Intercultural co-existence
Meeting people, bridging difference and getting along
Diploma 2014 Bergen School of Architecture Fredrikke Lundgaard Frølich fredrikke.frolich@gmail.com +47 47 62 33 36
3
4
Who am I? - I’m both a local and a foreigner in a neighborhood, in a city, in a country, in the world...
5
6
0.0
Table of contents
Part 1 1.0 Introduction 9 1.1 Immigration and emigration 10-11 1.2 Immigrants in Norway 12 1.3 Norway and the world 13 1.4 Density of immigrants 14-15 1.5 Future growth of immigrants 16-17 Part 2 2.0 Oslo 19 2.1 A brief history 20-21 2.2 Historical maps 22-23 2.3 The divided city 24-27
Statistics & maps
Part 3 3.0 Grønland 29 3.1 Introduction Grønland 30-31 3.2 Historic photos 32-33 3.3 Qualities 34-35 Part 4 4.0 Handling immigration 37 4.1 The expected path 38-39 4.2 Integration, assimilation & segregation 40-41 4.3 Micropublics 41 4.4 The spaces where people meet 42-43 Part 5 5.0 Onwards 45 5.1 The field report 46 5.2 Social sustainability 47 5.3 Architectural & urban scale 48 5.4 Concept model 49 5.5 (new) Micropublics in Grønland 50-51 5.4 Workingplan 52-53
Systems
Ambitions
Part 6 6.0 Additional 55 6.1 Master courses 56 6.2 CV 57
7
8
1.0
Introduction
9
1.1
Immigration and emigration Norway in a historical perspective
40.000
- 1975 Norway closes its boarder. No longer a free flow of immigration into the country.
20.000
1/3 of all norwegians emigrates to Amerika
0
-20.000
1850
1900
According to Thomas Hylland Eriksen there are two types of countries; the ones that import humans and the ones that export. Norway tend to forget that they were once an exporter when talking about immigrants and how to handle immigrant related issues today. As many as 1/3 of all norwegians emigrated to the states during the years from 1850 to 1914. After the American national census in 1990 it became clear that around 3.9 million people was of Norwegian descent. This number is huge when compared with Norway’s own population of 5.05 million people. The search for a better life has always been one of the main reasons for historical emigration and immigration in a Norwegian context. Norway was an exporter until as recent as the 1960’s (see graph above) but this changed when petroleum and gas was found and Norway entered the oil age.
10
1950
2000
Many Pakistani and Turkish immigrants arrived as labour immigrants to fill the jobs that norwegians did not want themselves. The standard of living increased with the amount of oil for the common man, making Norway more attractive for immigrants at this time.Norway closed its boarders in 1975. Before this people could arrive, work and get a residence permit quite easily. The number of immigrants arriving in Noway each year is still increasing despite the decision made in 1975. The reason for this may be the globalization process. Norway, and other developed countries, have a responsibility to the rest of the world to accept immigrants and refugees. A number of organizations, treaties and agreements have also made it easier for labour migrants to enter the country. Some leave after the work is done. Many stay or come back time after time.
Source: ssb.no
The ship, Stavangerfjord, transported many norwegians to America on their quest for a better life. Source: www.muho.no
11
1.2
Immigrants in Norway
Family reunion 37%
Labour 30%
Refugees 21%
Education 11%
The family reunion means that one or more members of the family living abroad are allowed to reunite with the parts of the family that already live or are settling in Norway.
The labour immigrants are situated in Norway due to work. they can be divided into four groups; seasonal workers, immigrant workers with or without work permits and posted workers.
A refugee is a person who is outside his or her country of origin or habitual residence because they have suffered (or fear) persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or because they are a member of a persecuted ‘social group’ or because they are fleeing a war. Such a person may be called an ‘asylum seeker’ until recognized by the state where they make a claim
The group called education contains exchange students, foreign students studying in Norway and Au Pairs.
