The well-known and much investigated rise of urban entrepreneurial policies has fuelled a transformation of urban spaces and landscapes, and has led to changes in the social composition of city centres. This is the case for Oslo, Norway’s capital, where increasingly urban policies are designed to attract transnational companies and those in the creative class. A key strategy to achieve this has been to transform the city’s waterfront through spectacular architecture and urban design, as has taken place in other European cities. Transnational and local architects have been commissioned to design the Barcode, one of the most striking waterfront projects. This article investigates the role of architecture and architects in this process, because architects can be seen as influential generators of urban spaces and agents for social change, and because there is remarkably little published empirical research on this specific role of architects. It is argued that although there was an overall planning goal that the projects along the waterfront of Oslo should contribute to social sustainability, with the implication that planners and architects possessed information about the local urban context and used this knowledge, in practice this was not the case. It is demonstrated that the architects paid little attention to the social, cultural and economic contexts in their design process. Rather, the architects emphasized the creation of an exciting urban space and, in particular, designed spectacular architecture that would contribute to the merits of the firms involved. It is further argued that because of this the Barcode project will not contribute to the making of a just city.
In this article we examine the dominant assumptions that immigrant youth living in the working‐class suburban areas in Oslo, Norway are marginalized and angry. We argue that there is no proof that immigrants living in the Oslo suburbs are alienated from society. Nor do we see any indications of some form of mobilization among this group. This dominant assumption is linked to a larger misperception about “ghettos” in Oslo. The idea, that there are “immigrant ghettos” in Oslo, has similarities with, and draws on public debates about “immigrants” in other European cities and a broader international scholarly discourse. In this paper we show that teenagers and young adults in the most materially deprived areas in Oslo are not socially isolated, but actively participate in crucial mainstream institutions and arenas. We show that these youths have ideals, values, and ambitions that closely duplicate those of most Norwegian teenagers and young adults. We conclude therefore, that the young people labeled as “immigrants” are not only integral members of Norwegian society, but co‐producers of it.
We investigate the urban transformation strategies of major developers and other key actors in the context of neoliberalism and its influence on politics, including urban development governance. Drawing primarily on interviews with corporate developers operating in the downtown areas of Oslo, Norway, we show how these influential actors with little formal political responsibility not only shape the physical structures but also significantly influence the social, economic and cultural fabric of the city. While they do not have a coordinated strategy, private developers do aim to transform urban areas to fit the preferences of the middle and upper classes. However, the situation is not as negative and predetermined as many critiques of gentrification processes assume. Besides demonstrating some positive outcomes of local transformation processes, our study shows that a fully gentrified downtown, along with the social exclusion mechanisms, has not been implemented yet.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.