About the project in short:

Place: Stockholm, Solna, Arenastaden;
Developers: 'PEAB"; arch.: 'Benoy och BAU' (brittish and swedish);
Use: a shopping mall, which will offer a unique retail mix of international and Scandinavian concepts. The possibilities for flagship stores and retail concepts in Scandinavia have never been better – 250 retail spaces, ca. 100,000 m2. Mall of Scandinavia will present brands and concepts that cannot be found anywhere else in Scandinavia. This allows a perfect symbiosis of the best in fashion, design, technology, sports and leisure.;
Start of construction: 2012, first quorter (soon);
Price: 4 bio. SEK;
More info: www.mallofscandinavia.se, www.arenastaden.se, www.solna.se
Pictures/Videos:

Benoy och BAU
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/3491/mall4p.jpg

Benoy och BAU
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/6893/mallec.jpg

Benoy och BAU
http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/5962/mall2v.jpg

Benoy och BAU
http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/4108/mall2j.jpg

Benoy och BAU
http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/7127/mall5.jpg

Benoy och BAU
http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/6381/mall.jpg

Benoy och BAU
http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/8225/mall3.jpg

Benoy och BAU
http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/1074/mall6.jpg

Video:

Concept (not fresh, though)

(c) themallofscandinavia
UMr5J7ySL2U

Looks nice, thank's for posting. But the name sucks big time... I sure hope they change it.

^^ Instämmer! "Mall Of Scandinavia" klingar inte riktigt, men men... De e lätt & genomföra en motion för namnändring


Annars höjdar projekt! :cheers:

Nice to know that you like the project. It is really good to know that the Northern part of metropolis will have a new place of attraction.
However, I am very sorry for a mistake in the name 'Arenastaden'. It would be very nice, if someone of our moderators corrected it. Thank you very much! :)

^^ Changed the title for you. Great work posting the project info. I hope to enjoy looking round the mall once it's completed, connected to the light rail and rail too. ;)

^^ Changed the title for you. Great work posting the project info. I hope to enjoy looking round the mall once it's completed, connected to the light rail and rail too. ;)

Thank you very much for reacting very quickly! :)
Hopefully, it will look very good and urban once it is completed.

Thanks for the update dj4life!

Thanks for the update dj4life!

No problem! Hopefully, this project will be interesting to follow. :)

According to this article contracts are signed and construction will start this month:
http://www.kjedemagasinet.no/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=307:byggestart-for-mall-of-scandinavia&catid=2:forsteside(Norwegian article)

According to this article contracts are signed and construction will start this month:
http://www.kjedemagasinet.no/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=307:byggestart-for-mall-of-scandinavia&catid=2:forsteside(Norwegian article)

That sounds great! :)

Some pictures of possible interior:

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

http://i.imgur.com/jr36i.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/FoV4V.jpg

Source: http://www.cadwalkmedia.se/interiors.aspx

Looks interesting. I quite like the exterior design,but interior looks bit too ordinary. When exactly is this supposed to be completed? 2013 or 2014?

^^ Changed the title for you. Great work posting the project info. I hope to enjoy looking round the mall once it's completed, connected to the light rail and rail too. ;)

Looks much better than the malls in Auckland you would be used to at least! :)

A Dutch company 'Grontmij' will design the 'Mall of Scandinavia':

More info: Press release - Grontmij to design largest shopping mall of Scandinavia (http://www.grontmij.com/MediaCenter/Pages/press-release-grontmij-to-design-largest-shopping-mall-scandinavia.aspx).

This particular picture almost gives an impression of the awesomeness the project have:

http://www.fabege.se/sv/Om-Fabege/Projekt1/Projekt-Arenastaden
http://i.imgur.com/gC9XZ.jpg?1

I wish they'd get rid of the horrid name (I cringe just thinking about how people will call it "Mål åf Skändinejvia"). Other than that I am loving the interior shots-- and it is a great idea to have a Dutch architect design it imo.