12
Source: regjeringen.no
Source: regjeringen.no
s
d
z.
la n
ai
Th
er
H
a-
ne
pi
ilip
rk ey
Tu
n
ss ia
Ru
Ira
k
m
ar
m
en
sn i
Bo
Ph
D
ia
an
y
an
et na
Vi
th u
Li
er m
q
al ia
Ira
m
So
G
en
ed
nd
la
ki st an
Pa
Sw
Po
1.3
Norway and the world
Immigrants and their country of origin
13
1.4
Density of immigrants On a Norwegian municipal level
40.000
20.000
0
-20.000
14
Oslo 30.4% 189.401
Bergen 14.3% 38.789
Stavanger 19.9% 26.054
Trondheim 12.3% 22.290
Fredrikstad/Sarpsborg 14.6% 19.202
Drammen 24.7% 16.323
Porsgrunn/Skien 27.0% 11.029
Kristiansand 15.2% 13.033
Tromsø 10.3% 7.336
Tønsberg 12.1% 5.030
Ă…lesund 10.7% 4.889
Haugesund 14.9% 5.356
% number
percentage immigrants* of total population in the given municipality. amount of immigrants* in the given municipality
* 1st and 2nd generation immigrants from both western and non- western countries Source: ssb.no
15
1.5
Future growth of immigrants
Norway 2013 14,1% 1st and 2nd generation immigrants of total population
Statistisk Sentralbyrü (SSB) writes on their webpage that the amount of immigrants in Norway will increase in the years to come. In their population projection from 2010 they estimate that the number of 1st generation immigrants will be between 1 and 1.8 million people in 2060. The number of 2nd generation immigrants will grow from 93.000 to 300.000 - 500.000 people. The percentage of immigrants in Norway will increase from 14.1% (2013) to 22 - 28% (2060). The graph to the right shows SSB’s low, medium and high estimate of growth. The lines include both first and 2nd generation immigrants. The growth of foreign cultures and new immigrants in Norway is likely to result in bigger and more diverse and multicultural cities as the settlement pattern shows a massive move towards urban environments. In the future of Norwegian cities, inhabitants must learn to tolerate differences and cope with culture clashes on a daily basis. Norway is no longer a heterogeneous society and the growth suggested by SSB forces its population to move towards a an intercultural co-existence. The diploma will investigate the tools and means of action to pursue intercultural co-existence in order to contribute to the debate on how this can be achieved.
16
Source: ssb.no
2.500.000 High
2.000.000 Medium
1.500.000 Low
1.000.000
500.000
1990
Source: ssb.no
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
17
18
2.0
Oslo The divided city
19
2.1
A brief history
Oslo was founded around 1000 AD. Haakon V made it the capital of Norway in 1300 AD. Over the years, fire destroyed major parts of the city many times, as many of the city’s buildings were built entirely of wood. After the last fire in 1624, which lasted for three days, King Christian IV decided that the old city should not be rebuilt again. His men built a network of roads in Akershagen near Akershus Castle. He demanded that all citizens should move their shops and workplaces to the newly built city of Christiania. The city was known under the name Cristiania, named after King Christian IV, from 1877 to1925 when its original Norwegian name was restored. The transformation of the city went slowly for the first hundred years. Outside the city, near Vaterland and Grønland in Gamle Oslo, a new, unmanaged part of the city grew up with citizens of low status. In the 18th century, the city’s economy boomed with shipbuilding and trade. The strong economy transformed Christiania into a trading port. In the 19th century, several state institutions were established in the western part of the city and the city’s role as a capital intensified. Christiania expanded its industry from 1840, most importantly around Akerselva. The workers often lived close to their workplace creating a divided city in relation to status. The poor workers lived on the east side of Oslo and the elite in the west. As of 2010 the metropolitan area of Oslo has a population of 1,502,604, of whom 951,581 live in the contiguous conurbation. The population currently increases at record rates, making it the fastest growing major city in Europe. This growth stems for the most part from immigration and high birth rates among immigrants, but also from intranational migration. The immigrant population in the city is growing somewhat faster than the Norwegian population in Oslo today.
20
Source: no.wikipedia.org
21
2.2
Historical maps Development of the city center of Oslo
22
1937
1947
1984
2009
Source: kart.finn.no
2013
23
2.3
The divided city Oslo today
The population of Oslo was by 2010 increasing at a record rate of nearly 2% annually (17% over the last 15 years), making it the fastest-growing Scandinavian capital. Oslo has the largest population of immigrants and Norwegian-born to immigrant parents in Norway, both in relative and absolute figures. Of Oslo municipality’s 624,000 inhabitants, 189,400 were immigrants or Norwegian-born to immigrant parents. This makes out 30.4% of the capital’s entire population. All suburbs in Oslo were above the national average of 14.1%. The suburbs with the highest proportions of immigrants and Norwegian-born to immigrant parents were Søndre Nordstrand, Stovner og Alna, with around 50%. In 2013, 40% of Oslo’s primary school pupils were registered as having another first language than Norwegian or Sami. The western part of the city is predominantly ethnic Norwegian, with several schools having less than 5% pupils with an immigrant background. The eastern part of Oslo is more mixed, with some schools up to 97% immigrant share. Schools are also increasingly divided by ethnicity, with white flight being present in some of the northeastern suburbs of the city. In the borough Groruddalen in 2008 for instance, the ethnic Norwegian population decreased by 1,500, while the immigrant population increased by 1,600. Akerselva is constituting a border between the west and the east side of the city’s central districts. Historically it has separated the elite, in the west, from the workers, in the east, whereas later the minorities settled in the east central districts and the white workers moved to the suburbs. Gentrification processes have resulted in an upgrade in the east central districts such as Grünerløkka. It has made it both hip and attractive to the middle-class hence increasing the prizes of property. Many of the immigrants have moved from the east central districts to the suburbs of Grorud, Søndre Nordstrand and Alna. Grønland has also experienced gentrification. Gentrification has not transformed Grønland to the same extent as Grünerløkka.
Oslo 2013 30,4% 1st and 2nd generation immigrants of total population
The area of investigation is interesting because it is situated in an area where the east meets west in Oslo. At this location the divided city is tied together. It is also at this point that the city is connected to the rest of the Norway and the world through the central station, Oslo S. The variety of people, cultures and spaces in this area constitutes a prime location for bridging differences through developing a network of intercultural meeting places.
24
Source: ssb.no
The a rea of i
ve
n
tion ga sti
The district of Grønland
Os lo “Th cent r eg lo al s con bal & tation nec lo tor” cal
25
Nordre Aker
Vestre Aker
Sagene Ullern
St. Hanshaugen Frogner
Grorud
Alna
Grünerløkka Gamle Oslo
Østensjø
Nordstrand
Søndre Nordstrand
26
Stovner
Bjerke
West
East
No registered address 63.4%
Frogner 25.1%
Gamle Oslo 37.8%
Alna 48.6%
Ullern 16.5%
St. Hanshaugen 25.6%
Grünerløkka 33.2%
Grorud 44.6%
Nordre Aker 16.5%
Sagene 25.0%
Stovner 49.5%
Søndre Nordstrand 50%
% percentage immigrants* of total population in the given district of Oslo * 1st and 2nd generation immigrants from both western and non- western countries Source: ssb.no
27
28
3.0
Grønland
29
3.1
Introduction Grønland
Most of what we know today as Grønland was in fact under water in the 17th century. Grønland constituted the shoreline in medieval Oslo and iron bolts for mooring of boats where found in the walls during the demolition of the old buildings on Enerhaugen in the 1950’s. Grønland risked becoming a separate area apart from Kristiania in 1820. Neither Christiania town or parish Aker would be responsible for the area. Those who lived here would get some amount of help, but beyond this they would be an independent refuge. Grønland was looked upon as a cesspool of sin and the area was too bothersome for Kristiania to care. The independent refuge did not happen and Grønland was included in Kristiania in 1859. Farmers came to town with cattle and plank sellers offered material for building houses at Grønland Torg. When they had sold away their goods and were stiff with money they went to the bars and brothels of Grønland. The stories of farmers who woke up repenting and with empty wallets are many according to historian Leif Gjerland. “Det er svært få gater i Oslo som har karakter. De aller – aller fleste gatene kunde like gjerne ha vært i Berlin. Men Grønlandsleret har karakter – den har et ansikt som er den eget og den har en stemning som er litt Paris og meget Oslo..” Aftenposten 13.7.1928 (www.oslomuseum.no) Grønland experienced great changes after the 2nd World War. The metro (T-bane) came in 1966 and urbanization followed in the 80’s. old buildings were demolished despite strong protests, others were rehabilitated and new housing were built. The first migrant workers settled in Grønland in the 70’s. The immigrants arrived mainly from Pakistan and Turkey. A lack of an overarching political plan on where immigrants would settle together with cheap rent resulted in a high concentration of immigrants in Grønland where an apartment could be rented for only 30 NOK a month. This was the same price as in the 30’s and the landowner did not get more in rent than he needed to change the light bulbs. No one did anything about the housing and Grønland was under decay. The housing redevelopment and rehabilitation started in the 80’s. Many of the houses had been without any
30
maintenance for 40-50 years by this time. A shopping mall, a pedestrian zone and a vibrant nightlife replaced the cattle at Grønland Torg. “Det står ille til på Grønland/Nedre Tøyen. Andre botemidler mot denne hovedstadens absolutte skyggeside enn snarlig sanering og byfornyelse, kunne politikerne onsdag ikke ordinere.” Aftenposten 16.12.1977 (www.oslomuseum.no) The Grønland of today is a place where global elements are localized and cultures from around the world are de- and re-territorialized. It constitutes of living environments, communities and is at the same time a city that attracts people from different neighborhoods and parts of Oslo. The area is characterized by great variety and mixing of functions. Many buildings contain both housing, stores and other kinds of commercial premises. The size of the general housing in the area is small and there is a need for places to meet and express outside the home. Three of Oslo’s four mosques are situated in Grønland. Some of the mosques arrange alternative activities for its members and a lot of people travel from their home district to attend friday prayers. “The distinctive feature of mixed neighborhoods is that they are communities without community. ... Mixed neighborhoods need to be accepted as the spatially open, culturally heterogeneous, and socially variegated spaces that they are, not imagined as future cohesive or integrated communities.” (Amin, 2002, p. 972) The research foundation Fafo concluded in their report that the district of Gamle Oslo is characterized by substantially poor living conditions. The district has a high level of social clients, child welfare cases and many who needs special education. On top of this is 40% of all reported crimes in Oslo (2012) done here. Some outsiders describes Grønland as “ethnical slum” whilst others talks about the place as a living organism. The society paints a contrasting image of Grønland today, and the area serve as my point of departure whilst investigating and developing intercultural meeting places.
Grønland
31
3.2
Historic photos
32
Source: byarkivet.oslo.kommune.no
The images show Grønland at different points in history. It has always been considered a low status neighborhood, though gentrification has made it more attractive to the young middle-class the recent years. The images are not put in chronological order and are representing Grønland from 1921 - 1982. The images main purpose is to give the reader an impression of the atmosphere , people, living conditions and work that have existed, and to some extent still exists, in the neighborhood of Grønland
33
3.3
Qualities Existing micropublics and meeting places
12
15
1
- so Aker s cia l riv elva ers cap e?
14
6
5
4
7
8
16 3 11
1
10 17 OSLO S
1 2 3 4 5
34
Grønland kulturstasjon & Intercultural Museum, Tøyenbekken 5 Deichmanske library dept. Gamle Oslo, Hagegata 28 Jubba Youth Club, Urtehagen friskole, Urtehagen MAJOBO pilot project, Motzfeldts gate 1 Agenda X, activity center for youth, Storgata 25 ORKIS Red Cross resource center, Christian Krohgs gate 15
6 7 8 9 10
Central Jamaat-e-Ahl-eSunnat (mosque and culture) Urtegata 11 Riverside Youth Center Grønland 1 Grønland torg (the heart of Grønland) Bymisjonssenteret in the Tøyenchurch Herslebsgate 43 ICC Islamic Cultural Centre (mosque) Tøyenbekken 24
The botanical garden
13
9 2
The micro publics in the areas of Tøyen and Grønland are scattered all over the area and are hard to find if you do not know their location from before. The programs represented on the map are public organizations such as youth centers who arrange activities for young people, schools, a senior center, a library, a church, mosques and so on. There is also one restaurant represented as well as commercial programs at Grønland Torg. The micropublics are found through internet research and a rapport called “Store møter - små steder” published by Byggforsk in 2000.
Botsparken
The sites will function as a background for further investigation of meeting places in Grønland. My plan is to contact the organizations and talk to the users. An interesting finding from the Byggforsk text was that some of the organizations are only used by certain groups such as only muslims or only ethnic norwegian elderly. I need to find out if this is still the case and if yes, why? Mapping the programs of these places will also be important in order to find out what’s missing or is something missing at all? The findings from these sites will be presented in the field report.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Punjab Tandori Restaurant Grønland 24 Hersleb school Vahl school Rudolf Nilsens square Gamle Oslo Aktivitetshus (GOA) Heimdalsgata 14B Grønland multicultural senior center Breigata 9 Grønland/Gamlebyen frivilligsentral Platous gate 16
35
36
4.0
Handling immigration Immigrants in a Norwegian cultural context
37
4.1
The expected path An immigrant’s life in Norway
Labour
EXIT
Family reunion
EXIT
?
Refugees
+
EXIT EXIT EXIT
Education Au Pair
38
EXIT
Source: regjeringen.no
At arrival in Norway, all refugees must show their ID papers. 93% of all refugees who arrived in Norway as asylum seekers in 2011 had their ID papers (UDI).
?
Most asylum seekers / refugees in Norway are placed at a reception center. They often stay a long time.
The work or education can be the very reason for arriving in Norway or it can be initiated from the state. The Norwegian government try to get new immigrants into the labour market by offering training and courses. They also offer education to immigrants as a part of the integration process.
After a while they are transferred to a given municipality if they can’t afford housing by themselves.
Other educational measures can be provided for the immigrant if education or work is not an alternative. The goal is the same; to be integrated in Norway.
The information meeting is only provided to refugees after they have settled in a given municipality. The course also provides language tutoring.
The au pair are given a norwegian family before leaving his/her country of origin. The family must pay for language tutoring.
Learning Norwegian is important from a governmental perspective to all immigrants if they have a long term perspective for their stay in Norway.
The expected cycle of an immigrants life in Norway looks quite different depending on which group the immigrant belongs to. The refugee, the labour immigrant, the family reunion and the student / Au pair are expected to follow different paths when arriving in Norway. They all have in common the requirement for language skills in order to increase their understanding of Norwegian culture. The importance of learning Norwegian increases if the immigrant has a long time perspective for his/her stay in Norway. Language skills is also crucial when trying to build a network of friends or for getting a job. Though most norwegians speak english, the common tendencies shows that it is easier making friends and getting a job when mastering the Norwegian language. Language is also a vital part of what it means to be a part of a community. The goal from a political level is to empower immigrants in order for them to have a possibility to engage in their community. The inhabitants affective ties in a ethnically diverse community are not necessarily related to the local place where they live but rather to their family and country of origin.
EXIT
The immigrant leaves Norway. This decision can be voluntary or forced from a political level. The reasons for the EXIT varies from group to group.
When looking at the diagram it also becomes evident that a level of education is important for the immigrant to be integrated. Within the term education I also address work and alternative education such as courses and the learning of different skills relating to employment. Employment (sysselsetting) is a keyword. The goal is for the immigrants to be able to support themselves and their family and not to be dependent on governmental support. Some of the groups are already employed when coming to Norway such as the labour immigrant, the student and the au pair. The refugees and the Family reunion need more governmental support in order to achieve a certain level of skills that makes it easier to get a job or study. The aspect of language as well as work, skills and different classes are important from a Norwegian perspective in order to empower immigrants. I will take a closer look at some organizations working with this during the diploma process. Following this path may also be crucial for deciding for programs in the design work ahead.
39
4.2
Integration, assimilation & segregation Handling immigrants in a Norwegian context
Segregation
means that the minorities are physically separated from the majority. The process of segregation can be a conscious (the Apartheid regime in South Africa) or unconscious political decision (ethnic neighborhoods as a result of difference in status and stigmatization). If we look closer at Oslo one could claim that there is a level of segregation present with a relatively “white”, middle-class west side and a more ethnic, multicultural east side. The neighborhoods do not contain a mono-cultural population, for instance only Chinese, but rather a diverse aspect of Norway’s “new” norwegians. The segregation is not based upon a conscious political decision but the concept of “white-flight”. The “white-flight” increases the social perception of for instance Alna as a partly segregated community.
40
“Integration of immigrants is specifically about qualification, education, work, living conditions and social mobility; influence in democratic processes; participation in civil society; and affiliation, respect of differences and loyalty towards common values.” (Norges offentlige utredninger, 2011, p. 11) Whose values? The immediate answer would perhaps be the majority’s. But what are these values? Equality or sameness is an important value in Norway but is it even achievable or, for that matter, wanted? Integration and change goes both ways. The immigrants change in order to fit into the norwegian culture and the norwegian culture change through meetings with immigrants and their culture. The speed of this process is different according to the amount of people affected. The immigrant could be only one person or a small group and the norwegian culture holds a big number of people.
4.3
Micropublics As defined by Ash Amin
The spaces that Amin addresses are so-called “micropublics”. They are to be understood as open ended, places of process and not as places with a fixed or single identity. According to Amin, a micropublic space needs to be structured as a space of interdependence and habitual engagement, though he also claims that habitual contact is no guarantor for cultural exchange in between people. “Cultural change in these circumstances is likely if people are encouraged to step out of their routine environment, into other everyday spaces that function as sites of unnoticeable cultural questioning or transgression” (Amin, 2002, p. 969)
Assimilation is the process where the ethnic minority
merge with the majority and their cultural distinctiveness gradually disappears. This process can be imposed by the majority or chosen by the minority or individual and often requires a long period of time. The process of assimilation will be impossible if a persons skin color is of importance for the majority. Assimilation takes time. Often many generations. 2nd generation immigrants, or 1st generation norwegians as they are also called, are often living in a process of assimilation where every generation must create its own identity. Assimilation may cause confusion around ones own identity. Is the biggest problem for the ones living with two cultures the public pressure to chose one main cultural identity?
Micropublics work as spaces of cultural displacements. They force people with different cultural backgrounds into new settings that disrupts familiar patterns and offers the ones precent a possibility to break free from habitual patterns. In other words a “mask swap” from strangers to people or even future friends. Amin points at schools, workplace, communal gardens, urban murals, youth centers, legislative theater and places for civic duty as potential micropublics. These programs have in common that they are habitual, one need them no matter the color of the skin or religious views. They constitute spaces where people can meet as equals with a common goal or purpose for using the space. To have a thing in common is often referred to as the first step towards communication between people and therefore also cultural exchange between groups, assuming that the people that use the micro public space holds different cultural identities.
41
4.4
The spaces where people meet Ambitions for the diploma project
From a norwegian political perspective the integration process is the most attractive process for empowering immigrants though result is often a combination of segregation, integration and assimilation. The diploma will aim to create spaces that both work with and question todays processes of handling immigrants in Norway. Segregation, integration and assimilation all works with the process of adaptation, but the outcome of the process varies. My claim is that none of them can be achieved without good spaces where people meet. Can the alternative to segregation, integration and assimilation be micro-publics, spaces where people meet and differences are bridged? Or are the micropublics a supplement to the three processes? I hope to get closer to the answer during the diploma process. The ambitions for the diploma project is to create spaces in the city of Oslo where people can meet regardless of culture, identity, social status and religion. A neutral, everchanging meeting place. The most important aspect of the project will be to try and bridge cultural differences through meetings. I’m not trying to come up with a solution on how to integrate immigrants into a Norwegian culture, but rather to join the debate on how to move towards an intercultural co-existence where all parts of the society adapts to new situations in an increasingly global and diverse city. The architectural response in relation to achieving my ambitions may not be enough. The pursuit of an intercultural co-existence needs to penetrate all levels of the modern society. My role, as an architect, is not yet defined and the diploma will aim to clarify what architecture, the architect and the urban planner can contribute with when it comes to getting along and bond with new people across the wide range of cultures in Oslo. “it is never culture, but people who meet� (Eriksen, 2011, p. 45)
42
p
+
w
+
+ + + + ++ + ++ +
O
43
44
5.0
Onwards Where do I go from here?
45
5.1
The field report Investigating meetings in the city
Content: Mapping + mind-maps Interviews Phenomenons Narrative stories Collected urban stories Observations Photos Sketches 1:1 investigations on the site(s) The field report will be divided in three parts, one for each trip to Oslo. It will contain maps and investigations both urban and architectural as well as stories, quotes, interviews and observations all evolving around meetings between people. The goal of the field report is to function as a tool when picking (a) site(s) and program(s) as well as to create a point of departure for further design work. The making of the book will be a journey where the direction is decided by the people I meet on my way, investigations of meetings and the of the spacial context in which these meetings occur. Social relations, meeting places and people’s personal relationship to the city will be the main focus. I will try take on different roles; the foreigner, the archeologist digging for the social layers of the city, the architect and, perhaps the most important, the fellow human being. Understanding my new friends and their personal perspective on the city and its social meeting spaces is crucial. The aim will be to locate and investigate the micro-publics of the city. The field report will be an important tool in order to get an overview of the urban conditions and social relations of Oslo with a special focus on the neighborhood of Grønland.
