Oslo is in many ways a hybrid city where no culture or group has left its mark, in an economic, cultural or architectonic manner. Because of its dense street structure and compact centre Oslo is European, because of its architectonic eclecticism it is American, because of its apparently chaotic city planning it is Asian and because of its many subcultures it is global. The advantages of such hybridity and lack of a strong historical identity are obvious. The history of Oslo is no strait jacket. The city's identity is in its future, not in its past. Oslo can develop itself and adapt to most social and economic changes. Other European cities such as Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Prague and Venice all have a homogeneous and symbolically strong core where thousands of tourist get stuck. This prevents the city from developing. Oslo is not such a static tourist machine. The local population is most proudly showing Aker Brygge to their foreign visitors.
The growth of Oslo is partly prevented, partly spontaneous and partly anarchic. There is no control over it. If the influential mayor George Freche has succeeded in tripling the population of Montpelliers over 30 years and planning the city growth down to the smallest details, the head of Oslo city council Fritz Huitfeldt remains invisible. One year after being in office only one out of three in Oslo knew who he was. At the time he began, one year previously, it was four out of ten. It was only after the politicians at city council saw Aker Brygge almost fully developed that building plans for the area were made. The problem for Oslo becomes evident when growth gets distributed. According to an old model still used as a basis for local development, Oslo is made of a centre with a periphery around. The growth is therefore distributed on the outer rim, with the city area expanding and downtown getting further and further away. We need a new model.
next