Sådana här projekt där hela stadsdelar ska byggas upp på en och samma gång får mig att undra hur mycket som byggherrarna och hur mycket som lagar och statliga myndigheter ansvarar för. Det är ju knappast ett hållbart stadsbyggande. Byggherrarna samordningsvinster samt kulturmiljöskydd tillsammans med en odemokratisk överklaganderätt bidrar till en ohållbar stadsutveckling, likt denna i Arenastaden.

Det spelar ingen roll hur flashiga byggnaderna ser ut idag, eller imorgon. I övermorgon kommer färgen ha flagnat, stenplattorna ha satt sig och glaset blivit repigt (se globenområdet), och nya jätteinvesteringar behövs byggas för att revitalisera området.

Nu vill jag inte klanka ner allt för mycket på etta projekt. Arenan är häftig, designen på externhandelsvaruhuset är snyggt och det är bra att (alibi?-) bostäder byggs i området.

Sådana här projekt där hela stadsdelar ska byggas upp på en och samma gång får mig att undra hur mycket som byggherrarna och hur mycket som lagar och statliga myndigheter ansvarar för. Det är ju knappast ett hållbart stadsbyggande. Byggherrarna samordningsvinster samt kulturmiljöskydd tillsammans med en odemokratisk överklaganderätt bidrar till en ohållbar stadsutveckling, likt denna i Arenastaden.

Det spelar ingen roll hur flashiga byggnaderna ser ut idag, eller imorgon. I övermorgon kommer färgen ha flagnat, stenplattorna ha satt sig och glaset blivit repigt (se globenområdet), och nya jätteinvesteringar behövs byggas för att revitalisera området.

Nu vill jag inte klanka ner allt för mycket på etta projekt. Arenan är häftig, designen på externhandelsvaruhuset är snyggt och det är bra att (alibi?-) bostäder byggs i området.

I don't think this area will be as divided from the community as Globen. It's far more integrated and shopping will be more of a focus here than we see at Globen.

I agree with Svartmetall, this area will be better integrated than Globen. However, it will still be barely aceptable at this and so will the urbanity of the complex. It's a basically 4 monofunctionall developments situated right next to each other and lacking in connections to its surroundings. Not that the surroundings invite any real connections anyway. The railtyards, the greenspace and the un-urban residential enclave don't make for an easy place to create an urban place.

I don't think this area will be as divided from the community as Globen. It's far more integrated and shopping will be more of a focus here than we see at Globen.

My point is that it's unsustainable, mostly economically, to build large scale development areas all at once. The biggest problem is that the urban environment will age in the same time, which often leads to a large demand of renovation at the same time, unlike small development projects in or in connection with an existing urban area. That means that the public perception of the area will change more dramatically over time, which is a matter of social sustainability as well.

Min poäng var att det är ohållbart, inte minst ekonomsikt, att bygga ut stora stadsdelar på en och samma gång. Det finns flera problem med ett sådant förfarande. Främst för att det innebär att behovet av renovering lär komma ungefär samtidigt för hela området (se globen). Det betyder att det krävs stora klumpvisa investeringar för att upprätthålla ett områdes status, istället för att området successivt piffas till. Detta är också en fråga om ägarförhållanden kring fastigheterna i området.

My point is that it's unsustainable, mostly economically, to build large scale development areas all at once. The biggest problem is that the urban environment will age in the same time, which often leads to a large demand of renovation at the same time, unlike small development projects in or in connection with an existing urban area. That means that the public perception of the area will change more dramatically over time, which is a matter of social sustainability as well.

Min poäng var att det är ohållbart, inte minst ekonomsikt, att bygga ut stora stadsdelar på en och samma gång. Det finns flera problem med ett sådant förfarande. Främst för att det innebär att behovet av renovering lär komma ungefär samtidigt för hela området (se globen). Det betyder att det krävs stora klumpvisa investeringar för att upprätthålla ett områdes status, istället för att området successivt piffas till. Detta är också en fråga om ägarförhållanden kring fastigheterna i området.

