorporating the old Deichmanske into a new Regjeringskvartal? Or are there other plans for that complex that I am unaware of? I for one think that Arne Garborgs plass should be revived and be the centre of the governmental buildings, whith a square that befits such a concentration of political power.:)

I like the idea of creating a square with the library at one end, a tall structure at the other, but with wing strtching either side; open at two corners and with arch ways (thru the wings) at the other corners...

incidentally...

google maps: http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w255/greatcentral/oslo1.jpg

Crying out for them to finish the originally planned building....

here you go...silly, but i enjoyed it.

http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w255/greatcentral/oslo2.jpg

^^I would certainly approve!:D

Upload it to the blog, if you will: http://blogg.regjeringen.no/regjeringskvartalet/



Btw, where's the traffic circle from?

Snart elsker alle betong (http://www.dn.no/forsiden/etterBors/article2317522.ece)

Article by Erling Dokk Holm about fashion and architecture. He mentions how the people who hate hoyblokka today, will probably love it in 10 years.

So what do you think guys? Will there be a thread here in 10 years about how awesome brutalism is?

Btw, where's the traffic circle from?

Let me guess! London, Canary wharf? Looked it up in google maps since I saw the Canada square building there too.

Snart elsker alle betong (http://www.dn.no/forsiden/etterBors/article2317522.ece)

Article by Erling Dokk Holm about fashion and architecture. He mentions how the people who hate hoyblokka today, will probably love it in 10 years.

So what do you think guys? Will there be a thread here in 10 years about how awesome brutalism is?

Or perhaps grade separated freeways running through the city? Perhaps we did a mistake building Operatunnelen and burring the road there?

here you go...silly, but i enjoyed it.

http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w255/greatcentral/oslo2.jpg
I think this is a workable idea, except that I don't think the left tower is workable. People working at Stortinget
don't feel safe (http://www.hegnar.no/okonomi/politikk/article676567.ece) when people can park a car full of explosives right by the building, and I'm sure the employees at Regjeringskvartalet will feel the same way. On the other hand, openness is important, so we still want the building to be accessible to the public - hopefully you'll still be able to walk right up to it. This presents a problem of course, because you can't build urban, right-up-to-the-street buildings without also closing the streets close to them - a unique challenge for this kind of building.

That's why the best thing I could come up with was to either pull down or incorporate the old police house on Møllergata 19 and let Youngstorget do the job of being the plaza in front of Regjeringskvarteret - but I realize that I'm kinda solving the problem of developing the lot by developing a different lot.

So, It's possible you'll have to do away with the idea of using all that space on completing the old building - that soil doesn't have a tunnel under it, so building there won't get any complaints from the police and might be needed for higher density.

Or perhaps grade separated freeways running through the city? Perhaps we did a mistake building Operatunnelen and burring the road there?

Huh? I don't see why you have to be so sarcastic and negative all the time. It's like you get personally offended by the link i posted?

Snart elsker alle betong (http://www.dn.no/forsiden/etterBors/article2317522.ece)

Article by Erling Dokk Holm about fashion and architecture. He mentions how the people who hate hoyblokka today, will probably love it in 10 years.

So what do you think guys? Will there be a thread here in 10 years about how awesome brutalism is?
Personally I don't think I'll get into brutalism any time soon. Sure, I can see some qualities in the style already in the sense that it's exactly what it says - BRUTAL!!!; the black metal of architecture - but I still don't want that as a permanent feature of a central neighborhood any more than I would welcome Norway adopting a black metal song as national anthem.

The article mentions tastes changing over time and really just being a product of what people THINK everyone else EXPECTS. That's probably true, and I lament that fact, because I think a lot of great thoughts (both inside and outside architecture) are rejected for no other reason than being "unfashionable".

The article also warns me that I have to consider the possibility that I will join the dark side myself at some point in the future and mentions functionalism as its case in point. But I don't much care for functionalism either, so I think I'm good.

Will there be a thread here in 10 years about how awesome brutalism is?

