The Floodway

THE FLOODWAY A multi-disciplinary study seeking to integrate skatable design in sustainable stormwater management.

Lasse Bøtker Hansen // Master’s Thesis // Landscape architecture NMBU // Ås, May 2015

THE FLOODWAY

A multi-disciplinary study seeking to integrate skatable design in sustainable stormwater management.

FLOMVEIEN

Et multi-disiplinært studium om å integrere skatebart design i bærekraftig regnvannshåndtering.

Lasse Bøtker Hansen

M.Sc. in Landscape Architecture Submission date: May 2015 Supervisor: Deni Ruggeri, ILP Norwegian University of Life Science Deptartment of Landscape Architecture and Spatial Planning

Preface and Acknowledgement Modern society is facing huge challenges due to a changing climate, and we have to adapt to these changes in order to prevent future damage and ensure a safe and livable city. By configuring the urban stage to accomodate more rain and at the same time promote activity and public health, we can create a more sustainable and resilient city.

A multifunctional approach can make the impervious and hard meet the city dwellers need for recreation by becoming blue and green.

This together with my personal interrest in skateboarding and skate-culture has been the motivation of this study which represents the final product of my M.Sc. in Landscape Architecture.

The work of this thesis has been conducted with guidance by Accociate Professor Deni Ruggeri, whom I would like to thank for very helpful supervision. I would also like to thank M.Sc. Anne-Jori Løhre for support and valuable inputs to my work and LINK Landskab for consultation.

In Addition to this I want to thank Architect and Skateboarder Søren Enevoldsen for inputs and for inspiring me to pursuit this thesis’ topic. And Skateboarder/Skatepark-designer and former president of NORB Fritjof Krogsvold for further inputs.

i

ii

Table of Contents Preface and acknowledgement .................................................................................................... i ResumĂŠ .................................................................................................................................... v Abstract .................................................................................................................................... v 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Problem description ............................................................................................... 1

1.2 Existing literature .................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Research gab ...................................................................................................... 4

1.4 Research question ................................................................................................ 4

1.5 Goal & scope ........................................................................................................ 4

1.6 Method ................................................................................................................ 4

1.7 The thread of the thesis ......................................................................................... 5

1.8 The system of the thesis ........................................................................................ 6 2. Skateparks ........................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 8

2.2 The history of skateboarding ................................................................................... 9

2.3 The history of skateboarding in pictures .................................................................. 11

2.4 Types of skateparks ............................................................................................. 13

2.5 High quality skateparks ........................................................................................ 14

2.6 Elements in skatepark design ............................................................................... 15

2.7 Risk and injuries .................................................................................................. 17

2.8 The benefits of public skateparks .......................................................................... 18

2.9 Skateparks and skating in Oslo ............................................................................. 20

2.9.1 Skateboarders in Oslo ........................................................................ 20

2.9.2 The new and future skate facilities ........................................................ 21

2.9.3 The existing skate facilities ................................................................... 21 3. Stormwater management ..................................................................................................... 23

3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 24

3.2 Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems .................................................................... 24

3.3 Stormwater management 1793 - 2050 ................................................................ 25

3.4 5 principles for sustainable urban drainage ............................................................. 27

3.5 The S.U.D.S ....................................................................................................... 29

3.6 The envisioned system of stormwater management in Oslo ..................................... 31 4. Case study ......................................................................................................................... 33

6.5 Stormwater analysis ............................................................................................. 46 6.5.1 Pipesystem ....................................................................................... 46

6.5.2 Catchment area ................................................................................. 47

6.5.3 Surface elevation analysis .................................................................... 48

6.5.4 Slope analysis ................................................................................... 49

6.5.5 Watershed analysis ............................................................................ 50

6.5.6 Roof analysis ..................................................................................... 51

6.5.7 Calculating the stormwater masses ...................................................... 52

6.5.8 Stormwater calculation ....................................................................... 53

6.5.9 Summary of stormwater analyses ........................................................ 54 7. Design proposal .................................................................................................................. 55

7.1 Localities with different potential for the implementation of standard S.U.D.S. ............. 56

7.2 A skateable re-design of S.U.D.S. ........................................................................ 63

7.3 Proposal for a floodway in Kuba Park ..................................................................... 72

7.3.1 Existing conditions .............................................................................. 73

7.3.2 Design concepts ............................................................................... 75

7.3.3 The plan ........................................................................................... 77

7.3.4 The floodway ..................................................................................... 79

7.3.5 The detail plan ................................................................................... 81

7.3.6 Section AA* ...................................................................................... 83

7.3.7 Section BB* ...................................................................................... 85

7.3.8 Section CC* ...................................................................................... 87

7.3.9 The wall ............................................................................................ 89

7.3.10 Visual 1 ........................................................................................... 91

7.3.11 Visual 2 ........................................................................................... 93

7.3.12 Visual 3 ........................................................................................... 95

7.3.13 The overview ................................................................................... 97 8. Discussion & Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 99 9. References ....................................................................................................................... 101 Appendix:

(A) Inteview with Søren Envoldsen

(B) Interview with Fritjof C. Krogsvold

(C) Site observation

5. Plans, laws and regulations in Oslo ........................................................................................ 35 6. Site .................................................................................................................................... 39

6.1 Location ............................................................................................................. 40

6.2 The area ............................................................................................................ 41

6.3 The history .......................................................................................................... 42

6.4 Kuba Park today ................................................................................................. 45

iii

List of illustrations Ill. 1: The thread of the thesis (by author) Ill. 2: The system of the thesis (by author) Ill. 3: Skateboarders infront of Oslo town hall Ill. 4: The Plaza at The Forks Ill. 5: The Green Lab Ill. 6: Gabriel skatepark (raingarden) Ill. 7: Ed Benedict skatepark Ill. 8: The Edgemont Ditch Ill. 9: Rabalderparken Ill. 10: Watersquare Benthemplein Ill. 11: Van Buren Dam Ill. 12: ’Three Wheeler’ Ill. 13: ’Scooter Skate’ Ill. 14: Chunk of wood Ill. 15: Clay wheels Ill. 16: First commercial board Ill. 17: Urethane wheels Ill. 18: Plastic board Ill. 19: Z-boys skateboard Ill. 20: Transition skateboard Ill. 21: Modern skateboard Ill. 22: Z-boys swimming pool Ill. 23: Upland Skatepark Ill. 24: Carlsbad Skatepark Ill. 25: Burnside Skatepark Ill. 26: Vancouver Skate Plaza Ill. 27: Rabalderparken Skatepark Ill. 28: The Z-Boys Ill. 29: Tony Hawk Ill. 30: Rodney Mullen Ill. 31: Rob Dyrdeck Ill. 32: Pipe (by author) Ill. 33: Half-pipe (by author) Ill. 34: Quarter-pipe (by author) Ill. 35: Mini-ramp (by author) Ill. 36: Stair (by author) Ill. 37: Stair w rail (by author) Ill. 38: Hubba (by author) Ill. 39: Pyramid (by author) Ill. 40: Funbox (by author) Ill. 41: Manual-pad (by author) Ill. 42: Pool (by author) Ill. 43: Bowl (by author) Ill. 44: Swale (by author) Ill. 45: Embankment (by author) Ill. 46: Launch-ramp (by author)

iv

Ill. 47: Rail (by author) Ill. 48: Box (by author) Ill. 49: Bench (by author) Ill. 50: Age and Injuries Ill. 51: Injuries compared to other sports Ill. 52: Some of the positiv outcomes of skateboarding Ill. 53: Skateboarders preference diagram (by author) Ill. 54: Skateboaders age diagram (by author) Ill. 55: Visualization of new skatehall in Voldsløkka, Olso.

Ill. 56: Proposed skatepark at Marselisgate in Oslo by LINK Landskap.

Ill. 57: Most popular skatespot not designated for skating, Oslo town hall.

Ill. 58: New, planned and renovated skateparks. The black is the Ila area Ill. 59: All skate-destinations of Oslo Ill. 60: Skate spots (not purposely buils skate localities) Ill. 61: All skateparks Ill. 62: Indoor skateparks Ill. 63: Outdoor skateparks Ill. 64: Skateparks with miniramp Ill. 65: Skateparks with bowl Ill. 66: Skateparks with street elements Ill. 67: Skateparks with miniramp + bowl Ill. 68: Skateparks with miniramp + street elements Ill. 69: Skateparks with miniramp + street + bowl + vert Ill. 70: Outdoor skateparks with roof Ill. 71: Flooding on Maridalsveien in Oslo Ill. 72: Stormwater Management 1793 - 2050 Ill. 73: Principles for sustainable urban drainage (by author) Ill. 74: Delay (by author) Ill. 75: Percolation (by author) Ill. 76: Evaporation (by author) Ill. 77: Purification (by author) Ill. 78: Transportation (by author) Ill. 79: Dry Basin Ill. 80: Raingarden Ill. 81: Wet Basin Ill. 82: Swale Ill. 83: Green roof Ill. 84: Permeable pavement Ill. 85: Soakaway pit Ill. 86: Wadi Ill. 87: 3-point strategy (by author) Ill. 88: One of the two paved canals that transports

stormwater in Rabalderparken.

Ill. 89: 1st scenario Ill. 90: 2nd scenario Ill. 91: 3rd scaenario Ill. 92: The water cycle of Rabalderparken Ill. 93: 17th of May in Kuba Park Ill. 94: Location- Norway (by author) Ill. 95: Location- Oslo (by author) Ill. 96: The green context around Ila Ill. 97: Age Ila (by author) Ill. 98: Growth Ila (by author) Ill. 99: Ilabekken 1861 Ill. 100 - 117: The historical development 1881-2014 Ill. 118: On the 17th of May, people meet in the Kuba Park to celebrate the Norwegian Constituion Day. Ill. 119 Existing unintended secondary floodways Ill. 120: A flooded Maridalsveien Ill. 121: Pipe system of Oslo. The red illustrates combined sewers.

Ill. 122: Catchment area (by author) Ill. 123: Surface elevation analysis (by author) Ill. 124: Slope analysis (by author) Ill. 125: Watershed analysis (by author) Ill. 126: Roof analysis (by author) Ill. 127: Road calculation (by author) Ill. 128: Potential SUDS localities (by author) Ill. 129: Maridalveien - existing Ill. 130: Maridalveien - transformed (by author) Ill. 131: Parking - existing Ill. 132: Parking - transformed (by author) Ill. 133: Roof - existing Ill. 134: Roof - transformed (by author) Ill. 135: Roundabout - existing Ill. 136: Roundabout - transformed (by author) Ill. 137: Waldemar thranes gate - existing Ill. 138: Waldemar thranes gate - transformed (by author) Ill. 139: Ila gate - existing Ill. 140: Ila gate - transformed (by author) Ill. 141: The bench (by author) Ill. 142: The ledge (by author) Ill. 143: The embankment (by author) Ill. 144: The manual-pad (by author) Ill. 145: The mini-ramp (by author) Ill. 146: The pyramid (by author) Ill. 147: The lunch-ramp (by author)

Ill. 148: The swale (by author) Ill. 149: Aerial photo of site Ill. 150: Length and width (by author) Ill. 151: Maridalsveien (by author) Ill. 152: Existing paths and movement (by author) Ill. 153: Existing parking (by author) Ill. 154: Existing terrain (by author) Ill. 155: Existing trees (by author) Ill. 156: Permeable pavement (by author) Ill. 157: Adjacent buildings (by author) Ill. 158: Design concepts (by author) Ill. 159: Masterplan (by author) Ill. 160: The floodway (by author) Ill. 161: Detail plan (by author) Ill. 162: Section AA* (by author) Ill. 163: Section BB* (by author) Ill. 164: Section CC* (by author) Ill. 165: The wall (by author) Ill. 166: Visual 1 (by author) Ill. 167: Visual 2 (by author) Ill. 168: Visual 3 (by author) Ill. 169: Overview of the floodway (by author)

Resumé (Danish)

Abstract (English)

Vi ser i dag et stort behov for at omstille byerne til at kunne modstå et konstant ændrende klima der byder på større og mere intense regnskyld. Klimaet er i forandring og byerne er ikke indrettet til at kunne håndtere de vandmængder som klimaændringerne fører med sig. Til tider opstår der kapacitets problemer når store regnskyld forekommer, hvilket nogle steder fører til oversvømmelser pga en ekstrem belastning af kloaknettet.

Foruden problemer med at håndtere mere vand i byerne, er befolkningvækst og fortætning af byen også med til at skabe implikationer. Byens begrænsede rum skal yde mange funtioner og denne masteropgave fokuserer på et forholdvis nyt fænomen bestående i en bevidst sammenkobling af skate orienteret design og regnvandshåndtering. Sammentænkte løsninger har fordele og denne opgave forsøger at skabe et større fokus på de mange fordele der er ved konstruktionen af offentlige skateparker, lokal regnvandshåndtering (SUDS) og ved sammenkoblingen af disse.

Skateboardingens historie viser hvordan skateboarding er en sport med relationer til vand-konstruktioner og egentlig er udviklet som en erstatning for surfing. Denne sport kræver i dag stor expertise, både hvad gælder udøvelse og skatepark-designerens forståelse for at imødekomme de krav som i dag sættes til konstruktionen af en skatepark. Skateparkens konstruktion har udviklet sig siden den første park blev opført i 70’erne og i dag ser vi et større fokus på at gøre dem mere bæredygtige.

Håndteringen af regnvand har ligesom skateboarding udviklet sig gennem tiden, og i dag ser vi at der er mange fordele ved at håndtere regnvand lokalt. Lokal regnvandshåndtering aflaster kloaksystemet og medbringer samtidig en masser kvaliteter der ikke mindst består i en forgrønning af byen. Ved sammenkoblingen af regnvandshåndtering og skatepark design imødekommes behovet for flerfunktionelle løsninger i nutidens tætte byer.

Denne opgave udspringer af et aktuelt oversvømmelses-problem tilknyttet et særligt udsat område på Maridalveien i Ila-området i Oslo. Som et resultat af arbejdet med denne opgaves fokus-områder, fremlægges en løsning på oversvømmelses problemerne på Maridalsveien i form af et skematisk forslag til skatebare regnvandskonstruktioner til implimentering i det oversvømmelses-udsatte område samt et design-forslag til en kombineret skatepark og ’floodway’ i Kuba Parken.

I denne master-opgave fremlægges forskellige muligheder for at kombinere skating og lokal regnvandhåndtering for således, at imødekomme et stigende behov for skate faciliteter i Oslo samt mindske risikoen for urban oversvømmelse. Resultatet af denne opgaves studier af henholdsvis skateparker og regnvandshåntering viser, hvordan kombinerede løsninger er muligt og har mange fordele, men at det kommer med visse restriktioner i konstruktionen. De lokale forhold er essentielle for udformningen af den enkelte konstruktion og derfor er det en særegen opgave at designe en skatebar regnvandskonstruktion.

Dertil er det vigtigt at forstå præmisserne for en god skate-facilitet, hvilket hovedsageligt består i en belagt, jævn og tæt overflade såsom beton. Dette strider meget imod den lokale regnvandshåndterings principper om nedsivning og infiltration, hvorfor det ikke er direkte muligt at sammenflette såkaldte SUDS konstruktioner (sustainable urban drainage systems) med skate konstruktioner. Måden at kombinere skating med lokal regnvandshåntering må derfor ske ved at integrere skating i design-konteksten således at det blir en tilføjet værdi til den regnvandshåndterende konstruktion.

A constantly changing climate in Norway as well as the rest of the world is causing many challenges in today’s society and amongst these challenges are greater amounts of rainfall and very intense so-called cloudbursts. The climate is changing and we cannot escape the need to rethink our cities in order to adapt and become more resilient. In many places, flooding occurs in urban settings because of an insufficient wastewater system incapable of managing the extensive amounts of stormwater that runs into the sewers. We need to act.

Despite from climate related issues a growing population and densification of the city is causing further implications. The space of the city is limited and has to provide multiple functions, which in the light of this thesis consists in solving a growing demand for skateboard facilities as well as reducing the risk of flood in Oslo. This thesis focusses on a relatively new phenomenon, which consists in a deliberate fusion of skate oriented design and stormwater management. Multi-functional solutions has certain benefits and this thesis seeks to increase the focus on the many benefits of public skateparks, local stormwater management (SUDS) and the combination of these.

Skateboarding has met a lot of opposition through the years but has recently proven to have various benefits to both the skateboarders and the society. The history of skateboarding shows that it has developed in close relation to water features like swimming pools and as a substitute for surfing in its early days, but throughout the years, skateboarding has branched into different styles and become its very own sport and lifestyle. The technical development of the sport has resulted in high demands to the design of skateboard facilities and today we even see a shift in the approach to skateparks aiming at a more sustainable way of constructing them.

Stormwater management has, just like skateboarding, developed throughout the years and the history of stormwater management shows that the stormwater actually has been disconnected from its natural flow because of urban development. The result is impervious surfaces, which is causing extensive problems in cities today because of larger and more intense downpours. The changing climate has forced urban stormwater management back to its original concept of local percolation and infiltration, a concept which has great potential of creating a more green, livable and climate-resilient city for the future.

In this thesis, ‘Maridalsveien’, a road in Oslo, has been a subject of study. There is a spot on this road particularly exposed to flooding whenever heavy rainfall occurs and this area is investigated in detail. As a result of the studied subjects (skatepark design and stormwater mangement), a schematic design proposal for skateable stormwater facilities for this area is presented.

This thesis presents various ways of integrating skateboarding into stormwater managing constructions in order to accommodate a need for more skating facilities and reduce the risk of urban flood. The design outcome of this study illustrates how combined solutions are possible, but it comes with certain restrictions. Skating belongs to paved and smooth surfaces something that conflicts with the green and natural consistency of SUDS elements in local stormwater management. Therefore it is not possible to directly merge the two, why a skateable design only can be accommodated by integrating skating into the context of stormwater management.

v

1. Introduction 1.1 PROBLEM DISCRIPTION The climate in Norway as well as the rest of the world is changing which is causing more precipitation.

This in combination with the fact that Oslo is becoming a denser city, challenges the infrastructure and increases the pressure on the urban recreational areas. A growing population together with skateboarding gaining more popularity brings attention to an increasingly higher demand for renovation of old and construction of new skate facilities in Oslo. More people, more rain and a higher demand on skateable facilities puts Oslo under extensive pressure because of limited space. These three challenges; climate change (bullet point 1), population growth (bullet point 2) and, an increasing demand for skate facilities in Oslo (bullet point 3) is presented in the following sections.

years of skating, and today we see that governments and municipalities has realized the many benefits of providing public facilities for skating. Unfortunately Oslo seems to be lagging behind compared to other Scandinavian cities. Oslo is said to have a poor offer of public skateparks, but the fact that the municipality of Oslo is developing an actual plan to enlighten the existing supply of skateboard facilities, shows that Oslo wants to develop as a skatepark providing city and accommodate a growing demand. The only conflicting dilemma in providing more skate facilities is that skateboarding just like any other activity requires space, but space is limited in dense cities.

1.2 Existing literature

- Climate change: The climate is changing and statistics shows how global warming are causing rising temperatures and increasingly greater amounts of precipitation (klimatilpasningsplan, Oslo Kommune). Heavy rainfall has already become a problem in many cities causing flooded streets and basements, something which can entail big health issues and result in substantial economic costs. An example can be found in Copenhagen where a lot of rainfall, including a so-called 100-year rain event, occurred in 2011, causing financial damage between 5 and 6 billion Danish kroner (kbh skybrudsplan 2012).

Norway is just like many other countries challenged by these changes in the climate. The average annual precipitation of Norway is expected to increase with 5-30% (12% in the Oslo region) by 2100 and the increase in rainfall within the last 30 years has never been higher. Large increases in the precipitation is mainly expected in the autumn, winter and spring season, whereas the precipitation is expected to increase less in the summer season. Nevertheless, the precipitation in the summer seasons are expected to be short and intense occurring as so-called cloudbursts/rainstorms. Cloudburst can cause big trouble since they consists in a big amount of rain falling within a short period of time, which quickly will fill the sewer system and force the stormwater to go other ways. Extreme rain incidents like cloudbursts are expected to increase with 30-70% by 2100, which means that the flooding caused by rainfall will get worse and cause even more damage. (klimatilpasningsplan, Oslo Kommune) In order to minimize the risk of potential climate related issues, Oslo needs to adapt.

- Population growth and densification: Densification is a primary result when the population of cities are growing. Since 2000 the population of Oslo has increased with 25% and by 2025 the population of Oslo is expected to increase with further 1%. Oslo is becoming a denser city and densification of cities has long been seen as a sustainable development, but it also creates some management and capacity challenges when it comes to planning the city. The increasing population creates a bigger pressure on the outdoor spaces of Oslo as well as the wastewater systems. The limited space of a dense city forces Oslo to be more creative and find combined solutions in order to provide urban space and deal with the climate related challenges. The natural cycle of stormwater has been neglected in the development of the modern city where impervious surfaces are a dominating result of intense human activity. Stormwater in cities has long been seen as a problem why the main system for managing it today consists in disposal through underground sewer systems.

- Skatepark demand: Skateboarding and skateparks has long been negatively associated because of an unfortunate stereotyping of skateboarders. Luckily, these associations has changed dramatically within the modern

1

The following represents published relevant studies. ’What’ is it about and ’Why’ is it relevant.

Search engines: Web of Science and Google Scholar.

Creating multifunctional landscapes: how can the field of ecology inform the design of the landscape?

(Lovell & Johnston, 2008).

WHAT: The article talks about the value of engaging ecologists in the design of landscape to meet the growing population and minimize negative human impact. It proposes a process for designing multifunctional landscapes guided by ecological principles, while at the same time addressing the need for a multi-scale approach and the benefits of multifunctional design.

WHY: I can use this research to help me understand the need for and benefits of incorporating ecological principles into multifunctional design.

Designing, planning, and managing resilient cities: A conceptual framework. (Desouza & Flanery, 2013).

WHAT: The article talks about a holistic approach in designing, planning and managing the resilient city as being a complex system of components, processes and interactions. One needs to understand these complexities and evaluate the vulnerable components of a city, to be able to diminish stressors and achieve resilience. It proposes a framework for designing, planning and managing for resilience, which includes an evaluation of cultural and process dynamics.

WHY: I can use it to get a more holistic understanding of resilience, and the approach to it.

Green roofs against pollution and climate change. A review. (Li & Babcock Jr, 2014).

WHAT: The article talks about green roofs as a beneficial element to provide sustainable advantages.

‘Green roofs reduce stormwater runoff, mitigate urban heat island effects, absorb dust and smog, sequester carbon dioxide, produce oxygen, create space for food production, and provide natural habitat for animals and plants’.

WHY: I can use this article to argue for implementing green roofs in Oslo in order to reduce stormwater runoff and achieve a more resilient and sustainable city.

Planning for climate change in urban areas: from theory to practice. (Wamsler et al, 2013).

What: The article reviews current theoretical and practical approaches to adapt cities to the changing climate. It identifies characteristics and features of the climate resilient city and analyses the connections between climate-related disasters, urban form and city planning. It also evaluates current proposed adaptation measures and discusses the implications of improving urban resilient development.

WHY: I can use it to improve my understanding of climate resilient cities, the theoretical and practical approaches to it, the gaps between these and climate adaptive planning, and the correlation of resilient planning, urban form and incidents caused by the change in climate.

Planning the resilient city: Concepts and strategies for coping with climate change and environmental risk. (Jabareen, 2013).

WHAT: The article talks about the multidisciplinary complexity of economic, social, spatial and physical factors within urban resilience and proposes a new innovative framework called RCPF, which is a framework for adapting cities to the climate change.

WHY: I can use it to understand the complexity of adaptive city planning that leads towards a more resilient state.

From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: Sustainability and resilience in the new urban world. Landscape and Urban Planning. (Ahern, 2011).

WHAT: The article talks about early definition of sustainability and how cities was made sustainable with a ‘fail-safe’ mentality, whereas todays focus on resilience has changed this mentality into ‘safe-to-fail’. It also talks about the theory of resilience and how to make resilience capacity through multi-functionality, redundancy and modularization, diversity (social and bio), multi-scale network and connectivity, and adaptive planning and design.

WHY: I can use this article to learn about how to promote resilience capacity in cities, and maybe understand the new development towards adaptive sustainability.

Sustainable urban forms their typologies, models, and concepts. (Jabareen, 2006).

WHAT: The article talks about urban sustainable forms and their design concepts. It identifies seven sustainable concepts: compactness, sustainable transport, density, mixed land use, diversity, passive solar design, greening, and four sustainable urban forms: the neo-traditional development, the urban containment, the compact city and the eco-city.

WHY: I can use this article to enhance this projects focus on resilience and sustainability and use its outcome (a matrix of sustainable urban forms) to evaluate and propose a future sustainable development of a site in Oslo.

Climate change and urban resilience. Current opinion in environmental sustainability. (Leichenko, 2011).

WHAT: The article talks about a broad consensus in literature on resilience and states that cities must become more resilient and that climate change resiliency goes hand in hand with promoting urban sustainable development. Furthermore, the article highlights some gaps in the practical application of resilience, such as identifying innovative options, which foster resiliency.

WHY: I can use this article to argue that there is little or no studies on identifying innovative options for creating resilience, why this project seems to shred light upon something new and innovative.

Landscape planning and stress. (Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2003).

What: The article talks about an increase in people suffering from stress, depression, burnout syndrome, fatigue and insomnia. It argues that availability and accessibility to green spaces can reduce stress.

WHY: This article stresses the need for green, urban environments, which is something that needs to be taken into consideration when it comes to planning and designing a new resilient city.

The significance of parks to physical activity and public health: a conceptual model. (Bedimo-Rung et al 2005) WHAT: This article investigates park environmental characteristics, which could be related to physical activity such as access, condition, aesthetics, safety and policies. It suggests that data on a park ought to be collected in and around the park, in adjacent neighborhoods and supporting areas.

WHY: This article can help me to understand the correlation between park design and park use. I can use it as background material when it comes to analyzing and understand a site.

Natural versus urban scenes. Some psychophysiological effects. (Ulrich, 1981).

WHAT: The article is about the positive effect of exposure to water and vegetation. This natural exposure clearly benefits the human mental health compared to exposure to urban content.

WHY: I can use this article/study as an argument for promoting the benefits of the blue and natural environment. It can serve as background knowledge when it comes to researching, analyzing, discussing and/or designing, planning and developing.

Power plays in public space: Skateboard parks as battlegrounds, gifts, and expressions of self. (Jones & Graves, 2000).

WHAT: This paper presents a collection of skatepark case studies from Oregon. Through questionnaires and interviews, the article validates the use of past research on the importance of considering the issues and concerns of adolescent in skatepark design.

WHY: I can use this article to learn about important considerations when it comes to designing a skatepark. Skateparks forms the settings of a very important place for developing older children, teens and young adults.

Physical Education Curriculums: All Skateboarders Welcome. (Klimchuk, 2012).

WHAT: The articles enlightens what skateboarding can be understood as (lifestyle, transportation etc.).

It talks about the development from activity into identity and then a subculture. It examines the positive benefits of skateboarding (physical, psychological and social), and discusses the stereotyping and social resistance of it.

WHY: I can use this article to clarify and define the many different aspects of skating. It can help me to understand the historical development and provide me with knowledge about what should be considered when designing a skatepark.

Skate parks as a context for adolescent development. (Bradley, 2010).

WHAT: The article focusses on skateparks and its context within leisure activity. It distinguishes between skateboarding as an unstructured leisure activity and other unstructured leisure activities, and shreds light on the potential positive adolescent development in skateparks.

WHY: I can use this article for the same reason as the one above, and further this article addresses the importance of adolescent development in skatparks.

Dispelling Stereotypes… Skate Parks as a Setting for Pro-Social Behavior among Young People. (Wood et al, 2014).

WHAT: The article talks about the presence of pro-social (e.g. socializing, teaching) and anti-social (e.g. graffiti, conflict) behavior in skateparks. Data collected by questionnaire and observation shows that anti-

2

social behavior is much less common than pro-social behavior. The article addresses that location, planning, and engagement of skaters in the design can minimize perceived problems of skateparks.

WHY: I can use this article to shred light upon the social benefits of skateparks and to proclaim the fact that there seems to be opposition to skateparks very much because of the sometimes negative stereotyping of skateboarders.

Skateparks as a health resource: are they as dangerous as they look? (Dumas & Laforest, 2009).

WHAT: The article is about the dilemma between skateboarding as a sport full of risk for injuries and a sport with health promoting benefits. The article address the fact that skateparks should be seen as a valuable heath resource because of the ‘social capital’ and ‘physical capital’ of skateboarding, which provide health and encourages a safe and active lifestyle.

WHY: The article introduces two important expressions ‘social capital’ and ‘physical capital’, which I can use in my research. It addresses the importance of seeing skateparks not only as a venue for risky leisure activity but also as a social place that promotes health.

Skimming the surface-the skatepark industry has been grinding for 40 years, and has finally found its footing. (Avrasin, 2004).

WHAT: The article talks about the materials used to design skateparks and to meet the requirements from skaters. Concrete seems to have become the preferred material for skateparks, but still the skatepark has to be designed correctly. The article ends up providing a list of pros and cons of the different materials.

WHY: I can use this article to understand what is preferable when it comes to constructing a good skatepark.

A Review of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems Considering the Climate Change and Urbanization Impacts. (Zhou, 2014).

WHAT: The article defines sustainable drainage design, and introduces and compares the different sustainable drainage solutions and their positive effects. Finally, the article talks about the benefit of a trans-disciplinary design-approach in sustainable drainage.

WHY: I can use this article to help me define sustainable urban drainage and to improve my understanding of what sustainable drainage can do when it comes to preventing the potential negative incidents such as flooding caused by a changing climate.

Adaption to extreme rainfall with open urban drainage system: An integrated hydrological cost-benefit analysis. (Zhou et al, 2013).

WHAT: The article talks about socio-economic costs/benefits in climate adaptation alternatives and the gains/losses of more water in green areas. It investigates four adaptation strategies and concludes that the best one seems to be ‘open drainage basins in urban recreational areas’.

WHY: I can use this article together with the literature on resilient cities to argue for the implementation of open and multipurpose solutions in Oslo.

Identification and induction of human, social, and cultural capitals through an experimental approach to stormwater management. (Green et al, 2012).

WHAT: The article is about decentralizing stormwater management by engaging citizens, and in this way obtain human, social and cultural capital through stormwater managements. The conclusion is positive

3

and shows that people (after having been educated in stormwater management) would like to voluntarily help.

WHY: This article enlightens me with a new way of approaching stormwater management in order to gain human, social and cultural capital. The article tells me that everyone should have an interest in adapting to climate change and that we can extract many positive benefits while doing it. When implementing a stormwater system in a neighborhood, local citizen should be included in the process.

Innovative stormwater design: The role of the landscape architect. (Tunney & Magazine, S. T. O. R. M. W. A. T. E. R., 2001) WHAT: The article talks about an evolution in landscape architecture. This evolution is emerging because of an innovative revolution in stormwater management. Engineers used to be the ones in charge of stormwater management, but today, due to the great potential of water, landscape architects is given the essential role as designers.

WHY: I can use this article to understand and learn the innovative role and the responsibility we as landscape architects have when it comes to designing, planning and developing our cities towards resilience and sustainability.

Three Points Approach (3PA) for urban flood risk management: A tool to support climate change adaptation through transdisciplinarity and multifunctionality. (Fratini et al 2012).

WHAT: The article talks about urban flood risk management (UFRM) and the complexity of decision making. The Three Point Approach (3PA) is introduced as a way to increase awareness, acceptance and participation among stakeholders in water management. The 3PA consists of 1; technical optimization 2; spatial planning and 3; day-to-day values.

WHY: The 3PA is a tool to understand all aspects of the complexity in urban flood risk management. It can be very useful as it promotes multi-functionality in water-management, which is the main focus of this report.

Inner city stormwater control using a combination of best management practices. (Villarreal et al, 2004).

WHAT: The article introduces BMP (best management practices) in stormwater manangement. The separation of stormwater from a combined sewer system into an open system is being investigated in an older central area. Stormwater management solutions are chosen by cost, available land, safety and/or public expectation. The article concludes that green roofs are a good solution when it comes to lowering the run-off, and detention ponds are good at mitigating a 10-year stormwater event.

WHY: I can use the this article to argue for the implimentation of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems in Oslo due to its many great benefits.

Multifunctional land use in urban spaces to adapt Urban infrastructure. (Siekmann et al 2012) WHAT: The article demonstrates the advantages of SUDS (in Norwegian LOD). It talks about climate change as the cause of the problem, and states that enlarging the sewers is not an affordable solution, why stormwater management should be decentralized, infiltrated and/or stored.

WHY: I can use this article to identify good solutions in stormwater management, and enhance my knowledge on the topic. The article has some good arguments, and it inspires me to want to know more about the whole waterflow-system in and around the site of interest in this master thesis.

1.3 RESEARCH GAP The combination of skatepark design and stormwater management is a relatively new but growing phenomenon. Literature on this multidisciplinary approach is of rare occurrence today even though there is extensive knowledge on both topics separately.

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS How can skateable design be combined with urban stormwater management to accommodate a growing skatepark demand and a need for a more climate resilient city?

What are the benefits and challenges of combining stormwater management with skateboarding in order to create a climate resilient city?

1.5 Goal & Scope Goal: This study aims to enlighten the potential benefits of combining stormwater management with skateboarding to create a climate resilient city.

Scope: In order to reach the goal of this thesis, the requirements and challenges regarding the two topics, skatepark design and stormwater management, are studied separately. These topics are hereafter viewed in the light of combining them in order to see the challenges of this as well as understand the potentials that lies within a hybrid design.

This thesis will: - Study the development of skateboarding and skateparks.

- Identify different types of skatepark design and the elements within.

- Study the benefits of skateboarding and skateparks.

- Clarify the existing skateparks conditions in Oslo.

- Study the development of stormwater management.

- Study sustainable urban drainage.

- Study ways of combining stormwater management with skateboarding.

- Study goals, regulations and legal requirements.

- Study a site in Oslo dealing with flood issues.

- Present a design proposal for this site, which considers the different studies.

1.6 Method The method used to conduct this thesis consists in a study of existing relevant literatures on the concerning topics together with interviews of appropriate persons. Together with this, a case study of a comparable project and analyses of site and stormwater has been used to develop the design proposal presented in this thesis.

4

1.7 The thread of the thesis The following setup represents the coherence of this thesis and is meant to assist the reader as an overview.

Intro Resilience Sustainability Climate change Multi-functionality

I will introduce flood from stormwater as a problem caused by a changing climate and adress a nesessary transformation towards a more sustainable and resilient city. Because of limited space caused by the densification of cities I will introduce multifunctionality.

Ill. 1: The thread of the thesis

5

Basis 1

Basis 2

Reference

Framework

Design

Plans Laws Regulations

Site Proposal

Skateparks

Stormwater management

Case study

By presenting the historical development and the different types of modern skateparks as well as the construction of a high quality skatepark and the afiliated benefits, I provide a basis for understanding, recognizing and designing a skatepark.

An introduction to the history of storm water management and a presentation of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems shall provide the assisting basis to the multi-diciplinary design approach I aim to pursuit in this project.

’Rabalderparken’ in Roskilde, Denmark, has been chosen for a comparative case-study as it comprises many of the same issues of which I deal with in this projects proposal for a stormwater managing skate facility in Oslo.

By processing and presenting the plans, laws and regulations focusing on stormwater management, skating and the transformation of Oslo towards a more resilient city, I intent to configure a framework for this project.

On a site in Oslo dealing with flood issues I will conduct analyses as preparatory work for designing a skatable stormwater solution for this specific site. The basis studies on skateparks and stormwater management will help guiding my design and the framework will contribute to a demarcation.

1.8 The system of the thesis This diagram illustrates the different parts of this thesis and their interplay.

Ill. 2: The system of the thesis

6

2.SKATEPARKS

Ill. 3: Skateboarders infront of Oslo town hall

7

2.1 Introduction To be able to understand the development of skateparks, it is necessary to look at the history of skateboarding. The design and technologies used to make skateboards has changed over time, and so has the preferences when it comes to the landscape designed for skating. Today’s outcome of this development is an extremely technical sport, which requires a lot of professionalism in design, planning, fabrication, construction and performance. Skateboarding has developed a lot as a sport, but it has also developed lifestyle and Identity (Klimchuk, 2012). The main stakeholders when it comes to creating new facilities for skating is of cause the skaters, but governments, municpalities and other organizations can also have great benefits from skateparks.

In the following pages I wish to: 1) Present the history and development of skateparks and skateboarding (2.2 and 2.3) 2) Identify and explain the different types of skateparks (2.4, 2.5 and 2.6) 3) Clarify the risk and injuries affiliated with skateboarding (2.7) 4) Present the benefits of skateboarding and skateparks (2.8) 5) Shred light on the skate environment of Oslo and its current offer of skate facilities (2.9) But first I would like to present 3 definitions: Definition of skateboard: In relation to the historical origin of skateboarding, a proper definition of a ‘skateboard’ is found in Collins English Dictionary: “a narrow board mounted on roller-skate wheels, usually ridden while standing up” (Collins English Dictionary, 2012) The basic parts of the skateboards produced today consists of a deck (most often a wooden deck), trucks and wheels.

Definition of skatepark: “An area designated and equipped for skateboarding”, (oxforddictionaries.com, 2015) Definition of Skateboarding: “It began in the suburbs, but has come downtown to the core of urban conflict. It is seen as a child’s play activity, but for many practitioners involves nothing less than a complete and alternate way of life” (Borden, 2001).

8

2.2 The History of Skateboarding The skateboard is a quite old invention. It started as early as in the beginning of the 1900, when kids took their wheels from their rollerblades and attached them to milk boxes (Brooke, 1999). In the beginning the wheels where made from metal, but this subsequently changed to wood in the 30s, clay in the 50s (see ill. 15) and finally in the 70s wheels was produced from urethane plastic (see ill.

17), this is the material of wheels that we see today (Brooke, 1999). The fabric of skateboard wheels is important both because of the smooth feeling they strive to give the skateboarder but also because of the, depending on the wheel-material, accompanying noise.

The actual skateboard developed out of different other kinds of devices. The earliest manufactured device was a so-called ‘Three Wheeler’ (see ill. 12), which was made for imitating cross-country skiing (Skullskates, 2015). Several other skateboard-similar devices was developed such as the ‘Scooter Skate’ (see ill. 13), and in the 1950s the basic idea of the skateboard was starting to take shape, when Kids where attaching wheels from rollerblades to a simple chunk of wood (see ill. 14). The first commercial skateboard came from the company Roller Derby (see ill. 16) in 1959 and multiple other companies joined the rapidly growing new business of skateboarding. Skateboarding was influenced by surfing and was often related to as ‘side-walk surfing’. It grew big and popular up until 1964 but then it meet some opposition. Because of the risk involved in skateboarding at that time, and the frequent accidents consisting in skaterboarders running into cars and people, causing injuries and in some cases even death, skateboarding was banned by cities and prohibited for kids by their parents, something which caused skateboarding to fade away in 1965.

A change in the design of skateboards, primarily consisting in wheels made of urethane and the trucks becoming flexible, improved the skateboards ride-ability in 1972, something that made people want to resume the act of skateboarding (Brooke,1999). In the mid-70s a group of surfers from Santa Monica Beach in California started a skate-team called ‘the Z-boys’ (see ill. 28) named by their sponsor, a local surfboard-shop called ‘Zephyr surfboard shop’ (Dogtown and Z-Boys, 2001). The Z-Boys revolutionized the way of skateboarding, and their inspiration from surfing emerged in their style and creativity. One of the revolutionary things they did was to drain swimming pools and skate in them (see ill. 22) (Dogtown and Z-Boys, 2001). Not only had empty swimming pools become spots for skateboarding, other water facilities such as big drainage pipes were also used for skateboarding. These Kinds of water-facilities became a big inspiration in skatepark-design, which is very clear in the design of early skateparks such as the one in Upland, California, from 1976 (see ill. 23). The Upland skatepark was very successful, and its success was very much a result of the design, which were done in participation with a local professional skateboarder Steve Alba (Poirier 2008). One of the early purpose-built skateparks, built in 1977 in Carlsbad, California, (see ill. 24) surely illustrates the inspiration from surfing in the way the design imitates waves.