I can see your point on this one, however, we do need big developments as well as small. Many people said that Kungens Kurva and Skärholmens centrum were unsustainable, however, Kungens Kurva is very popular and expanding (though I hate the area) and Skärholmens centrum is still very well utilised and nicely maintained despite being in a lower socio-economic area. There is a place in a city for this kind of development and considering how isolated and awful many arenas or stadiums are around the world and how devoid of facilities they tend to be (see the example of Allianz Arena in Munich), I think this is a step forward rather than backwards in terms of integration of sports facilities in a multiple use environment.

Sure, it's not urban, but it's actually very difficult to make something like a sports arena urban at all. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how to better integrate sports facilities with a city? All urban stadiums that I can think of tend to be in very poor areas if they are close to residential environments (look at Liverpool with Anfield and Goodison Park for Liverpool FC and Everton respectively), or perhaps a stadium I have personal experience of - Eden Park in Auckland. A lot of the European examples I can think of too tend to be very isolated either surrounded by parking or fields as seen in Germany. If anyone does have any ideas, let me know as I'm very interested to see them!

How about Madison Square Garden?

Of course there's ways to integrate even sport facilities into a city. It's all about in what context you're placing the arena. And of what proportion it has in relation to the surroundings.

But my point is still not about the arena itself, it's about constructing this kind of large scale development all in once. Every building has a rise and fall in the aspect of economy and social status. Even if a building can be used for a century or two, it will constantly need a renovation. Even it's functions gets out of date, and it has to be remodelled or replaced by a new building. But the city grid, if designed correctly, will outlive both buildings and functions. A neighbourhood that enable smaller development project under a longer range of time will never get as ran down as for example the "miljonprogrammet" areas.

Interesting points!
I agree with Muthai on this. There is indeed a problem with building a whole new district, all at once.
Not only does the new area reflect architecture from same time period, but in general even from the same architect. This tends to add a kind of flat vibe to the area, instead of vibrancy and diversity. Example. of this is Hammarby sjöstad.

On the other hand, there are exceptions, for instance the area around turning torso. However, it costs more! Contracting more architects and thus, extending the plan stage is not a solid policy for most municipalities and not always likely to be viable for emerging areas.

Therefor it comes out to this: the only sustainable development strategy for new areas is to build them frequently. Not only to secure diversity, but also as some folks mention above, to avoid to simultaneously renovate the buildings

Interesting points!
I agree with Muthai on this. There is indeed a problem with building a whole new district, all at once.
Not only does the new area reflect architecture from same time period, but in general even from the same architect. This tends to add a kind of flat vibe to the area, instead of vibrancy and diversity. Example. of this is Hammarby sjöstad.

Exactly!


On the other hand, there are exceptions, for instance the area around turning torso. However, it cost more! Contracting more architects and thus, extending the plan stage is not a solid policy for most municipalities and not always likely to be viable for emerging areas.

I'm not sure that it would cost more. Not in long term anyway. There's a lot of hidden cost when large scale areas needs a redevelopment in the same time. And there's the issues with the social - and economical - status of the area and the people who lives there, costing a lot in the long term.



Therefor it comes out to this: the only sustainable development strategy for new areas is to build them frequently. Not only to secure diversity, but also as some folks mention above, to avoid to simultaneously renovate the buildings

Well, there are different strategies that are being tested. One is to leave some of the plots undeveloped, maybe as temporary parks or public spaces. After a decade or two, before the first constructed buildings gets "old", you'll start developing the last plots. In this way we get a economical and social diversity of buildings in the same neighbourhood.

Of course it's crucial that the area feels urban and attractive even before the last plots are being developed. There's also a risk that the residents in the area will oppose new construction in the area, when the last plots are being planned for construction. On the other hand; this kind of gradually urban development gives the municipality and landowners the opportunity to await the future demands of residents and commercial areas, and to avoid investing in "wrong" type of functions. Instead they will be able to complement the area with what ever turns out to be needed.

Another benefit is that the municipality, as landowners, can hold their sales of these plots, which in time probably has increased in value, because of the earlier developments.

