This should not be so complex. Oslo does not have a strong historical identity that gives a glorious but rather stiff picture of the city. During his many wanderings Dag Solstad discovered that the most peculiar feature of Oslo is its lack of monuments. He compares the small Dutch border town of Maastricht with its 8 equestrian statues to Oslo, which only has one. Oslo has never grown old enough to be affected by the solemn European city planning, by which monarchies and governments used to mark the cities' shapes and cultures. In Oslo there is no impressive castle, no Nidaros Dome, no large avenues or an axis where the king and the state stand as opposites. The tiny castle at one end of Karl Johan, built by an unknown architect, certainly does not impress many.
That is why Oslo is not a typical European capital. It will never become like Stockholm or Copenhagen. Downtown London, where one finds Buckingham Palace, the Palace of Westminster, Westminster Abbey and the royal Hyde and Kensington parks, most of the central areas are tied together and the city's identity is defined once and for all. The dynamic metropolitan development revolves around the Thames and Canary Wharf and the city is being pushed south-east. For a long time it was forbidden in London to build anything taller than the highest, 365 feet spire of St. Paul's cathedral. Even now there are strict limitations for high buildings near the centre of London. Indeed, there were many protests when the SAS hotel was built in the proximity of the royal palace in Oslo. Nonetheless the hotel keeps standing there, triumphant over what looks like a toy castle.
next