building and urban development in norway -...

Building and UrbanDevelopment in Norway

– a selection of current issues

Jens Fredrik Nystad (Editor)

The Norwegian State Housing Bank / Husbanken

© Husbanken 2004

ISBN 82-90122-18-7

Translation by: Carol B. Eckmann and Walter Gibbs

English language revision: Carol B. Eckmann

Cover design: Karin Wiwe

Design and layout: Brødr. Fossum AS

Printed by: PDC Tangen AS

Contents

Foreword .......................................................................................................................................... 5

PART 1Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 6

Norway and Norwegian Society .................................................................................................... 8The City of Oslo ............................................................................................................................... 11Public Administration in Norway ................................................................................................. 12Between Master and Synopsis – A Short Tale of Norwegian Planning ................................... 16

PART 2Planning for Urban Change ................................................................................................... 20

Oslo’s Development – The Fifth Layer .......................................................................................... 22Oslo: The Fjord City! ....................................................................................................................... 28Road Tolls in Norway: A Transport Policy Instrument .............................................................. 34A Holistic Method of Evaluating Sustainability ......................................................................... 38

PART 3Regional Development and Regional Planning ............................................................. 44

Regional Development and Policy in Norway ............................................................................ 46Regional Dynamics and Olympic Rhetoric: The Lillehammer Winter Games

Ten Years On .............................................................................................................................. 50Regional Plan for Long-term Urban Development in the Stavanger Region .......................... 54

PART 4Housing for All? .......................................................................................................................... 58

Housing Policy Challenges in a Country with High Housing Standardsand a Market-governed Housing Supply ................................................................................ 60

Housing for Young People – New Concepts and Perspectives .................................................. 66Curbing Homelessness in Norway ................................................................................................. 70Planning Based on Universal Design ............................................................................................ 74

PART 5New Public-Private Partnerships ........................................................................................ 78

Urban Transformation – An Arena for Partnership and New Models of Cooperation .......... 80Akerselva Environmental Park and Akerselva Innovation Park:

Urban Transformation by Chance and Governance .............................................................. 84

PART 6The Northern Dimension ......................................................................................................... 88

Woodens Towns – A Nordic Tradition ......................................................................................... 90Climate-appropriate Construction ................................................................................................. 94

APPENDIXInstitutions ................................................................................................................................... 98

This publication hasbeen prepared in con-nection with the 48thIFHP World Congressin Oslo 2004. Its pur-pose is to provide ageneral impression ofthe planning andbuilding situation inNorway, and describesome of the impor-tant challenges facingus in the first years ofthe 21st century. Init, we presentdescriptions andanalysis of issues

confronting local and central authorities, property develop-ers and the building industry, as well as the planning com-munity and the public in general.

The challenges facing Norwegian planning and housingpolicies have changed over the last few years. One of ourmost important challenges involves finding good, innova-tive approaches to improve cooperation at the local level,be it between various levels of government or between pri-vate and public partners. Another is in the realm of hous-ing consumption. Norway has gradually developed a veryhigh standard of housing. At present Norwegians (togetherwith Icelanders) are the world’s largest consumers of hous-ing in terms of area per person. This represents one aspectof the growing environmental challenge that we currentlyface on the local, national and global levels. Quality hasnow become more important to us than quantity. Im-

proving existing housing areas and the urban structure is,for instance, more urgent than new building.

The selected topics and presentations are meant to providea reasonably representative overview of the fields of plan-ning and housing in Norway a few years into the new mil-lennium. We have chosen to emphasise the variety andcomplexity of these issues. The authors have been selectedfrom leading circles in their respective fields, and presenthere their personal views on the issues. As always there aremore questions than answers, and there is a need for ongo-ing refinement of the instruments of analysis and imple-mentation. The tools that we choose and the results that weproduce will profoundly influence the daily lives of a largepart of our increasingly urban population. The ever-increasing possibilities of new technology, especiallywithin communications, and the shift of resources that thisrequires will in itself change the everyday life of a largeproportion of the population.

Instead of trying to cover the whole of this vast field, wehave selected specific topics and questions that we feel willbe of international interest – and that seem to be generallyacknowledged as key issues within planning and building.There is a continual need to exchange ideas and experi-ences across national boundaries. It is our hope that thispublication will serve as a brief introduction to “the state-of-the-art” of some of the topics currently under discussionin Norway, and dealt with during the congress.

Erna SolbergMinister of Local Government and Regional Development

Foreword 5

Building and Urban Development in Norway – a selection of current issues

Introduction

Norway is a modern welfare state. The Norwegian economy is generallycharacterised as a mixed economy – a market economy with a clearcomponent of state influence. Since the 1970s, the off-shore oil industryhas played a dominant role in the Norwegian economy. The politico-administrative system in Norway has three levels; national, regional andmunicipal. The Norwegian Planning and Building Act institutes a two-tierplanning system of county plans and municipal master plans under thecontrol of the elected county and municipal councils, respectively.

(Photo: Helge Sunde/Samfoto)

Geography and climate

Norway stretches farther north than anyother European country except Russia. It islong and narrow, extending almost 1 750 kmfrom north to south. If it were possible toswing Norway 180° by its most southernlypoint, it would reach all the way to theMediterranean. The area covered by Norway

is roughly the same as that of Great Britain,Italy or Japan.

Large areas of Norway consist of forestand mountains. All along the western coastdeep fjords, surrounded by mountains andglaciers, penetrate into the heart of thecountry.

Given Norway’s extreme northern posi-tion, its mainland climate is surprisinglymild. This is due to the Gulf Stream, whichbrings relatively warm and moist air tocoastal areas and ensures ice-free harbourseven in winter. The coastal climate is one ofmild winters, cool summers and heavy pre-cipitation year-round, while inland areas are drier with colder winters and warmersummers.

The political system

In formal terms, Norway is a constitutionalmonarchy with a parliamentary democraticsystem of governance.

Both democratic governance and themonarchy were established in the Constitu-tion of 1814, still in effect today. Parliamen-tarianism was introduced in 1884. The Kinghas little real political power, but fills animportant symbolic function as the Head ofState and official representative of Norwe-gian society and industry.

State power is formally distributedbetween three institutions: the Storting (thelegislative power), the Government (the exec-utive power) and the courts (the judicialpower). In some circles, the public adminis-tration, which was designed to serve theneeds of the political bodies, is viewed as afourth state power, as it now takes indepen-dent action and can exert influence on theshaping of policies. There is also a geographi-cal distribution of political power into state,county and municipal levels.

8

Norway and Norwegian Society

OSLOBergen

Trondheim

Tromso

Stavanger

Belarus

Denmark

Germany

Estonia

Latvia

Lithuania

Finland

Sweden

Norway

Poland

Russia

Norway is not a member of the EuropeanUnion (EU), but participates in the EU com-mon market as a signatory to the EuropeanEconomic Area (EEA) Agreement between thecountries of the EU and the European FreeTrade Association (EFTA).

Population

Pr. 1 January 2004, Norway has a populationof 4 577 500, with an annual growth rate of0.6 %. As in many other European countries,Norway is currently undergoing a period oflow birth rate following a long period ofstrong population growth. The growth inpopulation reached up to 1 % immediatelyfollowing WWII, but began to decline in the1970s and continued to fall throughout the1980s. Since 1995, the population has begunto rise once more, although this is as muchdue to net immigration as to net births.

In 1769, Norway’s first complete censusshowed 700 000 inhabitants. The first millionwas reached in 1822, the next in 1890, thethird in 1942, and the fourth in 1975. InOctober 2000, the population of Norwayexceeded 4.5 million, with calculations indi-cating that it will exceed five million inaround 2030.

Migration

During the late 1800s and early 1900s therewas widespread emigration from Norway,particularly to the USA. This emigrationreached a peak starting in the mid-1860s,when over two-thirds of the natural popula-tion growth, or some 10–15 % of the popula-tion, left the country. Emigration remainedhigh until WWI, and did not come to a haltuntil the economic crisis of the 1930s.

Since the close of the 1960s, Norway hasexperienced substantial net immigration, rep-resenting some 1 % of the population in the1970s and the early 1980s. Since the birthrate among ethnic Norwegians has declined,the overall percentage of population growthcaused by immigration has risen signifi-cantly, reaching 35–40 %.

In the 1960s, immigrants arrived in ever-increasing numbers from Southern Europe,Asia, Africa and South America, with mostsettling in and around Oslo. In 1975, Norway

implemented an official ban on immigrationthat remains in effect today. The ban doesnot apply to specified refugee groups andasylum seekers. There are annual entry quo-tas for these groups, which primarily comefrom the former Yugoslavia, Pakistan,Vietnam, Iran and Turkey. A certain amountof leeway is also granted for family reuni-fication purposes.

Language

Norway’s official language is Norwegian, anorthern Germanic language closely relatedto Danish and Swedish.

Norway’s geography and settlement pat-terns have given rise to a myriad of local andregional spoken dialects that continue toenjoy a strong position within society today.There are two official written versions ofNorwegian, Bokmål (“Book Norwegian”) andNynorsk (“New Norwegian”). Bokmål is usedby the majority of the population. It has beendeveloped from written Danish adapted to thephonology of the general dialect spoken ineastern Norway. Nynorsk was devised by lin-guist Ivar Aasen in the 1850s, and is basedon a compilation of various western Norwe-gian dialects.

Building and Urban Development in Norway 9

Facts about NorwayHead of State: His Majesty King Harald V of NorwayHead of Government: Prime Minister Kjell Magne BondevikArea: 323 758 km2 (including Svalbard and Jan Mayen

385 155 km2)Population (2004): 4 577 500Population per km2: 14.1Capital city: Oslo Language: Norwegian (Bokmål and Nynorsk)

(In some districts, Sámi is also an official language)

State Church: Church of Norway (Evangelical Lutheran)GDP (mill. USD, 2003): 149 149GDP (per capita USD) : 32 900Currency: 1 Krone = 100 øre Constitution Day: 17 May Annual population growth(1995–2003): 0.6 %Average life expectancy(2003): 79

At present, some 20 000 individuals inNorway have the Sámi language as theirmother tongue. Sámi is a member of theFinno-Ugric branch of languages, and itsroots in Norway may extend as far back asNorwegian. North Sámi has been establishedas an official language on a par with Norwe-gian in some districts of Northern Norway.

Living conditions

Norway is a welfare state and one of therichest countries in the world. In 2004, forthe fourth consecutive year, Norway wasranked at the top of the UNDP Human Devel-opment Index over national livingconditions.

The average life expectancy in Norway is79 years. The population in general exhibitsvery good health and the infant mortalityrate is extremely low. Literacy is virtually100 % and nearly all members of the popula-tion have completed upper secondary school-ing. There is no extreme poverty to be foundin Norway, and the relative poverty level islow compared to other OECD countries.

The GDP per capita is high and wealth isrelatively equally distributed among the pop-ulation. There is a large degree of genderequality at all levels of society. In keepingwith its welfare orientation, Norway hasimplemented a universal, public health ser-vice. Financed by taxation and a nationalinsurance scheme, this service is applicable toall citizens and residents, and provides a hostof social benefits.

Both public and private consumption haveincreased enormously since 1900, and thewealth of the last few decades is primarilydue to the discovery and exploitation of sub-sea oil and natural gas deposits in the NorthSea. Under the mounting pressure of mod-ernisation and urbanisation, the stable, tradi-tional settlement patterns of the past havebeen replaced by a trend towards greatermobility, in which people more frequentlymove and change jobs.

Economic life

The high level of material wealth in Norwayis partly due to an abundance of naturalresources, and partly due to Norway’s inclu-

sion in the industrialisation of WesternEurope, as a result of its close proximity tothe major markets. Since the 1970s, the off-shore oil industry has played a dominant rolein the Norwegian economy.

The Norwegian economy is generallycharacterised as a mixed economy – a capi-talist market economy with a clear compo-nent of state influence. As in the rest ofWestern Europe, the expansion of mostindustry in Norway has largely been gov-erned by private property rights and the pri-vate sector. Nevertheless, some industrialactivities are owned or run by the state.Norway is classified as a mixture of marketand planned economy due to this combina-tion of state ownership and the regulation ofthe private sector.

State administration takes the form oftaxation, duties and subsidies. It is also evi-dent in licensing schemes and the regulationof elements such as the working environ-ment, accounting procedures, pollution andproducts. During the 1990s, state ownershipof industry became more focused on purelyfinancial investments.

The industrial sector is mainly under pri-vate ownership, but the state is the majorowner of some of Norway’s largest corpora-tions, such as Statoil and Norsk Hydro.Statoil (the Norwegian state-owned oil com-pany) occupies a dominant position in Nor-way’s subsea oil industry, as well as in thepetro-chemical, oil refining and oil marketingindustries. Agriculture and fisheries are inprivate hands, apart from the approximatelyten per cent of productive forestry landowned by the state.

Within banking, state banks have beenestablished for the most important industries(agriculture, fisheries, heavy industry), for themunicipalities, for regional development, forhousing and for education. The state hasbeen a significant owner of hydropower sta-tions and electricity plants. Although thestate has a monopoly on railways and thepostal service, the state-owned companiesthat have been established have been grantedfreer rein, which in turn implies that they areincreasingly exposed to competitive forces.

State involvement in Norwegian industryis gradually declining in keeping with thederegulation and privatisation processestaking place throughout the industrialisedworld.

10


Oslo is the capital of the Kingdom of Norway,and a pleasant city with over 500 000 inhabi-tants. Together with the suburban municipal-ities in the county of Akershus, the greaterOslo region has about one million inhabi-tants, or nearly one quarter of all the peopleliving in Norway.

The city features a mix of old and newarchitecture, parks, hills, museums, monu-ments, lakes, woodlands areas and the fjord.It is a vibrant city, excellent for shopping,cultural and outdoor recreational activities,with a wide range of good restaurants and alively nightlife.

The history of Oslo

Oslo is the oldest of the Scandinavian capitals,and its history dates back to 1 000 years ago,when the first settlements were built at theinlet of the Oslo Fjord. The site was chosen forits natural harbour and its central location inrelation to greater parts of East Norway.

After the Great Fire that destroyed the cityin 1624, the Danish King Christian IV decidedto rebuild the city in brick and stone, re-christening it Christiania. In the 17th and18th centuries the town’s development wasprimarily based on domestic and foreigntrade, with timber playing an important role.

The population grew steadily, particularlyafter 1814 when the town once again becameNorway’s capital and the nation entered intounion with Sweden. Christiania experienced astrong financial and political upswing.

Towards the end of the 19th century theindustrial revolution brought even greatergrowth, especially in the eastern portion ofthe town and northwards along the banks ofthe Akerselva river.

In 1924, when the city celebrated the 300year anniversary of the granting of its char-ter, it was decided to restore the name of Oslo.In 1948 Oslo and neighbouring Aker werejoined together into a single municipality.

In the year 2000 Oslo celebrated the 1 000year anniversary of its original founding.

System of government

Since 1986 Oslo has had a parliamentarysystem of local government. The City Councilelects a City Government (an executive body)which answers to the City Council. The CityCouncil consists of 59 members and ischaired by the Mayor.

The City Government consists of a vari-able number of members, or commissioners.The City Government runs the municipaladministration, submits proposals to the CityCouncil and carries out the decisions takenby the City Council.

Since 1988 Oslo has been divided into 25districts, each consisting of a district counciland a district administration under the direc-tion of a district director. The main task ofthe districts is to administer and maintainsocial and primary health care services,including measures targeted especially forchildren and young people. The municipalityemploys a staff of approximately 43 000,representing 33 000 man-years,

In addition to the districts there are anumber of agencies and enterprises involvedin running the municipality and providingservices. Municipal limited companies suchas Oslo Energi Holding (power supplies) andOslo Sporveier (public transportation) areengaged in tasks of a more commercialnature.

The City of Oslo

Facts about OsloArea: 454 km2 (the built-up area is 148 km2)Highest point: Kirkeberget, 629 metres (2 064 feet) above sea

levelLargest lake: Maridalsvatnet, 3.91 km2

Population (2004): 521 900Population per km2

(built-up area): 3 526Annual population growth(1995–2003): 0.9 %

By Marit Helgesen

There are currently major debates taking placein three different areas of Norwegian publicadministration policy. These are: the changesbeing planned and implemented at the countylevel and the discussions as to whether thecounty level should continue to exist, the dis-cussion regarding the optimal number andsize of municipalities, and the governance oflocal government in the relationship betweennational and local government.

National institutions

The institutions at the national level pri-marily consist of two different types. The firstis the government ministry. Ministries arespecialised, sector-based institutions, andtheir most important task is to prepare theframework within which political decisionsmay be taken. Ministries have administrativeresponsibilities as well, and serve as the pri-mary agencies for implementing these samepolitical decisions. Norway has 17 ministries,plus the Office of the Prime Minister. Eachministry is headed by a political official, theminister, with the exception of the Ministryof Foreign Affairs, which has two ministers.

The second type of institution comprises

the national government agencies, which aresubject-specific, independent institutionsworking within a given sector, for examplethe health-care or agricultural sector. Agen-cies at this level include the various direc-torates, audit institutions as well as the stateenterprises. These institutions are all orga-nised under the auspices of the appropriatesector ministry, and each has been delegatedcertain decision-making responsibilities. Thestate enterprises differ somewhat from theother government agencies at this level inthat they are independent legal entities, theyhave management boards and are held finan-cially accountable for their own revenues.State enterprises have mostly been establishedin the spheres of communications and health.

County institutions

Norway is divided into 19 counties. Theadministrative institutions at the county levelare also of two types. One of these – thecounty administration – is under the politicalcontrol of the County Council. The main tasksof the county administration include second-ary education, dentistry, family protection,preventive health care measures and healthpromotion, rehabilitation for alcohol and drugabusers, regional communications and trans-

12

Public Administration in Norway The Norwegian politico-administrative system has three levels;national, regional and municipal. Norway is a unitary nation, andthe decision-making authority at the county and municipal levels is derived from the national level. The national level is responsiblefor defining the policy objectives, delegating the authority andfinancing most of the tasks that are to be implemented at countyand municipal levels. Nevertheless, each level has its own set ofpolitical as well as administrative institutions.

Marit Helgesen has a doctorate inpolitical science and works at theNorwegian Institute for Urban andRegional Research (NIBR) in Oslo.

port, adaptation for commercial activities,cultural activities and museums, and plan-ning. The county administrations used to beresponsible for hospitals, health care andchild care institutions. Hospitals and healthcare were transferred to the five regional statehealth care enterprises that were establishedin 2002. Child care institutions became theresponsibility of a newly established Direc-torate for Child Care at national level. At thesame time, the County Council and its admin-istration were to assume responsibility forenhancing economic and cultural develop-ment at the regional and local levels. Theprocess of determining which administrativelevel will be responsible for which tasks hasnot yet been completed. As a result, the roleof the county level in Norwegian local gov-ernment is now subject to debate. This is alsothe case in our neighbouring countries, mostclearly in Denmark, where a commission hasproposed to abolish the institutions at countylevel.

The second type of institution at thecounty level is the Office of the CountyGovernor. The County Governor is appointedto serve as the state’s representative at thelocal level, and the office hosts a variety offunctions. Its main tasks include control,audit activities, standardisation and instruc-tion activities in relation to municipal imple-mentation of national policies in the areas ofenvironmental and agricultural affairs. Withregard to the spheres of physical planning,education, social policy and health, theCounty Governor’s office acts in a monitor-ing function vis-à-vis the municipalities andin a reporting function vis-à-vis the nationallevel. This applies with regard to planning,budgeting and accounting in most of themajor policy areas. In this respect the officehas an important role to play in terms ofNorway’s overall community planning.

The County Governor’s office is furtherresponsible for monitoring and auditing localactivities of health care institutions andstate-run day-care facilities. The office is alsoresponsible for ensuring coordination andcooperation between the municipalitieswithin the county as well as between the var-ious levels of the administrative system.Finally, the County Governor’s office is thereceiving instance for appeals filed in con-nection with municipal decisions regardingindividuals. In this respect, the office fills a

central function as regards the legal protec-tion of individual rights.

Currently, a national experiment is under-way to determine the benefits and disadvan-tages in merging the county administrationand County Governor’s office to facilitatecloser coordination between their variousactivities. However, the trial project is limitedto only a few counties.

In our neighbouring countries, the estab-lishment of larger regions has been activelydiscussed and various processes have beenset in motion. Regions that cross-cut tradi-tional county delineations in and betweencountries have been established. In Norway,on the other hand, the establishment as wellas the discussion of regions as a basis forcooperation between counties has laggedsomewhat behind. Processes are only veryslowly initiated from the bottom up in Nor-wegian municipalities and counties. Norwe-gian counties are gearing themselves moretowards EU regions because such regions arecoming to represent an important platformfor both administration and collective action.However, for Norwegian counties to cooper-ate with each other in major areas such astransportation, it will be necessary to grantcertain exemptions from statutory provisions.


The map shows thecounty divisions inNorway as of 1 January2004. Norway has a totalof 19 counties.

FINNMARKTROMS

NORDLAND

NORD-TRØNDELAG

SØR-TRØNDELAG

HORDALAND

ROGALAND

VEST-AGDER

AUST-AGDER

TELEMARK

BUSKERUD

HEDMARKOPPLAND

ØSTFOLDOSLO

AKERSHUS

VESTFOLD

MØRE OGROMSDAL

SOGN OGFJORDANE

Municipal institutions

Norway has 433 local governments andmunicipal administrations each headed by achief administrative officer (CAO) to whomthe local government delegates authority.Municipalities vary in the size of their popu-lations and areas; Oslo, with a population ofmore than 500 000, is Norway’s largestmunicipality, while Utsira, with only 224inhabitants, is the smallest. Approximatelyone-third of Norway’s municipalities have apopulation of 3 000 or less, and the averageis about 10 000. Municipalities in bothSweden and Denmark have larger popula-tions, and their geography may thus be bettersuited for establishing bigger entities forlocal government than Norway. Nevertheless,these countries think differently fromNorwegian authorities when it comes to sizeof population in municipalities: In 1995Sweden had 286 municipalities with an aver-age population of 30 900, while Denmarkhad 275 municipalities with an average of 19 100. In Denmark the abovementionedcommission has now suggested that munici-palities should have an average population ofabout 30 000 inhabitants.

The great variation in size naturallyentails that Norwegian municipalities havewidely differing administrative capabilities.Increasingly, Norwegian municipalities arebeing asked to act in a generalist capacity.This implies that municipalities are to providetheir inhabitants with a de-facto opportunityto influence municipal decisions. Municipali-ties also have comprehensive responsibilitieswith regard to efficient delivery of adequatequality services. Welfare tasks that are theresponsibility of the local government levelinclude schools, health care, and care andsocial services. Health care encompasses bothsomatic and psychiatric care, while care ser-vices comprise all types of help offered toindividuals, for example the disabled or theelderly, in their homes or in institutions.

The generalist function also implies thatlocal governments are responsible for ensur-ing legal protection of the individual.Appeals regarding decisions need to be dealtwith by staff members other than thoseresponsible for the original decision. Thismeans that municipalities need staffs of acertain magnitude within a number of spe-

cialised service delivery areas, which is espe-cially difficult for the smallest municipalitiesto maintain. Furthermore, local governmentsare charged with responsibility for promotingcommunity development. Community devel-opment includes among other things indus-trial development, a municipal master plan,and last but not least, local environmentalprotection efforts.

Is small beautiful?

Research shows that municipalities withsmall populations provide good services butthat efficiency is low. The argument for thismaintains that small municipalities tend toinvest more, produce more of each serviceper capita, and provide greater coverage thanlarger ones. The question has been raisedwhether the governments in the smallestmunicipalities have either the ability or thewillingness to respond to the urgent need formore extensive cooperation and coordinationacross the professional, sectoral and munici-pal boundaries. In addition small municipali-ties may not be able to respond properly tothe legal rights needs of their citizens.

To deal with the above problems, a discus-sion has been started regarding how toencourage municipalities to cooperate or, ifpossible, merge on a voluntary basis. In1995, a national government decision wastaken that stipulates that mergers must bevoluntary. Municipalities are thereforeencouraged to cooperate with neighbouringmunicipalities on various tasks, and projectsleading both to mergers and to expandedcooperation have been initiated. The presentMinister of Local Government and RegionalDevelopment argues that increasing the sizeof municipal populations is one of the mea-sures that will help to solve some of the prob-lems, and holds the view that the number ofmunicipalities ought to be decreased by 100.

There are a large number of task areasthat are already subject to collaborationbetween local governments, with waste dis-posal being one of the most common. Collab-oration is also frequent in the agriculturaland environmental spheres, as well as inplanning within these two task areas. Collab-oration within health and care services, onthe other hand, is much more difficult as aresult of the population’s interest in provision

14

of services close at hand. Examples may befound, however, of municipalities collaborat-ing on employing personnel such as a psy-chologist or a psychiatric nurse. These ser-vices are only to a minor degree exposed tocompetitive tendering.

Internal organisation of municipaladministrations

The 1992 Local Government Act introducedinnovations with respect to both the relation-ship between central and local governmentand the internal organisation of municipalauthorities. The act provided municipalitieswith a broad framework for organising theiractivities. It introduced a kind of manage-ment by objectives in which the governmentministries establish the overall policy objec-tives, while the municipalities are free toorganise and implement those measures theybelieve will provide most effective means ofreaching these objectives.

Accordingly, the sector-specific municipaladministrations were transformed into a vari-ety of organisational forms. Four primaryforms have prevailed. In the district organisa-tion model, geographical areas are giveneither administrative or both political andadministrative authority over certain tasks,most often welfare tasks. District organisa-tions are to a great extent implemented toorganise the municipal care for the elderlyand this model is often found in combinationwith other models. A second model is thefunctional model, which is the traditionalsectors revisited. A third model is the targetgroup model in which services delivered tocertain groups of clients or users, such aschildren or the elderly, are grouped together.The last model is called flat structure andperformance units. In this model the hierar-chical structure of municipalities is reducedand the service-providing entities are chargedwith administrative and professional respon-sibility for service provision. This last modelis considered especially useful by administra-tors in small municipalities, as it is presumedto facilitate communication between theservices and municipal management. Themodel is also intended to dissolve themonopoly of welfare professions on munici-pal welfare service delivery and open theseservices to a greater degree of administrative

management. The model is now in use in anincreasing number of municipalities, includ-ing larger ones as well.

As indicated above, municipal activity isclosely supervised and regulated by the Officeof the County Governor, but regulation alsotakes place in the direct relationship betweenthe state and the individual municipalities.Municipal revenues come from local taxes,economic transfers, fees, user payment andtargeted financing of certain defined areas ofthe welfare state. The level of local taxes isregulated by the state, as municipalities areallowed to vary taxes at an interval wherethe ceiling is 12.20 percent. The economictransfers are general grants designed toreduce the economic differences amongmunicipalities. The state also uses earmarkedtransfers to ensure that certain welfare areasare prioritised at the municipal level. At themoment, financing for psychiatry has beenearmarked, and there are plans to earmarktransfers for child care in the near future. Aregulating measure that is being used morefrequently is for the state to decide, in theform of legislation, that individuals have aright to specific welfare services of a specificquality at the municipal level. This measurehighlights the role of the municipalities ashighly integrated implementing bodies forstate policy because the ability to adapt poli-cies to local circumstances is diminished.

Conclusion

This article has briefly outlined the three-level structure of and the ongoing debateswithin the politico-administrative system inNorway. The first major debate revolvesaround the various problems associated withwhether the middle level, the counties, are toexist in the future. In all likelihood, thecounties will not prevail in their currentform. The second debate involves the numberand size of municipalities in Norway. Mostprobably, the number of municipalities willbe reduced and the number of inhabitantswill be increased during the years to come.The final debate concerns strengthened stategovernance of local government, demon-strated among other things in the increase inearmarked transfers and the increased use oflegislation to stipulate the individual’s rightsto services at the municipal level.


By Terje Kleven

The ambitions

The Commission based its suggestions foramendments to the present Act on a set ofcore underlying values. Planning should:

• promote sustainable development by ensur-ing a long-term perspective on physical,environmental, economic, social and culturaldevelopment;

• be democratic and under local politicalsupervision and control;

• promote comprehensiveness, and enhancecoordination and cooperation between allauthorities involved;

• take care of and balance local, regional,national and international interests;

• be goal-oriented, predictable and binding.

Planning should – at the same time – be effi-cient and as simple as possible. The under-lying values entail a parallel thrust for com-prehensiveness and effectiveness. It seemssomewhat paradoxical that these extremelyhigh – even on the verge of being heroic –ambitions for achieving cohesiveness andcoordination under democratic controlemerge in a situation perhaps better charac-terised by a temporary cry for more market.

The planning system

The Planning and Building Act (PBA) of 1985institutes a two-tier planning system ofcounty plans and municipal master plansunder the control of the elected county andmunicipal councils, respectively. It is a two-tier system in the sense that counties andmunicipalities are independent entities.County councils cannot instruct municipalcounties and county plans only have statusas “guidelines” for municipal plans.

A County Plan/Municipal Master Plan is along-term, comprehensive development planfor the territory under the jurisdiction of therespective council. The plan shall cover allaspects of local development with a view tocoordinating physical, economic, social andcultural activities within the area. The devel-opment plan with a time horizon of 10–12years shall also have a short-term integratedaction programme that details plan imple-mentation, normally for a 4-year period.Although there are no formal links betweenthe two legislative provisions, the action pro-grammes instituted in the PBA have in prac-tice been replaced by the statutory four-yearmunicipal finance plan laid down in theLocal Government Act.

16

Between Master and Synopsis – A Short Tale of Norwegian Planning

In 1998, a Planning Commission was established with a mandate to review andpropose amendments to the present Planning and Building Act of 1985. Asserting thatthe Norwegian planning system in general worked well, the Terms of Referencerequested the Commission to “find out if the Act, through amendments, can be made abetter tool to serve important public interests”. The Commission submitted its report inMay 2003. The Commission’s conclusions are used here to illustrate the aspirations ofthe Norwegian planning system and the subsequent approaches to improving planningas a means of serving the public interest.

Terje Kleven is a Senior Researcherat the Norwegian Institute for Urbanand Regional Research (NIBR)

A municipal master plan shall have a sepa-rate and binding land-use plan for the totalarea under council jurisdiction. The land-useplan is the basis for preparation of local devel-opment (zoning) plans that will detail land-use, regulations and legal rights needed forplan implementation. In addition to the gen-eral planning instructions, the PBA also con-tains provisions for statutory EnvironmentalImpact Assessment for large developmentprojects, most often preceding detailed land-use planning. This practice may, however, bechanged as a response to calls from developersfor simplification. The figure shows the mainprinciples of the municipal planning systemsummarised by the Planning Commission.

Disappointments and shortcomings

The above may give the impression that thereis one Norwegian system. This is, however,far from the actual truth. As is the case withprovisions for financial planning in the LocalGovernment Act, a multitude of laws andcentral government regulations impose moreor less statutory planning requirements onlocal government. These obligations relate tospecific sectors or functions that may spanfrom primary health care and social servicesto water supply and adult education. Morethan 40 different situations have been identi-fied that may require a plan from the localauthority; many of these are conditional forfinancial support. The lack of coordination isparticularly evident between spatial planningand financial planning. The experience isthat the comprehensive outlook of themunicipal master plan is poorly, if at all,linked to the clearly budget-oriented financeplan. A central feature, therefore, of the pro-posal from the Planning Commission is adeep concern for the lack of coordinationbetween the PBA and the wide range of sec-tor plans, and a subsequent quest to make thePBA the superior planning mechanism.

The values stated by the Commission maybe regarded as a reflection of flaws and short-comings in the present planning system thatshould be corrected. But beyond this, they arealso a sign of far-reaching planning ambi-tions. What motivates these higher ambitions?The answer to this question is to be found inthe constant change that has taken place inthe role and substantive focus of compulsory

planning from the time it was first intro-duced. The instrumental role of Norwegianplanning has evolved continuously over 40years; its substance has expanded quite dra-matically to include new issues, concerns andchallenges. The expansion of content, theincreasing complexity of cross-cutting issues,and the proliferation of competing plans andprocedures has led to situations of deep frus-tration at the local level. However, this hasnever had any severe repercussions for thecentral government, i.e. the Ministry of Envi-ronment, and its belief in planning as a toolfor coordination, cooperation and conflictresolution. This indicates that planning is alsoa forceful symbol of ambitions to govern.

What brought ambitions to the presentlevel?

There are many factors that have contributedto the rising level of planning ambitions. Thecontinuous expansion of planning issues hasalready been cited as one such set of causes.The main objective for local planning hasshifted from an initial prime role of preparingthe ground for physical development to oneof providing welfare services. Another impor-tant factor is the shift in the perception and


The Municipal Planning System as proposed by the Planning Commission (2003)

range of environmental problems. Ideas aboutpublic participation and a rapidly growingpopulation of civil society organisations andorganised interests have made planning lessstraightforward, and more prone to conflictand local dynamics. The wave of political andadministrative decentralisation and the appar-ent abandonment of central management-by-rules seem to have left planning as the finalbastion from which the central governmentcan influence local priorities.

Focus and substance – increasingambitions and ambiguity

Local planning was made compulsory by theintroduction of the Building Act of 1965.Before that time planning was synonymouswith typical town planning in the larger citiesand built-up areas around them although thecity of Oslo presented its first master plan asearly as in the 1920s. The large nationalreconstruction programmes after the end ofWWII, as well as a massive rural-urban migra-tion, had demonstrated the need to strengthenplanning for industrial development, housingand physical infrastructure. The planning partof the Building Act was a response to theseneeds. The Act introduced the master planconcept (“Generalplan”) as the overall tool toput local authorities in a better position tocope with the mounting problems of expan-sion and physical development. For the firsttime local authorities were instructed to pre-pare Master Plans and more detailed LocalDevelopment Plans (“Reguleringsplan”) thatdetailed land use and gave zoning regulations.The burning planning issue of the 1970s washow to make local authorities adopt the newplanning tools and produce their first MasterPlan. It would take at least 25 years for all ofthem to overcome this hurdle.

During this “inaugural phase” of Norwe-gian planning, environmental problemsattracted increasing public attention. How-ever, the messages of books such as TheSilent Spring and Limits to Growth rarelyentered the planning agenda. What reallybecame a critical environmental issue in localmaster plans was the issue of protecting culti-vated and arable land. In some areas, conflictsbetween the municipal and agriculturalauthorities brought land-use planning to a

standstill. Until the mid-1980s, environmentalconcerns in local planning were synonymouswith protection of farmland and provision ofinfrastructure for the treatment of municipalsewage and waste. Municipal planning wasprimarily involved in issues relating to land-use and physical infrastructure. Norway wasstill in the era of post-war reconstruction.

During the late 1970s the central govern-ment voiced growing concerns about theslow progress of local planning. Very fewlocal authorities outside the larger urbanconurbations managed to prepare masterplans at the pace and with the quality soughtby the central planning authorities. Localplanning was a bonanza for a rapidly grow-ing group of planning consultants of highlyvarying professional quality.

Another reason for taking steps to boostplanning was the obvious need to rationaliseand simplify planning regulations that werespread over a great multitude of laws andregulations. Besides, there was a need toexpand the scope of planning to meet the next– confluent – flow of tasks that was left tolocal authorities to solve: environmental man-agement and the establishment of the “welfaremunicipality”. From the early 1980s, localauthorities were gradually made responsiblefor the provision of a broad range of socialand welfare services. The 1980s also saw thebirth, rise and the first signs of the fall of local(municipal) environmental management. Inthe course of a decade or so, the scope of localplanning was dramatically expanded fromphysical master planning to wide-range syn-optic planning. The Planning and Building Actof 1985 was the answer to this call to arms.

From master planning to synopticplanning

In the Planning and Building Act of 1985,the scope of compulsory local planning wasvery broadly defined to encompass all devel-opment efforts – physical, financial, socialand cultural – within the territorial jurisdic-tion of the municipal council. Later on aes-thetics were also added.

The consequence was that focus wasshifted away from land-use planning towardmuch greater emphasis on planning for theproduction of social and welfare services. The“soft sectors” entered local planning – and

18

led to a mushrooming of new planning ini-tiatives on behalf of the national agenciesand authorities politically and administra-tively in charge of these sectors. Plan initia-tives were taken to support and promote spe-cific sectors and policy areas, either as tokensof political priorities or as preconditions forearmarked development grants.

Environmental concerns grew in the after-math of the Brundtland Commission. Duringthe 1980s a massive campaign with substan-tial central government funding waslaunched to enhance environmental manage-ment and planning at the local level inNorway. The concept of land-use was broad-ened to denote the management of naturalresources within the municipal territory. Alllocal authorities were offered full salary allo-cations for environmental officer positions. A new municipal administration was built upand Local Environmental Management Pro-grammes were prepared with the somewhatvaguely formulated intention to integratethem into the Municipal Master Plan. How-ever, a majority of this planning soon devel-oped into another sector planning effort.

Another typical feature of the Planningand Building Act of 1985 is the full adoptionof the principles of public participation. Anew chapter on “Consultation, Publicationand Information” was included in line withthe ideas of democratisation of public plan-ning that had grown out of the planningdebate of the 1970s. Rules were introducedfor obligatory consultation between publicagencies at different administrative levelswith the objective of uncovering conflicts ofinterests. Procedures and principles for publicparticipation in the planning process, as wellas legislation designed to protect the specificinterests of children, were introduced. Guide-lines and “best practice” illustrations wereissued to safeguard the interests of the publicand particular interests groups such as theelderly and the physically disabled.

During the 1980s the framework of localplanning gradually developed into a wide-scoped system of comprehensive, synopticplanning inviting cooperation and coordina-tion. A broad range of public and privateinterests were to be heard. The planningsystem was accused of being ineffective andtime-consuming. Preparations and revisionsof master plans and successive developmentplans take considerable time when there are

several government agencies in a position toblock local planning decisions if they canclaim that their specific interests have notbeen duly preserved. This criticism has beenmost strongly voiced by developers andentrepreneurs in the urban areas. The pursuitof simplification, streamlining and greatereffectiveness of the planning system – espe-cially the implementing, “executive” part of it – became evident, leading to a subsequentcall to expand public-private partnership.

During the 1990s the issue of governanceentered the planning agenda with full force.The very noticeable impact has been that mostdevelopment plans are now prepared by pri-vate developers, putting local planning author-ities under heavy pressure to keep ahead of themarket and the rising tide of private planninginitiatives throughout the urban areas.

Back to the Master Plan?

The shift of focus from issues of land-use andphysical infrastructure in the 1970s to all-embracing comprehensiveness, as suggested bythe latest Planning Commission, may be inter-preted as part of a continuous process, both ofchanging needs and of escalating ambitions.Planning focus has shifted in keeping with thedevolution of new tasks to local authorities.However, the development of planning fromthe fairly simple and straightforward land-useMaster Plan of the 70s to the values pro-pounded by the Planning Commission at thebeginning of the new millennium also reflectthe expansion of planning as a symbol of thequest for coordination and effectiveness –organisation and orderliness – in public affairs.This is a true paradox in an era dominated bythe strong belief in market solutions.

Although not still formally implemented,the goals of the Planning Commission reflectbroadly-held normative values among plan-ners, administrators and even politicians asto how planning should function. However,research shows that practice is quite different.The tendency is that the comprehensivenessand coordination sought for tend to remainmostly on paper, while the more instrumen-tal, near-term needs to manage municipalfinances and land-use tend to be the “realthings” that concern local authorities most. A sign that the instrumental needs are still thenumber one priority? A return to the Master?


Planning for UrbanChange

Although the first towns in Norway emerged a thousand years ago, thecountry was urbanised relatively late in the game. Only the capital city ofOslo can truly be classified as a major city in international terms, whilemost other urban centres are comparatively small. Post-war urban growthin Norway was land-intensive, resulting in extensive urban spread.Today, however, urban development is increasingly taking place throughconsolidation within and transformation of former industrial districts,harbour areas, etc. At the same time, new forms of cooperation andpartnership between the public authorities and private developmentinterests have become more and more common.

(Photo: Fotonor AS)

By Karl Otto Ellefsen

While Norway’s flourishing economy mayappear dazzling, the wealth and prosperitynow on display have not been around forlong. Visitors can see this for themselves inthe structure of Norwegian cities, especiallythe capital. While Copenhagen and Stockholmtestify to past imperial greatness, with theirmonumental structures and dramatic streetdesigns, Oslo is a smaller-scale city with afragmented layout and few monumentalbuildings. Until the mid-1900s, Norway wasnot only on the outskirts of Europe, but pooras well. The Norwegian welfare state wasplanned and constructed after the SecondWorld War. Not until the mid-1970s did theoil economy begin to dominate Norwegiansociety. Since then Norway has become oneof the richest countries in the world.

Almost all of the earliest Norwegian townsare coastal towns. The first ones sprouted upin connection with the fishery exports thatfollowed the establishment of medieval traderoutes. Fisheries and a substantial shippingindustry caused a string of cities to materi-alise along the coast in the 1700s and 1800s.Nonetheless, rapid growth associated withwidespread industrialisation came late toNorway. Not until the end of the 1800s did

industrial growth, based on cheap hydro-power, lead to the rise of a variety of newindustrial centres. Inland cities with railroadjunctions as well as established coastal citiessuch as Stavanger, Bergen and Trondheim allexperienced a burst of industrial-basedgrowth. During this period Oslo, then namedChristiania, became Norway’s most importantindustrial city as well as its capital.

Although Oslo’s size, economic power andcultural influence are unrivalled withinNorway, it is also a typical Norwegian city.The various historic and socio-material1

layers that make up Oslo are found in manyNorwegian cities. These layers reflect theevolution of the city planning and politicalideals that have influenced urban develop-ment all over Norway, and that have a frameof reference in the rest of Europe.

The structure of Oslo can be seen in fivedifferent historical layers:

1) Old Oslo, or medieval elements that stemfrom the city’s founding about 1 000 yearsago. They can be seen in the street layoutas well as the ruins of monasteries andchurches in the district of Gamlebyen onOslo’s east side.

2) Christiania, built by Danish King ChristianIV within an orderly grid of streets under

22

Oslo’s Development – the Fifth Layer Urban development in Norway in recent decades must be seen inrelation to the political, economic and technological changes thathave taken place since the 1970s. Before then, the planning of cityenvironments had been an integral part of Norway’s plannedeconomy. Norwegian social democracy had produced a set ofinstitutions, regulations and practices within which city planningwas to take place. These institutions have gradually broken down as the planned economy has given way to market forces and newpolitical practices.

Karl Otto Ellefsen is Professor inurbanism and Rector at the OsloSchool of Architecture (AHO).This article builds on “Norwegianresidential and city planning ideals ofrecent decades,” by Karl Otto Ellefsen,Plan 1/2003

the walls of Akershus Fortress in 1624,after the old city had been destroyed byfire. The westward expansion of the city,including the arrangement of the Palaceand the other national institutions aroundKarl Johan’s Gate in the 1800s, extendedthis Baroque concept. The 20th-centuryCity Hall, with its surrounding streets andopen spaces, also fits into this pattern.

3) The third layer is that of the industrial era,when shipping and manufacturing enter-prises began to line Oslo’s harbours andriverbanks. The compact city was extendedto accommodate middle class housing inthe west and working class housing in theeast. Oslo’s general plan of 1930 reflectedthe planning profession’s strong desire tocontrol growth while consolidating thecity into a “gesamtkunstverk,” a unifiedmosaic supported by ring roads and radialarteries. Single-family houses were becom-ing popular. To the west and the east alike,they fanned out from the rail lines untilOslo had completely filled in what chiefcity planning officer Harald Hals called“its natural body” as outlined by the fjordsand hills.

4) The period from 1945 to the 1980s is asso-ciated in Norwegian urban history with theexpansion of the Norwegian welfare state.Oslo’s physical structure was affected firstand foremost by the concentric, relativelydiffuse growth of this period. The periodalso saw extensions of the subway net, theincorporation of modern planning idealsin state-controlled and state-subsidisedhousing programmes, and the developmentof sprawling manufacturing and transportareas. Political ambitions went beyond theregulation of physical surroundings; allaspects of community planning were to becontrolled. The resulting system was based– as in most European countries – onsocial democracy and comprehensivestrategies linked to national economicgoals. But the social vision behind itincluded a world of architectural and aes-thetic ideals as well. Impressive resultscould be achieved in urban developmentbecause the public sector was either theorgan of policy implementation or thebuilder of record.

5) Oslo’s fifth socio-material layer has beenlaid down by the modern Norwegian oileconomy. The system for central planning

has come to an end. As new forces andtheoretical assumptions come to the fore,new ways of regulating urban develop-ment have been devised. This new Oslohas much in common with other Europeanmetropolitan areas, both in terms of itsphysical characteristics and the challengesit poses to city planners.

The new urban geography

In the past two decades a new urban geogra-phy has emerged. The Oslo region can nolonger be understood as simply the areawithin commuting distance of the city centre,or even as an urban core surrounded by con-centric rings of lower and lower density.Functionally, the region is far more complexthan before. Architecturally distinct areasnow run the gamut from traditional citiesand towns to new and revitalised businessareas, regional attractions, regional cross-roads and pristine natural surroundings. Forthis urban system to function, mobility is anabsolute prerequisite.

The city as nature and network

The new urban geography has given rise tonew ways of understanding cities. In the post-modern conception of the 1980s, city archi-tecture was seen as an autonomous field to beinterpreted and regulated independent of


The city as nature: Mapping anew Oslo. (Illustration: Instituteof Urbanism, AHO,Arkitekturtriennalen Oslo, 2000)

other forces. The focus now is more on func-tional content than form. When today’smetropolis is seen as “nature,” the implicationis that it is basically a cultural landscape thatincludes various landscape-impediments aswell as sizable, contiguous natural areas. Thelandscape holds the city together, so that thecity itself can be perceived and cultivated as alandscape or even as a comprehensive ecolog-ical system – a system best described in thevocabulary of natural science. This concept ofa natural city is used both practically andsymbolically in urban development projects.By the same token, information technologyhas ended the notion of a hierarchical urbansystem dominated by the central core. Now ametropolitan area is conceived as a networkof more or less equally respected nodes, eachof which has a functional profile and archi-tectural style of its own.

Urbanity as category and goal

Traditionally, Norwegian planning has beenmarked by a strong anti-urban perspective.Today, however, it is more politically andprofessionally acceptable to regard the urbanideal as something worth striving for. Theidea of urbanity is associated with an inten-sity of economic and cultural activity, as wellas a certain density of population and func-tionality. It is also associated with a diversityof cultural, social and utilitarian structures

and communal forums. The city makes roomfor everyone, including “the stranger.”

The positive view of city life is related tohistoric changes in how people lead theirlives. “Lifestyles” have always come andgone. What is changing now, by contrast, isour “way of life” – that is, the basic patternof human interaction. In Norwegian cities,the changes have made themselves felt in thepast decade in the form of immigration andethnicity, in rising numbers of sophisticatedyoung inhabitants, and, not least, in a newset of residential preferences. Prosperous,middle-aged residents in particular havemade their preferences known: “I want to livein a centrally located apartment,” they say. “Iwant to sell the lawnmower, take it easy, eatbreakfast at the corner café, travel more, goto my two vacation cottages more often andspend more time with my current compan-ion.” The extensive construction of new cen-tral-city homes in recent years is a directresult of this attitude shift.

The ideas behind physical transformation

The changes in how people live can be seenin the physical transformation of cities. Oftenthe transformation is merely “iconographic” –the result, that is, of a new symbolic languageexpressed through such things as restaurantand café menus, commercial inventories, storedesigns and the colours and styles of frontdoors, curtains, post boxes and street andpark furnishings. In Norwegian cities, oldneighbourhoods dominated by wooden struc-tures were the first to be gentrified and fittedout with the new iconography. In general theprocess of gentrification, in which affluentpeople gradually take over a city’s central res-idential districts, has not been carried throughto completion in Norway. Even in Oslo’sGrünerløkka district, the most talked-aboutexample of Norwegian gentrification, theiconography is emblematic of the city’s oldworking-class culture as well as the ethnic-based aesthetic that appeared in the 1970sand the urban youth culture of today.

At the same time, an extensive structuraltransformation is under way in which cityneighbourhoods are being built up or broughtback to life. This is happening on a largescale for the first time since Norway’s oldcities of wood burned to the ground and

24

Urban development by newurban nodes: Proposal for a newcity at the abandoned airport ofFornebu, Oslo (Illustration:Institute of Urbanism, AHO, 1998)

industrialism waltzed through the decayingoutskirts of many cities. The renovation ofAker Brygge, an old wharf area in Oslo, wasthe first of these transformational projects inNorway. Such projects tend to recycle oldindustrial or shipping areas close to theregional transport network. Their design andconstruction rely on similar economic,organisational and technical models, and theproject initiators tend to favour a large per-centage of high-status residential units and ageneral profile reflecting big-city culture.Large transformational projects represent thestate-of-the-art in Norwegian city develop-ment today. That goes for the forces drivingthe development as well as the public agen-cies that regulate it and the architects whogive it form.

The city as “gesamtkunstverk” vs. social portrait

The post-modern layer in the history of Nor-wegian urban development is characterisedby an interest in renewing the diversity,structure and typology of the traditionalEuropean city. Interest in the structure ofurban spaces stemmed from a desire todevelop public areas for social and commu-nal interaction. Instead of choosing universalsolutions, planners sought contextual, place-specific designs. Architecture was discussed

as form, more or less in isolation from itssocial relevance or broader impact. At itsbest, this approach led to worthy reconstruc-tions; at its worst, it resulted in eclectic col-lections of historical architecture lacking inauthenticity and devoid of significance.

In Norway, as elsewhere, the currentdebate about city planning ideals can beunderstood by separating the arguments intotwo poles. At one end are the ideas and prac-tices of “New Urbanism.” This school ofthought views city architecture as a stabletradition – like a language that changes verylittle even as the culture evolves. On theother end is “New Pragmatism,” also called“The Second Modernism.” It takes the oppo-site view – namely, that social and culturalchange is the basis of new architecture. Newforms, in this view, are the result of a societydeploying new technologies, new means ofproduction and new modes of culturalexpression while assigning new and complexprogrammes to its structures. Form is thussomething one finds and legitimises byinvestigation.

The logic of the real estate market

Reactions in the property market often callthe public’s attention to incremental changesin the way public and private actors divideresponsibility. Real estate is considered an


From master plans to strategic thinking: A toolkit for thedevelopment of Oslo (Illustration: The independent groupTransformator Arkitekturtriennalen Oslo, 2000)

The 1980s and the first plan forBjørvika’s development: The clear-est example of post-modern urbanplanning in Norway. (Illustration:Oslo byplankontor, et. al.)

essentially secure investment in the largerNorwegian cities, and more so in Oslo thanelsewhere. It is one of the few businesses out-side of the oil industry that attracts substan-tial sums of capital. In the past decade, thedriving force behind much Norwegian prop-erty development has been investment capitalthat is managed through publicly tradedcompanies and often tied to large-scale con-tracting activity. The Norwegian propertymarket is likely entering a period of increasedinternational ownership. Companies ownedby the Norwegian state or municipalities –and there are many of these – are instructedto behave according to the same economicgoals that apply to private actors. The logicof the property developer thus drives public-sector decision-making as well.

In any case, property development is nowconducted in a highly professional way. It hasbecome a sophisticated business in Norway,in line with the European and, perhaps espe-cially, the American model. The business isgoal-oriented, quality-controlled andanchored on secure legal and economicgrounds. The marketing skills brought to bearare also of the highest professional standards,and real estate developers have become majorconsumers of media, public relations andmarketing services. They are well aware of therelationship between generating media cover-age and influencing the political agenda.

The property developer’s logic is not prob-lematic in itself, but public authorities andprofessional planners are ill equipped to sat-isfy its inherent demands. Investors are push-ing for additional construction in Oslo eventhough the area available for developmentvastly exceeds the demand for new office andresidential space. In other words public offi-cials must create a strategy for prioritisingthe areas and the types of projects to bedeveloped while maintaining a purposefulapproach to public investments.

From ideal to strategy

City planners in the Nordic countries havetraditionally tried to follow synoptic idealsthat emphasise comprehensive planning anda controlling role for public agencies. Plan-ning institutions were developed specificallyto carry out that type of planning, and theyhave not let themselves be redirected withoutresistance. But the fact is that in Oslo and therest of the country, comprehensive planningis no longer considered desirable or evenpossible. Instead, cities attempt to createstrategies and contingency plans to intervenemore or less spontaneously in developmentsas required. Incremental decision-making andconflict-resolution are both the rule and theideal now in Scandinavia as elsewhere.

The project, in other words, has becomemore important than the plan. A privatelyinitiated urban project is seen more as aresource than a problem. By shrugging offthe conservationist elements of a fixed plan,an innovative project can have a dynamic,renewing effect on a city. It might even gaina status that makes it invulnerable to logic orrational argumentation. Once popular pas-sions are aroused, a project may become “anevent” whose unfolding is not constrained bynormal rules.