I also want to add one more thing; the most crucial thing of all is that the area, as well as for all kind of urban developments, is planned with a seamless and fully integrated street pattern. that enables all plots to connect with the public urban grid.

How about Madison Square Garden?

Of course there's ways to integrate even sport facilities into a city. It's all about in what context you're placing the arena. And of what proportion it has in relation to the surroundings.

Madison Square Garden isn't a particularly good example really in this case as it is an arena rather than a full stadium like Friends is.

But my point is still not about the arena itself, it's about constructing this kind of large scale development all in once. Every building has a rise and fall in the aspect of economy and social status. Even if a building can be used for a century or two, it will constantly need a renovation. Even it's functions gets out of date, and it has to be remodelled or replaced by a new building. But the city grid, if designed correctly, will outlive both buildings and functions. A neighbourhood that enable smaller development project under a longer range of time will never get as ran down as for example the "miljonprogrammet" areas.

Y'see, I honestly don't see the benefit of being on the city grid. Perhaps because I'm not a planning student or anything like that, but only an observer. I don't actually have a problem with miljonprogrammet areas in terms of their layout on the whole (except for the car parking in some areas), only the aesthetics of the buildings. The city grid is malleable and ever changing. Look at how Stockholm was re-modelled (mainly for the worse) in the 1950's. Roads can be built and removed in just the same way that buildings can.

I also want to add one more thing; the most crucial thing of all is that the area, as well as for all kind of urban developments, is planned with a seamless and fully integrated street pattern. that enables all plots to connect with the public urban grid.

Why do you feel this is so important? Why is it important that everything is attached to roads/streets of the city? Are you against pedestrian only areas in developments and car-limiting strategies?

Interesting points!
I agree with Muthai on this. There is indeed a problem with building a whole new district, all at once.
Not only does the new area reflect architecture from same time period, but in general even from the same architect. This tends to add a kind of flat vibe to the area, instead of vibrancy and diversity. Example. of this is Hammarby sjöstad.

On the other hand, there are exceptions, for instance the area around turning torso. However, it costs more! Contracting more architects and thus, extending the plan stage is not a solid policy for most municipalities and not always likely to be viable for emerging areas.

Therefor it comes out to this: the only sustainable development strategy for new areas is to build them frequently. Not only to secure diversity, but also as some folks mention above, to avoid to simultaneously renovate the buildings

I disagree about Hammarby sjöstad - I think now that it's becoming more established that it is looking good. There are subtle differences in all buildings (though the lack of colour is irritating). We see large scale housing developments for detached housing everywhere in the developed world - New Zealand had a whole new town designed by one agency - Pegasus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_Town). This is far more of a disaster in terms of sustainability and livability than Hammarby sjöstad. I also feel that Hammarby sjöstad would have been a failure if it hadn't been developed on a large scale all at once. If it hadn't been developed all at once people would not have been interesting for future investors as they wouldn't be sure about the economic future of the site given that there would only be hotch-potch development. Try to tell any investor to build a new set of apartments in an ex-industrial wasteland and say "well, we'll build here gradually as interest is stimulated" and most investors will run a mile I'm sure.

Madison Square Garden isn't a particularly good example really in this case as it is an arena rather than a full stadium like Friends is.

What's the difference, besides the number of seats? It's the same principle.



Y'see, I honestly don't see the benefit of being on the city grid. Perhaps because I'm not a planning student or anything like that, but only an observer. I don't actually have a problem with miljonprogrammet areas in terms of their layout on the whole (except for the car parking in some areas), only the aesthetics of the buildings. The city grid is malleable and ever changing. Look at how Stockholm was re-modelled (mainly for the worse) in the 1950's. Roads can be built and removed in just the same way that buildings can.

Why do you feel this is so important? Why is it important that everything is attached to roads/streets of the city? Are you against pedestrian only areas in developments and car-limiting strategies?

Well, it would probably take me a day and a half to explain the subject of sustainable urban planning for you from the start, and I don't have that time for now, so I suggest that you google it up. But to make a long story short; the biggest problem with building new neighbourhoods like peripheral enclaves beyond the outskirts of the city is:

1) that it increase the relative distance between daily destinations = increasing the amount of energy that is needed for transportation, regardless of the type of transportation.