There's already one in the Norway section :nuts:

Huh? I don't see why you have to be so sarcastic and negative all the time. It's like you get personally offended by the link i posted?

Why isn't it equally fair asking if the taste on how to plan cities will change too? Isn't it part of the same thing? The brutalism buildings were meant to stand in "effective" cities with grade separated freeways running through them. Many now days consider late 19th century/early 20th century architecture and planing to be the golden age of city building. Your article argues that this taste in architecture may change, but why shouldn't the taste in planing follow? So it is a mistake to burring freeways and making the city more acceptable for human? Are we going to love '60s planing in future? Is what we are going through now just a fad?

The article also warns me that I have to consider the possibility that I will join the dark side myself at some point in the future and mentions functionalism as its case in point. But I don't much care for functionalism either, so I think I'm good.

I think many people like some functionalism buildings like for example Ekebergrestauranten, just like the majority likes some '60s/'50s design like the jfk kennedy airport or the Sydney Opera house. But functionalism is overall generally considered to be a lesser style than Art Deco or Beaux-Arts from the same period.

- Rom for gode byrom i Regjeringskvartalet (http://www.arkitektnytt.no/rom-for-gode-byrom-i-regjeringskvartalet)
Samfunnsgeograf Gabrielsen peker på tre byrom med stort potensiale i og rundt Regjeringskvartalet:
1) Plassen foran Deichmanske bibliotek, inkludert nedgangen til rundkjøringen foran tunellen ned mot Youngstorget og Oslo S.
2) Plassen bak Høyblokka mot Akersgata.
3) Plassen mellom R4 og S-blokka.
http://www.arkitektnytt.no/rom-for-gode-byrom-i-regjeringskvartalet?pid=MySite-Article-ArticleImage&r_n_d=40855_&adjust=1&x=576&from=0
Illustrasjon: Asplan Viak

Why isn't it equally fair asking if the taste on how to plan cities will change too? Isn't it part of the same thing? The brutalism buildings were meant to stand in "effective" cities with grade separated freeways running through them. Many now days consider late 19th century/early 20th century architecture and planing to be the golden age of city building. Your article argues that this taste in architecture may change, but why shouldn't the taste in planing follow? So it is a mistake to burring freeways and making the city more acceptable for human? Are we going to love '60s planing in future? Is what we are going through now just a fad?

Yep, I think so. :cheers: And I know you don't agree. It's interesting though, a couple of years ago I had the exact same opinions as you, and now I've gone over to the dark side, just like the article suggests.

Former prime minister Kjell Magne Bondevik suggests turning the old Deichman library in to the prime minister's office:

http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/I-et-fornyet-regjeringskvartal-6752912.html#.Tyg6wuNWpFE

Although I enjoy the idea of giving old Deichman an important role in the future, I would hate to need som kind of special permission to visit this place:
http://www.deichmanske-bibliotek.oslo.kommune.no/getfile.php/deichmanske%20bibliotek/Internett/Bilder/_Fra%20konvertering/hofer1.jpg

It's one of my favorite public spaces in all of Oslo and I am hoping this part of the library can remain relatively untouched in a public role. I am thinking the library should be turned in to a public forum or something like that.

^^I would certainly approve!:D

Upload it to the blog, if you will: http://blogg.regjeringen.no/regjeringskvartalet/

Btw, where's the traffic circle from?

feel free to upload it to the blogg, the norwegian is a little too heavy for me, so i'm not sure where i'd post it; tho looking at the sketch today, it is a bit of a mess :)

and yes, all from the isle of dogs, the traffic island is just to the west of the area...

Snart elsker alle betong (http://www.dn.no/forsiden/etterBors/article2317522.ece)

Article by Erling Dokk Holm about fashion and architecture. He mentions how the people who hate hoyblokka today, will probably love it in 10 years.

So what do you think guys? Will there be a thread here in 10 years about how awesome brutalism is?


in ten years time we'll probably have a thread about how nobody likes the winning design of a competition to redesign the tower, and how millions have been spent and no decision made... :bash:

About Bondevik's suggestion, I restate that I would be sad if Oslo city sold the plot to the state for being used as an office building. It should be kept open to the public, as 085see says.

feel free to upload it to the blogg, the norwegian is a little too heavy for me, so i'm not sure where i'd post it; tho looking at the sketch today, it is a bit of a mess :)

and yes, all from the isle of dogs, the traffic island is just to the west of the area...