Skateparks became a big business in the 70s and a skatepark owner would make 7000-8000 dollars in one week. Unfortunately, the skatepark owners eventually had to buy insurance because skaters were injuring themselves in the skateparks, and as the insurance-prices rose higher, the skatepark owners could’nt afford running the parks why they had to close them (Brooke, 1999).

A further development in skateboarding happened in 1978 when Allan Gelfand performed a skateboard trick in a pool. This trick is what we today know as an Ollie (’Ollie’ was the nickname of Allan Gelfand) and it is the most important and basic trick in skateboarding today (Brooke, 1999). Later the famous skateboarder Rodney Mullen (see ill. 30) started performing ollies on flat ground, an event which became

9

the first step to a new concept of skateboarding called ‘Street-skating’ (Borden, 2001). Street-skating became the step towards developing the skateboard as we see it to day with a nose and a tail (see ill. 21). Skateboarding was developing once again and street-skating gave every kid the opportunity to grab a skateboard and skate. Skateboarding grew even bigger than before and street-skating was by the year 1990 the biggest branch within skateboarding (Hirsch and Salinger, 2005).

The resurrection of street-skating caused a lot of damage to public and private property and injury lawsuits was a frequent happening, something which triggered the state of California to declare skateboarding a ‘Hazardous activity’. This declaration from 1998 made it impossible for people to build a lawsuit if they injured themselves while skateboarding on public property (Hirsch and Salinger, 2005).

This was the first step for public skateparks to develop, and according to authorities a good way to reduce skateboarding rampage upon public property. An effect of this was the gathering of skaters in order to influence on public skatepark design, community driven participation in skatepark design was born and good exmples are the Burnside skatepark in Portland, Oregon (see ill. 25). Local skaters first started the construction of Burnside skatepark illegally in 1990, but later it became supported by the city as they, as well as other cities, were starting to see skateparks as a solution (Borden, 2001). Burn side is considered one of the first flow type of skateparks, which is a type of skatepark where skaters can skate in a circular and/or 8 pattern and intersect with most of the skateable objects (see section Types of Skateparks).

Even though skateparks where built in cities, skaters would still skate the streets and plazas and from this dedication to the street, the idea of a ‘Skate Plaza’ as a purpose-built skatepark arose. This idea was first put into shape by the Newline Skatepark company who constructed the first street-skatepark known as ‘Vancouver Skate Plaza’ in 2004 (see ill. 26),(newlineskateparks, 2015). Rob Dyrdeck (see ill. 31) is one of the most famous street-skateboarders of all times and has been awarded the most influential skateboarder of all times. Not only was he among the best street skateboaders when he was active in the sport he was also one of the pioneers of developing the street skatepark and helped developing street-skateboarding by starting Street League. Street League is the most prestigious competition to win as a professional skateboader today.

In recent years, the design of skateparks has developed side by side with an increasingly bigger responsibility in sustainable construction. Because of the change in climate, architects and urban planners are looking for new ways to adapt cities and make them resilient.

Here is some examples of sustainable and resilience generating skateparks: 2006 The Plaza at The Forks (see ill. 4). The plaza was designed as an urban space to tolerate skateboarding, while at the same time blend into the existing park-settings. Trees and vegetation are a big part of the design.

2007 The Green Lab (see ill. 5). The Green Lab is a skate-facility build from waste materials. Old rubber tires are used as backfill in this concrete bowl construction, which is built by local skate-enthusiastic volunteers.

Ill. 4: The Plaza at The Forks

Ill. 8: The Edgemont Ditch

Ill. 5: The Green Lab

Ill. 9: Rabalderparken

Ill. 6: Gabriel skatepark (raingarden)

Ill. 10: Watersquare Benthemplein

Ill. 7: Ed Benedict skatepark

Ill. 11: Van Buren Dam

2008 One of the first examples in sustainable environmental skatepark design is Gabriel skatepark (see ill. 6) in Portland Oregon 2008. The skateparks is linked to a rain garden, which cleans the stormwater from the skateparks by retaining the water, moderating the water flow and letting it soak into the ground.

Furthermore, the vegetation and soil of the rain garden filters the pollutants from the stormwater.

2009 Ed Benedict (see ill. 7). Ed Benedict skatepark in Oregon Portland, manages the stormwater on site with rain gardens in the middle of the concrete park. The design of the park also features bio-swales, a bio infiltration area, infiltrations trenches and other features for stormwater management which are built into the park.

2009 The Edgemont Ditch (see ill. 8) is a successful compromise build as a stormwater transporting concrete construction. The facility was to accomodate the demands of a new skatepark in El Paso, Texas, while at the same time acting as an inlet construction, transporting stormwater away from a larger area.

2012 Rabalderparken in Roskilde (see ill. 9), Denmark, is a larger construction functioning as a stormwater managing system. The system is designed as a recreational skate facility that manages stormwater from a larger city district. The project consists in so-called ’snakerun’ features that works as water transporting canals and a skatepark which functions as a stormwater storing buffer area.

2013 Watersquare Benthemplein in Rotterdam (see ill. 10), The Netherlands, is a square designed to store and manage stormwater from surrounding roads and roofs. Despite from water beneficial qualities, the square provides space for physical activities such as skating, football, volleyball, basketball and dance.

2012 Van Buren Dam in El Paso, Texas (see ill. 11), is a flood preventative dam and stilling bassing. The stilling basin is designed to accomodate skating whenever it is dry.

10

2.3 The History of Skateboarding in Pictures

“Just when you get to thinking that you’ve found the limits of what can be done on a skateboard, or of what places are left to be found, something new inevitably turns up again to broaden the imagination and boggle the mind,” Warren Bolster, Skateboarder, vol.3 no.6, July 1977, p.73.

11

1920s

1930s

1950s

1950s

1959

Ill. 12: ’Three Wheeler’

Ill. 13: ’Scooter Skate’

Ill. 14: Chunk of wood

Ill. 15: Clay wheels

Ill. 16: First commercial board

Mid 1970s

1976

1977

Ill. 22: Z-boys swimming pool

Ill. 23: Upland Skatepark

Ill. 24: Carlsbad Skatepark

Mid 1970s

1980s

1980s

21st century

Ill. 28: The Z-Boys

Ill. 29: Tony Hawk

Ill. 30: Rodney Mullen

Ill. 31: Rob Dyrdeck

1972

Early 1970s

1975

1980s

1990s

Ill. 17: Urethane wheels

Ill. 18: Plastic board

Ill. 19: Z-boys skateboard

Ill. 20: Transition skateboard

Ill. 21: Modern skateboard

1990s

2004

2012

Ill. 25: Burnside Skatepark

Ill. 26: Vancouver Skate Plaza

Ill. 27: Rabalderparken Skatepark

12

2.4 Types of Skateparks Transition (Bowl, Pool, pipe) Transition skateparks is basically skateparks with bowls, pools and pipes combined. All of these objects (see section ’Elements in Skatepark Design’) has vertical surfaces which makes it possible for a skater to gain speed and skate around in the park without being forced to push with his feet. This way of getting around in a skateparks is called pumping because the skater uses his body to pump the turns of the park by bending and stretching his knees. The name ’transition’ has to do with the way these parks are skated as the skater can transit around the park in a circulating pattern. The style of skating in these parks are very associated with the style of surfing.

Transition skateparks are made of concrete which has the ability to perform as smooth and strong surfaces. The smoothness of the concrete surface is important as it helps the skater uphold his speed when pumping around in the park. Transition skateparks are not as popular as the street skateparks and it is often associated with older skateboarder, as many elder skateboarders tend to return to this kind of skating seeking for recreation and exercise. One of the reasons for this is that this type of skating is less strenuous and involves lower impact than street skating (skatepark.org, 2015)

because of cracks, broken metallic edges, screws and more. Modular skateparks are claimed by the manufacturers, to contain qualities by being portable, interchangeable and affordable but I am not sure whether it is correct to call them portable and interchangeable as they are often well mounted to the ground. The lack in quality certainly can’t be disregarded and eventually the money spent on maintaining a modular skatepark could have been recouped in in the construction of a high quality skatepark, but this depends of cause on the specific need on a site. Modular skateparks can work well as a temporary solution, whereas a high quality concrete skatepark could never be profitable. The fact that modular elements are hollow constructions increases the level of noise related with skateboarding. This is an important factor to consider, especially regarding the context the skatepark is placed within (Wixon, 2009), (skatepark.org, 2015).

Skatepark specifications:

Street Street skateparks are skateparks designed to copy public plazas and the street environment. In this type of park, public elements like stairs, benches and handrails are typically incorporated as authentic urban features. This type of skating mainly involves flip-tricks and grinding, and the skateboarder gains momentum by pushing in order to hit the different objects in the skatepark. The pushing has to do with the terrain being flat in street skateparks, even though sometimes different level/plateaus occurs which are often transitioned to via stairs, rails and ramps.

In order to replicate the urban environment, the fabric of the street skatepark is often similar to the fabric one sees in urban spaces. Natural stone, bricks, metal (handrails), concrete, asphalt and green (trees/ plants) are some of the materials included in the context of the street skatepark. It has to be mentioned that though the elements in street skateparks are replicas of authentic urban elements, they are often reinforced and approved by applicable materials such as metal in order to help the elements withstand the exposure to skating (skatepark.org, 2015) Hybrid/flow A Hybrid skatepark is a mix between the street skatepark and transition skatepark. The main purpose of this type of park is for the skater to be able to get around in the park and interact with all elements without having to push his way around. This fused park has developed because the older and more design-involved skaters often push for the construction of more transition skateparks, why the younger and less involved crowd of street skaters have to skate in places not designated for skating. The Hybridpark addresses all skaters since it combines all elements, but thus not to say that it is the best type of park, most skaters have preferences.

Unlike street skateparks the flow parks doesn’t try to imitate the urban fabric since this type of park has to favor the smooth concrete surfaces associated with transition skateparks (skatepark.org, 2015) Modular A modular skatepark is a skatepark on flat ground containing prefabricated elements like mini-ramps, half-pipes, stairs, rails, boxes, pyramids and embankments (see section ’Elements in Skatepark Design’). These elements are made of metal, wood and /or plastic and designed for street skating.

Modular skateparks has received a lot of criticism because they (when located outdoor) requires a high level of maintenance and the decay of these types of parks can cause dangerous situations for a skater

13

Table 1: I only consider outdoor skateparks in this table because outdoor parks is the topic of this project. This has to do with the fact that weather condition are applicable for this projects design outcome, meaning that indoor skateparks has slightly different variable values because they are not exposed to sun and weather conditions.

2.5 High quality skateparks There is many variables to consider when designing a skatepark but one of the most important is what type of skatepark and which material to use for construction. Concrete is the most recognized material for skatepark construction today and it is also most preferred by skaters (skateparkguide. com, 2015). This has to do with the fact that it contributes to a smooth surface and is a very flexible material when it comes to creating organic shapes (Giligan, C., year unknown). The smoothness of concrete design gives the skateboarder a better and more safe experience when it comes to making transitions in the skatepark. The different materials used in the construction of skateparks has different qualities and it mainly stands between wood and concrete. Wood is cheaper, more temporary, needs a lot of maintenance, makes more noise and has a shorter lifespan whereas concrete is stronger, more expensive, more permanent, makes less noise and has a low level of maintenance.

Asphalt is a very cheap product for surface cover and it is also a very rough material which doesn’t last as long as concrete. Nevertheless asphalt is sometimes used as a skatable surface, and there are good examples of how grinding the asphalt with a diamond grinder can smoothen the rough surface and make it more enjoyable for skateboarders to skate on (byggerietsildsjaele.dk, 2012).

The material used in construction of skateparks is essential because it is one of the most important factors entailing the quality of the skatepark. The following table (Table 2) specifies the quality of the different materials used in skatepark design.

Table 2: Skatepark-materials - Pros & Cons:

14

2.6 elements In skatepark design

Ill.32: Pipe

Ill. 33: Half-pipe

Ill. 36 Stair

Ill.37: Stair w. rail

Ill. 34: Quarter-pipe

Ill. 38 Hubba

Ill. 39 Pyramid

Ill 35: Mini-ramp

Ill. 40: Funbox

Ill. 41: Manual pad

Terminology: Grind/slide: Flip tricks: Coping: Swale: Bowl: Pool:

15

A trick defined by grinding or sliding the skateboard on an object When a skater flips his skateboard in any possible way while jumping and lands back on the board.

An additional material (most often metal) put on edges and corners of object to improve grinding and reduce wear.

A curvy depression in a surface following a course. The sides of the swale is used for carving and skateboard-tricks.

A big depression in surface (hole) similar to a pool, but the bowl has less steep sidewalls, metal coping on surrounding edge and variates more in the shape An authentic (but improved for skating) copy of a swimming pool. The pool and the edge-coping is most often made from concrete sometimes with stairs into the pool and steep walls. A pool mainly seen as a standalone feature in skateparks, whereas bowls are more incorporated into the circulation flow of a park.

Pipe: Half pipe: Mini-ramp: Vert: Embankment: Manual-pad:

A full pipe originating from sewer pipes, most often build in concrete.

A half pipe is a full pipe cut in half, exposing the inside. The edges of the pipe can be coped with concrete or metal Similar to a half-pipe but smaller and elongated in order to create a flat area between the sidewalls. It can be made of either wood with metal coping or concrete with metal or concrete coping.

A vert is a big version of a miniramp with very high walls. These ramps are only skated by professionals.

A sloping surface sometimes sloping up to a wall. Often used to perform tricks on or to gain speed when going down the embankment.

A raised plateau most often between 20 and 40 cm high, used to perform manual tricks on (manual tricks consists in balancing on the back-wheels or front-wheels of the skateboard).

Ill. 42: Pool

Ill. 45: Embankment

Bench: Box: Pyramid: Fun-box: Launch ramp: Hubba:

Ill. 44: Swale

Ill. 43: Bowl

Ill 46: Launch ramp

A bench can be used as a skateable object to perform grinding/sliding tricks on.

It can be made of wood or more durable materials like concrete/granite and have edge coping.

Most often made from wood or concrete. Same function as a bench but it simply just looks like a box.

Embankments from all sides slopes to a higher flat center. It Looks like a pyramid with the top cut off and It is used to skate over and perform multiple different tricks on.

A fun-box is a mix between a pyramid and a box. This object creates many different trick possibilities because it combines grinding- and embankment-objects.

A launch ramp is used to skate over and take off from. It gives the skater the possibility to achieve hang-time and do tricks in the air.

A Hubba is a ledge (wood or concrete) placed next to a staircase like a handrail.

Ill 47: Rail

Stairs: Handrail: Rail: Transition: Ollie:

Ill. 48: Box

Ill.49: Bench

The skater can jump unto the ledge from the top of the staircase and grind to the bottom of the staircase Stairs are used as barriers to conquer. The skater jump from the top to the bottom of the staircase.

Handrails next to stairs or down an embankment can be used for sliding and grinding on.

No-sloping rail on flat ground is used for sliding and grinding on.

The term defines the jumping from one surface/object to another and it is commonly used when skating from a horizontal surface to a vertical surface.

One of the most basic tricks in skateboarding today, executed by kicking the back of the skateboard down into the ground followed by kicking the front forward. This trick allows the skater to jump while keeping the board under his feet.

16

2.7 Risk and Injuries “in Norway, skateboarding was banned between 1978 and 1989 due to a perceived high amount of injuries” (Dumas & Laforest, 2009).

Skateboarding involves as in any other sport a risk for being injured. Skateparks are designated areas designed for skating, which means that there are no cars, bicyclists or pedestrians. This makes it a safe place for skating and studies actually shows that skateparks can be safer than other public venues.

Studies also shows that the street is where most injuries happens whereas injuries with motor vehices collisions are the most serious ones (Fountain & Meyers, 1996). This is a good argument for providing public skateparks for the skaters. However, skateboarding sure acquires attention on oneself and other skaters when present in a skatepark. The fact that skaters needs to watch out for one another and take turns is an important and positive thing about skating in a skatepark. The skaters might do it to avoid injuries and collision with fellow skaters, but this way they learn discipline, sharing and to respect others.

“All sports can be dangerous. When you figure skate for example, you can get a head concussion much easier than during skateboarding. In skateboarding, you’re not on slippery ice and you’re not tied to your boots … Obviously it’s more dangerous on the streets than in parks because it’s not meant for that … but I still don’t think that it’s a dangerous sport, not more than hockey or football. Getting injured during skateboarding depends a lot on you, and not on the idiot behind you who’s going to check you in the boards. If you get injured, it’s really because of your lack of judgment. If you try to jump a 10 foot structure, and you’re not experienced, now that’s dangerous! You got to know your limits … Its also rare that you get your head injured here [in skateparks], its not as if you’re going to do back flips, like in gymnastics, which is also pretty dangerous … You get scratched a lot though, everyday.” (Laforest & Dumas, 2003)

Ill. 50: Age and Injuries (Kyle et al, 2002)

The fact that skateboarders evaluate the physical limits they possess in order to learn new tricks, helps them to reduce their risk of getting injured while at the same time learning them to be cautious and make good judgments.

“Each time you fall you learn a lesson, even if it’s not hard. When you fall the first time trying, you’re going to wait before trying the same trick again … Sometimes you’ll try a trick six times in a row without having any problems, and then you fall on the seventh try and get hurt. When this happens, you don’t learn the same type of lesson [than if you had fallen on the first try]. You ask yourself, ‘what happened? What did I do?’. All types of injuries make you think.“ (Laforest & Dumas, 2003) Recommendations on how to prevent and/or reduce injuries in skateboarding is a common output from studies concerning skateboard injuries. These are: wearing sufficient protective equipment, receiving adequate training, banning skateboarding in the streets and imposing a minimum age for practice (Laforest & Dumas, 2003) Studies shows that 90% of the skateboard-injuries happens to male skateboarders between 10 and 19 years old, the so-called adolescent-group (Bull et al., 2002). But all in all, when compared to other sports, skateboarding actually causes less injuries (see ill. 51).

Ill. 51: Injuries compared to other sports (Kyle et al, 2002)

17

2.8 The benefits of public skateparks Skateparks has meet a lot of critique throughout the years, and has been associated with something negative and none beneficial to community. One of the reasons for all the negative publicity of skateparks has to do with the users, the skateboarders. The skateboarder has often been negatively stereotyped as a destructive social outlaw who has no or little respect of authorities (spohnranch.com, 2014).

Here is some examples of the oppositional associations commonly spelled upon skateparks and skateboarders: Skateparks are dangerous, skateboarders are delinquents, skaterboarders are a small minority, skateparks attract illicit behavior, skateparks are noisy, skateparks are messy, skateparks are expensive, Skateparks are intimidating and uninviting. All of these prejudices belongs to the oblivious from the past and recent studies has actually proved the opposite, that skateparks actually has a lot of benefits to both the individual and the community.

Reduce criminal behavior Skateparks and skateboarding is to some people negatively associated with delinquent behavior and illegalities. It is a shame that the skateboard environment has been given those kind of stereotyped associations since this is related to a very small minority of the people of which skateboarding attracts.

It is important to take into consideration that skateboarding is a low or no cost sport that attracts all kinds of people. Skateparks are not promoting destructive and illegal behavior, but it provides a social arena were adolescents-related issues finds their outlet. A situation in England actually proves that the opening of a skatepark can reduce criminal behavior amongst youth since it provides a hangout space which has the ability to engage them instead of drifting around with nothing to do and nowhere to go. (spohnranch.com, 2014).

The benefits: Helps to build social skills Many kids are enslaved to Playstation, Xbox, computers and other screen-devices that exists today.

In order to build social and interpersonal skills kids and adolescents needs community places where they can meet and interact. Skateparks can be a good counterweight to the screen-life and they can provide a gathering place for social interaction. The fact that skateparks promotes the individual sport of skateboarding can help kids and adolescents who are not into team-sports to find a place where they can achieve the sense of belonging. Skateboarding in public skateparks is a cost-effective activity which makes it possible for everyone to participate in and enjoy. Because of this, skateparks become an arena where different types of people across gender and age can meet and build relations. Despite from being a place to build relations, skateparks also help enhancing the involvement in community of adolescents. (spohnranch.com, 2014).

Attracts tourism The possibility of stimulating tourism with skateparks has existed since the very beginning of skateparks.

Just like people who does not skate travels, skaters travels as well. If a destination offers a good skateexperience it will become an attraction to skaters. Barcelona has long been a destination for skaters because of the great skate-experience one can find there. A skate attraction does not have to appeal internationally though, it can also target nationally and help to revitalize on a municipal or regional level.

Skate tourism and all kind of tourism for that matter leads to economic benefits, which addresses the importance of constructing professional, well designed and unique facilities.

Improves mental health Skateboarding is a healthy act that includes a combination of a high physical exertion, accurate muscle coordination and balance, which improves and develops the brain. Activities that incorporates balancing stimulates both parts of the brain equally and makes students more receptive to learning. It has been proven that regularly exercise improves the learning capabilities, which is a good argument for encouraging skateboarding amongst students. The act of riding a skateboard can mean repetition of tricks in order to learn them and get them right. This process equips the skateboarder with stamina and helps him to develop self-discipline and self-confidence when he gets a trick right. Apparently skateboarding has also shown to have a therapeutic and curative effect on veterans with PTSD, which might have to do with the meditative, relaxing and emotional balancing effect that skateboarding have been claimed to have. (spohnranch.com, 2014).

Promotes healthy/active lifestyle Regular physical activity has proven to reduce morbidity and mortality as it lowers the risk of heart diseases, diabetes, high blood pressure, colon cancer, depression, anxiety and obesity (Bedimo-Rung et al 2005). Leisure activity is a good way to achieve the recommended daily amount of physical activity since we live in a world dominated by sedentary jobs and computers.

It is important to promote healthy and active lifestyles in order to prevent sickness. The health benefits associated with skateboarding has to be promoted in every way possible, which doesn’t necessarily have to be through skateboarding, but it is important that skateboarding as well as other sports are accessible to people so that they have the possibility to find a sport they can relate and devote themselves to. (spohnranch.com, 2014).

Socialising with friends

Learning from other

Taking turns and sharing

Cooperating

Respecting others

Teaching and helping

Ill. 52: Some of the positiv outcomes of skateboarding (Wood et al, 2014)

18

The benefits of skateparks are many even though the evidence can be hard to find. Unfortunately, the benefits are not as known to city-planners as they ought to be. Since skateboarding is a growing sport it has to be taken seriously when it comes to planning and designing urban public space. From my literature study on skateparks I found the following benefits: Skate parks as a context for adolescent development. (Bradley, 2010): - Learning to focus and sustain concentration on a task.

- Recognising, using and developing competencies.

- Exploring, achieving and expressing identity.

- Setting goals and striving to achieve them.

- Interacting socially and feeling accepted and supported by others.

- Help develop capacities for self-regulation, cooperation and negotiation with peers.

- Help satisfy adolescents needs for autonomy and relatedness.

- Enable young people to develop social skills.

- Help build self-confidence and status within peer groups.

- Enable adolescents to build and clarify their sense of self.

- The opportunities parks provide for developing social skills, self-esteem, co-operation, and respect for self, for other park users, and for the park itself.

- Stop young people skating in public places, help reduce youth problems, enhance community life, and more generally enliven our cities.

- Skate parks provide opportunities for skill acquisition, personal development and social acceptance, and for preparing young people for future community participation.

Dispelling Stereotypes‌ Skate Parks as a Setting for Pro-Social Behavior among Young People. (Wood et al, 2014): - Socialising with friends.

- Learning from others.

- Teaching and helping.

- Sharing and taking turns.

- Cooperating and respecting others.

Skateparks as a health resource: are they as dangerous as they look? (Dumas & Laforest, 2009): - The promotion of lifestyle sports can be perceived as a fruitful strategy for increasing the level of active leisure involvement amongst youth.

- Skateparks can be favourable spaces for attracting youth to safe and active lifestyles.

- Training the body becomes a means for developing athletic skill, protecting oneself from injury and achieving social recognition.

- The aesthetic dimension refers to the stylistic aspects of skateboarding performance, which can lead to gaining social acceptance.

- Skateboarding experiences have an educational function by raising awareness of injuries, allowing the body a way of being-in-the-world.

- By being exposed to skateboarding injuries, and by frequently being reminded of their consequences through minor injuries (scrapes and scratches), skaters gained novel insight on prevention.

- For the younger groups, various skatepark activities (in the form of graffiti art courses, local skateboarding competitions and training sessions) created a sense of belonging and enabled younger skaters to

19

develop friendships.

- These groups also benefited from the coaching skills and prevention techniques provided by experienced skaters.

- The younger skaters also benefited from the encouragement and advice on life issues provided by the older skaters.

- Skateparks should be conceived as a valuable health-resource for youth because they provide various social, psychological and physical resources that encourage a safe and active lifestyle.

The significance of parks to physical activity and public health: a conceptual model. (Bedimo-Rung et al, 2005): - Regular physical activity has been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality by decreasing heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, colon cancer, feelings of depression/anxiety, and weight, while building and maintaining healthy bones, muscles, and joints.

2.9.1 Skateboarders in Oslo

2.9 Skateparks and Skating in Oslo From 1978 to 1989 skateboarding was totally banned in Norway. This has caused a delay in the developement of the sport which together with the fact that skateboarding is a growing activity stresses, that there is an extensive need of clarifying the existing situation today to be able to argue for the construction of new and better skateparks in Oslo.

The ‘Utkast til plan for skateboard-tilbud og anlegg i Oslo’ (see section about plans, laws and regulations) is the draft for a plan that sets a framework for the development of new skate-arenas in Oslo. The plan emphasizes that Oslo has fewer and inferior skate facilities than other comparable cities and stresses a need for both bigger parks and smaller interventions in the Oslo-area. This in comparison to my mapanalysis on existing skateparks in Oslo (see ill. 58), enlightens that the Ila area would be a great place for a new skatepark since there are no skateparks in the area today. The Fact that the project-site chosen for this project lies adjacent to almost nothing but schools, cultural facilities and allotment gardens, further accommodate the plan as it also focusses on not placing new skateparks close to residents because of noise issues.

The users Skating is for everybody regardless of age, sex, residence, ethnicity and social status. It is an individualistic activity but also an activity that brings people together to bond and create friendships. The culture of skateboarding includes tolerance and equality amongst the users and skateparks provide an urban stage where the child can learn from the adult or the other way around. Skating is oftenly associated with creative people each presenting their different style and way of interpreting and interacting with the urban space. Skating represents diversity of all kinds and on youtube one can even find a skating dog: https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8XAlSp838Y. (Utkast til plan for skateboard-tilbud og anlegg i Oslo).

The organization NORB (Norsk Organisation for Rullebret) is a now 37 years old organization foundet in 1978 as a resistance to the national banning of skateboarding in Norway. The organisation was, apart from the prevention of the the banning, foundet on the basis of positively promoting skateboarding. Today as well as before, NORB has the purpose of representing the interrests of skateboaders in Norway, organize events and competitions, and increase the amount of skateboarders. The reason for the great succes of NORB and why the organization still exists today more than 30 years later, is because of the so-called ’dugnad’ (voluntary work) from enthusiasts in the skate environment. These persons are responsible for promoting the interrests of the skateboarders in a non-commercial way by communicating with politicians, starting skate-clubs and develop skating in a positive way (k. Ostling, president of NORB, www.norb.no).

The visions and goals The municipality of Oslo has certain visions and goals for the development of sports and leisure activities. These mainly concerns the promotion of mental and physical health which is one of the most essential benefits of providing public skateparks. Moreover it should be consideret that skate facilities combined with other functions furthermore can accomodate other municipal visions (in this case stormwater management). The respective goals and visions are listed in the section about plans, laws and regulations.

Ill. 53: There is approximatly 10.000 skaters in Oslo today of whom 7080% are dedicated to Street skating and the last 20-30% are dedicated to Transition skating. Statistical source: Municipal document (Utkast til plan for skateboard-tilbud og anlegg i Oslo).

10-15

5-10

18-25

15-18

25-40

Ill. 54: The skateboarders in Oslo is mainly between the age of 5 and 40 whereas the biggest groups are the the 10-15 and 18-25 years old. Statistical source: interview with Fritjof C. Krogsvold (See Appendix B).

20

2.9.2 The new and future skate facilities

2.9.3 The exisitng skate facilities

Recently a lot of things has happened regarding the development of skate facilities in Oslo and Oslo now seems to be on the verge of upgrading the skate facilities and find a spot on the global map. Newly planned facilities have been processed through 2013/2014 and even more has ben proposed. Amongst the new initiatives which mainly consists in small facilities is also the construction of a big indoor skatehall in Voldsløkka in Oslo (see ill. 55).

The development of skating in Oslo is riding on a wave eventhough none of the new proposed skate fascilities for Oslo has anything to do with water. It is interresting to find that the approach in many of the new and proposed facilities only seems to focus on providing space for skating without serving other purposes. But If Oslo wants to keep up with the international sustainable development of skatepark design, they ought to focus more on mulitifuntional solutions.

Oslo provide a range of skate facilities today including outdoor skateparks, an indoor skatepark and various skatespots (see ill. 59-70). The amount of skate facilities today is not enough and the quality is to poor. Fortunately, this is on the verge of changing since the demand of public skate facilities is growing. The fact that Oslo only has one indoor skatepark is not enough considering the fact that the climate in norway makes skateboarding a difficult sport to pursuit in outdoor facilities during the wet, dark and cold seasons. This might speak for the need of skate facilities having a different/additional pupose in these seasons. Although skateboarding is a seasonal practice in Norway and skaters are forced to crowd together on the few existing indoor squaremeters or pursuit snowboarding in the winter time, the outdoor offer should be better than it is today. Compared to cities like Stockholm and Copenhagen Oslo is lagging behind when it comes to public skate facilities today.

Ill. 59: All skate-destinations of Oslo

21

Ill. 55: Visualization of new skatehall in Voldsløkka, Olso.

Ill. 57: Most popular skatespot not designated for skating, Oslo town hall.

Ill. 60: Skate spots (not purposely buils skate localities)

Ill. 56: Proposed skatepark at Marselisgate in Oslo by LINK Landskap.

Ill. 58: New, planned and renovated skateparks. The black is the Ila area

Ill. 61: All skateparks

Ill. 62: Indoor skateparks

Ill. 65: Skateparks with bowl

Ill. 68: Skateparks with miniramp + street elements

Ill. 63: Outdoor skateparks

Ill. 66: Skateparks with street elements

Ill. 69: Skateparks with miniramp + street + bowl + vert

Ill. 64: Skateparks with miniramp

Ill. 67: Skateparks with miniramp + bowl

Ill. 70: Outdoor skateparks with roof

22

3.Stormwater Management

Ill. 71: Flooding on Maridalsveien in Oslo

23

3.1 Introduction

The way stormwater has been managed has changed over time. Before the modern way of dealing with stormwater underground in pipesystems, the stormwater was managed locally and through natural corridors like creeks and rivers. When the construction of greater cities started to progress, waste water was transported on the surface which caused sickness and even death in the middle of the 19th century. Underground sewer systems was built to transport water and prevent the health related issues. Today we see that both stormwater and wastewater from households and more are beeing transported in these underground systems, but a changing climate has forced cities to rearrange and rebuilt because of larger amounts of precipitation, and densification of the cities. Local stormwater management has been reintroduced in recent years to reduce the pressure on the water systems of modern cities and bring heathy, blue and green environments to city dwellers.

In the following pages I wish to: 1) Present the term SUDS (3.2) 2) present the historical development of stormwater management (3.3) 3) present the 5 principles of managing stormwater locally in SUDS elements (3.4) 4) present the differerent types of standard SUDS element that we see today (3.5) 5) Present the model of how the municipality of Oslo wants to manage their stormwater (3.6)

3.2 Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems

S.U.D.S. are a well known way of managing stormwater in urban settings today. The concept is setting a sustainable standard as well as providing beneficial guidelines concerning the construction of more resilient cities. The basic content of the concept consists in supplementing and/or replacing the traditional closed sewer systems with a range of techniques for managing the stormwater locally, these are the so-called Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems, SUDS. Delaying and percolating the stormwater are the main principles of this concept since evaporation is to slowly a process to influence on managing the dimension-giving rain events.

However, when it comes to having a good water balance and help keeping the groundwater on a low level within a certain area, evaporation from green roofs and other infiltration-based constructions such as lawns can be a very important factor. Despite from delaying and percolating stormwater locally it can sometimes be necessary to divert the water and transport it to other areas if the locality has reached its maximum capacity. A very good thing about SUDS compared to conventional discharging of stormwater is that it recognizes the benefits of stormwater and utilizes it to create green and health promoting spaces within the urban environment.

24

3.3 Stormwater Management 1793 - 2050

Water

Green

Paved

permeable

Sewage

In the old days before 1901 when construction of the sewer-system was finally completed, streams, creeks, rivers, lakes and harbors was functioning as drainage systems in the city. As the cities grew bigger, the system collapsed and caused sickness, cholera, stench and bad accessibility.

1793

1872

Annual precipitation 1793: 640 mm

Annual precipitation 1970: 690 mm

Annual precipitation 1980: 710 mm

Annual precipitation 1990: 730 mm

Annual precipitation 2000: 750 mm

1961

2006

Ill. 72: The timeline is developed for the exhibition ’Regnen Kommer -Hvordan klimatilpasning giver os bedre byer’.

The exhibition was developed as a collaboration between Danish Architecture Center and Realdania. The preoject was supported by Cowi and The Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management at University of Copenhagen.

25

1873

1960 Annual precipitation 1901: 640 mm

Annual precipitation 2010: 770 mm

Annual precipitation 2020: 775 mm

Annual precipitation 1915: 660 mm

Annual precipitation 2050: 795 mm

2007

2050

The timeline illustrates how cities has deveoped through the last decades contributing to more impervious surface area why the stormwater has been taken out of its natural system. Today we see a need to go back to how it once was and manage the stormwater locally because the amount of precipitation has increased and is predicted to increase even more in the near future. The cities are challenged by this problem caused by the changing climate and they need to make some important investments in order to adapt to the changing weather conditions as well as accommodating growth and prevent global warming.

26

3.4 principles for sustainable urban drainage

1.Delay

2.Percolation

3.Evaporation

4.Purification

5.Transportation

Ill. 73: Principles for sustainable urban drainage

27

Ill. 74

The principle of delaying stormwater involves basins, hollows and canals. The function of these depression-based terrain elements is to retain the water before it is diverted into sewers and waterways. Retaining the water means that it is being stopped and controlled on its way towards lower ground, something that helps the speed and amount of water from overloading the pipe system and other waterways when heavy rain occurs. (Exhibition ‘Regnen Kommer’, 2015)

This principle is about the permeability of surfaces. If the surface transporting or retaining the water is sufficiently permeable, the water can be percolated into a collection space, the sewers or the ground water if clean enough. Examples on permeable surfaces are lawns, planting beds, soil and gravel. (ibid) Ill. 75

Ill. 76

Evaporation is the third principle, even though this principle cannot make a big difference on its own. Evaporation happens very slowly whenever water is retained in a place and exposed to sun and heat. The longer the retention the more evaporation, but since evaporation happens so slowly this principle should be combined with transportation and delay. Evaporation can both happen to water surfaces and wet plants or soils. (ibid)

Ill. 77

Purification is about cleaning pollutants from the water. The purification happens naturally in the percolation process where the stormwater is filtered on its way from the surface and into the ground. In big constructions and when heavy rainfall occurs helping the purification process can be necessary initiative. This help can be provided through implementation of fascines, underground stormwater filtration systems and/or by guiding the water in pipes or on the surface to cleansing ponds/basins and planting beds. (ibid)

Ill. 78

Transportation is the final principle for managing stormwater on the surface and the title pretty much explains this principle.

Stormwater needs to be transported to places with great capacity, and today most of this transportation happens in a closed sewer system. Water doesn’t necessarily have to be transported underground since this means limited capacity, but it can also be transported on the surface through e.g. trenches, swales and in the nature’s own systems of rivers and streams. (ibid)

28

3.5 The S.U.D.S.

29

Ill. 79: Dry Basin Dry basins (temporarily flooded depressions, detention basins) are basins that collects the stormwater during rainfall and dries when there is no precipitation. They are often constructed without a membrane on the bottom and can handle a lot of water by percolation, but if the basin does not empty within the commonly required time of 1-3 days, the basin is often constructed with an outlet drain smaller than the inlet drain leading to a sewer or a natural recipient. Dry basins can be constructed with a membrane on the bottom if there is a risk of polluting the groundwater. Since all the water is percolated into the ground the basin is less sufficient when it comes to cleaning the stormwater from pollutants. However, some pollutants will be infiltrated and especially if the basin has grass vegetation. The main point about dry basins is that they dry out completely while wet basins doesn’t. (laridanmark.dk, 2015)

Ill. 81: Wet Basin Wet basins (ponds, retention basins) are basins with a permanent minimum water level designed to collect stormwater from an adjacent paved area and slowly unleash it after the rainfall. This means that wet basins has a changing water level varying from a minimum water level to a maximum water level depending on the amount of stormwater in each rain event. The water is unleashed from the basin through infiltration to an adjacent area or through a drain to sewers or streams. The temporary stay of the stormwater in the basin with a permanent water level allows the pollutants to infiltrate and settle before the stormwater is diverted to a different place. The pollutants ability to settle depends on the amount of time spent in the basin, the turbulence of the water and the size and weight of the particles. It is common to use natural occurring lakes as wet basins or to dig out a basin that looks like a natural lake. If the basin is excavated it is normally constructed with a clay-membrane to keep a constant water level, but this can also be achieved if the basin is instead made deep enough to connect with the groundwater. (ibid)

Ill. 80: Raingarden Raingardens are depressions in the terrain designed as special planting beds to receive, store and infiltrate stormwater. The top-layer within a raingarden consists of soil which can be mixed with sand in order to secure both the capability of infiltration as well as god growth conditions. This limits the range of plants suitable for a raingarden since the good infiltration capabilities can make it very dry in dry periods and the fact that it is designed to collect stormwater can make it very wet in wet period. Therefore, it is very important to choose the right plant for a raingarden. When it comes to maintenance, raingardens needs the same level of maintenance as other planting beds. (ibid)

Ill. 82: Swale Swales are sloping, wide, u-shaped canals covered in vegetation (normally grass). They are mainly designed to transport water but are also capable of storing it which results in both infiltration and evaporation. V-shaped swales (ditches) are also used for the same purposes as the swale, but since the V-shape is more inconvenient and dangerous for bicyclists to fall into, the u-shaped swale is preferable in urban settings. (ibid)

Ill. 83: Green roof Green roofs are technical roof constructions with a multiple layer system consisting of a topsoil layer, a drainage layer and a waterproof membrane. Compared to for example, a tiled roof, the stormwater run-off from green roofs are delayed because of percolation into the roof construction and the volume is reduced because of infiltration. The level of delay and reduction varies according to the thickness of the topsoil layer. Apart from reducing water run-off, green roof has the benefit of insolating as well as providing habitat for insects and birds.

Roof gardens are more intensive variant of green roofs. These constructions belongs on flat roofs since they are supposed to be accessed by people, providing them with a green and restorative space nearby. Roof gardens normally has a thicker topsoil layer than green roofs for the purpose of including bigger plants such as perennials, shrubs and small trees in the construction. The fact that roof gardens has a thick topsoil layer makes them capable of retaining a great amount of water but it also makes it a very heavy construction. Therefore, it is rarely feasible to construct a roof garden on existing buildings, since the weight of a roof garden needs to be considered in the construction of the building. (ibid)

Ill. 84: Permeable pavement Permeable pavements are pavements that secures the normal functions of pavements while at the same time percolating stormwater into the ground.

Permeable surfaces are not meant to manage the stormwater from adjacent areas itself but it reduces the stormwater run-off, which has the positive effect of minimizing the pressure on lower areas during rainfall. The different permeable pavement’s capability of infiltrating stormwater depends on their design and the capacity for water storage in the bearing layer of the construction as well as the surrounding soil. Grass paving’s consists of a fragmented stone or concrete paving with grass in between. This type of paving combines the carrying capacity of a pavement with the qualities of grass such as infiltration and greening, and furthermore it is more wear-resistant. Grass paving’s often comes in prefabricated modules of concrete with an inclusive space for vegetation. These vegetation-spaces are filled with topsoil to provide good growth conditions for the grass, but it is important not to fill the spaces all the way to the level of the pavements in order to protect the roots of the grass from wearing. (ibid)

Ill. 85: Soakaway pit Soakaway pits (dry wells, infiltration wells) is voids in the grounds that are stabilized with a porous material and covered with topsoil, vegetation and/or other permeable surfaces. The shape varies, but a narrow and long soakaway pit (soakaway trench) drains more sufficient than a more cubic shaped soakaway pit, because it has a larger wall area.

The drainage isn’t very sufficient in the bottom of the pit, since it is quickly blocked by accumulating material.

Geotextiles is often used to make the construction easier if the soakaway pit is constructed in friable soil, whereas it in soils that are more consistent can be left out. Stormwater can be lead through pipes and trenches to the pit where it accumulates and drains into the surrounding ground. Stones are normally used as filling material in soakaway pits, but today it is becoming more and more common to use a specially designed soakaway module made from plastic which includes a greater capacity for water storage. (ibid)

Ill. 86: Wadi Wadies (swale-trench systems) is a term that refers to a certain type of canyon located in the Middle East and Africa. These canyons are dry and used for transportation in the dry season whereas they in the wet season are filled with water. Regarding S.U.D.S., wadies is a combination of a trench and a swale as it combines the storage and transportation system of the swale with the transportation and infiltration system of the trench. This can be a very beneficial solution since it includes both evaporation from water surface and cleansing of pollutants through infiltration. (ibid)

30

3.6 The envisioned system of stormwater management in Oslo

The figure illustrates the so-called 3-point strategy of which many municipalities, including Oslo, aims to manage stormwater today. The 3-point strategy is based on local water management by SUDS and is recommended by ’Norsk Vann’.

Collect & Infiltrate

Sewer system Ill. 87: 3-point strategy

31

Delay & Attenuate

Provide Safe floodways

32

4. CASE STUDY OF ’RABALDERPARKEN’ Rabalder Parken is a Danish project combining skating and recreation with the stormwater management of a restricted area. The park was opened in 2012 as the first of its kind and has won prizes for its innovative approach. The main purpose of the facility Rabalderparken was to have it being capable of transporting surface- and roof- water from a road and a city district to a designated area with capacity and opportunity for great water storage and infiltration. The facility was turned into an attraction and a recreational habitat for the city dwellers of Roskilde by making it usable for skaters and other recreational activities.

The facility mainly consists in 2 canals (see ill. 88), a concrete skatebowl area, a pond with a constant water level and a meadow with related plant species. This system operates by first transporting the stormwater from before mentioned restricted catchment area to a pond bassin. In case of heavier rainfall the pond overflows to a meadow basin next to it (see ill. 89 and 90). If extreme rain occurs and the meadow basin gets filled up, the water will finally overflows to a bowl-designed skate area (see ill. 91). The basins are emptied by pumping the water into the sewer system which transport the water to the nearby Roskilde Fjord. The canals are paved with respectively asphalt and concrete and are designed as so-called ‘snake runs’ which is a well known skatable feature in skateparks today.

33

Ill. 88: One of the two paved canals that transports stormwater in Rabalderparken.

1st scenario (everyday rain)

2nd scenario (when heavy rain occurs)

3rd scaenario (every 10th year when extreem rain occurs)

Ill. 89

Ill. 90

Ill. 91

Ill. 92: The water cycle of Rabalderparken

34

5. Plans, laws & regulations in oslo In the mighty jungle of municipal plans, regulations and laws, I have selcted and processed the ones that are of most relevance to this project concerning stormwater and skateparks, and the sustainability within both. This part represents a framework for this thesis (see section 1.7) and from the processing I have extracted relevant laws, regulations, goals, visions and priorities in order to extract a set of guidelines for new initiatives regarding the adaption to climate changes in Oslo. The guidelines falls within the themes of stormwater management, requirements for water quality, conservation of green areas, increased activity and biological diversity, and cooperation and cummunication. These themes are found within the following laws and municipal documents: - ’Oslo mot 2030’ - ’Byøkologisk program 2011-2026’ - ‘Klimatilpasning - bakgrunnsdokument for Oslo Kommune’ - ‘Hovedplan avløp og vannmiljø 2014-2030’ - ‘Oslos overvannsstrategi 2013-2030’ - ’Plan for idrett og friluftsliv i Oslo 2013-2016’ - ‘Utkast til plan for skateboard-tilbud og anlegg i Oslo’ - ’Vannressursloven’ - ’Vannforskriften’ - ’Forurensningsloven’ - ’Forurensningsforskriften’ - ’Plan og Bygningsloven’ - ’ Byggeteknisk forskrift’

‘Oslo mot 2030’ Introduction The municipal plan has the subtitle Smart, Safe and Green because these are the target areas and the main vision of the development of Oslo. The interesting vision related to this project is the green vision of Oslo. Oslo is today and in the future facing environmental and climate challenges. Adding to this is the growing population of Oslo, which increases the use of parks and plazas and stresses the need for development. This development of cause has to be green guided and followed by the international agenda of today and one of the visions of Oslo is actually to be world leading when it comes to being a green city. Within the green vision of the municipal plan, the subsection and goal about strengthening the blue/green structures of Oslo is most relevant to this project and the following bullet points indicates the blue/green goals of Oslo municipality extracted from this subsection of the municipal plan: Vision: -Smart, Safe and Green.

Goals: - Good accessibility to green areas and a big variety of health promoting activities.

- Big trees and other important vegetation should be preserved and supplemented.

- Piped streams should be reopened and utilized if possible.

- Better stormwater management because of an increasing population and climate change.

- The increasing population stresses a need for restoration of existing sport facilities and construction of

35

new facilities, especially targeting youth and kids.

- Public spaces, parks and sport-facilities should be properly and universal designed in order to stimulate physical activity and promote health.

- The green structure should be diverse and provide different functions.

- Every citizen should have access to green areas that stimulates play, sports and provides nature experience and recreation within reasonable distance from home.

- Polluted wastewater should be avoided inlet to the Akerselva river and the Olso fiord.

- Drug-free leisure facilities, sport activities and meeting places should be provided to young people in the local neighborhoods.

‘Byøkologisk program 2011-2026’ Introduction ‘Byøkologisk program 2011-2026’ displays the main perspectives of Oslo municipality’s environmental policy. It covers goals and strategies regarding environmental sustainable development of Oslo and is an important plan in relation to the blue and green development.

Vision: -Oslo should be a sustainable city providing clean air and water together with good accessibility to recreational areas.

Priorities/goals: - Reduce noise, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions - Eco-efficient transportation system - Pursuit sustainable urban development with an eco-friendly environment - A recycle-based waste-management - Maintain and strengthen the blue/green structures - Environmentally efficient local governance - Collaboration with citizens, businesses and government for a better environment - Contribute to collaboration in order to improve the environment regionally, nationally and globally.

’Klimatilpasning - bakgrunnsdokument for Oslo Kommune’ Introduction ‘Klimatilpasning - bakgrunnsdokument for Oslo Kommune’ is a document that addresses and brings attention to the increasing need for climate change adaptation and all the challenges affiliated with the change. The document reintroduces the goals and strategies from relevant municipal plans and strategies such as the ‘Oslos overvannsstrategi 2013-2030’ and the ‘Byøkologisk program 2011-2026’.

It also stresses the need for a cloudburst plan similar to the ‘Københavns Kommunes Skybrudsplan’ from Copenhagen.

The Copenhagen cloudburst plan has emerged from the Copenhagen-version of ‘Klimatilpasning bakgrunnsdokument for Oslo Kommune’ and it presents recommendations on methods, priorities and initiatives regarding the part of the climate adaption concerning cloudbursts. The municipality of Copenhagen has also developed an Emergency Plan in case of cloudburst incidents similar to the one

Copenhagen experienced on July 2, 2011.

The ‘Klimatilpasning - bakgrunnsdokument for Oslo Kommune’ positions the Oslo region in the conflict of the climate change by introducing statistics on precipitation, temperature and wind. Precipitation is predicted to increase by 5-20% in 2100, the average temperature will increase by 2 degrees, whereas some research indicates stronger winds as well. Adapting to the climate change is importants for Oslo as well as other cities, and with this document concerning Oslo and the need for adaptation, the municipality of Oslo aims to: - Contribute to increased knowledge about the effects of climate change in Oslo.

- Show the different strategies on future climate-adaptation work.

- Provide input to political, administrative and emergency related decisions which can affect life, health and the environment.

Priorities: - Water in the city - Land use - Buildings, heritage and infrastructure - Health consequences - The blue/green environment - Safety and preparedness

‘Hovedplan avløp og vannmiljø 2014-2030’ Introduction ‘Hovedplan avløp og vannmiljø 2014-2030’ is an auditing of the equivalent plan from 2000, but the municipality expresses a need to audit the plan more often. This indicates a change in the priority of water management in Oslo, which probably has to do with the urgent challenge of adapting to the climate change. This report is developed by ‘Oslo vann- og avløpsetaten’ (VAV) which is the department responsible of the water issues in the municipality. One of the main focusses of this report is the stormwater management of Oslo and the climate change. The plan outlays the long-term goals of the water management from 2014-2030 and how the statutory demands should be accommodated.

The Vision is ‘clean water for every purpose’ and the main goal is ‘not to have the water management causing any damage’.

Priorities: - City planning – plan for more inhabitants - Regional cooperation – cooperate across municipal boarders - Climate changes – manage more precipitation - Risk and vulnerability – provide safe water management - Water in the city and stormwater – manage stormwater open and locally - External emissions – reduce emissions - Pipe renovation – intensify the renewal of the water pipelines - Energy – be energy efficient Goals.

- The water pipe system must have the capacity to handle 30-year rain event.

- New water pipes should be constructed as a separate system splitting stormwater from other leachates.

- There should be separate sewer systems and floodways in transformation areas and stormwater should be managed locally.

- Stormwater should not cause damage to buildings, properties and infrastructure.

- Stormwater led to other water bodies should not counteract the Water Regulations goal of good chemical and ecological conditions from being achieved.

- Stormwater from urban/trafficked areas should not be sent to treatment plants via the common water pipe system.

- The stormwater management should not deteriorate the water quality in the Akerselva - No one should experience flooded basements caused by sewer malfunction - No one should experience flooded basements caused by sewer capacity up until a 30-year rain event.

‘Oslos overvannsstrategi 2013-2030’ Introduction ‘Oslos overvannsstrategi 2013-2030’ is a plan that focuses on the stormwater management in Oslo.

The plan is developed by the municipality and it represents the specific stormwater strategies affiliated with receiving the municipal goals for the future. The strategy mainly entails a three-step approach which consists in 1) capture and infiltration, 2) delay and attenuation, and 3) safe floodways. A plan of action is in the making, showing exactly where and when in Oslo the municipality are going to implement their stormwater strategies.

Main goals: - Accommodate the climate changes and minimize the risk of damage to humans, buildings and infrastructure.

- Protect the environment and ensure good ecological and chemical conditions in the water resources.

- Use stormwater as a resource in the urban landscape.

Specific goals: - Avoid damage caused by stormwater and urban flooding.

- All stormwater led to a recipient should have the quality demanded by the recipient in order to meet the requirements of the water regulation.

- Stormwater should be used, infiltrated and attenuated locally if possible and in open, natural and multifunctional solutions.

Strategies: - Be predictable and Include stormwater early in the planning process and.

- Evaluate and introduce methods that stimulates a more frequent use of open, multifunctional drainage solutions in new facilities.

- Track down the specific water problems in specific areas and estimate which solution would be most profitable.

- Plan and establish areas for floodways and attenuation basins.

- Upgrade the stormwater management on municipal buildings.

- Encourage more open and multifunctional stormwater solutions by grant making.

36

Laws and regulations concerning stormwater management in Oslo

infiltrasjon i grunnen

Introduction Laws and regulations concerning water management must be accommodated when it comes to managing the stormwater in Oslo. The laws and regulations of stormwater management ensures that new initiatives improves the quality of the environment. The most relevant to stormwater management are the Water Regulations (Vannforskirften), the Water Resources Act (Vannressursloven), the Pollution Control Act (Forurensningloven), the Pollution Regulations (Forurensningsforskriften), the Plan and Building Act (Plan- og bygningsloven) and the Build Regulations (Byggeteknisk forskrift). The water department ‘vann- og avløpsetaten’ (VAV) of Oslo municipality has made a guide called ’Veileder for overvannshåndtering’ to ensure better stormwater solutions and minimize the pressure on the waterpipe system. This guide is based on the laws and regulations on stormwater management as well as the goals of the municipal plans.

Byggeteknisk forskrift §15-10. (Avløpsanlegg med ledningsnett): - Overvann, herunder drensvann, skal i størst mulig grad infiltreres eller på annen måte håndteres lokalt for å sikre vannbalansen i området og unngå overbelastning av avløpsanleggene

Vannressursloven: -The purpose of this law is to ensure a safe use and management of waterways and groundwater beneficial to the society.

Vannforskriften § 6. (miljømål for grunnvann): - Tilstanden i grunnvann skal beskyttes mot forringelse, forbedres og gjenopprettes og balansen mellom uttak og nydannelse sikres med sikte på at vannforekomstene skal ha minst god kjemisk og kvantitativ tilstand

Vannforskriften: -The purpose of this regulation is to achieve good ecological conditions and chemical balance in all water bodies and prevent the state of today from becoming worse.

Forurensningsloven: - The purpose of this law is to ensure environmental quality in order to prevent negative impact on human health and the nature.

Forurensningsforskriften: - This regulation serves the purpose of protecting the environment against adverse side effects from e.g. contaminated leachates.

Plan og Bygningsloven: - This law ensures the promotion of sustainable development as a benefit to the society, the individual and future generations.

Byggeteknisk forskrift: - This regulation ensures visual quality, universal design and accommodation of certain demands in safety, wellbeing and environment when new initiatives are planned, projected and constructed.

The respective Laws and regulations all have the common goal to accommodate climate change, growing population and densification, and build resilient drainage systems in order to achieve high water quality and lower the risk of damaging and harming people, infrastructure and nature.

Here is some examples of laws and regulation (in norweigian) relevant to stormwater issues: Vannressursloven §7 (vannets løp I vassdrag og infiltrasjon I grunnen): - Utbygging og annen grunnutnytting bør fortrinnsvis skje slik at nedbøren fortsatt kan få avløp gjennom

37

Byggeteknisk forskrift § 15-8. Generelle krav til utvendige vannforsynings- og avløpsanlegg: - Vannforsynings- og avløpsanlegg skal prosjekteres og utføres slik at helse, miljø og sikkerhet ivaretas.

- Ledningsnett skal prosjekteres og utføres slik at forventet levetid for anlegget oppnås.

Vannforskriften § 4. (miljømål for overflatevann): - Tilstanden i overflatevann skal beskyttes mot forringelse, forbedres og gjenopprettes med sikte på at vannforekomstene skal ha minst god økologisk og god kjemiske tilstand

Forurensningsloven § 22.(krav til utførelse av avløpsanlegg): - Forurensningsmyndigheten kan i forskrift eller i det enkelte tilfelle fastsette nærmere krav til avløpsledning, herunder om den skal være lukket og vanntett. Forurensningsmyndigheten kan avgjøre om alt avløpsvann skal ledes i felles ledning eller om det skal kreves særskilte ledninger for ulike typer avløpsvann.

Forurensningsforskriften § 14-3. Forurensningsmyndighet: - Fylkesmannen er forurensningsmyndighet etter dette kapitlet (Kapittel 14. Krav til utslipp av kommunalt avløpsvann fra større tettbebyggelser) og fører tilsyn med at bestemmelsene og vedtak fattet i medhold av dette kapitlet følges.

Forurensningsforskriften § 14-4. Krav om tillatelse: - Ingen kan sette i verk nye utslipp eller øke utslipp vesentlig uten at tillatelse er gitt etter forurensningsloven § 11.

- Tillatelse skal ikke gis med mindre avløpsanlegg som et minimum tilfredsstiller alle krav i § 14-5 til § 14-14.

Plan og Bygningsloven § 1-8.Forbud mot tiltak mv. langs sjø og vassdrag: - I 100-metersbeltet langs sjøen og langs vassdrag skal det tas særlig hensyn til natur- og kulturmiljø, friluftsliv, landskap og andre allmenne interesser.

‘Plan for idrett og friluftsliv i Oslo 2013-2016’ ‘Plan for idrett og friluftsliv i Oslo 2013-2016’ is the political management tool when it comes to the development of sports and outdoor activities in Oslo. The municipality has certain obligations to the public health law (Folkehelseloven) to ‘promote public health, prosperity, good, social and environmental conditions and help to prevent mental and somatic illness, injury or suffering, contribute to reducing

social inequalities and contribute to protect the population against factors that may have negative impact on health’ (folkehelse loven §4). In other words, the municipality wants to lay the basis for a good healthy environment also when it comes to skateboarding. It is understood that skateboarding is an increasing, positive and beneficial activity and that there is too few facilities in Oslo, something which has resulted in the development of a plan that specifies and clarifies the situation in Oslo today (see ‘Utkast til plan for skateboard-tilbud og anlegg i Oslo’).

Main goal: Everyone should have the possibility of practicing outdoor life, sports and physical activity in order to gain health benefits and get positive experiences.

Specific goals: - Secure a good geographical distribution of the facilities - Provide a broad variety of facilities focusing on new sports and developing sports - Provide more facilities for unorganized activities - Preserve and develop a variety of experiences and activities in the parks to motivate and increase physical activity

‘Utkast til plan for skateboard-tilbud og anlegg i Oslo’ Introduction Norway and Oslo has a history of skateboarding even though it all started in California in the USA. What is interesting about the development of skateboarding in Norway is that it was totally banned from 1978-1989, which might have caused a delay in the development of the sport. Today skateboarding is a growing activity, but Oslo still seems to be less developed compared to other cities allthough this is about to change. Oslo seems to be on the verge of a breakthrough in the development and the ‘Utkast til plan for skateboard-tilbud og anlegg i Oslo’ is the draft for a plan, aiming to shed light on the skateboard-offer in Oslo today and future development. The plan has been developed through dialog with the different districts of Oslo, skate clubs and skate environments, and though the plan does not suggest skate-parks for every city district, it suggests minor skateable interventions in order to satisfy the more general need for skate-facilities in Oslo. The need for skate-facilities in Oslo arises from the growing popularity of skating, but it is difficult to say how big the number of practitioners is in Oslo and Norway as skating is an own-organized leisure sport. Nevertheless the ‘Utkast til plan for skateboard-tilbud og anlegg i Oslo’ estimates the number of skaters in Oslo to be around 10.000, and it further estimates that 70-80% practices street skating whereas 20-30% practices Bowl- and ramp-skating, but these statistics probably also has something today with availability of the different types of skate-fasilities.

SYNTHESIS The following is a synthesis of 15 extracted relvant objectives from the respective laws, plan and regulations which I aim to pursuit in my proposal for a skate facility in the Ila area in Oslo: - Accommodate climate changes and minimize risk of damage to humans, buildings and infrastructure.

- Provide health promoting activities.

- Strenthen the blue green structures.

- Imrove the stormwater management to accomodate the growing population and climate change - Preserve and supplement existing big trees and other important vegetation.

- Construct new sport facilities, especially targeting youth and kids.

- Design universally in order to stimulate physical activity and promote health.

- Provide diverse green structures with different functions.

- Preserve the water quality in the Akerselva - Manage stormwater through infiltration and attenuation open and locally.

- Use stormwater as a resource in the urban landscape.

- Manage stormwater in multifunctional solutions.

- Establish areas for floodways and attenuation basins.

- Provide creative and high quality skateparks to attract national and international attention to Oslo.

- Provide leisure facilities, sport activities and meeting places to young people in the local neighborhoods.

Goals: - Clarify the skate situation today.

- Find new suitable places for skateparks.

- Ensure the possibility of skating all year around.

- Ensure the construction of creative and high quality skateparks in order to attract national and international attention to Oslo.