2) The paths to those enclaves are few, which means that all traffic needs to use that same path, which means that it have to be roads instead of streets. Those roads (/highways in this case) are urban barriers that divides different neighbourhoods from each other, something that enhance the social-economical segregation between high-class and low income neighbourhoods.

3) As it is now, a lot of these urban areas, excluded from the urban context, only offers one road and (some times) a railway for people to leave their neighbourhood. The last few years some roads for pedestrians and cyclists have been built, but because of the long distance to the city centre they are often not a realistic alternative. If you going by scooter, as many urban citizens use nowadays, you sometimes have to drive illegally to make it from you home to your work.

4)...

The "miljonprogrammet" areas itself is built like houses in parks, which may be lovely a couple of hours per day, a few month in a year. The rest of the time the bushes and trees are barriers, especially for women, as they are dark and invites crime. The urban pattern of these areas are not designed to support city life. There's a lot of spaces around the buildings and a few people to enjoy it (and pay for the maintenance). So the surroundings often lacks of population. Instead they are designed to decrease conflicts, and separate anything that can disturb one another, which means that working areas, office areas, residential areas, etc. are separated. So instead of a neighbourhood blended with different functions, as culture spaces, offices and residentials, that would've been populated almost every hour of the day, we have "dead" areas all over most of the days.

This means that we're building more sqm of urban spaces than what we use, which is a large costs from a sustainability point of view.

EDIT: Yes, I'm mostly against "pedestrian only areas in developments". I believe that there should be a integration of all kinds of traffic on as many places as possible (of course on the conditions of the pedestrians in the aspects of accessibility and speed limit), because I think that in this way (combined with a fully integrated urban grid) the streams of traffic can be spread instead of being gathered, only to become urban barriers that cuts the city up.

When it comes to "car-limiting strategies", there's a lot of different ways to bring about it. The most effective way is to not separate the cars to there own roads, not to build more roads for them, and to make the alternatives more attractive.


I disagree about Hammarby sjöstad - I think now that it's becoming more established that it is looking good. There are subtle differences in all buildings (though the lack of colour is irritating).

I agree with you. Hammarby Sjöstad is slowly getting some urban life. But HS isn't either built all at once. There are still unbuilt plots out there. And a large amount of money is spent to ensure a aesthetic diversity (a lot of different architects, etc.) Still, a big problem with trying to create a aesthetic diversity in this way, is that even though you have a number of different architects, they're all inspired by the architecture trends of today. Real aesthetic diversity and (more important) the economical conditions for a diversified population of residents and business is dependent on a diversity of buildings of different ages.

[...] I also feel that Hammarby sjöstad would have been a failure if it hadn't been developed on a large scale all at once. If it hadn't been developed all at once people would not have been interesting for future investors as they wouldn't be sure about the economic future of the site given that there would only be hotch-potch development. Try to tell any investor to build a new set of apartments in an ex-industrial wasteland and say "well, we'll build here gradually as interest is stimulated" and most investors will run a mile I'm sure.

Sure, there's a problem with unbuilt plots, creating a urban and economical vacuum. But it's not impossible to make it work. Let's say that 50 % of all plots in a "new area" are exploited. If the plots are built quite dense, maybe 25 % more dense than the whole are will be after fully exploited, and if the area are attached to the existing urban grid, than the consumer basis should be enough to support the business and commercial leisure in the area. Still with 50 % of the plots left to exploit and to complement with functions and facilities that turns up are being needed in that area after a while.

The "miljonprogrammet" areas itself is built like houses in parks, which may be lovely a couple of hours per day, a few month in a year. The rest of the time the bushes and trees are barriers, especially for women, as they are dark and invites crime. The urban pattern of these areas are not designed to support city life. There's a lot of spaces around the buildings and a few people to enjoy it (and pay for the maintenance). So the surroundings often lacks of population. Instead they are designed to decrease conflicts, and separate anything that can disturb one another, which means that working areas, office areas, residential areas, etc. are separated. So instead of a neighbourhood blended with different functions, as culture spaces, offices and residentials, that would've been populated almost every hour of the day, we have "dead" areas all over most of the days.