46
5.2
Social sustainability
Cities and regions of the 21st century are multiethnic, multiracial and multiple. Oslo is no exception. The diploma will aim to answer questions on how to bridge differences in such a way so that it is no longer “us” and “them” and move towards a fully functional intercultural coexistence. “The ability of a community to develop processes and structures which not only meet the needs of its current members but also support the ability of future generations to maintain a healthy community.” (Definition of the term social sustainability www.businessdictionary.com) The overall goal of the diploma in relations to sustainability is the aspects embedded in the term social sustainability. I will focus on the topics of social equity, community development, understanding and accepting differences as well as social responsibility amongst the residents of the city. A diverse city needs diverse social spaces in order to bridge differences and develop a level of tolerance towards other cultures between the inhabitants of the city. I will aim to combine architecture with the social world in order to try and open up a debate on how intercultural co-existence may be implemented in a multicultural city like Oslo. The infrastructure or architecture provided during the process of the diploma will try to support and strengthen intercultural social life in Oslo. Aiming for a stronger social sustainability within the borders of the city will be present in all scales of the diploma. Strategies for developing or highlighting already existing micro publics in the cityscape should be the main focus when working in the urban scale. The structure designed in the architectural scale may be the starting point for the larger strategies suggested at an urban level. It is important to note that economical and environmental issues will be taken into consideration during the design process though social sustainability will be the main focus.
47
5.3
Architectural & urban scale Creating a point of departure for a larger strategy
The project will constantly zoom in and out between the urban and architectural scale throughout the process. The work developed in the two scales will and should be evolved parallel. I look upon the two scales as very dependent on each other, meaning that the architectural response may not be relevant without the urban strategy and vice versa. I will work with identifying and reinforcing the existing network of meeting places on an urban scale by attempting to create an urban network. The architectural scale will focus on adding missing links in the urban network. This may be done through adding missing programs or activities, activating voids in the urban fabric or develop existing programs further. The findings from the field report will hopefully give some guidelines on which path to follow. As for now I find it difficult to say exactly what the architectural and urban response will be but the aim is to create micro-publics that disrupts familiar patterns, places of everyday activity where people meet. The meeting place must mean something for the users in order to be a successful meeting place. This means, in an intercultural context and when dealing with immigrants, that the groups are allowed to express who they are besides being a refugee or a person of black skin color. The users should take part in developing the program of the meeting place and their knowledge, skills and forms of interaction should be of importance. Meeting places = activities + contact
48
5.4
Concept model Linking, adding to and reinforcing an existing network
49
5.5
A (new) network of places to meet Possible sites
6 5
4 3
1
1
A parking lot for busses. The site can be used for temporary programs before it is developed as a part of the new corporate development happening along the train tracks.
3
The vacant lot This site functions as a parking lot. It is a hole in the continuos facade of Grønlandsleiret. The site is very visible and may be a good site for a public program.
2 Hollender kvartalet This is a porous block in the dense urban fabric. Hollenderkvartalet used to house a kindergarden. Could it be the site that connects all the existing meeting places?
4
Under the bridge The space under the noisy road may be activated in a better way by developing facilitating for new activities.
50
2
5 Vaterlandsparken The park is not perceived as a safe place. Can the inhabitants of Grønland reclaim the space? 6 Brugata A busy pedestrian street with an opening in the continuos facade for a public meeting place.
51
5.6
Working plan January
February
March
Mandatory 6th & 7th Clearance meeting
3rd & 17th Studytrip
16th Deadline Social anthropoligy essay
27th 1:1 presentation
28th TTA / Sustainability day
6th & 7th 2nd presentation CONCEPT; elaborated material with models, drawing etc. Present conceptually in differenc scales. 27th Sustainability; Presentation/mock up of your material (Rotor, Harald Røstvik, Deane Simpson)
30th & 31st 1. presentation. Hand in 3 printed PROGRAM
Ambitions 1:1 / Event
Film (?)
Trip to Oslo
Trip to Oslo
Program development Mapping; Micropublics, social relations, find site(s), interviews Production; maps, diagrams Concept development Concept models; urban and architectural
52
April
28th & 29th 3rd presentation PROJECT; Show drawings and models in different scales (All tutors present at the 29th)
May
June
2nd - 24th Exhibtion period 20th Exhibition preview 27th - 29th EXAM 30th Announcing of result
Trip to Oslo Design proposals; urban and architectural
Production; project drawings, diagrams, details Models; 1:500, 1:200, 1:100, 1:20
Finishing design
Finishing drawings Finishing models Exhibition design
53