Urban Affair

Situated between the US and Europe you say... I don't know, an aspect that is always forgotten, or rather ignored, is the climatic qualities (ie. shit weater) that we have to live with in this town. This is hardly surprising, it is an ingrown tendency that we have here - just look at how we dress - a psycological survival technique, probably. However, it narrows us to thinking only about the five or so days a year when phrases like "casual meeting situations" actually apply to our reality. The thing is, on those days the outdoor live takes care of itself, at least downtown. We do not really have to think about improvements on that. What the real challenge in Reykjavik is is how to make public space that is sheltered enough to foster "public life". Or has retailing already found the solution in Kolaportið and Smáralind? Unless those matters are dealt with all (outdoor-) places tend to be lifeless for most of the time. Just getting rid of car traffic on a given street is not going to create outdoor life, for instance. Here the old US/European contrast fails us, I think. We need a different model. Any suggestions?
 

Right on! I see climate is definately a key factor in the shaping of the Icelandic identity and the physical surroundings. And therefore a very concrete and physical evidence showing that importing European city models (or american for that sake) for public life simply doesn't work. Thank you.
 

Reykjaviks big problem is that it does not accept that it is a winter city. Everybody, especially the city planners are aiming at a model that fits cities in the southern US with a dash of southern European atmosphere.

The planners have to realize that we are the northernmost capital in the world. And they should use the qualities in that situation. It is a unique situation and wonderful if the city planners could accept and understand this.


The solution is partly to be found in propaganda against private cars and for public transport together with debate on the global warming thing and similar issues.

The fewer private cars and better public transport, the more people on the streets.

Another thing is that I think Tanja should allow people to write in Icelandic on this Blogg. The debate would then be livelier and better.

(I miss comments from the city planners on this Blogg. Why is that? I think I know the answer. They do not care and are not interested in town planning at all)
 

Endilega Skrifið!
I definately alow comments in Icelandic. I do understand quite a bit of icelandic myself, eventhough the more heated discussion can be difficult.. But I have contacts who will translate comments.
Please feel free to write in either icelandic, english or danish!
Please Write!
 

I agree. The climate is a factor, however not big enough to keep me away from the city. To me it is about supply and demand. Icelanders are generally not very proud of driving to Kringlan and Smáralind to do their shopping, but the thing is that it is convenient; one can buy everything there, walk under a roof when it is raining and get a parking place for the precious car(S)!! In comparison; downtown you get wet when it is raining, once you have found a spot for the car you also have to pay for it and then last - but not least - the number of shops are limited and the things to buy are often more expensive. The good part about it though, is that it is not fabricated and made in thousands of copies……

There is not doubt about that we all love Reykjavík for its diversity and rareness. Why all the planning and speculation? Why not just let the city develop itself like it has been for many years? All the sudden attention is only a matter of increasing real-estate prices and a fantasy about making the city something that it is not, by comparing it to other cities.

What I am saying is that you can change the city, but you cannot change people’s minds. My mind tells me to do my shopping downtown simply because I don’t mind getting wet when it is raining, I enjoy unique things and I prefer to leave my car behind:-)

Ps. you are right – where are the comments from the city planners….?!
 

I think sheltered spaces are very important in Reykjavik, indeed. And maybe there is other ways to deal with the climate, than the oposing extremes of Smáralind and Laugavegur? Could Kolaportið in some ways be an excample?

Personally I think diversity and rareness doesn't come on its own, today. Isn't it excactly the realestate prices which creates the speculation? Which is ruled by the marked. The idea of the marked always providing what people wants, I think is a false. The marked explores the most potential for benefit and goes for it, people will 'learn' to live with it.

Eventhough most people will go for Smáralind for the sake of convenience it doesn't mean that the posibilities for other city spaces shouldn't be provided. Creating spaces and thinking about the identity of the city and the qualities being created is of as much value than convenence. Also in new developments.
 

I also think that by "letting the city develop itself" we are giving large developers free range to put up ugly boxes downtown and sprawling suburbs somwhere "uppá heiði".
The small scale and individuality that we value and want to foster gets riddled in bureaucracy (the dreaded grendarkynning, for instance) while the large (well, large in icelandic terms) developing corporations can put their weight in with the city politicians to get their way. That way is about cost-effeciveness and profit. That's just the way it is, and is perfectly normal and to be expected. The problem is that the actual quality of our environment is in no way linked to that way of seeing things. What is good for the business may or may not be good for the place we live in. And we all know what happens IF the will to build a beutiful and livable town gets in the way of the will to make profit.
Of course, when the two aspects get in line with each other that is our ideal situation and everybody is happy, but we should not just trust that that's how things will work out, we have enough evidence to the contrary already. Borgartún, for all its impressive office buildings, is just an appaling place to walk around, just to name one.
 

hmm. Maybe we should not let this discussion spiral into an argument about the goods and evils of free-market economy. I'll try and stay on-topic from now on!
 