38

6.SITE

Ill. 93: 17th of May in Kuba Park

39

SITE

The Following part (6.Site) is my preparatory work (see ’The threat of the thesis’ 1.7) on the site ’Kuba Park’ in Oslo. Kuba Park represents a floodway hotspot and outlet point of the Ila catchment area, why this site is able to accomodate point 3 in the 3-point stormwater strategy of Oslo municipality (see 3.6).

In the following pages I would like to: 1) Present the location of the site (6.1) 2) Present the area (6.2) 3) Present the history of the site (6.3) 4) Present todays use and adress the existing flood-issue (6.4) 5) Present a stormwater analysis and shred light on the flood issue (6.5)

Opera NORWAY

Oslo

6.1 LOCATION

Oslo Fjord Ill. 94: Location- Norway

Ill. 95: Location- Oslo

40

6.2 THE AREA Ila is the name of the area in Oslo wherein the site being analyzed in this project is located. The name Ila comes from the word ‘Ile’ which means spring as a reference to the histrorical stream Ilabekken (see 6.3) that runs through the area underground. The area of Ila has a population of approximately 10.000 of which the absolute majority is between 20 and 40 years old (see diagram to the right). The central point of the area is Alexander Kiellands Plass where one can find restaurants and shops. The area is dense but has many green spaces, which in addition to Alexander Kiellands Plass are the Iladalen Park and Kuba Park (Kuba Park represents the main site for this projects’ proposal for a skateable water facility).

Ila is located within an attractive green context of places such as the Akerselva River, Skt. Hanshaugen Park and the cemeteries of the Old Aker Church (See ill. 66).

Ill 97: The diagram shows that the majority of the residents in the Ila-area are between 19 and 39 years old followed by infants/children from 0-5 years old. Something indicates that this is a popular place for young couples with newborn babies or small children. If any of the residents in the Ila-area practices skateboarding, there is a good change that they perform the transitional type since they are dominated by young adult and not children/teenagers who is representing the younger group of skateboarders practicing the street type of skateboarding. (statistical source of diagram: www.statistikkbanken.oslo. kommune.no).

ILA

St Hans Haugen Akerselva

Old Aker Church SITE Ill. 96: The green context around Ila

41

Ill. 98: The diagram shows a notable growth in residents between 19 and 39 in the Ila-area. Apparently, this area is a popular place for new parents to move to and raise their kids, something which addresses that it might be a good idea to include small kids (skateboard beginners) in the design of a new skatepark in the area. (statistical source of diagram: www.statistikkbanken.oslo.kommune.no).

6.3 THE HISTORY Ilabekken Ilabekken is a stream formerly known as Akersbekken running through the area of Ila (see ill. 99). Today the stream is piped and in some places where the stream used to run, the old ‘Ringdalen’ valley is filled up until 12 meters, leaving the terrain in the different state as we see it today. Ilabekken also runs underneath Alexander Kiellands Plass which is the park/plaza seen as the center of the area Ila. This park was named after the writer Alexander Kielland from Stavanger and was built in the years 19181927. When the 1990s was coming to an end, the park was worn out and needed a makeover. The landscape architect company ‘Grindaker’ did the new park at Alexander Kiellands Plass with a long water feature, and one of the ideas was to use water from the Ilabekken stream, but unfortunately there was found coliform bacteria in the water why they had to use tap water.

TE

SI

Ill. 99: Ilabekken 1861

42

Kuba Park Kuba Park was established in 1928 and was later expanded in 1999 on the western side of Akerselva River, the former territory of the company ‘Oslo Lysverker’.

Two old farms are mentioned in the early history of the area ‘Øvre Schultzehaugen’ and ‘Nedre Schultzehaugen’. These two farms gave the area its name ‘Schultzehaugen’ because they were named after Jens Schultz who bought them in 1767.

There was a lot of industry going on in the area at that time, but sawmills and brick factories was the main industry. The brickstone factories in Schultzehaugen was most likely

1881

established in the beginning of 1800.

From 1923-1925 the company ‘Oslo Gasverk’ built a large cylindrical silo together with a small house called ‘Fyrhuset’ just south of Schultzehaugen. Gas was being produced inside ‘Fyrhuset’, which was then sent to the big silo behind it. The silo was demolished around 1976 when the gas production closed down and there was later built a circular splashing pool for kids, but today it is just a boring area paved in asphalt.

In the 1930s ‘Oslo Lysverker’ acquired the lower part of Schultzehaugen and built a functionalistic workshop- and storage building in bricks. This building is where AHO (The

Oslo School of Architecture and Design) is located today.

‘Nedre Schultzehaugen’ existed until the 1970s when the remaining farmhouse burned down. Up until then the farmhouse had been functioning as a home for the director of the brick factories. (references: see references 9.0, site)

The historical development 1881-2014 is presented in the following Images (ill. 100-117):

1937

1901 AHO

SITE

43

SILO

1984

1997

2001

2009

2010

2011

1938

1947

1971

2004

2007

2008

2012

2013

2014

VULKAN

44

6.4 KUBA PARK TODAY Apperantly there is a lot of history on the site located between AHO and Vulkan, a site today known as Kuba Park. Kuba Park is a bifurcated park linked across the recreational blue vein of Oslo, the Akerselva. The park is located in the area we know as Ila, which is an area said to be defining the border of eastern and western Oslo. The adjacent districts of Ila are the districts Grünerløkka, Sagene and St. Hanshaugen. Ila is connected to all of these three districts but is not an actual city-district itself. The Kuba Park represents an important connection across the Akerselva river, connecting Ila to the district Grünerløkka. This connection is especially interresting and important because Grünerløkka is a district known for a flourishing cultural life.

The Kuba Park is just like other parks an important restorative environment where people from Ila and the adjacent neighborhoods can come to hang out whenever the weather allows it. The park serves the annual purpose of hosting a big gathering on the Norwegian Constitution Day, 17th of may (see ill. 93 and 118).

On this specific day the park becomes a fully crowdet meeting point for the people of Oslo who wants to come out and celebrate. Despite from being a place to hang out, Kuba Park also represents an entrance from the adjecent road Maridalsveien to the path system that runs along the Akerselva river. This path system is an important connection for pedestrans and bicyclists going to down town Oslo.

Regarding the waterflow within the Ila area, Kuba Park represents a potential outflow point to Akerselva river.

Occational flooding on the adjacent road Maridalsveien are sometimes causing big infrastructural problems (see ill. 120) why something needs to be done. The picture below to the right shows the consequences of a big rainfall in Oslo when Maridalsveien becomes a pool and blocks the traffic. The picture to the right (ill.

119) shows the specific location of the flood issue and how the water is likely to flow into the Vulkan area where it could cause flooded basements if the water is not guidet elsewhere.

Ill. 118: On the 17th of May, people meet in the Kuba Park to celebrate the Norwegian Constituion Day.

45

Ill. 119 Existing unintended secondary floodways

Ill. 120: A flooded Maridalsveien

6.5 Stormwater analysis

SITE

In the following pages I present 6 analyses and a calculation of the stormwater masses in the Ila area.

6.5.1 Pipesystem The flood-problem on Maridalsveien is a result of many things, but of cause the climate change is the basic factor.

The climate is changing resulting in more rain, why oslo has to adapt in order to become more resilient agianst issues like flooding. An important term regarding the management of the stormwater is capacity. The capacity of the sewer systems in Oslo is not big enough in order to handle the increasing amounts of rainwater caused be the climate changes. A goal for the municipality is to change the capasity of the pipes in Oslo so they are able to handle a 30 year rain event. Rain events are based on statistics about the rainfall and basicly defines the maximum of rain falling within a period of eg. 30 years. The map to the right (ill. 121) shows the different types of pipe-systems whereas the red lines represents combined sewer systems. Since it looks like the sewer system at Maridalsveien is a combined system, it can be a serious threat to public health as well as to the environment every time the sewer flows over and flooding occurs.

Ill. 121: Pipe system of Oslo. The red illustrates combined sewers.

46

6.5.2 Catchment Area The water-pipe-systems in cities has limited capacity, and because of this limitation, it is necessary to try to handle as much water locally through infiltration and attenuation. There may be many things to consider, laws, and regulations to abide when it comes to helping cities to resist larger quantities of stormwater, but it is important to understand that the precipitation is limited to a certain area. This area is defined a ’catchment area’ or a ’drainage basin’ and this is the area that has to be considered regarding the quantities and quality of the stormwater, and the possible solutions that could be implemented to prevent potential flood issues.

There are many difinitions to find on the web but it all comes down to the same and wikipedia actually has a very easy difinition of the term: “A drainage basin is an extent or an area of land where surface water from rain, melting snow, or ice converges to a single point at a lower elevation, usually the exit of the basin, where the waters join another waterbody, such as a river, lake, reservoir, estuary, wetland, sea, or ocean” (wikipedia.org/wiki/Drainage_basin, 2015)

veien

Maridals

The illustration to the left shows the catchment area wherein the rain that is lead to the specific flood area of Ila falls. The analysis is made as a ’catchment’ analysis in Autocad Civil 3D from a 1-meter contour map converted into a digital terrain model (DTM). The analysis could have had a more accurate outcome if the terrain information was more detailed (this kind of data can be requested at the municipality of Oslo), but it is good enough as an approximation. The blue line represents the catchment area whereas the black line represents the lowest elevation within the area. It is important to now the area of impact since this is where the changes should be made when it comes to managing the stormwater locally.

SITE

47

Ill. 122: Catchment area

Table 3: Elevation hights in meters

6.5.3 Surface Elevation Analysis This analysis shows the elevations of the terrain within the catchment area. It is clear that the terrain is sloping from all directions to the exact place dealing with flood issues, which indicates that this exact spot defines a depression in the terrain. The fact that the terrain is depressed in the middle of the road ’Maridalsveien’ creates an infrastrucural problem. The only way for the stormwater to be transported away from this point today is through a drain, but if the sewer system has exeeded its capacity, the water will continue to accumulate until it exeeds the volume of the depression and finds an unintented escape route (see ill. 119). The terrain slopes from 85500 mm (85,5 meters above sea level) to 16500 mm (16,5 meters above sea level), see tabel above.

SITE

Ill. 123: Surface elevation analysis

48

Table 4: Slope gradient in percent

6.5.4 Slope Analysis This analysis shows the gradient of the slopes within the catchement area. The analysis clearly shows that there is some quite dramatically sloping terrain within the area, something which can have a huge importance on the waterbalance in the area. Steep sloping roads transports the water quicker which creates an even bigger pressure on the lower region if the water is not delayed properly on its way down. Im thinking that whenever big quantities of stormwater occurs and runs in high speed down the roads, it is difficult for the drain gullies along the roads to manage the inlet. Delaying the stormwater from the roads is essential since the stepness makes it dificult for the water to soak into the road construction and instead run directly to the sewer-system and causing an intense pressure.

SITE

Ill. 124: Slope analysis

49

6.5.5 Watershed Analysis The watershed analysis shows the flow of the water. The blue cross represents impact points and the blue lines represents the flowdirection. This analysis brings attention to the fact that the road ’Waldemar Thranes gate’ leads a lot of water to the road ’Maridalsveien’ which seems to be the main highway for the stormwater in this catchement area. Since the water appears to flow from all directions into the flood-exposed area this analysis further enhances the observed despression in the terrain found in the surface elevation analysis.

SITE

Ill. 125: Watershed analysis

50

6.5.6 Roof Analysis This analysis shows an overview of all the buildings with a flat roof. These buildings has the potential of delaying and infiltrating the stormwater if they are transformed into roof gardens. Roof gardens can provide the habitat for birds and insects as well as function as a restorative environment for the residents. Before roof gardens can be constructed an engineer would need to evaluate whether the buildings can manage the additional weight of a roof garden or not. If the engineer happens to says no then the flat roofs could always be transformed into less intensive green roofs instead.

SITE

Ill. 126: Roof analysis

51

6.5.7 Calculating the stormwater masses It is very difficult to estimate how much water is lead to the specific flood area at Maridalsveien since there are many unknown factors. The catchment area represents a big area containing different kinds of surfaces with a lot of different levels of permeability and detention qualities. Most of the roof surface within the area consists in tile and asphalt roofing but whether the runoff from the roofs are managed privatly or lead to the public road is hard to tell for each specific building.

Runoff from detached houses are most commonly managed private, whereas many housing estates may have special agreements with the municipality about discharging some of their roofwater to the public road. I will therefore not inlude roof surfaces in a stormwater calculation since I think that the exact calculations on how much stormwater that actually runs to the sewers and how much are transported on the surface is better left to the engineers.

2 scenarios for calculating the stormwater masses: Scenario 1: An holistic scenario for a stormwater management solution could be to implement sufficiently many SUDS in this catchment area to be able to disconnects the discharging of stormwater from the public roads to the public sewer system. This would mean that the hole area should be able to manage the stormwater locally causing no pressure on the public wastewater system.

If the area from implementation of green roofs, raingardens, detention basins and other SUDS constructions becomes capable of managing 2/3 of a 30 year rain event the last 1/3 of a 30 year rain event could be managed at Kuba Park representing the lowest part of the catchment area, the so-called outflow point of the watershed. This proposal for a stormwater management solution would be very beneficial to the rest of Oslo since it helps to increase the capacity of the sewer systems by disconnecting from it, and further it would lead to an extreeme greening of this urban area and contribute to the accompanying benefits such as providing habitat and promoting public health.

Scenario 2: This scenario approaches the dimensioning of a skate facility in Kuba Park as an approximation only comprising the roads of the catchment area. Since the site is located at the bottom of a watershed and represents a potential floodway, it is assumed that the pipe systems within the area would exeed their maximum capacity in a 30 year rain event, why greater amounts of surface water from the roads would have to be managed on the lowest level of the watershed represented by the Kuba Park site. Given that the pipe systems in Oslo are expected to handle a 30 year rain event by 2030, I wish to dimension a skateable facilitiy in Kuba Parken which should be capacle of managing 20% of a 30 year rain event. This facility should: 1) provide a prolonged buffer for when the area has reached its capacity and 2) provide a floodway to the Akerselven river which represents the final escape route to the ocean.

45996,9 m2

Scenario 2 is as the more realistic scenario chosen as a foundation for dimensioning a skate facility on the Kuba Park site. To be able to make a calculation in order to dimension the skate facility, I must know the total area of the roads (see map to the left) since the roads are the only surfaces comprized in this calculation meaning that other impervious surfaces such as the roofs has been excludet. Furthermore I must know the statistics on a 30 year rain event in the Oslo region.

Ill. 127: Road calculation

52

Table 5: Table representing IVF-graph from the Oslo area.

6.5.8 Stormwater calculation One of the two inputs I need to carry out a calcutionen for the purpose of dimensioning a stormwater retaining skate facility in Kuba Park is the rain statistics represented as so-called IVF graphs. I.V.F. is short for (I) Intensity, (V) Duration and (F) Frequency which are the important comparable varibles for measuring and understanding average rainfalls/rain events occuring in a specific area. The municipality of Oslo wants to dimensionen their sewer systems from a 30-year rain event, but since there are found no return period in the IVF data representing a 30 year rain event I have chosen what is represented as a rain event with a return period of every 25th year (see ill. 91). The second input I need is the total size of the roads in the catchment area. This is easy to find from a 3d model in Autocad, which is how it has been done in this case (see ill. 127 on previous page).

Catchment: Roads: 45996,9 m2 (4,599690 ha) Runoff coefficient: Asphalt: 0,9 Formula: Q=AxFxI Q : rain amount A : area F : runoff coefficient I : rain intensity Data: (Rain amount (ltr) within 10min) Return period every 25th year = 263,8 ltr/sec/ha

53

Calculation 25-event: Qroads = 4,599690 ha x 0,9 x 0,2638 x 60 x 10 Qroads = 655 m3 / 10min

Calculation 50-event: Qroads = 4,599690 ha x 0,9 x 0,3925 x 60 x 10 Qroads = 975 m3

This calculation shows how much stormwater that are accumulated on the roads if a 25-year rain event occurs in the Ila catchments area investigated in this project. This approximation should be the expected amount of water to go into the sewer system of the area, if the municipality of Oslo enlarges the pipes to handle a 30-year (25-year) rain event.

A goal for the design of a skateboard facility in Kuba Park could be to make it capable of managing a 50-year rain event. If this is the immediate objective I need to calculate for a 50-year rain event and subtract the 665,9 m3 since this is expected to go into the sewers.

The calculation above shows the biggest rain volume for a 50year rain event which is associated with 10 minuntes rain with an intensity of 392,5 ltr/sec/ha.

The difference between the volume of the 50-year rain event and the volume of the 25-year rain event is 320 m3. This volume will be the goal for storaging water in a skate facility in Kuba Park.

6.5.9 Summary of stormwater analyses The main conflict on the site that I am dealing with in this project is that much of the water from the higher parts of the catchment area are led to the lowest point of the area instead of being infiltrated locally. On days with large quantities of stormwater, this can cause flood issues when the waterpipe system exceeds its capacity and the stormwater has nowhere else to go. This problem is a so called bottleneck problem, and what is most inconvenient about this bottleneck is the infrastructural conflict with Maridalsveien when flooding occurs. One strategy to solve this issue could be the implementation of permeable surfaces, rainbeds and green roofs in the higher parts of the catchment area in order to reduce the pressure on the lower bottleneck region. This would increase the capacity of the catchments area and make it more resilient to the increasingly larger quantities of precipitation caused by the climate changes. If the strategy is implemented and the area still doesn’t have the desired capacity even though the pipesystem has been enlarged to handle a 30 year rain event, a floodway should be established. The most obvious thing to do in this case would be to create a floodway through the adjacent park ‘Kuba parken’. In ‘Kuba park’ it would be possible to further work with attenuation of the stormwater in rainbeds and in case of extreme rain events, retain the water, clean it and lead it to the river Akerselven. The Akerselva river would be the final traffic corridor for the stormwater, guiding it to the fjord of Oslo. In case the stormwater is lead to the river, it is important to abide the laws and regulations on this matter both in relation to the quantities of water led to the river and the quality of it. The quantities of water is measured in liters per second and regulated by the municipality as owner of the waterways (dibk. no, 2015)

54

7. Design proposal In my proposal for the implementation of skateable water features in the Ila area of Oslo, I wish to: 1) Present 6 spots and show how they can can be turned into standard non-skatable features of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems. These spots could function as preventative constructions in the higher and middle parts of the catchments area, helping to balance the waterflow in the Ila area and reduce the risk of flood, (the Illustration on the next page shows where the different interventions could be made).

(Presented in 7.1) 2) Illustrate solutions of making SUDS- elements more interactive to skateboarders.

This part of my proposal functions as a counteraction to the standard SUDSelemtents we see today, and it mainly focusses on the skatable re-design of the stormwater managing elements in the street-scape such as roads, sidewalk and plazas. (presented in 7.2) 3) The final part of my proposal and the main part, will be focused on the site Kuba Parken which can become an attractive skate facilitity as well as a floodway to Akerselven when heavy rainfall occurs.

(Presented in 7.3)

55

7.1 localities with different potential for the implementation of standard S.U.D.S.

6

5 4

3

2

1

SITE

Ill. 128: Potential SUDS localities

56

SUDS locality #1 Maridalsveien is a heavy traficated road carrying cars, trucks, busses, bicyklists and pedestrians. The road represents the main flood route within a catchment area and the stormwater from the road are heavily polluted from the great amount of traffic.

The space is defined by buildings representing the walls of this urban space and the dimensions are wide enough to manage the incorporation of trees.

Ill. 129: Maridalveien - existing

SUDS initiative #1 A system of trees and planting beds could transform maridalsveien into a green street. The stormwater from the road can enter the planting beds through openings in the curbstone into a systems which can help to provide habitat for birds and insects, retain stormwater and slowly release it, filter pollutants, recharge groundwater and reduce ersosion of the road. Designated walls such as the wall of AHO to the right in the picture could be consideret transformed into a green wall of shade tolerant climping plants.

Ill. 130: Maridalveien - transformed

57

SUDS locality #2 Adjecent to Maridalsveien is a small parkinglot representing the surplus outcome of the built structure. The parkinglot is paved with asphalt and appears borring contributing to an unstimulating urban environment.