The development of a new opera house inOslo’s Bjørvika district is an illustrativeexample. It was far from obvious that theproposal for a monstrously expensive operabuilding to be constructed around 2005(rather than a century earlier) would stir pas-sions and become a national symbol longbefore the first shovelful of earth was turned.In Oslo’s architectural community, petitionswere circulated to demand thorough planningfor the whole of Bjørvika before the holding

26

Project for the development ofTjuvholmen at the centralwaterfront in Oslo: City planningthrough professional propertydevelopment following the logicof “real estate”. (Illustration:Snøhetta/Linstow, 2003)

Unsullied vision in a chaotic urbanplan: The opera house shineswhite on the structural plan fordevelopment of the Bjørvika dis-trict. (Illustration: Oslo byplan-kontor, et. al.)

of an architectural competition for the operahouse itself. Instead, the winning opera-house model now stands as an inviolate,shimmering vision inserted into an otherwisechaotic Bjørvika plan. The project, or event,had set the premises for its own realisation.The opera house may seem like a specialcase, but it accurately shows how large urbanareas today are often planned and developedby way of a few symbolic, stand-alone struc-tures that are expected on their own to gen-erate additional development activities whosenature is not defined in advance.

The term “sustainability” contains theseeds of a comprehensive approach to urbandevelopment. Since the mid-1980s, sustain-ability has been prioritised highly and nowdominates public-sector dialogue as a sym-bolic ideal. As a policy goal, it has beeneffective in some ways and is consistent withthe strategies and ideals that prevail in mostother European countries. But weaknesseswith regard to achieving sustainable develop-ment are also clear, as evidenced by a lack ofcoordination among regional developmentpolicies. Uncoordinated policies have resultedin a land-use pattern that is transport-inten-sive and expensive to maintain. Nor is theremuch connection between the political rheto-ric often heard in support of collective transitsystems and the actual investment of funds,which tend to support private car usage tothe detriment of collective transit.

The relationship of expertise to policy

Until the 1980s, professional planners andpoliticians customarily shared responsibilityin an agreed-upon fashion. In the periodsince then, the role of political leadership incity planning processes has declined. At thesame time, urban development has neverbeen more important in the public debate,and politicians are quick to take sides onconcrete solutions that traditionally wouldhave been the purview of professionals. It is away for elected officials to show their politi-cal engagement and clout.

The ideal in city planning, as in otherareas of public management, involves profes-sional bodies that work quietly in accordwith an approved political agenda and supplybackground material to the decision-makers.The role of city planner is most easily filled

when the planning process rests on legalauthority and its conclusions are binding.That is why preservation of cultural monu-ments in Norway has been relativelyeffective.

Since the public sector rarely undertakesconstruction projects on its own, city plan-ners have little opportunity to serve as theirown project developers. They have long dab-bled as negotiators and as players in theprocess, but they have lacked the politicalsupport necessary to enter binding agree-ments associated with project execution.

No one can re-establish a technocraticmodel for the interplay of professional plan-ning and policymaking, and few would pro-pose doing so. But today’s division of respon-sibility is unworkable. New institutionalsystems are needed so that society’s interestsin urban development can be managed betterand more openly. Politicians must be askedto assume the strategic responsibility. Cityplanners must be asked to develop and carryforth their professional expertise.


Notes:1 The term “socio-material layers” is taken from Dag Østerberg’sArchitecture and Sociology in Oslo(Pax, Oslo 1998), which describesOslo not as a city but as a compre-hensive blend of socio-materialelements. The term is used in thisarticle to capture the relationshipbetween form and content.

Activity-generating points and anopen urban structure – an alterna-tive approach to planning of theFjord City area. (Illustration: Insti-tute of Urbanism, AHO, 2002)

By Stein Kolstø

An opening to the fjord

Oslo is situated beautifully at the inner reachof the Oslo Fjord, but commercial and trans-port-related use of the waterfront areas havelong separated the city from its fjord. Inrecent decades Oslo residents have soughtsolutions to this problem. Today, the authori-

ties are taking important steps to alter thephysical landscape even as they continue toplan. The barrier to the sea is to be removedso the city once again can enjoy its beautifulfjord and related natural treasures.

The number of privately-owned cars sky-rocketed in the decades after WWII, and anextensive motorway system was constructedalong the Oslo waterfront to help channel thetraffic. By the middle of the 1970s, the cityhad been more or less cut off from the fjord

28

Oslo: The Fjord City!The construction of the Fjord City area is underway! A newnational opera house has begun to rise in Oslo’s Bjørvika districtand will be finished in 2007, with its opening performance in 2008.Oslo’s former western railway station is being transformed into thenew Nobel Peace Center, due to open in 2005. And preliminarywork has begun on a tunnel to replace the surface motorway thatnow bisects Bjørvika – a transportation project that will give Oslomany new options for development.

Architect Stein Kolstø is Head ofOffice, Oslo Waterfront PlanningOffice, Municipal Planning andBuilding Authority.

Fjord City: For several decades it hasbeen hard to reach Oslo’s centralwaterfront, but now the area is to beopened up, giving the city room togrow. The waterfront is centrallylocated, narrow in shape, and to a large degree undeveloped. (Photo: Fotonor AS)

by a triple barrier of railways, motorway andcargo ship terminals. But the fundamentaldebate over Oslo’s future access to the fjorddid not emerge until 1978, when the final ves-sel built by Aker Mekaniske Verksted sailedaway from the dock at what is now the AkerBrygge complex.

In 1982 an idea competition was held.Titled “The city and the fjord: Oslo looks tothe year 2000”, the competition generatedenthusiasm among Oslo residents and laid theconceptual groundwork both for developingAker Brygge and for placing the E-18 motor-way in what is today’s Festningstunnelen, orFortress Tunnel, under Oslo City Hall andAkershus Fortress. Financed by road tolls, thetunnel opened in 1990 and was the catalystfor a variety of environmental and urbanimprovements. These included a City Hallpedestrian plaza served by trolleys, a rehabil-itated historic square known as ChristianiaTorg, a new street pattern and street designaround City Hall, and a renovated waterfrontarea for sailing ships, antique boats, outdoorrestaurants and recreational activities in thelee of Akershus Fortress.

Strategy for the Fjord City area

The Oslo City Council passed a resolution in2000 declaring that the basis for additionalwaterfront planning would be “the Fjord Citystrategy”. The thrust of the strategy was thatOslo’s container ship terminals were to bemoved out of town to a new regional port,and that the central port areas thus freedwere to be redeveloped for residential, busi-ness and recreational use. Passenger shiptraffic as well as wet- and dry-bulk cargo

ship traffic would remain in Oslo.The Oslo Port Authority has produced

what it calls its “Revised strategic plan forthe Port of Oslo, 2003-2011”. This planenvisages a temporary container terminal onthe Sjursøya peninsula, south of Oslo’s cen-tral district, to be situated there until theregional solution is implemented. By divert-ing Oslo’s cargo traffic there, city officials arefreeing central port areas for development atan early stage.

As a follow-up to its Fjord City resolution,the municipality established the Oslo Water-front Planning Office in 2002. This officeconducts comprehensive planning for theFjord City area, participates in local andinternational networks devoted to waterfrontdevelopment, conducts information cam-paigns, and provides professional support on


Oslo of the future: the Fjord Cityis to be integrated with existingcity districts and accessible toall. Plans call for variation inbuilding styles and functions.(Illustration: Oslo WaterfrontPlanning Office)

Part of the Fjord City: Aker Bryggeis a former shipbuilding wharf. In the period between 1984 and1991, a new, centrally locatedneighbourhood was constructedthere with offices, stores, culturalinstitutions, restaurants andresidences with a floor spacetotalling 180 000 m2. (Photo: Oslo Waterfront PlanningOffice)

specific issues within the Fjord City area. ItsInternet site is www.fjordbyen.com.

Unique aspects of the Oslo waterfront

Oslo’s waterfront is special in several ways.The city is situated in the midst of beautifulnatural surroundings: woods and hills to thenorth, and to the south the Oslo Fjord with

its attractive beaches, islands and rockyislets. The waterfront area consists in largemeasure of open spaces; there are few valu-able buildings to place limitations on futureuse and development.

A major portion of the area designated asthe Fjord City is in the immediate vicinity ofthe capital’s central district. These areas areseen as part of the nation’s shared urbanestate, and they encircle one of Norway’s mostimportant national symbols: Akershus Fortress.The oldest parts of this fortress date back to1299. Other portions of the Fjord City adjoinexisting residential zones as well as large parksand natural areas, as at Ekebergåsen.

Goals for the Fjord City area

The Fjord City area is composed of many dis-tinct parcels whose value, both to the publicand to the property owners, is significant. Itis inevitable that the various parties involvedwill have conflicting goals and intentions.

The most important planning goals associ-ated with the Fjord City area are as follows:

1. A new image for Norway’s capital look-ing out on the fjord

2. Contiguous development3. Access for all

30

Bjørvika is the largest single areawithin the Fjord City, covering 70hectares. Some 950 000 m2 of floorspace for 4-5 000 apartments ,businesses and cultural institutionshave been approved. Large openspaces will connect adjacent areasof the city to Bjørvika and the fjord.The development concept isdependent on the construction of atunnel to divert motorway traffic thathas cut through the area since 1972;the removal of port activities to newfacilities further south is alsorequired. The architectural firmSnøhetta won the designcompetition for the opera house.(Illustration: Via Nova/Plan- ogbygningsetaten)

Historic city park: Oslo’sMedieval Park opened in 2000for a celebration marking the 1 000th anniversary of the city’sfounding. The park is extremelypopular, and is used by Osloresidents for recreation, musicfestivals and medieval fairs.(Photo: Oslo Waterfront PlanningOffice)

4. Environmentally sensitive urban develop-ment

5. Environment-friendly transport6. Preservation of nature7. City spaces for human meetings and

activities8. Around-the-clock activity9. Culture and identity

10. Knowledge and expertise11. Public participation12. Phased implementation

Comprehensive planning of the Fjord City area

The term “comprehensive planning” can beinterpreted in many ways, and there is nosingle, generally applied definition. Each plan-ning exercise must stipulate its own level ofcomprehensiveness. The Fjord City office hasdone this by examining the Fjord City area’sgeography, goals and challenges, and delin-eating four professional areas of focus: con-tent, accessibility, quality and mobilisation.

The Fjord City area’s “content” has to dowith land use and the programming of areasand functions; with staged implementation andthe relationship to the market and demand;and with the character and content of the newareas in relation to the existing city. “Accessi-bility” has to do with the design continuity ofphysical urban structures and their accessibilityfrom neighbouring areas; with unimpededaccess to the water’s edge; and with environ-ment-friendly access to the development areasfor all types of vehicles and pedestrians. “Qual-ity” refers to the planning tools used in achiev-ing goals relating to sustainable development,environmental standards and aesthetics, aswell as in safeguarding all the special activitiesand experiences that emerge where the citymeets the fjord. Consideration is needed toensure a high aesthetic level precisely here,where the water surface plays with the city ofOslo. “Mobilisation” refers to efforts to buildpublic awareness and support, such as infor-mation campaigns, collaborative processes andtemporary cultural or recreational activitiesthat draw people to a site in the early imple-mentation phases.

These four areas of focus are to form thedeparture point for a comprehensive Fjord Cityprogramme, which will provide an underlyingframework for land use, activity levels and

transport service while setting quality andprocedural standards for further developmentof the Fjord City area. A first draft of this pro-gramme may be completed by the summer of2005. The draft will pass through an extensiveseries of consultative processes before it issubmitted for political approval.

Detailed planning and implementation of the Fjord City programme

In Norway, municipal master plans set thebasic framework for development. Localdevelopment plans, by contrast, specifydetailed guidelines for land-use, building sizesand any dispensations that may be granted.Follow-up programmes pertaining to design,environmental considerations, cultural aspectsand other issues may be appended to theselocal development plans. It is the city’s Plan-ning and Building Authority that makes suresuch detailed plans conform to the municipalmaster plan, as well as to juridical, functionaland aesthetic requirements. Once approved atthe political level, detailed local developmentplans provide the legal framework in whichconstruction may take place.

Decisions about project execution willoften be up to the property owner or man-ager. If the building project in question is a


Fjord living: In 2002 the Oslo Port Authority held a conceptualcompetition for Tjuvholmen, located beyond Aker Brygge. Thecompetition received a great deal ofmedia attention. In the end, the OsloCity Council named Utsyn, (“View”)proposed by Norwegian architectNiels Torp, as the winning concept. It calls for some 150 000 m2 of floorspace dedicated primarily toresidences, approximately 1 200apartments. The plan also includes a new, 9-decare public park withswimming area. (Illustration: NielsTorp architects)

private initiative, the property owner’sassessment of market demand will weighheavily in the decision on whether to pro-ceed. If the proposed project is public (suchas a transportation facility), it must beincluded in the budget of the responsiblepublic agency before receiving a go-aheadfor construction.

Successful project implementation is oftendependent on well-functioning, predictablecollaboration between private investors andpublic authorities as well as creative andflexible relations among the public agenciesinvolved.

Crucial factors

In a large-scale urban transformation such asthe Oslo Fjord City, it may be hard to achieveall the goals identified at the outset. Achievingthem requires that all public and private par-ties maintain their focus, that public agenciesperform all of their duties, that market swingsdo not produce undesirable consequences, andthat planners manage to set the bar highenough to meet the needs of the future.

Without proper focus, important aspectsof a comprehensive solution may fall throughthe cracks or be weakened by decisions basedon expedience or too great a willingness tocompromise. Only continual debate andinformation-sharing will keep the goals and

qualities of the Fjord City programme – andby extension the future of Oslo as a whole –from being diminished. The time scale forplanning and developing the Fjord City areais at least 50 years.

Well-planned execution should be able toprevent development areas from lying fallowfor long periods as a result of downturns inthe property market or other factors. Tem-porarily abandoned areas – having shed theiroriginal function but not yet been redevel-oped – can quickly become unsafe, with neg-ative effects on neighbouring areas.

Planners involved with the Fjord Cityproject must be broad-minded and far-sighted. The work they do is for the benefit offuture generations. If the authorities set theirsights too low in the early phases, the result-ing qualities and standards may not complywith future norms.

It is vital to provide adequate resourcesfor broad-based cooperative processes andpublic participation in the early phases ofplanning and development. Unfortunately,the more usual pattern is for informationcentres and publicity campaigns to beginonly when the selling phase starts. If a long-term investment such as the Fjord City is toachieve positive results, it must be solidlyrooted in the public consciousness.

The Fjord City of the future

The Fjord City is divided into 13 areasdefined by their ownership type, geography,neighbourhood, current usage and other fac-tors. The total area amounts to 225 hectaresand extends approximately 10 km fromFrognerkilen in the west to Ormsund in theeast. It consists in large measure of landfilland industrial piers with asphalt or concretesurfaces.

Within a few years, construction will takeplace in at least three areas within Fjord City:Bjørvika, Pipervika and Sjursøya.

Bjørvika

In addition to the new opera house, plans callfor the construction of a temporary pedes-trian bridge over the E-18 motorway inanticipation of a more permanent rearrange-ment of traffic. Construction of the large,

32

Culture downtown: In 2002 theDirectorate of Public Constructionand Property held an internationalarchitectural competition forOslo’s former west-side railwaystation, Vestbanen. The winningdesign – which shows about 125 000 m2 of new floor spacedevoted primarily to cultural uses(library, cinema, gallery) – wassubmitted by the Dutcharchitecture firm OMA incooperation with Norway’s SpaceGroup. Additional plans call for200 to 300 residences as well asoffice space and a hotel. Underconstruction independently is thenew Nobel Peace Center, amuseum and exhibition hallpresenting Nobel Peace PrizeLaureates and more. The centeris due to open in June 2005.(Illustration: Office of Metro-politan Architecture/SpaceGroup/Statsbygg)

expensive and technically advanced Bjørvikatunnel, which will divert the motorway underBjørvika, will begin in earnest in 2005. Thistunnel – an exciting infrastructure project initself – is the lynchpin for Bjørvika’s exten-sive urban development plans. In an environ-ment-friendly manner, the tunnel will con-nect the existing Fortress Tunnel in the westto the Ekeberg Tunnel in the east, and thuscomplete the main roadway network throughcentral Oslo. Construction of office buildingsand businesses will begin in the area nearestthe railroad tracks when the local develop-ment plan is confirmed and building permitsare issued.

Pipervika

At Tjuvholmen beyond Aker Brygge, on thewest side of Pipervika (Oslo’s small centralbay), construction is expected to start in2005, with completion in the period 2011 to2017. The areas around the former westernrailway station (Vestbanen) will be sold afterthe local development plan is approved bythe City Council; construction could begin in2006. On the opposite side of Pipervika, it ishoped that the Oslo Port Authority will beginin 2004 to enhance Akershusstranda withnew ground surfacing, furnishings and light-ing so that parts of the area can opened intime for an centennial celebration in 2005marking the peaceful dissolution of the unionbetween Norway and Sweden. Constructionof a new restaurant atop a pier calledTingvallautstikkeren, which juts out fromAker Brygge, can begin as soon as the CityCouncil approves the plan.

Sjursøya

The construction of a new, temporary con-tainer terminal on the peninsula of Sjursøyawill dominate Oslo’s southern harbour areafrom 2004 to 2008. A new access road to thefacility will be built from E18. At theKneppeskjær pier, new berthing and storagefacilities will be built to help make portactivities more efficient.


Continuity, accessibility andvariation: One feature of theFjord City area will be acontinuous promenade alongthe waterfront. The existing cityand the “new city” are to beintegrated. The long, narrowFjord City is to offer a variety ofexperiences while changingcharacter from one area to thenext. (Illustration: OsloWaterfront Planning Office)

Projects and ideas: A variety ofprojects and ideas have beenillustrated for the Fjord Cityarea. This “collage” shows themtogether, totalling about 2.5million m2 in new floor space.Half of it is devoted toresidential use and half tobusiness use. That converts toabout 12 000 residences for 25 000 to 30 000 people andenough business and officespace for 40 000 to 50 000 jobs.The drawing also shows about100 000 m2 for cultural usesranging from opera to cinemas,museums and galleries.(Illustration: Oslo WaterfrontPlanning Office)

Undetermined: In these areas,the nature of further develop-ment has not yet beendetermined. Further planning ofthe Fjord City area will focus onthese areas. (Illustration: OsloWaterfront Planning Office)

By Kjell Werner Johansen

The inhabitants of Norway live and work in acountry with an extended, rugged coastlinethat is characterised by countless islands,fjords and straits. Each of these straits hasfirst been traversed by boat, and later, as themotoring age took over, by car ferry, bridgeand more recently by subsea tunnel as well.With the advent of the car ferry, it became amatter of course to charge the users, albeitusing subsidised ticket prices. As car owner-ship and car traffic rose, new fixed straitcrossings were planned. A number of projectswere carried out with funding from the stateand local tolls. Such projects were oftenbased on local initiatives. The first toll-financed bridge opened in 1929.

Later, joint stock companies were set upwith local stakeholders to finance the invest-ments with state grants combined with loans.These were to be paid back from the toll rev-enues for a pre-established period of time.Local initiatives of this type have to beapproved by the Storting (Norway’s nationalassembly). After the loan has been repaid, thetolls are discontinued. A number of small andlarge-scale projects have been funded thisway over the years. More recently, tollfinancing has been introduced on newinterurban motorways as well. These motor-ways are financed using a combination ofstate grants and toll revenues for a pre-estab-lished period.

The toll rings in urban areas comprise thethird form of toll financing. These are used tofinance investment packages involving roadand public transport infrastructure.

Until the first urban toll ring opened in1986, overall toll revenues represented 4–5per cent of all road infrastructure invest-ments. In 2002, tolls financed up to NOK 3.2billion, or 35 per cent, of the total roadinvestments. This increase is due both to theopening of several large, regional, toll-financed roads as subsea tunnels, and to thelaunching of a number of urban toll rings. Asshown in Figure 1, there are currently 39 tollprojects operating in Norway.

Urban toll rings

Norwegian rationing restrictions on carimports were eased in 1960, and the ensuinggrowth in car ownership and use in thelargest cities quickly outpaced the improve-ments in road capacity. Combined with rapidgrowth in population and activity in thelargest urban areas, this led to increasingcongestion problems.

The two largest cities, Oslo and Bergen,both have geographical limits on urbangrowth. Bergen is confined between the seaand mountains, and Oslo is located betweenthe fjord and politically-fixed borders sepa-rating the building zone from the surround-ing forest area. From the 1960s, both of these

34

Road Tolls in Norway:A Transport Policy Instrument

Norway has a well-established road toll tradition. A large numberof small and large-scale road projects have been funded in thismanner over the years. The establishment of toll rings in urbanareas comprises a more recent form of toll financing, and has been used to finance investments in both new roads and publictransport.

Kjell Werner Johansen is aneconomist working at the Institute ofTransport Economics (TØI) in Oslo.

urban regions have grown along corridors.The space for urban roads has been limited,and efforts have been made to construct newroads underground. These investments wereexpected to exceed the foreseeable availablestate funding. A toll ring opened in Bergen in1986. The Oslo toll ring was opened in 1990at the end of a long process involving vari-ous alternative plans for both the construc-tion and the financing of new road capacityin the region.

Other cities facing needs for extra fundingfollowed suit. Tromsø implemented a localfuel tax (NOK 0.5/litre) in 1989. This was fea-sible due to the large area of the municipal-ity, covering 2 520 km2 with a total popula-tion of 56 000 mostly living in the urbanarea. Trondheim approved a programme forthe period from 1991 and up to 2006, when itprobably will be closed down. Kristiansandopened one toll station in 1997 and a ringwith 5 stations in 2000. In theStavanger/Sandnes area a toll ring wasopened in 2001, while one was opened in thesmall city of Namsos in 2003. The mostrecent toll ring opened on 1 February 2004 inTønsberg.

Common to all the urban toll schemes inNorway is that they are designed to financespecific packages of infrastructure improve-ments. Some proportion of the revenues maybe earmarked for public transport and the toll

schemes have been implemented for a pre-established period of time.

The first operational period in Bergen wascompleted in 2001. The scheme was extendedwith a new programme that prolongs the tollring until 2011. The “Oslo package 1” will becompleted in 2007 and it is not yet knownwhat will happen after that. However the“Oslo package 2” is already under implemen-tation. This package consists of earmarked

Noter:1 Interval for cars <3 500 kg low: withmax rebate, high single passing,seasonal passes are available in Oslo,0 indicates free periods at nighttime.2 Fee varies with time of day/weekfrom free at nights and weekends,NOK 5 in daytime to NOK 10 duringrush hours.


City Population in Toll revenues Toll Fee Periodurban area 2002 NOK crossing/day NOK/passenger

million/year car1

Bergen 206 000 156 75 000 0-7.5–15 1986–2011

Oslo 774 000 1 058 250 000 11.5–20 1990–2007

Tromsø 49 000 1989–2003

Trondheim 140 000 168 0-9–15 1991–2006

Kristiansand 61 000 95 50 000 0–10 2000–

Stavanger 162 000 70 146 000 0-2.5–102 2001–2009

Namsos 12 000 6.5–13 2003–

Tønsberg 43 000 50 000 7.5–15 2004–2019

Table 1. Some key figures for Norwegian urban toll rings

Road toll projects in Norway 2004.(Source: Norvegfinans as)

Dark labels: Urban projectLight labels: AutopassShaded labels: Non-autopass

public transport investments and is beingfinanced through an extra charge in the tollring and an extra fee on public transportfares in the area. These sources of revenueare matched by funding from the state andlocal authorities. Road projects for an “Oslopackage 3” are already rolling off the draw-ing table, and potential financing plans havebeen incorporated into the political agendaon the local level. No decision has been takenas to whether the toll ring will actually beclosed down in 2007, or whether it will beprolonged or replaced with another form ofuser fees.

Most tolls are now based on electroniccollection systems with an electronictransponder in each car. On 1 February 2004,the Autopass national system was launched.This system incorporates most tolls and sev-eral car ferries. This will help to reduce thedirect cost of collection and will enhanceuser convenience. Manual and coin-basedpayment will still be available.

As indicated, the purpose of the tolls is to

finance new infrastructure, and in urbanareas they are part of a broader packageincorporating other components such aspublic transport investments and land-usedevelopment plans. Examples of integrationwith land-use plans are the Bus Metro inKristiansand and land use along the railwaycorridor in Stavanger. Local long-term plan-ning for land-use development in connectionwith traffic-generating activities will bedirected towards the public transport corri-dors and nodes.

Impacts on traffic

The private car is a very efficient mode oftransport – at the individual level. One con-sequence of this is that sensitivity to price islow; the benefit of continuing to use a cardespite the introduction of toll fees is greaterthan the increased cost. In economic terms,the price elasticity is low.

Experience from various types of econo-

36

Toll station at trunk E16 Sollihøgda (Source: Harald Aas,Samferdsel)

metric analysis in Norway indicates a priceelasticity ranging from -0.4 to -0.1 in urbanareas. This means that a 10 per cent priceincrease in private car use leads to a reduc-tion in traffic of somewhere between 1–4 percent. Figures from the toll ring in Oslo indi-cated a 3–5 per cent traffic reduction, whileBergen showed a 6–7 per cent reduction inthe volume of traffic crossing the toll ringafter the first year of operation. In Trondheim,where time-differentiated fees are used, a 10per cent reduction in the tolling period wasalmost completely offset by increases duringthe uncharged periods.

For rural toll schemes, demand seems tobe more elastic; a price elasticity in the rangeof -2.0 to -0.3 has been reported. At the sametime, these projects are characterised by lesstraffic, higher fees and relatively greater col-lection costs. On trunk roads and interurbanmotorways there is evidence of a price elas-ticity of around -0.5.

Perspectives for the future

Transport economists have argued in favourof road pricing for decades. In brief, roadpricing requires road users to cover the mar-ginal costs they are imposing on society. Inthis context, “society” comprises the roadowner and the environment as well as otherroad users, who are subjected to increasedtravel times due to congestion. Thus thisprinciple implies that the price should varyby time and place.

The legislation for road pricing is in placefrom the Storting, but it is up to the localauthorities to implement it. However this leg-islation does not make it possible to intro-duce road pricing in combination with thetoll rings, as financing schemes are regulatedin other legislation. Since the need forfinancing packages in the largest urban areasseems to be more or less permanent, itappears to be impossible to combine themwith the current legislation for road pricing.

If the local authorities decide to pursueroad pricing in combination with financingschemes, it is likely that this will need to beapproved at the national level.

Researchers have pointed out that the tollrings to some extent already contain ele-ments of road pricing; they differentiate feesby place and, in some Norwegian cases, also

by time. With further adjustments of theprice structure to incorporate fees differenti-ated with respect to time, the toll rings canfunction as simple road-pricing schemes andserve the double purpose of enhancing effi-ciency and generating funding. At presentthere is a marginal majority in the Oslo CityCouncil in favour of introducing time-differ-entiated fees from 2007. On the other handthere are private initiatives for financing andbuilding new suburban motorways in Oslowith link tolls on the new road links alone.As the traffic volume is relatively high,assessments indicate that this will be possiblewithout state grants and with relatively lowfees (NOK 10–20 on each link).