Excactly. I agree, this is not the place to 'solve' the big issues. But thank you for your insights.
I will start a new post om monday or tuesday trying to discuss the specific areas more in detail.
 

elin, resident enthusiast:
Much of the problem, as I see it, is the need to tear everything down and rebuild rather than remodeling.
Mýrargata is a prime example, we have this remarkable oppurtunity to have a living harbor with vessels of various sizes and the activities surrounding them. But instead of letting it form and morph, it is being erased and rebuilt.
We did not own a car for the first 5 years that we lived i Reykjavík, mostly because we lived in the city center and felt it was a waste of money.
Now we do and the difference is astonishing.
Reykjavík is a car city.
Some months ago there was a clever article in Morgunblaðið, architect Freyr Frostason proposed that intstead of making a tunnel under Mýrargata, there be a a tunnel under the harbor. Instead of traffic for Seljarnarnes and Vesturbaer going through the city center, it would go under the harbor and come up by Ánanaust (or so).
Not only would the impact on Mýrargata be vastly reduced, but it would create easy access to any new areas to be developed in the western parts of Reykjavík (as some have proposed).
In development alone, the Mýaragata tunnel is going to have an incedibly negative impact on the current residents, not to mention how it will affect the existing businesses.
These businesses, that have developed naturally out of that truly capitalist notion of supply & demand, would be erased by the hassle of construction and then we would have a new and shiny ghost town, much like the Brogartún area.

There are many places to look for inspiration, such as Fisherman's Wharf in San Fransisco,Helsinki, Copenhagen and many many more.

As for the weather, both in Helsinki and Turku, in Finland, there are many indoor malls in the city centers. Instead of levelling the old, they have connected and remodeled with glass ceilings.
 

There are two subjects I would like to comment on:

First, it seems like people writing on this blog think "public life" is a good quality. I agree!
Personally I don’t mind the weather, I walk a lot and I love the smallness of Reykjavik, the fact that you always meet someone you know when you walk through the centre. I also meet people in the swimming pools.
Last September we made a little (un-scientific) survey and asked people where they run into people, the yellow dots on the picture show the result
hvar hittir þú fólk?


The other subject I find interesting here is "Who should be in control of changes and developments in the city?" (And how can we create a more mature dialogue and move away from talking in pairs, i.e. about money vs culture, good vs evil or D vs R for that matter??)
Good city planners and "Samráðsferli" play an important role but they can only do part of the job when the city is developing so fast.
Citizens' initiatives and behaviour are therefore also essential.
Attention and awareness of changes and a sensation of responsibility when we interact with and in the city. Hence, small individual projects and businesses also make a difference.

I'll comment on Myrargata area specifically on the Myrargata blog..

Bless á meðan! Ásta
 

ég kýs að skrifa á íslensku enda finnst mér að ræða eigi um íslensk málefni á móðurmálinu (þakka samt framtakið þitt Tanja).

Mér finnst skipulag Reykjavíkur hafa tekið undarlega stefnu. Ekki er tekið nægjanlegt tillit til útivistarsvæða, sem dæmi má nefna gamla Þróttarsvæðið, það var selt verktökum til að þétta byggðina. Þessi stefna held ég sé röng, því við endum með níðþröngar steypugötur líkt og í erlendum borgum. Af hverju? Hér er nóg af landi, fullt af því við Geldinganesið og svo lengra út að Mosfellsbæ, að maður tali nú ekki um landsbyggðina. Þar að auki er Reykjavík að soga til sín landsbyggðina, við endum með tvo punkta á kortinu: Akureyri og Reykjavík. Í stað þess að gleðja verktaka með "þéttingu byggðar" og pakka borgurum saman eins og síld í tunnu verður að skipuleggja með heildarmynd í huga. Skilja eftir stór opin svæði eins og Kjarvalsstaði og Laugardal víðar. Til lengri tíma mun þetta borga sig og framtíðarkynslóðir hugsa til okkar með virðingu fremur en pirringi og undrun. Ég læt þetta nægja í bili, góðar stundir
 

few thoughts..
is it a question of weather? there are so many cities out there that have bad weather conditions like us, even worse that do not need the sheltering of public spaces. Though, the japanese have a great way of semi-building over shopping strips, leaving sites and part of the roof open. These are in a much more personals scale than the european high-street-roofs that have been build and not as ugly as the Toronto underground walkways. Perhaps this is something that can be done in the center of Reykjavik? The roofs can be a seperate structure by itself and lie aginst all types of building, which leaves a little room for the natural elements to remind you where you are.

here are some samples:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~mlroundi/photos/images/japan_shopping_full.jpg

http://www.proverbs2525.org/photos/osaka_tsurumibashi_big.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/kazenaga23/japan_architecture49.jpg

Perhaps they don't look that nice, but at least this is a smart way to merge the "street" and the "sheltered mall".

about the city, is it not a question of closing off the boundaries of the city - forcing people inwards, unifying the counties - to be able to make desitions for the "capital" and not just the biggest county, taking the main desition making away from the politicians - so they will stop using planning as a stragety to advertice themselves and their dreamy visions... but this is just a dreamy idea as well..

When the oil crisis will start to effect the way people live then will we start re-evaluating the way we life and transport, then we will want to live denser and accessability to services and ways to celebrate our fellow people. The illusion of nature within the city is actually the worst thing you can do to nature. You protect it by leaving it alone not living amongst it, especially when serious sustainability is still a myth in this country. The way nature within the city is being portraited in iceland is pretty bad, it is a romantic notion while the discussion of real usage is seldom raised.
When all the neigborhoods are being built the way they are, lacking self-efficient both in usage and character the people will need to use all those big roads to get around. (60% of all land in Reykjavik is used under transportation). the formula in which new neighborhoods are being built by need to be rethought and have more ingredients in the mixture than residential and industry.

but will icelandic people ever learn to live in a urban settings and not the only city in the world, reykjavík?

enough of rambling from me for now..

Good contribution Tanja, congrats.