Since Oslo is on the verge of changing into a more green and resilient city prioritizing bicyclist and pedestrians over cars, small spaces like this could serve other purposes, which in this particular case could be a link in the stormwater management of the Ila area.

Ill. 131: Parking - existing

SUDS initiative #2 By implementing rain gardens in small oddly shaped areas like this, the urban environment could become more stimulating and promote public health. The rain gardens can store, infiltrate and delay great amounts of water contributing to the filtering of stromwater pollutants and a better water balance. The plants afiliated with these kinds of constructions has to be carefully selected since they have to be tolerant to the sometimes very wet conditions.

Ill. 132: Parking - transformed

58

59

SUDS Location #3

SUDS initiative #3

It has been presented that there are many flat roof constructions within the catchement area analysed in this project. These areas has great opportunities regarding the implimentation of a larger suds-strategy for the area. As it is today the stormwater probably does’nt recieve any kind of treatment on these roofs, but is directly led to the roof gutters and into the streets. Since the total area of flat roofs represents a relatively large percentage of the entire catchement area, a local management of the watermasses could be very beneficial.

Maybe it is not appropriate to turn entire roof constructions into a green roofs, but at least some of it. Green roofs or if heavier constructions Roof gardens, can retain much of the precipitation and help to prevent urban flooding, they also provide habitat for birds and insect as well as people. Today it is very popular to use this surplus land for recreation and activity.

Ill. 133: Roof - existing

Ill. 134: Roof - transformed

SUDS Location #4 The big round about at Alexander Kjellands Plass represents a very important hub for the roads in this area. The round about is a raised feature which serves the formal goal of managing the trafic. Great amounts of stormwater flows through this point and continues down to the high risk flood area at Maridalsveien.

Ill. 135: Roundabout - existing

SUDS initiative #4 If the construction of this round about was changes into a lowered raingarden thriving the purpose of retaining and infiltrating the surface water from the roads, this feature could help reducing the presure on the lower part of Maridalsveien exposed to flooding. Openings in the curbstone outlining the round about would make shure that the water could enter the raingarden instead of being passed on.

Ill. 136: Roundabout - transformed

60

61

SUDS Location #5

SUDS initiative #5

The road ’Waldemar Thranes gate’ seemes to be an upper highway for a lot of the stromwater that flows in this catchment area. road is just like Maridalsveien wide enough to handle the presenceof trees and green features. Many of the raods in this area are dominated by cars and has a lack of green even though it is a heavily inhabited area of Oslo.

By adding a stomwater treating feature along this street with water tolerant prenials, bushes and trees like salix (willow trees), the presure on lower regions would be further reduced and this could become a green, pleasant and livable street for the inhabitants to enjoy. It might even be possible to turn in into a oneway street, but this would reguire an analysis of the trafic pattern in the area.

Ill. 137: Waldemar thranes gate - existing

Ill. 138: Waldemar thranes gate - transformed

SUDS Location #6

SUDS initiative #6

Big paved areas prevents the percolation of stormwater. This area on Ila gate consists in an asphalt-paved football field, which is either suitable for local stormwater management or football. The space becomes a hard, dark, cold and uninviting environment for leisure sport and a more proper surface for football would be grass or even artificial grass which has the benefit of needing no maintenance.

Areas like this in the upper catchments area of Ila designated for football, could advantageously be re-designed for serving the pupose of football and at the same time function as a water storing facility.

This would’nt make sense if this area was to be re-designed for skateboarding, but since these poposals represent standard SUDS solutions, this is consciously overlooked in this and the previous 5 visualizations.

Ill. 139: Ila gate - existing

Ill. 140: Ila gate - transformed

62

7.2 A Skateable re-design of S.U.D.S. The next part of my proposal illustrates how SUDS features can be designed to incorporate skating. I encourage to take an extra look at these following illustrations since many thoughts has been put into the modelling. Additional to the describing text on each illustration should be mentioned that the blue color represents stormwater and the plants are consciously chosen and illustrated as water tolerant plants suitable for raingarden constructions. These include: native norwegian birch trees (Betula Pendula), Echinacea purpurea, Rudbeckia fulgida and Deschampsia cespitosa. Suitable plants for raingardens can be found in a great variety and many of these are listed on the danish webpage www. haveselskabet.dk.

The iIlustrations features different standard elements from skateparks (see section ’Elements in Skatepark Design’) and I have chosen to mainly focus on the skatable redesign of the raingarden/rainbed in order to limit the work.

63

The Bench Ill. 141: A bench cast in a raingarden combined with a surfaced soakaway pit of stones functioning as a storage for water as well as a pavement for sitting city dwellers. The bench becomes an obstacle for skaters to grind and slide on in order to cross the barrier of the raingarden.

64

The Legde Ill. 142: A raingarden next to road and sidewalks manage the stormwater. The prolongation of a curbstone becomes a ledge for skaters to grind and slide on.

65

The Embankment Ill. 143: An embankment against a prolonged ledge creates an additional fun feature for skaters.

The ledge can be strengthened to withstand the wear of skaters by adding coping

66

The Manual-pad Ill. 144: A raingarden managing stormwater form surrounding pavement becomes an obstacle to cross. A concrete deck cutting through the stormwater facility makes a feature for skaters to perfom manual-tricks on.

67

The Mini-ramp Ill. 145: Curvy embankments against prolonged ledges of raingardens can utilize the space between, functioning as a miniramp for skaters.

68

The Pyramid Ill. 146: Embankments against a stormwater infiltrating tree pit can function as the so-called pyramid element associated with skateparks.

69

The Launch-ramp Ill. 147: Opening up pavements can provide space for stormwater treating facilities and make fun gabs which skaters can jump over.

70

The Swale Ill. 148: A swale feature in concrete can make a fun element for skaters and transport water from pavements and roads. The stormwater can flow into a system of raingardens to be retained and infiltrated.

71

7.3 Proposal for a floodway in kuba park The following pages represents existing conditions (7.3.1) followed by my proposal for a stormwater managing floodway facility in Kuba Park in Oslo (7.3.2 - 7.3.13). The design ideas has evolved continously with the development of this master thesis and strive to accomodate the need for new skate facilities in Oslo as well as solving the flood issues at Maridalsveien in the Ila area. The design is based on the relevant conducted analyses on stormwater, skating and the site, and the studies of the vairous litterary topics and collected data has been used as a peripheral basis. The fact that the design has a quite rigorous outcome has to do with the many technical formailities. An example of this could be the more or less direct and straight routing of the floodway. This has to do with the fact that the terrain does not drop very much from the flood point of Maridalsvein to Akerselven, why the facility would have become to deep if the routing was done more indirect. To deep a facility would have caused great difficulties in the development of a skatable floodway. Another argument for the rigorous design and consistent relation to the edge is the preservation of the existing open grassland which exists in Kuba Park today, a great scene for social and restorative life.

72

7.3.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS

73

Trees

Path & main connection

60 m

Ill. 149: Aerial photo of site

Ill. 152: Existing paths and movement

150 m

Scale

Permeable

Parking Ill. 153: Existing parking

Ill. 150: Length and width

Roads/public transport Ill. 151: Maridalsveien

Ill. 155: Existing trees

Ill. 156: Permeable pavement

Terrain Ill. 154: Existing terrain

Building Ill. 157: Adjacent buildings

74

7.3.2 DESIGN CONCEPTS

75

Bricks

History

Educate

Edge

Canal

Water

Transport

Material Educate

Identity

Shape

Infiltrate Clean

Educate

Grass

Skatable

Native

Water tolerant

Concrete Surface

Silo

History

Provide edge

Asphalt

Plants

Keep existing

Support primary

Shape

Less paths Identity

Function

Reference Paths

Triangulation

Ill. 158: Design concepts

76

7.3.3 THE PLAN

77

Ill. 159: Masterplan

Skate swale AHO

Grass Pavement Parking

AKER

SELV

EN

Lawn Maridalsveien A

Visual 1 A*

B

Detail Plan

C

Skatepark - Floodway Visual 2 CafĂŠ

B*

C*

PARKING BUILDING

SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

Bowl Visual 3

78

7.3.4 THE SKATABLE FLOODWAY

79

Embankments of sanded asphalt againt the wall provides launch ramps for grinding, jumping over and performing manual tricks on the wall.

A centerline in concrete leads the incoming stormwater from Maridalveien through the system of the skatepark. The centerline has a slope of 1,5% except from inside the pipe under the bridge

Stormwater inflow point from Maridalsvaien.

This entrance becomes a starting point for the flow experience of the skatable floodway

An opening in the surrounding wall connects existing path with the café ’Fyrhuset’

3 lowered tree-pits with the native water soaking tree Betula Pendula (Birch tree), functions as stormwater managing side pockets where skaters can skate on the embankment around the tree and evt grind the surrounding wall before exiting the pit and continuing down the floodway skatepark

Triangulated concrete embankments againt the wall enables a transverse and cruising experience as well as providing launch ramps for grinding, jumping over and performing manuals on the wall.

Pool-drain to underground tank where the stormwater is cleaned and pumped to Akerelven

A bridge constructed in concrete makes the skatepark crossable. The bridge is constructed around a 4x6m sewer pipe which represents a transition into the lowest and steepest part

4 meter deep pool in concrete for experienced skateboarding. The basin is dimensioned for storing more than the required volume of 320 m3 Planting beds makes the facility a green and pleasant environment while functioning as light features and stormwater beds when adjacent to pavements.

Concrete path defining the main connection across the site. The path represents a nessesarry terrain drop of 1 meter and connects grünerløkka to the Vulkan area

Ill. 160: The floodway

80

7.3.5 THE DETAIL PLAN

81

Asphalt path

Lawn

Concrete path

Betula Pendula

Brick wall Water soaking tree pit

Light pole

Asphalt paving

Sloping center-line Concrete embankment

Bridge

Plantingbed

Asphalt path

CafĂŠ Fyrhuset CafĂŠ area

Ill. 161: Detail plan

82

7.3.6 SECTION A-A* 1:100

83

A

A*

Grass Brick

Asphalt

Soil

Concrete

Ill. 162: Section AA*

84

7.3.7 SECTION B-B* 1:100

85

B*

B

Grass Brick

Concrete

Soil

Asphalt

CafĂŠ

Ill. 163: Section BB*

86

7.3.8 SECTION C-C* 1:100

87

C*

C

Grass

Brick

Soil

Concrete

Ill. 164: Section CC*

88

7.3.9 THE WALL

89

Lamps integrated in the wall lights up the pathways in the dark hours

Openings in wall lets stormwater from ajdacent pavements into the planting beds

A hight of 70cm makes the wall a great feature for sitting and invites people to stay

List of grasses suitable for a rainbed: -Carex nigra -Molinia caerulea -Carex flacca -Chasmanthium latifolium -Miscanthus sinensis -Carex pendula -Carex grayi -Deschampsia cespitosa -Carex muskingumensis -Panicum virgatum -Calamagrostis x acutifolia -Molinia litoralis

70cm

Ill. 165: The wall

90

7.3.10 VISUAL 1

91

Ill. 166: Visual 1

92

7.3.11 VISUAL 2

93

Ill. 167: Visual 2

94

7.3.12 VISUAL 3

95

Ill. 168: Visual 3

96

7.3.13 THE OVERVIEW

97

Ill. 169: Overview of the floodway

98

8. Discussion & Conclusion Skatepark design is entering a new era, an era that links it back to the roots and the early years of skateboarding.

Today we see an increasing trend in sustainable skatepark design, seeking to accommodate an extensive need for climate adaption. Skateparks has the ability to be a part of modern stormwater management, and this potential ought to be fully utilized in the development of more climate resilient cities. The benefits of combining local stormwater management and skateboarding are countless since the combination apart from managing stormwater in a more sustainable way, helps to generate a greener urban environment and promote both physical and mental health.

In the Ila-area in Oslo, a steep and impervious terrain together with an insufficient underground pipe-system causes flooding in a depressed area on Maridalsveien. By implementing local water-managing skate constructions throughout the Ila-area, the stormwater could be better controlled and Ila could enjoy the many benefits of becoming a place for the urban act of skateboarding. My proposal for stormwater managing skatefacilities in this thesis represents a schematic design, which would need more accurate and in-depth analyses as well as further development, if this project should be brought to life.

Regarding the development of a multifunctional design, skateboard-facilities and SUDS-elements seems to represent two very contrary constructions. This is because the surface of Sustainable urban Drainage Systems is based on principles of percolating and infiltrating stormwater and unfortunately these principles are not embedded in the surface preferred for skateboarding (concrete). Because of these contrary premises of construction, it is not possible for a skateboard facility to manage stormwater on its own, but if integrated into the context of stormwater management, skateboarding can become an additional feature, which can help educating inhabitants about stormwater management by bringing more attention to it.

This thesis primarily focus on a skateable redesign of a raingarden, and this has to do with the fact that not all SUDS-elements are equally suitable for incorporating skateboarding. Green roofs and roof gardens are less appropriate since they are less accessible to the public. However, if roofs of new buildings are made more accessible, like the roof-solution of the Oslo Opera, green and skateable SUDS-solutions could very well be incorporated into roof-constructions.

Regarding the implemention of different SUDS elements into the urban environment, the local conditions of an exact location is very important. This has to do with the fact that the various SUDS-elements needs certain conditions in order to serve their purpose. For example, it is inappropriate to place a rain-bed on a heavily sloping terrain since this wouldn’t work.

The multifunctional approach of integrating skating into the management of stormwater is maybe not as sufficient as plain water management, but it solves a larger range of issues related to modern city development and ends up being a more durable solution.

Further work: - The soil balance (cut’n fill) is not considered in this projects proposal for a skateable floodway, but excavated soil could advantageously be used to create a more scenically landscape in Kuba Park by constructing several small hills.

- Since this thesis was conducted outside the skate season, it has been difficult to confront the involved user group (skateboarders of Oslo). If this project should be followed up on in the future, a criteria for its success would be to confront the local skaters and organizations of Oslo in order to adjust the design and accommodate their wishes for this facility.

99

100

9. Referrences ILLUSTRATIONS (Illustrations that are not listed underneath belongs to the author) SKATING Ill 3: Photo: Svein E. Furulund.

Available at: http://www.osloby.no/nyheter/--Tror-Radhuset-vinner-6539662.html Ill 4: Photo: Unknown photographer.

Available at: http://www.pinkbike.com/photo/2434837/ Ill 5: Photo: Unknown photographer.

Avalable at: http://www.complex.com/sports/2013/09/innovative-skateparks/green-skate-lab Ill 6: Photo: Unknown photographer.

Available at: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/article/445992 Ill 7: Photo: Unknown photographer.

Available at: http://www.earthpatrolmedia.com/wordpress/?p=6987 Ill 8: Photo: Unknown photographer.

Available at: http://www.complex.com/sports/2013/09/innovative-skateparks/edgemont-ditch Ill 9: Photo: Unknown photographer.

Available at: http://inhabitat.com/denmarks-rabalder-park-can-contain-10-swimming-pools-worth-offloodwater/rabalder-parken-3/ Ill 10: Photo: pallesh + azerfane.

Available at: http://www.urbanisten.nl/wp/?portfolio=waterplein-benthemplein Ill 11: Photo: Unknown photographer.

Available at: http://www.elpasoskatepark.org/news/vb_dam_opens_sk8_basin.html Ill 12-14: Photo: www.skullskates.com.

Available at: http://www.skullskates.com/history/on-line-skateboard-museum/1920s-1950s/ Ill15: Unknown photographer.

Available at: http://www.blast-distribution.it/blog/kryptonics-il-ritorno-di-un-classico.html Ill 16: Photo: www.skullskates.com.

Available at: http://www.skullskates.com/history/on-line-skateboard-museum/1920s-1950s/ Ill 17: Photo: Lindsay Anderson.

Available at: http://www.glogster.com/lindsayanderson/red-circle-tired/g-6mokq8lmjjiralcqu328da0 Ill 18-19: Photo: www.skullskates.com.

Available at: http://www.skullskates.com/history/on-line-skateboard-museum/1970s/ Ill 20: Photo: www.skullskates.com.

Available at: http://www.skullskates.com/history/on-line-skateboard-museum/1980s/ Ill 21: Photo: Unknown photographer.

Available at: http://www.novoidplus.com/shop/ami-alexandre-mattiussi-skateboard-tropical-p-5985. html?language=en Ill 22: Photo: Jim Goodrich.

Available at: http://socco78.com/category/blog/page/2/ Ill 23: Photo: Unknown photographer.

Available at: http://yvelinication.tumblr.com/post/106998564072/upland-ca-pipeline-skatepark Ill 24: Photo: Unknown photographer.

Available at: http://blog.networkskate.com/2011_06_01_archive.html Ill 25: Photo: Unknown photographer.

Available at: http://www.burnsideproject.blogspot.no/

101

Ill 26: Photo: Unknown photographer.

Available at: http://www.awesome-skateboard.com/VancouverSkatePlaza.html Ill 27: Photo: Rune Johansen.

Available at: http://fagus.no/nyheter/skybrudd-kan-skape-morsommere-byer Ill 28: Photo: C.R. Stecyk.

Available at: http://professorstevenskovholt.com/2014/10/05/the-professor-sees-lessons-for-his-students-and-the-silicon-valleys-of-the-world-in-dogtown/ Ill 29: Photo: J. Grant Brittains.

Available at: http://skateboardingphoto.co.uk/issue-3-skateboarding-photo-magazine/if-it-was-rolling-ishot-it-grant-brittain Ill 30: Photo: Unknown photographer.

Available at: http://thinkjarcollective.com/articles/skateboarding-legend-rodney-mullen-creativity-innovation/ Ill 31: Photo: Unknown photographer.

Available at: http://www.hiddengarments.com/index.php/tag/rob-dyrdek/ Ill 50: Diagram Source: Kyle et al, Skateboard-Associated Injuries: Participation-Based Estimates and Injury Characteristics, 2002.

Ill 51: Diagram Source: Kyle et al, Skateboard-Associated Injuries: Participation-Based Estimates and Injury Characteristics, 2002.

Ill 52: Diagram Source: Wood et al (2014). Dispelling Stereotypes… Skate Parks as a Setting for Pro-Social Behavior among Young People. Current Urban Studies, 2014.

Ill 55: Visualization: Sletvold Arkitekter.

Available at: http://www.sletvoldark.no/category/projects/sports/ Ill 56: Visualization: Link Landskap.

Source: Annex to ‘Utkast til plan for skateboard-tilbud og anlegg i Oslo’, Oslo Kommune.

Ill 57: Photo: Unknown photographer.

Available at: http://www.tacky.no/skateboard/spot/4 Ill 58-70: Processed images from google maps.

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Ill 71: Photo: Holm Morten / Scanpix.

Available at: http://www.dagbladet.no/2011/06/10/nyheter/innenriks/ver/flom/16869522/ Ill 72: Timeline: Developed for the exhibition ’Regnen Kommer -Hvordan klimatilpasning giver os bedre byer’. The exhibition was developed as a collaboration between Danish Architecture Center and Realdania. The preoject was supported by Cowi and The Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management at University of Copenhagen.

Ill 79-86: Drawings Source: Jensen, M.B., Backhaus, A. and Fryd, O. (2011). Landscape elements for stormwater management and their greening potential. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening (submitted). Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen.

CASE-STUDY Ill 88: Photo: Unknown photographer. Available at: http://www.dac.dk/en/dac-cities/sustainable-cities/ all-cases/water/roskilde-storm-water-skate-park/ Ill 89-91: Visualizations: Roskilde Kommune. Available at: http://www.nvfnorden.org/library/Files/Land/ Danmark/Referater/RabalderParken_september2013.pdf

Ill 92: Diagram: Watercyclus. Source: ‘Regnvand I byen – 9 europæiske LAR projekter’, publication by the Danish Ministry of Housing, Urban and Rural Affairs.

- Grahn, P., & Stigsdotter, U. A. (2003). Landscape planning and stress. Urban forestry & urban greening, 2(1), 1-18.

SITE Ill 93: Photo: Øhman Rolf. Available at: http://www.osloby.no/oslopuls/musikk/BigBang-trekker-seg-i-protest-6907367.html Ill 96: Processed image from www.Norgekart.no Ill 99: Processed historical map. Available at: http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilabekken_%28Oslo%29 Ill 100-117: historical maps and aerial photos. Available from: http://www.1881.no/Kart/ Ill 118: Photo: Øhman Rolf. Available at: http://www.osloby.no/oslopuls/musikk/BigBang-trekker-seg-iprotest-6907367.html Ill 119: Municipality of Oslo, Bymiljøetaten, ‘Klimatilpasning – bakgrunnsdokument for Oslo kommune’.