I seem to keep forgetting that not everyone in here are Norwegians:nuts:

I've been playing with making my own idea for the area, but am struggling a bit to learn Google SketchUp. It's certainly an interesting area!

A new suggestion posted in NA24; Moving ''regjeringskvartalet'' to the east of the city!

http://www.na24.no/article3325929.ece

I say, go for it!

http://www.nettavisen.no/imagecache/parameter/?action=resize&url=http://pub.tv2.no/multimedia/na/archive/00898/Nytt_regjeringsk_89868816x9.jpg&width=480

Me too, i think this is actually one of the best suggestions i`ve heard so far;)

Hmm. That would be here:

http://i.imgur.com/CURSa.jpg

Although I love the idea, wouldn't it be a hell of a job to move all the tracks to a different area, or build them underground? Thus, very expensive? Although selling Regjeringskvartalet might provide some funds. Hoping it will happen, but I seriously doubt it.

I had a look in google maps and it might be possible to build a new track somewhere in this area, next to Alna omlastingsterminal:

http://i.imgur.com/VnWmp.jpg

It's a useless green spot, so I guess it's owned mostly by Oslo kommune, and there should be enough room. It's also connected to the old track area, so all they would have to do is to put a double track in a tunnel under the new government district. But I don't know if politically possible for the government to dump another large track area in Groruddalen. In a green spot at that. Groruddalen avis (local newspaper) would have a field day :)

It's a good idea but it might be a little hard. The site is right over the Alna river, so building anything there would probably tick off a lot of environmentalists and locals.

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o309/IceCheese/Nytt_regjeringsk_89868816x9.jpg

At this idea, I'm tempted to say Not In My BackYard. Why would I want another Brasilia on the other side of the road????
But I DO want to turn this area into a part of the city. I just don't see how another public office-ghetto would be the way to go.

About the railroad, the only line that "has" to stay, in addition to Brynsbakken, which really is not a part of ths area, is the goods track between Alnabru and Sydhavna. This could easily be one single track all the way, and be lowered a few meters. All other NSB functions could be moved out of the city closer to alternate terminal-stations like Lillestrøm, Spikkestad, Ski, Lier etc. The project could even prove profitable to NSB, as the value of their property in Lodalen would be far greater than any investment they would need to do out of town.

Her må det postes flere bilder fra Asplan Viaks volumstudie:

(Har nødvendigvis klart å holde meg til å poste de mest interessante alternativer.)

Erling Viksjøs tårn (89 meter):

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll218/Ingenioren/rv1.jpg

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll218/Ingenioren/rv2.jpg

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll218/Ingenioren/rv3.jpg

Nytt tårn erstatter H-blokk (93 meter):

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll218/Ingenioren/rh1.jpg

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll218/Ingenioren/rh2.jpg

Cluster med fire tårn (115 meter)

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll218/Ingenioren/rg1.jpg

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll218/Ingenioren/rg2.jpg

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll218/Ingenioren/rg3.jpg

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll218/Ingenioren/rg4.jpg



Link:
http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FAD/Vedlegg/RKV/RKV_asplan_fullv.pdf

Looks even less urban than the current thing that stands there. I'm impressed.

My suggestion:

Red: Finish the building of the old jugend style government building
Brown: Rebuild those two lost late 19th century commercial buildings. They should never have been demolished in the first place.
Green: Build a high quality and colorful (no more of these gray government boxes!) office building along Grubbegata.
Blue: The new main building. Should be of very high quality.

http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/9774/planxk.png

Something like this could perhaps work as the modern main wing of the government quarter (marked in blue above)?
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg406/scaled.php?server=406&filename=regjering.png&res=medium

If the government needs even more space, then should either build a highrise around Oslo S or move out of the city imho.

