Sweden has the technological and economic capacity for generating skyscrapers. However, a close look at the skyline of the Central Business District (CBD) of it's capital city, Stockholm, simply referred to in this article as downtown, shows very clearly that the bulk of the urban solids in the area, consist of medium rise buildings. The latter are technically classified as 5 - 10 floor buildings. We estimate that only about 10% of the buildings in the downtown are high-rise/skyscrapers, i.e. buildings with over 10 floors, and even then, none of them exceeds 27 floors. The four tallest buildings in the downtown are: 27 floor DN Tower in Kungsholmen, 26 floor Skrapan Tower in Södermalm, 24 floor Wenner-Gren Tower in Vasastaden, and 23 floor Folksamhuset in Södermalm. With the exception of Skrapan Tower, all the other skyscrapers are located on the periphery of the downtown.
The question arising is, why is the downtown of one of the world's great cities, in one of the world's richest countries, medium rise? We all know that economic power of countries is often expressed in monuments and skyscrapers in their cities' downtowns. The downtowns of New York, London, Shanghai, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Dubai, as well La Defense in Paris, illustrate what we are saying. But then, what happened in downtown Stockholm? We know that they could also have done what the above mentioned cities did, but they didn't, why? Could the medium rise urban solids be an outcome of nostalgic urban design approaches? Could it be a product of eclecticism in the urban design of the downtown? Could it be a result of some adopted retrofitting approaches and particularly height-led retrofitting? Could it be a result of other approaches in urban design? Nostalgic approach, eclectic approach, and retrofitting, are often common in redevelopment of cities with high historical spatial contents.
In this short article, we will analyse the urban spatial form of downtown Stockholm through photos taken in summer 2018 by our affiliate JK Freelance Images, in relation to the four questions raised above. As nostalgia, eclecticism, and retrofitting are concepts that will keep on recurring in this article, it is imperative they are briefly described from the very outset.
First, nostalgia in urban design, imply obsession with historical spatial precedents, and often entails copying and recreation of historical spatial forms.
Second, eclecticism is closely related to nostalgic approach in urban design, and entails a mix of ideas from various schools of thought as well as historical sources. When relying mainly on historical sources, eclectic approach becomes very similar to nostalgic approach. Urban design approach inherent in New Urbanism, a recent movement in architecture and town planning, could be labelled eclectic.
Third, retrofitting thrives to ensure that new urban spatial structures are compatible with existing natural and man made features.
Within the context of this article, we have defined downtown Stockholm as comprising Norrmalm, Östermalm, Vasastaden, Kungsholmen, and Södermalm. We have omitted Gamla stan due to it's entirely historic spatial content.
The analysis shows that in areas of the downtown where urban solids consist of predominantly historic buildings, nostalgic and eclectic approaches and measures in urban design contributed to the medium rise skyline. In such areas, like some parts of Östermalm, Vasastaden, and Södermalm, modern and more recent buildings follow very strictly facade features and heights of adjacent historic buildings. In some few cases, attempts have been made to create building forms similar to those of surrounding historic buildings.
Also, in such areas, retrofitting of modern and contemporary buildings that emphasizes building heights has had a significant influence on the medium rise skyline of the downtown. For example, although in many parts of the downtown, retrofitting entailed slotting of modern and recent buildings that have contemporary architectural forms hence quite different from adjacent historic buildings, their heights strictly comply with those of historic buildings.
There is doubt that nostalgic and eclectic approaches, as well as building height-led retrofitting, in urban design influenced the generation of the medium rise urban form of the downtown. However, the conceptual closeness of the three approaches, makes it is difficult to establish the magnitude of the contribution of each of the approaches.
Large parts of the of Stockholm downtown, particularly in Norrmalm, were cleared during the modern era in architecture and town planning in late 1950s to the early 1970s, to pave way for modern urban solids and voids. Specific areas cleared include Hötorget along Sveavägen, Malmskillnadsgatan, Regeringgatan, Mäster Samuelgatan, and parts of Hamngatan; area around Sergel Square; parts of Vasagatan; and area between Kungsbron and Klarabergsviadukten. Even later in the 1980s on wards to 2000s, clearance continued but in piecemeal, and very limited magnitude in areal terms. It was during this later period that Stockholm Södra in Södermalm, and the area along part of Drottningholmsvägen in Kungsholmen were redeveloped. The contemporary World Trade Centre, and Waterfront Conference Centre and Hotel in Norrmalm, were also built during this period. The latter is often referred to as the post-modern period in architecture and town planning.
The cleared sites during the modern and the post-modern periods provided opportunities for generation of skyscrapers in the midst of the downtown, as there seem to have been no significant obstacles in terms of let say historic conservation issues. In other words, most of the modern and more recent medium rise buildings in the cleared sites, could have been made a lot taller without causing any increased obstruction to views of historic buildings and important natural features. Skyscrapers in the cleared sites, consisting of particularly commercial and residential space could have been an effective way for capturing the economic advantages of high land values that are inherent in cores of downtowns. That is what happened elsewhere, e.g. New York, London, Los Angeles, Shanghai, and La Defense in Paris, that we mentioned previously.