This means that we're building more sqm of urban spaces than what we use, which is a large costs from a sustainability point of view.

Sorry to jump in, this is the second time you talk about function and the (in)famous Miljonprogrammet. I have a question regarding a specific statement of yours that has come up on both instances. It's regarding functions being outdated. When Miljonprogrammet was built the areas and buildings developed catered to a few specific functions that the designers thought would be vital in the future for people. Such as your examples with the kitchen and women.

Now, you might actually have already answered this, and if you have exscuse me, am I wrong to assume you feel as though nowadays we should strive to build in a way that these buildings can be adapted to the unseem functions of the future that people will be in need of. You talked about buildings being replaced but the grid of the city, if it is any good, might still be in use many centuries later.

So my question is really this: If this is your view, how can one build these modern houses, disregarding the planning of the grid of the city, just when focused on modern housing. Is one simply going to do some guesswork in what functions will be in use in say, 10, 20, 50 years? Should one analyze the past and cater to these more simple functions and make the apartments or houses easy to redevelop?

Sorry to maybe get a bit off topic, I just had the urge to ask this question since you seem very well read within this subject.

^^

If I understand you correctly you're asking me how we can build more flexible buildings, so that both the needs of today and the future demands of different functions are fulfilled?

The easy answer to this is of course just to demolish buildings and replace them with new ones. That is how we often do it today.

Another way is to design the buildings in a way that ensure the possibility to remodel the ground floor (which is that most valuable part of the buildings for public activity) to other functions. For example you can design the ground floor with a ceiling height that isn't lower than what is needed to house commercial premises of any kind.

Regardless to which of these alternative you might chose both needs an urban grid that will enable for all kinds of function.

For example; the "miljonprogrammet" areas has a urban grid that only enables just the kind of functions that were planned from the start. The "centrum" area with all kinds of service are often placed in the middle, with larger roads leading to it. The residents are placed in the periphery of the neighbourhood and with small There are no flexibility built in these plans. There is no way to break these urban patterns, changing or adding functions, without changing the whole structure of the area.

If you on the other hand plan with a seamless and fully integrated urban grid (for example a medieval or classic urban grid, where the blocks are divided by public spaces (streets, squares, etc.)) than you could easily just remodel or replace one single building without having to change the surroundings or change the conditions for the existing surrounding functions.

EDIT: One other thing; there's always the option I suggested before; to "leave" some plots undeveloped, maybe as a temporary pocket park, for some years. When it's time to develop that plot, by then you might know what kind of functions that are missing in the area. As I mentioned before this is also a good way to create a aesthetic diversity and a diversity of the building age (= economically conditions) in the specific area

Firstly, thank you for your detailed response. To be honest, having read a lot of what you have to say, I agree, in principle, with a lot of your points. The only bit I disagree with is the requirement for there to be roads through every development. Though from an urban standpoint houses in parks like the miljonprogrammet areas are undesirable, they don't feel that bad to myself - someone who is actually living in one. I find it pleasant to walk around at night and not have any cars nearby. Despite living in Hallunda, my wife and I have absolutely no safety concerns.

Perhaps my rabid anti-car feeling comes from living in New Zealand where every road was crammed with cars everywhere and streets were noisy and inhospitable. Despite there being no segregation of traffic in NZ, streets were un-pedestrian friendly simply because they were streets. Even in non cul-de-sac locations where the city grid was present, simply because there were cars everywhere the roads were very unpleasant areas to be no matter the time of day. It's great on paper to have the city grid present, but it can turn into a traffic nightmare too and still become very inhospitable for pedestrians too in my experience and thus this is why I asked my initial question.

