Densifying suburbia

Diploma - Winner of Statsbygg’s award for EXCELLENT graduation project
Assignment (self-programmed): Find a new strategy for densifying the villa districts of Oslo.  
Supervisors: Espen Vatn, Jørgen Tandberg  

The project raises the question of whether it’s possible to work within the existing structure of suburbia while still addressing the many problems associated with urban sprawl. The goal was to develop a strategy for densification of suburban cities which doesn’t necessitate a complete “tabula rasa” renewal, which is politically difficult. Instead of destroying suburbia the idea was to transform it to develop a new suburban ideal.

Due to the complexity of the site and assignment a great amount of work went in to researching the history, context and planing framework which exists for contemporary suburbia. This is essential to understanding why and how the project was developed.

Historical background
Oslo at the end of the 18th century was much like any other city of the day, small, compact and surrounded by farmland. 50 years later that was all about to radically change when Homansbyen, the first villa district of Scandinavia was established behind the royale palace. A new bourgeois class of urban merchants had acquired the means and will to replicate the life and style of the noble class villas of old, but this time in an urban context. 

Over the next century the phenomenon would spread rapidly over the easily purchasable farmland of the Oslo perimiter, driven by a combination of demand, speculation and the transport revolution. By the 1940s almost the entire Oslo basin had been covered by a huge field of the new typology. Some of the villas were drawn by Norway’s most famous and talented architects. Others were based on cheap and easy mass production. 

The forest limit (markagrensa), introduced in 1934 because pumping water above contour 220 was deemed unpractical, placed a limit on the sprawl. However, in the neighbouring districts, where space was still abundant, the development continued.

The neighboring province of Akershus experienced a massive boom after the war, growing faster than any other province in Norway. Today, roughly 47 % of the built area in Oslo is low density. In Akershus, even more so. Suburbia prevails throughout Norwegian cities.

Yet, the ideals behind the villa are in many ways representative of a bygone era. The nuclear family is a much rarer phenomenon today than when the villa typology first experienced its immense popular growth. The car, which was a necessity for the suburban development to work at a grand scale, is no longer a symbol of freedom and vitality. Does the villa typology really best represent the demands, social compositions and ideals of our time?

Unquestionably, many still dream of the private and secluded life in green environments, but in many instances one can question if the reality of suburbia is truly a realization of those dreams. There are also legitimate concerns about the manner in which densification is taking place today. Does the so called “apple garden”-strategy of densification, whereby individual plots or sold of piecemeal and densified with low quality housing, without any concern as to the larger context help to preserve any qualities in suburbia, or introduce any new ones?

The site
The focus area of the project is Borgen, in the western suburbs, close to downtown Oslo. The site is a part of a continuous belt of villa districts, located between the second and third ring road, that are all located within walking distance of downtown Oslo. It has several amenities and vital institutions within a twenty minutes walking radius, including three hospitals, the Oslo university campus, the Skøyen business area and the Norwegian broadcasting corporation, necessitating a daily flow of almost 100 000 workers. 

Borgen has a much greater transportation infrastructure than its population density suggests and is not dependant on car travel. It has more metro stations (8) than downtown Oslo, and another one is soon to follow with the establishment of Fornebubanen.

Two streets in the grey area above were chosen to make a pilot project. The site is not remarkable in any way, except that it’s close to downtown Oslo. It has relatively small gardens compared to other parts of the suburbs. The thinking was that a strategy that could work here, would perhaps be more easily replicated in other places. It’s also part of a zone close to the main road of “Sørkedalsveien” (north in the first photo), where the Oslo municipality is considering exempting the district from the “småhusplan” law, regulating construction in the suburbs. If that were to happen, the economic incentive would be strong for the whole area to be purchased and replaced by solitare blocks in a short time frame. One could then imagine that the inhabitants of the area could be willing to try an alternate strategy, if there was one.

On inspecting the site, the first impression was that the network of roads, driveways and garages was taking up a large amount of space for a small population. This could offer a potential for better use. 

Narrowing the options:

In the beginning the goal was to keep an open mind and try any possible approach, no matter how radical. 

Converting the district to an urban block with villas inside was one of the early alternatives. It was ultimately rejected because the remaining space inside the block was not very believable as an attractive option for the existing residents.

Converting the roads to a mega-structure, utilizing the gardens as the new circulation space was also tested. It was rejected for being too extreme in its context and unrealistic in its approch to re-utilizing the garden space. 

A less extreme version based on using only the thoroughfare roads to build a linear architecture project was the main alternative for a long time. It was however rejected for being a type of paper project which has been tried many times before. The whole idea of a mega-structure also seemed unfit for this particular assignment. It would be inflexible in the complex reality of suburbia and hard to imagine as a half-built utopia. Even if realized it wouldn’t change the essential spatial features of suburbia so much as offer a mere juxtaposition.  

The final alternative was also based on densifying around the thoroughfares, but with a catalog of dense, small scale typologies. Such an approach could offer flexibility compared to the complex mega-building. It could work in many time frames, and the the new ideal of the street could offer a radical change, while still giving the opportunity to preserve other parts of the suburbs.

The strategy:

Designing a new set of typologies for the city

A desire for the project was to work in the big and small scales simultaneously, to showcase that living in the future suburbs could be attractive, despite being dense. An 8 x 8 meter plot size worked best within the given project area, while still offering the chance to offer a large variety of small houses. It became the central premise. 

A series of ten new typologies were designed. What they have in common is an approximate average of 30m2 per person and the idea of a courtyard and filter window to meet the challenges of privacy.  

They each represent the idea of replicating some aspect of living in a villa and an idea of a central room. Possible user groups have been identified as a challenge to the homogeneous nature of suburbia.

Every typology was drawn in detail and had an accompanying rendering.

The plan:

A warmth of materials, greenery growing above the walls of the courtyard and a continuation of the power pole; already a recognizable symbol of suburbia are intended to make the street spatially attractive.

The new typologies stand on one side of the villa garden. They are are designed to open towards inner courtyards and only face villas directly through filter windows of small rectangles of frosted glass and regular glass intermingled. 

Life inside the villa area is much like before except that the new pedestrian road gives locals and guests a more intimate way of discovering the villas and apple gardens of Oslo. Where garages used to be located the villa owners could either extend their gardens, or sell the plot to the street cooperative, allowing the introduction of small islands of public program inside the villa gardens.

Principles of the project replicated across Borgen:
Could the suburbia of the future be a continuous field of narrow streets,  pedestrian roads and historical villa corridors?

Project location: