Ólafur Mathiesen . Lynghaga 22 . 107 Reykjavík . 860 8116 . olafur@glamakim.is
Economic background and Planning System In 1955 the Icelandic population in was 156.000 growing by 30% to 204.000 by 1970. During the same period the capital city of Reykjavík grew from 64.000 to 82.000 inhabitants, and the greater metropolitan area housed around half of the overall population. A constituency reform and election in 1959 led to a coalition the “Government of Reconstruction”. which held office from 1959 to 1971 and put in place a large scale program of economic reforms. The program was based on a massive devaluation of the currency, the króna, which had remained fixed for a decade despite inflation. An extensive system of export subsidies was dismantled. Simultaneously, state intervention in various areas of the economy was cut back, foreign trade was liberalized and protectionist measures were reduced. Iceland became a signatory to GATT and joined EFTA in 1971.
Reykjvík 1950 – University of Iceland
Sitework for the Straumsvík Smelter
In 1961 Iceland achieved international recognition of the 12-mile fishing limit. The extension brought control over a greater share of the catches from local waters. Also, technological advances in the first half of the 1960s enabled an enormous intensification of the herring fishery providing the main foundation for economic growth. The fisheries boom caused the economy to overheat, but the high export revenues allowed a stable exchange rate to be maintained despite inflation. The herring catch reached a peak in 1966-67. However, overfishing and changes in the marine environment caused the stocks to collapse. The fisheries slump put the economy into a recession; household incomes fell and unemployment reappeared after many years of excess demand for labour. Large numbers of people immigrated to Scandinavia and as far away as Australia. A major part of the “reconstructive” policy of the 1960s was to diversify export production and reduce the overwhelming dependance on fisheries for foreign currency revenues. Power-intensive industry was seen as a viable option to capitalize on Iceland’s massive energy resources. The National Power Company, Landsvirkjun, was set up to facilitate a reliable large scale energy supply. Foreign business investment had been prohibited in Iceland but by mid 1960´s foreign investment was authorized in a number of new ventures. The largest was the Alusiuissealuminium smelter in Straumsvík near Reykjavík. The smelter was supplied with electricity from Búrfellsvirkjun, a new hydro power plant, specifically constructed for the smelter, and at the time; the largest investment project the Icelandic government had embarked upon 1. In the late 1950´s the Icelandic planning system was essentially single tiered. Local municipalities were responsible for Regional and Master Planning to be developed in collaboration with the State Planning Authority. The final plan was then subject to a formal Government Minister´s approval. The year 1960 marked a watershed in the history of urban planning in Reykjavík when work commenced on a comprehnesive master plan for the whole of the metropolitan area. The main authors BBB #1
DOCOMOMO Introduction – Background and Planning System
Ólafur Mathiesen . Lynghaga 22 . 107 Reykjavík . 860 8116 . olafur@glamakim.is
were the Danish Architect and Planner, Prof. Peter Bredsdorff and Civil Engineer Anders Nyvig 2. The new urban planning had a critical effect on large areas as the underlying zoning approach designated large industrial areas along coastal land tracts in the northern part of Reykjavík. Areas for housing were designated inland to the east and the downtown was to be the sanitized and become the center of local and state government and commerce. The urban fabric was separated into isolated functional zones with an heavy emphasis on automobile traffic solutions and set the stage for a dispersed city form, consequences of which are being manifested in modern day Reykjavík. Bredsdorff’s Master Plan for Reykjavík was based on “a great quantity of factual material that the Town Planning Office had collected as well as sketch ideas, more or less definite, for the general shape of a plan and these formed a background for the day-to-day work in planning in detail. These ideas, ... “had a very considerable influence on the planning proposals finally formulated.” 3 The 1962-1983 Master Plan for the Reykjavík Capital area was formally in place between 1965 and 1988 and has guided subsequent planning developments since.
BBB #1
DOCOMOMO Introduction – Background and Planning System
Ólafur Mathiesen . Lynghaga 22 . 107 Reykjavík . 860 8116 . olafur@glamakim.is
Búrfell Hydroplant and Straumsvík Aluminum Smelter. A central pillar of the Icelandic Government´s reconstruction policy of the 1960s was to diversify export production and reduce the overwhelming dependance on fisheries for foreign currency revenues. Power-intensive industry was seen as a viable option to capitalize on Iceland’s natural energy resources1. The AluSuisse Corporation set up plans to build an aluminum smelter in Straumsvík, which would be supplied with electricity from the new Búrfell Hydroplant.
#x
Overview of Búrfell Hydroplant Project
The Búrfell Hydroplant was designed by architects Gunnlaugur Halldórsson and Guðmundur Kr. Kristinsson in close collaboration with Harza Engineering in Chicago. The project encompassed the physical plant buildings, dam and service buildings and auxillary structures in addition to staff housing, communal areas and landscaping 4.
#x
BBB #2
Main Turbine Hall
DOCOMOMO Workplace districts Burfell Hydroplant and Straumsvik Aluminum Smelter
Ólafur Mathiesen . Lynghaga 22 . 107 Reykjavík . 860 8116 . olafur@glamakim.is
The initial scheme for the Main Turbine Hall proposed a steel structure but due to site conditions the designers opted for a concrete structure. The visual part of the building measures 90x13 meters divided into 7 equal parts. The architects engaged the sculptor Sigurjón Ólafsson to collaborate on the articulation of the surface 5. The result was Sigurjón´s first public project and the first relief of it´s kind in Iceland. It is remains the largest such venture to date. The Turbine Hall itself is an impressive and dignified structure. Formal articulation is kept to a minimum focusing on proportion and subdivision of the long facade. The internal organization, structure and funtion is expressed on the exterior ascertaining the modern architectural principles underpinning the design. The minimal expression provides a solemn background for Sigurjón´s relief which carves into the mass and attributes a human scale to the large and deep surface.
#x formwork for relief by Sigurjón Ólafsson
Apart from the Hydroplant the project called for landscaping, housing and communal buildings for staff. The staff buildings and were initially layed out and designed by the architect. They were are situated along a raised natural plateu to the east of the main buildings following the lay and contour of the existing landscape. Initially to be built on site the owner opted for standardized housing imported from Finland 6. II.
The Aluminum Smelter at Straumsvík was erected after an agreement was reached between the Icelandic government and the AluSuisse Corporation. The agreement was brokered by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and an important condition for the banks financing for the construction of theBúrfell Hydroplant 7.
1967
1969
2010
In 1966 the sitework began and the smelter began full production in late 1969. Initially designed to produce 33.000t currently the production stands at 180.000t 8.
BBB #2
DOCOMOMO Workplace districts Burfell Hydroplant and Straumsvik Aluminum Smelter
Ólafur Mathiesen . Lynghaga 22 . 107 Reykjavík . 860 8116 . olafur@glamakim.is
The Búrfell Hydroplant and the Straumsvík Aluminum Smelter were the first of it´s kind in Iceland and marked the first steps towards large scale industrial plant building in Iceland. Combined the projects had a profound impact on the country´s economy and subsequent development in the standard of living. In the recent decades a debate on the importance of an active government strategy to diversify the export trade, has surfaced echoing the period before 1960. Annual aluminum production capacity has tripled since 2003 and the share of aluminum in export merchandise was set at 40% of the countrys foreign currency revenue in 2009. 9 In a report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 2008, advisors to the government stated that the 2007 economic breakdown in Iceland was partly due to “...(the) large scale investment in aluminum and associated power plants.” 10 The breakdown led to a two-year Stand-By-Agreement (SBA) for Iceland between the IMF and the Icelandic Government to shore up the economy. 11
BBB #2
DOCOMOMO Workplace districts Burfell Hydroplant and Straumsvik Aluminum Smelter
Ólafur Mathiesen . Lynghaga 22 . 107 Reykjavík . 860 8116 . olafur@glamakim.is
Reykjavík City Center – a sketch for renewal In 1961 Prof. Peter Bredsdorff the Danish Architect and Planner presented an urban renewal scheme for the Reykjavík City Center to the City Council. This was a one of a few planning projects Bredsdorff had undertaken and led to his Reykjavík Master Plan 1963-1983. Since the 1920´s, the City Council had been working on large urban renewel (sanitation) projects in Grjótathorp, the site of Reykjavík´s earliest settlements. The core of the brief presented to Bredsdorff by the Council was to provide a proposal for a organized, urbane capital center. Bredsdorff presented a scheme where the City Center would be the location for city and state administration offices, general offices and retail space to the degree that short-term parking would allow. Parking should be resolved on the building lot and the built area ground to cover ratio was increased by 56%.
#x City Center – block heights proposal
#x Ingólfstorg north side proposal
The proposal was termed a functional analysis based on documentations of existing conditions, building orientation, height, massing and building material. Added to this a traffic analysis was made, establishing existing patterns and projecting future traffic loads besides discussing implications of traffic on the future urban form and fabric. This data became the basis for various proposals during the schematic period of the project. The discussion focused on the ground coverage for parking and traffic requirements and options for various traffic systems. Also allowable building heights, massing and character in relationship to the existing city fabric and finally a proposal for the future functions of the city center. 12 At the time the population of Reykjavík stood at 72.000 with 24.000 living within a 900 m radius from the center. The scheme called for a projected population figure of 165.000 in the year 1980. In reality the 1980 population measured in at 84.000 with roughly 12.000 inhabitants in the city center. 13 In 2010 the population stands at 118.000. 14
#x Reykjavík City Center – Scheme model
The final proposal suggested that the area could not hold all of future city functions and options should be considered for a new city center. Bredsdorff suggested Kringlumýri, an area 3 km east from the center. The site was efficiently connected to the main traffic arteries running north-south and eastBBB #4
DOCOMOMO Urban renewal of CBD Reykjavík City Center
Ólafur Mathiesen . Lynghaga 22 . 107 Reykjavík . 860 8116 . olafur@glamakim.is
west and large scale surface parking could be resolved economically. Another shopping center was suggested at the foot of Breiðholt spacing these mall structures at roughly 3 km apart. 15 City planning authorities had planned Kringlumýri for mixed housing in 1957 16 but Bredsdorff´s argument; that if retail construction would start soon enough the pressure for space in the center area would scale back, succeeded. However, shoppers had to wait another 26 years before the mall opened it´s doors in 1987.
#x Demolition (yellow) proposal
#x Ingólfstorg – south side proposal
Bredsdorff scheme for Reykjavík City Center called for a major demolition effort to make way roadways, overpasses and parking. Approximately 80% of the existing structures (many the oldest in the city) were to be demolished or taken off their foundations and moved to a museum. The proposal was actively criticized 1 and in 1971, when the demolition of a block of historic but derelict wooden buildings was imminent, a group of concerned citizens protested. Consequently Torfusamtökin, an association for the awareness and preservation of historic buildings, was formed. 18
BBB #4
DOCOMOMO Urban renewal of CBD Reykjavík City Center
Ólafur Mathiesen . Lynghaga 22 . 107 Reykjavík . 860 8116 . olafur@glamakim.is
Campus Masterplan, University of Iceland. One of the significant buildings in Reykjavík in the mid-sixties is the Nordic House by the finnish architect Alvar Aalto. The building, completed in 1968, is located at the edge of the University of Iceland´s central campus. It crowns a small nature reserve and lake and provides a modern counterpoint to the University Main Hall by State Architect Guðjón Samúelsson completed in 1940. The building was jointly funded by the Nordic Fund and serves as a cultural center for the nationalities comprising the countries.
#x Areal view of Reykjavík City Center and University Campus
After a preparatory visit to the site in 1963 Aalto is said to have been surprised and struck by the disparites and haphazardness of Icelandic architecture and equally, but opposite degree, fascinated by the natural surroundings. As a part of the initial phase of finding an appropriate site for the building, it´s orientation and articulation, Aalto realized that a larger master plan was needed. In 1975 the University engaged Aalto´s office to provide a comprehensive campus proposal. The first proposals were presented to the University in early 1976. After Aalto´s death in May 1976 Elissa Aalto proceeded with the work for a few years.
#x Aalto´s early project sketch 1965 (?)
BBB #3
DOCOMOMO Universities Campus Masterplan University of Iceland
Ólafur Mathiesen . Lynghaga 22 . 107 Reykjavík . 860 8116 . olafur@glamakim.is
Reykjavíkurtjörn is a central feature of the City Center. Historic buildings ar located on two sites of the small urban lake, mostly villas from early part of 20th century. To the north is the 1992 Town Hall (1992) and the Parliament Building (1881) and Dómkirkjan (1796). In the mid sixties this open space lacked definition at it´s southern edge and a clear connection to the University. Aalto´s scheme provided a stronger and more willful relationship with the lake and a definition of the large open space to the south. Consequently the siting of the Nordic House provided the building with a visual participation of the downtown area, and an it became an important hinge to the University Campus. A larger precedent to the scheme in Reykjavík is Aalto´s plans for Töölö lake district in center Helsingfors which was on the boards in his studio around the same time.
#x Aalto´s Master Plan 1976
#x University Master Plan 1990
Aalto´s proposal manifests his respect for the natural form of the existing landscape. New buildings follow the natural contours of the land providing shelter from northerly winds for a large green central space. The Common Green reflected Aalto´s fascination with the early university campuses in the United States. The existing University Hall retains its importance as a visual center of the Commons. In place of the crescent Aalto proposed a sloping grass plane terminating in a clear cut and straight water´s edge. By extending the downtown lake towards the south the University Hall establishes, as the Nordic House, an presence and importance with the natural surroundings and city fabric. Aalto´s scheme is as if it had always existed, a natural extension of the lake´s context. Thus Aalto provided a solution which was not confined to his own building but incorporated a larger whole.
#x Aalto´s Campus Model 1976
Campus Model 1990
The Reykjavík Planning Authority rejected the scheme formally in 1986. The basis given was primarily the radical reorganization of the campus geometry, specifially the partial removal of the crescent in front of the University´s Main Hall. What remains of Aalto´s early intentions for the site is the small lake to the north of the Nordic House and the professed intentions of the University to extend the lake towards Reykjavíkurtjörn. 19
BBB #3
DOCOMOMO Universities Campus Masterplan University of Iceland
Ólafur Mathiesen . Lynghaga 22 . 107 Reykjavík . 860 8116 . olafur@glamakim.is
Breiðholt I - Housing estate The prologue to the planning and design of Breiðholt 1 entails four elements; a large backlog of housing shortage stretching from the 1930´s to late 1950´s, rising unemployment rates due to a collapse in a homogenous export trade, a subsequent state policy set to diversify export products, primarily through large scale industrial manufacturing, and new legislation providing greater access to public funding for social housing. 20
#x Busstop
In 1960 Reykjavík community council called on Prof. Peter Bredsdorff architect and engineer Per Nyvig to consult on a Masterplan for Reykjavík and environs. No comprehensive plan existed for the area including Reykjavík, Kópavogur, Garðabær and Hafnarfjörður; the Greater Reykjavík Capital Region. The Masterplan of 1962-1983 empasized zoning and traffic. A comprehensive traffic study was set in motion, and became the driving force behind the development of built areas. Urban functions were distributed by zoning different areas, mainly industrial areas along the coastline to the north, mixed housing inland to the south and commerce and public functions in the historical downtown area. 21
#x Breiðholt I – Aeral view 1
The housing district Breiðholt is subdivided into Breiðholt I, II and III. The district is primarily located on a series of two plateus called Móholt and Breiðholt, and a small valley, Fákadalur. Breiðholt I which is the subject of this discussion was planned by Architect Stefán Jónsson and Landscape Architect Reynir Vilhjálmsson. The initial plan for Breiðholt I was to be complete with all services; housing, nurseries, primary school (6-16 years), a center for social services, a small shopping center, a church and cemetary for 40.000 graves (not executed). The housing solutions incorporated various combinations of solutions; 3 storey multi-family dwellings, social housing, row-houses and a villaquarter. The district covered a 4,2 km2 area and was to house 4000 inhabitants in 840 units. As a manifestation of the housing shortage in 1967 there were 1.400 applicants for the first 260 units. 22 The villa-quarter, served by a separate entry road, occupies 30% of the area, the multi-family dwellings 55% and the row-houses make up for the remaining 15%. BBB #5
DOCOMOMO Housing estates with nurseries and school Breiðholt 1
Ólafur Mathiesen . Lynghaga 22 . 107 Reykjavík . 860 8116 . olafur@glamakim.is
#x Breiðholt I – Site Plan
The Móholt plateu is 100mtrs above sea level, is level and sheltered towards east and southeast by the higher plateu of Breiðholt. A concentrated development of low buildings (inital plans called for 2 storeys and basement), producing shelter and intimacy obtained by grouping the buildings around small enclosed and half-enclosed garden areas. The precedents for this was the 1930’s Social Housing Project at Miklabraut by Guðjón Samúelsson and Einar Erlendsson, where the building is organized around an enclosed communal garden and a more recent danish example would be Banehegnet í Albertslund by Steen Eiler Rasmussen (end of 1950´s -1962). 23 Communal play spaces were located in the middle of the courtyards within view of the dwellings. Vehicular traffic to these units was along a peripherial route circling the whole development. Within the development a net of internal pedestrian routes connects the housing to a large Common Green serving the whole development. This area contains the school, nurseries and a small shopping centre. The villa district is located to the north of the main center enjoying a view of Elliðárdalur, an urban wilderness area. On the easterly slope overlooking the main access to Breiðholt I are a series of row-houses terracing down the slope.
#x Breiðholt 1 – Areal view 2
In latter years the district has fallen into disrepair. The small shopping center and basic social services have lost their footing within the district. Decades long in-attention from city government has paved the way for disrepair, graffiti and vandalism. However, recent efforts to rehabilitate the district have been instigated by concerned citizens, and combined with a new city policy with focus on renovating city areas, promise a different future.
BBB #5
DOCOMOMO Housing estates with nurseries and school Breiðholt 1
Ólafur Mathiesen . Lynghaga 22 . 107 Reykjavík . 860 8116 . olafur@glamakim.is
Early doubts – Björn Ólafs In 1968, only two years after the formal presentation of the Reykjavík Master Plan 1963-1983, architect Björn Ólafs published an article in the journal Birtingur. There he questioned the validity and appropriateness of the planning principles underlying Prof. Bredsdorff Master Plan for Reykjavík and had dim hopes for it´s prospects. Björn Ólafs graduated from Ecole Speciale d’Architecture in Paris 1963 and was a project architect on the first housing phases of the Breiðholt district between 1965 and 1969 24 when he emigrated to Paris.
#x Reykjavík aeral view 1955 – population 64.000.
In his article Ólafs pointed out that the modern planning principles underlying Bredsdorff´s plan had their origins in the CIAM Athens Charter of 1933 as most planning projects hence. The Charter placed a heavy emphasis on zoning and segregating different urban functions. This was at the cost of diversity and vibrancy found in the historical urban fabric. Housing areas built according to strict zoning principles had resulted in monotonous and lifeless quarters. Separation from various “inappropriate” functions and isolation from the City Center caused more problems than it solved. That was the paradox of the Athens Charter. City Center functions do not have adverse effect on the living qualities of city dwellings, on the contrary the co-existance of the two provided the citizen with a richer experience as well as an economy of living. The argument against strict zoning had already surfaced amongst the avant-garde, Ólafs maintained, as examples of urban renewal on Manhattan and in the center of Chicago proved. Paris was also re-invigorating the inner city districts by allowing a mix of office, retail, housing and school buildings. Ólafs re-itirated statements of the avant-garde in 1933 that no successful planning could materialize without enthusiasm, imagination, criticism and adaptation to the existing social and physical context. He went on to explain that (in the late 1960’s) planners were placing more empasis on combining the three major functions of the city; living, working and leisure, in the same neighbourhoods. The districts were becoming more dense and the urban weave tighter. Also public transport was an inseparable element of the city infrastructure. Today he would have used the term sustainability.
BBB #6
DOCOMOMO Architectural criticism
Ólafur Mathiesen . Lynghaga 22 . 107 Reykjavík . 860 8116 . olafur@glamakim.is
#x Images with original text
The Reykjavík Master Plan of 1963 had taken the tenents from the Athens Charter without the lessons learned and the remedies needed to ensure a successful urban structure. Although Ólafs complemented the part of the Master Plan that dealt with traffic solutions he maintained that the importance of public transportation was bypassed. Public transportation routes were superficially resolved to the degree that serving the four projected housing districts with bus transport was almost impossible. The politically celebrated Master Plan, in Ólafs view, had blindly followed 40 year old rules for coalspewing industrial cities. The decision to embark on planning the city was to be commended, but the base premises were decriptive and weak and highly unlikeley to produce a vibrant and intoxicating city. 25 Björn Ólafs´s words, forty two years ago, sounded to many like an ill-tempered prophecy and fell on barren soil. However, history has proved him right, today the city of Reykjavík struggles with maintaining the co-herance of it´s urban weave. Important city functions are indeterminetly scattered around and traffic solutions prioritize the automobile above public transportation and alternative traffic solutions. And the the essence of Ólafs´s message is as apt as ever.