One last point, I'm not a planner, I'm simply a lay person. Please don't be condescending if I ask for justification for your beliefs. I'm not saying you're wrong and I am right, more asking "why do you feel this way" or "why has the planning community shied away from this kind of development now" when really, it seemed okay to me on paper. :)

Should streets be viewed as the domain of the cars? I realize that most streets today are at least partially used by cars, but they existed long before the revolution of personal transport. Yes, they had horses, but I would dare to say that most streets (streter) were pedestrian many hundred years ago.

The street grid with its streets serves important urban functions (in my tentative view):
1) They channel activity. Shops, commercial areas, attractions. They are market places and pathways of selection. The street grid is necessary for light transportation, such as walking, biking and scootering, to be viable in the big city. Okay, it depends on the alternative, but as of today, developments outside the street grid make use of more land than necessary, creating greater distances. Greater distances usually implies heavier transportation.
2) They densify activity. Pedestrian areas that are out floating and limitless, would have to see immense amounts of activity if they were to appear lively rather than as an urban wasteland. The best squares are those that are well-defined and associated with attractions such as cafes, churches etcetera. When I enter suburban pedestrian zones, it feels like a desert. There's nothing to do; nowhere to go.
3) They connect the city to the city within the city.
4) They create a template for development that ensures functionality and future flexibility. If plots were mostly irregular, they could be difficult to re-develop appropriately in the future.

Thanks for the thorough answer Muthai, I appretiate your explanation. I have nothing more to add.

Svartmetall:

Sorry if I sounded condescending. It wasn't meant like that. :) Maybe it's because of my low skills in the English language? And the first question that you asked felt like basic knowledge for people that are active on this forum, because it's a subjects that's often brought up to discussion.

I grew up partly in an housing area from the "miljonprogrammet" era, so I would say that I know these kind of areas quite well. As you say, the buildings are boring and in bad shape (which partly is an effect of the large scale development). But my opposition towards this kind of planning typology is about more than just the physical structure. It's also about the effects of the physical structure.

To separated traffic is IMO like "sweeping the dust under the carpet" (my free translation from a Swedish proverb). Not only are one pushing away the problems (to a highway), your also increasing the amount of traffic on that highway.

My suggestion is to integrate all traffic types on the public streets within the cities. Roads are great between cities, but not within cities. At the same time it's important to work with car-limiting strategies, but not the ones that exclude the cars from the streets only to move to a road within the cities. Large scale car-traffic can be handled well on streets if they're designed as boulevards. Here I think it's the best to make the alternative more attractive.

Then there's always room for exceptions, of course, in a diverse city. For example there can be a benefit to have pedestrians-only streets or areas in the city core(s). And car-traffic that's just passing trough the city should have alternative roads around the city.

OnTheNorthRoad:

Well said! I would like to add that it should be the buildings that shapes the streets (the public spaces), by dividing the public space from the private and the semi-private spaces.

ShaEreHugo:

Great that you're satisfied! :cheers:

Svartmetall:

Sorry if I sounded condescending. It wasn't meant like that. :) Maybe it's because of my low skills in the English language? And the first question that you asked felt like basic knowledge for people that are active on this forum, because it's a subjects that's often brought up to discussion.

I grew up partly in an housing area from the "miljonprogrammet" era, so I would say that I know these kind of areas quite well. As you say, the buildings are boring and in bad shape (which partly is an effect of the large scale development). But my opposition towards this kind of planning typology is about more than just the physical structure. It's also about the effects of the physical structure.

To separated traffic is IMO like "sweeping the dust under the carpet" (my free translation from a Swedish proverb). Not only are one pushing away the problems (to a highway), your also increasing the amount of traffic on that highway.

My suggestion is to integrate all traffic types on the public streets within the cities. Roads are great between cities, but not within cities. At the same time it's important to work with car-limiting strategies, but not the ones that exclude the cars from the streets only to move to a road within the cities. Large scale car-traffic can be handled well on streets if they're designed as boulevards. Here I think it's the best to make the alternative more attractive.

Then there's always room for exceptions, of course, in a diverse city. For example there can be a benefit to have pedestrians-only streets or areas in the city core(s). And car-traffic that's just passing trough the city should have alternative roads around the city.

