Europan Norway

JURY ASSESSMENT

This scheme offers a persuasive proposal for ‘doing more with less’. It suggests an appropriate and resource-efficient approach to the contemporary challenges of Grønmo. The proposal is singular and coherent in its introduction of the program of allotment gardens – a program that has the potential to resonate with the local demography and neighbourhood context, and one that is in considerable demand in Oslo. Allotment gardens, it has been argued are effective sites of integration between majority and minority populations, and between different minority populations, particularly amongst women. The proposal presents a relatively coherent development from concept to program to structure and spatial elements – suggesting a range of gardens, from private, and communal, to public and institutional. Based on a fixed framework supporting flexible infilling, the project has a robustness that allows it to be realized in part or in increments without being compromised by the lack of complete implementation. Additionally, it could potentially be mixed with other programs and still survive as a scheme.

However, the Jury agreed that the scheme was less convincing in its articulation of moments of public intensity – which remain somewhat vague in the presentation. It is also doubtful as to how it relates specifically to the uneven topography of the site. Further jury questions addressed the symbolic challenges associated with the cultivation of produce on a former waste dump area; and the potential ‘privateness’ of gardening if removed from the surrounding urban context – one that could stand as a further example of the tendency toward the neoliberal outsourcing of public space.   Despite these concerns, the majority of the Jury felt that the proposal provides the potential to develop the area into an active leisure space and vibrant meeting point.

JURY ASSESSMENT

This scheme presents an appropriate and coherent proposal for Grønmo. It expands programmatically upon the flows and loops of material and energy that is inherent in the historical- as well as present- and future-conditions of the site. Rather than placing the main educational element addressing recycling – the education center – into a closed architectural ‘box’, the scheme deploys a range of ‘recycling’ processes across the entire field of the site through a variety of landscape ‘circuits’ and meeting points ranging from an agro-forestry and plant rotation loop (incorporating yearly Christmas tree cultivation and composting for example) to a bike circuit, water cycle and forest habitat loop. Furthermore, the scheme suggests a strategy for deploying a diversity and density of programs across the site that achieves an appropriate and potentially realizable level, in addition to reacting to the varying topographical and sub-ground conditions.

JURY ASSESSMENT

This proposal greatly benefits from the clear idea of the perimeter necklace as the predominant spatial organizing device. The scheme challenges the given perimeter of the site by incorporating the golf course which is in fact an important element of the earlier waste-dump site. By concentrating circulation and programs along the perimeter, the scheme places less pressure on the densely piped interior. The edge offers both specificity and new identity to the site. Additionally, the loop as a device overcomes an apparent Norwegian aversion to dead end leisure routes. While this project was beautifully visualized, the scale and disposition of the architectural interventions, particularly the EcoDesign Center, were questioned, in addition to the potential for the project to be realized in small increments.

JURY ASSESSMENT

This project was embraced for the strength of its programmatic approach. The Jury appreciated its temporary suspension of political-correctness associated with the automobile and its by-products – a starting point that led to a rich programmatic framework revolving to a large extent around car culture as a form of social binding agent capable of supporting collective ‘Re-Use’ experiences. Within this larger theme, a diversity of programs and users are suggested, ranging from a motorcenter for car repair, buddy parking and motorhome camping to Do-It-Yourself and cabin areas.

While provocative, inventive and potentially appropriate in terms of its programmatic approach, the scheme is limited by a lack of spatial articulation – both architecturally and in terms of landscape definition. This extends to a lack of consideration of the varied topological conditions of the site.

JURY ASSESSMENT

As a strong poetic statement this project provokes a vigorous debate of the site – in terms of its history and its future. In proposing the program of a cemetery, it is unsentimental and challenging as a concept. The scheme is particularly polemical in its implied placement of the human body within the same system of material and energy flows as the landfill itself. This suggests the possibility of both positively re-evaluating the value of such a territory, as well as reframing the body in its post-burial state. The scheme provides a convincing argument for this.

In addition to the positive aspect of raising these material/cultural/symbolic questions, a technical area of concern is the feasibility of placing burial plots in unstable and shifting ground as a result of settling landfill. Additionally, the scheme is somewhat undefined in terms of the development of spatial specificities in the different locations on the site. There were mixed opinions amongst the Jury over the visualizations of the project. While there was a general consensus that they were beautiful and evocative, there were some concerns expressed over their appropriateness in cultural and historical terms.

JURY ASSESSMENT

This scheme is appreciated for its particular approach in evoking Grønmo’s history. By registering landfill depth across various locations on the site with poles erected to the corresponding height above the ground, the sheer scale of waste is experienced viscerally.  Additionally, the use of the perimeter road as a key organizing and circulatory element suggests a fitting approach to organizing multiple programs. Less convincing is the viability of the full range of programs proposed across the site, as well as visualizations that were over-reliant on the exploitation of cultural clichés.

JURY ASSESSMENT

This project presents a frank and inventive approach to the interpretation of existing potential on the site. It proposes a robust, flexible plan by defining different rooms and atmospheres across the site. Its greatest strength however is the suggestion of some appropriate and convincing programs such as a dirt-bike track. This particular use resonates in conceptual, programmatic, and atmospheric terms as a low-maintenance landscape reminiscent of the roughness of the site’s immediate history.

The Jury was less convinced however by the articulation of the more detailed plans – which were largely unresolved, as well as the concept, function and design of the tower system across the site. A further concern was the extent to which the heavy and varied programming proposed would undermine the site’s coherency.