BBB #6
DOCOMOMO Architectural criticism
Ólafur Mathiesen . Lynghaga 22 . 107 Reykjavík . 860 8116 . olafur@glamakim.is
DOCOMOMO - 2010 From cradle to grave – End notes for Icelandic text #1 Introduction. 1. 2. 3.
http://www.sedlabanki.is as viewed on website April 2010. Pétur H. Ármannsson, Borgarhluti verður til, (Reykjavík 1999), pg. 46. Aðalskipulag Reykjavíkur, Master Plan 1962-1983, (Reykjavík1966), pg. 25-26.
#2 Workplace districts – Búrfell Hydroplant and Straumsvík Aluminium Smelter. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
Helgi M. Sigurðsson, Vatnsaflsvirkjanir á Íslandi, (Reykjavík 2002), pg. 140-141. Aðalsteinn Ingólfsson, Sigurjón Ólafsson, ævi og list II, ed. Birgitta Spur, (Reykjavík 1998), pg. 136. Pétur H. Ármannsson, Orkuver og arkitektúr, Landsvirkjun 1965-2005, (Reykjavík 2005), pg. 217-221. Sigrún Pálsdóttir, Fyrirtækið, framkvæmdir þess og hlutverk, Landsvirkjun 1965-2005, (Reykjavík 2005), pg. 37-41. http://www.riotintoalcan.is/, as viewed on website April 2010. International Monetary Fund, IMF Country Report #08/367, (USA 2008), pg. 51 (pdf version) Ibid. International Monetary Fund, IMF Country Report #09/52, (USA 2009), pg. 2.
#3 Urban Renewal of CBD, Reykjavík City Center. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.
Peter Bredsdorff, Aðalsteinn Richter, Bykernen i Reykjavik, skitse til en fornyelsesplan (Danmark 1961). Eggert Þór Bernharðsson, Matmálstímar og borgarmyndun, http://notendur.hi.is/eggthor/maturErindi.htm (Reykjavík 2002) Hagstofa Íslands, http://www.statice.is/, population figures as viewed on website April 2010. Finnur Kristinsson, Drög að skipulagssögu Reykjavíkur, (Reykjavík 1995), pg. 49, plan pg. 64. Aðalskipulag Reykjavíkur, Master Plan 1962-1983, (Reykjavík1966), pg. 163-168. Birgit Abrecht, Architectural Guide to Iceland, (Reykjavík 2000), pg. 37. Torfusamtökin, http://www.torfusamtokin.is/heim/, as viewed on website April 2010.
#4 University Master Plan – University of Iceland, Reykjavík. 19.
Pétur H. Ármannsson, Aaltos Vision of Reykjavík, The Nordic House, (Reykjavík 1999), pg. 55-68.
#5 Large Housing Area – Breiðholt 1 20. 21. 22. 23.
Eggert Þór Bernharðsson, Íbúðir fyrir fjöldann, Byggt yfir hugsjónir, Breiðholt, (Reykjavík 2001), pg. 20. Aðalskipulag Reykjavíkur, Master Plan 1962-1983, (Reykjavík1966), pg. 195-199. Ágústa Kristófersdóttir, Byggt yfir hugsjónir, Breiðholt, (Reykjavík 2001), pg. 8. Olaf Lind, Arkitekten Steen Eiler Rasmussen, (Danmark 2008), pg. 241-245.
#6 Self Criticism – Björn Ólafs 24. 25.
BBB #7
Teiknistofa FB, Breiðholt I, 1. áfangi Byggingaráætlunar, (Reykjavík), pg 1. Björn (Ólafsson) Ólafs, Er Aðalskipulag Reykjavíkur úrelt?, Birtingur #2-4, (Reykjavík 1968), pg. 30-40
DOCOMOMO References
Ólafur Mathiesen . Lynghaga 22 . 107 Reykjavík . 860 8116 . olafur@glamakim.is
Credits Ólafur Mathiesen. Significant contribution by Pétur H. Ármannsson. Part of an ongoing critical research into the Icelandic Planning History (BetriBorgarBragur), funded in part by a three year grant from the The Technology Development Fund of the RANNIS, Icelandic Centre for Research.
BBB #1
DOCOMOMO Introduction – Background and Planning System