:lol: It might seem basic knowledge for some, but then I joined the forum because of my interest in public transportation (and good looking buildings) rather than total urban planning theory. I have absolutely no background whatsoever in planning, I only know what I like so to speak.

Your ideas seem very different to those practiced in the rest of the world where I lived previously. The UK is a traffic disaster, as is NZ, hence when I came here it was a relief not to be surrounded by cars in the suburbs - guess that's why I thought it was a good idea. But anyway, thank you for your input.

:lol: It might seem basic knowledge for some, but then I joined the forum because of my interest in public transportation (and good looking buildings) rather than total urban planning theory. I have absolutely no background whatsoever in planning, I only know what I like so to speak.

Your ideas seem very different to those practiced in the rest of the world where I lived previously. The UK is a traffic disaster, as is NZ, hence when I came here it was a relief not to be surrounded by cars in the suburbs - guess that's why I thought it was a good idea. But anyway, thank you for your input.

Sorry, I never wanted to sound rude. :)

Well, "my" kind of urban planning theory is really quite common, even outside Scandinavia. In the US there's for example a great interest in what they call "new urbanism", which basically has the same opposition against the modernistic urban planning. There are big differences also, but they both strives for a reversion to a pre-modernistic planning.

4000 new parking spaces, just what we need yeah? Seems like we're gonna do the 1960's all over again, luckily it seems like there's no old beautiful buildings in the way of this god forsaken death ship of hell

4000 new parking spaces, just what we need yeah? Seems like we're gonna do the 1960's all over again, luckily it seems like there's no old beautiful buildings in the way of this god forsaken death ship of hell

Not following you, people shop with their cars.

Two pics from today.
http://i1164.photobucket.com/albums/q566/neopokekun2/construction/solna/mallofscandinavia01.jpg

http://i1164.photobucket.com/albums/q566/neopokekun2/construction/solna/mallofscandinavia02.jpg

Thank you very much for the pictures, K-J N.! :okay:

Some fresh visualisations posted in Solna stad webpade (http://www.solna.se/sv/om-solna/nyheter-om-solna/startklart-for-mall-of-scandinavia/):

(c) solna.se
http://i.imgur.com/H8bIc.jpg?1

(c) solna.se
http://i.imgur.com/MEjPT.jpg?1

Images by Wingårdh Arkitekter (http://www.wingardhs.se/php/flash.html). Also, credits to Boscorelli who posted an announcement about the new visualisations at the Stockholm Projekt (http://stockholmprojekt.blogspot.se/2012/10/mall-of-scandinavia.html) blog.

^^ Another temple devoted to consumerism. What will it offer, what will peoples' incentives be to drive out there?

A glimpse at the construction site with the representatives of PEAB:

(c) PEAB
uFn0TDAkZDE

http://i1164.photobucket.com/albums/q566/neopokekun2/mallofscandinavia03_zps0f1316d9.jpg

http://i1164.photobucket.com/albums/q566/neopokekun2/mallofscandinavia04_zpsd4323bdc.jpg

http://i1164.photobucket.com/albums/q566/neopokekun2/mallofscandinavia05_zps25425ee6.jpg

http://i1164.photobucket.com/albums/q566/neopokekun2/mallofscandinavia06_zps026f08ad.jpg

http://i1164.photobucket.com/albums/q566/neopokekun2/mallofscandinavia07_zps08c38815.jpg

http://i1164.photobucket.com/albums/q566/neopokekun2/mallofscandinavia08_zps8cad2ce0.jpg

I am still mixed about the shopping centre. I just hope it doesn't kill shopping areas around the city that are already established. I would hate for Solna Centrum or Kista to be hit too hard. The city centre will always dominate, of course.

The project of 'Mall of Scandinavia' was presented at an event in London:

zUgti2H3OwQ

According to the developers of the project, this is the most costly project in Europe the 'Unibail-Rodamco' group is working at the moment with. The approximate investment rate is €600 million euros.