Table 1 shows that less than 50 per cent ofthe total toll financing in 2002 (NOK 3.2 bil-lion) came from the urban toll rings. The rest,NOK 1.6 billion, came from tolls on ruralroads, trunk roads and interurban motor-ways. From an economic point of view itcould be argued that tolling on rural roads isinefficient. With low traffic volumes the col-lection cost is not insignificant. In combina-tion with relatively high fees for some ofthese tolls, the overall economic efficiencymay be low. This is due to the fact that someof these projects were designed to benefit alarger proportion of road users, but many donot use the roads because of the highcharges.

On the other hand collection costs arelikely to decline as a result of the introduc-tion of new technology. This will favour theurban schemes, where there will be efficiencygains from reduced traffic and the initiallyrelatively low collection costs.

Public acceptance of the toll rings is a keyissue. Surveys of the attitudes among thepopulation in the Oslo area have been con-ducted annually since the toll ring opened.From an acceptance level of 30 per cent withan overall positive attitude before the open-ing, the acceptance level increased to around45 per cent after five years of operation andhas varied around this percentage since then.Full public acceptance is not likely, but asthere are many different interests involved,Norway’s experience indicates that politicalacceptance may be achieved through com-promise and flexibility with respect to theutilisation of the revenues generated withinbroader investment packages.


By Chris Butters

In the past decade we have seen a variety oftools for evaluating buildings and otherproducts in an environmental perspective.Many are theoretical and still too unsystem-atic or complicated to be useful in practice.Most are environmental assessment tools,which cover only limited parts of the conceptof sustainability.

Benchmarking and sustainability

Sustainability cannot be precisely defined –nor is this necessary, since sustainable devel-opment refers to a dynamic process from onestate towards another. All buildings, towns orsocieties evolve, for better or worse, throughtime. Our horizons – both our ambition levelsand our technical possibilities – will alsochange. Broadly defined, we can say thatsustainability means positive social and eco-nomic development on a long-term basiswithin the framework of the carrying capac-ity of the earth’s ecosystems.

If human settlements are to fulfil the goalof sustainability, then we need tools to settargets, plan, design, and evaluate. We also

need such tools as a scientific basis for com-paring different projects, and for evaluatinghow they develop over time.

Benchmarking, the setting of definedquantitative goals, is already common insome fields, for example space requirements,energy norms, permissible emission levels,etc. Some people still understand sustainabil-ity as a question of technology, related to pol-lution, wastes, energy and the like. But theseare only the eco-technical or material aspects.There is now universal acceptance that sus-tainability has three components: ecological,economic and social. And all three are essen-tial; rather like a three-legged stool; if one legis missing, the whole thing will fall over.

Existing systems

There are already a number of tools for eval-uating the environmental profile of buildings,as well as other products. Do we needanother? As noted, the main weakness ofthese systems is that they are environmentalassessment tools that do not address sustain-ability in its full sense.

BREEAM, Norway’s Ecoprofile and Arup’sSPeaR are amongst the systems that use a

38

A Holistic Method ofEvaluating SustainabilityThis article presents a holistic method for evaluating sustainability.Primarily developed for buildings and urban development, it canalso be applied to other products – as well as for evaluatingsustainability in a broad sense. It is not an abstract model but aconcrete tool for planning and design as well as evaluation andcomparison of projects. In contrast to existing assessment tools, itoperationalises the concept of sustainability in its full sense. Themethod has been developed by Chris Butters in NABU, NorwegianArchitects for Sustainable Development. Sustainability is evaluatedand presented in the form of a value map.

Chris Butters is an architectworking at NABU (NorwegianArchitects for SustainableDevelopment) in Oslo.

graphic presentation inspired by circular“wind rose” diagrams. This was probably firstapplied to buildings for assessment of indoorclimate, as in the Swedish Örebro-model. Thewind rose visualisation is attractive, but hasbeen transposed to the field of buildings in arather unthinking fashion. The selection ofparameters is often unsystematic. Importantfactors are left out, and different kinds ofparameters are sometimes jumbled together.Wind roses show frequency of wind accord-ing to the compass points, but when one usespoints rather than segments to demarcatevalues, then the area covered becomes visu-ally misleading.

The manner of visualisation is also basi-cally counter-intuitive. Almost withoutexception, these tools show the degree ofnegative environmental effect. Their “goal” isthe zero-point in the middle of the circle; inother words, the worse the building, the big-ger the star it gets. But we read the size of astar intuitively as denoting positive quality.(And we must present the positive, not thenegative image.) So the picture must bestructured in the opposite way.

The highest value in these systems is oftena rather vaguely defined “excellent”, whichdoes not always correspond to the very bestpractice that already exists. Why set an uppergoal of 50 kilowatt hours per m2 when zeroenergy buildings already exist? Users do notget a true picture of what the goal is, or whatis already possible. Though we cannot definesustainability precisely, it is beyond doubtnot a matter of improving today’s systems by10 or 20 per cent, but of big changes. The hori-zon we are aiming for is a long way off, andthis horizon must be communicated graphically.

The Value Map

Although sustainability is an imperfect con-cept, it provides a common basis for holistic,cross-sectoral understanding. The Value Mapvisualises the goal that all architecture, citybuilding and other production should fulfilthe three conditions of sustainability. Ecologyrefers to environment and resources, economyencompasses financial and institutional fac-tors, whilst society encompasses cultural,human and community aspects.

In contrast to the systems described above,the Value Map has the following characteristics:

• the circle is divided into three equal parts,one each for the three basic components ofsustainability;

• the value scale is outwards, so that bestresult corresponds to biggest star;

• segments, rather than “compass points”, areused to depict values, giving visually cor-rect geometrical weighting;

• the selection of parameters is, though pro-visional, systematic;

• the values are scaled so that the outer rim,corresponding to a “horizon” of full sus-tainability, is clearly shown to be far off.

Each of the three main areas of sustainabilityis here defined by eight parameters. It isstressed that these parameters are provisional,and that they both can and should vary tosome extent depending on project scale. In afull assessment most will also need a moredetailed breakdown – for example the varioustypes of energy supply and consumption.

For each of the 24 parameters, bench-marks can be defined in detail. Many existalready. Assessment can be done both in a


Oikos: The world as our commonhouse. (Photo: CB)

detailed way and in a simplified form.A relative weighting of the various fac-

tors, which some ecoprofile tools try to do,should not be attempted. Weighting is ahopeless project; it will always be relative,with priorities that will quite rightly varyfrom one project to another. On the otherhand, it seems principally important that thethree areas of ecology, economy and societyshould be given equal weight visually.

The method shows the user the relativeeffect of different choices. Even without anexact value, one will clearly be far betterthan another. Exact scores will often matterless than the process that the user goesthrough to arrive at decisions.

The value scale

The scale is from 0 to 5. Value 0 meansextremely poor standard, value 1 is poor, andvalue 2 corresponds to “normal practice” orquality expected in new projects today – forexample latest building requirements. Value3 shows a result well above today’s practice,and value 4 extremely advanced solutions.The outer ring, value 5, corresponds to whatwe at the present time can envisage as moreor less “fully sustainable” – for example anear-zero energy building. Very few projectsin today’s world will touch this outer perime-ter at more than one or two points.

Applications

The Value Map can be applied at many levels,from a product to a building, a housing area

or an entire region. It can also be used inrelation to time, to assess how the sustain-ability of a building or community developsfrom year to year. And it can be used tomake comparative studies between projects.

In its simplified form, it provides a check-list and framework for designers, and for dis-cussion amongst participants in a planningprocess. In its detailed form, ideally, it gives acomplete qualitative and quantitative pictureof the condition of a project or community.

If we build a house that requires zeroenergy but is both expensive (economics) andawful to live in (society), is such a product ofany interest at all? Our goal is an optimum ofall requirements, not maximisation of one ortwo. The Value Map visualises these connec-tions; it shows whether a high score in onearea is only at the expense of satisfactoryscores in others. Quality must be assessed inrelation to all three areas.

Architects, engineers, developers – allhave a tendency to view the world in a staticfashion: Our job ends when our product isdelivered. Seen in a sustainable perspective,this is not enough. We have to work with lifecycle assessment – the dynamic reality whichis the life of a building, a town, a commu-nity. Maintenance, renewal and decay arepart of that reality. A successful district maygo into serious decline after some years.People use buildings in unexpected ways. Ahouse built to zero energy standard may havea high energy use from day one if the usersmisunderstand or misuse the systems.

In other words, sustainability is not some-thing that can be delivered. Nor can it beevaluated once and for all. It is a conditionthat must be evaluated over time.

40

Quantities and qualities

Research in this field is often coloured bysectoral interests. There is no getting awayfrom the fact that this favourises technicalresearch with visible cost-benefit value.Research is increasingly funded or co-fundedby market interests – for example an energycompany or a manufacturer of materials. Sothere is little incentive in the system to thinkin wholes. What is called interdisciplinaryresearch is often little more than cooperationbetween three or four kinds of engineers. Yetcross-disciplinary and cross-sectoral integra-tion is recognised as being the very key toachieving sustainability.

Material factors can be quantified; thismay be why researchers tend to confine theirwork on sustainability to the few factors,such as energy, water and wastes, which canbe measured in a fairly objective way. Theperformance of a technical system can becalculated (even so, this does not mean that itwill perform that way in practice, as notedabove, since there is a troublesome little vari-able called people which always has the finalsay). It is obvious, on the other hand, thatsocial parameters are not quantifiable butlargely qualitative. This does not mean thatthey cannot be assessed.

Qualitative factors also have to bedesigned at the drawing board stage; thisboth can and must be done, but the resultsare to a far larger degree dependent on users’perceptions. Assessment must be post-occu-pancy, using sociological methods. The fol-lowing are examples of typical issues relatedto quantities and qualities.

Energy

Energy is a typical ecological parameter. Thevalue scale shown here for energy use inhousing already contains simplifications. Wemust distinguish between detached houses,row houses and apartment blocks; differentclimatic zones must be correlated; assessmentof energy use per m2 has its limitations.Embodied energy also has to be taken intoaccount.

Energy saving can be achieved by technicalchanges, improved information, or simplylifestyle preference. Energy is a complex issue -

it is a sociotechnical, not a technical field. ADanish case illustrates this. A large urban pro-ject aimed to reduce energy consumption by25 per cent through technical upgrading. Theproject was delayed for various reasons. Whenit ultimately started, it turned out that energyconsumption had already fallen by nearly 20per cent – without any building measures –simply because of the information aboutenergy which had been given to the residentsin connection with the project proposal –before the technical work began!

Management

Economic sustainability denotes a systemthat is robust, diverse, adaptable, and wellenough organised to provide long-term wel-fare; it must therefore also be based on envi-ronmentally sound production and consump-tion. The word economics comes from theGreek oikos, meaning house, and nomosmeaning management or housekeeping. Eco-nomics thus has a much wider meaning thanjust the financial system. It encompasses allthe structures, services and processes withwhich we manage society – of which themoney system is just one part.

Sustainable economics must be under-stood in this sense. Flows of information,user participation and institutional mecha-nisms are key part of this. The economicparameters in the Value Map are theprocesses by which we manage the relation-ship between people, and between societyand the environment.

Security

Security is a typical societal, qualitative issue.To a degree it can also be assessed quantita-tively – for example neighbourhood statisticson criminality – but it is largely subjective.Like many of the other societal parameters itthus requires post-occupancy surveys.

Such factors have to be considered at thedesign stage, and of course they can be. Plan-ners have experience of how different hous-ing layouts affect criminality, for example.We can design for security with buildingform, street lighting, alarm systems, etc. Butthe users may still have a different, lived per-ception of the security of the area. An area


What is sustainable urbandevelopment?Sustainable urban develop-ment is largely a question oftransformation processeswithin existing cities - aprocess of improving amessy and very imperfectreality. More than the indivi-dual pieces of urban fabric,it is the overall spatial andinfrastructural conditionsthat are most important,and these are even moredifficult to change. Citiesmust also be viewed to-gether with their regionalhinterland.

Sustainable urban de-velopment needs eco-tech-nology, institutions andpeople. It requires a long-term vision and a commu-nity dynamic. There arenow large-scale projects inScandinavia and Europe.The City of Oslo UrbanEcology programme is agood example of a sustain-ability framework.

Some initiatives focus onspecific aspects such astransports, wastes, etc,including well-known EUand international networkssuch as ICLEI and CEMR.But the intentions are as yetnot often supported bylarge-scale political orfinancial commitment.

Mixed use, low ecologi-cal footprint and a healthyenvironment comprise thekeywords. The best projectsaddress social qualities asmuch as ecological onesand, in the spirit of Agenda21, build heavily on userparticipation.

(See colour brochure onUrban Ecology by the OsloPorts Authority / NABU, dis-tributed free at IFHP-2004)

can also change, become run-down and crim-inalised. Again we are reminded how sustain-ability is not something that can be deliveredonce and for all, but must be assessed contin-ually, in dialogue with the real users, andwith time as the sternest judge.

Sustainability and architecture

NABU’s work is based on a broad under-standing of sustainability; not just ecologicaldesign but a holistic field – thus encompass-ing the whole of architecture and planning.This is reflected in the policy document pro-duced for our parent organisation, theNational Association of Norwegian Archi-tects, where we describe sustainability as acornerstone for the profession.

It is important to note that sustainabledesign combines well-established knowledgeand new factors - and integrates solutions innew ways. Much of the ecological knowledgeis new, but the social qualities achieved inNordic housing, have been widely recognisedfor several decades.

The Value Map provides some sorelyneeded clarity in understanding sustainabil-ity. The concept had its roots in the environ-mental failures of our societies, and ecologyis still the area that needs particular improve-ment in design; however, environment isonly one aspect of sustainable development.Quite simply, sustainability is about quality:social, aesthetic, technical, economic, andenvironmental.

Energy and resource-conscious architectureis ecological, but is not sustainable if it is non-

42

Pilestredet Park urban ecology project, Oslo: generallygood eco-technology, especially materials recycling. Butextremely dense, no user participation, and sky-high costs.Old surgical block converted to apartments. (Thon AS.Photo: Stein Stoknes)

Nordic cluster housing – Oksval 3, Nesodden: excellentsocial qualities, car-free, low costs, integrated into nature,moderate space use and footprint. Poor energy andresource efficiency (old standards). Excellent planningfrom the 1970s. (Rosland architects. Photo CB)

Chris Butters: "Sustainability Value Map" Four examples. Note

functional, ugly or just too expensive. On theother hand, architecture that is beautifulcannot be designated sustainable for that rea-son alone. There is no reason today why abuilding or urban plan cannot be both beautifuland reasonably costed – as well as ecological.

Conclusion

The Value Map has already been tested inNorway and other countries, and now needsfurther development, including the parame-ters and benchmarks as well as a softwareprogram.

Technical and other specialists need torecognise the interdependence of quantitiesand qualities, of objective and subjectivevalues. We must shift our focus from envi-

ronmental assessment to sustainability –from eco-technology to the whole picture.And if sustainable development is our goalthen we need integrated design processes andevaluation tools. Our methodology mustrender explicit the fundamental links betweenecology, economy and society.

The design and assessment methoddescribed here has a broad range of applica-tions. It can be applied in both simple anddetailed form. It is important that the “hori-zon” clearly shows a high level of ambitioncorresponding roughly to what we can con-ceive of today as “fully sustainable”. Aboveall, the Value Map visualises sustainabilityfor the first time in a comprehensive manner.


Typical slum – Cape Town: Use of land, private cars andenergy are all near zero (they can’t afford any!). 100 percent recycled materials. Totally flexible, the whole thingcan be moved in an hour. Extremely low cost. On the otherhand empowerment, sanitation, health and security are adisaster. Very “sustainable” – in one sense – these are someof the planet’s most resource-saving people. (Photo: CB)

Sustainable district Südstadt, Tübingen, Germany: low energybuilding, car-free areas, public transport, high biodiversity,user participation processes, reasonable costs: No specialtheme - integrated solutions. Excellent in most aspects.Apartments in massive timber. (Eble Architects. Photo: CB)

e: these are illustrations only and not based on full evaluations

Regional Development and Regional Planning

Norway is a relatively large country with relatively few people.The de-population of the outlying areas as well as the lack of viable,or sustainable, regional economies in all parts of the country havecomprised important regional issues. In recent years, however, the focusof regional policies has changed somewhat from the outlying districts tolarger regions, and from supporting enterprises in peripheral areas tobuilding society in more general terms. This new focus has givenenhanced impetus to regional development planning at the county level.

(Photo: Samfoto)

By Steinar Johansen

Regional issues in Norway

While some of the regional issues given focusin Norway are similar to those found in manyother countries – and especially within theEuropean Union – problems in other areas may differ quite substantially. One of Norway’skey issues is achieving viable, or sustainable,regional economies in all parts of the country.This is linked to regional growth and indus-trial development, and is analogous toregional issues in the rest of Europe. Norway’sother primary regional problem is associatedwith settlement patterns. As it is a relativelylarge country with few inhabitants, the de-population of the outlying areas has com-prised a fundamental regional issue thatNorway does not share with other Europeancountries, except perhaps with Sweden andFinland. In other EU countries, for instance,the most important regional issues outside ofregional growth have involved factors thatcould be referred to as “poverty problems”(industrial decline, high unemployment ratesand low incomes, or major differences inthese indicators across the country). Com-pared to the situation found in these othercountries, it is very difficult to claim suchpoverty problems in Norway.

Regional differences

In terms of population settlement patterns,Norway can be divided into five types ofregions along a core-periphery dimension,from main city regions to the countryside.1

Each region consists of municipalities, whichare further categorised according to numberof inhabitants in the major centre withincommuting distance from each municipality(the first row of the table). A type of region isthe aggregate of all regions within the samecategory, irrespective of their location.

The table illustrates some properties of thedifferent types of regions. Main city regionscomprise only ten per cent of the municipali-ties, but have 38 per cent of the populationand 44 per cent of the national employment.There are only four2 main city regions in thecountry. The other extreme, called the coun-tryside, comprises one-third of the munici-palities, but only seven per cent of the popu-lation and five per cent of the employment.Together with the fact that the populationdensities vary from almost 300 to only twopeople per square kilometre, this illustratesthat the core-periphery dimension of Norwayis a question of people as well as distance.

In Table 2, the national share of employ-ment in each sector (the column to the farright) equals 100. The employment sharewithin private services in city regions, for

46

Regional Developmentand Policy in NorwayThroughout the entire post-war period, regional development hasbeen a focal point of Norwegian political activity. The focus ofregional policy in Norway is changing. In 2005, the Governmentwill present a white paper on regional development. The questionis, which changes will be proposed?

Steinar Johansen is an economistworking at the Institute of TransportEconomics (TØI) in Oslo.

example, is 89 per cent of the national shareof employment in private services (or 45.3 percent of total employment in city regions).These figures are referred to as localisationindexes, and they illustrate some importantdifferences in industrial structures along acore-periphery dimension. There are severalobvious features. Employment shares withinthe primary sectors increase with periphery(from 59 to 368 per cent of the national aver-age moving from left to right in the table). Insecondary sectors, the employment share isbelow average only in main city regions, andis higher in the three middle regions than inthe countryside. Employment shares withinprivate services are above average only inmain city regions, and they decrease movingmore and more towards the periphery (fromleft to right). Central government servicesshow a similar pattern, while local govern-ment services show opposite patterns to pri-vate and central government services.

Regional policies

The regional problems, as defined above, alsocome to light as major regional policy issues.

In the government white papers on regionaldevelopment and policy that are submittedevery four years, economic sustainability andthe preservation of settlement patterns in allregions are defined as the major goals.Whether the policy measures designed forachieving these goals are sufficient or not isa matter of opinion, as is how to interpret“sustainable regional economies” and “thepreservation of settlement patterns”; thesematters are all subject to vigorous debatewithin the Government, the Storting, by themedia and among the public at large.Nonetheless, there is a general, underlyingunderstanding among Norwegians that theseaims are important.

Changing focus of regional policies

The manner in which regional policy isunderstood and the target areas on which itis focused have changed during the post-warperiod. It is fruitful to divide this period intoseparate phases, keeping in mind that as itsregional policies have evolved, Norway wasemerging as one of the world’s richest coun-tries. Although there are several ways of des-


Table 1: Types of regions along a core-periphery scale. Some characteristics

Main city City regions Village regions Small village Countryside Totalregions regions

No. of inhabitants in major centre More than 15 000 to 5 000 to 2 000 to Less thanwithin commuting distance 50 000 50 000 15 000 5 000 2 000

No. of inhabitants 38 % 41 % 7 % 7 % 7 % 4 524 066No. of employed 44 % 37 % 7 % 7 % 5 % 2 077 373Inhabitants per km2 273 29 % 9 % 5 % 2 % 15No. of municipalities 10 % 33 % 11 % 14 % 33 % 434

Source: NOU 2004:2

Table 2: Employment by main sector and type of region. Index: Norway = 100

Main city City regions Village regions Small village Countryside Norwayregions regions (%)

Primary 59 83 158 193 368 4.5

Secondary including Construction 76 119 118 124 108 21.1

Private Services 122 89 76 74 57 45.3

Central Government Services 119 95 90 67 30 9.7

Local Government Services 74 111 129 131 165 19.4

Type of region (%) 44.0 37.3 6.6 6.8 5.3 2.08 mill

Source: NOU 2004:2

ignating the regional policy phases of thepost-war period, Official Norwegian Reports2004:2 emphasises the following:

Reconstruction and modernisation (ca1945 to 1960): During this phase, it was nec-essary to rebuild parts of Norway. The Nazishad burnt down large parts of NorthernNorway, and the capital stock, especially theinfrastructure, had to be reconstructed andimproved throughout the country. An activestate with central planning institutionshelped to industrialise the country, indicatingthat the policy focus was more on productionand economic growth than on welfare andincome distribution. The policies involvedmany sectors – including roads, railroads,airports, energy, research and education –and were applied nationwide. Policies weretop-down and centrally controlled, but with afocus on the periphery (especially on rebuild-ing Northern Norway, with its own NorthernNorway plan), both to ensure resource alloca-tion throughout the country and to reducepressures on the central areas.

Welfare policies and living conditions (ca1960 to 1975) entered the spotlight duringthe second phase. The municipalities wereassigned responsibility for provision of wel-fare services countrywide, and this sectorexpanded as a result of extensive, centrallycontrolled welfare reforms, especially duringthe 1970s. Peripheral policy became anexplicit field of regional policy, with its ownmeans and measures, and it is during thisphase that the relatively commonly acceptedaims for regional (and peripheral) policiesevolved.

Changing trends (ca 1975 to 1990). Afterthe international oil crisis, economic growthdeclined in many Western countries, includ-ing Norway. This initiated a process of de-industrialisation, which in turn led to a needfor a new direction in economic (andregional) policies. The effects of the interna-tional crisis affected Norway only moderatelydue to active central government budgetdeficits as well as the new, evolving petro-leum sector. Restructuring of the manufactur-ing sector was postponed, and the welfaresector continued to expand. New measureswere introduced in regional policy. Thesewere directed towards labour support (region-ally differentiated labour taxes) and knowl-edge development instead of the traditionalmeans of capital support and infrastructure

development. Regional policies became, inother words, increasingly focused. During the1980s, municipalities and counties weregiven greater responsibility for developingnew industries, and institutions of highereducation and research were developed asregional centres of knowledge. This differedgreatly from the preceding periods, when thestate-controlled industrial policies were dom-inant. In other words, bottom-up, or endoge-nously based, development strategies wereemerging. Urban regions became more activeand also became incorporated into regionalpolicies.

Restructuring and change (after 1990):During the final period, the focal points ofregional policies changed in many respects.They became more “unified” in the sense thatthe focus shifted from the periphery to theregions. They also became “larger”, in thesense that the focus changed from supportingenterprises in the outlying areas to buildingsociety at a more general level. However,subsidies aimed at enterprises in the outlyingdistricts (differentiated labour taxes) auto-matically increased as a result of rising wagerates. Theories of endogenous growth finallybroke through and became the main basis forsupporting regions, through measuresdirected towards enhancing networking andeducation. Regions became increasingly com-petitive among themselves, and the main cityregions become an integral part of regionalNorway.

Moving towards a new framework inregional policies

Although the post-war period has broughtseveral shifts in the aims and measures ofregional policy, the rhetorical phrases of“sustainable regional development” (produc-tion and growth focus) and “preservation ofsettlement patterns” via a national system ofstandards for welfare policies (distributivefocus), remain more or less intact.

In recent years, there has been an increas-ing focus on the impacts of redistributionthrough sector policies on regional develop-ment in the broadest sense. Framework con-ditions are important because they influenceregional development, and sector policiescomprise an important aspect of these condi-tions. Regional or peripheral policies in the

48

narrow sense manifest themselves as part ofsector policies through their specific meas-ures. Production, industrial development,education and, ultimately, demographics andliving conditions, all take place withinregions. In this sense, all sector policies influ-ence the regions and, hence, regional devel-opment. Regional policies can therefore bethought of, in a broader sense, as the sum ofall sector policies together. The questions are,therefore: what are the impacts of all thesepolicies on regional development, which poli-cies are important and which are not soimportant?

In 2001, the Norwegian Governmentappointed a special commission to look intothese questions, using the rhetorical regionaland peripheral policy aims as their point ofdeparture (NOU 2004:2). The commissionfound that:

• All sector policies, including macroeco-nomic policies, are important for, and havean impact on, regional development.

• The measures within the narrow regionalpolicies are quantitatively small, comparedto other measures with sector policy aims.

• The public resources allocated to measuresbased on individual rights have increasedsubstantially over time, and compriseapproximately half the Government budget.

• Sector policy aims, and the manner by

which these are efficiently met, have beentargeted for greater focus, while cross-sector aims (such as regional and peripheraldevelopment) are considered inefficient andoften in conflict with sector policy aims,and are therefore given less attention.

• The narrow regional policy (support toenterprises in the outlying districts, includ-ing the differentiated labour tax), the gov-ernment financing and decentralised struc-ture of the local public sector (themunicipalities) and agricultural policy (dueto the localisation of the agricultural sector,see Table 2), are the most important sectorpolicies in the peripheries. However, theyare expensive.

The commission’s report will be used byanother official commission that is presentlyworking on establishing a framework forfuture peripheral policies in Norway. In thespring of 2005, the Government will submit anew white paper on regional developmentthat will present the new peripheral andregional policies of Norway. It is not yet clearwhat the precise focus of these policies willbe, but it seems likely that there will bechanges in the aims, measures and rhetoricalphrases utilised. The question is how radicalthe changes will be. One thing is a given:these efforts will result in propositions thatare sure to spark off debate on this issue.

Notes:1 NOU (Norwegian Official Reports)2004:2: (In Norwegian only) Effekterog effektivitet. Effekter av statliginnsats for regional utvikling ogdistriktspolitiske mål2 The municipalities around, andincluding, Oslo, Stavanger, Bergenand Trondheim


De-population of the outlying areashas been an important regionalissue in Norway. From WesternNorway. (Photo: Samfoto)

By Tor Selstad

Regions in crisis

The 1970s were a good decade for Norwegianplanning. The physically-oriented planningsystem was enlarged with a steady stream ofnew types of plans, and it appeared that theeconomic planning sector had succeeded ingenerating stable economic development withpositive regional distribution. A strong Nor-wegian trend towards counter-urbanisationbrought prosperity to small towns as well aslarge. Small towns such as Lillehammer ben-efited from this in particular.