Ill 120: Photo: Unknown photographer. Available at: http://www.vaforum.no/index.cfm?kat_id=1&dok_ id=124 Ill 121: Municipality of Oslo, Vann of Avløpetaten, ‘Hovedplan avløp og vannmiljø’

- Bedimo-Rung, A. L., Mowen, A. J., & Cohen, D. A. (2005). The significance of parks to physical activity and public health: a conceptual model. American journal of preventive medicine, 28(2), 159-168.

Tables: Table 2: Skimming the surface (Avrasin, 2004).

Table 5: Rain statistics. Avilable at: https://klimaservicesenter.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/ivf_18701_ oslo_blindern_plu.pdf

- Ulrich, R. S. (1981). Natural versus urban scenes some psychophysiological effects. Environment and behavior, 13(5), 523-556.

- Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Ryan, R. (1998). With people in mind: Design and management of everyday nature. Island Press.

- Marcus, C. C., & Barnes, M. (Eds.). (1999). Healing gardens: Therapeutic benefits and design recommendations. John Wiley & Sons.

- Jones, S., & Graves, A. (2000). Power plays in public space: Skateboard parks as battlegrounds, gifts, and expressions of self. Landscape journal, 19(1-2), 136-148.

- Klimchuk, T. (2012). Sports and The Environment Philosophical Dimensions -(p37) Physical Education Curriculums: All Skateboarders Welcome.

PUBLICATIONS

- Bradley, G. L. (2010). Skate parks as a context for adolescent development.Journal of Adolescent Research, 25(2), 288-323.

- Lovell, S. T., & Johnston, D. M. (2008). Creating multifunctional landscapes: how can the field of ecology inform the design of the landscape?. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(4), 212-220

- Wood, L., Carter, M., & Martin, K. (2014). Dispelling Stereotypes… Skate Parks as a Setting for Pro-Social Behavior among Young People. Current Urban Studies, 2014.

- Desouza, K. C., & Flanery, T. H. (2013). Designing, planning, and managing resilient cities: A conceptual framework. Cities, 35, 89-99.

- Dumas, A., & Laforest, S. (2009). Skateparks as a health resource: are they as dangerous as they look?. Leisure studies, 28(1), 19-34.

- Li, Y., & Babcock Jr, R. W. (2014). Green roofs against pollution and climate change. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 34(4), 695-705.

- Kyle, S. B., Nance, M. L., Rutherford Jr, G. W., & Winston, F. K. (2002). Skateboard-associated injuries: participation-based estimates and injury characteristics. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 53(4), 686-690

- Wamsler, C., Brink, E., & Rivera, C. (2013). Planning for climate change in urban areas: from theory to practice. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 68-81.

- Fountain, J.L., & Meyers, M.C. (1996). Skateboarding injuries. Sports Medicine, 22(6), 360–366.

- Jabareen, Y. (2013). Planning the resilient city: Concepts and strategies for coping with climate change and environmental risk. Cities, 31, 220-229.

- Bull, M.J., Agran, P., Garcia, V.F., Gardner, H.G., Laraque, D., Pollack, S.H., et al. (2002). Skateboard and scooter injuries. Pediatrics, 109(3), 542–543.

- Ahern, J. (2011). From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: Sustainability and resilience in the new urban world. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(4), 341-343.

- Avrasin, M. (2004). Skimming the surface-the skatepark industry has been grinding for 40 years, and has finally found its footing. Parks & Recreation (Ashburn), 39(3), 46-52.

- Jabareen, Y. R. (2006). Sustainable urban forms their typologies, models, and concepts. Journal of planning education and research, 26(1), 38-52.

- Zhou, Q. (2014). A Review of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems Considering the Climate Change and Urbanization Impacts. Water, 6(4), 976-992.

- Leichenko, R. (2011). Climate change and urban resilience. Current opinion in environmental sustainability, 3(3), 164-168.

- Zhou, Q., Panduro, T. E., Thorsen, B. J., & Arnbjerg-Nielsen, K. (2013). Adaption to extreme rainfall with open urban drainage system: An integrated hydrological cost-benefit analysis. Environmental management, 51(3), 586-601.

102

- Green, O. O., Shuster, W. D., Rhea, L. K., Garmestani, A. S., & Thurston, H. W. (2012). Identification and induction of human, social, and cultural capitals through an experimental approach to stormwater management. Sustainability,4(8), 1669-1682.

- Tunney, K. W., & Magazine, S. T. O. R. M. W. A. T. E. R. (2001). Innovative stormwater design: The role of the landscape architect. architecture, 3, 07.

- Fratini, C. F., Geldof, G. D., Kluck, J., & Mikkelsen, P. S. (2012). Three Points Approach (3PA) for urban flood risk management: A tool to support climate change adaptation through transdisciplinarity and multifunctionality. Urban Water Journal, 9(5), 317-331.

- Villarreal, E. L., Semadeni-Davies, A., & Bengtsson, L. (2004). Inner city stormwater control using a combination of best management practices.Ecological Engineering, 22(4), 279-298.

- Siekmann, M., Vomberg, N., Mirgartz, M., Pinnekamp, J., & Mühle, S. (2012). Multifunctional land use in urban spaces to adapt Urban infrastructure. InClimate Change and the Sustainable Use of Water Resources (pp. 611-625). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

- Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012.

- Borden, Iain. Skateboarding, Space and the City: Architecture and the Body. Oxford: Berg, 2001.

- Brooke, Michael. The Concrete Wave the History of Skateboarding. Warwick Publishing, Toronto, Ontario, 1999.

- Poirier, Desmond. “Skate Parks: A Guide For Landscape Architects and Planners.” A Thesis (2008): 1-110. Kansas State University. Web. 2 Feb. 2014.

- Wixon, Ben (2009). ‘Skateboarding – Instruction, Programming, and Park Design’.

- Gilligan, Chris. ‘Permanent waves - Public Concrete Skateparks designed and built by modern skaters’.

Available at: http://www.policygov.com/skateboardalliance/Concrete_Skatepark_Advocacy.pdf MUNICIPAL DOCUMENTS - Oslo Kommune ’Oslo mot 2030’ - Oslo Kommune ’Byøkologisk program 2011-2026’ - Oslo Kommune ‘Klimatilpasning - bakgrunnsdokument for Oslo Kommune’ - Oslo Kommune ‘Hovedplan avløp og vannmiljø 2014-2030’ - Oslo Kommune ‘Oslos overvannsstrategi 2013-2030’ - Oslo Kommune ’Plan for idrett og friluftsliv i Oslo 2013-2016’ - Oslo Kommune ‘Utkast til plan for skateboard-tilbud og anlegg i Oslo’ - Oslo Kommune ‘Overvannshåndtering – En veileder for utbygger’ - Oslo Kommune ‘Handlingsplan for miljø og klima 2013-2016’ - Københavns Kommune ‘Københavns kommunes skybrudsplan 2012’ - Norsk vann ‘Håndtering av overvann fra urbane veger’

103

WEB SKATING - Article: ‘The benefits of public skateparks’.

Available at: http://www.spohnranch.com/the-top-6-benefits-of-public-skateparks-2014-03-02/ - http://www.complex.com/sports/2013/09/innovative-skateparks/green-skate-lab - http://skateportland.org/?cat=12 - http://inhabitat.com/skate-parks-jump-the-gap-to-green-design/ - http://www.skateparkguide.com/what_is_a_skatepark.html - http://www.cowi.com/menu/NewsandMedia/News/WaterandEnvironment/Pages/Innovative-skatepark-prevents-inner-city-flooding.aspx - http://www.skatepark.org/park-development/parkdesign/2010/11/types-of-skateparks/ - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skatepark - http://www.skatepark.org/park-development/vision/2012/09/just-say-no-to-modular-skateparks/ - http://www.skatepark.org/park-development/vision/2014/01/choose-great-skatepark-site/ - http://www.spohnranch.com/the-top-6-benefits-of-public-skateparks-2014-03-02/ - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/skatepark - http://newlineskateparks.com/Projects/Featured/12/Vancouver-Skate-Plaza - http://byggerietsildsjaele.dk/projekter/2012/n%C3%B8rrebro-skatepark - http://norb.no STORMWATER MANAGEMENT - http://www.vaforum.no/index.cfm?kat_id=1&dok_id=124 - http://www.100resilientcities.org/ - http://designtoimprovelife.dk/danish-capital-adapts-succesfully-to-changing-climate/ - http://www.miljodirektoratet.no/no/Klimatilpasning_Norge/Klimautfordringer/Nedbor/ - http://naturstyrelsen.dk/vandmiljoe/ - http://www.dac.dk/en/dac-life/exhibitions/2015/the-rain-is-coming/ - http://www.klimatilpasning.dk/ - http://www.miljokommune.no/Temaoversikt/Overvann/ - http://www.miljostatus.no/klimatilpasning - http://www.laridanmark.dk/ - http://www.netregs.org.uk/library_of_topics/water/sustainable_urban_drain_system/what_are_suds. aspx - http://dibk.no/no/Tema/Vann-og-avlop/Sporsmal-og-svar-om-utvendige-VA-anlegg/ CASE-STUDY - http://www.klimatilpasning.dk/cases/items/regnvandsanlaeg-forklaedt-som-skaterbane.aspx - http://roskilde-forsyning.dk/spildevand/om-spildevand/projekter/regnvandsanlaeg-musicon/nyskabende-regnvandsanlaeg.aspx Plans, laws and regulations - https://lovdata.no - http://www.dibk.no/no/BYGGEREGLER/Gjeldende-byggeregler/Veiledning-om-tekniske-krav-til-byggverk/ SITE - http://statistikkbanken.oslo.kommune.no http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Kiellands_plas-

s_%28Oslo%29 - http://www.teglverk.no/teglverk/275-schultzehaugen-teglverk - http://www.osloby.no/oslodebatt/Navnet-er-KUBA-7613103.html - http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuba_%28park%29#refTvedt2000 - http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ila_%28Oslo%29 - http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilabekken_(Oslo) - http://www.industrimuseum.no/site_search?query%3Austring%3Autf8=Schultzehaugen - https://lokalhistoriewiki.no/index.php/Gassklokka_(Kuba) - http://haveselskabet.dk/artikel/gode-planter-til-regnbedet - http://klimaservicesenter.no/korttidsnedbor-og-ekstremnedbor/ivf-kurver/ Other - Film: ’The Rebirth of skate parks’. Directed by Hirsch, Mike, and Salinger, Steve. CA: MOS Produc¬tions and SoCal Skate parks.com, 2005.

- Film: ’Dogtown and Z-Boys’. Dir. Stacy Peralta. Perf. Tony Alva, Stacy Peralta, Jeff Ho, Steve Caballero.

Sony Pictures Classics, 2001. DVD. - Webinar by David M. Williamson, ’Guideline for designing and understanding a skateboard facility’.

Available at: https://vimeo.com/115021381 - Exhibition at Danish Architecture Center. ‘The Rain is Coming’.

104

APPENDIX - (A) Interview with skateboarder and Architect Søren Enevoldsen (designer of Rabalderparken) - (B) Interview with skateboarder, skatepark-desginer and former president of NORB Fritjof Krogsvold - (C) Observation of Kuba Park (a site analysis) (A) INTERVIEW AF SØREN ENEVOLDSEN 27. januar 2015 11:35

5. Den lokale skatehal har været med hele vejen igennem procesen. Lokale kunstner og dansegrupper har været involveret og bidraget med inputs og behovsdefinering.. COWI som er ingeniørerne bag projektet har været ansvarlige for udregning af vandmængder og volumener i forhold til vandmængder og hvor hurtigt de kommer og hvor meget det fylder i tilfælde af forskellige regnvandsscenarier. Musicon som udvikler kulturen i hele MUSICON området har været integreret som en del af bygherreteamet igennem hele processen. Entreprenørerne der byggede projektet havde betonfolk der selv skater på projektet, de har bidraget med designoptimeringer til projektet på selve byggepladsen under anlægsprocessen.

1. Hvorfor er kombinationen af et regnvandsanlæg og en skatepark en go ide?

6. Hvilke Konflikter har der været i arbejdet med at kombinere et regnvandsanlæg og en Skatepark?

1. Skateparks består af hårde ikke permable overflader og vandet på dene overflade skal så vidt muligt ikke belaste kloaksystemet. Skateparks har en fleksibel struktur modsat eksemplevis boldbaner, der ofte skal have en bestemt form og størrelse. Derfor kan skateparks integreres i et område på mange måder.

Skålformede arealer, store flader med skateelementer, langstrakte stier/ kanaler etc. Skatepark er mulige at indlægge på kreative måder i en omkringliggende struktur. De ER så at sige arkitektur i sig selv modsat visse sportsbaner.

6. Det er helt klart en udfordring at indarbejde optimal skatefunktion med meget specifikke vandmængde specifikationer. Eks. at lave en skatebowl er en svær nok opgave i sig selv at udvikle. Når man så får et ”benspæn” at bowlen skal have en specifik m3 størrelse og begrænsninger i forhold til drænplaceringer, gør det bare endnu sværere. Det samme har gjort sig gældende i forhold til selve kanalen. Og yderligere så har forurenet jord besværliggjort mange ændringer, da jorddeponering af forurenet jorder ekstremt dyrt.

Så for eks. at få et andet sving på kanalen end oprindeligt, eller en bue istedet for en hældning, og samtidig sørge for at det ikke koster for meget været en svær øvelse.

2. Hvad er vigtigt at tænke på når man designer sådan et anlæg?

7. Fungere anlægget i dag efter hensigten?

2. Det er essentielt at man selv skater, for at man kan tænke sig til de mulige skateflows området skal generere. Det er vigtigt, at man kender afstande, størrelser og geometrier der i et samlet hele fungerer i forhold til brugen. Det er vigtigt at kan kender til betons muligheder og begrænsninger, og samtidig kender til prisestimering at det man tegner. Det er vigtigt, at man som skater ikke tegner til sig selv, men agerer som arkitekt og lytter til brugerne.

3. Hvor vigtig er udformningen af anlægget eftersom det skal håndtere både vand og fungere som skatepark?

3. jeg forstår ikke rigtigt spørgsmålet. Det kommer an på opgaven. Rabalderparken er eks. et regnvandshåndteringsprojekt som udgangspunkt, og skal derfor fungere optimalt til denne brug. Herefter skal man så indlægge en optimal brug så vidt muligt. I et andet projekt jeg sidder med, er det en sekundær men dog vigtig del af projektet, her er man mere villig til at lave små kompromisser, hvor man eks. leder noget af vandet til kloak, mens man forsinker dele i en bowl og en nærliggende have.

4. Hvordan har du brugt din erfaring som skateboarder?

4. Jeg kender geometrier afstande og mål intuitivt på min egen krop igennem udøvelse af skating, og har samtidig indsamlet målfast viden om forskellige skate elementer og deres indbyrdes kombinationer således jeg kan arbejde kreativt med nye former og sammensætninger. Den kombination af intuitiv forståelse og målfast viden gør mig i stand til at indleve mig og så at sige skate rundt i mit design mens det tager form. Det gør sig også gældende i forhold til valg af materialiteter. Viden om hvordan en bestemt granit overflade med en bestemt behandling føles at skate på, sammenholdt med en viden om hvordan den specifikt beskrives og prissættes gør mig i stand til at bruge disse materialer strategisk.

Hvis det giver mening.

5. Hvem/hvilke personer/brugergrupper/fagfolk har været indraget i udviklingen af Rabalderparken?

105

7. Ja. Jeg har fået tilkendegivet fra alle brugere at de er virkelig glade for projektet. MUSICON er også glade. En anden god indikation for at projektet også er populært er at der er blevet opsat flere skraldespande, flere lysmaster og en toiletbygning efterfølgende (hvilket vores oprindelige budget ikke tillod).

I forhold til Regnvandshåndtering, så er projektet overdimensioneret i forhold til de behov der er i dag.

Projektet er en del af en langsigtet infrastrukturel udviklingsplan for området. Det er meningen, at alle de nye bygninger og veje der vil blive udviklet de næste 25 år i området skal kobles på kanalen.

8. Hvor vigtig er konteksten/placeringen af sådan et anlæg?

8. I forhold til regnvandshåndtering eller skating og andre brugere?

I forhold til regnvandshåndtering skal projektet ligge strategisk, så det udfører sin funktion.

I forhold til brugerne er placering vigtig, da det jo er mennekser der skal opholde sig i området. Det skal være forholdsvist let at komme til, være indbydende at være i etc. etc. Ligesom alt arkitektur.

Området er ikke byudviklet endnu, og der er derfor lidt tomt omkring parken. Jeg var bange for om folk ville komme ud til området da det er lidt væk fra boliger etc. og drømte egentlig om at projektet ville ligge mere centralt end det gør. Det vil først være ”centralt” når området er byudviklet om ca. 20-25 år.

Derfor lavede vi også grill til barbeque, og hængekøjer etc. så det også kan være en picnicdestination inden området er fuldt udviklet.

Stedet er mere populært end jeg turde håbe på. Det virker til at folk gerne vil tage dertil for at skate, hænge ud, danse etc.

(B) INTERVIEW WITH FROTJOF C. Krogvold 11.marts 2015 14:23 In this interview I ask Fritjof C. Krogvold to represent NORB (Norsk Organisation for Rullebret) and the skaters of Oslo. Fritjof is a skateboarder since 1985 and has competed in the NM (Norwegian championship) of skateboarding as well as arranged eight NM’s. He is formerly president of NORB and is still in the board. Furthermore, Fritjof is known for having designed a great range of concrete skateparks in various places in Norway and today he works with assuring the quality of skateboard-culture in the municipality of Bærum.

de store selskapene som nike og redbull tar markedsandeler og misliker det litt, men ser også at de bidrar til bedre vilkår for skatere på alle nivå, og det er bra. Bra med bredde. Kommersialiseringen gir motreaksjoner, og det er et godt som alternativ til passivitet.

10. Hvad synes du om at en skatepark har andre funktioner som f.eks. regnvands-bassin ved ekstreeme regnhendelser, sne-opbevaring om vinteren?

10. Topp - om det kan generere mer midler til skateanlegg og gi en miljøgevinst.

11. Hvorfor skater du?

1. Hvilken type skatepark er din favorit og hvorfor? Bowl/Pool, Street, Flow/Hybrid?

11. Fordi friheten er så total - hvor, når med hvem og hva jeg vil på brettet. Moro!

1. Jeg liker alt, det beror på formen, ambisjonene og inspirasjoonen.

2. Hvilken type skateparks mærker du er mest populær i Oslo? Bowls/Pools eller Street?

(C) Site Observation KUBA PARK 2. Street, anslår at 80% skater det, så har man kanskje 1% på vert, og resten er mindre buer som miniramper og bowls.

Weekday 14.40 – 15.40

3. På hvilke tidspunkter er der flest folk I skateparkerne?

Cloudy – dry – 0 degrees

3. Litt uforutsigbart, men etter skoletid, og på kveld. Formiddag helg.

Crossing the site:

4. Hvor mange beton-skateparker er der I Oslo?

Bicyclists: 16 Pedestrians: 181 Runners: 9 Dogs: 22

4. tre... en bowl på gsf - en ministreetplaza mølla - en ministreet på helsfyr 5. Hvordan er aldersfordelingen blandt skateboardere i Oslo?

Main crossing line: Bridge to Vulkan 5. flest 10 til 15 og 18 til 25 tipper jeg. En hel del skatere i alder 5 til 40.

6. Hvor er det mest populære skate-spot I Oslo som ikke er en skatepark?

6. Rådhuset 7. Hvad synes du om at folk ser på at du skater?

7. ok, det er ingen motivator eller hinder.

8. Skater du alene aller sammen med andre?

8. Helst med noen.

9. Hvor synes du skating er på vej hen? (positiv, negativ, populær etc.)

9. Populariteten tror jeg avtar noe nå, og jeg misliker sterkt IOCs nysgjerrighet for skateboard. Ser at

106

107

108