About the railroad, the only line that "has" to stay, in addition to Brynsbakken, which really is not a part of ths area, is the goods track between Alnabru and Sydhavna. This could easily be one single track all the way, and be lowered a few meters. All other NSB functions could be moved out of the city closer to alternate terminal-stations like Lillestrøm, Spikkestad, Ski, Lier etc. The project could even prove profitable to NSB, as the value of their property in Lodalen would be far greater than any investment they would need to do out of town.
Sorry for a little bit off topic, but do you know if NSB have had any other re development plans for Lodalen? Seems weird that they leave this vast area open like now if they don't really need the space like you say.

I don't know, You could have a nice park with some large trees, and the proposal 4; the cluster, looking quite nice. think about it, fountain, or lake, trees, a little memorial, or amphitheatre it would be like a mini central park with highrises around it. It would do justice to deichman, it would make the place more human.

But agreed, the current park in that render is shit. But if they actually made something nice out of it, as i said, dense cluster of trees, a fountain, memorial or whatever it could be worthwhile.

Sorry for a little bit off topic, but do you know if NSB have had any other re development plans for Lodalen? Seems weird that they leave this vast area open like now if they don't really need the space like you say.

Both NSB and JBV seems to be pretty obsessed about the though to keep this area as it is, a railyard. NSB thinks running trains for 20 minutes from station to railyard is unnecessary. Of course, isolated that's a reasonable statement, but mostly it just shows how stuck in the past the thinking in that organization is. There are new times, and both the harbor areas, old motorways, and other space-demanding functions (Rikshospitalet etc.) are moved out of downtown, to make way for a modern and efficiant city. Then it would be only logical to switch out Oslo S as terminal station on long distance routes, and instead used the area I mentioned in the last post.

The problem is no one in either NSB, JBV nor Samferderdselsdepartementet are able to think new.

I'm not quite sure why all alternatives seems to fixate on keeping this building:

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o309/IceCheese/Mllergata.jpg

It's perhaps the ugliest and the least functionate building of the whole Regjeringskvartal. Could it not be a part of the identity of a new Regjeringskvartal, better tying it to Youngstorget as well?

The building is now back in use: http://www.bygg.no/2012/05/88771.0

Are I allowed to say that that building is ugly?

^^Only if you can learn how to inflect the verb "to be" in the present tense.:nuts:

It strikes me that the case Oslo's Regjeringskvartalet is similar to that of Sarajevo's General Assembly Building and Council of Ministers Building.
Completed in 1974 and shelled between 1992 and 1995. They have since been refurbished.
http://kunsthalle-berlin.org/Sarajevo/Bilder%20(nicht%20editert)/Sarajevo%20na%20fotografijama%20nekad%20i%20danas%20-%20Projekat%20I/51%20Parlament%20i%20skupstina%20BiH%20prije%20rata.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Evstafiev-sarajevo-building-burns.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/24/55591315_5b38ccecd7.jpg?v=0
http://bosniakandjewishfriendship.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/building-for-the-government-of-bosnia-and-herzegovina-in-sarajevo-photo-credit-zgrada-vijec487a.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/2hg6xdd.jpg
Modern steel-framed buildings have a very high structural tolerance for fire and ballistic attack. Almost all Sarajevo's large modern buildings survived the siege structurally intact and were subsequently rehabilitated. They stand as a testimony to the city's resilience and are a reassurance to its citizens.
http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/195981_179614438750807_127165387329046_429832_2828181_n.jpghttp://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/198538_179614415417476_127165387329046_429831_7935791_n.jpg
http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/188362_179614252084159_127165387329046_429822_6177089_n.jpghttp://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/199081_179614228750828_127165387329046_429821_5060945_n.jpg
http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/188795_179614398750811_127165387329046_429830_1762775_n.jpghttp://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/198983_179614375417480_127165387329046_429829_1054536_n.jpg
http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/200280_179614302084154_127165387329046_429824_7227666_n.jpghttp://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/190133_179614275417490_127165387329046_429823_7797071_n.jpg
more photos here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/9270205/Pictures-of-Sarajevo-15-years-ago-and-today-show-how-the-city-has-changed.html?frame=2221182) showing how the city has repaired damage rather than move in with the bulldozers. I don't know if it is a deliberate policy or not but it strikes a brilliant note of defiance that the physical impact from the violent onslaught has left very little permanent change on the fabric of the city which has gone back to how it looked before.