The 1980s brought an abrupt end to thiscontented picture. The decade was initiatedwith industrial decline, starting in the cities andreaching industrial communities in the districtssomewhat later. When growth did resume inthe mid-1980s, it proved to be limited almostentirely to the large urban centres and the smalltowns located in their hinterlands. The counter-urbanisation of the 1970s had been trans-formed into a strong urbanisation trend.

One of the places that was hardest hit wasLillehammer. The town had developed into arelatively significant industrial district, andthe effects were dramatic when the town’slargest industrial concern, Mesna Karton, wasforced to close its doors. Nor was the situa-

tion any better in the other inland centres.Both Hamar and Gjøvik experienced corre-sponding declines in industrial employment.However, there were bright spots at thenational level, not least in the emergence ofthe petroleum industry. Unfortunately, thebenefits of this were limited to the coastalareas, especially along the western coast.Inland Norway, it would seem, was stuck inthe shadow of the oil world.

A commission was appointed by the Gov-ernment to seek ways to solve the crisis inthe inland areas, but these efforts did notresult in anything more tangible than thedemand for compensation. And althoughcompensation was granted, it was minimal. Itbecame clear that regional policy had to bebased on each region’s individual develop-ment, preferably with a certain degree ofstate support. Descriptions of regional afflic-tions would no longer be rewarded; it wastime for the regions and local communitiesthemselves to show some initiative. Theapproach in Lillehammer was to achievegrowth by organising a mega-event, the 1992Olympic Winter Games (OWG 92).

Olympic Winter Games – a wild idea!

The idea of hosting the Winter Games wasoriginally the brainchild of an imported hotel

50

Regional Dynamics andOlympic Rhetoric:The Lillehammer Winter Games Ten Years On

Lillehammer hosted the Olympic Winter Games in 1994. The event evolved into a spectacular popular festival and was a huge success. But what were the ramificationsfor the town itself and the region as a whole? Was the experience beneficial forLillehammer and did it lead to increased employment? Or did it ruin the urbanenvironment without enhancing growth in employment?

Tor Selstad is a professor ofgeography and planning atLillehammer University College.

The Olympic Winter Games inLillehammer in 1994 evolved intoa spectacular festival and were ahuge success. But was the expe-rience beneficial for the townitself and the region as a whole?The picture shows the OpeningCeremony at Balbergbakken SkiJumping Arena in Lillehammer.(Photo: Samfoto)

owner, Wolfgang Müller, from Germany.Several of his friends in the commercialsector also found it worth pursuing, andtogether they presented what they themselvescalled their “wild idea” to the politicalauthorities. A working group was established,headed by the director of the town bank. Thisgroup concluded that there would be positivegrowth potential in the wake of OWG 92,especially in the travel and tourism industry.Thus, it was maintained from the very outsetthat the primary objective of hosting theWinter Games was not to organise a sportsextravaganza, but to promote regional devel-opment.

OWG 92 became a controversial topic inlocal political circles, and there were popularfactions for and against. Stated somewhatsimplistically, those in favour argued that theeconomic gains would be substantial and theenvironmental problems could be dealt with.Those against claimed that there would beextensive damage done to the local environ-ment and that there was a risk that the townwould be ruined. The impact on employment,however, would be negligible. The municipal-ity tried to consolidate the details in an alter-native general plan designed to prepare apotential OWG 92. But the battle in the pub-lic opinion raged on.

After the first round, the town was savedby the bell, so to speak: The InternationalOlympic Committee (IOC) decided to awardOWG 92 to Albertville in France. ButLillehammer did not give up. The town coun-cil reviewed the situation – and decided toapply again for the Winter Games in 1994.And this time the town would not onlysubmit an application, it would also initiatethe first investments to show that it was seri-ous. Thus, in 1986 construction started on anindoor skating rink and an alpine centre.Public interest in the matter, however, wanedmarkedly. Most people interpreted the IOCdecision as confirmation that it was unrealis-tic for little Lillehammer to host such anevent, and considered the new application tobe a waste of time. So the shock was great inthe autumn of 1988 when it was announcedthat Lillehammer was indeed chosen to hostthe 1994 Olympic Winter Games (OWG 94).All active planning had long since ceased,and all preparations had been put on holdwhile awaiting the final decision.

Wreaking havoc?

The 1994 Olympic Winter Games turned intoa huge international festival. Despite itsmodest size, Lillehammer managed to accom-modate the spectator masses, and the eventitself was a stunning success. But what hap-pened to the urban environment and thelandscapes surrounding the area? Did thesealso manage to absorb the heavy investmentand survive unscathed?

The retrospective view is that developmentactivities prior to the Games by and largegave adequate consideration to the environ-ment - both the urban environment and thenatural environment outside it. This repre-sents not least a great achievement for theplanning sector. When Lillehammer wasawarded OWG 94 the town was poorly pre-pared. No updated environmental impactassessment had been conducted. As a result,it looked as though there would be conflictswith environmentalists, who organised them-selves in their own committee: the Environ-ment-friendly Olympics Project.

For a while there was talk of adopting spe-cial exclusionary legal provisions for Lille-hammer that would place the town understate administration. Fortunately, the Ministryof the Environment – which is also concerned


with planning activities – chose to utilise exist-ing planning legislation. Thus, Lillehammerand the other host municipalities were forcedto revise their plans themselves, with theassistance of the county authorities. Theresults were very positive. Despite the manydifferences of opinion between organisers,sports associations and local authorities, itwas possible to reach agreement on expedientlocations and designs for all the arenas withinvery short time.

The arenas in Lillehammer were clusteredtogether in an Olympic Park, with the SkiJumping Arena serving as a positive symbolfacility. The two ice rinks are viewed bymany as problematic due to their size, andmany further believe that the freestyle facil-ity diverges too much from the surroundingnatural landscape. The roads in this recre-ational landscape also appear to be somewhatoverdimensioned. Otherwise, however, OWG94 had a positive impact on the Lilleham-mer’s physical development. Central urbanspaces were upgraded, as was the road net-work connecting the town to Oslo. A state-of-the-art purification facility provided farbetter treatment of drainage into Lake Mjøsa,Norway’s largest lake.

The overall excellent results were a tri-umph for the Norwegian planning system.Something akin to a Norwegian champi-onship in planning was carried out in thecourse of approximately two years. Outsideinterests were not allowed to overtake urbandevelopment, but were on the contrary reinedin by professional analysis, debate and politi-cal decision-making. On the whole, the state,

country and municipal planning levels inter-acted constructively, demonstrating theinherent advantages of a planning systemdivided into different levels. Environmentalconsiderations were incorporated into theplanning of the physical surroundings, illus-trating that full environmental impact assess-ments are not absolutely necessary providedthat these elements are sufficiently includedin the ordinary planning activity.

One crucial component underlying thesuccess of the undertaking is that the envi-ronmentalists began early on to exert unre-lenting pressure on the Lillehammer OlympicOrganisation (LOOC) and the municipalities.In Hamar, the situation bordered on hostilewhen it became clear that the new ice rinkswould encroach on a nature park for migra-tory birds. After a bitter dispute, LOOC andthe Hamar municipal authorities reversedtheir decision. This marked a turning pointfor the entire national Olympic cause. Fromthat juncture, the environmentalist projectgroup was incorporated into LOOC. Even IOCPresident, Juan Antonio Samaranch, noticedthe active Norwegian environmentalists andcommended their efforts in an unscheduledmeeting. This also represented a turningpoint for the Olympic Movement, which hassubsequently imposed more stringent envi-ronmental requirements on applicants. More-over, the Norwegian project members arenow being used as consultants in interna-tional Olympic endeavours.

So did the Games wreak havoc on thetown? Indeed not. Even the environmental-ists, who had voiced such strong criticism atthe outset, had to admit that it all went verywell. Thor Heyerdahl Jr. even stated: “Neverhas Lillehammer and its neighbouring vil-lages been better equipped or more beauti-fully laid out.

Growth in employment

The next question is whether the dire predic-tions for environmental degradation did notcome true because the economic and societalconsequences were so small. Was the envi-ronment spared because there was little pop-ulation growth and stagnation returned tothe city after the athletes went home?

In 1980, Lillehammer municipality hadjust over 22 000 inhabitants. In 2003, this

52

The “Vikingskipet” in Hamar wasused for the speed-skating com-petitions during the OlympicWinter Games. This large indoorskating rink got its name from itsresemblance to an upside-downViking ship. (Photo: Samfoto)

number had increased by 3 000 (see Table 1).This represents a growth rate of 14 per cent,which is twice what the municipality itselfcalculated in its estimates from 1986. Notmany other municipalities in Norway canmatch this figure. At the regional level, thegrowth rate is somewhat lower. There hasbeen a respectable increase in the neighbourmunicipality of Øyer, with a parallel declinein Gausdal, the other neighbouring munici-pality. In total, this leaves a populationincrease of “only” nine per cent in theLillehammer region. Given that populationgrowth was at a standstill the first five yearsof the 1980s, this increase must have takenplace starting in 1986 and onwards.

The population development is founded ona parallel growth in employment. TheLillehammer region must presumably have feltthe effect of the Olympics immediately after itwas decided to apply the second time around,with the large-scale construction of the Hafjellalpine facility and the ice rink. From 1988,when Lillehammer was actually awarded theOlympics, the region was fortunate enough toexperience a rise in employment while the restof the country headed into a deep economicslump. In 1994, Norway had not yet reallyrecovered, whereas Lillehammer had experi-enced net employment growth each year.From 1990 to 1996, the Lillehammer regionacquired approximately 1 000 new jobs, corre-sponding to 6.2 per cent (see Table 2). Thiswas roughly on a par with overall growth inNorway, but it should be kept in mind that thenational growth profile was extremely central-ising. Up to 2000, the region acquired an addi-tional 770 new jobs. OWG 94 bridged the eco-nomic downswing, and the region was still ableto reap significant benefits from the upswingwhen it finally came. The Lillehammer regionfared substantially better than its neighbours,Hamar and Gjøvik, with whom it is natural tocompare.

If we examine this growth in more detail, itis distributed across both rising and decliningindustries. On the minus side we find primaryindustry and the industrial segment; post andtelecoms, which were undergoing restructur-ing; banking and insurance; and construction.It is no surprise that the construction industryneeded a downward adjustment after such anintensive period of development.

On the plus side – the industries that gen-erated the net growth in the region – we find

the various service industries that are part ofa regional dynamic that OWG 94 would beexpected to create: Hotel and restaurants,sports and entertainment. But we also notegrowth in the cultural sector, in media,libraries and interest organisations. At thevery top, we find the basic production ofpublic services, with health and social ser-vices and administration, closely followed bydistributive trade.

It is not my purpose here to prove some-thing for which there is no basis in research,i.e. to define which developments are due tothe Olympics and which would have takenplace on their own. No one can provide exactanswers to these questions. Nonetheless, it isinarguably true that, in the 15 years since1985, the Lillehammer region has experi-enced considerable growth in overall employ-ment, cautiously estimated at some 2 500new jobs, as well as overall populationgrowth by some 3 000 new inhabitants. Evenif we only claim that half of this can beattributed to the sports extravaganza, thelocal organisers have achieved everythingthey set out to do – and more.


Lillehammer Øyer Gausdal The region

1980 21 877 4 421 6 679 34 957

1990 22 782 4 521 6 492 35 785

2000 24 724 4 859 6 186 37 769

2003 24 946 4 891 6 189 38 029

Change 1980–2003 3 069 470 -490 3 072

(Source: Statistics Norway, Municipal population statistics)

Table 1: Population growth in the municipalities in the Olympic region.

Region 1990–1996 1996–2000 1990–2000

Lillehammer 6.2 4.6 11.7

Hamar -0.1 2.6 2.5

Gjøvik 2.2 1.8 4.2

Norway 6.5 4.4 13.1

(Source: Statistics Norway, Employment statistics)

Table 2: Relative growth in employment in the three Olympic urban regions.

By Per Frøyland Pallesen

Background

For the last 40 years, the Stavanger area ofSouthwest Norway – known as the Jærenregion – has been a very dynamic region interms of industrial expansion and populationgrowth. Since 1965, there has been anacknowledged need for a regional plan acrossthe borders of eight municipalities. A structureplan was produced in 1970 based on the Plan-ning Act of 1965. This comprised a volunteereffort, however, and the plan was not vestedwith any formal power. As a consequence, itsimpact on municipal plans was limited.

A new attempt to establish a regionalstructure plan was carried out in 1980s, but itwas not possible to achieve commonapproval for an overriding plan for the devel-opment of the region. The traditional attitudeof the municipalities has been that they(alone) should have the right and responsibil-ity of drawing up their municipal masterplans. Consequently, they did not want thecounty to interfere by setting up a bindingregional plan.

A 1993 amendment to the Planning andBuilding Act assigned a more clearly-definedrole to the county council in the preparationof county plans for specific areas, especiallywhen there is an obvious need to find solu-tions across municipal borders. The munici-palities in the Stavanger area had alreadyestablished a tradition of cooperation withthe Rogaland County Council and theregional state authorities in the production oftransportation plans. The first of these planswas approved in 1991 and a revised plan wasimplemented in 1998. During this process, acommon understanding emerged of the needto employ a holistic approach in which landuse and transportation systems were coordi-nated. Based on an agreement with themunicipalities, the Rogaland County Councildecided in 1998 to produce a county plan forthe region. Two additional municipalitieswere included at their own request. This planwas approved in October 2000.

The Jæren region is one of Norway's mostimportant agricultural districts, and it hasmany nationally and internationally impor-tant protected areas, especially wetland areasand a wide range of cultural heritage sites(dating from the Stone Age to the Viking

54

Regional Plan for Long-termUrban Development in theStavanger Region A comprehensive county spatial plan for long-term urban development in the Jærenregion was approved in 2000. The plan presents an overall solution for land-use andtransport demands in the Stavanger area. The region’s 10 municipalities haveapproximately 250 000 inhabitants, while the urban area alone has 200 000inhabitants. The greater Stavanger area is currently the third largest city region inNorway, and its annual population growth rate has been 1–1.5 per cent in recentdecades.

Per Frøyland Pallesen is ageographer educated at theUniversity of Oslo. He is the ChiefCounty Planning Officer for RogalandCounty, and has been theadministrative officer in charge ofactivities in connection with thecounty plan for long-term urbandevelopment in Jæren.

Era). At the same time, the city lacks areasfor outdoor recreation in proximity to resi-dential development.

Each of the municipalities has consistentlyfound it difficult to gain acceptance for greenfield development in its municipal masterplans. When new development does occur,the localisation of important functions hasthus not been anchored in a coordinatedplan. The growth rate for motorised transporthas been high (3–5 per cent per year), andthe city districts are experiencing increasedtraffic congestion. The market share forpublic transportation is low (ca. 7 per cent).

Main focus of the plan

A primary aim is to ensure development oftowns and cities in a manner that decreasesthe need for private cars. To prevent urbansprawl, this needs to be achieved throughincreased residential and employment den-sity. The town and city centres must bestrengthened; new development must be con-centrated within linear structures independ-ent of municipal boundaries.

City transformation and infill-develop-ment must be strongly supported for severalreasons:

• To protect valuable areas against newdevelopment.

• To increase the ability of small householdsto reside in apartments instead of single-family homes (in compliance with demo-graphic changes).

• To give emphasis to the development ofhousing in the main city centre, the varioussub-centres in the city, and town centressurrounding the city. Residential develop-ment should primarily occur through newand improved uses of poorly utilised landand existing structures within the buildingzone. This will in turn help to improve theframework for environment-friendly modesof transport.

• To contribute to an aesthetic and environ-mental upgrading of city areas.

A continuous green belt has been defined forthe entire city region. No residential areashould be more than 500 metres walking dis-tance from a green belt, and residents are tobe able to reach outdoor recreation areas

without using motorised transport (minimum3 km length of hiking/cycling paths). Thegreen structure consists of forests, waterways,mountains, and substantial agricultural areas.The agricultural areas are to be developed incooperation with the farmers, and will con-tain tracks for hiking, places to rest/eat, andother recreational facilities. This is a win-winstrategy that both strengthens agriculturalinterests and enhances the ability of city resi-dents to enjoy outdoor leisure activities.

The plan also establishes long-termboundaries for agricultural zones. Thisstrengthens the protection of farmland, andcreates a predictable framework for munici-pal land-use planning and farmers’ long-terminvestments.

The plan includes guidelines for localisa-tion of larger enterprises (with many work-places or enterprises which provide servicesfor the public), which presuppose localisationin commercial centres or along public trans-portation corridors.


Several alternativedirections fordevelopment werepresented at the startof the planningprocess.

Promoting public transport, cycling andwalking

Long-term planning is combined with short-term action programmes, to be revised everyfour years. The action programme financingis based on allocations from national, regional,and local authorities, as well as a highwayroad-toll fee. The programme has an environ-mental profile in which at least 50 per cent ofthe budget is utilised for purposes other thanroads, e.g. public transportation, infrastructurefor non-motorised transport, tracks for hiking,noise reduction measures, etc.

The public transportation network hasbeen restructured according to the plan.There are now fewer routes but higher fre-quencies. An independent public transportcompany has been established to manage thepublic transportation system on behalf of theCounty Council. There has been submission oftenders in three independent packages. Thenew system has been operative since 1 January2003, and is now run by two bus companies.The public transportation network nowcorresponds with the axes for development.

The plan aims to establish a combinedtrain and light-rail system along the north-south city axis and the cross-axis in thedirection of the airport. The first step in thisregard involves building a second track forthe Stavanger-Sandnes railway, and buildingbus lanes along the main highways for publictransport (“bus-axis”).

What practical conclusions can bedrawn?

Four years after the plan approval, the fol-lowing practical conclusions can be drawn:

A long-term timeframe (in this case 40years) is crucial for this kind of plan, as ittakes time to properly elucidate the issuesthat are essential to establishing long-termland-use goals and planning for the associ-ated infrastructure.

The political and administrative organisa-tion of the planning process is an importantcondition for success. The following factorsshould be emphasised:

The planning process has been overseen bya political steering group headed by the

County Council Chairman. Delegates includepoliticians from the local government (mayors,leaders from the opposition parties) and politi-cians from the regional government (all majorpolitical parties). The political steering grouphas given the planning process authority andlegitimacy, both internally vis-à-vis the vari-ous administrative elements, and externallyvis-à-vis the media, business community, etc.

The planning process has been carried outbased on the principle of consensus, avoidingthe need for further reconciliation. When dis-agreements have occurred, alternatives havebeen prepared. These alternatives have beenutilised both during hearings and in the deci-sion-making process, where the CountyCouncil has the final decision – subject to theapproval of the central government.

A project group comprised of high-levelcivil servants with relevant expertise wasresponsible for devising the strategy for theplanning process and the concrete contents ofthe plan. This group served as the dominantexpert forum in the process, and also ensuredthat all participants delivered their contribu-tions on time throughout the various phases.

In the final phases of the process, after thehearings but before the final resolution, itbecame necessary to choose alternatives andform compromises to develop a unified pro-posal for resolution. In this phase, the coop-eration between the County Council and theOffice of the County Governor (the chiefexecutive of the county representing centralgovernment) was extremely important. Anagreement was reached that balanced devel-opment interests with the need for protectionof valuable resources. This proposal wasapproved in the County Council and pre-sented to the key government ministries (theMinistry of the Environment, the Ministry ofAgriculture, and the Ministry of Transportand Communications). The final decision wastaken by the Government.

From the very outset, there were clear sig-nals from the Ministry of the Environment andthe Ministry of Agriculture that the municipal-ities of Stavanger and Sandnes would proba-bly not receive approval for their respectivemunicipal master plans – containing new andcontroversial areas for development – withouta county spatial plan that emphasised effectivespatial development. This played a critical rolein the starting phases as well as continuedparticipation in the process.

56

Follow-up actions

A monitoring system has been established toevaluate the manner in which the plan isimplemented. When approving the plan, theGovernment underscored the need for areporting system to document how themunicipalities enforce and follow up theplan. The first year for reporting was 2002.A GIS system for this has now been devel-oped. The report goes to the relevant citycouncils, the County Council, the Ministryof the Environment, and the Ministry ofLocal Government and Regional Develop-ment.

The report provides information on thefollowing issues:

• Spatial land use according to developmentcategories in revised municipal masterplans.

• Total number of dwellings by category. • Density in residential areas. • Distance from dwellings to public trans-

portation or centres.• Regional infrastructure in the municipal

master plans.• Enforcement of localisation guidelines. • Implementation and boundaries for centre

development. • Development of parking policies.• Details regarding green structure establish-

ment and management.• Long-term boundaries for high priority

agricultural land. • Planning for energy consumption and dis-

tribution.

The reporting is intended to provide anassessable evaluation of the degree of com-pliance with the plan's goals and guidelinesin regard to environmental protection, land-use, and transportation. This system will thenbecome the foundation for further revisionsof the plan.

Challenges to implementation

To ensure a long-term implementation ofthe plan, certain conditions must be ful-filled:

The national government must be a reli-

able partner for investment in, and operationof, the public transportation system (particu-larly the railway development).

The county government must retain itslegitimacy and powers as a planning author-ity and strengthen its functions as a devel-oper, especially in regard to operation of thepublic transportation system.

The municipalities must remain loyal tothe county plan and be willing to follow it up(this has gone well, so far).

The national government must developoptional provisions for regional regulationof parking, allowing the introduction ofparking fees in shopping centres outside thecentre structure as well as in town centres.This will make it possible to develop anoverall regional parking policy that affordsthe town centres the same competitiveconditions as external commercialestablishments.

Incentives must be developed to promotethe utilisation of non-motorised transportand public transportation.

Higher road tolls should be considered asa source of income to support the financingof public transportation.


Axis for development - main roadwith bus lane - direction west outof Stavanger. (Photo: TorbjørnRathe)

Housing for All?

The average housing standard in Norway is high. It is better than that ofmost other countries, and may well be the highest in Scandinavia.In terms of living space per inhabitant, Norway tops the global list.However, 95 per cent of Norway’s housing sector is governed by themarket, and the fact remains that some segments of the population donot have the benefit of comfortable, secure housing. Particularly youngpeople, households with low-income and other marginalized groupsexperience difficulties in securing access to the housing market.Moreover, too few dwellings and housing areas are accessible topersons with disabilities.

(Photo: Espen Grønli)

By Thorbjørn Hansen

In Report to the Storting No. 23 (2003-2004)on housing policy, the Norwegian Govern-ment states that housing issues will mainlybe dealt with by laying the framework for asmoothly functioning housing market. Butthe question remains: will this work? And towhat extent?

Housing market and housing conditions

The Norwegian housing market is stillstrongly influenced by the development thattook place after the end of the WWII (81 per cent of today’s housing stock wasbuilt after 1945), and especially by themajor development period extending from1955 to 1985. The ideals of this period havedetermined the type and manner of develop-ment, as well as the organisation of owner-ship and management, and the financingand distribution of housing. From the mid-eighties there was a period of considerableinvestments in renovation and renewal.

Development has been carried out by theprivate sector. Public initiatives in relation

to housebuilding were focused on acquiringand making accessible land for develop-ment, offering reasonable loans within thequota framework to everyone who wishedto build a home, and providing certaingroups with subsidies and support for hous-ing costs via the Norwegian State HousingBank. The building and distribution ofhousing, however, was relatively strictlyregulated, both through statutory provisionsand through the terms and conditions ofloans set by the Norwegian State HousingBank.

In the cities, the cooperative buildingassociations played a dominant role in devel-opment alongside a few large-scale contrac-tors and manufactures of pre-fabricatedhousing. The municipalities built little them-selves, concentrating instead on close tieswith the cooperative building associations. In the major towns, large housing estateswere established using the same patterns andmethods as Norway’s neighbouring countriesas well as many other Northern Europeancountries.

In smaller cities, towns and villages, thecommon practice for those in need of hous-ing was to have individual, single-family

60

Housing Policy Challenges in a Country with High HousingStandards and a Market-governed Housing SupplyThe average housing standard in Norway is high; it is better than in most othercountries and may well be the highest in Scandinavia. Nonetheless, certain issuesremain to be dealt with: there are still some households without access to comfortable,secure housing; energy consumption in the housing sector is far too high; and there aretoo few dwellings and housing areas that are accessible to disabled persons.

Thorbjørn Hansen is an architectand researcher working at theNorwegian Building ResearchInstitute in Oslo. He has spent manyyears working on housing policy ingeneral and especially on policymeasures directed towardsdisadvantaged groups.

housing built, often doing some of the con-struction work themselves. Later, this highdegree of personal participation was replacedby groups of professional developers.

Virtually no dwellings were built asrental housing other than as a separate flatin the basement of a detached house. Thiswould be rented out during periods when itwas suitable and necessary for the renter.Tenants usually comprised young peopleworking their way up to becoming first-timebuyers or builders of their own homes, andto some degree elderly people who were nolonger able or willing to own their ownhomes.

The effects of this post-war developmentare clearly manifested in present-day statis-tics over the composition of the housingstock, the types of buildings, land areas andliving space and ownership forms.

Norway has a large number of detachedhouses, a majority of which are of “normal”size and standard, although some are quitelarge and well-appointed. Norway hasbecome a country of owner-occupiers. Only25 per cent of the housing units are rented,for the most part for shorter periods byindividuals pursuing educations or moving.Professional rental of temporary housing isnot particularly widespread, and is limitedto the larger urban areas. Nor are theremany dwellings organised within a publicor non-commercial sector. Public housingrentals comprise only four per cent of alldwellings.

Restructuring and enhancing marketadaptation

The relatively strict regulation of housingconstruction and the housing market thatcharacterised the post-war development wasnot eased until the first half of the 1980s,which was also when the financial marketwas deregulated. Of particular importancewas the elimination of price regulations forsale of flats in housing cooperatives as wellas for sale of plots. Since the middle of the1980s there has been little regulation of theNorwegian housing market, and it is proba-bly one of the least regulated markets inEurope.

One of the ramifications of the deregula-tion was a much larger fluctuation in house

prices. Prices increased considerably duringthe 1980s, reached a peak in 1988, afterwhich they declined significantly until1992–93. Since 1996, house prices haveagain risen strongly, at a much higher ratethan the overall price index. However, thishas varied greatly between different parts ofthe country as well as between differentmarket segments.

Since the 1980s, subsidies in the housingsector have become more restricted and areincreasingly targeted towards those with thegreatest difficulty in gaining access to thehousing market. The tax advantage of owner-ship has also been curtailed somewhat,although it remains significant. The largerand more valuable the property, the more thisadvantage increases.

Public housing policy has become moreclosely linked to social policy, and was a keycomponent of several major social reformsand initiatives during the 1990s. One reasonfor this is that the reforms have focused on


Figure 1. Dwellings in Norway byplace and type of building.(Source: Statistics Norway,Population and Housing Census2001). Norway is a ”single familyhome” country. More than half ofall dwellings are detached homes.Even in relatively large urbanareas, detached dwellings are thedominant type of housing. Oslo isthe only place in the country inwhich multi-dwelling buildings arethe most prominent building form.

Figure 2. Norwegian dwellings bytype of building and tenure status.Absolute figures. (Source:Statistics Norway, Population andHousing Census 2001). Norway isan ”ownership” country. A total of97 per cent of the population ownsthe dwelling in which it resides,either in private or as part of acooperative group.

reducing the number of inhabitants in insti-tutions to enable the largest possible part of the population to live at home and havetheir needs covered by home-based services.”

The challenges

The Norwegian system has enabled a vastmajority of the population to enjoy good,secure living conditions. It has also served toadequately maintain the housing stock whilerequiring only small public transfers. Thecountry’s dynamic economy, relatively lowunemployment and plethora of welfareschemes clearly comprise the framework thatmakes it possible for the system to function.Another crucial element is the high prioritygiven to housing consumption by Norwegianhouseholds, the members of which invest agreat deal of effort in maintaining andenhancing their homes.

The system favours those who are able tomanage their affairs well. Becoming a youngowner-occupier and being in a position tofulfil the resulting financial obligations yieldshigh returns, at the same time providing com-fortable living conditions. Housing representsthe most important investment for Norwegianhouseholds. Purchasing a good home oftennecessitates two incomes. Getting married

early – and preferably staying married – con-fers great advantages in the Norwegian hous-ing system.

Although the majority appear to be able toadapt and thrive within this system, it cancause difficulty for those who either prefer adifferent lifestyle or who are not in posses-sion of the resources and personal qualities itrequires.

Housing for the young and disadvantaged

Although there are some young people whoexperience difficulties getting established,most of those who find it difficult to obtainhousing in Norway belong to groups suffer-ing from substance abuse and psychiatricproblems, groups with a weak position on thelabour market, and groups with minimal andvariable income and little capital. They livein and are dependent on rental housing. Con-tracts are usually short-term, which leads toinsecure housing provision. A 2003 censusshowed that there were approximately 5 000homeless people throughout Norway. It isalso difficult to persuade the municipalauthorities to find homes for refugees andasylum-seekers granted settlement permits bythe Norwegian authorities.

On an international scale, the numbers ofhomeless and households with inadequatehousing conditions are relatively small. Evenso, they represent a considerable challenge.Nevertheless, helping a small number ofhouseholds should not present a problem for awealthy country like Norway.

The municipal authorities are responsiblefor assisting those who are unable to copealone on the housing market. In formalterms, this responsibility is somewhat lim-ited. According to the Social Welfare Act,they are obligated to provide shelter at nightfor persons unable to provide this for them-selves, as well as ensuring that facilities existfor persons in need of specially adapteddwellings.

The central government has established avariety of schemes that can be utilised atmunicipal level. The Norwegian State Hous-ing Bank distributes this funding to the localauthorities. In addition, the municipalitieshave some rental housing available, providewelfare benefits for housing purposes, and in

62

0

50 000

100 000

150 000

200 000 Blocks of flats

Other small houses

Single family detached housing

200-249 m2140-159 m2100-119 m260-79 m240-49 m2<30 m2

Nu

mb

er o

f dw

ellin

gs

Utility floor space

Figure 3. Dwellings in Norway by type of building and utility floor space. Absolute figures. (Source: StatisticsNorway, Population and Housing Census 2001). Norwegian dwellings are spacious, with an average utility floorspace of 117 m2. The average utility floor space has risen steadily since 1950. The many large detached dwellingshave caused this average value to rise, and it has increased both per dwelling and per person in the detacheddwelling sector.

some cases offer supplemental schemes forhousing support. The local authorities mayalso lay down guidelines for what kinds ofbuildings are to be constructed and where,thus encouraging the development of moreaffordable and appropriate housing for mar-ginalised groups as well.

In practical terms, the municipalities havedemonstrated relatively little willingness toimplement an active, cohesive housing anddevelopment policy, particularly with regardto marginal groups within society.

Owning vs. renting – a greater publicrental sector?

A key issue here is the municipal rentalsector, although this is very limited. Roughlyhalf the available dwellings in this sector arereserved for the elderly and persons with dis-abilities. The other half comprises what isreferred to as social housing, and is intendedfor persons who for various reasons are out-side the scope of the private market. It is verydifficult to obtain access to these dwellings.In order to qualify, an individual must eitherbe a homeless person or be in imminentdanger of becoming one, with very lowincome and capital. Surveys of housing prob-lems for marginal groups indicate that moremunicipal rental housing is sorely needed.

A committee appointed to review Norwe-gian housing policy recently also recom-mended a larger non-commercial rentalsector. This has not yet been fully embracedby the local authorities, and would in any caserequire substantial government funding. Atpresent, this sector operates primarily withinhousing for students and young people.

The present Government argues thatincreased availability of municipal and non-commercial rental housing represents thewrong strategy. Instead, the Governmentmaintains that home purchase is the bestalternative, also for those who have a weakposition on the housing market. Rental hous-ing is a poverty trap, it is claimed. In Nor-way, it is ownership of one’s home thatforms the cornerstone of prosperity andsound living conditions. Thus the Govern-ment has chosen a strategy that creates aframework for a smoothly-functioning hous-ing market in which everyone will be capa-ble of buying his or her own home. In my

opinion, this is an illusion. The people whoare qualified for municipal housing today arenowhere near being able to purchase ahome, and most of them will not be readyfor many years. Moreover, the Government’sstrategy underestimates the risk of somepeople having problems in servicing a loan,and the ensuing need for rental housing asan alternative.

Initiatives are in place to help the weakestgroup, the homeless, but others groups areleft to grapple with the vagaries of an unpre-dictable and unkind market. The Norwegianrental market is not designed for permanenttenants. It is characterised by individualswho, for a short period and somewhat ran-domly, rent out an extra dwelling or, moreoften, a basement flat or bed-sit in their ownhome. This means that the renter chooses thetenant as a neighbour, and determines therent based on the same considerations. Bothaccess to temporary housing and the priceone must pay are thus dependent on one’sstanding as a tenant. It is virtually impossibleto obtain secure, long-term tenure, and con-sequently those seeking rentals are deniedstable living conditions.

Sustainable housing

A second major issue involves the number ofdwellings and housing areas based on theconcept of universal design, while a thirdconcerns the development of a more environ-


Figure 4. Dwellings in Norway by type of building and year ofconstruction. Absolute figures. (Source: Statistics Norway, Populationand Housing Census 2001). The present-day housing stock reflects thedevelopment after 1945. Detached dwellings have dominateddevelopment for the entire period, but several of the buildings definedtoday as detached dwellings were originally built as semi-detachedhouses with two dwellings. This applies especially to buildingsconstructed in the 1950s.

The Norwegian StateHousing BankThe Norwegian State Hous-ing Bank was established in1946. The task of rebuild-ing Finnmark played a keyrole in its inception, but theHousing Bank became –and continues today toserve as – the govern-ment’s main housing policyinstrument. The HousingBank granted loans for theconstruction of housing,including the purchase andpreparation of plots, as wellas various forms of subsi-dies and support for resi-dents. Mortgages aregranted to individuals andcompanies alike, private aswell as public. The size ofthe mortgages varied, butin general it did not exceed80 per cent of the costs.Lending terms were advan-tageous, with low interestrates and repayment ininstalments over a longperiod. Projects had to beapproved by the HousingBank, which laid downdetailed guidelines contain-ing both maximum andminimum requirementsregarding size and quality.Adjustments were madeover time, and the systemcame gradually to concen-trate its efforts on supportto individual, prioritisedresidents, in terms of loans,subsidies and ongoinghousing support. Mortgagesare still awarded, but theterms do not deviate muchfrom the regular marketterms.

mental and sustainable housing sector. Theseissues pose great challenges vis-à-vis theplanning and regulation of new constructionand renovation of housing and housingareas, as well as the need to introducechanges in living habits. The large stock ofsingle-family housing in Norway implies cer-tain advantages in terms of universal design.Many of these can be made accessible forpersons with disabilities relatively easily. Interms of sustainability, however, they arecatastrophically unsuccessful as a result oftheir size and shape as well as their dispersedlocations. More concentrated housing formsare more resource-friendly, but are often dif-ficult to adapt to the needs of persons withdisabilities.

A more sustainable housing sector meansthat each individual must consume lessspace, both in terms of land-area and floor-space. A longstanding trend of steadilyincreasing living space per person must bereversed. Other, alternative and less resource-intensive qualities must be promoted. Atpresent, no realistic strategy for achievingthis exists. The Government’s proposalregarding additional tax deductions for homeownership has the opposite effect. The pro-posal to allow the municipalities to introducea property tax may reduce the tax advan-tages, but all proposals to increase housingtaxation are met with massive resistanceamong the populace.

Private or public development?

As previously mentioned, Norway’s housingstock was built over a 30-year period startingin the mid-1950s.

One conclusion drawn from the post-wardevelopment is that new construction is stillimportant. New construction is often dispar-aged in certain contexts on the grounds that itonly comprises one per cent increase in thehousing stock. It is argued that new construc-tion is inefficient as an instrument for achiev-ing acute, short-term objectives. Buildingaffordable housing for those on the margins ofthe housing market today is by and large asymbolic act. New construction, however, isessential to what will be available in the hous-ing market in the longer term. At today’s rates,the changes will be somewhat less comprehen-sive than what took place after 1945; in thirtyyears’ time, however, one-third of the stockwill consist of housing built after 2000. In thelarger urban areas, this figure may be consid-erably higher. Both new development andlarge-scale renovation represent a great oppor-tunity as well as a considerable challenge.

Much of the post-war development was inaccordance with strict, centralised planning.Both the planning methodology and the resultshave been highly criticised, not least withregard to the large satellite towns. The policytoday is one of turning the housing-market

64

Figure 5. Houses constructedfrom type blueprints from theNorwegian State Housing Bank in1970. Living space 95 m2. Fourrooms and a kitchen.

completely over to private developers. Thequestion is whether this is likely to succeed ifone of the goals is to promote qualities likesustainability and Universal Design that do notcarry immediate appeal on the market? Howwill it be possible to safeguard these qualities?

Determining the qualities needed will

require very systematic, careful efforts tostudy alternative models, to produce propa-ganda in favour of such alternatives and todevise and launch economic incentives. Pri-vate investors are not to be trusted as drivingforces in this task; indeed, they should ratherbe seen as opponents.


Figure 6. Working together in thehousing cooperative. Oslo May,1981. (Source: De tusen hjem. A history of the Norwegian StateHousing Bank. 1946–1996, p. 375).

Cooperative building associations Cooperative building associations became widespread after 1945. Each cooperative association built housing for itsown members. The cooperative assumed the mortgage obligations from the Norwegian State Housing Bank and distri-buted this as part of the rent to be paid. Residents were partial owners of the housing properties, and had the right touse the dwelling for which they had paid a deposit. The deposits formed the capital that was needed in excess of thejoint mortgage. The right to a dwelling could be transferred to another member, who then also paid a deposit. It was notlegal to demand more in payment than the selling owner had paid, although there was some latitude for minor adjust-ments.

There was one cooperative building association in each municipality, and each of these entered into cooperation withits municipality. The cooperatives were given plots for a reasonable price or for long-term rental, and they were alsogranted affordable loans from the Norwegian State Housing Bank. The municipalities had the right to utilise a portion ofthe dwellings, normally 25 per cent, as housing for persons and households for whom the municipality was responsible.The model established in Oslo in 1936 was very successful, and played a major role in the creation of a large numberof affordable dwellings with modest but dependable standards in Norwegian urban areas.

By Ulla Hahn and Anne Marit Vagstein

This article looks at several residential con-cepts that the Norwegian State Housing Bankhas helped to develop for young people. Withtheir emphasis on small size, affordabilityand design innovation, these concepts canimprove the prospects of young people in thehousing market.

Types of housing sought by young people

The range of young people seeking housingvaries widely, from upper secondary schoolstudents to men and women well over 30.Many are not looking for a permanent placeto live, and are likely to occupy a string oftemporary dwellings. As a result of today’sgreater variety of lifestyles, evolving rela-tionship patterns and increased mobility,young people are in need of a variety of dif-ferent solutions on the housing market.

Young people looking for work or educa-tion are often drawn to cities and suburbanareas. Big cities offer the greatest choice inhousing – as well as the highest prices. Thenumber of young people moving to thesmaller cities and towns is also on the rise,but the availability of rental properties andinexpensive starter homes in such places isoften low.

When the occupants are young and likelyto move on after a short period, what quali-ties do they need in a place to live? Whicharchitectural configurations and styles appealto them? Can a one-room flat, for example,meet the needs of today’s single person? Orhas this solution gained sway as a result ofthe current market situation?

Small-scale housing requires carefulplanning

A conventional one-room or studio flat is asuitable solution when the rental period islimited – provided the unit is laid out in away that feels spacious. A small living areamay be made quite functional and flexible ifit is divided into well-integrated, practicalzones for sleeping, food preparation and per-sonal hygiene. High ceilings, large windowsand windows situated to allow light in fromdifferent sides can provide a sense of expan-siveness even when floor space is relativelylimited. Some complexes designed for youngpeople feature corner windows or windowsextending all the way up to the ceiling,which clearly serve to give rooms the appear-ance of being larger and less confined thanthe surface area would indicate. When livingin small quarters, it is also important to beable to store clothes and other possessions

66

Ulla Hahn and Anne Marit Vagsteinare both architects who work at theNorwegian State Housing Bank.

Housing for YoungPeople – New Concepts and Perspectives

Young people seeking housing represent a complex group withwidely differing life situations. Although there is broad agreementthat it is difficult for this group to break into the housing market,planners and builders remain surprisingly conventional in theirapproach to providing suitable housing.

out of sight. A good closet and an external,weather-proof storage area are basic necessi-ties. In a one-room flat, every detail matters,so thorough planning is called for.

The external environment

Internal room layout and the relationship tothe immediate surroundings are equallyimportant in residential planning. Togetherthey determine the overall quality of a resi-dence. For young people in particular, theability to meet and maintain social contactwith others is a major consideration. In eval-uating any proposed housing project, theState Housing Bank looks closely at how itfits into the surrounding area. When projectsare assessed with a view to the existing socialand physical environment, they are less likelyto result in homogenous blocks of minimum-standard housing. A functional and pleasingexternal area can sometimes justify a some-what simpler interior design.

The Norwegian State Housing Bankpromotes new concepts

Conventionality is a surprisingly strong forcein the housing market. Dynamic unconven-tionality in terms of physical solutionsshould be seen as a positive quality in itself,because it opens unexpected vistas for futuredevelopment. Assigning multiple uses to thesame space, for instance, can create a com-pact living environment that can enhance theattractiveness of an entire area.

Economic assistance such as start-uploans and rental allowances are designed tohelp young people enter the housing market.1

But in addition to financial schemes, it is alsonecessary to incorporate new concepts forhousing for young people into municipalplanning and local housing projects. Some ofthe different methods used to initiate newthinking follow below.

Nedre Ullevål housing collective in Oslo

If reasonably priced rental housing is thetarget, ways must be found to reduce con-struction time and cost. Through its “YoungLiving” programme,2 the municipality of Oslo

has supported – usually through buildingrenovations – many housing collectives forthe youngest groups seeking housing. Theproject at Nedre Ullevål was unique in that itinvolved an architectural competition andnew construction. The commission went tothe architectural firm of Askim og LanttoMNAL/AS because of its creative proposal touse modular building elements. The plancalled for prefabricating entire sections ofbuilding and mounting them on a pouredconcrete base.

The property in question was a park-likeenclosure with large, old trees. Three three-storey buildings were to be grouped there,each housing a collective of six or sevenpeople. To some people, modular construc-tion may seem at odds with the ideals ofvariation, quality of life and sensitivity tosurroundings. But in this case the architectsmade an art of modularity.

The ground floor of each building iscommon area, with an all-purpose room ori-ented toward the other buildings. While thecommon areas are neutral in character, thelighting, colour schemes and materials givethe interiors a youthful, robust but simultane-


Nedre Ullevål housing collectivein Oslo. The ground-floor space isshared by five people, whosebedrooms are all located on thesecond floor. (Photo: EspenGrønli)

ously homey feel. The large kitchen counterand dining table are made of durable, easy-to-clean materials.

The ground-floor space is shared by fivepeople, whose bedrooms are all located onthe second floor. At 11 m2 each, the bed-rooms are small, but they have large win-dows that exaggerate the sense of space andprovide outdoor contact. The five residentsshare two bathrooms on the second floor. Thetop floor contains a self-sufficient two-roomflat big enough for a couple or a singleparent with child.

The three buildings comprise an architec-tural “family” in dialogue with each otherand their environment. Each building’s pro-truding volumes, withdrawn balconies andoverall sense of verticality produce adynamism that is rarely seen in inexpensivehousing projects. The Nedre Ullevål collectiveproves that there is no reason for inexpensiveresidential structures to be of low quality.

The Nesodden housing complex

In an area of established multiplex homes onthe peninsula of Nesodden, half an hour byboat from Oslo, a structure containing 12flats for young people was built in 2003. Theproject’s interesting shape and its relationship

to the landscape combine to make it a primeexample of how the Norwegian State Hous-ing Bank’s fixed-price competitions can stim-ulate innovation in both architecture andlifestyle.3 The architecture firm behind thewinning proposal was Code arkitektur AS.

Introducing housing for young people intoan established residential zone was a chal-lenge. The lot was an open area abutting anattractive wood, to which the neighbourswere accustomed to easy access. How best tomaintain that access was an underlying partof the competition.

The winning project extends the volumeof the neighbouring houses along a roofedgallery with adjacent storage rooms corre-sponding to a bend in the road. A passage-way under the structure maintains the pre-existing path to the nature area, while theuse of vertical panelling evokes the neigh-bouring buildings. But this is a radical addi-tion to the neighbourhood. The building’sinterior floor plan and functions are exposedin the external forms. The airy gallery createsa semi-private exterior space on the streetside, while a protected terrace on the roof ofthe storage units gives the residents an out-door meeting place.

The residential units, totalling 43 m2 each,are well organised. All have an enclosedentrance hall, a large, well-lit living room, a

68

The Nesodden housing complexextends the volume of the neighbouringhouses along a roofed gallery withadjacent storage rooms. The airygallery creates a semi-private exteriorspace on the street side, while aprotected terrace on the roof of thestorage units gives the residents anoutdoor meeting place. (Photo: Codearkitektur as)

small bedroom and a bathroom. Largewindow panes, west-facing French balconiesand sliding doors into the sleeping areacreate a sense of spaciousness. Windowplacement is varied from unit to unit, so eachresident has a unique flat receiving a differ-ent sort of light.

This residential concept is inherently flex-ible. Two flats can be joined into a singlefour-room unit by making an openingbetween adjacent hallways. Two of the flatsare designed to accommodate disabled per-sons. Thus, the building will be able to satisfymany different needs over time.

Workshop about youth residences inHokksund

In the small city of Hokksund in BuskerudCounty, about an hour’s drive west of Oslo,brainstorming workshops were applied. Lastfall, officials set in motion a cooperativeprocess to create high-quality housing foryoung people. Municipal representatives,architects and young residents all took partin a workshop on planning and sustainablebuilding focused on three potential buildinglots. Participants evaluated new buildings aswell as the possibility of converting nearbyshops and offices for residential use.

The Norwegian State Housing Bank seeksto support local authorities in visionary orunorthodox housing pursuits, for example byhelping to organise workshop sessions anddraw upon relevant expertise4.

Future prospects

The Housing Bank’s role in housing policyhas evolved from provision of technical andeconomic support to serving more as a guideand cooperative partner in the developmentof various projects.

Planning and development officials inOslo, for example, have taken the initiative tosolve problems associated with rising pricesand shrinking living areas. In conjunctionwith other municipal agencies and the Nor-wegian State Housing Bank, they havelaunched a project called “Living well in thecity,” which they hope will help to identifyfundamental qualities of good living spaceand how these can be safeguarded. By raisingawareness of what makes a good place tolive, such cooperative projects can help pre-vent the emergence of one-dimensionalliving patterns that serve no one – least of allyoung people who are “only” passingthrough.


Notes:1 Rental allowances, or bostøtte, aregiven to low-income households; theyare administered by the NorwegianState Housing Bank and themunicipalities. The housing bank andprivate banks cooperate on providingstart-up loans, which are designedspecially for first-time homebuyers. 2 Young Living, or Ungbo, is Oslo’sofficial housing programme for peoplebetween 17 and 23 years of age.Inexpensive and safe temporaryhousing units are available to all whohave lived in Oslo for the past twoyears, lack a suitable dwelling and arelegal residents of Norway.3 These fixed-price competitionschallenge participants to design thehighest-quality residences for a pre-defined price. Results show that thefocus on quality leads to moreinnovative ways of cutting costs.4 The Housing Bank’s mandate tostrengthen housing quality enables itto undertake activities that thehousing market would not initiate onits own. Improved living conditions,accessibility and sustainable use ofresources are its main concerns, withmunicipalities its main target group.

By Gunnar Sveri

In 1997 the Norwegian Building ResearchInstitute conducted a census of homelesspeople in Norway. The total number ofhomeless was put at 6 200. A new census isunder way and will be published in 2004.There is considerable interest in how the situ-ation has developed since 1997.

The 1997 results showed that Norway as awhole had 1.4 homeless people per 1 000inhabitants, but the variation from munici-pality to municipality was significant. Somemunicipalities reported no homelessness atall, while Oslo had an estimated 5.22 home-less people per 1 000 inhabitants. In terms ofaverages, the results were as follows:

Municipalities of more than 40 000 inhabitants: 3.1 per 1 000Municipalities with 10 000-39 000 inhabitants: 0.63 per 1 000Municipalities with fewer than 10 000 inhabitants: 0.36 per 1 000

Statistics regarding the homeless

Of the total homeless surveyed, 76 per centwere men and 24 per cent women. A largemajority of the homeless were under 40 yearsof age. Almost 90 per cent were under 50.The proportion of homeless women wasgreatest for the youngest age group, whichmay indicate that the number of homelesswomen is on the rise.

Eighty-two per cent of Norway’s homelesswere born in this country. Four per cent werefrom the rest of Europe and North America,while 13 per cent were described as repre-senting non-Western cultures.

At the time of the survey, 37 per cent ofthe homeless were staying in treatment cen-tres, prisons, jails or related forms of tempo-rary shelter. Twenty-five per cent were stay-ing temporarily with acquaintances. Nine percent found different places to sleep fromnight to night. Nineteen per cent stayed inhospices or camp-site cabins. Five per centwere on the streets. The means of shelter forthe remaining five per cent were not given.

According to the survey, 61 per cent ofthose without a permanent home had a prob-lem with drugs or alcohol, while 24 per centsuffered from mental illness. Nine per centdid not suffer from mental problems, werenot substance abusers and had not been in atreatment institution. Of these, 55 per centwere born in a non-Nordic country. Severalother surveys have shown that some immi-grants experience homelessness for a periodafter arriving in Norway.

Project Homeless

Report No. 50 (1998–99) to the Storting(Norway’s national assembly) on equitabledistribution cast light on the problems of thehomeless in Norway and proposed variousmeasures vis-à-vis this group. This led to“Project Homeless”, a collaborative effort by

70

Curbing Homelessnessin NorwayThe housing standard in Norway is uniformly high, and the numberof homeless people is low compared with most countries in theworld. Nonetheless, there is need for a strategic public effort tocombat and prevent homelessness.

Gunnar Sveri works at theNorwegian State Housing Bank. He is currently engaged in “Project Homeless”.

the Ministry of Social Affairs, the Ministry ofLocal Government and Regional Developmentand the Norwegian State Housing Bank.

Project Homeless was launched in 2001and will be concluded in 2004. The object hasbeen to develop methods and models forcountering homelessness. The project hasalready shown positive results, with formerlyhomeless people having established them-selves in flats or houses with follow-up resi-dential support.

The 1997 census over the homelessincluded an assessment of relevant housingand follow-up needs from which the follow-ing conclusions were drawn:

• One-third of the homeless will be able tolive successfully in a home of their own.

• One-third will need a home with profes-sional follow-up.

• One-third will need treatment or otherforms of comprehensive professionalsupport.

Initially, the project targeted homeless people inneed of professional follow-up care. Measureswere aimed at the weakest groups, who had noplace to stay and had been living beyond thereach of the ordinary public support mecha-nisms. The target group was later re-defined ashomeless people requiring assistance, but inpractice the test measures have been directed atthose with the fewest resources.

Where the neediest members of society areconcerned, homelessness can be portrayed aspart of a vicious circle in which the individ-ual is caught in a loop of unsatisfactoryliving arrangements with no follow-up, treat-ment institutions or incarceration, andoutright homelessness. One of the goals ofProject Homeless is to design national meth-ods and models to break this vicious circle.

Participants in the project

The Norwegian State Housing Bank isresponsible for the project and administers itfrom within its organisation. Nationally, acontact group has been set up with represen-tatives from the Ministry of Local Govern-ment and Regional Development, theMinistry of Social Affairs and the Directoratefor Health and Social Affairs.

Oslo, Bergen, Trondheim, Stavanger,

Kristiansand, Drammen and Tromsø all takepart in the project at the municipal level. Thesecities account for 25 per cent of the country’stotal population but 70 per cent of its home-less. Several non-governmental organisations(e.g. the Salvation Army and other church-related services) participate in measures in theproject cities. Each city has a local steeringcommittee with representatives from municipaladministration, health and social services,housing services and the regional offices of theNorwegian State Housing Bank.


The message on this old apart-ment house in central Oslo issimple: Everyone needs housing!(Photo: Torstein Ihle)

Altogether within Project Homeless, 30subprojects have been set up to serve 310residents. The dwellings used are for the mostpart normal flats, some of which are situatedtogether while others are located within ordi-nary residential districts. There are also somehousing collectives with shared living areas,including kitchens and bathrooms.

Special teams offer the professional sup-port needed. Most of them are based withinthe residences they serve, though some haveresponsibility for visiting additional sites.

In addition to helping administer theseefforts, the municipalities have drawn uptheir own strategies for combating homeless-ness. These encompass preventative measuresas well as models for enabling the homelessto establish a home.

Attitude toward the homeless

Project Homeless has led to greater acceptanceof the view that even homeless people suffer-ing from alcohol and drug problems or mentalillness are entitled to social services and aplace to live. The participating municipalitieshave been able to proceed on the sharedassumption that everyone, even those of thefringes of society, has a right to a home.