Even the handful skyscrapers in the cleared sites, like some five tower blocks in Hötorget, are not tall enough. With only 19 floors, Hötorget towers are not tall enough to be effective landmarks, or exploit the economic advantages offered by high land values in the downtown. We think that the towers could have been made three times taller or more, without causing any functional or urban conservation issues.
Why the situation in cleared sites in the core of downtown Stockholm ended up that way, could not be credibly established by our analysis. What we know for sure, however, is that the medium rise urban solids in cleared site in the downtown are a product of deliberate urban design and development control measures by Stockholm Municipality. We have two speculations about why Stockholm Municipality did that and is still doing it today.
First, Stockholm Municipality could be obsessed by the existing historic skyline of the downtown that consists of almost only medium rise buildings. As such, the municipality may believe that introduction of skyscrapers into the downtown, particularly at it's core, will not only disrupt the uniformity of the skyline, but will have adverse effects on the historic and cultural value of the area. On the basis of this thinking, the municipality could have opted for urban redevelopment approach whose main goal is to ensure rigid conformity to heights of existing historic urban solids.
If our speculation is correct, then we think that the above urban redevelopment approach by the municipality is highly questionable and leaves much to be desired. The approach lacks the shrewdness that is necessary for meeting progressive functional needs arising from changes in the local environment, while at the same time meeting regressive needs for ensuring historic spatial continuity, in downtowns. Besides, skyscrapers in CBDs with large historic fabric contents do not necessarily result in lessened historic and cultural value, particularly when the skyscrapers are located on cleared sites. In fact, if introduced skyscrapers are architecturally innovative and designed with attention to the spatial features of their surroundings, they may create pleasant spatial contrast that may enhance the beauty and value of the applicable downtown, to a very large extent.
In many cleared parts of downtown Stockholm, increased heights of introduced new buildings, e.g. the World Trade Centre; recently built Radissons Blue Hotel, and adjacent Waterfront Conference Centre in Stockholm Klara; newly built Scandic Hotel opposite the central railway station; etc; would not have caused any obstruction or physical harm to historic buildings and other features in nearby historic fabrics or the downtown as a whole. There are many cities in the world, e.g. London, New York, Sheffield, Birmingham, Manchester, etc, that have downtowns with large historic spatial contents like Stockholm, but have managed to introduce successfully skyscrapers into the downtowns.
Second, maintaining the existing medium rise historic skyline in downtown Stockholm by Stockholm Municipality could be a result of a desire by the municipality to create: well defined enclosed urban spaces that consist of squares and plazas; as well as street pedestrian spaces. Such types of urban spaces are very difficult to create with skyscrapers! The latter often result in undefined continuous urban spaces amidst which the skyscrapers will stand. We all remember Le Corbusier's modern city concept!
Best enclosed urban spaces and street pedestrian spaces, are often outcomes of systems of urban blocks that consist of predominantly medium rise urban solids. That is very close indeed, to what is observable in many redeveloped cleared sites in downtown Stockholm. Where urban blocks could not be created, we observed horizontally long medium rise urban solids that are sometimes connected. Such horizontally long urban solids can seen in the area between Kungsbron and Klarabergsviadukten; and in Hötorget along Sveavägen, Malmskillnadsgatan, Regeringsgatan, Mäster Samuelsgatan, and Hamngatan. Because of this approach in urban redevelopment, downtown Stockholm has very liveable urban spaces particularly arcades, street pavements, squares, and plazas. Such good urban spaces would have been impossible to attain with skyscrapers.
With the above approach in urban redevelopment, priority is given given to the horizontal urban plane instead of the vertical urban plane. This is a very good approach because, peoples' experience of the vertical urban plane is indirect, often aesthetic, and reinforced mainly by spatial appearance, shape and size. Some aspects of the vertical urban plane like skyline may not even be fully accessible for experiencing from the ground level. People's experience of the horizontal urban plane, however, is direct. While it can also be aesthetic, it is mainly social and economical. It is on the horizontal urban plane where people walk, sit, work, eat, play, rest, communicate, etc.
Albeit the above approach in urban redevelopment has many functional advantages, it however, sacrifices the economic advantages of high land values in downtowns. One can not optimize land use with the approach! Nevertheless, in Stockholm, the sacrifice can be rationalized due to the abundance of vacant buildable land around the capital city, and Stockholm region as a whole. Already, there are many suburban settlements within the vicinity of the municipality, that are spatially linked with the downtown with efficient metro, tram-train, commuter train, and public bus systems.
Overall, the predominantly medium rise urban solids in downtown Stockholm have resulted in a skyline with limited spatial contrast. With exception of some numerous towers and domes of some historic churches and other historic buildings, the skyline of the downtown may appear rather boring to observers, especially those observers who may have no interest in historic artefacts. Furthermore, due to it's predominantly medium rise urban solids, the downtown lacks significant landmarks for enhancing spatial orientation. The situation is worse in Södermalm where only one landmark could be identified, namely the Skrapan Tower. The downtown, however, has many nodes consisting of squares and parks, but then, without landmarks how would one find them?
This article is a 2018 revised edition of an earlier article published in 2016.
The video above is about the article. Take a look! ________________________________________ Our articles are original and based on up to date data, collected by ourselves. All photos, videos, and diagrams are by ourselves or affiliates unless stated otherwise.
© 2015 - 2019 Jacob Kimaryo Consultancy. All Rights Reserved
Comments