^^ Poor Sarajevo, but we hopefully manage to get rid of our hideous commie block.

^^
Sarajevo doesn't need your pity. It has come through something much worse than what happened to Oslo. But in repairing its damaged modernist buildings it has recovered in a much better way than if it had simply sent in the bulldozers and built everything again, in a crap mid-late nineties style like your R4 building, becoming unrecognizable and it strikes a strong note of defiance that despite all the death and destruction, Sarajevo hasn't been changed much physically by it and most of it's pre-war buildings are still standing. None of Sarajevo's modern buildings were so badly damaged that it would have been uneconomic to repair them. It is usually more expensive to pull down modern steel frame buildings than it is to refurbish them. Damage to Oslo's buildings will be moderate to superficial. So what possible excuse does Oslo have to pull them down? What is the excuse?

Dismissing Modernist architecture as commie blocks is common and lazy. It might not be your taste, but please respect the people who value it. The citizens of Sarajevo have come to love their modernist survivors, whether they did before or not, valuing them as a symbol of the city's strength and resilience.

I'm not joining all of the debate, but answer the questions.

It is usually more expensive to pull down modern steel frame buildings than it is to refurbish them. Damage to Oslo's buildings will be moderate to superficial. So what possible excuse does Oslo have to pull them down? What is the excuse?

There are other considerations than just the economical. There are structural flaws with how the governmental quarter is made. The highrise has only 1 staircase, making it a huge safety issue. Other buildings are built for a time of lesser safety demands.
There is also the aspect of the city, as the quarter is in the smack of downtown. Long, closed of facades and dark streets/alleys make a dead and unsafe part of the city. Even with safety measures, there is a belief that State and city can live side-by-side. The parliament area is a great example of this, where a lot of functions have been put underground, and street level is open, and filled with cafes etc.

^^
Sarajevo doesn't need your pity. It has come through something much worse than what happened to Oslo. But in repairing its damaged modernist buildings it has recovered in a much better way than if it had simply sent in the bulldozers and built everything again, in a crap mid-late nineties style like your R4 building, becoming unrecognizable and it strikes a strong note of defiance that despite all the death and destruction, Sarajevo hasn't been changed much physically by it and most of it's pre-war buildings are still standing. None of Sarajevo's modern buildings were so badly damaged that it would have been uneconomic to repair them. It is usually more expensive to pull down modern steel frame buildings than it is to refurbish them. Damage to Oslo's buildings will be moderate to superficial. So what possible excuse does Oslo have to pull them down? What is the excuse?

People don't like it? Do we need more excuses? I think cities are more than just a bunch of numbers and we should more concerns about developing it than just what is cheapest solution and what is not. I don't want to pull down the box because I think it is the cheapest solution, but because I think it's hideous structure that have completely ruined this part of the city and because most seems to agree with (based on polls in news papers).

Dismissing Modernist architecture as commie blocks is common and lazy. It might not be your taste, but please respect the people who value it.

Absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. I never said you aren't allowed to like buildings and I didn't say a word about modernist architecture in general.

You are of course free to like and call it whatever you want, just like I should be equally as free to hate it. Sadly for you, most people seems to agree with me.

The citizens of Sarajevo have come to love their modernist survivors, whether they did before or not, valuing them as a symbol of the city's strength and resilience.
Okay, nice for them. They can get ours gray modernist boxes too.