Raising the competence level

Project Homeless has also established a new,college-level educational programme com-bining housing and social services. The pro-gramme is open to health- and social-sectoremployees of participating municipalities aswell as members of non-governmentalorganisations and the Norwegian State Hous-ing Bank. Within Norway, this is a pioneer-ing educational programme, and the first 46students have recently completed theirexams.

Shorter training programmes are alsobeing developed to heighten housing-relatedexpertise among employees associated withthe project. In addition, course modules thatcombine housing and social-service topicsare being prepared for use in existingacademic programmes.

Collaboration with NGOs

A goal from the start has been to engagenon-governmental organisations in the proj-ect. A complication emerged with regard toNorway’s competitive-procurement rules forpublic bodies, but temporary dispensation

72

(Source: The Norwegian State Housing Bank)

was obtained to permit NGOs to providesocial and health services. Project administra-tors continue to address the issue throughcollaborative models.

Project results

The target group members associated withthe project are all contending with problemsin addition to homelessness, and some havenot had their own homes in a long time. So ifthe purpose of the project was to ensureproblem-free implementation of all measures,the administrators should probably havechosen a different target group.

Nonetheless, most of the people served bythe project have remained in their new livingquarters. Experience in the final year of theproject suggests strongly that a home com-bined with systematic professional supportimproves the quality of life for previouslyhomeless people.

Neighbours often mount protests whenplans are announced to house homelesspeople nearby. However, once the new resi-dents move in, the complaints generally diedown. People who were previously homelesscause no more trouble to their neighboursthan do other aspects of neighbourhood life.

Regular, private flats with a living room,kitchen and bath/WC function significantlybetter than residential collectives with sharedfacilities. Likewise, when multiple flats forthe homeless are situated together, the occu-

pants should be allowed to choose the degreeto which they wish to socialise with oneanother.

The expertise of professional follow-upworkers is important to achieving success, asis a consistent approach from one worker tothe next. So, too, is the composition of newhouseholds. If several high-strung people livetogether, their overall affect as a group canbe more aggressive.

Strategy against homelessness,2005–2007

In a recent white paper on housing policy(Report No. 23, 2003–2004), the Governmentproposes a strategy for combating homeless-ness in the period 2005 to 2007. The Govern-ment’s goal is ambitious, and will require amajor effort from state, municipal and non-governmental agencies. The white paper willbe debated by the Storting in the autumn of2004. The proposed strategy builds upon Pro-ject Homeless, and recommends the Norwe-gian State Housing Bank as the state institu-tion assigned to coordinate Norway’scontinuing effort to help the homeless.

The white paper takes inspiration from avision of “good, safe housing for all.” Themission it lays out is “to provide housing inthe market for people of difficult circum-stances.” The following general goals andperformance targets are proposed:


General goals Performance targets

Help prevent people from Number of eviction petitions to be reduced becoming homeless. by 50 per cent, and evictions by 30 per cent.

No one shall have to seek temporary housing upon release from jail or prison.

No one shall have to seek temporary housing after release from a treatment institution.

Contribute to good quality in No one shall be offered overnight shelterovernight shelters. that does not meet agreed quality standards.

Help ensure homeless people rapid offers No one shall stay more than three months of permanent housing. in temporary housing.

By Einar Lund

Policy in relation to people withdisabilities

Until well after the WWII, the lives of mostNorwegians with disabilities were charac-terised by some degree of material and socialpoverty. For the most part, initiatives to help

the disabled were couched in a help-oriented,social-policy perspective.

However, after 1970, government policybecame increasingly based on equality andhuman rights-based perspectives. Increasingattention has been focused on disabling fac-tors, i.e. the discrepancy between the abilityof the individual and the demands of societywith regard to those functional abilities thatare vital in order to establish and maintainindependence and a social life. Accessibilityto buildings was stipulated as a requirementin the Building Act of 1976, and in 1985 theNorwegian State Housing Bank introduced alife-span perspective into its loan financingschemes.

Estimates today indicate that 15–20 percent of the Norwegian population can bedefined as permanently disabled in one ofthree main categories: the mobility impaired,the orientation impaired (sight, hearing, etc.)and the environmentally impaired (asthma,allergies, etc.). Moreover, 70 per cent of thepopulation will experience some form offunctional impairment during the course oftheir lives. Everyone, from an increasing el-derly population to families with childrenand other population groups will benefit intheir own way from good solutions regardingaccessibility to services, enhanced readability,and easily negotiable physical surroundings.

74

Planning Based onUniversal DesignThe concept of universal design refers to the design of buildings,physical surroundings and products in such a way that they can beused by all people, to as great an extent as possible, without theneed for adaptation and special design. Although certain limitationswill always exist in relation to technology and expertise, buildingsand outdoor areas that are open to public use shall be designed tobe accessible to all. Municipal planning must be inclusive.

Einar Lund is an architect andadviser in the Department ofRegional Planning at the Ministry ofthe Environment. He is the projectcoordinator for the ministry’sProgramme of Action for UniversalDesign.

Universal design solution: Single-level mixer tap.(Photo: Svein Magne Fredriksen)

Community planning and userparticipation

The Ministry of the Environment has activelysought to promote greater understanding ofthe role of persons with disabilities in plan-ning processes, as well as of the role of theplanning sector in dismantling disabling bar-riers. Among other things, training activitieshave been implemented to facilitate the inte-gration of user participation perspectives fordisabled persons into local developmentplanning processes

In a circular addressed to the planningauthorities at municipal and regional level,the Ministry of the Environment describeshow the municipal master plan, as a wholeand in terms of its parts and appurtenantprovisions, can be constructively utilised toenhance accessibility. The regional authori-ties can cite this circular when raising objec-tions to a municipal plan that they feel doesnot satisfy accessibility requirements. Thematter will then be submitted to the ministryfor resolution.

An evaluation of the various initiativeslaunched to enhance participation revealedthat disabled people as a group continue todisplay a low degree of user participation incommunity planning, but that there has beenimprovement. The establishment of local councils for persons with disabilities isimportant in this context. Close to 60 percent of all municipalities have now estab-lished such councils, and the councils haveincreased their focus on planning tasks as aresult of information or direct training activi-

ties initiated by the Ministry of the Environ-ment. In 2004, the Storting asked the Gov-ernment to approve a bill making it a statu-tory requirement for all municipalities toestablish a local council for persons with dis-abilities. The evaluation also showed thatmore than 50 per cent of the municipalitieshad formulated objectives promoting theinterests of persons with disabilities in thebroad community planning aspects of themunicipal master plan, and there were indi-cations that this percentage was steadilyrising.

New planning legislation

The relationship to various interest groupsand principles of user participation were dis-cussed in an official committee that submit-ted recommendations for amendments to thePlanning and Building Act in 2003. TheCommittee establishes that the design ofphysical surroundings has a significantimpact on the life quality of persons withdisabilities. Accessibility and mobility areaffected not only by details to specificallyaccommodate the needs of disabled people,but also by decisions pertaining to land use,location and local pollution. According to theCommittee, accessibility is more about equal-ity within a human rights and anti-discrimi-nation perspective than about administrativeand economic concerns. The Committeestates that the municipal master plan is a keyinstrument in efforts to achieve nationalobjectives relating to full participation andequality, and goes on to point out that this


There is no such thing as anaverage person. The ideal man isoversimplified as a basis forplanning. (Illustration: TrondBredesen, Illustratørene)

implies equal rights to housing and employ-ment and the opportunity for all to lead anactive life as a full member of society. Thecommittee’s recommendation proposes tostrengthen the rules for planning processesand user participation, and specificallycharges the municipalities with responsibility

for ensuring the active participation ofgroups with special needs.

Universal design – a strategy and a wayof thinking

The Programme of Action for UniversalDesign was launched in 2002, and builds fur-ther on the principles and instruments fromthe Community Planning and User Participa-tion Programme. The purpose of the pro-gramme is to foster greater understanding ofthe principles of universal design at differentlevels of the government administration aswell as in various sectors. It is essential thatthe planning authorities also utilise this as anopportunity to invite as well as urge the sec-tors to take part in municipal and county-municipal planning.

It is a government objective that the prin-

76

Temporary rib-mesh ramp. Anunaesthetic building tradition. Otherarchitectural or terrain-basedmeasures could have provided abetter, permanent solution. Goodplanning from the outset would haveminimised the need for several stepsup to the entrance. (Photo: Einar Lund)

Snowy winter – dry or slippery. A pedestrian avenue that is possible to negotiate winter and summer alike for many different types of pedestrians. An environment-friendly snow-melting system (surplus heat), pavementwith traffic zones, while retaining the pleasant aspects of a winter climate. The somewhat less aesthetic impression given by the signs and advertisements on buildings and pavementsindicate the challenge inherent in creating a unified whole through planning, approval procedures and maintenance administration. (Photo: Svein Magne Fredriksen)

ciple of universal design shall form the basisof development and procurement activities.This principle shall be incorporated into allactivities relating to the ordering and pur-chase of goods and services. This implies thatconsiderations pertaining to all user groupsmust be integrated into solutions in so far asthis is technically and practically possible.Although existing conditions, technology andexpertise will pose certain limitations, build-ings and outdoor areas that are open topublic use must be designed to be accessibleto all. This objective will be realised with thehelp of the dissemination of information,competence building, research activities anddevelopment efforts.

With regard to urban development, impor-

tance is attached to accessibility as part ofthe objective to achieve adequate living con-ditions in relation to good city spaces andgreen areas, good health and investment infunctional public transport systems. A specialprogramme under the National TransportPlan has been launched to improve accessi-bility along the entire travel chain from hometo work to recreation.

Universal design strategy has become apolitical priority, and will comprise a keyarea in the years to come. There is greatpotential here for enhancing creativity andexpertise within the planning sector as wellas for all parties whose activities are some-how related to the planning process. It is atthe local level that we see the results.


“Green” street in Trysil. Goodchoice of materials, clear trafficzones and use of contrastingcolours. (Photo: Svein MagneFredriksen)

New Public-PrivatePartnerships

Starting in the late 1970s, the balance between planning and themarket in Norway has shifted towards the latter. A portion of theGovernment’s authority – both at the central and the local level – hasbeen decentralised to quasi governmental institutions or to the market.Furthermore, new forms of public management and complex public-private partnerships, characterised by the participation of manyautonomous agents, have been introduced in an increasing number of sectors.

(Photo: Scanpix)

By Erik Plahte

The vast potential of transformation

In recent years, Norway has experienced arising demand for housing located in centralurban areas. Much of this housing is beingbuilt in urban transformation areas, forinstance in former industrial and harbourareas. In Stavanger, Norway’s “oil capital”,the development potential of such areas isestimated to be 2 million m2 (15 000dwellings and 15 000 offices), which isenough to cover more than 40 years of devel-opment in relation to expected marketdemand. The development potential of urbantransformation areas is substantial in otherlarger urban centres in Norway as well,including the capital city of Oslo. Unlike pre-vious trends, which have stimulated urbansprawl, these new market trends are servingto reinforce both national and municipalpolicies for environment-friendly urbandevelopment.

Private property owners and developers

have demonstrated considerable interest inurban transformation. Many urban munici-palities are finding it a great challenge to laythe framework for and process extensive pri-vate development initiatives. Changes inmarket preferences as well as in the valueratio between housing and commercial landgive rise to a need for changes in planning.Harbour areas that were designated for com-mercial purposes in recently approved landuse plans are now desirable for housing. Theuse of waterfront areas in urban centres isthus subject to rapid change, and there issome question as to what the long-term ram-ifications of this will be for the urban munic-ipalities. The landowners – whose ownershipand rights are often legally complex – anddevelopers are seeking flexible plans, effi-cient planning processes and realistic per-spectives for implementation. As planningauthorities, the municipalities must workboth to meet these needs and to safeguardconsiderations relating to urban develop-ment, public interests, municipal financesand state interests.

Within this multifaceted scenario, Norway

80

Urban Transformation – An Arena for Partnership and NewModels of Cooperation

Urban transformation is part of Norway’s strategy for sustainable urban development.A different, more effective use of poorly utilised or “grey” areas in urban centres cangenerate more close-knit, varied and environmentally friendly cities and towns. Thebenefits include reduced urban sprawl, improved and more environment-friendlytransport and energy use, and urban growth that enhances innovation and culturalexchange. The planning and execution of urban transformation processes iscomplicated, and is dependent on close cooperation between private actors and thepublic authorities. In Norway, urban transformation is one of the most important arenasfor developing new models for “partnerships” between the public and private sectors.

Erik Plahte is educated as a landconsolidation officer, and works for the consultancy firm of AsplanViak AS. He is the coordinator of a national project on urbantransformation.

Urban Sjøfront in Stavanger is acomplex urban transformationproject along the city’s water-front. The municipality ofStavanger cooperates with localdevelopers and the businesscommunity in the redevelopmentof the former harbour and indus-trial district. (Illustration: Helen &Hard AS)

has devised and gained experience in work-ing with new planning and partnershipmodels. These models are based on municipalactors who establish a suitable framework forurban transformation processes, with primar-ily private actors carrying out their planningand implementation. A close dialogue withthe commercial sector has been established atan early stage, aimed at achieving a commonunderstanding of the needs and potential ofurban centres, and at negotiating solutions asto how to implement and finance urbantransformation.

Financial realism necessitates newplanning models

Financing is one of the main problems inrelation to implementation of high-qualityurban transformation. Norwegian urbanmunicipalities have an overall weak eco-nomic situation, and growth through popula-tion increase generally costs more than theincome generated through tax revenues andfinancial transfers from the state. Govern-ment allocations for national highways andexpansion of public transport networks are acritical factor for many transformation areas.Frequently, allocations are insufficient to sat-isfy the fundamental needs of urban transfor-mation projects. Private landowners anddevelopers are thus forced to contributefinancially to the establishment of commongoods and necessary infrastructure if devel-opment projects are to take place at all. Pri-vate financing may be needed in connection

with green structures, major road networks,public transport stations/stops, pedestrianwalkways and bicycle paths, water andsewage networks, and in some cases contri-butions to schools and day-care institutionsas well as housing for disadvantaged groups.

Norway has no legislation to ensure thatcosts for common goods will be covered inlarge-scale development projects. Localdevelopment plans may be submitted as pri-vate proposals, and private developers areresponsible for undertaking and funding theplanning activities. These plans are based onspecific, private projects. Planning for urbantransformation projects is thus closely linkedto negotiations and the application of civillaw agreements, for instance developmentcontracts. The urban municipalities’ mostimportant negotiating cards are its authorityto approve a local development plan, itsadministrative authority in connection withthe stipulated infrastructure requirements(requirements regarding infrastructure thatmust be established before development canbegin) in approved plans, and as thelandowner of municipal property. The Nor-wegian planning and partnership models forurban transformation projects must beviewed in this context.

Shared understanding of long-termfeasibility and challenges of urbantransformation

Privately-initiated urban transformationoften takes place by means of specific project


proposals or project concepts. These propos-als will vary in the degree to which they canbe transformed into constructive, easilyimplemented solutions for urban develop-ment. To enhance the initial dialogue withthe commercial sector, several urban munici-palities have introduced underlying processesto generate a shared understanding of thechallenges, feasibility of and desired directionfor urban development and transformation.Important actors include landowners andindustry, other public authorities and thegeneral public. Common to these processes isthat the urban municipality takes the initia-tive in cooperation with landowners, devel-opers and other representatives of the com-mercial sector, and that the public at largeand other participants are incorporatedthrough open debate.

Tools used in these processes include thedesign of future scenarios, project competi-tions, area analyses, planning workshopswith broad-based participation and wide-ranging urban development conferences.These processes comprise an integral part ofurban municipal efforts to devise underlyingstrategies for urban transformation.

Parallel planning and negotiationprocesses

Transformation areas differ widely withregard to ownership status and user interests.Conditions relating to ownership and rightsare often especially complicated where suchareas are concerned. Larger-scale, olderindustrial areas may be somewhat simpler todeal with, as there may be fewer owners.However, the need to view planning, financ-ing and implementation in an overall per-spective applies equally to all transformationareas, regardless of how complex the individ-ual ownership situation may be.

Thus, various forms of public-private part-nership have been devised for urban transfor-mation activities. These include civil law-based negotiating processes for how toresolve financial challenges. In practicalterms, this is done by conducting publicplanning processes under the provisions ofthe Planning and Building Act while con-ducting civil law-based negotiation and con-tracting processes either at the same time orwith some overlap.

The negotiations encompass both publicand private parties. When conducting parallelplanning and contracting processes, it can bedifficult to ensure that the public sector hasthe influence to which it is entitled in accor-dance with the Planning and Building Act.Openness, information and a genuine abilityto influence outcomes all comprise importanttools in this context. Many urban municipali-ties have achieved success with such parallelplanning and contract negotiations byemploying organisational solutions that fea-ture a clear division of responsibility betweenplanning and contract processes.

Flexible, legally-binding plans

Urban transformation in a changing marketmakes it imperative to have legally-bindingplans that clarify key frameworks, but thatalso provide the flexibility needed for imple-mentation. On the one hand, the plans mustestablish necessary guidelines for buildingheights and plot utilisation, road systems andparking, urban spaces and green structures.On the other, a certain degree of flexibility isneeded, for example in relation to the distri-

82

Strandkanten in the northern cityof Tromsø is an important ele-ment in the municipal develop-ment plans. The goal is a trans-formation of this centralwaterfront area from mainlyindustrial use into a new residen-tial neighbourhood. (Illustration:Strandkanten AS)

bution between building for housing andcommercial use, which will in turn haveimplications for other needs such as parking,urban spaces and outdoor areas.

In Norway, the most relevant plans com-prise the municipal sub-plans and the localdevelopment plan. A number of urbanmunicipalities also use planning programmesthat are not legally binding or defined in thePlanning and Building Act. The formal regu-lation of these takes place via planningrequirements (requirements relating to localdevelopment plans or building developmentplans) laid down in the land-use portion ofthe municipal master plan. The planning pro-grammes have proven to be effective toolsfor the subsequent planning and implementa-tion processes.

Amending approved land-use plans isoften a time-consuming task. Experience fromvarious transformation projects indicates thatflexible, legally-binding plans facilitate effi-cient implementation without this in any wayimpacting on quality. The plans must definemain structures and provide guidelines forimplementation of infrastructure measureslaid down in the plan’s stipulated infrastruc-ture requirement provisions. Implementationagreements are often based on the require-ments established in such provisions.

Organisation in transformation areas withmany landowners and users

Transformation areas with more complexownership and rights structures are difficultto develop without a cohesive overall plan, orwithout some manner of organising ownersand rightsholders. Established tenants, suchas companies that do not advocate changes,may also complicate the situation. In practise,a few owners can put a halt to transforma-tion processes. Generally speaking, Norwe-gian municipalities are relatively unwilling touse coercive measures such as expropriationto realise such processes.

Various instruments have been elaboratedto achieve better organisation of owners andrightsholders. In areas where this has beenmost successful, the path taken has oftenentailed the establishment of limited compa-nies or other forms of contractual coopera-tion, partly based on the willingness ofowners. Generating constructive cooperation

between owners and users is one of thegreatest challenges in urban transformationareas. The urban municipalities often play acrucial role in initiating cooperation andorganisation in the private sphere.

Coordinating state interests

The state plays a significant role in urbantransformation through central sector inter-ests that have the right to raise objections toplans, through government infrastructurepolicy, through localisation of governmentbuildings and through management ofgovernment land. If the plans conform tonational policy, it is presumed that stateactivities will support the urban munici-pality’s strategies for urban development.However, the state’s interests are safe-guarded through many different institutionsand administrative units, each with varyingdegrees of insight into urban developmentissues. The urban municipalities haverequested better coordination of stateinterests, and government organisationshave been included as part of the public-private partnership in many transformationareas.

Conclusion

In Norway, planning of urban transformationis governed by the need to find solutions thatenhance urban qualities and at the same timeremain financially feasible. New and closerforms of cooperation have emerged betweenthe urban municipalities and the commercialsector in response to the call for financialrealism, the many and conflicting considera-tions that must be taken into account, andthe wide-ranging participation of privateactors in planning and implementation activ-ities. There is every reason to believe that thistrend towards partnership will continue. The urban municipalities have a key role toplay in these processes, as both the com-mercial sector and the public at large will bein need of expertise and follow-up. Theability to create an efficient framework forurban transformation will comprise anessential component of each urbanmunicipality’s competitiveness in the years to come.


By Knut Halvorsen

Geographical and historical context

The Akerselva River Basin is the functionalpart of the Akerselva River. It stretches 10 kmfrom the north of Oslo and Lake Maridals-vannet, running through the centre of Oslo andinto the Oslo Fjord to the south. In modern his-tory, the area had its peak as a centre of manu-facture in the 1960s. Then it began to decline,driven both by the attempt of national indus-trial and regional policy to hamper growth inOslo, and by changes in the global marketeconomy. The past twenty years have seenstrong growth in new areas, such as the ICTand media industries, which have risen fromthe “ashes” of earlier industrial revolutions.

The Akerselva Environmental ParkProject

As in many other places, the balance betweenplanning and the market in Norway began to

shift towards deregulation in the late 1970s.Since that time, new forms of public manage-ment and market forces were introduced inan increasing number of sectors. By the mid-1980s the Oslo city renewal project hadground to a halt, due to financial problems aswell as a general lack of political support forlarge-scale planning projects. The industrialtransformation described above and theensuing transition towards a burgeoningservice sector were rapidly taking place, andmany were concerned that traditional factorybuildings and the most important monumentsof the industrial revolution in Norway wouldvanish and be replaced by glass and steel“yuppie” buildings housing lawyers, consul-tants and PR personnel.

By the mid-1980s, the environmentalmovement had gained full momentum inNorway. The Brundtland Commission deliv-ered its report on sustainable economicgrowth in 1986. The Minister of the Environ-ment in Gro Harlem Brundtland’s Govern-ment, Mrs. Sissel Rønbeck, was effectivelylobbied into creating an urban sustainableproject. Although the idea was not originally

84

Akerselva Environmental Park and AkerselvaInnovation Park:Urban Transformation byChance and GovernanceThis article is concerned with the use of governance in industrial transformationprocesses in Oslo. First we will look at the Akerselva Environmental Park project, wherethe techniques of managing complex networks were used in a semi-intended way, andwhere the result – more by chance than by deliberate governance – was a verysuccessful industrial project. This is then compared to the Akerselva Innovation Parkproject taking place fifteen years later, where the issue is whether it is possible to createa new industrial cluster – in this case within the field of art, design, architecture andinformation technology (ICT) – largely by employing governance techniques.

Knut Halvorsen is an economist andmanager of Oslo Teknopol IKS. Parts of this text have previously beenpublished in Governing Cities on theMove (Halvorsen 2002), Ashgate2002.

hers, she soon pursued it with all her politicalclout and prestige, as well as with fundingfrom the central government. In November1986, the Akerselva Environmental Parkproject was launched.

It was clear from the start that the projectneeded to be formally and administrativelybased in the planning system of the City ofOslo. In keeping with Norwegian planninglegislation, the municipality has the right (inmost cases) to regulate physical planning.The project was therefore organised aroundhigh-level decision-makers in the City ofOslo and people in similar positions at theMinistry of the Environment and the Direc-torate of Cultural Heritage. There were noprivate actors or interest groups in the steer-ing committee, but the main coordinator wasOla Bettum, from the InBy consultancy firm.Bettum had been working in the Ministry ofthe Environment when the project was devel-oped, and belonged to the network of public(and semi-public/private) planners. Mr.Bettum’s neutral position made him thepivotal governance actor in the project. Thiskey team of actors constituted an efficientgroup that managed to identify commongoals, make decisions and attract a flow ofresources to the project as it developed.

The Akerselva Environmental Park projectwas carried out from 1987 to 1990. However,the project evaluation did not take place untilabout ten years later, and was carried outthrough most of 1998 and the first half of1999. The evaluation was divided in twomain parts: an analysis of the transformationprocess of the past, and a study of the plan-ning process.

The physical and functional transforma-tion was conducted by analysing planningmaps and databanks describing buildings andinfrastructure and changes over time in thedefined area. This part was conducted byProfessor Karl Otto Ellefsen and Aasne Haugfrom the Oslo School of Architecture. Theanalysis of the institutional process wasstructured as a qualitative study by theauthor of this article. I was at the time aresearcher at the Norwegian Institute ofUrban and Regional Research (NIBR). Themain sources of information were planningdocuments, reports, maps, governmentmemos and, most significantly, interviews ofthe main actors involved in the process.

What were our findings? As a starting

point, the aims were mostly “green”. That is,they were focused on environmental andrecreational values, learning about and preser-vation of historical heritage, etc. The key doc-uments did not contain a single word aboutstimulating or restructuring industrial devel-opment. In our conclusions it was thus neces-sary to differentiate between the intended andthe unintended results. The most importantintended results included the following:


The Akerselva EnvironmentalPark did not only have positiveenvironmental effects, itgenerated a strong industrialtransformation process, wherenow high tech firms andrestaurants thrives in the old, but renovated factories. Thepicture shows one of the manywaterfalls of the Akerselva River.(Photo: Samfoto)

• The actors managed to handle a dynamicproject in the sense that it was possible torefine the aims and increase the level ofcooperation as the project developed.

• The formal legal and democratic procedureswere respected; that is, a plan was pro-duced, with the proper political processingafterwards.

• The project generated broad consensus andawareness – in both the public and the pri-vate sectors – of the natural, historical andcultural values of the Akerselva RiverBasin.

• The area has been transformed into a greencorridor and a popular park area.

It is important to note that many of theeffects did not emerge during the formalproject period. Some are becoming evident astime passes and as public and private invest-ments in the area add to the total picture.

The most interesting outcomes were nev-

ertheless the unintended results. The park hadan unusually positive impact on industrialregeneration in this part of Oslo. In fact, theindustrial transformation that has taken placeover the last 15 years is remarkable. TheAkerselva Environmental Park has not onlyimproved the quality of life in the area andthe neighbouring urban settlements, it hasalso successfully tapped into an urban trendby creating a foundation for combining workand play. It stimulated the location factorsfor the new service industries. According tothe interactive model of innovation, proxim-ity brings down transaction costs, whichagain makes it easer to have face-to-facemeetings. This is another prerequisite fortrust building and transfer of tacit knowl-edge. In a short time, and without any delib-erate public planning, the area has developedseveral industrial clusters. It has turned intoan industrial milieu in the classical sense.There seems now to be a critical mass of

86

Research, education, work and play within architecture,culture, ICT and the arts are nowthe driving force of industrialregeneration in Oslo, as in theplant of the former Vulkan ironfoundry. (Photo: Scanpix)

firms, which generates further growth andattracts other firms.

The Akerselva Innovation Park Project

Half a year after the evaluation was pub-lished, a group of consultants and urbanactivists asked if I could join them for ameeting. I had by then changed positions andwas working as manager of the newly estab-lished Oslo Teknopol IKS, a company createdby the City of Oslo and Akershus County tostimulate knowledge-based industrial devel-opment in the Oslo region. I was also teach-ing innovation theory and governance at theNorwegian School of Management (BI), andhad thus both practical and theoretical inter-ests in the topic.