People don't like it? Do we need more excuses? I think cities are more than just a bunch of numbers and we should more concerns about developing it than just what is cheapest solution and what is not. I don't want to pull down the box because I think it is the cheapest solution, but because I think it's hideous structure that have completely ruined this part of the city and because most seems to agree with (based on polls in news papers).
Then there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever. H-Blokka and Y-Blokka have served their functions with no problems since 1958 and 1969 respectively. Why is the question 'Do we want to pull it down?' even being asked? And why now?
If it was good enough up to this point then why is it not good enough now? Just because the windows were blown in!?
I'm sure you could get people to vote for all kinds of things in newspaper polls but they may have little meaning and relevance.
These buildings are an important part of Oslo's modern heritage. Even more so now after the bombing.
Also I don't think it would be appropriate to give ABB any physical legacy in the city. Most of us want to leave our mark on this world in some way and what a permanent physical mark he would be gifted if the place was demolished, ostensibly as a result of his attack and built differently, inflating his importance in Oslo's and Norway's history. He would be very very happy with himself for the rest of his days.
I'm not saying the buildings should stand forever. At some point in the future some real reason to demolish them may come along. But at the moment the buildings have not come to the end of their useful service and there is no need to replace them.

Then there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever. H-Blokka and Y-Blokka have served their functions with no problems since 1958 and 1969 respectively. Why is the question 'Do we want to pull it down?' even being asked? And why now?

Because we have do to something about it now anyway.

If it was good enough up to this point then why is it not good enough now? Just because the windows were blown in!?

Define "good enough". They have basically created a ugly ghetto completely devoided of any life right in the middle of the city. That's not good enough for me.

I'm sure you could get people to vote for all kinds of things in newspaper polls but they may have little meaning and relevance.

I would love to have a better and more official poll, but polls in newspapers are still better than your "random guy from Glasgow tell us what to do"-thing.

These buildings are an important part of Oslo's modern heritage. Even more so now after the bombing.

You think so, I don't think so.

Also I don't think it would be appropriate to give ABB any physical legacy in the city.

Please show some respect. You are using this case to force your opinion to protect it through? What he did should have absolutely no
effect on how we want to develop our city. Should we just abolish democracy because he planted a bomb in the city? Should every further decision be taking based on what he did?

We have been through these arguments before. You get absolutely no way with trying to link my legitimate wish to demolish these buildings with the actions done by this man.

Most of us want to leave our mark on this world in some way and what a permanent physical mark he would be gifted if the place was demolished, ostensibly as a result of his attack and built differently, inflating his importance in Oslo's and Norway's history. He would be very very happy with himself for the rest of his days.

He has said he is against demolishing the buildings: http://www.dagbladet.no/2012/01/28/nyheter/terrorangrep_i_oslo/innenriks/anders_behring_breivik/terror/19969332/

I guess you are now pro demolishing them? Or did you just use the case to further your own agenda? It's sad seeing how people like you shows absolutely no respect and don't blink an eye trying to use this case to force your own opinions on everyone else. :ohno:

I'm not saying the buildings should stand forever. At some point in the future some real reason to demolish them may come along. But at the moment the buildings have not come to the end of their useful service and there is no need to replace them.
I want to replace them now. So do a lot of other people.

I would love to have a better and more official poll, but polls in newspapers are still better than your "random guy from Glasgow tell us what to do"-thing.
And you talk about respect?

You think so, I don't think so.
No it IS. Without any question. Whether you like this heritage or not is another matter.

Please show some respect. You are using this case to force your opinion to protect it through? What he did should have absolutely no
effect on how we want to develop our city. Should we just abolish democracy because he planted a bomb in the city? Should every further decision be taking based on what he did?
We have been through these arguments before. You get absolutely no way with trying to link my legitimate wish to demolish these buildings with the actions done by this man.
In relation to these particular buildings, whatever is done now is directly linked to the attack and the results of the attack should not be used in an opportunistic way to get rid of an important part of the city's modern heritage just because it is not universally admired.
The buildings have withstood the attack and I think the city should recognize their resilience and leave the buildings standing as a metaphor for the resilience of the city and the country in the face of attack.

He has said he is against demolishing the buildings: http://www.dagbladet.no/2012/01/28/nyheter/terrorangrep_i_oslo/innenriks/anders_behring_breivik/terror/19969332/

Who cares what that idiot says.