The consultants wanted to create a projectthey had called “Akerselva Innovation Park”.Their main idea was to bring together all the“good forces” in the area to create a medialab in the plant of the former Vulkan ironfoundry. The Oslo School of Architecture(AHO), the new Oslo National College of theArts (KHiO) had recently been relocated tothe area. The National Technological Institute(TI) was already located here, and a new Cen-tre for Design and Architecture was planned(opening in fall 2004). In the middle of allthis was the old factory – the Vulkan facility– at the time owned by the Norwegian state(Statsbygg), who had no clear strategy for theproperty. And around this were all kinds ofSMEs, theatres, artists and a populationenjoying the lively, renovated Oslo neigh-bourhood of Grünerløkka.

It was agreed to utilise a project organi-sation similar to the one used in the Aker-selva Environmental Park project, but thistime with a steering group consisting of topmanagement in the institutions mentionedabove. The consultants’ role would be similarto that previously described for Mr. Bettum.The necessary financing was raised throughInnovation Norway and “in kind” (timeresources) from top management among thepartners, all laid down in specific contracts.

An interesting development during theproject was that the original aim of creatinga media lab with a physical address atVulkan was changed during the pilot projectphases. Instead, it was agreed to establish aninstitutionalised network as a means of creat-

ing a cluster of research, education and inno-vation within the arts, architecture, design,and advanced ICT. The SME structure wasalready established, and the idea was that amore deliberate interplay with the R&D com-munity would stimulate the transformationprocess even further.

This change of aim opened the door formore partners, and it soon became clear thatthe University of Oslo was interested. TheirInterMedia institute had previously estab-lished strong links to the R&D communitiesin the Akerselva area.

The main reason for the emergence of anew objective was that the institutionsinvolved had already invested heavily in newlaboratories and equipment, and the need fora common lab was not high on their list. Thisis of course an important governance lesson:Always work with the true aims of the keyplayers. In short, the new concept was thateach institution should focus on its strongestside. The project can now be considered a“virtual” lab since the area within whichthese institutions are located is relativelysmall (like a campus). Investments in com-mon infrastructure to complete a powerfulbroadband network will further safeguard theinternal ties and information flow. An incu-bator could also be a part of the cooperationat some stage, and this would give a physicaldimension to the network.

The change of aims was frustrating to theconsultants, who also began to disagreeamong themselves. When the pilot study wascompleted it was therefore decided to con-duct the next stage without consultants.

As of April 2004, the project had reachedits final stages. It has been agreed that theAkerselva Innovation association will beestablished on June 1, with the members ofthe Steering Committee as its members. Thiswill institutionalise the cooperation with thestakeholders involved.

It is too early to measure the effects of theproject. An evaluation should be conductedin perhaps ten years. However, even at thisstage it is clear that the governance tech-niques used to develop common strategiesand aims for important institutions in Osloworked well, and that important conditionsfor further industrial transformation towardsa creative knowledge economy in Oslo havebeen strengthened.


The NorthernDimension

Norway extends farther north than any other European country exceptRussia, and its climate poses a major challenge to architects,contractors and planners. As in the other Nordic countries, wood hastraditionally been the preferred building material in Norway. Woodenstructures provide better insulation against the cold than stone, andthere is little use for stone’s cooling effect in summer. While theNorwegians in the past tended to choose building styles and materialsthat were well suited to local weather patterns, this is now no longeralways the case. The result is reduced functionality and increasedheating and maintenance costs.

(Photo: The Directorate for Cultural Heritage)

By Hogne Langset and Gisle Erlien

Earlier in history, wooden towns and villageswere common in all areas of the world withaccess to timber, but, with the exception ofthe Nordic countries, they have become arare phenomenon. This article does not try toexplain the disappearance elsewhere, but dis-cusses instead why they still exist in this partof the world – and in Norway in particular –and what makes wood construction so specialin the first place, including special features ofthe Norwegian towns.

Why did wooden architecture become sodominant?

One thing that wooden towns have in com-mon is their proximity to rich forests. Formany centuries, Norwegian timber exports tonorthern and central Europe were as importantto the national economy as oil is today. Acrossthe Nordic countries, wood was the cheapestand most easily accessible building material.

Until the 1900s, Norway had few realcities. Most were small and closely linked totheir surrounding community. There was arelatively undifferentiated social hierarchycompared to many other countries, which inturn gave little basis for specialised profes-sions. Only the church and the most prosper-ous citizenry could voluntarily consider high-

status building styles involving stone andmasonry, which required expert craftsmen.Wood-building techniques, however, werecommon knowledge and required no spe-cialised labour. So as long as people werepermitted to use wood, almost everyone did.

The climate of the Nordic countries alsoplayed a role in this bias: wooden structuresprovided better insulation against the coldthan stone, and there was little use forstone’s cooling effect in summer. Moreover,wooden structures in the North were notexposed to the same weather extremes assimilar structures farther south, and thusrequired less maintenance.

Background for urban growth

The earliest Norwegian cities emerged about1 000 years ago. Historians recognise eightmedieval towns and a number of tradingcentres within the boundaries that definemodern Norway. The country’s four largestcities – Oslo, Bergen, Trondheim and Sta-vanger – were all founded in the MiddleAges.

Increasing trade with Europe from the1500s onwards stimulated urban growthalong the coasts and throughout southernNorway. Fredrikstad (1567) and Kristiansand(1641) were established by royal decrees astowns with trading privileges. Trading centres

90

Wooden Towns – a Nordic TraditionTravellers often remark on the prevalence of wooden buildings inNorway. Most Norwegian towns – especially the smaller ones – aredominated by houses and other buildings made of wood. This age-old preference in construction materials gives Norway and otherNordic countries a special responsibility for conserving their manydistinctive wooden towns and villages.

Hogne Langset and Gisle Erlien are both architects working in theNorwegian Directorate for CulturalHeritage.

The waterfront facade of theBryggen Wharf in Bergen. Thesebuildings were erected to replacethose lost in the fire of 1702. Thewharf area is protected under theUNESCO World HeritageConvention. (Photo: The Directoratefor Cultural Heritage)

such as Risør, Mandal, Flekkefjord and otherswere the result of more informal processes.The growth of the established towns andsome of their remote ports was reinforced bypublic policy in the 1600s, when the kingconfined trade privileges to towns. Thisaction cemented the role of town merchantsas middlemen between Norwegian suppliersof raw materials and European tradesmen orship captains. It also guaranteed that thetowns would face no real trade competition.

Beginning in the late 1700s, the stategradually liberalised such trade policies. Italso founded new cities to stimulate socialdevelopment. One example is the royal decreethat established Tromsø in 1794. The creationof a system of primary municipalities in 1837added a burgeoning democratic element andcontinued the drive toward urban develop-ment. In the late 1800s, the growth of townsturned explosive as a result of industrialisa-tion and technological leaps in productionand transport.

Until the 1800s there was no significantgrowth in Norway’s inland towns. The miningsettlements of Røros and Kongsberg areexceptions; both were founded as productionsites in the 1600s and grew through the 1700s(Røros is on UNESCO’s World Heritage List).The King and government sought to establish

some inland towns in the 1800s (Lillehammerin 1827, others followed) as a means of stim-ulating distribution of agricultural produce.

How the cities were formed

Most Norwegian towns are shaped organi-cally to follow coastlines and other featuresof the terrain. A typical town was con-structed and organised in accordance withthe predominant building pattern and build-ing technique of the surrounding area. Themain difference was that the buildings werecloser together.

As towns grew, building customs increas-ingly took on the character of Norway’s trad-ing partners – primarily Denmark, Germany,the Netherlands and Britain. Trading townsimported European architectural styles basedin stone and masonry and transferred themto wood. This gave Norwegian towns aunique character that later spread to thecountryside. European impulses also affectedthe very organisation of town life.

The fully developed medieval Norwegiantown, elements of which survive in Bergen,consisted of rows of buildings constructedclosely together and rising up from the beachor wharf. Streter, or streets, ran perpendicular


to the building rows. Narrow alleys alongsidethe building rows linked the streets and pro-vided access to the water. Such towns weredensely packed, which in turn meant greatdanger of fire. Not surprisingly, fires haveswept through most of them repeatedly.

Eventually, from the 1600s onward, firesand other problems prompted the King’sadministration to impose new building pat-terns – with broad, straight streets, clear axesand segregation of conflicting activities.When Oslo burned in 1624, King Christian IVordered that it be relocated behind AkershusFortress and rebuilt as a brick town dividedinto square blocks. However, the restrictionslimiting building to brickwork proved diffi-cult to impose. Trondheim provides anotherexample of modern 17th-century planning,though many tiny lanes and alleys ofmedieval origin still run within the largeblocks laid out in 1681. In other old cities,such as Bergen, officials did no more thanestablish broad passages to serve as firebreaks. Such gaps, usually running upward

from the water, are still visible in Bergen,Trondheim and Tromsø.

Seen from abroad, Norwegian architec-tural developments have generally laggedbehind those of central and southern Europe.To the extent international styles wereadopted, they were often toned down andmodified to reflect local taste and traditions.Norway has a few towns whose layoutreflects the Renaissance and Baroque periods,but style of layout and building constructionsare more influenced by the Empire style andhistorism. It is also interesting to observehow the stone and brick architecture of cen-tral and southern Europe has been adapted toNorwegian wood-construction techniques –and how, in particular, coloured or texturedstone has served as a model for painting onwood.

Planned features such as broad streetswere not proof against the spread of flames,and the newer towns caught fire too. Onnumerous occasions the state tried to forcebrick construction on the populace, but to

92

The Bryggen Wharf in Bergen seen frombehind. Here, the row structurecharacteristic of building patterns fromthe Middle Ages is clearly visible.(Photo: The Directorate for CulturalHeritage)

little effect. Rapid re-building was givengreatest priority and new wooden structureswere erected to replace the old.

From development and stagnationthrough demolition to renewal

During the rapid urban growth of the 1800s,Norwegian development reflected what washappening in the rest of Europe, incorporatingthe new ideas about regulating the physicalelements of a city. Norway was one of the firstcountries to implement general building legis-lation for towns, which was adopted in 1845and set new standards for planned urbandevelopment. Initially there was not enoughpolitical support at the national level to man-date brick construction in all town centres, butsome larger towns imposed such requirementslocally – usually after a larger-scale local fire.Not until 1905, after a 1904 fire devastatedmost of the town of Ålesund, did the Norwe-gian government introduce a general require-ment stipulating masonry construction intown centres. Clusters of wooden buildingsremained wherever development and urbanrenewal arrived at a slower pace, and wher-ever the fires did not reach. Today, small“islands” of wood construction can still befound amidst the brick-and-plaster-dominatedinner core of Oslo. Wooden buildings alsocover large contiguous areas of Bergen,Trondheim and Stavanger, and continue todominate outright the downtown sections ofmany small towns and villages.

Urban development from about 1930onward followed a logic that was largelyincompatible with wood construction. Areasfeaturing wooden buildings began to be con-sidered less attractive – even inferior in termsof living standard – and many were torndown completely. Not until the 1970s didpeople begin to react against this policy.Gradually, communities began once again toappreciate the values inherent in their tradi-tional wooden structures. Communityactivism led to the rehabilitation and gentri-fication of these parts of town. Many areascame to enjoy protective status and are seentoday as valuable, centrally located residen-tial districts.

In recent years researchers have developedwood-based building technologies that pro-vide a much higher level of fire safety. Theirwork has led to the design and constructionof vast wood-supported structures such as theterminal building at Oslo’s Gardermoen air-port and the sports halls built for the 1994Winter Olympic Games in Lillehammer.Three- and four-storey apartment buildingsmade entirely of wood have been erected inNorway and Finland. And in 2004, a groupof architects is working on designs to rebuildthe cluster of wooden buildings that wasrecently lost to fire in the heart ofTrondheim. There is much debate about thefuture appearance of this area, and the dis-cussion tends to revolve around the use ofwood as a key architectural element.


Houses on Dronningens street inTrondheim. These were built afterthe fire of 1842, but before brickconstruction requirements wereintroduced in 1845. Today, thesebuildings comprise part of anextremely popular neighbourhoodclose to the town centre. (Photo: The Directorate for CulturalHeritage)

94

Climate-appropriateConstructionNorway is a land of harsh weather. It has a long, stormy coast andcold, dark winters that bring a great deal of snow to many parts ofthe country. The climate poses a major challenge to Norwegianbuilding designers and contractors. Traditionally, Norwegianstended to choose building styles and materials that were well suitedto local weather patterns. Today we see many examples of theopposite. The result is reduced functionality and increased heatingand maintenance costs.

Lene Edvardsen is an architect atthe Norwegian State Housing Bank’sregional office in Hammerfest.

By Lene Edvardsen

Climatic conditions vary depending on loca-tion and type of landscape, so in a country ofNorway’s size and geographical contrasts, itis not surprising to find a wide range of cli-mate and weather patterns. Building tradi-tions of the past often reflected the local cli-mate, and thus construction styles havediffered widely from place to place.

Housing design that factors in climaticconsiderations

The term “climate-appropriate” can be usedbroadly to describe structures that areplanned and constructed to accommodateweather-related factors such as heavy precip-itation, snow loads, snow removal, wind, sunand temperature extremes.

Climate-appropriate housing in Hammerfest, in the northernmost reaches of Norway. (Photo: Norwegian State Housing Bank)


Norway’s climate poses great challenges to the inhabitants and thebuilding industry alike. Due to extreme snowfall, the only way to accessthe front door to this home was by carving out a tunnel. This picture wastaken in Tromsø, the “capital” of Northern Norway. (Photo: Scanpix)

In adapting building practices to suit thelocal climate, there are three main goals:first, to reduce wear and tear on buildings;second, to reduce energy loss; and third, toimprove the functionality of buildings andoutdoor areas.

To ensure climate-appropriate construc-tion, the following issues must be givenconsideration in the planning phase, and the

relevant measures must be implemented indi-vidually or in combination with one another:

• Siting of buildings.• Juxtaposition of buildings in relation to one

another, the topography and vegetation.• Orientation.• Design and arrangement of building

volumes.

96

Large amounts of snow put great strainon roofs and other supporting structures.From Hammerfest. (Photo: NorwegianState Housing Bank)

Road maintenance during the winter is atall order in a harsh climate such as thatof Hammerfest. (Photo: The NorwegianState Housing Bank)

• Organisation of activities in and aroundbuildings.

• Arrangement of building parts andstructures.

• Management, operation and maintenance.

At the most basic level, all construction is away of dealing with the elements. Measuresto ensure that structures will be adapted totheir local environment may be incorporatedat many levels, from municipal master plansthrough building codes, to individual build-ing designs and construction details.

Before a planning process is set in motion,it is important to gain an overview of theproposed building site’s weather and climaticconditions. In Norway, the standard inspec-tion and analysis procedures carried out inconnection with new constructions shouldinclude documentation of the following cli-matic characteristics:

• Prevailing wind, precipitation and tempera-ture conditions in the area.

• The site’s location in relation to the sunfrom morning to night.

• The ability of terrain, vegetation andnearby buildings to block cold winds andair currents.

• Wind direction, strength and frequency incombination with sun, precipitation andtemperature.

Good building and environmental solutionswill often require model-based analysis.Computer simulation is the latest and perhapsmost effective way to perform a realisticanalysis. In addition, detailed drawingsshould be prepared to show how buildingsand surrounding areas as proposed will lookand function in each season of the year.When planning, the less that is left to chance,the better.

International network

The Norwegian State Housing Bank’s regionaloffice in Hammerfest is preparing an Internet-based forum on climate-appropriate con-struction. The Housing Bank’s northernmostoffice is accustomed to extreme weather, andhas launched this initiative to spread infor-mation and know-how about building for theelements. The new website (www.proklima.no) will provide users with an opportunity toread articles, ask questions and make con-tacts within a network devoted to climatestudies and research into climate-appropriateconstruction.


Snow blowing every which way inHammerfest. This is what one mustcontend with when living in a north-ern climate. (Photo: The NorwegianState Housing Bank)

Innovation Norway/ Innovasjon Norge

As of 1 January 2004, the new, state-owned Innovation Norway has replaced thefollowing four organisations: the Norwe-gian Tourist Board, the Norwegian TradeCouncil, the Norwegian Industrial andRegional Development Fund (SND) and theGovernment Consultative Office for Inven-tors (SVO). Innovation Norway promotesnationwide industrial development thatwill be beneficial for both the businesseconomy and Norway’s national economy,and seeks to enable different districts andregions to more fully exploit their potentialthrough innovation, internationalisationand promotion. The enterprise’s core groupof clients are Norwegian companies, pre-dominantly SMEs.

The new state-owned enterprise employsmore than 700 people. Innovation Norwayhas offices in all the Norwegian countiesand in more than 30 countries worldwide.The head office is situated in Oslo.

For more information: http://www.ntr.no

The Norwegian State Housing Bank/Husbanken

The Norwegian State Housing Bank wasestablished by statutory provision in 1946and is the government’s main instrumentfor implementing national housing policy.

The Housing Bank has participated infinancing approximately 50 per cent ofexisting homes in Norway. The Bank isadministered under the auspices of theMinistry of Local Government andRegional Development. The Ministry inturn reports to the Storting, which takesdecisions regarding interest rates anddetermines the Bank’s annual budget,including loans, grants and housingallowances. In 2003 the Housing Bank’sbudget comprised NOK 14 billion in loansand NOK 5.6 billion in grants, subsidiesand housing allowances for construction,renovation and low-cost housing.

The Bank’s primary goal is to ensurethat all people live in satisfactory homes ingood housing environments. The Bank isresponsible for procuring housing for thehomeless as well as for refugees and otherindividuals in need, and also administersmeasures to reduce housing expenses forcertain vulnerable groups. The NorwegianState Housing Bank offers loans and grantsto stimulate construction of adequate,affordable housing, the development ofsatisfactory housing environments and therenovation and improvement of dwellings.The Bank provides advice and professionalassistance, and is actively involved inpublic activities related to housing andhousing policy.

The Housing Bank has offices in Oslo,Arendal, Bergen, Trondheim, Bodø andHammerfest.

For more information: http://www.husbanken.no

98

InstitutionsIn addition to the government ministries and institutions of highereducation, Norway has a number of other private and publicinstitutions that are specifically concerned with research, planningand housing construction.

The Directorate for Cultural Heritage/Riksantikvaren

The Directorate for Cultural Heritage isresponsible for the practical implementa-tion of the objectives laid down by theStorting and the Ministry of the Environ-ment. The Directorate’s task is to facilitatesound and efficient managementthroughout the country and to ensure thatmonuments and sites everywhere aregiven equitable treatment as far aspossible.

The Directorate for Cultural Heritage isresponsible for ensuring that a representa-tive selection of monuments and sites ispreserved for present and future genera-tions. The selection of monuments andsites must provide an overview of historicaldevelopments, the way of life and therange of works of art and craftsmanship ofeach period. The Directorate is also respon-sible for ensuring that cultural heritageconsiderations are taken into account in allplanning processes, and that the interestsof cultural heritage are safeguarded at alllevels in the same way as the interests ofsociety as a whole.

The Directorate for Cultural Heritage isinvolved in environmental management,and answers to the Department for NatureConservation and Cultural Heritage at theMinistry of the Environment. The Direc-torate collaborates with other directoratesin the environmental sector whereverappropriate.

For more information: http://www.riksantikvaren.no

The Research Council of Norway/ Norgesforskningsråd

The Research Council of Norway plays avital role in developing and implement-ing the country’s national researchstrategy. It acts as a government adviser,identifying present and future needs forknowledge and research. It further acts asa funding agency for independentresearch programmes and projects,strategic programmes at research insti-

tutes and Norwegian participation ininternational research programmes, aswell as a coordinator, initiating networksand promoting co-operation betweenR&D institutions, ministries, business andindustry, public agencies and enterprises,other sources of funding, and users ofresearch.

The Executive Board of the ResearchCouncil of Norway is responsible for theCouncil’s policy at the national level. TheCouncil encompasses three research divi-sions and two administrative divisions.Three research boards, one for eachresearch division, advise and report to theExecutive Board.

Approximately one third of Norway’spublic sector research investment is chan-nelled through the Research Council. Theremainder is transferred directly from theministries to the relevant research institu-tions. In 2001, Norway spent a total ofNOK 24.5 billion on R&D, of which publicsector allocations accounted for roughlyNOK 12 billion. The 2004 budget for theResearch Council of Norway amounted toNOK 4.6 billion.

For more information: http://www.forskningsradet.no

The Directorate of Public Constructionand Property/ Statsbygg

Statsbygg acts on behalf of the NorwegianGovernment as manager and advisor inconstruction and property affairs. Stats-bygg offers governmental organisationspremises suited to their needs, either innew or existing buildings. Statsbygg is anadministrative body, responsible to theMinistry of Labour and GovernmentAdministration. Statsbygg operates inaccordance with standard business princi-ples, except in situations where achieve-ment of Government objectives takesprecedence.

Statsbygg manages some 2.2 million m2

of floor space in Norway and abroad. Itsproperty portfolio consists of office build-ings, schools, accommodation and spe-cialised buildings throughout the country,as well as national embassies and resi-

Institutions 99

dences outside Norway. Statsbygg isresponsible for organising, planning andcompleting building projects within setframeworks for budgets, time limits andquality. The buildings must meet qualityrequirements pertaining to architecture,functionality and environmental concerns.Statsbygg’s total annual building budget isapproximately NOK 2.3 billion. A new taskfor Statsbygg in the future will be todevelop vacated Government premises foralternative public or commercial utilisa-tion. These activities will be directedtowards creating attractive areas thatemphasise local interests, the efficient useof resources and sound environmentalsolutions.

Statsbygg as an organisation consists ofthe head office in Oslo and five regionaloffices.

For more information: http://www.statsbygg.no

The Norwegian Federation of CooperativeHousing Associations/ NBBL

Founded in 1946, the Norwegian Federa-tion of Cooperative Housing Associations isa national membership association repre-senting over 90 cooperative housing asso-ciations, encompassing 660 000 individualmembers and 250 000 housing units inclose to 4 500 affiliated housing coopera-tives. Cooperative housing associationsvary in size, ranging anywhere from 100individual members and upward to 190 000. An average Norwegian housingcooperative consists of approximately 50homes.

These associations, their members, theaffiliated housing co-operatives and NBBLtogether make up the Norwegian Coopera-tive Housing Movement, which is thefourth largest membership movement inthe country.

Represented in all urban areas, housingcooperative homes hold a significant shareof the housing market in cities. In Oslo,this share is close to 40 per cent, while thenational average is 15 per cent. The Nor-wegian Cooperative Housing Movementworks to offer members the opportunity to

live comfortably in a sustainable livingenvironment.

For more information: http://boligsamvirket.no/boligsamvirket.no

The Norwegian Institute for Urban andRegional Research/ NIBR

The Norwegian Institute for Urban andRegional Research (NIBR) is an interdisci-plinary social science centre for urban andregional research. The Institute is chargedwith a national responsibility to conductenvironmental research, and works inter-nationally on urban and regional researchfrom an environmental and developmentalperspective. Within an urban and regionalresearch framework, NIBR studies andreports on the following sectors: publicadministration, governance and democ-racy; welfare, health and living conditions;planning, land use and urban development;regional development, business environ-ments and demography; and environmen-tal and development issues.

NIBR’s scientific staff has sixty-fiveresearchers working within the followingsocial sciences and planning disciplines:sociology, political science, economy,demography, anthropology, geography,architecture, engineering and land-useplanning. Many staff members have com-pleted doctorate degrees and several areformally qualified for employment at asso-ciate professor level.

NIBR is a foundation. Most of its rev-enues are derived from national and inter-national commissions. A smaller amount isgranted as an annual basic allocation fromthe Research Council of Norway and goesto the development of strategic pro-grammes and competence-building. TheInstitute's annual turnover is about NOK 60million.

For more information: http://www.nibr.no

100

The Norwegian Building ResearchInstitute/ Byggforsk

The Norwegian Building Research Institute(NBI) is the leading national centre oftechnical and sociological research anddevelopment relating to buildings and thebuilt environment. NBI functions as anindependent, national centre for researchand development of relevance to buildingand civil engineering, including the man-agement and use of buildings and works.In addition the institute monitors corre-sponding research and development inother countries, cooperates with otherinstitutes and organisations to achieve theefficient utilisation of overall researchresources, and works to make its ownresearch results as well as those of othersknown and implemented.

The head office in Oslo has five depart-ments, and one research department is alsolocated in Trondheim on the campus of theNorwegian University of Science andTechnology.

For more information: http://www.byggforsk.no

NOVA

NOVA – Norwegian Social Research – is anational research institute under the aus-pices of the Norwegian Ministry of Educa-tion and Research. The board of directorsis appointed by the Ministry of Educationand Research. NOVA’s basic funding isprovided over the national budget allo-cated by the Norwegian Storting. The aim of the institute is to develop knowl-edge and understanding of social condi-tions and processes of change. Activitiesfocus on issues relating to life-cycleevents, level of living conditions andaspects of life quality as well as on pro-grammes and services provided by thewelfare system.

NOVA was founded in 1996, and incor-porates the following research institutions:the Institute of Applied Social Research,the Norwegian Institute of Child WelfareResearch, the Norwegian Youth Research

Centre, and the Norwegian Institute ofGerontology.

For more information: http://www.nova.no

The Institute of Transport Economics/Transportøkonomisk institutt

The Institute of Transport Economics is anational institution for transport researchand development. The institute was estab-lished in 1958, first as a government secre-tariat and subsequently (from 1963) as aseparate research institution under the aus-pices of the Royal Norwegian Council forScientific and Industrial Research (NTNF,now part of the Research Council of Nor-way). In 1986 the institute became a pri-vate, independent research foundation. Theinstitute receives its annual basic fundingfrom the Research Council of Norway.

The institute carries out applied researchon issues relating to transport and pro-motes the utilisation of research results byadvising the authorities, the transportindustry and the public at large. Its sphereof activity includes most of the currentmajor issues in road, rail, sea and air trans-port. The institute is also involved in inter-national cooperation within the transportsector. Special emphasis is placed on thepractical application of research results,and most of the studies and projects per-formed by the institute are commissioned.

In Norway, most of the clients are cen-tral government bodies and local authori-ties, with some commissions from the pri-vate sector. Major clients include theMinistry of Transport and Communica-tions, the Public Roads Administration andthe Research Council of Norway. In recentyears a number of transport studies havebeen carried out in Africa and Asia for theNorwegian Agency for Development Coop-eration (NORAD). The institute also con-ducts research for public authorities inother countries and for internationalorganisations.

For more information: http://www.toi.no

Institutions 101

The Fjord City: Oslo City Hall and the Pleasure Harbour.(Photo: Carsten Berg Høgenhoff, Brødr. Fossum AS)

building and urban development in norway -...

Documents